Bellet, C

University of Liverpool Repository

1 Government Europa Quarterly 29 www.governmenteuropa.euAnimal farming currently poses oneof the most pressing healthconcerns in humans. However, thisconcern is not that of a direct nature, but isrelated to the rise of antimicrobial resistance(AMR). Farmers around the world useantimicrobials to treat a variety of infectiousdiseases in their livestock. The increasing useof antimicrobials can lead to the selection ofresistant bacteria that can pass through thefood chain and be spread to humans. Theissue of AMR represents one of the manyrisks and problems related to themedicalisation of animal farming. Yet it is stillnecessary to understand the often hiddenand complex dynamics and logics ofpractices that shape the management offarmed animal health.Government Europa Quarterly speaks toCamille Bellet, post-doctoral researchassociate at the University of Liverpool, on thesocial and political nature of themedicalisation of animal farming, AMR andthe relationship between humans andanimals in the context of agri-food systems.What are the risks andproblems related to the medicalisation of animal farming?The risks and problems inherent inmedicalisation are much more complex than thelines of current (and often narrow) debates onfood safety, food contamination, andantimicrobial resistance (AMR). One of theproblems with medicalisation is linked to theexcessive use of drugs in farmed animals. Thisincludes treating a farmed animal withoutjustification, prescribing a higher dosage ofdrugs than necessary, or combining drugs thatare not adequate for a given purpose. The risksof such practices can range from causing stressto the farmed animals, the risks taken byfarmers or veterinarians when administeringdrugs (especially in the case of an injection), anincrease in treatment costs, contamination ofanimal produces and pollution of theenvironment (e.g. soil and water contamination,waste of packaging), physiological side-effectsin animals, to the development of newpathologies and drug resistance. While risks related to the medicalisation of animalfarming are numerous, the ones we often hearabout are those with direct effects on the moreprivileged and powerful societal groups, such asthe industrial, policy, and expert elites. These eliteswill drive and shape agendas whose goals aremainly achieving market success and profit. Ingeneral, a risk related to the medicalisation ofanimal farming does not appear in public debatesand will not lead to political action if it is notconsidered economically important by thesegroups. This helps in explaining why the topic ofanthelmintic resistance – a group of antiparasiticdrugs massively used in animal farming as wellas in humans in the Global South – has receivedmuch less attention from international healthagencies and policymakers from the Global Northcompared to that of AMR. By the same token, priority would be given tooverseeing food safety for the populations of theGlobal North. As seen in previous controversies,a public backlash driven by contaminationscandals could harm the food market andconsumers’ trust. On the other hand, theeconomic interest of a standardised use byindustries and experts of therapeutic agents andtechnologies to prevent the spread of infectiousdiseases in humans, or to prevent livestock fromfalling sick and becoming unproductive, eclipsesthe local and often invisible risks of animal stress,pollution, as well as possible irreversibletransformations of animals, farming and food.The ‘experience’ of managing multiple risksincludes different elements such as feelings ofanxiety and guilt as well as a number of fears;which in the case of farmers and animal farmingmanagement, can include those of bankruptcyor even dishonour. Specific ‘risk frames’ (i.e. howrisk is communicated) can be instrumentallyused to favour the interests of some groups indetriment of others, thereby deflecting debateson certain issues (and thus making theminvisible). The medicalisation of animal farming,that is, the process by which problems –including non-medical ones – are defined andtreated as medical problems, are in reality theproduct of social, political and economiccircumstances. In this context, some professions(e.g. veterinarian and the biomedical sciences)may be represented as more valuable thanothers (e.g. farmers and the social sciences);specific technical solutions and interventionsbecome prioritised and legitimised; and thoseresponsible for framing problems and making thedecisions (i.e. the elites mentioned earlier) securemore power. In other words, the risks related tothe medicalisation of animal farming have asocial and political nature. From medicalisation of  animal farming to sustainable practices: why we must bring farmers back into the pictureDr. Camille Bellet, post-doctoral research associate from the Universityof Liverpool speaks to GEQ on the social and political nature