10-07-2025
Underinvesting in animal health exposes Europe to disease shocks
Animal health is intrinsically linked to human health, but it seldom gets the policy priority many experts say it deserves. Euractiv spoke with Professor Jonathan Rushton, an agricultural economist at the University of Edinburgh, on the sidelines of 'Preventing Disease X: The Value of Investing in Animal Health,' an event hosted by Animal Health Europe.
Professor Rushton, a director of the Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme, spoke about the economic dimensions of animal health, why underinvestment in this area is a blind spot for policymakers, and what must change to prepare for the next big health threat.
EV: Professor Rushton, you're known for your work at the intersection of animal health and economics. Tell us more about your role, particularly in the context of why investing in animal health matters.
Jonathan Rushton (JR): In essence, I'm interested in how we improve the use of economics in animal health and livestock production. One of the areas I focus on is working out what we're losing from poor health and how much we're currently spending to manage it.
But more importantly, I try to understand what that means for the broader economy, who's affected: producers, people in the value chain, or consumers?
EV: What are your key findings so far?
JR: Across many low- and middle-income countries, we see major losses due to mortality and morbidity in livestock, but the spending to manage these issues is minimal. That's a sign of clear underinvestment.
When we feed this into economic models, we see poor animal health having a major impact on GDP in countries like Ethiopia.
These effects aren't small; they can amount to significant impacts on GDP. But the main beneficiaries of better animal health are not only the farmers. Consumers gain the most: healthier animals mean more affordable and safer livestock products.
EV: At the conference, it was said that animal health is an investment, not a cost. Do you agree?
JR: Yes, generally that's true. But we tend to be reactive in this area. There's a lot of good work happening, for instance, freedom from foot-and-mouth disease was declared in many parts of South America this year, but we don't always communicate the value of that investment.
At the same time, we're facing growing threats. Antimicrobial resistance is one, and others like African swine fever continue to spread. And there are always new disease incursions. Prevention, in most cases, is far cheaper than dealing with full-blown crises, but we still don't prioritise it enough.
EV: You also mentioned that global investment in animal health is about $70 billion, while human health receives $10 trillion. That's a massive gap.
JR: It is, and $70 billion is likely an underestimate. That figure mostly reflects pharmaceutical industry sales and doesn't include public spending on coordination, R&D, or education. We're still producing plenty of livestock products and prices remain affordable, but the question is: are we investing enough to make the system resilient and sustainable?
My view is no. Given the importance of animal health for food security, livelihoods, disease prevention, and economic stability, I think the investment is too low. But to make the case for more, we need solid data.
EV: So data is central to making that investment case. What are we missing?
JR: That $70 billion figure excludes public investment and isn't broken down between pets and livestock. We don't really know the true figure for livestock health investment. We also lack data on spending by governments in many countries, particularly in Africa.
We're working with the UK government in Zambia and Ghana to look at this more closely. What's spent on health services? Is it enough? These are critical questions we're trying to answer.
EV: Where do you think more investment is most urgently needed?
JR: It depends on the country. In wealthier regions, there's good collaboration between pharma and livestock industries, but that still needs coordination with governments. In lower-income countries, we're struggling to get veterinary technologies to the people who need them.
Sometimes it's about logistics, cold chains, roads. Other times, it's about the absence of functioning public veterinary services. Even when we do invest, we need to manage it well. We don't want vets sitting in offices who never reach the farms.
EV: So the problem isn't technology, it's delivery?
JR: Exactly. Take Peste des Petits Ruminants. We have an effective vaccine, but it's not reaching farmers when and where they need it. We don't have the infrastructure to handle animals or run effective vaccination campaigns. It's a basic systems failure.
EV: Should that be fixed at policy level?
JR: It needs both public and private engagement. If we want to eliminate a disease, we need coordinated public investment. But we also need to involve farmers and the veterinary workforce. We've seen that succeed with foot-and-mouth in South America. It's not just about governments, it's about building a system together.
EV: Has any work been done on the return on investment for animal health?
JR: There are studies on research returns, and they're usually very positive. Cost-benefit analyses also tend to be favourable, although negative findings often don't get published. But we need more comprehensive economic data to guide policy and investment decisions.
EV: What's your main message to policymakers?
JR: We're underinvesting in animal health, and that leaves us vulnerable to disease and food system shocks. I'd like to see a complete overhaul of how we collect data in the livestock and animal health sectors. Surveillance systems should include production and economic indicators, not just disease prevalence. That's a One Health approach in practice.
EV: If you could implement one action that would make a big difference, what would it be?
JR: Invest in data infrastructure. Just like we invest in diagnostic labs, we need to invest in the systems that track animal health, production, and economics. That's the foundation for better disease modelling, economic analysis, and sound business cases.
EV: Can policymakers help?
JR: Absolutely. They can set standards for what data are collected, fund the infrastructure, and support training for data scientists. It's all doable if the political will is there.
EV: Is there momentum behind this idea?
JR: There is. We're working with WOAH, FAO, and the Action for Animal Health group. The direction is there; what we need now is stronger articulation and action.
[Edited By Brian Maguire | Euractiv's Advocacy Lab ]
