Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions
on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
December 8, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41047
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Summary
Exports of U.S. livestock and poultry products are important both to farmers and to the U.S.
economy. In 2009, U.S. livestock and poultry exports were valued at more than $10 billion,
accounting for about 12% of total global meat trade (estimated at nearly $87 billion in 2009).
Growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance have caused some U.S. trading partners and
competitors to implement restrictions and prohibitions on the use of certain antimicrobials for
subtherapeutic or nontherapeutic purposes in animal production. Although antibiotic use in
animals has not been a significant factor affecting U.S. trade in meat products to date, evidence
suggests that country restrictions on the use of these drugs could become an issue in the future
and could affect U.S. export markets for livestock and poultry products.
At issue is whether increased restrictions and prohibitions on the use of certain drugs in animal
feed in some countries, including the European Union (EU), New Zealand, and South Korea,
could affect or may already be affecting international trade in livestock and poultry products from
countries, such as the United States, that do not actively restrict the use of these drugs for growth
promotion in animal production.
In the United States, legislation has been introduced that seeks to restrict the use of certain
antimicrobial drugs for subtherapeutic or nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals. In
the 111th Congress, the leading bill was the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act
of 2009 (H.R. 1549; S. 619). Most U.S. livestock and poultry producers are opposed to such
restrictions because of concerns about animal welfare and food safety, as well as concerns about
possible increases in production costs, among other reasons.
Presently, it is not possible to precisely predict or to provide a quantitative assessment of the
potential trade implications of future restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production.
Given the number of market variables that would need to be evaluated, along with other trade
issues facing U.S. meat exporters in global markets, it is difficult to precisely predict trade
implications of possible future restrictions on antimicrobials in animal feed in selected countries.
However, it is possible to examine the range of possible outcomes from two scenarios involving
potential trade implications for U.S. livestock and poultry exports from tightened restrictions or
prohibitions on the use of antimicrobial drugs in animal feed for growth promotion:
• Scenario 1: Tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets,
without corresponding changes in the United States on the use of antimicrobials
in animal feed for growth promotion.
• Scenario 2: Tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets,
with corresponding prohibitions in the United States on the use of antimicrobials
in animal feed for growth promotion.
This report discusses the possible outcomes under these scenarios in terms of changes in U.S.
livestock and poultry exports and changes in U.S. market share in global meat markets.
Congressional Research Service
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of Antimicrobial Use............................................................................................. 1
Aspects of Antimicrobial Use................................................................................................ 3
Overview of U.S. Export Markets ............................................................................................... 3
U.S. Beef Export Markets ..................................................................................................... 4
U.S. Pork Export Markets ..................................................................................................... 5
U.S. Poultry Export Markets ................................................................................................. 6
Policies in Selected Countries ..................................................................................................... 7
Country Comparisons ........................................................................................................... 8
Potential Trade Implications for U.S. Exports............................................................................ 10
Scenario 1: Global Restrictions without U.S. Restrictions .................................................... 12
Possibility of a Reduction in U.S. Exports ..................................................................... 12
Possibility of a Reduction in U.S. Global Market Shares ............................................... 14
Scenario 2: Global Restrictions with U.S. Restrictions......................................................... 14
Possibility of Export Opportunities for U.S. Products .................................................... 15
Possibility of Adverse Production Effects for U.S. Products .......................................... 16
Considerations for Congress...................................................................................................... 17
Tables
Table 1. Reported Global and U.S. Trade, Livestock and Poultry Products, 2009 ......................... 4
Table 2. U.S. Beef Export Value by Importing Country................................................................ 5
Table 3. U.S. Pork Export Value by Importing Country................................................................ 6
Table 4. U.S. Poultry Export Value by Importing Country............................................................ 7
Table 5. Selected Country Policies on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production......................... 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Background
Exports of U.S. livestock and poultry products are important both to farmers and to the U.S.
economy. In 2009, U.S. livestock and poultry exports were valued at more than $10 billion,
accounting for about 12% of total global meat trade (estimated at nearly $87 billion in 2009).
In recent years, however, some countries have considered or implemented changes to their
agricultural and trade policies that could potentially affect U.S. livestock and poultry exports. One
such change pertains to the use of antimicrobial drugs in animal production systems. Some U.S.
trading partners and competitors, such as the European Union (EU), New Zealand, and South
Korea, have implemented restrictions on the importation of livestock and poultry products grown
with antimicrobial drugs.
In the United States, legislation has been introduced that seeks to restrict the use of certain
antimicrobial drugs for subtherapeutic or nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals. In
the 111th Congress, the leading bill was the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act
of 2009 (H.R. 1549; S. 619). Most U.S. livestock and poultry producers are opposed to such
restrictions because of concerns about animal welfare and food safety, as well as concerns about
possible increases in production costs, among other reasons.
This report is organized into three parts. First, it provides an overview of U.S. export markets for
livestock and poultry products, and highlights key U.S. foreign trading partners. Second, it
discusses policies in selected foreign markets that may restrict or limit the use of antimicrobial
drugs in food animal production, including imports of animal products grown with these drugs.
Third, it discusses some implications of these policies for U.S. livestock and poultry exports to
selected foreign markets.
Overview of Antimicrobial Use
Antimicrobials are used in food animal production as therapeutics (i.e., treatments), prophylactics
(i.e., preventatives), and growth promoters.1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports
that antimicrobial use in the U.S. livestock and poultry sectors is a common practice. Available
data suggest that antimicrobials are used in most phases of swine and poultry production and that
usage has been increasing. Approximately 25%-30% of small cattle feedlot operations and about
60%-70% of larger feedlots use or are exposed to antimicrobials, most frequently through in-feed
additives at feedlot operations.2
When antimicrobials are used for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes, they help treat and
prevent disease in exposed animals. When used at low levels in animal diets and feed for
subtherapeutic (essentially nonmedical) purposes, antimicrobials help improve animal growth
1 The term “antimicrobial” refers broadly to drugs that act against a variety of microorganisms including bacteria,
viruses, fungi, and parasites. The term “antibiotic,” or “antibacterial,” refers to drugs used to treat infections caused by
bacteria and other microorganisms and is used to describe both natural and synthetic products. Although “antibiotic” is
more narrow, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
2 Based on studies by USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) between 1990 and 1997. USDA,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), “Antimicrobial Resistance Issues in Animal Agriculture,”
December 1999 (edited May 2007).
