Drug overuse in livestock is driving antimicrobial resistance. The main hotspots are in Asia, with Africa’s use of antibiotics far behind.

Animals, not humans are the largest consumers of antimicrobial drugs – and thus the leading factor driving antimicrobial resistance. But WHO and other UN actors are still dancing around the ‘cattle, chickens and pigs’ in the room. And member states aren’t keen to track animal antibiotic use trends – even at the cost of future health risks.     

More than 73% of all antimicrobial drugs sold in the world are used in animals. And mores than human uses, the booming veterinary drug market is most probably the leading factor in growing antimicrobial resistance that is rendering common antibiotics and antiviral agents progressively more useless – also driving pandemic risks.

Even so, there is no systematic global tracking of drugs sold and used on animals as well as humans by the three big UN and multilateral organizations responsible, including the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  And despite pledges to tackle pandemic risks and AMR together, it’s unlikely such surveillance will begin anytime soon. 

Thomas Van Boeckel, of Zurich ETH, explains how soaring animal consumption of antibiotics, and human consumption of industrial meat, are the leading factors driving AMR

Meanwhile, around the world, veterinarians are making huge profits from selling animal drugs to farmers and thus driving their swelling use – particularly in India, China and other parts of Asia, said Thomas Van Boeckel of ETH Zurich at a seminar on Achieving Sustainable Antibiotic Access using a One Health Approach, at the Geneva Health Forum, on Tuesday. 

“In 2017, about three quarters of all the antibiotics that we sold on this planet were used in animals, mostly to help them grow faster and to prevent infection,” Van Boeckel said. 

“So in the context of development, if you see the emergence of new resistant genes, it’s like playing the lottery and losing, well, you have more chances to lose the [AMR] lottery in animals. And once they’re there [drug resistant microbes] they can eventually result in untreatable infections in humans if they’re transmitted.” 

LMIC livestock – the ticking AMR time bomb no one is tracking

Mapping of AMR hotspots

Van Boeckel and his interdisciplinary team, comprised of food scientists, ecologists, pharmacists and veterinarians, as well as disease modelers and epidemiologists from Brazil, China, and India as well as Europe and the United States, have mapped hundreds of studies to come up with an initial ‘heat map’ of the world’s AMR hotspots. They are constantly developing that knowledge base on an open data site, Resistancebank.org.  

The group’s findings combine exhaustive data from animal drug sales, with reference to over 100 different types of antibiotics reported by countries – and mapped against livestock densities of cattle, chickens, and pigs.  They then compared that data with hundreds of local studies and reports of antimicrobial resistance, referring to major indicator bacteria, like E coli, Staphylococcus, Campylobacter, and salmonella. Combined together, they yield a profile of the leading AMR hotspots across the world: The resulting “heat maps” demonstrate a clear correlation between drug overuse and drug resistance by mutating pathogens.  

Their research relies upon hundreds of local studies on farms, markets and slaughterhouses, routinely done “by academics and veterinarians and microbiologists, who go out and look at what’s around their institute, to identify new resistant [pathogen] genes – something microbiologists like to do very much.  But such studies typically are scattered across the literature and published in small journals that “hardly get any exposure.” Brought together, however, they provide powerful insights.

“One of the cool things is that you can zoom in to see where the problem is inside a country as well as the main regions identified as having high resistance,” says Van Boeckel. 

Not surprisingly, most of the AMR hotspots are largely in the same places that have the largest use of antibiotics, per kilogram per meat, such as South India, South and Northeast China, and some parts of Latin America.

Trends in Asia are particularly worrisome since antimicrobial use for livestock and poultry is slated to grow even more across Asia in this decade, and represent two-thirds of the world’s veterinary consumption of antimicrobials by 2030. 

Regions by region, trends in animal antimicrobial sales in LMICs largely correspond with growth in AMR hotspots.

By 2030, Asia will consume two-third’s of the world’s veterinary antibiotics  

China is the largest consumer of antibiotics in animals.

“In 2017… the world used around 90,000 tons of antimicrobials in animals – at the time China was by far the largest consumer of antibiotics in animals,” reported Van Boeckel. 

“By 2030, Asia will use more than two-thirds of the veterinary antibiotics in the world – while Africa will use only 6%. So arguably, Africa has little responsibility for the state of resistance and AMR today,” he said.  “And in Europe and North America, we’ve had fairly high levels of antibiotic use over the last 20 years, but they are slowly declining, thanks to increased awareness about the need for stewardship in our farms.” 

With the notable exception of Brazil, most of the 40 countries reporting systematically on veterinary antimicrobial use are major meat exporters – “which likely want to keep a good image in the securities export market,” said Van Boeckel.

But among countries producing meat for mostly domestic consumption systematic national reporting is more sparse – and the researchers had to gather their data from a hybrid of commercial and research study sources. 

Low- and middle-income countries failing to track AMR trends

But perhaps even more significantly, low- and middle-income countries are generally not tracking trends in AMR trends in livestock in any systematic manner, Van Boeckel pointed out. 

Such surveillance is critical since the first sign of superbugs is likely to occur in and around animals, not people, given their role of animals as the world’s biggest antibiotic consumers. 

“In Europe, we have systematic surveillance systems with a compelling metric for AMR for two to three decades, and we report this information at the national level,” Van Boeckel said.  That surveillance eventually helped drive a wave of awareness and ultimately a European Union ban on the use of health- promoting antibiotics in 2006. 

Now, as the bulk of veterinary antibiotic use has shifted to low and middle income countries, “that’s really where the attention should be in the future.”   

However, out of 135 low and middle income countries that the team explored, only one, Colombia, had a government-run surveillance system that generates public data.

Pigs and chickens incubating more superbugs than cattle

Superbugs increased almost 200% more in pigs and chickens than cattle.

