Antibiotic Resistance

5 Reasons Consumer Distrust In Our Food Supply Is Rising

Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:49:59 GMT

Bread, check. Blueberries, check. As I wheel my grocery cart alongside the deli case, I’m taken aback at what I see. Rather, it is what I don’t see that has me wondering, “What in the world?” This section of my favorite grocery store is now almost completely empty, except for a couple of ham loaves and a renegade block of cheese.

In a slightly distraught tone I ask the worker behind the counter, “What’s going on?” He hesitates for a moment, then replies, “The store is in the process of changing suppliers for our deli products. We should have more of a selection next week.” Then it dawns on me: my favorite brand of deli meat and cheese, Boar’s Head, has officially been blacklisted by my go-to grocery store.

I should not have been surprised. Boar’s Head began its fall from public grace on July 26, 2024, when the company issued a recall for more than 207,528 lb. of product due to potential listeria contamination. The CDC linked the contamination to 61 illnesses and, tragically, 10 deaths. It was the worst listeria outbreak in the U.S. in over a decade.

The outbreak was ultimately traced to a production line at the company’s Jarratt, Va., plant. According to USDA inspection reports, which USA Today had to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request, 69 reports of non-compliance were recorded at the Jarratt plant between 2023 and 2024. What was in those reports was unsettling. Documentation of insects live and dead, black and green mold, mildew, dripping and standing water, as well as other unsanitary conditions within the plant in the weeks leading up to the July recall. In a move that was too little too late, Boar’s Head announced on Sept. 13, 2024 that the Jarratt plant would be closed permanently.

In 1906, Upton Sinclair published his famous novel “The Jungle,” which exposed the horrific conditions in the meatpacking industry at the time. The writer’s work proved to be an instant bestseller to the masses. The irony is that nearly 120 years later, one might find it hard to discern whether they’re reading a current USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) report or a chapter straight out of “The Jungle.”

Just One Of Many
The Boar’s Head case was only one the high profile food recalls last year. Remember the E. coli contaminated onions on McDonald’s quarter pounders? Then, Costco issued a massive recall on their Kirkland Signature brand of organic eggs because of a threat of Salmonella. And to cap off the year with the scariest illness yet, on Dec. 18, 2024, the CDC confirmed a patient in Louisiana had been hospitalized with the nation’s first severe case of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus, aka the “bird flu.”

If it seems that the number of food recalls are coming at us at a more fast and furious pace than ever, then your gut instinct is spot on. The Food and Drug Administration, which reports food and cosmetics together, says 1,908 such products were recalled in the fiscal year that ended in September. That’s the highest number since 2019. Such a constant barrage of warnings is having a serious affect on consumers’ overall psyche — and not in a positive way. According to a September 2024 Gallup report, only 57% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the government to keep food safe. This number is a 27 point decrease since 2019, and is a record low for the Gallup Consumption Habits Poll since its inception in 1999.

This explosion of 20th century foodborne illnesses has me asking the same question I asked the worker behind the deli counter: “What’s going on?”

5 Reasons To Be Skeptical
There are multiple reasons consumers have good reason to be less confident in the safety of their food.

First, there’s the government. Second, more and more of our food is imported, which makes it harder to inspect. Third, you have a growing quest for more natural food, which sometimes circumvents traditional inspection channels. Fourth, industry consolidation means only a handful of players control both the production and processing. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but if something goes wrong, it’s probably going to be big. Finally, we now have the ability, through more technology and data, to find, detect and isolate the specific source of contamination and document it.

Time For An Overhaul
Food safety policy and implementation at the government level is in need of a serious overhaul. There is a chance it could actually happen. In 2018, the previous Trump administration proposed consolidating federal food oversight into a single agency with USDA.

There are so many common sense things that a fully functioning food agency could do. For one, start with better and more noticeable country of origin labeling (COOL) on imported foods. It should be prominent, displaying the country’s flag as the primary indicator of origin. If nothing else, we’ll all get better at geography. Next, companies that embrace new technologies that prevent contamination should be rewarded with tax credits. We do it for electric cars. Why not for safer food?

Finally, the most important change needs to come in the form of accountability and transparency both from the food industry itself and the government that regulates it. That didn’t happen in the case of Boar’s Head, and 10 people lost their lives because of it. In the age of AI and social media, those FSIS plant inspection reports should be posted on platforms such as X and Facebook for the public to see in real time. Without such transparency, we’re no better off than we were back in 1906.

