The price of cheap chicken is bird flu

[John Whiting]

Dr. Wendy Orent argues in the L.A. Times that bird flu started in Italy in the 19th century and that migratory birds are its victims, not its spreaders.

According to Earl Brown, a University of Ottawa flu virologist, lethal bird flu is entirely man-made, first evolving in commercially produced poultry in Italy in 1878. The highly pathogenic H5N1 is descended from a strain that first appeared in Scotland in 1959.... Somehow, the virus that arose in Scotland found its way to China, where, as H5N1, it has been raging for more than a decade.

Edited March 14, 2006 by John Whiting (log)

[JohnL]

Dr. Wendy Orent argues in the  L.A. Times that bird flu started in Italy in the 19th century and that migratory birds are its victims, not its spreaders.

According to Earl Brown, a University of Ottawa flu virologist, lethal bird flu is entirely man-made, first evolving in commercially produced poultry in Italy in 1878. The highly pathogenic H5N1 is descended from a strain that first appeared in Scotland in 1959.... Somehow, the virus that arose in Scotland found its way to China, where, as H5N1, it has been raging for more than a decade.

←

This is an interesting "theory."

I agree that it is important that scientists explore the origins of diseases like bird flu.

This is an important step in understanding and eradicating these problems.

However,

This piece ran appropriately on the op ed page.

It is opinion.

The author is seeking to assess blame to make a case.

fair enough but I couldn't help but think this effort is akin to:

"Automobiles responsible for 40,000 fatalities each year"

Industrial age and GM to blame!

I am just a hopeless sceptic!

[John Whiting]

The author is seeking to assess blame to make a case.

fair enough but I couldn't help but think this effort is akin to:

"Automobiles responsible for 40,000 fatalities each year"

Industrial age and GM to blame!

←

Your example reduces the argument to an absurdity that Dr. Orent was not guilty of. It's like comparing global warming theorists to alien invader nuts.

Be sceptical by all means, but choose your subjects with care. A lot of anti-Pasteur sceptics died from not washing their hands.

I too am a John L--I could be your alter ego advising caution!

[Adam Balic]

One has to wonder how intensive chicken farming was in 1878 and how avian influenza virus was identified to such a precise temporal and geographic point.

H5N1 was first identified from an Aberdeen chicken, from the 1959 outbreak, but this is a very different thing to saying it 'lethal bird flu entirely man-made'. I can imagine that birds have been dropping dead from flu now and again for some time.

That high stocking levels and large human populations makes pandemics a more likely prospect is not really an issue either.

High population densities will result in increase diesase outcomes, not sure that this is such a surprise. The emphasis of the article is that wild birds are not to blame, but rather high stock levels. To be honest I doubt that there is such a black and white distinction between one possible source and another, it's more likely that they are inter-related. The fact that some peasants overreacted and killed some geese (from their statements and actions, the 'killing them due to flu' sounds slight dodgy), doesn't mean that national goverments are going start topping wild animals as some sort of scapegoat for these man-made issues (excepting the Canadian gov., obviously).

[John Whiting]

To be honest I doubt that there is such a black and white distinction between one possible source and another, it's more likely that they are inter-related.

←

As indeed is the case with virtually every natural disaster. Burgeoning population density is not the sole cause of world crisis, but it can be the triggering impetus to all sorts of negative events from mass starvation to global warming. I would not expect barns crammed full of chickens to be a more salubrious environment than slums teeming with the poverty-stricken.

[docsconz]

The irony here is that the population of birds that appears to be at greatest risk right now is that of the free range flocks. There can be no question that modern poultry raising practices have contributed to this and other diseases.

[mizducky]

I've been researching and writing website articles about bird flu for the past couple of years now. IMO the article cited above does put an extremist spin on things (I had to re-read a couple of passages because I found phrases like "man-made" so misleading). But under the hyperbolic language is some serious stuff to ponder.

It is in fact a well-accepted concept--not just among the experts cited in this article, but generally--that this latest evolution of the bird flu virus from a modestly lethal-to-birds version to a virulently fatal-to-birds form was vastly accellerated by large quantities of birds breeding in close quarters.

But that's just classic biological wisdom--the more bazillions of generations of microbes produced, and the more opportunities they have to re-assort their DNA across strains, the greater the odds that, sooner or later, one microbe is going to hit the slot-machine jackpot of the right bits of genetic code to totally foil a critter's immune system.

