Brazil says free of bird flu, will resume poultry exports
The world's top exporter of chicken meat was forced to halt exports to its main client China, the European Union and fellow Latin American countries over an outbreak of "highly pathogenic avian influenza" (HPAI) on a farm in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul.
A case was also later confirmed at Brasilia's zoo, where a pigeon and a duck were found dead, but it did not lead to new restrictions on the poultry industry as it involved wild birds.
On Wednesday, the government said it had informed the World Organisation for Animal Health that the 28-day quarantine period without any new cases being detected had passed.
"The country is declaring itself free of highly pathogenic avian influenza," the agriculture ministry said in a statement.
Agriculture Minister Carlos Favaro announced a "gradual resumption" of poultry exports.
Avian flu has spread globally in recent years, leading to mass culling of poultry, some human deaths, and rising egg prices.
Infections in humans can cause severe disease with a high mortality rate, according to the World Health Organization, but the virus does not appear to move easily from person to person.
Human cases detected so far were mostly in people who had close contact with infected birds and other animals, or contaminated environments.
rsr/cb/acb
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
China Deploys Cannibal Mosquitoes to Battle Chikungunya Surge
Scientists battling China's largest chikungunya epidemic are releasing swarms of giant cannibal mosquitoes whose larvae devour the smaller insects spreading the debilitating disease. These so-called 'elephant mosquitoes,' measuring nearly 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) in length, are voracious predators. Public health experts hope these unusual allies will become unlikely heroes in stopping the painful, fast-moving virus in the southern province of Guangdong.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
GE HealthCare projects reduced tariff expense
This story was originally published on MedTech Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily MedTech Dive newsletter. By the numbers Q2 revenue: $5 billion 3% increase year over year Net income: $486 million Nearly 14% increase year over year GE HealthCare lowered the expected impact from tariffs on its financial outlook Wednesday and said customer demand for capital equipment remained healthy in the second quarter. The medical imaging company boosted its forecast for organic revenue growth in 2025 to 3%, up from a range of 2% to 3%. However, shares in the company fell nearly 8% to end at $71.64 on the New York Stock Exchange, as investors focused on slower-than-expected order growth and a delayed market recovery in China. J.P. Morgan analysts, in a Wednesday note to investors, said second-quarter order growth of about 3% year over year was below the 5% that investors wanted, and the outlook for China was disappointing. GE HealthCare CEO Peter Arduini told analysts on the earnings call that the situation in China continues to evolve. 'I'd say China, we're seeing activity pick up, but the market recovery is taking a little bit longer,' said Arduini. 'We think the longer-term outlook will be positive just based on the size of the country.' Still, with greater clarity from deals struck between the U.S. and global trade partners, GE HealthCare now expects a 45-cent tariff impact to adjusted earnings per share for the full year, roughly half of the 85-cent hit it projected last quarter. The reduction is similar to revised outlooks from other large medical device makers, such as Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson, which also halved their tariff impact forecasts. GE HealthCare raised its full-year outlook for adjusted EPS to a range of $4.43 to $4.63, from the previous forecast of $3.90 to $4.10. The improved outlook follows the company's steep earnings guidance cut in April. For 2026, tariff expenses are expected to be below the 45 cents forecast for 2025 due to mitigation efforts that include supply chain restructuring actions and selective price increases. CFO Jay Saccaro, on the earnings call, said the company is working on longer-term changes to the supply chain, such as investing in more local manufacturing and shifting capacity within supplier networks to more tariff-friendly locations. 'As we've seen these trade deals shape up, we're now in a position to begin to execute on some of these, which we'll do in the second half of the year, and then those will benefit 2026,' Saccaro said. Capital equipment investment Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill' has sparked concerns among healthcare investors that patient volumes could soften if people lose insurance coverage, with the trend in turn pressuring hospital budgets. GE HealthCare, however, is seeing a 'robust' capital environment and healthy procedure growth, said Saccaro, with customers continuing to invest in innovative imaging equipment. In the U.S., hospitals are replacing an aging installed base of equipment, after the replacement cycle was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Arduini. Further driving demand is a need for imaging to support treatment advances in areas such as electrophysiology and pharmaceuticals that require more follow-up. Hospitals also want equipment that helps increase productivity. 'It's difficult for U.S. hospitals to get staffed, and so equipment that moves the patient swiftly through the institution with a high-quality diagnosis is a very important asset,' said the CEO. Recommended Reading Medtech firms slash expected tariff charges Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
2 days ago
- CNN
How conspiracy theories about COVID's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
Editor's note: The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID. The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from 'a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis.' SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support 'a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach'. This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan, and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals – a 'zoonosis' – caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China. Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the 'preferred' hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. Read more: Misinformation lends itself to social contagion – here's how to recognize and combat it In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals – including raccoon dogs and civets – on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Read more: Game theory explains why reasonable parents make vaccine choices that fuel outbreaks Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, the closure of the US Agency for International Development, and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it.
