As world leaders gathered in New York to pledge solutions for the rising global crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the US-based food giant Cargill came under fire for its role in exacerbating this health threat. Data uncovered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) revealed that cattle slaughtered at Cargill meat-packing plants were contaminated with residues of antibiotics, many of which the World Health Organization (WHO) deems critical to human health. The findings come at a time when global authorities are sounding alarms over the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria-often termed superbugs-triggered by the misuse of these life-saving drugs in both human medicine and animal agriculture.

Two years ago, TBIJ exposed Cargill for sourcing beef from farms using at least five antibiotics classified as “critically important” for human health. These drugs, deemed essential by the WHO, are often the last line of defense against serious bacterial infections in humans. At the time, Cargill responded by committing to reduce its use of such antibiotics, though it defended using other antibiotics on farms, which it argued were necessary for animal health. Fast forward to 2024, and the same issue persists-if not worsens. The latest data show that farms supplying Cargill have continued using 12 different antibiotics, two of which fall under the WHO’s “highest priority critically important” (HP-CIA) category.

These HP-CIAs are among the most potent antibiotics used in human medicine, often reserved for cases where other treatments have failed. The WHO has consistently warned that overuse of these drugs in livestock can diminish their effectiveness in treating human infections, making diseases harder to control and increasing the likelihood of AMR spreading globally.

In response to the findings, Cargill maintained that no evidence exists to suggest excessive antibiotic residues have entered the food chain. The company asserted that cattle with residue levels surpassing food safety standards are segregated, ensuring that they do not contribute to consumer health risks. However, while Cargill insists it complies with relevant safety guidelines, the mere presence of critical antibiotic residues in slaughtered cattle raises significant concerns about the long-term implications for both public health and agricultural practices.

The broader question remains: Why are these antibiotics being used on healthy livestock in the first place? The use of antibiotics for preventative purposes-meaning that animals receive treatment even when they are not sick-has been criticized for contributing to the growing threat of AMR.

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a new regulation requiring a veterinarian’s prescription before farmers could administer antibiotics to their livestock. Although the rule was designed to limit the misuse of antibiotics and reduce the risk of resistant bacteria entering the food chain, critics argue that it leaves too much control in the hands of farmers. The responsibility for ensuring a proper withdrawal period-allowing time for the antibiotics to clear the animal’s system before slaughter-still falls largely on farmers, creating a patchwork of compliance.

Megan Brown, a cattle farmer from California, acknowledges the importance of this rule but warns that the industry’s track record with self-regulation is dubious at best. “Historically, we’ve shown we really can’t be trusted unless we’re made to,” she said, highlighting the need for more robust oversight. Brown, who now relies more heavily on vaccinations to prevent disease in her herd, has changed her practices to minimize antibiotic use. However, she cautions that many farmers, especially those in large industrial operations, may not be as diligent.

Crystal Heath, a veterinarian and founder of the nonprofit OurHonor, concurs. She argues that the current model of intensive livestock farming-where animals are confined to smaller spaces and are more prone to illness-perpetuates a cycle of antibiotic dependence. “This is going to be a problem as long as we raise animals this way,” Heath said. The industry’s reliance on antibiotics, she explains, is driven largely by economic pressures to increase production while keeping costs low.

The consequences of antibiotic misuse in livestock farming are not limited to any one country. AMR knows no borders, and its effects are being felt worldwide. A recent high-level meeting at the UN underscored the urgency of addressing this issue, with world leaders committing to reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock farming as part of a broader strategy to combat AMR. Daniel Czyz, a microbiologist at the University of Florida, emphasizes the importance of a coordinated global response. “We cannot target [antimicrobial resistance] at one place if another place neglects the issue,” he said, stressing that isolated efforts are not enough to curb the threat of AMR.

Czyz also pointed out that once bacteria develop resistance to a drug, it is nearly impossible to reverse. The more antibiotics are used-whether in human medicine or on farms-the greater the chance that resistant strains of bacteria will evolve, making life-saving drugs ineffective.

Despite the mounting evidence linking antibiotic use in agriculture to AMR, some within the meat industry continue to defend these practices. The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a US-based lobby group with ties to Cargill, has publicly endorsed the preventative use of antibiotics on healthy livestock. This practice, which was restricted in the European Union in 2022, remains common in the US and is a key driver of antibiotic resistance.

Moreover, the AAA has downplayed concerns over the overlap between antibiotics used in human medicine and those used on farms. In a recent social media post, the group claimed that there is “little overlap” between the two. This claim, however, runs counter to the views of leading public health experts, including the WHO, who agree that the use of human antibiotics in livestock farming contributes directly to the rise of drug-resistant bacteria in humans.

As the AMR crisis intensifies, the need for more stringent regulations and greater accountability in the meat industry has never been more urgent. While Cargill and other major meat producers continue to assert their commitment to reducing antibiotic use, the evidence suggests that voluntary measures are not enough. Without stricter enforcement and a global consensus on reducing antibiotic use in livestock, the world risks facing a future where even the most powerful antibiotics are no longer effective.

In the words of Czyz, “We don’t want to use antibiotics in agriculture that are clinically used for humans.” Yet, until the industry takes concrete steps to change its practices, the threat of AMR will only continue to grow. The stakes are high-not just for the meat industry but for the health of the entire global population.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Cargill faces backlash over antibiotic contamination in cattle appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings