Abstract
To respond to the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threat, public health entities implement policies aiming to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock systems, in which policy success and sustainability might be subject to the social acceptability of the novel regulatory environment. Therefore, consistent methods that gather and synthesize preferences of stakeholder groups are needed during the policy design. The objective of this study was to present a methodology for evaluating the acceptability of potential strategies to reduce AMU using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using French dairy industry as a model. Preference-ranking organization methods for enrichment evaluations were applied to rank stakeholders' acceptance of four different potential AMU reduction strategies: 1. Baseline AMU regulations in France; 2. Total interdiction of AMU; 3. Interdiction of prophylaxis and metaphylaxis AMU; and 4. Subsidies to reduce AMU by 25%. A total of 15 stakeholders (consumers, n = 10; farmers, n = 2; public health representatives, n = 3) representing the French dairy sector and public health administration participated in the acceptance weighting of the strategies in relation with their impact on environmental, economic, social, and political criteria. We established a MCDA methodology and result-interpretation approach that can assist in prioritizing alternatives to cope with AMR in the French dairy industry or in other livestock systems. Our MCDA framework showed that consumers and public health representatives preferred alternatives that consider the restriction of AMU, whereas farmers preferred to maintain baseline policy.