Diseased if we Do- Diseased if we Don’t

Will RFK Tackle the Problem of Antibiotic Resistance in Livestock?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is ready to make America healthy again (MAHA). He has long opposed things like food additives, pesticides, and too much fluoride in water. And he’s made it clear that he wants to be part of agricultural reform in a way that filters food production methods through human health over simple efficiency. How much will RFK shake things up; particularly when it comes to antibiotic resistance in our food systems?

Quantifying antibiotic resistance and its potential to impact food security and global economics is complex, to say the least. Every year millions of people die simply because a prescribed antibiotic didn't work. We now understand that bacterial, fungal, and viral infections are becoming resistant to the medications we have available; making minor infections now life threatening health issues.  

It's somewhat of a frightening thought to consider a world where lifesaving medicines no longer work.  But, it’s not just humans who face increased risks when encountering infectious disease. Most of our animal protein comes from herds of mammals, flocks of birds, or schools of fish. Their journey from farm to market has relied on antibiotics to safeguard quality and quantity. What happens to food availability if their life saving medicines no longer work either?

Without new medications or herd management innovation scientists predict our current antimicrobial resistance (AMR) trajectory could affect the food supply and health of billions of people around the world. As a new administration settles in we wonder if antibiotic resistance will receive increased attention. And if so, will it radically change the way we approach agricultural systems?

Factors Contributing to Antimicrobial Resistance in Livestock

AMR, as it is commonly referred to, has built into an economic and health issue because antibiotics have been unregulated when used as a protective or therapeutic tool. Some say they have been overused in animal care particularly in industrial livestock production.  Approximately 200,000 small and medium sized farms were lost between 2012 and 2020; either being absorbed into industrial operations or cycling out of production. As industrial farming grew, so too did the amount of food raised with unregulated antibiotic use.

When it comes to maintaining secure food supply sources antibiotics make sense no matter the size of the farm or ranch. Why not add them to animal feed if we know they can effectively fight fast spreading viruses or infections that could jeopardize our food supply or add to animal discomfort? If Big Food becomes a target for HHS and antibiotics are more strictly regulated, there is fear that it could destabilize food supply.

Agriculture has used antimicrobials as an animal welfare tool and to boost productivity. Large scale production of livestock, whether its chickens or cows, involves numerous animals living in close proximity to each other, traveling together and periodically interacting with other herds or flocks. Antibiotics have worked to keep animals from suffering associated with easily transmitted bacterial and fungal infections. 

As we’ve seen with Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu (HPAI) and the African Swine Fever (ASF) viruses can spread rapidly and result in the culling of millions of animals in a short amount of time. But, we talk less about eye, foot, or lung infections that animals experience in facilities where antibiotics are prohibited that contribute to avoidable and longer term suffering. On one hand, livestock owners feel a responsibility to protect their animals from this type of scenario.  To not use them would put animals at high risk and in turn jeopardize livelihoods.  On the other hand, overuse could have long lasting impacts on human health.

It falls within the scope of the Department of Health and Human Services to both keep an eye on the spread of disease and define what safe means in regards to food consumption; which positions AMR discussions in an interesting spot. What is being used to protect is also harmful.

While this preventative approach has played out, there has been little in the way of new discoveries or approved alternatives for protecting against infectious diseases in livestock. We’ve been in a season of what the Center for Global Development calls a discovery void since the late 1980s. Antibiotic resistance is happening faster than the development of new antibiotics. Their effectiveness relieved pressure to explore and approve many alternate approaches to disease prevention and here we are, without extensive options. 

The Economic Burden of Disease

We know that in humans 15.7% of global deaths are caused by bacterial infections.  Current research shows that between one half and one third of those deaths occur because of antimicrobial resistance. If the same holds true for livestock then we can start to imagine the implications.

Available data shows that if nothing at all changes we can estimate the food supply of more than 700 million people will be affected  as a result of livestock losses. The current course would effectively remove somewhere between $575 to $953 billion dollars worth of product from the global economy in the next 25 years.  The fallout of downsized herds could have an economic impact in the trillions if we consider a breakdown in trade, travel, and food production. 

The same research concluded that if it were possible to decrease resistance by 30%, either through new antibiotics or innovative production methods, then the global economy would experience economic gains of $120 billion over the next 25 years. The Department of Health and Human Services claims about one quarter of the federal budget which then becomes grant money used to fund health coverage and the research, resource allocation and training of health practices.

But, the cost of shifting courses is also part of the economic equation.  Research into new antibiotics will cost billions and require collective action from multiple countries if we hope to move away from preventative use and back towards treatment.  The World Health Organization has urged world leaders for years to collectively invest in solutions which, as we’ve already seen with agriculture and climate decisions, isn't as simple as giving cows a different shot. New strategies will require new infrastructure, new livestock feed production methods, and purchasing new medications.  Yet, early figures show that for every $1 invested there’s the potential for a $28 return down the road. 

Those investments might be geared towards innovative ways of handling livestock that minimize the risk of infections and their spread from animal to animal. They could also be in support of non-medical means of preventing and treating infections like probiotics, enzymes and gene editing. It will absolutely include research into the extent of resistance currently surfacing among animals raised for human consumption. Under this umbrella of research we are likely to see technology facilitate faster communication and collaboration. And of course, the discovery of new antibiotics. 

For farmers and ranchers mapping out income and expenses this could play out very much like carbon emissions decisions. Is it more cost effective to purchase innovative technology to combat the spread of infections, downsize a herd, or purchase different medications from private research corporations? And will farmers and ranchers ultimately absorb the cost of billions of dollars of research and development every time they purchase feed or ship an animal for processing? 

There’s an interconnectedness between animals, humans and our environment that is vying for our attention. Weeds and insects are developing resistance to pesticides, bacteria and viruses are becoming immune to antibiotics, and an increasing number of humans are discovering antibiotics are no longer effective. The protective barrier we’ve built might be the perfect environment for a superbug that could damage our food security and economic stability.