Author: Ben Tinker

A new report is sounding the alarm about the use of antibiotics in the meat and poultry supply chains of the 25 largest U.S. fast food and “fast casual” restaurants.

Most top U.S. restaurant chains have no publicly available policy to limit regular use of antibiotics in their meat and poultry supply chains, according to the “Chain Reaction” report by Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and four other consumer interest, public health and environmental organizations.

“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,” the authors wrote in the report, which was released Tuesday. “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.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have repeatedly warned about the not-far-off public health threat of antibiotic resistance. The CDC estimates at least 2 million Americans contract antibiotic-resistant infections every year, and that 23,000 die as a result.

“A post-antibiotic era — in which common infections and minor injuries can kill — far from being an apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the 21st century,” the WHO cautioned in a 2014 report.

As people are eating out more than ever, the researchers behind the report wanted to look closely at “industry leaders and laggards.” They created a scorecard assessing the commitments of U.S. restaurant chains on antibiotics use and transparency in their supply chains.

How did your favorite food fare?

Each restaurant was graded on its antibiotics use policies, including the strength of the policy and whether it applies to all types of meat; its implementation of policies, including the estimated availability of meat produced without routine antibiotics; and transparency about its policies, including third-party audits, whether its policy was listed online and whether it responded to the survey. The authors reached out to restaurants in person, via email or via traditional mail. The total number of possible points was based on the restaurant’s menu offerings.

Chipotle and Panera Bread fared best, with both receiving As. Those restaurants are the only two that report serving a majority of their meat from animals raised without regular use of antibiotics, the report said.

“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 responded, “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.”

Chick-fil-A received a grade of B, and responded to the rating by noting that it was “the first in the quick service restaurant industry to announce a commitment to ‘No Antibiotics Ever’ in its chicken supply back in 2014. … Because of this stringent requirement and our desire to have third-party verification of our suppliers’ processes, the switch will take some time.”

Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s received Cs. Subway, Wendy’s, Burger King, Denny’s, Domino’s and Starbucks all received Fs, but got at least one point.

CNN reached out to 11 restaurant chains singled out by this study, and several responded to the report.

“Dunkin’ Donuts has stringent food quality standards for all of our products that meet all requirements of the FDA and USDA — complying with all laws, ordinances and regulations,” the doughnut chain said.

Wendy’s said it is testing grilled chicken that is raised without antibiotics.

Burger King Corp. said it would review the findings.

Domino’s said its suppliers “currently meet all USDA requirements and we don’t purchase chicken or beef treated with the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics.”

Starbucks said it was working with its suppliers to address concerns about antibiotic use.

Other restaurants that received Fs earned zero out of 36 possible points: 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.

One of the chains scoring a zero, Papa John’s, said it is spending $100 million a year to eliminate artificial ingredients and other additives and that “by the first half of 2016, we will offer antibiotic-free chicken on our pizza.”

“Panera and Chipotle are the only chains that publicly affirm that the majority of their meat and poultry offered is produced without routine use of antibiotics,” the authors said in the report. “Chick-fil-A and McDonald’s have established policies limiting antibiotic use in their chicken with implementation timelines, while Dunkin’ Donuts has a policy covering all meats, but has no reported timeline for implementation.

“Most top U.S. chain restaurants have so far failed to effectively respond to this growing public health threat by publicly adopting policies restricting routine antibiotic use by their meat suppliers.”

Terry Fleck, the executive director of the Center for Food Integrity, whose members include the National Restaurant Association, said that responsible use of antibiotics makes food safer and more affordable.

“Antibiotic resistance is a serious public health concern that should be addressed both in human and animal medicine,” Fleck said in a statement emailed to CNN. “But just as with you or me, when animals get sick with a bacterial infection, treating them with antibiotics is the ethical thing to do. Farmers work closely with veterinarians to responsibly administer antibiotics in the care for their animals, benefiting each of us by making food safer and more affordable.”

Hormones in the food supply

The report’s authors said they also asked restaurants about use of hormones in meat and poultry supply chains out of concern that meat producers might increase use of those growth-promoting drugs as they phased out antibiotics. Hormones did not factor into the restaurants’ grades, but the authors said the use of hormones raise animal welfare concerns and possible human health risks.

“A good rule of thumb is to avoid eating foods that contain ingredients you can’t pronounce,” says Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent.

