From Healthy Cows to Healthy Humans: Integrated Approaches to World Hunger, c.1930–1965

Open Access
Part of the Medicine and Biomedical Sciences in Modern History book series (MBSMH)


This chapter is concerned with diseased and undernourished dairy cattle, and how they came to be perceived not simply as threats to agriculture but also as contributors to world hunger and ill health. Moving from interwar Britain and its empire to the post-war international stage, it explores how developments in nutritional science and veterinary medicine combined with economic depression, wartime food shortages and the aftermath of war, drew attention to the undernourished, unhealthy bodies of both cows and humans, and suggested connections between them. Enrolled by the United Nations and its agencies in their campaign against hunger in the developing world, cows inspired the formation of new health structures that aimed to tackle their unproductive bodies. Within these, experts in human health, veterinary medicine and agricultural science came together to survey the situation, and plan interventions that would create new bovine bodies and new experts capable of supporting their provision of health and nutrition to humans.

Michael Bresalier

From 1945, Zebu cattle living on the Indian subcontinent were exhaustively identified, enumerated and evaluated by officials working for the newly created Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN). These indigenous, humped-backed cattle (Bos indicus) provided crucial sources of draught power, food and income to the area’s human inhabitants. Surveying them was a lengthy and painstaking process that took seven years to complete. It was disrupted by political events such as the Partition of India, the creation of Pakistan and the end of British rule in 1947, which impacted on the provision of agricultural services and the presence of technical experts able to attend to the Zebu. It was made more difficult by the Zebu themselves. Numbering more than 100 million in India alone (which held nearly half of the world’s population) , their living conditions, locations and roles within agrarian systems varied greatly, as did their physical state. Investigators identified at least twenty eight distinct breeds, whose diverse sizes, shapes and productive capacities reflected their adaptation to particular climates and environments . Many were burdened by chronic infections, parasites and malnutrition , which undermined their health and limited their ability to fulfil their human-designated roles.1

The Zebu attracted attention at this time as a result of the findings of the FAO’s first World Food Survey . Reporting in 1946, it anticipated a growing food crisis across much of the world: production was below pre-war levels, famine had just devastated Bengal and millions of people were unable to meet their basic calorie requirements. With the world’s population predicted to increase exponentially, the situation would only deteriorate.2 The Zebu survey formed one facet of the FAO’s response. It sought to identify those cattle with the greatest potential to develop more productive bodies, and to enrol them in a campaign to combat human hunger. This extended beyond India to Latin America, Africa and much of Asia , and enlisted not only cattle but also buffalo, chickens, pigs and other animals. However, the recognized importance of milk for child growth and development, and the vitamin, mineral and protein deficiencies that it helped to address, meant that cattle played a central role.

This role was not entirely new. The twin challenges of improving human nutrition through increased milk consumption, and developing agriculture through improvements in livestock health and production, had preoccupied nations, colonies and the League of Nations during the interwar years, culminating in calls to ‘marry food and agriculture’.3 However, it was only after the war, under the aegis of the FAO and the World Health Organization (WHO), that these two agendas became truly integrated. In framing healthy, productive cattle as essential to the production of healthy, well-nourished humans, these organizations encouraged experts in human and veterinary medicine to transcend the institutional and disciplinary boundaries that had grown to separate them,4 and to forge new relationships with each other, and with the human and bovine subjects whose bodies they sought to transform.

Taking the interwar period as its jumping-off point, this chapter explores and accounts for these previously undocumented post-war developments. In revealing the centrality of cattle to the international campaign to feed the world, it adds a crucial zoological strand to the existing historiography on world hunger, and demonstrates the importance of a cross-cutting approach to domains of science and policy that historians typically study in isolation from each other. Existing accounts of world hunger adopt two distinct approaches. Some historians have examined how it was framed as a problem of overpopulation , and have explored neo-Malthusian efforts by American philanthropists such as the Ford Foundation, and UN experts such as Julian Huxley, to manage the crisis by controlling human fertility.5 Others have examined approaches to hunger as a problem of agricultural development , and interrogate the alliances between the Rockefeller Foundation , the US government and the FAO that resulted in efforts to modernize food production through seed-and-soil science and hybrid crops, culminating in the so-called ‘Green Revolution’.6 In these accounts and in the burgeoning literature on international health organizations,7 livestock hardly feature.8 Relegated to histories of development, they are viewed largely in terms of their ability to promote economic growth and destroy the environment .9 When their influence over human health is considered, it is primarily as hosts and transmitters of infectious diseases to humans.10

However, as this chapter demonstrates, livestock attracted attention for other reasons. Post-war experts from across the UN and its allied agencies viewed them not only as threats to human health but also as potential contributors to it, suppliers of highly nutritious foodstuffs that would benefit human health and strength.11 This role was not disconnected from that of disease transmitter because many of the zoonotic infections that animals conveyed to humans undermined their own health and productivity. However, as we shall see, international efforts to promote cattle as sources of meat and milk focused not only on the prevention of their diseases but also—in line with the WHO’s definition of human health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’—on improving their feeding , breeding, husbandry and general health.12 The unproductive bodies of developing world cows therefore shaped and were produced by the post-war international campaign against world hunger, which brought experts and activities that historians have tended to regard as ‘veterinary’ in character into the realms of human health and medicine.13

In recounting the history of that campaign, and its bovine subjects and shapers, this chapter draws on the traces that cows left on the historical record.14 As subjects of investigation by experts in animal pathology, nutrition and physiology, cattle frequently feature within their scientific literatures. They also appear in the statistical surveys and documents of the FAO, WHO and allied agencies. As producers of vitamins, fats and proteins for human consumption, they left indirect traces on the bodies of their human consumers, and in scientific and documents dedicated to human health and nutrition.15 By analysing these traces, the people and circumstances that gave rise to them, and the methods used to create them, this chapter sheds new light on the people, organizations and agendas that drove the interlinked creation of healthy cattle and healthy humans in the post-war international arena.

The first section will explore the parallel development during the interwar period of scientific literatures and policy agendas that granted two distinctive roles to cows. In human health and nutrition , new knowledge of vitamins and trace elements led experts to regard cows as important sources of human food, and to promote the consumption of their milk .16 In agriculture and veterinary medicine, scientific advances and the deepening agricultural depression led experts to view cows as key sources of farming income, and to attempt improvements to their health and productivity. In colonial and international settings, links formed between these two agendas, resulted in calls for the ‘marriage of food and agriculture’. The second section will relate how, in wartime and the immediate post-war era, these links were concretized by food shortages and the identification of ‘protein malnutrition’ as a key problem in the developing world , such that world hunger came to be viewed as a problem of unproductive cattle, whose health and nutrition had a direct bearing on the health and nutrition of their human consumers. The third section outlines how the FAO and the WHO responded to this problem by creating new structures within which different types of expert came together to plan the creation of new bovine bodies and new experts capable of bringing them into being. It also touches on the consequences of these plans for the cows that helped to shape them.

4.1 Cows in Interwar Medicine and Agriculture

The interwar period witnessed a new consciousness about the centrality of foods produced by animals to the nourishment of humans. By the 1930s, patterns of food consumption in most of the industrial world had shifted from grain-based to animal-based diets —the so-called ‘nutrition transition’.17 Meat , milk and other livestock products gained pride of place on the tables of all classes, becoming integral to national cultures, tastes and identities.18 Their significance to human health and nutrition was increasingly recognized. In the later nineteenth century, early nutrition scientists had regarded animals as crucial sources of calories and protein , whose meat and milk could help to repair muscles and ensure the efficient functioning of the human motor.19 During the early twentieth century, as nutrition science expanded, gained institutional expression and won new sources of public funding, the evaluation of animal foods shifted to focus on newly identified components—amino acids , minerals and vitamins—which scientists deemed essential for normal physiological growth, development and function. In 1918 the American biochemist and nutrition scientist E.V. McCollum heralded this as the ‘newer knowledge of nutrition’.20 Despite early controversies, this new knowledge was eventually accepted as nutritional fact, generating a Nobel Prize for the discoverers of vitamins, Christiaan Eijkman and Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins .21

A number of nutritional scientists sought to translate the findings of experimental research into practical knowledge that could guide medical and public health professionals , policy -makers and the public.22 Ranking foods according to their nutritional value, they concluded that those derived from animals were the best for humans.23 Their laboratory and field studies showed that milk , meat , eggs and fish not only provided high-quality proteins —with the best combination of essential amino acids—but also other micronutrients, notably vitamins A and D, which were identified as especially important for infants, children , and pregnant and lactating women. In this evaluation, milk was awarded pride of place and defined as a ‘protective food’.24 The dairy cow therefore became an essential contributor to the health and efficiency of human bodies.25 For McCollum , ‘the consumption of milk and its products form[ed] the greatest factor for the protection of mankind’,26 while an enquiry by experts associated with the League of Nations characterized it as the best and most readily available ‘protective food’, ‘the nearest approach we possess to a perfect and complete food’.27

In shifting attention from the quantity to quality of food intake, the newer knowledge of nutrition reframed understandings of an adequate diet , its cost and its relationship to health. It also led to the identification of ‘malnutrition’ as a new medical problem caused by inadequate dietary intake of vitamins , amino acids or minerals, and characterized by suboptimal growth, health and productivity.28 Scientific investigations revealed that malnutrition could be rectified by adding bovine bodily products to human diets. They stimulated significant improvements in human growth and efficiency, lowered the incidence of deficiency diseases such as rickets , and helped to reduce maternal mortality. Dietary surveys conducted in 1930s Britain , where economic depression had devastated industrial heartlands, suggested that a fifth of all children were chronically malnourished. Read alongside scientists’ calculations of the cost of a nutritious diet, this finding stimulated criticisms of a government that repeatedly asserted the adequacy of its responses to poverty . It also encouraged efforts to increase the consumption of ‘protective foods’ such as milk .29 In Britain and the USA , policies were introduced to provide daily milk for schoolchildren.30 There was also a movement to encourage pasteurization as a means of improving the quality and public appeal of milk, which was often produced in unhygienic conditions and contaminated with germs that caused scarlet fever and tuberculosis in humans.31

John Boyd Orr , a medically trained nutrition scientist who headed the Rowett Institute of Animal Nutrition in Aberdeen , was at the forefront of British nutritional research, dietary surveys and the political campaign to promote government action.32 He also helped to establish malnutrition as a colonial problem. With the head of the Kenyan Medical Department, John Gilks, he surveyed the diet and health of different tribes, finding differences in the health and physique of populations that consumed animal-based diets compared with grain- and vegetable-based diets. Similar observations had been made by Robert McCarrison in India, and were subsequently confirmed and elaborated there by W. Akyroyd , and by other colonial investigators working in West Africa , the Middle East and Kenya , where field studies were impeded by the Maasai migrating to fulfil their cows’ need for water.33

