The body representing animal medicines manufacturers says that some recommendations in a Government commissioned report into tackling the threat of antimicrobial resistance may actually make matters worse.
The Review on Microbial Resistance (AMR) was commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron, following warnings that growing resistance to antibiotics posed a threat to human health.
The review has been being carried out under the chairmanship of economist Jim O’Neill, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
And it says that farmers need to reduce or cut the use of antibiotics.
Dawn Howard, chief executive of the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) says she agrees that the issue of antimicrobial resistance needs to be addressed.
But she is not convinced that some of the recommendations in the O’Neill report will have the desired effect and feels they may do more harm.
“Overall I can understand where Government is coming from. And, actually, it is a very good story; we have a very good situation here,” Dawn told FarmingUK.
“The UK Government has recognised that antimicrobial resistance is a global problem. The Prime Minister has commissioned Lord O’Neill, who is an economist, got a team from the Treasury, to look at this in more detail as a world issue.
“So we are seen to be leading from the front here. In his report some of his recommendations from that were looking at global targets for reduction of use of antibiotics in agriculture.
“I think we want to be very cautious here that we don’t have a knee-jerk reaction.
“I can understand that going for a global reduction target is attractive because it is easy to understand, but it is a much more complex situation behind that.
“It may well be that just by going for a global reduction target it then drives vets to prescribing certain products whereas in the past they may have prescribed something else – and you are actually going to drive resistance more quickly down that route.
“So it is something that producers certainly need to be concerned about.”
When the review team produced its report, it recommended that antibiotic use in agriculture should be reduced and, in some cases, banned completely.
“I find it staggering that in many countries, most of the consumption of antibiotics is in animals rather than humans,” said Jim O’Neill at the time.
Human antibiotic use more than double
NOAH responded to this by saying that UK data showed that, when adjusted for population and weight, human use of antibiotics was more than double the animal use of antibiotics.
NOAH says it wants to limit the development of antimicrobial resistance by promoting responsible use of antibiotics in order to preserve them for future generations.
But Dawn Howard said there were times when vets needed to use antibiotics for the welfare of the animals under their care.
“Antibiotics are really important because, as everyone recognises, animal health and welfare is really important to ensure you have got an efficient farming system and you are able to deliver a safe product to the consumer.
“At NOAH we are part of RUMA (the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance) and the key word is as much as is necessary, as little as possible. So it is responsible use.
“There are always going to be situations where, however well managed a poultry unit is, there is going to be some disease incursion, there is a problem, and the vet decides that those birds need to be treated with antibiotics.
“Otherwise you are going to have really critical welfare problems and in some cases bird death,” said Dawn.
“Sometimes people say, ‘Surely your members just want to sell more antibiotics.’ That’s not the case these days.
“Now, it’s a case of they want the products to be used responsibly. Long term it is most important for my members that those products retain their efficacy for as long as possible.
“We want farmers to have access to the products for as long as possible.
“If we are going to be facing a future with restrictions, with potential bans in some areas, we want there to be time so that products can still be used whilst new things are developed – new types of treatments, potentially new antibiotics.
“There is the potential to develop more, but we need the time to do that.”
Strong case to use fewer antibiotics
At the time Lord O’Neill published his recommendations, the United Kingdom’s chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, said there was a strong case for farmers using fewer antibiotics.
He said the report offered a compelling case. “We must prevent unnecessary use in animal production and minimise the incidence of disease that would necessitate the use of antibiotics,” he said.
“This will not only reduce the potential risk to humans but also the risk to animal health and welfare of the development of resistance in bugs that cause disease only in animals,” he said.
“Such a change will need to be founded on good standards of animal husbandry and disease prevention, which will also lead to additional benefits in improved productivity.”
The O’Neill report suggested that, whilst global targets needed to be set for a reduction in the use of antibiotics in farming, individual countries should decide on ways to achieve such targets.
It recommended that targeted reductions should be pursued over the coming 10 years.
Dawn Howard sought to reassure farmers by pointing out that no antibiotics had yet been banned.
“All products are still available for use. In the future we may be facing a situation where the regulator may decide to look at some products and re-examine whether they should be restricted in their use for certain cases, certain instances of disease, or in certain sectors, but that is something for the future.
“We don’t know about that at the moment. At the moment all products are available.
For now, she said, farmers should continue to work with their vets to decide on the best treatment for their animals.
“Don’t forget that all antibiotics are only available through a veterinary prescription.”
Farmers and vets together would decide on the most suitable course of treatment for any health problem.
