The burden of foodborne disease is not well defined in many countries or regions or on a global level. The World Health Organization (WHO), in conjunction with other national public health agencies, is coordinating a number of international activities designed to assist countries in the strengthening of disease surveillance and to determine the burden of acute gastroenteritis. These data can then be used to estimate the following situations: (1) the burden associated with acute gastroenteritis of foodborne origin, (2) the burden caused by specific pathogens commonly transmitted by food, and (3) the burden caused by specific foods or food groups. Many of the scientists collaborating with the WHO on these activities have been involved in quantifying the burden of acute gastroenteritis on a national basis. This article reviews these key national studies and the international efforts that are providing the necessary information and technical resources to derive national, regional, and global burden of disease estimates.

Some persons argue that the routine addition of antibiotics to animal feed will help alleviate protein undernutrition in developing countries by increasing meat production. In contrast, we estimate that, if all routine antibiotic use in animal feed were ceased, there would be negligible effects in these countries. Poultry and pork production are unlikely to decrease by more than 2%. Average daily protein supply would decrease by no more than 0.1 g per person (or 0.2% of total protein intake). Eliminating the routine use of in-feed antibiotics will improve human and animal health, by reducing the development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

No abstract

Disease prioritization exercises have been used by several organizations to inform surveillance and control measures. Though most methodologies for disease prioritization are based on expert opinion, it is becoming more common to include different stakeholders in the prioritization exercise. This study was performed to compare the weighting of disease criteria, and the consequent prioritization of zoonoses, by both health professionals and students in Switzerland using a Conjoint Analysis questionnaire. The health professionals comprised public health and food safety experts, cantonal physicians and cantonal veterinarians, while the student group comprised first-year veterinary and agronomy students. Eight criteria were selected for this prioritization based on expert elicitation and literature review. These criteria, described on a 3-tiered scale, were evaluated through a choice-based Conjoint Analysis questionnaire with 25 choice tasks. Questionnaire results were analyzed to obtain importance scores (for each criterion) and mean utility values (for each criterion level), and the latter were then used to rank 16 zoonoses. While the most important criterion for both groups was “Severity of the disease in humans”, the second ranked criteria by the health professionals and students were “Economy” and “Treatment in humans”, respectively. Regarding the criterion “Control and Prevention”, health professionals tended to prioritize a disease when the control and preventive measures were described to be 95% effective, while students prioritized a disease if there were almost no control and preventive measures available. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy was the top-ranked disease by both groups. Health professionals and students agreed on the weighting of certain criteria such as “Severity” and “Treatment of disease in humans”, but disagreed on others such as “Economy” or “Control and Prevention”. Nonetheless, the overall disease ranking lists were similar, and these may be taken into consideration when making future decisions regarding resource allocation for disease control and prevention in Switzerland.