FOOD

To Our Health
Why the California Senate Should Pass S.B. 416
Fact Sheet • May 2009

I f you eat food, care about the environment or value your health, you should
lend your support to S.B. 416. This piece of legislation was offered by California
Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) and addresses a major public health threat in
California’s food system and environment: the practice of feeding healthy animals
low doses of antibiotics to make them grow faster and to keep illness from spreading
between animals confined closely together.

This practice affects us all. It contributes to the presence
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can reach humans
through food and the environment. It also jeopardizes the
effectiveness of the antibiotics used to treat humans when
we are sick. S.B. 416 deserves our support because it bans
the practice in California, setting the stage for a national
ban — and helping to build a healthier food system.
What does the bill do?
Starting in 2015, livestock and poultry producers in the
state of California would be prohibited from feeding im-
portant human antibiotics, such as penicillin and tetra-
cycline, to healthy animals (this practice is called “non-
therapeutic antibiotic use”). The bill also requires state
and local governments purchasing meat and poultry to
favor products produced without nontherapeutic antibi-
otics. And it encourages schools to report to the public if
they serve or are trying to obtain meat produced without
nontherapeutic antibiotics.
Why is this necessary?
Because nontherapeutic antibiotic use
is routine in the largest livestock opera-
tions. Starting in the 1950s, livestock and poultry
producers found that when animals were fed low doses
of antibiotics, they grew more quickly. Today, produc-
ers use the drugs to promote growth and to keep illness
from spreading among animals packed closely together in
barns, often in unhygienic conditions.1
The volume of antibiotics fed to animals for these non-
therapeutic purposes dwarfs the amount used to treat
sick animals.2 A full half of the antibiotics used are either
the same or very similar to those given to humans when
they are sick3 — including critical human drugs like peni-
cillin and tetracycline.
When humans receive antibiotics, they must see a doctor
and get a prescription. Patients are warned to take the
full drug regimen because doing otherwise could reduce
antibiotic effectiveness and breed bacterial resistance.
But livestock and poultry producers can purchase antibi-
otics, often pre-mixed in feed, from farm stores or over
the Internet without a prescription — and they are giving
these drugs to animals that are not sick. 4

