MARKET ▶▶▶
Antibiotic-free: Definitions may vary
In food production, the term antibiotic-free (ABF) has become a major topic. But what do we really mean by this and when can we label a product as antibiotic-free? This is a quick guide to some of the terms used in the industry and how to interpret them.
BY ANJA PASTOR, PHYTOBIOTICS, GERMANY T
he trend towards a reduction of antibiotics use in food producing animals is obvious and this trend started, in most countries, some years ago already. Increases in antimicrobial resistance and the lack of
new and efficient antibiotics fuel a mainly consumer-driven demand for fewer antibiotics in the food chain. Numerous scientific reports underline the importance of a judicious use of antibiotics in animal production (CDDEP, 2015). But what does antibiotic-free actually mean? When researching this topic, one thing becomes clear very quickly: the definition of antibiotic-free production in one country does not necessarily match the definition in another country.
Different labels used There are different labels used to define the term ‘antibiotic- free’. We name five labels that are used all over the world.
Role of feed additives
Animal nutrition plays an important part in moving away from antibiotics in food producing animals. Certain feed additives are known to have a positive effect on gut health, have antimicrobial properties, create an antioxidant ef- fect, or stimulate immune responses. Categories of these feed additives that are known for these health promoting effects on farm level include probiotics, enzymes, plant extracts and certain derivatives of organic acids for example. All these effects have been studied extensively over the last decades and more and more new molecules are discovered or optimised to improve the animal’s health and performance, hence reducing the need for in-feed antibiotics or therapeutic antibiotics.
26 ▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 25, No. 10, 2017
For starters, producers can choose to not use in-feed antibiot- ics (1). In-feed antibiotics (also referred to as growth promot- ers) are used at sub-therapeutic dosages to maximise the performance potential of animals by ensuring a healthy gas- trointestinal tract. The 2006 EU ban of growth promoters in animal feed was a first step in phasing out the use of antibiot- ics. Secondly, farmers can decide to go for a reduced use of therapeutic antibiotics (2). While the number of prescriptions for medicinal purposes still increased, production parameters demonstrated that overall performance decreased. As a re- sult, monitoring systems were installed in several countries in an attempt to control such prescription-related usage. Antibi- otic free can also mean that no antibiotics are used that are relevant for humans (3). Some producers go one step further and refrain from using antibiotics that are deemed medically important to humans. This narrows the available antimicrobi- al classes from 27 down to 9 (Pagel and Gautier, 2012). An- other (quite extreme) label is that farmers claim that no anti- biotics are ever used in production (4). In the case of broiler production this means that at no time throughout the pro- duction cycle did the flocks receive any antibiotics. If they get sick, the birds are typically still treated with antibiotics but processed and sold under a different, conventional label.
PHOTO: MATEE NUSERM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50
