As the outbreak of novel, swine-related (A)H1N1 influenza virus (note the carefully chosen terminology) continues to provoke confused messages as to the safety of pork, ProMED reports that the three leading international food, animal and public health organisations – the FAO, OIE, WHO – have reasserted the safety of properly cooked pork, while acknowledging that viruses may be present in raw meat:
To avoid any misunderstanding FAO, WHO and OIE would like to reissue their joint statement originally issued on 30 Apr 2009.
In the ongoing spread of influenza A(H1N1), concerns about the possibility of this virus being found in pigs and the safety of pork and pork products have been raised.
Influenza viruses are not known to be transmissible to people through eating processed pork or other food products derived from pigs.
Heat treatments commonly used in cooking meat (e.g. 70 C/160 F core temperature) will readily inactivate any viruses potentially present in raw meat products.
Pork and pork products, handled in accordance with good hygienic practices recommended by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the OIE, will not be a source of infection.
Authorities and consumers should ensure that meat from sick pigs or pigs found dead are not processed or used for human consumption under any circumstances.
This statement (reasserting an earlier joint statement made on 30th April) comes in the context of negative impacts on pork consumption in some countries (such as the US, though apparently not the UK), the desperate over-reaction of Egypt in ordering the slaughter of the country’s entire pig herd, and the equally misinformed but harmless reaction of Afghanistan in quarantining the country’s only pig.
ProMED provides further illuminating comment on the basis for the joint statement and the cause of some of the uncertainty:
One should keep in mind that the current outbreak of the novel, swine-related (A)H1N1 influenza virus — already officially reported from 24 countries in 4 continents (Africa remaining the only continent where no such information has yet become available) — is unprecedented. Since there are still serious gaps in the knowledge about the virus, its epidemiology and pathogenicity, communicating clear, unanimously accepted and scientifically-based information and advice to the public is complex. Experimental infection trials in animals and other research activities have already been initiated, and their anticipated results will, hopefully, ease the task of the public health, animal health and food safety authorities in their Risk Communication efforts.