In the Gold Coast (present-day Ghana ), the Jamaican-born British paediatrician Cicely Williams , working for the Colonial Medical Service , identified a new form of malnutrition that she attributed to ‘some amino or protein deficiency’.34 Found in infants who had been breast-fed by malnourished mothers and weaned on maize porridge, it led to severe bloating, loss of hair, blotched skin, wasting, diarrhoea and oedema. She named it with the native Ga term, ‘kwashiorkor’ .35 The condition was also identified by investigators working in other parts of colonial Africa, though they used different terms for it.36 In drawing medical attention away from the tropical diseases that had lent medical definition to these regions since the later nineteenth century,37 these discoveries suggested that the prime animal shapers of human health were not the parasitic animals that transmitted tropical diseases but the bovine animals that supplied nutrition to humans. They also fuelled concerns that low-level production and consumption of bovine bodies was holding back economic development in Africa , and could threaten global security by prompting a Malthusian crisis in India and mass migration to the West.38

These investigations awarded cattle the role of food producers for undernourished humans. However, other experts awarded them a different role—as resources for agricultural and economic development that suffered health and nutritional problems of their own. This bovine role became increasingly important during the interwar depression. British dairy farming won many new converts in this period because the perishability of milk afforded protection from the flood of cheap food imports that depressed the prices of other products. By 1930–1931, dairy cows supplied 27% of the gross agricultural produce of England and Wales and were farmed by three-quarters of the members of the National Farmers’ Union. However, the large volume of domestic milk production resulted in low prices, particularly in summer when cows tended to calve. British efforts to address this issue focused on expanding the market for milk, through its provision to schoolchildren , and with the aid of a national Milk Marketing Board.39 There were also research and policy initiatives that aimed to make production more efficient by improving the health, nutrition and breeding of dairy cows, whose bodies were reportedly deteriorating as farmers adopted cost-saving measures to ride out the depression.40

As subjects of scientific investigation, British cattle were distributed between the ‘watertight compartments’ whose formation was described in Chapter  3. The policy of channelling public funds for agricultural research into selected fields and institutions, and the hostility expressed by veterinarians towards disease investigations performed by non-veterinarians, meant that the breeding of cows was investigated at Cambridge University, their nutrition at Cambridge and the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, aspects of dairying at University College Reading, and cow health at the Royal Veterinary College and State Veterinary Laboratory . In these various locations, researchers worked to promote the development and application of rational breeding practices, to apply the new knowledge of nutrition to bovine diets , and to counteract diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis which undermined cattle (re)production.41 Their research programmes—which impacted on the bodies, behaviours and lived experiences of cows owned by Britain’s more progressive farmers —were quite separate from those concerned with human health and nutrition , which took place in medical schools and in research institutions supported by the publicly funded Medical Research Council (MRC).42 This separation was reflected in policy : health matters were dealt with by the Ministry of Health and farming matters by the Ministry of Agriculture. Where connections were inescapable, as with the management of zoonotic diseases such as bovine tuberculosis , which spread via milk to humans and was a major focus of concern in this period, they were characterized by conflict owing to very different framings of the problem by experts and officials concerned with human and animal health.43

As director of the Rowett Institute and a member of the MRC’s Nutrition Committee, who conducted research on the mineral content of livestock pastures and the nutritional content of human diets , Orr was one of the few individuals to transcend these institutional, disciplinary and species boundaries and approach cows as simultaneously medical and agricultural problems.44 As a qualified doctor, his research on bovine nutrition perpetuated longstanding zoological traditions in medicine, as outlined in Chapters  2 and  3. This work proceeded in tandem with his concern for human nutrition , and may even have enabled it, by allowing him to draw analogies between the causes of malnutrition in animals and humans.45

Orr also benefited from, and contributed to, the more fluid situation in colonial contexts where research and policy compartments were less watertight, enabling the cow’s dual roles to be considered in tandem. As a member of the Research Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, he travelled and conducted dietary surveys throughout the empire. His survey on the health and nutrition of Kenyan humans followed on directly from a survey he conducted on the health and nutrition of Kenyan settlers’ cattle, and was stimulated by co-investigator John Gilks’ observation that the Kikuyu sometimes sought out the same substances as those contained within the special saltlicks that they encouraged their cattle to consume.46 While the report of the cattle survey did not directly connect the health and feeding of cattle with that of humans, it did argue that ‘a general improvement of agriculture and animal husbandry’ would advance ‘the health and working capacity of the native’.47 In promoting the production and consumption of milk , it lent support to the Kenyan government’s efforts to improve agriculture through the development of mixed farming , a method extrapolated from the British context, which received wider support in this period from colonial agricultural scientists alarmed by the ecological and economic consequences of arable monoculture and nomadic pastoralism.48 Studies like Orr’s and Gilks’ strengthened the belief that relationships between humans, cows and the land needed to change, and that, by developing agriculture, they would advance human health, working capacity and, by extension, the colonial economy.49

The League of Nations took up these issues as part of its wider agenda of achieving global security through economic stability. Its 1931 publication The Agricultural Crisis studied the effects of the Great Depression on world agriculture , and identified lack of purchasing power as a key problem.50 In 1932 it initiated enquiries (to which Orr contributed) into the impacts of depression on public health and nutrition . These integrated the dietary standards and recommendations drawn up by different governments and researchers, and placed the issue on the League Assembly’s agenda.51 In 1935, Frank McDougall , an Australian economist and expert on imperial trade, presented his analysis of these dual problems in a 15-page memo to the League of Nations. He outlined how, in the West, scientific advances had led to increases in agricultural production , but owing to plummeting prices, some farmers were disposing of surpluses by burning wheat or pouring milk down gutters. To support their farmers, some governments had introduced protectionist trading policies and agricultural subsidies, but this was preventing the distribution of nutritious food to the people who most needed it. The problem was not that the world had too much food but that, owing to flaws in pricing and marketing, it was not being consumed.52

The belief that fulfilling human nutritional needs would lift agriculture—and the world economy—out of depression generated calls to ‘marry food and agriculture’.53 MacDougall argued that this could be achieved through agricultural policies that promoted farm-based production, rationalised distribution, and greater consumption of nutritious foods. The principle won support from a League of Nations Mixed Committee, which was highly unusual in bringing together experts in public health , agriculture and economics . Its interim report, released in 1936, emphasized the need to increase the production and consumption of protective foods such as milk .54 It argued that on account of the ‘application of science to agriculture’ there was already ‘ample scope’ to shift world agricultural production in this direction, so that with appropriate government support ‘the real needs of each community for the health-giving foods may be correlated with the undoubted power of agriculture to produce all that is necessary for abundant health’.55

Among the obstacles to this shift, which the committee identified in its 1937 Final Report, were natural conditions—soil and climate —which limited what foods could be produced; the structure of agricultural holdings; lack of capital; the conservative outlooks of peasant farmers ; the need for more scientific research and education; and the cleanliness, quality and safety of products such as milk. The Report also highlighted recent changes that were helping to address these problems. However, as in other discussions of interwar nutrition , the health, feeding and keeping of cows was hardly mentioned.56 While commentators acknowledged cows as key participants in plans to feed the world, they did not draw direct associations between the bodily condition of cows and those of their human consumers. With the outbreak of war, however, this would begin to change.57

4.2 War and its Aftermath

Although looming hostilities prevented the translation of the Committee’s findings into action, Orr took its lessons back to Britain , where heavy reliance upon imported food was undermined by war. In his 1940 volume Feeding the People in Wartime, and in advice that he and other nutrition scientists provided to the Ministry of Food about the development of a nutrition-based national food plan, he promoted the consumption of home-produced milk , vegetables and arable foods.58 This advice had little influence on rationing policy but it did inform the creation of schemes that channelled protective foods such as milk to children , and pregnant and nursing women. Dairy cows served not only these groups but consumers in general, because a reduction in other, imported animal proteins enhanced human reliance on home-produced milk .59 As vital suppliers of food, and key contributors to national defence, they were rewarded with privileged access to scarce supplies of imported feedstuffs. However, these supplies soon ran short, forcing farmers to utilize and grow different types of feed to which bovine bodies proved less responsive. Their reduced milk output could not be addressed by increasing cow numbers because there was nothing to feed them. The only solution was to increase the efficiency of production. To this end, scientists intensified their scrutiny of cows and their efforts to rectify deficiencies in their feeding, breeding and health.60

British veterinarians played an important part in this process. Their leaders—who included Thomas Dalling , head of the Government Veterinary Laboratory —won the attention of farmers and the state by estimating the enhanced quantity of milk that they could generate through a state-subsidized veterinary scheme for controlling certain diseases of dairy cows.61 Significantly, the diseases targeted by this scheme were not the zoonotic conditions such as tuberculosis, which had acted as points of connection between interwar human and veterinary medicine, but those that impacted primarily on milk output and therefore human nutrition: mastitis, infertility, brucellosis and Johne’s disease .62 In winning support for their scheme, vets forged important connections between the health and productivity of bovine bodies and those of humans, and made their expertise relevant to both. Their interventions reshaped the bodies and lived experiences of cows. They subjected them to rectal examinations to assess and promote their reproductive performance, to udder manipulations aimed at evaluating their milk -producing capacity, and to vaccinations and drug treatments. They also branded unproductive cows as ‘passengers’ and recommended their culling .63

At the end of the war, similar connections between the health and productivity of bovine and human bodies were forged on the international stage as the newly formed FAO surveyed the state of global food and agriculture.64 The FAO found that some areas devastated by the fighting lacked the human and animal resources they needed to produce sufficient food.65 In other areas these resources existed but were not up to the task. The Zebu survey mentioned above was just one of several that revealed very large livestock populations but startlingly low levels of animal protein consumption by humans.66 Throughout the developing world , cows were failing to perform their human-designated roles as food producers. India held 250,000 million or a quarter of all cattle and water buffaloes in the world, but the average annual yield per milk animal was only 200 kg compared with 4000 kg in the Netherlands.67 Whereas the average annual yield of an American beef cow was 75.6 kg, in Asia the figure was less than 12 kg. These unproductive bovine bodies caused particular alarm owing to unprecedented (and unexpected) population growth in the Far East, Africa and Latin America. Population experts predicted an impending collapse as human numbers outstripped food supplies. The FAO’s first World Food Survey in 1946 estimated that two-thirds of the world’s human population were hungry. Their findings added the threat of starvation to the persistent problem of malnutrition .68 As the Cold War set in and decolonization began, fears grew that hungry people would join disaffected rebel groups or turn to communism.69 In this context, cows were not only crucial sources of food but also political actors capable of influencing global security .

As the FAO’s first director, Orr responded by attempting to implement earlier ideas of a marriage of food and agriculture .70 He sought to create a World Food Board, which would centrally organize world food production according to actual needs rather than the market, with the ultimate aim of ensuring food as a basic human right. This radical vision never materialized, largely because of resistance from major agricultural powers. Instead it developed into a system for donating, disposing of or trading agricultural surpluses from the developed to the underdeveloped world through mechanisms such as the FAO’s World Food Programme, the USA Food for Peace Programme, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF’s) child health–milk initiatives.71 On taking control in 1949, Orr’s successor, the American Norris E. Dodd , maintained this system of food redistribution. However, he also turned more directly to the problem of food production in the face of new evidence about the scope and severity of global undernutrition.72 This evidence was gathered by a joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition . Formed in 1949, it was charged with determining and developing strategies to tackle the most pressing human nutritional problems.73 It integrated the WHO’s interest in improving human health and nutrition with the FAO’s interest in improving the efficiency and equitability of food production , distribution and consumption.74 At its first session in Geneva, it identified kwashiorkor as a key nutritional problem and target for international action.

