. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Red Bull: "the non-stop party-animal's hot secret" (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"[A] 21-year-old Grand Valley State University student found dead in her off-campus apartment, died from complications due to over-consumption of alcohol, university officials reported . . .."
However tragic yet one more student death from alcohol might be, what caught my attention was a comment posted by a Press reader on this story's Web site:
Posted by flipper2 on 04/29/09 at 3:25PM
You know what part of the problem is when the kids mix liquor and the red bull drinks.....all that caffeine and their system can't tell them when to slow down. Used to be drink alot and pass out.......now keep going.
Red Bull is neither a new product nor a new story, but it is a deadly story worth the retelling.
Here is a similar story two months earlier from England:
[The death of a] student who died on a nightclub dance floor [around 3:00 a.m.] . . . may have been triggered by caffeine in the Red Bull she had been drinking . . . around four cans . . . and several VKs - a vodka based drink which also contains caffeine . . . despite efforts from staff and paramedics to revive her. . . .
[H]ours before the night out on which she died . . . she went to a friend's house, where she drunk a bottle of wine together with two cans of Red Bull because she "felt tired". She then drank approximately two more cans of the energy drink and a couple of VK drinks. . . .
Dr Stephen Morley, a consultant pathologist, said of Miss Leach's Red Bull consumption: "She may have had as little as two cans, she may have had as many as six. It was more probably about four." . . .
I could give you more like that. After all, if you put "'red bull' death" into Google it will provide you 1.2 million links. But those stories, plus the reports of research that follows, should be enough to get us started.
And where did it start?
"Introduced in Europe in 1987, Red Bull is the creation of Austrian businessman Dietrich Mateschitz." David Noonan, "Red Bull's Good Buzz; Why Coke Pepsi and Other Heavyweights Are Chasing the Edgy Upstart," Newsweek, May 14, 2001 (pdf available from the Red Bull Web site). It was introduced to America in 1997 in the San Francisco Bay Area, and three or four years later was in 40 states. (As Noonan's story explains, other drink manufacturers soon entered the "energy drink" market as well.)
Nor is the relationship of Red Bull-plus-alcohol to increased injury and death a new phenomenon.
The London Times followed the news that "A young woman died of alcohol poisoning in a nightclub in Dublin this year after consuming numerous cocktails of Red Bull and vodka" with its report of an academic study at Wake Forest University involving over 4000 students at 10 U.S. colleges and universities:
People who drink Red Bull or other “energy drinks” mixed with alcohol during a night out are twice as likely to be injured or otherwise come to harm than those who have alcoholic drinks on their own, . . . more than twice as likely to take advantage of someone else sexually, and almost twice as likely to accept a lift from a drink-driver or to be taken advantage of themselves . . .. An estimated 330 million litres of energy drinks were consumed in Britain last year, a market worth £1 billion. The study suggests that products such as Red Bull, which contain stimulants such as caffeine and taurine, may allow drinkers to consume more alcohol without noticing its negative effects."
The problem is considered sufficiently serious, the Times continues, that "The Swedish National Food Administration has warned people to avoid drinking Red Bull with alcohol or after heavy exercise, while France and Denmark have banned the drink. Health departments in Ireland, Turkey, Sweden and the United States have all expressed concern."
Because I do not recall seeing mention of "energy drinks" in discussions by University and City officials of Iowa City's binge drinking problems and their consequences I thought it worth a little exploration. (The City's latest effort, reported this morning, Chris Rhatigan, "Council Passes Alcohol Measure,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 7, 2009, p. 3, reflects its conclusion that downtown Iowa City may, finally, have enough bars. I'm sure that seeing to it that those 50 bars within walking distance of the campus need not worry about additional competition will do a lot to reduce alcohol abuse by students. As Mayor Regenia Bailey is reported to have said, "This would have been a much more beneficial zoning code 10 years ago.")
Near as I can figure out Red Bull is more bull than red -- maybe 99 percent marketing and one percent caffeine and taurine (a crystalline acid of nitrogen and sulphur, C2H7NS03, first found in the bile of oxen).
Although it would never occur to me to ask if anyone had put bull semen or testicles in my food or drink, Red Bull thought it necessary to reassure its customers (especially those who are vegetarians) with this exchange in its "FAQs":
IS TAURINE MADE FROM BULLS' TESTICLES? IS TAURINE A DERIVATIVE OF BULLS' TESTICLES OR SEMEN?
The taurine in Red Bull® Energy Drink is a purely synthetic substance produced by pharmaceutical companies and is not derived from animals or animal materials. All ingredients for Red Bull® Energy Drink are synthetically produced by pharmaceutical companies. This guarantees the highest quality.
The FAQ site continues with equivalent assurances regarding the healthful attributes of this product for those who might wonder:
IS RED BULL ENERGY DRINK SUITABLE FOR VEGETARIANS? IS RED BULL ENERGY DRINK KOSHER? IS RED BULL ENERGY DRINK HALAL? IS RED BULL ENERGY DRINK GLUTEN-FREE, VEGAN, WHEAT-FREE, DAIRY-FREE?
The answers, it won't surprise you to discover, are Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
It's a very clever bit of marketing positioning -- clearly aimed at the late teens, early twenties college students, and providing all things to all potential customers. The drink is represented to be both as environmentally friendly as organic kale, and of "highest quality" because it is "produced by pharmaceutical companies." It's designed to appeal to both serious students studying for exams and athletes engaged in "extreme sports." "Red Bull's prime customers are young adults, better known as kids in their twenties. . . . The company works hard courting the college crowd, and has also established itself in the black and blue world of extreme sports." It has sponsored, for example, a kayaker who paddled over a 98-foot waterfall (from Noonan's article, quoted and linked above).
The manufacturer says that Red Bull is good for you; it has vitamins, and "reduces harmful substances" -- while enabling you to engage in damn fool behavior well beyond the hour you would otherwise have been in bed (alone). But it's not an elite drink; it's also the taxi drivers' favorite -- according to the company's high energy Web site:
"Red Bull® is an Energy Drink that works. Red Bull ® Energy Drink supplies tired minds and exhausted bodies with lost substances and reduces harmful substances. It provides immediate energy and vitamins. Red Bull ® Energy Drink has always been and always will be more than just a hot secret for the night owl and the non-stop party-animal. It is appreciated by a wide range of people, such as the overworked taxi driver, . . .." "Benefits/Red Bull - More Than Just a Myth," www.redbull.com.
Of course, it has to be highly profitable. It provides less caffeine than a single cup of strong coffee (though more than Mountain Dew). It's mostly water. I don't know what all those "highest quality" pharmaceuticals cost, but it can't be much. And my guess is that a month's supply of "NoDoz" tablets (also a caffeine source) would cost no more than a can of Red Bull. (A "maximum strength" NoDoz dose is one-half a 200 mg tablet -- at 100 mg of caffeine that's more than Red Bull supplies. At one a day that's about 7 cents a day, or $2.10 a month -- and store brands may be cheaper. Search Google for NoDoz.)
[Not knowing the price of Red Bull when writing this, I subsequently inquired, while in a drug store, as to whether the store handled the product. It did, and a clerk directed me to the cooler. There, along with milk and soft drinks, were a variety of sizes of Red Bull. Clearly the most economic container was the 16-ounce at $3.99 -- especially since if you considered yourself man enough (or fool enough) to buy and consume three cans they were discounted to $10.00. Because that's close to a 20% discount, anyone still sober enough to do some simple math would have a significant financial incentive to down 48 ounces of the stuff -- rather than an 8- or 12-ounce can.]
