As 2040 approaches, a 30% increase in antimicrobial use in global livestock casts a shadow of health and economic instability, outlining what the new FAO report calls a “silent shock” capable of eroding global food security if immediate billion-dollar investments are not made.
THE SURGE IN CONSUMPTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH THREATS
The report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that without government interventions, antibiotic use in livestock will grow by nearly one third over the next fifteen years. This trend would lead to the annual administration of over 143,000 tons of antimicrobials to livestock by 2040, surpassing the previous peak of 118,000–130,000 tons recorded in 2013.
Livestock farming currently accounts for nearly three quarters of global use of these medicines, often used not only to treat diseases but also to artificially stimulate animal growth.
The document highlights how such overuse accelerates antimicrobial resistance (AMR), weakening the effectiveness of drugs vital for human medicine. Meanwhile, the human cost is already evident, with about 4.95 million deaths associated with bacterial resistance recorded in 2019 alone.
THE HEAVY ECONOMIC COST OF INACTION
According to the FAO, the financial consequences of failing to control antimicrobial resistance far exceed the costs of preventive interventions. Globally, AMR could cost 1 trillion dollars by 2050, while for Europe alone the annual economic burden is already estimated at 11 billion euros.
By 2040, cumulative direct losses in the livestock sector alone could reach 318 billion dollars, reflecting a productivity decline that would particularly affect low- and middle-income countries. “In the long term – states the report – the economic cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action, as antimicrobial resistance gradually accumulates and acts as a silent shock in livestock systems and the economy in general.”
Projections also indicate a global economic welfare loss of 1.25 trillion dollars between 2025 and 2040, with persistent impacts on prices, incomes, and household consumption.
THE DILEMMA OF GROWTH PROMOTERS AND TRANSITION COSTS
A critical point of the report concerns the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters (AGPs), a practice that offers immediate gains but structural damage over time. Although eliminating these drugs involves an initially visible shock, the estimated cumulative losses of 53 billion dollars are significantly lower than the damage caused by resistance.
The productivity guaranteed by AGPs is variable: in pigs, the FAO reports, the daily weight gain is about 28.15 grams, while in cattle it is around 30 grams. However, the UN organization estimates that a transition investment of 28.4 billion dollars is needed to bridge the gap between the immediate costs of change and the long-term benefits. These funds would support the shift towards better biosecurity systems, vaccinations, and health management that would make routine antibiotic use unnecessary.
“The solution – according to Cóilín Nunan of the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, who did not participate in drafting the FAO report – lies in better regulation of antibiotic use in livestock, accompanied by policies aimed at minimizing animal diseases. In our view, this requires moving away from intensive, unhygienic, and stressful farming methods towards systems more focused on animal health, where antibiotics are rarely needed.”
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
The use of antibiotics as growth promoters has been officially banned both in the European Union and the United Kingdom since 2006, although some imports produced using such methods have so far been allowed to continue.
However, according to the Guardian, the European regulatory framework is about to become significantly stricter: starting next September, the EU will ban the import of any meat, milk, or egg products obtained through the use of antibiotics for growth.
This development is already pushing major exporters like Brazil to tighten their rules to avoid losing access to the single market. In contrast, since the post-Brexit period, British standards on drug administration in livestock have not kept pace with European ones, which are set for further strengthening.
In this scenario, organizations like the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics urge the London government to adopt an import ban similar to Brussels’, noting that the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement currently being negotiated between the UK and the EU would be the ideal opportunity to realign standards and protect both consumers and local producers.
A NEW GOVERNANCE FOR ANTIMICROBIAL EFFECTIVENESS
The report proposes reconsidering antimicrobial effectiveness not as a private resource but as a global public good requiring coordinated management beyond national borders. Since resistant pathogens spread through trade, travel, and the environment, isolated policies of individual states often prove insufficient.
An integrated approach is therefore necessary to align market incentives with collective health goals, ensuring that compliance costs do not disproportionately fall on small producers. Without this institutional change of course, the scholars conclude, pharmaceutical dependency will continue to grow despite technical progress, threatening global economic stability.
