I stop at the end of the lane to retrieve the day’s mail and folded around the usual stack of bills is my latest issue of TIME magazine. Before driving into the farm I take a quick look at the cover. What’s this? A package of bright red hamburger is center stage with a label across the package: “WARNING: This hamburger may be hazardous to your health. Why the American food system is bad for our bodies, our economy, and our environment- and what some visionaries are trying to do about it.” Immediately below the package in huge bold print are the words “ The Real Cost of Cheap Food”, by Bryan Walsh, Time’s  “Energy and Climate” writer. My immediate thought is “Here we go – some pseudo- expert who knows next to nothing about agriculture, has decided to trash our way of life once again”. I read the article right then and there and my first impression is certainly correct!

Yep, it’s become as predictable as fall follows summer; someone is going to bash our farming systems, especially livestock production, on a regular basis. If we may digress for just a moment, do you remember a book that came out in 1993 entitled “ Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture” by Jeremy Rifkin? It was a ridiculous account of how every problem known to mankind could be traced back to the beef industry. I remember one reviewer stating, “This book doesn’t cite a single scientific reference, not even a bad one”! Well thankfully the public seemed to recognize nonsense when it saw it, the book was soon forgotten, and Mr. Rifkin has since moved on to criticize a number of other industries.

Now I can’t say for sure if Mr. Walsh read Mr. Rifkin’s book or not but it sure follows the same old issues of the book and other more recent condemnations like the “Food, Inc” movie currently making the rounds in theaters. All the usual tirades against animal agriculture that we have come to expect from the pseudo-experts are in the article- animal confinement and cruelty, meat laced with antibiotics, meat as the cause of our human obesity and other medical problems, farm animals causing global warming and cropland fertilization and use of animal manure polluting our waterways.

Now let’s be fair, no one could expect Mr. Walsh to be an expert in all things agricultural, right? But one would think that if you knew you needed more information you would search out a knowledgeable source, correct? Well apparently not if the goal is sell magazines!! Yes, Walsh reportedly approached the NCBA for their help a few days before the deadline and was given a half-dozen beef industry experts to interview and fact sheets on modern beef production. And what was the result of all this information that would have equipped him to objectively look at both sides of the issue? A dozen words from Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for NCBA, who refuted the development of antibiotic resistance in humans from their use in farm animals. That’s right, 12 total words in an article of seven pages!! When challenged in an interview by the AgriTalk radio station as to why he chose to ignore the other side of the story Mr. Walsh noted that “this is the story we decided to do and this is the angle we’ve been taking” and that Time magazine now will “allow the writer to look at it and make some of his own judgments’”. In other words, at Time magazine, there is no longer even a pretense of balanced reporting and truthfulness!

Understandably there have been many public comments on the article from various individuals and agricultural groups since this issue reached the public. The usual sentiments expressed are 1) the story is full of bias, half-truths, and outright lies; and 2) The once proud Time Magazine publication has decided it is no longer interested in balanced reporting of the news but rather in negative sensationalism that sells magazines regardless of the truth. It occurs to me the people of this country should consider a third viewpoint: Let’s be thankful we live in a country where the majority of our people can relax on full stomachs and take the time to criticize the hands that feed us!!! That’s a luxury much of the world doesn’t have! I suspect the estimated one billion people in the world who go to bed hungry have other priorities on their minds than finding fault with the most successful agricultural system in the history of mankind.

Is this to say, “All is well” in our food system and we must not question and continually re-evaluate it? Of course not! On the livestock side, there are obviously careless farmers out there who don’t properly care for their animals or land just as there are thousands of careless pet owners!  But overall, the system is working and most thinking individuals know it. Even Mr. Walsh admits in the article, “You’ve never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966”. Of course he presents that fact as a negative, i.e., we should pay a lot more for food by demanding it be produced “organically”!

The subtitle of the article proclaims in big bold print “America’s Food Crisis and How to Fix It”. So what are Mr. Walsh’s solutions to fix it all? All we have to do is 1. Have a lot more small farmers who produce organically, and 2. Eat more greens and less meat. He notes that organic methods can produce as much yield as conventional but will take far more labor, a good thing in times of scarce jobs. More farmers and more farm labor sounds good but does anyone really think we can feed the world by returning to pre-1950’s methods? And I wonder if Mr. Walsh has seriously tried to find competent farm laborers lately? Simple solutions to complex problems; what else would you expect from someone lacking the real facts?

I carefully reviewed the letters to the editor in the two issues that followed the one containing the article. I was surprised the tally was six letters supporting today’s farmers and only one agreeing with the “down with modern agriculture” emphasis of the piece. You would have to assume this is reflective of the overall response generated from the public; it’d hard to imagine Time would selectively print responses disagreeing with the article.

So perhaps there is hope after all that most reasonable Americans see through the opinionated one-sided reporting so prevalent in our press today.

Personally I’ve always had a fondness for that cap that was popular a few years back that was inscribed with the words “If you criticize farmers don’t talk with your mouth full”.

Note: First published in the November 2009 American Agriculturist magazine.

