before their food goes to market. a study released by centre for science and environment (cse) on 30 july 2014 found antibiotic residues in chicken. this study claims that indians are developing resistance to antibiotics – and hence falling prey to a host of otherwise curable ailments. some of this resistance might be due to large-scale unregulated use of antibiotics in the poultry industry. cse finds that india has not set any limits for antibiotic residues in chicken and says that india will have to implement a comprehensive set of regulations including banning of antibiotic use as growth promoters in the poultry industry. not doing this will put lives of people at risk. new zealand in 1999 the new zealand government issued a statement that they would not then ban the use of antibiotics in livestock production. in 2007 abc online reported on antibiotic use in chicken production in new zealand. in 2017, new zealand published a new action plan to address the ongoing concern of antimicrobial resistance (amr). the action plan outlined five objectives with each objective looking both at amr in humans and amr in agriculture. compared to other countries, new zealand has a very low prevalence of amr in animals and plants. this is due to their low use of antibiotics in animal treatment. south korea in 1998 some researchers reported use in livestock production was a factor in the high prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in korea. in 2007 the korea times noted that korea has relatively high usage of antibiotics in livestock production. in 2011, the korean government banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock. united kingdom as with other countries in europe, use of antibiotics for growth promotion was banned in 2006. less than one third of all antibiotics sold in the uk are now estimated to be used to treat or prevent disease in farmed animals, following a revision to the 2017 sales data published by the uk government's veterinary medicines directorate. furthermore, 2018 sales data estimated use at 29.5 mg antibiotics per kg of animal at time of treatment during that year. this represents a 53% reduction in sales of antibiotics to treat food-producing animals over five years. the reduction has largely been achieved without legislation, and has been credited to voluntary industry action coordinated by the responsible use of medicines in agriculture (ruma) alliance through a 'targets task force' comprising a prominent veterinary surgeon and farmer from each livestock enterprise. a european comparison of 2017 sales data found the uk had the fifth lowest sales in europe during that year, with 2018 comparisons due to be released towards the end of 2020. while sales data give an overview of levels of use, products are often licensed for use in many species and therefore it is not possible to determine levels of use in different species without more specific usage data from each sector. in 2011, british poultry council members, representing 90% of the uk poultry meat industry, formed a stewardship programme that started recording antibiotics used to treat birds in the poultry meat sector in 2012. the first report was published in 2016 and reported a 44% reduction in antibiotic use between 2012 and 2015. since then, the organisation has produced three further reports, with the 2019 report confirming that the sector is maintaining reductions of over 80% in total use since it started its stewardship group, as well as reducing use of highest priority critically important antibiotics by over 80% by stopping use of 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins in 2012 and colistin in 2016, and only using macrolides and fluoroquinolones as a last resort. preventative use of antibiotics has also stopped. as many products are licensed for use in poultry and pigs, the increasing transparency around use in the uk poultry meat sector motivated the uk pig sector to set up a stewardship programme in 2016 through the national pig association. in 2017, an electronic medicine book for pigs (emb-pigs) was launched by levy body agriculture and horticulture development board. emb-pigs provides a centralised electronic version of the existing paper or electronic medicine book kept on farms, and allows pig producers to record and quantify their individual use of medicines for easy review with the veterinary surgeon, at the same time as capturing use on each farm so that data can be collated to provide national usage figures. after it became a requirement of red tractor farm assurance for pigs that annual, aggregated records of antibiotic use must be logged on the emb system, data released may 2018 showed that according to records covering 87% of the uk slaughter pig population, antibiotic use had halved between 2015 and 2017, data for 2018 confirms that overall antibiotic use in the uk pig sector fell further, by 60% from the estimated 2015 figure, to 110 mg/kg. use of highest priority critically important antibiotics also fell to 0.06 mg/kg, a reduction of 95% from 2015, with use of colistin almost nil. factors such as levels of infectious disease domestically or internationally, weather and vaccine availability can all affect antibiotic use. for example, the scottish salmon farming sector worked with government and researchers to introduce a vaccine for the disease furunculosis (aeromonas salmonicida) in 1994, which significantly reduced the need for antibiotic treatments, but the trout sector is still without an effective vaccine for this disease. lack of data can also make it difficult for farmers to know they compare with their peers or what they need to focus on, a particular problem for the sheep and cattle sectors in the uk, which are in the process of trying to set up their own electronic medicines hub to capture data. united states in 1970 the fda first recommended that antibiotic use in livestock be limited but set no actual regulations governing this recommendation. by 2001, the union of concerned scientists estimated that more than 70% of the antibiotics consumed in the us were given to food animals (for example, chickens, pigs, and cattle), in the absence of disease. in 2004 the government accountability office (gao) heavily critiqued the fda for not collecting enough information and data on antibiotic use in factory farms. from this, the gao concluded the fda did not have enough information to create effective policy changes regarding