Christian Xu
ENG 21003
Professor Zayas
Annotated Bibliography #1 & #2
4/18/2023
- Smith, R. A., Zhu, X., Shartle, K., Glick, L., & M’ikanatha, N. M. (2016). Understanding the public’s intentions to purchase and to persuade others to purchase antibiotic-free meat. Health Communication, 32(8), 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196415
Summary
In “Understanding the public’s intentions to purchase and to persuade others to purchase antibiotic-free meat.” by Smith et al., 2016, the researchers carried out a study that examined the extent of the psychological behavior of persuasion in specific groups with varying knowledge and personal experience regarding antibiotic use in animals for consumption. Their analysis revealed that the group who was more geared towards the belief in antibiotic-free meat due to personal experience, prompted the likelihood of spreading the perceived benefit of the product to others within their social circle or homophily.
Connection
This study could be utilized in my research to determine the extent of consumers’ knowledge and awareness on the effects that antibiotic use in livestock can have on human health, specifically the hormonal risk in children who consume animal products with antibiotics. We could then analyze the biases that sway consumers into believing that antibiotic-free meat is more health beneficial than their non antibiotic-free counterpart.
Quotes
“Yet, over 14 million kilograms of antimicrobials were sold in 2012 for food-producing animals (FDA, 2014), in comparison to 3.28 million (in 2011) for humans (FDA, 2012). While some antibiotics are used to treat diseases, 80–90% is used to promote weight gain and reduce mortality rates of livestock for consumer goods” (Smith et al., 2016).
“That said, the relationship between purchasing and persuasion intentions was very strong, which supports the homophily explanation: people intend to persuade close contacts in their social networks to do what they will do” (Smith et al., 2016).
- Deckers, J. (2016). The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care. In Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? (pp. 13–50). Ubiquity Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5qmj.5
Summary
In “The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care” written by Jan Deckers, they introduce the undeniable and irrefutable idea of food security and its importance for all populations around the world regardless of age and ethnicity. The idea stems from the belief that adequate food should be deemed a human right, alongside other unalienable rights such as the access to health care. For instance, certain affected groups of people who must meet their required nutritional intake, but possess a smaller appetite, or those who simply do not have access to a variety of food sources, like the Inuits, could benefit from the consumption of animal products for their dense nutrients and consequently should not be refused these rights Decker, 2016 argues. However, the rise of domesticated livestock in metric tones, for both labor and consumption, can be attributed to the increase in population and elevated socioeconomic status in particular areas of poorer countries. These factors in turn contribute to the increase in animal products being produced and consumed. One factor in particular is the change in livestock breeding. Generationally, livestocks are continuing to show physical signs of uniformity and the increased population of livestocks has led to overcrowding in farms. Consequently, these unhealthy conditions brought upon livestocks could lead to an influx in zoonoses and animal-human contracted diseases. Antibiotics are readily used in livestock, in excess, to prevent the contraction of diseases beforehand and as a precautionary instead of treating the animals who are genuinely sick.
Connection
Deckers, 2016 is able to illustrate the interconnectedness between the increase in animal product consumption, the expansion of farmland, and the spread of diseases from animals to humans. I specifically want to focus on analyzing Deckers, 2016 work where they discuss the prevalence of zoonoses in livestock farmlands and how antibiotic overuse could exacerbate the spread of these diseases to humans. In addition, the analysis of land degradation could be a vital stepping stone in understanding how the affected wildlife ecosystem could impact farmland livestocks through their close contact.
Quotes
“The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit organisation based in the USA, has estimated that the amount of antibiotics that are used by the farmed animals’ sector in the USA merely to prevent disease is eight times greater than that of antibiotics used to treat human disease” (Deckers, 2016, p. 7).
“Globally, it has been estimated that about half of all antibiotics that are produced are given to farmed animals” (Deckers, 2016, p. 7).
References
Deckers, J. (2016). The Consumption of Animal Products and the Human Right to Health Care. In Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? (pp. 13–50). Ubiquity Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5qmj.5
Smith, R. A., Zhu, X., Shartle, K., Glick, L., & M’ikanatha, N. M. (2016). Understanding the public’s intentions to purchase and to persuade others to purchase antibiotic-free meat. Health Communication, 32(8), 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196415