Much has been written about the “Food System” and how we should go about feeding the world.  To put “much” into context, I ran a Google search using the phrases “food systems” or food system; got 906,000 returns for the former and 759,000 returns for the latter phrase.

Why the keen interest in the food system?  One reason is that many scientists (including me) believe we need to apply science to make new discoveries in the food system that will help meet the food needs of the growing World population.  Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate, who passed away on September 12, 2009, and who is credited for launching the “Green Revolution” to feed the World was clear about this.  He passionately believed that science should be the most important tool to solve world hunger.

There is no dispute about the need to feed the world.  Many in society understand the scale of the challenge that lies ahead to feed 10 billion people by the year 2050.

The amount of food needed to feed the world over the next 40 years is equivalent to all the food that has been produced since our existence on this planet (see Metabolic Modifiers:  Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals; National Academies Press; 1994)!

Our ability to feed the world assumes that climatic conditions will not be problematic for food production.  This is not a “given”.  In addition, not many individuals champion the idea that more wildlife habitat or tropical rain forest be destroyed to plant crops.  And, there is the assumption that a targeted bioterrorism strike on the food system will not occur with the consequences of up-heaving food production.  The latter assumption is problematic.  For example, The Lugar Survey on Proliferation Threats and Responses (Senator Lugar, 2005) estimates the probability of a major biological terrorist attack in the United States in the next 10 years to be about 33%.

Another challenge to food production and distribution is the ever-present impact of geopolitical strife.

Collectively, these issues add additional challenges to the problem of feeding the world that looms ahead.

Other Challenges

The challenge of feeding the world is one with many elements that extend beyond the application of science.  Science is important but other factors loom large.  There is the question of what countries or international agencies are going to pay for developing the science or providing the food?

Another key question is:  Will the “have” countries (i.e, developed countries) share technologies that enhance food production with developing countries?  The historical record for this is not encouraging.  Moreover, there is the question of whether the technologies be provided for free or a fee?  If the former, who “covers” the cost of research and development, as well as commercial application? The fee-based approach is daunting given that developing countries and their farmers, in many instances, can not afford the technology.

Another issue that is not discussed much in the public media relates to how will the public respond to an event where food availability is limited in grocery stores in the United States?

You might ask how could this happen?  One way would be the intentional (and targeted) release of a plant or animal pathogen (or both) that has the potential to upheave the food system.  The economic cost of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 is a good example of the impact that could occur.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has published a report (Cost-Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies) that summarized the economic impact of the outbreak…it cost about $12.3 billion!

Beyond the economic impact of a possible disease outbreak on food production, is the question:  how will the American public respond to an situation where food availability is limited?  Not well.  There very likely will be a storm of public concern that reflects the extent of food shortages.  The degree to which the public is scared will determine to what extent the fabric of civil behavior tears.  Another reminder that in the absence of food security national security can not be attained.

DNA test results and other evidence have now established that an outbreak of illness involving at least 35 people, the majority children and teens, was linked to drinking unpasteurized milk. Wisconsin food safety officials are cautioning consumers not to drink raw milk and farmers not to sell it to the public.

“Laws requiring pasteurization of milk have been on the books for more than half a century, and there are good public health reasons for that,” said Steve Ingham, head of the Food Safety Division in the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection [DATCP].

“We have very compelling evidence linking these illnesses to drinking raw milk. This is the 3rd major outbreak in Wisconsin since 2001 that has been tied to raw milk consumption. That’s not to mention a number of smaller ones in which the link was strongly suspected, but patients were unwilling to identify farms that provided the milk. So far we’ve been fortunate that the infections have not been life-threatening, but raw milk is an inherently risky food and it can lead to other, more dangerous illnesses, including E. coli 0157:H7 infection.”

An epidemiologic investigation conducted by DATCP and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services has found 35 confirmed cases of Campylobacter jejuni infection, including 21 patients under age 18. One person was hospitalized. All the patients had consumed unpasteurized milk. 30 of the patients identified Zinniker Family Farm, Elkhorn, as the source of the raw milk. The farm sells raw milk through a “cow-share” program. 27 of the confirmed cases were in Walworth and Waukesha counties; the rest were in Racine and Kenosha counties.

Additional testing showed that the C. jejuni isolated from 25 of the patients, all linked to Zinniker Family Farm, had the same DNA fingerprint. Manure samples obtained directly from milking cows on that farm also tested positive for C. jejuni with the same DNA fingerprint. Manure on the cows’ udders or in the milking barn environment can contaminate milk. Pasteurization kills C. jejuni and other disease-causing bacteria in milk.

C. jejuni is a bacterium that causes symptoms including diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, nausea and vomiting. Rarely, an infection may lead to Guillain-Barre syndrome, a nervous system disease, which may require hospitalization and artificial respiration. This generally occurs after the initial symptoms have disappeared. The infection can be transmitted by consuming food contaminated by animal feces or handled by someone with the infection who has not adequately washed his/her hands after using the bathroom.

Milk samples from the farm taken after the initial outbreak did not test positive, which is not unusual, Ingham said. Cattle shed the bacteria intermittently, so the bacteria may not have been present when the samples were taken. Changes in sanitation procedures also could explain the absence of bacteria in later milk samples, he said.

Because Zinniker Family Farm sells milk to a defined customer list, there is little risk to the general public in this case. However, the outbreak should discourage consumers from joining “cow-share,” membership, or other similar arrangements to buy raw milk, and should discourage dairy producers from adopting such an arrangement for their farms, Ingham said.

“Selling raw milk to consumers is illegal in Wisconsin. Some farmers believe that such arrangements exempt them from the law. They are mistaken. The law says that owners may consume raw milk from their farms, but those owners have to be true owners with a real financial stake in the farm. And the law clearly says that unpasteurized milk can be sold only to a licensed dairy plant or to other licensed businesses that sell to dairy plants,” he said.

Other outbreaks in Wisconsin that have been tied to raw milk include: – in December 2001, at least 30 laboratory-confirmed cases of C. jejuni were identified in northwestern Wisconsin, all tied to a cow-share program; – in June 2006, 19 laboratory-confirmed and 39 probable cases of C. jejuni infection were traced to cheese curds made from unpasteurized milk in an unlicensed facility by an unlicensed cheese maker in Ashland. The cases occurred in many Wisconsin counties and 6 other states.

Nationwide, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 45 outbreaks tied to unpasteurized milk or cheese consumption occurred from 1998 to 2005. These outbreaks occurred in 22 states, two were multi-state outbreaks, and they resulted in 1000 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.

In an article published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal in August 2000, the Wisconsin Division of Public Health reported that from 1992 to 1999, consumption of raw milk and raw milk products was one of the top three risks for E. coli 0157:H7 infection in Wisconsin. E. coli 0157:H7 infections can be fatal.

–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Susan Baekeland

Regarding whether raw milk safety and its increased nutritional value has been “adequately documented by both the USDA and the FDA, the following is from the FDA in 2004, “Got Milk? Make Sure It’s Pasteurized”:

“Pasteurization, since its adoption in the early 1900s, has been credited with dramatically reducing illness and death caused by contaminated milk. But today, some people are passing up pasteurized milk for what they claim is tastier and healthier “raw milk.” Public health officials couldn’t disagree more.

Drinking raw (untreated) milk or eating raw milk products is “like playing Russian roulette with your health,” says John Sheehan, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Dairy and Egg Safety. “We see a number of cases of foodborne illness every year related to the consumption of raw milk.”

More than 300 people in the USA got sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk in 2001, and nearly 200 became ill from these products in 2002, according to the CDC.

Raw milk may harbor a host of disease-causing organisms (pathogens), such as the bacteria Campylobacter, E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Yersinia, and Brucella. Common symptoms of foodborne illness from many of these types of bacteria include diarrhea, stomach cramps, fever, headache, vomiting, and exhaustion. Most healthy people recover from foodborne illness within a short period of time, but others may have symptoms that are chronic, severe, or life-threatening.

People with weakened immune systems, such as elderly people, children, and those with certain diseases or conditions, are most at risk for severe infections from pathogens that may be present in raw milk. In pregnant women, Listeria monocytogenes-caused illness can result in miscarriage, fetal death, or illness or death of a newborn infant. And E. coli infection has been linked to hemolytic uremic syndrome, a condition that can cause kidney failure and death.

Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonellosis, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever.

Pasteurization and Contamination

The pasteurization process uses heat to destroy harmful bacteria without significantly changing milk’s nutritional value or flavor. In addition to killing disease-causing bacteria, pasteurization destroys bacteria that cause spoilage, extending the shelf life of milk.

Milk can become contaminated on the farm when animals shed bacteria into the milk. Cows, goats, and sheep carry bacteria in their intestines that do not make them sick but can cause illness in people who consume their untreated milk or milk products.

But pathogens that are shed from animals aren’t the only means of contamination, says Tom Szalkucki, assistant director of the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Cows can pick up pathogens from the environment just by lying down, giving germs the opportunity to collect on the udder, the organ from which milk is secreted. “Think about how many times a cow lays down in a field or the barn,” says Szalkucki. “Even if the barn is cleaned thoroughly and regularly, it’s not steamed. Contamination can take place because it’s not a sterile environment.”

The Health Hype

Raw milk advocates claim that unprocessed milk is healthier because pasteurization destroys nutrients and the enzymes necessary to absorb calcium. It also kills beneficial bacteria and is associated with allergies, arthritis, and other diseases, they say.

This is simply not the case, says Sheehan. Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, he says. The caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected, and any modification in whey protein that might occur is barely perceptible.

“Milk is a good source of the vitamins thiamine, folate, B-12, and riboflavin,” adds Sheehan, “and pasteurization results in losses of anywhere from zero to 10 percent for each of these, which most would consider only a marginal reduction.”

While the major nutrients are left unchanged by pasteurization, vitamin D, which enhances the body’s absorption of calcium, is added to processed milk. Vitamin D is not found in significant levels in raw milk.

“Pasteurization will destroy some enzymes,” says Barbara Ingham, PhD, associate professor, and extension food scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But the enzymes that are naturally present in milk are bovine enzymes. Our bodies don’t use animal enzymes to help metabolize calcium and other nutrients.”

