IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/shealt/000158.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry

Author

Listed:
  • Office of Health Economics

Abstract

It has generally been the policy of OHE, in this series of occasional papers, to avoid controversial topics directly involving the pharmaceutical manufacturers, who still provide much of the finance for our Office. We are departing from the tradition on this occasion partly by accident and partly by intent. We first started to look at the "non-medical" use of antibiotics in animal husbandry some time ago, when there appeared to be a straightforward case for assessing what economic benefits these yielded. Almost at once, however, the work of Dr E.S. Anderson and others focussed attention on the potential hazards of antibiotic resistance spreading from animals to man. The resulting publicity and widespread concern prompted the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to call on the Minister of Agriculture to hasten the setting up of an official Enquiry into the question, and (while OHE was still studying the subject) the government's Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor Michael Swann was established. That Committee may indeed have reported before this booklet is published. The extent of public discussion, which has continued since the Swann Committee started work, indicates that the subject is still one of very general interest. We, therefore, felt it would be wrong for OHE to abandon its work, which has now reached the stage of publication. Our study still deals largely with the economic benefits from the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. In doing this, we hope that we may have provided a broader economic background to the conclusions of the Swann Committee. It also necessarily discusses the much publicised potential hazards. These, we hope, are put into perspective by identifying some of the different aspects of the problem which have sometimes been confused in previous public discussion. For instance, the possible transfer of resistant pathogens from calves to man (following therapeutic or high level "prophylactic" doses of antibiotics) must be distinguished from the question of resistance induced in non-pathogens in other types of animal by low doses of antibiotics for growth promotion. Recent evidence tends to suggest that the latter may remain little more than a theoretical hazard. As with so many of our publications, however, this booklet concludes that many questions remain unanswered.

Suggested Citation

  • Office of Health Economics, 1969. "Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry," Series on Health 000158, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:shealt:000158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/antibiotics-animal-husbandry/attachment-44-antibiotics_in_animal_husbandry_1969/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Office of Health Economics, 1962. "Lives of Our Children: a Study in Childhood Mortality," Series on Health 000100, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Office of Health Economics, 1966. "Disorders Which Shorten Life," Series on Health 000124, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandra Waluszewski & Alessandro Cinti & Andrea Perna, 2021. "Antibiotics in pig meat production: restrictions as the odd case and overuse as normality? Experiences from Sweden and Italy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Abigail Woods, 2019. "Decentring antibiotics: UK responses to the diseases of intensive pig production (ca. 1925-65)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. John Wilson & Tsunehiro Otsuki & Baishali Majumdsar, 2003. "Balancing food safety and risk: do drug residue limits affect international trade in beef?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 377-402.
    4. Hayes, Dermot J. & Jensen, Helen H. & Backstrom, Lennart & Fabiosa, Jacinto F., 2001. "Economic Impact Of A Ban On The Use Of Over The Counter Antibiotics In U.S. Swine Rations," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17.
    5. Mathews, Kenneth H., Jr., 2001. "Antimicrobial Drug Use And Veterinary Costs In U.S. Livestock Production," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33695, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Unknown, 1983. "Introduction," Centre for Agricultural Strategy - Papers and Reports 337686, University of Reading.
    7. Sneeringer, Stacy & MacDonald, James & Key, Nigel & McBride, William & Mathews, Ken, 2015. "Economics of Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Production," Economic Research Report 229202, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox & Douglas A. Popken & Richard Carnevale, 2007. "Quantifying Human Health Risks from Animal Antimicrobials," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 22-38, February.
    9. Claas Kirchhelle, 2018. "Pharming animals: a global history of antibiotics in food production (1935–2017)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Michael G. Hogberg & Kellie Curry Raper & James F. Oehmke, 2009. "Banning subtherapeutic antibiotics in U.S. swine production: a simulation of impacts on industry structure," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 314-330.
    11. Troup, J. D. G., 1970. "Human Factors in Agriculture The Application of Occupational Medicine and Ergonomics," Department of Agricultural Economics Archive 272887, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Office of Health Economics, 1966. "Disorders Which Shorten Life," Series on Health 000124, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Office of Health Economics, 1968. "Old Age," Series on Health 000149, Office of Health Economics.
    3. George Teeling Smith, 1982. "Adverse Reactions and the Community," Monograph 000326, Office of Health Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ohe:shealt:000158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.