By Marlowe Starling for Sentient and Andrew Wasley for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

As global leaders at the UN in New York pledged to tackle human suffering caused by antimicrobial resistance, the U.S. food giant Cargill was found to be slaughtering cattle containing residues of powerful antibiotics.

Data obtained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) covering the past two years showed that farms supplying Cargill are still using antibiotics that the World Health Organization (WHO) deems vital for human health.

Two years ago, TBIJ revealed that Cargill, which sold beef to McDonalds, sourced meat from farms that used at least five critically important antibiotics. At the time, Cargill said it was "committed not to use antibiotics that are critically important for human medicines," although it defended using other human antibiotics in farming.

This time, there were 12 different antibiotics found to be in use, including two of the most important types.

These drugs, known as "highest priority critically important" antibiotics or HP-CIAs, are so important for human health that the WHO warned livestock farmers to stop using them entirely. Use on farms can make the drugs - which are often the last treatments available for treating serious bacterial infections - less effective.

Leaders attending the high-level meeting at UN headquarters yesterday made an international declaration to cut the number of deaths caused by antibiotic resistance. The draft specifically mentions cuts in drug use on livestock farms.

Megan Brown, a sixth-generation hog and cattle farmer based in California, said that enforcement of existing rules on antibiotic use in farming in the U.S.: "Historically, we've shown we really can't be trusted unless we're made to."

Cargill said there was no evidence that beef with excessive antibiotic residues had entered the food chain as any cattle testing at these levels would be segregated, and that the company complied with relevant food safety standards.

New Rules in Farmers' Hands

In 2023, the US Department of Agriculture introduced a rule requiring a vet's prescription before farmers could get antibiotics for their animals. However, the new rule still leaves farmers in control of how to give antibiotics and relies on them to make sure there's enough time between treatment and slaughter, according to Crystal Heath, a vet.

Heath is also the founder and executive director of Our Honor, a nonprofit that advocates for animal welfare. She says that intensive livestock farming has created a vicious cycle that relies on confining animals in smaller and smaller spaces. This in turn increases the risk of sickness, leading to more antibiotics being used. "This is going to be a problem for as long as we raise animals this way," she told Sentient and TBIJ.

Daniel Czyz, a microbiologist at the University of Florida who studies antimicrobial resistance, said: "It all boils down to lowering the price of the production and increasing the profits for producers that are already struggling."

The FDA rule was meant to minimize people's exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can increase the risk of superbugs spreading to people.

Antibiotic residues can linger in meat products if an animal is slaughtered too soon after being treated, before the drug has cleared its system. The U.S. government routinely investigates livestock farms that send animals for slaughter that contain drug residues, including antibiotics.

Brown, the cattle farmer, said that while some farmers still felt under pressure to send their animals on for slaughter soon after treatment, the FDA rule had changed how she used antibiotics. "I'm not going to send it to the yard until I know the withdrawal is gone," she said.

These days Brown uses vaccinations more often than antibiotics, which she says boosts the value of her cattle while reducing the risk of disease. The drugs, she added, are expensive.

Antibiotic Wild West

While Brown has taken steps to reduce antibiotic residues, the US Department of Agriculture's food safety agency recently questioned certain meat industry claims that some beef products have been raised without antibiotics.

The agency collected samples from nearly 200 cattle slaughtered at U.S. meat-packing plants and analyzed them for 180 veterinary drugs. One in five of the samples from the "raised without antibiotic" market contained antibiotic residues.

A prominent industry association continues to defend some controversial uses of antibiotics. Social media posts by the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a lobby group with links to Cargill through one of its board members, appear to endorse "preventative" antibiotics for farm animals - using the drugs on animals who are not unwell - despite concerns that this increases the risk of drug resistance. Preventative antibiotic treatment was recently restricted in the EU in 2022.

Another AAA post claims that there is "little overlap between antibiotics used in animal agriculture and antibiotics used in human medicine." This is at odds with the views of many public health experts, including the WHO, who agree that farms' use of antibiotics is directly contributing to drug-resistant disease in humans.

The AAA did not respond to requests for comment.

Cargill said: "Our position has been and continues to be a commitment to finding ways to reduce the use of human antibiotics across our operations and supply chains, while protecting the health and well-being of animals in our supply chains."

"We don't want to use antibiotics in agriculture that are clinically used for humans," said Czyz. He warned that once a disease develops resistance to a drug, it's difficult or impossible to reverse.

