Chick-fil-A’s Chicken Will No Longer Be Antibiotic-Free—Here’s What That Means

Fact checked by Nick Blackmer

• Popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A will begin serving chicken raised with antibiotics this spring, a reversal of its 2014 "No Antibiotics Ever" policy.

• The company will only use antibiotics that aren't important for human medicine, which should ensure against a rise in drug-resistant bacterial infections in people, experts said.

• However, antibiotic use in agriculture in general is risky for public health, and can also lead to environmental issues, said experts.

Chick-fil-A will begin allowing the use of chicken raised with antibiotics this spring, the popular fast food chain announced earlier this week.

The move is a reversal of the company’s "No Antibiotics Ever (NAE)" policy, enacted in 2014. Now, the chain will allow the use of chicken raised with "No Antibiotics Important for Human Medicine (NAIHM)," in order to maintain the supply of their chicken products.

“As we looked to the future, the availability of high-quality chicken that meets our rigid standards became a concern,” a Chick-fil-A spokesperson told Health. “This change enables us to not only ensure we can continue to serve high-quality chicken, but also chicken that still meets the expectations our customers count on us to deliver.”

However, the fast food giant relaxing its supply standards has some people concerned about possible public health ramifications.

Increased antibiotic use in food production could raise the risk of pathogens evolving to become drug-resistant. This can make it more challenging for healthcare professionals to find effective treatments when people get sick with bacterial or other infections.

However, the fact that Chick-fil-A is using “no antibiotics important for human medicine” is an important distinction, said Lance Price, PhD, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.

“[The] term reflects producers’ ability to use antibiotics that we don’t use in human medicine and appear to pose a minimal risk of selecting for bacteria that are resistant to drugs,” he told Health. “Therefore, [it] poses a pretty low risk to human health from the perspective of microbial resistance.”

Here’s what experts had to say about antibiotics in food production, why treating poultry with antibiotics can be dangerous, and what people can do to stay safe.

Why Are Antibiotics Used in Poultry Production?

Animals harvested for human consumption are sometimes treated with antibiotics. These treatments can be used specifically for sick animals, or they can be added to feed or water as a preventative measure to ward off infections in the flock or herd, and to help populations grow.

But due to public health and consumer concerns, many poultry producers try to raise their animals without antibiotics, Price explained. According to 2019 data, over 50% of chicken sold for consumption in the U.S. is produced without antibiotics.

However, raising poultry without antibiotics can sometimes be challenging or costly. It can involve harvesting better animal breeds, cleaning litter more frequently, vaccinating the animals, and controlling humidity and moisture, among other things, Price explained.

Similar to Chick-fil-A, Tyson Foods announced it would be removing “no antibiotics ever” from the label of some of its products in favor of “no antibiotics important to human medicine.” Panera Bread also made its animal welfare and antibiotics standards less strict earlier this month.

“Tyson was having a hard time raising their animals without ionophores, a specific class of antibiotics that helps control these parasitic infections in the birds,” said Price.

If raising poultry or livestock without antibiotics isn’t possible or cost-effective, he said, producers may turn toward only using antibiotics that don’t have a connection to human health. These companies can rely on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations, where the organization lists classes of antimicrobial drugs deemed either medically important or not medically important for human health.

It’s likely that the company would be following these or other standard recommendations, Price said. But as of now, it’s not explicitly clear which antibiotics Chick-fil-A’s suppliers may be using, added Darin Detwiler, PhD, author, consultant, and professor of food policy at the Northeastern University College of Professional Studies.

Related: You Really Shouldn't Wash Raw Chicken Before Cooking It—Here's Why, According to Experts

Microbial Resistance and Other Negative Consequences

Using antibiotics not important to human health should mitigate risks, but any widespread use of antibiotics in food production opens the door to microbial resistance.

Animal protein treated with antibiotics doesn’t necessarily run the risk of transmitting dangerous antibiotics or microbes to the person consuming the meat, Price explained. Rather, long-term use of antibiotics in agriculture raises the risk that pathogens will evolve to evade the drugs we typically use against them.

These drug-resistant microbes can then move from animal populations into humans, leaving people with fewer or no treatment options if they get sick.

“People don’t ever become resistant to antibiotics,” Price said. “The more you use [antibiotics], the more [likely] that the bacteria will become resistant to those antibiotics, which can spread to people and cause drug-resistant infections.”

This is especially worrisome for people whose immune systems aren’t as capable of fighting off pathogens—this includes those with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

The risk of microbial resistance affecting humans is quite low so long as producers are using only non-medically important antibiotics. However, the field is still learning more about the effects of antibiotic use on human health more generally, Detwiler said.

“In terms of our body’s ability to deal with these antibiotics, there’s still so much that we don’t know,” he told Health.

Additionally, widespread antibiotic use can cause environmental issues, Price said. Some drugs used by livestock producers can be toxic to other animals or organisms. Plus, wastewater from antibiotic-treated animals can damage microbial ecosystems, leading to issues such as algal blooms.

Related: What Are the Side Effects of Taking Antibiotics?

What Does Chick-fil-A’s Move Mean for Public Health?

As for why Chick-fil-A and others are moving away from “no antibiotics ever” standards, Detwiler said there are a number of explanations. The company cited supply issues, though Detwiler speculated other factors could include cost, wider apathy about antibiotics in food, or souring public opinion on science and food safety in recent years.

Though using these non-medical antibiotics is associated with low antimicrobial resistance risks, Chick-fil-A’s standards switch could have other effects. For one, Detwiler said, it’s now less clear to consumers what they’re putting into their bodies.

It’s also possible that this could lead to wider repercussions across the food industry. The company was once a well-known “advocate” for keeping antibiotics out of chicken, Detwiler said, and dropping these standards could signal a broader shift.

“You take [Chick-fil-A] out of the game and it affects all of the players on the field,” he said. “If a company as big as Chick-fil-A is going to [relax antibiotic standards], then what’s stopping smaller teams, or lesser players in the landscape from saying, ‘Well, if they’re going to do that, then we’re doing it, too.’”

Projections aside, it’s unlikely that “eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich is going to be any riskier for people [now] than it was last week,” Price added. “They did just step back a little bit, and they’re still going to leave out the antibiotics that are important for humans.”

However, if consumers are concerned about their personal health or public health issues stemming from chicken raised with certain antibiotics, it’s certainly something they can avoid.

“I would still look for that ‘no antibiotics ever’ label,” said Price.

Related: FDA Says Lab-Grown Meat Is Safe to Eat—But What Is It, Exactly?

For more Health.com news, make sure to sign up for our newsletter!

Read the original article on Health.com.