Interest in this disease had grown considerably in the decade since Williams had identified it in the Gold Coast . Studies by medical researchers, including Hugh Trowell in East Africa , John Fleming Brock in South Africa , and the British physiologist and nutrition expert J.C. Waterlow in Central America, suggested that it potentially affected many parts of the world.75 Unlike other forms of malnutrition , which were associated with vitamin deficiencies , it was linked to deficiencies of certain amino acids which were obtained from proteins found particularly in milk and meat . Its problematization therefore re-emphasized the cow’s significance as a supplier of these products. The joint Committee recommended that kwashiorkor be adopted as the official term for malnutrition directly arising from milk protein deficiency, and that the FAO and the WHO support surveys to determine its prevalence in different parts of the world.76

The first survey was conducted in sub-Saharan Africa in 1950 by Brock (a Committee member and WHO consultant) and Marcel Autret (a biochemist and member of the FAO’s Nutrition Division). Their 1952 report, Kwashiorkor in Africa, claimed that the condition was evident in every community they visited, except the Maasai and the Batussi (Tutsi) in Rwanda, who produced and consumed a large amount of cow’s milk.77 A second survey, conducted in 1953 by Autret and the Guatemalan pediatrician, Moisés Béhar showed that kwashiorkor was prevalent throughout Central America.78 These studies confirmed the international scale of the problem. They also raised new questions about its specific nature and identity, for, while protein malnutrition was the key variable it was not unique to the condition, and was implicated in several other deficiency diseases, including marasmus and nutritional anaemia. Distinguishing kwashiorkor from these conditions was necessary to determine its prevalence and to develop programmes to tackle it. Following meetings in The Gambia and Jamaica, in late 1952 the joint Committee decided to redefine it as one of a number of conditions they brought together under the new category of ‘protein malnutrition.’79 While not entirely straightforward, this category expanded the focus of international concern, as illustrated by the claim made by one of its creators, J.C. Waterlow that ‘we are concerned not only with the very sick and the dying, but perhaps much more with mild or chronic, so-called ‘marginal’, states in infants and … this is a far more important problem than acute kwashiokor.’80

The Third Report of the FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition, published in 1953, consolidated this change in focus. Protein malnutrition had become the single most important world health problem, the cause of an epidemic of deficiency diseases in underdeveloped countries, which severely burdened their populations , economies and healthcare systems.81 The Committee was quite clear about the general causes of and solutions to protein malnutrition . First, food supply was a key determining factor: many underdeveloped countries were unable to meet the nutritional needs of their populations and particularly suffered from ‘low production’ of milk , meat , fish and eggs. Therefore, the ‘first and essential step’ in tackling protein malnutrition was to ensure that ‘the right kinds of food’ were available ‘all the time’. Second, population growth had exacerbated the problem. Partly resulting from improvements in public health , it had spurred increasing production of starchy foods, which satisfied the immediate needs of the growing numbers of hungry people but not their protein requirements.82 Therefore agriculture in underdeveloped countries needed to be transformed to meet these requirements, with a focus on generating more animal proteins, particularly from the bodies of cows. The unique importance of milk proteins (and, by extension, cows) was emphasized at a second conference on protein malnutrition in Princeton in 1955, which proposed milk as a reference protein for determining the amino acid requirements for infants and young children .83 These developments opened up new avenues for linking human nutrition to livestock bodies. World hunger was being bound up with world cattle populations . As the key means of rectifying protein malnutrition , cows were becoming more important to human health and nutrition than ever before.

Curiously, these connections have been largely overlooked in historical accounts of the growing hegemony of protein malnutrition in world hunger campaigns spearheaded by the FAO, the WHO and UNICEF in the 1950s and 1960s.84 Considerable attention has been paid to the work of the Protein Advisory Group (PAG) , created in 1955, which brought together nutrition experts from the three main UN agencies and various academic and research institutions.85 PAG played a leading role in identifying a growing ‘protein crisis’ across the world and in characterizing it in terms of a widening ‘protein gap’ between regions with adequate per capita supplies and those without—most of Africa , Asia and large parts of Latin America. Along with fixing world attention on protein malnutrition , PAG also promoted particular solutions to the problem.86 The best known were its efforts to develop and market ‘new protein foods’ synthetically derived from plants, algae and petroleum products.87 Criticisms both before and after pointed out that these efforts directed large financial investments to first-world scientists, institutions and industries, but did little to foster agricultural and economic development in hungry countries, and ultimately failed to redress the chronic problem of inadequate protein supplies.88 While such criticisms were well founded, it is important to note that these schemes represented only a small fraction of international efforts. Far greater importance was placed on improving ‘traditional’ sources of animal protein, particularly cows.89

4.3 Healthy Cows, Healthy Humans

By the mid-1950s, international experts had reached a consensus that the developing world required more animal food , particularly the vitamin- and protein -rich foods derived from bovine bodies.90 Ralph Wesley Phillips , an American specialist in animal husbandry and breeding , who oversaw the Zebu study and became the first director of the FAO’s Department of Agriculture , recognized that ‘there are many areas in the world where human needs for animal protein are not adequately met’. Highlighting the ‘striking variation’ in food availability in underdeveloped and developed regions, he aimed to address the significant shortfalls in production in countries outside North America, Australia , New Zealand and Europe.91 One way of achieving this goal was to increase livestock numbers. This had been a short-term strategy in post-war Europe but seemed less applicable on a global scale. The world livestock population was already large—roughly equivalent to the human population (soon to reach 3 billion), or double if domesticated fowl were included.92 Although on average the protein that animals supplied seemed adequate, the highest levels of production and consumption were concentrated in the developed world, which contained less than 40% of the world’s livestock but produced nearly 80% of its meat and eggs.93 The problem elsewhere was not livestock numbers but productivity. In a review of world cattle for Scientific American, Phillips noted that ‘the best zebu performances have been far below those of European breeds. In India a few well-handled Sahiwal cows have produced somewhat more than 10,000 pounds of milk in a year. In the United States, Holsteins have produced as much as 40,000 pounds.’94 If third-world animals could match the outputs of first-world animals, then threats of starvation and malnutrition could be averted.

Achieving this goal was far harder than adding numbers to existing stocks because it involved tackling the reasons why third-world animals were so unproductive. W. Ross Cockrill , a Scottish veterinarian who joined the FAO’s Department of Agriculture in 1953 and later became assistant director of its Animal Production and Health Division (APHD), summed up the problem: ‘multitudes of livestock which could be the genesis of alleviation of human hunger are themselves suffering from disease and malnutrition’ .95 For Cockrill, the state of bovine bodies was both analogous to, and a cause of, the condition of the human bodies they were supposed to be nourishing. Cows were frequently stunted and unproductive because they relied on deficient forage, grazing and pasture lands. They suffered from endemic infectious, parasitic, nutritional, metabolic and organic diseases that sometimes killed them but more usually reduced their growth and productivity.96 The majority were produced by opportunistic matings rather than those planned to effect improvements in their bodies. Husbandry practices such as overstocking, or traditions which derived from the symbolic or economic value that humans placed on cows, further undermined their health and productivity. Consequently, as Cockrill later reflected, ‘The world’s livestock population which, if properly managed, could be the genesis of alleviation of human hunger and malnutrition, is itself in large part starved, diseased and parasitic upon the human race.’97

Efforts to address these problems were mounted by not only the FAO but also the WHO. Each formed a section that enrolled cows in the campaign against world hunger. Each positioned veterinarians and experts in animal science (which brought together genetics , nutrition and husbandry, and had developed into a taught discipline in US universities in the 1930s) as crucial to the improvement of bovine—and, by extension, human—bodies.98 This turn to veterinary expertise was stimulated not only by shifting perceptions of the relationships between bovine and human health but also by vets’ wartime activities, which had demonstrated their capacity to serve human health as well as agriculture. As outlined above, vets claiming to be ‘physician of the farm and the guarantor of the nation’s food supply’ had worked to improve British milk output for the benefit of consumers, while in the USA they had helped to ratchet up livestock production.99 War had also granted vets opportunities to operate on the world stage, assisting in the relief and redevelopment of war-torn nations. Such activities elevated their status and encouraged a shift in professional identity, putting them in a strong position to join other experts in addressing the challenges of feeding the world. Their involvement fashioned the world’s cows into veterinary subjects, and reinvigorated and expanded older veterinary public health agendas stretching back to the nineteenth century.100

The FAO’s AHPD was one of the key institutional contexts for these developments.101 From 1950 it was headed by the Australian Keith Kesteven , who had left livestock farming and breeding in the late 1930s to study veterinary science at the University of Sydney. During the war he had acted as veterinary advisor to the Australian armed forces.102 Afterwards, as a member of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), he led efforts in China to redevelop its livestock industry and eradicate rinderpest . He built the APHD into an important body employing 32 specialists at headquarters in Rome and more than 300 in the field, where they helped some 60 different countries to plan livestock health and production programmes.103 Most staff came from universities, institutes and agricultural departments of leading livestock-producing nations, with the USA, Britain , Denmark , Australia , New Zealand and Canada heavily represented. A few came from developing nations, particularly India and parts of Latin America, where veterinary and animal production services were fairly well established. A selection of staff were sent to member countries for specialist training in an aspect of animal or veterinary science.104 By 1959 the division consisted of three branches focusing on production, health and dairy production. Each was dedicated to developing and applying forms of expertise that would bring the bodies of third-world livestock in line with those of the first-world.

