AMR (Antimicrobial resistance) is set to impact the global beef and poultry trade. This week, the EU will ban imports of all meat and meat products from Brazil. This stems from concerns about compliance with rules on veterinary antibiotic use on farms. The ban demonstrates how AMR is evolving from a public health issue into a major factor influencing international market access.
AMR is a serious threat to global health and food security. AMR results in increased healthcare costs, prolonged hospital stays, and, significantly, increased mortality for those infected by a drug-resistant pathogen.
The issue is not simply the level of antimicrobial use or whether their use is permitted in Brazil. The central concern is Brazil’s ability to demonstrate compliance with EU requirements through monitoring, traceability, and auditable control systems. This article will examine the potential trade disruption, AMR evidence and risk, Brazil’s compliance gap, and responses.
The Potential Impact on Trade Flows
Global Impacts
Brazil is the EU’s second-largest supplier of beef (after the UK) and the largest supplier of chicken. This amounts to around 211 thousand tons of chicken and 92 thousand tons of beef from Brazil, accounting for approximately 25% of total chicken and beef imports. Thus, any disruption to trade would be significant.
If the ban takes effect, Brazil will face a major challenge exporting breast meat and breast meat-based processed products. Exports could be diverted to the UK, Mexico, the Middle East, and some Asian markets, but with significant price concessions. The EU is likely to increase sourcing from alternative suppliers. The most likely countries are Argentina, Uruguay, and Australia for beef, and Ukraine, Thailand, and China for poultry.
The biggest impact will be on high-end beef markets, including foodservice and premium retail, as a significant share of Brazil’s export volumes to the EU comprises high-value cuts. In contrast, chicken imports are more commodity-driven; any disruption would therefore impact core supply chains, particularly the breast meat market.
The Impact on the UK
The UK is particularly concerned about the impact on trade. EU legislation Regulation 2019/6 on veterinary medicinal products and AMR does not apply in Great Britain. This means that Great Britain does not have the same legal basis as the EU to ban Brazilian imports.
The UK and EU are currently negotiating an SPS agreement. It is unclear whether AMR will be in scope under the agreement, and whether the UK will therefore follow EU legislation. Many UK beef producers fear that displaced Brazilian products, particularly beef and poultry, may be diverted to the UK market. Even a small increase in imports from Brazil could significantly affect UK prices.
However, these sources are unlikely to fully offset the reduced imports from Brazil. The UK could meet some of this supply gap with increased exports. The UK is already the largest exporter from outside the bloc. However, any increase would likely be modest rather than dramatic. The UK’s exportable surplus is limited, and it would face increased competition from other global exporters. The biggest immediate impact may be on prices and trade flows rather than on a huge increase in UK production.
One possible, though highly uncertain, scenario is that the UK functions as a partial trade bridge, whereby greater volumes of Brazilian beef enter the UK market while some domestic production is redirected to higher-value EU destinations.
How long will the disruption last?
According to the AHDB, if Brazil can demonstrate compliance relatively quickly, any disruption to trade flows may only be temporary. If restrictions remain in place for an extended period, more permanent adjustments to global trade patterns could emerge.
This case highlights a broader shift in global food trade. Increasingly, access to premium export markets depends not only on product quality and safety but also on a country’s ability to demonstrate responsible antimicrobial stewardship through transparent, auditable systems.
While the trade implications are significant, the underlying policy issue is antimicrobial resistance. Understanding the scale of AMR risk in livestock production helps explain why regulators are scrutinizing antibiotic use more closely across global supply chains.
Why has AMR become a trade policy issue?
The link between AMR in humans and antimicrobial use (AMU) in animals is a major concern. Although the relative contribution of animal agriculture to human antimicrobial resistance remains debated, there is broad scientific consensus that inappropriate antimicrobial use in livestock can contribute to the development and spread of resistant bacteria.
Animal welfare advocates argue that routine antibiotic use can sometimes compensate for underlying management issues such as overcrowding, poor housing, and inadequate biosecurity.
The frequently cited estimate that 73% of global antimicrobial sales are used in food-producing animals is based on earlier modeling. More recent research incorporating revised estimates of consumption and biomass suggests the true share may be closer to 50-55%, although significant uncertainty remains.
However, when adjusted for biomass AMU in food-producing animals, it is now slightly lower than for humans in some regions/countries, though this varies greatly.