Congressional Research Service
1
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
rates and feed efficiency, and also help reduce mortality and morbidity and may improve
reproductive performance.3 Some studies show that higher growth rates from subtherapeutic
antimicrobials have positively influenced producer incomes and resulted in higher per-animal net
returns.4 Some studies suggest that large-scale confined animal operations are particularly
dependent on the use of antimicrobial drugs in production.5
Growing scientific evidence shows, however, that certain bacteria are becoming increasingly
resistant to these drugs, and that antimicrobial resistance may be transferred from animals to
humans through the consumption or handling of meat that contains resistant bacteria.6 Public
health experts also attribute such resistance to a number of other causes, such as overuse of
antimicrobial drugs by medical professionals and their patients. Internationally, the issue of
antimicrobial use in animal production and concerns about antimicrobial resistance continue to be
actively reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, as well as the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE).7 The United States is participating with other member countries in a Codex Alimentarius
Commission Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance aimed at helping
to develop guidelines to assess human health risks associated with the presence of antimicrobial-
resistant agents transmitted through food and feed.8 WHO first published global principles for the
containment of antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals in 2000.9
In the United States, during the 111th Congress, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical
Treatment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1549; S. 619) was introduced, seeking the phased elimination of
nontherapeutic use in animals of “critical antimicrobial animal drugs” such as penicillin,
tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, aminoglycoside, and sulfonamide, or other
drugs that are used in humans to treat or prevent disease or infection. Some federal agency
officials have indicated support for restricting the nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials.10 Other
3 Antibiotics added to the feed of food animals to enhance their growth rate and production performance may be
referred to as “antimicrobial growth promoters” (AGPs).
4 S. Secchi and B. A. Babcock, “Pearls Before Swine? Potential Trade-offs Between the Human and Animal Use of
Antibiotics,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84 (1279-1284), December 2002.
5 See, for example, USDA, “Antimicrobial Drug Use and Veterinary Costs in U.S. Livestock Production,” AIB-766,
May 2001.
6 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to
Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals, GAO-04-490, April 2004; GAO, Food Safety: The
Agricultural Use of Antibiotics and Its Implications for Human Health, GAO/RCED-99-74, April 1999; National
Research Council, The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks, 1999; USDA, Economic Research Service,
International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies, AER-828, 2003; and CRS Report R40739,
Antibiotic Use in Agriculture: Background and Legislation.
7 For more background information and available reports, see WHO’s website, “Antimicrobial Resistance,”
http://www.who.int/foodborne_disease/resistance/en/. OIE is the intergovernmental organization responsible for
improving animal health worldwide, and is still known by its former French abbreviation (which stood for Office
International des Épizooties).
8 For information, see http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Codex_Alimentarius/Codex_Antimicro_Resist_Task_Force/index.asp.
The task force was established in 2006. Codex Alimentarius (“Codex”) is the international standards body for food
safety.
9 WHO, WHO Global Principles for the Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animals Intended for Food, June
2000, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_CDS_CSR_APH_2000.4.pdf.
10 Joshua M. Sharfstein, FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, July 13, 2009, testimony before the
House Committee on Rules; and Linda Tollefson, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Science, June 28, 2008, testimony
before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
2
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
possible policy options that might limit the use of these drugs for growth promotion include
assessing user fees, imposing targeted bans, or limiting new antimicrobials for human use only,
among other options.11
Aspects of Antimicrobial Use
An understanding of the available information on country restrictions is often complicated by a
divergence of policy objectives. Three aspects of antimicrobial use are regulated by U.S.
authorities, and may also be regulated by most U.S. trading partners. More specifically, policies
on antimicrobials may include restrictions on:
1. The use of certain antimicrobial drugs in producing livestock and poultry for
meat consumption. As reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), scientific studies demonstrate a relationship between the use of
antimicrobials in food-producing animals, antibiotic resistance in humans, and
adverse health consequences. Studies also demonstrate that antimicrobial
resistance among feedborne bacteria may cause prolonged duration of illness,
and increased rates of bacteremia, hospitalization, and death. In the United States,
FDA regulates these drugs and approves conditions of their use.
2. Residues of antimicrobial drugs remaining in meat tissues, which may exceed
allowable standards, tolerance levels, or maximum residue levels. In some cases,
even trace amounts of these drugs in meat and poultry products may pose a
public health hazard for consumers who are allergic, or for some drugs that have
been shown to cause other severe illnesses in some consumers. This problem is
different from the problem of antimicrobial resistance in foodborne pathogens
that may be transmitted through the meat and poultry products. In the United
States, FDA sets tolerances or allowance limits in meat, and USDA’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) samples the products to assure compliance.
3. The use of certain antimicrobial washes and pathogen reduction treatments
(PRTs) for treating meat during packing and processing of food products. These
processes typically involve products that are used to treat animal carcasses by
meat packers and processors, not drugs that are used in live animals. In the
United States, products used in these processes are regulated by FSIS.
This report focuses on available information on country restrictions regarding the first topic,
namely, the use of certain antibiotics in feed for growth promotion (subtherapeutic or
nontherapeutic) purposes in food-producing animals.
Overview of U.S. Export Markets
World trade in livestock and poultry products totaled nearly $87 billion in 2009, with the United
States accounting for 12% ($10.4 billion) of all global trade (Table 1).12 Within product
categories, in 2009, the United States supplied 31% ($3.8 billion) of all world trade in fresh,
11 P. E. McNamara and G. Y. Miller, “Pigs, People, and Pathogens: A Social Welfare Framework for the Analysis of
Animal Antibiotic Use Policy,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84 (1293-1299), December 2002.
12 Based on trade data reported by the Global Trade Atlas, http://www.gtis.com/gta/.
Congressional Research Service
3
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
chilled and frozen poultry products; about 18% ($2.6 billion) of all fresh, chilled and frozen beef
products; and 17% ($3.2 billion) of fresh, chilled and frozen pork products. The United States
also supplied about 4% ($0.6 billion) of all world trade in processed livestock and poultry
products. These statistics are based on country compilations of total reported imports, as reported
in the Global Trade Atlas, and do not always comport with other country statistics, such as
reported U.S. export data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Table 1. Reported Global and U.S. Trade, Livestock and Poultry Products, 2009
($ billions)
HS Category
World Total
U.S. Total
U.S. Share
Live Bovine Animals (HS 102)
6.0
0.1
1.0%
Live Swine (HS 103)
3.3
0.0
0.3%
Live Poultry (HS 105)
1.6
0.2
11.1%
Fresh/Chilled, Beef (HS 0201)
18.4
1.7 9.2%
Frozen Beef (HS 202)
10.3
0.9
8.5%
Fresh/Chilled/Frozen, Pork (HS 203)
18.2
3.2
17.4%
Fresh/Chilled/Frozen, Poultry (HS 207)
12.4 3.8 31.0%
Processed Livestock and Poultry (HS 1602)
16.6
0.6
3.8%
Total 86.7
10.4
12.0%
Source: Compiled by CRS using Global Trade Atlas, http://www.gtis.com/gta/, “Reporting Total Import
Statistics” (world total) and “Reporting Countries Export Statistics” (United States).
