The demand for food products “raised without antibiotics" is growing fast. In 2012, sales of these products had increased by 25 percent over the previous three years (1).
The overuse of antibiotics in food-producing animals is being blamed for the increase in resistant bacteria, also known as “superbugs." When these are passed to humans they can cause serious illness.
However, other experts suggest that antibiotic use in food-producing animals poses very little risk to human health.
This article explores how antibiotics are used in foods and their potential consequences for your health.
Antibiotic Use in Food-Producing Animals
Antibiotics are drugs used to treat bacterial infections. They work by killing or stopping the growth of harmful bacteria.
Since the 1940s, antibiotics have been given to farm animals like cows, pigs and poultry in order to treat infections or prevent an illness from spreading.
Low doses of antibiotics are also added to animal feed to promote growth. This means a greater production of meat or milk in shorter periods of time (2).
These low doses may also reduce animal death rates and improve reproduction.
For these reasons, antibiotic use has become widespread in agriculture. In 2011, 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. were for use in food-producing animals (3).
Bottom Line: Antibiotics are drugs used to treat bacterial infections. They are widely used in animal agriculture to treat disease and promote growth.
The Amount of Antibiotics in Foods is Very Low
Contrary to what you may think, the chances of you actually consuming antibiotics through animal foods is extremely low.
Strict legislation is currently in place in the U.S. to ensure that no contaminated food products are able to enter the food supply.
Similar laws are in place in Canada, Australia and the European Union.
Additionally, vets and animal owners are required to ensure that any animal products they produce are drug-free before they can be used as food.
Drug withdrawal periods are enforced before treated animals, eggs or milk are used as food. This allows time for the drugs to completely leave the animal's system.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a strict process of testing all meat, poultry, eggs and milk for unwanted compounds, including antibiotic residues (4).
Bottom Line: Due to strict government legislation, it is extremely rare that antibiotics given to an animal would enter your food supply.
There is No Evidence That Antibiotics in Foods Are Harming People Directly
No evidence suggests antibiotics in food products are directly harming people.
In fact, figures from the USDA showed that the amount of animal products found to have antibiotic residues were extremely low and those that did were disposed of.
In 2010, less than 0.8 percent of animal food products tested positive for some form of contamination, including antibiotic residue (5).
Products confirmed as positive do not enter the food chain. Producers with repeat violations are publicly exposed—a system that discourages any misconduct.
Bottom Line: There is no evidence to suggest that antibiotics are being consumed from animal food products, let alone causing harm to humans.
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Animals Can Increase Resistant Bacteria
Antibiotics are generally fine when used properly for treating or preventing infections.
However, excessive or inappropriate use is a problem. When antibiotics are overused, they end up becoming less effective for both humans and animals.
This is because bacteria that are frequently exposed to antibiotics develop a resistance to them. As a result, the antibiotics are no longer as effective at killing harmful bacteria. This is a great concern for public health (6).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized this concern, updating its regulations to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics in livestock.
Bottom Line: Excessive antibiotic use can increase resistant bacteria, making the antibiotics less effective for both animals and humans.
Resistant Bacteria Can Spread to Humans, with Serious Health Risks
Resistant bacteria can be passed from food-producing animals to humans in a number of ways.
If an animal is carrying resistant bacteria, it can be passed on through meat that is not handled or cooked properly.
You can also encounter these bacteria by consuming food crops that have been sprayed with fertilizers containing animal manure with resistant bacteria.
One study found that people living close to crop fields sprayed with pig manure fertilizer are at a higher risk of infection from the resistant bacteria MRSA (7).
Once spread to humans, resistant bacteria can stay in the human gut and spread between individuals. The consequences of consuming resistant bacteria include (8):
- Infections that would not have happened otherwise.
- Increased severity of infections, often including vomiting and diarrhea.
- Difficulty in treating infections and higher chances that treatments will fail.
In the U.S., every year around two million people get infected with bacteria resistant to one or more of the antibiotics normally used to treat the infections (9).
Of those people, at least 23,000 die each year. Many more die from other conditions made worse by the infection (9).
Bottom Line: Resistant bacteria can be transferred from animals to humans through contaminated food products, causing infections and even death.
Resistant Bacteria in Food Products
Resistant bacteria in supermarket foods is a lot more common than you might think.
Commonly reported harmful bacteria from foods include Salmonella, Campylobacterand E.coli.
Of 200 U.S. supermarket meat samples of chicken, beef, turkey and pork, 20 percent contained Salmonella. Of these, 84 percent were resistant to at least one antibiotic (10).