Here is an abstract of the study to which the Times of London story refers:
OBJECTIVES: The consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) is popular on college campuses in the United States. Limited research suggests that energy drink consumption lessens subjective intoxication in persons who also have consumed alcohol. This study examines the relationship between energy drink use, high-risk drinking behavior, and alcohol-related consequences. METHODS: In Fall 2006, a Web-based survey was conducted in a stratified random sample of 4,271 college students from 10 universities in North Carolina. RESULTS: A total of 697 students (24% of past 30-day drinkers) reported consuming AmED in the past 30 days. Students who were male, white, intramural athletes, fraternity or sorority members or pledges, and younger were significantly more likely to consume AmED. In multivariable analyses, consumption of AmED was associated with increased heavy episodic drinking (6.4 days vs. 3.4 days on average; p < p =" 0.027).">
Here is a summary of one of the studies done at Johns Hopkins:
Since the introduction of Red Bull in Austria in 1987 and in the United States in 1997, the energy drink market has grown exponentially. Hundreds of different brands are now marketed, with caffeine content ranging from a modest 50 mg to an alarming 505 mg per can or bottle. Regulation of energy drinks, including content labeling and health warnings differs across countries, with some of the most lax regulatory requirements in the U.S. The absence of regulatory oversight has resulted in aggressive marketing of energy drinks, targeted primarily toward young males, for psychoactive, performance-enhancing and stimulant drug effects. There are increasing reports of caffeine intoxication from energy drinks, and it seems likely that problems with caffeine dependence and withdrawal will also increase. In children and adolescents who are not habitual caffeine users, vulnerability to caffeine intoxication may be markedly increased due to an absence of pharmacological tolerance. Genetic factors may also contribute to an individual's vulnerability to caffeine-related disorders including caffeine intoxication, dependence, and withdrawal. The combined use of caffeine and alcohol is increasing sharply, and studies suggest that such combined use may increase the rate of alcohol-related injury. Several studies suggest that energy drinks may serve as a gateway to other forms of drug dependence. Regulatory implications concerning labeling and advertising, and the clinical implications for children and adolescents are discussed.
Although not specifically focused on Red Bull, here is a summary of research regarding the adverse consequences of our University-City lax approach to 17-to-19-year-olds' (and high school students') binge drinking that concludes, "Compared with respondents first drunk at age 19 or older, those first drunk prior to age 19 were significantly more likely to be alcohol dependent and frequent heavy drinkers, to report driving after any drinking, driving after five or more drinks, riding with a driver who was high or drunk and, after drinking, sustaining injuries that required medical attention."
OBJECTIVES: This study explored whether college students who were first intoxicated by alcohol at ages younger than 19 are more likely to become alcohol dependent and frequent heavy drinkers, drive after drinking, ride with intoxicated drivers and be injured after drinking. It also investigated whether these results occur because these students believe they can drink more and still drive legally and safely. METHOD: In 1999, 14,138 of 23,751 full-time 4-year students from a random sample of 119 college and universities nationwide completed self-administered questionnaires (response rate: 60%). This analysis focused on 12,550 who were aged 19 or older. Respondents were asked the age at which they first got drunk, as well as questions about recent alcohol-related behaviors and consequences. RESULTS: Compared with respondents first drunk at age 19 or older, those first drunk prior to age 19 were significantly more likely to be alcohol dependent and frequent heavy drinkers, to report driving after any drinking, driving after five or more drinks, riding with a driver who was high or drunk and, after drinking, sustaining injuries that required medical attention. Respondents first intoxicated at younger ages believed they could consume more drinks and still drive safely and legally; this contributed to their greater likelihood of driving after drinking and riding with high or drunk drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Educational, clinical, environmental and legal interventions are needed to delay age of first intoxication and to correct misperceptions among adolescents first drunk at an early age about how much they can drink and still drive safely and legally.
I've never thought that "educating" college students with regard to the potentially adverse consequences of alcohol abuse would do much to slow down those youngsters determined to expend their new-found "freedom" on drunkenness. But I have to admit I don't know; I don't know what's in the educational materials the University of Iowa offers them, nor do I know what the data show as to the effects of that education. I do hope, however, that to the extent we are trying to provide some useful guidance that at least some mention is being made of "energy drinks," how they interact with alcohol, and what the consequences of that interaction can be.
There is, of course, much more research along this line available through Medline, NIH, and other sources. My thanks to Brett Cloyd for putting me onto this material. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
May 3, 2009, 10:00 a.m.; May 23, 2009, 10:00 a.m. (addition of "The Final Chapter") [Looking for the April 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, Swine Flu blog entry? Click here.]
68-Year-Old Subscription Cancelled: Seinfeld, Tomlin, and Bedbug Letter Explain Why (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
For 68 years some family member living in our family home has been paying the subscription price for a particular Iowa newspaper, now owned by Gannett. For the past 19 years I have been, once again, living in that home and my wife has been paying for that paper.
Two days ago that 68-year history came to an end.
My wife and I divide the chores around the house. I get the easy jobs -- the daily cleaning of two cat litter boxes, taking out the trash, sweeping the patio -- tasks someone with my limited abilities can handle.
She has the hard jobs, and says the most difficult of all is dealing with Gannett's computerized "customer service."
We've had problems before with newspaper delivery. See Nicholas Johnson, "Of Newspapers and Nails," March 8, 2009; Nicholas Johnson, "Newspaper Delivery an Update," March 27, 2009. The problems I wrote about in those blog entries involved the "multiple-variable delivery problem." If a newspaper subscriber can't know (a) whether the paper is going to be delivered at all or not on a given day, and (b) if it is going to be delivered, when that might be, and (c) where it might be found on the property, that subscriber must look for the paper each morning in a variety of possible places, at a variety of different times.
Since writing those blog entries I have been stunned at the number of people who have told me similar stories of their problems with delivery -- a number of whom have simply canceled their subscriptions in frustration.
That is, stunned until I've come to realize that this is an industry-wide problem. Put "newspaper delivery problems" (without quotes) into Google and you get 18,500,000 hits. I don't know whether newspaper delivery problems exist inside Second Life, but there is apparently a Second Life-like children's Web site, WebKinzInsider.com, in which there is a forum for "employment/newspaper delivery problems."
For us, since those blog entries were posted the delivery problems have, for the most part, disappeared. Indeed, while we never insisted that the paper be within arm's reach from the kitchen door (only that it be in the same place each day at roughly the same time) it has actually been showing up at the door and usually a few minutes before or after 5:00 a.m. No more complaints on that score. We were getting excellent service from the carrier.
No, the problem that finally pushed Mary over the edge was not a delivery problem -- at least not in the usual sense. It was a problem of (a) Gannett corporate policy, and (b) take-it-or-leave-it customer relations.
For her it was frustration, leading finally to anger, and then to action -- canceling the 68-year-old subscription.
For me, today's blog entry is about the future of the newspaper industry -- not the future of a given newspaper, let alone a given subscriber's relationship to that newspaper. I think newspapers -- journalism, and especially investigative journalism -- are important to democracy. Like the U.S. automobile industry, the newspaper industry confronts both (a) serious problems not of its own making, but also (b) problems it has, unnecessarily, brought upon itself.
So, however much I may love my wife, and wish that she not have to suffer frustration and anger, this story is not about her. It is, rather, a case study in the disappearance of American newspapers.
She (and I) are aware that no business, whether manufacturing or service, can deliver perfection. No matter how good the corporation's quality control there will always be defective products and sub-par service: delayed flights -- and missed newspaper deliveries.
Like any other business this creates three separate challenges and needs for the newspaper industry:
1. Quality control techniques designed to minimize the number of days that subscribers are not provided a paper
2. A procedure for providing a prompt supplementary, special delivery to those subscribers who call the paper to report non-delivery on any given day
3. Trained personnel to handle those calls in friendly and understanding ways that will retain customer loyalty
The reason I identify the paper as a "Gannett paper" is because I have the suspicion that those employed by the individual newspaper in question would probably have handled these three challenges differently, and thus that the policies and practices are probably those of the parent corporation.
It turns out that Gannett's new non-delivery policy is that when a subscriber calls to report a non-delivery, (a) the subscriber must talk to a computer (that has always been the case), (b) the computer informs the subscriber that they have two, and only two, choices: (1) have the paper delivered the next day, or (2) receive a refund for one paper, and (c) those subscribers tenacious enough to fight their way through to a human being will receive a Marine Corps drill sergeant's warm understanding.
When I heard of my wife's experience, and read what was ultimately her exchange of emails with the Gannett computer, I was reminded of a couple of old television bits. One is the Seinfeld episode when Jerry and Elaine went to pick up his rental car.
Gannett's policy seems to have been developed by someone totally unfamiliar with the business in which its newspapers are engaged. Those loyal readers who have been hanging on and providing their support to the industry are buying a service (not a product): it is the timely, daily, receipt of a paper and ink report of the news, delivered to their homes or offices (hopefully sufficiently early in the morning that it can be read before going to work). Subscribing to a daily newspaper means subscribers want, and assume they are buying, a continuous, daily, stream of this service. That doesn't mean there won't ever be a day when, for some reason, it doesn't arrive at the usual time. What it does mean is that when that happens, and is reported (hopefully to a human rather than a computer), the paper will make an immediate effort to get it there as quickly as possible.
Here's a transcript of the relevant excerpt from the Seinfeld episode, followed by a YouTube video.
Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.
Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?
Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.
Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.
Agent: I know why we have reservations.
Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.
That's kind of analogous to Gannett's problem. They understand the part about how to take the subscription, and the part about getting their money for the subscription, they just don't understand the part about providing the daily service.
The next problem Gannett has is customer relations.
It's a subject I became interested in when serving on the school board and wishing to bring the school district's customer service up to the level of what I called (to the irritation of my fellow board members) "the Wal-Mart standard." ("If Wal-Mart can provide that level of customer focus by training high school dropouts why can't we do it with college graduates?")
A friend with experience as a convenience store manager told me of the training he'd received. Whenever a customer came into the store with a complaint the manager was instructed to say to the customer, with compassion, "How can I make this right with you?" Nine times out of ten, he told me, that was enough to satisfy customers who were primarily just requesting understanding and respect.
And then there is the legendary Southwest Airlines. "'We literally say that we hire for attitude and we train for skill,' said [Southwest's CEO Colleen] Barrett, quickly reassuring the audience that Southwest only brings in top-notch pilots and mechanics. 'And we are far more likely to terminate someone for attitude and behavior and lack of respect than just about anything else.'" "Southwest Airlines' Colleen Barrett Flies High on Fuel Hedging and 'Servant Leadership,'" Knowledge@Wharton/Leadership & Change, July 9, 2008. "Southwest's unusual and now legendary approach to customer service . . . aims to treat the company's 35,000 employees like family, to make the workplace fun -- and then to carry that upbeat attitude to consumers. . . . 'Our mission statement is posted every three feet . . . It's to follow the Golden Rule -- to treat people the way that you want to be treated, and pretty much everything will fall into place.'"
Gannett's take-it-or-leave-it approach reminded me of a famous bit from a very early "Saturday Night Live." Here's an excerpt from the transcript, followed by an incomplete YouTube video (without the "we don't care" line) that will at least give a sense of the performance.
Ernestine: A gracious hello. Here at the Phone Company, we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. So, we realize that, every so often, you can't get an operator, or for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make. We don't care!
Watch this... [she hits buttons maniacally] We just lost Peoria.
You see, this phone system consists of a multi-billion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated -- [she hits buttons with her elbows] even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
That's kind of Gannett's attitude: "Those are your two options. You don't like 'em? Tough. We don't care. We don't have to. We're a newspaper monopoly." Except it's not. And it's losing customers. And there's still a newspaper outside our kitchen door -- it's just not theirs.
Here are excerpts from the email exchanges between Mary and The Corporation. (Gannett employees names have been deleted; there is no purpose or desire to embarrass any named individual. This is a matter of corporate policy and behavior.)
Introduction: Mary's description of how it began.
There was no paper the morning of May 1. I called the 800 number. The automated response asked for telephone number beginning with area code. It then asked for address. I responded to a list of computer voice options saying it was a delivery issue. The automatic response asked if I wanted the paper delivered tomorrow or a refund for today. I said neither, that I want the paper today. After several tries I was connected with a live person who asked for my telephone number and address and then asked rather brusquely what the problem was. I said I had responded to the automated thing and was told that my only two options were as mentioned above. The person said that if that is what the computer told me that was how it was. I explained that I liked to have the paper on the day it was printed and that it wouldn’t do to have it the next day. The person repeated that that was just the way it is. We had a few more exchanges until I said I really did think it was time to cancel. The person's only response was “fine.” There was no "How can we make this right with you?" There was no, "I really understand your frustration. I'm not someone who is able to do anything about it but here's how you can register your complaint with someone who might be able to." Just, "that's the way it is," and "fine."
The first email. 8:50 a.m.
We did not get our paper this morning. I called the 1-800 number and was told that my only two options were to receive the paper tomorrow or receive a refund. That, of course, is not acceptable. I then talked with a live person who explained rather tersely that if the automated response gave me those two options then those were the only two choices. This was so frustrating. No reasons were given for why the paper was not delivered nor were any given for why none would be delivered today. I felt that the only choice at that time was to cancel. We have been customers for years and this is not an easy thing to do. If you can give me a rational explanation and assure me that this will not happen again I will, of course, resubscribe. Mary
First reply. 1:39 p.m.
Dear Mr . . .,
[NJ: Why someone named "Mary" would be addressed as "Mr" is beyond me, unless the Gannett representative thought "Mary" was also used as a man's name.]
Thank you for contacting the [Gannett paper]. Miss it once...MISS A LOT! We appreciate your business and apologize for our poor delivery service.
[NJ: "Miss it once . . . MISS A LOT!" seems an odd motto to include in responding to a subscriber who has just made precisely that point.]
We certainly want to address this immediately. I will get this matter resolved to your satisfaction. It is our goal to make sure we are meeting the needs of our subscribers.
I have contacted your current carrier about this matter,as well as our circulatory department. We apologize for the inconvenience you have experienced and have taken necessary steps to insure this matter comes to an end. If you have any further questions or would like to give home delivery another try please contact to further assist you. We hate to lose you as a customer and hope to hear from you soon. Have a great day!
Please allow us to take care of this matter promptly so you can continue to enjoy the convenience of home delivery.
Sincerely, . . .
[NJ: As will soon be made clear, this response totally misses the mark. The concern was not with a single day's missed paper; the concern was with the corporate policy that provides no option for its same-day delivery in cases of non-delivery. As a response it is, therefore, even worse than the Pullman car passenger's complaint about bedbugs in his roomette.
You know the story? The passenger got a reply from the Pullman Company CEO, "a letter so courteous and logical that he was greatly soothed." It explained that they had never had bedbug complaints before, could not imagine how this could have happened, that they were sure it would never happen again, and that they hoped he would continue to travel by train.
He then discovered that his letter to the company had inadvertently been enclosed in the envelope along with the CEO's letter to him. In the margin was scribbled in pencil, "Send this guy the bedbug letter." Anonymous, Jokes for All Occasions, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008, p. 107.
Gannett's reply was, in effect, "Send this man (named "Mary") 'the bedbug email.'" (Except for the fact the bedbug letter at least addressed the customer's complaint; the Gannett reply did not even do that.)]
The second email. 6:11 p.m.
I want to be clear. It was not the failure of delivery. One expects that to happen now and then. My complaint was specifically about your policy not to bring the paper to the customer on the DAY of the paper. Your options were either to have the paper delivered the next day or to have a refund for that day. THAT is what was unacceptable. In the past the paper was brought out right away after a report of a missed delivery. If you can assure me that your policy of not making same day delivery has changed I will certainly continue with the [Gannett paper]. Mary (not Mr.)
The Second Reply. 6:23 p.m.
Dear Ms. . . .,
Thank you for contacting the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Miss it once...MISS A LOT!
I apologize for the inconvenience. We did offer re-delivery in the past. I understand your frustration but the cost of doing business continues to grow and as a result we've had to make some difficult decisions. We are no longer able to offer re-delivery Monday through Friday. It is our goal to continue providing you with a high quality newspaper at a low price. To ensure this error does not occur again, I have notified the carrier. Please feel free to reply to this e-mail if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
The Third (and last) Email. May 2, 7:28 a.m.
