Most U.S. Antibiotics Fed to Healthy Livestock

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Increasingly many microbes that cause human disease are becoming resistant to antibiotics, in large part because the drugs are now more often used when they are not really needed. Much of the blame for this excessive use may fall on the meat industry, which frequently feeds antibiotics to livestock animals from birth to slaughter to promote growth. According to a new study from the Union for Concerned Scientists, meat producers feed some 25 million pounds of antibiotics to chickens, pigs and cows for non-therapeutic purposes each year. That figure represents about 70 percent of all antibiotics produced annually in the United States, and is considerably higher than some of the industry's own estimates. Stated another way, the amount of antibiotics fed to healthy animals is eight times greater than the amount given to sick people, which is 3 million pounds per year.

The report, Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock, states that industry feeds some 10 million pounds of antibiotics to healthy hogs each year; 11 million pounds to poultry; and 4 million pounds to cattle. Lacking government-backed data, the authors of the report instead devised a way to determine antibiotic use in livestock from information available in public documents, including herd sizes, approved drug lists and dosages. Based on what they found, they urge the pharmaceutical and livestock industries to supply more complete data to the public so that it will be easier for scientists to explore any connections between the drugs used in animals and the spread of resistance. They also recommend that government agencies get more involved. "The government should act now to collect the needed data," says Margaret Mellon, co-author of the report. "The price of complacency could set us back to an era where untreatable infectious diseases are regrettably commonplace."

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