“Enzymes in the food that we eat and drink are broken down in the human gastrointestinal tract,” adds Ingham. “Human bodies rely on our own native enzymes to digest and metabolize food.”

“Most of the native enzymes of milk survive pasteurization largely intact,” says Sheehan, “including those thought to have natural antimicrobial properties and those that contribute to prolonging milk’s shelf life.” Other enzymes that survive are thought to play a role in cheese ripening.

Ingham says that pasteurization will destroy some bacteria that may be helpful in the fermentation of milk into products such as cheese and yogurt, “but the benefit of destroying the harmful bacteria vastly outweighs the supposed benefits of retaining those helpful microorganisms. Plus, by adding the microorganisms that we need for fermentation, we can assure a consistently high quality product.”

Science has not shown a connection between drinking raw milk and disease prevention. “The small quantities of antibodies in milk are not absorbed in the human intestinal tract,” says Ingham. “And there is no scientific evidence that raw milk contains an anti-arthritis factor or that it enhances resistance to other diseases.”

Fans of raw milk often cite its creamy rich taste, says Szalkucki, who adds that it may be creamier because it is not made according to the standards for processed milk. “If you go to a grocery store and buy fluid milk, it’s been standardized for a certain percentage of fat, such as 2 percent,” he says. “Raw milk is potentially creamier because it has not been standardized and it has a higher fat content.”

I recently had the opportunity to make a short presentation to a mixed audience of local farmers and their neighbors in Perry County on the value of a dairy farm to a community. The organizers requested this topic primarily for the non-farm neighbors thinking it would give them a better appreciation of what a farm brings to the community and potentially “soften” some existing and future farm-urban conflicts. Based on the comments after my brief talk it became apparent that the farmers in the audience appreciated the information as much as their neighbors, reminding us once again that agriculture has a wonderful story to tell – but we must remember to tell it! With all the current bad news in the dairy industry, everyone appreciates hearing some positive things about the important work of producing dairy foods.

What a dairy farm brings to a community can be summarized into three main categories: Prosperity, People and the Planet.

Prosperity

Every farm is first and foremost a business. Typically when we think of local businesses we think car dealerships, grocery stores, manufacturing and maybe doctors’ offices, but probably not farms. The largest industry in Pennsylvania is agriculture and the same is true in Perry and most of our 67 counties. Statewide, dairy represents almost 45% of all farm income – collectively we are big business and important to the Commonwealth’s economy.

The farm we were visiting that day milks almost 500 cows and shipped over 10 million pounds of milk last year. It is estimated that every cow generates economic value to a community of over $13,700 per cow per year. That number includes not just the value of the milk she produces, but also the value of that money rolling through the community several times. For example, all the money from all the services the farm uses stays in the community, feeding the local economy. That includes money to the vet, to the local car dealer and feed supplier, health care for family and employees, school taxes – the list is almost endless This particular farm has a list of 40 vendors they typically make payments to during a month and close to 200 vendors a year. Their total expenses last year were over 2 million dollars!

As we drive down the road and see dairy farms, think of that $13,700 economic impact that each cow represents.  For a fairly typical 100-cow herd that is $1.3 million of economic impact; for a larger 300-cow herd it is $4.1 million and for a 500-cow dairy it is almost $7 million in economic impact to the community.

Dairy farms typically own a fair amount of land and in many rural communities the farms pay a large percentage of the property taxes. In a recent Pennsylvania study that compared various land uses and their respective use of tax supported services, farms and open space required from $0.02 to $0.91 per dollar of taxes paid, while residential use of services typically ranged from $1.02 to $1.48. Another reason to smile when you see a farm in your community.

The last “prosperity” or business issue is where dairy farm dollars come from and where they go.  Pennsylvania produces more milk that we consume – meaning a lot of milk is exported to other parts of the country. The dollars from that exported milk comes from outside Pennsylvania and returns to our local economy to become part of that $13,700 local economic impact. Compare that to many businesses where the profits and much of the economic activity exit the community. A dairy farm is a dollar pump – pumping dollars into the local economy.

People

Dairy farms represent jobs. The 500-cow dairy we were visiting had 11 people on the payroll. In rural Perry County the estimate of dairy-related jobs is 856, and in Pennsylvania that number is over 40,000. Those are not all “on farm” jobs, but include all the dairy-related jobs such as sales and service, transportation, processing and retailing. By the way, about 85% of their income from these employees stays within a community.

Dairy farmers and their families and employees are also very involved in their communities – providing leadership and resources to many kinds of organizations and charities. We have a wonderful legacy of volunteerism in this country – and that is particularly true in our rural communities. Our rural youth who have been involved in their churches, and 4-H and FFA have tremendous leadership abilities that benefit all of society. This leadership is a true community asset.

Planet

Our third “P” is for the planet, or the environmental contributions of a dairy farm. The initial public reaction to agriculture is that we are part of the environmental problem rather than part of the solution, but that is generally not the case. Remember that land is a valuable resource to be productively used. In the case of a dairy farm, food is being produced on that land, while the alternatives could be houses, highways, or other kinds of businesses.