One report found resistant bacteria in 81 percent of ground turkey meat, 69 percent of pork chops, 55 percent of ground beef and 39 percent of chicken breasts, wings and thighs found in U.S. supermarkets (11).
Another study tested 136 beef, poultry and pork samples from 36 U.S. supermarkets. Almost 25 percent tested positive for the resistant bacteria MRSA (12).
Many products claim to be “raised without antibiotics," including some that are labeled organic. This does not mean these products are free from resistant bacteria.
Evidence suggests that these products still contain resistant bacteria, although they are slightly less resistant than regular products grown using antibiotics.
A study found that organic chickens were more frequently contaminated with bacteria like Salmonella and Campylobacter than non-organic chickens. However, the bacteria in organic chickens were slightly less resistant to antibiotics (13).
Again, the prevalence of Enterococcus bacteria was 25 percent higher in organic chicken than non-organic chicken. However, the amount of resistant bacteria was almost 13 percent less in organic chicken (14).
Another study found that out of 213 samples, the frequency of antibiotic-resistant E. coli tended to be only slightly lower for chicken raised without antibiotics, compared to regular chicken (15).
Bottom Line: Resistant bacteria are frequently found in animal-based food products. Food labeled “organic" or “raised without antibiotics" may have slightly lower amounts of resistant bacteria.
Why You Probably Don't Need to Be Concerned
There is no clear-cut evidence directly linking antibiotic use in food-producing animals to increased illness due to resistant bacteria in humans.
One review concluded that the danger to health is very small because proper cooking destroys the harmful bacteria (16).
It may actually be the human use of antibiotics that causes the majority of bacterial resistance (16).
Interestingly, the spread of bacteria such as MRSA from infected pigs to farmers is common (17).
However, transmission to the general public is rare. A study from Denmark reported that the likelihood of transmission for the population was only 0.003 percent (18).
If the food products are cooked properly and good hygiene practices are followed, then the risk is extremely low.
Bottom Line: There is no clear-cut link between antibiotic use in animals and resistant bacteria infections in humans. The risk to human health is likely to be small, since adequate cooking destroys bacteria in food.
How To Minimize Your Risk of Illness
It may be impossible to completely avoid resistant bacteria in animal foods.
However, there are things you can do to significantly reduce your risk:
- Practice good food hygiene: Wash your hands, use separate cutting boards for different foods and wash utensils thoroughly.
- Ensure food is cooked properly: Cooking meat to the proper temperature should kill any harmful bacteria.
- Buy antibiotic-free foods: You can minimize your risk even further by looking for labels that read organic, raised without antibiotics or antibiotic-free.
Take Home Message
The debate on antibiotic use in animals still continues.
Although there is no evidence that antibiotics in foods harm people directly, most agree that the over-use of antibiotics in food-producing animals is a problem.
It can contribute to the development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria, which is a potential risk to public health.
This article was reposted from our media associate Authority Nutrition.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Quaker Oats Accused of Being 'Deceptive and Misleading' After Glyphosate Detected in Oatmeal
Should You Worry About Arsenic in Baby Cereal and Drinking Water?
Why Is This Hormone-Disrupting Pesticide Banned in Europe But Widely Used in the U.S.?
In a new study, my colleagues Anisha Patel, Francesca Weaks and I estimate that approximately 61.4 million people in the U.S. did not drink their tap water as of 2017-2018. Our research, which was released in preprint format on April 8, 2021, and has not yet been peer reviewed, found that this number has grown sharply in the past several years.
Other research has shown that about 2 million Americans don't have access to clean water. Taking that into account, our findings suggest that about 59 million people have tap water access from either their municipality or private wells or cisterns, but don't drink it. While some may have contaminated water, others may be avoiding water that's actually safe.
Water insecurity is an underrecognized but growing problem in the U.S. Tap water distrust is part of the problem. And it's critical to understand what drives it, because people who don't trust their tap water shift to more expensive and often less healthy options, like bottled water or sugary drinks.
I'm a human biologist and have studied water and health for the past decade in places as diverse as Lowland Bolivia and northern Kenya. Now I run the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. To understand water issues, I talk to people and use large datasets to see whether a problem is unique or widespread, and stable or growing.
An Epidemic of Distrust
According to our research, there's a growing epidemic of tap water distrust and disuse in the U.S. In a 2020 study, anthropologist Sera Young and I found that tap water avoidance was declining before the Flint water crisis that began in 2014. In 2015-2016, however, it started to increase again for children.
Our new study found that in 2017-2018, the number of Americans who didn't drink tap water increased at an alarmingly high rate, particularly for Black and Hispanic adults and children. Since 2013-2014 – just before the Flint water crisis began – the prevalence of adults who do not drink their tap water has increased by 40%. Among children, not consuming tap has risen by 63%.
To calculate this change, we used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative survey that releases data in two-year cycles. Sampling weights that use demographic characteristics ensure that the people being sampled are representative of the broader U.S. population.
Racial Disparities in Tap Water Consumption
Communities of color have long experienced environmental injustice across the U.S. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents are more likely to live in environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods, with exposure to water that violates quality standards.
Our findings reflect these experiences. We calculated that Black and Hispanic children and adults are two to three times more likely to report not drinking their tap water than members of white households. In 2017-2018, roughly 3 out of 10 Black adults and children and nearly 4 of 10 Hispanic adults and children didn't drink their tap water. Approximately 2 of 10 Asian Americans didn't drink from their tap, while only 1 of 10 white Americans didn't drink their tap water.
When children don't drink any water on a given day, research shows that they consume twice as many calories from sugary drinks as children who drink water. Higher sugary drink consumption increases risk of cavities, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. Drinking tap water provides fluoride, which lowers the risk of cavities. Relying on water alternatives is also much more expensive than drinking tap water.
A4: Choosing to drink fluoridated tap water over sugar-sweetened beverages to quench thirst is vital to protecting… https://t.co/3tm8wuWjeZ— Oral Health Watch (@Oral Health Watch)1600795750.0
What Erodes Trust
News reports – particularly high-visibility events like advisories to boil water – lead people to distrust their tap water even after the problem is fixed. For example, a 2019 study showed that water quality violations across the U.S. between 2006 and 2015 led to increases in bottled water purchases in affected counties as a way to avoid tap water, and purchase rates remained elevated after the violation.
The Flint water crisis drew national attention to water insecurity, even though state and federal regulators were slow to respond to residents' complaints there. Soon afterward, lead contamination was found in the water supply of Newark, New Jersey; the city is currently replacing all lead service lines under a legal settlement. Elsewhere, media outlets and advocacy groups have reported finding tap water samples contaminated with industrial chemicals, lead, arsenic and other contaminants.
Many other factors can cause people to distrust their water supply, including smell, taste and appearance, as well as lower income levels. Location is also an issue: Older U.S. cities with aging infrastructure are more prone to water shutoffs and water quality problems.
It's important not to blame people for distrusting what comes out of their tap, because those fears are rooted in history. In my view, addressing water insecurity requires a two-part strategy: ensuring that everyone has access to clean water, and increasing trust so people who have safe water will use it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Building Confidence
As part of his proposed infrastructure plan, President Joe Biden is asking Congress for $111 billion to improve water delivery systems, replace lead pipelines and tackle other contaminants. The plan also proposes improvements for small water systems and underserved communities.
These are critical steps to rebuild trust. Yet, in my view, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should also provide better public education about water quality testing and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations, such as children and underserved communities. Initiatives to simplify and improve water quality reports can help people understand what's in their water and what they can do if they think something is wrong with it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Who delivers those messages is important. In areas like Flint, where former government officials have been indicted on charges including negligence and perjury in connection with the water crisis, the government's word alone won't rebuild trust. Instead, community members can fill this critical role.
Another priority is the 13%-15% of Americans who rely on private well water, which is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These households are responsible for their own water quality testing. Public funding would help them test it regularly and address any problems.
Public distrust of tap water in the U.S. reflects decades of policies that have reduced access to reliable, safe drinking water in communities of color. Fixing water lines is important, but so is giving people confidence to turn on the tap.
Asher Rosinger is an assistant professor of biobehavioral health, anthropology, and demography and director of the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Penn State University.
Disclosure statement: Asher Rosinger receives funding from the National Science Foundation on an unrelated project. This work was supported by the Ann Atherton Hertzler Early Career Professorship funds, and the Penn State Population Research Institute (NICHD P2CHD041025). The funders had no role in the research or interpretation of results.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Life-Saving Drinking Water Disinfectants Have a 'Dark Side ... ›
- Tap Water Safety: There's Good News and Bad News - EcoWatch ›
- How Healthy Is America's Public Health Infrastructure? - EcoWatch ›
- 170 Million Americans Drink Radioactive Tap Water - EcoWatch ›
- Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More ... ›