By Grey Moran for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Zamone Perez for Virginia News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Last August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food & Safety Inspection Service, the federal team responsible for ensuring the safe and accurate labeling of the commercial meat supply, issued letters to several dozen meat producers to inform them of antibiotics detected in beef. This isn’t an unusual finding — antibiotics are widely used on industrial animal farms — yet the meat sampled was on track to be sold as “antibiotic-free,” “raised without antibiotics” or a similar label promising that the animals were never administered antibiotics.

These letters, recently obtained by the advocacy group Farm Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the world’s largest meat producers — JBS, Cargill, and Tyson — raised cattle that tested positive for antibiotics prohibited under USDA-approved labels advertising the beef as free of antibiotics.

“This strongly suggests that the US antibiotic-free beef supply is deeply contaminated and deeply deceptive to American consumers,” Andrew deCoriolis, the executive director of Farm Forward tells Sentient.

The USDA’s Food & Safety Inspection Service found that 20 percent of the samples under this label tested positive for antibiotics, raising questions about how widespread mislabeling is in the U.S. commercial beef supply. These findings were announced last August, but the names of the companies which tested positive for antibiotics were not made publicly available until recently, as part of a new report released by Farm Forward questioning the validity of this popular label.

“It does seem to violate the nature of the label,” says Keeve Nachman, the associate director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Nachman is not concerned about immediate health impacts — consuming antibiotic residue does not cause an immediate illness, but contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria — though he is concerned about the broader lack of transparency around antibiotic use on farms and how that contributes to longer-term antibiotic resistance in humans and animals.

These faulty labeling practices result in a “mischaracterization of the magnitude of antibiotics being used in agriculture,” Nachman says. It’s been estimated that 70 percent of medically-important antibiotics sold in the U.S. — those used to treat human infections — are used to produce meat, dairy and other animal-sourced products. The difference between what’s presented on labels and actual use means the public may not understand the urgency. “It is going to mean that we don’t have the full appreciation of the pressure our agricultural industry puts on the ability of those drugs to resolve human infections,” says Nachman.

The World Health Organization calls antimicrobial resistance “one of the top global public health and development threats,” responsible for millions of deaths every year. The problem is only going to get worse, according to public health experts. The misuse and overuse of antibiotics — both in humans and farm animals (who often receive the same antibiotics) — leads bacteria to develop more resistant genes that then fail to respond to the medically necessary use of these drugs.

The USDA’s Food & Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) sent a total of 27 letters to offending meat companies, advising them to “conduct a root cause analysis to determine how antibiotics were introduced into the animal and to take appropriate measures to ensure future products are not misbranded.” FSIS sampled between one and four cattle carcasses per processing facility, which were randomly selected as part of a 2023 initiative. In the letters, FSIS stated that it would “not take immediate enforcement action in response to individual test results.”

“USDA is continuing to review policies and actions taken by the previous administration,” a FSIS spokesperson told Sentient in an e-mail, in response to questions about whether they intend to take any follow-up enforcement or policy actions. “FSIS remains committed to ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply and protecting public health.”

deCoriolis points to the USDA’s lax oversight of this voluntary certification program, which requires that companies submit documentation to receive the USDA’s approval for use of this label. The USDA relies on self-reported information to validate these and many other claims, including humanely-raised and free range claims.

Meat brands are required only to submit written statements attesting to their process for ensuring antibiotics are not part of their meat supply chains. As deCoriolis sees it, the certification process is vulnerable to exploitation — companies can charge a higher price for meat sold as antibiotic-free but there is not enough oversight to ensure compliance.

“Despite the USDA knowing that this label claim is, in many cases false, they continue to approve the label without requiring testing to verify the claim,” continued deCoriolis. ”From our perspective, this is the USDA deliberately maintaining labeling policies that allow meat companies to mislead the public. And the effect of that is the USDA is giving meat companies a consumer liability shield to protect them from consumer protection laws.”

The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) set the federal legal frameworks for meat and poultry product labeling, which refers to the language on the back or front of meat packaging in grocery stores. Previously, courts have held that if the manufacturer’s labels are approved by the USDA, they can be legally used for advertising — effectively giving the USDA the final say on what winds up on meat labels.

