<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Livestock Farming Trapped in Antimicrobial Reduction: How to Put Just Transition at the Heart of AMR Policies?

Henri Boullier, Nicolas Fortané

► To cite this version:

Henri Boullier, Nicolas Fortané. Livestock Farming Trapped in Antimicrobial Reduction: How to Put Just Transition at the Heart of AMR Policies?. Public Humanities, 2025, 1, pp.e184. 10.1017/pub.2025.10095. hal-05435097

HAL Id: hal-05435097

https://hal.science/hal-05435097v1

Submitted on 30 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
POLICY BRIEF

# Livestock Farming Trapped in Antimicrobial Reduction: How to Put Just Transition at the Heart of AMR Policies?

Henri Boullier<fnref n="1" /> and Nicolas Fortané<fnref n="2" />

**Corresponding author:** Nicolas Fortané; Email: nicolas.fortane@inrae.fr

(Received 06 May 2025; revised 17 October 2025; accepted 09 November 2025)

## Abstract

This article examines how antimicrobial resistance (AMR) policies designed for livestock farming in Europe—and particularly France—have been limited by narrowly defined reduction targets. Although these policies have significantly decreased antibiotic use, they have also upheld a productivist agricultural model that continues to threaten human and animal health and the environment. By aligning AMR mitigation efforts with a biosecurity paradigm that is highly compatible with industrial livestock systems, the reduction in antibiotic use has not yielded all the anticipated benefits. Based on this assessment, we propose three avenues for fostering a just transition relevant to all sectors involved in AMR governance: transcending the dominant “One Global Health” paradigm; shifting power from institutional stakeholders to the public affected by AMR; and reimagining post-antibiotic futures that extend beyond prevailing dystopian narratives.

**Keywords:** antibiotics; livestock farming; antimicrobial resistance; One Global Health; antibiodependency; agro-veterinary capitalism

This use of antimicrobials in animal farming is a major contributor to the problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). These anti-infective pharmaceuticals have been massively and increasingly used in livestock since the late 1940s.<fnref n="1" /> Today, approximately 70% of antimicrobials used worldwide are administered to farm animals, totaling around 100,000 tons in 2020.<fnref n="2" /> This figure is projected to increase by an additional 8% by 2030.<fnref n="3" /> European countries have halved their consumption over the last fifteen years, both in volumes and exposure (with variations depending on the commodity chain), while North America has maintained a fairly stable consumption level (with a fairly significant reduction in poultry production, but an increase in other commodity sectors, notably pork).<fnref n="4" /> In the Global South, there are also significant disparities. For instance, antimicrobial use (AMU) is high in Southeast Asian countries, particularly within commodity chains targeting international

<footnote n="1">¹IRISSO, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris-Dauphine University, PSL, Paris, France and</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²IRISSO, INRAE, Paris-Dauphine University, PSL, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Kirchhelle 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² O'Neill 2016.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Mulchandani et al. 2023.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ ECDC, EFSA and EMA 2024.</footnote>
markets, whereas it remains low in most African countries, albeit rising swiftly in sectors of livestock commercialization. This contrast highlights critical questions regarding the strategies that have been implemented and, more importantly, their broader impacts—effects that cannot be assessed solely through the measurements of antibiotic consumption at the national or sectoral level. Reduced antimicrobial use does not automatically imply fewer health harms, infections, or less complex sociotechnical and socioeconomic exploitation. Indeed, even if the issue is highly debated in the epidemiological and microbiological fields, evidence supporting the benefits of reducing AMU in livestock on AMR in humans is still scarce or at least weaker than expected,<fnref n="5" /> partly due to the lack of robust data, as AMU and AMR surveillance systems remain fragile in many parts of the world. In this context, the questions of why, how, and for what objectives efforts to halve AMU in livestock in Europe have been pursued remain particularly pressing.

We recently compiled an edited volume that seeks to answer these questions based on research conducted in France.<fnref n="6" /> This short article summarizes the findings of research on antimicrobial use in the livestock industry and suggests three pathways to address the limitations of current reduction and transition strategies.

