Researchers caution that intensive livestock farming may elevate the risk of new pandemics.
Traditional beliefs suggest that industrialized farming can lower the chances of zoonotic diseases (those transmitted from animals to humans) due to improved control, biosecurity, and livestock separation.
A recent study led by the University of Exeter delves into the impact of social and economic factors, often overlooked in conventional evaluations.
The study suggests that intensifying agriculture “may, at best, lead to uncertainty and, at worst, potentially contribute to Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) risk.”
Professor Steve Hinchliffe, the lead author from the University of Exeter, pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic has renewed focus on EIDs, particularly zoonotic viruses.
He emphasized that the risks of outbreak and spread depend on various factors, such as human-animal contact and land usage practices.
The study indicates that livestock farming could significantly influence these risks by shaping landscapes and providing hosts that can harbor or amplify emerging pathogens.
While risk assessments typically focus on microbiological, ecological, and veterinary aspects, this study underscores the importance of considering social, economic, and political dimensions.
Professor Hinchliffe highlighted, “Disease involves more than just pathogen transmission, contact, and contagion.”
He explained that despite attempts to separate livestock from wildlife in intensive farming, real-world factors such as damaged structures, wildlife intrusion, and human interactions could lead to accidents, increasing pandemic risks.
The paper identifies the expansion of intensive farming and subsequent environmental harm as factors that could heighten EID risks.
It also mentions that intensification creates a “mixed landscape” with various farming methods, potentially increasing EID risk.
Addressing biosecurity, the paper notes that some farms find the associated costs burdensome, while regional differences impact biosecurity measures.
For instance, European farm buildings may be expensive to maintain, large US farms often have open-air concrete structures with netting to avoid air conditioning costs, and subtropical regions balance biosecurity with animal cooling needs.
The authors raise concerns about the lack of bio-containment in such environments due to these factors.
They also discuss the close relationships between major food corporations and national authorities, indicating potential issues with regulatory oversight and conflicting interests.
Dr. Kin Wing (Ray) Chan, a co-author, stressed that enhancing on-farm biosecurity and efficiency is not a guaranteed way to create a disease-free setting.
He suggested reevaluating the socio-cultural impacts of intensifying farm animal production on planetary health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare.
The research involved collaboration from institutions such as Tufts University, Royal Agricultural University, University of Wollongong, Clark University, Cambridge Conservation Initiative, and the Institute of Development Studies.
Funding was provided by the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health and the Wellcome Trust.
The paper, titled “Understanding the roles of economy and society in the relative risks of zoonosis emergence from livestock,” was published in the journal Royal Society Open Science.
