A single course of antibiotics can reshape your gut microbiome for years, affecting digestion, immune function and metabolic health long after the prescription ends.
As Dr. Mercola reports, antibiotics disrupt the gut flora, which in turn causes multiple pathologies. In this Nature study published in the British Journal of Cancer, scientists from the University of Aberdeen, NHS Grampian, and Queen's University Belfast have discovered that antibiotic use may increase the risk of developing colon cancer, potentially more so among younger people.
Published in the British Journal of Cancer, the study, funded by Cancer Research UK, analyzed data from the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIUR) national primary care database. From this routinely collected data, the team identified 7,903 people with colorectal cancer and compared them with more than 30,418 compatible individuals without a cancer diagnosis. The researchers controlled for genetic and non-genetic factors, such as underlying health conditions, to try to determine whether antibiotic use is a risk factor for colon cancer. To understand the effects of other risk factors, they then adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking, and weight.
Early-onset and late-onset colon cancer were investigated separately, as evidence suggests that risk factors may differ between early-onset and late-onset disease.
Previously, only a small number of studies had investigated the relationship between antibiotics and colon cancer, and these studies were limited to older adults and showed mixed results.
Sarah Perrott adds: “We found that antibiotic exposure was associated with colon cancer in all age groups.
“This, along with many other dietary and lifestyle factors, may be contributing to the rise in colon cancer cases among young people.”
This study revealed a statistically significant correlation between the use of long-course antibiotics and the risk of colon cancer (odds ratio = 1.89). Subgroup analysis identified specific agents within the long-course antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and clindamycin, with an elevated risk profile. Common comorbidities included hypertension (226 cases, 46%), diabetes mellitus (108 cases, 22%), and hyperlipidemia (88 cases, 18%). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were fluoroquinolones (158 cases, 32%), followed by cephalosporins (108 cases, 22%) and macrolides (88 cases, 18%).
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.e15643 .---- In this report, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting on antibiotic use and subsequent cancer risk. We included observational studies of adult subjects with prior antibiotic exposure and available information on incident cancer diagnoses. The association of cancer risk with antibiotic intake was assessed among 7,947,270 participants (n = 25 studies). Overall, antibiotic use was an independent risk factor for cancer development (OR 1.18). The risk was especially higher for lung cancer (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61, p = 0.02), lymphomas (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51, p < 0.001), pancreatic cancer (OR 1.28), renal cell carcinoma (OR 1.28), and multiple myeloma (OR 1.36). There is moderate evidence that excessive or prolonged lifetime antibiotic use is associated with a slightly increased risk of various types of cancer.
In a nested case-control study within Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), cases were individuals aged 15 to 49 years with in situ or invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma (2009–2021); controls were individually matched 10:1 for age, sex, and length of KPSC affiliation.
An increased risk of colon adenocarcinoma was suggested for >90 days of cumulative broad-spectrum antibiotic use [aOR = 2.04]. An association exists between long-term cumulative broad-spectrum antibiotic use and early-onset colon cancer.
Early-onset colorectal cancer (EORCC) is a multifactorial malignancy caused by cumulative metabolic dysfunction and inflammatory stress, which interact with environmental and microbial factors and exposures in early life, in a context of genetic susceptibility and accelerated epigenetic aging. Addressing the EORCC epidemic will require comprehensive, lifelong prevention strategies that go beyond age-based screening and incorporate metabolic health optimization, lifestyle and exposome modification, improved symptom identification, and risk-adapted early detection.
Microbiome-targeted approaches, including probiotics, postbiotics, and time-restricted feeding, may hold promise for restoring eubiosis, reducing intestinal inflammation, and improving metabolic and immune profiles relevant to the pathogenesis of chronic red blood cell carcinoma (CRCC). Protective dietary components, including dietary fiber, calcium, folate, β-carotene, and vitamins C, D, and E, as well as foods such as yogurt and coffee, have been associated with a lower risk of CRC and may counteract metabolic and inflammatory pathways relevant to CRCC. CRCC is emerging as a multifactorial, lifespan disease, shaped by cumulative interactions between genetic susceptibility and early and persistent metabolic, environmental, microbial, and social exposures.
Once again research showing the need to ask the question, yes, but, what else does it do? With antibiotics from the very beginning, it was advised to be cautious and not to overuse antibiotics due to the microbe world's habitants fast turnover recovery rate, causing quick fast resistance to the antibiotics. Then also once again, never underestimate the dominant financial systems ability to turn the smallest things into the Profit making pipeline...damn the torpedoes, full warp speed ahead! Antibiotics, a once welcomed addition to actually address life ending infections. Some coming from the simplest things as a blister, scratch or cut.
Skip ahead as germaphobia became a marketing sell. Livestock instead of healthy, proper conditions to raise them to have a solid health foundation, a proper functioning Immune System had antibiotics used to substitute such. So evermore animals could be pushed in closer together, crammed into unhealthy spaces, filth to produce the most cheapest units possible without the touch of human hands, labor. Antibiotics added to feed increase body weight instead healthy product. Plus some icing for the cake, Glyphosate residue in the same feed and Glyphosate is considered to also be an antibiotic.
Seems we are getting a double whammy of being Civilized to Death.
Not only our guts are affected no matter how hard we try because both end up as run off residue from Factory Farms and the Glyphosate hangs around even longer as it is being found in rainfall. Proper, Regenerative, Sustainable, Organic Farming - if it can survive the usual High Jacking of the Dominant Financial Systems Overlords - could go a long way cleaning all this out of our environment, our selves.
If the memory is working, it seems quite a while ago, the Dutch eliminated the use of antibiotics in their pork and it made a tremendous difference in the health of their general public. Also keep in mind, Big Pharma before the Planned Demic was being reported by Legacy Media as not putting much if any into developing any new antibiotics to deal with the Super Antibiotic Super Bugs their genius is producing - like MERSA. Saying, admitting they did not want to put money into antibiotics because when used properly, they work, but - they are not the treadmill pill to take for life they prefer.
All show the need to break free through proper practices done Locally. Build from the bottom up. Top down has proven itself to prefer the Profit$ of material wealth over the Foundational Real Wealth of Health, and Healthy Produce that Material Wealth has no meaning if it is all drained away by keeping a Symptom Management System alive to feed Global Monopoly Systems alive. Just Sayn'
Dear friend, it is a pleasure to hear your realistic perspective. Your words are a testament to the well-being of the livestock and crops that provide our food. The importance of animal welfare must be emphasized, both for the quality of life of the animals themselves and for its impact on livestock and poultry production. Stressors have an additive effect, meaning that when several stressors occur simultaneously, the resulting stress response will be greater than if the animal were exposed to only one. An extensively raised animal, with little contact with people, will tend to experience more stress from fear when restrained than an animal raised in close contact with handlers and accustomed to handling procedures. It has been shown that calves raised in close contact with humans exhibit lower cortisol levels when restrained than those with less contact with people.
Stress, in addition to disrupting well-being, negatively affects the profitability and economic viability of livestock and poultry farming. The stress response includes several alterations that can have negative consequences for the performance of farm animals. These effects include changes in immune function and a consequent increase in susceptibility to disease, decreased feed intake and rumination, affecting production, inhibition of oxytocin release, and reduced fertility, among others.
Many studies demonstrate that operational and management practices that ensure greater animal welfare achieve better economic results by avoiding inefficiencies and value losses throughout the production chain. The repercussions of stress have a profound and broad impact on productivity, reproduction, and health.
Stress has also been associated with an increased number of unfertilized eggs and abnormal embryos. In herds affected by heat, a lack of conception, late embryonic deaths, and even abortions are observed. The most well-known effects on gestation are: lower birth weight of the calf, alterations in maternal-fetal hormone concentrations, and reduced postpartum milk production. Stress causes a considerable decrease in uterine blood flow, which is associated with decreased fetal growth during late gestation and impaired placental function and endocrine activity.