of themedicalisation of animal farming, AMR and the relationship betweenhumans and animals in the context of agri-food systems2Government Europa Quarterly 29www.governmenteuropa.euWhat are the biggestthreats from modern humansocieties for both animalfarming and human health? Human practices are often the reflection of amovement of thought, an ideology and a modelof societal development. In the context of animalfarming, the pace and practices of modernfarming were shaped by the Global North duringthe Industrial Revolution. With their faith inscientific progress and technologicaldevelopment, post-war industrialisedgovernments transformed their rural communitiesand farmed animals to meet specific goals ofeconomic development and market expansion.Supported by governments, the human andanimal health sciences became at the time – bothin terms of their discourses and their techniques– instrumental to increasing farmed animal andfarm productivity. Industrial animal farming andfood production became the result of aconcomitant implementation of scientificproduction methods and administrativemechanisms capable of managing these scientificexperimentations for better industrialdevelopment. In this context, farmers weregradually deprived of their right and power of fulldecision-making and their practices becameincreasingly scrutinised and subordinated to thelaws of scientific expertise (e.g. nutrition, genetics,and physiology) and the politics of externalmarkets. Although different models of lessintensive animal farming such as organic farminghave been proposed in opposition to conventionalindustrial farming, their progressive regulation –essentially focused on labelling and traceability ofproducts – made these systems new niches foragri-businesses rather than drivers of sustainablechange in animal farming. The key point here is to understand how animalfarming has ceased to be a practice in which thequality of the finished product in other words ourfood, depends on the relationship betweenfarmers, farmed animals and the environment. Ina race for power and profit, the food industry andgovernments have disrupted the relationshipbetween farmers, farmed animals andconsumers. Rather than valuing and recognisingrural local knowledge, political and scientific eliteshave relied on scientific experts to legitimise agri-business practices while increasing consumerfears and mistrust towards farmers. Sadly, thisdenial of rural agency and the politics of food andscience has led to an increasingly visible socialdivide between the urban and the rural.Personally, I see this as the greatest threat for ourhealth and well-being, whether in relation to theway we live, the way we respect and care for eachother and the environment, and the way (includingwhat) we eat.How can farmers ensure thehealth and well-being oftheir animals without the useof drugs? Modern societies often believe that the key tohealth (and success) lies in control andanticipation (“prevention is better than cure”),wealth, and products of innovation and technologysuch as drugs. However, there is not a day thatgoes by without farmers working hard to ensurethe health and well-being of their animals. Thisinvolves monitoring farmed animals several timesa day, making sure each of them are healthy, haveenough to eat and drink, avoiding stress, cold,discomfort, especially in extreme weather. Animalhealth and well-being is the health and well-beingof farmers, and vice versa. Medicines, vaccines, robotics, precision farming,digital systems are all new hopes – and "TheEldorado" – for academia, industries andinnovation policy in animal farming, because sincethe industrial revolution they have been definedas the progress and the solutions to health and3well-being. In this context, farmers often fight formore autonomy, power and legitimacy to be ableto decide and apply their own representation andmeanings of farming health and well-being. It iscommon to see recommendations from expertsnot applied in the farms and considered irrelevantby farmers because they are not adapted andpotentially harmful to the relations farmers havewith their animals. The way in which scientists,industries and policy makers interpret –intentionally or not – farmers’ acceptance of theirrecommendations tends to underestimate theexpertise and knowledges of the farmer. Ratherthan questioning themselves, experts will talkabout the need for them to go in the field and‘transfer’ more knowledge to farmers, feeding atthe same time the research industry. Health experts and their so-called ‘security tools’for healthier and environmentally friendly farming(e.g. diagnostic tests, recording systems, ear tags,sensor systems and digital camera) are not theonly ones to interfere relations between animalsand farmers. To ensure the viability andcompetitiveness of their businesses, andultimately meet the market demand, farmers havebecome compelled to improve the efficiency andspeed of their production, and to modernise theirrural practices and farm. In some sectors, suchas the broilers, farmers have been almost totallydeprived of all relation and decision-makingpower on their animals, and act mainly as farmtechnicians and labours. Farmer practices followthe rules and specifications of retailers,themselves guided by a demand of worried urbanconsumers tainted by risks and modern illusionsof control and technology. This includes the typeof chick breeds farmers will be able to raise in agiven space and geography, the weight that thechickens will have at a certain age, the feed thechicken will consume, the time farmers will haveto raise their animals and, even today, the needfor them to ban any antimicrobial use. Althoughthe latter allows the consumer to have a ‘purified’product branded “AB-free”, this also prevents sickchickens that were raised under particularlydemanding conditions to be treated and ensure,ultimately, that they are healthy and well.Are drugs generally beingused as a preventative orare they being used morewidely for blankettreatments in the case thata few individuals in theirlivestock become ill? The answer to this question has a multitude offactors and depends on the medical traditions, thedrugs and their history (i.e. their form ofapplication, their public image, the policies thatgovern them) and the animals farmed. In broilers,many treatments are supplemented into thedrinking water of the entire flock. This is muchless frequent in the cattle sector, where farmerstreat their animals individually. Similarly, treatingaquatic species individually is a challenge. Insome systems – such as the broilers – farmersdo not decide on protocols, which are evensometimes carried out before the animals reachthe farm or even before the eggs hatch. On thisnote, the difficulty for humans to link to certainanimal species such as poultry or fish may havefavoured the exclusion of farmers from the “triplehelix model of innovation” (i.e. industry, academiaand governments), the automation of farming andthe deviations of medical practices in modernfarming. Scientific experts and the industry oftenimagine the products placed on the market, on amainly technical basis for the former, andeconomic for the latter, but not necessarily fromthe point of view of farmers and their relationshipwith their animals.Due to growing concerns on the issue ofantimicrobial resistance in humans, the legislationon the use of antimicrobials in farmed animalshas been, in recent years, reinforced – The GlobalGovernment Europa Quarterly 29 www.governmenteuropa.eu4Government Europa Quarterly 29www.governmenteuropa.euNorth initiated this movement. It is important tonote that the legal framework for thecategorisation of chemicals (as drugs or additives)and their use in livestock varies from country tocountry. Overall, it can be said that internationalinstitutions, in collaboration with nationalgovernments, have worked hard to reduce theuse of antimicrobials in animal farming aroundthe world since 2001. In Europe, the use ofantimicrobials as growth promoters directly addedto animal feed was banned in 2006 and theiraccess restricted to the sole veterinarian, who isnow the only one authorised to prescribe them.In the United States, this regulation went intoeffect in 2017. Yet many other countries,particularly in the Global South, continue toroutinely feed antimicrobials to their animals. Unlike antimicrobials, anthelmintics (active drugsagainst large parasites, i.e. not microbes) may beprescribed worldwide by any registered qualifiedperson (a veterinarian, a pharmacist or a suitablyqualified person) and not just by veterinarians.Moreover, there is no need to conduct a clinicalassessment of the animal when prescribinganthelmintics and the animal does not have to beunder the care of the registered qualified personin charge of the prescription. As such, the use ofanthelmintics is less regulated than that ofantimicrobials and continue to be massivelyconsumed on-farm around the world. Importantly,fears of productivity loss due to helminthinfections, as predicted by experts, and farmers’commitment to animal health and well-beingshape the current use of anthelmintics on-farm,often by blanket treatment in the cattle sector forinstance. Farmers’ decisions are often governedby what is regarded as appropriate, well-establishbehaviours within professional traditions, besidesmore mundane aspects that help farmersensuring the sustainability of their business. Do you believe thatgovernments have a greatenough understanding offarm practices and animalhealth and management inorder to regulate andmanage the issues related todrug use? The understanding that governments currentlyhave of farming practices and animal healthmanagement is mainly – if not only – related tothe reading that experts in collaboration with theindustry are making. Yet, this reading depends onthe