Farms provide huge areas for groundwater recharge because they cover large areas with very little impervious surface. Open space performs the critical function of absorbing, filtering and returning rain water to replenish ground and surface water supplies.

Today we hear a lot about carbon. A recent national newspaper article noted a scheme to plant thousands of acres of trees in the US to sequester carbon – our farms with their croplands and forests are already hard at work in that regard.

Farms are the original recyclers of nutrients and invest heavily in technology to keep those nutrients on the land. Agriculture has always been conscious of the need for effective stewardship of the land and water. Currently the dairy industry is investing heavily in not only determining our carbon footprint but also developing ways to reduce it from the cow to the consumer.

Farms provide vegetative buffers to reduce pollutant entry into waterways.  Farms provide open space that we all enjoy and value in our communities. Farms provide wildlife corridors and edge effect which are important for songbirds and other field and forest species. And, farms provide nursery habitat for amphibians and birds and support diverse insect populations that are essential to many natural processes from honey production to pest control.

Before we leave these subjects of prosperity, people and the planet which are all tied to our farms and communities, we need to think of the base of all agriculture – food.

Our image of agriculture is biased by our personal experiences. I challenge each of us to be open to a changing and evolving image of agriculture. To be successful and profitable farm, the business must change as any business must change to remain viable and profitable.  Recently I heard a speaker talk about three important numbers – 50, 100 and 70. His point was that within 50 years we will need 100% more food than we produce today to satisfy the world’s needs. Because of land restrictions, 70% of that additional food must come from the use of agricultural technologies.  We must therefore embrace the changes needed to not only make successful businesses and neighbors, but also necessary to feed our children and grandchildren – and to keep our communities economically healthy.

I had a wonderful (and sweltering) time at Ag Progress Days (APD) last week.  This is an event sponsored by the College of Agricultural Sciences and attracted about 50,000 attendees over three days.

I have been asked:  what do you do out there for three days?  A lot (more about this later)!  And, the faculty and staff in the Department of Dairy and Animal Science do a great deal to put on a variety of educational and science-based programs for APD attendees.

Our faculty and staff spend a lot of time months in advance of APD planning the many educational programs we put on.  For example, our equine science group plans the 22 events that are held over three days in the large outdoor arena as part of the famous Equine Experience.  The group also plans and organizes 12 demonstrations/lectures that are held in the Equine Exhibits Building.  And this year, we held eight education programs in the Animal Science facility that addressed topics that ranged from feeding the world with technology (multiple programs with a dairy and livestock emphasis) to learning more about animal well-being (with both a pet and livestock focus).

Now to the question of what I do at APD?

Relationship building and maintenance takes up a lot of my time.

I meet with colleagues and friends from a variety of industry and commodity groups to discuss a host of topics and needs.  In many ways, these conversations are strategic planning about what to do in a variety of areas that are part of the Departments’ mission.  Since the department spans science and management practices from dogs and cats to deer, beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, sheep, horses and deer, that is a lot of turf to cover!

I also meet a lot of folks for the first time.  Parents and prospective students have questions that focus on how to get into Penn State.  It is great fun to talk with “Mom and Dad” about what major their son or daughter might pursue at Penn State.

This year I even had a chance conversation with a dairy producer who just returned from Russia – we talked a lot about the dairy industry in Russia, and that evolved to a conversation about how to bring our expertise to the dairy industry in China.  That morning I would never have thought I would have that conversation!  How this idea might play out in the future is pretty foggy right now.  However, that is the fun of building programs from ideas!

For a few years at APD I participated in a horse riding “event” with the former Dean of the College (Bob Steele) and Graham Spanier, President of Penn State.  The first point essential to the story I share below is that in my life I have not ridden horses more than 10 to 15 times–so, I am a real rookie at this. I am lucky I have not fallen off a horse!

The Story – One of the funnier horse riding “events” that I have been involved in at APD relates to a “competition” my equine science staff thought would be entertaining!  They concocted the idea that President Spanier, Dean Steele and I would ride around the outdoor arena holding a spoon with an egg atop it.  The last rider left holding the spoon with the egg “won”.  I thought this had entertainment potential until at the last second my colleagues shared they had glued my egg to the spoon, and I would be the “winner”!   Dean Steele and President Spanier did not have their eggs glued to their spoons!

As fate would have it, President Spanier is very good at riding horses!  And, the event went on and on until the announcer thought we should stop.  President Spanier still had his egg atop the spoon, as did I!  I thought it would “great fun” to wave at the crowd with the spoon and glued egg.  Everyone in the grandstands seemed amused.  I was not sure about President Spanier.  I have now retired from providing entertainment for the crowd at the Equine Experience from atop a horse.

Relationships are about people. In putting on the number of events that the Department does at APD, there is always the reality that issues and questions come up during the event.  I am fortunate to have a remarkably talented group of colleagues in the Department that manage all of this, and do a great deal to make APD a fun and educational experience for attendees.

A GAO report issued on May 22, 2008 (GAO-08-821T, HIGH-CONTAINMENT BIOSAFETY LABORATORIES, DHS Lacks Evidence to Conclude that Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Can be Done Safely on the U.S. Mainland reviews the background of foot and mouth disease (FMD) research in the U.S. and elsewhere. This report questions the basis for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) support for the movement of FMD virus and research from the current location at Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center (PIADC) to the newly announced National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) site managed by Kansas State University. In the GAO report, concern was raised regarding a study where DHS relied on a secondary study that the United States of Agriculture (USDA) commissioned and that a contractor conducted in May 2002. This study examined the question of whether it is technically feasible to conduct exotic disease research and diagnostics, including FMD and rinderpest, on the U.S. mainland with adequate biosafety and biosecurity to protect U.S. agriculture? Some significant problems existed in the conduct of this study. Nonetheless, DHS continues to cite to this study as supporting the closing of PIADC, and being the basis of support for the $450 million facility funded to Kansas State University. Various concerns are raised by GAO regarding this USDA study and the readership of this blog is encouraged to read the report in detail and the GAO criticisms.

At the heart of the debate is the question as to what existing laws and statutes govern the site for FMD research in the United States? DHS assumed control of PIADC on June 1, 2003 based on authority granted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. On January 30, 2004 DHS was instructed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive / HSPD-9 (Defense of United States Agriculture and Food) to undertake several actions to protect United States agriculture and food systems, and improve infrastructure to both natural and intentional acts which would erode U.S. agriculture. DHS has identified PIADC as “reaching the end of its life cycle”, and as lacking critical capabilities to continue as the primary facility for such work. DHS initiated actions to replace PIADC which was judged as antiquated using the following authority, specifically clause (24), cited from HSPD-9.

Research and Development (numbers in parenthesis are paragraph markings as appearing in HSPD-9)

(23) The Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, will accelerate and expand development of current and new countermeasures against the intentional introduction or natural occurrence of catastrophic animal, plant, and zoonotic diseases. The Secretary of Homeland Security will coordinate these activities. This effort will include countermeasure research and development of new methods for detection, prevention technologies, agent characterization, and dose response relationships for high-consequence agents in the food and the water supply.

(24) The Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security will develop a plan to provide safe, secure, and state-of-the-art agriculture biocontainment laboratories that research and develop diagnostic capabilities for foreign animal and zoonotic diseases.

(25) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, shall establish university-based centers of excellence in agriculture and food security.

The above citation is very important at several levels. Nowhere in HSPD-9 is FMD mentioned directly. However, DHS states authoritatively that FMD virus and research will be housed at the NBAF. The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to assist DHS in plans to upgrade biocontainment and diagnostic capabilities without reference to other legal obligations. Most importantly, nowhere in HSPD-9 is it mentioned that PIADC should be closed and research relocated. This brings us to the point of asking: what exactly is the authority conveyed through a Presidential Directive? These documents are referred to in different ways in Presidential Directives depending on the administration occupying the Executive Office. From the White House briefing room we cite: “PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS In this section you will find official actions by the President that have a significant impact on how the federal government functions but do not require legislation or Congressional approval . . . ”

Herein is the problem and this problem was referenced, but not detailed, by the GAO study. FAD research and the legal justification to establish and maintain PIADC is well documented in 21 USC 113a. United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. Specifically 21 USC 113a states:

“The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish research laboratories, including the acquisition of necessary land, buildings, or facilities, and also the making of research contracts under the authority contained in section 427i(a) of title 7, for research and study, in the United States or elsewhere, of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases which in the opinion of the Secretary constitute a threat to the livestock industry of the United States: Provided, that no live virus of foot-and-mouth disease may be introduced for any purpose into any part of the mainland of the United States (except coastal islands separated therefrom by water navigable for deep-water navigation and which shall not be connected with the mainland by any tunnel) unless the Secretary determines that it is necessary and in the public interest for the conduct of research and study in the United States (except at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York) and issues a permit under such rules as the Secretary shall promulgate to protect animal health, except that the Secretary of Agriculture may transport said virus in the original package across the mainland under adequate safeguards, and except further, that in the event of outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, the Secretary of Agriculture may, at his discretion, permit said virus to be brought into the United States under adequate safeguards.”

The above is literally the law of the land, and violations of this law are punishable through an assortment of penalties including Contempt of Congress. Returning to the topic, where exactly did DHS assume precedent to establish and award the NBAF contract? From the prior discussion the legal precedent is very clear – - only the Secretary of Agriculture or Congress can allow FMD virus to be moved from PIADC onto the mainland. This was established by law in 1949, and this law is still on the books and in effect. With reference to the Secretary of Agriculture, two questions arise. With the erosion of authority over FMD virus research, does USDA, or DHS, assume the obligations of indemnification should FMD escape biocontainment and damage U.S. agriculture? What is the consequence of actions by the current Secretary of Agriculture on binding commitments made by future Secretaries of Agriculture? Should plans for NBAF proceed and the existing PIADC be razed on the basis of “reaching the end of its life cycle”, and as lacking critical capabilities to continue as the primary facility for such work just to have a future Secretary of Agriculture reverse the decision, the ugly reality emerges of “what options exist”? In short, none! And, US agriculture will lack a FMD research program which could assist in vaccine development should this FAD occur at some time in the future.

