The perceived need for livestock mRNA vaccines - a symptom of a much larger problem

mRNA vaccines for cattle create controversy

The anticipated use of mRNA vaccines in livestock, particularly by farmers who operate CAFOs (confined/concentrated animal feeding operations), has garnered opposition among independent cattle farmers and producers of beef products who are committed to providing their customers with beef (and dairy) from animals whose health has been assured by more natural and holistic farming methods, as Frontline News reported here and here. Even farmers who use traditional vaccines for their animals are against using mRNA vaccines.

The unknown health impact that mRNA vaccines for livestock would have on humans is a concern of those questioning the technology. Tri-State Livestock News journalist Denice Rackley quotes DVM (doctor of veterinary medicine) and chairman of R-CALF USA’s animal health committee Dr. R.M. Thornsberry:

We just can not [sic] say how the modified proteins and lipid shell are impacting people. Would these things stick around in animals and end up in the meat and milk of animals, we don’t know.

Thornsberry also raised the issue of foreign meat, potentially mRNA-tainted, that the US imports. Imported meat minimally processed in the US is allowed to bear a “Product of the USA” stamp. Therefore, he said, there is an urgent need for Congress to pass laws requiring country-of-origin labeling.[fn]A proposed rule change to the Food Safety and Inspections Service may help to enable proper country-of-origin labeling and enable transparency. FSIS 2022-0015-0001 would stop the current policy of allowing imported meat, which has been minimally processed in the US, to be packaged as a “Product of the USA”.  

As it stands now, [Home Place Pastures informed its customers] the policy allows companies (i.e. multinational meat conglomerates with international supply chains) to import cheaper meat from other countries, minimally reprocess and repackage it in the USA . . ., and label it as “Product of the USA”.

. . .  

It only benefits the very same massive meat conglomerates who consumers attempt to avoid by buying grass fed! They are also the only people who lobbied for this rule and currently defend it, because they are the only beneficiaries. [/fn]

The US Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) addresses these concerns. A USCA spokesman, as quoted by Rackley, explains:

Currently, there are no mRNA vaccines licensed for beef cattle in the U.S. Since little is known about the technology, our organization will be forming a task force to develop a fact- and science-based assessment of the issue. We invite all members of the beef supply chain to participate in these discussions and look forward to identifying ways through legislation, regulation, or voluntary measures to increase transparency in the development and application of livestock vaccines and other gene therapies.

Big Agra’s quick support for mRNA vaccines for livestock, even as the FDA has yet to approve their use, mimics the very quick support given for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for human beings before they were EUA-approved. This was obvious by the response that vested interests had to a Missouri Bill that would have required labeling of any food product that was a “potential gene therapy,” as Frontline News reported.

The Big Pharma – Big Agra relationship

It began with antibiotics

Big Pharma and Big Agra joined hands in 1950 when it was discovered that adding antibiotics to animal feed increased animal growth and was more cost effective than traditional methods. Pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Pfizer, and American Cyanamide (no longer in business) worked hand in hand with farmers, primarily those running control CAFOs, to provide antibiotics to farmers.

Today, we are all well aware of the drug resistance that humans face because of the overuse of antibiotics, most of which stems from their use in agriculture; the profit motive makes it very difficult to disentangle the two. The problem with antibiotic resistance could have been prevented before it had even begun if contemporaneous research by Japanese scientists had not been overshadowed by the thrill of discovering the benefit of antibiotics in animal feed which could help them better meet consumer demand. Japanese scientists who studied the repeated exposure of bacteria to antibiotics found that it caused them to become resistant to the very drugs that were supposed to kill them. Farmers and Big Pharma were not so interested in that information, however. 

Arturo Jose Garcia writing on Medium explains:

It's easy to understand why these two industries have so much influence. We rely on medications and food to survive. The unfettered quest for growth has gone unchecked, putting company profits above human, animal, and environmental health. Knowing that 70% of antibiotic use in the United States goes to farm animals, it's not hard to realize it would never be in a pharmaceutical company's interest to decrease their usage. At least not under how our current economic system operates. (Emphasis added.)

