Precautionary Ban on Antibiotic Growth Promoters Not Backed by Scientific Data, Says Independent Scientific Foundation

An independent group of scientists from the Heidelberg Appeal Netherland Foundation (HAN) has stated that at present there is a lack of scientific evidence that digestive enhancers (antibiotic growth promoters) present a public health hazard.

The group of scientists, Drs. A. Bezoen, W. van Haren and J.C. Hanekamp, has conducted a comprehensive scientific literature study of published data assessing the risk to human health caused by antibiotic digestive enhancers used as feed additives in animal husbandry. The group has specifically analysed available data providing evidence for a possible transfer of antibiotic resistance in enterococci (the bacteria of concern) from animals to humans.

The group has concluded that direct evidence of resistance transfer from animals to humans is grossly lacking. Only one letter (a preliminary short article) has been published so far that claims factual transfer from animals to humans; an identical resistant Enterococcus strain found in a turkey and a farmer. Up till now this letter is the only one that describes identical strains in animals and humans. Moreover, it was not shown that this strain really colonised the human intestine.

"The proposed ban of antibiotic growth promoters is clearly not based on data showing animals as a major source of resistance within the human bacteria," says Dr. J.C. Hanekamp. "The gap between the need for some policy concerning the use of antibiotic growth promoters and the lack of factual data concerning direct resistance transfer from animals to humans is in this case bridged by the so-called 'precautionary principle'. However the precautionary principle, which is implicitly used to justify the proposed ban on antibiotic growth promoters, can only serve its function here when reasonable doubts concerning certain human health risks related to the use of antibiotic growth promoters is substantiated by hard scientific data. In this case, these data are unfortunately lacking," says Dr. J.C. Hanekamp.

"Yet data are imperative to come to a risk assessment of a more thorough nature," says Dr. J.C. Hanekamp.

"The results of the HAN study clearly shows that there is no direct scientific evidence, which could justify a ban of antibiotic growth promoters," says Dr. Robin Bywater, chairman of the Anti-infectives Working Group for the European animal health and nutrition industry associations, FEFANA and FEDESA. "A thorough risk assessment should be undertaken before an EU decision is made. It is particularly unfortunate that abrupt EU bans are being proposed contrary to findings of scientific EU committees and before vital surveillance data become available."

30 November 1998

Notes for Editors

1. For further comments contact:

   • Dr. J.C. Hanekamp, + 31 79 34 60 304
   • Dr. Robin Bywater, + 44 (0)1737 227402

2. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon at NOAH, tel. +44 (0)181 367 3131

3. The HAN Foundation (stichting Heidelberg Appeal Nederland) was established in 1993 and is an independent non-profit making alliance of scientists and science supporters. HAN's objective is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions, which are taken and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles. HAN has at present over 800 donors, including Nobel laureates and almost 200 professors.

4. 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.