规范抗菌药耐药性:市场中介、家禽和审计锁定

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Steve Hinchliffe, Alison Bard, Kin Wing Chan, Katie Adam, Ann Bruce, Kristen Reyher, Henry Buller
{"title":"规范抗菌药耐药性:市场中介、家禽和审计锁定","authors":"Steve Hinchliffe,&nbsp;Alison Bard,&nbsp;Kin Wing Chan,&nbsp;Katie Adam,&nbsp;Ann Bruce,&nbsp;Kristen Reyher,&nbsp;Henry Buller","doi":"10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century. Food production and farming are a key if troubling component of that challenge. Livestock production accounts for well over half of annual global consumption of antimicrobials, though the contribution of the sector to drug resistance is less clear. As a result, there is an injunction to act in advance of incontrovertible evidence for change. In this paper we engage with the role of market actors in the precautionary regulation of farming practices and AMR threats. The paper takes the UK poultry sector as exemplary of an audit-led process that has, in recent years, achieved impressive reductions in antimicrobial use. Using qualitative interview data with farmers and veterinarians we chart the changing practices that have accompanied this reduction in treatments. We use this analysis to raise some cautions around audit-led systems of regulation. Audits can lock farms and animals into particular versions of farming and animal health; they can elevate harmful compensatory practices (including disinfectant uses); and they can reproduce an actuarial approach to an issue that does not fit the conventions of risk management. The paper presents the considerable successes that have been achieved over a short period of time in a livestock sector, while generating notes of caution concerning the audit-led management of livestock-related AMR threats.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"41 2","pages":"801 - 814"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating antimicrobial resistance: market intermediaries, poultry and the audit lock-in\",\"authors\":\"Steve Hinchliffe,&nbsp;Alison Bard,&nbsp;Kin Wing Chan,&nbsp;Katie Adam,&nbsp;Ann Bruce,&nbsp;Kristen Reyher,&nbsp;Henry Buller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century. Food production and farming are a key if troubling component of that challenge. Livestock production accounts for well over half of annual global consumption of antimicrobials, though the contribution of the sector to drug resistance is less clear. As a result, there is an injunction to act in advance of incontrovertible evidence for change. In this paper we engage with the role of market actors in the precautionary regulation of farming practices and AMR threats. The paper takes the UK poultry sector as exemplary of an audit-led process that has, in recent years, achieved impressive reductions in antimicrobial use. Using qualitative interview data with farmers and veterinarians we chart the changing practices that have accompanied this reduction in treatments. We use this analysis to raise some cautions around audit-led systems of regulation. Audits can lock farms and animals into particular versions of farming and animal health; they can elevate harmful compensatory practices (including disinfectant uses); and they can reproduce an actuarial approach to an issue that does not fit the conventions of risk management. The paper presents the considerable successes that have been achieved over a short period of time in a livestock sector, while generating notes of caution concerning the audit-led management of livestock-related AMR threats.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"volume\":\"41 2\",\"pages\":\"801 - 814\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-023-10525-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抗菌药耐药性(AMR)已成为二十一世纪的决定性挑战之一。粮食生产和农业是这一挑战中令人不安的关键组成部分。畜牧业占全球每年抗菌素消耗量的一半以上,但畜牧业对抗药性的影响并不明显。因此,有必要在有确凿证据表明需要改变之前采取行动。在本文中,我们探讨了市场参与者在对养殖行为和 AMR 威胁进行预防性监管方面的作用。本文以英国家禽业为例,说明近年来以审计为主导的程序在减少抗菌剂使用方面取得了令人印象深刻的成果。通过对养殖户和兽医的定性访谈数据,我们描绘了伴随着治疗减少而不断变化的做法。通过分析,我们提出了一些以审计为主导的监管体系的注意事项。审计可能会将农场和动物禁锢在特定的养殖和动物健康模式中;可能会提升有害的补偿性做法(包括消毒剂的使用);可能会对不符合风险管理惯例的问题再现精算方法。本文介绍了畜牧业在短时间内取得的巨大成就,同时也对以审计为主导的畜牧业 AMR 威胁管理提出了警示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulating antimicrobial resistance: market intermediaries, poultry and the audit lock-in

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century. Food production and farming are a key if troubling component of that challenge. Livestock production accounts for well over half of annual global consumption of antimicrobials, though the contribution of the sector to drug resistance is less clear. As a result, there is an injunction to act in advance of incontrovertible evidence for change. In this paper we engage with the role of market actors in the precautionary regulation of farming practices and AMR threats. The paper takes the UK poultry sector as exemplary of an audit-led process that has, in recent years, achieved impressive reductions in antimicrobial use. Using qualitative interview data with farmers and veterinarians we chart the changing practices that have accompanied this reduction in treatments. We use this analysis to raise some cautions around audit-led systems of regulation. Audits can lock farms and animals into particular versions of farming and animal health; they can elevate harmful compensatory practices (including disinfectant uses); and they can reproduce an actuarial approach to an issue that does not fit the conventions of risk management. The paper presents the considerable successes that have been achieved over a short period of time in a livestock sector, while generating notes of caution concerning the audit-led management of livestock-related AMR threats.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信