18 pages., Article 6, Via online journal., The discovery of the antibiotic Aureomycin as a growth promotor for the livestock industry was viewed as revolutionary in 1950. The use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, however, has been questioned by health professionals concerned with the role this use might play in the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. As a public health issue, newspapers have covered this topic since its discovery. Media, such as newspapers, have used frames to discuss the topic over time as new discoveries have occurred, policy changes have been implemented, and food animal production has changed. The purpose of this study was to determine the frames and sources used by national U.S. newspapers when discussing the topic of antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance. A quantitative content analysis was conducted on three national U.S. newspapers from 1996 – 2017 and found three primary frames were used when discussing antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance. The content analysis also indicated that over 90% of the news articles contained a scientific source when communicating about this scientific topic. Based on the frames identified some readers are being ill-informed about this topic and could be using this information in their decision making without having all of the facts. Science communicators should prioritize the inclusion of scientific sources in their writing as they communicate about complex, controversial topics.
4pgs, Background
Communicating about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) requires technical knowledge, consideration of audience values and appropriate identification of communication strategies for multiple audiences. Within the context of animal agriculture, communicating about AMR represents an important and complex endeavour for veterinarians, governmental agencies, producers and the industry to convey policy and practice information regarding the use of antimicrobials in food animals.
Objectives
To assess the science communication challenges related to AMR by identifying the motivations, goals and struggles of animal agriculture stakeholders when communicating about AMR and AMS.
Methods
Participants attending a meeting on AMR communication in animal agriculture (N = 80) completed a workshop on science communication, including small group meetings with oral/written comments collected. Participants included veterinarians, government agency representatives, industry stakeholders and producers.
Results
Results indicated participants believed providing more accurate information would resolve misunderstanding and concern about AMR to other stakeholders, counter to recommendations of science communicators. Other participants noted beliefs about the utility of stories in trying to explain how AMS is normative and consistent with the values of all parties interested in animal agriculture. Participants noted the importance of public engagement, even if the participants’ perceived target audiences did not include the public.
Conclusions
Communicating about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture contexts provide unique challenges. Few evidence-based recommendations are available for science communicators in these contexts and more research is needed to improve the quality of communication about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture.
