Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Assessing the difference in contamination of retail meat with multidrug-resistant bacteria using for-consumer package label claims that indicate on-farm antibiotic use practices— United States, 2016–2019

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (2024)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Antibiotic use in food-producing animals can select for antibiotic resistance in bacteria that can be transmitted to people through contamination of food products during meat processing. Contamination resulting in foodborne illness contributes to adverse health outcomes. Some livestock producers have implemented antibiotic use reduction strategies marketed to consumers on regulated retail meat packaging labels (“label claims”).

Objective

We investigated whether retail meat label claims were associated with isolation of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs, resistant to ≥3 classes of antibiotics) from U.S. meat samples.

Methods

We utilized retail meat data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) collected during 2016–2019 for bacterial contamination of chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare the prevalence of MDRO contamination among meat samples with any antibiotic restriction label claims versus those without such claims (i.e., conventionally produced).

Results

In NARMS, 62,338 meat samples were evaluated for bacterial growth from 2016–2019. Of these, 24,446 (39%) samples had label claims that indicated antibiotic use was restricted during animal production. MDROs were isolated from 2252 (4%) meat samples, of which 71% (n = 1591) were conventionally produced, and 29% (n = 661) had antibiotic restriction label claims. Compared with conventional samples, meat with antibiotic restriction label claims had a statistically lower prevalence of MDROs (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.73). This relationship was consistent for the outcome of any bacterial growth.

Impact

  • This repeated cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative retail meat surveillance database in the United States supports that retail meats labeled with antibiotic restriction claims were less likely to be contaminated with MDROs compared with retail meat without such claims during 2016–2019.

  • These findings indicate the potential for the public to become exposed to bacterial pathogens via retail meat and emphasizes a possibility that consumers could reduce their exposure to environmental reservoirs of foodborne pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Distribution of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) isolated from chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops classified by for-consumer meat packaging label claims, United States Food and Drug Administration National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), 2016–2019.
Fig. 2: Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms as classified by for-consumer label claim reflecting on-farm animal raising practices, United States Food and Drug Administration National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), 2016–2019. Each label claim category was compared to conventional meat samples (referent).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used in this study are publicly available via the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System website [35].

References

  1. Tack DM, Ray L, Griffin PM, Cieslak PR, Dunn J, Rissman T, et al. Preliminary incidence and trends of infections with pathogens transmitted commonly through food - foodborne diseases active surveillance network, 10 U.S. Sites, 2016-2019. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:509–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Collier SA, Deng L, Adam EA, Benedict KM, Beshearse EM, Blackstock AJ, et al. Estimate of burden and direct healthcare cost of infectious waterborne disease in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:140–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. CDC. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2019.

  4. Shane AL, Mody RK, Crump JA, Tarr PI, Steiner TS, Kotloff K, et al. 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:e45–e80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Parisi A, Crump JA, Glass K, Howden BP, Furuya-Kanamori L, Vilkins S, et al. Health outcomes from multidrug-resistant salmonella infections in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2018;15:428–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Varma JK, Mølbak K, Barrett TJ, Beebe JL, Jones TF, Rabatsky-Ehr T, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant nontyphoidal salmonella is associated with excess bloodstream infections and hospitalizations. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:554–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Innes GK, Nachman KE, Abraham AG, Casey JA, Patton AN, Price LB, et al. Contamination of retail meat samples with multidrug-resistant organisms in relation to organic and conventional production and processing: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, 2012-2017. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129:57004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yin X, M’Ikanatha NM, Nyirabahizi E, McDermott PF, Tate H. Antimicrobial resistance in non-Typhoidal Salmonella from retail poultry meat by antibiotic usage-related production claims - United States, 2008-2017. Int J Food Microbiol. 2021;342:109044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry ED, Wells JE, Kniel K, Thakur S. Reducing foodborne pathogen persistence and transmission in animal production environments: challenges and opportunities. Microbiol Spectrum. 2016;4:56. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0006-2014.

  10. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mathew AG, Cissell R, Liamthong S. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria associated with food animals: a united states perspective of livestock production. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2007;4:115–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Innes GK, Markos A, Dalton KR, Gould CA, Nachman KE, Fanzo J, et al. How animal agriculture stakeholders define, perceive, and are impacted by antimicrobial resistance: challenging the Wellcome Trust’s Reframing Resistance principles. Agric Hum Values. 2021;38:893–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel SJ, Wellington M, Shah RM, Ferreira MJ. Antibiotic stewardship in food-producing animals: challenges, progress, and opportunities. Clin Ther. 2020;42:1649–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Barrett JR, Innes GK, Johnson KA, Lhermie G, Ivanek R, Greiner Safi A, et al. Consumer perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal husbandry: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0261010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. FDA. Veterinary feed directive 2019. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/development-approval-process/veterinary-feed-directive-vfd.

  16. Wallinga D, Smit LAM, Davis MF, Casey JA, Nachman KE. A review of the effectiveness of current US policies on antimicrobial use in meat and poultry production. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2022;9:339–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. FDA. 2022 Summary report on antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/antimicrobial-resistance/2022-summary-report-antimicrobials-sold-or-distributed-use-food-producing-animals.

  18. Tiseo K, Huber L, Gilbert M, Robinson TP, Van Boeckel TP. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics. 2020;9:918.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Spain CV, Freund D, Mohan-Gibbons H, Meadow RG, Beacham L. Are they buying it? United States consumers’ changing attitudes toward more humanely raised meat, eggs, and dairy. Animals. 2018;8:128.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ritter GD. Using meat labels to communicate the risk of antimicrobial-resistant bacterial infections from foods of animal origin:: the case for a balanced one health approach to raising food animals. Dela J Public Health. 2021;7:32–6.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Karavolias J, Salois MJ, Baker KT, Watkins K. Raised without antibiotics: impact on animal welfare and implications for food policy. Transl Anim Sci. 2018;2:337–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sutherland MA, Webster J, Sutherland I. Animal health and welfare issues facing organic production systems. Animals. 2013;3:1021–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bowman M, Marshall KK, Kuchler F, Lynch L. Raised without antibiotics: lessons from voluntary labeling of antibiotic use practices in the broiler industry. Am J Agric Econ. 2016;98:622–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. USDA. Food Safety and Inspection Service labeling guideline on documentation needed to substantiate animal raising claims for label submissions 2019. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/RaisingClaims_1.pdf.

  25. USDA. 7 CFR Part 205. 2022 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205?toc=1.

  26. Cui S, Ge B, Zheng J, Meng J. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella serovars in organic chickens from Maryland retail stores. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:4108–11.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Davis GS, Waits K, Nordstrom L, Grande H, Weaver B, Papp K, et al. Antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli from retail poultry meat with different antibiotic use claims. BMC Microbiol. 2018;18:174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kilonzo-Nthenge A, Brown A, Nahashon SN, Long D. Occurrence and antimicrobial resistance of enterococci isolated from organic and conventional retail chicken. J Food Prot. 2015;78:760–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Millman JM, Waits K, Grande H, Marks AR, Marks JC, Price LB, et al. Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli in retail chicken: comparing conventional, organic, kosher, and raised without antibiotics. F1000Res. 2013;2:155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lestari SI, Han F, Wang F, Ge B. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serovars in conventional and organic chickens from Louisiana retail stores. J Food Prot. 2009;72:1165–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mazengia E, Samadpour M, Hill H, Greeson K, Tenney K, Liao G, et al. Prevalence, concentrations, and antibiotic sensitivities of Salmonella serovars in poultry from retail establishments in Seattle, Washington. J Food Prot. 2014;77:885–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmidt JW, Vikram A, Doster E, Thomas K, Weinroth MD, Parker J, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in U.S. retail ground beef with and without label claims regarding antibiotic use. J Food Prot. 2021;84:827–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vikram A, Miller E, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Wheeler TL, Schmidt JW. Similar levels of antimicrobial resistance in U.S. food service ground beef products with and without a “raised without antibiotics” claim. J Food Prot. 2018;81:2007–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vikram A, Miller E, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Wheeler TL, Schmidt JW. Food service pork chops from three U.S. regions harbor similar levels of antimicrobial resistance regardless of antibiotic use claims. J Food Prot. 2019;82:1667–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. FDA. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System 2022. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/antimicrobial-resistance/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system.

  36. FDA. FDA NARMS methodology. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/101741/download.

  37. FDA. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) retail meat surveillance laboratory protocol 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/93332/download.

  38. NARMS. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System manual of laboratory methods 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/101423/download.

  39. Nachman KE, Love DC, Baron PA, Nigra AE, Murko M, Raber G, et al. Nitarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in turkey meat: exposure and risk assessment based on a 2014 U.S. market basket sample. Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125:363–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nachman KE, Baron PA, Raber G, Francesconi KA, Navas-Acien A, Love DC. Roxarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in chicken: A U.S.-based market basket sample. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:818–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing CLSI supplement M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2021.

  42. FDA. Interpretative criteria for susceptibility testing 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/108180/download.

  43. FDA. NARMS now: integrated data 2023. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/narms-now-integrated-data.

  44. Tamhane AR, Westfall AO, Burkholder GA, Cutter GR. Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences. Stat Med. 2016;35:5730–5.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. American Academy of Pediatric. Red book: report of the committee on infectious diseases. 32nd ed. Itasca, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. 2021.

  46. Abrams KM, Meyers CA, Irani TA. Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agric Hum Values. 2010;27:365–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Price L, Rogers L, Lo K. Policy reforms for antibiotic use claims in livestock. Science. 2022;376:130–2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and all who worked to collect these data and make them available to the public. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Alison G. Abraham for her invaluable contribution upon which some of this work was built.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the following funding sources: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI130066; GSS, JAC, KEN, MFD, SYT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    G. Sean Stapleton, Keeve E. Nachman & Meghan F. Davis

  2. Center for Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    G. Sean Stapleton & Keeve E. Nachman

  3. Yuma Center for Excellence in Desert Agriculture, Yuma, AZ, USA

    Gabriel K. Innes

  4. Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Keeve E. Nachman

  5. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA

    Joan A. Casey

  6. Geospatial Analysis Lab, University of San Francisco, Harney Science Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Andrew N. Patton

  7. Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Lance B. Price

  8. Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Sara Y. Tartof

  9. Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Sara Y. Tartof

  10. Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology & Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Meghan F. Davis

Authors
  1. G. Sean Stapleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel K. Innes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keeve E. Nachman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joan A. Casey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew N. Patton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lance B. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara Y. Tartof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Meghan F. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to conceptualization, data analysis and interpretation, and writing and revising this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Sean Stapleton.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study used no human or animal subjects. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stapleton, G.S., Innes, G.K., Nachman, K.E. et al. Assessing the difference in contamination of retail meat with multidrug-resistant bacteria using for-consumer package label claims that indicate on-farm antibiotic use practices— United States, 2016–2019. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-024-00649-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-024-00649-y

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links