Following these test results, the USDA updated its guidelines to “strongly encourages the use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims,” but the agency fell short of actually requiring third-party verification. The updated guidelines were announced in August under President Biden’s administration, and there has not been any further action in this vein under USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Sentient reached out to every meat producer that received a letter to see if they had followed the USDA’s recommendations in conducting a root causes analysis to determine how antibiotics entered their food supply, or any other additional measures.

According to FSIS’s letter, inspectors identified monensin — an antibiotic that is banned in the European Union as a growth promoter in farm animals — in animal carcasses sampled at Swift Beef Company in Greeley, Colorado, a subsidiary of JBS USA, one of the largest meat companies in the world. JBS USA claims beef sold under its Aspen Ridge brand come from cattle that “have never received growth promotants of any kind.”

In an e-mail to Sentient, Nikki Richardson, JBS USA’s Head of Corporate Communications, wrote that “the product impacted in this instance was identified at the facility and never made it into the food supply.” She also wrote that JBS USA conducted an audit following this incident. No evidence of either statement was provided. Sentient asked if the company would be willing to provide Sentient with “the results of the audit, for the sake of consumer transparency,” but Richardson did not reply.

Similarly, FSIS detected monensin in an animal carcass at a Cargill facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado and tulathromycin (used to treat bovine respiratory illnesses) at a separate Cargill facility in Wyalusing, Pennsylvania. Chuck Miller, the global external communications lead for Cargill, replied that the company has not violated any regulatory requirements.

“Cargill complies with USDA and FSIS regulatory requirements to ensure safe and compliant products enter the market,” stated Miller, in an email to Sentient. “I would also like to reinforce that there has been no evidence that meat with antibiotic residue levels in excess of regulatory standards entered the food supply.”

Tyson did not respond to a request for comment. However, Tyson has scaled back on its previous pledge to raise beef without antibiotics, following previous public scrutiny of these labeling claims. 

There are shortcomings to FSIS’s testing program. The tests performed didn’t distinguish between selective antibiotic use to treat an illness and constant low-dose exposure to antibiotics administered directly into the animals’ feed. While both are prohibited under the labeling program, the excessive, chronic use of antibiotics poses a much more serious risk to public health, contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. 

“If a cow is selectively treated for penicillin two years ago and gets harvested, that’s one thing. But if it’s been constantly exposed to a drug, over and over again, leading up to 30 to 60 days prior to the time it was harvested, that’s going to be a whole other level of residue,” says Marshall Bartlett, the co-founder of Home Place Pastures, a cattle and pig farm and processing house in Como, Mississippi. FSIS’s letters don’t indicate the level of residue. 

FSIS found that one of Bartlett’s cattle tested positive for penicillin, which is commonly used on small farms to selectively treat illnesses. He performed the root cause analysis as recommended, tracing it back to a nearby producer who sells him cattle, who forgot to tag that animal to indicate that it could no longer be sold under the labeling program. “The producer was very apologetic and understood,” says Bartlett. 

Out of all of the meat producers, Bartlett is the only one who said he performed this analysis and was willing to share the results. He hopes that the USDA expands and refines its testing for antibiotics use. “As far as we’re concerned, we’re really committed to transparency and figuring this out, trying to be an advocate for local farmers in our supply chain,” he says.


Grey Moran wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio food banks are urging state lawmakers to approve what they said is a modest budget increase needed to get more fresh, local produce into the hands of hungry families.

The request coincides with National Fruits and Vegetables Month and a broader call to support both food access and local farms. Through the Ohio Agricultural Clearance Program, surplus produce from nearly 100 Ohio farms is delivered to food banks statewide.

Alex Buck, president of the Fruit Growers Marketing Association, said the funding request is not just about food access, it is about sustaining local agriculture.

"Our relationship with the food banks isn't for profitability purposes, it is the right thing to do to support our communities," Buck explained. "It also allows our farms to be compensated fairly for produce that would not normally make it to the retailers."

He pointed out the requested increase of just under $5 million would help offset inflation. Food prices rose nearly 24% between 2020 and 2024, while Ohio food banks said their funding has remained flat since 2019, limiting how much food they can purchase.

Buck argued cutting funding could make it unsustainable for farms to participate, especially as labor and production costs have risen. He added the program shortens the distance between farm and table, preserving freshness and reducing food waste.

