Search

This paper represents, to our knowledge, the first national-level (United States) estimate of the economic impacts of vibriosis cases as exacerbated by climate change. Vibriosis is an illness contracted through food- and waterborne exposures to variousThe objective of this study was to project climate-induced changes in vibriosis and associated economic impacts in the United States related to changes in sea surface temperatures (SSTs).For our analysis to identify climate links to vibriosis incidence, we constructed three logistic regression models byBy 2090, increases in SST are estimated to result in a 51% increase in cases annually relative to the baseline era (centered on 1995) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, and a 108% increase under RCP8.5. The cost of these illnesses is projected to reachVibriosis incidence is likely to increase in the United States under moderate and unmitigated climate change scenarios through increases in SST, resulting in a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality, and costing billions of dollars. These costs are mostly attributable to deaths, primarily from exposure to

Humans, animals, and the environment face a universal crisis: antimicrobial resistance (AR). Addressing AR and its multi-disciplinary causes across many sectors including in human and veterinary medicine remains underdeveloped. One barrier to AR efforts is an inconsistent process to incorporate the plenitude of stakeholders about what AR is and how to stifle its development and spread—especially stakeholders from the animal agriculture sector, one of the largest purchasers of antimicrobial drugs. In 2019, The Wellcome Trust released Reframing Resistance: How to communicate about antimicrobial resistance effectively (Reframing Resistance), which proposed the need to establish a consistent and harmonized messaging effort that describes the AR crisis and its global implications for health and wellbeing across all stakeholders. Yet, Reframing Resistance does not specifically engage the animal agriculture community. This study investigates the gap between two principles recommended by Reframing Resistance and animal agriculture stakeholders. For this analysis, the research group conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of United States animal agriculture stakeholders. Participants reported attitudes, beliefs, and practices about a variety of issues, including how they defined AR and what entities the AR crisis impacts most. Exploration of Reframing Resistance’s Principle 2, “explain the fundamentals succinctly” and Principle 3, “emphasis that this is universal issue; it can affect anyone, including you” reveals disagreement in both the fundamentals of AR and consensus of “who” the AR crisis impacts. Principle 2 may do better to acknowledge that animal agriculture stakeholders espouse a complex array of perspectives that cannot be summed up in a single perspective or principle. As a primary tool to combat AR, behavior change must be accomplished first through outreach to stakeholder groups and understanding their perspectives.

We quantify and monetize changes in suicide incidence across the conterminous United States (U.S.) in response to increasing levels of warming. We develop an integrated health impact assessment model using binned and linear specifications of temperature-suicide relationship estimates from Mullins and White (2019), in combination with monthly age- and sex-specific baseline suicide incidence rates, projections of six climate models, and population projections at the conterminous U.S. county scale. We evaluate the difference in the annual number of suicides in the U.S. corresponding to 1–6°C of warming compared to 1986–2005 average temperatures (mean U.S. temperatures) and compute 2015 population attributable fractions (PAFs). We use the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Value of a Statistical Life to estimate the economic value of avoiding these mortality impacts. Assuming the 2015 population size, warming of 1–6°C could result in an annual increase of 283–1,660 additional suicide cases, corresponding to a PAF of 0.7%–4.1%. The annual economic value of avoiding these impacts is $2 billion–$3 billion (2015 U.S. dollars, 3% discount rate, and 2015 income level). Estimates based on linear temperature-suicide relationship specifications are 7% larger than those based on binned temperature specifications. Accounting for displacement decreases estimates by 17%, while accounting for precipitation decreases estimates by 7%. Population growth between 2015 and the future warming degree arrival year increases estimates by 15%–38%. Further research is needed to quantify and monetize other climate-related mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety and depression) and to characterize these risks in socially vulnerable populations.

Humans, animals, and the environment face a universal crisis: antimicrobial resistance (AR). Addressing AR and its multi-disciplinary causes across many sectors including in human and veterinary medicine remains underdeveloped. One barrier to AR efforts is an inconsistent process to incorporate the plenitude of stakeholders about what AR is and how to stifle its development and spread—especially stakeholders from the animal agriculture sector, one of the largest purchasers of antimicrobial drugs. In 2019, The Wellcome Trust released Reframing Resistance: How to communicate about antimicrobial resistance effectively (Reframing Resistance), which proposed the need to establish a consistent and harmonized messaging effort that describes the AR crisis and its global implications for health and wellbeing across all stakeholders. Yet, Reframing Resistance does not specifically engage the animal agriculture community. This study investigates the gap between two principles recommended by Reframing Resistance and animal agriculture stakeholders. For this analysis, the research group conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of United States animal agriculture stakeholders. Participants reported attitudes, beliefs, and practices about a variety of issues, including how they defined AR and what entities the AR crisis impacts most. Exploration of Reframing Resistance’s Principle 2, “explain the fundamentals succinctly” and Principle 3, “emphasis that this is universal issue; it can affect anyone, including you” reveals disagreement in both the fundamentals of AR and consensus of “who” the AR crisis impacts. Principle 2 may do better to acknowledge that animal agriculture stakeholders espouse a complex array of perspectives that cannot be summed up in a single perspective or principle. As a primary tool to combat AR, behavior change must be accomplished first through outreach to stakeholder groups and understanding their perspectives.