Routine usage of antibiotics for animal health is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in food-producing animals. Taxation is a possible approach to incentivise appropriate antibiotic usage in food-producing animals. Taxation can be applied flatly across all antibiotic classes, targeted to single antibiotic classes, or scaled based on resistance in each class, so called "differential" taxation. However, quantifying the potential impact of taxation is challenging, due to the nonlinear and unintuitive response of AMR dynamics to interventions and changes in antibiotic usage caused by alterations in price. We combine epidemiological models with price elasticities of demand for veterinary antibiotics, to compare the potential benefits of taxation schemes with currently implemented bans on antibiotic usage. Taxation strategies had effects comparable to bans on antibiotic usage in food-producing animals to reduce average resistance prevalence and prevent increases in overall infection. Taxation could also maximise the average number of antibiotics with a resistance prevalence of under 25% and potentially generate annual global revenues of ∼1 billion US$ under a 50% taxation to current prices of food-producing animal antibiotics. Differential taxation was also able to maintain a high availability of antibiotics over time compared to single and flat taxation strategies, while also having the lowest rates of intervention failure and highest potential revenue across all taxation strategies. These findings suggest that taxation should be further explored as a tool to combat the ongoing AMR crisis.
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Food-producing animals; Intervention; Mathematical model; One health; Taxation.
© 2023 The Authors.