"Our farmers care. None of our farmers live in mansions. They love what they do, they love to feed families, they love to support the communities," Buck emphasized. "It doesn't make it viable for farmers to continue to support this program, if there's not funds behind it."

Food banks are bracing for a drop in state support from $32.5 this year to $24.5 million next year, which could mean 8 million fewer pounds of food. Advocates said the funding boost would help prevent the loss.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

At least eight miles of a Southwest-Wisconsin stream were polluted by a manure spill earlier this month. The spill killed hundreds of fish, including many wild brown trout. The affected waterways — Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River — have long been remarkable for their healthy water quality, healthy enough to sustain naturally-reproducing trout populations. The source of the spill appears to be manure applied to fields by a 600-head dairy operation near Norwalk, Ben Uvaas, who works at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), tells Sentient. A “gully washer,” or massive rain event, appears to have triggered the runoff, he says. Though the farmer of the dairy operation took measures to protect soil health, the combination of heavy rains and 11,500 gallons of applied manure per acre were enough to trigger a spill.

This year, there have been at least 9 documented manure spills in Wisconsin, according to the DNR. The Kickapoo River, where some of this manure was observed, eventually carries water all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Contaminants like manure and other agricultural byproducts contribute to an oxygen-depleted area known as the “dead zone” that can kill marine life. In 2024, the dead zone spanned 6,705 square miles.

On May 17, the DNR received a call about this spill to their violation tip line. The warden who received the call — a law enforcement official tasked with enforcing natural resources laws — went out to the stream, where they observed the hundreds of dead fish.

Uvaas works on the state DNR’s non-point source pollution program, referring to the kind of pollution that tends to be carried by rain or snowfall, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The warden was able to track the source back to a farm field in Monroe County, southwest of Norwalk, Uvaas says. Wisconsin Public Radio reported the farm as Brueggen Dairy Farm, a 600-head cow operation.

Brueggen Dairy is not considered a concentrated animal feeding operation as it falls under the 700-head dairy threshold set by the EPA. In 2022, the operation received the Monroe County Conservation Farmers of the Year award.

On Monday, May 19, the DNR fisheries team examined most of the area — collecting hundreds of dead fish along the way. Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River, where the spill occurred, are prized trout habitats in a region that is a destination for fishers and other recreationalists.

So far, the investigation has determined that the week of May 11, a farmer injected approximately 11,500 gallons of manure, per acre, to around 130 acres of farmland. A Wisconsin DNR official recently said that anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 gallons per acre is acceptable.

On May 14, the rain storm hit. Farmers frequently apply manure to their fields as fertilizer, but over-application can contaminate drinking water with nitrates, and high levels of ammonia can kill fish and other wildlife.

The farmer had been performing a range of what Uvaas describes as “soil health” practices meant to improve soil structure and the amount of manure applied does not appear to be beyond acceptable ranges. But the spill occurred anyway, illustrating that manure application has the potential to go wrong.

“Despite all our efforts to find the best time to apply (manure), Mother Nature is unpredictable,” Farm owner Randy Brueggen wrote in a statement to Wisconsin Public Radio.

“We as a dairy farm know how valuable this resource is, which is why we utilize incorporation practices in an intentional, safe and compliant manner,” Brueggen continued. “We strive to utilize our organic fertilizer over synthetic fertilizer for our crops. Our group’s farming practices always prioritize conservation. We want to sustain the land, so the land sustains us.”

In Wisconsin, “more than 1,500 miles of streams and rivers, and 33 lakes, in the nine counties assessed have impaired waters due overwhelmingly to combined pollution from manure and commercial fertilizer,” a 2022 investigation by the non-profit Environmental Working Group and non-profit law group Midwest Environmental Advocates found.

In the Driftless region of the Midwest, an area that covers parts of Northeast Iowa, Southwest Wisconsin and Southeast Minnesota, pollution containment and cleanup is especially difficult, Uvaas says. Unlike the rolling hills and lush soils of the Corn Belt, the karst topography is characterized by natural spring-fed streams, rocky bluffs and a thin layer of topsoil.

