home » Why the Smithfield-H1N1 question matters

Why the Smithfield-H1N1 question matters

by Paula | 27 April 2009 | permalink | comments
Tags: disease, globalization
Email this article

I’ve been watching the Smithfield/H1N1 story develop in the blogosphere since Tom Philpott over at Grist first wrote about it on Saturday. A number of valid criticisms have come up in blog posts and in comments that I think warrant discussion, so I want to take a few minutes to address those.

First, a quick note about my political views. One of the more common criticisms I’ve seen is that the Smithfield-H1N1 question is simply a means for liberals to attack business. This may be motivation for some folks, I can’t say; for myself however, I’m about as pro-business as you’re going to find anywhere. I don’t have any ideological issues with businesses growing up to become vast corporations; no qualms whatever about market economics; I think money is fascinating and I want a great deal of it. I think being a venture capitalist would be the coolest job in the world.

That being said I am also deeply pragmatic. I studied science journalism and technical communications as an undergrad at Penn State, so my view of things is much informed by science and technical issues that frequently escape notice. The fact is, consolidation of the global food supply is a phenomenally bad idea from every perspective imaginable, even that of short-term profits. With over $12 billion in annual revenues, Smithfield is the largest producer of pork and pork products in the world, and is therefore the central force behind consolidation of the global pork supply. Smithfield’s actions and inactions reverberate throughout the entire global food industry; the company’s operations are so enormous that even its small missteps can impact countless people around the world. How the company handles responses to the Mexican press, bloggers, and data aggregators such as Veratect is very much worth watching.

Criticism: flies can’t transmit the H1N1 swine influenza virus, and therefore it’s impossible that Smithfield’s hog operations in Mexico, run by its subsidiary Granjas Carroll, might be responsible for the outbreak.

Response: some background science

The H1N1 swine influenza virus is a subtype of Influenza-A virus. Influenza-A viruses infect several species of mammals, including humans, pigs, and birds. Pigs in particular are capable of contracting Influenza-A viruses that are normally associated only with birds, only with humans, and only with swine. When Influenza-A viruses commingle within a herd of pigs, they can share genetic information and mutate into a new strain that can be passed from human to human.

This appears to be what has happened with the latest H1N1 outbreak. It contains genetic material from bird, swine, and human influenza viruses and is capable of passing from human to human.

One of the ways Influenza-A viruses can spread is through manure. Given that H1N1 is an Influenza-A subtype it is entirely possible, if not likely, that flies could carry virus-containing manure particles from Granjas-Carroll CAFO lagoons to people. These need not be injected by the flies directly into humans, such as with West Nile Virus; it is enough that a fly might deposit manure particles containing the virus on a person’s face, hands, or uncooked food.

Please note that this is not merely speculation. Again, quoting the Biosurveillance outbreak timeline:

[A] municipal health official stated that preliminary investigations indicated that the disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to the pig farms.

Just in case that didn’t quite sink in: official investigations thus far into the origin of the swine flu outbreak point to Granjas-Carroll CAFO operations as the source of the virus, and that flies carried it from infected manure to humans. This is most certainly newsworthy information. That little tidbit contains more credibility than half the crap that passes as “news” on cable. What is still required is independent confirmation that this is or is not the case.

Criticism: this is just a way for liberal bloggers to try to bring down a good company like Smithfield.

Response: the issues here lean heavily toward conservative concerns and I’m a little surprised the conservative blogosphere didn’t pick it up first.

Primarily, Smithfield’s Granjas-Carroll operations in Mexico represent a major national security threat to the United States. Given the trade agreements between the United States and Mexico that allow goods to flow back and forth across the border almost completely unimpeded, it stands to reason that any reservoir of infectious disease in Mexico will almost certainly find its way to the US.

(And please note that this is not an illegal immigration matter — so far all the reported cases of H1N1 in the United States revolve around American citizens who’ve traveled to Mexico. In my opinion it seems unlikely that illegal immigrants crossing the border could bring the disease here: they would get sick before they ever reached US soil, and even if they did cross the border infected, they tend to stick together in their own communities.)

Moreover, the H1N1 outbreak is a perfect blueprint for anyone with malicious intent and access to a basement lab. Can’t get your designer disease across the US border? No problem! Just take it to Mexico and let American-owned subsidiary CAFOs do the rest. With progress on the Trans-Texas Corridor moving ahead, albeit in a toned-down and modified manner, this should scare the bejeezus out of everyone.

From this perspective it is critically important to identify whether Smithfield’s Granjas-Carroll operations are the source of the H1N1 virus. If they are it would be a case study in potential asymmetrical warfare acts against US interests that can fly totally under the radar, since actors need not even come in contact with any Americans or enter American territory.

Smithfield’s actions also impact business in general — especially if the H1N1 outbreak resulted from a subsidiary’s Mexican CAFOs operating at a lower level of sanitation than their American counterparts. The value of Smithfield stock will plunge, as will the stocks of any public company with Mexican CAFOs under its umbrella. This is pretty much the last thing markets need right now.

If Smithfield — or some other company — doesn’t take the fall on this, it has the potential to create food price inflation by effectively disappearing pork products from consumers’ shopping lists. This scenario would collapse pork prices and drive many hog farms out of business; simultaneously, demand would increase for alternative products as shoppers turn to them en masse, driving up prices across the board. Americans simply cannot afford to absorb the financial consequences of yet another big company’s irresponsibility, be it Smithfield or anyone else.

Criticism: passing along this information is irresponsible, since a definitive link between H1N1 and Smithfield has not yet been established.

Response: not passing it along is even more irresponsible. If the public does not pressure authorities to investigate Smithfield’s Granjas-Carroll operations, it won’t get done; conversely, if Smithfield does not pressure authorities to clear its name, it won’t get done.

Either way, the public is the clear winner on all fronts: environmental, security, financial & business, and health. In the long term, my hope is that this outbreak will wake people up to the fact that consolidating the global food supply is profoundly stupid. Decentralizing the food supply — that is, creating a business climate conducive to the establishment of small and medium-sized farms, processing operations, and packaging centers scattered across the landscape would satisfy the concerns of both the environmental left and the security & business oriented right. It would form the basis of local and regional economic systems that are more resilient against the busts and booms of globalization, and it would put a whole lot of willing people back to work.

As far as I’m concerned, this is the central issue inherent in the Smithfield-H1N1 question. If anything should cause the public to question the wisdom of consolidating the global food supply, this would be it.

comments

Name	Remember
E-mail
Website
Message	Textile Help