Animals that suffer confinement or social stress (separation, abandonment, isolation) exhibit depressed immune activity. Research in humans and experimental animals has revealed that stress can affect both humoral and cellular immune responses. Stress induces the release of stress hormones such as epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol in animals. These stress hormones reduce host production and reproduction and also influence immunological mechanisms. Recent research has revealed the responsiveness of microorganisms to stress hormones. It has been shown that stress hormones increase bacterial growth and virulence mechanisms, and the process of infectious diseases.
Continuing with your interesting information. Several countries have demonstrated that it is possible to drastically reduce antibiotic use on farms without harming productivity, through improvements in biosecurity, animal welfare, vaccination, and livestock management.
1) Sweden was a pioneer in banning antibiotics as growth promoters back in 1986. It currently maintains one of the lowest consumption rates in Europe thanks to a combination of good management practices, epidemiological surveillance, and high animal health standards.
2) Finland consistently ranks among the countries with the lowest use of antimicrobials in livestock. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) highlights that it has maintained low levels for years.
3) Norway has some of the lowest levels in the world. Most treatments are individual rather than mass, which reduces the selective pressure for the emergence of resistance.
4) Iceland is also among the European countries with the lowest use of veterinary antibiotics, thanks to strict sanitary measures and relatively isolated livestock farming.
5) Denmark is one of the most studied cases. It implemented mandatory monitoring systems, reduction targets, and controls on farms with the highest consumption. It has achieved significant reductions while maintaining a strong pig industry.
6) The Netherlands achieved a very significant reduction in antibiotic use after introducing national targets, data transparency, and changes in production systems. Furthermore, they have promoted slower-growing poultry breeds, which require fewer antibiotics.
According to EMA surveillance data, sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals decreased considerably between 2011 and 2022 in Europe. More than two-thirds of the countries included in the European system recorded significant reductions over the last decade. In addition, between 2018 and 2022, antimicrobial use in farm animals and aquaculture in Europe fell by approximately 28-30%. Countries with lower antibiotic use tend to share:
1) Better animal welfare.
2) Lower animal density on farms.
3) Improved biosecurity and hygiene.
4) Individual treatments instead of medicating entire herds.
5) National surveillance systems and reduction targets.
An interesting finding is that studies analyzed by the OECD found that pig and poultry farms that reduced antibiotic use by more than 50% did not show worse economic or animal welfare outcomes compared to other farms.
The United States is taking steps to reduce antibiotic use in livestock, though the results are mixed. There was a significant reduction between 2015 and 2023, but in 2024 sales of medically important antibiotics for livestock increased again by 16%, reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of current policies. Many experts believe that countries like Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have gone further because they combine restrictions on antibiotic use with structural improvements in animal welfare, stocking density, biosecurity, and data transparency. The U.S. has made progress primarily through pharmaceutical regulation and veterinary oversight, but less so through fundamental changes to production systems.
Main measures adopted in the U.S.:
1) Mandatory veterinary oversight. Most antibiotics considered important for human medicine can no longer be freely purchased for livestock use. Their use requires veterinary supervision through a prescription or a Veterinary Feed Directive.
2) Prohibition of use as growth promoters. The FDA eliminated the "growth promotion" designation for medically important antibiotics. In theory, these drugs should only be used to treat, control, or prevent specific diseases.
3) Limits on treatment durations. In February 2026, the FDA published final guidance requiring antibiotics administered in feed to have defined durations of use, avoiding prolonged or indefinite treatments that promote the development of resistance.
4) Antimicrobial stewardship programs. The FDA maintains a specific program for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine, promoting the use of antibiotics only when necessary and at the appropriate dose and duration.
5) Surveillance and data collection. The FDA and the USDA are expanding data collection on antibiotic use on farms to better understand which drugs are being used, in which species, and for what purpose.
6) Biosecurity and vaccination. The USDA promotes preventive measures to reduce the need for antibiotics. In summary, the United States has significantly reduced antibiotic use since the 2015 peak, but the most recent data show that antimicrobial resistance remains a challenge and that the reductions achieved are not yet fully consolidated.