The Dairy Branch grew out of the APHD’s work in providing technical assistance in milk production and plant management for the Milk Conservation Programme .105 This had been established by UNICEF in 1948 to distribute dried skimmed milk powder from major dairy-producing countries to war-ravaged and underfed countries across Europe, Asia and Africa .106 The FAO supported the programme as a short-term solution to shortages of dairy foods , while also promoting the expansion and improvement of local milk production, with the long-term aim of enabling countries to become self-sufficient.107 One means of achieving this goal was through technical and material assistance for dairy cooperatives.108 From 1946 the FAO supported a dairy cooperative in the Anand district of Gujarat province outside Bombay, which broke an old monopoly, rooted in British colonial rule , that underpaid farmers and supplied substandard milk .109 With FAO and bilateral support from Denmark and New Zealand , new dairy plants were built and new dairy technicians and veterinarians were trained to run them. The cooperative enabled small producers to pool and receive a reasonable price for relatively small quantities of milk. Their cows became subjects of shared veterinary animal husbandry services that aimed to enhance their productivity. The FAO viewed the cooperative as a key model for its approach to improving dairy production in the developing world .110

Technical support for dairy cooperatives relied on the expertise of the APHD’s other branches. The Animal Production Branch focused on developing programmes that combined breeding , nutrition and husbandry. From its inception, it concentrated on collecting information about ‘animal genetic resources’ through surveys of cattle breeds in different regions. The Zebu in India and Pakistan , and other breeds in Africa and Europe , were scrutinized and evaluated as a basis for advising governments and local breeders on ‘how best to utilize their valuable animal genetic resources’.111 Nutrition was also a key focus. One of the Division’s first reports, Nutritional Deficiencies in Livestock, detailed the state of animal nutrition in much of the world, the variety of nutritional diseases that burdened livestock, and ways of improving their nutrition.112 Building on almost a half-century of animal nutrition research in the USA ,113 the authors argued that just as with humans, poor animal diets led to poor growth and dietary deficiencies, and were a ‘chief factor limiting production of meat , milk and eggs … Tremendous quantities of the world’s feeds are wasted in this type of feeding, resulting in large losses of human foods.’ Not only was ‘the vitamin A value of milk… entirely dependent upon the amount present in the feed’, but ‘underfeeding dairy cows results in the reduction of milk supply as much as 75%’.114 Therefore, ‘correcting dietary deficiencies in livestock rations will do much to increase the world’s supply of meat, milk and eggs’.115 To address the problem, the American nutritionists who wrote the report placed particular emphasis on improving the quality of pastures through mixed farming and the application of fertilizers.

The APHD also had a Health Branch. Its activities were coordinated by vet Thomas Dalling , who had helped to lead the British veterinary profession’s wartime efforts to connect bovine and human health. He had also advised UNRRA and the FAO on the post-war reconstruction of European veterinary services and livestock economies.116 He was convinced that ‘to improve the food supplies of protein origin for people in different parts of the world … we must increase animal production; and if we can increase and can better the health of animals, then we will have gone quite a long way towards increasing that animal production.’117 Certainly, the health of animals needed improving. Third-world cattle were burdened with all manner of disease: major epizootics such as rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease were a constant threat to herds; scores of parasitic infections presented chronic problems across the world, rarely killing animals but seriously reducing their productive and reproductive abilities; finally there were the zoonoses , which undermined the health and strength of animals and the humans they infected.118 Dalling’s branch supported an exhaustive array of activities aimed at each of these types of disease. The most high-profile was its campaign to eradicate rinderpest, but its work on parasitic and zoonotic diseases was no less important.119 The Branch provided veterinary expertise together with tools such as vaccines , antibiotics and diagnostics . By 1957 it had a field staff of more than 40 veterinarians, most of whom were highly experienced and had taken leave from established positions to be assigned to a particular country or region for a year or two.120

While each country presented its own needs, field veterinarians adopted a shared approach to planning veterinary programmes.121 First, they worked with government officials to evaluate the nature and extent of existing veterinary services , including available laboratories, equipment and materials. Second, they helped formulate general programmes of disease control, which included prioritizing diseases according to their burden and available means of control. Third, they instructed local people in how to diagnose livestock diseases, prepare biological products (diagnostic tests, therapies and vaccines ), and develop and deliver veterinary education . As Kesteven explained in 1961:

[Control over animal diseases] can only be done by setting up veterinary services in the countries which now lack them, strengthening services in the other countries, and establishing effective international co-operation and co-ordination … Only by such international effort will man be able to control and perhaps ultimately eradicate animal diseases.122

In its efforts to create new experts capable of transforming unproductive bovine bodies into plentiful sources of human food, the FAO worked closely with the Veterinary Public Health (VPH) unit of the WHO, which was created in 1948 within its Division of Communicable Diseases .123 It had been proposed by James Steele, who as chief of the United States Public Health Service’s newly created Veterinary Division had overseen the 1945 creation of a specialized VPH programme at the US Communicable Diseases Centre.124 A key proponent of bringing veterinary expertise into public health, who had a particular interest in zoonotic diseases, Steele envisioned that the WHO’s unit would collect information on zoonoses , distribute data, provide seminars and consultancy services to physicians and veterinarians, conduct investigations, and promote research on the control or elimination of zoonoses. It would also cooperate with the national and international agencies responsible for animal and human health. The unit’s first head was the American, Martin Kaplan, who had degrees in veterinary medicine and public health .125 Having worked for the FAO and as a veterinary consultant for the UNRRA in Europe at the end of the war, he was convinced of the value of veterinary medicine for human health. His unit spelt out this aim in its working definition of VPH as: ‘all the community efforts influencing and influenced by the veterinary medical arts and sciences applied to the prevention of diseases , protection of life and promotion of the well-being and efficiency of man’.126

The VPH unit forged close relations with other organizations that were similarly drawn to study and improve unproductive bovine bodies—the FAO, other UN agencies and the World Organisation for Animal Health—leading to collaborative programmes on zoonoses, meat hygiene and veterinary education, which drove the integration of veterinary with public health and agricultural services.127 For example, Kaplan’s unit worked in partnership with Dalling’s Animal Health Branch under a Joint WHO/WHO Expert Committee on Zoonoses, which was established in 1950 in response to the World Health Assembly’s identification of zoonotic diseases as key threats to human health in newly independent and developing agrarian nations.128 The Committee was tasked with identifying zoonoses that were evident ‘world problems’ and for which effective control measures had already been developed.129 Over the next decade, it agreed a standard definition of these diseases, which brought over 100 different infections under one general category, creating fertile terrain for veterinarians to expand their international role in human health.130

Perceptions of zoonotic disease threats had shifted significantly in the context of the world hunger campaign. Previously, the animals affected had been regarded as costly impediments to agricultural production , and as transmitters of infections to humans. However, their promotion as food sources for hungry humans led to the realization that, in addition, these animals produced less food for humans, thereby posing dual threats to human health. This was highlighted by one of the Committee’s leading experts, the Swiss-American veterinary scientist Karl Meyer , in a technical paper on ‘The Zoonoses in Their Relation to Rural Health’ that he presented, on Kaplan’s invitation, to the Seventh World Health Assembly:

One need only to consider all of the adverse effects of the zoonoses to realize the urgency of control: loss of life, acute and chronic illness of inhabitants of rural areas, loss of life and impairment of productivity of farm animals with all of the social and economic implications, and loss of life and acute and chronic illness of city dwellers to whom the zoonoses may spread … These infections unquestionably have far-reaching economic aspects; they may mean mere loss of profit or they may mean critical want. In some areas they preclude the raising of livestock altogether … in others they make an already poverty -stricken group poorer still and deny food supply to undernourished populations . In their destruction of food supply alone they are major economic problems. Some of the diseases … are detrimental to rural populations because of their direct effects on health of farm people, making habitation in rural areas impossible or hazardous; some are more important in their effect on the world’s food supply.131

Pointing to the complex challenges that zoonoses posed, Meyer laid out an agenda for positioning veterinary public health as integral to their control. Tackling zoonoses in developing countries would require extensive technical assistance, close ‘co-operation between physicians, health workers and veterinarians’, and between veterinary and agricultural agencies. Kaplan’s VPH unit sought to implement this agenda. It coordinated epidemiological studies and basic laboratory research on zoonoses, including the development and standardization of diagnostics , treatments and vaccines .132 It invested in technical assistance to resource-poor countries that helped them to build or expand veterinary laboratory services , and to train local veterinarians and technicians in how to make and administer biological products for zoonotic disease control. As with Dalling’s Animal Health Branch, veterinary education formed an important part of its strategy.133

In all of these efforts, international experts remained acutely aware of local contingencies. Kaplan was especially adamant about avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches (which many of his WHO colleagues were to take in campaigns against malaria and other human infections).134 This approach probably stemmed partly from these experts’ experiences of working in different countries, which alerted them to how specific environmental, cultural, agricultural and economic contexts shaped livestock health and production.135 The results of their own surveys also revealed that cows came in many different shapes and sizes, with varying physiologies, genetic traits, nutritional needs and biological capacities. There was also great diversity in how they were bred and fed; the natural and built environments in which they were housed, milked and slaughtered; the ways in which they were managed; and the customs and cultures through which they were valued. Therefore, while the principles and aims of livestock improvement might have been universal in kind, in practice there was no single technological fix or magic bullet that could transform them into more efficient suppliers of protein . Programmes had to be modified according to the particular livestock bodies and cultures affected.

Turning the aspirations of expert committees in Rome or Geneva into bovine bodily realities was made more difficult by the shortage of veterinarians and veterinary assistants: ‘We estimate that there are about 1000 million cattle and buffalo in the world … [But] there are not more than 200,000 qualified veterinarians to cope with this vast general practice and many fewer specialists in husbandry and nutrition .’136 Moreover, most of these experts were based in developed countries. To overcome this problem, the FAO and WHO committees envisaged the creation of a new kind of veterinarian, which Cockrill referred to as the ‘international veterinarian’. This was a trained professional who would be concerned not with the treatment of individual sick or injured animals, but with ‘prophylactic, curative or management methods designed to apply collectively to national herds and flocks’.137 The goal was to foster ‘the healthy animal and the means by which it can live its life in a state of health and productivity’.138 These aspirations reveal, once more, the perception of bovine bodies as analogous to humans, whose health was defined by the WHO in 1948 as ‘a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’.139 The general strategies for creating these healthy bodies were also analogous: population and disease control were seen as first measures, which would lay the ground for others.

What this meant for many cows was, in the first instance, culling .140 In countries such as India , overstocking and overpopulation were viewed by veterinary and livestock planners as the foremost obstacles to improvement.141 Cattle competed for land with humans, and, as Indian agricultural policy promoted increases in crop production for human consumption, the production of cattle fodder declined, resulting in rising numbers of malnourished cattle.142 The Indian statistician and influential director of the FAO’s Statistics Department, P.V. Sukhatme , pushed for population control in both humans and cattle as key to India’s modernization, but the cow’s sacred status protected it.143 In other parts of Asia and in Africa , it was not so fortunate. Old, ‘useless’ and surplus young cows were slaughtered to improve stock quality, alleviating pressure on pastures , grazing lands and water supplies, and reducing competition with hungry humans for grains and other crops. Surviving cows—which were deemed potentially productive—had their bodies scrutinized by veterinary services, the exact nature of their examination and manipulation shaped by everything from available funding and technical assistance to whether they were owned by large dairies, cooperatives or subsistence farmers .

