wg 7 antibiotics and veterinary drugs in...
TRANSCRIPT
WG 7 Antibiotics and veterinary drugs in foodWG 7 Antibiotics and veterinary drugs in food
22.06.2012 Andreas Hoehl
Who are we? And what happened so far?
WG Members AUTH: Panagiotis Tassis, Eleni Tzikag ,VEF: Estella Prukner‐Radovcic, Danijela HorvatekFERA: Miles ThomasVTT: Maria Saarela, Hanna‐Leena AlakomiNS: Geert Bruggemann
ContentAbstract IntroductionAntibiotic residues (EU, import)Antibiotic resistanceAl i ibi iAlternatives to antibiotics
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin II
Veterinary drug residues ‐ An overview
Imported food
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin III
Problems with veterinary drugs in imported produce
CrustaceansOrigin Principally from the far east
>30%: India Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Thailand
Main issues Nitrofurans group, chloramphenicole, leucomalachite
Honey Not related to one region, global problemOrigin China, Argentina, Turkey, Mexico 2/3 of EU import
potential serious problemb lk f ifi ibulk of notifications
Main issues Argentina: chloramphenicolChi l ft th i l iChina: large range; often erythromycin or leucomycinTurkey: sulphonamide groupMexico: streptomycin
BeefOrigin Americas, Brazil (only 14% of EU beef import)Main issues Ivermectin from Brazil
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin IV
Main issues Ivermectin from Brazil
Problems with veterinary drugs in imported produce
FishO i i F t (Chi Vi t )Origin Far east (China, Vietnam)
Main issues NitrofuransLeucomlachite green residues in tilapia from ChinaLeucomlachite green residues in tilapia from China
Poultry Only few problems with veterinary drugs
Origin 85% of EU imports from Brazilonly 1 notification from Argentina
Main issues inMain issues in Brazil Nicarbazin
SalinomycinSulphaquinoxalinep qDiclazuril
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin V
Why antibiotics?
AB used for: Farm animalsAquacultureTherapy
Companion animals
RISKSANTIMICROBIALS Non specific (commensals)
Cross – resistance (Ban for AMGP in Europe since 2006)
ANTIMICROBIALS
ProphylaxisGrowth promotion
SUBSTITUTES!?!
CIAs Critical Important AntimicrobialsCIAs Critical Important Antimicrobials List created by WHO
Criterion 1 Used as sole therapy/one of few alternativesCriterion 1 Used as sole therapy/one of few alternativesCriterion 2 Treat diseases caused by organisms that:
omay be transmitted via non human sourcesomay acquire resistance genes from non human sources
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin VII
omay acquire resistance genes from non human sources
Critically important antimicrobials (CIA)
Aminoglycosides Criterion 1: Limited therapy as part of enterococcalAmikacin endocartitis and multi‐drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosisArbekacin Criterion2: May result from transmission of Enterococcus spp., Gentamicin Enterobacteriaceae (inc. E.coli) and Mycobacterium spp. From Streptomycin non‐human sources
Ansamycins Criterion 1: Limited therapy as part of therapy of mycobacterialf b d l d b l d l d hRifabutin diseases including tuberculosis and single drug therapy may
Rifaximin select for resistance. Criterion 2: May result from transmission of Mycobacterium spp. from non‐human sources
Carba(penems) Criterion 1: Limited therapy for infections due to MDR D i E b iDoripenem Enterobacteriaceae. Ertapenem Criterion 2: May result from transmission of EnterobacteriaceaeMeropene including E. coli and Salmonella spp. from non‐human sources
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin VIII
Reported notification rates of zoonoses in confirmed human cases in the EU, 2010
EFSA JournalEFSA Journal 2012;10(3):2597
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin X
Antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp.
CiprofloxacinCiprofloxacin
Nalidixic acid
Tetracyclines
Ampicillin
others Amoxicillin, Gentamycin, Erythromycin (Gallus gallus, pigs):0,1 – 0,12%
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XI
Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp.
