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