Over-the-Counter Antibiotics: What You Need to Know Before June 11

Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:30:52 GMT

When kids are sick, parents want to do the best they can to help them feel better fast. It’s no different when animals are sick. Livestock producers want to do everything they can to help them feel better fast. It’s understandable why most people want to turn to antibiotics so quickly – it’s what they know to be an effective treatment for illness and disease.

But antibiotics aren’t effective on viruses, whether in kids or livestock.

“Just as physicians have started to try and educate people to not utilize antibiotics in those cases, we’re really trying to have the same conversation with the livestock industry,” says Mike Lormore, DVM, head of technical services over pork and cattle for Zoetis.

On June 11, FDA’s Guidance for Industry (GFI) #263 brings 91 over-the-counter (OTC) antimicrobial products from OTC to prescription oversight. This is part of a broader effort by FDA to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a serious threat to animal and public health. Using antimicrobials judiciously, in all settings, can help slow the rate at which AMR develops.

“It’s a confidence thing,” says Jim Lowe, DVM, director of the College of Veterinary Medicine I-Learning Center at the University of Illinois. “The regulators have said, ‘Listen, we want some more oversight here, so we have more confidence in the supply chain.’ My perception is we’re not changing what we’re doing. We’re just going to document and tell people what we’re doing better. It’s about transparency.”

FDA’s guidance is a result of a long conversation around improving the quality of and control systems around antimicrobial use in food production, Lormore explains. Making this transition will ensure the remaining 4% of medically important antimicrobials currently available OTC are used under a licensed veterinarian’s supervision.

Although this guidance doesn’t go into effect until June 11, now is the time for producers to begin preparing if they haven’t done so already.

Why VCPRs Matter

Now is an important time to seek out a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR). The VCPR is a mutual agreement between the animal owner and the veterinarian where the veterinarian has an understanding of the animals on an operation, the type of care they’re given on a regular basis, their purpose, and the risk factors associated with management of those animals, Lormore explains.

“Pig farmers are working every day to protect the food supply and provide safe, nutritious food to customers. This protection includes having a VCPR to provide the most updated treatment and recommended technology to keep animals, and ultimately the public, healthy,” explains Heather Fowler, VMD, National Pork Board’s director of producer and public health.

She says a producer doesn’t need to know everything, but they should know to call their veterinarian when needed, not only to protect their herd, but to also reduce an economic strain or loss of production proactively.

“Our sense collectively is major producers in the U.S. pork industry have veterinarians on their staff, they have good relationships with all kinds of veterinarians, and this guidance is probably not going to impact them very much. It’s really directed towards very small operators, or backyard/hobby animal raisers that don’t have that same level of expertise,” Lormore says.

However, he notes there are some areas of the country that don’t have as many veterinarians in place. If that’s you, he recommends reaching out to state veterinary medical associations, state livestock producer organizations, friends or other colleagues to find out what veterinary resources they utilize.

Once a VCPR is in place, animal owners would simply contact the veterinarian to discuss the situation at hand and the veterinarian would then provide them a prescription if needed. Every state has a different set of pharmacy laws, so how those prescriptions will be filled will look different throughout the country, Lormore notes.

In general, Lowe doesn’t believe veterinarians are thrilled about the obligation to have to write more scripts and maintain more records. No one likes paperwork, Lowe points out.

“I think some producers have grumbled it’s just a way for the veterinarians to make more money, but I certainly don’t think veterinarians view it that way. We are all going to have to do more work, but how do we make it a positive? Let’s lower costs, create better production, get the right diagnosis, work a little harder and create value out of it. That’s our opportunity,” Lowe says.

Why is antibiotic stewardship so important?

Thanks to advances in hygiene, biosecurity and new technology, America’s pig farmers are making significant strides in protecting their herds from disease, Fowler says.

“This is done in part through relationships farmers maintain with their licensed herd veterinarians, who prescribe and oversee the use of antibiotics and other medications on farm,” she says. “Responsible antibiotic use means using only what’s necessary for pig health. This sensible approach means doing what’s best for animal wellbeing, food safety, and the environment.”

It’s no secret that healthy animals are more productive and more efficient. The goal is always to prevent disease, rather than wait for it to become clinical and have to treat it, Lormore says.

“That being said, the bugs are generally smarter than we are, and they can move faster than we can. So, sooner or later, you will see clinical disease in one shape or form,” he adds.

Lormore believes FDA’s guidance #263 is good for the health of animals because it allows veterinarians who have the appropriate training, experience and expertise to handle these drugs and help talk people through protocol development and treatment protocols when needed.

