'NCC should check its facts before criticising British farming' says NOAH

'We are most concerned that the National Consumer Council Press Release dated 11 March 1998 could raise yet another unjustified food scare', said Roger Cook, Director of NOAH.

'It is particularly regrettable that an organisation supported by the British tax-payer is apparently seeking to inflame public anxiety while ignoring all the many good things being done by the Government to protect the public and restore confidence in British food.

For example in the UK we have long established, official, systems of monitoring food for pesticides and animal medicine residues - the results are published and are excellent'.

The press release and the report "Food Policies and our Food; the need for change" confuse four separate issues (see Notes) to produce the sensational headline "Ban Growth Promoting Antibiotics on Farms" which does not reflect the broad content of the Report or even the press release itself.

Antibiotics are essential for animal welfare, as they are for humans, to treat and prevent disease - healthy food comes from healthy animals - even antibiotic growth promoters assist by helping to control pathogens - as Sweden found when they removed them from their farms.

The report, which we have not yet been allowed to see, is produced by a European research organisation so its comments may not be relevant to food production in the UK. Judging from the press release it would appear to make a wide ranging criticism of almost anything used by farmers around the world to grow food - pesticides, antibiotics, fertilisers, even compound feedstuff - and yet our planet has to feed 100 million new mouths every year.

The NCC release confuses many issues. It could be accused of weaving a web of myths and legends to create another potential food scare. It claims that intensification of agriculture has blurred the three reasons for using antibiotics on the farm - this is untrue. It is legitimate to treat sick animals with antibiotics, as left untreated they could pose a public health risk. It is equally legitimate to use antibiotics to prevent disease as management and husbandry changes can not happen overnight. The use of a specially licensed group of antibiotics to improve the efficiency with which animals use their feed keeps local producers in business while reducing the environmental impact of their enterprise. If we do not allow local farmers to compete on the World stage we will end up importing all our food!

To make progress we have to identify the individual issues, clarify their significance and establish open communication throughout the food chain. We must not be expected to accept the 'politically correct' unless it is supported by science. Too much of the release is an uncritical restatement of old arguments which expose a real lack of understanding of these issues.

The four issues highlighted by NCC are:-

Issue 1. Foodborne disease. This is associated with all foods, not just meat. Indeed it has been associated with all farming systems, irrespective of how intensively the animal or crop is farmed. With one notable exception the bacteria involved in foodborne disease are sensitive to a wide range of antibiotics. Salmonella enteritidis (the most common isolate from man), E.coli O157: H7 and Campylobacter show little evidence of antibiotic resistance.

The rise in foodborne disease is a complex issue involving the whole food chain. It should not be blamed on farming practice, it is more a measure of how we are choosing to live our lives.

Issue 2. Antibiotic Resistance, especially in Salmonella typhimurium DT104. This issue may have been exaggerated since the infection rarely needs treatment and the Medical Profession still has a range of antibiotics available. This should not be seen as complacency as the infections is an avoidable problem with increased care in the food chain. The nature of Salmonella typhimurium resistance has remained essentially unchanged for nearly 15 years - indeed it is now more sensitive to antibiotics than it was in 1985. The veterinary profession has been fully aware of multiple resistant Salmonella throughout that time and has clearly been effective in preventing a deterioration in the picture. We must also be careful not to jump to conclusions about where this resistance may have been born. When the resistance patterns of S. typhimurium from animals were compared with clinical isolates from man they were different. There was no fluoroquinolone resistance in the animal isolates compared with 17% resistance in those recovered from human patients.

The charge that animal bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics which can be spread to man is a well rehearsed statement of a hazard. There is no evidence that this hazard actually poses a risk to a consumer. Since the earliest days of antibiotic registration this question has been posed in the 'Safety' section of the dossiers.

Issue 3. Growth Promoters. These fully licensed products have been used on farms for over thirty years. They are not involved with problems of foodborne disease or antibiotic resistance in Salmonella, E.coli etc.

Sweden claimed to have banned growth promoters in 1986 - this was achieved not by taking all the products off the market but by re-designating the leading growth promoter, olaquindox, as a therapeutic medicine. The claims of massive reductions in farm inputs of antibiotics can not be sustained. The figures on which they base these claims are the number of kilograms of antibiotic sold. This is a misleading figure because it gives no idea of the dose of the medicine needed to effect a cure. The reduction in the quantity of antibiotic used was not brought about by treating fewer animals rather it was achieved by using modern antibiotics with much lower dose rates. The reduction is an illusion! Indeed the number of tonnes of medicated feed has actually risen i.e. more Swedish animals are being fed medication.

Issue 4. CAP reform. With the removal of subsidies the European farmer will be exposed to World Market prices. If he is not efficient he will not survive. Two questions need to be asked "Does Europe want a competitive agricultural industry?" If yes then "what will be our attitude to the legitimate use of technology which is approved and widely used by Europe's competitors?" The CAP reform will lead to a greater need to farm competitively and efficiently thus driving forward the process of modernisation of farming. It is also worth noting that the two areas most commonly associated with antibiotic growth promoters - pigs and poultry - are not significantly affected by the CAP.

9 March 1998

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 which research, develop, manufacture and market licensed animal health products. The association now represents 53 companies which in 1997 accounted for around 95% of the £379 million UK animal health market, with additional valuable exports.