Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture
Moving towards sustainability assessment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12186191 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Guillaume Lhermie (0000-0003-2538-1586, Cornell University, corresponding author), Didier Wernli (0000-0002-1751-1961, University of Geneva), Peter Søgaard Jørgensen (0000-0002-2621-378X, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), Donald Kenkel (Cornell University), C-Y Cynthia Lin Lawell (0000-0003-1014-2101, Cornell University), Loren W Tauer (0000-0002-9785-3311, Cornell University), Yrjö T Gröhn (0000-0002-2721-9833, Cornell University) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 166 |
| Pages | 106427-106427 |
| Publication date | 2019-08-13 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ecological Economics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0921-8009 • E-ISSN: 1873-6106 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106427 |
| OpenAlex | W2967003614 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 63 |
Antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal agriculture contributes to select resistant bacteria potentially transferred to humans directly or indirectly via the food chain, representing a public health hazard. Yet, a major difference triggering AMU in food animal production is that in addition to therapeutic cure, farmers use antimicrobials to keep their herds healthy and highly productive, while ensuring animal welfare and food safety objectives. As a society, we consequently face difficult tradeoffs, between massive restrictions of AMU, and maintenance of current and potentially non-sustainable consumption levels. Here, we present the different components to be addressed for assessing the sustainability of AMU in animal agriculture. At first, we describe the interests and limits of existing models identified by reviewing the literature, which could potentially be used to assess AMU sustainability, while allowing the reader to capture in a simple and visual manner the complexity of the issue. We address in the following sections the boundaries of the social-ecological system and the indicators that are required for assessment of AMU sustainability. We introduce analytic methods that could be used for assessing the sustainability of antimicrobial use
Agriculture · Animal welfare · Biology · Business · Consumption (sociology · Economics · Environmental economics · Environmental resource management · Natural resource economics · Public health · Risk analysis (engineering · Sustainability · Sustainable agriculture · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Insect Utilization and Effects · Medicine · Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts · Biotechnology · Ecology
The Brundtland report
Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines
Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch
A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems
A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas
Chapter 4. Economic Considerations
An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework
The Choice of the Sustainability Assessment Tool Matters
Categorising tools for sustainability assessment
Antibiotic and pesticide susceptibility and the Anthropocene operating space
Changing antibiotic resistance
An Environmental Tax Towards More Sustainable Food
A systemic framework for sustainability assessment
Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making
Reconceptualising sustainability assessment
Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics
A conceptual framework for analyzing deltas as coupled social-ecological systems
Social-ecological system framework
An economic perspective on policy to reduce antimicrobial resistance
Our common future
| Highly cited | No |
|---|