Publication: Policy discourse on AMR in food-producing animals: examining framing and language for effective communication
Authors: Carly Ching, Muhammad H Zaman, Veronika J Wirtz
Introduction
The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture and when raising food-producing animals can lead to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which makes infections difficult or impossible to treat. This study was performed to identify how key policy documents and reports “frame” the issue of AMR and antibiotic use in animals. By frame it means the language and themes used to persuade someone on the importance of the issue.
How information (or a message) is framed can impact a person’s motivation to change behavior. One of the reasons this study was performed is that with growing attention to AMR as a One Health problem (in which humans, animals, and the environment are connected), effective messaging targeting specific sectors may get lost. In this case, the focus was specifically on whether messaging was effective for farmers or farm workers and global policy. For example, highlighting risks to human health for the general population speaks to the public, while highlighting economic risks to farmers provides specific motivation to farmers.
Methods
The researchers analyzed international policy documents from the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat on AMR, which include organizations like World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH). They looked specifically at all parts of the documents that related to antibiotic use in food-producing animals and for each line of text identified what motivational “frame” was being used.
Findings
The researchers found that overall, documents highlighted consequences to public human health the most, even though the focus was on sections of text about food-producing animals. They found two major animal-specific frames were used, “Food Production and Security” and “Animal Health and Welfare.” Across all documents, they noticed that when one of these animal-specific frames was used more frequently, the other was used less often. This suggests a tendency to focus on one main animal-related reason for addressing antimicrobial resistance, rather than balancing multiple motivations. Notably, frames that speak to the self-interests of farmers (such as their own health or economic interests) were rarely used.
In terms of sector or culturally tailored messaging, while human and animal health are connected in a One Health approach, the expectations are often different. In agriculture and farming, there is a push to be voluntarily better than standard practices, while in human healthcare, clinical guidelines on antimicrobial use are the standard. This difference can confuse or upset farmers when their everyday practices are labelled as “misuse.” Farming norms can also vary by country. To build trust and cooperation, it is important to use inclusive, non-blaming language.
Recommendations:
- Create messages and communication materials that are more personally relevant to the end-user, using clear language, and choosing frames that support global interests and cooperation.
- Avoid assumptions about people’s background knowledge, and consider different cultural contexts.
- Linking farmers’ health and economic interests to broader public health benefits can strengthen messaging.
- Although the study’s focus was on reducing indiscriminate antibiotic use in food-producing animals, the researchers found that One Health messaging still leans heavily toward human health. Thus, effort still needs to be made to present an integrated perspective across all One Health domains.
- These recommendations should be adapted to local contexts with input from key stakeholder groups, including end-users.
Previous