Tamiflu Vs Bird Flu, who cld be the major threat

The cure may, at times, be worse than the disease. That would now seem to be the case with tamiflu, the drug used more than any other for treating and preventing the dreaded bird flu — caused by the pathogenic H5N1 virus. Going by the findings of a study by researchers of the Oxford-based Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the consequences of large-scale consumption of tamiflu can be scarier than even those of a bird flu outbreak. The main fear is that the many tonnes of this drug that are in stock in various countries for combating a possible pandemic would, on consumption, play havoc with wildlife besides increasing human health hazards. Specifically, the scientists have warned that the bulk of this drug would get excreted through urine and flushed down sewers into natural water bodies and rivers, devastating aquatic bio-life. The worst hit would most likely be micro-organisms, including all manner of useful bacteria, present in these waters. This is because oseltamivir carboxylate, the active anti-viral ingredient of tamiflu that also kills bacteria, is resistant to bio-degradation and cannot be eliminated through normal sewer water treatment. Its toxicity can, therefore, persist in water bodies for weeks, even if only treated water is released in them. As a result, fish, birds and other creatures that dwell in these tanks and rivers or feed on them could face ruin. Man, too, needs certain kinds of bacteria in the gut for the digestion of food. All these systems could go haywire if the need should arise to use tamiflu on a mass scale. As if this scenario were not alarming enough, the scientists have also pointed out that widespread consumption of this drug can create conditions in which the H5N1 virus, which normally infects only birds and some animals and does not get transmitted to humans, can mutate into forms capable of being passed on to humans. Another likely fall-out could be the development of immunity against oseltamivir carboxylate in H5N1 virus itself, rendering tamiflu ineffective. This would further heighten the risk of a flu pandemic. And, what is worse, should this happen, mankind would find itself fighting a losing battle till an alternative vaccine targeted specifically at the new form of virus is developed, which might take months. Of course, it can be argued that these dreadful implications are hypothetical even though they emanate from a scientific study carried out on rivers in the US and UK. In any case, the possible hazards are far too serious and indeed unnerving to be disregarded. The bird flu has not yet been eradicated and its incidence continues to be reported from the south-east Asian region. What needs to be remembered is that the flu outbreak of 1918, albeit of a different virus strain, had killed nearly 50 million people. Equally essential to bear in mind is the alarming decline in the population of vultures, which are nature’s scavengers, owing to the indiscriminate use of diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug, for the treatment of animals. Its residual toxicity in animal carcasses is killing the vultures who feed on them. It is, therefore, imperative to revisit the strategies devised to cope with the bird flu menace and to look for safer drugs. An anti-influenza vaccine developed at the Bhopal-based high security laboratory of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is believed to be a less harmful alternative to tamiflu. If that is indeed the case, enough stocks of this vaccine, as also adequate production capacity, need to be built up. Simultaneously, research needs to be initiated to evolve suitable biological and chemical treatments for sewer water to minimise its residual toxicity before the discharge is put out into natural water bodies.

Agricultural reform

When the National Commission on Farmers (NCF) mooted the idea of putting agriculture on the Concurrent list of the Constitution so as to bring it under the direct control of the Centre, nobody expected the states to readily agree to this radical suggestion and that’s what happended during the meeting of state agriculture ministers who met in New Delhi last week to discuss the recommendations of the NCF. No party in power would want to give up control over policies and programmes that could influence the vast rural vote bank. But that does not mean that there is no merit in NCF’s proposal, which was aimed primarily at addressing the issue of multiplicity and dissimilarities in taxes and levies, marketing laws and curbs on goods movement in different states.

The present scenario is far from conducive for creating a single all-India market for agricultural produce, which is what has been suggested by the NCF in one of its preliminary reports. While getting agriculture onto the Concurrent list will not happen in the foreseeable future, it is good that the states have endorsed most of the other recommendations of the NCF which included, significantly, the point that a distinction should be made between minimum support prices (MSP) and the procurement prices at which the government buys grain for its buffer stocking operations and for feeding the public distribution system. This means that market intervention at the MSP should be only to prevent distress sales by farmers, while grain procurement for the public distribution system and the various welfare schemes (like food-for-work) should be on commercial terms. Had such an approach been adopted in the last rabi marketing season, wheat procurement would not have been so low as to necessitate 5.5 million tonnes of imports by the government, at heavy cost to the exchequer.

Equally noteworthy is the NCF’s recommendations regarding the conservation of soil and water resources, and its opposition to the allotment of prime agricultural land for the creation of special economic zones and other non-agricultural purposes. Any perceptible shrinkage of farm land would not be advisable, especially at a time when the overall farm productivity has tended to stagnate, for it would gravely impact growth in the agricultural sector. In fact, what is needed is reversal of the process of land degradation through a massive programme for the reclamation of degraded lands so as to bring them under crop cultivation or, else, under productive plantation or forest cover. The objective of most NCF recommendations is to improve livelihood and income opportunities for farmers so as to prevent them from falling into a debt trap, leading to extreme cases like suicides. The need for moving in this direction is borne out by the National Sample Survey finding that over 40 per cent of farmers want to give up farming because it does not yield an adequate income. The NCF has suggested creation of income-generating opportunities in villages through activities allied to agriculture, besides in the non-farm sector. Now that the formulation of a national policy for farmers has begun, on the basis of the recommendations of the NCF and the views of state governments, these issues should be kept in focus and emphasis must be laid on the farmers income & livelihood rather than the cheap vote bank politics which politicians are exploiting for last several decades.