Notes: Data are by Harmonized System (HS) code. Excludes sheep and other farm animal products. Processed
products include al processed livestock and poultry products, including offal and miscel aneous meat products.
Following is an overview of U.S. export markets for beef, pork, and poultry products,
highlighting key U.S. foreign trading partners and recent market shares for these importing
countries. These data are based on reported U.S. export statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, as
reported by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). It is worth noting that
considerable differences frequently occur in the reported trade statistics across various databases,
reflecting reporting differences between country export and import data, attributable in part to
differences in product categories and other administrative reasons, among other explanations
beyond the scope of this report.
U.S. Beef Export Markets
U.S. beef exports have been highly variable since 2000, primarily because of a significant decline
in 2003-2004 due to concerns about U.S. cases of mad cow disease, among other trade issues.13
By 2008, U.S. beef exports had recovered somewhat and totaled nearly $3 billion worldwide,
according to official U.S. export data (Table 2). By volume, exports account for about 7% of total
annual U.S. beef production.14 Fresh, chilled, and frozen beef accounts for the bulk of U.S. annual
13 See CRS Report RS22345, BSE (“Mad Cow Disease”): A Brief Overview, and CRS Report RL34528, U.S.-South
Korea Beef Dispute: Issues and Status.
14 USDA’s Production, Supply and Distribution Online, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdHome.aspx. Data for
beef and veal based on carcass weight equivalent (2008-2009).
Congressional Research Service
4
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
exports, comprising more than 90% of the total value of beef exports.15 Mexico and Canada are
the leading importers of U.S. beef, receiving about two-thirds of annual U.S. exports (Table 2).
Several Southeast Asian countries also are among the leading international markets for U.S. beef,
including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, accounting for about 30% of all exports in
2008. Exports to the European Union (EU) nations total about 3% annually.
Table 2. U.S. Beef Export Value by Importing Country
(1998-2008 and average market share; $ million)
Avg. Share
Country 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
(2006-2008)
Mexico
467.5 592.6 659.7 372.3 780.4 881.4
36.8%
Canada
347.1 478.7 336.1 97.6 435.8 706.8
26.9%
Japan
1,285.6
1,461.5 833.8 1.0 62.9 350.5
9.8%
Korea
140.7 506.8 609.5 0.7 0.9 285.0
6.2%
Taiwan
28.0 53.0 49.6 0.0 101.2 127.6
5.2%
Vietnam
0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.0
125.8 2.4%
Russia
9.9 86.5 14.4 0.4 0.0 65.3
1.0%
EU-27
29.2 25.6 9.7 11.9 16.7 105.7
2.5%
Hong
Kong
34.2 51.8 57.4 0.2 13.8 40.0
1.4%
Saudi
Arabia 6.8 2.4 5.5 5.1 16.3 27.7 1.0%
Al
Other
96.6 97.8 116.3 66.0 106.8 201.2
6.9%
Total
2,445.7 3,356.7 2,692.2 555.2 1,539.8 2,917.0
100.0%
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC),
http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
Notes: EU-27 refers to the European Union (EU) nations. By U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), includes
live cattle (HTS 0102), fresh, chilled and frozen beef (HTS 0201 and 0202), and processed products (HTS
1602.50). Excludes offal and other products. Imports for consumption (U.S. dol ars). Nominal U.S. dol ars.
U.S. Pork Export Markets
U.S. pork exports have seen sharp, steady growth in the past decade, increasing from less than $1
billion in 1998 to nearly $4 billion in 2008, according to official U.S. export data (Table 3). By
volume, exports account for about 20% of total annual U.S. pork production.16 Fresh, chilled, and
frozen pork products account for the bulk of U.S. annual exports, comprising more than 90% of
the total value of pork exports.17 Japan is the leading importer of U.S. pork products, accounting
for nearly 40% of all exports annually (Table 3). Several other Southeast Asian countries also are
among the leading international markets for U.S. pork, including Hong Kong, Korea, China, the
15 Based on trade data reported by the USITC, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Fresh, chilled, and frozen beef (HTS 0201 and
0202) as a share of total, including live cattle (HTS 0102) and processed products (HTS 1602.50).
16 USDA’s Production, Supply and Distribution Online, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdHome.aspx. Data for
pork based on carcass weight equivalent (2008-2009).
17 Based on trade data reported by the USITC, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Fresh, chilled and frozen pork (HTS 0203) as a
share of total, including live swine (HTS 0103) and processed products (HTS 1602.40).
Congressional Research Service
5
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Philippines, and Taiwan, accounting for another 20% of all exports in 2008. Mexico and Canada
account for about one-fourth of annual exports. Exports to the EU-27 nations total about 3%
annually.
Table 3. U.S. Pork Export Value by Importing Country
(1998-2008 and average market share; $ million)
Avg. Share
Country 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 (2006-2008)
Japan
554.1 664.3 726.5 875.4 918.2
1,447.4
38.7%
Canada
86.9 99.6 136.5 230.9 365.1 506.7
15.0%
Mexico
90.0 141.2 150.6 330.6 334.7 435.6
11.9%
Russia
70.7 81.5 19.0 33.1 136.4 328.0
7.2%
Hong
Kong 24.3 20.4 12.4 14.5 26.0 260.3
4.0%
Korea
15.7 27.0 28.3 47.4 211.4 239.1
7.5%
China
6.5 5.2 9.4 21.5 31.7
238.4 4.3%
EU-27
36.5 8.9 18.3 30.2 51.2 130.7
2.7%
Australia
5.2 3.6 5.7 6.9 51.4 90.3 2.4%
Philippines
7.9 4.5 1.7 6.2 7.9 45.6 0.8%
Taiwan
13.9 33.5 21.4 46.7 28.6 37.8
1.0%
Al
Other
33.6 32.7 36.9 41.3 93.0
206.10
4.8%
Total
945.4 1,122.2 1,166.5 1,684.6 2,255.8 3,965.9
100.0%
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
Notes: EU-27 refers to the European Union (EU) nations. By U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), includes
live pigs (HTS 0103), fresh, chilled and frozen pork (HTS 0203), and processed products (HTS 1602.40). Excludes
offal and other products. Imports for consumption (U.S. dollars). Nominal U.S. dollars.
