Background Response to Soil Association, Press Release and Summary Report, published on 18 August 1999

To coincide with the publication of the report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, the Soil Association (the organic farming lobby) published a report of its own, backed up by a press release.

The two documents from the Soil Association are very misleading, based on a series of incorrect statements. They build a picture of UK livestock farming and veterinary practice which would be quite mystifying to anyone who actually knew the subject, and frightening for those that do not.

The Soil Association also imply that no consideration has been given to the use of antibiotics in animals by alleging that this is the first independent report for 30 years. Because of this and to provide you with a full picture, NOAH has produced the following background and critique of the Soil Association documents.

The first paragraph of each point is a specific reference to the claims made, followed by NOAH’s response.

Press Release

1. "We are facing a major epidemic of diseases which have developed multiple drug resistance. At least four of these arise directly as a result of the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture (strains of Salmonella, E.Coli, campylobacter and enterococci)"

Wrong on all counts and highly alarmist.

The Soil Association deliberately exaggerates the problem as it exists in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. We are not "facing a major epidemic of diseases" - the chairman of the ACMSF himself, Professor Georgala, said: "there is no crisis". And to say that at least four of these diseases arise directly as a result of overuse of antibiotics in agriculture is an absolute fabrication, and is contrary to statements made by, for example, the World Health Organisation. It is highly unlikely that ANY disease problems in man, caused by the organisms in question, has any direct causal link whatsoever with the use of any antibiotics in agriculture. The Soil Association is confusing the diseases (linked with food hygiene problems) with the antibiotic sensitivity - in most cases irrelevant to treatment.

Although there is no major epidemic there are problems in some specialist hospital units, but medical authorities and the World Health Organisation have repeatedly said this is ‘primarily’ a problem of misuse and overuse in human medicine. It is to help stop the progression of these problems that the medical and veterinary professions must work towards together.

With reference to the specific organisms mentioned, the following points can be made: Salmonella - seldom treated by antibiotics in human or animal medicine. E.Coli - the principle pathogen, E.coli 0157, is not antibiotic resistant. Campylobacter - seldom treated by antibiotics in human medicine, never in animals. There is a degree of resistance reported in the UK but until suitable typing systems are in place, to source the resistant organisms may prove problematic. Enterococci the EU Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition looked at all the evidence and found no hazard to human health, animal health or to the environment as a result of using the antibiotic in animals associated with enterococcal resistance. The UK Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) agreed with this assessment. The bacteria can provide a rare complication in immunocompromised patients.

2. "Bacterial resistance has now developed to all classes of antibiotics..... no new class has been developed in the last 30 years".

Wrong in fact and implication highly alarmist.

Although some individual strains of bacteria in some locations are resistant to some individual antibiotics, the implication of widespread resistance and a medical crisis is totally without foundation..

While it is true that there was a slackening of antibiotic research in the 1980s, this trend has been completely reversed in human medicine and massive research expenditure has been taking place for several years. The first fruits of this research are already in trial.

There are a number of highly promising new antibiotics for humans in development and there is no reason to think that the product Ziracin (everninomicin) is likely to be the "best new life saving drug we will see in the next decade".

3. "... the British Government, who despite reassuring words, has so far failed to take effective action..."

The British Government has responded by supporting the EU suspension of four valuable products, based on very flimsy evidence and against all valid scientific advice.

4. R. Young’s criticism of farmers for switching to avilamycin following the EU ban on four other antibiotic growth promoters:

This is particularly hypocritical of Mr Young - only last December he criticised the EU ban as too hasty: saying 6 months was not enough for farmers to change their production systems. Now he is criticising farmers for following the implications of his advice.

Last year the EU Commission investigated all the antibiotic growth promoters approved under EU law. They allowed avilamycin and 3 others to remain on the market because they were not used in human medicine, contrary to Soil Association propaganda. Avilamycin has been through the rigorous EU and UK (UK was rapporteur) approval process. It is the most modern molecule in the group to be approved.

It has been widely used in UK pigs and broilers for over 10 years - it is not something that has suddenly appeared, as the Soil Association implies.

The new human drug mentioned, Ziracin, is still very much on trial in the UK and other countries. All scientific evidence to date proves that the human bacteria for which it is designed to kill, are all fully sensitive, indicating that avilamycin use in animals over the past 10 years has not interfered with the development of the new product Ziracin. They are not identical compounds, Ziracin is far more potent as an antibiotic and will be used in man as an injectable rather that an oral antibiotic.

Report Summary - points additional to the press release

1. "It is 30 years since the publication of the last independent advisory committee report". ......The ACMSF report is the first to look into this issue since Swann"

Wrong, misleading and insulting to all those other groups who have reported.

In the last five years UK reports have come from The House of Lords Science & Technology Committee, The House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture and the VPC. International reports and conferences have included 2 from WHO, the Office Internationale Epizootique (OIE), the EU’s Scientific Steering Committee, Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition and CVMP (Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products), and at least 4 major ones in the USA.

2. "In the UK we have ............. no scheme to monitor resistance".

Wrong and misleading. UK is included in an EU and industry sponsored Commission Surveillance programme (an in-depth surveillance study for risk assessment underway in six European countries involving thousands of bacterial samples) and MAFF’s Chief Veterinary Officer’s system of surveillance of zoonoses has been expanded to include resistance monitoring. There is also comprehensive monitoring of resistance by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) at Colindale and other centres. The Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VLA) also is involved in monitoring of resistance on a national scale.