For real progress to happen, according to Czyz, there needs to be a coordinated global approach to the problem of antimicrobial resistance, as shown at the UN this week. "We cannot target [antimicrobial resistance] at one place if another place neglects the issue," he said.


This article was written by Marlowe Starling for Sentient and Andrew Wasley for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.


get more stories like this via email

People who are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, will be dropped from their CoveredCA health plans at the end of August.

The move comes after the Trump administration changed a Biden-era definition of "lawfully present" to revoke health care eligibility for thousands of immigrants.

Christine Smith, policy and legislative advocate for the nonprofit Health Access California, said people only have a few weeks to get medical appointments in before their coverage ends.

"If you're enrolled in Covered California and you're a DACA recipient, the Trump administration just ended your coverage," Smith emphasized. "People should use as much of your health care as you can before the August 31st deadline."

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services defended the move, saying it will save taxpayers money. CoveredCA estimated the change affects about 2,400 DACA recipients in the state who make too much to qualify for Medi-Cal and have jobs not providing health insurance. They can still buy private insurance but it is much more expensive. People who prepaid for their coverage can seek a refund.

Smith predicted it will be a blow not just to those who lose coverage but to the state's health care system as a whole.

"The lines in the ERs are going to be longer because people are not going to be able to get affordable preventive care," Smith projected. "They're just going to get sicker and then end up in the ERs. People will overall incur more medical debt. Hospitals will have more uncompensated care."

The change is nationwide. As of mid-July, about 538,000 people in the DACA program across the U.S. are ineligible to enroll in any state-based insurance marketplace and are unable to access premium subsidies or cost-sharing assistance.

Artificial intelligence is appearing more prominently in many aspects of life and research suggests older populations are curious, yet remain wary of using the technology in their everyday lives.

According to Stats Indiana, there are more than 1.5 million Hoosiers aged 65 and older, or 18% of the state's population. Experts said it is likely the demographic will use AI in some form in the next few years, either by choice or necessity.

Dr. Shaun Grannis, vice president of data and analytics for the Regenstrief Institute on Aging, said AI offers real benefits.

"It can reduce loneliness through conversation, provide reminders for medications and appointments," Grannis outlined. "It can support cognitive stimulation via games, storytelling, news updates."

The technology can also offer a low-pressure way to access information on public services, he added, which is valuable for those with mobility issues or those who feel intimidated by technology.

Grannis cautioned any tool which can be used for good can also lead to problems. He noted AI can create a false sense of companionship and mask social isolation. Overdependence is a legitimate concern, he argued, if the technology becomes a "crutch" for all forms of interaction.

"All cognitive activities or decision-making, it can actually lead to and create a negative feedback loop, lead to a decline in engagement and even basic self-management skills," Grannis explained. "This is risky."

Grannis believes one solution is designing AI systems to complement, not replace, human interaction. He stressed it can be done though building broader support ecosystems including family, friends, caregivers and community services. Grannis emphasized it would encourage real-world activity, prompting the user to go for a walk, call a grandchild or attend a local senior event.

If you have an extra five minutes, you can save a life because you can learn cardiopulmonary resuscitation at no cost from a new mobile, hands-only CPR kiosk.

The new kiosk is in the lobby of Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica. The machine's touch screen gives a brief overview of hands-only CPR and you can practice right there, on a mannequin.

Dr. Rigved Tadwalkar, cardiologist at St. John's, said it is an easy way for people to get more comfortable giving chest compressions in an emergency.

"It's a lot like a video game but of course, a lot more important than a video game," Tadwalkar pointed out. "It gives real-time feedback about the depth and rate of compressions, proper hand placement, which are all factors that influence the effectiveness of CPR."

The American Heart Association operates the St. John's mobile kiosk and a stationary model at L-A-X with support from the hospital. Santiago Canyon College in Orange County also has a mobile hands-only C-P-R kiosk now through September, sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences.

Steven Munatones, an Orange County business owner, said he survived what's known as a "widowmaker" heart attack which led to cardiac arrest nine years ago, thanks to his 17-year-old son, who gave him immediate CPR with instructions from a 911 operator.

"You don't have to put your mouth to anybody's mouth," Munatones explained. "You just put your hand on their chest and pump. He saved me, and others can do the same, anywhere. So, it's absolutely a lifesaving, heroic act that anybody can do."

Statistics show 350,000 Americans suffer from cardiac arrest outside a hospital each year and about 90% die, in part because they do not receive CPR. About 70% of those cardiac arrests happen at home, so people often depend on family or friends to give CPR before an ambulance arrives.