U.S. Poultry Export Markets
According to official U.S. export data, U.S. poultry exports more than doubled in the past decade,
increasing from $2.3 billion in 1998 to $4.6 billion in 2008 (Table 4). By volume, exports
account for about 20% of total annual U.S. broiler meat production, and about 10% of U.S. turkey
meat production.18 Fresh, chilled, and frozen poultry meats account for the bulk of U.S. annual
exports, comprising more than 90% of the total value of poultry exports.19 Russia is the leading
importer of U.S. poultry products, accounting for about 20% of annual exports, with Ukraine
importing another 3% (Table 4). Several Southeast Asian countries also are among the leading
international markets for U.S. poultry, including China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, accounting for
about 20% of all exports. Mexico and Canada account for another one-fourth of exports. Exports
to the EU-27 nations total less than 4% annually.
18 USDA’s Production, Supply and Distribution Online, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdHome.aspx.
19 Based on trade data reported by the USITC, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Fresh, chilled and frozen poultry (HTS 0207)
as a share of total, including live birds (HTS 0105) and processed products (HTS 1602.30).
Congressional Research Service
6
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Table 4. U.S. Poultry Export Value by Importing Country
(1998-2008 and average market share, $ million)
Avg. Share
Poultry 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
(2006-2008)
Russia
521.2 352.6 372.9 535.4 461.8 823.5 18.9%
China
42.8 49.0 57.0 17.1 324.9
745.1 15.4%
Mexico
236.1 254.7 176.0 323.0 447.3 554.4 13.7%
Canada
263.2 269.1 290.9 354.7 344.0 462.3 11.5%
Ukraine 4.8
0.5
1.3
86.7
49.7
193.1
3.0%
Hong
Kong 361.0 377.8 254.4 137.3 77.7 139.8
2.7%
EU-27
239.8 163.8 96.2 141.6 125.3 139.1
3.7%
Cuba
0.0 0.0 21.5 58.6 44.7
136.0 2.4%
Angola
6.2 13.0 23.7 28.9 53.4
109.2 2.1%
Taiwan
9.4 22.4 25.9 47.0 68.7 83.0 2.0%
Al
Other
570.4 548.8 496.7 549.1 588.7
1,220.3 25.2%
Total
2,254.9 2,051.7 1,816.5 2,279.4 2,586.2 4,605.8
100.0%
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
Notes: EU-27 refers to the European Union (EU) nations. By U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), includes
live birds (HTS 0105), fresh, chilled and frozen poultry (HTS 0207), and processed poultry products (HTS
1602.30). Excludes offal and other products. Imports for consumption (U.S. dol ars). Nominal U.S. dol ars.
Policies in Selected Countries
Growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance have caused some U.S. trading partners and
competitors, including the EU, New Zealand, and South Korea, to implement restrictions and
prohibitions on the use of certain antimicrobials for subtherapeutic or nontherapeutic purposes in
animal production.
As noted in the first section of this report, various aspects of antimicrobial use may complicate an
understanding of the available information on country restrictions and policy objectives. These
include (1) the use of certain antimicrobial drugs in producing livestock and poultry for meat
consumption; (2) residues of antimicrobial drugs remaining in meat tissues, which may exceed
allowable standards, tolerance levels, or maximum residue levels; and (3) the use of certain
antimicrobial washes and pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs) for treating meat during packing
and processing of food products. This report focuses on country restrictions on the use of certain
antibiotics in feed for growth promotion purposes (subtherapeutic or nontherapeutic) in food-
producing animals.
The United States has had a longstanding trade dispute with the EU regarding PRTs since the EU
first banned the use of antimicrobial rinses or PRTs on poultry, effectively shutting out U.S.
poultry exports. In the United States, such treatments are approved by the federal government and
are routinely used in U.S. chicken and turkey plants. In a separate example, in 2008 and 2009,
Russia has refused imports of meat products from several European countries and from several
U.S. plants—including plants owned by Tyson Foods Inc. and a unit of Smithfield Foods—
Congressional Research Service
7
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
because trace amounts of tetracycline and oxytetracycline were found in some of the pork
tested.20 These examples are different types of scenarios involving policies regarding
antimicrobials and antibiotics in food animal production, and involve different sets of policy
issues.
Country Comparisons
The United States and many of its key trading partners and competitors differ in their use and
regulation of antimicrobials in food animal production. As highlighted in a 2004 report by the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),21 the areas of difference include (1) the specific
drugs that can be used for growth promotion and (2) the availability of these drugs to producers
(by prescription or over the counter).22 Such differences complicate a straightforward comparison
of policies regarding the use of these drugs in food animals between the United States and its key
trading partners and competitors.
Table 5 provides a summary of the policies regarding antimicrobial use in animal feed for
selected countries. Since GAO conducted its summary in 2004, other available updated
information for some countries became available as follows:
• European Union. The EU prohibits the use of antibiotics for growth promotion
in animal production. The EU’s effort is part of its overall strategy to address the
emergence of bacteria and other microbes resistant to antimicrobials, due to their
perceived overexploitation or misuse, by phasing out these drugs for non-
medicinal purposes.23 This action was part of a broader EU regulation24 on the
use of additives in animal nutrition that established rules for the authorization,
marketing, and labeling of feed additives. The regulation covers several feed
additive categories, including technological, sensory, nutritional, and
zootechnical additives, as well as the use of certain anti-parasitic drugs. In June
2001, the EU prohibited all but four antibiotics used for growth promotion;
prohibition of the remaining four products went into effect as of January 1,
2006.25
20 See, for example, “Russia Bans Five U.S. Pork Plants on Antibiotic Findings,” Meatingplace online, December 10,
2009, and “Russia Bars Pork Imports from 70 EU Companies,” Pig Progress.net, June 26, 2008.
21 GAO, Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from
Antibiotic Use in Animals, GAO-04-490, April 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf.
22 Ibid., “Appendix IV: Information on Selected Countries’ Activities to Address Animal-Related Antibiotic
Resistance” Major U.S. trading partners include Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea;
selected competitors include the EU, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand.
23 EU Commission press release, “Ban on Antibiotics as Growth Promoters in Animal Feed Enters into Effect,”
IP/05/1687, December 22, 2005, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1687.