As a result, the streams are “fairly high gradient” and “high velocity,” says Uvaas, and this creates “an extremely narrow window” for response time, at least “compared to other parts of the state.” In the flatter parts of Wisconsin for instance, officials can put in barriers and collection sumps to collect contamination. But by the time DNR officials got to this site, it was too late. “There’s not any kind of collection or containment that’s feasible in the waterway, which is unfortunate, but that’s largely driven by timing and the topography here.”

Sentient is awaiting records from the Wisconsin DNR for more information regarding this spill, including enforcement action.


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for Oklahoma News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

On May 11, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that the U.S. is suspending all livestock imports from Mexico due to a resurgence of New World screwworm. Mexican authorities detected the parasitic fly, which was ostensibly eradicated decades ago, in southern Mexico earlier in the month after an outbreak in Panama years ago. Now, officials are increasingly concerned that the screwworm could reach the U.S., and wreak havoc on American farm animals.

Rollins says that the suspension will apply to live cattle, bison and horses, and will be renewed "on a month-by-month basis, until a significant window of containment is achieved." In the meantime, U.S. officials and cattle farmers are on edge.

"It is very, very bad, and it's not just cattle," Dr. Rod Hall, the state veterinarian for Oklahoma, tells Sentient. "The screwworms can affect any warm-blooded animal, so it would be devastating to any of our livestock species."

What is a New World Screwworm?

The New World screwworm isn't a worm at all, but a parasitic fly whose larvae infest and burrow into the tissue of warm-blooded animals. Female screwworms are attracted to open wounds, and bodily orifices in general, and that's often where they lay their eggs. Once the larvae hatch, they burrow into the host creatures' tissue with their powerful mouth hooks.

While several fly species are attracted to open wounds, screwworms are unique in that they infest healthy, living tissue, as opposed to the flesh of dead creatures. What's more, screwworms can lay up to 400 eggs at once, so even a single pregnant fly is bad news for any warm-blooded creature unfortunate enough to encounter one.

"When they get to a certain point, they fall out, burrow into the ground for a week or so, and then they turn into more flies," Hall explains. "So oftentimes, by the time a human realizes that an animal is infected, the damage has already been done, and the next generation [of screwworms] is in the soil, waiting to turn into adult flies so they can lay more eggs."

Myiasis is the official term for a screwworm infestation of living tissue, and it can kill the host creature in one to two weeks if not treated. Thankfully, myiasis is survivable if treated with larvicides, insecticides and daily cleaning of the wounds - that is, if it's detected in time, which is often the biggest challenge for livestock farmers.

Screwworm is a health threat to animals and an economic threat to meat industry producers. But it's generally not considered a public health risk to humans.

Public health officials have said that any livestock infected by the screwworm wouldn't make its way into the domestic meat supply, due to federal meat inspection laws. And although the parasite can infect humans, anybody with such an infection "would notice something" was wrong in time to treat it, Todd Thrift, associate professor of animal sciences at the University of Florida, tells Sentient.

"Unless it was someone that was just totally unaware, this is not something that rapidly affects people," Thrift says. "The probability of it being a human health threat is very, very, very, very low."

As its name implies, the New World screwworm only exists in the Western hemisphere; there's also an Old World screwworm, which is found in parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Oceania. Both types of screwworms live in tropical and subtropical climates, and can't survive extreme heat or cold.

New World screwworms are endemic in South America, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, but usually aren't found north of Panama. There are no screwworms in the U.S. - but there used to be, and it's taken quite a bit of effort to keep them out.

Screwworms Were Once A Major Issue On U.S. Farms

Until the 1960s, the New World screwworm was common across Mexico and the southern United States. After its initial detection off the coast of Guiana in 1858, the parasite became a major problem in North America around the turn of the century as America's livestock industry became more developed and expansive.

By 1920, the screwworm was a serious enough issue on U.S. farms that the Department of Agriculture produced an informational video on how to stop them. But the species was still poorly understood at this point, and it wasn't until the 1930s that a series of discoveries about the screwworm equipped scientists to begin developing a plan for eradicating them.

The key was sterilization. Female screwworms only mate once in their lives, so scientists developed a way of sterilizing male screwworms without otherwise harming them, then released the sterile males en masse into screwworm populations. This became known as the Sterile Insect Technique, and it worked: By 1966, New World screwworm was fully eradicated in the U.S., and remaining populations in Mexico were successfully eliminated by 1991.

