Giubilini Alberto, Birkl Patrick, Douglas Thomas, Savulescu Julian, Maslen Hannah
Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Department of Animal Bioscience, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
J Agric Environ Ethics. 2017 Apr;30(2):179-198. doi: 10.1007/s10806-017-9660-0. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
Antibiotic use in animal farming is one of the main drivers of antibiotic resistance both in animals and in humans. In this paper we propose that one feasible and fair way to address this problem is to tax animal products obtained with the use of antibiotics. We argue that such tax is supported both by (a) deontological arguments, which are based on the duty individuals have to compensate society for the antibiotic resistance to which they are contributing through consumption of animal products obtained with the use of antibiotics; and (b) a cost-benefit analysis of taxing such animal products and of using revenue from the tax to fund alternatives to use of antibiotics in animal farming. Finally, we argue that such a tax would be fair because individuals who consume animal products obtained with the use of antibiotics can be held morally responsible, i.e. blameworthy, for their contribution to antibiotic resistance, in spite of the fact that each individual contribution is imperceptible.
畜牧业中抗生素的使用是动物和人类抗生素耐药性的主要驱动因素之一。在本文中，我们提出，解决这一问题的一种可行且公平的方法是对使用抗生素生产的动物产品征税。我们认为，这种税收有以下两方面的支持：（a）道义论观点，即基于个人有责任为其通过消费使用抗生素生产的动物产品而造成的抗生素耐药性向社会作出补偿；（b）对这类动物产品征税以及利用税收收入为畜牧业中抗生素替代方法提供资金的成本效益分析。最后，我们认为这种税收是公平的，因为尽管个人的每一份贡献微不足道，但消费使用抗生素生产的动物产品的个人应对其造成的抗生素耐药性负有道德责任，即应受指责。