This leaves open the question of: why has the U.S. Congress not been proactive in the award of the NBAF facility contract, and why is Congress not diligent in the enforcement of existing U.S. Code? Without bias, we assume that FMD research is suitably placed at PIADC consistent with existing law. Moreover, infrastructure upgrades could revitalize this facility, possibly at a fraction the cost of a site based on the mainland. NBAF is currently funded at an estimated cost of $450 million, which is considerable. However, an estimated loss of $1 billion could occur to the economy of the State of Kansas should FMD virus escape containment and impact the State. The latter figure was derived from a Kansas State University publication (Pendell et al., The Economic Impacts of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis. J. Agricultural and Applied Economics, 39:19-33. 2007).

In conclusion, a key question remains unanswered – - why is this blog the only source asking these questions?

Assessing the Severity of an Influenza Pandemic

The major determinant of the severity of an influenza pandemic, as measured by the number of cases of severe illness and deaths it causes, is the inherent virulence of the virus. However, many other factors influence the overall severity of a pandemic’s impact.

Even a pandemic virus that initially causes mild symptoms in otherwise healthy people can be disruptive, especially under the conditions of today’s highly mobile and closely interdependent societies. Moreover, the same virus that causes mild illness in one country can result in much higher morbidity and mortality in another. In addition, the inherent
virulence of the virus can change over time as the pandemic goes through subsequent waves of national and international spread.

Properties of the virus

An influenza pandemic is caused by a virus that is either entirely new or has not circulated recently and widely in the human population. This creates an almost universal vulnerability to infection. While not all people ever become infected during a pandemic, nearly all people are susceptible to infection.

The occurrence of large numbers of people falling ill at or around the same time is one reason why pandemics are socially and economically disruptive, with a potential to temporarily overburden health services.  The contagiousness of the virus also influences the severity of a pandemic’s impact, as it can increase the number of people falling ill and needing care within a short time frame in a given geographical area. On the positive side, not all parts of the world, or all parts of a country, are affected at the same time.

The contagiousness of the virus will influence the speed of spread, both within countries and internationally. This, too, can influence severity, as very rapid spread can undermine the capacity of governments and health services to cope.

Pandemics usually have a concentrated adverse impact in specific age groups. Concentrated illnesses and deaths in a young, economically productive age group will be more disruptive to societies and economies than when the very young or very old are most severely affected, as seen during epidemics of seasonal influenza.

Population vulnerability

The overall vulnerability of the population can play a major role. For example, people with underlying chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and several others, are more likely to experience severe or lethal infections. The prevalence of these conditions, combined with other factors such as
nutritional status, can influence the severity of a pandemic in a significant way.

Subsequent waves of spread

The overall severity of a pandemic is further influenced by the tendency of pandemics to encircle the globe in at least 2, sometimes 3, waves. For many reasons, the severity of subsequent waves can differ dramatically in some or even most countries.

A distinctive feature of influenza viruses is that mutations occur frequently and unpredictably in the 8 gene segments, and especially in the hemagglutinin gene. The emergence of an inherently more virulent virus during the course of a pandemic can never be ruled out.

Different patterns of spread can also influence the severity of subsequent waves. For example, if schoolchildren are mainly affected in the 1st wave, the elderly can bear the brunt of illness during the 2nd wave, with higher mortality seen because of the greater vulnerability of elderly people.

During the previous century, the 1918 pandemic began mild and returned, within 6 months, in a much more lethal form. The pandemic that began in 1957 started mild, and returned in a somewhat more severe form, though significantly less devastating than seen in 1918. The 1968 pandemic began relatively mild, with sporadic cases prior to the 1st wave, and remained mild in its 2nd wave in most, but not all, countries.

Capacity to respond

Finally, the quality of health services influences the impact of any pandemic. The same virus that causes only mild symptoms in countries with strong health systems can be  devastating in other countries where health systems are weak, supplies of medicines, including antibiotics, are limited or frequently interrupted, and hospitals are crowded, poorly equipped, and understaffed.

Assessment of the current situation

To date, the following observations can be made, specifically about the H1N1 virus, and more generally about the vulnerability of the world population. Observations specific to H1N1 are preliminary, based on limited data in only a few countries.

The H1N1 virus strain causing the current outbreaks is a new virus that has not been seen previously in either humans or animals. Although firm conclusions cannot be reached at present, scientists anticipate that pre-existing immunity to the virus will be low or non-existent, or largely confined to older population groups.

H1N1 appears to be more contagious than seasonal influenza. The secondary attack rate of seasonal influenza ranges from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. Current estimates of the secondary attack rate of H1N1 range from 22 per cent to 33 per cent.

With the exception of the outbreak in Mexico, which is still not fully understood, the H1N1 virus tends to cause very mild illness in otherwise healthy people. Outside Mexico, nearly all cases of illness, and all deaths, have been detected in people with underlying chronic conditions.

In the 2 largest and best documented outbreaks to date, in Mexico and the United States of America, a younger age group has been affected than seen during seasonal epidemics of influenza. Though cases have been confirmed in all age groups, from infants to the elderly, the youth of patients with severe or lethal infections is a striking feature of these early outbreaks.

