IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v23y2024i2p5-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Specific Targets for the Member States to Achieve the European Union's Goal of 50 per cent Reduction in Sales of Veterinary Antimicrobials by 2030

Author

Listed:
  • Caetano Luiz Beber
  • Maurizio Aragrande
  • Massimo Canali

Abstract

This article proposes a tailored approach to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock among EU countries, in alignment with the EU Farm‐to‐Fork initiative that targets a 50 per cent reduction by 2030. We argue against a one‐size‐fits‐all target and introduce country‐specific targets based on individual factors such as current antimicrobial sales, GDP, and livestock and human densities. Using data from the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC), the article identifies countries with high densities of animals and humans, as well as high levels of AMU per livestock unit, such as Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Poland, as needing to prioritise greater reduction efforts. The article also underlines the need for a more precise EU‐level indicator of AMU, as sales do not directly represent use. It suggests that specific targets and regulations should apply to antimicrobials classified as ‘Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials’ by the WHO. The article recommends extending these targets to different sectors and even individual farms, with high‐consumption sectors and poorly performing farms making greater efforts. By considering these factors, the article aims to provide a fair and effective approach to reducing AMU, mitigate the risks associated with antimicrobial resistance, and contribute to achieving the Farm‐to‐Fork strategy AMU reduction target. Cet article propose une approche sur mesure pour réduire l'utilisation d'antimicrobiens (UAM) dans l'élevage des pays de l'Union européenne, conformément à l'initiative européenne De la ferme à l'assiette qui vise une réduction de 50 pour cent d'ici 2030. Nous argumentons contre un objectif unique et pour l'introduction d'objectifs spécifiques à chaque pays, fondés sur des facteurs individuels tels que les ventes réelles d'antimicrobiens, le PIB et les densités animales et humaines. À l'aide des données de la Surveillance européenne de la consommation d'antimicrobiens vétérinaires (ESVAC), l'article identifie les pays présentant de fortes densités en animaux et humains, ainsi que des niveaux élevés d'UAM par unité de bétail, comme l'Allemagne, la Belgique, l'Italie, l'Espagne et la Pologne, comme devant privilégier des efforts de réduction plus importants. L'article souligne également la nécessité d'un indicateur de l'UAM plus précis au niveau européen, dans la mesure où les ventes ne représentent pas directement l'utilisation. Il suggère que des objectifs et des réglementations spécifiques devraient s'appliquer aux antimicrobiens classés comme ‘antimicrobiens d'importance critique de la plus haute priorité' par l'OMS. L'article recommande d’étendre ces objectifs à différents secteurs et même à des exploitations individuelles, les secteurs à forte consommation et les exploitations peu performantes faisant davantage d'efforts. En considérant ces facteurs, l'article vise à proposer une approche juste et efficace pour réduire l'UAM, atténuer les risques associés à la résistance aux antimicrobiens et contribuer à atteindre l'objectif de réduction de l'UAM de la stratégie De la ferme à l'assiette. In diesem Artikel wird ein ‚maßgeschneiderter‘Ansatz zur Verringerung des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel (AMU) in der Tierhaltung der Mitgliedstaaten vorgeschlagen. Hintergrund ist die EU‐Initiative ‘Farm‐to‐Fork‘, die eine 50‐prozentige Reduzierung bis 2030 anstrebt. Wir sprechen uns gegen einen ‚Einheitsansatz‘und für länderspezifische Ziele aus, die auf dem jeweiligen Verkauf von antimikrobiellen Mitteln, dem BIP sowie der Tier‐ und Bevölkerungsdichte basieren. Anhand von Daten aus dem Europäischen Überwachungssystem zum Antibiotikaverbrauch (European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption, ESVAC) zeigten wir, dass Länder mit einer hohen Tier‐ und Bevölkerungsdichte sowie einer hohen Einsatzmenge von antimikrobiellen Mitteln pro Großvieheinheit, wie Deutschland, Belgien, Italien, Spanien und Polen, größere Anstrengungen zur Reduzierung des Einsatzes unternehmen müssen. Dieser Artikel unterstreicht auch die Notwendigkeit eines präziseren Indikators für den Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel auf EU‐Ebene, da die Verkäufe nicht direkt den Verbrauch widerspiegeln. Wir schlagen vor, dass für antimikrobielle Mittel, die von der WHO als besonders kritisch eingestuft werden (‚Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials‘), gesonderte Ziele und Vorschriften gelten. Der Artikel empfiehlt, diese Ziele auf verschiedene Sektoren und sogar einzelne Betriebe auszuweiten. Dabei sollten Sektoren mit einem hohen Verbrauch und Betriebe mit schlechter Leistung größere Anstrengungen unternehmen. Durch die Berücksichtigung dieser Einflussfaktoren soll ein gerechter und wirksamer Ansatz zur Verringerung des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel vorgeschlagen werden. Hierdurch werden die mit der Antibiotikaresistenz verbundenen Risiken gemindert und es wird zu dem Ziel der Farm‐to‐Fork‐Strategie zur Reduzierung der antimikrobiellen Mittel beigetragen.

