One of the most expensive cities in the nation is likely to get a whole lot more expensive soon.
San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee signed a city ordinance on Oct. 24 that seeks to curb antibiotic use in food animals. The ordinance requires the city’s large grocery stores selling raw meat to post public information on antibiotics used in the livestock that produced the meat. The ordinance will go into effect at the end of November.
How precisely the ordinance will work is anyone’s guess, however.
“It’s a horrible policy and one that I think is unworkable,” Justin Oldfield, vice president of government affairs for the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), told WLJ.
“It’s hard to even determine what the costs are going to be for retailers, for grocers, or how this is even going to work because it’s really an unworkable proposal,” he said, concluding, “It’s not feasible.”
WLJ reached out to the mayor’s office, the office of San Francisco Supervisor Ronen Sheehy who authored the ordinance, and the California Grocers Association for comment. None responded to inquiries.
What’s in it?
The ordinance—file number 170763, ordinance number 204-17—requires grocers with 25 or more stores operating anywhere publicly report the following information:
- The total volume of antibiotics used in the livestock which contributed the meat sold in the grocers’ stores;
- The different purposes for which those antibiotics were used in those animals;
- Whether or not those antibiotics are considered medically important in humans;
- How many animals were raised on the farm or ranch; and
- Have this information verified by third-party certification by a short list of approved organizations including the USDA, Global Animal Partnership, Certified Responsible Antibiotic Use, Humane Certified, and Animal Welfare Approved.
Reporting must begin at the end of May 2018.
The ordinance includes an opt-out provision. Grocers can petition the city with evidence showing the reporting is “not feasible without significant hardship” to potentially receive a waiver.
Grocers in violation of the ordinance will be subject to fines between $50-500 per day per violation, and/or imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months. Grocers may additionally be liable to the city for civil penalties up to $1,000 per day per violation.
The ordinance also includes a provision that reads very much like the Equal Access to Justice Act that specifically allows the city attorney, other grocers, or tax-exempt groups to sue grocers not in compliance with the rule.
Fundamentally flawed
In a letter sent to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors prior to the ordinance’s passage, the CCA pointed out that it “lacks a fundamental understanding” of meat production. It additionally explained that the requirements do not serve the interests of consumers.
“Advocates for this ordinance argue that comparing the amount of antibiotics used in food animal production compared to human medicine is reason enough to justify new reporting requirements, however this information alone provides absolutely no indication as to the cause of [antimicrobial] resistance,” it argued.
“The reporting requirements proposed under the legislation appear to suggest to consumers that the use of antibiotics in food animal production is inherently bad when the actual data suggests that promoting the judicious use of antibiotics in animal agriculture should be the focus.”
Both the letter and Oldfield cited a September 2014 report commissioned by then-President Barack Obama that found that the connection between antibiotic use in food animals and antimicrobial resistance in humans is not clear.
“Resistance is the issue here, not use,” stressed Oldfield.
“We want to see judicious use of antibiotics long-term, which is something our association has been working on for quite some time.”
“The ordinance fails to account for federal and state regulations already in place that promote the judicious use of antibiotics,” the letter read, referencing SB 27 that passed in California in 2015.
“As ranchers, we depend on the use of antibiotics to properly treat sick animals and, like all others, have a vested interest in ensuring antibiotics remain effective in both animal and human medicine.” — Kerry Halladay, WLJ editor
