The end of antibiotic growth promoters – some Questions & Answers The questions:The Answers:Q: When did antibiotic growth promoters stop being used in the UK? A: There has been a gradual phase out, but use stopped completely on 31 December 2005. Back to top...
Q: In which other countries will use stop? A: The decision taken to stop using AGPs affects the whole EU. Back to top...
Q: Why have AGPs been used? A: The use of growth-promoting antibiotics has made a significant contribution to keeping EU production costs competitive, by shortening finishing times, lowering feed conversion rates, improving performance by promoting better condition and vitality, reducing death rates and reducing the need for therapeutic treatment. Their use has always been optional: meat produced without the use of antibiotic growth promoters has been produced to satisfy consumer choice. Back to top...
Q: Why has this use been stopped? A: There has been a change in policy in Europe towards the use of antibiotics in this way, following concern expressed by some on the potential hazard to human health, in particular in relation to antibiotic resistance . In addition some consumers prefer to eat meat from animals that have not been medicated with growth promoters. The group in which AGPs were authorized has been removed from European legislation effectively banning the products as from the beginning of 2006. Back to top...
Q: Is there scientific evidence to support the ban of AGPs A: No, that is why the use was able to be phased out until a final stop at the end of December 2005. If there had been real health concerns, the Commission would have insisted on use stopping immediately. Back to top...
Q: Have any previously been banned and what has been the effect? A: Yes, there have been products banned before. Some producers will have switched to an AGP which remained on the market then: others will have stopped using them. What is the position outside the EU? Legislation has always been different, but use is regulated. Back to top...
Q: Is meat imported from these countries? A: Yes. Back to top...
Q: What does NOAH think of the ban? A: NOAH regrets the decision, which was not made on the basis of scientific assessment. However, NOAH also supports upholding of the law, and industry has been working with producers to help make a successful switch away from AGPs. The ban did not mean an overnight wholesale change in production - at the time of the ban around 85% poultry meat was already produced without AGPs and there had been a strong move towards this in pig production too. Back to top...
Q: Why have companies lobbied in favour of continued AGP use? A: Companies support science as a basis for decisions on whether a product should or shouldn’t be placed on or remain on the market. That said, companies do not support illegal use and will co-operate in every way to ensure this does not happen. Back to top...
Q: How and why do AGPs work? A: The intestines of all animals, even humans, are populated by bacteria. Some aid digestion and some release toxins which damage the gut wall. The damaging bacteria compete with the useful bacteria and reduce the conversion of feed into elements which can be absorbed through the gut wall. Some of the damaging bacteria are able to produce toxins which inflame the gut, increasing gut movement which can lead to diarrhoea – which means that digestion is reduced and food is wasted. Growth-promoting antibiotics help control the numbers of undesirable bacteria in the intestine and allow better absorption of nutrients: all this creates a bacterial balance within the intestinal microflora. This means that animals stay healthy and produce consistently wholesome and high-quality meat products to the consumer at an affordable price. Back to top...
Q: How will diseases be treated following the ban? A: Exactly the same as before! Antibiotics to treat disease are only available on prescription from a veterinary surgeon. Back to top...
Q:Will the therapeutic use of antibiotics increase following the ban? A: Experience in other countries such as Denmark, which stopped using AGPs in advance of the EU deadline, showed an increase in the use of therapeutic antibiotics once AGPs were withdrawn. This was because, although AGPs were not licensed to treat or prevent disease, they have played an important role in maintaining a healthy gut flora in those animals who were given them. In the UK we have had the benefit of a phased withdrawal, with no need for the farmer to make an overnight switch. There are figures published on the volumes of antimicrobials (see www.vmd.gov.uk). Early indications seem to show, as the phase out has started, that there has not been a commensurate large increase in therapeutic use. That said, organisations such as RUMA (Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance) have produced guidelines on responsible antibiotic use, effectively aiming to reduce the need to use them (see www.ruma.org.uk). However, it must be remembered that rational antibiotic use is not intrinsically wrong. Therapeutic antibiotics are prescribed by vets only when necessary to treat bacterial disease and play a vital role in stopping the suffering of sick animals. Back to top...
Q: What effect will a ban have on: - The economics of farming food production?
- The price of food?
- Animal welfare?
A: It is not really appropriate for NOAH to comment on the economics of production and price to the consumer - we do not have first-hand knowledge. For comments on production contact British Poultry Council, National Pig Association or National Farmers Union. For comments on the retail aspect contact British Retail Consortium. The fact that AGPs are no longer used should have no direct effect on animal welfare, but animals will still need to be monitored carefully for signs of disease. Welfare standards will remain the same: there may be some changes in practice required to achieve them. Back to top...
Q: What about antibiotic resistance? A: All the available evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics in animals has had little or no impact on the incidence of antibiotic resistance in human infections with bacteria such as enterococci, known to be carried by animals. For further information see NOAH briefing document 11 - Antibiotic Resistance. Back to top...
Q: What are the implications of antibiotic resistance to hospital acquired infections (MRSA)? A: Removing AGPs will have no effect. Back to top...
Q: What do retailers think of the ban? A: Retailers have been able to offer consumers a choice of livestock produce - AGPs have helped to produce affordable meat at consistent good quality that many consumers have wanted. Again the British Retailers Consortium would be the best source of comment. Back to top...
Q: What do vets think of the ban? A: Vets, particularly those in specialist areas such as poultry and pig vets have been working with their farmer clients to ensure that the phase out of AGPs has been as smooth as possible. Contact the British Veterinary Association for more information. Back to top...
Q: Do veterinary surgeons make money from antibiotics? A: Vets made no money from AGPs. The veterinary surgeon’s fee includes a charge for professional consultation irrespective of the medicines, or no medicines, prescribed. The BVA and its specialist divisions have been very actively involved in drafting the RUMA guidelines which aim to reduce the need for antibiotics, as well as best practice when they are used. The BVA will be able to comment further. Back to top...
Q: What do the welfare organisations think of an AGP ban? A: Welfare organisations are represented on RUMA: contact RSPCA for comment. Back to top...
Q: Are antimicrobials used in organic farming? A: Yes. Regardless of the type of husbandry, all domestic animals can get sick and may require treatment with antibiotics: organic standards make express provision for such circumstances. Back to top... | 