Suggested Citation

  • Caetano Luiz Beber & Maurizio Aragrande & Massimo Canali, 2024. "Identifying Specific Targets for the Member States to Achieve the European Union's Goal of 50 per cent Reduction in Sales of Veterinary Antimicrobials by 2030," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 5-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:5-12
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12451
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claas Kirchhelle, 2018. "Pharming animals: a global history of antibiotics in food production (1935–2017)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christy Echakachi Manyi-Loh & Anthony Ifeanyin Okoh & Ryk Lues, 2023. "Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria (Enteropathogens) Recovered from a Blend of Pig Manure and Pinewood Saw Dust during Anaerobic Co-Digestion in a Steel Biodigester," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Nicolas Fortané, 2021. "Antimicrobial resistance: preventive approaches to the rescue? Professional expertise and business model of French “industrial” veterinarians," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 213-238, June.
    3. Hall, Julie & Hawkins, Olivia & Montgomery, Amy & Singh, Saniya & Mullan, Judy & Degeling, Chris, 2022. "Dismantling antibiotic infrastructures in residential aged care: The invisible work of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    4. Andrea Butcher & Jose A. Cañada & Salla Sariola, 2021. "How to make noncoherent problems more productive: Towards an AMR management plan for low resource livestock sectors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Alexandra Waluszewski & Alessandro Cinti & Andrea Perna, 2021. "Antibiotics in pig meat production: restrictions as the odd case and overuse as normality? Experiences from Sweden and Italy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Hannah Landecker, 2019. "Antimicrobials before antibiotics: war, peace, and disinfectants," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Nicolas Fortané, 2019. "Veterinarian ‘responsibility’: conflicts of definition and appropriation surrounding the public problem of antimicrobial resistance in France," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Charlotte Brives & Jessica Pourraz, 2020. "Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR: obstacles and possible futures," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Camille Bellet & Lindsay Hamilton & Jonathan Rushton, 2021. "Re-thinking public health: Towards a new scientific logic of routine animal health care in European industrial farming," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. João Sucena Afonso & Jonathan Rushton, 2024. "The Importance of Economic Assessments to Support Changes in Livestock Farming Practices: A Focus on Antimicrobial Use," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 54-60, August.
    11. Fortané, Nicolas, 2020. "Antimicrobial resistance: preventive approaches to the rescue? Professional expertise and business model of French “industrial” veterinarians," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(01), January.
    12. Charuta M. Parkhi & Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool‐Tasie & Thomas Reardon, 2023. "Do smaller chicken farms use more antibiotics? Evidence of antibiotic diffusion from Nigeria," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 242-262, January.
    13. Kgomotso Lebelo & Ntsoaki Malebo & Mokgaotsa Jonas Mochane & Muthoni Masinde, 2021. "Chemical Contamination Pathways and the Food Safety Implications along the Various Stages of Food Production: A Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-23, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:5-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.