Whole Foods is knowingly deceiving consumers by selling meat raised with antibiotics under their “no antibiotics, ever” promise. An April 4th filing in a lawsuit against Whole Foods reveals that, based on USDA sample testing of “Raised Without Antibiotics” (RWA) beef, at least 13 of 27 (nearly half) of the establishments that tested positive for antibiotics supplied beef to  Whole Foods.1 As the company has continued to engage in false advertising of its beef products, it has profited significantly on RWA beef sales. For instance, in April 2025, the company was charging 32 percent more per pound for the same cut of conventional beef from a traditional retailer.2

In 2022, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Whole Foods for false marketing of meat claiming to be Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA).3 Whole Foods’ company-wide standard for meat is “no antibiotics, ever,” a slogan that appears in their stores and in online marketing materials. However, testing commissioned by Farm Forward in 2022 found that meat from Whole Foods, marketed under this promise, contained numerous drugs, including an antibiotic.

“Farm Forward’s findings were bolstered by a peer-reviewed study published in Science which presents empirical evidence that a significant percentage—up to 22 percent—of cattle within the Animal Welfare Certified program, which is used by Whole Foods, have come from feedyards where testing suggests antibiotics were administered routinely.”4

When confronted with the results of this testing, which proved the company’s marketing claims were false, and even after the lawsuit was filed, Whole Foods continued to market claims that all of the meat sold in their stores is raised with “no antibiotics, ever.”

The sheer number of Whole Foods suppliers selling RWA beef that is actually raised with antibiotics revealed by the USDA testing shows that this is not an isolated incidence of mislabeled beef, but rather a systematic failing of Whole Foods to ensure that the meat the company sells is truthfully labeled and marketed.

As a premier antibiotic-free meat retailer, Whole Foods has done nothing to substantiate their marketing claims about RWA. They have shown willful ignorance about the systematic problem of antibiotics in RWA meat supply chains. Drugs and antibiotics are commonly used to prop up animals who are raised in crowded cramped conditions that routinely cause illness and the industry is subsequently incentivized to misuse these drugs. Whole Foods is profiting from this misuse and misleading the public about antibiotics use in the products they sell. These profits are substantial. In April 2025, Whole Foods was selling filet mignon beef steak for $36.99 per pound, while a traditional retailer priced the same cut of beef at $27.99 per pound.5  The company’s false marketing has led to the widespread deception of consumers who are paying a premium for meat they’ve been made to believe is antibiotic-free.

FOIA documents expose which companies failed the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2023 antibiotics sampling project and what’s changed since they concluded the project in August.

In an investigation released today, Farm Forward revealed that trusted beef brands like Tyson, Cargill, and JBS have been deceiving consumers by continuing to sell products that are not antibiotic-free under Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA) labels. In an issue brief titled, “Is Antibiotic-Free Meat Really Antibiotic-Free?,” Farm Forward exposes how deceptive use of RWA marketing claims by several major beef companies persisted even after the USDA announced findings from a 2023 antibiotics sampling project, which revealed at least 20 percent of tested cattle samples labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever” contained antibiotics.

Farm Forward’s investigation was prompted by the USDA’s refusal to regulate and provide punitive action against bad actors or even disclose which companies’ products tested positive for antibiotics in their study. The agency’s inaction has prevented consumers from being able to make informed decisions about what they eat, what kinds of labels they support, and how much they spend.

Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis said, “The findings from this investigation underscore a pattern of the USDA leaving everyday people across this country to chance and prioritizing industry’s bottom line at our expense. Beef brands that many know and trust have been knowingly defrauding the public with claims that their products are free of antibiotics, and while they are certainly at fault, the USDA—the government agency responsible for regulating America’s agriculture—is at fault for not enforcing the standards they’ve set.

“The USDA claims to ‘keep America’s farmers and ranchers in business and ensure the nation’s meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.’ The data revealed that these products were not properly labeled, and the USDA did nothing about it, and it further proves that agribusiness is being protected, but the American people are not.”

Bill Niman, well-known California rancher, added, “The deceptive marketing of ‘antibiotic-free’ meat creates an uneven playing field that severely disadvantages truly humane and sustainable farmers and ranchers. While industrial producers make misleading claims with the USDA’s tacit approval, genuine small-scale producers who actually raise animals without antibiotics must compete against these false narratives. These ethical farmers invest significantly more in proper animal care, space, and preventive health measures to legitimately avoid antibiotics, resulting in higher production costs. When large meat companies can simply slap misleading labels on their products without actually changing their practices, they undercut honest producers on price while stealing their market share. This deception not only harms consumers who believe they’re making ethical choices but systematically undermines the economic viability of the very farming systems that could transform our food system for the better.”

###

Three U.S. Senators, working closely with Farm Forward, have urged the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to strengthen its guidelines on animal welfare and environmental labeling claims, citing widespread deception in food marketing that harms both consumers and independent farmers.

In a letter addressed to USDA Deputy Under Secretary Sandra Eskin, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Cory A. Booker, and Sheldon Whitehouse outlined serious concerns about the current guidelines. The letter notes that the guideline “falls short of what is needed to protect producers and consumers from the unfair misuse of animal welfare and animal-raising claims.” 

Farm Forward, which helped draft the letter, strongly supports these Senators’ efforts to reform labeling practices, and has additionally called for mandatory testing requirements for “antibiotic free” claims.

The Senators emphasized that 78 percent of consumers pay premium prices for products with higher welfare claims, while 85 percent believe the government should establish and enforce clear definitions for animal welfare labels. However, the current guidelines allow major agricultural corporations to exploit these labels without meaningful verification.

The letter quotes an Indiana turkey farmer’s statement to the New York Times of how higher welfare producers like him are disadvantaged by the prevalence of mega-corporations’ misleading labels: “Big Ag has co-opted and bastardized every one of our messages … When they use a fancy label with absolutely meaningless adjectives, there’s just no way we can compete.” Humanewashing labels undermine independent farmers who invest in implementing the actual animal-raising practices they advertise.

The Senators proposed three key recommendations, which Farm Forward endorses:

1. Mandatory third-party certifications for animal welfare claims like “humane” and “humanely raised”
2. Stronger definitions for terms such as “free-range,” “grassfed,” and “pasture-raised”
3. Prohibition of inherently misleading negative claims, such as “hormone-free” labels on poultry products where hormone use is already illegal

In addition, Farm Forward calls for mandatory testing of products labeled as “antibiotic free.” Currently, these labels often rely solely on producers’ unverified claims, which at times blatantly mislead consumers about antibiotic use in meat production. Perdue, which touts their leadership on antibiotic stewardship, vocally opposes both mandatory on-farm testing by the USDA and sensitive testing at slaughterhouses, raising serious questions about their commitment and transparency.

“At a time when our nation is losing independent farms at an alarming rate, we cannot allow mislabeled products to continue tipping the scales in favor of further consolidation,” the Senators wrote, emphasizing that major agricultural corporations cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

With Farm Forward, these senators find self-evident the importance of protecting the integrity of food labelling, ensuring fair competition in the agricultural sector, and providing consumers with accurate information about their food choices.

