| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
PRODUCTION, MODELING, AND EDUCATION: Review |
Department of Animal Science, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35413 Spain
1 Corresponding author: jrodriguez{at}dpat.ulpgc.es
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: antibiotic • growth promoter • antimicrobial • history • poultry feed
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the use of antibiotics as animal additives without veterinary prescription in 1951 (Jones and Ricke, 2003). Also in the 1950s and 1960s, each European state approved its own national regulations about the use of antibiotics in animal feeds.
European Regulation Concerning Additives in Animal Feeds
European harmonization of regulations concerning additives in feedingstuffs aimed the establishment and functioning of the common market for animal feeds, since national regulations of each member state differed as regards to their basic principles. Council Directive 70/524, published in the Official Journal L 270 of December 14, 1970, underlaid the basis principle of regulation: only those additives which are named in this Directive may be contained in feedingstuffs and only subject to the requirements set out herein.
The member states, within 2 yr following notification, brought into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive, and from November 25, 1972, additives, feedingstuffs containing additives and human foods from livestock fed additives were subject only to the marketing restrictions provided for in this Directive. This regulation also applied to other countries of the European Economic Area (Ice-land, Norway).
Recently, Directive 70/524 was replaced by Regulation 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on additives for use in animal nutrition. Regulation 1831/ 2003 stated that antibiotics, other than coccidiostats and histomonostats, might be marketed and used as feed additives only until December 31, 2005. Anticoccidial substances, such as antibiotics ionophores, also will be prohibited as feed additives before 2013. After this date, medical substances in animal feeds will be limited to therapeutic use by veterinary prescription. European legislation can be consulted in http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm
National Authorization Vs. European Authorization
Antibiotics permitted in the European feeds were listed in the annexes to Directive 70/524: annex I listed antibiotics without marketing restrictions in all the European Community, and annex II listed antibiotic that could be allowed by a state within its territory. When the use of certain additives authorized at national level had been widely tested, and the studies carried out and the experience gained indicated that these additives might be authorized throughout the Community for the uses specified, those additives were included in annex I. Annex II constituted therefore an intermediate stage in determining the inclusion of additives in the list of those permitted in the Community listed in the annex I. Annexes to Directive 70/524 were regularly amended in the light of scientific and technical knowledge.
|
ANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN POULTRY FEEDS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
and 2. Moreover, until December 3, 1986 (Directive 84/587) two authorized antibiotics could be mixed if they did not belong to the same chemical group.
|
|
Annex II to Directive 70/524 listed the following antibiotics: bacitracin manganese, neomycin, soframycin (or framicetin), hygromycin-B, tylosin, and erythromycin. These antibiotics could be permitted at national scale with the conditions stated by each state. However, Directive 76/296 withdrew approval for these products after June 30, 1976 (December 31, 1976 for hygromycin-B), except the use of erithromycine in feeds for fattening chicks, which was extended until the end of 1978 by Directive 78/58.
Other antibiotics which were later added to annex II to be used in feeds for poultry (excluding ducks, geese, and laying hens) up to 10 wk old were lincomycin (Directive 74/180, authorized until June 30, 1981) and bacitracin-methylene-disalicylate (Directive 75/267, until December 31, 1977). Also the following antibiotics were included in annex II to be used only in feeds for chickens for fattening: mocimycin (Directive 78/743, until November 30, 1983), nosiheptide (Directive 79/1011, until December 3, 1986) and ardacin (Directive 94/77, until November 30, 1997).
Antibiotics Listed in Annex I to Directive 70/524
Annex I to Directive 70/524 listed the additives permitted in feeds to be marketed in the Community: Member states could not restrict the marketing of the feeds containing these additives. The antibiotics initially listed in annex I to be included in poultry feeds (excluding ducks, geese, and laying hens) were tetracyclines (tetracycline, chlortetracycline, and oxytetracycline) and penicillins (penicillin-G-potassium, penicillin-G-sodium, and penicillin-G-procaine) in feeds for poultry up to 10 wk old. Also oleandomycin, spiramycin, virginiamycin, bacitracin zinc, and flavophospholipol were permitted in feeds for poultry up to 10 wk old, raised up to 16 wk (26 wk for turkey) by Directive 76/13. Bacitracin zinc was also permitted by Directive 75/267 in feeds for ducks at national level until the end 1978.
