|
Written by
|
|
Thursday, 30 April 2009 07:25 |
This flu or any other health epidemic is bad enough without having to deal with the misinformation and misunderstanding that has spread faster than the flu itself. Approximately 30,000 people die in the US every year from influenza, and a lot more die from all sorts of other diseases. Yes, actions need to be taken. But chalk this extra hysteria up in part to more bad journalism that continues to incessantly hammer out pieces using the name 'swine flu' instead of the correct H1N1 designation…
Let's give some credit where it's due and highlight two responsible articles.
The Wall Street Journal has 'Expert Says Farm Isn't Flu Origin' (April 30, 2009) that debunks the flash point of the flu strain coming from a hog farm in Mexico and that perhaps it became "politicized".
The Chicago Tribune has a piece 'Flu by any other name wouldn't be as tasty' by John Kass (April 30, 2009). Bingo – Kass nails it, we all know 'sex sells' so it's allowed groups to latch onto the mistaken term 'swine' and twist it to their benefit.
This issue has allowed protectionist tendencies to perk up again with some nations halting meat imports – one of the favorite ploys we've seen in recent years with beef and poultry, and now pork. Egypt reported plans to kill all their hogs – seems politically ironic how it's the Coptic Christian sect that owns all the hogs (with no reports of disease or any other problems) in the Muslim nation.
Last week's TATT column by Carol Keiser 'Hot Air' points out how the anti-meat crowd is trying to link the livestock industry to climate change. Have no reservations that the professional-protesting NIMBY-BANANA crowd ("not-in-my-back-yard" / "build-absolutely-nothing-anywhere-near-anything") is in full mobilization mode.
So let's just calmly remember a few things:
1. The common name suggests that a person can get this from pigs, which isn’t true. This is a human health problem and people should not be fooled into thinking that they are safe if they aren’t around pigs.
2. The common name has lead some to suggest that it is dangerous to eat pork. That is not true. Rather than banning pork products, countries should be taking actions that will make a meaningful difference to controlling the virus and journalist need to help keep the focus on actions that will make a difference.
3. Using the specific name of the virus strain is the most accurate way to describe the virus without spreading negative connotations.
4. Use of the common name is being used by those who’d want to restrict trade advance their cause even though there is no science to back up their actions.
5. It's a GREAT time to stock up on some tasty meat at good prices for the outdoor grilling season.
Fire up that grill!
Note:
The World Health Organization (WHO) said it will would stop using the term "swine flu" to avoid confusion over the danger posed by pigs... the name change comes after the agriculture industry and the U.N. food agency expressed concerns that the term "swine flu" was misleading consumers and needlessly causing countries to order the slaughter of pigs. [WHO spokesperson Dick Thompson] told reporters in Geneva "we're going to stick with the technical scientific name H1N1 influenza A."
Also, the new TATT column (to be posted May 1) was used by Forbes.com on April 30 - Board member Tim Burrack's 'Fool's Flu: Protectionist bans are deadly too' can be found here.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/swine-fools-flu-opinions-contributors-protectionism.html?
|
.png)
Follow us on Twitter