How is a massive hog farms like an open box of oily rags stored near a furnace? Photo courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceAmid a trickle of news and science about swine flu over the past week, I’ve been rethinking my position on the novel H1N1 virus that has now infected millions of Americans (thankfully, so far, in a relatively benign way).
When I first began covering the story in April, I fixated on the question of origin. Had the new virus incubated in the vast hog confinements in Vera Cruz, Mexico? In a village near several large hog buildings there, a mysterious and virulent respiratory disease had broken out—and at least some of the cases were later confirmed have been infected with H1N1.
I still think it was right and proper to note the proximity between the CAFO and the outbreak. But now I think the focus on origins was wrong. Asking when and where this novel H1N1 strain mutated into present form is a bit like trying to identify the first mutant wolf pup that grew into a proper dog. In this context, origin is impossible to identify—and probably not that interesting.
The real question is, which of our practices are creating ideal conditions for the mutation of new swine-flu strains not recognized by human immune systems?
And once we identify those practices, we’d do well to phase them out. True, the current strain of H1N1 is behaving rather tamely—spreading fast but not causing much more damage than regular flu strains. And it has entered a phase of genetic stability—it hasn’t mutated much lately.
But what if it does begin to mutate—and new forms are more deadly, and resistant to Tamiflu? If and when it does begin to mutate, entire new vaccines will have to be generated—further straining a public health system already stretched to the limit by the current vaccine effort.
As anyone reading this already knows, I believe that concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) create excellent conditions for the mutation of new flu strains: thousands of genetically similar bodies living in close quarters, their immune systems compromised, swapping germs and occasionally coming into contact with human workers.
In its September issue, Environmental Health Perspectives ran an article called “Swine CAFOs and Novel H1N1 Flu: Separating Facts from Fears.” The article makes three main points: 1) that we’ll never know the precise origin of the current strain of swine flu that has caused a global pandemic; and 2) that CAFOs provide an excellent environment for the generation of new strains; and 3) that CAFOs operate under almost no oversight of public-health authorities.
The only current program for testing hog farms for the new H1N1 strain is voluntary—and CAFO operators are reportedly actively avoiding testing because they don’t want to risk losing their herds if an infection is found. And if operators do find H1N1 present, they’re encouraged but not required to report it.
Thus, given the incredibly slack nature of the oversight regime, no one can take comfort in the recent report of an H1N1 outbreak in an Indiana CAFO.
Or in the work of University of Arizona researcher Michael Worobey, who recently released research concluding that “This virus most likely has been circulating under the radar in pigs for the better part of 10 years.” In other words, not only is it currently appearing in CAFOs, but it’s been in CAFOs for a while, and only broke out into the human population this year.
Few people would knowingly store an open box of oily rags next to a furnace. Yet our meat-production system runs on just that kind of recklessness.
Why the USDA has no business overseeing conditions on factory farms, and more
Time for the mainstream media to face the factory farm-swine flu link
Comments
View as Flat
jonnyappleseed Posted 4:29 am
06 Nov 2009
And, unfortunately, the answer is: all practices. Its the real world - outdoor animals, indoor animals all get sick. Just like humans. The bacteria and viruses mutate, reproduce (its their job!) and animals get attacked. Are some situations 'worse' than others. Probably. However, we know that Mr Philpott is opposed to CAFOs, period. So, I would suggest to him that the real question is who should pay for changing these practices and how? Let me make one point very clear: raising animals at the producer level is not a business where you can just pass through or add on costs, especially mandated costs. When the government says to the auto industry you have to add seatbelts, airbags, etc. then this cost gets added to the price of your car. Doesn't work that way in farming. If the government says no layer cages, or no growth promotants or whatever, the cost of production will go up, but that does not mean the producer gets to recover those costs. So, the real question, restated, is how do we change the economics of food production so a producer can get paid properly. And, no, not even a Smithfield can just pass on all costs - the US consumer has demanded 'cheap' food. No, I don't think this is a government policy initiated by the government, I think that our own buying patterns prove that we want our protein and energy to be cheap, to take as little of our disposable income as possible, so the government hides some of these costs through subsidies so we think its cheap. We need transparency; we need to pay more. We can change the 'practices' that way.
