Applying an environmental public health lens to the industrialization of food animal production in ten low- and middle-income countries

Abstract

Background Industrial food animal production (IFAP) is characterized by dense animal housing, high throughput, specialization, vertical integration, and corporate consolidation. Research in high-income countries has documented impacts on public health, the environment, and animal welfare. IFAP is proliferating in some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where increased consumption of animal-source foods has occurred alongside rising incomes and efforts to address undernutrition. However, in these countries IFAP’s negative externalities could be amplified by inadequate infrastructure and resources to document issues and implement controls. Methods Using UN FAOSTAT data, we selected ten LMICs where food animal production is expanding and assessed patterns of IFAP growth. We conducted a mixed methods review to explore factors affecting growth, evidence of impacts, and information gaps; we searched several databases for sources in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Data were extracted from 450+ sources, comprising peer-reviewed literature, government documents, NGO reports, and news articles. Results In the selected LMICs, not only has livestock production increased, but the nature of expansion appears to have involved industrialized methods, to varying extents based on species and location. Expansion was promoted in some countries by explicit government policies. Animal densities, corporate structure, and pharmaceutical reliance in some areas mirrored conditions found in high-income countries. There were many reported weaknesses in regulation and capacity for enforcement surrounding production and animal welfare. Global trade increasingly influences movement of and access to inputs such as feed. There was a nascent, compelling body of scientific literature documenting IFAP’s negative environmental and public health externalities in some countries. Conclusions LMICs may be attracted to IFAP for economic development and food security, as well as the potential for increasing access to animal-source foods and the role these foods can play in alleviating undernutrition. IFAP, however, is resource intensive. Industrialized production methods likely result in serious negative public health, environmental, and animal welfare impacts in LMICs. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic effort to assess IFAP trends through an environmental public health lens for a relatively large group of LMICs. It contributes to the literature by outlining urgent research priorities aimed at informing national and international decisions about the future of food animal production and efforts to tackle global undernutrition.

Meat and Fish as Sources of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase–Producing Escherichia coli, Cambodia

“…This study, which integrated epidemiologic and genomic methods to characterize community, clinical, and environmental data, supports concerns that the dissemination of antimicrobial drug–resistant bacteria from food animals to humans may be more likely in low- and middle-income countries ( 14 , 15 ). This finding is concerning because meat consumption is projected to drastically increase in these countries, and animal production that relies on routine antimicrobial drug use is being promoted to meet this demand ( 14 ).…”

“…This finding is concerning because meat consumption is projected to drastically increase in these countries, and animal production that relies on routine antimicrobial drug use is being promoted to meet this demand ( 14 ). Particularly for low- and middle-income countries such as Cambodia, implementation of multisectoral strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance from a One Health perspective must be supported, and food safety should be prioritized.…”

Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective

“…Growing scientific consensus has established that substantial shifts toward plant-forward diets, particularly in high meat-consuming countries, are essential for meeting climate change mitigation targets (Bajželj et al, 2014;Hedenus et al, 2014;Bryngelsson et al, 2016) and remaining within planetary boundaries (Willett et al, 2019). At the same time, there has been increased attention to the negative public health (Casey et al, 2015;Godfray et al, 2018) and animal welfare [Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production (PCIAFP), 2008] impacts of industrial food animal production, the prevailing model of meat production in the U.S. and increasingly in other parts of the world (Lam et al, 2019). A growing body of evidence has also associated red and processed meat consumption with certain chronic diseases and early mortality (Micha et al, 2012;Pan et al, 2012).…”

Cattle and the Climate: Why Industrial Production Is Not The Solution To Emissions From Beef And Dairy Farms

“…Given the many environmental and social problems of industrial animal production, advocates of intensification via industrialization should be able to demonstrate that the specific system that they propose will genuinely reduce GHG emissions per unit product. In addition, as regulation of industrial food animal production is weak in many LMICs and noncompliance appears common (Lam, Fry, & Nachman, 2019), they should also provide evidence that the system will actually be operated as they describe.…”