For decades, the federal government has treated salmonella in chicken and turkey as a problem to manage at the slaughterhouse. That approach is failing, and it ignores where contamination actually begins.

On January 14th, 2026, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service held a public meeting to discuss salmonella control in the poultry industry. Following that meeting, Farm Forward submitted a public comment informed by our investigative report on salmonella in the poultry industry. Grounded in this research, our conclusion is straightforward: salmonella is not just a slaughter and processing problem. It is a system-wide problem, built into how chickens and turkeys are bred, raised, and transported. 

At its core, food safety is an animal welfare issue touching every stage of production. Any meaningful solution to salmonella contamination in the industry must start much earlier in the supply chain and include a consideration of the treatment of animals as a key factor in the spread of foodborne illnesses. 

Where the System Fails: Regulation Focuses Only on the Final Step

For decades, federal oversight has concentrated heavily on slaughter and processing facilities. While these are important control points, they represent just one stage in a long and complex production system, and ultimately, they come much too late.

Salmonella emerges and spreads across multiple stages: breeding facilities, hatcheries, farms, transport systems, and finally, processing plants. By the time birds arrive for slaughter, many are already carrying the pathogen.

This reality creates a mismatch between where contamination originates and where regulation is focused. As a result, processing plants are often expected to fix a problem that started many steps upstream, and this is a central reason why salmonella remains persistent in the U.S. poultry supply.

The Reality: Contamination is a System-Wide Issue

Salmonella does not appear suddenly at the slaughterhouse. It spreads through nearly every stage of production.

It All Starts with the Egg

USDA recognizes that preventing salmonella begins at the very start of a chicken’s life, even before they hatch. Breeding facilities can be high-risk environments where infection spreads easily, especially because hens used for breeding have weakened immune systems, and vaccines alone are not enough to solve the problem, making improved conditions and animal care essential to combat foodborne disease. 

Contamination is Born at the Hatchery 

Hatcheries, too, are critical early points in the supply chain, yet they remain unregulated when it comes to salmonella control. Research shows that hatcheries can be major hubs of contamination, with pathogens spreading through shared equipment, surfaces, and transport systems.

Compounding the issue is antimicrobial resistance emerging at significant rates in hatcheries. The overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has contributed to the emergence of drug-resistant strains of Salmonella, a problem widely recognized as a major public health threat.

Overcrowding and Filth Make Farms Breeding Grounds for Contamination

Once birds reach grow-out farms, the environment often amplifies the problem.

Standard industrial poultry operations typically house tens of thousands of birds in close quarters. High stocking densities, combined with unsanitary conditions and chronic stress, create ideal conditions for salmonella transmission. The bacteria can spread through feces, litter, feed, and water, moving quickly from bird to bird.

Transport: Salmonella Hits the Road

Transport is particularly risky because birds are usually moved in open containers, allowing fecal matter to spread between animals as stacks of animals defecate on each other. Stress during transport can also increase pathogen shedding, compounding the problem. Inadequate cleaning of trucks and equipment further contributes to cross-contamination.

Poultry Genetics and Disease Risk

One of the more surprising drivers of contamination risk lies in poultry genetics.

Today’s chicken industry is dominated by genetically modified fast-growing breeds designed for efficiency and high production. These birds reach market weight in a fraction of the time it took decades ago. While this has made chicken more affordable, it has also introduced new vulnerabilities.

Fast-growing birds tend to have weaker immune systems and are more susceptible to infections like salmonella. They also experience significant physiological stress due to rapid growth, which can further compromise their health and resiliency to disease.

In our comment, we pointed out that diversifying genetics, particularly by supporting heritage and slower-growing, more resilient breeds, could reduce disease susceptibility while also improving animal welfare. Current market dynamics, dominated by a small number of breeding companies, limit those options.

Animal Welfare Is a Food Safety Issue

Taken together, these risk factors across the supply chain mean that contamination is more than an isolated failure; it is a predictable outcome of the current production model.

Research establishes that poor animal welfare directly contributes to higher levels of foodborne illness. Stress weakens immune systems, making birds more vulnerable to infection and more likely to carry and shed pathogens. Scientific findings, including those from USDA, have shown that stressed animals are more likely to harbor foodborne bacteria in their systems, increasing the risk of contamination during processing.

Despite this, poultry are excluded from federal humane slaughter protections, and existing welfare guidelines, known as Good Commercial Practices, are nonbinding and inconsistently enforced.

This creates a regulatory gap where conditions known to increase contamination risk are allowed to persist and birds are made to suffer.

The Food Safety Policy Gap: Where Standards Exist but Enforcement Falls Short

By the time poultry reaches slaughter and processing facilities, contamination is often already widespread.

FSIS has developed performance standards and testing systems to monitor salmonella levels, and some plants consistently meet these benchmarks. This demonstrates that lower contamination levels are achievable.

However, the agency has no authority to effectively regulate this contamination. A proposed rule that would have classified certain levels of Salmonella as an adulterant, effectively making contaminated products illegal to sell, was withdrawn by the Trump administration in 2025.

One of the key regulatory tools available to FSIS is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system, which requires facilities to identify and manage potential hazards.

In theory, this framework could be used to push food safety measures upstream by requiring suppliers to meet certain standards. In practice, this authority has not been fully utilized.

Ultimately, without stronger enforcement authority, regulators are unable to prevent high-risk products from entering the market.

What Real Reform Looks Like: Solutions to Reduce Salmonella in Poultry

Reducing salmonella in poultry requires a shift from reacting at the end of the supply chain to preventing contamination at its source. Farm Forward’s recommendations outline a comprehensive path forward:

• Address contamination at every stage of production, not just processing
• Strengthen enforcement by classifying Salmonella as an adulterant in raw poultry
• Improve animal welfare standards as a core component of food safety
• Expand oversight to include breeding, hatcheries, farms, transport, and feed systems
• Use existing regulatory tools (like HAACP) to require upstream controls

Some of these steps can be taken immediately under existing authority. Others would require congressional action to expand USDA’s regulatory powers.

The Bottom Line

Reducing salmonella in poultry is both a technical challenge and a structural one, and USDA already has tools to meaningfully address contamination in the industry.

But as long as the system treats contamination as a problem to be managed at the final stage, rather than prevented at its source—and as long as USDA lacks authority to enforce salmonella prevention—progress will be limited. The evidence is clear: food safety, animal welfare, and supply chain practices are closely connected. If regulators are serious about protecting public health, reform cannot stop at the slaughterhouse door.

In January, Farm Forward announced its partnership with the Aquaculture Accountability Project with the release of a new report scrutinizing the sustainability narrative surrounding industrial fish farming, including the widely repeated claim that aquaculture alleviates overfishing. Drawing on recent research, we showed that industrial fish farming relies so heavily on small wild fish—processed into fishmeal and fish oil for feed—that it continues to drive enormous pressure on vulnerable wild fish populations.

Now, new research reveals an even bleaker picture: even where marine ingredients are reduced, aquaculture’s environmental impacts are not shrinking; they are shifting and intensifying.

The study, led by researchers at the University of Stirling and published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, examines how changes in aquafeed ingredients reshaped the environmental impacts of European aquaculture between 2000 and 2020. The authors model how feed composition has evolved over time. As small coastal fish populations have been exploited to or near their limits—and as scrutiny of fishmeal and fish oil dependence has grown—the industry has increasingly turned to land-based crop ingredients to replace marine inputs. The study analyzes what happened as that shift unfolded.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, and Water Consumption Surge as Aquaculture Feed Shifts to Soy and Rapeseed

The findings are striking. Over the past two decades, European aquaculture nearly doubled its production. But the environmental impacts linked to fish feed rose even faster. Greenhouse gas emissions from feed production increased by 314 percent. Land use grew by 594 percent. Water use rose by 236 percent. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters also climbed sharply, largely because of fertilizer use and nutrient runoff tied to expanding soy and rapeseed farming.

Some of this increase is expected when an industry grows—more production usually means more environmental impact. But the researchers found that the biggest driver was not the growth of aquaculture itself, but changes in the ingredients used to make fish feed.

One way to see this is by looking at the environmental impact per kilogram of fish produced—a measure that accounts for industry growth. Even by that standard, the impacts worsened. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of farmed fish more than doubled, and land use per kilogram increased by 336 percent. In other words, producing each kilogram of farmed fish became significantly more resource-intensive over time, regardless of how much the industry expanded.

The primary drivers were the production of soy protein concentrate and rapeseed oil, ingredients that increasingly replace wild fish in feed formulations. Ultimately, substituting marine ingredients with crops did not reduce environmental impacts. It magnified and transferred them to land.

As Dr. Spencer Roberts of the University of Miami recently observed, “What we’re talking about is not so much increasing efficiency as much as a shift in pressure from ecosystems like the Humboldt Current [in Peru], where the anchovies come from, to ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest where the soy comes from.”

