The ecological paradox: social and natural consequences of the geographies of animal health promotion

Abstract

Drawing on the example of bovine tuberculosis (bTb), this paper examines the geographies of animal health promotion. Using theories from the sociology of health, the paper outlines how the spatial practices of animal health promotion have had adverse policy consequences -what the paper refers to as an 'ecological paradox'. Analysis of ethnographic interviews with 61 farmers in England and Wales provides a range of reasons why farmers do and do not implement biosecurity. Drawing on the concept of lay epidemiology and ideas of 'the candidate' -that is, the terms by which someone/thing is most likely to suffer from a particular illness -the paper shows how farmers construct farmers, cattle and badgers as likely to be a candidate for bTb; and how aspects of luck and fatalism are significant elements of candidature. These effects are traced to a clash of spatial practice within the different knowledge articulated by official attempts to promote animal health and farmers' understandings. In failing to consider these cultural understandings of disease, the paper argues that the state's attempts to promote animal health have served to reinforce the explanatory power of candidacy and traditional understandings of bTb, thereby overriding attempts to promote biosecurity. The resulting negative consequences for badgers, cattle and farmers are defined as the ecological paradox. key words biosecurity animal health health promotion England and Wales farmer interviews

Farm characteristics and farmer perceptions associated with bovine tuberculosis incidents in areas of emerging endemic spread

“…Recent social research has shown how understanding farmers' behaviours and their perceptions of bTB is crucial in developing better bTB policy (Enticott 2008, Enticott, Maye et al 2012, Warren, Lobley et al 2013, although their conclusions are derived from farmers in broadly defined high-risk bTB counties rather than epidemiologically defined newly endemic areas as in the current study. While, in general, higher proportions of cases than controls implemented badger biosecurity, there was no difference in the proportion that implemented even one approach to cattle purchasing biosecurity.…”

“…Given that approximately half of farms with OTFW incidents in 2012 had a previous bTB incident in the 3 years prior (Broughan, Harris et al 2015), this has implications for directing policy and disease prevention to farmers that have recently had a bTB incident. Previous research has indicated a lack of trust in government (Defra), particularly in counties with a longstanding high bTB incidence (Enticott 2008, Christley, Robinson et al 2011). In the focus groups conducted before deployment of the questionnaire, farmers consistently identified "institutional failure" as a risk factor, but we were unable to quantify and describe this adequately.…”

“…Studies from participatory epidemiology have highlighted the importance of capturing and including farmers' understandings of disease in scientific analyses of disease transmission (Catley, Alders et al 2012, Leach andScoones 2013). This is particularly relevant for diseases such as bTB where trust in science and/or the institutions that produce scientific knowledge has proved to be an important limitation to bTB policy (Enticott, 2008). Our approach to defining potential risk factors has therefore included exploring traditional risk factors such as farm characteristics and management, but also included exploring factors relating to farmers' perceptions, attitudes and behaviours in relation to bTB.…”

The changing role of veterinary expertise in the food chain

“…This paradigm is also seeping into animal health policies [68]. This could prove beneficial for animal health and vets: it may lead to more effective design of knowledge transfer mechanisms, for example, to help improve animal health [69]. But in doing so, the rise of the social sciences may have much to do with unblocking barriers to the neoliberal project, and continuing to sustain it rather than generating markedly different approaches to governance or the nature of expertise [70].…”

Framing the agricultural use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in UK national newspapers and the farming press

“…Within this debate scientific evidence serves in the familiar role of arbiter, a role that remains impossible to fulfil given that evidence is open to interpretation and uncertainty. However, new opportunities for reframing the issue in terms of farmers' self-interest in voluntary action on animal antibiotic use (rather than evidence on health risks per se) are opening up, perhaps reflecting a wider neoliberal turn in animal health governance (Enticott 2008b;Enticott 2012). It should be noted that while our analysis sheds light on debate that is played out in the media on how farm-level antibiotic use should be governed, investigation of the policymaking process in which governance decisions are made on the subject is beyond the scope of this paper.…”