3. "Over-prescribing by veterinary surgeons caused the first multiple drug resistance in the UK".

Mystifying, neither NOAH nor the British Veterinary Association (BVA) can identify what they are referring to.

4. "Despite the bans on several growth promoting antibiotics the overall threat they pose has not been reduced"

The Soil Association must accept that the banned products presented no threat. Many have expended enormous effort, around the world, to try and prove a link between growth promoting antibiotics and resistance in human medicine - all have failed to prove a link.

The independent Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation report (1999) concluded ‘documented cases showing spread of antimicrobial resistant Gram positive bacteria from livestock to humans is in essence non-existent’.

The EU ban and other such recommendations have all been made on precautionary grounds, not on hard scientific evidence.

5. "The semi-commercialisation of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate"

Mystifying - while it is true that VMD, and its predecessor, obtain the majority of their income from licence fees paid by industry, many government agencies are funded in this way. The VMD is internationally respected for its impartiality and stringency.

6. Soil Association refers to some EU Member States giving help to pig and poultry producers. Are they aware that in Sweden, there was and is still a much higher usage of therapeutic antibiotics and Zinc Oxide? And in Denmark, pig and broiler producers are suffering from increased disease problems and loss of competitive advantage? The Soil Association are totally misguided on this point.

7. "Zinc bacitracin should be reinstated as a growth promoter" - we agree, - its suspension on the grounds of use in human therapy was never justified by the facts.

8. "Zinc bacitracin should not, however, be re-licensed as a therapeutic".

Misinformed - Zinc bacitracin is not used for animal therapy, and has no potential use in the control of hospital ‘superbugs’.

9. "A slaughter policy (should be) introduced for Salmonella typhimurium DT104, rather than treatment with antibiotics"

Misinformed - Salmonella infection in animals is seldom treated with antibiotics - a NOAH member company has introduced the first Salmonella vaccine for poultry.

10. "Advertising of any veterinary medicines, except to the veterinary profession, should become illegal"

Once again the Soil Association maligns and belittles UK farmers. Farmers are professionals with a moral and statutory duty to care for their animals - thus they need the latest information on all farm inputs, for example, vaccines and other preventative medicines etc. Soil Association seem to be implying that our farmers cannot be trusted with modern medicines.

As well as Advertising Standards Authority and legal constraints, the promotion of veterinary medicines is strictly controlled by a Code of Practice for the Promotion of Animal Medicines.

The Soil Association statement, taken in its wider context, would also have great implications in the education of companion animal and horse owner about available treatments and preventative measures for their animals.

11. "Key recommendations - the veterinary profession"

Soil Association make a series of recommendations, all of which will increase bureaucracy and do nothing to assist animal welfare or consumer safety. The clear implication is that, like their farmer customers, vets cannot be trusted either. Furthermore, the Soil Association’s recommendations display a crass ignorance of the existing controls on the sale, supply and prescribing of all animal medicines.

12. "Poor prescribing by vets should lead to retraining, excessive prescribing should result in prosecution".

The veterinary profession, like the medical profession is mindful of the need to closely examine its prescribing of antibiotics.

There is a veterinary code of practice on antibiotics in the UK, with more detailed species specific codes as add-ons. Globally, guiding principles have been agreed by WVA (World Veterinary Association)/IFAP (International Federation of Agricultural Producers)/COMISA (World Federation of the Animal Health Industry) and the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe has recently produced a European code.

There has been a European industry code of practice since 1996. In the UK last year, recognising the particular need to maintain the availability and efficacy of fluoroquinolones for both humans and animals, the industry developed an extra guide to the veterinary profession and animal medicine industry, on responsible use.

This guidance reiterates the importance of sticking to the letter of the law when using these products and in advertising their use. It highlights the role of therapeutic treatment within total health management such as vaccination and good animal care. And it clears up misconceptions surrounding their use: fluoroquinolones are not licensed for use as growth promoters and are not used in this manner. All fluoroquinolones used in the UK are under the control of the prescribing veterinary surgeon.

And the RUMA (Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture) alliance involves organisations representing every stage of the "farm to fork" chain, promoting a co-ordinated and integrated approach to best practice. Following 18 months work, this summer RUMA launched guidelines on the responsible use of antibiotics in pig and poultry: guidelines for cattle and sheep will be published soon. The overall aim is to promote best practice in livestock husbandry to reduce the need for antibiotic usage - working together in this way was a point recommended by the ACMSF itself (Chapter 8, par. 118).

Would Soil Association propose the same punishment of prosecution to the medical profession? WHO and House of Lords (and many others) have stated that the problem of resistance in human medicine is "primarily" the result of overuse and misuse in human treatment.

Soil Association’s attacks on all aspects of conventional farming have become increasingly frequent, increasingly strident and increasingly misinformed.

UK livestock farming needs to recover public confidence, but Soil Association’s increasingly intemperate outbursts will do just the reverse - for UK farming the Soil Association has become "the Enemy Within”"

Is it time for all those who value and respect the thousands of decent, hardworking, conventional farmers to ask whether membership of the Soil Association is compatible with membership of our mainstream farming organisations?

20 August 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.