Gui, being as your information points out the affects of stress on livestock, maybe, could be why the 1% consume the organic MASSAGED Beef as opposed to the we gave you calories so you can work for us the little people get?
Products like organic, grass-fed, or premium-certified meat have significantly higher prices. This limits their consumption to people with greater purchasing power.
Is there inequality in diet?
In countries like the United States or even Spain, studies show that:
Higher-income earners consume more fruits, fresh vegetables, and organic products.
Lower-income earners consume more ultra-processed and inexpensive foods per calorie.
The food system prioritizes cheap calories.
Industrial agriculture is optimized to produce large quantities of calories (corn, soy, wheat), which are then transformed into:
animal feed,
ultra-processed foods,
low-cost products.
Your observation could be expressed as:
“Modern food systems tend to offer cheap calories to the majority, while foods with higher nutritional quality and more careful production remain more accessible to those with greater purchasing power.”
As Dr. Mercola reports, antibiotics disrupt the gut flora, which in turn causes multiple pathologies. In this Nature study published in the British Journal of Cancer, scientists from the University of Aberdeen, NHS Grampian, and Queen's University Belfast have discovered that antibiotic use may increase the risk of developing colon cancer, potentially more so among younger people.
Published in the British Journal of Cancer, the study, funded by Cancer Research UK, analyzed data from the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIUR) national primary care database. From this routinely collected data, the team identified 7,903 people with colorectal cancer and compared them with more than 30,418 compatible individuals without a cancer diagnosis. The researchers controlled for genetic and non-genetic factors, such as underlying health conditions, to try to determine whether antibiotic use is a risk factor for colon cancer. To understand the effects of other risk factors, they then adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking, and weight.
Early-onset and late-onset colon cancer were investigated separately, as evidence suggests that risk factors may differ between early-onset and late-onset disease.
Previously, only a small number of studies had investigated the relationship between antibiotics and colon cancer, and these studies were limited to older adults and showed mixed results.
Sarah Perrott adds: “We found that antibiotic exposure was associated with colon cancer in all age groups.
“This, along with many other dietary and lifestyle factors, may be contributing to the rise in colon cancer cases among young people.”
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/15702/ (2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01665-7.----
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01665-7.epdf?sharing_token=IulcLCO7ok2QdZNYubfxCtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PG3rELOfVVKoomra7JwJZv6mjzGAoufmYnFQqIlEZMukgwcGjufIHufotMlRJgOzcOnmJr9ek9ZVIyrR19q7hKSBxiUNZPk9_9ezdbs2jOf2xiUsNoR5Hqeo0a9ztsRNE%3D
This study revealed a statistically significant correlation between the use of long-course antibiotics and the risk of colon cancer (odds ratio = 1.89). Subgroup analysis identified specific agents within the long-course antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and clindamycin, with an elevated risk profile. Common comorbidities included hypertension (226 cases, 46%), diabetes mellitus (108 cases, 22%), and hyperlipidemia (88 cases, 18%). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were fluoroquinolones (158 cases, 32%), followed by cephalosporins (108 cases, 22%) and macrolides (88 cases, 18%).
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.e15643 .---- In this report, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting on antibiotic use and subsequent cancer risk. We included observational studies of adult subjects with prior antibiotic exposure and available information on incident cancer diagnoses. The association of cancer risk with antibiotic intake was assessed among 7,947,270 participants (n = 25 studies). Overall, antibiotic use was an independent risk factor for cancer development (OR 1.18). The risk was especially higher for lung cancer (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61, p = 0.02), lymphomas (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51, p < 0.001), pancreatic cancer (OR 1.28), renal cell carcinoma (OR 1.28), and multiple myeloma (OR 1.36). There is moderate evidence that excessive or prolonged lifetime antibiotic use is associated with a slightly increased risk of various types of cancer.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/11/8/1174------
In a nested case-control study within Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), cases were individuals aged 15 to 49 years with in situ or invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma (2009–2021); controls were individually matched 10:1 for age, sex, and length of KPSC affiliation.
