Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31196114›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2019

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

Yukyan Lam, Jillian P Fry, Keeve E Nachman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Animal Lives Affected by Meat Consumption Trends in the G20 Countries.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Understanding antibiotic use for pig farming in Thailand: a qualitative study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yukyan LamJohns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
Jillian P FryJohns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
Keeve E NachmanJohns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA. knachman@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4925-4151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndustrial 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.

methodsUsing 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionsLMICs 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.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesEnvironmental HealthFood IndustryIndustrial DevelopmentPublic HealthAnimalsHumansAnimal feedIndustrial food animal productionLand useLower and middle-income countriesMeatPolicy analysis

Identifiers

PMID31196114
PMCPMC6567672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.