At the Anand dairy cooperative, a flagship initiative for the FAO and the WHO, the bodies and lives of cows were significantly transformed over a twenty year period.144 These were mostly Gir cows, the most famous and widely used breed of Zebu dairy cattle in India.145 When the project began in 1946, they were housed in ‘villagers’ dwellings or in filthy annexes’, but by 1966 they had ‘hard standing and comfortable quarters’.146 Some 30 veterinarians monitored all aspects of their health. Their health and productive capacities were preserved by vaccination against rinderpest and brucellosis ; regular monitoring for symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease and bovine tuberculosis ; antibiotic treatments for bacterial infections such as mastitis and metritis (inflammation of the uterus); and antihelminthic treatments for chronic parasitic infections. Every village centre was supplied with a veterinary kit containing simple remedies and antiseptics, which was used by trained animal health assistants to treat minor infections and ailments.147 Feeding had also become more regulated and routinized. No longer reliant on limited grazing and pastures , cows received fodder grown with added nitrogen to improve its nutritional quality, and a daily portion of a vitamin-enriched feed mix to improve the quality and quantity of their milk . A feed-mixing plant, supplied by OXFAM, processed 100 tons of this mix each day for the cooperative’s dairy cows and buffalo. Cow genetics were also being modified. With FAO support, the cooperative built an artificial insemination centre run by Vergehse Kurien, who had studied nuclear physics in the USA but returned to India in 1946 to manage the cooperative’s dairy operations.148 Trained by the FAO in veterinary and animal science, he worked with FAO experts to develop a breeding programme that would ‘increase the genetic potential’ of dairy cows and buffalo. Gir bulls were used to improve other native dairy cows, and cows were crossbred with high-yielding Friesian and Jersey cattle. These transformations in the material conditions and biological capacities of the cooperative’s cows radically transformed their productivity. In 1946 they were producing between one and two thousand gallons of milk a day. By 1966 this had risen to 25,000 gallons a day.149

Kesteven and his colleagues regularly referred to the Anand cooperative as a successful example of how improving the general health of dairy cows could improve the production and supply of milk , leading, in turn, to improvements in human health and productivity.150 Throughout the 1960s, the APHD vigorously pursued the development of dairy cooperatives as a crucial strategy for getting more protein out of animal bodies and into human bodies.151 However, translating the local successes of Anand into other parts of India and beyond proved a formidable challenge.152 The sheer variability of cow bodies and the contexts in which they lived generated equally variable sets of interventions, with varying implications for the lived experiences of cows, and the health and nutrition of their human consumers.

4.4 Conclusion

International concern with protein malnutrition reached its apex in the mid-1960s. Reports issued by the FAO, the WHO and other UN agencies warned of an ‘impending protein crisis’ in the developing world .153 Increasing supplies of animal protein —particularly from milk and milk products—lay at the heart of their recommendations and solutions.154 The FAO’s Third World Food Survey , issued as part of its Freedom From Hunger Campaign in 1962, concluded that, because in developing countries ‘the level of animal protein intake is only one fifth of that in the more developed areas, world food supplies would have to rise by 50% by 1975’.155 Two years later, the FAO characterized protein shortages as being ‘at the heart of the world food problem’. While acknowledging that proteins could be derived from certain vegetable foods, its official view was that it was ‘far easier to build satisfactory diets , particularly for these vulnerable groups, when good supplies of animal protein are available’. Meeting the challenge meant that ‘much greater resources [had to] be expanded to increase production of such protein-rich foods as fish, meat , eggs and milk’.156 Such increases could only be achieved by increasing the efficiency of livestock production: healthier, better-nourished cows were key to the creation of healthier, better-nourished humans.157

As we have seen, while nutrition experts trained in human medicine played vital roles in characterizing the nature and extent of the crisis, they did not work alone. The belief which emerged through and after the Second World War , that the state of human bodies was deeply dependent on, and also analogous to that of bovine bodies, resulted in a campaign against world hunger which integrated medical expertise with that of vets and animal scientists, under new institutional structures created by the FAO and the WHO. Veterinary and animal experts brought crucial knowledge and skills that derived from their own relationships with food animals. At one and the same time they highlighted the essential roles of animals and of animal experts in meeting the urgent and growing needs of a protein -hungry world. If, ‘in a world where so many people go hungry, any menace to the health of man’s food-yielding animals is a menace to the health of man himself,’158 then, according to Kesteven and his colleagues, ‘in the forces which are fighting protein lack, the veterinarian and the animal production specialist are [the] vanguard.’159

While experiments and fieldwork on livestock animals had been essential to the development of ‘new nutritional knowledge’ since the turn of the century, veterinary and animal production experts generated new understandings of the complex and intimate connections between animal health and nutrition, and human health and nutrition, and applied them to the production of more animal protein , especially cow’s milk . Since the interwar period, nutritionists had pointed to the miraculous properties of milk in improving the health and efficiency of children , mothers and workers, in their own nations and in colonies stricken by kwashiorkor and other deficiency diseases . After 1945 they recognized and promoted its significance for both human health and the economic health of farmers and agrarian societies in the so-called developing world . Thus, milk, and the bovine bodies that created it, represented a material site in which veterinary and nutritional expertise could be integrated for a common purpose. With the formation of new international organizations, most notably the FAO and the WHO, and the making of protein malnutrition into a new field of international action, their formerly loose associations under the interwar ‘marriage of agriculture and health’ were transformed into institutionally embedded connections and incorporated into the international campaign to feed the world.

All of the human activities described in this chapter were inspired and shaped by cows, in their various roles as producers of food for humans, transmitters of infection to humans, victims of poor health and husbandry , and producers of agricultural profit. While, as we have seen, these roles could inspire quite different responses mounted by different groups of experts , under the campaign to feed the world they began to be considered together. The millions of cows identified in Asia , Africa and Latin America as diseased, malnourished, overpopulated and poorly bred were seen as a key reason why so many humans suffered ill health and poor nutrition: they did not produce enough food for humans and they could also transmit infections to them. It was in order to address these issues—and thereby enable cows to perform better as sources of human food as well as agricultural development—that WHO and FAO experts came together in the 1950s and 1960s to survey, evaluate and work out how to improve bovine bodies.

Yet, while part of the solution was to create new healthy cows by scientifically controlling their diseases , nutrition, breeding and management, doing so involved creating new animal experts —veterinarians, animal scientists, technicians and many more—along with an array of services, facilities, laboratories and clinics that would provide the infrastructure for their work. Therefore, in responding to, and reshaping perceived connections between bovine and human bodies, the incorporation of veterinary medicine and agricultural science into international health agendas had profound and far-reaching impacts. It changed the bodies, surroundings and lived experiences of cows, and brought them into new relationships with a new type of local expert and the facilities and technologies they employed. It also created new opportunities for vets and animal scientists to participate in, and shape, human health agendas. As the next two chapters will reveal, this context proved crucial to the development of self-conscious philosophies of One Medicine, and subsequently One Health .


  1. 1.

    Joshi and Phillips (1953).

  2. 2.

    FAO (1946).

  3. 3.

    Amrith and Clavin (2013), Way (2013).

  4. 4.

    On the emergence of these boundaries, see Chapter  3.

  5. 5.

    For example: Connelly (2003, 2006, 2008), Bashford (2014).

  6. 6.

    For example: Marglin (1996),  Perkins (1997), Cullather (2004, 2010).

  7. 7.

    For example: Borowy (2009), Borowy et al. (2016) and other papers in this special issue.

  8. 8.

    Veterinary contributions to the post-Second World War campaign to feed the world are, however, mentioned briefly by Jones (2003) pp. 96–100.

  9. 9.

    Steinfeld et al. (2006), Hodge (2007), Weis (2013).

  10. 10.

    Hardy (2003b). For other references, see Appendix: Annotated Bibliography of Animals in the History of Medicine.

  11. 11.

    Wiley (2011).

  12. 12.

    WHO (1946) p. 100. For a general discussion see Staples (2006) pp. 132–6.

  13. 13.

    Orland (2004).

  14. 14.

    Benson (2011).

  15. 15.

    Wiley (2014).

  16. 16.

    Valenze (2011).

  17. 17.

    Popkin (1993), Grigg (1995), Otter (2012).

  18. 18.

    Knapp (1997), Cantor and Bonah (2010).

  19. 19.

    Rabinbach (1990) pp. 120–45.

  20. 20.

    MCollum (1918).

  21. 21.

    Smith and Nicolson (1989), Smith (1997), Carpenter (2003), Gratzer (2005), Vernon (2007).

  22. 22.

    Barona (2010).

  23. 23.

    McCollum (1918) pp. 69–83.

  24. 24.

    Ibid. p. 82.

  25. 25.

    On McCollum’s work see Valenze (2011) pp. 238–50.

  26. 26.

    McCollum (1918) p. 67.

  27. 27.

    League of Nations (1937) p. 87.

  28. 28.

    For accounts of this development, see Vernon (2007), Barona (2012).

  29. 29.

    Mayhew (1988), Smith (1997), Barona (2008), Barona (2012).

  30. 30.

    Welshman (1997), DuPuis (2002), Atkins (2005).

  31. 31.

    Atkins (1992), Waddington (2004).

  32. 32.

    Orr (1936), Pemberton and White (2000), Vernon (2007).

  33. 33.

    Worboys (1988), Arnold (1994), Weindling (1995), Vernon (2007). The colonial agendas which drove this work, and which contributed to the health problems identified, have been investigated and critiqued. See Brantley (1997).

  34. 34.

    Williams (1933, 1935).

  35. 35.

    Stanton (2001).

  36. 36.

    Trowell (1940, 1949).

  37. 37.

    Worboys (1988).

  38. 38.

    Hutchinson (2002), Tilley (2011), Amrith and Clavin (2013).

  39. 39.

    Atkins (2005).

  40. 40.

    DeJager (1993), Vernon (1997), Woods (2007), Woods (2010).

  41. 41.

    Woods (2007).

  42. 42.

    DeJager (1993). From 1933 the MRC was headed by Edward Mellenby, who built on the zoo-based investigations of John Bland Sutton, as described in Chapter  1, to cement the link between rickets and vitamin D. See Petty (1989).

  43. 43.

    Waddington (2004), Hardy (2003).

  44. 44.

    Valenze shows that McCollum also sought to transcend these boundaries in the USA. Valenze (2011).

  45. 45.

    Orr (1966), Kay (1972), Smith (1999).

  46. 46.

    Brantley (1997) p. 55.

  47. 47.

    Gilks and Orr (1927), Orr and Gilks (1931).

  48. 48.

    Hodge (2002), Hodge (2007).

  49. 49.

    Hall (1936), Worboys (1988), Little (1991).

  50. 50.

    League of Nations (1931).

  51. 51.

    Terroine (1936). For the development of League’s nutritional policies see Borowy (2009) pp. 379–93.

  52. 52.

    Burnet and Aykroyd (1935), Staples (2006) pp. 71–4, Borowy (2009) pp. 379–93, Amrith and Clavin (2013), Way (2013) pp. 153–73.

  53. 53.

    Jachertz and Nützenadel (2011).

  54. 54.

    League of Nations (1936), Way (2013) pp. 153–73.

  55. 55.

    League of Nations (1936) p. 87.

  56. 56.

    League of Nations (1937) pp. 151–84.

  57. 57.

    Collingham (2012) pp. 467–500.

  58. 58.

    Orr and Lubbock (1940).

  59. 59.

    Smith (2000).

  60. 60.

    Woods (2007).

  61. 61.

    ‘Sir Thomas Dalling’ (2012).

  62. 62.

    Woods (2010).

  63. 63.

    Ibid. Although brucellosis was a zoonosis, its transmission to humans was infrequent and not widely recognized.

  64. 64.