The team also has mapped trends by species. And that shows resistant pathogens increasing at a faster rate amongst pigs and chickens – whereas the prevalence of AMR amongst cattle is rising more moderately.  

“Our goal for the next step is going to be to use that information to produce a global map of resistance levels across limited income countries. So concretely, we want to move from content information to continue continuous coverage of resistance level to do what some would call a heat map,” he said. 

Meat-heavier diets and exports in Asia and Americas driving trends  

Meat-heavy diets fuel AMR.

One key factor driving trends are the financial incentives offered by animal health companies to veterinarians – which reap a hefty profit from selling more and more drugs to farmers with little knowledge of the products. They do so with minimal interference from governments, not only in Asia but also in some developed countries too, Van Boeckel says.  

Another is the growing, and seemingly unquenchable hunger for more animal products in emerging economies as well as developed countries, which is the more fundamental driver of soaring livestock production, which in turn leads to more veterinary antibiotic use – and therefore AMR.  

Van Boeckel compared the daily, per capita consumption of meat in Mali, which averages less than 27 grams a day, to that of China, at 136 grams, and Australia, at a whopping 260 grams. Those contrasts are captured in a series of photos that reflect a family’s typical weekly household food consumption across the three continents. 

The photos reflect not only more meat, but also heavier consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks in emerging economies and developed ones – dietary trends that are simultaneously harming people’s health, the planet – and driving AMR.  

Policy solutions – a user fee for veterinary antibiotics? 

Targets to reduce antimicrobial use include regulation and meat reduction.

Along with better tracking, global agencies need to be thinking about the kinds of policy solutions that would really bring the AMR under control, he stresses.  His team mapped out several key possibilities to proejct their results:  

  • Regulatory action to reduce the use of antibiotics in livestock worldwide to 50 milligrams per kilogram of meat produced, roughly the European median, would reduce veterinary antibiotic use by 64%; 
  • Regulatory action among only OECD countries and China to do the same – would lead to an almost equally sharp reduction in veterinary antibiotics of 60%; 
  • Consumer action to reduce meat consumption to just 60 grams a day – “about the equivalent of one Big Mac” – also would reduce antibiotic use in livestock by some 66%; 

“In other words, maybe we shouldn’t undermine the development of certain countries through livestock farming, as long as we have the OECD and China in the deal. We can make a significant difference,” says Van Boeckel. 

Yet another solution is to impose stiffer taxes, or user fees on antibiotics, which would in turn curb the incentives that now exist to farmers to purchase them at all – particularly when alternatives exist such as better sanitation practices, including more vaccination against preventible diseases.     

In UN – One Health rhetoric but little real action  

Jorge Matheu Alvarez of WHO discusses challenges of more harmonized surveillance of human and animal antimicrobial use and AMR trends.

Such systematic global tracking of human and veterinary drug sales, and AMR trends should in fact be done by governments, and collected by the UN and its partners, Van Boeckel asserts.

But data on antimicrobial drug sales for human and animal use – and AMR trends in both populations – is not collated and reported systematically by the major UN and multilateral organizations responsible.

WHO, through its Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Surveillance System (GLASS), is trying improve surveillance of AMR in association with drugs used for human health, said Jorge Matheu Alvarez of WHO, who also appeared at the session. But tracking antibiotic consumption in animals or AMR in livestock isn’t really WHO’s job, he said.     

OIE tracks some data on veterinary use of antimicrobials, but that data remains very partial, with only 133 countries reporting to OIE at all. Many countries that do report lack data on actual quantities of antibiotics used or sold. In addition, the data is not transparent.  Some 71% of countries that do report to OIE don’t make their data public. And therefore OIE’s data is presented only in terms of aggregate global quantities, rather by region or country.  No data on AMR trends in animals is published by the member state organization. 

WHO, FAO, OIE and the World Animal Health Organization have recently launched a new One Health collaboration together with the UN Environment Programme.  Both FAO and OIE have included antimicrobial stewardship in the animal sector in their global action plans, Alvarez noted saying: “we are making progress in the collaboration in these One Health areas.”

Alvarez says FAO, OIE and WHO will soon begin placing the surveillance data they do collect on a single platform, called the Tripartite Integrated Surveillance System on AMR (TISSA).

“Here we will host the One Health information collected by the different organizations on AMR, antimicrobial consumption and use of antimicrobials,” he told Health Policy Watch.

But animal and human data thus collected won’t likely be reported and presented in a comparable manner for some time to come, he admits, because of different data collection methods.  

Member states are highly resistant to reporting on their antibiotic drug sales and consumption – because they see it has implications for their global trade in meat, the panelists also noted.  

“We need to be clearer and provide more guidance in the animal sector,” Alvarez told the panel session.  The session was hosted by the Global Antibiotic R&D Partnership (GARDP), which aims to acccelerate the development of new antibiotic treatments for drug resistant infections and also attended by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), which is ramping up the development and deployment of infection tests to reduce unecessary use of antibiotics in humans.

Says Van Boeckel, “I’ve been in this field for about ten years, and I thought something would have happened by now. I’ve been expecting a globally harmonized AMR surveillance system by the FAO and OIE that reports that data. And I can only ask the question, why hasn’t that happened?  

Until those agencies, and the member states that control them, rise to the challenge, surveillance of critical AMR trends will likely remain the purview of research teams such as Van Boeckel’s.  But meanwhile, the neglect of animals’ antibiotic consumption remains just another pandemic waiting to happen, he warns:      

“If we want to inform policy in the short term, we need an alternative systematic surveillance system for LMICs, where we’ve seen that conditions may unfortunately be the worst, when it comes to development of resistance, in the coming decades.”

Updated on  5 May, 2022

Image Credits: Thomas Van Boekel, Health Policy Watch , Van Boeckel et al, ETH Zurich, Tiseo et al 2020, Antibiotics .