Because the practice puts human health

at risk. The World Health Organization, the American
Medical Association, the Institute of Medicine and other
prestigious medical authorities have found that nonthera-
peutic antibiotic use in food animal production breeds
drug-resistant pathogens that can be transferred to
humans. They have all called for a ban on nontherapeutic
antibiotic use in the food system.
Industrial livestock operations — facilities that confine
hundreds or thousands of animals together in barns and
add antibiotics and other substances to feed to promote
growth — are an ideal breeding ground for drug-resistant
bacteria.5 When bacteria are exposed to low doses of
antibiotics, they become resistant to one or many of the
drugs and spread that resistance to other bacteria. These
bacteria — including E. coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella —
can reach humans when workers come in direct contact
with the animals, 6 or they can be spread through the
environment (in water or soil7 or on flies8). They can also
contaminate the food we eat.9 A recent study by Consum-
er Reports looked at 525 chicken samples bought at su-
permarkets across the country and found Campylobacter
and Salmonella bacteria on 83% of the chicken tested;
over 65% of the bacterial samples were resistant to one or
more antibiotics.10
Because the bill will still allow producers
to treat animals with antibiotics when-
ever they are sick. S.B. 416 will not take away
the ability of producers to treat their animals when they
are sick. It will instead phase out the practice of feeding
healthy animals low doses of important human antibiot-
ics over their lifetimes.
Because we can reduce antibiotic use and
preserve animal health. Critics of S.B. 416 argue
that if they cannot feed healthy animals antibiotics, more
animals will become sick, requiring greater use of antibi-
otics for therapeutic purposes. This assertion mischarac-
terizes what the bill does and conflicts with evidence from
other countries.
First, S.B. 416 does not ban all nontherapeutic antibiotics
used in animal agriculture. It only bans those drugs that
are also used to treat humans. Antibiotics approved only
for animal use will still be allowed under the bill.
Second, producers can take steps to reduce the chances
that animals will become sick after the ban is in place.
Sweden banned the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics for
animal growth promotion in 1985. Over the next decade,
the total amount of antibiotics given to animals for any
purpose dropped by 50 percent. The steep reduction was
due in part to the fact that the Swedish livestock industry
developed new animal husbandry practices that improved
hygiene in the barns and reduced animal stress, both
factors that can make animals vulnerable to disease.11 The
share of animals receiving antibiotics to treat disease fell
steadily after these practices were implemented.12 The
Swedish example shows that it is possible to significantly
reduce antibiotic use, improve animal health, and keep
producers in business. Food & Water Watch supports
outreach to California’s livestock and poultry producers
to help them adapt and implement alternative practices.
Because the bill will lower healthcare
costs. Because S.B. 416 will reduce the presence of
resistant bacteria in the environment and on our food, it
will result in significant healthcare savings for consumers.
Campylobacter, E. coli and Salmonella are three of the
leading causes of foodborne illness in the United States,13
and the increase in antibiotic-resistant strains of these
bacteria is a serious concern for human health. According
to the Centers for Disease Control, when humans become
sick with an antibiotic-resistant strain of foodborne ill-
ness, the infection is typically more severe and longer in
duration than if the strain were not resistant. Patients also
experience higher rates of bloodstream infections and
increased mortality.14 A 2005 study finds that hospital
costs are between $6,000 and $10,000 higher when the
patient is infected with a resistant bacterium compared to
an infection that responds to antibiotics.15
Because consumers across the country
are asking for this. Although critics contend that
S.B. 416 would burden livestock and poultry producers,
food companies across the country are already success-
fully transitioning away from the practice because of con-
sumer pressure — so many producers have already made
the switch. McDonald’s implemented a policy in 2003
requiring all direct poultry suppliers to eliminate their
use of medically-important antibiotics for growth promo-
tion. It also created a purchasing policy that favors beef
and pork from operations that comply with this policy.16
Bon Appetit Management Company, based in Palo Alto,
adopted a similar purchasing policy.17 Other companies
with policies banning the use of some medically-impor-
tant nontherapeutic antibiotics for some or all of their
meat and poultry include Chipotle Mexican Grill, Panera
Bread, Dairy Queen, Domino’s Pizza, KFC, Subway, TGI
Friday’s, Wendy’s and others. 18
Because S.B. 416 is the right thing to do.
There is much to be done to reduce the chances that
consumers will be sickened by foodborne pathogens. But
we must also ensure that if they do get sick, we have all
the tools available to treat them. Nontherapeutic antibi-
otic use is immobilizing our first line of defense against
foodborne illness by rendering human-use antibiotics
ineffective.
A growing number of organizations have voiced support
for S.B. 416, including Food & Water Watch, Consum-
ers Union, Center for Food Safety, Breast Cancer Action,
Health Care Without Harm, the Union of Concerned
Scientists and others. Join them by lending your support
to S.B. 416.