Ensuring that the U.S. remains screwworm-free, however, has been an ongoing and international effort. Because an adult screwworm can travel up to 125 miles before laying eggs, eradicating the species in the U.S. effectively requires that Mexico be free of the fly as well. The U.S. and Panama maintain a buffer zone of sterilized flies in eastern Panama to prevent the screwworm from migrating northward, and several other international collaborations have helped keep the species' populations in check - for the most part.

How Did This Recent Outbreak Occur?

Although the U.S.-Panamanian buffer zone has largely been a success, it's not completely impermeable. There have been isolated outbreaks of the screwworm in the U.S. at various points since 1966, most recently in the Florida Keys in 2016, but all were eventually contained.

In 2023, however, a major screwworm outbreak occurred in Panama; though it's not entirely clear how the screwworm managed to escape the buffer zone, conservationists have suggested that illegal cattle trafficking is to blame. Since then, the fly has been detected in several countries north of the buffer zone, including Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize and El Salvador.

"Panama was pretty much focusing all the sterile male flies in the Panama region to control it there," Hall says. "So once it got out of the control area without people knowing it, it had the opportunity to begin spreading. And it's hard to get ahead of it, because the animals can't talk to us and tell us they have a problem."

This is a big reason screwworm is so hard to combat: the lag time between infection and detection. It's why screwworms are a much bigger problem on cattle farms, where cows are often dispersed over a large area and aren't seen for days at a time, than on pig farms, where animals tend to be confined in tight quarters, and farmers can typically put eyes on each animal every day.

"It might be a few weeks before the authorities [in Central America] would realize that they had a case of it," Hall says. "And by then, the screwworm flies had multiplied and moved even further. So instead of being able to get ahead of it, we're kind of chasing it."

In 2024, a New World screwworm infected a cow in southern Mexico near the border of Guatemala. In response, the USDA suspended livestock imports to the U.S. from Mexico in November 2024, and increased its deployments of sterile screwworm males south of the border. By February 2025, the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to a series of enhanced security protocols aimed at preventing screwworm from crossing the U.S.-Mexican border, and the suspension was lifted.

In May, however, the USDA announced that screwworms had been detected in Mexican farms around 700 miles from the U.S. border. It was this discovery that compelled Rollins to suspend Mexican livestock imports again.

Screwworm Policy: Public Health, or Politics?

In her announcement, Rollins stressed that the import suspension "is not about politics or punishment of Mexico, [but] about food and animal safety." Nevertheless, there has been a bit of political tension between the U.S. and Mexico as of late that's worth noting.

Some of this tension has been strictly rhetorical; Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum didn't take kindly to President Trump's suggestion that the Gulf of Mexico be renamed the "Gulf of America," for instance. But some has been more substantive, stemming from Trump's new tariffs on Mexico and his visa suspensions of certain Mexican officials.

In April, Rollins accused the Mexican government of delaying U.S. efforts to contain screwworms in Panama, and demanded that it "eliminate restrictions on USDA aircraft and waive customs duties on eradication equipment."

The two countries quickly struck a deal to resolve this issue, but the new import suspension has frustrated Mexican authorities, with Scheinbaum calling it "unfair" and defending her government's efforts to fight the parasite.

Zooming Out: Screwworms Are Common In South America

The presence of screwworms is panic-inducing for many American farmers. But in many parts of South America, they're just the cost of doing business.

"In South America, they live with this," Thrift says. "It's there all the time, and so it doesn't wipe out their cattle populations or the wildlife populations or anything else. It's just part of the normal flora."

This begs the question of how these countries deal with the screwworm. The answer is decidedly low-tech, according to Thrift: They just check the cattle for infections more frequently.

"Beef production in some of the South American countries is different because their labor is considerably cheaper," says Thrift. "Having 20 cowboys out there checking for this pest, and doctoring any animals that might have it, would not be near the labor burden that it would be in this country."

For his part, Thrift isn't quite as apocalyptic as some others about the prospect of screwworms returning to the U.S. He notes that the detections in Mexico are "still 700 miles from the [U.S.] border," and that although the parasite would cause problems for cattle ranchers, the screwworm itself "is not an unsolvable problem."

"There's definitely concern," he says, "but this is not something that is insurmountable."


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email