The 2024 Antibiotic Surge in U.S. Livestock Production

What the Data Shows and What Consumers Should Know

(I want to acknowledge Lisa Held at Civil Eats for bringing this to the nation’s attention. )

January 2026

Executive Summary

In December 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released data showing a 16% increase in sales of medically important antibiotics for livestock in 2024 – the largest single-year jump since regulatory reforms took effect in 2017. This reversal of nearly a decade of stable or declining sales warrants careful examination. This brief analyzes the FDA data, clarifies common misconceptions about U.S. antibiotic regulations in animal agriculture, and explains what it means for consumers seeking transparency in meat labeling.

Putting 2024 in Context

The 16% increase in medically important antibiotic sales for livestock in 2024 represents the largest single-year increase since the FDA began comprehensive tracking — and the first significant departure from the generally stable pattern observed since 2017 regulatory changes took effect.

While 2024 volumes remain approximately 27% below peak sales recorded in 2015, the reversal of nearly a decade of progress warrants attention. The increases occurred across all major species despite flat or declining animal populations, indicating more intensive use per animal rather than simply more animals being raised.

Key Findings

Overall sales increase: Medically important antibiotic sales for food-producing animals rose 16% from 2023 to 2024, the biggest year-over-year increase on record since the FDA began comprehensive tracking. Despite this jump, 2024 sales volume remained about 27% lower than the peak in 2015.
Species breakdown: Chickens saw a 79% surge in antibiotic sales, turkeys 25%, cattle 16%, and swine 13%, compared to 2023. Notably, these increases occurred despite relatively flat animal populations – the number of cattle and turkeys actually declined in 2024, meaning use per animal rose significantly.
Drug class distribution: Tetracyclines – which account for about 69% of all medically important antibiotics sold for livestock – increased 20% in 2024. Aminoglycosides jumped 37%, lincosamides 11%, and macrolides 1%, while penicillins (the third-largest class by volume) declined 14%.
Historical context: Although 2024 antibiotic sales remain roughly 27% below the peak level seen in 2015, the uptick represents a significant departure from the generally stable pattern observed since 2017. In short, the post-2017 plateau in antibiotic use has given way to a concerning new upward trend.

Understanding the Regulatory Framework

A common misconception is that antibiotics were “banned” in U.S. livestock production after 2017. This is not accurate. Understanding what actually changed in 2017 is essential for interpreting current data and making informed purchasing decisions.

What Changed in 2017

Eliminated growth promotion uses: The FDA’s Guidance for Industry #213, fully implemented in January 2017, made it illegal to use medically important antibiotics solely to make animals grow faster or convert feed more efficiently. These production (growth promotion) indications were removed from drug labels, ending the routine sub-therapeutic dosing of antibiotics for growth purposes.
Required veterinary oversight: All medically important antibiotics administered through feed or water now require authorization from a licensed veterinarian. Under the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) and prescription requirements, farmers cannot obtain these antibiotics over-the-counter for feed/water use – a veterinarian must issue a VFD or prescription for a specific approved disease-prevention or treatment use. This change aimed to ensure antibiotics are used judiciously and only when appropriate for animal health needs.

What Remains Permitted

Medically important antibiotics may still be used in U.S. livestock for the following purposes under current regulations:

Treatment: Administering antibiotics to animals diagnosed with a bacterial infection to cure or treat the illness.
Control: Treating a group of animals when some are sick, to control the spread of a diagnosed infection in the herd or flock.
Prevention: Giving antibiotics to animals that are at risk of developing a specific disease, even when no clinical illness is present, in order to prevent an outbreak. (This prophylactic use is still allowed if a veterinarian determines there is a credible disease risk.)

Critical Distinction: This last category – prevention – is where significant volumes of antibiotics continue to be used. The FDA’s framework permits routine, herd- or flock-wide preventive dosing of medically important antibiotics when a vet deems animals are at risk of bacterial disease. In practice, this can closely resemble pre-2017 usage patterns. Particularly in high-density confinement operations where disease pressure is inherently high (due to crowding, stress, and sanitation challenges), producers can continuously administer antibiotics in feed or water to entire groups even when animals are not yet sick, under the justification of disease prevention. This blurs the line between “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” – a fact long pointed out by public health advocates and now borne out by data indicating that overall antibiotic use did drop in 2017, but rebounded through permitted preventive use in subsequent years.

