Contaminated chicken: Officials urge caution over call for action
New analysis released by the Public Health Communication Centre (PHCC) on Thursday shows hospitalisation rates for campylobacter infection have increased by almost 70% in 17 years. The study found contaminated fresh chicken meat remained the dominant source, causing an estimated 77% of infections.
But the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has disputed the figures and is accusing the researchers of scaremongering.
The PHCC study noted that, in 2007, regulatory measures were introduced to reduce contamination levels in fresh chicken meat tested in processing plants. Rates of both hospitalisation and notification halved in just a few months as a result.
But since 2008, contaminated chicken in New Zealand caused more than 600,000 symptomatic illnesses, over 9000 hospitalisations, at least 60 deaths and around $1.4 billion in economic costs.
ADVERTISEMENT
Lead author, University of Otago professor Michael Baker, said that in 2023, the year with the most recent data, there were nearly a thousand hospitalisations. "By any means this is a very consequential health problem and we feel it needs a much more vigorous response."
Lead author, University of Otago professor Michael Baker, says the number of hospitalisations caused by contaminated chicken meat is a very consequential health problem. (Source: Supplied)
Government agencies were "too complacent" about the increasing rates of campylobacter infection caused by contaminated chicken, he added.
"If you saw a 70% rise in our most common foodborne disease surely you'd be putting a lot of effort into investigating that to figure out what's going on, and I'm not aware of any effort going into that. One of the major problems that we're seeing is our agencies have become very complacent about this infection."
The government should consider a formal inquiry into this serious, long-term regulatory failure, Baker said.
"The large Havelock North waterborne outbreak of campylobacter infection [in 2016] resulted in an exhaustive inquiry and a complete reorganisation of the drinking water supply sector. That common source outbreak caused about 7570 cases. By comparison, the 'common source' epidemic caused by contaminated chicken meat results in the equivalent of a Havelock North-sized outbreak every three months in NZ, or 80 such outbreaks since 2008."
But Food Safety's deputy director-general Vincent Arbuckle disagreed with the PHCC's analysis, arguing that between 2006 and 2020 reported rates of foodborne campylobacter infections had halved. These figures were based on public notifications of infections provided by the health system, he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"In 2020 New Zealand Food Safety set the target of reducing the rate by a further 20 percent. This milestone was reached at the end of 2024, when rates of foodborne campylobacter infections acquired in New Zealand fell to 70 cases per 100,000.
The drop in infection was thanks to a "concerted effort over many years" from government, scientists and industry throughout the supply chain, he said.
"New Zealand has made considerable reductions in campylobacter infections. We keep an open mind about changes that can further reduce campylobacteria infection, which is a serious foodborne illness, but will not consider changes that are not founded on good evidence."
Arbuckle accepted more people were ending up in hospital with campylobacter but says that was partly because they had put off going to the GP and got sicker, he said.
He also agreed that campylobacteriosis was "the most common, significant foodborne illness in New Zealand".
But he said data suggested "a continued downward reduction due to the sustained efforts between industry, health authorities, the regulator and other parts of the sector such as retail".
"The prevalence [of campylobacteriosis] is reducing, it's not where people would like it to be, but some of the content in this report is simply erroneous and alarmist, particularly the comments about deaths attributed - the simple fact is that ... since 2007 we've had three recorded cases of death where campylobacteriosis was the principle single contributing factor, not 60 as he [Baker] suggests.
ADVERTISEMENT
"If New Zealand was experiencing the level of deaths directly attributable to campylobacteriosis at the numbers that the authors suggest, there would be an outcry."
But Baker said that deaths from campylobacter infection were generally poorly diagnosed and recorded. By looking at hospital discharge data, however, the researchers were able to get an indication of deaths in hospital with 60 reported deaths for patients with a discharge diagnosis of campylobacter infection as the principal or additional diagnosis over the 14-year period from 2008 to 2021, an average of 4.3 per year. An additional estimated 12 deaths from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) from this source took the total to 68 in the 17-year period, or four per year.
'Unnecessarily alarmist'
In a statement, Poultry Industry Association executive director Michael Brooks said he agreed the paper was "unnecessarily alarmist".
"The poultry industry works closely with NZ Food Safety and met their set targets to further reduce campylobacter by 20% by 2024," he said.
"We have also met the standards of the National Microbial Database. NZ Food Safety assesses that Michael Baker's paper has significant limitations and relies on several incorrect assumptions and unsupported estimates to reach its conclusions."
The study's co-author, University of Otago Professor Nick Wilson defended their research on Morning Report, saying hospitalisation data is the most reliable source to understand what's happening with this "epidemic".
ADVERTISEMENT
"They're [MPI] focusing on the wrong data. You need to take a broad comprehensive picture that includes looking at the hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations are far more reliable then the data sources that they're focusing on," he said.
"They're just not taking a proper health perspective. You'd expect that a watchdog that's meant to be protecting public health and protecting food safety, it [MPI] just doesn't have a health focus."
MPI looks like they are protecting their own reputation, Wilson said.
"This is a health problem... You need health experts. It's out of their ballpark."