    FAO (1946, 1952). For the history of the FAO, see Phillips (1981), Staples (2006), Biswas (2008), Jachertz and Nützenadel (2011), Jachertz (2014).

  65. 65.

    Dodd (1949), Phillips (1951), Hambidge (1955).

  66. 66.

    Joshi et al. (1957).

  67. 67.

    Cattle estimates are from Phillips (1951) pp. 241–56. Yield estimates are from Sukhatme (1963) p. 12 , Phillips (1963) pp. 254–55.

  68. 68.

    FAO (1946) pp. 6–7.

  69. 69.

    Perkins (1997) pp. 118–39, Cullather (2007) pp. 11–43, Robertson (2012) pp. 85–103.

  70. 70.

    Orr (1943), Orr (1948).

  71. 71.

    Staples (2006) pp. 84–96.

  72. 72.

    Staples (2000).

  73. 73.

    FAO/WHO (1949).

  74. 74.

    For a history of the committee, see Barona (2012) pp. 263–94.

  75. 75.

    FAO/WHO (1949) p. 15. For a full account see Ruxin (1996).

  76. 76.

    FAO/WHO (1949) pp. 15–16.

  77. 77.

    Brock and Autret (1952).

  78. 78.

    Autret and Béhar (1954).

  79. 79.

    Waterlow (1955) p. 3. See Carpenter (1986, 1994).

  80. 80.

    Waterlow (1955) p. 3.

  81. 81.

    FAO/WHO (1953).

  82. 82.

    FAO/WHO (1953) pp. 8–9, 25–27.

  83. 83.

    Waterlow and Stephen (1957).

  84. 84.

    Carpenter (1986, 1994), Newman (1995), Ruxin (1996).

  85. 85.

    Ruxin (2000).

  86. 86.

    Ruxin (1996) pp. 156–8.

  87. 87.

    For example, Altschul (1976).

  88. 88.

    McClaren (1974), Tappan (2013).

  89. 89.

    For example, see FAO (1957) pp. 19–20.

  90. 90.

    Autret, who had carried out a study of kwashiorkor in Africa, declared that ‘protein malnutrition is without doubt the main nutritional problem in the underdeveloped countries today’. FAO (1960) p. 1.

  91. 91.

    Phillips (1951) p. 244.

  92. 92.

    Phillips (1963b) p. 15. Phillips’ figures were taken from FAO (1962).

  93. 93.

    Pritchard (1966) p. 361.

  94. 94.

    Phillips (1958) p. 57.

  95. 95.

    Cockrill (1964) p. 260.

  96. 96.

    See, for example, Meyer (1953).

  97. 97.

    Cockrill (1968) p. 12.

  98. 98.

    Jones (2003) p. 99.

  99. 99.

    Woods (2007).

  100. 100.

    Koolmees (2000), Hardy (2003).

  101. 101.

    Phillips (1981) pp. 102–7.

  102. 102.

    ‘The Gilruth Prize Citation’ (1975).

  103. 103.

    Keseteven (1966), Cockrill (1968).

  104. 104.

    Dalling (1957). For a study of Swedish input into this programme, see Bruno (2016).

  105. 105.

    Phillips (1981) pp. 105–6.

  106. 106.

    For UNICEF’s milk programmes, see Gillespie (2003).

  107. 107.

    Pederson (1967).

  108. 108.

    For FAO work on cooperatives, see Simons (1976) .

  109. 109.

    The best historical account of the cooperative is Valenze (2011) pp. 238–50.

  110. 110.

    Kesteven (1966) pp. 236–7, Cockrill (1968).

  111. 111.

    Phillips (1981) p. 105.

  112. 112.

    Allman and Hamilton (1949).

  113. 113.

    Olmstead and Rhode (2008) pp. 270–4.

  114. 114.

    Allman and Hamilton (1949) p. 20.

  115. 115.

    Ibid. p. 1, original italics.

  116. 116.

    ‘Sir Thomas Dalling’ (2012).

  117. 117.

    Dalling (1957) p. 238.

  118. 118.

    Kesteven (1961a1961b).

  119. 119.

    Kesteven (1963).

  120. 120.

    Dalling (1957) p. 239.

  121. 121.

    Shaw (1962), Kesteven (1963).

  122. 122.

    Kesteven (1961a) p. 109.

  123. 123.

    Kaplan (1953).

  124. 124.

    Steele (1979) p. 6.

  125. 125.

    Martin Kaplan (1976), Soulsby (2006).

  126. 126.

    This definition came out of WHO/FAO (1951) p. 3.

  127. 127.

    ‘Veterinary Public Health’ (1974) p. 108.

  128. 128.

    FAO/WHO (1951).

  129. 129.

    ‘Veterinary Public Health’ (1974) p. 108.

  130. 130.

    WHO/FAO (1959).

  131. 131.

    Meyer (1954) p. 4.

  132. 132.

    Kaplan (1954).

  133. 133.

    For example: FAO/WHO (1962, 1963).

  134. 134.

    See especially Kaplan (1966).

  135. 135.

    FAO/WHO (1951) p. 16.

  136. 136.

    Cockrill (1967) p. 56.

  137. 137.

    Cockrill (1966) p. 9.

  138. 138.

    Cockrill (1964) p. 252.

  139. 139.

    WHO (1946) p. 100.

  140. 140.

    Hambidge (1955) p. 157.

  141. 141.

    Ibid. p. 166.

  142. 142.


  143. 143.

    Sukhatme (1963) p. 3, Sukhatme (1966) p. 7.

  144. 144.

    Bellur (1990).

  145. 145.

    Gaur, Kaushik and Garg (2001). The dairy almost made extensive use of buffalo for dairy production.

  146. 146.

    Kesteven (1966) p. 336.

  147. 147.

    Cockrill (1968) pp. 10–12.

  148. 148.

    For an excellent account of Kurien's work, see Valenze (2011).

  149. 149.

    Kesteven (1966) p. 336.

  150. 150.

    It gave rise to what, by the 1980s, was being called India's ‘white revolution’. Bellur et al. (1990).

  151. 151.

    Simons (1976) .

  152. 152.

    Basu (2009).

  153. 153.

    Feeding the Expanding World Population (1968).

  154. 154.

    Phillips (1963).

  155. 155.

    FAO (1963) p. 9, FAO (1964a).

  156. 156.

    FAO (1964b) p. i.

  157. 157.

    FAO (1962), FAO (1967).

  158. 158.

    ‘Healthy Animals’ (1964) p. 257.

  159. 159.

    FAO (1967) p. 8.