Despite the growing realization that bacteria were developing antibiotic resistance and despite the potential catastrophe this may be for human beings, not much has changed. Bills brought before Congress to curb antibiotic use were voted down due to Big Pharma and Big Agra’s joint efforts. Garcia states:

In 2013 and 2014, when three bills were presented, all of which would tighten restrictions on the use of antibiotics, they were met with fierce opposition. "Pharmaceutical companies . . . spent at least $14.3 million lobbying Congress." Adding to the mounting opposition, the agricultural sector chipped in an additional $9.2 million. It was further reported that Health Committee members (House Energy and Commerce) had received a total of $73,500 in contributions from several leading agricultural groups. Unsurprisingly, the bills went nowhere.

. . .

By 2050 some researchers have estimated that AMR [antimicrobial resistance] could lead to the death of 10 million people annually.

The FDA reported in November 2013 that farmers were being asked to voluntarily phase out the use of certain antibiotics, calling it “the fastest, most efficient way to make these changes.”

The symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma and Big Agra enables both industries to continue to endanger animals, consumers, and the environment for their own profit.

University of Glasgow Lord Kelvin Adam Smith Research Fellow in the Social Sciences Richard Twine analyzed this relationship in his 2013 paper about the animal-industrial complex. As summarized by Faunalytics Content Director Karol Orzechowski, Twine states:

Many of the companies that make animal health products are subdivisions of large transnational companies such as Pfizer and Eli Lily, and this output on average accounts for 6-7 percent of their massive annual revenues. Overall, the animal health sector is growing by about 8.3%. Set against this context, Twine explains that, “even with medication and vaccination, disease is a constant problem on the farm. […] It is significant that the incidence of disease may be exacerbated by methods of farming and often drugs are administered to animals to treat what are in effect “production-related diseases” such as mastitis. The relationship between animal health companies and intensive farming can be seen as mutually sustaining.” (Emphasis added.)

How it continues – with vaccines

CAFOs also depend on vaccines to mitigate disease among the animals, diseases directly caused by their confinement in small spaces without adequate hygiene, access to vegetation, or freedom of movement.

One of many who wash away the public’s concern about mRNA vaccines being introduced in the food supply is AG Web writer Paige Carlson. She presents the value of mRNA vaccines and their presumed safety profile for use in livestock similarly to the way they were presented for human use, claiming that it will not negatively affect the people who will consume them. Carlson quotes University of Florida Molecular Biologist, Professor Dr. Kevin Folta who wants to convince people that mRNA vaccines are a safe and cost-effective means of protecting animals which will bring down the price of food:

To have affordable food, we need to have continual innovation in the animal, medical, [and] veterinary space and mRNA vaccines are safe and an effective way to treat the animal that does not change the final product.”

Another problem that agribusiness is hoping to solve with mRNA vaccines, Livestock News’s Rackley pointed out, is that

[w]hile these traditionally manufactured vaccines have worked well for most animal pathogens, there are some diseases, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), hoof and mouth disease virus, H5N1 influenza, and African swine fever virus, that remain a threat because no vaccine has been effective.

This is where mRNA vaccines could prove especially useful.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The vast majority of South American countries have been free of 
foot-and-mouth disease for more than ten years.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Lack of effective vaccines is claimed to be the reason several diseases are still a problem, Rackley opines, yet plenty of other countries no longer face these problems. For instance, foot-and-mouth disease has been practically eliminated in South America with and without vaccines. PAHO (Pan American Health Organization) reported in September 2022 that

[t]he vast majority of South American countries have been free of foot-and-mouth disease for more than ten years. The last reported outbreaks of the disease occurred in 2017 and 2018 in Colombia, and were presumably associated with illegal introductions of animals at the border with Venezuela, a country that, although it has not reported new cases since 2013, has not yet been declared free of FMD nor has it ruled out the existence of viral transmission in its cattle population. Colombia was again declared free of FMD with vaccination in 2020.

Putting an end to foot-and-mouth disease requires strengthening actions in territories that are not yet free of the disease and in border areas where there is a risk of transmission," [Director of the Rio de Janeiro-based Pan American Center for Foot and Mouth Disease (Panaftosa) of the PAHO Ottorino] Cosivi remarked. "To achieve eradication as a region, it is also necessary that countries that use vaccines can remain free of disease when vaccines are no longer used" . . . (Emphasis added.)

If South America could do it without mRNA vaccines, why won’t the US? Clearly it is not a matter of finding a way but of will. 

Market Statistics

Growth of the global livestock vaccines market, as forecasted Fortune Business Insights, will increase to $8.53 billion in 2030, up from $5.73 billion in 2023.

Projected growth for the North American vaccine market is shown in Insights’ graph below.  

