Fingering Swine Flu

what can be done about overuse of antibiotics in human food chains?

Hmm...if a bicycle is ridden with too much air in the tire the tire will show increased wear and a solution may be to reduce the air pressure a little at a time until a desired performance level is attained.

How can CAFOs be rendered more environmentally benign?

Require social responsibility from CEO down the corporate ladder.

Those who overused antibiotics will see their clieentele decrease and the strong will survive.

People's nature to make a quick buck will never change

Hello,

I've been in Veracruz from march,30th till may, 7th (So I've been there while the initiation of the present swine flu problem). 3 hours ago I got a call from a Spanish laboratory telling me the results of the analysis made upon my arrival: No signs of flu virus. In the mean time I've been forced to rest at home.

During the time I've been in Veracruz, I didn't know anybody infected, nor knew about anybody who have any knowledge of someone infected.

I've watch in the Mexican TV the people blaming against that farm, but not being a medicine graduate...

How can the Veracruz containment ponds be the origin of the present problem and arise 450 km apart, in Mexico D.F.

I think the problem is being over magnified (I don't know why).

According to the last UNO/OMS data (updated 1 hour ago) the total infection cases in the world are 8480 (72 deaths). This weekend we've had 15 deaths in traffic accidents. What about cars prohibition?

Kind regards

The "regular" flu kills many, many more people than this "flu". I don't know why it was so popular in the news either, but it sure is one hell of a way to get more money out of Congress, don't ya think? What was it, 30 Billion the other day, they tacked on to the stimulus amount? I forget. Guess they forgot to include the money for "pandemic preparation" in the regular budget.

Congress is throwing your money (mine too) at any problem they can to deflect attention away from the fact that they dont have a clue about anything! So the fraudsters stand in line trying to come up with more and more ways to bilk the taxpayer. Love of Money is the root of all kinds of evil; but then I'm just quoting the Ultimate Source of knowledge.

WHO is using this as a test of their emergency management systems

I understand the cynicism about government spending. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the genuine risks of a pandemic. The scientific consensus is very strong that pandemic flu follows certain patterns and cycles and that, statistically, we are overdue for a bad one. It may or may not be this particular H1N1, but some sort of preparation is not a bad idea. Whether the preparation is adequate is another question.

There are a couple of cautionary facts that explain the continuing concern about this particular influenza. Historically, the worst pandemics of the last century appeared first as a mild flu in the spring, and returned as a much nastier flu with high mortality in the fall. The Spanish flu was also distinguished by having a high fatality rate in young adults - unlike the usual flu mortality affecting primarily the very old or infants. This pattern has been observed in the present H1N1. It can probably be explained by the (relatively rare) capability to affect the victim's corticosteroid balance in addition to the usual inflammatory pathways. Perhaps young adults have a more delicate balance in that department, which would explain their increased susceptibility.

A last caution about this H1N1 is its genetic makeup. The flu strains are characterized and named for two important features:: H hemaglutinin and N neuroaminidase. The scientists who sequenced the present flu have noted that there are significant mutations to both features compared with recent strains. If this indicates a high degree of specificity then the prompt preparation of a vaccine will be handy. If it indicates an unusually high rate of mutation, then we could be screwed in the vaccine department as well.

Antibiotics can't have caused the H1N1 outbreak: remember, viruses are not affected by antibiotics, just bacteria. On the other hand, when it comes to antibiotic resistant bacteria, the overuse of these drugs in agriculture is a major culprit.

As for getting antibiotics out of the food chain, the little answer is, every time you buy a meat product that is certified organic or "antibiotic-free" (eg PC's new line of "free-from" meat products), you are tipping the scales against these production methods.

Of course, if we wait long enough, the bacterial resistance problem will simply make the last of these drugs obsolete, even for agriculture. That'll stop em...

If you use what you learned in HS Biology you'll know a vaccine can not be produced either

The probability is very small that the swine flu outbreak has something to do with the 'factory farm-based' agriculture in Veracruz or anywhere else. Swine flu has been around for millenia and this is far from the first outbreak of swine flu in humans. Viruses mutate very quickly. Every so many years - without any help from these modern production methods, the virus mutates such that it can be spread to humans and spread through the air. This is simply another one of those cases. The containment ponds are also not likely sources for the human-infecting virus unless someone is drinking or washing in them as the pigs are not in it and the virus is spread pig to pig through sharing food troughs or being in eachothers waste. The 'confined animal feeding operation' actually makes the pigs environment far cleaner and also makes it far less likely that pigs will be able to get or spread the virus to other pigs or to humans.

If you want to find the source of swine flu, you need to look at smaller, more traditional pig farms.

