By Marlowe Starling and Andrew Wasley for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

As global leaders at the UN in New York pledged to tackle human suffering caused by antimicrobial resistance, the U.S. 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 entirely. 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 U.S.: "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 Department of Agriculture introduced 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 Our Honor, 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 for 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 minimize 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 U.S. government routinely investigates livestock farms that send animals for slaughter that contain drug residues, including antibiotics.

Brown, the cattle farmer, said that while some farmers still felt under pressure to send their animals on for slaughter soon after treatment, the FDA rule had changed how she used 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 drugs, 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 U.S. meat-packing plants and analyzed 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 with links to Cargill through one of its board members, appear to endorse "preventative" antibiotics for farm animals - using the drugs on animals who are not unwell - despite concerns that this increases the risk of drug resistance. Preventative antibiotic treatment was recently 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 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.


Marlowe Starling and Andrew Wasley wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

It is National Rural Health Day and experts are flagging research showing increasing health disparities between urban and rural places, including in South Dakota.

A new advisory from the American Heart Association shows between 2010 and 2022, cardiovascular death rates increased a whopping 21% among young adults in rural areas, especially after the onset of COVID-19. In urban areas, the rate increased only 3%.

Dr. Karen Joynt-Maddox, associate professor of medicine at Washington University, chairs the association's presidential advisory committee and said the change is due to a mixed bag of increased risk factors in rural areas.

"If you put that on top of a real problem with health care infrastructure and access in rural areas, you sort of have a perfect storm for worsening cardiovascular health."

Joynt-Maddox noted traditional risk factors include high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity, which have been increasing in rural areas over the last few decades. Other contributing factors, she said, include poverty, food insecurity, depression and substance use disorder.

Tim Nikolai, Midwest senior rural health director for the American Heart Association, said rural communities have less access to resources like health care and grocery stores with fresh produce. Even access to high speed internet contributes to health outcomes. Health care providers are stretched thin, Nikolai added.

"It stretched hospitals and health care providers to try to serve the needs of their community the best way they can," Nikolai observed. "And that's something we're trying to collaborate with them on, is how can they meet people where they are?"

Nikolai listed some work happening in South Dakota including offering blood pressure monitoring at local libraries, installing four new Public Health AmeriCorps members across the state and the town of Spearfish prioritizing public CPR training and AED access.

More than 38 million Americans live with diabetes, including nearly 1 million Georgians.

The Georgia Department of Public Health estimates another 230,000 people in the state may have diabetes but don't know it.

During National Diabetes Month, Dr. Griffin Rodgers - director of the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health - emphasized the importance of managing diabetes early to prevent serious health complications.

"Diabetes can damage blood vessels and nerves," said Rodgers, "so the patients that have it have a higher risk of developing conditions like a heart attack or a stroke, diseases of the kidneys and the eyes and the teeth, as well as the lower extremities."

Between 2014 and 2018, diabetes led to over 100,000 hospitalizations and 154,000 emergency-room visits in Georgia.

But Rodgers said diabetes is preventable and manageable. He added that regular wellness visits - where blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol are checked - are key to staying healthy.

Rodgers said a healthy diet is a major part of managing or preventing diabetes.

He suggested eating plenty of fresh produce, whole grains, and lean proteins like fish - and cutting back on sugary drinks by choosing water instead.

Regular exercise and seven to eight hours of sleep each night are also important.

"On the physical activity side, 30 minutes a day, five days a week for most adults is what's
generally recommended," said Rodgers. "Just walking. And if you can't do the 30 minutes all at one time, breaking it into either two 15, or three 10-minute intervals is sufficient."

Early signals that diabetes could be a problem include frequent urination, constant thirst or hunger, fatigue, blurry vision, nausea, unexpected weight loss, or tingling in your hands and feet.

Rodgers said managing diabetes can be as simple as focusing on "the A-B-Cs of care" - checking your A1C, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and quitting smoking.




get more stories like this via email

California could be in for some big cuts to health care for low-income families under a second Trump administration, according to health experts.

Policy specialists at the nonprofit KFF said they are bracing for Trump allies in Congress to make major reductions to Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, in order to pay for big tax cuts promised by the president-elect.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president of health policy at KFF, said it would force states to backfill or raise costs.

"For the ACA, simply letting enhanced financial aid expire after next year would result in big out-of-pocket premium increases, reduced enrollment and more people uninsured," Levitt projected.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Trump's choice for Health and Human Services Secretary, did not say much on the campaign trail about funding for Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, so his positions are unclear. Kennedy has expressed skepticism about vaccines and has said the U.S. should stop putting fluoride in drinking water.

Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of the Global Health and HIV Policy Program for KFF, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cannot require states to follow its recommendations on vaccines and fluoridation.

"That's up to states and local governments," Kates explained. "But CDC can recommend, and if those recommendations are not being made or being watered down or changed, that sends a message to states, to schools, to parents."

Health advocates are also raising concerns DACA recipients could lose access to health plans sold on the state marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act. Changes to so-called "public charge" rules could make families with mixed immigration status hesitant to use Medicaid benefits.


get more stories like this via email