Poultry
xClose

Loading ...
Swine
xClose

Loading ...
Dairy & Ruminant
xClose

Loading ...
Aquaculture
xClose

Loading ...
Feed
xClose

Loading ...
Animal Health
xClose

Loading ...
Functional Additives
Friday, November 01, 2013 2:41:06 AM
Print this articleForward this article


Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production: an international regulatory and economic survey


Dina Fine Maron, Tyler JS Smith, and Keeve E Nachman

 


Background: The administration of antimicrobial drugs to food animals at low doses for extended durations for growth promotion and disease prevention has been linked to the global health crisis of antimicrobial resistance. Internationally, multiple jurisdictions have responded by restricting antimicrobial use for these purposes, and by requiring a veterinary prescription to use these drugs in food animals. Opponents of these policies have argued that restrictions have been detrimental to food animal production where they have been adopted.


Methods: We surveyed the antimicrobial use policies of 17 political jurisdictions outside of the United States with respect to growth promotion, disease prevention, and veterinary oversight, and reviewed the available evidence regarding their production impacts, including measures of animal health. Jurisdictions were included if they were a top-five importer of a major US food animal product in 2011, as differences between the policies of the US and other jurisdictions may lead to trade barriers to US food animal product exports. Jurisdictions were also included if information on their policies was publicly available in English. We searched the peer-reviewed and grey literatures and corresponded with jurisdictions' US embassies, regulators, and local experts.


Results: Jurisdictions were categorized by whether they prohibit use of antimicrobials for growth promotion and/or use of antimicrobials without a veterinary prescription. Of the 17 jurisdictions surveyed, six jurisdictions have prohibited both types of use, five jurisdictions have prohibited one use but not the other use, and five jurisdictions have not prohibited either use, while information was not available for one jurisdiction. Data on the production impacts of these prohibitions were limited, although available data, especially from Denmark and Sweden, suggest that restrictions on growth promotion use can be implemented with minimal production consequences.


Conclusions: A majority of leading US trade partners have more stringent policies regarding antibiotic use and veterinary oversight in food animal production. Available data suggest that restrictions on growth promotion may not be detrimental to production in the long run, although additional research could be useful. There is evidence that discordance between the US and other jurisdictions with respect to antimicrobial use in food animals may be detrimental to US access to export markets for food animal products. The available economic evidence strengthens the rationale for restricting antimicrobial use in US food animals.

 


For more of the article, please click here.


Article made possible through the contribution of Maron et al., Globalization and Health, and BioMed Central.

Share this article on FacebookShare this article on TwitterPrint this articleForward this article
Previous
My eFeedLink last read