It is obvious that you have never understood the nature of my complaint. My complaint to you and my decision to cancel my subscription is NOT because of the carrier. I understand that there are occasions when papers are not delivered. My sole reason for canceling is your policy of NOT redelivering the PC on the day it was missed. I think customer satisfaction plays a big part in your business and it looks like you are being penny wise and pound foolish.
Mary
Gannett CEO Craig A. Dubow explains to shareholders Gannett's "customer centric," "customer-based," goal to "link our efforts better to customer desires," "focused on the customer's wants and needs," "delivering the content customers want"
The basic principles of our strategy are these: Become customer centric in everything we do. . . .
Another key strategic goal for Gannett is to become a digital powerhouse. In 2008, we achieved a major milestone in this regard by making more than $1 billion pro forma in digital revenues across all our divisions. . . .
In Detroit, while producing award-winning journalism, they also were busy creating a whole new approach to the business of newspapers. We believe this innovative, customer-based method will lead the way for our industry.
Again, the changes to our newspapers were done with an eye to the strategic plan’s goal of becoming leaner, faster and much more focused on the customers’ wants and needs. . . .
As you know, in 2008 we had operating revenues of nearly $6.8 billion and operating cash flow of nearly $1.5 billion. . . .
At the same time, we need to link our efforts better with customer desires. In 2009, you will see us providing content verticals that reach into the hearts and minds of our customers in ways we haven’t before. . . .
We are very customer focused, delivering the content customers want on any platform they want it.
Think about it. Here is a newspaper company, with revenues of nearly $7 billion a year, that has as one of the "basic principles of [its] strategy [to] become customer centric in everything we do." Wouldn't you think that it could afford to make one of those things, among its "everything we do," the delivery of its daily papers to subscribers?
The Final Chapter
Like all stories this one, too, has a final chapter.
It has turned out that it is as hard for Gannett to carry through with a cancellation of a newspaper subscription as it is for it to deliver a paper to a subscriber whose paper doesn't arrive on any given day -- or to rethink a "cost savings" policy that results in subscribers not receiving their papers on the day of publication.
Bear in mind, as set forth above, the subscription was canceled, by phone, on May 1. A credit to the subscriber's bank account (for the subscription price of the papers paid for but that would not be received) occurred a couple of days later. Emails from Gannett indicated that the carrier had been communicated with.
And yet the paper continued to arrive -- May 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 -- then for some reason skipped the 15th and 16th, came again on the 17th, skipped the 18th, came again on the 19th, and then finally stopped, apparently for good, on the 20th.
The newspapers -- virtually all newspapers, not just Gannett's -- are in economic trouble. Their subscribers are drifting away -- and dying off -- and not being replaced by a younger generation of readers. The papers are giving away their copy for free on the Internet. They've lost classified advertising revenue to Craig's List and other online services. They've lost commercial advertising both to other media and because of the recession that's caused all businesses to cut back on expenses generally.
They need new business models, because we clearly need their investigative reporting for democracy to survive (and for bloggers to have source material!). Firing journalists from news bureaus that were often understaffed in the best of times is neither a solution nor a business model -- regardless of what Wall Street thinks.
What they clearly can do is to continue to serve the declining subscriber base they have, rather than alienate them.
And it is, among other things, sad that Gannett has chosen not to do so in this case. For Mary was not one to bad mouth the paper in question, as some Iowa City residents do. She liked the paper. Really looked forward to reading it thoroughly each morning. Liked the local coverage, the editorial and op ed pages. She's a computer whiz, and is still getting the news online. But she's not happy about it. She was happy to pay for the pleasure of holding the hard copy newspaper in her hands as her parents and grandparents had done before her.
It is Gannett that abandoned her, rather than the other way around. And if the email and conversations I've had since writing this are any guide, they've abandoned a great many other formerly loyal subscribers as well. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
April 26, 2009, 8:00 a.m.; April 27, 2009, 6:00 a.m. (updates), 4:45 p.m. Extra! (See bold heading, "Will Iowans Take Note -- Let Alone Take Charge?" below]; April 28, 2009, 7:15 a.m. (Contents; Times' story); April 29, 2009, 7:30 a.m. (a blog entry that evolves over four days is bound to be a little disjointed and even internally inconsistent; hopefully "Wednesday Morning Thoughts" and the expanded "Contents," below will help), 7:30 p.m. (pork industry gets to President Obama, see "Lipstick on Pigs = "North American Flu"?!," and "Pigs in the Oval Office," below); April 30, 2009, 7:20 a.m. (see below, "Blockbuster: Why Healthy Hogs Harm Humans")
Swine Flu: Another Corporate Greed Externality? Homegrown Risk to Iowans? (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Did Smithfield put the swine into swine flu? Some are suggesting as much.
It's hard to miss the recent media coverage of a new variety of swine flu that is being passed between humans in Mexico, the United States -- and, as of this morning, New Zealand.
Put "swine flu" into Google and you'll get 900,000 hits. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has a special swine flu Web page with numerous links regarding what the World Health Organization says could become a pandemic ("From December 2005 through February 2009, a total of 12 human infections with swine influenza were reported from 10 states in the United States. Since March 2009, a number of confirmed human cases of a new strain of swine influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in California, Texas, and Mexico have been identified. An investigation into these cases is ongoing").
"Influenza-Like Illness in the United States and Mexico,"World Health Organization, April 24, 2009 ("Because there are human cases associated with an animal influenza virus, and because of the geographical spread of multiple community outbreaks, plus the somewhat unusual age groups affected, these events are of high concern"). "[The CDC's] Dr. Anne Schuchat . . . told reporters on Saturday [April 25] . . . that, because of the wide geographic spread of the virus so far, the outbreak is already 'beyond containment.' . . . Earlier in the day, the head of the World Health Organization said that the outbreak has the potential to develop into a pandemic." "WHO Warns of Possible Pandemic as Mexico Seeks to Contain Swine Flu; 3 new cases reported in United States, health officials say,"Forbes, April 26, 2009.
Smithfield's Pork. But you'll find the mainstream media's coverage of the possible corporate cause and source of this potential pandemic to be "somewhere between slim and none at all."
Check the Cook It Simply site for herring recipes and you'll find 59 ways to serve herring. That's about how many different herring dishes I remember from a smorgasbord in Sweden some years ago.
And what herring is to the Swedes pig is to Smithfield. You could say they've really gone whole hog. Go to Smithfield's "Our Products" page and all you'll find linked (pardon the expression) besides sausages are "smoked hams," "fresh pork," "smoked pork chops," "bacon," "breakfast sausage," "smoked sausage" and "luncheon meats." [Photo credit: Smithfield.]
But if you put "swine flu" into the Smithfield search field the answer comes back, "Sorry, no recipes matching your search were found. Please try again..."
Smithfield's Hog Lots (CAFOs), Philpott and Grist. In short, Smithfield ain't talking about its Granjas Carroll de Mexico operations.
Philpott is the Grist food editor and farms what he describes as "a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina." Here is a reproduction of his swine flu article:
The outbreak of a new flu strain—a nasty mash-up of swine, avian, and human viruses—has infected 1000 people in Mexico and the U.S., killing 68. The World Health Organization warned Saturday that the outbreak could reach global pandemic levels.
Is Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork packer and hog producer, linked to the outbreak? Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carrol, raise 950,000 hogs per year, according to the company Web site—a level nearly equal to Smithfield’s total U.S. hog production.
On Friday, the U.S. disease-tracking blog Biosurveillance published a timeline of the outbreak containing this nugget, dated April 6 (major tip of the hat to Paula Hay, who alerted me to the Smithfield link on the Comfood listserv and has written about it on her blog, Peak Oil Entrepreneur):
[Photo credit: Grist.com] Residents [of Perote] believed the outbreak had been caused by contamination from pig breeding farms located in the area. They believed that the farms, operated by [Smithfield's] Granjas Carroll, polluted the atmosphere and local water bodies, which in turn led to the disease outbreak. According to residents, the company denied responsibility for the outbreak and attributed the cases to “flu.” However, 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. It was unclear whether health officials had identified a suspected pathogen responsible for this outbreak.
