Glasgow vet students oppose growth promoter ban

Glasgow University veterinary students have voted overwhelmingly that the recent suspension of four digestive enhancers was not necessary to safeguard public health.

At a debate in Glasgow University on 27 April, Roger Cook, director of the National Office of Animal Health, supported by Dr David Taylor of Glasgow University, opposed the motion that: 'This House believes that the recent suspension of 4 antimicrobials as feed additives is a necessary precaution to safeguard public health'.

Mr Cook likened the suspension to the need to make the right diagnosis with a medical problem: "Faced with any medical problem, the correct diagnosis is essential. If it is not made, then the 'treatment' will fail and it could result in unpleasant side effects. Thus to solve the undoubted problem of antibiotic resistance in human medicine, we have to correctly identify the cause before taking action."

But a suspension was not, he believed, the right diagnosis, for four main reasons.

"Firstly, it implies that the 4 products have harmed public health. This is not supported by 40 years experience and failure to prove allegations," he said.

While admitting he was not a microbiologist, Mr Cook said that he found it hard to believe that the use of digestive enhancers caused problems for human medicine as, even though many have looked for evidence, no evidence had been found to prove resistance in animals.

"My amateur view was reinforced by the Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands (HAN) Foundation - a most eminent and independent group which said, in its report published in Paris 2 weeks ago:-'.........the human health risk concerning the use of antibiotic growth promoters can't be properly assessed for lack of data. .............. . So far, antibiotic growth promoters have not compromised the human therapeutic use of related antibiotics, nor have epidemiological data shown an increase of infectious diseases as a result of the use of antibiotic growth promoters.'" he said.

Secondly, he said: "This wrong diagnosis will have undesirable side effects for animals, farm competitiveness and the environment. Most importantly it interferes with the goal of healthy food from healthy animals, and so could actually harm public health."

The inclusion of animal medicines in-feed - so-called 'mass medication' had come under particular fire. "However", said Mr Cook: "it is important to remember that there are many positive, animal-friendly, reasons for supplying medicines in this way."

Thirdly, Mr Cook said that the suspension, by distracting from the need to identify the real cause of antibiotic resistance could prolong public health problems.

And finally, he said: "It is a political decision, over-riding the science based licensing system. This will cause damage to animal and human health by undermining industry confidence and deterring research and development into new, more effective, even safer animal medicines."

Moreover, he warned of three major concerns demonstrated by the antibiotics issue, but which threatened the availability of animal health products as a whole.

"The products banned by the EU in December were established products, backed by decades of safe use, manufactured and licensed in accordance with EU law. Furthermore they were about to enter the new, legally based, system of Product Specific Approval developed between industry and officialdom to give even greater protection to the public and animals.

"In addition, the EU process of banning these four gave no formal opportunity for the affected companies to give evidence or to appeal. Therefore a basic principle of natural justice was abandoned.

"The third concern must be the relationship between human and animal medicine. While human medicine must have priority, mankind also needs healthy food and animals also need medicines. A balance is needed; if not, if every time medical science fails then products are to be commandeered from veterinary medicine, then the future for animal welfare and livestock production will be bleak."

He called on the students, prospective veterinary surgeons who will need a good supply of medicines to carry out the duty of care to their animal patients, to oppose the motion. "The wider implications of the suspension of these four products could seriously jeopardise your professional futures," he concluded.

29 April 1999

Notes for Editors

1. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon at NOAH, tel. +44 (0)20 8367 3131, or visit the NOAH website.

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 has 34 corporate members and 10 associate members. In 1998 NOAH's members accounted for around 95% of the £384 million UK animal health market, with additional valuable exports.

3. The GUVMA debate took place on 27 April, at Glasgow University Veterinary School. Proposing the motion was Dr Ian Gould from Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and seconding it was Dr Neil Woodford from the Public Health Laboratory Service. Seconding the opposition was Dr David Taylor, from Glasgow University Veterinary School.

4. The Heidelberg Appeal Netherland Foundation report is entitled 'Emergence of a debate: AGPs and public health'. This independent study was carried out at the request of FEFANA and investigated the potential human health hazards related to the use of AGPs (antibiotic growth promoters) in animal feed. The study was conducted under the board of the HAN Foundation and an independent scientific supervisory committee. Further information from Dr J C Hanekamp, PO Box 75311, 1070 AH Amsterdam.

5. There are several welfare benefits to animals attributed to the administration of antibiotics in-feed: These include

   A - Freedom from stress - compared to injection or oral dosing, there is no stress to animals or staff - in major flocks individual dosing would be a mammoth exercise, probably resulting in injuries and death.

   B - Precision of application - due to the sophistication of modern feed mills and the design of diets.

   C - Universal suitability - while other systems, such as water medication, can be very effective in some units, only in-feed medication is equally appropriate to all sizes of unit and all types - intensive or extensive.