Feed Accounting Methods Obscure the True Toll on Wild Fish 

The University of Stirling study uncovers the disturbing reality of the environmental pressures of crop-based feed production. At the same time, like much of the aquaculture literature, it relies on standard feed accounting methods that do not always capture the full scope of marine extraction. As our recent report—drawing on Roberts and colleagues’ 2024 Science Advances analysis—explains, conventional feed accounting often treats trimmings and “by-products” as if they are not wild fish inputs. These materials include heads, frames, offcuts, and even whole non-target fish who are processed into fishmeal and fish oil. As demand for aquaculture feed has grown, these so-called “by-products” have acquired significant economic value. Yet most accounting methods subtract them entirely, making industry feed look less dependent on wild fish than it is. Correcting for these exclusions raised estimated wild fish use by as much as 300% compared to the figure most frequently cited to demonstrate aquaculture’s efficiency.

What the Stirling findings do make clear is that, regardless of accounting method, altering feed ingredients has not lightened aquaculture’s environmental load, but redistributed it. Forest ecosystems, freshwater systems, and agricultural landscapes have absorbed the impacts of expanded crop production, while marine ecosystems still remain under strain.

Aquaculture Feed Diverts Wild Fish from Food Systems, Raising Global Nutrition Concerns

As researchers revisit the environmental consequences of aquaculture feed, new work is also drawing attention to its nutritional implications. A separate Harvard-led study published in February estimates that if wild fish currently diverted into aquaculture feed were instead retained within Global South countries from which they were caught, they could meet the nutritional needs of up to 31 million undernourished people. Rather than remaining in local food systems, these fish are funneled into feed for higher-value farmed species destined largely for wealthier markets—a far cry from the industry’s claims of “feeding the world.”

A Shift to Truly Sustainable Food Systems

Together, these findings point to the same underlying reality: Whether measured in greenhouse gas emissions, land conversion, nutrient pollution, or lost nutrition, the feed systems underpinning industrial aquaculture deepen environmental and social burdens rather than resolving them. Substituting soy for anchovies does not eliminate pressure; it changes where this pressure is concentrated and who bears it.

This is why incremental ingredient substitutions are not enough. Fish farming remains anchored in resource-intensive feed systems, whether those inputs come from oceans or croplands. As long as production continues to expand, environmental and nutritional trade-offs will continue to multiply.

Reducing the scale of sea animal production—and accelerating a shift toward plant protein with lower greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and nutrient runoff—remains essential if we are serious about protecting both marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Whether you’re cooking for your family or you work in foodservice or procurement, you can find practical steps and resources for serving more sustainable, ocean-friendly food here. To keep up-to-date on our work on this issue, sign up for Aquaculture Accountability Project’s newsletter. 

When children sit down for lunch at school, seniors open their monthly food boxes, or families visit a food bank, they all have the same basic expectation: the food should be safe. For millions of Americans who rely on federal nutrition assistance, these programs are a lifeline. Yet Farm Forward’s recent investigation reveals that poultry contaminated with salmonella is being distributed to the nation’s most vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, families with low income, and Indigenous communities.

USDA Knows It’s Purchasing Contaminated Food for Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs and Does It Anyway

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service Commodity Procurement Program purchases raw poultry and other foods for federal nutrition assistance programs like the National School Lunch Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (serving seniors with low income), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (supplying food banks and soup kitchens).

USDA is also responsible for tracking and reporting on salmonella contamination in the poultry industry, and yet it doesn’t use its own data to ensure it’s purchasing from plants with lower rates of contamination. USDA sets “performance standards” for salmonella contamination in raw poultry, categorizing plants based on what percentage of poultry tests positive for salmonella. Even a passing grade allows for shockingly high rates of contamination. But many of the nation’s largest poultry producers repeatedly fail even these low standards without facing meaningful consequences. And worse, despite being charged with providing a safe and nutritious supply of food assistance, USDA knowingly purchases poultry from these highly contaminated plants for school lunches, food banks, and senior nutrition programs.

The level of inconsistency in USDA’s food safety policy for purchasing for nutrition assistance programs is stark. The agency enforces a zero-tolerance standard for salmonella in certain products it buys, including ground beef, diced cooked chicken, and eggs. But for raw poultry, no such requirement exists. As a result, contaminated poultry flows freely into communities being served by this assistance.