Endnotes
1 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. “Put-
ting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in
America.” Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: Pew Commission
and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 2008, at 13.
2 Aarestrup, FM. Occurrence, selection and spread of resistance to
antimicrobial agents used for growth promotion for food animals
in Denmark. APMIS Suppl. Vol. 101, 2000, at 1-48; Florini, K, R
Denison, T Stiffler, T Fitzgerald, and R Goldburg. “Resistant bugs
and antibiotic drugs: State and county estimates of antibiotics
in agricultural feed and animal waste.” Environmental Defense,
2005.
3 Based on calculations from Melon, M, C Benbrook and KL Ben-
brook. “Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Live-
stock.” Washington, DC: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2001.
4 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. “Put-
ting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in
America.” Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: Pew Commission
and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 2008.
5 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. “Put-
ting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in
America.” Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: Pew Commission
and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 2008, at 13.
6 Levy, S, G Fitzgerald, and A Macone. Changes in intestinal flora of
farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented
feed on a farm. N Engl J Med. Vol. 295, 1976 at 583-588; Akwar
TH, C Poppe, J Wilson, RJ Reid-Smith, M Dyck, J Waddington,
D Shang, N Dassie, and SA McEwen. Risk factors for antimicro-
bial resistance among fecal Escherichia coli from residents on
forty-three swine farms. Microb Drug Resist. Vol. 13, no. 1, 2007
at 69-76; Price LB, JP Graham, LG Lackey, A Roess, R Vailes,
and E Silbergeld. Elevated risk of carrying gentamicin-resistant
Escherichia coli among U.S. poultry workers. Environ Health
Perspect. Vol. 115, no. 12, 2007 at 1738-42; Khanna T, R Friend-
ship, C Dewey, and JS Weese. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus
aureus colonization in pigs and pig farmers. Vet Microbiol. Vol.
128, no. 3-4, 2008 at298-303; Smith, TC, MJ Male, AL Harper,
JS Kroeger, GP Tinkler, et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus (MRSA) Strain ST398 Is Present in Midwestern U.S.
Swine and Swine Workers. PLoS ONE vol. 4, no. 1, 2009 at e4258.
7 Chee-Sanford JC, Aminov RI, Krapac IJ, et al. Occurrence and
diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and ground-
water underlying two swine production facilities. Applied and
Env. Microb. Vol. 67, 2001 at 1494-1502; Kumar, K., SC Gupta,
Y Chander and AK Singh. Antibiotic Use in Agriculture and its
Impact on the Terrestrial Environment. Adv Agro, vol. 87, 2005 at
1-54.
8 Graham, JP, LB Price, SL Evans, TK Graczyka, and EK Silbergeld.
Antibiotic-resistant enterococci and staphylococci isolated from
flies collected near confined poultry feeding operations. Sci Total
Env, Article in Press, 2009.
9 Spika J., Waterman S., Hoo G., et al. Chloramphenicol-resistant
Salmonella Newport traced through hamburger to dairy farms: A
major persistint source of human salmonellosis in California. New
England Journal of Medicine, vol. 316. 1987, at 565-570.
10 Consumer Reports. “Dirty Birds.” In Consumer Reports, available
online at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/food-safety/
chicken-safety/chicken-safety-1-07/overview/0107_chick_
ov.htm. Accessed March 4 2009; published January 2007.
11 Goforth, RL, and CR Goforth. Appropriate Regulation of Antibiot-
ics in Livestock Feed. Journal of the Boston College Department of
Environmental Affairs, vol. 28, no. 1. 2000, at 39-78.
12 Harrison JW and TA Svec. The beginning of the end of the antibi-
otic era? Part 1. Quint Int, 29 (3), 1998.
13 Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. “Foodborne Illness: What Consumers Need to Know.”
Available online at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FactSheets/Food-
borne_Illness_What_Consumers_Need_to_Know/index.asp.
Accessed March 12, 2009.
14 Angulo FJ, VN Nargund, and TC Chiller. Evidence of an associa-
tion between use of anti-microbial agents in food animals and
anti-microbial resistance among bacteria isolated from humans
and the human health consequences of such resistance. J Vet Med
B Infect Dis Vet Public Health, vol. 51 no. 8-9. Oct-Nov 2004, at
374-379.
15 Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW, Carmeli
Y. The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus
bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and
hospital charges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol vol. 26. 2005, at
166-74.
16 Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. “Statements on Antibiotic
Use by Major Restaurant Chains and Food Service Companies.”
Available online at http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/
consumers_statements.cfm. Accessed April 14, 2009.
17 Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. “Statements on Antibiotic
Use by Major Restaurant Chains and Food Service Companies.”
Available online at http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/
consumers_statements.cfm. Accessed April 14, 2009.
18 Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. “Statements on Antibiotic
Use by Major Restaurant Chains and Food Service Companies.”
Available online at http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/
consumers_statements.cfm. Accessed April 14, 2009.
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: california@fwwatch.org
phone: (415) 293-9900 (CA)
Copyright © May 2009 Food & Water Watch