Later, virginiamycin, bacitracin zinc, and flavophospholipol were approved for use also in feeds for laying hens, at first at a national scale (Directives 83/266, 74/ 180, and 78/974, respectively) and finally they were included in annex I by Directive 88/616 (virginiamycin) and Directive 78/974 (bacitracin zinc and flavophospholipol).
Other antibiotics added to annexes to Directive 70/ 524 to be included in poultry feeds were avoparcin and avilamycin. These products were authorized in feeds for chickens for fattening, at first at the national level (Directives 76/603 and 90/412, respectively) and finally included in annex I by Directives 79/1011 and 95/37, respectively. These products were also permitted in feeds for turkeys for fattening: ardacin was included in annex I by Directive 82/91, and avilamycin was permitted by Directive 97/72 at a national scale until November 30, 1998.
|
THE EUROPEAN BANS OF ANTIBIOTICS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
The Former Bans
As soon as the 1970s, antibiotics from classes which were or might be used in human or veterinary medicine were transferred from annex I to annex II to phase them out after a certain period. It was the case of tetracyclines (Directive 73/264), penicillins (Directive 73/275), and oleandomycin (Directive 78/743), which were placed in annex II to be used only at a national scale in feeds for poultry. This national authorization was limited until June 30, 1976 (tetracyclines and penicillins) or September 30, 1979 (oleandomycin).
The Bans Proposed by Member States and the Sweden Case
A member state which, as a result of new information or of a reassessment of existing information made since the provisions in question were adopted, had detailed grounds for establishing that the use of one of the additives authorized at the Community scale constituted a danger to animal or human health or the environment could temporarily suspend the authorization to use that additive in its territory, and it should forthwith inform the Commission; member states should not, however, be able to have recourse to that power to hinder the free movement of the products. According the information provided by the state, a decision on the additive was taken.
Sweden prohibited in 1986 the use in feedingstuffs of additives belonging to the groups of antibiotics. When Sweden accessed in 1995 as a member of the European Union, it was authorized to maintain in force until December 31, 1998, its legislation before accession. Before that date, Sweden submitted applications, accompanied by detailed scientific grounds, for adjustments for the antibiotics authorized in the Community.
Also, other member states prohibited on their territories the use of some antibiotics in animal feedstuffs. Avoparcin was banned in Denmark (May 20, 1995) and Germany (January 19, 1996) arguing that this glycopeptide antibiotic produces resistance to glycopeptides used in human medicine, spiramycin was prohibited in Finland (January 1, 1998) because this product was used in human medicine, and virginiamycin was prohibited in Denmark (January 15, 1998) because 2 streptogramins were clinically important in human medicine.
As results of this national initiatives, Directive 97/6 withdrew approval for Avoparcin from 1 April 1997, and Regulation 2821/1998 banned spiramycin and virginiamycin from June 30, 1999. Regulation 2821/1998 also banned bacitracin zinc because its use in human medicine as treatment of infections of the skin.
The Last Ban
On January 1, 1999, Sweden applied the safeguard clause for the antibiotics still authorized as feed additives, including those still permitted in poultry feeds: flavophospholipol and avilamycin. The scientific ground submitted by Sweden, as well as the conclusions of the World Health Organization (1997) and of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union (1998), led to no longer to authorize the use of antibiotics as growth promoters: Regulation 1831/2003 stated that antibiotics, other than coccidiostats and histomonostats, might be marketed and used as feed additives only until December 31, 2005; as from January 1, 2006, those substances would be deleted from the Community Register of authorized feed additives.
|
EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE BAN |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
In other ways, the ban of growth promoters demands the improvement of the hygiene of farms. It was shown that under good production conditions it is possible to reach good and competitive production results for the rearing of poultry without the continuous use of antibiotics in feeds (Wierup, 2001; Engster et al., 2002; World Health Organization, 2002). Moreover, safer nonantimicrobial substances have been studied as alternatives for replacing antibiotics to interact with the intestinal microflora, including enzymes (Bedford, 2000; Hruby and Cowieson, 2006), prebiotics, and probiotics (Patterson and Burkholder, 2003; Kocher, 2006), or acidification of diets (Ricke, 2003; Diebold and Eidelsburger, 2006).
Finally, the ban of antibiotics in animal feeds will have consequences in the international trade of poultry meat because the European Union only imports foods obtained from animals that were not fed with antibiotics, in application of the precaution principle allowed by the World Trade Organization. However, because concern is rising that drug-resistant pathogens could be transmitted to humans via the food-chain (World Health Organization, 2003, 2004), it is expected that the use of antimicrobials in animal production will decrease in further years, at least in those farms with better hygiene conditions.
