June 05, 2026
Overview:
Antimicrobials are widely used in livestock production to treat disease, prevent infections, and, in some countries, promote animal growth. However, the overuse of these drugs can contribute to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), making infections harder to treat in both animals and people. Policymakers often face a difficult question: would reducing antimicrobial use in livestock harm food production and economies, or would failing to act on AMR be even more costly in the long run?
This report, prepared by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with contributions from OHT’s Dr. Ramanan Laxminarayan, explores the economic consequences of two pathways for livestock production: phasing out antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) or allowing AMR to spread over time.
The Question:
What would happen to global livestock production if antimicrobial growth promoters were phased out?
The Findings:
While phasing out AGPs in livestock production may lead to short-term economic and production losses, these impacts are relatively limited and diminish over time as producers adapt.
In the most severe phase-out scenario, cumulative global livestock production losses were estimated at approximately US$ 53 billion between 2025 and 2040, with production largely returning to its projected growth path by 2040. In contrast, rising AMR was associated with far greater and more persistent economic costs.
Under the most severe AMR scenario, cumulative livestock production losses reached approximately US$ 318 billion by 2040, reducing global livestock output by about 15 million tons and offsetting roughly 16 percent of projected sector growth.
The broader economic impacts were even more significant, with global welfare losses estimated at approximately US$ 1.25 trillion between 2025 and 2040 and annual losses reaching about US$ 78 billion by 2040.
Upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries were projected to bear the largest share of these costs. While the removal of growth-promoting antibiotics had the greatest short-term impact on intensive pork and poultry production systems, AMR affected a wider range of livestock sectors, including beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs.
The report highlights a key trade-off in livestock production. Reducing the use of antibiotics for growth promotion may create short-term costs and adjustment challenges for producers, but allowing AMR to spread could lead to much larger and more persistent economic losses over time.
The findings suggest that the costs of acting on antimicrobial use today may be considerably lower than the long-term costs of inaction. They also underscore the importance of investing in strategies that reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use while maintaining animal health, productivity, and food security.
Access the report published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations here.
