Killed with the mocking bird

The concerns over the influenza epidemic arise primarily in richer nations, where infectious diseases have been controlled. The adverse impact of influenza is primarily on the very young and the very old. With its large population of elderly, supported by state-aided health system, an influenza epidemic would have a devastating financial consequence, as large numbers of sick and dying require the expensive technological interventions that people in richer countries are used to. For developing countries, influenza would result in large numbers of sick people and deaths.

The unfortunate part is that controlling a virus that is dangerous to birds and not humans takes a severe toll on the poor in developing countries. In India probably thousands of people from the lower socio-economic strata were exposed to sick birds. As far as we know, no one developed influenza and no one died of avian influenza in this country. The suicides of small poultry farmers and the ruination of many families will not be due to the bird flu virus. It will arise as a consequence of trying to stamp out a virus that did not cause a single human influenza case in the country.

It is easy to understand the pressure of international agencies on developing countries. These concerns permeate through national governments to the level of the lowest functionaries of the animal husbandry department. Laboratory reports take a while to come. Having been caught off guard once during the bird deaths at Nawapur, we have to see that we are not caught on the wrong foot again. Sadly, the initial resistance from communities has died out. The rural poor had no option but to hand over a source of income in the stamping-out operation. One wonders whether these families will be able to utilise the money given as compensation to establish an alternative livelihood, or they will enter the spiral of poverty, disease and even suicide. The clamour from the larger players in the poultry industry has died out.

Public memory is short. The industry can get on its feet as the reluctance to eat chicken disappears over time, and demand exceeds supply. In the meantime the large-scale killing operations will be of advantage to the larger players in the poultry industry. The rural poor with the backyard poultry and the small farms pose the largest bio-security risk. With international agencies stepping up regulatory measures on export of poultry products, threats from this unregulated sector will be eliminated, paving the way for larger players in the field.

We killed lakhs of birds and pushed the poor to deeper poverty because the country lacks a well-developed system for disease surveillance. There is a very urgent need to develop the skills that can convince the international community that we have the ability to identify and rapidly control infectious diseases before they spread. The disease surveillance system has to be backed up by developing laboratory services. In the current concern about bird flu, we forget that surveillance of malaria, which killed thousands last year, is still lagging in India, and that in some states only 20 per cent of primary health centres have laboratory services. Unless we can develop this system, we will have no other option but to take the steps that we took. As usual, the price for global health concerns will be borne by the rural poor of developing countries.

The writer is co-ordinator, Master of Public Health Programme, Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Pune akarunipune.ernet.in