An increased risk of colon adenocarcinoma was suggested for >90 days of cumulative broad-spectrum antibiotic use [aOR = 2.04]. An association exists between long-term cumulative broad-spectrum antibiotic use and early-onset colon cancer.
https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article-abstract/35/4/637/775612/Association-between-Broad-Spectrum-Antibiotic-Use?redirectedFrom=fulltext (2026)------------------
Early-onset colorectal cancer (EORCC) is a multifactorial malignancy caused by cumulative metabolic dysfunction and inflammatory stress, which interact with environmental and microbial factors and exposures in early life, in a context of genetic susceptibility and accelerated epigenetic aging. Addressing the EORCC epidemic will require comprehensive, lifelong prevention strategies that go beyond age-based screening and incorporate metabolic health optimization, lifestyle and exposome modification, improved symptom identification, and risk-adapted early detection.
Microbiome-targeted approaches, including probiotics, postbiotics, and time-restricted feeding, may hold promise for restoring eubiosis, reducing intestinal inflammation, and improving metabolic and immune profiles relevant to the pathogenesis of chronic red blood cell carcinoma (CRCC). Protective dietary components, including dietary fiber, calcium, folate, β-carotene, and vitamins C, D, and E, as well as foods such as yogurt and coffee, have been associated with a lower risk of CRC and may counteract metabolic and inflammatory pathways relevant to CRCC. CRCC is emerging as a multifactorial, lifespan disease, shaped by cumulative interactions between genetic susceptibility and early and persistent metabolic, environmental, microbial, and social exposures.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13679-026-00700-z (2026)
Once again research showing the need to ask the question, yes, but, what else does it do? With antibiotics from the very beginning, it was advised to be cautious and not to overuse antibiotics due to the microbe world's habitants fast turnover recovery rate, causing quick fast resistance to the antibiotics. Then also once again, never underestimate the dominant financial systems ability to turn the smallest things into the Profit making pipeline...damn the torpedoes, full warp speed ahead! Antibiotics, a once welcomed addition to actually address life ending infections. Some coming from the simplest things as a blister, scratch or cut.
Skip ahead as germaphobia became a marketing sell. Livestock instead of healthy, proper conditions to raise them to have a solid health foundation, a proper functioning Immune System had antibiotics used to substitute such. So evermore animals could be pushed in closer together, crammed into unhealthy spaces, filth to produce the most cheapest units possible without the touch of human hands, labor. Antibiotics added to feed increase body weight instead healthy product. Plus some icing for the cake, Glyphosate residue in the same feed and Glyphosate is considered to also be an antibiotic.
Seems we are getting a double whammy of being Civilized to Death.
Not only our guts are affected no matter how hard we try because both end up as run off residue from Factory Farms and the Glyphosate hangs around even longer as it is being found in rainfall. Proper, Regenerative, Sustainable, Organic Farming - if it can survive the usual High Jacking of the Dominant Financial Systems Overlords - could go a long way cleaning all this out of our environment, our selves.
If the memory is working, it seems quite a while ago, the Dutch eliminated the use of antibiotics in their pork and it made a tremendous difference in the health of their general public. Also keep in mind, Big Pharma before the Planned Demic was being reported by Legacy Media as not putting much if any into developing any new antibiotics to deal with the Super Antibiotic Super Bugs their genius is producing - like MERSA. Saying, admitting they did not want to put money into antibiotics because when used properly, they work, but - they are not the treadmill pill to take for life they prefer.