24 Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives
for use in animal nutrition, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_268/l_26820031018en00290043.pdf.
Detailed rules are in Regulation (EC) No 429/2008, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2008:133:0001:0065:EN:PDF.
25 Includes monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, avilamycin, flavophospholipol. See EU Commission press releases,
“Ban on Antibiotics as Growth Promoters in Animal Feed Enters into Effect,” IP/05/1687, December 22, 2005, and
“Question and Answers on Antibiotics in Feed,” MEMO/02/66, March 25, 2002, http://europa.eu/rapid/
pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/02/66. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/
1687. For more information, see USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service website, “Feed and Feed Additives,”
http://www.fas.usda.gov/posthome/useu/feed.html.
Congressional Research Service
8
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
• New Zealand. New Zealand claims that its “regulatory control of antimicrobials
remains one of the most stringent in the world” and that its prohibitions are
effectively similar to the EU’s in the extent to which antibiotic use is regulated.26
All antibiotics must be registered and approved for use by the New Zealand Food
Safety Authority (NZFSA) and cannot be used unless there is a veterinary
prescription (except for those antibiotics not relevant to the resistance problem).
Registrations specify the veterinarians’ responsibilities to ensure that they
prescribe these drugs in a prudent manner, and only approved traders are allowed
to sell these drugs to ensure that access to them is effectively limited by the
prescription condition. These products may not be promoted or advertised to the
public. Further action on New Zealand’s restrictions and registration process is
proceeding, and more updated information is available at the NZFSA website.27
• South Korea. In 2008, reports indicated that Korea’s Ministry for Food,
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MIFAFF) was tightening restrictions on the
use of antibiotics in animal feed. USDA reported that Korea would phase down
the number of allowable drugs over the period 2008-2011 as a way to reduce
their overall use in compound feed that are premixed during production.28 USDA
reported that Korea would still allow these drugs to be used through other
methods, such as injection. Other available information indicated that the types
of drugs in animal feed that would be initially phased out were penicillin,
neomycin, chlortetracycline, colistin, oxytetracycline, lincomycin, and bacitracin
zinc.29 These policies followed other legislation enacted in 2007 regarding
Korea’s requirements for labeling meat products as “antibiotic free” or
“organic.”30 Limited additional information is available on the current status of
South Korea’s restrictions.31
• Other Southeast Asian Countries. Other media reports indicate that similar
bans might have been enacted or are being considered in several other Southeast
Asian countries, including Singapore, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Malaysia.32
Whether or not such restrictions have actually been implemented is difficult to
confirm. Direct comparisons with prohibitions in the EU and New Zealand are
not straightforward.
26 New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), “FAQ—Antibiotic Resistance and Food,” http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/
acvm/topics/antibiotic-resistance/abrfaqs.htm#P98_14032.
27 NZFSA, “Antibiotic Resistance and In-Feed Use of Antibiotics in New Zealand,” http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/acvm/
topics/antibiotic-resistance/.
28 USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service, “Republic of Korea, Livestock and Products Annual 2008,” GAIN Report
KS8054, October 20, 2008, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200810/146296154.pdf. USDA reported that the number
of allowable antibiotics would be phased down from 25 types in 2008 to 18 types in 2009 and then to 9 types in 2011.
29 As reported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, “Statement from The Pew Charitable Trusts on South Korea’s Ban on
Using Certain Antibiotics in Animal Feed,” http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=44232.
30 USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service, “Korea, Republic of Livestock and Products Semi-Annual 2008,” GAIN Report
KS8011, February 29, 2008, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200803/146293843.pdf. Refers to Korea’s 2007 law,
the Environmentally Friendly Promotion Act (EFPA).
31 CRS contacted officials at the National Veterinary Research & Quarantine Service for the Republic of Korea for
more information, but did not receive a reply.
32 “Malaysia’s Sunzen leads fight against antibiotic-tainted meat,” The Malaysian Insider, June 9, 2009. CRS contacted
researchers at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand for more information, but did not receive a reply.
Congressional Research Service
9
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
• South American Countries. Some U.S. meat export competitors, such as
Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, likely do not use many antimicrobials in food-
producing animals, given that these countries raise livestock that are mostly
rangeland- or grass-fed.
• Other Countries. Several countries such as the United States,33 Canada,34 and
Australia35 continue to review and monitor antimicrobial use in food-producing
animals.
As discussed in its report, GAO had difficulty obtaining information comparing policies across
countries, given the limited availability and varying responses from these countries, reporting
errors and other administrative issues, and an inability to independently verify this information,
among other concerns.36 Because of these difficulties, GAO’s report did not claim to provide a
definitive and comprehensive summary across all selected countries on policies regarding
antibiotics in animal feed. Limited additional information is available on how policies regarding
antimicrobial use in animal feed may have changed since the GAO completed its report.
Discussions with key staff that work on these issues at the U.S. Meat Export Federation
(USMEF)37 and the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)38 confirmed that neither USMEF
nor USDA regularly compiles consolidated and readily available information on country policies
regarding antimicrobial use in feed. Additional country surveys were not conducted, given time
constraints and the types of procedural difficulties in obtaining and verifying information on such
policies for selected countries.
Potential Trade Implications for U.S. Exports
In its 2004 report, GAO addressed the question of whether restrictions on antimicrobial use in
food animals had affected U.S. trade and whether such polices might become an issue in the
future. GAO stated that, according to officials of USDA’s FAS, the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, the USMEF, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Export Council, “antibiotic resistance
associated with use in animals has not been a significant factor affecting U.S. trade in meat
products.”39 GAO concluded, however, that there was evidence that country restrictions on the
use of these drugs could become an issue in the future and could affect U.S. export markets for
livestock and poultry products.
33 See, for example, Joshua M. Sharfstein, FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, July 13, 2009,
testimony before the House Committee on Rules, and Linda Tollefson, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Science, June
28, 2008, testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
34 See, for example, Health Canada, “Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/faq/faq_amr-ram-eng.php#a13.
35 Australian Government, “Pilot Survey for Antimicrobial Resistant (AMR) Bacteria in Australian Food,”
http://www.health. gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-amr-qa. Also see
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/antibioticsandfood.cfm.
36 GAO, Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from
Antibiotic Use in Animals, GAO-04-490, April 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf. See discussion on
pages 10 and 59.
37 CRS communication with USMEF staff, November 9, 2009.
38 CRS communication with USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) staff, November 11 and December 7, 2009.
FAS staff also checked available information on food safety portals at FAO and OIE.
