3.4 AMR and trade agreements

The risk of AMR contamination from food animals and agriculture is becoming a consideration in trade negotiations between countries. These trade negotiations require international cooperation and advocacy to ensure that future trade decisions have a foundation in scientific evidence. For many LMICs that are net exporters of animal food products (such as Brazil, Argentina and Indonesia), changes in how trade agreements are negotiated based on perceived AMR risk may structurally affect the way that individual farmers use antimicrobials and care for their livestock.

One example of how trade is being affected is the new European Union (EU) legislation that imposes restrictions on medicated feed (Regulation 2019/ 4) and veterinary medicines (Regulation 2019/ 6) (EUR-Lex, 2019a/2019b). In 2022, the EU legislation will come into full force in all Member Countries. The legislation prohibits all forms of routine AMU in farmed animals, including for growth promotion and preventative (prophylaxis) group treatments, with some critical exceptions. Some critically important antimicrobials will not be permitted for use in food animals to preserve their effectiveness in human health. Importantly, these new legislative standards will be reciprocal for imported food, meaning trading partners will have to respect the ban on antimicrobials for growth promotion and the restrictions on critically important antimicrobials.

The EU legislation will substantially influence antimicrobial prescribing and usage in food animals, not just in Europe but in farming businesses of major trading partners. The impact of these laws on trading partners may be difficult to predict: for example, countries outside the EU that export milk and milk products to the EU may require dairy farmers to modify some practices, such as the use of dry cow therapies (DCT), as this practice would be considered a preventative use of antimicrobials under the new EU legislation. These changes may require substantial structural change in the way dairy cattle are managed at the individual herd level to comply with the EU laws. In some cases, this may not be possible, meaning that some farmers may miss out on export opportunities.

You may be asking yourself what the relationship is between international trade, ethics and AMR:

• How do we think about balancing ethical concerns about responding to AMR with the notion of free and fair trade?
• How should the international trading system evolve to be equitable and sustainable as we respond to AMR?
• Is it OK for one country (or a group of countries) to restrict trade by prohibiting certain types of antimicrobials and/or the way they are used in another country?
• Can we draw a line between the protection of consumers (such as reducing exposure to potential resistant foodborne bacteria) and protectionism (imposing barriers to trade)?

Such questions have become more pronounced as some countries lose patience with the slow pace of a global response to AMR.

Case Study 2 shows how countries such as Argentina and the United States have responded to the EU legislation on veterinary medicines at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).