Nebraska has found itself in the spotlight recently due to a concerning E. coli outbreak linked to onions in McDonald’s hamburgers. While federal officials have finally traced the source to a farm in Colorado, questions about safety in our food production processes linger, especially concerning beef production.
This outbreak has tragically resulted in at least one death and has left dozens of others feeling the effects. Just this week, key federal agencies wrapped up their investigation, confirming that the contamination stemmed from these onions, effectively ruling out burger patties as the culprits. Yet, food safety experts are raising alarms about the potential risks posed by bacteria in manure from factory farms and how it can infiltrate produce operations.
Prashant Singh, an associate professor specializing in health, nutrition, and food science at Florida State University, shed light on the precarious relationship between livestock and produce farming operations. He pointed out that, “Manure, if not processed correctly in large operations, can spill over into areas where fresh produce is grown.”
Specifically, contaminated dust from concentrated animal feeding operations can settle on lettuce fields or enter irrigation canals, raising serious concerns. In a related incident, a California carrot company was forced to issue a voluntary recall due to another E. coli outbreak, highlighting the troubling proximity of carrot farms to factory farms.
Singh emphasized that while meat production has surged due to advancing technology and is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, produce safety is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, which lacks comparable resources. “On the FDA side, they lack everything. Their hands are very full,” Singh remarked.
Despite this resource disparity, food safety advocates have pointed out that the meat lobby has heavily influenced regulations to avoid stricter oversight from the USDA. Existing laws are often limited in scope, and alarmingly, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed nine multistate foodborne illness outbreaks in just 2024.
This story is based on original reporting.
Get more stories like this via email
New insights into our food systems.
It’s no secret that factory farms lean heavily on antibiotics to manage animals in cramped and often unsanitary conditions. What’s less commonly known is that the need for these antibiotics is on the rise. In 2022, sales of medically important antibiotics in U.S. livestock farming climbed over four percent compared to the previous year, continuing an upward trend since 2018. This raises alarms about the potential for increased human mortality linked to antibiotic-resistant infections.
These antibiotics, crucial for treating human diseases, have been extensively utilized globally, with the livestock industry reportedly consuming an eye-popping 99,502 metric tons in 2020 alone. This widespread use is a significant contributor to the emergence of resistant bacteria, a situation described as a “growing crisis” by health experts.
Each year, the Centers for Disease Control estimates over 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the U.S., leading to more than 35,000 deaths. On a global scale, one study estimated that antimicrobial resistance was linked to approximately 4.95 million deaths.
Factory Farms and Their Dependency on Antibiotics
Data from the FDA shows that sales of medically important antimicrobials used in agriculture increased by 4.3 percent in 2022, reaching 6.25 million kilograms. Although this figure represents a decline from the peak observed in 2016, it remains a concerning upward trend.
Experts like Thomas van Boeckel highlight that the U.S. is not showing commitment to reducing the use of antimicrobials sustainably compared to some European and Asian nations. He notes that the problem is particularly pronounced in the pig and cattle sectors, revealing a troubling reliance on antibiotics that could exacerbate resistance development.
Steven Roach of the Food Animal Concerns Trust emphasizes that prior to 2016, use of medically important drugs was even more widespread in livestock. In response, federal rules were tightened in 2017, prohibiting the use of these drugs for growth promotion.
Sales data indicate that in 2022, medically important antibiotics for cattle surged 4.3 percent, while for pigs, sales rose nearly 5 percent—both figures indicating a worrisome trend.
Antibiotics for Healthy Animals: A Recipe for Disaster
Farmers employ antimicrobials in three key ways, Roach explains. The first is treating sick animals, which is widely supported. The second involves treating groups of animals to prevent disease spread from a sick individual. However, the third practice—treating healthy animals to prevent disease—is contentious and banned in Europe.
Most antimicrobials are administered through feed and water. Studies have shown that adding these drugs to water may accelerate the spread of resistant bacteria among animals and feedlot workers.
Roach points out that the FDA data lacks specifics on how much of each antimicrobial is used for preventative measures, complicating efforts to understand the extent of the problem.
In his view, the U.S. livestock sector is lagging behind global standards in reducing medically important antimicrobials, partly due to a lack of governmental action. “We can’t even get anyone in the U.S. government to acknowledge the need to cut back on these drugs in food animals,” he states, attributing this status quo to industry lobbying.
Roach advocates for the FDA to follow the EU’s lead and prohibit preventative use of these drugs, suggesting a public health goal to reduce their use by 50 percent by a certain year.
In the absence of government action, Roach believes consumer pressure is the most effective way to push for change. “We’ve had success in urging major meat buyers to influence companies. The good news is that in the chicken sector, we’re seeing a decline in antibiotic use, thanks to pressure from the market,” he adds.
Some companies are taking a stand against antibiotics altogether. As Chris Oliviero from Niman Ranch highlights, “Our family farmers show every day that routine antibiotic use is unnecessary when animals are provided a low-stress environment with ample space and humane care.” Niman Ranch’s policy is clear: animals treated with antibiotics are never sold for meat.
Pushback from Regulatory Bodies
Responses from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council have not been forthcoming.
In defense of their practices, the FDA has stated their commitment to judicious antimicrobial use in food-producing animals, actively promoting responsible practices to curb the risk of antimicrobial resistance. They cite existing regulations ensuring that all medically important antimicrobials are distributed only under a veterinarian’s supervision.
In addressing comparisons with international policies, the FDA noted that U.S. livestock dynamics differ significantly from those in the EU and emphasized that their initiatives are tailored to the U.S. context.
While the American Veterinary Medical Health Association acknowledges that antimicrobial sales data is a useful market indicator, they caution that it may not accurately reflect actual usage. They suggest that higher livestock populations could account for increased sales figures.
However, Steven Roach argues that a closer examination of the data would likely reveal even higher sales figures when adjusted for biomass. “In fact, data suggest that even with fewer animals in 2022, the sales of medically important antimicrobials are rising even more sharply,” he concludes.
Your health is at stake—stay informed about what’s on your plate.
Get more stories like this via email
Exciting news for the Free Clinic of Simi Valley as they unveil a brand-new rooftop solar power system—an upgrade that will keep their doors open and lights on for the community’s most vulnerable patients.
Serving over 10,000 low-income residents annually who are uninsured or underinsured, this Ventura County facility has received funding through a grant from the global nonprofit, Direct Relief.
Fred Bauermeister, the clinic’s executive director, shared that being mostly “off the power grid” allows them to allocate funds to other essential services. “Even with our building being donated, we’re still paying approximately $3,000 a month for electricity, which is tough for any nonprofit to manage,” Bauermeister explained. “It’s much harder to entice donations for utility bills.”
The newly installed solar array, along with an upcoming battery backup system, will provide a robust 53 kilowatts of power, making the clinic officially net-zero regarding their carbon emissions.
Through the Power for Health Initiative, born from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, Direct Relief granted $165,000 for this transformative project.
Sara Rossi, managing director of the group’s Health Resiliency Fund, detailed that the primary need for health providers is to maintain power supply. “This includes enhancing resilience against climate change through rooftop solar and battery systems that provide backup during outages,” Rossi articulated. “It also plays a crucial role in improving their capacity to store essential medications and vaccines.”
Bauermeister emphasized that Direct Relief’s solar power initiative is a lasting gift for their patients. “Thanks to their generosity, we installed 135 solar panels on our roof,” he stated. “To date, we’ve saved $8,249.87, and this will continue to save us money on electricity for years to come.”
Disclosure: Direct Relief contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Environment, and Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.Get more stories like this via email
A new report has raised alarms regarding the financial stability of New York hospitals.
The recent New York State Hospitals Fiscal Survey Report reveals that hospitals across the state are projecting an operating budget margin of a concerning 0.0%. While this is a slight improvement, administrators warn it’s still inadequate for meeting patient care demands.
Bea Grause, president of the Healthcare Association of New York State, pointed out the stark reality: government reimbursements simply aren’t covering the rising costs of healthcare. “These reimbursements are fixed and don’t keep pace with the increasing expenses that hospitals are facing,” Grause explained. “While they do grow a bit year over year, the gap is widening.”
She emphasized that hospitals can’t raise their commercial prices to compensate, urging for adjustments in Medicare and Medicaid payments to ensure they keep up with rising costs. Prescription drug prices have surged, now sitting 83% above the rate of inflation, posing additional challenges.
Staffing shortages compound New York hospitals’ financial struggles, with the report indicating labor costs have swelled by more than 36% since 2019. Although contract labor expenses are finally showing a decline, they remain double what they were four years ago.
Grause stressed the critical link between staffing levels and the quality of services provided. “If a hospital is going to offer a dialysis unit, they need a nephrologist and likely more than one, alongside specially trained nurses, the right equipment, and necessary medications,” she noted.
Another factor contributing to hospitals’ dwindling operating margins is the pressure from insurers. The report indicates that some surveyed hospitals anticipate insurers’ actions will slash their 2024 operating revenues by 5% or more, equating to an estimated loss of $1.3 billion or more.
Get more stories like this via email