As stated by others, the antibiotics also has nothing to do with the flu virus. They will not cause it or cure it. Even though the idea of antibiotics in our food is not particularly pleasant, there is a lot to be considered before the outright banishment of antibiotic use on food animals. The fact that there may be antibiotics in the meat is actually not harmful to you. The amount and the duration will not really affect you in any way unless you eat far too much meat to be healthy anyway. People worry about bacteria becoming resistant because of the antibiotics in the meat, but the only real threat of that is the bacteria that the swine have a problem with - not with the bacteria you have a problem with. Remember that sugar, honey, cheese and a host of other foods are either antibiotic in nature or naturally contain antibiotics. Are you going to stop eating cheese or honey? Also imagine that you are a farmer and one of your animals gets sick. It could be life threatening for the animal if left untreated. Would you give it an antibiotic? Of course you would. What if you are a farmer and a neighbors herd becomes infected and the illness is spreading to other neighboring farms. Lots of pigs at those farms are dying. Would you give antibiotics to your pigs if it meant they would remain healthy? Of course you would. If you knew that without giving your animals antibiotics that diseases similar to mad cow disease could potentially kill one or more of the people who eat the meat from one of your animals - would you not give the animal antibiotics? If it meant losing a significant percentage of all of the pigs across the country to bacteria caused illnesses every year and meat doubles or triples in price, wouldn't you be inclined to insist that the farmers give their animals antibiotics? So lets not get too excited about the antibiotic thing. There does need to be better controls or at least better education for the meat producers so that antibiotics are used only as needed and then wisely. However, banning their use would be an extreme over reaction and fool hardy.

I take issue with your statements that 1) "confined animal feeding operations" makes the pigs' environment cleaner, and 2) that the cause is the "smaller, more traditional pig farms". What you do there is to taint the ideas of someone unfamiliar to farming, and try to steer them in the opposite direction of where they need to go.

If I didn't know better, (which, actually, I don't) I'd say you are involved or employed in large agribusiness. I grew up on and around farms. We raised all sorts of livestock. We were self sufficient. I've also been unfortunate enough to be up close to "confined animal feeding operations", large stockyards whose sole purpose was to fatten up huge numbers of animals for slaughter. The numbers of animals placed into small areas for this purpose is amazing, and if anyone that reads this has ever seen one, they know it's far less healthy for the animal, and poses a far greater risk of the animals in transferrance of any illness that may be lurking. Nature hasn't the room to take care of itself in these environments. If you look at the contaminated food scares and outbreaks in the, well, past 100 years or more, the problems did not come from small farms, they came from large commercial growers. Growers either wholly owned by or contracted for operation by LARGE AGRIBUSINESSES.

Small farms tend to be more attentive, more clean, more room for each animal, and an experienced farmer knows when something isn't right with an animal, because they pay closer attention, and have a larger percentage of their income at stake. And PLEASE don't tell me about tagging, testing, segregation, treatment, etc. If you ARE in big agribusiness, you know as well as the nose on your face how they get pushed through.

As I said before, this flu is a relatively small problem, as the regular flu that we deal with every year kills many more people (thousands) than this "swine" version. Granted, it's bad for the people that got it, but shouldn't have been blown out of proportion the way it was. IMO, it was just a way to scare people, including politicians, into doling out more money.

It's no small secret to anyone who pays attention to the bills that agribusiness lobbyists push through congress, just what is trying to be done to small farmers, organic farms, farmers markets, and down to home gardens if they don't put in some language that excludes these sectors. People have been producing their own food on their own land for eons, and have healthier for it. So when someone comes along trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes about such things, I'm inclined to call "bullshit". And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Very true. I would also like to add that the large commercial growers inject growth hormones into their animals to achieve faster marketability, more milk production, etc.

In the case of milk production, this increase in milk supply from the cow causes the "teets" to become infected. What happens when you get an infected teet? It's gross, but, pus. Until they catch it, it gets into the milk. Then, when caught, the animal gets separated out to be treated with a regimine of strong antibiots until she can be put back on the line.

Large operations usually have their own feed growers, who use pesticides to increase yields. This gets fed to the animals, and along with the growth hormones and antibiotics, we have them to thank for a whole host of problems.

Certified organic is the way to go. Locally grown food, small organic farms, farmers markets and home gardening has no rival for healthful nutrition without all of those nasty things.

It's good to hear from people with first hand experience of animal farming. I've heard from others on CR4 with similar background to yours, that the confined feeding is generally a short term situation to fatten the animals before slaughter. What do you think is the future of CAFO's? Obviously this approach is increasing the profits, by adding weight (if not food value). Even though the demand for organic products is increasing, these operations have a very large market share. Is there a healthier approach to the CAFO scene, which might be adopted by big ag under consumer pressure? Or would the CAFO simply be impossible without the present drug-laden approach?

If you watch the movie "The Island", I think you will find the answer. The subject is Quarantine, and it is a method of controlling radicals in the population, by isolating and removing potential support from them. Once declared 'infected', everyone (who has the phobia of the contamination) will report the sightings/contacts of the 'infected' person, and direct the police to their capture, and involuntary treatment.

It is quite clearly another avenue of removing freedoms. beware any new laws that give expanded powers to medical 'containment' and 'quarantine' There does not need to be a disease, only the fear of disease. Swine flu is a social virus of the mind, not a physical one... aka FEAR.

Chris