Residential exposure to livestock farms and lung function in adolescence - The PIAMA birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the impact of air pollution from livestock farming on respiratory health. Studies in adults suggest adverse effects of livestock farm emissions on lung function, but so far, studies involving children and adolescents are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To study the association of residential proximity to livestock farms and modelled particulate matter ≤10 µm (PM10) from livestock farms with lung function in adolescence. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among 715 participants of the Dutch prospective PIAMA (Prevention and Incidence of Asthma and Mite Allergy) birth cohort study. Relationships of different indicators of residential livestock farming exposure (distance to farms, distance-weighted number of farms, cattle, pigs, poultry, horses and goats within 3 km; modelled atmospheric PM10 concentrations from livestock farms) with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) at age 16 were assessed by linear regression taking into account potential confounders. Associations were expressed per interquartile range increase in exposure. RESULTS: Higher exposure to livestock farming was consistently associated with a lower FEV1, but not with FVC among participants living in less urbanized municipalities (<1500 addresses/km2, N = 402). Shorter distances of homes to livestock farms were associated with a 1.4% (0.2%; 2.7%) lower FEV1. Larger numbers of farms within 3 km and higher concentrations of PM10 from livestock farming were associated with a 1.8% (0.8%, 2.9%) and 0.9% (0.4%,1.5%) lower FEV1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that higher exposure to livestock farming is associated with a lower FEV1 in adolescents. Replication and more research on the etiologic agents involved in these associations and the underlying mechanisms is needed.

Proximity to livestock farms and exposure to livestock-related particulate matter are associated with lower probability of medication dispensing for obstructive airway diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess whether medication use for obstructive airway diseases is associated with environmental exposure to livestock farms. Previous studies in the Netherlands at a regional level suggested that asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are less prevalent among persons living near livestock farms. METHODS: A nationwide population-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 7,735,491 persons, with data on the dispensing of drugs for obstructive airway diseases in the Netherlands in 2016. Exposure was based on distances between home addresses and farms and on modelled atmospheric particulate matter (PM10) concentrations from livestock farms. Data were analysed for different regions by logistic regression analyses and adjusted for several individual-level variables, as well as modelled PM10 concentration of non-farm-related air pollution. Results for individual regions were subsequently pooled in meta-analyses. RESULTS: The probability of medication for asthma or COPD being dispensed to adults and children was lower with decreasing distance of their homes to livestock farms, particularly cattle and poultry farms. Increased concentrations of PM10 from cattle were associated with less dispensing of medications for asthma or COPD, as well (meta-analysis OR for 10th-90th percentile increase in concentration of PM10 from cattle farms, 95%CI: 0.92, 0.86-0.97 for adults). However, increased concentrations of PM10 from non-farm sources were positively associated (meta-analysis OR for 10th-90th percentile increase in PM10-concentration, 95%CI: 1.29, 1.09-1.52 for adults). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the probability of dispensing medication for asthma or COPD is inversely associated with proximity to livestock farms and modelled exposure to livestock-related PM10 in multiple regions within the Netherlands. This finding implies a notable prevented risk: under the assumption of absence of livestock farms in the Netherlands, an estimated 2%-5% more persons (an increase in tens of thousands) in rural areas would receive asthma or COPD medication.

Effects of Dutch livestock production on human health and the environment.

Observed multiple adverse effects of livestock production have led to increasing calls for more sustainable livestock production. Quantitative analysis of adverse effects, which can guide public debate and policy development in this area, is limited and generally scattered across environmental, human health, and other science domains. The aim of this study was to bring together and, where possible, quantify and aggregate the effects of national-scale livestock production on 17 impact categories, ranging from impacts of particulate matter, emerging infectious diseases and odor annoyance to airborne nitrogen deposition on terrestrial nature areas and greenhouse gas emissions. Effects were estimated and scaled to total Dutch livestock production, with system boundaries including feed production, manure management and transport, but excluding slaughtering, retail and consumption. Effects were expressed using eight indicators that directly express Impact in the sense of the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response framework, while the remaining 14 express Pressures or States. Results show that livestock production may contribute both positively and negatively to human health with a human disease burden (expressed in disability-adjusted life years) of up to 4% for three different health effects: those related to particulate matter, zoonoses, and occupational accidents. The contribution to environmental impact ranges from 2% for consumptive water use in the Netherlands to 95% for phosphorus transfer to soils, and extends beyond Dutch borders. While some aggregation across impact categories was possible, notably for burden of disease estimates, further aggregation of disparate indicators would require normative value judgement. Despite difficulty of aggregation, the assessment shows that impacts receive a different contribution of different animal sectors. While some of our results are country-specific, the overall approach is generic and can be adapted and tuned according to specific contexts and information needs in other regions, to allow informed decision making across a broad range of impact categories.