NorWest co-op offers community-based programmes to indigenous communities

Protecting indigenous communities in Canada and refugees in central and Eastern Europe from COVID-19 requires community-based approaches that could be applied in other healthcare crises.

This emerged from field actors who shared their experiences and lessons at the Geneva Health Forum on Tuesday.

In Canada’s Manitoba province, indigenous communities were mistrustful of mass COVID-19 vaccinations, but reaching them was a priority for NorWest Co-op Community Health Centre. 

NorWest’s Kristin Bergen and Michelle Kirkbride identified the indigenous and ethnic communities they wanted to reach and then enlisted support from their leaders. 

They also stressed that to reach those who were most isolated and vulnerable, it was essential to help with things like booking clinic appointments and transport.

In addition, Bergen and Kirkbridge stressed the importance of offering mental health support for the isolated communities that become less reachable in pandemics and during Canadian winters. 

NorWest had a trained trauma team to help people to cope with pandemic stress, and empowered community members to talk about mental health to reduce stigma and build trust. 

NorWest also provided the community with effective information on COVID-19 and vaccines. 

Mental health support

The need for psychosocial support and mental health support was also highlighted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ (IFRC) Sherry Joseph. Online communication helped IFRC reach out to many communities and refugees in central and Eastern Europe, while a network of volunteers assisted IFRC teams in Hungary, Romania, Czechia and Ukraine to ensure that refugees also received vaccinations and medical help. 

Sherry added that IFRC is scaling up first aid skills in remote populations, ensuring continuity of vaccination programs, developing mental health programs, and making sure their workers and volunteers are equipped to deal with individuals who have escaped from traumatic zones. 

“We have learnt to smile with our eyes,” he said since masks hide them and smiling is a key way of extending warmth and support to the communities that IFRC caters to. 

Joseph added that IFRC is setting up mental health hotlines, especially for the refugees from Ukraine. 

 

Image Credits: NorWest Co-op.

Environment-friendly approaches: Health experts have called on global leaders to tackle environmental issues affecting health and health systems.

It is possible for industry to implement environmentally friendly approaches that are also profitable, Bertrand Piccard, chair of the Solar Impulse Foundation, told the Geneva Health Forum.

“I have been working on identifying solutions that can reconcile ecology and economy that means to protect the environment and at the same time create jobs and be economically viable for the industry, the economy and the financial world,” said Piccard.  

The Swiss organisation, Solar Impulse Foundation, works to identify sustainable, clean and profitable solutions for climate action and offers political and industry leaders a guide on implementing these solutions on a large scale. 

Replace, reduce and recycle

Some of its concepts include the solar-powered automatic irrigation system, electric cabinet with recycled batteries and the circular high-quality  furniture made from recycled materials.  

Piccard pointed out that are new business opportunities to be grabbed by leaders in the industry who can develop efficient solutions to protect the environment: “It’s clear that the environment has a huge link to (public) health…. efficient solutions improve the health of everybody.”

To back this argument, he presented the example of a French start-up that captures the heat from chimneys of factories for recycling to reduce the energy bill of the same enterprise by 20%. 

“It produces less carbon, less energy, and it’s a business opportunity that expands and creates jobs,” said Piccard.

“This is what I call qualitative growth. You develop the economy by replacing what is polluting with what is protecting the environment, so you can reconcile ecology and economy.”

Piccard also noted the importance of both sides i.e. businesses and environmentalists striving hand-in-hand towards this goal.

“You need the ‘green activists’ to move forward to push the politicians and you need the industry to produce the solutions. That will help us live in a more efficient way and be more environmentally friendly.” 

Climate neutrality ambitions  

Piccard praised the European Commission’s recent announcement that 100 European Union (EU) cities and 12 non-EU cities are participating in a program to become climate neutral by 2030

Bertrand Piccard, chair of the Solar Impulse Foundation.

According to the EU plan, the 112 participating cities – in which roughly 75 million people live – will prepare plans and contracts to set out action and investment plans in order to achieve climate neutrality in the coming eight years. 

The ultimate goal of climate neutrality, as defined by the United Nations (UN), is to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by balancing the emissions so they are equal (or less than) the emissions that get removed through the planet’s natural absorption.

Piccard stated that problems brought about by pollution and greenhouse gases should be tackled incrementally to bring cities closer to becoming climate neutral. 

“You cannot take the big problems and find solutions. It doesn’t work because most of the problems are not identified correctly so you need to do the opposite. You need to go through the solutions and look at which solution can be implemented where and each time you reduce a little bit of CO2, a little bit of inefficiency, a little bit of pollution, but altogether you can solve the problem.”  

Protecting the environment requires everyone to rethink the phrase ‘changing behaviours’ and use the word ‘modernise’ instead when addressing climate change in low- and middle-income countries, he added.

“You have to modernise old infrastructures. You have to modernise all energy sources. You have to modernise the way to construct the buildings, you have to modernise mobility.”

When it comes to changing behaviours, Piccard said that few people made minimal changes with minimal impact, with a majority refusing to renounce their habits. 

“You will say yes, of course, I will renounce a little bit. I will take the aeroplane only three times a week instead of four. But it doesn’t change the world.” 

Speaking specifically about the stance of the developing countries on the contested issue of emissions, Piccard added: “We have to go from [a narrative of saying] protection of the environment is threatening our lifestyles, [which is] expensive and boring, to a narrative where protection of the environment is exciting, profitable, creative, interesting, and modernising.” 

The developing countries should use new technologies, said Piccard. “They want to reach our (developed world) levels of development. They want to be like Europe and North America. [In order to modernise] they can use efficient systems, use renewable energies in order to have local economic development.”

