The World Health Organization Just Told Farmers Everywhere to Stop Feeding Antibiotics to Healthy Animals

The WHO’s new recommendations amount to a de facto rebuke to the FDA.

Pigs at a factory. Farming in Russiaagnormark/Getty images

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Back in September, the World Health Organization—the United Nations’ public-health arm—released a stark warning: “The world is running out of antibiotics.” As a result, the group noted, once-minor complaints like urinary-tract infections are emerging as deadly threats. 

On Monday, the WHO came out with what it calls a crucial response to the growing crisis: It urged the globe’s meat producers to stop feeding antibiotics to healthy animals—a practice developed in the United States in the mid-1950s that has since taken root worldwide. 

Why would anyone feed these crucial drugs to a healthy beast? As scientists have known since the dawn the antibiotic age in the 1940s, these crucial drugs are extremely fragile—the more they’re used, the more opportunity bacterial pathogens have to evolve resistance to them. But it wasn’t long before the meat industry learned that tiny regular antibiotic doses triggered faster growth in animals—a discovery that paved the way for the highly concentrated, factory-like operations that now dominate US meat production. 

As I show in this 2016 piece and Maryn McKenna lays out in details in her superb new book, Big Chicken, it was clear by the 1960s that using antibiotics this way contributed significantly to the resistance problem. 

Even so, it wasn’t until Jan. 1, 2017, that the US Food and Drug Administration finally rolled out voluntary rules asking that the meat industry stop using antibiotics as a growth promotor. But as I and others noted when the rules were first announced, the FDA’s request left open a gaping loophole: It allowed producers to continue feeding healthy animals small doses of antibiotics to “prevent” possible disease outbreaks. As the Pew Charitable Trusts showed, allowing preventative use basically gives the industry a green light to continue business as usual. 

A March 2017 report from the Government Accountability Office chastised the FDA for leaving the loophole, complaining that the agency failed to crack down on “long-term and open-ended use of medically important antibiotics” in meat production.  

The new WHO statement echoes that rebuke. It calls for the global meat industry to “stop using antibiotics routinely to promote growth and prevent disease in healthy animals.”

The FDA did not respond immediately to my call for comment about the WHO recommendation. With a deregulatory zealot in the White House and a man who is “entangled in an unprecedented web of close financial and business ties to the pharmaceutical industry” in charge of the FDA—to quote Public Citizen on the agency’s commissioner, Scott Gottlieb—it seems fanciful to expect the US government to heed the WHO’s call. 

Meanwhile, major meat-producing nations like China, Brazil, and Russia are rapidly adopting the US style of meat production—including the reliance on routine antibiotic doses. And resistance to last-resort antibiotics like colistin and Carbapenems is spreading globally, including in the United States—a story I lay out here, here, here, and here. Microbes don’t respect borders—they whiz about the globe in people, in traded goods, and even in migratory birds. Like climate change, antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon that will require global coordination of the kind called for by the WHO to solve. Without such action, antibiotic resistance will claim 10 million lives per year worldwide by 2050, up from 700,000 now, according to a 2015 UK report


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend