'More light and less heat' on animal antibiotic use

The National Office of Animal Health calls today for rational, science based decisions over the use of antibiotics in animals.

As the House of Lords' report on antibiotic resistance is debated, NOAH director Roger Cook echoes its words. "The report said that the arguments were 'being conducted in conditions of some heat and inadequate light'. This is certainly the case in Brussels, where an EU Commission proposal to ban four antibiotic digestive enhancers by 1 January 1999 is totally premature in the light both of existing stringent controls and the extensive scientific enquiries being carried out on animal antibiotic use," said Mr Cook.

The House of Lords report, issued in April 1998, did not disclose any evidence that there is a link between the use of antibiotics in animals and resistance in man, but emphasised the need for prudence in their use. "We whole-heartedly support that view," said Mr Cook. "Stringent controls are already in place. In accordance with EU law, the sale and supply of antibiotics is strictly controlled by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and antibiotics included in feed are policed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. To achieve authorisation under EU law products must be safe for consumers, the environment and the animal."

A Europe-wide Code of Practice on animal antibiotic use was introduced by the animal health industry in 1996. Since the House of Lords enquiry the British Veterinary Association and specialist livestock divisions, and NOAH, have published a series of guidelines promoting responsible use of antibiotics.

Mr Cook said "We support the position taken by successive governments and reinforced by the present administration that decisions on these matters must be based on scientific evidence and done in accordance with the law. Both the UK and EU authorities have put studies in place to help provide the scientific evidence that is currently lacking. In the UK the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has been conducting an investigation for over eighteen months and will report shortly. In parallel, expert committees of the European Commission itself are conducting their own enquiries."

There is also an antibiotic resistance surveillance programme being undertaken throughout Europe involving 14,400 samples. It is the largest study of its kind and the results will be known within two years.

"It would be premature and wrong for the UK Government or the EU Commission to come to any policy conclusion until this information is available and would be against the interest of British agriculture and consumers. At a time when the livestock industry is in serious difficulty it would be wrong to deny British farmers access to resources to compete in the supply of safe and healthy food. In April, the Lords' report said that use of digestive enhancers was 'considered to make the difference between profit and loss'. This now could mean the difference between a British pig and poultry industry and none," said Mr Cook.

NOAH is also concerned that even these expert groups are working on a narrow remit of antibiotic resistance and may not be considering either the undoubted benefits of such products to animal welfare, environmental protection and farm competitiveness, nor the potentially harmful effects of the alternatives. "There is a need for independent risk/benefit analyses before any decisions are made which society may come to regret," said Mr Cook.

16 November 1998

Notes for Editors

1. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon, 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.
3. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report on Resistance to Antibiotics and other Antimicrobial Agents was published on 23 April 1998. The debate takes place on 16 November in the House of Lords.
4. An EU DGVI proposal from Commissioner Franz Fischler proposed a ban on the four digestive enhancers spiramycin, tylosin, virginiamycin and zinc bacitracin, by 1 January 1999. This was discussed at the Standing Committee for Animal Nutrition on 12 November, and will be considered at future meetings.
5. A ban on digestive enhancers would have a number of negative effects, including
   • a decrease in animal welfare. Digestive enhancers help prevent infections; removing them would result in increased disease and mortality in animals
   • Increasing costs for pig and poultry production. For example, it has been estimated that the feed saved through using digestive enhancers give a benefit of between 72p and over £2/pig, which is worth up to £36 million to the pig industry in the British Isles
   • More expensive meat and poultry for consumers, which could result in imports from countries with less controlled products
   • Negative environmental effects. The estimated effects of a ban on digestive enhancers include: 7 million cubic metres more manure/year in Europe (enough to cover the centre of Birmingham 1 metre deep). In this waste would be 78 000 additional tonnes of nitrogen and 15 140 tonnes of phosphorus.