values and interests of experts, and theapproaches they choose to use. Unfortunately,animal health science is often compartmentalisedand used for instrumental purposes in the‘technification’ (and empowerment) of theindustry that largely supports it. This expertise ishardly accessible by scientists from other so-called less technical disciplines such as the socialsciences, which are considered too subjective andless reliable for the management of health.Contrary to popular belief, quantitativeapproaches used by scientists to advisegovernments, such as modelling and riskassessment are – although apparently ‘neater’and easier to understand – real opinionsembedded in mathematics. Indeed, as with allresearch, quantification is based on assumptions,definitions, inclusions and exclusions of variables,all of which are shaped by expert decisions, inrelation to their views of the problem, theirinterests, and their limitations. For this reason, Iwould say that governments' linear and limitedunderstanding of animal health and animalfarming does not allow them to make acomprehensive judgement over complex animalagriculture systems, which ultimately affects theirmanagement and regulation, included thoserelated to drug use.Do you think that enough isbeing done at thegovernmental level to bothsupport farmers and toreduce the issues related toanimal health?Under the law, governments are responsible forpreventing, managing and overcoming situationsthat may affect people's well-being. Humanhealth is an integral part of this responsibility. Inthe context of animal farming, depending on thecosts and the benefits that animal health maybring to some groups, governments willimplement different actions and legislations toprotect populations. That is the reason why at thetime of the "mad cow" crisis and dioxincontamination of meat, and now with the AMRcrisis, where some people's lives started to be atrisk, governments' efforts to ensure the safety offood production have been considerable. The vastamounts spent by governments to deal with these"undesirable" effects of animal farming were alsohidden drivers of these actions. However, theresponse provided by governments is often strictregulations, which may not be easy to apply in thefield especially for farmers, when the very sourcesof the problem of these adverse effects – namelyglobal capitalist markets – remain unchallenged.In this context, the inability of farmers to complywith the rules is usually publicly condemned,attributing to farmers the responsibility for adilemma that is much broader. In other words,farmers and farmed animals are often among thelast concerns of governments when they reformanimal farming, while the industry is often themain responsible body for the management ofanimal diseases of ‘less important’ public value;such as lameness, respiratory and digestiveinfections, and their analysis. Unfortunately, thishas the direct effect of determining how theseissues will be understood and addressed. Is it possible to make animalfarming sustainable in thefuture and how can farmersgo about this?This might make some raise their eyebrows(especially experts in the field), but the answer Ibelieve to have found to sustainable animalfarming is a sense of humility. Human arroganceand determination to prioritise economic growthhas led to overexploitation of natural resourcesand the domination of animals as a symbol ofdistinction and power. Human greed has madeus forget that long-term economic sustainabilitycannot be achieved without other kinds ofsustainability, including social and environmentalsustainability. Further, we need scientific humility.We must acknowledge and address theweaknesses and limitations of science andexpert appraisals. The tradition by whichdecision-makers favour some experts over layknowledge, taking the former as the legitimateand, ultimately, best form of knowledge to informfarm practices, is misleading. Local knowledgeis equally important and valid. Contemporaryproblems related to animal farming, food andhealth are complex and political and thereforerequire open participation and a socialperspective to it, which, in any case within animalhealth research, will require political and financialsupport. The community as a whole should aimto open up the debate on animal farming to allowfor its reconceptualisation and multiplerepresentations of health.Dr Camille BelletPost-doctoral research associate Epidemiology and PopulationHealth/Institute of Infection andGlobal HealthUniversity of LiverpoolTweet @CSCBelletCamille.Bellet@liverpool.ac.uk

Antimicrobials and sustainable practice: why we must bring farmers back into the picture

http://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3032532/1/GOV29%20C%20Bellet%203102%20atl%20v4.pdf

Antimicrobials and sustainable practice: why we must bring farmers back into the picture

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Liverpool Repository