It has been more than 10 years since the European Union ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters came into force, and responsible use is now practiced throughout the bloc.
Antibiotic use in Europe’s livestock production continues to fall. In the U.K., for example, use of antibiotics in poultry production fell by 43 percent between 2012 and 2015.
Purchase your copy of the Focus Series on antibiotic-free poultry production.
In the U.S., by contrast, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters is still practiced, although the country is in the process of stopping the use of critically important antibiotics in this way. However, attitudes to antibiotics are changing, and there is a growing demand for antibiotic-free meat. Subway, McDonald’s, Chipotle Mexican Grill and Panera Bread are among the food chains to commit to eliminating, or reducing, their poultry supplies raised with antibiotics. The country’s poultry companies are responding.
Yet confusion remains around what the two strategies mean, and which may be the most practicable.
Poultry International spoke to John FitzGerald, secretary general of Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA) - a nonprofit group representing all stages of the food chain established in 1997, and Richard Griffiths, chief executive of U.K. poultry industry association British Poultry Council (BPC), for their views on the ongoing debate over whether antibiotics should be used in poultry production and whether antibiotic-free production will cross to Europe.
Richard Griffiths, chief executive of U.K. poultry industry association British Poultry Council (BPC).
John FitzGerald, secretary general of Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA).
POULTRY INTRNATIONAL: There appears to be considerable confusion around the term "antibiotic-free meat." What are the implications of this and how does it fit with RUMA’s "responsible use" approach?
FITZGERALD: For some, it means no growth promoters used, for others it means no antibiotics have been used in all, or some, stages of the animal’s production.
This gives rise to animal welfare concerns about whether sick animals had treatment delayed or were euthanized instead of treated.
Responsible use means managing the farm to reduce the risk of infection – such as good hygiene, biosecurity, nutrition, health planning, vaccine planning, etc. – and then using medicines in accordance with veterinary instruction when animals become ill.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: How feasible is it to raise poultry without antibiotics?
GRIFFITHS: When the consumer buys poultry, it is antibiotic free, but the difference between free from at the point of sale, and antibiotics never having been used, is a point that’s never really been explained to consumers.
Some producers are having considerable success at producing antibiotic-free poultry and others major problems. This is illustrative of how difficult it is to take a blanket approach; you can’t predict the challenges you’re going to face in any given flock, whether that’s climate, feed quality or the quality of the chicks to begin with.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: Is the call for antibiotic-free meat likely to snowball in the U.S.?
FITZGERALD: Consumer studies in the U.S. indicate that taste and price remain much more important to consumers at the cash register than antibiotic free. However, there is a possibility, while antibiotics continue to be used as growth promoters, that interest in this claim will continue.
The National Organic Program (NOP) in the U.S. already prohibits the use of any antibiotics through the lifetime of animals that produce NOP meat and dairy products. This varies from the U.K. organic programs that permit use of antibiotics in cases where illness requires it.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: What lessons can be learned from the antibiotic-free demands in the U.S.?
GRIFFITHS: It’s a complex issue and we don’t yet know which approach is right; there are lessons to be learned from both attempts.
The U.S. approach to cut out antibiotics completely might pay dividends, but we’re being cautious, looking at what people are doing in different industries, sectors and countries and seeing what works.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: Should there be controls on the actual level of antibiotic use in poultry?
GRIFFITHS: The measures in Europe relate to the antibiotics that remain residual in the meat, and we are fortunate in the U.K. in that there are only a small number of educated poultry vets, so collectively they have been able to generate a change in behavior in terms of prescribing the choice and administration of antibiotics.
Europe has common standards of production, and third countries importing to Europe have to demonstrate equivalence to these standards, but we are not yet ready to step into how much antibiotics a bird has had as a measure.
I think it will come when all countries have a handle on their own antibiotic use, but it is risky because it pushes it into a competitive area and ultimately we want to keep it non-competitive.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: Just how significant is the responsible use of antibiotics in animals to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance in humans?
FITZGERALD: There is a continuing debate about this, and much more research needs to be done. Antimicrobial resistance and its potential transmission to humans from farm animals is a concern, but most resistant bacteria in people and animals are different except for food-poisoning organisms such as Salmonella and Campylobacter.
For example, tests on almost 750 resistant gene (ESBL) samples across five European countries indicated farm animal use was potentially associated with as few as 1 in every 370 human clinical cases with E. coli infections.
POULTRY INTERNATIONAL: Do you see the U.S. trend for antibiotic-free meat being taken up in Europe?
FITZGERLAD: In the U.K., retailers are working together, and with the whole supply chain, on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antibiotic use as a pre-competitive issue, so hopefully antibiotic use will not become a marketing tool. It’s too important an issue to be exploited in this way.
GRIFFITHS: I can’t see it as a food-focused issue; there are more elements to it than that, and I can’t see food outlets/restaurants reflecting U.S. sensibilities. Consumers in the U.K. are generally resilient to scares, whether it’s a genuine scare or sensationalist.
Europe’s poultry producers continue to reduce antibiotic use. In the U.K., use fell by 43 percent between 2012 and 2015.
Comprehensive resource for antibiotic-free poultry production available
A new collection of exclusive articles, blogs, infographics and videos on antibiotic-free poultry production, by trusted WATT Global Media editors and industry experts, equip poultry producers and marketers with information to help them make critical business decisions. Purchase your copy.
