Summary
This paper reviews the history of agricultural antibiotic use and regulation in animal-based foods systems, with a discussion of policy implications.
The author begins with a review of the origins of agricultural antibiotics. In the 1930s, synthetic sulphonamides and biological antibiotics were introduced and initially used to treat infections in animals and later expanded to nontherapeutic use as growth promoters. By the 1960s, antibiotics were widely used in farmed animal production globally, with the United States leading as a producer and exporter.
Initially, during the 1940s and 1950s, there were few concerns about the spreading use of antibiotic growth promoter (AGP) in agriculture. However, concerns became apparent, such as the presence of antibiotic residues, antibiotics alleged facilitation of animal welfare abuse, and antibiotic resistance. Public concerns arose, which evolved differently across countries. The US and West Germany focused on antibiotic residues, while Britain prioritized agricultural AGP resistance. Fragmented regulatory frameworks resulted; although some countries took precautionary measures, there was no widespread international reform to address the growing global threat of AGP resistance.
During the 1970s and 1980s, global AGP consumption in agriculture surged, driven by increased feedlot systems in the US, adoption of AGP infrastructures in new countries, and the intensification of antibiotic-dependent production systems in middle and low-income countries like Thailand, South Africa, Brazil, and China. This growth in AGP use was influenced by economic pressures, political transparency issues, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies.
During the 1980s, rising antibiotic use and concerns about resistance led to public debates and reforms in Western countries. Scandinavia, led by Sweden, pioneered significant changes, banning AGPs and implementing animal welfare laws. Other European and some high and middle-income countries followed suit, restricting AGPs and reducing agricultural antibiotic use. In the US, antibiotic reforms in agriculture faced resistance from industrial stakeholders. The FDA struggled to withdraw fluoroquinolone antibiotics despite promises to address antimicrobial resistance. Overall, agricultural antibiotic use has generally declined, but therapeutic and prophylactic use remains legal.
The author notes that amid commendable international antibiotic stewardship commitments, there is a historical lack of enthusiasm for enforcing regulations and supporting further reform, particularly in wealthy countries. Despite some progress in reducing antibiotic use, significant differences in regulation and consumption persist, both within and between countries, posing challenges for effective antibiotic stewardship, especially in middle- and low-income nations where regulations remain patchy.
Since their advent during the 1930s, antibiotics have not only had a dramatic impact on human medicine, but also on food production. On farms, whaling and fishing fleets as well as in processing plants and aquaculture operations, antibiotics were used to treat and prevent disease, increase feed conversion, and preserve food. Their rapid diffusion into nearly all areas of food production and processing was initially viewed as a story of progress on both sides of the Iron Curtain. However, from the mid-1950s onwards, agricultural antibiotic use also triggered increasing conflicts about drug residues and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Significantly, antibiotic concerns did not develop evenly but instead gave rise to an international patchwork of different regulatory approaches. During a time of growing concerns about AMR and a post-antibiotic age, this article reconstructs the origins, global proliferation, and international regulation of agricultural antibiotics. It argues that policymakers need to remember the long history of regulatory failures that has resulted in current antibiotic infrastructures. For effective international stewardship to develop, it is necessary to address the economic dependencies, deep-rooted notions of development, and fragmented cultural understandings of risk, which all contribute to drive global antibiotic consumption and AMR.