Cargill cows contaminated with vital antibiotics
Cattle slaughtered at Cargill meat-packing plants tested positive for traces of some of the most important drugs for human health
As global leaders at the UN in New York pledged to tackle human suffering caused by antimicrobial resistance, the US food giant Cargill was found to be slaughtering cattle containing residues of powerful antibiotics.
Data obtained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) covering the past two years showed that farms supplying Cargill are still using antibiotics that the World Health Organization (WHO) deems vital for human health.
Two years ago, TBIJ revealed that Cargill, which sold beef to McDonalds, sourced meat from farms that used at least five critically important antibiotics. At the time, Cargill said it was “committed not to use antibiotics that are critically important for human medicines”, although it defended using other human antibiotics in farming.
This time, there were 12 different antibiotics found to be in use, including two of the most important types.
These drugs, known as “highest priority critically important” antibiotics or HP-CIAs, are so important for human health that the WHO warned livestock farmers to stop using them. Use on farms can make the drugs – which are often the last treatments available for treating serious bacterial infections – less effective.
Leaders attending the high-level meeting at UN headquarters yesterday made an international declaration to cut the number of deaths caused by antibiotic resistance. The draft specifically mentions cuts in drug use on livestock farms.
Megan Brown, a sixth-generation hog and cattle farmer based in California, said that enforcement of existing rules on antibiotic use in farming in the US: “Historically, we’ve shown we really can’t be trusted unless we’re made to.”
Cargill said there was no evidence that beef with excessive antibiotic residues had entered the food chain as any cattle testing at these levels would be segregated, and that the company complied with relevant food safety standards.
New rules in farmers’ hands
In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a rule requiring a vet’s prescription before farmers could get antibiotics for their animals. However, the new rule still leaves farmers in control of how to give antibiotics and relies on them to make sure there’s enough time between treatment and slaughter, according to Crystal Heath, a vet.
Heath is also the founder and executive director of OurHonor, a nonprofit that advocates for animal welfare. She says that intensive livestock farming has created a vicious cycle that relies on confining animals in smaller and smaller spaces. This in turn increases the risk of sickness, leading to more antibiotics being used. “This is going to be a problem as long as we raise animals this way,” she told Sentient and TBIJ.
Daniel Czyz, a microbiologist at the University of Florida who studies antimicrobial resistance, said: “It all boils down to lowering the price of the production and increasing the profits for producers that are already struggling.”
The FDA rule was meant to minimise people’s exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can increase the risk of superbugs spreading to people.
Antibiotic residues can linger in meat products if an animal is slaughtered too soon after being treated, before the drug has cleared its system. The US government routinely investigates livestock farms that send animals for slaughter that contain drug residues, including antibiotics.
Brown, the cattle farmer, said the FDA rule had changed how she uses antibiotics. “I’m not going to send it to the yard until I know the withdrawal is gone,” she said.
These days Brown uses vaccinations more often than antibiotics, which she says boosts the value of her cattle while reducing the risk of disease. The antibiotics, she added, are expensive.
Antibiotic wild west
While Brown has taken steps to reduce antibiotic residues, the US Department of Agriculture’s food safety agency recently questioned certain meat industry claims that some beef products have been raised without antibiotics.
The agency collected samples from nearly 200 cattle slaughtered at US meat-packing plants and analysed them for 180 veterinary drugs. One in five of the samples from the “raised without antibiotic” market contained antibiotic residues.
A prominent industry association continues to defend some controversial uses of antibiotics. Social media posts by the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a lobby group based in the US with links to Cargill through one of its board members, appear to endorse the “preventative” use of antibiotics on farm animals. This means using the drugs on animals who are not unwell – despite concerns that this increases the risk of drug resistance. Preventative antibiotic treatment was restricted in the EU in 2022.
Another AAA post claims that there is “little overlap between antibiotics used in animal agriculture and antibiotics used in human medicine”. This is at odds with the views of many public health experts, including the WHO, who agree that farms’ use of antibiotics is directly contributing to drug-resistant disease in humans.
The AAA did not respond to TBIJ’s requests for comment.
Cargill said: “Our position has been and continues to be a commitment to finding ways to reduce the use of human antibiotics across our operations and supply chains, while protecting the health and well-being of animals in our supply chains.
“We don't want to use antibiotics in agriculture that are clinically used for humans,” said Czyz. He warned that once a disease develops resistance to a drug, it’s difficult or impossible to reverse.
For real progress to happen, according to Czyz, there needs to be a coordinated global approach to the problem of antimicrobial resistance, as shown at the UN this week. “We cannot target [antimicrobial resistance] at one place if another place neglects the issue,” he said.
Header image: Alamy Stock/Design by Katia Pirnak
Reporters: Andrew Wasley and Marlowe Starling
Environment editor: Robert Soutar
Impact producer: Grace Murray
Deputy editor: Chrissie Giles
Editor: Franz Wild
Production editors: Josephine Lethbridge and Frankie Goodway
Fact checker: Somesh Jha
TBIJ has a number of funders, a full list of which can be found
here. None of our funders have any influence over editorial decisions or
output.
-
Area:
-
Subject: