According to the Chain Reaction report, meat sold by major American fast food chains contains an unsafe amount of antibiotics.

The 25 largest fast food chains in the United States are getting schooled — not surprisingly, the report card doesn’t look so good.

The meat sold by the nation’s major fast food providers has been analyzed for its antibiotic content. The scorecard exposes the seriousness of an underreported health issue that affects the nation as a whole.

The Report Card

The scorecard shows that only five American fast food chains received a passing grade, while 20 other restaurants failed the test.

Friends of Earth released a “Chain Reaction” report in conjunction with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Keep Antibiotics Working, and Center for Food Safety.

The report grades America’s top restaurant chains on their policies and practices regarding antibiotics in their meat and poultry. Researchers gathered data from restaurants in person, through email and snail mail.

The researchers looked at how well these policies were implemented, including the estimated availability of meat produced without routine antibiotics. The grade also takes into account how transparent the restaurant is about its policies, and if the practices were online.

The grades were calculated based on the establishment’s antibiotics use policies, including the strength of the policy and if it applies to all meat products offered. The total number of possible points was 36.

According to the report, 20 of the most popular fast food restaurants failed, which meant the meat they sold contained a lot of antibiotics. The restaurants that received zero points include Wendy’s, Burger King, Dominos, Starbucks, Olive Garden, Papa John’s, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, Applebee’s, Sonic, Chili’s, Jack in the Box, Arby’s, Dairy Queen, IHOP, Outback and Little Caesars.

Each restaurant had a different response of explanation for their good, or not-so-good, grade.

Dunkin’ Donuts and Dominos both said their food complies with all FDA and USDA laws. Wendy’s and Starbucks are working to address concerns about antibiotic use. Burger King plans to review the findings.

Only two restaurants passed with flying colors. Chipotle and Panera Bread both received an “A” score because their meat isn’t treated with antibiotics.

“While many people are just starting to pay attention to the issue, we have known for a long time that it is the right thing to do, and we are pleased to see others taking even small steps to curb antibiotic use in livestock,” Chipotle said in response to the report.

Panera Bread had a similar reaction, claiming that “More than a decade ago, we started serving chicken raised without antibiotics — ahead of the industry. We’re glad to see that others have followed and proud to have extended our commitment to all of the chicken, ham, bacon, sausage and roasted turkey on our salads and sandwiches.”

Chik-fil-a, coming in with a “B” score, is working to catch up to their 2014 claim of ‘No Antibiotics Ever.’ Representatives say that the switch will take time, and that verification from suppliers is of utmost importance. McDonald’s is also working to eliminate some antibiotics in their meat supply.

Papa Johns, which received an “F,” is spending $100 million a year to eliminate artificial ingredients and other additives. “By the first half of 2016, we will offer antibiotic-free chicken on our pizza,” Papa Johns said in response.

The Meaning Behind The Meat

Consuming meat that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria will make antibiotics ineffective when they are needed most.
Image: Maximized Living

The meat industry uses antibiotics to prevent animals from getting infections that would develop from poor diet and unsanitary conditions. Using antibiotics as a standard preventative method has yielded resistant bacteria, which is then passed on to humans.

“When livestock producers administer antibiotics routinely to their flocks and herds, bacteria can develop resistance, thrive and even spread to our communities, contributing to the larger problem of antibiotic resistance,” according to the report authors.

This is a bigger problem than we think. At least 2 million Americans contract antibiotic-resistant infections every year, the CDC estimates. These infections will kill about 23,000 people.

“The worsening epidemic of resistance means that antibiotics may not work when we need them most: when our kids contract a staph infection (MRSA), or our parents get a life-threatening pneumonia,” according to the study.

In addition, six hormones are used in the industry to promote faster, larger growth of animals. Although the scorecard doesn’t measure the amount of hormones used in fast food meat, the authors want to caution as using them as a replacement for antibiotics.

The report urges restaurants to “use their considerable purchasing power to make meat and poultry produced without the routine use of antibiotics more readily available to consumers.”

The authors also call upon the Food and Drug Administration to mandate greater transparency on antibiotic use in the meat industry, and create “policies that prohibit use of medically important antibiotics for both growth promotion and disease prevention.”

According to the report, it’s really up to the consumer. Recommendations ranging from diners to restaurants, government officials and farmers are included in the report.

“As more consumers demand better meat options, they will become more widely available,” the authors wrote. “Remember: it’s your money, your health and your future.”

The post An Antibiotic Scorecard For Your Favorite Fast Food Joints appeared first on Citizens Report.

After the announcement, players from both sides of the issue chimed in. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the methane rules are “an important start,” but that they and other environmental groups are still critical of Obama’s plan. Because it focuses on new oil and gas sites rather than existing ones, they feel stronger action must be taken to regulate existing sources of pollution.

On the other hand, the American Petroleum Institute has called these additional regulations unnecessary. “Methane emissions have fallen thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies. And even with that knowledge, the White House has singled out oil and natural gas for regulation,” CEO Jack Gerard said.

Obama’s Methane Rules at a Glance

SF Examiner

Here are the main points you should understand about Obama’s plan of attack:

The Focus is on Methane

The Obama administration is tackling global warming by specifically focusing on methane emissions as opposed to reducing other sources of pollution. White papers released last April suggest the White House’s current plan will build on a set of restrictions proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2012. The plans is to attack emissions along the entire supply chain from wellhead, to processing plants, to the supply lines that carry the gas.

But Only at New Facilities

The methane rules will only apply to “new and modified oil and gas production sources.” The White House’s plan will take the same noncommittal approach toward existing facilities it took in 2012 by simply setting standards for other pollutants that will cause an indirect reduction of methane.

“Failing to immediately regulate existing oil and gas equipment nationwide misses 90 percent of the methane pollution from the industry,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

The White House has defended its focus on new facilities because “that’s where the investment is, that’s where the increases in emissions are coming from.”

How many processing facilities will be considered existing under Obama’s new rules? It is not immediately clear. What we do know is there are more than 500 gas processing plants and roughly 1.1 million active oil and gas wells. That’s a lot of methane.

Success Requires Other Agencies Step Up to the Plate

The White House has made it clear that in order to reach its lofty goal of reducing methane emissions by 45 percent in the next ten years, other agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will have to do their part and introduce stricter standards of operation as well.

A Global Fight

Back in 2013 the United Nations organized a meeting of envoys from 190 nations to discuss a treaty aimed at cutting fossil-fuel emissions worldwide to advance the war on global warming. The talks focused on a “loss and damage” mechanism whose aim is to assist those developing nations that are coping with natural disasters, such as floods and erosion caused by higher temperatures.

With an all-hands-on-deck approach to global warming, the world is perhaps in a position to avoid many of the catastrophic levels of loss and damage that will occur should temperatures continue to rise. The loss and damage that will inevitably occur from the unavoidable temperature rise can be avoided if nations take effective adaptation measures in advance.

The problem is the amount of global adaptation has been so inadequate that there will no doubt be loss and damage in the future. And this loss and damage will solely be a result of human-induced climate change. How the world’s nations plan on dealing with this inevitable loss and damage will need to be further discussed in order to find a collaborative solution.

Featured photo courtesy of: Common Dreams

The post Obama’s Methane Rules Aim to Reduce Emissions by 45 Percent appeared first on Citizens Report.