To supplement the Senators’ letter, Farm Forward—along with Consumer Reports, ASPCA, Compassion in World Farming, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), and George Washington School of Public Health Milken Institute’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center—wrote a letter to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) calling for the following actions, among others:

• FSIS should prohibit use of negative antibiotic use claims on products from animals that test positive for antibiotics
• FSIS should require regular testing for all negative antibiotic use claims, not only for new applications but also for companies already approved for these claims and selling in the marketplace
• FSIS should require producers whose product tests positive for antibiotics to demonstrate how they have adequately addressed the root causes of the problem before they are allowed to resume making the claim
• USDA should conduct and report publicly on its own testing for antibiotics on all food-animal species for all products labeled with negative antibiotic use claims
• Following a public comment period and participation from all relevant stakeholders, FSIS should codify minimum standards for all animal-raising claims, rather than continuing to employ incredibly vague definitions that allow a huge spectrum of systems to use the same raising claims, failing consumers and producers alike
• FSIS should require (not simply recommend) ongoing third-party verification to substantiate label claims concerning antibiotic, environmental/carbon, and animal welfare claims
• FSIS should provide financial and technical assistance to small producers to help them access meaningful third-party certification
• FSIS should set clear definitions of environmental-related claims such as “regeneratively raised”, “raised using regenerative agriculture practices”, “sustainably raised”, “carbon neutral”, “low-carbon” and “environmentally responsible”
• FSIS should prohibit the recently approved “Low-Carbon Beef” claim as inherently misleading, since conventional beef production emits more greenhouse gasses than any other food product

Farm Forward will continue to work alongside legislators and other stakeholders to advocate for essential reforms in food labeling practices. Label integrity for environmental, animal raising, and antibiotics claims will help not only the environment, animal welfare, and public health, but also consumers and independent farmers. Having labels that mean what the public believes they mean will be win-win for everyone—at least, everyone who’s not trying to scam the system. We’ve seen recent progress, with the USDA recommending voluntary verification for some label claims. It’s time for USDA to turn those recommendations into requirements.

A USDA testing program finds that at least 20 percent of tested cattle samples labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever” tested positive for antibiotics. USDA buries findings and reports no punitive action.

Last year, the United States Department of Agriculture launched a sampling project, to test food products labeled with USDA-approved voluntary marketing claims like “raised without antibiotics,” “no antibiotics ever.” The results are in, and the USDA has found antibiotics in at least 20 percent of cattle tested for drugs. Unfortunately, even after confirming that many cattle products are fraudulently labeled antibiotic-free, the USDA will not require meat companies to test and prove the accuracy of their claims. The USDA’s negligence allows large meat companies to profit off of consumers who pay a premium for a product they believe is healthier and more humane, all based on a lie. The USDA’s inaction will hurt farmers and ranchers who raise animals in more humane ways, without the routine use of antibiotics, and who can’t compete against meat companies who cheat.

While the USDA’s disappointing announcement is consistent with its long history of prioritizing big ag over the public, allowing this level of deception to persist in beef without even requiring testing surprised even us. Anything short of requiring testing is good for companies that are cheating and provides yet another example of the USDA’s toothless responses to factory farms’ failures to adhere to common sense standards.

“Increasingly, consumers are looking for products that align with their values, but it’s clear the meat industry is unable or unwilling to meet consumer expectations. Meat companies want to skate by on flimsy marketing claims like ‘sustainable,’ ‘humane,’ and ‘antibiotic free,’ without actually doing the work to ensure a product that meets those standards,” said Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis. “Humanewashing this flagrant usually is the domain of industry, but here the USDA is trying to sell us news that the US beef supply is compromised — and a meaningful percentage actually contaminated — as good news, and even evidence of their trustworthiness. Meanwhile, the USDA won’t even disclose which companies’ products tested positive for antibiotics in their study, so the public remains in the dark and doesn’t know who to trust. With no regulatory action in place to stop this harmful trend, the USDA has basically greenlit meat companies deceptively marketing products and continuing to lie to us.”

“Companies advertising RWA or antibiotic-free labels should implement transparent testing procedures with data made easily accessible to consumers. And the USDA must provide regulations for all findings. The government can’t pass that task off to the private sector because these findings reiterate that industries won’t voluntarily check themselves. It’s up to the USDA to decide that meat companies can’t jeopardize public health to turn a profit.”

Dr. Aaron Gross, founder of Farm Forward and Director of the University of San Diego Center for Food Systems Transformation, added, “Remembering that the USDA has an impossible dual mandate — to both protect consumers and promote Big Ag — helps explain its cowed response to massive deception in the beef industry. The USDA’s data suggests the need for transformation, but instead the agency is helping meat companies continue to deceive the public. Encouraging only voluntary testing amounts to a signal that deceptive labeling is an acceptable business strategy. The USDA’s response is pretending that this highly profitable mislabeling is happening by accident. The pattern suggests the mislabeling is by design.”

###

This piece was written by Farm Forward’s Summer Intern, Molly Mulvaney.

As a result of the widespread use of antibiotics on industrial animal farms antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a pressing global health issue.1 AMR both threatens the effectiveness of modern medicines and creates conditions for the rapid spread of deadly illnesses. The links between industrial animal farming and the antimicrobial resistance crisis, and the connection between deforestation and risk of new zoonotic diseases, are examples of how human health is inextricably linked to the health of nonhuman animals and to the health of the environment. The scientific and public health community have long recognized these connections and now describe the connections as “One Health.” The World Health Organization (WHO) defines One Health as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. In the past decade the One Health framework has grown in prominence and is increasingly accepted by national governments and international bodies.

Antimicrobial Resistance is an increasing threat to human and animal health. Solving the problem requires significant reforms to agricultural policy and industrial animal farming practices. Yet, the largest international One Health programs largely fail to acknowledge industrial animal farming as a key threat to the One Health mission. While governments in low- and middle-income countries take the risk of AMR and zoonoses head on, high-income countries continue to dodge root causes and point their fingers elsewhere. To seriously address the AMR crisis, culpable nations must integrate agricultural reform into their One Health frameworks and public policies.

Today, over a dozen countries and international agencies have published variations of “One Health” policies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, India, the Netherlands, China , and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The foci of One Health vary among countries and international agencies, but most are concerned with AMR, zoonotic diseases, food safety, public health, environmental degradation, and vector-borne illnesses. The growing number of One Health initiatives use the framework as a guide for public policy, but none adequately address any root issues of AMR, particularly industrial animal agriculture. The One Health framework must incorporate both systemic reform of animal agriculture and preventative measures in developed countries. Without both objectives One Health approaches fail to ensure a better future for humans, animals, and the planet.

Antimicrobial Resistance is a Factory Farming Problem

In 2019, AMR indirectly contributed to nearly 5 million deaths and directly caused over a million. Animal agriculture is a large contributor to AMR due to producers’ widespread use of antimicrobials to prevent disease and to promote animal growth. The WHO declared that “approximately 80% of total consumption of medically important antibiotics is in the animal sector” of certain countries.2 The United States is one of the largest contributors to antibiotic overuse, with consumption per kilogram of livestock almost twice as high than that of all of Europe in 2020. Despite the efforts of groups like the US and UN, however, One Health action plans have failed to take seriously the prevention of AMR within animal agriculture.

What Are Countries and International Agencies Doing to Address AMR? Not Enough.

One of the largest One Health programs is the One Health Quadripartite (OHQ), made up of the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the UN Environment Programme, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health (formerly OIE). This consortium of international organizations has communicated strong goals for tackling AMR but misses the mark. The OHQ published a “One Health Joint Plan of Action” that dictates their plans for the years 2022-2026. Although the plan emphasizes preventive measures, it lacks any focus on problems stemming from the animal agriculture sector. The document acknowledges that “livestock and fish production systems are not specifically addressed” despite their importance in both preventing and solving AMR. In the OHQ’s lengthy AMR research agenda, they boast that their focus lies “at the interface between sectors that are most relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs),” even though these countries are doing the least to contribute to the AMR crisis. The OHQ’s attitude resembles US remarks that other countries must work to solve climate change while not doing enough itself to reduce emissions. Mitigation and treatment of AMR in LMICs is important, but entirely overlooks causes of AMR attributable to massive meat companies in countries like the US.

The EU Commission on One Health (“Commission”) has similar goals to OHQ but focuses slightly more on the importance of animal agriculture in solving AMR. Animal agriculture reforms from the Commission are vague or unenforceable, leading to minimal or no changes in the production system. Their guidelines on antimicrobial use on animals read, “training courses and guidance materials given to farmers should include information on preventive measures that promote animal health, in particular, implementation of biosecurity measures, good farming practices and herd health planning.” Training courses and guidance materials are valuable but the Commission lacks specific standards, regulations, and rules to gain meaningful change. The Commission does describe some specific methods for addressing AMR, including supplying quality feed and water, improving housing, and using safe alternatives to antimicrobials. While these changes may begin to address the AMR crisis, they have not yet been translated into legislative policies or other regulatory actions.

In the United States, the One Health Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (OH-FICC), run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is the leading organization for One Health. OH-FICC works with numerous federal regulatory bodies including the USDA and FDA. Despite the extensive network of OH-FICC, the initiative lacks appreciable calls for animal agriculture reform or preventative measures. OH-FICC fails to take accountability for the massive amount of antibiotics used on animals within the food system. The organization contains a National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, yet will not publicly acknowledge that most of the antibiotics used in the United States are on animals raised for food. In the last few years, OH-FICC has focused much of its resources on projects that evaluate livestock farming in LMICs and find alternative practices that reduce disease and AMR. Animal agriculture can surely use reform, but it is hypocritical of the CDC to ask LMICs to change small farming operations when the United States has some of the most unethical, disease-ridden, AMR-causing livestock practices in the world.

Although previous examples demonstrate One Health failures, Rwanda’s lengthy One Health framework displays thorough and promising initiatives against AMR. Rwanda has developed a report on their One Health plans through 2026 in addition to an entire action plan on AMR. Their AMR plan includes a focus on both animal agriculture and prevention and breaks down objectives including increased education, surveillance, sanitation, and hygiene. Perhaps their most important efforts include training for agricultural workers, veterinarians, and agronomists while also implementing biosecurity guidelines for farms, slaughter plants, and aquaculture facilities. Moreover, the Rwandan government seeks to “restrict broad or generalized use of antimicrobials as growth promoters or as feed additives” and “strengthen regulation and oversight for the supply chain and use of antimicrobials in agriculture and veterinary medicine.” Rwanda’s plan for preventing and treating AMR is highly sophisticated compared to other nations. The CDC, for example, includes minimal AMR prevention, despite the US having 72 times the amount of cattle as Rwanda. Rwanda’s work exhibits a strong start for combating AMR that other, more culpable countries must follow and augment.

Conclusion

Climate change and the intensification of animal production will continue to exacerbate AMR, zoonoses, and emerging health threats. Powerful countries and international organizations must take greater responsibility for public health and develop thorough, accountable One Health approaches.

On April 11th, Farm Forward released the results of a comprehensive investigation into Alexandre Family Farms, a leading certified organic, humane, and “regenerative” dairy company.

The investigation uncovered systematic animal abuse and likely violations of several certification standards. Farm Forward reviewed more than a thousand videos and photos, conducted extensive interviews with whistleblowers, and witnessed conditions on Alexandre farms firsthand. What emerged was a pattern of systematic welfare and environmental issues, driven from the top.

Our report was covered in detail in The Atlantic by political and economic reporter Annie Lowrey.

In the week following our posting the report, much happened, including:

• Annie Lowrey’s tweet about The Atlantic’s article received over 1 million views.
• The Atlantic’s editors selected and publicized the story as the “One Story to Read Today.”
• All Alexandre products had been removed from the ASPCA’s Shop With Your Heart.
• All Alexandre products had been removed from FindHumane.com
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, appeared to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that your eating Alec’s Ice Cream is “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Whole Foods Market appeared to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page, which referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade,” and included a video showing hundreds of calf hutches in which Alexandre admits isolating baby cows for months—with no relief and no ability to set one foot outside—as its standard practice.

Farm Forward is heartened to know that so many in the public, in other advocacy groups, and even among major companies, are already taking our investigation’s extensive, detailed, and highly concerning findings seriously.

Stay tuned in and sign our petition to tell retailers that purchase Alexandre dairy to stop humanewashing.

Millions of Americans buy meat products marketed as “raised without antibiotics.” Globally, the market for antibiotic-free meat is growing significantly, likely in response to consumer concerns about the overuse of antibiotics on farms and how that impacts public health. In 2022, Farm Forward published an explosive investigation that found an antibiotic in meat labeled as “raised without antibiotics.” Following that investigation, we have pushed for changes to government regulation to ensure that meat labels and marketing are accurate. While we believe that the USDA must step in forcefully to regulate antibiotics in meat, we aren’t waiting for the government to act.

Starting in 2023, Farm Forward reached out to a number of food companies and retailers—including companies like Trader Joe’s, Walmart, Publix, and more—to urge them to protect consumers and improve farmed animal welfare. Specifically, Farm Forward sent leaders of these companies a letter asking them to:

• Mandate that their suppliers test their “raised without antibiotics” meat products for antibiotics at certified, independent labs with high sensitivity (i.e., parts per billion).
• Discontinue sales of products from suppliers who fail to provide assurance of accurate labeling.

Companies that sell meat—including retailers, restaurant chains, and food service providers—should take action to ensure that they maintain consumer trust.

Retailers like Publix, Walmart, and Trader Joe’s sell products with labels like “Raised Without Antibiotics” and “No Antibiotics Ever.” Some companies go further and claim that they sell mostly or only products raised without antibiotics. Retailers like Sprouts Farmers Market and Panera Bread, which have reputations for being committed to more “natural” foods, have explicit antibiotic policies for meat products (e.g., see Sprouts’ page for its beef butcher shop, which claims cattle “and are never given antibiotics or added hormones … ever!”). Unless companies test animals to ensure antibiotics aren’t present, we believe consumers should be skeptical of those claims.

We’ve reached out to these companies encouraging them to take action on the usage of antibiotics in their supply chain. If they’re going to market products as antibiotic free, then they ought to put in the effort to verify that the claims are true.  As companies respond we will update you about whether the companies have policies in place to ensure that you can trust their “antibiotic free” labeling and marketing.

