International

Transmission of the H5N1 virus via imported meat is close to zero

A new analysis argues that blocking foreign poultry doesn't stop the spread of avian flu, but it does hurt global food security.

Posted on Sep 16 ,02:26

In the ongoing battle against the H5N1 avian influenza virus, a critical debate has emerged: does imported meat pose a real threat to local poultry farms? Ricardo Santin, President of the Brazilian Association of Animal Protein (ABPA), argues in a recent analysis that the risk of the virus being transmitted through properly inspected and processed meat is "virtually null."

According to Santin, many countries are relying on an outdated precautionary principle that leads to unnecessary trade bans. These restrictions, he argues, are not only ineffective at stopping the virus but also have severe economic consequences, particularly for low-income populations.

 

The Science vs. The Scare

While it's true that the H5N1 virus can survive in raw, frozen meat, a key distinction must be made between viability and risk. International health organizations, including the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH/OIE), the FAO, and the CDC, agree that the risk of transmission from inspected meat is negligible. This is because the meat is:

• Veterinary inspected: All products undergo rigorous checks both before and after slaughter.
• Processed in a controlled environment: Industrial facilities maintain strict sanitary standards.
• Cooked before consumption: The H5N1 virus is easily destroyed by cooking temperatures of 74°C (165°F) or higher.

The real risk, Santin points out, lies in the uncontrolled movement of migratory birds, which can carry and spread the virus across continents without any regulation. Banning meat imports while ignoring this natural transmission vector is, as Santin puts it, a glaring "incoherence" in international policy.

 

The Economic Fallout of Trade Bans

When countries close their borders to poultry imports based on an exaggerated fear of H5N1, the impacts ripple far beyond a single trade relationship. The consequences include:

• No significant reduction in sanitary risk: Since the threat from meat is negligible, the ban doesn't actually make a country safer from the virus.
• Economic punishment for exporters: It unfairly harms countries that have strong sanitary protocols in place.
• Food inflation for importers: Limiting the supply of a staple protein drives up prices for consumers.
• Increased food insecurity: This price increase disproportionately affects vulnerable, low-income populations, limiting their access to affordable, high-quality protein.

Santin calls for a new, balanced approach to trade policy—one based on real risk analysis and science, rather than fear. He advocates for countries to adopt zoning, a strategy recommended by the WOAH that allows for trade from specific regions of a country even if another region is experiencing an outbreak. This approach would allow countries to protect their domestic flocks without disrupting global food supply chains.

The core message is clear: It's time to move past outdated fears and adopt policies that are grounded in scientific evidence. The global community must find a way to coexist with natural zoonotic threats without needlessly jeopardizing global food security and economic stability.

Comments

Similar articles