AMR in livestock could threaten food security for 2 billion by 2050

The long-neglected but growing threat of antimicrobial resistance is drawing increasing global attention, with world leaders set to make concrete commitments to tackle the crisis this week at a high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. But while much of the spotlight currently is on AMR’s impact on public health, an even quieter crisis looms: AMR holds devastating potential to cripple global livestock populations, which could threaten food security for millions and destabilize entire agricultural economies, a new report found. AMR happens when bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi stop responding to medicines, creating what is known as “superbugs” that are resistant to treatment. Superbugs are often the result of the overuse of antimicrobials such as antibiotics. Their proliferation could lead to increased illness and death among animals — and potentially decimate farmer livelihoods. Under a business-as-usual scenario, in which no action is taken to stop the increase, the losses to livestock production are equivalent to the consumption needs of 746 million people annually, with annual gross domestic product losses of $40 billion — or a cumulative $575 billion by 2050, according to a new report series called EcoAMR published on Thursday. In a more pessimistic scenario in which drug resistance doubles for diseases inflicting livestock, the report finds that global GDP losses could amount to nearly $1 trillion and put the food supply of about 2 billion people at risk. Drug resistance in humans, along with the potential spread of resistant pathogens from animals to humans, could add more than a trillion more in GDP losses. Swift action could make all the difference. Just a 30% reduction in animal antimicrobial use within five years could cumulatively raise global GDP by $120 billion by 2050 compared to the business-as-usual forecast. “The threat of drug-resistant infections to human health is widely recognised, but the impact of AMR on the health of animals, our environment and our economy cannot be overlooked,” Emmanuelle Soubeyran, director-general of the World Organisation for Animal Health, or WOAH, said in a press release. Many farmers could stand to drastically reduce antibiotics use: A 2019 WOAH study showed that around one-fifth of antimicrobials used in animals were considered the highest priority and critical for human health. However, the World Health Organization recommends that high-priority antimicrobials not be used for the treatment of livestock with infectious diseases because it’s crucial to protect their ability to treat humans. The research series was developed by WOAH, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and the Center for Global Development. The other reports in the series also forecast the potential fallout from AMR in terms of its impacts on the global economy and human health. How did we get here? Western farmers first began using antibiotics to protect their livestock from illness in the 1940s. In many countries, their use was unregulated and did not require a prescription. Soon, scientists discovered that antibiotics also helped livestock grow bigger more quickly, which further encouraged their overuse. Since then, some countries have begun to restrict the use of antibiotics on livestock, especially their use as growth promoters. Sweden led the way in 1986, the European Union implemented its own ban in 2006, and the United States announced restrictions in 2017 — although critics argue that U.S. farmers still use them in this way thanks to legal loopholes. Indeed, global use of antibiotics in livestock rearing has actually declined by 13% in the last three years alone. But these figures belie a broader trend in which their use is decreasing in some regions such as the EU, and increasing in others, especially in lower- and middle-income countries. The scale of the problem of AMR in livestock is already being seen in lower-income countries: A study published in 2023 found that almost all pork and poultry products collected from leading Kenyan retailers had high levels of bacteria, almost 40% of which were multidrug resistant. Prescription for change: An integrated approach Despite the alarming figures, WOAH offered several recommendations to mitigate the potential impacts of AMR in livestock. These include prioritizing infection prevention health interventions for animals (including vaccines); enforcing formal prescription practices; phasing out the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion; strengthening and institutionalizing surveillance systems that document the spread of AMR; better quantifying the relationship between AMR in livestock and its impacts on human health; and improving education and awareness among farmers. Technological innovations can also have a role to play. Artificial intelligence, for example, can help farmers monitor herd health in real-time, surveilling parameters like weight, temperature, and variations in gait which can help detect diseases early. That means farmers can employ a more targeted approach to medicine distribution and limit disease transmission. AMR-related policymaking is inherently complex and interconnected, impacting various sectors. This complexity requires the multifaceted lens of the One Health approach, the report argued. This approach emphasizes that the health of humans, animals, and plants is closely linked and that health policies must be unifying and transdisciplinary. Ensuring there’s adequate funding for such initiatives will be paramount. “Drug resistance is not an expensive problem to fix. We estimate that it will cost US$ 63 billion dollars a year to provide quality treatment for bacterial infections and ensure innovation,” the authors wrote. Still, it is vital to ensure that the public funding allocated to AMR takes a holistic view of the problem and does not focus solely on human health while neglecting animal health. “Focusing our efforts in low-and-middle income countries where access to veterinarians is limited and prevention can be a challenge is essential,” Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, executive director of HealthforAnimals, said in a statement. “Increasing finance and other support for producers in these countries can increase uptake of vaccines, biosecurity, diagnostics, improved feed and other prevention tools.”