By Rachel Helyer Donaldson of rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Strong evidence to act': Calls grow for social media age limit
File photo: Getty Images A University of Auckland senior research fellow is calling for social media platforms to introduce enforced age limits, to help protect young people from harm. A briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre has outlined growing evidence social media use is linked to a range of mental and physical health problems. It highlights policy options for addressing these harms, including restricting access to social media for those under 16. Currently, the age limit to join the majority of platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat is 13, but it is not enforced. "Introducing an age restriction is the only comprehensive measure that addresses the full range of social media-related harms to young people," said author Dr Samantha Marsh. "It also empowers parents to set boundaries and shift social norms in a positive direction." Marsh said while social media may offer some benefits for some young people, such as helping connect with peers and find support, she warned these must be weighed carefully against mounting evidence of harm. "There's a huge imbalance. The weight of evidence showing that these platforms can negatively affect youth mental health has become too great to ignore," she said. "We now have years of consistent findings: young people who spend more time on social media are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and disrupted sleep. "These findings come not only from surveys, but also from longitudinal studies, randomised trials, and robust systematic reviews." Marsh said any changes to social media access should be accompanied by a coordinated effort to provide on and offline support for vulnerable youth, as well as empowering communication campaigns. The briefing's release coincides with the government's inquiry into online harms experienced by young people, which is currently open for public consultation, with submissions closing on 30 July. Marsh said the inquiry was a vital opportunity to build healthier digital environments. "Political decision-makers now have a strong enough evidence base to act. Delaying access to social media and supporting youth and whānau through a coordinated public health response is the path forward."
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Social media age restriction needed to protect young people from harm
ABC social media graphic. Photo: Supplied/ABC A University of Auckland senior research fellow is calling for social media platforms to introduce enforced age limits, to help protect young people from harm. A briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre has outlined growing evidence social media use is linked to a range of mental and physical health problems. It highlights policy options for addressing these harms, including restricting access to social media for those under 16. Currently, the age limit to join the majority of platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat is 13, but it is not enforced. "Introducing an age restriction is the only comprehensive measure that addresses the full range of social media-related harms to young people," said author Dr Samantha Marsh. "It also empowers parents to set boundaries and shift social norms in a positive direction." Marsh said while social media may offer some benefits for some young people, such as helping connect with peers and find support, she warned these must be weighed carefully against mounting evidence of harm. "There's a huge imbalance. The weight of evidence showing that these platforms can negatively affect youth mental health has become too great to ignore," she said. "We now have years of consistent findings: young people who spend more time on social media are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and disrupted sleep. "These findings come not only from surveys, but also from longitudinal studies, randomised trials, and robust systematic reviews." Marsh said any changes to social media access should be accompanied by a coordinated effort to provide on and offline support for vulnerable youth, as well as empowering communication campaigns. The briefing's release coincides with the government's inquiry into online harms experienced by young people, which is currently open for public consultation, with submissions closing on 30 July . Marsh said the inquiry was a vital opportunity to build healthier digital environments. "Political decision-makers now have a strong enough evidence base to act. Delaying access to social media and supporting youth and whānau through a coordinated public health response is the path forward."
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Peters challenged on tobacco links
Public health researchers at the University of Otago have called on the prime minister to show some leadership and remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First, following allegations the party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. Documents from a Radio NZ investigation show Philip Morris provided NZ First with a draft piece of regulation which the deputy prime minister at the time, Winston Peters, supported. They show NZ First assured Philip Morris they would "put that draft into the policy mix". Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the attempt to attack NZ First was "old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". The allegation comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes, and creating a smokefree generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. University of Otago Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre co-director and public health researcher Prof Janet Hoek said the fact the documents were six years old was "neither here nor there", because NZ First had repeatedly denied having any connections with the tobacco industry. The revelation raised questions about how easily companies were able to access politicians, and the kind of lobbying that went on behind closed doors. "The challenge that he [Mr Peters] has to address is that there have been allegations that he's been dealing with tobacco companies and using their documents to inform policy. "None of his statements, none of his rebuttals, address that concern. "What we need is some transparency — some actual evidence showing that these allegations that have been put forth in the documents don't stand, and that's not what he's been able to provide. "I think he really needs to be held to account here." She said Mr Peters' instinctive response was "attack is the best defence". "I think there's actually a real question about integrity of the political process here, and what people want to feel is that politicians are acting in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company." Prof Hoek said the "discrepancy" was further decreasing trust in the government, and called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to assert some leadership and removed the tobacco and vaping portfolio from NZ First, and entrust it to a politician without alleged links to tobacco giants. "We know that tobacco companies operate in the shadows by lobbying politicians. "What these documents reveal are claims that tobacco companies are not just lobbying, they are writing policy. "The New Zealand public will be disgusted to learn that is how the party that should be promoting public health is allegedly behaving." Fellow Aspire co-director Prof Richard Edwards said the repeal of New Zealand's world-leading smokefree legislation prompted a huge outcry from communities affected by smoking, health organisations, health professionals and public health experts. "The repeal raised questions about influence of the tobacco industry. "Subsequent industry-friendly policies like tax cuts for heated tobacco products only increased those concerns, and the recent revelations of close links between NZ First and Philip Morris suggest these concerns were well-founded." He called for the urgent reintroduction of the repealed measures, which were very likely to rapidly reduce the enormous harm from smoking, and protect future generations from smoking. Asked to respond to the accusations, a spokesman for Mr Peters pointed to a social media post online. In it, Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the "attempt to attack NZ First is old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". He said multiple government departments had themselves proactively reached out to "big tobacco" for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation. He accused Radio NZ of being "clearly lefty biased", and their "bottom-of-the-barrel attack reporting" had caused New Zealanders to lose trust in them and switch to other stations. "The smokefree legislation that we implemented is working," he said. "New Zealand First is proud of the smokefree legislation, which is backed by Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH), that we have implemented and that we are still implementing."