39 GAO, Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from
Antibiotic Use in Animals, GAO-04-490, April 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Table 5. Selected Country Policies on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Country Overview
of
Policies
Australia
Allows use in feed of some drug classes that are important in human medicine, but is reviewing
its policies for approved uses. Establishing a comprehensive surveillance system. Limited
information is available on its data collection system.
Brazil
Limited information suggests that Brazil does not currently restrict the use of these drugs in feed.
Information is not available to determine if Brazil has surveillance and data collection systems in
place.
Canada
Allows use in feed of some drug classes that are important in human medicine, but is reviewing
its policies for approved uses. Establishing a comprehensive surveillance and data collection
system.
China
Limited information on current activities, as well as information on existing surveillance and data
collection systems.
European Union
Prohibits use of antibiotics in feed for growth promotion. Most EU Members have established
surveillance and data collection systems.
Hong Kong
Limited information on current activities, as well as information on existing surveillance and data
collection systems.
Japan
Some unconfirmed media reports indicate that Japan has increased or is considering increasing
restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production, while other reports indicate it is
continuing its review. Has established surveillance and data collection systems.
Mexico
Limited information suggests that Mexico does not currently restrict the use of these drugs in
feed. Limited information also suggests that Mexico is developing a surveillance and data
collection system.
New Zealand
Prohibits use of antibiotics in feed for growth promotion. Has established surveillance and data
collection systems.
South Korea
USDA reports that Korea will gradually phase down the number and types of antibiotics allowed
in animal feed. Limited information is available on its surveillance and data collection systems.
Thailand
Some unconfirmed reports indicate that Thailand has increased or is considering increasing
restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production. Information is not available on its
surveillance and data collection systems.
United States
Allows use in feed of some drug classes that are important in human medicine, but is reviewing
its policies for approved uses. Has established surveillance and data collection systems.
Source: Compiled by CRS using available updated country information and information from GAO’s 2004
report, Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic
Use in Animals (Appendix IV: Information on Selected Countries’ Activities to Address Animal-Related Antibiotic
Resistance), GAO-04-490, April 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf.
Notes: Appendix IV of the GAO study provides information for selected countries, including (1) an overview of
activities, (2) antibiotic-resistance surveillance systems, and (3) antibiotic use data collection systems.
At issue is whether increased restrictions and prohibition on the use of certain drugs in animal
feed in some countries, including the EU, New Zealand, and South Korea, could affect or may
already be affecting international trade in livestock and poultry products from countries, such as
the United States, that do not actively restrict the use of these drugs for growth promotion in
animal production.
At this time, it is not possible to provide a quantitative assessment of the potential trade
implications of future restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production, for reasons
outlined in the following sections. Instead, following is a discussion of two possible scenarios for
Congressional Research Service
11
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
the potential trade implications on U.S. livestock and poultry exports of tightened restrictions or
prohibitions on the use of antimicrobial drugs in animal feed for growth promotion:
• Scenario 1: Tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets,
without corresponding changes in the United States on the use of antimicrobials
in animal feed for growth promotion.
• Scenario 2: Tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets,
with corresponding prohibitions in the United States on the use of antimicrobials
in animal feed for growth promotion, which might increase meat exports from
the United States.
Scenario 1: Global Restrictions without U.S. Restrictions
This scenario discusses possible tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets
on use of antimicrobials in animal feed for growth promotion without corresponding changes in
the United States. Such a scenario could result in lower U.S. meat exports and reduced U.S.
market share in global markets, if U.S. producers continue to regularly use these drugs in animal
feed.
Possibility of a Reduction in U.S. Exports
At present, few key U.S. export markets have imposed such restrictions. The EU and New
Zealand have the tightest restrictions on antimicrobial drug use in food animal production, which
also affects countries wishing to export into these markets. However, these countries are meat
export market competitors with the United States and receive only a small part of U.S. annual
meat exports. Total meat exports to the EU range from about 3%-4% of all U.S. beef, pork, and
poultry exports annually, suggesting that industry-led quality assurance efforts regarding
antimicrobials still allow for U.S. meat exports to some EU markets. Although South Korea (a
major importer of U.S. beef) and other markets either have initiated or are considering actions to
restrict antimicrobial drug use in feed, an assessment of future trade trends is complicated for any
number of reasons, as will be discussed.
In U.S. beef markets, the top five export markets in 2008 were Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea,
and Taiwan, accounting for about 80% of all exports (Table 2). Among these countries, Korea
(with about 10% of annual exports) is phasing in restrictions over the next few years to 2011
regarding antimicrobial use in feed for growth promotion. In U.S. pork and poultry export
markets, none of the top five export markets in 2008 are confirmed as having restrictions in place
or as actively considering prohibitions on antimicrobial use in feed for growth promotion. The top
five U.S. pork export markets were Japan, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Hong Kong, accounting
for about 75% of all exports (Table 3); the top five U.S. poultry export markets were Russia,
China, Mexico, Canada, and the Ukraine, accounting for about 60% of all exports (Table 4).
Canada is reportedly reviewing its policies regarding use, and there are unconfirmed media
reports that some other countries, such as Japan and Taiwan, might also be considering similar
restrictions. At this time, however, such restrictions have not yet been initiated in these countries.
Given myriad technical and administrative issues regarding U.S. meat trade, it is difficult to
generalize about what future restrictions on these drugs in feed might mean for U.S. meat exports.
For example, comments submitted by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) to the U.S.
Congressional Research Service
12
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Trade Representative regarding various international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)40 and
technical trade barriers highlight the wide-ranging types of issues facing U.S. meat exporters in
global markets. Among these are growing consumer concerns in markets such as Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan about certain U.S. production practices, including the use of antimicrobial
drugs in U.S. livestock and poultry animals but also including other practices such as the use of
growth promoting hormones,41 feeding genetically modified organisms to livestock, cloning,
animal welfare, and the impact of livestock production on the environment.42 Other priority trade
issues involve problems of market access due to various other types of restrictions, including
concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease),43 biotechnology,44
antimicrobial washes,45 other feed additives, drug residues in meat tissue, labeling requirements,
animal traceability, the H1N1 influenza virus,46 and various other food safety issues. Each of
these issues is highlighted and outlined as part of USMEF’s public comments.47
With respect to South Korea, uncertainty exists regarding the impact on future U.S. beef exports
of its recently enacted restrictions. Korea’s restrictions do not appear to be a full prohibition of all
antibiotics, and it is still not yet known which of these drugs will be restricted once the final
phase-down is completed in 2011 (presumably, Korea would still allow for the use of a reported
nine antibiotics). Also, other important U.S.-Korea trade issues may take precedence over the
issue of antimicrobial drug use in feed.48 In other markets, the United States has already
encountered trade restrictions with regard to other types of antimicrobial-related trade issues in its
poultry trade. In Russia, imports of meat products from the United States and from several
European countries have been periodically denied because trace amounts of tetracycline and
oxytetracycline were found in some of the pork tested. The United States is currently exploring
options to certify hogs processed for the Russian market.49 In 2010 Russia, the leading export
market for U.S. poultry products (with 18% of exports in 2008), implemented a ban on poultry
treated with chlorine rinses; the United States and Russia are currently negotiating the terms of
this restriction.50 Similarly, in the EU, U.S. poultry exports are currently being restricted because
the EU is prohibiting the use of antimicrobial rinses or pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs) on
