Search results

This chapter reviews factors responsible for climate change, impacts of the change on animal health, zoonotic diseases, and their linkage with One-Health program.

This chapter is based on the available literature related to climate change and its effect on animal health and production from different points. The causes and change forcers of climate change, direct and indirect effects of the change on animal health management, host–pathogen–vector interaction, and zoonotic diseases are included. Inter-linkage between climate change and One-Health program are also assessed.

Beside natural causes of climatic change, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activities, causing global climate changes which have direct and indirect animal health and production performance impacts. The direct impacts are increased ambient temperature, floods, and droughts, while the indirect are reduced availability of water and food. The change and effect also promote diseases spread, increase survival and availability of the pathogen and its intermediate vector host, responsible for distribution and prevalence of tremendous zoonotic, infectious, and vector-borne diseases. The adverse effect on the biodiversity, distribution of animals and micro flora, genetic makeup of microbials which may lead to emerging and re-emerging disease and their outbreaks make the strong linkage between climate change and One-Health.

Global climate change is receiving increasing international attention where international organizations are increasing their focus on tackling the health impacts. Thus, there is a need for parallel mitigation of climate change and animal diseases in a global form.

Most research on climate change is limited to environmental protection, however this chapter provides a nexus between climate change, animal health, livestock production, and the One-Health program for better livelihood.

Greater attention to and anxiety about farm animal welfare emerged at the end of the 20th century, as worries over food safety and food quality (connected to the BSE, FMD, avian influenza and other epidemics) pushed farm animal welfare into public discourse and political debate. This chapter looks at one of the ways in which consumers’ concerns and anxieties about animal welfare are addressed by the Soil Association (the United Kingdom), whose standard is based on a scheme of production that endorses animals’ natural life in the case of certification of organic eggs in the United Kingdom. Drawing on STS approaches it addresses the processes of producing ‘naturalness’ as food ‘attribute’ (to borrow from economics) and how ‘the natural life of hens’ is achieved in the context of eggs’ production.

The current rates of population growth necessitate the need for more sustainable food production. The breeding of insects could be a possibility. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a clear increase in the interest in breeding insects in Europe. The main products from insect farms are insects and proteins, but insect farms also produce insect frass (insect feces). Due to its high nutritional content, insect frass has a great potential to be upcycled for the production of fertilizers, compost material, soil improvers, or growth enhancers. The use of insect frass as fertilizer can help limit the use of agrochemicals. By reintroducing valuable material into the food production chain, the land application of insect frass is consistent with the circular economy’s principles. Before insect frass can be introduced to the market as a fertilizer, sanitizing treatment is needed in order to eliminate possible microorganisms that are harmful to health. In Europe, no legislation specifically developed for the use of insect frass as fertilizer has been formulated yet. Due to the absence of such European Union (EU) legislation, the possibilities of upcycling frass remain relatively limited. In this case study, focus is on the regulatory barriers of upcycling frass in Denmark.

In The Changing Body (Cambridge University Press and NBER, 2011), we presented a series of estimates showing the number of calories available for human consumption in England and Wales at various points in time between 1700 and 1909/1913. We now seek to correct an error in our original figures and to compare the corrected figures with those published by a range of other authors. We also include new estimates showing the calorific value of meat and grains imported from Ireland. Disagreements with other authors reflect differences over a number of issues, including the amount of land under cultivation, the extraction and wastage rates for cereals and pulses and the number of animals supplying meat and dairy products. We consider recent attempts to achieve a compromise between these estimates and challenge claims that there was a dramatic reduction in either food availability or the average height of birth cohorts in the late-eighteenth century.

This chapter explores policy implications of deliberately targeted interventions aimed at closing the gap between nutrition baseline trends and desirable levels of nutrition intake according to World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations guidelines. Special attention is paid to the implications for those at the bottom of the nutrition achievement range (Bottom Billion).

We conduct a forward looking evaluation with a global multimarket model for agriculture within the context of key drivers of change. We observe the effect of interventions on nutrition intake for the most food-insecure regions as transmitted through food prices, changes in country-level food trade, and other market-driven outcomes. We demonstrate the nutrition-enhancing effects that occur when animal-sourced protein consumption, livestock production, and livestock feed demand decrease in developed countries. We also show the effect of a significant growth in agricultural productivity and household incomes.

Our analysis shows that the most effective intervention boosts household income to facilitate adequate intake of food and key nutrients. Diet changes have notable effects but are harder to implement on a practical level. Enhancing agricultural productivity (especially in regions with historically low yields) is also effective in improving nutrition outcomes.

Short of social protection and direct assistance programs, the ability of policy to effect short-term changes in nutritional status is limited. We highlight the effectiveness of pathways that promote longer-term socioeconomic growth and productivity gains as ways of improving the nutrition and health status of consumers.

