A city drug test

Antibiotics can shield both man and beast from disease. But dousing patients and livestock with infection-killing medicine may also be selfdefeating as resistant strains emerge, worsening the goal of better health.

That problem sits at the heart of a modest proposal by San Francisco Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and Mayor Ed Lee’s Department of the Environment. A plan taking shape this week would require major supermarkets to report levels of antibiotics in meat and poultry. The public would get a look at which businesses are heeding the message that less use is better. In a health conscious city, it’s a sensible step.

The measure goes light on rules and regulation. There is no flat ban, hefty fee, or store or product labels. Chain restaurants will be left out. Deborah Raphael, director of the city environmental agency, said the public disclosure would be done via a website at no extra city cost. The overall aim is more name-andshame than heavy bureaucracy.

Despite its moderation, there’s one part of the package worth trimming: the right of private lawyers to sue for damages if the policy is abridged. That’s an invitation for abusive bounty hunting.

The plan’s modest scope is due to other factors. The food industry is waking up to the public’s unease with antibiotics. Some two million people are sickened each year by antibiotic-resistant infections, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control.

In varying degrees, fast food outlets and supermarkets are pushing suppliers to avoid beef, pork and poultry with high levels of the drugs. A California law taking effect in January sets tougher standards for using antibiotics on livestock.

That shows that public attitudes are shifting decidedly and in a good way. For San Francisco, which strives to be first on so many cutting edge public issues, there’s isn’t all that much left to do. In this case, reporting more details on antibiotics can further a cause to protect consumers.