Begemann Stephanie, Perkins Elizabeth, Van Hoyweghen Ine, Christley Robert, Watkins Francine
NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections Institute of Infection and Global Health University of Liverpool Liverpool United Kingdom.
Health Services Research Institute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool Liverpool United Kingdom.
Sociol Ruralis. 2018 Oct;58(4):765-785. doi: 10.1111/soru.12206. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
The purpose of this article is to provide an understanding of how different countries formulate and regulate antibiotic use in animals raised for human consumption. A comparative case study was undertaken, analysing historical documents from the 1950s to the 1990s from the UK, the first country to produce a scientific report on the public health risks of agricultural antibiotic use; and Sweden, the first country to produce legislation on the growth promotor use of antibiotics in food animals. Sheila Jasanoff's concepts of 'co-production' and 'political cultures' have been used to explore how both countries used different styles of scientific reasoning and justification of the risks of agricultural antibiotic use. It will be argued that national dynamics between policy, science and public knowledges co-produced different risk classifications and patterns of agricultural antibiotic use between both countries. UK's political culture used 'expert committees' to remove the issue from public debate and to inform agricultural antibiotic policies. In contrast, the Swedish 'consensus-oriented' political culture made concerns related to agricultural antibiotic use into a cooperative debate that included multiple discourses. Understanding how national policies, science and public knowledges interact with the risks related to agricultural antibiotic use can provide valuable insights in understanding and addressing countries agricultural use of antibiotics.
本文旨在让人们了解不同国家如何制定和规范用于人类消费的养殖动物的抗生素使用。开展了一项比较案例研究，分析了来自英国和瑞典20世纪50年代至90年代的历史文献，英国是首个就农业抗生素使用对公共健康风险发布科学报告的国家，瑞典是首个针对食用动物使用抗生素作为生长促进剂制定立法的国家。希拉·贾桑诺夫的“共同生产”和“政治文化”概念被用于探究两国如何运用不同风格的科学推理以及对农业抗生素使用风险的论证。本文认为，政策、科学和公共知识之间的国家动态共同产生了两国不同的风险分类和农业抗生素使用模式。英国的政治文化利用“专家委员会”将该问题排除在公众辩论之外，并为农业抗生素政策提供依据。相比之下，瑞典“以共识为导向”的政治文化将与农业抗生素使用相关的问题变成了一场包含多种话语的合作性辩论。了解国家政策、科学和公共知识如何与农业抗生素使用相关风险相互作用，可为理解和应对各国农业抗生素使用提供宝贵的见解。
