Key points:
1. The pork industry feels that the use of the word “swine” flu to describe this latest outbreak will hurt consumption.
2. In addition to short-term market data, the industry cites other examples of virus-induced hysteria.
3. All that said, long-term data for public health shocks in the poultry, tomato, and spinach markets (and even the last swine flu in 1976) show little impact.
Hog farmers were hog-raving mad.
Scientists just did what scientists do: In the midst of a cacophony of technical language most journalists wouldn't understand, they mentioned the words “swine flu” to describe this latest swine virus that was able to mutate—just enough—to infect humans. Admittedly, the term “swine flu” is a bit inaccurate, but it’s catchier than H1N1, for sure.
Guess what name stuck?
To be fair, public health scientists went to great lengths to say that you couldn’t catch the virus from consuming pork. That just isn’t the way the flu virus moves—it requires transmission into the respiratory system.
But that didn’t matter.
Fear is stupidity’s Petri dish, and irrationality is spreading far faster than this not-so-bad-so-far novel flu virus.
Names do matter, of course. Just look at just a few examples in this latest news cycle:
When “swine” flu spread to Israel, officials wanted to call it “Mexican” flu. Pigs aren't kosher, of course, and health officials worried that there would be an unclean stigma attached to people who got sick and that they may not seek medical attention. The Mexican ambassador was understandably miffed. Israel is sticking with “H1N1” to name this flu.
In the United States, the “Mexican” origin of the virus has the usual suspects talking about a lockdown at the border. Predictable.
And you better not cough on an airplane headed for Asia. They’re still smarting after failing to adequately contain the SARS virus. They're not about to take it easy now.
More to the economic point, China and Russia banned pork imports from the United States and Mexico in response to the latest outbreak. Of course, other governments do this all the time (South Korea and Japan banned U.S. beef during the bovine encephalitis scare). Part of the decision is—of course—protectionist. It’s a great way to coddle a homegrown industry without upsetting the World Trade Organization. It’s also a great way to assert what little power you have over your larger trading partner.
But whatever the reasons, it is actions like this that are exactly what the pork industry is so worried about. To understand why—and why it’s unlikely to make much of a difference long-term—we need to back up and examine the larger market significance.
Pork is an especially touchy subject in Minnesota.
According to Brian Buhr at the University of Minnesota, Minnesota’s $1.8 billion pork industry took an $18 million hit in one day last week. Of course, that’s just 1 percent, but hog prices have been sliding downward recently, and Minnesota’s economy doesn't need another hit.
What academics and industry-watchers are really afraid of is “public relations in reverse.” The free (but negative) 24/7 publicity generated by the mention of “swine” and “flu” in the same breath is bound to imprint a powerful anti-pork message worldwide.
To respond, the pork industry lobby went into high gear.
At the state level in Minnesota, it convinced the health commissioners to drop the “swine” label, claiming (correctly) that the moniker is inaccurate. At the federal level, President Obama didn't mention “swine” in his 100-day, prime-time press conference. Most news outlets have since followed suit.
The pork guys seem to have won.
But I am not sure it was that big of a deal to begin with.
While I understand the short-term economic concern, I am suspicious of the underlying rationale. Like the flu itself, the industry’s reaction is based on fear, not facts.
How do I know?
I looked at the evidence. Several pieces of evidence, to be exact.
First: Did “Avian Flu” decrease poultry consumption as that hysteria hit its peak? No. Even though, unlike this latest virus, there was evidence that you could get the virus from chickens. If anything, chicken consumption in the United States rose during the 2000–2005 outbreak period.
Second: Did last year’s tomato salmonella scare affect the market for tomato products? No. At least not for long. The market has since recovered.
Third: Did the 2006 spinach contamination affect the market for Popeye's favorite vegetable? For a few months, yes. Then the market recovered stronger than before.
In each case, an initial fear pushed demand down for a short time only to have pent up demand surge after the fear had passed.
But what about “pork” specifically? This is different, isn’t it?
No, I don’t think so.
Again, how do I know? Again, I looked at the evidence.
And in this case, we have good evidence. According to a University of Florida study, the 1976 swine flu helped push pork consumption down in the United States from about 55 pounds per person per year in 1970 to just over 40 pounds per person in 1975. That’s a significant 27 percent decline.
However, by 1980, U.S. consumption jumped to nearly 60 pounds per person before leveling back off to a higher baseline. In other words, a short-term shock, but little meaningful long-term impact.
In fact, U.S. hog exports have grown exponentially from a 1980 low point of just over 25,000 metric tons per year to over 1 million metric tons in 2005. One could say the industry more than recovered from any negative publicity.
Of course, the sheer size of the industry now sharpens focus on the risk today. And while I would expect a dip (even a significant one) to come from this latest outbreak of bad publicity, pork’s popularity worldwide, along with growing middle classes in India and China, is unlikely to give up U.S. pork for long.
My cure for this latest flu? Calm down. Look at the facts. Act appropriately.
Now that’s a novel idea.
Related Links
Read the June 23, 2008 State of the Brand issue "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! Part 2: The Silver Lining" for a deeper look at the tomato and spinach market scares.
Pork Industry Trade Organization
CNN: Inaccurate “swine” flu label hurts industry, pork producers say
When we 'package' the "Swine Flu" in a Pork-Box, it grabs the attention of the world. Who likes pigs,, unless they are sitting on a barbeque grill coated in secret sauces. If the medical industry only gave it a technical name plus a pile of statistics, it would not have the same impact.
Reminds me of something much less serious, but just as rediculous; why do we sell cereals in huge boxes with catchy colored slogans, when the boxes are only 1/3 full of plastic packaged sugar flakes?
Gene
Posted by: Gene Piersa | May 05, 2009 at 03:55 PM