Lack of Oversight and Tracking Leaves Federal Food Recipients Exposed to Salmonella Risk

Farm Forward’s investigation found that USDA purchased poultry from numerous companies with plants that consistently failed the salmonella performance standards, including major brands like Butterball, Tyson, Foster Farms, and Cargill. We also identified multiple examples of companies selling raw poultry products to USDA from a plant with a failing rating for the same type of product at the time of the purchase. Two of Foster Farms’ plants, for instance, sold hundreds of cases of chicken parts to USDA during a time when chicken parts at those plants failed the salmonella standard.

We know that purchases of contaminated poultry are being made by USDA for its federal nutrition assistance programs, and we know that USDA has signed future contracts with companies selling highly contaminated products. But the full scope of the problem remains unknown, and that’s what’s scary. Although USDA knows which plants are highly contaminated (and continues to purchase from them), no agency effectively tracks just how much contaminated poultry reaches food assistance recipients. This lack of oversight is especially concerning given that people experiencing food insecurity often face barriers to healthcare, making foodborne illnesses less likely to be diagnosed or reported.

USDA has acknowledged for years that its approach to controlling salmonella has failed to significantly reduce illness. In 2024, the agency proposed a long-overdue reform that would have classified salmonella at certain levels as an adulterant, giving the government authority to stop the sale of contaminated poultry. That proposal was withdrawn in 2025 with little explanation, leaving the same regulatory gaps in place.

The result is a system in which the most vulnerable among us bear the cost of contamination through illness, hospitalization, lost work and school days, and preventable deaths, while producers face little pressure to change. This is not only a food safety issue. It is an equity issue. Children, seniors, and families who rely on federal food assistance deserve food that supports their health, not food that puts it at risk.

Ending Salmonella in Federal Food Programs Requires Stronger Standards and Systemic Reform

Protecting public health requires stronger salmonella standards, zero tolerance for contamination in all federally purchased poultry, and meaningful reform of agricultural practices that allow these pathogens to persist. Until those changes are made, taxpayer-funded contamination will remain a hidden danger in America’s food assistance system, and the people most unprepared to shoulder the harm will continue to pay the price.

Want the Full Story?

For more detail on the USDA’s purchasing of contaminated poultry for federal nutrition assistance programs, read Farm Forward’s issue brief. To learn more about salmonella contamination, regulatory failures, and animal welfare issues across the poultry industry—and where federal purchasing fits into the bigger picture—read our full investigative report.

Farm Forward is proud to announce the launch of a new campaign focused on the global aquaculture industry in partnership with the Aquaculture Accountability Project (AAP). Formed in late 2025, AAP is an organization seeking to debunk the myths of “sustainable” aquaculture and reduce unsustainable consumption of sea animals. Building on our ongoing work on humanewashing and greenwashing, we are working with AAP to expose these myths that have allowed the fastest growing food animal sector to expand exponentially, even as it is causing irreparable harms to our oceans.  

Why Focus on Aquaculture? 

Fish farming is the factory farming of the sea. Like land-based animal agriculture, aquaculture uses high-confinement farms to raise fish in overcrowded, disease-ridden, and filthy conditions. In addition to causing widespread animal suffering, aquaculture has catastrophic effects on surrounding ecosystems, destroys critical carbon sinks, and has a high carbon toll. Massive amounts of (often illegal) drugs are used to keep diseased fish alive, deepening the crisis of antibiotic resistance resulting from overuse and misuse of antibiotics in factory farming. But these realities are obscured by myths carefully crafted by an industry that claims that fish farming offers a sustainable alternative to both wild caught fish and land-based animal products. 

What are the Myths of “Sustainable” Aquaculture?

Myth #1: Fish Farming Reduces Pressure on Wild Fisheries 

Fish farming emerged as a “solution” to the crisis of the depletion of wild fish populations, promising to reduce pressure on fragile wild fisheries. In reality, industrial aquaculture puts more pressure on wild fisheries, further depleting wild fish populations in ways that continue to imperil our oceans. With fish farming comes a high demand for small wild fish species (like anchovies and sardines) caught for farmed fish feed. Carnivorous species like salmon require large amounts of these feed fish, with recent research revealing that they may consume nearly six times their weight in wild fish before harvest.

Myth #2: Fish Farming Meets a Growing Demand for Seafood

Aquaculture has proliferated as a solution to growing demand for sea animals, when in reality, the industry has worked across scientific, policy, and cultural arenas to manufacture that demand. Fish farms now supply more than half of all aquatic animal products consumed worldwide. This rapid growth, rather than responding to demand, is driving higher levels of consumption of both wild-caught fish and farmed fish, deepening the crisis of the depletion of wild fish populations and ocean health. 