  1. Allman, Richard and T.S. Hamilton. Nutritional Deficiencies in Livestock. Washington: FAO, 1949.Google Scholar
  2. Amrith, S. “Food and Welfare in India c.1900–1950.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 50 (2008): 1010–35.Google Scholar
  3. Amrith, S. and P. Clavin. “Feeding the World: Connecting Europe and Asia, 1930–1945.” Past & Present 218 (2013): 29–50.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, David. “The ‘Discovery’ of Malnutrition and Diet in Colonial India.” The Indian Economic & Social History Review 31 (1994): 1–26.Google Scholar
  5. Altschul, A.M. (ed.). New Protein Foods, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Atkins, Peter. “Fattening Children or Fattening Farmers? School Milk in Britain, 1921–1941.” The Economic History Review 58 (2005): 57–78.Google Scholar
  7. Atkins, Peter. “White Poison? The Social Consequences of Milk Consumption, 1850–1930.” Social History of Medicine 5 (1992): 207–27.Google Scholar
  8. Atkins, Peter. “The Pasteurisation of England.” In Food, Science, Policy and Regulation in the Twentieth Century: International and Comparative Perspectives, edited by D.F. Smith and J. Phillips, 37–51. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Autret. M. and M. Béhar. Síndrome Policarencial Infantile (Kwashiorkor) and Its Prevention in Central America. FAO Nutrition Studies No. 13. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 1954.Google Scholar
  10. Barona, J.L. The Problem of Nutrition: Experimental Science, Public Health, and Economy in Europe, 1914–1945. PIE: Peter Lang, 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Barona, J.L. “Nutrition and Health. The International Context during the Interwar Crisis.” Social History of Medicine 21 (2008): 87–105.Google Scholar
  12. Barona, J.L. From Hunger to Malnutrition: The Political Economy of Scientific Knowledge in Europe, 1818–1960. PIE: Peter Lang: 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Bashford, A. Global Population: History, Geopolitics, and Life on Earth. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  14. Basu, Pratyusha. “Success and Failure of Crossbred Cows in India: A Place-Based Approach to Rural Development.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (2009): 746–766.Google Scholar
  15. Bellur, V. et al. “The White Revolution: How Amul Brought Milk to India.” Long Range Planning 23.6 (1990), 71–9.Google Scholar
  16. Benson, E. “Animal Writes: Historiography, Disciplinarity, and the Animal Trace.” In Making Animal Meaning, edited by L. Kalof and G.M. Montgomery, 3–16. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. Beveridge, W.I.B. “Economics of Animal Health.” Veterinary Record 72 (1960): 810–5.Google Scholar
  18. Biswas, M. FAO: Its History and Achievements during the First Four Decades, 1945–1985. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Borowy, I., J.H. Mills, Y-a. Zhang. “Introduction: International Health Organisations and their Histories.” Hygiea Internationalis 13 (2016): 7–17.Google Scholar
  20. Borowy, I. Coming to Terms with World Health: The League of Nations Health Organisation 1921–46. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: 2009.Google Scholar
  21. Brantley, C. “Kikuyu-Maasai Nutrition and Colonial Science: The Orr and Gilks Study in Late 1920s Kenya Revisited.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies 30 (1997): 49–86.Google Scholar
  22. Brock J.F. and M. Autret. Kwashiorkor in Africa. WHO Monograph Series No. 8. Geneva: WHO, 1952.Google Scholar
  23. Bruno, K. “Exporting Agrarian Expertise: Development Aid at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and its Predecessors, 1950–2009.” Ph.D thesis, University of Uppsala, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Burnet, E. and W. Aykroyd. “Nutrition and Public Health.” Bulletin of the Health Organization iv (1935): 232–474.Google Scholar
  25. Cantor, D. and C. Bonah. “Introduction.” In Meat, Medicine and Human Health in The Twentieth Century, edited by D. Cantor and C. Bonah, 1–21. London: Chatto & Pickering, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Carpenter, K.J. “The History of Enthusiasm for Protein.” Journal of Nutrition 116 (1986): 1364–70.Google Scholar
  27. Carpenter, K.J. Protein and Energy: A Study of Changing Ideas in Nutrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. Carpenter, K.J. “A Short History of Nutritional Science: Part 3 (1912–1945).” Journal of Nutrition 133 (2003): 3023–32.Google Scholar
  29. Cepede, M. “The Fight Against Hunger: Its History on the International Agenda.” Food Policy, 9.4 (1984): 282–90.Google Scholar
  30. Cockrill, W.R. “The Profession and the Science: International Trends in Veterinary Medicine.” Advances in Veterinary Science 9 (1964): 251–325.Google Scholar
  31. Cockrill, W.R. “The Role for Animals.” Address: Canada. January 11, 1966. FAO AN/MISC/61/66.Google Scholar
  32. Cockrill, W.R. “Patterns of Disease.” Veterinary Record 78 (1966): 259–66.Google Scholar
  33. Cockrill, W.R. “Of Husbandry and Health.” In World Protein Hunger: The Role of Animals, edited by Anon, 53–6. FAO: Rome, 1967.Google Scholar
  34. Cockrill, W.R. “Feeding Tomorrow’s World.” Address at University of Guelph. December 21, 1967. FAO AN/Misc/59.Google Scholar
  35. Cockrill, W.R. “The FAO Veterinarian.” Address, Ottawa, Canada. January 19, 1968. FAO AN/Misc/63/68: AN 101955.Google Scholar
  36. Connelly, M. Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  37. Connelly, M. “‘To Inherit the Earth’: Imagining World Population, from the Yellow Peril to the Population Bomb.” Journal of Global History 1 (2006): 299–19.Google Scholar
  38. Connelly, M. “Population Control is History: New Perspectives on the International Campaign to Limit Population Growth.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45 (2003): 122–47.Google Scholar
  39. Cullather, N. The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia. Cambridge, Mass., 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Cullather, N. “Miracles of Modernization: The Green Revolution and the Apotheosis of Technology.” Diplomatic History 28 (2004): 227–54.Google Scholar
  41. Collingham, L. The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food. New York: Penguin, 2012.Google Scholar
  42. Dalling, T. “The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine XXI (July 1957): 236–45.Google Scholar
  43. Dalling, T. “The Economic Importance of the Health of Livestock in Milk Production, with Special Reference to the Eradication of Brucellosis and Tuberculosis.” Appendix to Report on the FAO/UNICEF/WHO Training Course on Quality Control of Milk and Milk Products, 25–35. FAO: Rome, 1961.Google Scholar
  44. Dejager, T. “Pure Science and Practical Interests: The Origins of the Agricultural Research Council, 1930–1937.” Minerva 31 (1993): 129–50.Google Scholar
  45. Dodd, N.E. “The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Its History, Organization and Objectives.” Agricultural History 23 (1949): 81–6.Google Scholar
  46. Dupuis, M. Nature Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink. New York University Press: New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  47. FAO. Proposals for a World Food Board and World Food Survey. Combined Reprint, FAO: Washington, October 1, 1946.Google Scholar
  48. FAO. Second World Food Survey. Rome: FAO, 1952.Google Scholar
  49. FAO. Millions Still Go Hungry. FAO: Rome 1957.Google Scholar
  50. FAO. Symposium on Protein Malnutrition. August 20–24, 1960.Google Scholar
  51. FAO. Production Yearbook, Volume 16. FAO: Rome, 1962.Google Scholar
  52. FAO. “The Livestock Industries in Underdeveloped Countries.” In State of Food and Agriculture, authored by FAO, 129–57. FAO: Rome 1962.Google Scholar
  53. FAO. Third World Food Survey. Freedom from Hunger Campaign, Basic Study No. 11, FAO: Rome, 1963.Google Scholar
  54. FAO. “Protein Nutrition: Needs and Prospects.” In State of Food and Agriculture, authored by FAO, 7–11, 98–132. FAO: Rome 1964a.Google Scholar
  55. FAO. Protein: At the Heart of the World Food Problem. World Food Problems No. 5. FAO: Rome 1964b.Google Scholar
  56. FAO. World Protein Hunger: The Role for Animals. Rome: FAO/Merck, 1967.Google Scholar
  57. FAO. Filling the Protein Gap. FAO: Rome. 1969.Google Scholar
  58. FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition. Report of the First Session. WHO Technical Report Series No. 16. WHO: Geneva, 1949.Google Scholar
  59. FAO/WHO Expert Panel on Brucellosis. First Report. WHO TRS, No. 37, 1951.Google Scholar
  60. FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition. Report of the Third Session. WHO Technical Report Series No. 72, WHO: Geneva, 1953.Google Scholar
  61. FAO/WHO Report of the International Meeting on Veterinary Education. London, April 25–30, 1960. WHO Meeting Report, AN-1960/4.Google Scholar
  62. FAO/WHO Expert Panel on Veterinary Education. Report of the First Meeting. FAO: Rome, 1962.Google Scholar
  63. FAO/WHO Expert Panel on Veterinary Education. Report of the Second Meeting FAO: Rome, 1963.Google Scholar
  64. Feeding the Expanding World Population: International Action to Avert the Impending Protein Crisis, Report to the Economic and Social Council of the Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development. New York: United Nations, 1968.Google Scholar
  65. Gaur, G.K., S.N. Kaushik and R.C. Garg. “The Gir Cattle of India—Characteristics and Present Status.” Animal Genetic Resources Information, 33 (2001): 21–30.Google Scholar
  66. Gillespie, J. “International Organizations and the Problem of Child Health, 1945–1960.” Dynamis 23 (2003): 115–42.Google Scholar
  67. Gilks, J.L. and J. Boyd Orr. “The Nutritional Condition of the East African Native.” Lancet 29 (1927): 561–2.Google Scholar
  68. Grigg, D. “The Nutritional Transition in Western Europe.” Journal of Historical Geography, 22 (1995): 247–61.Google Scholar
  69. Gratzer, W. Terrors of the Table: The Curious History of Nutrition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  70. Hall, A.D. The Improvement of Native Agriculture in Relation to Population and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.Google Scholar
  71. Hambidge, G. The Story of FAO. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1955.Google Scholar
  72. Hardy, A. “Beriberi, Vitamin B1 and World Food Policy, 1925–1970.” Medical History 39 (1995): 61–77.Google Scholar
  73. Hardy, A. “Animals, Disease, and Man: Making Connections.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46 (2003a): 200–15.Google Scholar
  74. Hardy, A. “Professional Advantage and Public Health: British Veterinarians and State Veterinary Services, 1865–1939.” Twentieth Century British History 14 (2003b): 1–23.Google Scholar
  75. “Healthy Animals—or Hungry Humans?” WHO Chronicle 18 (1964): 256–60.Google Scholar
  76. Hodge, J.M. Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines and the Legacies of British Colonialism. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  77. Hodge, J.M. “Science, Development and Empire: The Colonial Advisory Council on Agriculture and Animal Health, 1929–43. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 30 (2002): 1–26.Google Scholar
  78. Hutchinson, J.F. “Promoting Child Health in the 1920s: International Politics and the Limits of Humanitarianism.” In The Politics of the Healthy Life: An International Perspective, edited by Esteban Rodríguez-Ocaña, 131–50. Sheffield: European Association for the History of Medicine and Health, 2002.Google Scholar
  79. Jachertz, R. “To Keep Food Out of Politics: The UN Food and Agricultural Organization, 1945–1965.” In International Organizations and Development, 1945–1990, edited by M. Frey et al., 76–101. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014.Google Scholar
  80. Jones, S.D. Valuing Animals: Veterinarians and Their Patients in Modern America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  81. Jachertz, R. and A. Nützenadel. “Coping with Hunger? Visions of a Global Food System, 1930–1960.” Journal of Global History 6 (2011): 99–119.Google Scholar
  82. Joshi, N.R. and R.W. Phillips. Zebu Cattle of India and Pakistan Rome: FAO, 1953.Google Scholar
  83. Joshi, N.R., E.A. McLaughlin and R.W. Phillips. Types and Breeds of Africa Cattle. Rome: FAO, 1957.Google Scholar
  84. Kaplan, M. “The Concept of Veterinary Public Health and its Application in the World Health Organization.” WHO Chronicle 7.9 (1953): 227–36.Google Scholar
  85. Kaplan, M. “Zoonoses.” WHO Chronicle 8.7–8 (1954): 231–4.Google Scholar
  86. Kaplan, M. “Global Priorities in Animal Disease Control.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 70 (1958): 743–6.Google Scholar
  87. Kaplan, M. “Social Effects of Animal Diseases in Developing Countries.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 22.9 (1966): 15–21.Google Scholar
  88. Kaplan, M. “Curriculum Vitae. 1976” In General Information on WHO or Joint Conferences on VPH, 1956–1980. WHO Archives, Geneva: VH-348-1.Google Scholar
  89. Kay. H.D. “John Boyd Orr.” Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society 18 (1972): 43–81.Google Scholar
  90. Kesteven, K.V.L. “The Rising Threat from Animal Diseases.” Discovery (1961a): 107–9.Google Scholar
  91. Kesteven, K.V.L. “Epizootic Diseases which Threaten to Cause Famine in Large Areas of the World: The Necessity for International Veterinary Co-operation to Strengthen Preventive Medicine Services in all Countries.” British Veterinary Journal 117 (1961b): 57–60.Google Scholar
  92. Kesteven, K.V.L. “International Animal Health Problems.” Australian Veterinary Journal, 39 (1963): 406.Google Scholar
  93. Kesteven, K.V.L. “The Veterinarian and the World Food Problem.” Veterinary Record 79 (1966): 332–7.Google Scholar
