Behind the Label: Does Antibiotic-Free Matter?

Happy Friday, everyone!

Today's post is the beginning of a several-weeks' long series we're piloting about food labels.

As I scroll my Facebook feed or look at news sites, it seems that an awful lot of attention lately is being given to the labels on the food we eat. What do they mean? What's "good"? What's "bad"? Does any of this really matter?

Because of this, I thought it would be helpful to spend some time "demystifying" what those labels mean. These posts aren't meant to scare-monger, but instead, to put your mind at ease and give you some actionable advice that you can take with you into the grocery store, or into your next conversation with a local farmer.

First on our list: antibiotics.

A (Not So) Brief History of Antibiotics

Antibiotics have gotten a HUGELY bad rap in the last couple of decades - some of which is misplaced, and some of which is well-deserved anger. 

It's only been for about a century (a little less) that we've had antibiotics in our arsenal as humans. Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, then introduced on a large scale in the mid-1940s.

Antibiotics were, to say the least, life-changing. The World Health Organization estimates that antibiotics add a whopping 20 years, on average, to our life expectancy. All kinds of common diseases that we don't think about much now, are eradicated or significantly ameliorated because of antibiotics. 

We've all had strep throat - at one point in time (as late as the 1970s, in fact) strep throat was often a fatal disease. Now, it's just an annoyance - painful, sure, but a course of antibiotics means it's just a few days off work or out of daycare.

In animals, antibiotics are also important. Though not a daily occurrence to say the least, we've used antibiotics to treat issues like mastitis in our sheep. 

Antibiotics are seldom a producer's first line of defense - preventative measures like good nutrition, rotational grazing, and maintaining appropriate stocking densities are always more ideal for lots of reasons. First, of course, is that it's better for the welfare of the animal. Why let an animal get sick if you can avoid it? 

Second, of course, it's expensive. Farming is seldom considered a "get rich quick" enterprise, and when a single dose of antibiotics costs several dollars - and those doses need to be repeated multiple times, often over several animals - those costs add up. It's better to avoid them entirely. 

There's also a huge issue of antibiotic resistance. Use too many antibiotics over time, and bacteria get smart - they find out how to evade these drugs and eventually, become less effective. Or worse, superbugs develop - enter, MRSA. This staph bacteria is resistant to many of the antibiotics typically used to treat staph infections and can be deadly.

But ditching antibiotics entirely isn't the answer. Just as humans get sick or injured and need the right medicine, so, too, do animals. 

The Problem With Antibiotics

Antibiotics are not the problem. The problem is that, for many years, they weren't being used correctly. 

This is the story of how antibiotics became vilified. 

Recent estimates suggest that roughly 80% of all antibiotics consumed in the US are for animals and agriculture.

Looking at what I told you above about trying to limit the use of antibiotics whenever possible, you might be thinking, "why are so many antibiotics being used if it doesn't benefit the animal or the farmer's bottom line?"

Shortly after antibiotics were discovered and put into broad use in the 1940s, it was discovered that feeding subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics (subtherapeutic meaning a dose that's less than what would be used for treating disease) to animals resulted in improved feed efficiency. This is likely done by impacting gut flora. 

This came as great news as farms had to up their production to meet new consumer demands. 

Unfortunately, we now know that using these antibiotics in this way is hugely problematic. If you've ever been given a prescription for an antibiotic at the doctor's, you've likely been told you need to complete the full course of antibiotics, even if you start to feel better. 

That's because a small dose isn't effective at completely eradicating the bacteria. It's like giving a paper cut when you need to be dealing a fatal blow. They'll come back with a vengeance - ready to fight and more pissed off than ever before. You are, in essence, creating the Mike Tyson of the bacteria world. 

Just about every important class of antibiotics was used in feed, meaning it wasn't just one class (peptide, ionophore, etc) that was affected. It was all of them. That's bad because it meant a lot of that resistance was passed on to humans. If you go to the hospital with an infection and the first antibiotic doesn't work (or you're allergic to it), you'll be given one from another class. This can get trickier as more bacteria become "superbugs."

In 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that more than 70% of all those antibiotics consumed in the US were given to animals without disease, meaning only about 10% of all antibiotics used in farming were for therapeutic (disease-treating) purposes. 

Today, all antibiotics have a withdrawal period, meaning a certain amount of time that an animal can be treated prior to slaughter or milking so that the antibiotic does not end up in the meat or mlk. 

Using antibiotics in feed was banned outright in January 2017. In June 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration ended over-the-counter sales of antibiotics for livestock, meaning all antibiotics now require a prescription from a veterinarian. 

Some consumers and producers applauded this decision. Others, not so much. 

Why Can't We Just Ban Antibiotics Outright?

There's been a longstanding argument that limiting antibiotic use to vet's offices only would also impact producers in rural areas where vet access is limited.

Truth be told, this is something we've grappled with as well. We're fortunate to have a good relationship with a local vet so that we can acquire the medications we need for our animals when they need them - usually, without too much of a delay. 

But what about people who are trying to responsibly produce food who live many hours, many miles, away from the closest vet, for whom getting an antibiotic for an animal might require a $200 vet call, not to mention the cost of the medication itself? In these situations, it may come down to saving the animal's life - and being able to afford feeding the rest of the animals you're caring for. That's not a decision any farmer wants to make. 

However, the threat of antibiotics to the food system (and more importantly, our healthcare system) can't be overlooked, and I do feel the FDA ruling was a step in the right direction. We need to be thoughtful about the interventions we use, but at the same time, we need to do more to support farms and make the process of raising meat, milk, and other products a bit more economical. 

Our Stance on Antibiotics in Livestock Production

We're often asked by customers if we raise "antibiotic-free" meat. And technically, the answer from us always has to be no. We do use antibiotics. 

If I have an ewe who's udder is so swollen with mastitis that her baby can't nurse and she's bellowing in pain, then yes - I'm going to give her a shot of antibiotic to clear the infection and save not just one, but potentially two or three lives (if Mama can't nurse, her babies can't eat, folks). If I have a pig who's suffered a cut, it likely won't be the wound that kills him - it will be an opportunistic infection. So yes, I'll use antibiotics on him.

There are farmers who draw a hard line in the sand here. We are not those farmers. These farmers will argue that much of disease resistance is genetic and you should cull animals that get sick often (or once) and/or allow nature to take its course on those who are already ill and suffering.

From an animal welfare standpoint, I can't get behind that - especially when you consider that antibiotics are often necessary out of bad luck, not as a result of anything the producer was doing wrong. 

"You can prevent mastitis," some people say, referencing the common condition that is a result of a blocked milk duct or inflammation in mammals who produce milk (and a common condition for which antibiotics are required).

Yes - there are steps you can take to prevent mastitis in lactating livestock, just as there are steps nursing human mothers can take to prevent mastitis. 

But prevention isn't 100%. 

Mastitis in livestock, just as in humans, can be fatal, leading to sepsis. Would you tell a nursing mother with mastitis to just let nature take its course - or deny her the antibiotics she needs to get better and continue feeding her baby? Probably not. So why apply a broad stroke approach to anything else?

It's an extreme example, but it's something we need to think about. 

Is There a Solution?

It all comes down to a not-so-black-and-white situation. Antibiotics aren't bad, but they can be used badly. When you're shopping for meat or milk, if you're concerned about antibiotics, I recommend that you ask if they were given antibiotic-free feed instead of asking about antibiotics (which, legally, all farmers in the United States should be doing anyway). 

With the high cost of antibiotics, I highly doubt anybody is prophylactically injecting their animals with antibiotics these days - they're only doing it to treat a problem. 

And also remember that the ban on antibiotics is in the US only. Although the WHO has made recommendations, it is up to individual countries to set their own regulations. Many countries, including China, which produces and consumes the most antibiotics, do not ban antibiotic use in livestock. 

Do your research about the food you're eating, and understand why certain labels matter. You won't see the term "antibiotic-free" on labels because testing can't confirm whether an animal received antibiotics. 

However, you might see terms like "raised without antibiotics" or "no antibiotics." What you should really watch out for, though, is growth-promoting antibiotics. Organic animals can also not be given antibiotics (the exception is poultry, who can be given antibiotics in the hatchery and still considered organic). 

Recommendations and Takeaways

My recommendation? Don't worry so much about if an animal EVER received antibiotics. In a perfect world, it wouldn't need them. Everything would be antibiotic-free. 

But we don't live in a perfect world, and animals still get sick or injured. Eschewing the use of ANY antibiotics in livestock production is about as sensible as going to a hospital to be treated for Strep throat but refusing any antibiotics. You might be able to kick the infection on your own, but you might also get really, really sick. 

The best thing you can do, as a consumer, is to develop a relationship with a local farmer you trust. Ask them their policy on antibiotics. If they don't have one, you might want to ask a few more questions. If they say they don't use any at all, that might warrant a conversation, too. 

Because, as is the case with anything in life - and in agriculture - we need to pay attention to the nuances. And we need to ask the right questions.