A Public Health Ethics Case for Mitigating Zoonotic Disease Risk in Food Production

Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar

More widespread farming of species not typically used as livestock may be part of a sustainable approach for promoting human health and economic prosperity in a world with an increasing population; a current example is peccary farming in the Neotropics. Others have argued that species that are local to a region and which are usually not farmed should be considered for use as livestock. They may have a more desirable nutrient profile than species that are presently used as livestock. It may also reduce the pressure from hunting on other wild species, and cause less environmental damage than exotic species. We propose a sentiocentric utilitarian framework that could be used to decide whether species that are local, but generally not used as livestock, should be farmed. To illustrate the use of our decision-making framework, we employ two contrasting neotropical case studies: the Spotted Paca (Cuniculus paca) and the Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). We argue that it may be acceptable to use non-sentient species that are typically not farmed as livestock. However, research should determine whether farming them offers human, environmental or sustainability benefits. In addition, we recommend that if invertebrate species are considered for farming, research should be conducted to determine the likelihood that they are sentient. Finally, given the ethical failings of current livestock farming practices, we argue that a high bar must be met if 'new' species that are sentient are to be farmed.

Nanovaccines: A game changing approach in the fight against infectious diseases

The field of nanotechnology has revolutionised global attempts to prevent, treat, and eradicate infectious diseases in the foreseen future. Nanovaccines have proven to be a valuable pawn in this novel technology. Nanovaccines are made up of nanoparticles that are associated with or prepared with components that can stimulate the host's immune system. In addition to their delivery capabilities, the nanocarriers have been demonstrated to possess intrinsic adjuvant properties, working as immune cell stimulators. Thus, nanovaccines have the potential to promote rapid as well as long-lasting humoral and cellular immunity. The nanovaccines have several possible benefits, including site-specific antigen delivery, increased antigen bioavailability, and a diminished adverse effect profile. To avail these benefits, several nanoparticle-based vaccines are being developed, including virus-like particles, liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, nanogels, lipid nanoparticles, emulsion vaccines, exomes, and inorganic nanoparticles. Inspired by their distinctive properties, researchers are working on the development of nanovaccines for a variety of applications, such as cancer immunotherapy and infectious diseases. Although a few challenges still need to be overcome, such as modulation of the nanoparticle pharmacokinetics to avoid rapid elimination from the bloodstream by the reticuloendothelial system, The future prospects of this technology are also assuring, with multiple options such as personalised vaccines, needle-free formulations, and combination nanovaccines with several promising candidates.

The infectious disease trap of animal agriculture

Infectious diseases originating from animals (zoonotic diseases) have emerged following deforestation from agriculture. Agriculture can reduce its land use through intensification, i.e., improving resource use efficiency. However, intensive management often confines animals and their wastes, which also fosters disease emergence. Therefore, rising demand for animal-sourced foods creates a "trap" of zoonotic disease risks: extensive land use on one hand or intensive animal management on the other. Not all intensification poses disease risks; some methods avoid confinement and improve animal health. However, these "win-win" improvements alone cannot satisfy rising meat demand, particularly for chicken and pork. Intensive poultry and pig production entails greater antibiotic use, confinement, and animal populations than beef production. Shifting from beef to chicken consumption mitigates climate emissions, but this common strategy neglects zoonotic disease risks. Preventing zoonotic diseases requires international coordination to reduce the high demand for animal-sourced foods, improve forest conservation governance, and selectively intensify the lowest-producing ruminant animal systems without confinement.

Nanovaccines against Animal Pathogens: The Latest Findings

Nowadays, safe and efficacious vaccines represent powerful and cost-effective tools for global health and economic growth. In the veterinary field, these are undoubtedly key tools for improving productivity and fighting zoonoses. However, cases of persistent infections, rapidly evolving pathogens having high variability or emerging/re-emerging pathogens for which no effective vaccines have been developed point out the continuing need for new vaccine alternatives to control outbreaks. Most licensed vaccines have been successfully used for many years now; however, they have intrinsic limitations, such as variable efficacy, adverse effects, and some shortcomings. More effective adjuvants and novel delivery systems may foster real vaccine effectiveness and timely implementation. Emerging vaccine technologies involving nanoparticles such as self-assembling proteins, virus-like particles, liposomes, virosomes, and polymeric nanoparticles offer novel, safe, and high-potential approaches to address many vaccine development-related challenges. Nanotechnology is accelerating the evolution of vaccines because nanomaterials having encapsulation ability and very advantageous properties due to their size and surface area serve as effective vehicles for antigen delivery and immunostimulatory agents. This review discusses the requirements for an effective, broad-coverage-elicited immune response, the main nanoplatforms for producing it, and the latest nanovaccine applications for fighting animal pathogens.

A Public Health Ethics Case for Mitigating Zoonotic Disease Risk in Food Production

This article argues that governments in countries that currently permit intensive animal agriculture - especially but not exclusively high-income countries - are, in principle, morally justified in taking steps to restrict or even eliminate intensive animal agriculture to protect public health from the risk of zoonotic pandemics. Unlike many extant arguments for restricting, curtailing, or even eliminating intensive animal agriculture which focus on environmental harms, animal welfare, or the link between animal source food (ASF) consumption and noncommunicable disease, the argument in this article appeals to the value of protecting populations from future global health emergencies and their broad social, economic, and health impacts, taking the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a particularly salient example. The article begins by identifying how intensive animal agriculture contributes to the outbreak (and risk of future outbreaks) of zoonotic diseases. Next, we explore three specific policy options: 1. Incentivizing plant-based and cell-based ASF alternatives through government subsidies; 2. Disincentivizing intensive ASF production through the adoption of a “zoonotic tax”; and 3. Eliminating intensive ASF production through a total ban. We argue that all three of these measures are permissible, although we remain agnostic as to whether these measures are obligatory. We argue for this conclusion on the grounds that each measure is justified by the same sorts of considerations that justify other widely accepted public health interventions, and each is compatible with a variety of theories of justice. We then address potential objections. Finally, we discuss how our novel argument relates to extant ethical arguments in favor or curtailing ASF production and consumption.