The Pork Industry’s Stance on Antibiotics Totally Misses the Point

It’s as if they’ve never heard of superbugs.

<a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/license/484521569">t-lorien</a>/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, fast-food poultry giant KFC joined McDonald’s, Chipotle, Panera Bread, and 11 other major chains in promising not to serve poultry raised with antibiotics. The announcement came after years of pressure from consumers and advocacy groups concerned about the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Because of the move, by next year, more than half of the chicken we eat in the United States will likely be free of antibiotics.

“Obviously they’re trying to change the subject,” one expert said of the Pork Council’s statement.

That’s a big deal: As my colleague Tom Philpott has reported, nearly two-thirds of all the antibiotics in the United States go to agriculture. Antibiotic use in agriculture increased by 22 percent from 2009 to 2014. The rampant overuse on farms means that bacteria adapt, become resistant, and can breed superbugs that pose a global threat to human health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called antibiotic resistance “one of the world’s most pressing health concerns.” Last fall, an elderly woman in Nevada was the first person to die of a strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae that resisted “all available antimicrobial drugs.”

Now that chicken sellers are flocking away from antibiotics, advocacy groups have set their sights on another item on Americans’ dinner plates: pork. The Natural Resources Defense Council took the lead in putting pressure on the chicken industry for about three years—and the organization is now mobilizing to do the same with others. The campaign is timely: Late last year, researchers found bacteria on a hog farm in the United States that was resistant to carbapenems, antibiotics known as the “last line of defense.” A resistant strain of E. coli was found in pigs in China, where half the world’s hogs reside, the year before.

Pork producers, meanwhile, insist there’s not much to worry about. In a statement last week, the National Pork Producers Council told Politico’s Morning Ag, “It’s important not to be misled by activist claims that antibiotic use in animal care results in its presence in consumed meat. When they are used, US pork producers stop giving antibiotics to animals for a set period of time prior to marketing so consumers don’t have to worry about antibiotics in their meat.”

But Erik Olson, director of health and environmental programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, points out that the pork industry seems to be missing the point: Health officials aren’t as worried about traces of antibiotics in the meat as they are about superbugs.

“Obviously they’re trying to change the subject,” Olson said of the Pork Council’s statement.

Olson argues that ridding hog farms of antibiotics wouldn’t be reinventing the wheel. Producers in Denmark have phased out their use, as have a few in the United States. Niman Ranch, formerly owned by meat entrepreneur Bill Niman and now owned by Perdue, doesn’t use antibiotics at all.* (Tom Philpott wrote about Perdue’s endeavor to raise antibiotic-free chicken.)

Olson also points out that antibiotic-raised meat is swiftly falling out of fashion. A recent marketing survey found that 66 percent of consumers ranked a “no added antibiotics” label as a “very important” factor in their food-buying decisions. “The writing is on the wall for the industry,” said Olson. “This is what consumers are demanding.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly characterized Niman Ranch’s use of antibiotics. The company never uses antibiotics.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate