Two-thirds of store-bought chickens tested by Consumer Reports harbored salmonella and/or campylobacter, the leading bacterial causes of foodborne disease. 

The results, published in the January issue, involved 382 broilers purchased from more than 100 supermarkets, gourmet-food stores, natural-food stores and mass merchandisers across 22 states. 

Consumer Reports has been measuring contamination in store-bought chickens since 1998. The most recent test shows a modest improvement since January 2007, when the magazine found these pathogens in 80% of broilers. But the numbers are still far too high, and the results suggest most companies’ safeguards are inadequate. 

Among the findings: 

• Campylobacter was in 62% of the chickens, salmonella was in 14%, and both bacteria were in 9%. Only 34% of the birds were clear of both pathogens. That’s double the percentage of clean birds Consumer Reports found in its 2007 report, but far less than the 51% in its 2003 report.
• Among the cleanest overall were organic “air-chilled” broilers (a process in which carcasses are refrigerated and may be misted, rather than dunked in cold chlorinated water). About 60% were free of the two pathogens.
• Store-brand organic chickens had no salmonella at all, but only 43% of these birds were also free of campylobacter.
• Perdue was found to be the cleanest of the brand-name chicken, with 56% free of both pathogens. This is the first time since Consumer Reports began testing chicken that one major brand has fared significantly better than others across the board.
• Tyson and Foster Farms chickens were found to be the most contaminated. Less than 20% were free of either pathogen.
• Among all brands and types of broilers tested, 68% of the salmonella and 60% of the campylobacter organisms analyzed showed resistance to one or more antibiotics. All of the antibiotics were effective against 32% of salmonella samples and 40% of campylobacter samples, as compared to just 16% and 33%, respectively, in 2007.
• Although Perdue chickens were cleaner than other big brands in the tests, and most “air-chilled” organic birds were especially clean, Consumer Reports’ tests are a snapshot in time, and no type has been consistently low enough in pathogens to recommend over all others. Buying cleaner chicken may improve your odds if you fail to prepare chicken carefully.   

Each year, salmonella and campylobacter from chicken and other food sources infect at least 3.4 million Americans, send 25,500 to hospitals and kill about 500, according to CDC estimates. While both pathogens are known to cause intestinal distress, campylobacter can lead to meningitis, arthritis and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a severe neurological disorder). 

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 of this article: Agriculture Department Slow on Campylobacter Test

Tyson Foods has been marketing their chickens as being raised without antibiotics. However Tyson uses a  poultry feed additive known as ionophores, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies as an antibiotic. Ionophores are given to poultry to control the parasitic disease coccidiosis. It is also used as a growth promoter for cattle.

Because ionophores  have been shown not to be harmful to humans (and are supposedly not a threat to antibiotic resistance) , Tyson wanted to advertise its chicken as being "without harmful antibiotics." In December 2007, the USDA approved the phrase for marketing purposes, but competitors Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms filed lawsuits one month later. Consumers followed with a class-action suit.

A federal judge has signed off on a preliminary agreement that could net consumers $5 million in refunds and coupons from the nation's largest poultry producer. Individuals who bought Tyson chicken products labeled as having been raised without antibiotics from mid-June 2007 through April 2009 would be entitled to refunds. This settlement also includes Tyson's fresh, frozen or deli chicken along with Cornish hens or tenders during the same time period.

Concerns about antibiotic resistance has European regulators concerned enough that they have banned several in-feed antibiotics for their animals. Legislators in the United States are considering a similar action with The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would prohibit the use of many non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed.¹

Feeding animals a daily dose of antibiotics also has an environmental impact.  Colorado State University researchers showed that ionophore drugs are getting into public waterways.² In the study, the ionophore monensin was found at sample sites near agricultural regions. Additionally, ionophore drugs were found in surrounding streams with higher concentrations in the sediment vs. the overlaying water. Researchers concluded this study raises questions about whether antibiotics can accumulate in sediment and impact stream health.

I can't help but ask, do we really need to feed our animals a constant, steady supply of antibiotics in their food and water when they are not sick? We will have a severe problem on our hands if we continue this practice.

In case you missed it, ABC News ran a story about one farmer who fought for his life after becoming infected with an antibiotic resistant form of strep after being gored in the knee by a bore.  After two months of unsuccessful antibiotic treatments, Kremer's doctors were baffled.  The answer was found in the bore.  A drug resistant strain of strep ran through the boars veins after being fed a steady, daily supply of penicillin.

Antibiotics save lives when used properly. Do we really want to continue to risk human lives by feeding our livestock a steady supply of drugs when they aren't needed? The conditions of animals that are raised in Big Ag  (Big Agriculture) are atrocious and disgusting.  Something has got to change.

You can make a difference buy buying more certified organic foods and continue to raise the demand for truly healthy foods. The American dollar is the most important voting tool we as consumers have.

¹ http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/wise_antibiotics/pamta.html
² http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041025120141.htm