Myth #3: Farmed Fish Is a Healthy Ocean Protein

Fish farms are disease-ridden spaces where massive amounts of antibiotics are administered to keep fish alive. Even with the high rates of drug use in the industry, mortality remains high as fish continue to die from disease and spread these diseases to wild populations. The overuse and misuse of antibiotics in industrial agriculture is a leading cause of global antibiotic resistance, and the aquaculture industry is no exception. Aquaculture poses a risk to human health, not only in compromising the efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of human disease, but also in the health risks associated with consuming these fish. 

Myth #4: Farmed Fish Is a Climate-Smart Food

Fish farming, in reality, exacerbates climate change. Feed production, energy use, and high mortality make aquaculture highly carbon-intensive, with emissions often exceeding poultry and pork, and many times higher than plant-based proteins such as peas or soy. Worse, the industry also undermines natural carbon sinks by depleting forage fish who drive ocean carbon storage and by clearing mangroves for shrimp ponds, turning key carbon reservoirs into emissions sources.

Myth #5: Certifications and Labels Ensure Sustainability

Consumers concerned with the sustainability of fish and crustaceans often rely on labels and certifications to ensure that what they’re buying meets sustainability metrics. As in the case of animal welfare labeling in land-based agriculture, certifications rarely reflect meaningful guarantees of responsible production and are, instead, primarily used as marketing tools to deceive conscientious consumers. 

Together, we can make a difference 

As the aquaculture industry continues to grow, it has never been more important to include this sector in our work to end factory farming. We are proud to be working with AAP on finding  solutions to the problem of industrial aquaculture, from helping to empower consumers to make truly sustainable food choices to working with institutions to change their food purchasing practices. We hope that you will join us in this work. In addition to following Farm Forward’s work on this issue, you can also sign up for the AAP newsletter to get involved.

In a stunning display of regulatory deflection, the National Chicken Council (NCC)—an industry trade association—suggests federal air fryer standards could solve salmonella, blaming consumers rather than industry negligence. NCC called for reduced testing on processors and “better education” for home cooks, implying underpowered appliances—not systemic food safety failures—pose the real threat. At a January 14, 2026 USDA public meeting, NCC spokesperson Ashley Peterson argued USDA should focus on collaborating with the EPA on air fryer standards rather than strengthening salmonella controls in poultry production.

This meeting came in the wake of a failed proposal for improving salmonella control in the poultry industry. USDA had proposed a rule in August 2024 that would have declared salmonella an adulterant in raw poultry, effectively banning the sale of poultry with certain levels of contamination. However, in April 2025, this rule was withdrawn, citing regulatory overreach and undue burden on the industry. The January 14th public meeting was held to address an alternative path forward. 

Informed by our ongoing investigative research on salmonella contamination in the poultry industry, Farm Forward delivered testimony that called for expanding salmonella regulation that protects consumers, rather than industry interests, and making key improvements in testing, data sharing, industry practices, and animal welfare. Resonating with comments made at the meeting by consumer interest organizations, academic experts, small-scale farmers, and tech industry representatives, Farm Forward has made the following recommendations for meaningful reform: 

Salmonella is a problem that must be addressed long before the slaughter and processing plant. 

• Salmonella begins at hatcheries and with bird genetics, not just final processing, so effective control must span the entire supply chain from breeding through slaughter.

Salmonella contamination data is insufficient and difficult to access. 

• Current testing only detects salmonella’s presence, not risk. Effective control requires data on quantity, strain, and antibiotic resistance to distinguish low-risk contamination from potentially deadly threats.
• Although USDA posts salmonella testing data publicly, it is difficult to access, interpret, and track over time, prompting calls for user-friendly summaries, visualizations, and modernized data tools that do not require advanced technical expertise to understand.

Strict regulation is needed to reduce contamination and protect consumers. 

• USDA should move forward with its proposed (and then withdrawn) plan to declare salmonella an adulterant. A recently suspended rule for adulterant standards in not-ready-to-eat breaded stuffed chicken—covering raw products that appear fully cooked—must be reinstated and extended to all raw poultry products.
• Salmonella standards must be enforceable, granting USDA authority to close plants, halt contaminated product sales, and recall any products that reach the market.

Animal welfare must be part of salmonella reform. 

