Federal researchers found drug residues in one of every five cattle marketed as “raised without antibiotics” in samples collected last fall, said the Agriculture Department on Wednesday. The findings “underscore the need for more rigorous substantiation of such claims,” it said, in “strongly” encouraging — but not requiring — meat processors to routinely test for residues if they put a “no antibiotics ever” label on their meat.
The USDA released the results of the residue tests at the same time it updated its guidelines for so-called animal-raising claims, such as “free range” or “climate friendly,” on meat, dairy, and poultry products. Animal welfare and consumer activists say that the descriptions are often misleading and that the evidence backing up the claims is sketchy. It was the first update of the guidelines since 2019.
For the most part, the USDA has encouraged food makers to use third-party verification of their claims.
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) said the revised guidelines were “largely meaningless in effecting real change,” because companies can “make up their own definitions with no consequences.”
“Unfortunately, even after confirming that many cattle products are fraudulently labeled antibiotic-free, the USDA will not require meat companies to test and prove the accuracy of their claims,” said the activist group Farm Forward, pointing to the residue study.
For its residue tests, the USDA took liver and kidney samples from 189 head of cattle at 79 slaughter plants in 34 states. It found antibiotic residues in 37 of the samples — “equivalent to 20 percent of the total number of animals tested” — and at 27 of the plants. Residues of 10 types of drugs were detected, it said.
The USDA told the 27 slaughter plants that they may have misbranded some of their meat and recommended that they take action to prevent a recurrence.
“The FSIS also notified the establishments that the results from the study would inform future policy changes and that the agency many elect to collect and analyze future samples that could be used to take a regulatory action,” said the USDA, referring to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is in charge of meat safety. “FSIS is still considering these issues,” meaning no decision has been made.
For now, the USDA “strongly encourages” meat and poultry processors to substantiate their no antibiotics claims “by implementing a routine sampling and testing program to track the use of antibiotics in animals prior to slaughter. In the alternative, the guideline strongly encourages the establishments to obtain third-party certification for negative antibiotic use claims from certifiers who routinely perform antibiotic sampling and testing as a condition of certification.”
A paper with the results of the study will be published in a scientific journal in the near future, said the USDA.
In April 2022, a paper published in the journal Science reported that antibiotic residues were found in urine from 15 percent of the feedlots tested. The feedlots were fattening cattle for a “no antibiotics ever” program. “We present empirical evidence that some beef cattle processed for the RWA [raised without antibiotics] market have been administered antibiotics and propose policies to reform the system,” said the authors, noting that the USDA approved the RWA label but did not require tests to prove its claims.
In 2016, the AWI petitioned the USDA to define “free range,” which is often used on egg and poultry meat labels, and to require companies to submit detailed animal care protocols to justify the use of descriptions like “free roaming” or “range grown” on their labels. “While the revised guidelines are a small step in the right direction, they remain insufficient to combat misleading label claims used to market meat and poultry products,” said Zack Strong of the AWI.
The Environmental Working Group, which has questioned climate-related claims, such as “low-carbon beef,” said the revised guidelines carried a warning: “Back it up. If food companies are going to tell consumers that certain food items are better for the climate, companies better be able to show us the receipts,” said the EWG’s Scott Faber. The USDA said companies should provide additional documentation, such as environmental data or studies, to support claims that their products were climate friendly.
The USDA said it would accept public comment on the revised guideline for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
An advance copy of the Federal Register notice on the revised USDA guideline was available here.
To read the 32-page guideline, click here.