A check done on 147 chickens on sale in the UK showed that over half contained multi-drug resistance E. coli and about a third had bugs resistant to Trimethoprim, which is used to treat bladder infections.
Here's the BBC article.
Naturally, this raises the concern that antibiotics used in livestock production are leading to more antibiotic-resistant bugs in our food, and subsequently to more difficult-to-treat infections in people. On the other hand:
The British Poultry Council disputed the validity of the survey, saying it was not detailed enough and that previous research pointed to lower levels of antibiotic resistance in chicken.
Spokesman Darren Pearson said: "There's overwhelming evidence that the main reason for antibiotic resistance in humans is because of the antibiotics prescribed for us rather than animals.
There are problems with Pearson's statement. Yes, most antibiotic resistance in humans does appear to be due to use in humans, but there aren't many good studies about the effects of the widespread use of low-level antibiotics in animals. Search Pubmed, and you'll find papers that amount to:
"Resistant bugs come from outside hospitals. They're probably from livestock."
"Antibiotic resistance is bad! We need to worry about overuse in livestock."
"What about pets? They use drugs in pets, too."
Notably, the field is rife with opinions, yet sparse with research studies. Part of the problem is funding, of course. The big money here is on the side of livestock producers, who aren't about to fund research into their role in increasing antibiotic resistance. That's why even naysayers don't have evidence to back up their intuition (and they may be right, they just don't know).
It would be good to figure it out, though.