# I. AMR policies caught between reduction and transition

Although European policies designed to reduce the use of antimicrobials in livestock production have proven successful—as evidenced by a nearly 50% reduction in France since 2012—there has been no fundamental change in the agri-food system. This situation raises a crucial question that public policies and stakeholders tend to overlook: What are we truly aiming to achieve through AMR policies, and what are we actually trying to change? In other words, we need to disentangle the concepts of reduction and transition from each other and examine the assumptions made about their potential connection. Policy narratives often automatically link antimicrobial reduction with agricultural transition, reflecting the assumption that the former will inevitably lead to the latter. However, AMR policies often frame transition primarily as a technical, rather than systemic, change—one that ultimately calls into question the very nature of agrifood infrastructure.<fnref n="7" /> The livestock industry involves a complex system of practices, representations, technical tools, economic structures, professional models, and institutional frameworks. The industry's reliance on antimicrobials actually stems more from the overall architecture of this system than from the direct input of antimicrobials themselves. Yet while there have been extensive discussions regarding reduction (covering questions such as which molecules, indications, usages, etc., should be prioritized?), the concept of transition remains rather vague allowing for minimalist interpretations of what we want or need to change.

AMU in livestock farming is examined solely from the angle of allegedly massive and excessive consumption. However, there is little discussion about the fact that antimicrobials are structurally used as quick fixes, that is, short-term tools designed to respond to emergency situations.<fnref n="8" /> Our dependence on antimicrobials is therefore only addressed

<footnote n="5">⁵ Bennani et al. 2020; Redman-Whyte et al. 2023.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Boullier and Fortané 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Fortané, Pinard-van der Laan, and Ducrot 2024.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Willis and Chandler 2019. The notion of antibiotics as a quick fix, first developed to analyze their use in human health, also applies to the animal sector very well, as antimicrobials have been used to fix the leaks and failures of the industrial livestock farming system, for example, compensating the lack of hygiene and sanitary precautions,</footnote>
quantitatively, not qualitatively. As a result, AMR policies are caught between two contra-
dictory logics. On the one hand, there is a *health rationale*, which aims to reduce AMU to limit
the proliferation of resistant bacteria and, in turn, preserve the effectiveness of these
essential medicines. This rationale is based on a narrative of “reduction” that imposes a
discourse in which “good” and “bad” uses must be delineated, and certain practices
eliminated. On the other hand, there is an *agricultural rationale* that defends the idea that,
while it is certainly necessary to reduce AMU, such an approach must not jeopardize the
development of agriculture, which plays a vital role in providing food and jobs. This
rationale uses the narrative of “transition” to subtly convey the promise that lower AMU
will lead to sustainable and responsible agriculture while simultaneously reaffirming the
idea that industrial agriculture will produce more at less cost. In the end, this dual narrative
of reduction on the one hand, and transition on the other, creates a number of tensions and
even contradictions at the very heart of AMR policies, which must simultaneously praise an
“antibiotic-free” world and continue to justify certain uses of these medicines.

Our work on antibiotic regulation in the French livestock sector shows that, despite the decreasing use of antimicrobials, they still serve as quick fixes, and continue to form part of a biosecurity ideal that supports the technical and economic infrastructure of agro-veterinary capitalism.<fnref n="9" /> Through the dual narrative of reduction and transition, health and agricultural logics comfortably accommodate the model of industrial livestock farming, which claims it can “secure” the use of antimicrobials through the ever-increasing rationalization and intensification of production. Securing AMU consists here in both making it safer and perpetuating it in renewed, yet reduced, forms. We observed this dynamic at various levels and sites of the farming system: the development of prescription guidelines for “prudent use,” the rise of “antibiotic-free” labels that keep authorizing certain molecules, the multiplication of diagnostic tests, the implementation of new antimicrobial classifications such as the “Critically Important Antimicrobials” list, the re-evaluation of Maximum Residue Limits for international trade of foodstuffs, the reaffirmation of veterinarians as “guardians” of antibiotics, and so forth.<fnref n="10" />

For example, as developed in this edited volume, so-called antibiotic-free labels do not necessarily guarantee the complete absence of antibiotics in livestock production. Rather, they often prohibit only certain kinds of uses, such as preventative or systematic use. More importantly, these labels tend to constrain farmers’ choices—regarding feed supply, husbandry practices, vaccination strategies, and so forth—thereby reinforcing both the intensification of the production model and the vertical integration of the food chain. Veterinary medicine, in turn, adapts to this ongoing industrialization through new forms of animal health management that increasingly rely on financialization and contractualization of veterinary business models. In this context, antibiotics—though reduced—are re-legitimized through rapid and point-of-care tests and through the implementation of prescription guidelines, as explored in other sections on this work and in related research.<fnref n="11" /> AMR policies thus tend to render what remains of AMU either invisible or “reasonable,” ultimately perpetuating the industrialization of livestock, with far-reaching social, environmental, and health implications beyond AMR itself.