“It’s a question of narrative, because we need to take people with us otherwise they will not follow, they will resist.” 

As the developed and the developing countries continue to have contested viewpoints on this matter, the latest UN report suggests the emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the three regions of Asia and the Pacific, Africa and Latin America grew by 26% over the past decade, as compared to 260% growth in the prior two decades. The fossil fuel combustion emissions of developed countries shrank by about 10% over both of those periods. 

Dr Hans Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe.

The European Region and COVID-19 are in a “kind of ceasefire,” according to World Health Organization’s (WHO) Regional Director for Europe, Dr Hans Kluge. It is now up to the region’s 53 member states to take advantage of this window to prepare for the next fight, he said.

“It is quiet and we have to take advantage of this, because obviously the fact that the virus spread so fast and so many people have been  infected means that a new mutant is already here,” Kluge said Wednesday during an interview at the Geneva Health Forum. “The virus has surprised us many times.”

Kluge, who started his role on 1 February 2020 just as the pandemic began, spoke via video link from his office in Denmark.

There have been at least 191 million reported COVID-19 infections in Europe and more than 2.2 million deaths since the start of the pandemic two years ago, according to Reuters COVID tracker.

The average new daily cases in the region have dropped from a recent peak of 1.7 million in February to fewer than 230,000 in recent days. However, Germany leads the world in the daily average number of new cases, Reuters said, accounting for one in every six infections reported worldwide. Moreover, as Kluge noted, it is not possible to track how fast the virus is spreading in Ukraine as a result of the Russian invasion.

Reuters COVID-19 tracker shows a decline in average daily cases across the European region.
Reuters COVID-19 tracker shows a decline in average daily cases across the European region.

He urged the region to implement a pan-European system that could pick up on any threat from antimicrobial resistance, a dangerous virus or climate change “very quickly – we need an alert system.” And he said that the region needs its political systems to take action when there is such an alert.

Kluge also said that the most important ingredient in any COVID-19 toolkit must be equal access to vaccines and affordable antivirals.

“The best way to combat infectious disease is a combination of prevention and treatment: vaccines and medicines,” according to Kluge.

The comments were especially meaningful on Wednesday, a day after the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Council announced that it will finally discuss a compromise proposal on a waiver of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines. However, antivirals are not included in the compromise. While Pfizer and Merck – the companies with effective COVID-19 antivirals – have entered into voluntary licensing agreements with the Medicine Patents Pool to enable generic companies to make the drugs for certain low-income countries, the agreements and countries the deal applies to are restricted.

Kluge offered a four-step COVID-19 exit strategy for the region:

1. Implement a plan for protecting the most vulnerable

“We may at some point have to shift from mass action to more routine vaccination of just the vulnerable people,” Kluge said.

2. Vaccinate and boost

“We will need to do whatever it takes to vaccinate the unvaccinated and boost the vaccinated,” he added.

3. Beef up surveillance

“We need a system that is able to pick up new COVID-19 variants very quickly so that national lockdowns can be avoided,” said Kluge.

4. Deal with the backlog of patients with other diseases

Kluge noted that the healthcare sector is also facing a shadow pandemic – dealing with the backlog of patients who are suffering due to postponement of elective surgeries, cancer and other screenings, mental health issues and long COVID. He said around 20% of people infected with the virus continue to experience some symptoms even months later.

“We need more knowledge about long COVID,” Kluge stressed.

But he admitted that rolling out this exit strategy could be “tricky,” as a result of complacency by the public and political leaders whose memories are “very short.”

“Heads of states and governments need to make the investment in health and health systems that is key for a resilient society and preparedness,” said Kluge. “Health is not everything, but without health, there is nothing.”

Image Credits: WHO, Screenshot.

Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Genevai during World Humanitarian Day. 19 August 2019.
Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Genevai during World Humanitarian Day. 19 August 2019.

The COVID-19 pandemic blindsided most of the world as it swept from China across the world at an unprecedent pace, infecting, ultimately killing millions of people. But more than two years later, there are some lessons that can be learned, said Tatiana Valovaya, director-general of the United Nations in Geneva on Tuesday evening.

At the Opening Ceremony for the Geneva Health Forum, Valovaya delivered the four key takeaways from the pandemic for public health professionals. Her colleague, likewise, offered “concerned actions” that could be taken in at least five key areas to make humanity more resilient to future health threats.

In total, nine people addressed attendees during the opening ceremony, which drew over 1000 people and is the first major global health event hosted in Geneva since the pandemic began. The speakers included Valovaya; Antoine Geissbuhler and Véronique Maye, Geneva Health Forum’s co-presidents; Bertrand Levrat, CEO of the University Hospitals of Geneva; Mauro Poggia, minister of health, population and security for the state of Geneva; Jürg Lauber, Swiss ambassador and permanent representative to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva; Zsuzsanna Jakab, deputy director-general of the World Health Organization; Monique Eloit, director-general of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE); and Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

What lessons were learned?

1 – We live in a globalized world and are all interconnected and interdependent.

“We can only be as safe or as healthy as all other people around that world are,” said Valovaya. “That means we have to work in solidarity.”

2 – We can do a lot to improve environmental degradation.

This notion was supported by Eloit in her keynote address. “I will insist on how it is crucial to transform our relationship with the environment,” she said. “We need to move from response to prevention.”

3 – We have to fight inequality.

“During the pandemic, we saw that those who were very vulnerable were the first to suffer,” noted Valovaya. “We saw this with access to healthcare, vaccines and even clean water.”

4 – All of the challenges that humanity is facing are global.

“Global challenges need global solutions,” she said. “We need multilateralism that is inclusive and integrated. Only together can we find solutions.”

While the world continues to tackle COVID-19, something which Eloit stressed is “still ongoing, while we continue to face other challenges,” the international community must simultaneously fight the climate crisis, she said.