From what I can tell, the possible link to Smithfield has not been reported in the U.S. press. Searches of Google News and the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal all came up empty. The link is being made in the Mexican media, however. “Granjas Carroll, causa de epidemia en La Gloria,” declared a headline in the Vera Cruz-based paper La Marcha. No need to translate that, except to point out that La Gloria is the village where the outbreak seems to have started. Judging from the article, Mexican authorities treat hog CAFOs with just as much if not more indulgence than their peers north of the border, to the detriment of surrounding communities and the general public health. Get this:
De acuerdo con uno de los habitantes de la comunidad, Eli Ferrer Cortés, los desechos fecales y orgánicos que produce Granjas Carroll no son tratados adecuadamente, lo que genera contaminación del agua y del viento en la region.
My rough translation: According to one community resident, the organic and fecal waste produced by Granjas Carrol isn’t adequately treated, creating water and air pollution in the region. I witnessed—and smelled—the same thing in Hardin County, Iowa, a couple of years ago, another area marked by intensive industrial hog production. The article goes on to say that area residents have long complained of “fetid odors” in the air and water, and swarms of flies hovering around waste lagoons. Like their counterparts who live in CAFO-heavy U.S. areas, they also complain of respiratory ailments. Now, with 30 percent of the area’s residents now infected with the virulent flu bug, people are demanding that state and federal authorities inspect hog operations there. So far, reports La Marcha, the response has been: nada.
The Mexico City daily La Jornada has also made the link. According to the newspaper, the Mexican health agency IMSS has acknowledged that the orginal carrier for the flu could be the “clouds of flies” that multiply in the Smithfield subsidiary’s manure lagoons.
I’ll be in touch with contacts in Mexico as this story develops —and I’ll be curious to see whether the U.S. media explores the link with Smithfield’s Mexico operation.
Qualifications.
Can We Eat Ham? (1) (a) To remove any possible ambiguity, and in fairness to Smithfield, it should be noted that at least I am unaware of any evidence that one can contract swine flu by eating pork products, whether Smithfield's or those of any other supplier. Apparently, once contracted swine flu is then spread from human to human (some of whom may be referred to as "pigs" but are actually of the human species). If Philpott is correct, Smithfield's possible involvement comes from what it's doing in its hog lots, not in its products.
(b) On the other hand, one of the world's largest importers of pork products, Russia, has curtailed its importation of pork based on its scientific and epidemiological evaluations. ("Russia banned imports of all meat not treated thermally from Mexico, Texas, California and Kansas, and raw pork imports from eight other U.S. states, Central America and the Caribbean." Jonathan Lynn, "Swine flu alert prompts pork import bans,"Reuters, April 27, 2009. "[I]n 2008 Russia was this nation's [the United States'] fourth-largest international customer for pork and pork variety meats, with 217,767 metric tons worth $476 million. For January and February 2009, exports to Russia were down 49% from year ago . . .." Lauren Etter, Debbie Carlson and Curt Thacker, "Pork Industry Moves to Quell Flu Fears,"Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2009.)
Hog Lots and Swine Flu: The Data (2) (a) Russia's scientists notwithstanding, I have not personally searched the scientific literature on the relationships between hog lots and swine flu and for that reason know of none -- but see blockbuster Extra!, below. (b) Dr. Patricia Qunlisk, epidemiologist for the Iowa Department of Public Health, reports no known cases of swine flu in Iowa. Daniel P. Finney, "Epidemiologist: No swine flu reported in Iowa,"Des Moines Register, April 26, 2009. Of course, there could be any number of explanations: [1] there never has been and never will be any connection between hog lots and human disease, [2] there can be a connection, but Iowa has just been lucky so far, [3] there can be a connection, and some Iowans are suffering from hog-related illness, but they have not yet been evaluated and diagnosed as such, [4] there can be a connection, but the risks can be radically reduced, or even eliminated, by following the practices of Iowa farmers, or (and deliberately listed last as least plausible) [5] there is a connection, Iowans have contracted disease, but the state's pork producers have sufficient political and economic power to suppress the news -- and, again, see blockbuster Extra! below.
Where Are the Media and Experts? (c) On the other hand, acknowledging that "an assertion is not a fact," and "an hypothesis is not a proof," if Grist.com is correct, Mexican authorities seem to believe there is a connection between hot lots and swine flu, and the hypotheses they assert strike me as at a minimum perfectly plausible. Doesn't their hypothesis -- after all, they're there, at ground zero, dealing with over 1000 infected Mexicans -- at least deserve reporting by America's mainstream media, and investigation by our public health institutions? See, e.g., a story in which this might have been discussed where this hypothesis (indeed, any hypothesis as to source/cause) is nowhere to be found in an otherwise very reputable mainstream media report, Gautam Naik and Betsy McKay, "Science Races to Parse New Virus; Bug, a Genetic Hybrid, Contains Elements Foreign to Humans, Posing Pandemic Risk,"Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2009.
Will Iowans Take Note -- Let Alone Take Charge?
In case you missed it, fellow Iowans, let me repeat what Philpott has to say about Iowa's hog lots:
I witnessed—and smelled—the same thing in Hardin County, Iowa, a couple of years ago, another area marked by intensive industrial hog production. The article goes on to say that area residents have long complained of “fetid odors” in the air and water, and swarms of flies hovering around waste lagoons. Like their counterparts who live in CAFO-heavy U.S. areas, they also complain of respiratory ailments.
So far there's no reason to believe there's anything magical about Mexico's ability to create swine flu from hog lots. Have we just been lucky so far? Do we have the potential for creating our own homegrown swine flu? Have we already done so? Or is our immunity just one more way in which Iowa, and Iowans, are special? And see, "Cautions," (2)(b), above.
Blockbuster Extra! They've Known All Along! April 27, 4:45 p.m.
Well, it now turns out, I find, that scientists have known all about this risk since at least 2005. It's just that the CAFO-profiting corporations, and their campaign-contribution-profiting politicians have preferred to do nothing about it.
Here are excerpts from the AP's story 3-1/2 years ago involving, as it happens, a University of Iowa researcher.
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- University of Iowa scientists say . . . despite the worldwide focus on the avian flu virus, research by Dr. Gregory Gray shows pigs, too, pose a threat for passing the [influenza] virus to humans.
In . . . the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, Gray said hogs' genetic makeup make them perfect mixing vessels for producing new strains of influenza virus. . . .
If the avian flu virus or another pandemic strain enters the United States and infects swine or poultry flocks, Iowa's more than 200,000 swine and poultry workers could be at the front lines of infection, researchers said. "We're really concerned about agricultural workers and their health," said Gray . . ..
Between 2002 and 2004, researchers studied 111 Iowa farmers, 97 meat-processing workers, 65 veterinarians and 79 individuals uninvolved in the swine industry.
The survey found that farmers were the most likely to have antibodies in their bloodstream to fight off swine influenza, which researchers say indicates previous infection with the virus . . . while processors showed lower rates . . ..
"Right now, swine workers are not included in the national pandemic plan, nor are they closely monitored for influenza," Gray said. "Should pandemic influenza virus strains enter the United States and these workers not be given special attention, we think it could be a really big problem for Iowa."
So what was a guess on my part yesterday -- that we might have some swine flu factories right here in Iowa -- now turns out to be very close to the truth.
Anyone Care for Some Chinese Ham? From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You . . .
"the deaths of some 51 people . . . blamed on cough syrup tainted with Chinese-made diethylene glycol, commonly used in antifreeze. The same chemical has been found in toothpastes from China sold in the US and Canada. Earlier this year, more than 100 brands of cat and dog food were pulled from the shelves in the US after pets died from eating food contaminated with the chemical melamine, traced back to wheat gluten from China."