<footnote>maximizing growth of fragile animals, and so forth. In this perspective, Chandler and her colleagues have transposed the notion of “quick fix” in the livestock sector through the concept of “quick farming” (Kayendeke et al. 2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Blanchette 2020; Figuié 2021; Boullier and Fortané 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Ibid.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Buller et al. 2020; Hinchliffe 2025.</footnote>
In this sense, what we are facing is not only a dependence on antibiotics but also a form of
antibiotic resilience. Even if the massive use of antibiotics is no longer essential to the
development of industrial livestock system, the systems adapt and persist without trans-
forming their underlying infrastructure. This dynamic is emblematic of the Anthropocene,
an era in which efforts to manage the harm caused by human exploitation of nature rely on
ever more sophisticated forms of that same exploitation.<fnref n="12" /> The notion of the Antibiocene
extends this perspective to the problem of AMR, inviting us to reflect on “what life amongst
the detritus of the antimicrobial era looks like.”<fnref n="13" />

## 2. Three pathways for thinking about “Just Transitions”

Despite the remarkable resilience of our system of “antibiodependency” (to quote the title of our book), there are nonetheless several ways to overcome some contradictions and bypass certain dead-ends. Here we outline three possible escape routes that can help sketch out pathways toward more “just transitions,” inspired by dynamics observed in the livestock sector but extended to the broader landscape of AMR policies.

By the term “just transition,” which we borrowed from the title of this special issue, we would like to go beyond the reduction/transition trap in which AMR policies are currently ensnared, especially because the transition is limited to a narrow conception of reduction that merely allows the system to maintain and even strengthen itself. As Fressoz points out in his book on the history of energy, transition is a historically situated concept that “turns evil into remedy” and could be defined as “the ideology of the 21st century’s capital.”<fnref n="14" /> There might be avenues, however, to think differently of transition pathways that could bring a certain sense of multi-species justice.

### 2.1. Overcome the injustice and inequality imbedded in the concept of One Global Health

First of all, the One Health and Global Health paradigms that underpin AMR policies tend to reproduce patterns of injustice and inequality between humans and animals, as well as between countries of the North and South. In the third part of the edited volume, we show how the “One Global Health perspective” that currently prevails in international AMR policies frames “animal health” primarily in terms of human health interests—and, more specifically, those of Northern societies. Within this scientific and political configuration, the food and development challenges faced by food-producing countries of the Global South are either overlooked or only marginally addressed.<fnref n="15" /> This situation is directly linked to a conception of AMR that, on the one hand, views all antimicrobial consumption as excessive (or at least potentially eliminable) and, on the other hand, positions the South as a global threat because LMICs host the most worrying disease “hotspots” and “reservoirs.”<fnref n="16" /> In reality, not all situations should be framed the same way; the problem of excess is at odds with that of access.<fnref n="17" />

Indeed, in some instances, the best way to avoid the spread of resistant bacteria, while at the
same time effectively managing the infections they generate, lies precisely in improving the

<footnote n="12">¹² Brives 2022; Moore 2016.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Kirchhelle 2023.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Fressoz 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Figuié et al. 2024; Hughes et al. 2024.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Overton et al. 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Chandler 2019.</footnote>
availability of antimicrobials, both for human and animal health. Although this is obvious to health anthropologists, it is regrettably not always the case for the institutions in charge of national and regional AMR action plans, which are designed and implemented using fairly standardized models based on major instruments such as surveillance and stewardship.<fnref n="18" /> In the case of livestock production, our collective investigations show that the farms and food chains that benefit most from AMR policies are those oriented toward export markets, as they are more closely aligned with industrial models that facilitate the reduction of AMU. In contrast, small-scale farms producing for local markets face specific animal health challenges that, in fact, require better access to antimicrobials (including antibiotics and anthelmintics). This calls for a rethinking of how the problem and its potential solutions are framed, moving beyond the postcolonial One Global Health approach, which tends to favor particular types of agrifood infrastructures and production models through its biosecurity ideal.<fnref n="19" />

