Antibiotics Use in Intensive Animal Agriculture

This article explores the risks associated with the routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, in particular antimicrobial resistance and its broader implications for human health.

Why antibiotics risk matters

The routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture accounts for an estimated 70% of antibiotic consumption globally, making the industry a significant contributor to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This trend is expected to rise as more countries embrace intensive farming systems to meet the growing demand for meat, dairy and fish.

Intensive animal agriculture depends on the use of antibiotics to maintain the health of farmed animals, due to poor husbandry and welfare practices, thus contributing to AMR and associated risks. The industry also relies on antibiotics for growth promotion, particularly in the production of poultry and pork.

Although AMR risk currently develops separately in human and animal populations, the increased risk of zoonotic disease is narrowing the gap.

Types of antibiotics used in agriculture

Antibiotics are used for various reasons in animal agriculture:

• To treat animals with infectious diseases

• To treat animals that have been in close contact with infected animal(s) in order to prevent further spread

• To treat animals that are at high risk of infectious disease, but where there is no disease present in them or the wider flock/heard

• To stimulate growth or increased feed efficiency

AMR in agriculture

AMR is recognised as a global public health threat by supranational organisations, including the World Health Organization and the World Bank, and by research communities.

The emergence of a disease with multi-drug-resistant bacteria would place centuries of medical progress at risk, rendering previously routine infections untreatable, with significant economic consequences for intensive animal agriculture and wider society.

AMR regulations

Global regulatory alignment on addressing the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is lacking, but there are examples of national policymakers taking action:

• The European Union has been progressively restricting the use of antimicrobials in livestock farming to curb use by 50% compared to 2018 levels by 2030. Since 2022, there has been a general ban on preventative antibiotics in farming, and from 2026, the bloc will restrict imports of animal products that use growth-promoting antibiotics.

• The United Kingdom introduced new restrictions on antibiotics for hygiene management in livestock farming in 2024.

• China’s 14th 5-year plan aimed to curb the use of antibiotics in farmed animals by 2025.

• The United States has required antibiotics prescriptions for farmed animals since 2023.

• Vietnam will look to ban all prophylactic use from 2026.

Positively, ahead of the General Assembly High-Level Meeting on AMR in September 2025, world leaders and experts called for a 30% reduction in global animal antimicrobial use by 2030, to align with the 2022 Muscat Manifesto. However, it was removed from the final draft of the Political Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance and replaced with a call for “meaningful reductions” by 2030.

Why AMR is a material financial risk for investors

Phasing out the routine use of antibiotics for growth promotion and disease prevention is crucial to reduce consumption rates to levels where AMR risk can be mitigated.

Continuing practices that demand substantial levels of antibiotic use to be economically viable are, therefore, unsustainable and leave companies and their investors vulnerable to the economic and environmental threat of drug-resistant bacteria.

Limiting the use of antibiotics to the treatment of animals directly impacted by an infectious disease, or those which have been in close contact with clinically infected animals, would significantly reduce this risk, and companies that have comprehensive antibiotics policies will be in a better position to do so than those that do not.

The World Bank estimates that by 2050, AMR could result in US$1 trillion of additional healthcare costs, and result in GDP losses ranging from US$1 trillion to US$3.4 trillion per year by 2030.

Direct and indirect risks

AMR exposes investors and their portfolio companies to direct and indirect risks. These include:

• reputational risks from disease emergence

• losses from the culling of animals infected with resistant bacteria

• increased operational costs from heightened regulations (or fines for non-compliance)

• increasing consumer appetite for antibiotic-free meat and fish

• the changing role of animal health companies

• the potential loss of economy-wide revenues due to a wide-scale public health crisis.

Engaging with portfolio companies on antibiotic issues to encourage transparency and to implement responsible and comprehensive antibiotic strategies can support investors to mitigate these potential risks.

Summary

The routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture presents health risks to human and animal populations, and a range of broader risks for companies and investors.

Reference

[1] Brorsen, B., Lehenbauer, T., Ji, D., & Connor, J. (2002). Economic impacts of banning subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in swine production. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[2] European Environment Agency. (2024, May 7). Veterinary antimicrobials in Europe’s environment: A One Health perspective.

[3] Veterinary Medicines Directorate. (2024, May 17). Antimicrobial resistance: Clarification of new elements applied from the VMR. UK Government.

[4] Pan, Y., Zeng, J., Zhang, L., Hu, J., Hao, H., Zeng, Z., & Li, Y. (2024). The fate of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in large-scale chicken farm environments: Preliminary view of the performance of National Veterinary Antimicrobial Use Reduction Action in Guangdong, China. Environment International, 191, 108974.

[5] The Livestock Project. (2023, June 11). New antibiotic rules: What do they mean? Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University.

[6] Carrique-Mas, J. J., Hue, L. T., Dung, L. T., Thuy, N. T., & Padungtod, P. (2023). Restrictions on antimicrobial use in aquaculture and livestock, Viet Nam. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 101(3), 223–225.

[7] Ferri, M., Ranucci, E., Romagnoli, P., & Giaccone, V. (2017). Antimicrobial resistance: A global emerging threat to public health systems. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.

[8] Kaniyamattam, K., De Vries, A., Tauer, L. W., & Gröhn, Y. T. (2020). Economics of reducing antibiotic usage for clinical mastitis and metritis through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science.

[9] Tang, K. L., Caffrey, N. P., Nóbrega, D. B., Cork, S. C., Ronksley, P. E., Barkema, H. W., Polachek, A. J., Ganshorn, H., Sharma, N., Kellner, J. D., & Ghali, W. A. (2017). Restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(8), e316–e327.

[10] World Bank. (2017, March). Drug-resistant infections: A threat to our economic future.