• Research increasingly shows poor welfare and inhumane handling raise foodborne pathogen risks. USDA acknowledges this, and Farm Forward and other advocates call for enforceable live bird handling rules to improve welfare and reduce contamination.

Unsurprisingly, industry spokespersons were opposed to any additional regulation, saying that the current standards were either sufficient and should be maintained as they are, or that they were overly restrictive and should be rolled back.  

This predictable narrative was countered with clear evidence that the current performance standards are not working and that they allow industry to continue with business as usual, endangering public health. In USDA’s presentation on the state of contamination, the agency reported that, in comminuted (diced and ground) chicken, 54.5% of establishments fail the salmonella standards and that contamination in these products has seen a sharp increase over the last two years. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue; both industry and USDA must take responsibility for these unchecked levels of contamination and prioritize protecting public health. 

Farm Forward continues in its commitment to demanding meaningful salmonella regulation in the poultry industry. To learn more about our ongoing work in this area, check out our full investigative report and issue brief on regulatory failures in salmonella control, and deeper dives into Costco’s and Butterball’s contamination problems and how you can find out if you’re buying contaminated products.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global crisis. According to the CDC, it’s “one of the greatest public health challenges of our time,” already responsible for over 1.27 million deaths annually, with millions more at risk as once-treatable infections become incurable. The overuse of antibiotics in industrial animal agriculture is a major driver of this crisis—and yet, meat companies and U.S. regulatory agencies have repeatedly failed to act.

Rather than protecting public health, powerful corporations like Tyson, Cargill, and JBS—with the complicity of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—continue to exploit weak regulations, while misleading consumers with marketing claims about “antibiotic-free” meat even when using antibiotics.

Industrial Meat and the Rise of Drug-Resistant Superbugs

The science is clear: routine antibiotic use in factory farming breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can infect humans. The problem isn’t isolated or accidental—two-thirds of medically important antibiotics in the U.S. are used on farmed animals, often not to treat disease but to prevent illness in overcrowded, unsanitary facilities.

These subtherapeutic doses kill off targeted bacteria and leave the most resistant strains to multiply—leading to “superbugs” that can spread through meat, manure, water, and even the air. The proliferation of these antibiotic-resistant bacteria is why infections that once responded to common antibiotics now require stronger drugs—or are simply untreatable.

Even last-resort antibiotics are becoming less effective. And while scientists warn of a post-antibiotic era, U.S. agencies like the FDA still don’t track how antibiotics are used on farms. Meat producers are not required to report why or how long drugs are given. The system depends almost entirely on voluntary reporting.

“Antibiotic Free” Meat: A Broken Promise to Consumers

As awareness of AMR has grown, consumers have turned to meat labeled “Raised Without Antibiotics” (RWA) or “No Antibiotics Ever” (NAE) in an attempt to make safer, more ethical choices. But recent testing by the USDA and independent researchers reveals a disturbing truth: 1 in 5 samples of RWA beef contained antibiotics.

Major producers—including Tyson, Cargill, and JBS—have continued to sell meat under RWA labels despite testing positive for drug residues, profiting from consumer trust while ignoring their own supply chain failures. Even after being notified by the USDA, many companies refused to change their practices or update their marketing.

Worse still, the USDA doesn’t require testing to verify RWA claims. The agency allows companies to self-report, with no audits, no mandatory documentation, and no penalties for getting caught. The FDA, meanwhile, has failed to track on-farm antibiotic use, enforce duration limits, or require clear drug labeling by pharmaceutical companies.

What Needs to Change

Farm Forward and other public health advocates are calling for urgent reform to stop the spread of antibiotic resistance and hold companies accountable:

• Mandatory antibiotic testing for all meat bearing “no antibiotics” labeling
• FDA regulation and public tracking of antibiotic use in animal agriculture
• Legally binding targets to reduce antibiotics used in livestock
• Reforms to factory farming practices that drive overuse in the first place

Without decisive action, the misuse of antibiotics in meat production will continue to fuel a global health emergency.

The Bottom Line

Antibiotic resistance is a deadly, growing crisis—and factory farming is one of its primary drivers. U.S. meat producers and regulators fail to protect the public, while misleading consumers with false “antibiotic-free” labels. It’s time for accountability, transparency, and bold action.

Learn more about antibiotic resistance, the companies caught using false labels, the agencies that are failing us, and potential policy solutions in our new report, Animal Agriculture and the Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: How Corporate Deception and Regulatory Failure Undermine Public Health.

Read the report