The association between proximity to animal feeding operations and community health: A systematic review

Annette M. O'Connor, Brent Auvermann, Danelle Bickett-Weddle, Steve Kirkhorn, Jan M. Sargeant, Alejandro Ramirez, Susanna G. Von Essen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: A systematic review was conducted for the association between animal feeding operations (AFOs) and the health of individuals living near AFOs. Methodology/Principal Findings: The review was restricted to studies reporting respiratory, gastrointestinal and mental health outcomes in individuals living near AFOs in North America, European Union, United Kingdom, and Scandinavia. From June to September 2008 searches were conducted in PUBMED, CAB, Web-of-Science, and Agricola with no restrictions. Hand searching of narrative reviews was also used. Two reviewers independently evaluated the role of chance, confounding, information, selection and analytic bias on the study outcome. Nine relevant studies were identified. The studies were heterogeneous with respect to outcomes and exposures assessed. Few studies reported an association between surrogate clinical outcomes and AFO proximity. A negative association was reported when odor was the measure of exposure to AFOs and self-reported disease, the measure of outcome. There was evidence of an association between self-reported disease and proximity to AFO in individuals annoyed by AFO odor. Conclusions/Significance: There was inconsistent evidence of a weak association between self-reported disease in people with allergies or familial history of allergies. No consistent dose response relationship between exposure and disease was observable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere9530
JournalPloS one
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 10 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The association between proximity to animal feeding operations and community health: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this