Among the companies we have engaged with are:

• Applegate
• Aramark
• ButcherBox
• Compass Group USA
• Food Lion
• Harris Teeter
• Meijer
• Natural Grocers
• Panda Express
• Publix
• Sprouts Natural Grocer
• Sweetgreen
• Target
• The Fresh Market
• Trader Joe’s
• Walmart
• Wegmans

In 2022, Farm Forward joined a consumer class action lawsuit alleging Whole Foods is deceiving the public by marketing their beef products as “no antibiotics, ever.” Farm Forward took this extraordinary step after our investigation found an antibiotic in meat we purchased from Whole Foods that was marketed as “raised without antibiotics” and Animal Welfare Certified.

The case is now underway. In April, we had our first hearing with the judge in federal court in Orange County California, and we’re waiting on the first ruling. The evidence in the case is strong and we’re optimistic that the case will proceed, but anticipate that the judge may ask us to amend the complaint or submit additional evidence.

In the meantime, Farm Forward and the consumer plaintiffs have begun to produce evidence supporting our allegations, a process known as “discovery.” To date, we’ve produced hundreds of pages of evidence supporting our claims.

We’ve asked Whole Foods for information pertaining to the case. Information like the names of their suppliers and what steps they’ve taken to ensure that meat from animals who’ve been given antibiotics don’t show up on their shelves.

And Whole Foods’ response? Stonewalling.

Whole Foods is objecting to proceeding with discovery. It’s not a good sign that the largest natural retailer in the country, which built a reputation on being honest and transparent, won’t share even the most basic information with the public about who supplies their meat or give assurances that they’ve taken steps to ensure their marketing claims are true.

Farm Forward is ready to be transparent. We’ve taken the extraordinary, and highly unusual, step of making our discovery materials available to the public. Now you can see for yourself why we believe Whole Foods is deceiving the public.

We’re challenging Whole Foods to do the same. If you have nothing to hide, respond to our requests for information and make those documents available to the public.

If Whole Foods won’t be open and transparent, the public will be left to wonder, what is Whole Foods hiding?

Why has Costco kept its price for rotisserie chickens at $4.99 since they were first sold in 2009, despite inflation? Costco knows that cheap chicken helps to bring customers through the door, who then spend money on other products with greater profit margins. Costco capitalizes on this trend by selling rotisserie chickens in the back of the store. However, the low price point comes at a high cost for the welfare of the chickens, the environment, and public health.

Is Costco chicken good for you?

Costco chickens are raised on factory farms by the tens of thousands. These industrial farms have a profound impact on the environment and public health at large, and have severe implications for the communities directly surrounding the farms.

Some of these effects are far-reaching. Intensive farming operations result in the production of large amounts of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane. These emissions drive climate change, degrade soil, and pollute air and waterways. The sheer number of chickens raised on factory farms also requires that feed be brought in from other locations, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Antibiotics are likely to be emitted in the waste that is produced by the farms, driving the antibiotic resistance crisis.

On a more local scale, the dust produced by factory farms is likely to contain various harmful chemicals, feces, and even bits of feathers and flesh. Exposure to this dust has been linked to the development of respiratory diseases. The ammonia-laden odors produced by factory farms also impact on the health and well-being of the workers at the farms and can even affect health in settlements in the near vicinity.1

Why are Costco chickens so cheap?

Costco has consistently sought ways to reduce the cost of producing their rotisserie chickens, and has succeeded primarily by doubling down on factory farming chickens, which externalize costs on the environment, workers, and farmed animals. Costco has also by vertically integrated its supply chain to gain more control and keep costs low, all while resisting calls for higher animal welfare that could increase production costs. In 2018, Costco broke ground on a new poultry processing facility in Nebraska designed to process more than two million chickens per week. Many local farmers, land owners, and advocates united to oppose the multinational company’s “cradle-to-grave” vertical integration, but Costco proceeded over their objections.

The poultry processing facility is part of a larger complex that allows Costco to control the chicken supply chain from the factory all the way to store. The complex cost the company $450 million to construct and is expected to save it up to $0.35 a bird. Though this may seem like a small amount, the chain sells more than a hundred million rotisserie chickens every year, so that adds up to more than 35 million per year in increased profits or potential savings.

Though Costco stands to save money by vertically integrating its chicken supply chain, the cost to local farmers is likely to be high. Before the chickens are slaughtered and processed, most live in warehouses operated by farmers with nearby land. However, the specifications of how the birds are raised remain under Costco’s control. Though Costco markets their business to farmers by suggesting they can expect to pocket upwards of $90,000 a year through these contracts, experts argue that their true income is closer to $60,000.

When it comes to chickens raised for meat, the birds have been bred over generations to grow very quickly. Motivated by reducing costs and increasing profits, this genetic abuse has resulted in severe health conditions and poor welfare. Costco has shown no inclination to use birds with higher welfare genetics. In 2021, Costco announced an updated animal welfare policy following pressure from farmed animal advocates, yet critics have continued to pressure the company to do better, citing environmental and welfare concerns related to their farms.

What’s in a Costco rotisserie chicken?

You might expect the only ingredients in a rotisserie chicken to be chicken and spices, but this isn’t the case. Costco rotisserie chicken lists 11 ingredients on its labels. They are: chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates, hydrolyzed casein, modified corn starch, sugar, dextrose, chicken broth, isolated soy protein, monoglycerides, and diglycerides.

What are Costco rotisserie chickens injected with?

Many of the ingredients found on the label of a Costco rotisserie chicken are injected into the flesh of the bird. This is typically done to add flavor.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain antibiotics?

As part of its animal welfare policy, Costco has signaled that it intends to reduce antibiotic use. A survey it sent to its chicken suppliers found that 97 percent of its Kirkland Signature products (including rotisserie chickens) were raised without the “routine use” of antibiotics that are also used to treat people. However, “routine use” is undefined. If no routine use means that antibiotics are only administered once per flock, that would still mean all birds in the flock received antibiotics. Costco has resisted requests from their shareholders to publish quantitative data showing progress away from the overall use of antibiotics in their chickens. Costco has not released an analysis of their chicken products to support the survey’s results.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain hormones?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits the use of hormones in raising any poultry in the United States. Therefore, the chickens that are slaughtered to become Costco’s rotisserie chickens do not contain any added hormones.

Why are Costco chickens so big?

The average Costco rotisserie chicken weighs three pounds fully cooked. The birds raised for Costco are broiler chickens who have been genetically modified through breeding to grow very large, very quickly. About 100 years ago in 1925, chickens lived for 112 days before being slaughtered at 2.5 pounds. Modern chickens, such as those raised by Costco, are slaughtered at only 47 days but at 5 pounds weigh more than double what their ancestors weighed at slaughter.

Costco rotisserie chickens are what the industry calls “small birds.” Hybrid breeding techniques have also produced “heavy birds,” who are 8-9 pounds when alive and are usually sold cut up as chicken products. All of these birds, large and small, are raised by the tens of thousands on modern chicken farms better known as “factory farms.”

Major corporations cash in on so-called “humane” labels like “antibiotic free”, “natural”, and “organic”, even though their corresponding husbandry practices almost never match consumers’ expectations for animal welfare. To further uncover the impacts that this humanewashing has on our food system, we teamed up with the organization Farm Action and interviewed Colorado rancher Mike Callicrate, who sheds light on how today’s most popular industry certifications and labels affect small farmers.

Op-ed: Thanks to USDA, “No Antibiotics, Ever” meat actually means “Antibiotics, Sometimes”

Even as prices for other goods drop, Americans are still grappling with soaring grocery prices: A $100 cart of groceries last year now costs about 10 percent more, so shoppers could have a harder time spending a little more to bring home food that aligns with their values and support the farmers who produce it. As if this weren’t enough, farmers and consumers alike are contending with another growing problem: humanewashing. Consolidated corporations like Tyson and Smithfield use misleading labels and claims to sell generic factory-farmed products at a premium while retail conglomerates and the USDA look the other way. As a result, products from independent farms disappear in a sea of meaningless food labels, and shoppers with the means to spend a little more for higher quality meat may not get what they’re paying for.

I wasn’t surprised when recent research by Farm Forward, as well as a peer-reviewed study in Science, uncovered antibiotic residues in a significant percentage of beef labeled “raised without antibiotics” and Animal Welfare Certified by Global Animal Partnership (GAP), including meat sold at Whole Foods Market. Meat with GAP’s label can sell for 40 percent more than “conventional” meat—without upholding the promises it makes to consumers, who are now holding the grocer accountable in court.

Together with Farm Action and the American Grassfed Association, farmers like me are calling on the USDA to investigate and recall beef with these labels because of the widespread mislabeling documented by these investigations. Americans rely on our government to protect our food supply, but the USDA itself only tests a small number of meat products for drug residue (in 2019, that figure was 0.003 percent of U.S. beef cattle), and only at levels that they deem dangerous—levels that have been called into question by the Environmental Protection Agency and many others. No federal agency enforces the accuracy of claims we see on store shelves. According to a recent survey, nearly half of Americans believe that welfare labels mean animals spend their whole lives on pasture, not on factory farms where drug use is the norm. Independent farmers work to meet these expectations, but it’s nearly impossible for us to break through the proliferation of deceptive labels when the deck is stacked against us.

The stakes of failing to fix our broken meat labels are high: shoppers can’t support independent farms that align with their values if they can’t distinguish between products. If we want a food system that raises animals according to our values, creates good jobs, reduces the risk of future pandemics, and promotes the flourishing of agricultural communities, accurate and transparent labeling is vital.

Author: Mike Callicrate is a Colorado rancher, rural advocate, and the owner of Ranch Foods Direct

Farm Forward has joined a consumer class action lawsuit against Whole Foods alleging that the retail giant is deceiving shoppers about beef products in its stores. Since 1981, Whole Foods has claimed that all of the animals within its supply chain are raised without antibiotics, but an independent laboratory found antibiotic residue in “antibiotic free” meat purchased from a California Whole Foods store. Antibiotic free meat can cost as much as 20 percent or more than conventional meat, and surveys show 75 percent of consumers are willing to pay more for it. The use of subtherapeutic antibiotics has implications for animal welfare and public health.

In April 2022, Farm Forward released results of a program that tested Whole Foods meat for antibiotic residues. Among other findings, Farm Forward found residue of an antibiotic that can be used to promote growth in cattle in a product labeled “Organic” and “antibiotic free.” Factory farms that provide meat to retailers like Whole Foods depend on antibiotics to keep animals alive in filthy, crowded conditions. Farm Forward’s findings were bolstered by a peer-reviewed study published in Science which presents empirical evidence that a significant percentage—up to 22 percent—of cattle within the Animal Welfare Certified program, which is used by Whole Foods, have come from feedyards where testing suggests antibiotics were administered routinely.

“We have hard evidence not only that meat on Whole Foods shelves could be marketed deceptively as antibiotic free, but that the problem extends to the entire industry,” says Andrew deCoriolis, Executive Director of Farm Forward. “Industry insiders know that meat is being marketed deceptively as “antibiotic free.” Rather than thoroughly test to ensure the accuracy of its own antibiotic claims, Whole Foods has profited while deceiving its customers.”

Humanewashing by Whole Foods has succeeded in persuading shoppers that Whole Foods sells nothing but the best, and that the farms supplying meat to Whole Foods provide significantly better living conditions than they typically do. Farm Forward wants Whole Foods to verify that subtherapeutic and growth-promoting antibiotics are not used in any aspect of its meat supply chain, and to be honest with the public about which claims the retailer can, and cannot, guarantee. Additionally, Farm Forward wants retailers implicated in profiting from consumer deception to fund an independent watchdog agency that will work in consumers’ interest to assist supermarkets in fighting meat industry misinformation.

Farm Forward has had close ties with Whole Foods in the past and attempted to address these problems collaboratively prior to launching our investigation. John Mackey, founder and co-CEO of Whole Foods, was a member of Farm Forward’s board of directors from our inception in 2007 until 2018, and Farm Forward Chairman, Dr. Steve Gross, was integral in the creation of Global Animal Partnership—the animal welfare standards setting body that Mackey conceived. After a decade of recommending select Animal Welfare Certified meat from Whole Foods as a better alternative to conventional, uncertified products found in typical grocery stores, Farm Forward raised concerns that the grocer was marketing factory farmed products deceptively as Animal Welfare Certified, humane, and antibiotic free. When no action was taken, Farm Forward resigned from GAP’s board and began testing products purchased from Whole Foods stores.

Apparently Whole Foods’ “no antibiotics, ever” marketing really means “antibiotics, sometimes.” Farm Forward recently exposed Whole Foods’ humanewashing after we uncovered drugs in the Amazon-owned retailer’s meat. Now, as Amazon’s annual shareholder meeting kicks off, the cities of Austin and Seattle have decided not to run Farm Forward’s new humanewashing public service announcement. We believe that the ad’s censorship by the two cities—where Whole Foods and its parent, Amazon, are headquartered—is unconstitutional, on First Amendment grounds.

In our appeal, we explain that placing the PSA on publicly operated spaces like the Seattle and Austin airports and public transit would provide an important public service. The ad informs consumers and shareholders about research by Farm Forward and research from George Washington University that uncovered prohibited antibiotics in Global Animal Partnership’s (GAP) Animal Welfare Certified program (the certification used by Whole Foods), including in meat sampled directly from the grocery chain’s shelves.1

Farm Forward found prohibited drugs at Whole Foods because factory farms depend on them to keep animals alive in filthy, crowded conditions—which are permitted in all but the highest tiers of GAP’s certification. Yet shoppers expect labels like GAP to ensure animals are raised on pasture, and a third of Americans actually believe—incorrectly—that this is the case when they see GAP’s label, according to a recent survey we conducted through YouGov.

Farm Forward’s censorship appeal references two previous successful legal challenges of local governments suppressing issue-based ads that were initially deemed controversial, with one federal appeals court writing, “The City, which owns the Airport, says the policy helps it further its goals of maximizing revenue and avoiding controversy. … Because the ban is unreasonable, it violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced as written.” According to legal precedent, Farm Forward has just as much of a right to inform the public of this information in its totality as major companies have to display their latest products in airports and on buses.

Amazon has previously cast doubt on its own grocery chain’s humanewashing animal welfare certification by excluding GAP from Amazon’s online Climate Pledge Friendly store after conversations with Farm Forward. If GAP’s not good enough even for Amazon, why is Whole Foods, which prides itself as a leader in sustainable food, still using the GAP certification to deceive consumers about the factory farmed products on its shelves?

As Farm Forward awaits a decision on our appeal, we have taken steps to make sure the public learns the truth by deploying our ad to tens of thousands of cell phones within a 1-mile radius of both Amazon and Whole Foods’ headquarters, as well as the offices of Amazon’s top 10 corporate shareholders, to offer investors a glimpse into the factory farming practices permitted on Whole Foods’ shelves.

If Amazon and Whole Foods can’t be honest with their customers and shareholders about the truth behind their animal welfare labels, they need to ditch factory farmed products completely. Sign our petition today.

• October 2, 2020 — Farm Forward publishes a blog, “Why We Resigned from the Board of the Nation’s Largest Animal Welfare Certification,” explaining our April 2020 departure from the board of Global Animal Partnership (GAP), the certification used by Whole Foods Market, after more than a decade of service. In it, we explain that, despite years of effort, the certification had become a marketing tool for factory farming corporations instead of meaningfully raising the bar for animal welfare.
  (Posted to timeline 8/25/22)
• December 30, 2020 — Farm Forward’s report, “ The Dirt on Humanewashing,” reveals how the certified “better” meat dominating grocery shelves, including Whole Foods’ Animal Welfare Certified  meat, come from genetically modified animals who suffer in filthy, cruel conditions.
  (Posted to timeline 8/25/22)
• May, 2021 — Farm Forward receives a positive result from National Organic Program and Global Animal Partnership (GAP) Animal Welfare Certified beef purchased from Whole Foods Market for monensin sodium, a growth-promoting antibiotic ionophore prohibited by both programs.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• September, 2021 — Farm Forward commissions a survey from YouGov of more than 1,000 U.S. consumers and their beliefs about meat labels. It finds that 25 percent incorrectly believe that “antibiotic-free” means animals are raised on pasture, and 32 percent incorrectly believe that “antibiotic-free” indicates high welfare. Additionally, nearly half of consumers expect GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified label to guarantee that animals are not given antibiotics.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• February, 2022 — Farm Forward receives eight additional positive results for antiparasitic drugs in cattle and turkey products sold at multiple Whole Foods stores and chicken products from Trader Joe’s. Four GAP-certified beef products purchased from Whole Foods tested positive for fenbendazole; one GAP-certified turkey product from Whole Foods tested positive for clopidol; and two “antibiotic-free” chicken products from Trader Joe’s tested positive for fenbendazole. These antiparasitic drugs are banned by the National Organic Program, but not by GAP. In our testing, these antiparasitic drugs did not appear in Certified Organic products.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• February, 2022 — Experts consulted to confirm the implications of each of the positive results for the claims made by the retailers and certifications implicated by the findings. Farm Forward shares its findings with a Washington Post reporter investigating antibiotic use in animal agriculture.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• March 30, 2022 — Farm Forward’s blog, “Whole Foods’ ‘Better’ Chicken Isn’t What You Think,” highlights how GAP’s new genetic welfare standards, framed as “reinvent[ing] the modern day broiler chicken,” still allow genetic modification for fast growth in ways that are known to produce leg deformities, muscle myopathies, and weakened immune systems.
  (Posted to timeline 8/25/22)
• April 5, 2022 — Farm Forward publishes the results of its drug testing program and launches a consumer petition targeting Whole Foods. Emails on behalf of petition signers are sent to Whole Foods on a rolling basis.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 5, 2022 — Farm Forward issues a press release about the results of its drug testing program.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 7, 2022 — Science publishes a peer-reviewed study co-authored by researchers at George Washington University’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center (ARAC) and an antibiotics testing company, FoodID, revealing that residues of medically important antibiotics are pervasive in animals marketed as “antibiotic-free” and certified by GAP.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 7, 2022 — ARAC publishes a press release on Phys.org. Arizona radio station KJZZ is the first to cover the story.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 7, 2022 — The Washington Post posts an article about the article published in Science, affirming Farm Forward’s findings. Though Farm Forward was interviewed extensively for the story, a decision was made by the paper just before the article’s publication to omit any mention of Farm Forward, including Farm Forward’s test results and its former role on GAP’s Board of Directors. The article included an inaccurate assertion from a Whole Foods representative that Whole Foods had “no reason to believe that the cattle tested in this study ended up in products in [its] stores.” Whole Foods’ leadership was informed that Farm Forward had found antibiotic residue in meat sold on its shelves prior to the story’s release.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 7, 2022 — Farm Forward publishes a blog titled “More drugs found in ‘antibiotic-free’ meat certified by Global Animal Partnership,” discussing the Science study’s findings, which corroborate the results of Farm Forward’s own testing.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 7, 2022 — Farm Forward submits a letter to the editor to the Washington Post including some of the data that was omitted from the article. The LTE is not run.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 8, 2022 — Farm Action was joined by the American Grassfed Association in issuing a press release, calling on the USDA to investigate Whole Foods’ “antibiotic-free” claims in the wake of Farm Forward’s and the Science study’s findings.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 8, 2022 — Articles appear in The Hill, Consumer Reports, and WebMD, calling into question “antibiotic-free” claims based on the Science data but excluding Farm Forward’s findings.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 8, 2022 — Industry outlet AgWeb is the first to cover Farm Action’s request to the USDA along with Farm Forward’s data.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 12, 2022 — Forbes covers the Science study, highlighting that “more than a quarter of the cattle sampled from the Global Animal Partnership welfare certification program, used by Whole Foods and hundreds of other retailers and meat purchasers, had at least one positive test.”
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 12, 2022 — Food Safety News writes about the Science study and Farm Forward’s findings, reiterating Whole Foods’ claim that “no retailer is identified by the study,” despite Farm Forward’s results coming from meat purchased at Whole Foods.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 14, 2022 — Farm Forward’s petition reaches 1,000 signatures.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 14, 2022 — Farm Forward publishes a blog titled “The Drugs Farm Forward Found Hiding in Your Meat,” detailing the methodology and implications of its drug testing results.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 14, 2022 — Sentient Media publishes an article on Farm Forward’s data entitled “Antibiotic Residue Found in Antibiotic-Free Meat at Whole Foods.”
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 15, 2022 — Farm Forward’s Executive Director, Andrew deCoriolis, sends a letter to supporters and other stakeholders, including Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, about the drug testing results.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 16, 2022 — Farm Forward’s video about the antibiotics found in Whole Foods’ meat was played 50,000 times between Facebook and Twitter.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• April 20, 2022 — Farm Forward publishes a blog titled “How can “antibiotic-free” meat contain antibiotics? Simple: Nobody’s watching,” highlighting the absence of any testing to verify “antibiotic-free” claims, while companies charge premiums on factory farmed products with these labels.
  (Posted to timeline 4/20/22)
• May, 2022 — Farm Forward submits an ad calling Whole Foods’ “no antibiotics, ever” promise into question to Seattle and Austin airport and public transit agencies (hometowns of Whole Foods and its parent, Amazon, respectively) in advance of Amazon’s annual shareholder meeting. Officials (including Seattle’s Sound Transit, which maintains a financial relationship with Amazon) reject the advertisement because of its “controversial” nature.
  (Posted to timeline 7/5/22)
• May 24, 2022 — Farm Forward issues a formal appeal of the agencies’ decisions on First Amendment grounds, explaining that placing the PSA on publicly operated spaces like the Seattle and Austin airports and public transit would provide an important public service.
  (Posted to timeline 7/5/22)
• May 25, 2022 — Farm Forward runs its ad during Amazon’s shareholder meeting on cell phones in Austin and Seattle, as well as in the hometown cities of Amazon’s top 10 shareholders, reaching over 90,000 people, and publishes a blog entitled, “Censored: Ad Exposing Whole Foods’ Antibiotics Deception.”(Posted to timeline 7/5/22)
  
