NOAH regrets antibiotic ban

The National Office of Animal Health is very unhappy about the EU Council of Ministers' decision to suspend the use of four digestive enhancers.

In particular, it regrets that the six month transition period was not extended to give enough time for farmers to adapt - and to allow EU scientific studies already in progress to be concluded.

'We are extremely disappointed that even our UK Minister ignored the good scientific arguments from manufacturers - and the farming community - in favour of a longer transition,' said NOAH director Roger Cook.

The EU's own Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition (SCAN) has also recognised that there is no evidence to support a ban. Professor Michael Pugh, a member of SCAN, has stated the Commission's "proposal to ban is contrary to scientific evidence" and that "there is not yet any evidence which proves that these substances have caused adverse effects to humans and therefore the proposal for an immediate ban is disproportionate".

Ironically, imports of meat produced outside the EU using these products will not be banned. 'If there were real public health implications, the EU would have no qualms about banning imports,' said Mr Cook.

'Once more, politics have over-ridden science. There is no scientific justification for this hasty action; indeed, we understand it runs contrary to the UK Government's own scientific advice which recommends a phase-out of 12 months,' he added.

NOAH recognises the need for responsible use of animal medicines and has been working with others in the food chain towards reducing the need for antibiotics in animal production, through the RUMA Alliance. 'Even the recent report by the organic farming lobby, the Soil Association, recognised the value of antibiotics for treating sick animals, yet, by manipulating information, has set the scene for a campaign to deprive farm animals of their benefits.

The public health implications of this cannot continue to be overlooked.

Thanks to the inevitable health and mortality consequences (as experienced already in Sweden and Denmark), veterinary surgeons will be obliged to increase use of more potent therapeutic antibiotics directly equivalent to those used in human medicine - this will increase the likelihood of resistance developing.

Alternative, unlicensed materials will be promoted to farmers. Not only do many of these have their own antimicrobial properties - and hence resistance implications - but they will not have been through any licensing process. The result will be to replace proven, licensed products with unknown and unquantified risks to human and animal health.

Assuming the predicted damage to the UK pig and poultry industry does occur, then the collapse will inevitably force retailers to purchase pig and poultry meat from outside the EU where controls are less strict and the banned products will still be in use.

Animal health in the future could also be affected. 'This ban, on unscientific grounds, will only add to companies' unease about future investments in animal medicines for the EU,' said Mr Cook.

15 December 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.
3. There will be a suspension of the four digestive enhancers spiramycin, tylosin, virginiamycin and zinc bacitracin, with a six month phase-out starting on 1 January 1999
4. The ban also pre-empts two key scientific investigations which are currently underway:
   • The Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee, set up by DGXXIV to investigate the relationship between the use of antimicrobials in human and veterinary medicine, animal husbandry, and plant protection is due to report in March 1999.
   • A key aspect to the Commission proposal to suspend these products until year 2000 is the joint EU/industry surveillance programme to monitor resistant bacteria. However, this contains a major inconsistency. If the products are not in use then the surveillance programme will be meaningless. The surveillance programme extends to December 1999.