Of course, maybe we should just license farmers...I mean we have exams and certification boards for dentists, electricians, welders, pharmacists....why shouldn't we require Mr Philpott to get a license for being a cook or chef, or for raising animals he sells to others or cooks for others? Isn't it interesting that we require proof of competency for other occupations, but not the most critical of all - the suppliers of our food? Just sayin'.
Permalink
MoFarmFamily Posted 8:26 am
06 Nov 2009
As for H1N1, it can not be passed through pork to the consumer. Which goes to say that if the meat is properly prepared you have no chance of getting sick. H1N1 is usually given to the pigs from humans, carrying the virus ,who come into contact with the pigs. Bio-security measures are set into place to help prevent such things from happening but not every employee will follow the rules.
Permalink
Former Ag Teacher Posted 4:35 pm
06 Nov 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:37 am
06 Nov 2009
The H1N1 flu is different in that it goes into viral pneumonia, and there is no defense against that except for Tamiflu, and it doesn't work all the time.
.
Here is some info from the CDC from 2003
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/h1n2qa.htm
--------
And this is what the CDC said about H1N1 in 2003.
3) HOW IS THIS VIRUS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER CURRENTLY CIRCULATING INFLUENZA A VIRUSES?
The H1N2 virus is not very different from the currently circulating influenza viruses. The H1 protein of the H1N2 virus is like the H1 protein of the currently circulating H1N1 viruses and the N2 protein is similar to the N2 protein in the currently circulating H3N2 viruses. The difference is that we don't commonly see the H1 and N2 proteins on the same virus. There has been no unusual increase in disease associated with this virus, and persons infected with the virus are expected to have influenza illness typical of A(H1N1) viruses.
4) IS THIS THE START OF A PANDEMIC?
No. A pandemic virus has to have a new hemagglutinin or a new hemagglutinin and neuraminidase protein on an influenza A virus that has not circulated among humans and to which most or all of the population has no protective antibodies. Because the H1N2 virus has the hemagglutinin of the currently circulating H1N1 virus and the neuraminidase of the currently circulating H3N2 virus, most people will have been exposed to and have antibodies against these viruses.
5) DOES THE A(H1N2) VIRUS CAUSE MORE SEVERE ILLNESS THAN OTHER INFLUENZA VIRUSES?
There is no information to suggest that the A(H1N2) virus is causing a more severe illness than other influenza viruses, and no unusual increases in influenza activity have been associated with the A(H1N2) virus. The pattern of illness seen with the A(H1N2) virus is expected to be similar to disease caused by A(H1N1) viruses. Influenza A(H1N1) viruses are seen more commonly among younger persons and can be associated with outbreaks among children, but do not frequently affect the elderly.
6) WILL THE INFLUENZA VACCINE I RECEIVED FOR THE 2003-04 INFLUENZA SEASON PROTECT ME FROM A(H1N2) VIRUSES?
Yes. Because both the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase protein on the A(H1N2) virus closely matches the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins of viruses included in the current influenza vaccine, the vaccine should provide good protection against influenza A(H1N2) virus as well as protection against the currently circulating A(H1N1), A(H3N2), and B viruses.
-------
They are also giving Rapid Tests for H1N1 to help decide whom to give the Tamiflu medication. But, the Rapid Tests have false positives much of the time and cannot tell the difference between the A viruses. People are paying $50 to $100 to get tested (or their insurance companies are) and it is a waste of money. It cannot help the patient in any way, and it is not reliable enough to give any information back to the CDC.
What I would like to know is why they are saying the H1N1 is new and according to the Center For Disease site, it was around in 2003.
Anyone care to clarify that?
Permalink
ghostlly Posted 11:06 am
10 Nov 2009
Permalink
starlatifah123 Posted 5:27 pm
12 Nov 2009
beat making software
beat maker software
Permalink