| 1. |
- Algers, Anne, 1961, et al.
(författare)
-
Open Knowledge about Slaughter on the Internet-A Case Study on Controversies.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI. - : MDPI AG. - 2076-2615. ; 7:12, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Knowledge about slaughter of animals for human food is often perceived as controversial and therefore not made widely available. An open educational resource on the Internet about the slaughter of animals has created tension at launch but also resolved tension. Aiming to explore how this resource at the boundary between academia and society is perceived, a study was carried out with participants from slaughterhouses, universities, authorities and NGOs. Focus group sessions were video recorded and transcripts were coded using an interpretive thematic analysis. The results show that an open educational resource in addition to contributing to learning and awareness raising can also induce dialogue (and thus resolve tension) about animal welfare and contribute to animal welfare resilience. Our results also indicate that participants had diverse opinions about the influence of multimedia on attitudes towards animal slaughter. The use of additional instruments such as comment fields may lead to more knowledgeable citizens and socially robust knowledge, but has to be carefully weighed against the risk of false or fake data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lerner, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health : One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical—and possibly mental—health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus, and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper, we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis, we will focus on at least two areas. These are (1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and (2) core values present within the approach. In the first area, our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health, and how one values humans, animals, and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread “umbrella” depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts, and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms, and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.
|
|
| 3. |
- Elmberg, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans : a review of the scientific literature from a One Health perspective
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. - : Taylor & Francis. - 2000-8686. ; 7:1, s. 1-21
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are more herbivorous waterfowl (swans and geese) close to humans, livestock and poultry than ever before. This creates widespread conflict with agriculture and other human interests, but also debate about the role of swans and geese as potential vectors of disease of relevance for human and animal health. Using a One Health perspective, we provide the first comprehensive review of the scientific literature about the most relevant viral, bacterial, and unicellular pathogens occurring in wild geese and swans. Research thus far suggests that these birds may play a role in transmission of avian influenza virus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and antibiotic resistance. On the other hand, at present there is no evidence that geese and swans play a role in transmission of Newcastle disease, duck plague, West Nile virus, Vibrio, Yersinia, Clostridium, Chlamydophila, and Borrelia. Finally, based on present knowledge it is not possible to say if geese and swans play a role in transmission of Escherichia coli, Pasteurella, Helicobacter, Brachyspira, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Microsporidia. This is largely due to changes in classification and taxonomy, rapid development of identification methods and lack of knowledge about host specificity. Previous research tends to overrate the role of geese and swans as disease vectors; we do not find any evidence that they are significant transmitters to humans or livestock of any of the pathogens considered in this review. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep poultry and livestock separated from small volume waters used by many wild waterfowl, but there is no need to discourage livestock grazing in nature reserves or pastures where geese and swans are present. Under some circumstances it is warranted to discourage swans and geese from using wastewater ponds, drinking water reservoirs, and public beaches. Intensified screening of swans and geese for AIV, West Nile virus and anatid herpesvirus is warranted.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