• March 30, 2023 — In collaboration with the Animal Welfare Institute, Farm Forward consults with Senator Blumenthal’s (D-CT) office to encourage them to take action with the USDA to protect consumers from humanewashing, leading to a letter being sent to the USDA by four senators asking to review the integrity of animal welfare claims like “humanely raised” and “sustainably raised” on meat products.
  (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
• June 14, 2023 — The USDA announces changes to the guidelines meat companies must follow if they want to label their products as “humanely raised,” “free range,” or “raised without antibiotics.” Farm Forward praises this step in the right direction while acknowledging its limitations. (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
  
• July 2, 2023 — Tyson Foods announces it will reintroduce certain antibiotics to its chicken supply chain and would drop the “no antibiotics ever” tagline from Tyson-branded chicken products. (Posted to timeline 3/21/24)
• July 25, 2023 — A federal judge in California rules that the consumer protection lawsuit alleging Whole Foods Market falsely advertised its beef as “no antibiotics, ever” can proceed. The judge also denied Whole Foods’ motion to stay discovery, which opens the door to Whole Foods turning over key information about their suppliers. (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
• August 15, 2023 — Farm Forward sends a letter to the Deputy Undersecretary of Food Safety at the USDA, Sandra Eskin, recommending ways in which the USDA can further improve meat labeling and protect consumers from misleading claims and certifications. (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
• August 25, 2023 — Farm Forward releases the results of a major new consumer survey conducted with Data for Progress. The survey underscores the reality that consumers have high expectations for animal welfare that meat companies and retailers are not yet meeting and that companies risk eroding the trust of their consumers if they continue to humanewash. The Data for Progress report is covered in Politico’s agricultural reporting. (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
• September 7, 2023 — Agricultural research outlet Ambrook Research publishes a comprehensive article detailing the failures of antibiotic-free labeling. The piece quotes Farm Forward’s Executive Director, Andrew DeCoriolis, throughout. (Posted to timeline 9/22/23)
• Early 2024 — The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) completes its sampling program designed to assess antibiotic residues in cattle marked as “raised without antibiotics. The testing program was initiated after Farm Forward’s joint letter to the USDA was sent last year. (Posted to timeline 3/21/24)
• Late February 2024 —Panera Bread began removing in-store signs and artwork mentioning “No Antibiotics Ever,” among other animal welfare claims, as part of a policy shift ahead of its planned IPO. Loosening their animal welfare standards is estimated to save them $21 million. (Posted to timeline 3/21/24)
• March 25, 2024 — Chick-fil-A abandons its ‘no antibiotics ever’ chicken promise, and will shift to the ‘No Antibiotics Important To Human Medicine’ designation. (Posted to timeline 4/2/2024)
• August 29, 2024 – Farm Forward responds to a USDA testing program that found that at least 20 percent of tested cattle samples labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever” tested positive for antibiotics. USDA buries the findings and reports no punitive action. (Posted to timeline 9/10/2024)

To be kept in the loop as more on this story unfolds, please consider subscribing to our newsletter, and supporting our efforts to expose the truth about our food system, and offer actual solutions.

In 2020, Farm Forward began testing for antibiotic residues in samples of Global Animal Partnership (GAP) Animal Welfare Certified meat from Whole Foods Market. Our testing is ongoing, but the early findings are troubling: despite their claims, GAP and Whole Foods have failed to prevent animals treated with drugs from entering their supply chains, raising questions about all of the claims they make about their meat products. Our results were confirmed by the findings of an extensive antibiotic testing program, which revealed that a significant percentage of GAP-certified, “antibiotic free” cattle came from feedlots where animals tested positive for antibiotics. In this post we offer details about the nature of our testing program, the results of our investigation, and the implications of our findings.

Background

Due to their poor genetic health and the crowded conditions in which they’re confined, animals on factory farms are often given drugs in subtherapeutic doses to promote growth and keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise stunt their growth and even kill them. Consumers pay more for products bearing the Animal Welfare Certified mark in part because GAP prohibits the use of antibiotics for animals within its program, and for good reason—antibiotics are used to treat sick animals, and sick animals suffer.

After serving on GAP’s board of directors since its inception, Farm Forward resigned in April 2020 because of concerns that the vast majority of meat products certified by GAP still come from factory farms. Because GAP has shown a pattern of catering to the industry by welcoming modified factory farms into its program, we suspected that drugs may be present in the meat it certifies. In 2017, Farm Forward used its position on GAP’s board to push for antibiotic testing, but GAP’s leadership refused. Because nobody is testing meat to verify claims made by meat producers, the only way to determine whether GAP is living up to its promises was to begin testing products ourselves.

In 2020, Farm Forward began purchasing GAP-certified meat from Whole Foods locations in Chicago, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco for testing by Trilogy Analytical Laboratory and Health Research Institute, two state-of-the-art, ISO-accredited testing facilities. Meat samples are frozen immediately after purchase and shipped overnight to the laboratory, where they’re stored in lab-grade refrigerators until they can be tested, typically within days. To ensure samples aren’t contaminated, we follow strict operating procedures for our tissue sampling and shipping, and we keep detailed records along the way to guarantee the provenance of each product. Samples are tested using mass spectrometry, the same technique used by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other food safety agencies.1

Results

Our first positive result, for an antibiotic called monensin, came from a sample of ground beef purchased from a Whole Foods store in San Francisco. Monensin, which is in a class of drugs called ionophores, is a feed additive used widely as a growth promoter and prophylactic antibiotic for cattle raised for meat. Because it serves the dual purpose of increasing yield while also preventing illness, monensin is known to offer a return on investment of roughly $20 per animal.2 As a result, meat producers have a tremendous incentive to use drugs like monensin as widely as possible. The product that tested positive was USDA Certified Organic and Animal Welfare Certified by GAP—and monensin is prohibited by both certifications.

Our testing also discovered residues of two antiparasitic drugs, fenbendazole and clopidol, in multiple products. These and other antiparasitics are used routinely on factory farms, and while they are technically permitted within GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, their widespread use is worrisome.

The term “antibiotic” includes but obscures antiparasitic drugs as a discrete category of medication used within animal agriculture. The overuse of antiparasitics like fenbendazole and clopidol creates drug-resistant parasites in the same way the overuse of antibacterial antibiotics creates drug-resistant bacteria.3 The products we purchased from Whole Foods that tested positive for fenbendazole and clopidol were not Certified Organic, but the Certified Organic program has a blanket prohibition on synthetic antimicrobial drugs. GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, on the other hand, only prohibits a narrow range of specific drugs, which means producers have a great deal of freedom to administer a variety of medications on farms. As a result, these drugs are often used prophylactically to prevent densely packed animals on factory farms from falling ill instead of finding husbandry solutions to ongoing health and welfare problems. Nearly half (45 percent) of the cattle livers we tested contained traces of these compounds.

