Philippa Douglas1, Sarah Robertson2, Rebecca Gay3, Anna L Hansell4, Timothy W Gant5. 1. UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit, MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.douglas@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Sarah.Robertson3@phe.gov.uk. 3. Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Rebecca.Gay@phe.gov.uk. 4. UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit, MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Public Health and Primary Care, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, United Kingdom. Electronic address: a.hansell@imperial.ac.uk. 5. Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Tim.Gant@phe.gov.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population growth, increasing food demands, and economic efficiency have been major driving forces behind farming intensification over recent decades. However, biological emissions (bioaerosols) from intensified livestock farming may have the potential to impact human health. Bioaerosols from intensive livestock farming have been reported to cause symptoms and/or illnesses in occupational-settings and there is concern about the potential health effects on people who live near the intensive farms. As well as adverse health effects, some potential beneficial effects have been attributed to farm exposures in early life. The aim of the study was to undertake a systematic review to evaluate potential for adverse health outcomes in populations living near intensive livestock farms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) and bibliographies were searched for studies reporting associations between health outcomes and bioaerosol emissions related to intensive farming published between January 1960 and April 2017, including both occupational and community studies. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using a customized score. RESULTS: 38 health studies met the inclusion criteria (21 occupational and 1 community study measured bioaerosol concentrations, 16 community studies using a proxy measure for exposure). The majority of occupational studies found a negative impact on respiratory health outcomes and increases in inflammatory biomarkers among farm workers exposed to bioaerosols. Studies investigating the health of communities living near intensive farms had mixed findings. All four studies of asthma in children found increased reported asthma prevalence among children living or attending schools near an intensive farm. Papers principally investigated respiratory and immune system outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicated a potential impact of intensive farming on childhood respiratory health, based on a small number of studies using self-reported outcomes, but supported by findings from occupational studies. Further research is needed to measure and monitor exposure in community settings and relate this to objectively measured health outcomes. Crown
BACKGROUND: Population growth, increasing food demands, and economic efficiency have been major driving forces behind farming intensification over recent decades. However, biological emissions (bioaerosols) from intensified livestock farming may have the potential to impact human health. Bioaerosols from intensive livestock farming have been reported to cause symptoms and/or illnesses in occupational-settings and there is concern about the potential health effects on people who live near the intensive farms. As well as adverse health effects, some potential beneficial effects have been attributed to farm exposures in early life. The aim of the study was to undertake a systematic review to evaluate potential for adverse health outcomes in populations living near intensive livestock farms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) and bibliographies were searched for studies reporting associations between health outcomes and bioaerosol emissions related to intensive farming published between January 1960 and April 2017, including both occupational and community studies. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using a customized score. RESULTS: 38 health studies met the inclusion criteria (21 occupational and 1 community study measured bioaerosol concentrations, 16 community studies using a proxy measure for exposure). The majority of occupational studies found a negative impact on respiratory health outcomes and increases in inflammatory biomarkers among farm workers exposed to bioaerosols. Studies investigating the health of communities living near intensive farms had mixed findings. All four studies of asthma in children found increased reported asthma prevalence among children living or attending schools near an intensive farm. Papers principally investigated respiratory and immune system outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicated a potential impact of intensive farming on childhood respiratory health, based on a small number of studies using self-reported outcomes, but supported by findings from occupational studies. Further research is needed to measure and monitor exposure in community settings and relate this to objectively measured health outcomes. Crown
Authors: Jean-François Sauvé; Sarah J Locke; Pabitra R Josse; Emma M Stapleton; Nervana Metwali; Ralph W Altmaier; Gabriella Andreotti; Peter S Thorne; Jonathan N Hofmann; Laura E Beane Freeman; Melissa C Friesen Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Samuel Anees-Hill; Philippa Douglas; Catherine H Pashley; Anna Hansell; Emma L Marczylo Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Christine Loftus; Zahra Afsharinejad; Paul Sampson; Sverre Vedal; Elizabeth Torres; Griselda Arias; Maria Tchong-French; Catherine Karr Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Vanessa R Coffman; Devon J Hall; Nora Pisanic; David C Love; Maya Nadimpalli; Meredith McCormack; Marie Diener-West; Meghan F Davis; Christopher D Heaney Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Linsey E S de Groot; Dingyu Liu; Barbara S Dierdorp; Niki Fens; Marianne A van de Pol; Peter J Sterk; Wim Kulik; Miriam E Gerlofs-Nijland; Flemming R Cassee; Elena Pinelli; René Lutter Journal: Environ Health Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 5.984