The report lists recommendations ranging from diners to restaurants, government officials and farmers.

Restaurants, the report said, should “use their considerable purchasing power to make meat and poultry produced without the routine use of antibiotics more readily available to consumers.”

The Food and Drug Administration should mandate greater transparency on antibiotic use among livestock producers, the report said, and “policies that prohibit use of medically important antibiotics for both growth promotion and disease prevention.”

The report urges consumers to ask about meat sources in restaurants and on social media.

“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-CNN-Wire

™ & © 2015 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

CNN — In recent years, sugar — more so than fat — has been receiving the bulk of the blame for our deteriorating health.

Most of us know we consume more sugar than we should. Let’s be honest, it’s hard not to.

The (new) bad news is that sugar does more damage to our bodies than we originally thought. It was once considered to be just another marker for an unhealthy diet and obesity. Now sugar is considered an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, as well as many other chronic diseases, according a study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Sugar has adverse health effects above any purported role as ‘empty calories’ promoting obesity,” writes Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy in the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. “Too much sugar doesn’t just make us fat; it can also make us sick.”

But how much is too much? Turns out not nearly as much as you may think. As a few doctors and scientists have been screaming for a while now, a little bit of sugar goes a long way.

Added sugars, according to most experts, are far more harmful to our bodies than naturally-occurring sugars. We’re talking about the sugars used in processed or prepared foods like sugar-sweetened beverages, grain-based desserts, fruit drinks, dairy desserts, candy, ready-to-eat cereal and yeast breads. Your fruits and (natural) fruit juices are safe.

Recommendations for your daily allotment of added sugar vary widely:

— The Institute of Medicine recommends that added sugars make up less than 25% of your total calories

— The World Health Organization recommends less than 10%

— The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars to less than 100 calories daily for women and 150 calories daily for men

The U.S. government hasn’t issued a dietary limit for added sugars, like it has for calories, fats, sodium, etc. Furthermore, sugar is classified by the Food and Drug administration as “generally safe,” which allows manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food.

“There is a difference between setting the limit for nutrients or other substances in food and setting limits for what people should be consuming,” an FDA spokesperson wrote in an e-mail to CNN. “FDA does not set limits for what people should be eating.”

“With regard to setting a regulatory limit for added sugar in food, FDA would carefully consider scientific evidence in determining whether regulatory limits are needed, as it would for other substances in food.”

There is some good news. While the mean percentage of calories consumed from added sugars increased from 15.7% in 1988-1994 to 16.8% in 1999-2004, it actually decreased to 14.9% between 2005 and 2010. But most adults still consumed 10% or more of their calories from added sugar and about 1 in 10 people consumed 25% or more of their calories from sugar during the same time period.

Participants in the study who consumed approximately 17 to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed approximately 8% of calories from added sugar, the study authors concluded.

“This relative risk was more than double for those who consumed 21% or more of calories from added sugar,” they wrote.

Schmidt writes that these new findings “provide physicians and consumers with actionable guidance. Until federal guidelines are forthcoming, physicians may want to caution patients that, to support cardiovascular health, it’s safest to consume less than 15% of their daily calories from added sugar.”

That’s the equivalent, Schmidt points out, of drinking one 20-ounce Mountain Dew soda in a 2,000-calorie diet.

“From there, the risk rises exponentially as a function of increased sugar intake,” she writes.

In a statement, the American Beverage Association said the study “shows that adult consumption of added sugars has actually declined, as recently reported by the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

“A significant part of that reduction is from decreased added sugars from beverages due, in part, to our member companies’ ongoing innovation in providing more low- and no-calorie options. Furthermore, this is an observational study which cannot — and does not — show that cardiovascular disease is caused by drinking sugar-sweetened beverages.”

Despite our changing scientific understanding and a growing body of evidence on sugar overconsumption as an independent risk factor in chronic disease, sugar regulation remains an uphill battle in the United States. This is contrasted by the increased frequency of regulation abroad, where 15 countries now have taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.

“‘Sin taxes,’ whether on tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-laden products, are popular because they are easy to enforce and generate revenue, with a well-documented evidence base supporting their effectiveness for lowering consumption,” writes Schmidt.

But forget about the short-term monetary cost. Before you reach for that next sugary treat, think long and hard about the long-term cost to your health.