poultry, effectively shutting out U.S. poultry exports.51
40 See also CRS Report RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural Trade.
41 See also CRS Report R40449, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute.
42 Comments submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative from Philip Seng, U.S. Meat Export Federation, “Request for
Public Comments to Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers and Reports on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary and Standards-Related Foreign Trade Barriers,” Docket USTR-2009-0031.
43 See also CRS Report RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or “Mad Cow Disease”): Current and
Proposed Safeguards; and CRS Report RL34528, U.S.-South Korea Beef Dispute: Issues and Status.
44 See also CRS Report RS21556, Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.-EU Dispute.
45 See also CRS Report R40199, U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute.
46 See also CRS Report R40575, Potential Farm Sector Effects of 2009 H1N1 “Swine Flu”: Questions and Answers.
47 Comments submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative from Philip Seng, U.S. Meat Export Federation, “Request for
Public Comments to Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers and Reports on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary and Standards-Related Foreign Trade Barriers,” Docket USTR-2009-0031.
48 For more information, see CRS Report RL34528, U.S.-South Korea Beef Dispute: Issues and Status.
49 CRS communication with USMEF, December 7, 2009.
50 “Putin Weighs in on U.S.-Russia Poultry Spat,” Meatingplace Online, January 15, 2010. Also see CRS Report
RS22948, U.S.-Russia Meat and Poultry Trade Issues.
51 For more information, see CRS Report R40199, U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute.
Congressional Research Service
13
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
One possible scenario is that certain higher-income Asian countries, such as Japan and Taiwan,
may choose to follow South Korea and impose similar restrictions on antibiotic use in food
animal production. These countries tend to have consumers that place a high value on premium
quality, often higher-priced meats, including niche markets such as antibiotic-free meat products.
Consumers in these markets also tend to have heightened sensitivities to food safety concerns and
other related issues. In such a case, absent changes in the U.S. meat market that would restrict the
use of antimicrobial drugs in food animal production, it is possible that the United States could
lose its export markets to these countries. Based on 2008 trade data, these three markets—Korea,
Japan, and Taiwan—account for a sizable combined share of total annual U.S. beef and pork
exports, comprising 26% ($0.8 billion) of annual U.S. beef exports and 43% ($1.7 billion) of U.S.
pork exports in 2008 (Table 2 and Table 3).
Possibility of a Reduction in U.S. Global Market Shares
At present, two of the United States’ key meat competitors—the EU and New Zealand—have
imposed restrictions on their own domestic industries regarding the use of antimicrobials in feed
for growth promotion, which also affects countries wishing to export into these markets.
Although other U.S. major export competitors, such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Australia,
currently do not have similar restrictions in place, these countries generally grow animals that are
rangeland- or grass-fed. These animals may be less exposed to antimicrobials, compared to other
countries where the majority of animals raised may be regularly exposed through in-feed
additives at feedlot operations.
Under such a scenario, this might suggest that some U.S. export competitors, such as the EU and
other major net-exporting countries, may be better poised to capture a larger share of world meat
export markets. As noted, current production practices and regulatory regimes in some of these
markets make these net-exporting countries already better able to supply antibiotic-free meats to
markets demanding such products, irrespective of any future policies or prohibitions that might be
enacted. However, some U.S. competitor markets may likely face certain capacity and production
constraints, and have limited opportunity to increase production to meet growing global demand.
Most export competitors have only a small share of the global meat export market, such as
Australia (about 5% of world exports in 2008), Argentina (less than 2%), and New Zealand and
Uruguay (each with about 1% of exports).52 Brazil accounted for about 10% of global livestock
and poultry exports in 2008. The EU accounted for well over one-half of all global exports in
2008; however, it faces a sizable domestic market, similar to the United States. The United States
accounted for 12% of global livestock and poultry exports (Table 1). Relative export per-unit
price differences among these countries is also a factor. In general, U.S. meat exports tend to be
price-competitive compared to some competitors.53
Scenario 2: Global Restrictions with U.S. Restrictions
This scenario discusses possible tightened restrictions or prohibitions in key U.S. export markets
on use of antimicrobials in animal feed for growth promotion, with corresponding changes in the
52 Global Trade Atlas data, “Reporting Total Import Statistics.”
53 As shown by comparing aggregate per-unit import values for U.S. product, based on import data reported by Global
Trade Atlas data. Per-unit prices compare reported total value with total volume traded for aggregated products listed in
Table 1.
Congressional Research Service
14
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
United States. It is unclear whether such a scenario would result in opportunities for U.S. meat
exports in global markets, or whether U.S. restrictions would adversely affect overall meat
production in the United States.
Possibility of Export Opportunities for U.S. Products
Some might speculate that should the United States restrict or prohibit the use of antimicrobials in
animal feed for growth promotion, U.S. meat exports might increase, given general expectations
that consumer demand for antibiotic-free meats is growing. One possible model for this scenario
is the Non-Hormone-Treated Cattle (NHTC) Program, which was established to address EU
prohibitions against imports of U.S. beef that are produced with growth hormones. Under this
program, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) certifies the processes and
procedures in place for meats produced without the use of growth hormones, which are
commonly used in the United States. Any U.S.-exported beef to the EU is accompanied by both a
health certificate and a certificate of authenticity issued by USDA. Initially, few U.S. plants
participated in this program or were approved for export to the EU, and the volume of U.S. beef
exports were low and often well below the allowable quota limit set by the European Union.54
Over time, however, some larger facilities have been approved and U.S. export volumes have
been higher, approaching or possibly exceeding the quota limit, and there is renewed interest in
increasing U.S. market access under the quota.55
Nevertheless, despite recent increases in exports of U.S. hormone-free beef, total U.S. beef
exports are still much lower than traded levels prior to the enactment of the EU’s ban. The U.S.
beef industry claims that, absent the EU’s hormone ban, U.S. beef exports to the European Union
would be much greater.56
Regarding antimicrobial use, the U.S. livestock and poultry industries have initiated a number of
producer-driven quality assurance programs that address administration of these drugs and their
proper use, handling, and application. These programs include:57
• American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP). “Statement on Use of
Antibiotic Feed Additives by the Poultry Industry” (www.aaap.info) and
“Guidelines to Judicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials in Poultry”
(www.avma.org/issues/policy/jtua_poultry.asp).