There's additional issues, of course (including H5N1 having an especially strong tendency to DNA transcription errors, a significant generator of genetic mutations). But as to crowding of critters as a culprit in this situation, my reading of the science news feeds is that there really isn't a whole lot of doubt about that. Certainly the carrying of virus by migrating birds can't be helping matters, and that does mean outdoor "free-range" flocks of domestic birds are therefore also at risk, but the actual genetic incubators of the virus, where the bug just chugs along reproducing and rolling the genetic dice and hoping for that killer combination, are those large concentrations of poultry (whether in factory-farms, or traditional farms, or what have you--but as factory farms have almost by definition much larger bird populations than traditional farms, well, you do the math.)

On the other hand, the scenario the experts are really dreading--that the virus mutates sufficiently to be passable not just from birds to humans, but human-to-human--is additionally accellerated by people living and working in close proximity to live birds--as in all poultry farms, but especially in cultures where people keep household flocks of poultry and live with their birds 24/7, such as in many poorer commuities in Asia. The scenario goes like this: some creature that's capable of being infected both by bird flu virus and human flu virus (not even necessarily a human--pigs, for instance, supposedly can get both too)--gets infected by both virii simultaneously. The two strains of virus start doing their multiply-and-reassort thang, and somehow a bird-flu and human-flu virus get together and reassort in just the right way to produce a viable hybrid that combines the easy human-to-human contagiousness of the one with the virulence of the other--uh oh! A long shot, but like I said, the more opportunities the virii have to play together, the more opportunities for the killer combo to arise.

In fact, a similar scenario has been posited for the rising of the Spanish Flu bird-flu virus. Remember, it was the early 1900s. Lots and lots of people around the world--including in Europe and the US--lived on farms and kept poultry for their own subsistence. Hell--the armies fighting World War I all traveled with stocks of live poultry to feed the troops--and there were some king-hell outbreaks of that flu among said troops. And with the opportunity, time, and a little anti-Las-Vegas luck, the combination was hit and the Spanish flu virus was off and rolling.

[JohnL]

The author is seeking to assess blame to make a case.

fair enough but I couldn't help but think this effort is akin to:

"Automobiles responsible for 40,000 fatalities each year"

Industrial age and GM to blame!

←

Your example reduces the argument to an absurdity that Dr. Orent was not guilty of. It's like comparing global warming theorists to alien invader nuts.

Be sceptical by all means, but choose your subjects with care. A lot of anti-Pasteur sceptics died from not washing their hands.

I too am a John L--I could be your alter ego advising caution!

←

Well--John L!

The piece itself was mostly interesting and informative.

I actually admire Ms Orent who has done some fine writing on epidemics.

I have a problem with its conclusion (basically the last paragraph).

In fact it is the paper (or Dr Orent) who reduce things to an absurdity--the very headline: "The Price Of Cheap Chicken Is Bird Flu" --gets us off to a "flying" start.

Common sense tells one that there would be consequences to every action--both good and bad.

As other posters here in this thread have pointed out--it is nothing new that epidemics of any sort are worsened by large populations of anything--man or beast--living in close proximity to one another.

The author takes some scientific theories and-- as mizducky in her excellent post here notes: "puts an extremist spin on..."

Basically the author is making a point: that commercial poultry operations are at fault and thus we were better off if all poultry was raised in small backyard flocks.

Once again the irony --man and his foolishness in messing with mother nature backfires--as utilized by thousands of science fiction novels and movies!

Ms Orent is using science to advance a political view point--the paper correctly places her piece --as I noted earlier--on the op-ed page.

I believe my comparison is more than applicable--when one boils down Ms Orent's piece to the message it is delivering. That message is simplistic and silly.

It contains no reasonable thought on possible solutions to the problem--even if one accepts her rather shaky thesis-- other than," we must learn from history and not repeat our mistakes."

We are not going back to "backyard flocks" and the poor will remain poor regardless of the availability of poultry.

Commercial poultry production like it or not-- is here to stay--we can and should certainly look to improve it and make it safe (yes for us and for migratory fowl) and better.

Most all innovations replace one set of problems with another, so what else is new--hopefully the benefits outweigh the problems--in most cases I would argue they do.

We have serious problems at hand (we always will--we are not perfect, after all) pointing fingers and chortling about the "irony" will not help with solutions.

[docsconz]

We have serious problems at hand (we always will--we are not perfect, after all) pointing fingers and chortling about the "irony" will not help with solutions.

←

Who is "chortling" about anything?