Implications

Without antibiotic and antiparasitic drugs, it would be less profitable to house cattle on feedlots, where they suffer in cramped, filthy conditions while being fed an unnatural diet that causes them discomfort.4 The stress of life on a feedlot compromises cows’ immune systems, making them even more susceptible to diseases that are abundant in crowded environments.5

GAP and other welfare certifications prohibit the use of drugs like monensin in part because they recognize that it is inhumane to use medications to address problems caused by the conditions in which animals are raised. The best way to address these issues is through husbandry techniques that have been used for centuries to keep cattle healthy, and by allowing them to spend their lives on pasture.

Although GAP and Whole Foods rightly prohibit the use of antibiotics (apart from animals who are diagnosed with an illness) within their supply chains, testing has revealed that they have failed to meet their promises. Unlike Whole Foods, conventional grocery chains like Kroger, Trader Joes, and Walmart do not prohibit the use of drugs within their supply chains, so they are used openly and abundantly. Whole Foods is supposed to be different. If premium retailers like Whole Foods won’t take steps to keep these drugs out of products on their shelves, no one will.

It’s time for GAP and Whole Foods to commit to phase out all factory farm practices for all of the operations they certify and sell, and to do more to promote plant-based alternatives until they can live up to their promises to shoppers. Sign our petition to stop Whole Foods’ humanewashing today.

Earlier today, the Washington Post published an explosive article reporting that beef certified by Global Animal Partnership (GAP), the animal welfare certification used primarily by Whole Foods Market, was found to contain antibiotic residue despite GAP’s and Whole Foods’ claims that their meat is “antibiotic-free.” While this news will come as a surprise to many, it simply confirms what our testing has revealed.

Prior to the release of this troubling new information, Farm Forward launched our own antibiotic testing program, purchasing Animal Welfare Certified meat from Whole Foods for analysis by two accredited, third-party laboratories. Farm Forward found residues of an antibiotic and other drugs in meat samples from Whole Foods, including one sample labeled “antibiotic-free,” GAP Animal Welfare Certified, and USDA Organic. The antibiotic, monensin sodium, is used to promote growth.1

We chose to investigate Animal Welfare Certified meat sold by Whole Foods because it is viewed by consumers as the gold standard. Whole Foods shoppers pay up to 20 percent more for products they believe are healthy and natural, so the retailer has a greater incentive than other grocers to ensure that its supply chain aligns with the claims it makes about its products. If shoppers can’t trust “no antibiotics, ever” meat sold by Whole Foods, who can they trust?

Farm Forward’s test results are a smoking gun affirming our suspicions that the presence of drugs in meat is an industry-wide problem. The peer-reviewed data released in Science provides confirmation: 15 percent of the total sample size, which represents 12 percent of all “antibiotic-free” beef produced in the United States, came from feedlots where at least one animal tested positive for antibiotics.2 Animal Welfare Certified products fared particularly poorly: 22 percent of the Animal Welfare Certified cattle tested came from lots where 100 percent of animals sampled tested positive. In other words, these were not isolated incidents affecting only individual animals but entire herds.

Farm Forward has long been concerned about the overuse of antibiotics in animal production because these drugs are often used to compensate for filthy conditions and unhealthy animals, or to accelerate animals’ growth to increase profits. The impact of these antibiotics on human health is also a serious concern. Most of the antibiotics identified by the study, primarily tetracycline, are medically important for use in humans. Tetracycline is used to treat illnesses like pneumonia and urinary tract infections, and its overuse on factory farms contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant infections, known as superbugs. A recent study suggests that in 2019 alone superbugs killed 1.3M people.

Despite our long-running concerns about GAP and Whole Foods falling short of consumers’ expectations about animal welfare, their failure to prevent the misuse of antibiotics within their supply chain calls into question their ability to make guarantees about animal welfare. Whole Foods continues to use labels like GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified to humanewash, obscuring the truth that the vast majority of products on their shelves come from factory farms.

Join us in calling on Whole Foods to label their products truthfully. If it’s factory farmed, call it factory farmed. And if the truth is too troubling for shoppers to stomach, take factory farmed products off your shelves.

Be the first to get breaking results from Farm Forward’s antibiotic testing program when you sign up for our newsletter below.

Image Credit: Jo-Anne McArthur / Israel Against Live Shipments / We Animals Media

Farm Forward has found a variety of drugs, including an antibiotic, in meat certified as having “no antibiotics, ever” taken from products purchased from Whole Foods store shelves. The drugs, including fenbendazole, clopidol, and monensin, are used widely in conventional animal agriculture. The use of monensin is prohibited within the USDA Organic program and by Global Animal Partnership’s (GAP’s) Animal Welfare Certified program, which certifies all meat sold in Whole Foods stores.

“Sophisticated testing can reveal the truth about prohibited drugs fed to animals on factory farms, but these tests cannot reveal the extent to which these animals have suffered,” said Farm Forward executive director Andrew deCoriolis. “Whole Foods and GAP say that their products are humane and hope we’ll take their word for it; our test results should give consumers pause.”

Whole Foods relies on GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, one of the largest animal welfare certifications in the world, to ensure that the meat sold in its 511 stores is “humane” and contains “no antibiotics, ever.” GAP’s Executive Director is an employee of Whole Foods and, alarmingly, one of the products that tested positive for Clopidol, a drug prohibited by USDA Organic but allowed by GAP, was produced by a company whose CEO is a member of GAP’s board of directors, raising questions about GAP’s motivations for permitting specific drugs within its program. Clopidol is commonly used to treat parasitic infections found primarily on industrial farms.

Farm Forward served on GAP’s board of directors for 12 years but resigned in 2020 over concerns that the certifier was failing to live up to its promises to shoppers. GAP’s inability to enforce its standards was only one among several concerns. Another was its complicity in humanewashing: GAP and Whole Foods use confusing labels and images of animals on bucolic pastures that, a recent Farm Forward survey shows, trick customers into believing products may be better than they truly are. In reality, factory farmed products dominate Whole Foods’ supply chain despite charging customers up to 40 percent more for Animal Welfare Certified products.

Antibiotics and other drugs are used widely on factory farms to keep animals alive in cruel and filthy conditions that may otherwise kill them. Farm Forward’s findings should raise serious doubts in the minds of consumers about Whole Foods’ and GAP’s ability to prevent animals from suffering on factory farms and to keep products with drug residues from ending up on store shelves.

“Factory farms use antibiotics and other drugs extensively to ‘manage’ infectious diseases and parasites in crowded conditions,” said Dr. Jim Keen, a veterinary infectious disease epidemiologist with 30 years of research and field experience. “The conditions under which  animals are raised in factory farms make them easy breeding grounds for antimicrobial resistance and even future pandemics.”

Testing

The testing was conducted by two independent, accredited laboratories using industry standard mass spectrometry, which is capable of identifying compounds at low levels.

End Factory Farming

Demanding that retailers and third-party certifications test for drugs in products labeled “all natural” and “no antibiotics, ever” won’t eliminate the need for these drugs on factory farms. It’s time for GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program and Whole Foods to commit to stop selling factory farmed products all together. Until they stop selling factory farmed products, the best way for consumers to avoid unwanted drugs in their food is to avoid animal products whenever possible. Sign our petition to tell Whole Foods to take factory farmed products off their shelves.