Geographical hotspots of antimicrobial use
The risk posed by inappropriate antimicrobial use in livestock production varies greatly across regions and countries. A 2023 study has identified several hotspot areas for global antimicrobial use. Most AMU intensity hotspots were found in Asia (67%). These include eastern China, southern India, Central Java (Indonesia), central Thailand, the eastern coastline of Viet Nam, western South Korea, eastern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and north-west Iran. Research has identified pig production in China as a specific risk.
Despite national action plans to tackle AMR and selected bans on antimicrobials in animal production, most countries still have no publicly available country-level reports on veterinary AMU.
“As the world’s largest pig producer, accounting for more than 50% of the global pig population, China displays higher bacterial abundance, diversity, and RSs [risk score] in pig manure than all other countries”
In the Americas, most hotspot areas were identified in southern Brazil and the US Midwest. Another hotspot was observed along Australia’s south-eastern coast. Hotspots in the EU itself were identified in northern Italy, northern Germany, and Poland.
Brazil’s reporting and compliance challenges
Another study examining the risks associated with AMU in food production found that
“As the leading beef producers, the United States and Brazil exhibit notably higher resistome abundance and diversity in cattle manure compared to other countries, with the exception of Canada.”
Brazil is not seeking a relaxation of EU standards — it is instead working to demonstrate compliance.
The key issue is that Brazil lacks a robust legal framework for AMU. In addition, the country lacks a national system for monitoring antimicrobial use in animals. Sales data are not publicly available, and no standardized mechanism exists to track antimicrobial consumption on farms. Enforcement is also limited, and access to surveillance data is fragmented. This data gap makes it difficult to evaluate actual antimicrobial use patterns on farms and make informed policy decisions.
In early July Brazilian authorities announced that facilities authorized to export to the EU must implement auditable controls to demonstrate compliance with EU antimicrobial standards. In addition, controls must ensure traceability of ​materials and animals and maintain evidence of eligibility for shipments destined for the EU.
Establishing and operating a fully functional national surveillance and monitoring system within just a few months is unlikely. It would be more feasible to provide guarantees for specific supply chains dedicated to exports to the EU. The EU is likely to also require an audit, further delaying the return of Brazilian exports to Europe.
Monitoring and Data Gaps
Better data and reporting are crucial to progress on AMR. Of the world’s 10 largest meat producers, 6 do not report AMU publicly (Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, India, Viet Nam). However, countries that export a significant share of their animal production are more likely to report AMU data. Brazil is a notable exception, despite being the world’s largest exporter of poultry and cattle.
Regulatory and Industry Options to Reduce AMR Risks
Key Regulatory Policies
Policy options to reduce the risk of AMR include:
- Bans on Preventative Use: For example, the European Union banned routine preventative antibiotic use in farming in 2022. It also restricts imports relying on growth-promoting drugs.
- Prescription Mandates: The United States and the EU require a formal veterinary prescription before administering antibiotics to food-producing animals.
- Supply Chain Tracking: Public-private frameworks—such as the Netherlands’ IKB systems—require strict registration of all prescribed and delivered farm antimicrobials.
Industry and Economic Strategies
Beyond government action in some countries, industry-led initiatives promote more responsible use. Examples include:
- Reduction Targets: The UK has achieved major cuts in farm antibiotic sales through collaborative monitoring and stewardship, aligning with global One Health frameworks.
- Financial and Transitional Support: The Food and Agriculture Organization emphasizes the need for investment in biosecurity, vaccines, and better husbandry to help producers phase out growth promoters.
What Happens Next?
Many uncertainties remain; the key questions that will determine the duration and severity of disruption include:
- Whether Brazil can implement auditable compliance systems quickly enough.
- Whether the European Commission accepts Brazil’s proposed controls.
- Whether the UK aligns with EU antimicrobial import requirements through a future SPS agreement.
- Whether alternative exporters can replace Brazilian volumes without significant price increases.
The EU’s concerns are not solely about antimicrobial use itself. They are also about whether Brazil can demonstrate compliance through auditable systems, transparent reporting, and end-to-end traceability. In effect, this has become as much a governance and verification issue as a veterinary one.
The dispute is fundamentally about verification, traceability, and governance of antimicrobial use, not simply antimicrobial use itself. As well as disruption to trade, there is a broader lesson: stronger antimicrobial stewardship depends not only on government and industry action to reduce unnecessary use, but also on reliable, transparent data that enables regulators, buyers and producers to verify progress.