  94. Kesteven, K.V.L. “Animals in the Service of Man.” In World Protein Hunger: The Role of Animals, edited by Anon, 11–12. FAO: Rome, 1967.Google Scholar
  95. Knapp, V.J. “The Democratization of Meat and Protein in late 18th and 19th Century Europe.” Journal of History 59 (1997): 541–51.Google Scholar
  96. Koolmees, P. “Veterinary Inspection and Food Hygiene in the Twentieth Century.” In Food Science, Policy and Regulation in the Twentieth Century, edited by D. Smith and J. Phillips, 53–68. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  97. League of Nations, Economic Committee. The Agricultural Crisis, Vol. 1. Geneva: League of Nations, 1931.Google Scholar
  98. League of Nations. Interim Report of the Mixed Committee on the Problem of Nutrition. Geneva: League of Nations, 1936.Google Scholar
  99. League of Nations. Final report of the Mixed Committee of the League of Nations on the Relation of Nutrition to Health, Agriculture and Economic Policy. Geneva: League of Nations, 1937.Google Scholar
  100. Little, M. “Imperialism, Colonialism and the New Science of Nutrition: The Tanganyika Experience, 1925–1945.” Social Science & Medicine, 32 (1991): 11–14.Google Scholar
  101. Marglin, S.A. “Farmers, Seedsmen, and Scientists: Systems of Agriculture and Systems of Knowledge.” In Decolonizing Knowledge: From Development to Dialogue, edited by Frederique Appfel-Marglin and Stephen Marglin, 185–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  102. Mayhew, M. “The 1930s Nutrition Controversy.” Journal of Contemporary History 23 (1988): 445–64.Google Scholar
  103. Maclaren, D. “The Great Protein Fiasco.” Lancet 304 (1974): 93–6.Google Scholar
  104. McCollum, E.V. The Newer Knowledge of Nutrition. New York: Macmillan Co., 1918.Google Scholar
  105. Meyer, K.F. “Animal Diseases and Human Welfare.” In Advances in Veterinary Science, Volume 1, edited by C.A. Brandly and E.L. Jungherr, 1–48. New York: Academic Press, 1953.Google Scholar
  106. Meyer, K.F. “The Zoonoses in their Relation to Rural Health.” Seventh World Health Assembly. March 3, 1954. WHO Archives, Geneva: A7/Technical Discussion/3.Google Scholar
  107. Newman, J.L. “From Definition, to Geography, to Action, to Reaction: The Case of Protein Malnutrition.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85 (1995): 233–45.Google Scholar
  108. Olmstead, Alan and Paul Rhode. Creating Abundance: Biological Innovation and American Agricultural Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  109. Orland, B. “Turbo-cows: Producing a Competitive Animal in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” In Industrialising Organisms: Introducing Evolutionary History, edited by S. Schrepfer and P. Scranton, 167–90. London: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  110. Orr, J.B. and J.L. Gilks. Studies of Nutrition: The Physique and Health of Two African Tribes. London: Medical Research Council, Special Report Series no. 155, 1931.Google Scholar
  111. Orr, J.B. Food, Health and Income. Report on a Survey of Adequacy of Diet in Relation to Income. London: Macmillan & Co., 1936.Google Scholar
  112. Orr, J.B. and David Lubbock. Feeding People in Wartime. London: Macmillan, 1940.Google Scholar
  113. Orr J.B. The Role of Food in Post-war Reconstruction. Geneva: International Labour Organisation, 1943.Google Scholar
  114. Orr, J.B. Food: The Foundation of World Unity. London: National Peace Council, 1948.Google Scholar
  115. Orr, J.B. As I Recall. London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1966.Google Scholar
  116. Otter, C. “The British Nutrition Transition and its Histories.” History Compass 10/11 (2012): 812–25.Google Scholar
  117. Pederson, H. “FAO and the Dairy Industry.” In World Protein Hunger: The Role for Animals, edited by Anon., 21–23. Rome: FAO/Merck, 1967.Google Scholar
  118. Pemberton, J. and J. White. “The Boyd Orr Survey of the Nutrition of Children in Britain, 1937–1939.” History Workshop Journal 50 (2000): 205–29.Google Scholar
  119. Perkins, J. Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes and the Cold War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  120. Petty, C. “Primary Research and Public Health: The Prioritization of Nutrition Research in Inter-war Britain.” In Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC, edited by J. Austoker and L. Bryder, 83–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  121. Phillips, R.W. “Expansion of Livestock Production in Relation to Human Needs.” Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 21 (1951): 241–56.Google Scholar
  122. Phillips, R.W. “Cattle.” Scientific American 198 (June 1958): 51–9.Google Scholar
  123. Phillips, R.W. “Animal Products in the Diets of Present and Future World Populations.” Journal of Animal Science 22 (1963a): 251–62.Google Scholar
  124. Phillips, R.W. “Animal Agriculture in the Emerging Nations.” In Agricultural Sciences for the Developing Nations, edited by A.H. Moseman, 15–32. New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1963b.Google Scholar
  125. Phillips, R.W. FAO: Origins, Formation, Evolution, 1945–1981. Rome: FAO, 1981.Google Scholar
  126. Popkin, B.M. “Nutritional Patterns and Transitions.” Population and Development Review 1 (1993): 138–57.Google Scholar
  127. Pritchard, W.R. “Increasing Protein Foods through Improving Animal Health.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 56 (1966): 360–9.Google Scholar
  128. Rabinbach, A. The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue and the Origins of Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  129. Robertson, T. The Malthusian Moment: Global Population Growth and the Birth of American Environmentalism. New Jersey: Rutgers, 2012.Google Scholar
  130. Ruxin, J. “Hunger Science and Politics: FAO, WHO and UNICEF Nutrition Policies, 1945–1978” (PhD diss, University of London, 1996).Google Scholar
  131. Ruxin, J. “The United Nations Protein Advisory Group.” In Food Science, Policy and Regulation in the Twentieth Century: International and Comparative Perspectives, edited by D.F. Smith and J. Phillips, 151–66. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  132. Shaw, J.C. “Problems of Increasing Animal Production.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 21 (1962): 99–106.Google Scholar
  133. Simons, W. “FAO’s Industry Cooperative Programme.” Food Policy 1.2 (1976): 173–4.Google Scholar
  134. “Sir Thomas Dalling.” In Twentieth Century Veterinary Lives, edited by Bruce Vivash Jones, 64–6. Cirencester: The Granville Press, 2012.Google Scholar
  135. Smith, D.F. and M. Nicolson. “The ‘Glasgow School’ of Paton, Findlay and Cathcart: Conservative Thought in Chemical Physiology, Nutrition and Public Health.” Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 195–238.Google Scholar
  136. Smith, D.F. “Nutrition Science and the Two World Wars.” In Nutrition in Britain: Science, Scientists and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by D.F. Smith, 142–165. Routledge: London, 1997.Google Scholar
  137. Smith, D.F. “The Use of ‘Team Work’ in the Practical Management of Research in the Inter-War Period: John Boyd Orr at the Rowett Research Institute.” Minerva 37 (1999): 259–80.Google Scholar
  138. Smith, D.F. “The Rise and Fall of the Scientific Food Committee.” In Food, Science, Policy and Regulation in the Twentieth Century: International and Comparative Perspectives, edited by D.F. Smith and J. Phillips, 101–16. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  139. Soulsby, Lord. “Veterinary Public Health in a Global Economy: A Tribute to Martin Kaplan.” University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2017.
  140. Staples, A.L.S. The Birth of Development. How the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization, and World Health Organization Changed the World, 1945–1965. Kent: Ohio, 2006.Google Scholar
  141. Staples, A.L.S. “Norris E. Dodd and the Connections between Domestic and International Agricultural Policy.” Agricultural History 74 (2000): 393–403.Google Scholar
  142. Stanton, J. “Listening to the Ga: Cicely Williams’ Discovery of Kwashiorkor on the Gold Coast.” in L. Conrad & A. Hardy (eds.), Women and Modern Medicine (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001), 149–171.Google Scholar
  143. Steele, J.H. Animal Disease and Human Health, Freedom from Hunger Campaign. Basic Study, No. 3. Rome: FAO, 1962.Google Scholar
  144. Steele, J.H. “International and World Developments in Veterinary Public Health with a Comment on Historical Developments.” International Journal of Zoonoses 6 (1979), 1–32.Google Scholar
  145. Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales and C. de Haan. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO, 2006.Google Scholar
  146. Sukhatme, P.V. “The Phenomenon of Hunger as FAO Sees It.” FAO Report No: 064074, 1963.Google Scholar
  147. Sukhatme, P.V. “Control of Human and Cattle Populations: Food, Fodder and Nutrition Problems in India.” Commerce Annual, December 1966. FAO WS/57042.Google Scholar
  148. Terroine, E.F. “The Protein Component in the Human Diet.” League of Nations Quarterly Bulletin of the Health Organisation 5.3 (1936): 427–92.Google Scholar
  149. Tappan, J. “The True Fiasco: The Treatment and Prevention of Severe Acute Malnutrition in Uganda, 1950–74.” In Global Health in Africa: Historical Perspectives on Disease Control, edited by T. Giles-Vernick and J.L.A Webb, 92–113, Athena: Ohio University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  150. Tilley, H. Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870–1950, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  151. Trentmann, F. “Coping with Shortage: The Problem of Food Security and Global Visions of Coordination, c.1890–1950.” In Food and Conflict in the Age of the Two World Wars, edited by F. Trentmann, 13–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006.Google Scholar
  152. Trowell, H.C. “Infantile Pellagra.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 33.4 (1940): 398–404.Google Scholar
  153. Trowell, H.C. “Malignant Malnutrition (Kwashiorkor).” Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 42.5 (1949): 417–41.Google Scholar
  154. Valenze, D. Milk: A Local and Global History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  155. Vernon, J. Hunger: A Modern History. London, England: Harvard University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  156. Vernon, K. “Science for the Farmer? Agricultural Research in England 1909–36.” Twentieth Century British History 8 (1997): 310–33.Google Scholar
  157. “Veterinary Public Health: A Review of the WHO programme 1.” WHO Chronicle 28.3 (1974): 103–12.Google Scholar
  158. Waddington, K. “To Stamp Out ‘So Terrible a Malady’: Bovine Tuberculosis and Tuberculin Testing in Britain, 1890–1939.” Medical History 48 (2004): 29–48.Google Scholar
  159. Waterlow J.C. (ed.). Protein Malnutrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  160. Waterlow J.C. and J.M.L Stephen (eds). Human Protein Requirements and Their Fulfillment in Practice. New York: John Wright and Sons, 1957.Google Scholar
  161. Weindling, P. “The Role of International Organizations in Setting Nutritional Standards in the 1920s and 1930s.” In The Science and Culture of Nutrition, 1840–1940, edited by H. Kamminga and A. Cunningham, 48–74. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995.Google Scholar
  162. Way, W. A New Idea Each Morning: How Food and Agriculture Came Together in One International Organisation. Canberra: ANU E Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  163. Weis, T. The Ecological Hoofprint: The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock. London: Zed Books, 2013.Google Scholar
  164. Welshman, J. “School Meals and Milk in England and Wales, 1906–45.” Medical History 41 (1997): 6–29.Google Scholar
  165. Whyte, R.O. Land, Livestock and Human Nutrition in India. New York: Praeger, 1968.Google Scholar
  166. Wiley, A.S. “Milk for ‘Growth’: Global and Local Meanings of Milk Consumption in China, India, and the United States.” Food and Foodways 19 (2011): 11–33.Google Scholar
  167. Wiley, A.S. Cultures of Milk: The Biology and Meaning of Dairy Products in the United States and India Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  168. WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Official Records of the World Health Organization. No. 2. Summary of Proceedings, Minutes, and Final Acts of the International Conference. Off. Rec. Wld Hlth Org, 1946.Google Scholar
  169. WHO/FAO Expert Group on Zoonoses. “Report on the First Session.” WHO Tech Report Series 40 (1951).Google Scholar
  170. WHO/FAO Expert Group on Zoonoses. “Second Report.” WHO Tech Report Series 169 (1959).Google Scholar
  171. Williams, C.D. “A Nutritional Disease of Childhood Associated with a Maize Diet.” Archives of Diseases in Childhood 8 (1933): 423–33.Google Scholar
  172. Williams, C.D. “Kwashiorkor: A Nutritional Disease of Children Associated with Maize Diet.” The Lancet 226 (1935): 1151–2.Google Scholar
  173. Woods, A. “The Farm as Clinic: Veterinary Expertise and the Transformation of Dairy Farming, 1930–50.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (2007): 462–87.Google Scholar
  174. Woods, A. “Breeding Cows, Maximizing Milk: British Veterinarians and the Livestock Economy, 1930–50.” In Healing the Herds: Essays on Livestock Economies and the Globalization of Veterinary Medicine, edited by K. Brown and D. Gilfoyle. 59–75. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  175. Worboys, M. “The Discovery of Colonial Malnutrition Between the Wars.” In Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Societies, edited by David Arnold, 208–25. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistorySwansea University Department of HistorySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations