Raising Livestock, Breeding Resistance

As the world crept toward pandemic recovery in 2024, meat production in the United States rose by a mere 1 percent. A slight increase, indeed. Despite that, antibiotic sales for livestock in the United States surged during the same timeframe. Not a trickle, mind you, but a surge. Nearly 16 percent more antibiotics deemed as medically necessary were sold for use in US meat production compared to the previous year. That number is startling. Why? Because it doesn’t track with meat demand or animal illness outbreaks. Instead, it tracks with a single significant issue: industrial overcrowding.

A closer look exposes that the increase in antibiotic use isn’t about sick animals. It’s about how many animals can be crammed into a confined space before that space becomes a fertile breeding ground for bacteria. To combat the situation, in a move that can be described as risk management via accelerated antibiotic resistance, factory farms don’t wait for an infection to break out. They prophylactically inject entire herds with antibiotics to avoid the financial fallout of an outbreak.

Incredibly, over 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the US are not going to humans. They are going into livestock animals that often aren’t even sick. And while the FDA did ban antibiotics for growth production back in 2017, the agency left the back door wide open for the overuse of antibiotics for disease prevention. Even worse, the FDA does not collect data on how antibiotics are actually used on farms, so there is no tracking of how much is used in healthy rather than sick animals.

Sure, the industry insists these antibiotics are being administered under veterinary oversight. But oversight without enforcement is nothing more than a suggestion, not a safeguard. And the distinction between “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” becomes a game of semantics when the reality of the game is thousands of animals cruelly crammed tightly together on slatted floors, conveniently—and intentionally—hidden behind marketing myths.

What makes this abhorrent situation even more infuriating is the cynical marketing that cloaks our nation’s meat supply. Labels like “raised without antibiotics” seem comforting enough until it is revealed that roughly 20 percent of beef tested under those claims still showed traces of prohibited antibiotics. In other words, the meat sampled was on track to be sold as “antibiotic-free.” That snafu is not a labeling issue. Like so many aspects that involve Big Pharma and government agencies, that is a breakdown of trust. In 2025, speaking of the situation, Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of Farm Forward, remarked:

“This strongly suggests that the US antibiotic-free beef supply is deeply contaminated and deeply deceptive to American consumers.”

Meanwhile, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to advance quietly and steadily, claiming an estimated 1.27 million lives worldwide each year. These aren’t speculative deaths. They are infections that should have been treatable but weren’t, because the bacteria at hand had seen it all before, and got smarter. It is truly a frightening situation, and one that is already reshaping medicine. Transplants, cancer treatments, and C-sections, among other procedures, all rely on effective antibiotics to prevent infection. If AMR continues its climb, those routine interventions are instead a gamble of life or death.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that the United Nations is quick to point out that the rise in AMR is largely due to the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs to control diseases such as the avian flu. Combined with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “One Health” approach, the UN insists that vaccines are “an essential tool for reducing overall reliance on antibiotics.” Earlier this month, the UN declared:

“The connections between avian influenza, livestock health, and antimicrobial resistance highlight the need for a unified approach to global health challenges. Vaccines can play a crucial role in the prevention of diseases like bird flu and the emergence of resistant pathogens, but they are ultimately just one crucial element of a much larger systemic solution.  

But by taking a coordinated, evidence-based approach to vaccine development, antibiotic use, and environmental sustainability, we can safeguard our future from the threat of emerging infectious diseases. The time to act is now, and the responsibility lies with us all—from farmers to policymakers, scientists to consumers—to ensure a healthier, safer world for all.”

No, thank you, United Nations. You can keep your vaccines. What’s truly maddening is that we know that better ways to care for livestock already exist. For example, Denmark slashed antibiotic use in livestock by changing the farming environment. No, not with high-tech gadgets or AI, but with simply more space for livestock, cleaner facilities, and better animal welfare standards. There is no need to fight bacteria with a Big Pharma profit machine if animals are not knee deep in their own feces. Animals deserve better. Indeed, disease prevention in animals begins with measures such as improved ventilation and caps on animal density. Farms should be designed with effective biosecurity protocols, humane treatment, and rotated grazing. Better practices are not just better for animals, but also for humans and the effectiveness of antibiotics.

The irony in this serious situation is thick. Decades have been spent in human medicine trying to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Yet, the agriculture sector has been allowed to continue to mainline antibiotics into animals that are not even sick. This is a significant cultural blind spot that must be stopped. No, there does not need to be a ban on treating animals that are unfortunately sick. But using human-class antibiotics to preemptively treat perfectly healthy animals because it is cheaper than giving them more space to live is nothing but cruel. It is a gamble that we’re all being conscripted into.

It is a problem that must be dealt with by the agencies tasked with overseeing our nation’s livestock. Consumers cannot be expected to buy their way out of worry with hopeful or misleading labels. Regulators cannot keep skirting the antibiotic crisis with partial bans followed by quiet nods. And importantly, the livestock industry can’t continue to be allowed to externalize the cost of its inhumane production model onto the future of modern medicine, and at the expense of human health.

A proper fix starts with absolute transparency. Antibiotic use in livestock needs to be tracked with the same rigor used to track outbreaks. Without a doubt, farms that provide better living conditions and reduce antibiotic use should be rewarded with incentives. And bans that already exist must be enforced. Disease prevention must take place through better livestock living conditions, not through Big Pharma’s solutions at the expense of our health. Because if bacteria adapt faster than methods of reform, that is not a sustainable food system. That is a slow-motion collapse directed by a lab coat. It has never been more important than it is now to know where our food comes from. That means shop locally, stick to organic whenever possible, and be mindful and aware of the journey your food encounters before it reaches your plate.