Meanwhile, it turns out that Smithfield is being eyed by China's largest pork producer, Cofco.
"Early last year, Smithfield began exporting pork to China through Cofco; and in July, Cofo bought 5 percent of Smithfield shares [and] announced plans to consolidate production along the U.S. model [boosting its production from 500,000] to 10-15 million hogs within five years -- 'raised in accordance with standards and practices prevailing in the United States,' Forbes reported. In other words, Cofco and Smithfield were plotting the rapid-fire CAFOization of Chinese pork production. . . . Such a deal would represent a bet by the Chinese government that U.S. regulators have no serious plans on cracking down on CAFOs for antibiotic abuse, water and air degradation, and deplorable labor practices. Let’s hope Cofco execs don’t know something we don’t."
See generally the Wall Street Journal's collection of 11 stories at "Swine Flu Complete Coverage,"Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2009.
Conclusion: Media Owe Us Investigation. When some Wall Street folks proved a little too clever for their own good, fraudulently packaging and selling worthless mortgages in an effort to enhance their short-term bonuses, they ended up harming not only themselves and their company, but their entire industry, and then the entire global economy beyond.
If -- and that's a big "if" -- it turns out that Swiftfield's CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), designed to reduce costs and increase corporate profits, end up contributing to a swine flu pandemic, the consequences may be similar. Already, as the Wall Street Journal stories reveal, the impact has gone well beyond Smithfield to the entire pork industry, public health organizations from the World Health Organization to the Iowa Department of Public Health, the travel industry (travelers' fear of crowds and destinations' hotels and restaurants, airlines' additional screening; Mexico City is virtually closed down), and the global stock markets. See, Steve Goldstein, "Futures Sink on Swine-Flu Fears,"Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2009, 6:25 a.m. CT. As Goldstein reports, two hours before the New York markets even opened, "U.S. stock futures fell sharply Monday as the outbreak of deadly swine flu stoked fears that a possible recovery in the global economy could be derailed."
In short, Grist's assertions regarding Smithfield's CAFO operation in Mexico (Granjas Carroll de Mexico) is, potentially, a very, very big story (see above). Good mainstream media investigative reporting may confirm, or prove false, Mexican authorities' assertions. In either case, the world's people -- and, not incidentally, Smithfield -- deserve no less.
Update: Times' Brief Mention, April 28
By Tuesday the New York Times let a brief mention of Springfield into the sixth paragraph of a back-page story:
In Mexico, where the only related deaths have been reported, state health authorities looking for the initial source of the outbreak toured a million-pig hog farm in Perote, in Veracruz State. The plant is half-owned by Smithfield Foods, an American company and the world’s largest pork producer.
Mexico’s first known swine flu case, which was later confirmed, was from Perote, according to Health Minister José Ángel Córdova. The case involved a 5-year-old boy who recovered.
The boy’s hometown, La Gloria, is also close to a pig farm that raises almost 1 million animals a year. The facility, Granjas Carroll de Mexico, is partly owned by Smithfield Foods, a Virginia-based US company and the world’s largest producer and processor of pork products. Residents of La Gloria have long complained about the clouds of flies that are drawn the so-called “manure lagoons” created by such mega-farms, known in the agriculture business as Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). It is now known that there was a widespread outbreak of a powerful respiratory disease in the La Gloria area earlier this month, with some of the town’s residents falling ill in February. Health workers soon intervened, sealing off the town and spraying chemicals to kill the flies that were reportedly swarming through people’s homes.
Pigs' Public Relations. Notwithstanding the mainstream media's seeming reluctance to be seen as taking on the pork industry by trying to uncover the cause, the source, of what's come to be called "swine flu" -- a subject one would think to be an attractive target for "investigative journalism" -- the large pig factories have been waging an embarrassingly disingenuous public relations campaign.
Lipstick on Pigs = "North American Flu"?! The pork industry is putting pressure on governments and the media to change the name from "swine flu" to something less, well, pork-related, like "North American flu" (notwithstanding the cases in New Zealand, Israel, Spain and Britain). (Similarly, the airline industry is trying to convince us there's no reason for us to stay home -- curtailing their profits along with our travel. Daniel Michaels and Susan Carey, "Airlines Could Be Affected if Passengers Curb Travel,"Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2009.)
Agricultural groups . . . are successfully prodding the federal government to refer to the virus [as] H1N1.
The Agriculture Department, which used the term "swine influenza" as recently as Monday, clung to the anonymous term "H1N1 flu" in a statement Tuesday touting the safeness of U.S. pork. [NJ: The Secretary of Agriculture is former pork state Governor Tom Vilsack.] . . .
Richard Besser, acting director of [CDC said] . . . "That's [calling it "swine flu"] not helpful to pork producers. . . ."
[S]cientists say . . . viruses tend to be named after the first species in which they are discovered, and H1N1 was discovered in pigs decades ago [and] clearly had a long history in hogs before it made the leap into the human population . . ..
"The vast amount of material in it is in pigs," said [University of Minnesota's] Michael T. Osterholm . . ..
[T]he National Pork Producers Council has pestered health officials to stop calling it swine flu. "The whole industry is talking to the USDA and the White House," an industry lobbyist said. The American Farm Bureau Federation . . . [is] suggesting "hybrid influenza" . . ..
Smithfield Foods Inc. . . . prefers . . . "North American influenza." Swine flu "just has the wrong name," said [Smithfield CEO] C. Larry Pope . . ..
[During] . . . an outbreak of swine flu in 1976 . . . an industry group unsuccessfully pleaded for the name . . . "New Jersey flu."
Sadly, Pigs in the Oval Office Swine flu is perhaps the top news story today around the world. The WHO has moved the threat level toward pandemic from a 3 to 4 to 5 (on a six-point scale). The U.S. has now witnessed its first death from swine flu.
Swine flu is the name that scientists have used, consistent with past scientific naming practices, for the H1N1 virus for over 30 years -- until yesterday. We've all known the power of another kind of "pork" in Washington. Now we see the even greater power of the pork industry in actually putting words in the mouth of the President of the United States -- or, perhaps more precisely, taking the word "swine" out of his mouth. (Lest you think this was not a switch, see as late as Sunday afternoon, April 26, "Press Briefing on Swine Influenza," White House Press Office, April 26, 2009, at which the disease is consistently and repeatedly referred to as "swine flu.")
Although he led this evening's [April 29] news conference, appropriately, with the swine flu news the word "swine" (or "pigs," "hogs," "pork," "Smithfield" or "ham")was never mentioned either by him or any member of the mainstream media. (ABC's Charles Gibson, in his one-minute of commentary following the news conference spoke only of "flu.")
Now that is lobbying power! And a sad fact for all of us to contemplate.
Tomorrow we'll see the extent to which the mainstream media will be willing to mention the President's, and their, omission of capitulation this evening.
Safe to eat? But why do it? Senator Chuck Grassley, from the nation's largest pork producing state, Iowa, ceremoniously announced that he had just eaten a pork chop -- similar to former President George W. Bush's post 9/11 suggestion that the most appropriate response would be for the American people to "go shopping." In short, everything's normal; nothing to worry about. Although we've heard nothing regarding Grassley's health since, we can assume he's probably OK, and that the pork industry and health officials are probably correct to say that if we heat pork to over 160 degrees long enough it's probably safe to eat.
Risk Assessment. But why take the risk right now? It's a classic case of risk assessment (or benefit assessment) when it comes to medical information. Apparently the likelihood you'll get swine flu from eating pork is somewhere between slim and none at all. On the other hand, if you were to contract the disease there is at least some risk of death at worst and flu symptoms at best. Is there a benefit that outweighs that risk, a need to eat pork rather than other protein sources right now? No. Therefore, it's not irrational to, at a minimum, hold off on the pork right now. In fact, Russia has stopped importing pork from the U.S. and Mexico, in part for that reason, see above.
(I apply the analogous, reverse analysis to medical benefit. My doctor tells me the vitamin C I take is just ending up in the Iowa River. On the other hand, there's a widespread belief it can help reduce risk of colds during Iowa winters. There is no known harm from vitamin C consumption (within prescribed limits), and it doesn't cost very much. Given that there's some remote possibility of benefit, and no known risk of harm, I take some.)
Springfield's disingenuous defenses. Springfield is, understandably, trying to get out from under the cloud of flies and culpability that is swarming around its corporate headquarters and one-million-pig CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) in Mexico. ("'We are very comfortable that our pork is safe,' Smithfield president and chief executive Larry Pope said in an interview." Lauren Etter, "Mexico Tests Smithfield Hogs; U.S. Meat Company Says Its Pork Is Safe,"Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2009.)
They are saying that no one ever got swine flu from eating Smithfield pork products, none of their Mexican workers have contracted the disease from their hogs, and none of the hogs have swine flu. I've already dealt with the first, and I frankly don't trust them with regard to the second and third.
Want a second opinion? Here's an excerpt from a column by "Dr. [Henry I.] Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, [who] is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is a former flu researcher and was an official at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration from 1977 to 1994."
Flu viruses can be directly transmitted (via droplets from sneezing or coughing) from pigs to people, and vice versa. These cross-species infections occur most commonly when people are in close proximity to large numbers of pigs, such as in barns, livestock exhibits at fairs, and slaughterhouses. And, of course, flu is transmissible from human to human, either directly or via contaminated surfaces.
Pigs are uniquely susceptible to infection with flu viruses of mammalian and avian origin. This is of concern for a couple of reasons. First, pigs can serve as intermediaries in the transmission of flu viruses from birds to people. And when avian viruses infect pigs, they adapt and become more efficient at infecting mammals -- which makes them more easily transmitted and dangerous to humans.
Second, pigs can serve as hosts in which two (or more) influenza viruses infecting an animal simultaneously can undergo "genetic reassortment," a process in which pieces of viral RNA (the virus's genetic material, similar to DNA) are shuffled and exchanged, creating a new organism. The influenza viruses responsible for the world-wide 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics -- which killed about 70,000 and 34,000, respectively, in the U.S. -- were such viruses, containing genes from both human and avian viruses.
But none of Smithfield's defenses is really relevant even if any were true.
The question is whether the Smithfield operation, that confines pigs in very closed quarters, creates "lagoons" of waste, attracts swarms of flies, and is the geographical location where the disease seems to have begun, has something to do with the origins of swine flu.
Mexican health officials believe its origin is related to the flies in the pig manure (see above).
The Iowa researcher found that Iowa hog farmers had built up antibodies to swine flu in their bodies. That's good news and bad news. Antibodies are good; they help ward off disease; their creation is what vaccines are for (including flu vaccines). But if the farmers haven't been inoculated with a swine flu vaccine it must mean that they were exposed to the disease in some other way -- most likely as a result of being around either their hogs or the hogs' manure or the manure's flies (see above).
Pigs' politics mean investigations unlikely. The large factory CAFOs and packing houses are notoriously (a) politically powerful and, perhaps for that reason, (b) loosely regulated. There are many reasons for using this opportunity to review their practices -- however unlikely it may be that the officials who represent agricultural states, receive the industry's campaign contributions, and control the relevant committees of Congress will stop eating pork chops long enough to conduct such investigations. Those reasons include everything from unbelievable animal cruelty to the adverse impact on human health from industry practices to -- for those who enjoy eating meat -- the quality of the product.
Vegetarian thoughts. And this is also a good time to at least think about, even if not adopt, the path of vegetarians -- a growing number. Meat is related to the obesity epidemic and two of our biggest killers: cancer and heart disease. ("Now a new study of more than 500,000 Americans has . . . found that . . . the men and women who consumed the most red and processed meat were likely to die sooner, especially from one of our two leading killers, heart disease and cancer . . .." Jane E. Brody, "Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat,"New York Times, April 27, 2009.)
A respect for animals is grounded for some in religious or philosophical beliefs that discourage, if not prevent, their eating cattle and hogs as much as eating their pet cat. Their notion of living in harmony with nature involves granting a "right to life" to all species, not just humans. With a growing global population, and pressure on land and water, there's an environmental benefit from vegetable protein sources that require roughly one-tenth the land per gram of protein as the land required for animal protein.
Just some things to think about as we watch the growing numbers of those infected with, and dying from, swine flu.
April 30 Blockbuster: Why Healthy Hogs Harm Humans
Sounds impossible, doesn't it? It's not.
It turns out that the corporate pork industry's confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and its procedures, are incubating more than just swine flu. The problem for the human species is not just buried in the hog manure lagoons with the flies. It's also in the antibiotics force-fed to healthy pigs.
The New York Times Nicholas Kristol explains it all in a "must read" column of his from last month [March]. Here are some excerpts:
We don’t add antibiotics to baby food and Cocoa Puffs so that children get fewer ear infections. That’s because we understand that the overuse of antibiotics is already creating “superbugs” resistant to medication.
Yet we continue to allow agribusiness companies to add antibiotics to animal feed so that piglets stay healthy and don’t get ear infections. Seventy percent of all antibiotics in the United States go to healthy livestock, according to a careful study by the Union of Concerned Scientists — and that’s one reason we’re seeing the rise of pathogens that defy antibiotics.
These dangerous pathogens are now even in our food supply. Five out of 90 samples of retail pork in Louisiana tested positive for MRSA — an antibiotic-resistant staph infection — according to a peer-reviewed study published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology last year. . . .
[These] results should sound an alarm bell, for MRSA already kills more than 18,000 Americans annually, more than AIDS does. . . .
[A] new strain [of MRSA] called ST398 is emerging and seems to find a reservoir in modern hog farms. Research by Peter Davies of the University of Minnesota suggests that 25 percent to 39 percent of American hogs carry MRSA. . . .
[P]igs could pass on the infection by direct contact with their handlers, through their wastes leaking into ground water (. . . antibiotic-resistant bacteria enter[] ground water from hog farms), or through their meat . . ..
Yet the central problem here isn’t pigs, it’s humans. . . . [T]he United States still bows to agribusiness interests by permitting the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal feed. That’s unconscionable.
[A]ntibiotics in livestock feed were “a major component” in the rise in antibiotic resistance. . . . [M]ore antibiotics were fed to animals in North Carolina alone than were administered to the nation’s entire human population. . . .
Robert Martin, who led a Pew Commission on industrial farming that examined antibiotic use [asks], “So why give them [antibiotics] to healthy animals just so we can keep them in crowded and unsanitary conditions?”
The answer is simple: politics.
Legislation to ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture has always been blocked by agribusiness interests. . . .
Louise Slaughter of New York, who is the sole microbiologist in the House of Representatives, said she planned to reintroduce the legislation this coming week.
“We’re losing the ability to treat humans,” [asserts Congress' sole microbiologist, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, NY]. “We have misused one of the best scientific products we’ve had.” . . .
The Infectious Diseases Society of America has declared antibiotic resistance a “public health crisis” [citing the case of] a 17-year-old New Jersey girl who died from MRSA in 2006 [having] endured months in the hospital, . . . because the microbes were stronger than the drugs. . . .
So Mr. Obama and Mr. Vilsack, will you line up to curb the use of antibiotics in raising American livestock? That is evidence of an industrial farming system that is broken: for the sake of faster-growing hogs, we’re empowering microbes that endanger our food supply and threaten our lives.
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Things are getting a little heavy around the Lombardo mystery, so to give us all a little break I thought I'd do some research on how other cities, city councils, and mayors do it.
Is there an alternative to the management style of our City Council and Mayor?
As the Henny Youngman routine might have gone: "How's your Mayor?" "Compared to what?"
Well, compared to Hazel McCallion for instance.
Mississauga, Ontario, to the west of Toronto is no small town. It's the sixth largest city in Canada.
And the citizens of Mississauga have been re-electing their mayor, Hazel McCallion, in 11 consecutive elections over the past 31 years. Asked her secret, the approachable and charming McCallion says she "never stops campaigning" and "you have to look after your people."
Not incidentally -- as our City Council confronts its ill-fated, ongoing budget process not knowing its own priorities without a consultant (see below) -- McCallion has seen to it that her city remains debt free and now has a $700 million reserve.
Clearly, Mississauga has thought through its "governance model." Standing next to a detailed miniature model of the city she explains, "That's the future; we had a plan, so we made a model."
A former professional hockey player, Hazel McCallion is now 88 years old.
Oh, and her approval rating? 92%.
Watch her interview on the CBC's "Rick Mercer Report" from February 26, 2009, and let your imagination soar to what Iowa City's future could be:
Meanwhile, the stories continue: Chris Rhatigan, "Iowa City Budget Issues Still Loom; Acting Manager Plans to Stick to Timeline,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 23, 2009, p. A1 ("In addition to having a new leader [Dale Helling], the council will re-examine hiring a consultant to conduct a community survey on city services"); Editorial, "What Happened, I.C. Council?" The Gazette, April 23, 2009, p. A4 ("[C]ouncil members should at least publicly explain the grounds for dismissing Lombardo and the general reasoning behind their move").
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Gary Sanders holds the highest office in the land: "Public Citizen." That doesn't mean he's always right, any more than that fellow who holds the second-highest office in the land (President) is always right. I've disagreed with both of them in this blog and elsewhere, and am about to do it again.
But Sanders is a real community asset in terms of the process he represents -- regardless of what you think of the substantive positions he may take on any given issue.
In this morning's Press-Citizen he's complaining about the job the media has done covering the City Council. He contends if it had done a better job we'd all understand why Lombardo was fired. Gary Sanders, "Lombardo deserved firing, press didn't do its job,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 22, 2009.
(Not incidentally, a "Hat's Off" kudo to the Press-Citizen editors for their consistent willingness to run criticism of the paper on its own pages. How many of us would be willing to do the equivalent in our own lives?
And another, if you're wearing two hats, for the revelation in this morning's editorial that, "On Monday, the Press-Citizen put in a records request asking for all e-mail exchanges between Lombardo and members of the council in the past few months. We also asked for any e-mails between councilors in which they mention Lombardo. The city has 10 days from then to respond to the request, and we will report anything that helps shed light on Lombardo's firing -- whether in terms of procedure or cause." (And in this connection see, below, "What can the City Council disclose?") Editorial, "Questions About Lombardo Before City Can Move On,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 22, 2209.)
And speaking of newspapers, they're not doing so well financially these days. They're looking for alternative business models. One involves greater involvement of the community in reporting, and commenting about, the news. The Press-Citizen already does it to some degree with its op ed page (where Sanders appears along with "letters"), the blogs it hosts on its online edition, and the comments it permits there regarding its stories.
Imagine what a difference it would make if 10% -- shucks, if even 1% -- of Iowa City's residents would take on the "Public Citizen" role. Any individual Public Citizen could pick a public body, or official, to track as closely as Sanders says he does with the City Council -- the School Board, the County Board of Supervisors, the Board of Regents; the campaign contributions and votes (and their relationship) of each of our representatives in Des Moines and Washington.
Newspapers have always needed, and to some extent relied on, news and opinion contributions from their citizen-readers. They need it now more than ever.
I am not in a position to challenge any of Sanders' factual assertions regarding Lombardo's failings and why the City Council was right to fire him. I haven't tracked the City Council very closely, certainly not as closely as Gary Sanders.
But even accepting everything he asserts as true I think he's come to the wrong conclusion.
He writes:
Anyone who needs convincing that Lombardo should have been fired should watch the council's April 13 budget priorities meeting . . .. For two hours, the council was perplexed, upset and angry that Lombardo had not come to this meeting with what they had asked him to do -- suggest recommendations on cutting the budget.
Repeatedly the councilors would say that they wanted him to . . . present them with choices and recommendations, . . .. And repeatedly, Lombardo said he wanted some kind of broad framework or parameters first. . . .
That to me was a direct work order, and Lombardo was unwilling or unable to do as they requested. In this country, that is grounds for termination.
As Sanders describes the meeting it seems to me that Lombardo was right and the Council was wrong -- and that, therefore, his effort to get the Council to do its job was not only not "grounds for termination" it was grounds for commendation.
For similar reasons I would disagree with the Press-Citizen's characterization of the meeting in this morning's editorial: "the council asked Lombardo to give them recommendations for budget cuts, and he seemed to fail to grasp why he should do that." Editorial, "Questions About Lombardo Before City Can Move On,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 22, 2209.
As a School Board member I used to say, "Well, you may not get any pay, but at least you get a lot of grief." City Council members get both grief and pay -- not that it should make any difference. If you accept a public responsibility you have an obligation to perform, pay or not.
But the fact is that being a member of our City Council is a paid position. It carries responsibilities. And among those responsibilities -- as I have often written, including in the two earlier blog entries from this past week -- is to think about, develop, and write in precise language regarding the "governance" rules, expectations, responsibilities, and relationships by which Council members agree to live and govern. (There's a literature about this. I prefer the John Carver approach. Others don't like it. There are alternatives.)
It is not the CEO's (City Manager's) job to tell the Board (Council) members what he and the staff think the Board (Council) should establish as their priorities and measurable goals for the City (what Carver calls "ends policies"). That's what Council members get the big bucks for, and what properly can only be done by the Council. It's hard work, no doubt; but it's their hard work..
The Daily Iowan has a page-one story about the Lombardo saga this morning that quotes a county supervisor with whom Lombardo worked in a prior role as county administrator in Michigan. The guy obviously thought well of Lombardo -- but that's not my point in quoting him:
Bill Sikkel, then-vice-chairman of Allegan County, spoke positively about Lombardo.
“My style of leadership is to delegate, pick the right people, and get to work,” said Sikkel, a retired Army colonel, noting Lombardo understood that philosophy and worked well with him.
Sikkel also said the word “fired” surprised him — adding Lombardo was a “very nice man” to work with, a sentiment he said could be iterated by most of his staff.
“I was very unhappy when he left,” he said. “We were blessed to have him.”
So why do I quote this? Because what that county vice-chairman is saying is that the first thing he did was to "delegate." Properly done, those delegations would have been accompanied with "delegation orders" -- documents that would both require and reflect that county board's thinking, deliberations, and expression of its measurable goals, its priorities, and the tasks required to get there; the relationship between board members and their "county administrator." In short, it would reflect a process similar to the execution of a workable governance model, or statement of expectations.
Something along that line is simply indispensable. It is what Sanders' report would suggest Lombardo was, quite properly, asking for. It is what the Council was, to quote Sanders (in reaching the opposite conclusion) "unwilling or unable to do as [he] requested."
In short, as I've suggested in the prior two blog entries about Lombardo, it continues to appear to me that the conflict, leading to Lombardo's peremptory firing came down to, or was the casualty of, the Council's failure to exercise its responsibility to address issues of "governance."
What can the City Council disclose?
Some Council members, and commentators, seem to have assumed that because Lombardo's firing was a "personnel" matter the Council is, therefore, prohibited from saying anything about it.
There are essentially three categories of "public records" when it comes to access by the public and the media: (1) matters the agency must make public, (2) matters the agency may make public, and (3) matters the agency may not make public.
Personnel matters fall into the second, not the third, category in Iowa.
Section 22.7 of the Iowa Code does, indeed, begin, "The following public records shall be kept confidential . . ." and does go on, in subsection 22.7(11), to include, "personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including . . . cities . . .."
However, and this is an enormous "however," that opening sentence continues: "unless otherwise ordered . . . by the lawful custodian of the records . . .."
In other words, however much the City Council members may choose to tell the citizens of Iowa City about their 7-0 termination of Lombardo is entirely up to the Council; it's their call whether to keep mum or go public.
The reason we don't know what happened is because they have deliberately and expressly chosen not to tell us. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