antibiotic use. in response, the fda said more research was being conducted and voluntary efforts within the industry would solve the problem of antibiotic resistance. however, by 2011, a total of 13.6 million kg (30 million lb) of antimicrobials were sold for use in food-producing animals in the united states, which represented 80% of all antibiotics sold or distributed in the united states. in march 2012, the united states district court for the southern district of new york, ruling in an action brought by the natural resources defense council and others, ordered the fda to revoke approvals for the use of antibiotics in livestock that violated fda regulations. on 11 april 2012 the fda announced a voluntary program to phase out unsupervised use of drugs as feed additives and convert approved over-the-counter uses for antibiotics to prescription use only, requiring veterinarian supervision of their use and a prescription. in december 2013, the fda announced the commencement of these steps to phase out the use of antibiotics for the purposes of promoting livestock growth. in 2015, the fda approved a new veterinary feed directive (vfd), an updated guideline giving instructions to pharmaceutical companies, veterinarians and producers about how to administer necessary drugs through the animal's feed and water. around the same time, the fda published a report of antibiotics sold or distributed for food-producing animals which found that between 2009 and 2013, just over 60% were "medically-important" drugs also used in humans; the rest were from drug classes like ionophores, which are not used in human medicine. following this, the fda asked drug companies to voluntarily edit its labels to exclude growth promotion as an indication for antibiotic usage. it subsequently reports that "under guidance for industry (gfi) #213, which went into effect january 1, 2017, antibiotics that are important for human medicine can no longer be used for growth promotion or feed efficiency in cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and other food animals." these new 2017 guidelines for instance prohibited using a drug off-label for non-therapeutic purposes, which would make using the re-labeled drug for growth enhancement illegal. in addition, some drugs were reclassified from 'over the counter' (otc) to 'veterinary feed directive' (vfd); vfd drugs require a veterinarian's authorization before they can be delivered in feed. as a result, the fda reported a 33% decrease from 2016 to 2017 in domestic sales of medically important antibiotics for use in livestock. despite this progress, the natural resources defense council (nrdc) remains concerned that sales of antibiotics to the beef and pork industries remain elevated in 2017 compared with the poultry industries, and their use could still primarily be for preventing diseases in healthy animals, which further increases the threat on antibiotic resistance. however, the fda policy remains the same as it stated in 2013: the key aspect of fda's strategy is the request that animal drug sponsors (those who own the right to market the product) voluntarily work with fda to revise the approved use conditions for their medically important antimicrobial drug products to remove production uses (such as growth enhancement or feed efficiency), and bring the remaining therapeutic uses under veterinary oversight. once manufacturers voluntarily make these changes, products can no longer be used for production purposes and therapeutic use of these products would require veterinary oversight. because of concerns about antibiotics residues getting into the milk or meat of cattle, in the united states, the government requires a withdraw period for any animal treated with antibiotics before it can be slaughtered, to allow residue to exit the animal. some grocery stores have policies about antibiotic use in the animal whose produce they sell. in response to consumer concerns about the use of antibiotics in poultry, perdue removed all human antibiotics from its feed in 2007 and launched the harvestland brand, under which it sold products that met the requirements for an "antibiotic-free" label. in 2012 in the united states advocacy organization consumers union organized a petition asking the store trader joe's to discontinue the sale of meat produced with antibiotics. gore, al (2013). "the reinvention of life and death: antibiotics before swine". the future: six drivers of global change (first ed.). new york: random house. pp. 227 and citation on 475. isbn 9780812992946. hurd, scott (26 june 2012). "commentary: 'meat without drugs' could be inhumane". bovine veterinarian. retrieved 27 august 2013. all peer-reviewed scientific risk assessments have demonstrated a negligible risk of human health harm due to livestock antibiotic use. greenaway, twilight (20 june 2012). "your meat on drugs: will grocery stores cut out antibiotics?". grist. retrieved 27 august 2013.</ref> by 2014, perdue had also phased out ionophores from its hatchery and began using "antibiotic free" labels on some products, and by 2015, 52% of the company's chickens were raised without the use of any type of antibiotics. the cdc and fda do not now support the use of antibiotics for growth promotion because of evidence suggesting that antibiotics used for growth promotion purposes could lead to the development of resistant bacteria. in addition to this, the pew charitable trusts has stated that "hundreds of scientific studies conducted over four decades demonstrate that feeding low doses of antibiotics to livestock breeds antibiotic-resistant superbugs that can infect people". the fda, the u.s. department of agriculture and the centers for disease control and prevention have all testified before congress that there is a definitive link between the routine, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in food animal production and the challenge of antibiotic resistance in humans." however, the national pork board, a government-owned corporation of the united states, has said: "the vast majority of producers use (antibiotics) appropriately." in 2011 the national pork producers council, an american trade association, also said, "not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the us pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn't even adequate data to conduct a study." the statement was issued in response to a united states government accountability office report