1.2 Social licence for using antimicrobials in food animals

You might be thinking: ‘Why do I need a ‘social licence’ to use antimicrobials in food animals’?

First, we need to think about what it means to have a social licence. A social licence to operate (SLO) is the process by which the community grants (or withholds) permission for an industry to conduct its own business based on their expectations and belief systems (ethics, values, etc.). Scientific evidence may not necessarily inform community expectations. The SLO may change over time.

If an industry has SLO, then the costs to operate are lower than an industry under ‘social control’, where governments impose a bureaucratic burden on operators (Figure 3). The tipping point between a community giving or withdrawing a SLO may be a single event (e.g. catastrophic environmental damage) or cumulative impacts over time (e.g. growing knowledge of AMR risk to people).

Figure 3 The social licence to operate for an industry

Show description|Hide description

A see-saw text box infographic showing the factors involved in the concept of the ‘industrial social licence’. The seesaw shows there can be a balance between, at one end, the industry self-regulating and applying ethical values (‘social licence’), and the need for expensive bureaucratic regulation and legislation (‘social control’) at the other end. A single triggering event or cumulative impact is depicted at the pivot point of the seesaw which can, however, upset this delicate but necessary balance.

Figure 3 The social licence to operate for an industry

SLO is not new to agriculture. For example, the SLO related to animal welfare, fish farming and land clearing for crops have been widely debated for some years. Social controls have been introduced in response to these concerns, and farmers have had to develop new ways to farm.

For example, the aquaculture sector often struggles with their SLO because of opposition at local, national and international levels over the potential impact on the coastal ecology, the land rights of indigenous groups, other commercial fishers, and tourism. Broader societal concerns regarding environmental impacts can outweigh employment benefits for the local community. In the United States in 2017, a salmon aquaculture facility in Washington State collapsed, resulting in an estimated 160,000 non-native Atlantic salmon escaping into the Pacific Ocean environment. As a result of an inquiry into the collapse, and the noted failures of the company, the Washington State government phased out all non-native salmon production in their state (Mather and Fanning, 2019).

Societal pressure is being placed on the use of antimicrobials in food animals for therapeutic purposes. The WHO has published Guidelines on the use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals in 2017 which make four recommendations, including the restriction of all classes of medically important antimicrobials for prevention of diseases that have not been clinically diagnosed (WHO, 2017b). Major foodservice providers have announced bans on the use of medically important antimicrobials in their supply chains or promote ‘antibiotic-free’ products. For example, McDonald's, one of the biggest buyers of meat products globally, has announced reduction targets for antimicrobials important to human health across 85% of their global supply chains (McDonald’s, 2019).

Societal concerns about antimicrobial use in food animals will not go away. Building community trust through responsible and judicious use of antimicrobials is essential. Trust will come in the form of adopting antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) practices and improving animal welfare, husbandry and farm biosecurity. Failure to respond to societal concerns is likely to result in tougher controls on antimicrobials (Tang et al., 2017).