Dr. Zsuzsanna Jakab, Deputy Director-General of the World Health Organization, during the Annual high-level discussion on human rights mainstreaming. 43rd session of the Human Rights Council , Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, February 24, 2020.
Dr. Zsuzsanna Jakab, Deputy Director-General of the World Health Organization, at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, February 24, 2020, in one of the last face-to-face UN meetings before the COVID pandemic.

Thirteen million people die from preventable environmental factors

WHO estimates that 13 million people die every year as a result of preventable environmental factors and that 90% of the global population breathes unhealthy air, Jakab noted.

“Concerted action is needed across at least five key areas to make humanity more resilient to future health threats,” she stressed.

The first is understanding that health is not negotiable. The second is the need to shift from health systems focused purely on treating diseases to health systems focused on disease prevention and health promotion.

Next, equity is not a ‘nice to have’.

“The vulnerability of one single nation makes the whole world more vulnerable to disease threats,” she said, echoing Valovaya’s sentiments. “We must move from a fragmented health architecture to a cohesive architecture with stronger governance, financing and tools.

Finally, we must shift from a siloed, sectored approach to human health to a One Health approach, said Jakab.

One Health was defined in December 2021 by the inter-agency One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent.

It was a major focus of the first day of the Geneva Health Forum.

“OHHLEP’s goal is to move One Health from concept to practice,” Eloit stressed in her talk, which helped culminate the formal opening ceremony. In the morning, the opening panel was on “One Health: is there a paradigm shift?”

“We all have a role to play,” concluded Eloit. “We have a responsibility to make tomorrow safer than today.”

This is part of a Health Policy Watch series of stories on feature themes at the 2022 Geneva Health Forum. Supported by a grant from the Canton of Geneva.

Image Credits: Flickr.

Impact of obesity on health

Almost two-thirds of adults and a third of children are overweight or obese in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region and this is driving cancer and other diseases, according to the WHO European Regional Obesity Report 2022 report released on Tuesday.

The highest prevalence is in Turkey, Malta, Israel and the UK (WHO Europe has different members from the European Union), but there is an upward trend in all 53 member countries.

Driving cancers

Obesity is the cause of 13 different types of cancer, as well as a risk factor in strokes, heart attacks, type 2 diabetes and other non-communicable diseases, according to the report.

For some countries in the region, obesity is predicted to overtake smoking as the main risk factor for preventable cancer. The report also highlights that obesity is a condition, not just a risk factor, that needs to be specifically treated and managed.

“In Europe and Central Asia, no single country is going to meet the WHO Global NCD target of halting the rise of obesity by 2025,” said Dr Hans Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe. 

Adult obesity in the 53-country European Region is higher than in any other WHO region except the the Americas. More males (63%) are overweight than among females (54%) while obesity is more prevalent among females (24%) than among males (22%).

Obesity rates in Europe (2016)     50%                                         60%                                       70%                                                          Orange = all adults, Blue = males, Green = females

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the danger of obesity, with patients with obesity being more likely to experience complications and death from the virus.

“Preliminary data also suggest that during the current pandemic, people have had higher exposure to obesity risk factors, including an increase in sedentary lifestyles and consumption of unhealthy foods,” according to the report.

Addressing unhealthy environments

“Obesity is influenced by the environment, so it is important to look at this problem from the perspective of every stage of life. For example, the life of children and adolescents is impacted by digital environments, including marketing of unhealthy food and drinks,” said Dr Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Acting Head of the WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of NCDs, which produced the report.

“Restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages and improving health system response for obesity management are currently among the most actively discussed policy areas in the WHO European Region,” Wickramasinghe added.

Other policies that show promise in reducing levels of obesity and overweight include improving  access to obesity and overweight management services in primary health care, promoting breastfeeding and school-based interventions.

The report also highlights interventions at supermarkets and takeaway outlets, which are the primary food sources. These include removing unhealthy foods from checkouts and nearby aisles and restricting takeaway outlets.

Improving the quality of parks and playgrounds, as well as providing adequate infrastructure for active transport are other suggestions.

Image Credits: rawpixel/unsplash.

WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala

In a significant breakthrough, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TRIPS Council on Friday will finally discuss a compromise proposal on a waiver of intellectual property (IP) rights on COVID-19 vaccines – almost 18 months after it was first proposed by India and South Africa.

Members attending an informal meeting of the TRIPS Council on Tuesday were told that the text of an “outcome document” from the “quad” of the European Union, US, India and South Africa would be circulated to them “within hours” from WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s office.

The outcome document, which was later posted on the WTO website, is very similar to that which was leaked in mid-March – but it has been termed an “outcome document” rather than an agreement as there are still a couple of points of disagreement.

Disagreement over who should be eligible

The main point of disagreement relates to which countries should be able to benefit from the waiver (footnote 1). All developing country members that have not yet achieved a significant export capacity – namely 10% of the world’s COVID-19 vaccine market – are supposed to benefit from the flexibilities. 

Apparently, China has been unhappy about being excluded while a country like India with large generic manufacturing capacity, may be included.

But the new TRIPS Council chairperson, Sierra Leone’s Ambassador Lansana Gberie, told Tuesday’s meeting that the superpower “seemed favourably disposed” towards the compromise – also contained in footnote 1 – that states “all developing country members with capacity are encouraged to opt out from these flexibilities”, according to a WTO official.

While the waiver only applies to vaccines, WTO members will have six months to decide whether to extend it to cover the production and distribution of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics.

According to the draft document, eligible WTO members will be able to limit TRIPS article Section 28, which deals with exclusive patents, by authorizing the production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines without the patent holder’s consent, and with minimal transaction costs. 

Single authorisation for multiple patents

Another deviation from draft agreement that was leaked in mid-March is related to whether countries will have to list all the patents that they will be waiving – widely criticised for imposing onerous requirements on countries. This appears set to go, according to footnote 3.

Eligible countries may issue a single authorisation to use multiple patents and can export the vaccines they produce under this authorisation to other eligible members, particularly countries in greatest need, and to supply regional or international initiatives such as COVAX (a waiver of TRIPS Art. 31(f).)

Eligible members will also be able to use any of their legal instruments to impose a waiver on vaccines, and the protection of clinical trial data under TRIPS will not be an obstacle to implementing this proposal.

Payment for any vaccines produced under TRIPS waiver conditions for export is to take account of the humanitarian and not-for-profit purpose of the vaccine programme, to support manufacturers to produce and supply vaccines at affordable prices. 

The duration of the flexibilities would be either three or five years, and eligible members would be exempted from legal challenges under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

The earlier agreement was widely condemned by health activist groups, who objected the waiver being confined to vaccines and excluding some of the world’s major COVID-19 vaccine producers.

In addition, a diplomatic source told Health Policy Watch that he did not know the value of the waiver given that there was an apparent surplus of COVID-19 vaccines.

The results of the formal discussion on Friday will be reported to the General Council, which is scheduled to meet on 9 and 10 May. 

Image Credits: Jess Hurd/ Global Justice Now, Africa Centre for International Trade&Development.

Geneva Health Forum session, “Impact of climate change on health.” From left: Moderator Maximilian Jungmann, University of Heidelberg; Alfonso Gomez, City of Geneva; Maria Neira, World Health Organization; Gueladio Cisse, CGIEC Swiss TPH; and Valérie D’Acremont, University of Lausanne.
Geneva Health Forum session, “Impact of climate change on health.” From left: Moderator Maximilian Jungmann, University of Heidelberg; Alfonso Gomez, City of Geneva; Maria Neira, World Health Organization; Gueladio Cisse, CGIEC Swiss TPH; and Valérie D’Acremont, University of Lausanne.

Children sick with malaria, adults in bed with fevers and rashes as a result of the Zika virus, tick-borne illnesses – all of these diseases are on the rise as a result of climate change, according to Valérie D’Acremont of the University of Lausanne.

She spoke on Tuesday at the Geneva Health Forum during a special session on the impact of climate change on health, addressing the question: “what is the scale of the problem and what action needs to be taken?”

“It is clear that there has been an increase in transmission of [existing] pathogens and of new pathogens,” said D’Acremont, a Swiss physician who is also working on a project in Africa.

For example, the spread of malaria, caused by a parasite that spreads to humans and other animals through the bites of infected female mosquitoes, increases in temperatures of around 25ºC.

“In West Africa, it is too hot, so malaria might be going down, but in East Africa, the opposite is the case and we see an increase in malaria,” she said.

Adding to the challenge are compromised health systems, the result of two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen the world losing some of its gains against malaria over the last 20 years.

Mosquitoes, similarly, are more prone to spreading Zika virus in around 30ºC, which means that the world’s tropical areas are seeing more and more of the disease, and it is likely to extend to Europe and other countries.

“We see it already in Italy,” D’Acremont stressed. “We might one day have to sleep under bed nets like they do in Africa.”

Tick-borne diseases are spreading in Switzerland, also as a result of climate change, she added. There has been a two-thirds increase in the number of people hospitalized for ticks in Switzerland from 2009 to 2019, according to a recent report by RTS. Moreover, the number of tick bites rose from around 10,000 per year between 2012 and 2016 to around 14,000 a year in the last four years.

“Journalists like to hear this story because it frightens people,” D’Acremont said but added that the main challenge was that people die from these diseases when coupled with other pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension or malnutrition. These are also often a result of climate change or failing to take care of the environment and our food sources.

“Climate change has a huge impact on this too, especially undernutrition and respiratory problems,” she said.

Alfonso Gomez of the City of Geneva addresses the Geneva Health Forum on May 3, 2022.
Alfonso Gomez of the City of Geneva addresses the Geneva Health Forum on May 3, 2022.

We need to stop exploiting animals, destroying nature

Climate change has become an inescapable reality. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) report showed what people already knew: There is now scientific consensus that climate change is impacting people’s health and wellbeing in all hemispheres.

Sometimes the effect is direct, Gueladio Cisse of CGIEC Swiss TPH, who also spoke at the session, said. Sometimes it is indirect. Sometimes the effect comes at once, and other times it has a slower but also longer-term impact.

“If there is a heatwave, the next thing you know people are dying over the course of two or three days,” Cisse said as an example. Other times, a general increase in temperature allows pathogens to grow and makes humans more vulnerable to disease.

The good news, said Dr Maria Neira, of the World Health Organization, is that the scientific community has been “pulling together in a historic way all the evidence we have on climate change… They are telling us things like if we don’t take measure now, this might put civilization at risk.”

D’Acremont agreed but said that while research was useful, now is the time to do research in the field by monitoring the impact of steps taken to curb environmental hazards.

“We need a paradigm shift to go to prevention,” she said. “Take COVID. It is nice to have a preparedness plan, but the problem is that another pandemic or event could come and it is new and we cannot be prepared.”

Instead, she said, “we need to stop destroying nature, stop exploiting animals and start preparing ourselves by being in better health. During the crisis is too late… We have to shift the reality now to preventive care. That is true for northern and southern countries.”

This is part of a Health Policy Watch series of stories on feature themes at the 2022 Geneva Health Forum. Supported by a grant from the Canton of Geneva.

Image Credits: Maayan Hoffman.

The Geneva Health Forum opened with a panel discussion on, “One Health: is there a paradigm shift?” From left: Andrea Sylvia Winkler, Peter Ben Embarek, Lisa Crump, Jean Philippe Dop and Keith Sumption.
The Geneva Health Forum opened with a panel discussion on “One Health: is there a paradigm shift?” From left: Andrea Sylvia Winkler, Peter Ben Embarek, Lisa Crump, Jean Philippe Dop and Keith Sumption.

More accessible funding will be required for the international community to implement a broad One Health approach, scientist Lisa Crump of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) told Health Policy Watch on Tuesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Geneva Health Forum’s (GHF) kick-off discussion, “One Health: is there a paradigm shift?” Crump said that “we need ways to get funding so that it is easy to access. We have some very old ways of releasing funds and they are not reactive or responsive, and that is what we need”.

“We need to make funding more accessible, make more of it and put fewer strings on it,” she continued. “It has to make economic sense. Or at least there has to be some benefit. It can be economic savings or it can be improved health or increased ecosystem resilience. It is not always money. But it takes money to figure out what is going to work and we cannot ignore that fact.”

Crump was one of four panellists who spoke during the session. The others included Jean Philippe Dop of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Keith Sumption of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Peter Ben Embarek of the World Health Organization (WHO). The session was moderated by Andrea Sylvia Winkler of the Center for Global Health at the Technical University of Munich and the Centre for Global Health at the University of Oslo.

More than 1,000 people attended the forum on Tuesday and almost as many were watching a selection of sessions that were aired virtually.

The concept of One Health is a big focus of the GHF after decades of the topic being consigned to the margins of health agendas. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of a holistic approach to health across species as the virus was most likely to have been transmitted to humans from a bat, via infected mammals housed and slaughtered in unsanitary conditions at a marketplace in Wuhan, China.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the intimate links between health, humans, animals and our environment,” stressed WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a video message to the conference. “Reducing future pandemics demands closer collaboration across sectors.”

Around 60% of known infectious diseases and as many as 75% of new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin. As a result, the One Health approach is receiving broad support from the WHO, FAO, OIE and, most recently, UNEP – together, formally known as the Quadripartite.

One Health was defined in December 2021 by the inter-agency One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent.”

Tuesday’s GHF session marked the first time that all four lead technical focal points of the quadripartite organizations have appeared together in a public forum to discuss the changing One Health landscape.

Common sense has come to the political arena

Ben Embarek explained that the biggest shift he has seen since COVID-19 is that now politicians and government officials are buying into One Health, too.

“When common sense comes into the political arena, that is where things start changing,” he said. “When we have heads of states talking about One Health, this is a shift for sure.”

Dop expressed similar sentiments, noting the involvement of these decision-makers in the One Health agenda as “a good effect of the pandemic, if there can be one”. And he said that this involvement will play a key role in being able to implement One Health concepts aligned by professors and doctors in academia in the field.

Another shift is the new and formal involvement of UNEP, with Crump saying that her organisation is ready to “mobilize our assets and partnerships to support a One Health approach”.

The UNEP has already helped establish a multi-partner trust seeded with €50 million to enhance countries’ investments in nature with the goal of stopping pandemics. Those funds will also go for working towards establishing four outcomes: providing multidisciplinary evidence on the links between biodiversity, climate change and health; enhancing One Health preventative actions and policies; providing target-specific capacity building and knowledge management, advocacy and awareness-raising programs on those links; and to create sustainable One Health collaborations with government structures.

Having UNEP involved in a greater capacity should also enable the team to focus more on issues such as soil, water and other environmental factors that play a role in health and wellbeing, said Sumption. He expects new opportunities from environmental ministries monitoring for pathogens to ecosystem restoration and biodiversity maintenance.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on forests so we need sustainable wildlife management in those settings,” Sumption stressed.

Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General QU Dongyu address the One Health opening session via video.
Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Qu Dongyu addressed the One Health opening session via video.

‘Widening the perspective of students’

But the key to the future is educating the younger generation to take a One Health approach from the onset of their careers, said Ben Embarek.

He addressed students and teachers and called on them to break down silos in their universities from the podium.

“It is widening the perspective of students in the existing silos,” Ben Embarek told Health Policy Watch after the session. For example, he said, “medical students should be exposed to what vets are doing and what is happening out there in the environment so that they will get a better perspective and that they will see that the health of humans is connected to all of these things.”

At the same, he noted, while vets might be focused on producing healthy animals, at some point, someone is going to eat these animals and those who are going to do so should not die from eating them.

“It is important to not only protect the animals from animal disease but also to protect animals from pathogens that will affect humans,” Ben Embarek continued, “It is really about exposing students and including in their curriculum the perspectives that exist in other sectors, and understanding that some of the issues they are trained to solve in the future will depend on the health and actions of other sectors.

“So, when they are in these positions later on in life it will be easier to understand what others are doing, why they are doing it and how to change.”

This is part of a Health Policy Watch series of stories on feature themes at the 2022 Geneva Health Forum. Supported by a grant from the Canton of Geneva.

Image Credits: Maayan Hoffman.

When we think about the critical drivers of disease prevention and control – we need to stop thinking only about medicines, vaccines and diagnostics. 

In fact some of the most important forms of disease control can be found in forests – which harbor thousands of pathogens, known and unknown in relative isolation from humans and the damage that they could otherwise cause. 

But humankind is felling forests and wreaking other kinds of damage on ecosystems at an unprecedented rate – laying the groundwork for the next pandemic as we speak endlessly about how to get the world out of the present one. 

That is the key message of the new film “La Fabrique des pandémies” (Making Pandemics) by the French journalist and documentary filmmaker, Marie Monique Robin. 

Avant-premiere at Geneva Health Forum  

French star, Juliette Bionoche, who narrates the film.

The film will be aired at a public avant-premiere on Wednesday 4 May at 6 p.m – as part of the Geneva Health Forum. The Forum, which begins on Tuesday, has a climate and environmental health focus this year. 

