NOAH finds WHO antimicrobial report good in parts

The National Office of Animal Health has found much to support in the new report from the World Health Organisation on its meeting on the medical impact of the use of antimicrobials (antibiotics) in animals. But it could not approve of any decision to curtail animal antimicrobial use without the proper risk/benefit analysis that the report itself recommends. NOAH emphasises that the report is a commentary on the world situation - any national response should start with an appreciation of the controls already in place.

The experts, predominantly from the medical microbiological world, gathered in Berlin in October and confirmed that 'antimicrobials are vital medicines for the treatment of bacterial infections in both humans and animals'. They also recognised they are 'important for sustainable livestock production'. They believed there was 'little doubt' that the bacterial resistance problems in medical practice were in general '.. primarily related to the prescribing practices of health workers and to medication-taking practices of patients' and recommended close co-operation between all sectors involved in antibiotic use.

'We are pleased that this report acknowledges the benefits of antibiotics for animals but were disappointed to see the repetition of many controversial assertions,' said NOAH director Roger Cook. 'We will need to examine the recommendations in detail to ascertain the real threat to animal welfare, farm economics and food prices if products are to be removed from the market for no good reason. The WHO missed the opportunity here to carry out the risk/benefit analysis that their own recommendations clearly require,' he said.

He agreed that these precious products should be used prudently in both animals and humans. 'The report reviews the worldwide situation: happily many of its recommendations are anticipated by the controls that have been in place in the UK for many years. All UK animal medicines, including all antibiotics, have been evaluated and licensed by the UK competent authorities according to the Medicines Act 1968 (and subsequent EU legislation) which also regulates prescribing and distribution. Record keeping and residue monitoring are also part of EU law and the published UK results show the responsibility with which the UK veterinary profession and farmers use antibiotics' said Mr Cook.

The report also recommended the need for monitoring of resistance. NOAH endorses this recommendation, noting that this too has been anticipated in the EU, with a large surveillance programme already being undertaken by the feed additive companies with the European Commission. 'There is a need to continually update what is really happening', said Mr Cook. 'Any decision on feed additives should await the result of this study, so that decisions can be based on fact rather than suspicion'.

'The UK Government has a commitment to animal welfare and to consumers,' said Mr Cook. 'The proper and careful use of antibiotics in animals, both for therapy and as dietary enhancers, is crucial to both these ends.'

15 December 1997

Notes for Editors

1. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon at NOAH, tel. +44 (0)181 367 3131
2. The National Office of Animal Health was formed on 1 January 1986 to represent the UK companies that research, develop, manufacture and market licensed animal health products. The association represents 57 companies which in 1996 accounted for around 95% of the £344 million UK animal health market.
3. The WHO report "The medical impact of the use of antimicrobials in food animals" is available on the Internet on http://www.who.ch/programmes/emc/zoo/oct97.pdf