[Adam Balic]

I was at a seminar last year where the president of the German Immunological society was speaking on bird flu. At this stage there were no outbreaks in Europe, but a lot of monitoring had taken place. Interestingly there were a great cluster of case on the Russian border in central asia (as there was no monitoring in central Asia itself, the only way to working out how widespread the virus was in these areas was by watching borders). These clusters outbreaks in cenral asia are occurng in regions were there isn't and has't been intensive poultry farms - but it is on the major migratory bird flight path.

Virology isn't my thing (thank Christ), but several things seem entirely logical to me.

- Bird flu has been present in bird populations for a long time

- You are likely to detect virulent strains more readily in domestic birds as not body has taken much notice of of dead wild birds really (until now) - The 1959 Scottish outbreak would seem to fall into this catagorie.

- lots of birds together will result in more rapid spread and potentially mutation rate of the virus

- we have more chickens in the world now, so therefore virus pandemics are more likely.

But, I'm also pretty sure that birds raised as free range are just as likley to be infected as much more intensively raised birds. I think that it is biomass, rather then how humane the husbandry conditions are that are the issue.

I hate the way that the issue of animal welfare and product quality are ignored in the UK when it comes to chickens (if anything demostrates that the 'food revolution' in the UK is mostly bullshit, then this is it) and are a complete bore about it, but even if all the poultry farms in the UK changed to humane free range etc, this is not going to effect the likelihood of developing pathogenic viruses I would think.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Adam Balic (log)

[JohnL]

We have serious problems at hand (we always will--we are not perfect, after all) pointing fingers and chortling about the "irony" will not help with solutions.

←

Who is "chortling" about anything?

←

Ms Orent.

That's my impression of her tone--at the end of her piece.

Her tone changed from one soberly offering an interesting theory based

upon some scientific data to one wagging a finger and musing over "ironies."

I don't mind folks preaching or talking about how life was so much better in the old days

but lately a lot of folks have been using science in their sermons and well...

gets my dander up--ya know puts me in a fowl mood.

I do applaud the paper for putting this very opinionated piece on the op ed page so I certainly have no complaints--just some observations and disagreements of my own!

[John Whiting]

But as to crowding of critters as a culprit in this situation, my reading of the science news feeds is that there really isn't a whole lot of doubt about that.

←

Exactly. It's one of the side effects of our "ten-thousand-year experiment called agriculture", as Ronald Wright explains in A Brief History of Progress:

The invention of agriculture is itself a runaway train, leading to vastly expanded populations but seldom solving the food problem.

It's unwise to dismiss such analysts as Ronald Wright or Wendy Orent as prophets of doom bearing a political message because they don't offer solutions. (For that matter, solutions to mass survival problems are ineluctibly "political".) If they merely make us aware of global threats about which the human race is collectively in a state of invincible denial, they will have performed a very real service.

[JohnL]

But as to crowding of critters as a culprit in this situation, my reading of the science news feeds is that there really isn't a whole lot of doubt about that.

←

Exactly. It's one of the side effects of our "ten-thousand-year experiment called agriculture", as Ronald Wright explains in A Brief History of Progress:

The invention of agriculture is itself a runaway train, leading to vastly expanded populations but seldom solving the food problem.

It's unwise to dismiss such analysts as Ronald Wright or Wendy Orent as prophets of doom bearing a political message because they don't offer solutions. (For that matter, solutions to mass survival problems are ineluctibly "political".) If they merely make us aware of global threats about which the human race is collectively in a state of invincible denial, they will have performed a very real service.

←

We could have a wonderful debate about all this--but here is not the best place for it I fear.

as for Wendy Orent--she has actually been a voice of reason re: flu epidemics her politics aside.

Mr Wright is interesting to read, however his views are open to much debate. i would merely point out that not everyone agrees with his view of utopia and the "noble savage" and "progress" and that not very long ago we were inundated with cries of anguish over the great nuclear freeze that was coming!

seems we are doomed one way or the other--either by boiling or freezing--so I guess which one doesn't really matter.

humans are not perfect--we do need to be reminded of this from time to time.

So whether one has a bone to pick with the industrial poultry business or applauds the many benefits of "cheap chicken" we still have problems and yes we will create new problems with our solutions--However, I am a glass is half full guy and I would rather be alive today than in the nineteenth century or the seventeenth or....

I come to this conclusion after some thought and balancing the pros and cons--I am optimistic for the future because as much bad and evil are within human beings there is much good. in the end we just try to do the best we can.