Received for publication June 15, 2007. Accepted for publication July 30, 2007.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONANTIBIOTIC ADDITIVES THAT WERE...THE EUROPEAN BANS OF...EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE...REFERENCES |
|---|
Casewell, M., C. Friis, E. Marco, P. McMullin, and I. Phillips. 2003. The European ban on growth-promoting antibiotics and emerging consequences for human and animal health. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:159–161.
Dibner, J. J., and J. D. Richards. 2005. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poult. Sci. 84:634–643.
Diebold, G., and U. Eidelsburger. 2006. Acidification of diets as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoters. Pages 311–327 in Antimicrobial Growth Promoters: Where Do We Go From Here? D. Barug, J. de Long, A. K. Kies, and M. W. A. Verstegen, ed. Wageningen Acad. Publ., Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Donoghue, D. J. 2003. Antibiotic residues in poultry tissues and eggs: Human health concerns? Poult. Sci. 82:618–621.
Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. 1998. Opinion on resistance to antibiotics as a threat to public health. No. ESC-98-016-EN. http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\anciennes_sections\envi\envi471\ces1118-1998_ac.doc&language=EN Accessed Jun. 2007.
Engster, H. M., D. Marvil, and B. Stewart-Brown. 2002. The effect of withdrawing growth promoting antibiotics from broiler chickens: A long-term commercial industry study. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 11:431–436.
Hruby, M., and A. J. Cowieson. A. J. 2006. The role of enzymes and betaine in antibiotic growth promoter free nutrition. Pages 269–287 in Antimicrobial Growth Promoters: Where Do We Go From Here? D. Barug, J. de Long, A. K. Kies, and M. W. A. Verstegen, ed. Wageningen Acad. Publ., Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Jones, F. T., and S. C. Ricke. 2003. Observations on the history of the development of antimicrobials and their use in poultry feeds. Poult. Sci. 82:613–617.
Kocher, A. 2006. Interfacing gut health and nutrition: The use of dietary prebiotics and probiotics to maximise growth performance in pigs and poultry. Pages 289–310 in Antimicrobial Growth Promoters: Where Do We Go From Here? D. Barug, J. de Long, A. K. Kies, and M. W. A. Verstegen, ed. Wageningen Acad. Publ., Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Niewold, T. A. 2007. The nonantibiotic antiinflammatory effect of antimicrobial growth promoters, the real mode of action? A hypothesis. Poult. Sci. 86:605–609.
Patterson, J. A., and K. M. Burkholder. 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci. 82:627–631.
Ricke, S. C. 2003. Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials. Poult. Sci. 82:632–639.
Wierup, M. 2001. The Swedish experience of the 1986 year ban of antimicrobial growth promoters, with special reference to animal health, disease prevention, productivity, and usage of antimicrobials. Microb. Drug Resist. 7:183–190.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
World Health Organization. 1997. The medical impact of the use of antimicrobials in food animals: Report of a WHO meeting, Berlin, Germany. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1997/WHO_EMC_ZOO_97.4.pdf Accessed Jun. 2007.
World Health Organization. 2002. Impacts of antimicrobial growth promoter termination in Denmark. Foulum, Denmark. http://www.who.int/salmsurv/en/Expertsreportgrowthpromoterdenmark.pdf Accessed Jun. 2007.
World Health Organization. 2003. First joint FAO/OIE/WHO expert workshop on non-human antimicrobial usage and antimicrobial resistance: Scientific assessment. Geneva, Switzerland. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_CDS_CPE_ZFK_2004.7.pdf Accessed Jun. 2007.
World Health Organization. 2004. Second joint FAO/OIE/ WHO expert workshop on non-human antimicrobial usage and antimicrobial resistance: Management options. Oslo, Norway. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_CDS_CPE_ZFK_2004.8.pdf Accessed Jun. 2007.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. E. J. Searle, A. Best, A. Nunez, F. J. Salguero, L. Johnson, U. Weyer, A. H. Dugdale, W. A. Cooley, B. Carter, G. Jones, et al. A mixture containing galactooligosaccharide, produced by the enzymic activity of Bifidobacterium bifidum, reduces Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection in mice J. Med. Microbiol., January 1, 2009; 58(1): 37 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Powers and R. Angel A Review of the Capacity for Nutritional Strategies to Address Environmental Challenges in Poultry Production Poult. Sci., October 1, 2008; 87(10): 1929 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