All show the need to break free through proper practices done Locally. Build from the bottom up. Top down has proven itself to prefer the Profit$ of material wealth over the Foundational Real Wealth of Health, and Healthy Produce that Material Wealth has no meaning if it is all drained away by keeping a Symptom Management System alive to feed Global Monopoly Systems alive. Just Sayn'
Dear friend, it is a pleasure to hear your realistic perspective. Your words are a testament to the well-being of the livestock and crops that provide our food. The importance of animal welfare must be emphasized, both for the quality of life of the animals themselves and for its impact on livestock and poultry production. Stressors have an additive effect, meaning that when several stressors occur simultaneously, the resulting stress response will be greater than if the animal were exposed to only one. An extensively raised animal, with little contact with people, will tend to experience more stress from fear when restrained than an animal raised in close contact with handlers and accustomed to handling procedures. It has been shown that calves raised in close contact with humans exhibit lower cortisol levels when restrained than those with less contact with people.
Stress, in addition to disrupting well-being, negatively affects the profitability and economic viability of livestock and poultry farming. The stress response includes several alterations that can have negative consequences for the performance of farm animals. These effects include changes in immune function and a consequent increase in susceptibility to disease, decreased feed intake and rumination, affecting production, inhibition of oxytocin release, and reduced fertility, among others.
Many studies demonstrate that operational and management practices that ensure greater animal welfare achieve better economic results by avoiding inefficiencies and value losses throughout the production chain. The repercussions of stress have a profound and broad impact on productivity, reproduction, and health.
Stress has also been associated with an increased number of unfertilized eggs and abnormal embryos. In herds affected by heat, a lack of conception, late embryonic deaths, and even abortions are observed. The most well-known effects on gestation are: lower birth weight of the calf, alterations in maternal-fetal hormone concentrations, and reduced postpartum milk production. Stress causes a considerable decrease in uterine blood flow, which is associated with decreased fetal growth during late gestation and impaired placental function and endocrine activity.
Animals that suffer confinement or social stress (separation, abandonment, isolation) exhibit depressed immune activity. Research in humans and experimental animals has revealed that stress can affect both humoral and cellular immune responses. Stress induces the release of stress hormones such as epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol in animals. These stress hormones reduce host production and reproduction and also influence immunological mechanisms. Recent research has revealed the responsiveness of microorganisms to stress hormones. It has been shown that stress hormones increase bacterial growth and virulence mechanisms, and the process of infectious diseases.
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1669-68402017000100014
.----
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=acwp_faafp
.---
https://www.fawec.org/media/com_lazypdf/pdf/fs6-en.pdf
.---
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6350254/
.-----
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09291016.2019.1695084
---------------------
Continuing with your interesting information. Several countries have demonstrated that it is possible to drastically reduce antibiotic use on farms without harming productivity, through improvements in biosecurity, animal welfare, vaccination, and livestock management.
1) Sweden was a pioneer in banning antibiotics as growth promoters back in 1986. It currently maintains one of the lowest consumption rates in Europe thanks to a combination of good management practices, epidemiological surveillance, and high animal health standards.
2) Finland consistently ranks among the countries with the lowest use of antimicrobials in livestock. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) highlights that it has maintained low levels for years.
3) Norway has some of the lowest levels in the world. Most treatments are individual rather than mass, which reduces the selective pressure for the emergence of resistance.
4) Iceland is also among the European countries with the lowest use of veterinary antibiotics, thanks to strict sanitary measures and relatively isolated livestock farming.
5) Denmark is one of the most studied cases. It implemented mandatory monitoring systems, reduction targets, and controls on farms with the highest consumption. It has achieved significant reductions while maintaining a strong pig industry.
6) The Netherlands achieved a very significant reduction in antibiotic use after introducing national targets, data transparency, and changes in production systems. Furthermore, they have promoted slower-growing poultry breeds, which require fewer antibiotics.
According to EMA surveillance data, sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals decreased considerably between 2011 and 2022 in Europe. More than two-thirds of the countries included in the European system recorded significant reductions over the last decade. In addition, between 2018 and 2022, antimicrobial use in farm animals and aquaculture in Europe fell by approximately 28-30%. Countries with lower antibiotic use tend to share:
1) Better animal welfare.
2) Lower animal density on farms.
3) Improved biosecurity and hygiene.
