A Public Health Ethics Case for Mitigating Zoonotic Disease Risk in Food Production

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Epidemiology
• Bioethics

Background:

• Intensive animal agriculture is a significant risk factor for zoonotic disease outbreaks.
• Past pandemics, like COVID-19, highlight the global impact of zoonotic diseases.
• Existing arguments for regulation often focus on environment or animal welfare, not pandemic prevention.

Purpose of the Study:

• To argue for the moral justification of government intervention in intensive animal agriculture.
• To propose policy options for mitigating zoonotic disease risks.
• To frame the argument around public health protection and pandemic preparedness.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the link between intensive animal agriculture and zoonotic disease emergence.
• Exploration of three policy interventions: subsidies for alternatives, a "zoonotic tax," and a production ban.
• Ethical and justice-based evaluation of proposed policies.

Main Results:

• Intensive animal agriculture practices increase the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks.
• Three policy options (subsidies, zoonotic tax, ban) are identified as morally permissible for public health protection.
• These policies align with existing public health interventions and theories of justice.

Conclusions:

• Governments are morally justified in restricting or eliminating intensive animal agriculture to prevent zoonotic pandemics.
• Policy interventions are ethically sound and compatible with various justice frameworks.
• The argument prioritizes population health and global security against future health emergencies.