A few key takeaways from the study.
This is the first time the research has been done. We've got no baseline or trend, just a one-time measurement. Further monitoring would be a Very Good Idea[tm].
There's no indication of bacterial load, or of bacteria present in prepared (cooked) product. The health impacts are not clear, though eating raw meat doesn't sound like a great idea.
There's little comparison of differences between hormone/antibiotic treated meat and organic/untreated meats. Except that the study included beef, pork, and poultry. Poultry has been antibiotic-free in the US since the 1970s.
Cross-contamination in handling (based on the bacteria being inside the meat) seems unlikely. This also suggests that the bacteria are endemic in existing beef/pork/poultry populations.
CAFO (consolidated animal feed operations, a/k/a feedlots) are implicated, though there's no direct correlation from the study (common sense strongly suggests to me that CAFOs aren't sustainable or hygenic though).
Pigs are very similar to humans, and the thought of antibiotic-resistant strains being common in swine is pretty troubling. There's movement on limiting antibiotics for pork: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/us/15farm.html
There's no final public-health outcome conclusion of the study. Possible mechanism/issue, but given good food-handling and prep practices, likely limited end risk.