NOAH Slams Which? Report

The National Office of Animal Health has condemned the Which? Report "Antibiotics in food" as alarmist, shallow and dangerous.

"Which? has wasted a great opportunity to put the full facts before the British public," says NOAH director Roger Cook. "Instead, its report is unbalanced and the authors do not seem to have thought through the consequences of their conclusions."

In January 1997, the Consumers Association submitted a draft of its report to NOAH for comment.

"Unfortunately, few if any of our comments have been incorporated," says Cook.

The report refers to "overuse" of antibiotics on farms and alleges this can often be linked "to problems of multi resistance." No evidence is given to support this. In fact, NHS spending on antibiotics is more than three times the level of spend on antibiotic treatments for all types of pets, sporting and farm animals in the UK.

The report asserts "The controls surrounding such use are not tough enough." Again, this is not substantiated. In fact, since 1968 antibiotics available in the UK for animal use must have been licensed under the Medicines Act. Therapeutic and prophylactic use is permitted only on veterinary prescription. Furthermore, as the report accurately notes, "in the UK no antibiotic used to treat humans can be used as a growth promoter in animals".

The report cites the 1986 Swedish ban on the use of growth promoting antibiotics in animal feed as evidence that controls should go further. In fact, it conveniently ignores all the evidence of problems resulting from that ban - increased animal suffering and death, increased use of potent therapeutic antibiotics to try to solve these problems, increased financial subsidies by the Swedish taxpayer for Sweden's livestock farmers (27% higher than in the rest of the EU). These points are further dealt with in Professor Viaenes's report: summary attached.

Which? claims that doubts alone, rather than scientific evidence, are sufficient reason to ban a product: "if there is any doubt that the use of an antibiotic in animals could render it ineffective in humans, then it should be banned." This flies in the face of the science behind the licensing system.

An unjustified ban, as the Swedish experience shows, could increase animal suffering, increase disease and increase the risk of disease passing from animal to humans. Such a ban could also increase the price consumers pay for food and increase environmental damage - an antibiotic-free regime demands more animals, more feed and disposal of more dung and more urine to produce the same quantity of food.

NOAH is pleased to agree with one point hidden in the report - that controls are better in the UK and that there is a greater risk to consumers from imported food.

"How very sad," said Roger Cook, "that the Consumers' Association could not bring itself to publicise the positive message: 'British Food is safe'.

7 March 1997