• National Pork Board (NPB) and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
“Take Care—Use Antibiotics Responsibly” (www.pork.org); Pork Quality
Assurance Plus (www.pork.org/Producers/PQA/PQAPlusEdBook.pdf).
54 USDA, FAS, EU-25 Livestock and Products, “U.S. Beef Faces Strong Competition on the European Market,” GAIN
Report E35178, Sept. 8, 2005, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200509/146130828.pdf.
55 “U.S., EU Look to Resolve Beef Fight by Increasing Hormone-free TRQ,” Inside U.S. Trade, October 13, 2006.
56 For more information, see CRS Report R40449, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute.
57 Letter to Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, from a coalition of 20 organizations related
to animal agriculture, August 19, 2009. Letter posted at Pig Progress.net, http://www.pigprogress.net/article-database/
us-feed-industry-letter-on-antibiotics-id941.html. These organizations assert that these programs are similar to
voluntary advisory programs in place by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP).
Congressional Research Service
15
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Beef Quality Assurance
Program (BQA) and Producers’ Guide for Judicious Use of Antibiotics
(www.beef.org and http://www.beefboard.org).
• American Feed Industry Association (AFIA). Safe Feed/Safe Food
Certification Program (www.afia.org).
• National Grain & Feed Association (NGFA). Model Feed Quality Assurance
Program (www.ngfa.org).
The availability of such programs could help to hasten a transition to antimicrobial-free meat
production in the United States, in the event that the United States or some of its key export
markets were to restrict or prohibit the use of antimicrobial drugs in feed for growth promotion.
At this time, the United States does not have an export verification program specific to these
drugs.58
Possibility of Adverse Production Effects for U.S. Products
It is important to keep in mind the principal reasons why livestock and poultry growers in the
United States and elsewhere use low levels of these drugs in animal diets and feed: this practice
helps improve animal growth rates and feed efficiency, and also helps reduce mortality and
morbidity and improve reproductive performance. Improved growth rates and feed efficiency
translate into important cost savings for most growers, which in turn positively influences
producer incomes and per-animal net returns. Prohibiting the use of these drugs for growth
promotion purposes use would likely carry cost implications for growers, raising overall
production costs possibly beyond what growers may be willing to accept and still remain in
business. This could potentially lower U.S. meat production and reduce supplies available for
export. Alternatively, U.S. prices might increase relative to those of competitors and remove any
price advantage U.S. meat exporters might have currently, which could also erode U.S. export
market share.
Furthermore, under a scenario whereby the United States produces and exports antibiotic-free
meat, overall traded product volumes would likely be very low compared to current volumes
without such restrictions, at least initially (as is the case with hormone-free meat exports to the
EU under the NHTC Program). Rather than raise U.S. meat exports, this could, alternatively,
initially decrease overall U.S. meat exports and erode overall U.S. export market share in world
markets. There is general uncertainty about how the United States would respond to a worldwide
ban on the use of these drugs in animal feed for growth promotion, since this would depend
largely on the ability of U.S. producers to adapt and transition effectively in response to global or
domestic market conditions and consumer demand. In fact, the NHTC Program example might
provide a poor model for predicting what might happen in global meat markets under a
worldwide ban, since this program addresses U.S.-EU bilateral trade only, which still allows for
the United States to ship conventional beef products elsewhere in the world.
58 CRS communication with USMEF, December 7, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
16
Potential Trade Implications of Restrictions on Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production
Considerations for Congress
Although the potential trade flow outcomes of changes to import policies among key U.S. trading
partners and export competitors regarding antimicrobial use cannot be precisely quantified or
predicted, what seems clear is that existing and future policy changes in some countries could
carry important implications for U.S. meat trade. Overall, policy changes restricting U.S.
livestock and poultry trade could result in adverse effects on U.S. poultry and livestock producers
and exporters, either with or without similar policy changes in the United States restricting use of
these drugs.
A number of bills were introduced in the 111th Congress aimed at curtailing agricultural uses of
medically significant antibiotics, but none was enacted. These included bills introduced in the
House and Senate on March 17, 2009, as H.R. 1549 by Representative Slaughter and S. 619 by
Senator Reid (for Senator Kennedy). These bills, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical
Treatment Act of 2009 (PAMTA), were similar in title and purpose to bills introduced but not
enacted in the 110th Congress (H.R. 962, S. 549), the 109th Congress (H.R. 2562, S. 742), the
108th Congress (H.R. 2932, S. 1460), and the 107th Congress (H.R. 3804, S. 2508). Top officials
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have weighed in on the debate by expressing
support in concept for phasing out nontherapeutic (essentially, nonmedical) uses of antimicrobials
in food animal production.59 For more information, see CRS Report R40739, Antibiotic Use in
Agriculture: Background and Legislation.
Industry groups generally oppose these bills because of concerns about animal welfare and food
safety, as well as concerns about possible increases in production costs, among other reasons.60
Some, including Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee, also continue to
question whether the scientific evidence supports the claim that a reduction in antibiotic use in
animal agriculture results in public health benefits.61 Lawmakers with important poultry and meat
industry constituents are likely to monitor import policy changes regarding antimicrobial use
among U.S. trading partners and competitors, as well as legislative proposals suggesting similar
policy changes in the United States.
Author Contact Information
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
59 See, for example, Joshua M. Sharfstein, FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, July 13, 2009,
testimony before the House Committee on Rules; and Linda Tollefson, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Science, June
28, 2008, testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
60 See, for example, a letter from a coalition of 20 animal agriculture organizations to Melody Barnes, Assistant to the
President for Domestic Policy, August 19, 2009. Letter posted at Pig Progress.net, http://www.pigprogress.net/article-
database/us-feed-industry-letter-on-antibiotics-id941.html.
61 Ibid; also “Denmark’s Ban Holds Lessons,” Feedstuffs, January 4, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17