The eradication of infectious diseases in the 20th century is arguably one of the most important achievements in modern medicine. The treatment of such illnesses as tuberculosis, leprosy, syphilis, cholera, pertussis, or diphtheria with antibiotics have reduced suffering, increased hygiene, enormously improved lifestyle, and skyrocketed life expectancy around the globe – particularly in developed countries.
The post Towards a global approach to combat antibiotic resistance appeared first on OUPblog.
Why would agricultural producers engage in practices such as conservation, animal welfare, waste management, or organic farming? The literature hints that economic, social, and personal motivations are drivers of adoption. Sustainable practices are welcomed by farmers if there is a potential increase in profitability through more efficient processes, or as a source of differentiation (i.e. labelling). From a social perspective, sustainability has become a license to operate in food supply chains, where long-term viability depends on the fit between firm and society values.
The post Understanding producers’ motives for adopting sustainable practices appeared first on OUPblog.
By F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson L. Lusk
After fighting each other for over a decade, the egg industry and the largest animal advocacy organization came to an agreement, one which will increase the welfare of egg-laying hens but also increase egg prices. The United Egg Producers, under persistent pressure from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), has agreed to transition hens out of battery cages and into enriched colony cages. The HSUS certainly believes the higher welfare standards are worth the increase in egg prices, but do consumers agree? My research says that when consumers are informed about the issue, yes, they applaud the move—even when they know higher egg prices will follow.
Most consumers do not wish to see farm animals crammed into small cages, but if they take the time to discover the source of their pork and eggs, these cramped animal cages are what they will see. Chickens raised for egg production are placed in groups of 4-6 birds and raised their entire lives inside a cage so small that they cannot turn around without bumping into another chicken. Spreading their wings is out of the question. Sows (female hogs used for breeding) are confined even tighter, spending most of their lives in a stall so small the sow cannot even turn around. There are more farm animal welfare issues than just space allotments. Both layers and sows desire to forage for food, scratch or dig, socialize, and find comfortable places to rest. All of these “behavioral” needs are neglected in the typical egg and pork production facility. By transitioning from battery cages to enriched colony cages, the egg industry goes a long way towards meeting these space and behavioral needs.
Why are animal cages used in the first place, when the average person finds them disturbing? In the competitive marketplace for food, farmers must employ confined production facilities to keep their costs low, because consumers generally emphasize low prices over animal welfare at the grocery store. Yet, at the same time, consumers who purchase food from so-called “factory farms” donate money to the HSUS, who uses some of this money to ban the same animal cages used to produce most eggs and pork. In surveys, referendums, and economic research, consumers consistently support the banning of the same cramped animal cages used to produce the food they purchase.
One reason the farm animal welfare debate cannot be quickly resolved is that consumers have difficulty resolving the issue for themselves. They want livestock to be treated kindly, but they also want low food prices, and it is difficult to reconcile the tradeoff between animal well-being and food prices in the grocery store and/or in referendums. For these reasons, the farm animal welfare debate is a messy, contradictory debate—the trademark of a democratic process.
Although consumer attitudes can be elusive to identify, research has revealed a few facts. The most important fact to stem from consumer research is that, when consumers are informed about how layers and sows are raised, they consistently state they are willing to pay the higher food prices that would result from better animal care. This does not imply that regular grocery store shoppers will reflect this level of concern in their willingness-to-pay for food, because the regular grocery store shopper is uninformed.
However, the farm animal welfare debate is largely a policy debate. Should we ban colony cages for layers? Should we ban gestation stalls for sows? It would seem prudent to base policy on the opinions of informed consumers, as opposed to uninformed consumers. When employing this prudent procedure, there is little doubt that the ban on cramped animal cages occurring in the European Union and US states is justifi
iTunes users can subscribe to this podcast 
Around 500 years ago the Spanish brought horses to the Americas and in the ensuing mêlée enough of those horses escaped captivity that they reestablished themselves as wild animals in the new world. Evidently more than 50 million years ago they evolved here but had become extinct.
Although the name for wild horses in North America only emerged into English as mustang in 1808 this name was actually in the works by those same Spanish speakers before they ever shipped the horses across from Europe.
Back in the 13th century King Alfonso X have his royal approval to a group called mesta. This is sometimes now explained as “an association of livestock owners” but the reason the king cared was because this association had the job of enforcing tax collection among the owners of livestock.
The reason the group was called mesta was because they took their name from Latin and a phrase animalia mixta. After all these centuries it’s still obvious that this meant “a mix of different animals.” The name mesta came from mixta.
In order to collect taxes for the king mesta kept track of the various herds of animals.
Not only did domestic animals sometimes run away and become wild, but sometimes wild animals came in and joined up with the domestic animals. Clearly this was a profitable happenstance for both the owners and the king.
Wild horses such as these began to be called mestengo due to their association with the mesta but the meaning of mestengo was “stray” or “having no master.” The Spanish who came to the Americas with their horses also brought this terminology and another similar, synonymous word mostrenco which was eventually picked up in English, as I said, first showing up in the written record in 1808.
In 1964 the Ford motor company came out with a car they called the mustang. I don’t suppose they spent much time looking into the etymology of mustang. With an etymology that boils down to “without an owner” one might think such a name would encourage car theft. I don’t suppose though that people stealing these mustangs for joy rides were too deeply versed in etymology either.
For five years Charles Hodgson has produced
Podictionary – the podcast for word lovers. He’s also the author of several books including his latest
History of Wine Words – An Intoxicating Dictionary of Etymology from the Vineyard, Glass, and Bottle.