## 2.2. Bring the public back in

This difficulty in extracting AMR from the pre-formatted framework of infectious disease control stems from the fact that the main audience for the problem are also the owners of the problem, that is, healthcare professionals and international health experts. The public— whether human patients or animal owners—remains largely invisible and unheard. In a sense, AMR appears as a problem in search for its audience. In human medicine, the education and awareness campaigns that were conducted in recent years by the French public health agency (Santé Publique France), patients are portrayed as being “bad” or even “false.” They are presented as people who misuse antimicrobials, mainly because they cannot distinguish between a viral and a bacterial infection, and therefore represent a danger not only to themselves but also to the community as a whole. In livestock farming, awareness campaigns often construct an image of farmers as actors who must comply with and defer to veterinarians for medical decision-making. Knowledge about antibiotics and bacteria is thus portrayed as something that should not belong to them. In both contexts, it is clear that many people may find it difficult to identify with this highly negative representation, which fails to reflect the lived experiences of individuals confronting resistant infections—whether in themselves or in their animals. This helps explain why efforts to construct and mobilize a public around AMR have so far fallen short, thereby severely limiting the impact of policies that continue to be defined by and for experts.

In truth, none of this should come as a surprise: most of the knowledge informing health policies concerning patients and farmers is rooted in cognitive-behavioral approaches that seek to identify and correct people's misbehaviors and false beliefs.<fnref n="20" /> This “knowledge deficit” model assumes that patients, farmers, and even human and animal health professionals are mistaken—in this case, in their choice of medication—because they are poorly trained or insufficiently educated, and that awareness campaigns are the only possible remedy.<fnref n="21" /> We argue, in contrast, that antibiodependency stems not from inappropriate or irrational individual behaviors, but from economic structures, professional organizations, and public policies. As we argue in the book, this is evident in the fields of livestock farming and animal health; similar patterns, as other research has shown, are also found in human

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Butcher, Cañada, and Sariola 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Hinchliffe 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Glover, Dangoor, and Mays 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Tompson, Manderson, and Chandler 2021.</footnote>
health.<fnref n="22" /> Ultimately, giving voice to those who are directly exposed and affected—rather than speculating about their misconceptions—could help embed these lived realities within the broader narrative, and thus the very framing, of AMR.

## 2.3. *Turn the dystopia into a utopia*

Finally, we must consider the imaginaries in which AMR narratives are embedded. From the outset, AMR policies have been shaped by a catastrophist narrative that casts the problem in the language of war, tragedy, and nightmare.<fnref n="23" /> It often seems impossible to imagine a world without antibiotics except through a dystopian lens. Yet while dystopia imaginaries can, in some cases, serve as powerful mobilizing forces—as with carcinogenic pesticides, toxic chemicals like PFAS—they are far less effective in the case of AMR. The reason is that dystopias inspire action only when they carry the promise of utopia: for instance, a world free from dangerous pollutants is both conceivable and desirable. The situation of AMR, however, is different. Antimicrobials are as perilous as they are precious: a world without them is precisely the nightmare we seek to avoid, yet a world with them offers no real path for transformation, as it reproduces the very conditions leading us toward catastrophe. In short, the narrative of AMR is a dystopia devoid of utopian seeds. We argue that this blocked imaginary constitutes a major obstacle to transformative AMR policies—although, as discussed elsewhere in this work, the imaginaries emerging from the livestock farming sector provide some promising avenues for reflection.

Indeed, one cannot deny that the strong mobilization of agricultural and veterinary stakeholders has made AMU reduction possible, despite its pernicious effects. However, if we look at the imaginaries that these policies have conveyed, and compare them with the same policies in the human health sector, it is noteworthy that they articulate a horizon for change that may not be utopian, but is nonetheless desirable. Whereas campaigns for human medicine show (fake) patients suffering and not getting better, those for the agricultural sector show healthy cows in lush green meadows. Although such images do not correspond to reality (where industrial livestock farming is reinforced), they have helped produce a powerful imaginary. In their own way, these images have been able to present a way of reconciling the need to eliminate and to preserve antimicrobials. A world which we can dream of—not of the disappearance of antimicrobials, but of a future in which we no longer depend on them, or at least far less so; a world where this aspiration, though insufficient on its own, is part of a broader effort to curb the global persistence of resistant bacteria.