“We all have to do our part to improve and ensure the viability of antimicrobials going forward. And this is just one way that we will do this in the livestock industry, to show our support for those initiatives,” Lormore says.

Do What’s Best for Your Animals

The goal of all of this is to have better health and welfare for the animals under our care, Lowe explains.

“Nobody likes being told what to do – but the intent is to have a chat about this and make sure it’s right. We are bringing ourselves under the same standard as human medicine in the U.S.,” he says.

Although it’s hard to stand around and wait for your animal to get better, Lormore reminds producers, “Biology takes its own sweet time, and we don’t necessarily get a chance to change that timeline. The more producers intervene when it’s not necessary, the more likely they are to get an outcome that’s not in the best interest of the animals.”

Vaccines are one way livestock producers work to prevent disease rather than treat clinical disease, Lormore adds.

“Mitigating risks of diseases that we can control through vaccinations is both in the best interests of the animals, the best interest of the farms that own those animals and is the least stressful to the animals themselves overall,” Lormore says. “Prevention is always preferred over treatment.”

As foreign animal disease threats rise, Lowe says it’s a great time to foster more conversation between animal owners and veterinarians.

“This is one more excuse to have a conversation about what we are doing for FAD preparedness,” Lowe says. “There’s some other good that can come out of this to build relationships, so we don’t find ourselves at the point of, ‘What do we do now?’”

Read More:

Health Advocates and Online Activists Sue FDA Over Antibiotics in Livestock

DVM Reaches out to Livestock Owners About OTC Antimicrobials Move to Rx

FDA Publishes 2021 Report on Antimicrobial Use in Livestock

The Pig That Does More with Less (Antibiotics)

USDA Combats Antimicrobial Resistance

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:18:10 GMT

Scientists from USDA developed the tools to mass produce penicillin, which was used for treating wounded soldiers over 70 years ago during World War II. Antibiotics are still important in treating microbial infection in humans, animals, and plants. However, microbes can develop resistance to some antibiotics, making them less effective. USDA agencies continue to work on numerous issues related to antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) .

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is an active participant in a collaboration called the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) . This collaborative program helps FSIS to monitor and understand the emergence, persistence, and spread of antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals. FSIS focuses on testing samples collected from animals at slaughter, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitors retail and poultry food products, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitors ill humans.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services (APHIS-VS) addresses antibiotic use and AMR in food animals through studies on farms and in veterinary clinical settings. In 2017-18, its National Animal Health Monitoring System ( NAHMS ) conducted AMR studies at cattle feedlots, swine operations, and cow-calf feedlots. Its National Animal Health Laboratory Network coordinated a pilot project that tested animal pathogen isolates at veterinary clinics to assess resistance to antimicrobials. The National Veterinary Accreditation Program provides publicly available online education on antimicrobial use and AMR for veterinarians and food animal production workers.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) studies trends and emerging issues surrounding the use of antibiotics in agricultural production. This analysis helps public and private decision makers understand the economic decisions made by livestock producers and others involved in the industry, which can lead to more efficient policymaking, improved on-farm decisions about antibiotic use, and better public comprehension of producer behavior. ERS also examines how government programs that incentivize research and development of human drugs would work in the animal pharmaceutical market.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) currently supports 25 multidisciplinary research projects that study the emergence and distribution of AMR populations in different animal production settings. This work focuses on AMR in animal health, the development of new antibiotics and antibiotic alternatives, and the identification of mitigation strategies to protect food safety. Since 2017, ARS scientists have published 205 peer-reviewed articles about AMR and alternatives to antibiotics.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has invested more than $30M since 2013 to support transdisciplinary systems-based research, education and extension projects on AMR across the United States. NIFA grantees further extend AMR knowledge and expertise by partnering and collaborating with colleagues at universities and colleges, in the private and public sectors, and in non-governmental organizations at the national and international levels.

USDA works every day to help provide better understanding of AMR and to develop science-based, “One Health” solutions to protect the American food supply from farm-to-fork. This allows the United States and the rest of the world to benefit from the use of antibiotics to cure human and animal diseases - now and for generations to come.

Posted by Roxann Motron and Kim Cook, USDA Agricultural Research Service; Uday Dessai and Sheryl Shaw, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service in Animals Health and Safety Research and Science

DHM How To: Culture To Achieve A Bacteriological Cure

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:01:59 GMT

Being able to treat mastitis effectively starts with understanding the pathogens involved with creating the infection. The only way to effectively develop a treat, no-treat protocol is through culturing milk samples from clinical mastitis cases.

In the last edition of this eight-part series on proper milking protocols, Jill Brester, herd veterinarian at Green Meadows Dairy near Elsi, Michigan provides an overview of how to take and culture a sample, then understand the bacteriological makeup of the infection. From there she can devise a treatment protocol to achieve a bacteriological cure and prevent recurring infections.

Trump’s USDA Wants Changes to WHO Antibiotic Guidelines

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:53:57 GMT

U.S. Department of Agriculture officials are openly criticizing the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on antibiotics issued last November. USDA is reportedly developing alternative options to the WHO guidelines which limit the use of antibiotics in food animals.

The WHO guidelines called for an end to the use of medically important antibiotics routinely used for growth promotion or to prevent disease. The WHO said the drugs should only be administered to sick animals or healthy ones being raised near them, in the same flock, herd or fish population. Even then, drugs “critically important for human medicine” should not be used.

The guidelines were crafted after two years of work by experts in infectious disease, veterinary medicine and microbiology. USDA, however, has called the guidelines shoddy science and that the U.S. and other countries should have helped develop. U.S. policy bans antibiotics to promote growth in food animals, but allows the drugs to be used to prevent disease with a veterinarian’s approval.

“The WHO guidelines are not in alignment with U.S. policy and are not supported by sound science,” said Chavonda Jacobs-Young, USDA’s activing chief scientist.

According to a Bloomberg report, U.S. officials currently are involved in a working group that is developing guidelines that are weaker than the WHO recommendations. A draft of the guidelines for farmers and the WHO-related agency Codex Alimentarius allows antibiotics to be used in healthy animals to prevent disease and offers the potential for use to promote animal growth, which currently is illegal under U.S. law, the report added. Codex offers standards for international trade to ensure food safety and quality, which are implemented by specific member nations, rather than more general guidelines released by WHO.

The Bloomberg report said the Trump administration “has made little secret of its disdain for international institutions and regulations,” and “seems to be pursuing its agenda with particular vigor.” Yet the Bloomberg story noted, “the extent that antibiotic use in farm animals affects human health remains open to debate, as does how best to address the problem.”

22 Burger Chains Graded F on Antibiotics

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:53:41 GMT

The fourth annual Chain Reaction report and scorecard gives a failing grade to 22 of 25 burger chain restaurants relating to the use of antibiotics in their beef supply.

Chain Reaction IV , released Wednesday, gives a D- to Wendy’s and Fs to 22 other chains, including McDonald’s, Burger King, Sonic, Five Guys and Carl’s Jr. for continuing to use beef raised with antibiotics in ways that make them less effective on humans. Only two As were earned by Shake Shack and BurgerFi.

The annual Chain Reaction report is based on surveys conducted by a coalition of five consumer groups: U.S. PIRG (public interest research group), Consumer Reports, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety and Food Animal Concerns Trust.

The consumer groups claim the overuse of antibiotics by livestock producers contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can cause life-threatening infections in humans.

“We need our life-saving medicines to work, and because fast food companies are some of the largest buyers of meat, they are uniquely positioned to address this public health crisis,” the report said.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), drug-resistant superbugs kill about 23,000 people in the U.S. each year, and increase healthcare costs by $20 billion annually.

However, the CDC does not lay all that blame for antibiotic-resistance on the use of antibiotics in livestock production. The CDC says about 1 in 5 drug-resistant infections in humans comes from food animals, but that 1 in 3 prescriptions for humans by physicians are unnecessary.

The focus of this year’s Chain Reaction report on burgers is in response to the success consumer groups have had on changing production practices for poultry. Over the past decade, that pressure from consumer groups has led to most poultry companies raising flocks without the routine use of antibiotics.

The beef and pork industries have stopped using antibiotics as growth promotants, but resist further limits.

“The beef industry promotes the judicious use of antibiotics to keep potential risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria extremely low,” the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (NCBA) says. “In addition, the beef community has invested significantly in research and education programs like Beef Quality Assurance to maintain high standards of animal care and health.”

Chain Reaction authors noted they will focus on McDonald’s in their efforts to curtail antibiotic use in food animals. As America’s largest purchaser of beef, Chain Reaction authors say McDonald’s “should commit to sourcing beef from producers that use antibiotics under the guidance of a licensed veterinarian, and only to treat animals diagnosed with an illness or in limited circumstances to control a verified disease outbreak.”