Interpreting the 2024 Increase

Several explanations have been proposed for the 2024 surge in antibiotic sales. No single cause has been confirmed, and it may be a combination of factors:

Disease Pressure

Industry and FDA officials have noted that animal sectors faced unusual disease challenges in 2024 – for example, outbreaks of avian metapneumovirus in poultry and even highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in some dairy cattle herds. However, these are viral diseases, and antibiotics are not effective against viruses. While producers might use antibiotics to control secondary bacterial infections following a viral outbreak, experts doubt this alone explains the magnitude of the increases across all species. In poultry, for instance, some in the industry attributed the nearly 80% jump in chicken antibiotic use to secondary infections from avian metapneumovirus, but acknowledged that antibiotics have limited effect on that virus – casting doubt on how such an attribution could account for the record-high surge in usage. In short, disease outbreaks in 2024 may have played a role, but they don’t fully account for the broad, cross-species spike in antibiotic sales.

Production Intensity

Another clue lies in biomass-adjusted sales data, which account for the size of animal populations. These data showed increases across most drug classes in 2024, suggesting the rise was not simply due to more animals being raised, but rather more intensive antibiotic use per animal. For example, even though cattle inventory decreased, antibiotic sales for cattle stayed the same or increased – meaning antibiotic use per cow went up. Similarly, biomass-adjusted antibiotic use in pigs has been consistently increasing faster than herd size in recent years. In other words, producers in 2024 used antibiotics more liberally or routinely for each animal on the farm than in the recent past. This points to possible changes in husbandry or health management practices that resulted in greater reliance on drugs. When fewer turkeys and cattle are being raised but more antibiotics are sold for them, it’s a strong indicator of intensified use.

Regulatory Enforcement

The Gap Between Regulation and Enforcement

The FDA tracks antibiotic sales to livestock producers but does not systematically collect data on how antibiotics are actually used at the farm level. This creates a significant transparency gap.

A USDA survey of swine operations found that 10% of respondents reported using medically important antibiotics for “growth promotion” in combination with other drugs — a use that has been prohibited since 2017. This suggests either gaps in regulatory compliance or confusion about what current rules actually require.

Without robust on-farm monitoring, the veterinary oversight requirement may not be achieving its intended stewardship goals. For consumers, this reinforces why independent third-party verification of antibiotic claims provides more assurance than regulatory compliance alone.

Some analysts have questioned whether the 2017 regulatory changes are truly achieving their intended stewardship goals on the farm. The FDA tracks only sales data and does not systematically collect data on how antibiotics are actually used at the farm level. This lack of on-farm usage monitoring means enforcement of the “no growth promotion” rule relies largely on the honor system and veterinary oversight. A 2024 USDA survey of large swine operations found that 10% of respondents reported using medically important antibiotics for “growth promotion” – essentially admitting to using them to fatten pigs – by combining them with other non-medically-important drugs like carbadox or bacitracin (BMD). Technically, the medically important antibiotic in those cases should have been used only for disease prevention or control, but producers still listed “growth promotion” as the primary reason when paired with a growth-promoting companion drug. This suggests gaps in compliance or understanding of the regulations. It appears some producers may be skirting the intent of the rules by leveraging the prevention loophole – effectively continuing growth-promotional practices under a different name. Without more robust oversight and farm-level usage data, the Veterinary Feed Directive requirement alone may not be sufficient to curb overuse. As one advocate noted, “It’s hard to know what’s happening on farms when actual use isn’t tracked, but the sales data and surveys point to routine antibiotic use continuing much as before”.

What “Prevention” Means in Practice

Current FDA regulations permit medically important antibiotics to be used for disease prevention — administering antibiotics to animals deemed at risk of developing a specific bacterial disease, even when no clinical illness is present.

In intensive confinement operations, disease pressure is inherently elevated due to animal density, stress, and environmental factors. Routine preventive dosing in these conditions can look quite similar to pre-2017 growth promotion practices in terms of actual antibiotic volumes administered.

The legal distinction now rests on whether use is classified as “preventive” rather than “growth promoting.” For consumers who prioritize antibiotic stewardship, this distinction may be less meaningful than the total volume of antibiotics used.

International Comparison

The U.S. trajectory stands in stark contrast to other major livestock-producing regions that have achieved far greater reductions in antibiotic use. For example, the United Kingdom reduced its antibiotic sales for food-producing animals by 59% between 2014 and 2022, reaching the lowest levels on record. The European Union as a whole has also seen dramatic declines; EU officials implemented binding targets and stricter regulations, and from 2011 to 2020 overall antibiotic use in EU livestock fell by about 43%.

Analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and others shows that U.S. livestock producers still use antibiotics several times more intensively than their European counterparts. In fact, U.S. cattle operations on average use medically important antibiotics an estimated 4 to 6 times more per unit of livestock than do the leading livestock-producing countries in Europe. (U.S. swine farms, for example, use about 5 times more antibiotics per animal than farms in the UK.) These comparisons make clear that significantly lower antibiotic use is achievable while maintaining productive animal agriculture. Europe’s experience demonstrates that better animal husbandry practices can dramatically reduce the need for drugs. Key strategies include improved housing ventilation, lower stocking densities (to minimize stress and disease spread), enhanced biosecurity and hygiene, more frequent vaccination, and better nutrition—all of which reduce disease pressure and thus the need for antibiotics. Indeed, EU countries have prioritized such measures; their commitment to a “One Health” approach has proven that prudent use of antibiotics combined with preventive husbandry practices can curb antimicrobial resistance risks without sacrificing productivity. The recent 2024 UN High-Level Meeting on AMR echoed these lessons, calling for all countries to “meaningfully reduce” the quantity of antimicrobials used in the agri-food system by 2030 through improved infection prevention and responsible use in animal health. The U.S. data from 2024, unfortunately, suggest movement in the opposite direction at the moment.

What This Means for Consumers

Label Claims Require Scrutiny

For consumers trying to minimize their contribution to antibiotic resistance, understanding meat labels is crucial.

Why Antibiotic Use in Livestock Matters

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the greatest threats to global health, food security, and development. The use of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture contributes to a reservoir of resistant bacteria that can transfer to humans through direct contact with animals, consumption of contaminated meat, environmental spread through water and soil, and genetic transfer of resistance between bacterial species.

The 2024 United Nations High-Level Meeting on AMR called for countries to “meaningfully reduce” antimicrobial use in agriculture by 2030. Recent U.S. sales data suggest movement in the opposite direction.

Keep in mind:

“No Antibiotics Ever” (NAE) or “Raised Without Antibiotics”: These labels – if truthful – mean the animal was never given antibiotics at any point in its life. Many producers now use these claims. However, verification varies. Some programs are USDA-certified or involve independent third-party audits, while others rely on the producer’s word (affidavit). Look for labels indicating a verification program (e.g. USDA Process Verified, Certified Responsible Antibiotic Use, etc.) for more assurance.
“No Growth-Promoting Antibiotics”: This claim merely reflects compliance with current federal law. Since 2017, all U.S. meat is supposed to meet this standard by default (growth-promoting antibiotic uses are no longer allowed). In other words, a “no growth promoters” label does not indicate any practices beyond what is already legally required. It can be a misleading claim when used as a marketing point, because it implies a difference where there might be none.
“Antibiotic-Free”: This term is not defined or regulated by the USDA for meat or poultry. It’s sometimes used in marketing, but its meaning is ambiguous. It does not mean no antibiotics were used on the animal; it may be intended to suggest no antibiotic residues are present in the meat (which is true of all meat by law, since withdrawal times must be observed before slaughter). In short, ignore “antibiotic-free” as a label – it’s not a reliable or meaningful claim regarding on-farm use.
No specific antibiotic claim (i.e. conventional product): If a meat product’s labeling makes no mention of antibiotics, you should assume it was produced under standard industry practices – which do allow medically important antibiotics for disease prevention, control, or treatment as needed. Such meat could very well come from animals that received antibiotics, possibly even the routine, preventative courses that are permitted under current rules. Absence of an antibiotic-related label claim typically just means the producer did not opt into a special program; it does not mean “raised without antibiotics.”

The Gap Between Perception and Reality

Many consumers believe that the 2017 FDA policy changes effectively ended routine antibiotic use in livestock. After all, if growth promotion is banned and vets must approve uses, it sounds like antibiotics would only be used sparingly for sick animals. The reality is quite different. The 2024 sales data – and trends since 2017 – show that antibiotics remain a standard input in conventional U.S. animal production. The legal distinction now is that the use must be framed as “disease prevention” or therapeutic, rather than explicitly for growth. In practice, however, administering low doses of antibiotics continually in feed “to prevent disease” in a large herd can look almost identical to the pre-2017 practice of giving them for growth promotion. The intention on paper may differ, but from the bacteria’s perspective (and a resistance standpoint), the selective pressure is the same.

