FLYING PIGS AND OTHER GLOBALIZATION MYTHS…
FLYING PIGS AND OTHER GLOBALIZATION MYTHS…
In the search for the ultimate bad guy in this scary pig flu thing, some pundits are, understandably, taking shots at globalization.
Laura Carlsen from the Center For International Policy is leading the charge. Her argument is an appealing one: Mexico, the NAFTA-sponsored epicenter of globalized production was almost destined to also become the epicenter of a new global disease. These people outline a perfect storm. They blame companies like Smithfield Foods - whose Veracruz-based Carroll Farms hog facility, with its ominous sounding “manure lagoons,” lies in the vicinity of the first cases found in Mexico - for escaping developed world health standards by outsourcing production to the developing world and they point to air travel and increased trade as the reason why diseases hatched in these polluting capitalists’ cesspools are now arriving on our doorsteps. Globalization, it would seem, has made disease-carrying pigs fly.
Now, I’m not going to charge that this theory is wrong. I’m not a scientist and I’ll defer to the experts on whether Smithfield had a hand in this. (The company strongly denies any link, noting that none of its pigs were infected - and it’s not even clear that the outbreak began with a Mexican pig at all.) Whatever the cause, you can’t argue that increased global interaction has NOT exacerbated this crisis. But if we’re to have a go at poor old, much-maligned globalization, let’s look at the really big picture. There’s a hell of a lot more to globalization than outsourcing pig farms and shifting Spring Break from Florida to Cancun.
First, let’s look at the Mother of all pandemic diseases, the one that is so ingrained in public consciousness seven centuries after it occurred that media outlets immediately reach for it when searching for a metaphor in the swine flu story: the Black Death.
That especially pernicious outbreak of the bubonic plague occurred during the very much unglobalized Middle Ages. And yet it is thought to have traveled from China to Europe, where it wiped out around 75 million people in four years, cutting world population by a fifth. The disease traveled across the world rapidly despite the comparatively fewer global connections. Now, in the 21st century, the reason why we are so far away from repeating such an appalling scenario is, I would argue, the result of globalization’s good side.
Far from blaming Mexico for this outbreak, we should be applauding it for its sensible policy responses, especially the moves taken to limit large gatherings of people, which now appear to be paying off as the rate of case increase encouragingly shows signs of slowing. Such policy response are themselves a product of globalization, of the possibility it offers for a massive, immediately accessible pool of shared knowledge and coordinated international reaction. The World Health Organization is in the eye of the storm right now, but if this scare subsides - which it probably will - the body will rightly deserve applause for the multilateral coordination it has fostered. This too is an outcome of globalization. Margaret Chan’s experience in handling the 1997 bird flu outbreak in Hong Kong and then the SARS scare a few years later represents an invaluable background of experience to bring to the table in this case. If only those 75 million Europeans could have had a Chinese bubonic plague expert at their avail 660 years ago.
In fact, the rise of global quasi-regulatory bodies such as the WHO - and the anti-global capitalism activists’ favorite bogeyman, the World Trade Organization - is a central element of globalization. It is the expanded reach and application of the international norms and treaties upon which these bodies are founded that has facilitated global capitalism, not the other way around. And when global capitalism - in this case, outsourced pig farming and air travel - creates a problem, these international bodies, these stewards of globalization, step up to the plate. We are of course seeing exactly the same with the G-20 summits and other multilateral efforts to confront the global economic crisis.
Some countries are not sticking with the program, of course. Rather than keeping the lines of communication and human interaction open in the face of this scare, they’re closing their borders. But notably, the only two that have ignored expert opinion that stopping air travel from Mexico would be ineffective against the swine flu scare (and counterproductive to the global economy) are two countries whose governments make a habit of railing against global capitalism: Cuba and Argentina. Coincidentally, both countries have also done a terrible job handling outbreaks of dengue fever in the last two years.
Nowhere has globalization produced better benefits from international knowledge sharing than in the field of medicine. And so it is that we don’t just hope that a vaccine will soon come for this strain of flu. We expect it. The WHO is trying to downplay expectations, warning that a vaccine may take months. A couple of months? But let’s put that into the perspective of 1347, the start of the Black Death. Given that the rate of deaths increased exponentially as the four-year plague dragged on, a vaccine in two months would have reduced the total eventual number by tens of millions.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Tory Nalin said, May 5,2009, 08:41
The Black Plaque is thought to have been caused by a bacterium which nowadays would be treated with antibiotics. Swine flu is a novel human flu virus passed on by coughing or sneezing.
I’m not a scientist either but thankfully i have friends who are, notably Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health (anhcampaign.org). In 2006 the WHO asked Rob to prepare guidelines on how natural products might be used to support the body’s immune system in the event of an H5N1 pandemic, at the same time the ANH looked at the problems with both anti-viral drugs and vaccination strategies in some detail. To access the report: http://www.anhcampaign.org/documents
The phenomenal media hype concerning swine flu is completely out of proportion to the facts surrounding this strain of virus.
“When you look at death rates from the strain of seasonal influenza A (H1N1) endemic in humans, which is responsible for the well-known seasonal deaths of influenza and pneumonia, and compare this with that associated so far with this new strain, we see an interesting picture emerge….looking at data from the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the death rate from influenza and pneumonia is around 32 per 100,000 of the US population. This, according to the CDC, makes it the sixth leading cause of death in the United States following heart disease, cancer, stroke, unintentional injuries, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. If you then convert this death rate to a daily death rate, you’ll find that on average, taking into account even the non-influenza seasons when death rates are substantially lower, on average around 270 people die from this cause in the USA every day, 365 days a year.
In contrast, so far in the USA, the US Government has reported 109 confirmed cases of swine flu, with just a single death. Mexico has reported just nine deaths, and 156 confirmed cases. Sixty six further cases have been reported in a further nine countries—with no deaths. None.”
“When you look at the bigger picture and see the facts and figures in context, the present situation does look to be massively overblown by the media, by governments and by the drug companies.”
I urge you to read Rob’s analysis of the swind flu epidemic:
http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/swine-flu-2009-hog-hype-or-global-threat
The “magic pill” idea of a vaccine really concerns me. As far as i am concerned the bottom line is the following:
“This swine flu pandemic scare is very timely indeed for the pharmaceutical industry, which has not been enjoying, in the recent years, the easy ride it had in previous decades. The hype has already seen share prices in the pharma companies Roche and GSK, makers of the anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, soar. Even if a pandemic does eventuate, the companies will have some difficulty making a killing (excuse the pun…[ed]) from immediate sales because of the significant lead time required to prepare for large-scale manufacture. But the pharma companies are already gaining from sales to countries to replace or even increase country-held stockpiles of anti-virals that will be approaching the end of their shelf life. You’ll remember how countries built up their stocks following the bird flu scare of 2006? Well, now it’s three years on and, yes—you’ve guess it— the shelf life of Tamiflu is 36 months, and around the same for Relenza”
“When looking at ways of reacting to the current situation we should particularly draw from the lessons of the past. The swine flu epidemic of 1976 is of particular relevance and is a good example of hype leading to catastrophe. In this epidemic more people were harmed by the efforts to deal with the virus—notably vaccination—than they were by the virus itself, which remained fairly non-virulent.”
Money (power and politics) may be driving global capitalism (I like that expression) and if it’s the case, Big Pharma are exemplary global capitalists!
xxx
Tory
orxd said, May 5,2009, 16:09
who paid for Tory’s response?
michael said, May 5,2009, 21:08
No one. I can vouch for Tory’s strong independence of thought, though it’s also true that none of us - certainly not your or I, Pablo - can claim objectivity in addressing this issue, or any other one for that matter. (Tory, my dear friend who I’ve known for two decades and who works in natural health, please meet Pablo, my equally dear friend who I’ve known for six years and who works in Biotech health.)
Every one of us is either consciously or unconsciously steered by an “interest” when we weigh in on an issue. There’s nothing wrong with that - it doesn’t make the contribution to a debate worth any less. And in fact, once recognized, putting that “interest” on the table can make the debate more constructive.
Anyway, I think you made a highly valuable, well argued contribution, Tory. And, in recognition of my own selfish interest of steering the discussion toward what I personally obsess about (this is my blog, after all) - toward stuff like media, global capitalism, and the market for ideas - I’d say that one way to interpret your comments is that the media hype we’ve all suffered from this past week is also a product of globalization. Hype there has undoubtedly been, and in massive doses - hence my reference to the Black Death. (A borrowed idea: Jon Stewart sent up one of the US TV networks for actually titling one of its segments on swine flu with the question “Is this the next Black Death?”)
Who’s behind the hype? Mostly a 24-hour, internationalized, hyper-news cycle that is fueled by an endless need to stay competitive and keep viewers engaged. But to some degree also, quite probably, it’s also indirectly encouraged by certain vested interests, of which some of the bigger pharmaceutical companies - based on their past record - must be placed in the suspects camp.
Yet none of this, I would argue, takes away from my central point that globalization - that equally hyped, over-referenced, misunderstood but nonetheless very real concept - has its bad points (such as media hype) and its good points. We have seen and continue to see major medical advances (whether in Tory’s natural remedies world or Pablo’s in computer-driven genetic modeling field) arising out of the exponential increase in knowledge-sharing within the global information economy of the post-Cold War era. Sure, that information is too often used in exploitative, predatory ways by big capitalist institutions such as the pharmaceutical companies. And it is my sincerest hope that innovative businesses like Pablo’s and Tory’s end up serving the broader interests of public health (and profitably too) rather than a system that deliberately keeps life-saving drugs out of the reach of the billions who need them. But, as an idealist and optimist, I can’t help but see a world that is better off as a result of the strides made via the global sharing of medical knowledge unleashed by information technology in the globalization era. It is my hope that now, in an era when the most extreme form of rapacious, laissez faire capitalism has been exposed as a failure, and pragmatic public interest-minded people like Obama are in charge, that people with good hearts like yourselves can more easily implement those advances to the benefit of the rest of us.
And on that note, good night.
Michael
Pablo Bertorello said, May 5,2009, 02:32
May be we just expect too much of capitalism, wanting a single recipe to get us from A to Z. Capitalism, all failures taken in, is a great way to accumulate wealth. Enter a great way to spread it to billions: socialism.
Pablo Bertorello said, May 5,2009, 02:33
(and they can be applied concurrently in the same countries, and by the same people)
michael said, May 5,2009, 07:13
Now there’s a couple of “discuss amongst yourselves” comments.
Tory said, May 5,2009, 16:13
Mike. I have been mulling over the idea of Global Integration, the growth of civilization……I think we are at a turning point where ethics, integrity and intuition are key to our survival as global citizens. A crisis of legitimacy now envelops the key institutions of global economic governance – de-globalization?
The hyper-news cycle is of concern because it is hyper-hypnotic, however as you pointed out “the strides made via the global sharing of knowledge unleashed by information technology in the globalization era” are phenomenal ! Infinite possibility and potential.
michael said, May 5,2009, 17:26
Tory, I think that’s a very constructive way of seeing things. A heavy, heady idea. And I can’t help but think you’re right.
Globalization can take us is in either of two different directions at this point. We can head down a positive path in which international information-sharing helps foster common action in the shared interest of a better world, or down a negative one in which the common denominator of short-term profit-seeking at the expense of long-term development ultimately destroys us.
Again, it’s the good and bad of globalization - the yin and yang, perhaps. The global capitalist system has given rise to the ills that threaten the world (global warming, epidemics, etc) while simultaneously fostering the tools by which we become better informed of these threats (cooperative international science, sophisticated global monitoring equipment.) What we desperately need now is for the other shoe to drop, for this process to also encourage enhanced global cooperation and joint action. If we can get the WTO to work, and for the most part it does, surely we can get other international regulatory bodies to more effective protect our common interest. Maybe for that to happen we need an ethics/integrity revolution of the kind you describe.
In the marketplace of ideas we need a victory for those who practice and promote the ethics of the long-term common good of the world over those who promote immediate gratification at all costs. The world needs to be inspired by the very idea that we can collectively make a difference. If so, our political and business leaders will fall into line - I both believe and hope so. Maybe, as Pablo suggests, we must acknowledge that this means socialism. So be it.
Either way, let’s hope that at the end of the day, when we look back on this crazy swine flu affair - whether we end up deciding that the pharmaceutical companies or the pig farmers or the media were the culprits - we’ll find some inspiring evidence of a positive “yes we can” response among the world’s public health bodies. Let’s hope it serves as an example for other areas in which global coordination is so sorely needed.