Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? An unbiased review?

Extract

1Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, Mørkhøj Bygade 19, DK-2860 Søborg; 2Statens Serum Institut, Artillerivej 5, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark

Sir,

The review by Phillips et al.¹ is an insight into the reasoning of the scientific advisors of the animal drug industry. We hope that the industry discounts this bad advice. It would be alarming if preventive action to control resistant human pathogens in the food supply should be taken only when sufficient numbers of humans had been harmed, to enable undisputable epidemiological proof of a ‘devastating clinical effect’.

Phillips et al.¹ state that there might be disadvantages to human health and to animal health in the discontinuation of the use of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGP), but do not make a convincing plea. Their argument that in Denmark the ban of AGP may have caused an increase in the incidence of salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis is not correct. The pathogen load has decreased (Salmonella) or remained at a constant level (Campylobacter).² The AGP ban in Denmark in 1998 in no way affected the yearly increase in the incidence of human campylobacteriosis, of ∼20% in 1993–1999 (except for 1997), 5% in 1999–2002 and a decrease of 17% in 2003. The authors repeatedly refer to a small increase in human salmonellosis in 2001, but fail to mention that the incidence has decreased markedly since 1997. This contradictory argument compromises the credibility of the paper.