Ampicillin Human Broiler meat
Pig meat
Bovine meat
Gallus gallus
Turkeys Pigs Cattle
S. spp 24.2‐ 27‐21 47‐47 12‐13 51 53‐55 37‐36 28.0
S. enteritidis 7.0‐7.2 4‐4S. typhimurium 55.9‐
64 062‐63 27‐39 58‐59 52‐49
64.0Monophasic S.typhimurium
100 84 100 83 94 76
S. Java 40S.kentucky 13 98S. saintpaul 79
S spp 14 6‐ 22‐24 3‐4 17‐23 25 4‐2 5‐2Nalidixic acid S. spp 14.6‐15.3
22‐24 3‐4 17‐23 25 4‐2 5‐2
S. enteritidis 21.1‐18.7
16‐23
S. typhimurium 5.4‐8.9 4‐5 16‐15 2‐2 8‐3Monophasic S.typhimurium
0 2 0 0 0.9 0
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XII
Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp.
Streptomycin Human Broiler meat
Pig meat
Bovine meat
Gallus gallus
Turkeys
Pigs Cattle g
S. spp 15.7‐19.8 S. enteritidis 0.6‐1.1 S. typhimurium 39.2‐44.1
Sulphonamides S. spp 18.6‐25.4 33‐27 52‐52 16‐22 64 60‐59 40‐45 S. enteritidis 1.8‐2.4 2‐7S t hi i 46 4 57 2 63 64 37 44 64 63 58 60S. typhimurium 46.4‐57.2 63‐64 37‐44 64‐63 58‐60 Monophasic S. typhimurium
100 82 100 94 93 79
S.kentucky 11 96
Tetracyclines
y
S. spp 21.9‐28.4 28‐20 54‐50 14‐20 75 57‐57 38‐39 S. enteritidis 2.1‐3.6 2‐6S typhimurium 52 0‐58 5 63‐56 36‐40 57‐58 54‐52S. typhimurium 52.0‐58.5 63‐56 36‐40 57‐58 54‐52 Monophasic S. typhimurium
50 77 69 83 92 69
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XIII
Gaps………
Still lack in reporting according to the latest joint reports of EFSA/ECDC
More efforts from MSs
Diversity of methodologies applied for testing the antimicrobial susceptibility has only been smoothed, not eliminated
More efforts from MSs
Reliable and comparable overview of the current situation across EU countries
More efforts from MSs
…..and possible countries
Interaction between NRLs regarding the setting up of methodsapproaches
Reporting of rare phenotypes (eg monophasic S. Typhimurium in)
MSs more alert for observation
Reliable and comparable overview of the current situation, followed by relative political and scientific actions and decisions
Focused joint projects within MSs / NRLs
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XIV
AB alternatives ‐ How to phase out AMGP?Substitutes Most appropriate approach
same effect, but other mode of actionRole of novel Functional Feed Ingredients (FFI)
Livestock health Improvement; when ok less AMGP
l f l ff d l iRole of Novel FFIs Effect on modulatingo Intestinal microbiota composition Reducing pathogen susceptibilityI t t G t i t ti l h i lo Immune status, o Gastrointestinal physiology
Result: Improved zootechnical performance(daily growth and feed intake feed(daily growth and feed intake, feed conversion ratio)
Types of FFIs In feed enzymes pro‐ pre‐ and symbiotics organic SCFA andTypes of FFIs In feed enzymes, pro , pre and symbiotics, organic SCFA and MCFA, natural plant extracts and essential oilsOTHERS: ZnO, clay minerals, Immunoglobulin
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XV
Research need Mode of action level of FFis
AB alternatives ‐ How to phase out AMGP?
Livestock healthRole of management Indoor vs. outdoor rearingpractices Preference for integration of both systems
Outdoor: more sustainable/greenerBUT: More complex flora
Can re‐introduce pathogens in indoor rearing
Research need Intestinal microbiota, physiology and immunology level
“All in – all out” principleo Pigs with same specification grouped togetherL i f tiY
?
o Less cross infectiono Segregated early weaning (But: piglet welfare???)
Specific Pathogen Free (SPF): Only feasible for niche marketsEFFICA
CY
Specific Pathogen Free (SPF): Only feasible for niche markets
Vaccination: Mainly applied in poultry
COST E
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XVI
Thank you…..
very much for your attention
FOODSEG Symposium21‐22.6.12, Berlin XVII