The film, born out of reflections during the COVID lockdown, took Robin to eight countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas  – from French Guinea to DR Congo, Malaysia and Mexico, as well  as upstate New York. 

The result is the product of the relentless detective work of Robin, a seasoned journalist who also directed “The World According to Monsanto”, a critical look at the pesticide industry. 

Narrated by the French film star, Juliette Bionoche, the film aims to make the issue more accessible to the general public – despite its highly technical material. 

So it is Binoche that relates the stories of the deadly viruses, bacteria and parasites that have “escaped” from the wild to become major plagues to human health – as seen through the eyes of the scientists who have documented their destructive pathway.     

next pandemic
Pig farm in Sarawak, Borneo, Malaysia – a reservoir for Nipah virus.

The examples include the story of Malaysia’s deadly, bat-borne Nipah virus which became a threat to humans as bats driven from rainforests destroyed to create palm oil plantations found new homes in agricultural areas, and particularly around pig farms. Infected pigs, close to people both genetically and proximally, then began transmitting the virus to humans. 

While most of the stories relate to developing countries, developed regions are not immune. Lyme disease, transmitted by ticks in North America, has posed an increasing threat to human health as forests there become fragmented, biodiversity is reduced, and species such as the white-footed mouse proliferate, which are a reservoir for the deadly Borrelia bacterium that causes Lyme disease.    

COVID lockdown reflections 

Filming of Making Pandemics. Robin, on right, conducts an interview.

The film began with Robin’s own reading and reflections during the COVID lockdown – including an article that she read in the New York Times, which struck a special chord entitled “We made a pandemic.”

“I began searching and contacting scientists with whom I have been working for more than 30 years,” she relates. Among them was Serge Morand, a parasitologist living in Thailand – who will also be appearing himself at the Geneva Health Forum, running from 3-5 May. 

“And he said, oh it would be great if you could put all of us together in a book or a film.

“The thing is,” Robin adds, “is that there have been many, many dozens of studies published, showing the link between the destruction of biodiversity, on the one hand, and on the other, the emergence of infectious diseases. 

“And so Morand told me, ‘if you could put all of us together, it would be very powerful. Because we have been sounding the alarm for so many years, and just nobody is paying attention.”

Robin went on to interview some 62 scientists working in various parts of the world – with the stories of 14 condensed into the book, Making Pandemics, published last year, which has now been made into a film.  

Three drivers of disease 

Deforestation is a key driver of new infectious diseases – which leap from wild animal species to humans.

The interviews all weave together to underline a single message about the ecological factors driving the emergence of new infectious diseases – and the expansion of already well-known diseases.  

“The first factor is, of course, deforestation in tropical areas,” Robin says of the key drivers.  “And then intensive breeding [of animals], and then globalization.

“It means growing soybeans in Argentina or Brazil, to feed European cattle. It means cultivating palm trees.  It means mining, gold, copper, etc.  And also urbanization.  All of these factors which contribute to deforestation in tropical areas.”  

The dilution effect 

Maintaining biodiversity alongside food production is critical to preventing new pandemics.

While there is some growing awareness about how climate change and biodiversity loss is increasing the frequency at which diseases like Ebola, Nipah and others are emerging or expanding, Robin offers fresh insights into why this is the case.  

Just imagine the forest as a massive universe of bacteria, parasites and viruses, both known and unknown, circulating among the animal species that live there.  When forests are deep and expansive, pathogens are more likely to stay within their natural geographic boundaries, Robin explains. 

And when animal species are diverse and plentiful, then dangerous viruses are largely contained by a set of natural biological checks and balances that keep other species in check too.

In a well-balanced ecosystem, when pathogens have lots of different animals to infect – they won’t infect species that can transmit the disease to humans as frequently or as intensively – something that she describes as the “dilution effect”.

Animals that are more prone to dangerous infections also cannot become too dominant as a species, and thus pose an even greater risk to humans – because they also are the prey of other animals that keep them in check.    

Biodiversity protects your health

Deer in North America are becoming more infected with ticks carrying Lyme disease

But when the forest is cut away or fragmented – and its animals hunted down or otherwise destroyed by humans – then the chances of a pathogen infecting an animal species with a dangerous pathogen that may then carry the same disease to humans increase.  

Lyme disease is a good example of that principle, she explains.

“The dilution effect means that when you have a big community of mammals floating around in the forest, then the probability that a tick will feed on a white-footed mouse, which is a reservoir of the Borrelia bacterium, is diluted. 

“A tick, which needs a blood meal, may land on an opossum instead of a mouse – and the opossum won’t get infected because he cannot be a host for the bacteria,” says Robin.

And meanwhile other predators, like foxes, hunt and eat the mice, also keeping them in check.  “But if you fragment the forest as we have seen in the state of New York, then most of the predators, like foxes for instance, leave.” 

The ticks left with fewer animal choices, feed more on mice – in a vicious cycle.  

“So the white-footed mouse is proliferating, and becoming more infected by ticks,” says Robin. More infected ticks also land on deer, who are hunted by humans.  

“And scientists have shown that the probability of [humans] also getting infected in a fragmented forest is five times higher; this is the dilution effect,” she says. 

“The dilution effect shows that biodiversity protects your health because when you have a lot of biodiversity, the chances of anyone [human] getting infected are reduced.”

Click here to reserve a free ticket to the film., See the complete programme for  GHF 2022 here – and register for the full event Tuesday-Thursday or daily, in person or remotely.  

Check out Health Policy Watch’s ongoing coverage of other themes featured at this year’s Forum on our GHF 2022 microsite

This is part of a Health Policy Watch series of stories on feature themes at the 2022 Geneva Health Forum. Supported by a grant from the Canton of Geneva.

Image Credits: Thomas Quine/Flickr , nosha/Flickr.