Economists ask: Instead of rules to slash antibiotic use in livestock, how about a tax or user fee?

Estimated annual use, by weight, of antibiotics in U.S.

The Food and Drug Administration said last month it wants to phase out the use of most antibiotics used on livestock for purposes of enhancing growth or improving feed efficiency. A study by a pair of Canadian economists published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests another alternative: "A simple tax or 'user fee' on antibiotics used by the livestock industry would be a far more effective way to prevent overuse of these drugs," Brad Plumer reports for The Washington Post. (NEJM graphic)

Researchers "argue that a simple user fee on antibiotics makes more sense," Plumer writes. The study report says: "Every use of antibiotics increases selective pressure, thus undermining the value for other users. In effect, each antibiotic can have only a limited amount of use, so it is appropriate to charge a fee, just as logging companies pay 'stumpage' fees and oil companies pay royalties (A perfect fee would be calibrated to the extent of antibiotic resistance caused by each use; a practical fee, which is what we propose, would be based on the volume of antibiotics used.)"

The authors say a user fee "would be relatively easy to administer, since it could be imposed at the manufacturing or importing stage," and "would deter low-value uses of antibiotics." They say it also "would generate revenues that could help to pay for rewards to companies that successfully develop new antibiotics, or to subsidize antibiotic-research investments, or to support antimicrobial stewardship and education programs."

They argue, "The benefits to human health would be substantial. By reducing the volume of antibiotics, a user fee would mitigate the pressure of selection and diminish the prevalence of resistant pathogens. In addition, it could support the introduction of new drugs. According to our calculations above, a 1 percent reduction in the usefulness of existing antibiotics could impose costs of $600 billion to $3 trillion in lost human health. It is vital to protect this essential resource."

They also suggest that "an even better approach would be an international treaty to recognize the fragility of our common antibiotic resources and to impose user fees to be collected by national governments," according to the study. "A treaty would level the playing field for agricultural producers while mitigating the disastrous overuse of antibiotics. Such a treaty would also have a chance of attaining international compliance, since governments would be motivated to collect the revenues. By contrast, a ban, which disadvantages local producers while providing no revenues to government, would be much less attractive to enforce." To read the study, click here.