Our future does not necessarily have to be “without antibiotics,” but rather “antibiotic-free”—not in the sense of the labels mentioned earlier, which romanticize the absence of antibiotics while in fact perpetuating certain forms of use, but in the sense of disentangling our healthcare and agrifood infrastructures from antibiotics, or more fundamentally, from *antibiodependency*. We need to glimpse and sketch out a liberation, not a deprivation. But to achieve this goal, AMR must not be reduced to a medical and biosecurity issue. Instead, we should embrace a “post-colony” approach of microbes and accept to work with them without exploiting them, which is the only way to domesticate their resistance to our antibiocenic footprint.<fnref n="24" /> AMR should be apprehended as a matter of social and ecological multi-species justice, involving issues such as access to healthcare, hygiene, food safety and quality, along with environmental protection and the preservation of biodiversity (plant,

<footnote n="22">²² Broom and Doron 2026; Podolsky 2015.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Brown and Nettleton 2017; Irwin 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Brives 2024; Hinchliffe 2021; Kirchhelle 2023.</footnote>
animal, and microbial). An “antibiotic-free” world is not the apocalyptic outcome of a war already lost to bacteria, but a world liberated from structural reliance on medicines that are too frequently used as the “quick fixes” for unsustainable health and food systems. We need to imagine and build it as soon as possible. Policies must move beyond the reductionist, transition-oriented logic of Anthropocenic resilience to embrace “just transitions”—ones grounded in inclusive narratives that recognize the plurality of human and non-human publics implicated in AMR.

**Henri Boullier** is a researcher in sociology at CNRS, whose work looks at chemical contamination in global economies, the political economy of regulatory science, and antimicrobial resistance.

**Nicolas Fortané** is a researcher in sociology at INRAE, whose work looks at the construction of the Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) public problem, the transformations of veterinary medicine, the veterinary drug market and the role of farmers and the livestock industry in antimicrobial use regulation.

**Author contribution.** Conceptualization: H.B.; N.F.

**Acknowledgments.** The research mentioned in this article has benefited from a grant from the French National Research Agency (ANR-18-CE03-0001).

**Conflicts of interests.** The authors declare none.

## References

Bennani, Houda, Ana Mateus, Nicholas Mays, Elizabeth Eastmure, Katharina D.C. Stärk, and Barbara Häsler. 2020. "Overview of Evidence of Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain." *Antibiotics* 9 (2): 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020049.

Blanchette, Alex. 2020. *Porkopolis. American Animality, Standardized Life, and the Factory Farm*. Duke University Press.

Boullier, Henri, and Nicolas Fortané. 2025. Antibiodépendance. L'impossible transition de l'élevage industriel. *Presses de Sciences Po*.

Brives, Charlotte. 2022. *Face à L'antibiorésistance: Une écologie Politique Des Microbes*. Éditions Amsterdam.

Brives, Charlotte. 2024. Pluribiose. Travailler avec les microbes. QUAЕ.

Brown, Nik, and Sarah Nettleton. 2017. "There is Worse to Come': The Biopolitics of Traumatism in Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)." *The Sociological Review* 65 (3): 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12446.

Buller, Henry, Katie Adam, Alison Bard, et al. 2020. "Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms." *Frontiers in Veterinary Science* 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.569545.

Butcher, Andrea, Jose A. Cañada, and Salla Sariola. 2021. "How to Make Noncoherent Problems more Productive: Towards an AMR Management Plan for Low Resource Livestock Sectors." *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications* 8 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00965-w.

Chandler, Clare I.R. 2019. "Current Accounts of Antimicrobial Resistance: Stabilisation, Individualisation and Antibiotics as Infrastructure." *Palgrave Communications* 5 (1): 53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0263-4.

Doron, Assa, and Alex Broom. 2026. *A World of Resistance. India and the Global Antibiotic Crisis*. Harvard University Press.

ECDC, EFSA and EMA (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, European Food Safety Authority and European Medicines Agency). 2024. "Antimicrobial consumption and resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals." *EFSA Journal* 22 (2), e8589. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8589.

Figuié, Muriel. 2021. "La Gouvernance de la santé Animale: Entre biosécurité et Bien Public Mondial." *Nature, Sciences et Sociétés* 9 (3), 274–87.

