Antimicrobial Policies in United States Beef Production: Choosing the Right Instruments to Reduce Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Under Structural and Market Constraints

被引:12
作者
Lhermie, Guillaume [1 ]
Chiu, Leslie Verteramo [1 ]
Kaniyamattam, Karun [1 ]
Tauer, Loren William [2 ]
Scott, Harvey Morgan [3 ]
Grohn, Yrjo Tapio [1 ]
机构
[1] Cornell Univ, Coll Vet Med, Dept Populat Med & Diagnost Sci, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
[2] Cornell Univ, Cornell SC Johnson Coll Business, Dyson Sch Appl Econ & Management, Ithaca, NY USA
[3] Texas A&M Univ, Coll Vet Med & Biomed Sci, Dept Vet Pathobiol, College Stn, TX USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE | 2019年 / 6卷
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
policy analysis; antimicrobial use; antimicrobial resistance; beef production system; policy instruments; economics; DISEASE; MANAGEMENT; PROGRAMS; CALVES;
D O I
10.3389/fvets.2019.00245
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal agriculture contributes to the selection of resistant bacteria, potentially constituting a public health threat. To address antimicrobial resistance, public policies set by governments, as well as intra-sectoral approaches, can be implemented. In this paper, we explore how common policy instruments such as regulations, economic incentives, and voluntary agreements could help reduce AMU in beef production. We first describe the structure of the beef supply chain which directly influences the choice of policy instruments. We describe how externalities and imperfect information affect this system. We then discuss how five policy instruments would each perform to achieve a reduction in AMU. Bovine respiratory disease complex (BRD) represents the major driver of AMU in beef production; consequently, reducing its incidence would decrease significantly the amounts of antimicrobials administered. We consider control options for BRD at different stages of the beef supply chain.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Addressing Antimicrobiol Resistance: An overview of Priority Actions to Prevent Suboptimal Antimicrobial use in Food-Animal Production
    Lhermie, Guillaume
    Grohn, Yrjo T.
    Raboisson, Didier
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2017, 7
  • [32] Mathews K, 2011, DIVERSE STRUCTURE OR, DOI [10.2139/ssrn.2114474, DOI 10.2139/SSRN.2114474]
  • [33] Mathews K.H., 2002, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, V34, P513, DOI [10.1017/S1074070800009287, DOI 10.1017/S1074070800009287]
  • [34] McDonald's Corporation, 2018, US OUR SCAL GOOD MCD
  • [35] McInerney J, 1996, J AGR ECON, V47, P295, DOI 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00695.x
  • [36] National Cattlemen 's Beef Association, 2018, IND STAT
  • [37] A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of antibiotic treatments for bovine respiratory disease
    O'Connor, Annette M.
    Coetzee, Johann F.
    da Silva, Natalia
    Wang, Chong
    [J]. PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2013, 110 (02) : 77 - 87
  • [38] O'Neill J., 2016, Review on antimicrobial resistance: tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations
  • [39] OIE, 2017, OIE annual report on antimicrobial agents intended for use in animals (second report)
  • [40] Roeber DL, 2002, J AGR RESOUR ECON, V27, P577