Many of the same issues used to promote vaccines for the human population, Insights identified as factors it believes will affect the livestock vaccine market, such as an expected rise in zoonotic diseases. [Zoonotic diseases are an alarming direct consequence of raising livestock in CAFOs.[fn]The increase in zoonotic diseases is not natural, as this research paper in the journal Frontiers of Microbiology reveals: 

The congregation of susceptible animals in CAFOs can lead to heavy environmental contamination with pathogens, promoting the emergence of hyper-transmissible, and virulent pathogens. As a result, CAFOs have been associated with emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, hepatitis E virus, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Streptococcus suis, livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and Cryptosporidium parvum in farm animals. This has led to increased transmission of zoonotic pathogens in humans and changes in disease patterns in general communities. (Emphasis added)[/fn] 

Vaccine failure and adverse events were downplayed, yet not overlooked. According to Insights:

The market for livestock vaccines is anticipated to experience significant growth over the forecast period. This is due to the increasing occurrence of zoonotic diseases and the growing awareness related to animal health. Zoonotic disease, which can be transmitted from animals to humans, have become a major concern due to their potential to cause outbreaks and public health emergencies.

. . .

 In addition, the rising awareness amongst livestock owners and farmers about the importance of health care for the animals is expected to contribute to the market growth. Moreover, governments are implementing supportive initiatives and regulations to control zoonotic diseases and promote vaccination [of] livestock populations. These factors are anticipated to boost the adoption of livestock vaccines. 

. . .  

Adverse effects associated with vaccines might hamper the market growth

[V]accine failures and adverse effects, can hamper the trust of animal owners to use the vaccination for their livestock animals. This may happen for the market growth during the forecast period.

Various articles and studies have demonstrated the adverse reactions of vaccination and livestock animals such as cattle, poultry, and porcine . . .  Such events of vaccine failure [are] expected to lead to a lower adoption of vaccines amongst the animal owners during the forecast period.

Worldwide projected vaccine revenue for adults and children, as forecasted by Statista (image below), shows an almost 44% increase by 2028 from its pre-pandemic value of $33.41 billion. Livestock vaccine revenue, projected to grow by almost 49% by 2030, represents almost 10% of global vaccine revenue.

Can it end?

The unholy alliance between Big Pharma and Big Agra and the never-ending debate about antibiotic use in animal feed, historian Maureen Ogle writing for Scientific American emphasized, requires a different sort of solution to encourage farmers to reduce antibiotic use. Her proposal:

Science being what it is, it’s possible that scientists and citizens alike may never agree about the links between antibiotics in feed and bacterial resistance in humans. So perhaps it’s time to focus the antibiotics debate on a different set of questions. Would a ban on antibiotics in livestock feed lead to higher prices for meat? How much price pain are consumers willing to accept? In the wake of a ban, would farmers earn a fair return for their livestock? Until and unless we wrangle with such questions, it’s likely that the debate will continue.

The alternative to antibiotics, according to the USDA (see caption under photo), is vaccines, which is why vaccines are permitted in organic farming.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Is it enough to simply advocate for the reduced or eliminated use of antibiotics in agriculture, 

without also questioning the economic power behind the companies involved?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rainbow Ranch Farms practices a totally holistic approach to raising animals. They understand why farmers would use vaccines:[fn]See Rainbow Ranch’s website for their perspective on how to grow and maintain healthy herds, their discussion of vaccines, and vaccines in the commercial food supply.[/fn]

I've discovered that using a holistic and vaccine-free approach for prevention and mitigating risks in livestock is quite costly and time consuming. I understand why it's not generally practiced.

The crux of the issue may be CAFOs. As Rainbow Ranch explains: 

I don't have delusions of becoming a massive ranching or farming operation or becoming part of the mainstream.

Concentrated animal feeding operations. Unless enough pressure is put on farmers to raise animals in a more natural and holistic manner, the need for antibiotics and vaccines may well increase. Animals, like people, crowded together in unhygienic conditions, without the ability to move freely or eat their natural diet, will never be healthy.

Twine’s conclusion, as highlighted by Orzechowski, sums it up best: 

Is it enough to simply advocate for the reduced or eliminated use of antibiotics in agriculture, without also questioning the economic power behind the companies involved?

Related articles:

mRNA steak anyone? – Commentary

You CAN say 'no' to Big Agra, Big Pharma, and their mRNA beef: Commentary