It is possible because they were willing to sacrifice their competitivness in meat production to combat antibiotic resistance. This measure will impact the production volume as well as meat prices. If the whole world would implement this measure, less meat consumption would not be a choice anymore but just a consequence.

It is absolutely impossible to meet the global demand for meat without antibiotic use in livestock. If the meat consumption doesn't go down significantly antibiotics will always be used for meat production. Less meat consumption would also be the easiest solution to slow down climate change, to prent zoonoses, overfishing, ... People with access to lternatives to meat have to cut their meat consumption.

Or convince people to stop or at least cut their meat consumption. The global demand for meat can only be met because antibiotics are used in animals. Through the consumption of their meat and their excrements (that are also used as fertilizer) a lot of antibiotics get into the environment and promote antibiotic resistant bugs. Less meat consumption would also be effective against other major threats to humanity (climate change, overfishing and zoonoses), yet convincing people to switch to alternatives seems impossible.