Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: May 6, 2021 at 5:11:39 PM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Environment]: Frohlich on Kirchhelle, 'Pyrrhic > Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food Production' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > Claas Kirchhelle. Pyrrhic Progress: The History of Antibiotics in > Anglo-American Food Production. New Brunswick Rutgers University > Press, 2020. 450 pp. $59.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8135-9147-6; > $120.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8135-9148-3; $59.95 (e-book), ISBN > 978-0-8135-9149-0. > > Reviewed by Xaq Frohlich (Auburn University) > Published on H-Environment (May, 2021) > Commissioned by Daniella McCahey > > "FARMERS -- NOT PHARMACISTS," declared a 1960 Pfizer veterinary > pharmaceutical advertisement directed at British farmers. The > product? A vitamin feed supplement for pigs that included an > antibiotic which would increase the pigs' nutrient uptake, thereby > helping them grow fast on feed (p. 103). When used to treat humans, > the antibiotic, terramycin, was very much a medicine whose use was > regulated through pharmacists. Not so for animal feed. The Pfizer > product, a class of products known in the agriculture industry as > antibiotic growth promoters, fell into a legal loophole. For > low-level, routine, and nontherapeutic use on otherwise healthy pigs, > farmers did not have to bother with a pharmacist or even a > veterinarian. Pfizer's assertion that farmers were not pharmacists, > however, sat at the center of a heated debate among government > regulators, drug manufacturers, and different medical and veterinary > professional associations over this increasingly common post-WWII > industrial farming practice: was farmers' widespread use of > antibiotics in animal feed contributing to antimicrobial resistance > that affected the _human_ use of antibiotics? Should farmers be > trusted with such a vital weapon in medicine's armory against > infections in human health? This important policy question would > repeatedly slip between the cracks of public attention and the > "fragmentation of perceptions" (p. 7) of those communities of experts > or policy institutions that might have addressed it. In much the same > way, the important subject of veterinary pharmaceuticals in > industrial farming has largely landed in the margins of most > histories of modern agriculture, environment, and medicine. > > Claas Kirchhelle's _Pyrrhic Progress_ provides a much-needed and > painstakingly researched history of the nonhuman use of antibiotics > in livestock production and the professional turf wars and policy > debates that have followed their use in farming since the 1940s. The > main strengths and weaknesses of this book arise from how it is > organized. The book looks comparatively at two national cases: the > United States and Britain. To tell these two narratives Kirchhelle > divides the book into four parts. Parts 1 and 2 look at each country > from the 1940s to 1960s, a story of the post-WWII industrialization > of farming, which among other things involved growing markets for > agro-pharmaceuticals. Parts 3 and 4 continue those national > narratives from the late 1960s to the present, as governments and > industry responded to increasingly compelling evidence that > agricultural use of antibiotics was contributing to antimicrobial > resistance. > > Kirchhelle makes good use of comparing national "risk cultures" (p. > 7) and different political contexts to show how farm regulation > evolves differently for the same products in different places. > Britain's "corporatist" system of decision-making meant that most > disagreements between regulators and companies over safety and risk > were kept behind doors, within expert committees. Public reports like > the 1969 Swann Report threaded a needle between pressuring companies > to curb the overuse of antibiotics while endorsing corporate > self-regulation (p. 93). Britain's membership in the European > Economic Community's Common Agricultural Policy introduced an > exogenous European pressure for increasingly stricter regulatory > oversight and precaution. It also provoked what Kirchhelle calls > "Swann patriotism" (p. 218), a nationalist tactic presaging Brexit > politics today, wherein farm associations and pharmaceutical > industries exploited the positive image of post-Swann reforms to > justify continued self-regulation and to argue, often in the face of > contrary evidence, that Britain's meat supply was better and safer > than in other countries. The US system entailed more open antagonisms > between a regulation-averse pharmaceutical industry and an > exasperated Food and Drug Administration, but what eventually emerged > was a voluntarist approach centered on "antibiotic-free" labeling. > This "privatization of antibiotic risk" meant that in the United > States, "the market ... gradually replaced the state as the de facto > driver of antibiotic change" (p. 161). > > The comparative story comes across clearly. However, the further > subdivision of each of the four parts of the book into three chapters > that examine distinct policy spheres (resulting in a total of twelve > chapters), gives the impression one is reading three separate books > in parallel: one on public debates, another looking at farm markets > and agricultural policy, and a third providing an institutional study > of key regulatory organizations. The result is a lot of confusing > chronological skipping and returning to events that were discussed in > previous chapters. > > The broader story _Pyrrhic Progress_ tells is about making policy in > the face of scientific uncertainty. Kirchhelle offers policymakers > four morals from this story: the dangerous tendency toward > "short-termism" in the face of an impending slow disaster of > antimicrobial resistance; the equally dangerous tendency toward > "epistemic fragmentation," where interprofessional rivalries lead to > solutions that are focused on specific parts of and not the whole > problem; the persistence of "antibiotic infrastructures," which is > the author's challenge to "simplistic narratives of irresponsible > 'pharmers'" (p. 287) who, he argues, are overpowered by market "path > dependencies" and a "cost-price squeeze"; and a patchwork of "narrow > reform" that reflects the compromises and quick fixes that arise from > the previous three. > > These arcane policy lessons touch on big issues for twentieth-century > environmental history: changing ideas about environmental health and > risk, the rise of corporate control and market-driven regulation, and > the industrialization of foodways increasingly divorced from local > natural ecologies. _Pyrrhic Progress_ adds to a growing literature on > the chemical revolution that has transformed modern agriculture and > the environment more broadly. It adds to a vibrant literature on > animal studies which is bringing down conceptual walls that falsely > divide the history of humans from that of other animals. > Surprisingly, Kirchhelle missed an opportunity to consider the recent > One Health Movement, which promisingly seeks to address many of his > concerns about epistemic fragmentation, but which does not appear in > this book. > > _Pyrrhic Progress_ will leave the reader convinced that the story of > antibiotics in farming is an important one. When Kirchhelle describes > in chapter 11, "Between Swann Patriotism and BSE," how Britain's BSE > or "mad cow" crisis in the 1990s prompted a moral panic about > intensive "factory farming," it is not hard for the reader to see why > contemporaries were so quick to view BSE "as the tip of an > agro-industrial iceberg kept afloat by antibiotics" (p. 226). > Unfortunately, it often falls to the reader to draw out what are the > book's unique contributions, as they can be buried in the whir of > statistics about changes in agricultural sectors or by Kirchhelle's > many cross-linkages throughout the book to other significant food > policy programs of the past. > > _Pyrrhic Progress_ is a policy wonk's history. It is information-rich > and a treasure trove of compelling facts and historical exposition on > many of the popular debates and key institutions that have made not > just food and agriculture, but also science and medicine increasingly > subject to powerful market forces. While not an easy read, it will > likely be a reference on this topic for years to come. > > Citation: Xaq Frohlich. Review of Kirchhelle, Claas, _Pyrrhic > Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food > Production_. H-Environment, H-Net Reviews. May, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54969 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8383): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8383 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82641007/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
