WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1531/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Use of glycopeptides in stock rearing
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, antibiotic, fodder, health risk, infectious disease, public health, scientific committee (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E1531 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1531

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1531/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Use of glycopeptides in stock rearing  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1531/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Use of glycopeptides in stock rearingThe expiry of the six-month ban in Germany on the use of glycopeptides in stock rearing, the lack of an EU-wide ban on this antibiotic in stock rearing and the fact that there have been more than 13 000 fatalities in the USA, most of which could previously be cured by antibiotics, raise the following questions.1. Does the Commission not share the view that the efficacy of glycopeptide antibiotics in the treatment of certain infections in human medicine must be preserved?2. What is the Commission's assessment of the risk that the use of antibiotics in stock rearing could produce multi-resistant pathogens which might considerably diminish the efficacy of antibiotics in humans?3. Can the Commission rule out the possibility that the use of glycopeptides in stock rearing might have adverse effects on the care of sick people? If so, what studies support the Commission's view?4. What is the Commission's view of the statement by Wolfgang Witte, a microbiologist at the Robert Koch Institute, that it is entirely possible that resistance to glycopeptides is transferred to humans?5. What measures will the Commission take to curb the horrendous use of medicinal feed additives in order to prevent the possible development of resistance to antibiotics in humans?6. What is the Commission's estimate of the economic damage caused by the development of resistance to antibiotics in humans as a result of animals being fed medicines as feed additives?7. Does the Commission have figures indicating how many people would not have died if they had not been resistant to antibiotics?8. What is the Commission's response to the statement in a 'Textbook of Pharmacology and Toxicology in Veterinary Medicine' that 'glycopeptide-resistant enterococci were frequently found in pigs and hens on farms using a glycopeptide as a feed additive'?9. (a) What is the Commission's view of the possibility of using alternative methods such as homeopathy and other natural healing processes to reduce the consumption of antibiotics in stock rearing?(b) Is the Commission supporting research in this field, either directly or indirectly?(c) If so, can the Commission provide the author of this question with a list of the research projects?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)To the Commission, it is necessary for the efficacy of glycopeptide-group antibiotics to be assured in all cases, because they are essential for combating serious infectious diseases in humans. As in the past, the Commission intends to make sure that the use of antibiotics in animals feedingstuffs cannot adversely affect animal or human health.At the request of the Commission the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition has twice delivered opinions on the possibility of resistance in humans being induced by the use of a glycopeptide-group antibiotic (avoparcin) in animal feedingstuffs. In its opinion delivered on 24 March last year, the Scientific Committee pointed out that it is improbable that the use of avoparcin could lead to the development of resistance.In the mean time the Scientific Committee has again been asked for an opinion on the induction of resistance, following the banning of avoparcin in Denmark and Germany. The opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition, which will be disseminated in the very near future, should answer some of the queries raised by the Honourable Member.The Commission will certainly send the opinion to the Honourable Member, along with the one delivered by the Scientific Committee in March 1995.