For consumers who prioritize antibiotic stewardship, this gap between perception and reality means label scrutiny and producer research are still necessary. Don’t assume that all meat is now raised without routine antibiotics – it’s not. If a package doesn’t clearly say “Raised Without Antibiotics” (or a similar audited program claim), the animals likely received antibiotics in the conventional way. In fact, given the 2024 uptick in usage, buying standard supermarket meat means supporting practices that are increasing their antibiotic inputs compared to a few years ago. The onus remains on the concerned consumer to seek out products with meaningful antibiotic-use claims or certifications (and to understand what those claims truly mean, as explained above).

Public Health Implications

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the greatest threats to global health, food security, and development today. Overuse of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture contributes to a reservoir of resistant bacteria and resistance genes that can ultimately affect human health. How does this happen? Resistant bacteria (or their genes) arising in farm animals can spread to people through multiple pathways:

Direct contact with livestock or their manure (farmers, farm workers, veterinarians, or even via pets and pests that contact farm environments).
Contaminated food products: If meat (or produce fertilized with manure) carries antibiotic-resistant bacteria, those can colonize or infect consumers. Proper cooking kills bacteria on meat, but cross-contamination in kitchens and consumption of undercooked products are known routes.
Environmental spread: Large-scale farms create manure waste that can introduce resistant bacteria into soil, water, and air. Runoff from fields fertilized with livestock manure, or dust and water droplets from confined animal facilities, can carry resistant microbes into the surrounding environment and communities.
Gene transfer: Bacteria can exchange resistance genes, including in environments like manure lagoons or soil. Even if the specific resistant bacteria from an animal don’t infect a person, they can pass their resistance traits to other human-pathogenic bacteria via plasmids and other mobile genetic elements.

The public health stakes are enormous. In the U.S., the CDC estimates about 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in humans each year, causing more than 35,000 deaths annually. Globally, resistant infections already kill an estimated 1.3 million people per year (a 2019 study estimated 5+ million deaths were associated with bacterial AMR). We are also not getting new drugs fast enough to replace failing ones. In this context, any upward trend in antibiotic use – whether in humans or animals – is cause for concern. It runs counter to international calls to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use. At the United Nations High-Level Meeting on AMR in 2024, world leaders urged countries to significantly cut agricultural antibiotic use by 2030 as part of a One Health strategy. The U.S. 2024 data indicating a resurgence in livestock antibiotics is a step in the wrong direction, potentially undermining national and global efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.

Conclusion

The 16% increase in medically important antibiotic sales for U.S. livestock in 2024 represents a sharp reversal after several years of progress and relative stability. While usage remains below the all-time highs of 2015, the spike is a clear warning sign that antibiotic stewardship in agriculture needs renewed attention from consumers, industry, and policymakers alike. The data suggest that current U.S. regulations – which still permit extensive antibiotic use for disease prevention – are insufficient to drive usage downward when the economic or management incentives to use antibiotics remain. In effect, what we’re seeing is that producers are utilizing the allowable preventive use to a greater extent, eroding the gains made after the 2017 policy changes.

For consumers, the takeaway is that the absence of an antibiotic-related label on meat means business as usual. And “business as usual” in 2024 entailed more antibiotics per animal than a few years prior. If avoiding contributing to antibiotic resistance is a priority, consumers should seek out meat from programs that go beyond the legal minimum – for example, Certified Responsible Antibiotic Use (CRAU) for poultry, or labels like Global Animal Partnership steps that include antibiotic-use criteria, or simply “No Antibiotics Ever” (with verification). Those are the products pushing the industry toward truly reduced antibiotic reliance.

Farm Animal Transparency will continue to monitor the FDA’s annual data releases and other research, providing evidence-based analysis for consumers. The goal is to shed light on what meat labels do and do not reveal about on-farm antibiotic use. The 2024 surge in antibiotics is a reminder that transparency – and vigilance – are more important than ever. We will keep working to ensure the public has clarity on these issues, because transparency is not advocacy; it is clarity.

Sources and Further Reading

FDA. 2024 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals. December 2025.
FDA. Fact Sheet: Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule and Next Steps.
CIDRAP News. “US sales of antibiotics for livestock climbed 16% last year, FDA report shows.” December 2025.
Civil Eats. “Sales of Antibiotics for Farm Animals Spiked in 2024.” January 2026.
American Veterinary Medical Association. “Veterinary Feed Directive Basics.”

Prepared by Dirk Adams of the FAT Research Team and with the assistance of AI.(c)