This chapter contributes to the present debate on food loss and waste. Many international and nongovernmental organizations see reducing food loss and waste as a priority for reducing global hunger and resource waste. The aim of this chapter is threefold. First, it questions whether the definition and methodology used for estimating the actual magnitude of food loss and waste is based on sound economic reasoning. Second, it investigates whether the inference concerning the potential for reducing global hunger is valid. Third, it questions whether there is a moral problem compared to wastage of some other consumer goods or the use of them for luxury reasons.

The definition of food waste and loss is crucial for quantifying its magnitude – how much is wasted by humans, fed to animals, and distributed to food banks. The aggregation problem is not solved adequately. It is highly questionable to aggregate all food items independently on the content of calories in kilograms. One kilogram of bread contains fewer calories than one kilogram of meat. It is questionable to consider food as loss or waste if the cost of avoidance would be higher than the value for the reduced loss or waste. Moreover, what is the cost to the hungry population for transferring food waste?

Nutrition, as a science, is poorly understood, both professionally and publicly. The confusion that surrounds this science makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to formulate public health policy, which creates opportunities for political manipulation and control. Nutrition, for a century or more, has been variously described as a summation of the physiological and biochemical properties of individual nutrients in food rather than the whole food itself. This infers that isolated nutrients in supplements will function in the same way as nutrients in food. It also infers that removing or minimizing “undesirable” nutrients from food will make the food more healthful. This arises from the highly reductionist way that we focus on individual nutrients minus their natural context, both the context within the foods of which they are a part and the context within biological systems where they function. The shortcomings of this belief system may be illustrated by hugely costly mistakes made in the past, even more than a century ago, that corrupt current practices. Such mistakes have become so embedded in the contemporary narrative on nutritional science, both fundamentally and practically, that we fail to recognize the damage they continue to cause.

Alternatively, when nutritional effects are considered more within their natural contexts, that is, more wholistically, then it helps to explain, for example, the remarkable ability of nutrition, as provided by a whole food plant-based diet, to prevent even to cure varied types of cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the breadth of this nutritional effect for a wide variety of illnesses and diseases suggests that nutrition, properly provided by a whole food plant-based diet, is more efficacious than a combination of all the contemporary pills and procedures combined. It also suggests that genetic determinism is not the explanation for disease that is widely advanced. And finally, among still more consequences, there are many societal outcomes that can be substantially mitigated, including the escalating cost of health care and the dangerously increasing array of destructive practices that damage the environment. Many of the momentous health, economic, environmental and sociopolitical problems currently faced may be traced to a misunderstanding of the effects of food and nutrition. The task therefore is how to bring this message to the attention of a public who for too long have gradually adopted flawed food production and healthcare systems that are on the verge of collapse, threatening the collapse of entire societies as we know them. More specifically, a public and professional dialog on the meaning of nutrition, especially its wholistic properties, is desperately needed, especially in medical schools where nutrition as a science is almost totally ignored.

This paper suggests that a corporate-environmental food regime is emerging as part of a larger restructuring of capitalism. Like past food regimes, it reflects specific social and political compromises, which I interpret through the social movement concept of interpretive frames. The diasporic-colonial food regime of 1870–1914 grew up in response to working class movements in Europe, and created a historically unprecedent class of commercial family farmers. When world markets collapsed, those farmers entered into new alliances, including one that led to the mercantile-industrial food regime of 1947–1973. Lineaments of a new food regime based on quality audited supply chains seems to be emerging in the space opened by impasse in international negotiations over food standards. Led by food retailers, agrofood corporations are selectively appropriating demands of environmental, food safety, animal welfare, fair trade, and other social movements that arose in the interstices of the second food regime. If it consolidates, the new food regime promises to shift the historical balance between public and private regulation, and to widen the gap between privileged and poor consumers as it deepens commodification and marginalizes existing peasants. Social movements are already regrouping and consolidation of the regime remains uncertain.

Purpose – This chapter discusses farmers' and policy responses to global shocks, specifically in terms of soaring prices for agricultural products in 2007. We discuss whether these shocks influenced Norwegian agricultural policy and Norwegian farmers perceptions of their situation.

Design/methodology/approach – As a background, we review trends in agricultural policy post-World War II both globally and in Norway, including empirical evidence for the changing global situation of agriculture. This chapter also analyses farmers' perceptions of their situation from 2002 to 2010 in light of these changing reality and policy response.

Findings – One immediate effect of increasing food prices was increasing incomes for food exporters and food exporting countries, an increase which also trickled down to the producers. Simultaneously, production costs rose as many input-factors became more expensive. In Norway, we saw the emergence of more optimism among farmers, more willingness to invest in farming (as opposed to a focus on cost reduction), and clear signs of a ‘repositioned productivism’.

Originality/value – In this chapter, we present an analysis of the relationship between global events, agricultural restructuring and local responses. The chapter also discusses the case of productivism along the lines drawn by Burton and Wilson (this volume), and argues that in the Norwegian system we can indeed see traces of an emerging ‘repositioned productivism’.