Antibiotics Sales for Use in U.S. Farms Animals Dropping for First Time

The report comes from the Food and Drug Administration

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

CHICAGO (Reuters)—The sale and distribution of antibiotics approved for use in food-producing animals in the United States decreased by 10 percent from 2015 to 2016, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report said on Thursday.

It was the first decline in year-to-year sales since the FDA began collecting the data in 2009, according to food and consumer health groups.

For years scientists have warned that the regular use of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent illness in healthy farm animals fuels dangerous, antibiotic-resistant “superbug” infections in people.Major U.S. food companies including McDonald’s and Tyson Foods have stepped up efforts to curtail, and in some cases eliminate, antibiotics in their products.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Actions speak louder than words, and the most action we’ve seen on antibiotics has come from food companies,” said Matthew Wellington, Antibiotics Program Director of public interest campaigning group U.S. PIRG. “We’re cheering this good news.”

Last month, the World Health Organization urged farmers to completely stop using antibiotics to enhance growth and prevent disease in healthy animals.

An estimated 70 percent of the kinds of antibiotics that are also used to fight human infections and in surgery are sold in the United States for use in meat production.

In 2016, sales and distribution of those medically important antibiotics for food production fell 14 percent, the FDA said.

Medically important antimicrobials accounted for 60 percent of the domestic sales of all antimicrobials approved for use in farm animals in 2016, the agency said.

The FDA’s data show chicken accounting for 6 percent of medically important antibiotic sales, with swine at 37 percent and cattle at 43 percent.

Avinash Kar, senior attorney at environmental activist group the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the overall decline offers a “glimmer of hope” that the growing epidemic of drug-resistant infections can be beaten.

While Kar attributed the progress to significant changes undertaken by the chicken industry, he said the pork and beef sectors lag behind.

Tyson Foods, the nation’s leading meat producer, this year became the world’s largest producer of no-antibiotic-ever chicken, the company said in an e-mail to Reuters on Thursday.

Tyson said it was working with independent farmers to reduce human-use antibiotics from its beef and pork supply chain.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe