Dive Brief:
-
The number of antibiotics and other antimicrobials used in food animals decreased in 2016, according to an annual report by the Food and Drug Administration. This marks the first decrease since the agency began reviewing how disease-fighting agents are used in cattle, swine, poultry and other products in the U.S.
-
The study looks at antimicrobials — including bacteria-fighting antibiotics — and items that fight viruses, fungi and parasites. Domestic sales and distribution of antimicrobials used in food-producing animals decreased 10%, while the sale and distribution of medically important antimicrobials in food producing animals decreased by 14%. Medically important antimicrobials are medicines, like penicillin, that are also used to treat humans.
-
After years of increased use of antimicrobials in animals, this downward trend may reflect consumer and competitor pressure to decrease overuse of antibiotics to curb the threat of drug-resistant bacteria.
Dive Insight:
The debate over the use of antimicrobials — especially antibiotics — in food-producing animals has raged for years. Farmers use antibiotics both to help sick animals get well and to prevent animals from getting sick in the first place. But these medicines are also used to make animals — such as cattle, pigs, turkey and chicken — grow bigger faster. These animals are market-ready sooner and use fewer resources.
But the use of antimicrobials comes with a cost, critics say. Bacteria can become resistant to the antibiotic designed to kill it, making the antibiotic ineffective. When people consume or handle meat or poultry with resistant bacteria, they can become infected, and the traditional course of antibiotics may not be effective.
Drug-resistant infections are already a threat. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 million people in the U.S. contract antibiotic-resistant infections each year, and 23,000 people die from them.
Consumers have pressured food manufacturers to decrease the use of antibiotics, and some businesses have noticed. Perdue, Tyson, McDonalds, KFC and Chick-Fil-A are a few that have limited antibiotics in their food animal sources.
But not all food manufacturers are onboard. Sanderson Farms, the third largest poultry producer in the U.S., unabashedly defends using antibiotics in food animals. According to the company, little evidence exists that using antibiotics in farm animals causes drug resistance in humans. Lampkin Butts, president and chief operating officer at Sanderson Foods, told The New York Times last year that antibiotics are necessary. Chickens raised without antibiotics are more expensive, with higher mortality rates. Antibiotic-free chickens require more resources, and he said not offering them has had no impact on the company's finances. In its most recent earnings report, Sanderson Farms posted net sales of $931.9 million — up from $729 million a year before. This may be encouraging to other food producers who are concerned about increased costs of not using antibiotics, and to price-sensitive consumers.
Still, with consumer demand for natural food continuing to surge, organic consumers are going more mainstream. As consumers show more concern for their health and for the environment, the use of antibiotics in food animals is likely to continue its downward trend.