In terms of population vulnerability, the tendency of the H1N1 virus to cause more severe and lethal infections in people with underlying conditions is of particular concern.

For several reasons, the prevalence of chronic diseases has risen dramatically since 1968, when the last pandemic of the previous century occurred. The geographical distribution of these diseases, once considered the close companions of affluent societies, has likewise shifted dramatically. Today, WHO estimates that 85 per cent of the burden of chronic diseases is now concentrated in low- and middle-income countries. In these countries, chronic diseases show an earlier average age of onset than seen in more affluent parts of the world.

In these early days of the outbreaks, some scientists speculate that the full clinical spectrum of disease caused by H1N1 will not become apparent until the virus is more widespread. This, too, could alter the current disease picture, which is overwhelmingly mild outside Mexico.

Apart from the intrinsic mutability of influenza viruses, other factors could alter the severity of current disease patterns, though in completely unknowable ways, if the virus continues to spread.

Scientists are concerned about possible changes that could take place as the virus spreads to the southern hemisphere and encounters currently circulating human viruses as the normal influenza season in that hemisphere begins.

The fact that the H5N1 avian influenza virus is firmly established in poultry in some parts of the world is another cause for concern. No one can predict how the H5N1 virus will behave under the pressure of a pandemic. At present, H5N1 is an animal virus that does not spread easily to humans and only very rarely transmits directly from one person to another.

A recent Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Media Release about the detection of A/H1N1 virus in pigs in Canada is presented below.  The release also was distributed by ProMED.

As a point of interest, ProMED is one of the largest publicly available emerging disease and outbreak reporting systems in the World.  Currently, ProMED posts are read by over 50,000 subscribers in over 187 countries.

Introduction

In light of the H1N1 (formerly known as swine flu) virus outbreak, consumers should have an understanding of the influenza virus from a pork producer perspective, and the steps that US swine producers routinely utilize to keep pigs healthy.

Influenza background from the pork industry perspective

• Pork producers have occasionally battled an influenza virus that is transmitted among pigs. Pig influenza within a swine herd generally presents as a relatively mild respiratory disease and treatment is initiated in consultation with the herd veterinarian.

• Very rarely, swine influenza can be transmitted from pigs to humans (zoonotic transmission).

• Although rare, the Centers for Disease Control reports several past cases where an influenza virus originating in swine passed from human to human.

• It appears as if pigs can be infected from humans who are shedding the current H1N1 virus, as evidenced by a case in Canada.

Many routine practices employed by US swine producers prevent, not only swine influenza, but other diseases as well.

• Most animals are housed in like-aged groups to reduce disease transfer from older pigs to younger pigs. Buildings are temperature-controlled and scientifically designed to keep pigs clean, safe and protected from predators, disease and extreme weather.

• Producers utilize all-in-all out production where a building is completely emptied, washed, and disinfected between groups of pigs. This practice serves as a further measure to break disease cycles on pig farms.

• As part of the National Pork Board’s Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) program, pork producers develop and follow a herd health plan in cooperation with a licensed veterinarian. The herd health plan may include influenza vaccine among other disease prevention vaccinations. Most US pork packers require producers to maintain PQA certification.

• Producers practice biosecurity to prevent diseases from traveling into or out of a facility. In the event of a disease outbreak, pigs confined in an enclosed building are much easier to quarantine than are pigs housed in the open.

Conclusion

Contemporary swine production practices and biosecurity measures are well suited to reduce the spread of diseases, including the current H1N1 influenza virus. Confined production greatly reduces the opportunity for conventional and zoonotic disease transfer because of limited animal-to-animal and animal-to-human contact, and serves as an effective disease isolation mechanism when diseases do occur.

Dr. Henning had a letter posted in USA Today combating myths about beef and global warming.

Here is Dr. Henning’s letter.

Why the shift in scrutiny from our use of fossil fuels to the carbon footprint of our food? USA TODAY’s article, Eating can be Energy Efficient, too, repeated the fashionable claim that switching to a “low-carbon diet” would make a meaningful reduction in a person’s carbon footprint (Life, April 22).

Yet the Environmental Protection Agency reports that all U.S. agriculture, including livestock and crops, accounts for only 6% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  I find the article seriously in conflict with this report.

The experts cited in USA TODAY’s article claim to understand the impact of animal agriculture on carbon emissions, yet they ignore how tightly intertwined our animal and crop production systems are.

For example, how will we replace livestock manure used to fertilize our crops without resorting to fossil fuel-derived fertilizers? What happens to feeds that are unsuitable for humans and the use of byproduct feeds? And, knowing that 85% of U.S. grazing land isn’t suitable for crop production, do we know if we can support ourselves on the cropland that remains? What gasses are produced in the decomposition of the unused plants and in crops such as rice?

Advocating the seemingly easy and convenient solution of low-carbon diets to solve the environment dilemma might be tempting, but have we assessed the nutritional impact for reducing our major sources of balanced proteins in children?

Environmentally conscious consumers should continue to enjoy lean meat with confidence, knowing they are doing the right thing for their bodies and for the environment.

Posted on USA Today at 12:09 AM/ET, April 30, 2009.