Figuié, Muriel, Chloé Batie, Cristiano Macuamule, Carlos Cuinhane, and Flavie Goutard. 2024. "AMR as a Global and One Health Issue: The Challenge to Adapt a Global Strategy in Two Low- and Middle-Income Countries, Mozambique and Vietnam." *EuroChoices* 23 (2), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12438.

Fortané, Nicolas, Marie-Hélène Pinard-van der Laan, and Christian Ducrot. 2024. "The Transition Issue: What Do We Change (or Not) When We Change Antimicrobial Use?" *EuroChoices* 23 (2): 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12442.

Fressoz, Jean-Baptiste. 2025. *More and More and More: An all-Consuming History of Energy*. Penguin.

Glover, Rebecca E., Margaret Dangoor, and Nicholas Mays. 2019. "Antibiotic Resistance: Don't Blame Patients." *BMJ* 364: l1218. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1218.
Hinchliffe, Steve. 2021. "Postcolonial Global Health, Post-Colony Microbes and Antimicrobial Resistance." *Theory, Culture & Society* 0263276420981606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420981606.

Hinchliffe, Stephen. 2025. "After Antibiotics – Events, Episodes and the Veterinization of UK Livestock." *Medical Anthropology* 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2025.2539760.

Hughes, Alex, Emma Roe, Elvis Wambiya, James A. Brown, Alister Munthali, and Abdhalah Ziraba. 2024. "The Challenges of Implementing Antibiotic Stewardship in Diverse Poultry Value Chains in Kenya." *Agriculture and Human Values* 41 (2): 749–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10518-3.

Irwin, Rachel. 2020. "Imagining the Postantibiotic Future: The Visual Culture of a Global Health Threat." *Medical Humanities*. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2020-011884.

Kayendeke, Miriam, Laurie Denyer-Willis, Susan Nayiga, Christine Nabirye, Nicolas Fortané, Sarah G. Staedke, Clare IR Chandler. 2023. "Pharmaceuticalised Livelihoods: Antibiotics and the Rise of ‘Quick Farming’ in Peri-Urban Uganda." *Journal of Biosocial Science* 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932023000019.

Kirchhelle, Claas. 2020. *Pyrrhic Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food Production. Critical Issues in Health and Medicine*. Rutgers University Press.

Kirchhelle, Claas. 2023. "The Antibiocene – Towards an Eco-Social Analysis of Humanity’s Antimicrobial Footprint." *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications* 10 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02127-6.

Moore, Jason W. 2016. *Anthropocene or Capitalocene?: Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism*. PM Press.

Mulchandani, Ranya, Yu Wang, Marius Gilbert, and Thomas P. Van Boeckel. 2023. "Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food-Producing Animals: 2020 to 2030." *PLOS Global Public Health* 3 (2): e0001305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001305.

O'Neill, James. 2016. *Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations*. Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, London.

Overton, Kristen, Nicolas Fortané, Alex Broom, Stephanie Raymond, Christoph Gradmann, Ebiowei Samuel F. Orubu, Scott H Podolsky, et al. 2021. "Waves of Attention: Patterns and Themes of International Antimicrobial Resistance Reports, 1945-2020." *BMJ Global Health* 6 (11): e006909. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006909.

Podolsky, Scott H. 2015. *The Antibiotic Era: Reform, Resistance, and the Pursuit of a Rational Therapeutics*. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Redman-White, Carys J., Dominic Moran, Andrew R. Peters, and Adrian Muwonge. 2023. "A Review of the Predictors of Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in European Food Animal Production." *Frontiers in Antibiotics* 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frabi.2023.1209552.

Tompson, Alice, Lenore Manderson, and Clare IR Chandler. 2021. "Understanding Antibiotic Use: Practices, Structures and Networks." *JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance* 3 (4): dlab150. https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlab150.

Willis, Laurie Denyer, and Clare Chandler. 2019. "Quick Fix for Care, Productivity, Hygiene and Inequality: Reframing the Entrenched Problem of Antibiotic Overuse." *BMJ Global Health* 4 (4): e001590. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001590.

<footnote>**Cite this article:** Boullier, Henri, and Nicolas Fortané. 2025. "Livestock Farming Trapped in Antimicrobial Reduction: How to Put Just Transition at the Heart of AMR Policies?" *Public Humanities*, 1, e184, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/pub.2025.10095</footnote>