4) Individual treatments instead of medicating entire herds.
5) National surveillance systems and reduction targets.
An interesting finding is that studies analyzed by the OECD found that pig and poultry farms that reduced antibiotic use by more than 50% did not show worse economic or animal welfare outcomes compared to other farms.
https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the-issue/how-farm-antibiotic-use-can-be-reduced/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2025)
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/veterinary-regulatory-overview/antimicrobial-resistance-veterinary-medicine/european-surveillance-veterinary-antimicrobial-consumption-esvac-2009-2023?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2024)
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/european-sales-use-antimicrobials-veterinary-medicine-annual-surveillance-report-2024_en.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2024)
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/antimicrobial-resistance-latest-findings?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2025)
https://ourworldindata.org/antibiotics-livestock?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2024)
https://www.saveourantibiotics.org/the-issue/how-farm-antibiotic-use-can-be-reduced/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2025)
-----------
The United States is taking steps to reduce antibiotic use in livestock, though the results are mixed. There was a significant reduction between 2015 and 2023, but in 2024 sales of medically important antibiotics for livestock increased again by 16%, reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of current policies. Many experts believe that countries like Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have gone further because they combine restrictions on antibiotic use with structural improvements in animal welfare, stocking density, biosecurity, and data transparency. The U.S. has made progress primarily through pharmaceutical regulation and veterinary oversight, but less so through fundamental changes to production systems.
Main measures adopted in the U.S.:
1) Mandatory veterinary oversight. Most antibiotics considered important for human medicine can no longer be freely purchased for livestock use. Their use requires veterinary supervision through a prescription or a Veterinary Feed Directive.
2) Prohibition of use as growth promoters. The FDA eliminated the "growth promotion" designation for medically important antibiotics. In theory, these drugs should only be used to treat, control, or prevent specific diseases.
3) Limits on treatment durations. In February 2026, the FDA published final guidance requiring antibiotics administered in feed to have defined durations of use, avoiding prolonged or indefinite treatments that promote the development of resistance.
4) Antimicrobial stewardship programs. The FDA maintains a specific program for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine, promoting the use of antibiotics only when necessary and at the appropriate dose and duration.
5) Surveillance and data collection. The FDA and the USDA are expanding data collection on antibiotic use on farms to better understand which drugs are being used, in which species, and for what purpose.
6) Biosecurity and vaccination. The USDA promotes preventive measures to reduce the need for antibiotics. In summary, the United States has significantly reduced antibiotic use since the 2015 peak, but the most recent data show that antimicrobial resistance remains a challenge and that the reductions achieved are not yet fully consolidated.
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/antimicrobial-resistance?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2025)
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/antimicrobial-resistance/fda-policies-antimicrobial-drugs-animals?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2026)
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-track-agency-wide-program-performance/fda-track-progress-fdas-support-antimicrobial-stewardship-veterinary-settings?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2026)
https://www.cdc.gov/food-safety/about/drug-resistance.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com (2025)
https://www.usda.gov/antimicrobial-resistance-overview-amr?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gui, being as your information points out the affects of stress on livestock, maybe, could be why the 1% consume the organic MASSAGED Beef as opposed to the we gave you calories so you can work for us the little people get?
Your observation is very true.
Higher-quality food is usually more expensive.
Products like organic, grass-fed, or premium-certified meat have significantly higher prices. This limits their consumption to people with greater purchasing power.
Is there inequality in diet?
In countries like the United States or even Spain, studies show that:
Higher-income earners consume more fruits, fresh vegetables, and organic products.
Lower-income earners consume more ultra-processed and inexpensive foods per calorie.
The food system prioritizes cheap calories.
Industrial agriculture is optimized to produce large quantities of calories (corn, soy, wheat), which are then transformed into:
animal feed,
ultra-processed foods,
low-cost products.
Your observation could be expressed as:
“Modern food systems tend to offer cheap calories to the majority, while foods with higher nutritional quality and more careful production remain more accessible to those with greater purchasing power.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13840?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38245358/