2024/01/01 by Alan L. Olmstead, Paul W. Rhode · 2 voices
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Health Professions · Medicine · #Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology #Veterinary Practice and Education Studies #Zoonotic diseases and public health
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/ssh.2023.35
openalex publication_date 2024/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract The U.S. federal government adopted aggressive policies to control animal diseases decades before it made significant attempts to improve human health. Progressive-era reformers crafted a powerful argument that the male-dominated, rural-oriented political system valued the lives of hogs more than the well-being of babies. The invidious hog-baby comparison became a pervasive theme in debates over the Children’s Bureau, a National Department of Health, and the Sheppard-Towner Act, and it has been reproduced uncritically in recent years. This article investigates the important historical relationships between U.S. animal and human health policies. Human health champions would have been better served by embracing a One Health approach when possible, drawing more on the lessons learned in combating animal diseases.