Advertisement

Comparison of international legislation and standards on veterinary drug residues in food of animal origin

  • Anaïs LégerEmail author
  • Lis Alban
  • Anouk Veldhuis
  • Gerdien van Schaik
  • Katharina D. C. Stärk
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Current legislation governing monitoring of drug residues in foodstuff of animal origin is being revised at the European level. This study provides a qualitative comparison of the legislation, public and private standards in the European Union, the United States of America (USA) and the Eurasian Customs Union/Russia. We made a quantitative comparison of Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) applied in each region for pork kidneys for tetracycline (with a focus on doxycycline), penicillin and chloramphenicol. The Customs Union generally applied lower levels than the other regions, with MRLs for tetracyclines in pig kidneys being 1200 times lower than those applied in the USA. Growing consumer interest and concern about chemicals in their food could be leveraged to support and enhance the implementation of new initiatives to improve veterinary public health. Farmers and veterinarians could help reduce findings of drug residues in meat through the judicious use of preventive actions when using veterinary medicine.

Keywords

Veterinary public health Legislative comparisons SWOT analysis Antibiotic residues 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the following persons for input during the project: Derk Oorburg (VION Food); Isabelle Rüfenacht (Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office of Switzerland, Food and nutrition Division); Kai Caspari (Official Cantonal Veterinary Services from Zug); Klaus Depner (FLI); Lucie Collineau (SAFOSO); and Pia Gjertsen Prestmo (Bristol University). We acknowledge the entire SANTERO Consortium for inspiring discussion during the project (https://santero.fp7-risksur.eu/).

Funding

This work was funded through the Animal Health and Welfare ERA-NET consortium (https://www.anihwa.eu/) under the SANTERO project (https://santero.fp7-risksur.eu/). We acknowledge support of the following funders: Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Denmark; the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands; and the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), Switzerland.

References

  1. 1.
    McEvoy JDG. Emerging food safety issues: an EU perspective. Drug Test Anal. 2016;8(5–6):511–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    TNS. Special eurobarometer 354—food related risks. Belgium: TNS Opinion & Social; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International food information council foundation. 2018. https://www.foodinsight.org/2018-FHS-Report-FINAL.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Alban L, Léger A, Veldhuis A, van Schaik G. Modernizing the antimicrobial residue monitoring programs for pig meat in Europe: the balance between flexibility and harmonization. Food Control. 2018;86:403–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission. Reflection paper on residues in foodstuffs of animal origin; 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Rosa M, Van Knapen F, Brom FWA. Risk analysis-based food safety policy: scientific factors versus socio-cultural factors. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 2008;133(18):746–53.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EU. SPS requirements for exporting to the Russian Federation [Internet]; 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/eu_russia/sps_requirements_en.
  8. 8.
    ECDC, EFSA and EMA second joint report JIACRA R. ECDC/EFSA/EMA first joint report on the integrated analysis of the consumption of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals, vol 15, EFSA J; 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyson RG. Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;152(3):631–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stärk KDC, Nevel A. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the pig health monitoring systems used in England. Vet Record. 2009;165(16):461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devitt C, Boyle L, Teixeira DL, O’Connell NE, Hawe M, Hanlon A. Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis. Ir Vet J. 2016;69(1):17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huneau-Salaün A, Stärk KDC, Mateus A, Lupo C, Lindberg A, Bouquin-Leneveu SLE. Contribution of meat inspection to the surveillance of poultry health and welfare in the European Union. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143(11):2459–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Community Reference Laboratories for Residues. CRL guidance paper: CRLs view on state of the art analytical methods for national residue control plans; 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Community Reference Laboratories for Residues. Guidelines for the Validation of Screening Methods for Residues of Veterinary Medicines; 2010. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/cs_vet-med-residues_guideline_validation_screening_en.pdf.
  15. 15.
    USDA FSIS. United States National Residue program for meat, poultry, and egg products FY 2017 RESIDUE SAMPLE RESULTS; 2017. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/93ae550c-6fac-42cf-8c11-006748a4d817/2017-Red-Book.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    USDA, FSIS, OPHS. United States national residue program for meat, poultry, and egg products: 2018 residue sampling plans; 2018. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/0d633930-b5fa-4db1-965c-4f4769827301/2018-Blue-book.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Danish Pig Research Centre (SEGES). Danish product standard; 2017. http://www.pigresearchcentre.dk/~/media/Files/DANISH/DANISHproduktstandard/Produkt_Standard_UK.pdf.
  20. 20.
    Charm Science Inc. Charm Kidney Inhibition Swab Test (KIS); 2018. http://www.charm.com/products/test-and-kits/antibiotic-tests/inhibition-tests/charm-kidney-inhibition-swab-test/. Accessed 3 Dec 2018.
  21. 21.
    World Bank. Comparative analysis of certain requirements of food legislation in the European Union and the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan; 2015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knill C, Tosun J. Post-accession transposition of EU law in the new member states: a cross-country comparison. Eur Integr Online Pap. 2009;13(October):18.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Beek K, Woitha K, Ahmed N, Menten J, Jaspers B, Engels Y, et al. Comparison of legislation, regulations and national health strategies for palliative care in seven European countries (Results from the Europall Research Group): a descriptive study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pinto J, Backx A, Calistri P, Lockhart C, Hoinville L, Pinto Ferreira J, et al. Providing a new generation of methodologies and tools for cost-effective risk-based animal health surveillance systems for the benefit of livestock producers, decision makers and consumers; 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alban L, Rugbjerg H, Petersen JV, Rosenbaum Nielsen L. Comparison of risk-based versus random sampling in the monitoring of antimicrobial residues in Danish finishing pigs. Prev Vet Med. 2016;128:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sedik D, Ulbricht C, Dzhamankulov N. Discussion paper from the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies: The Architecture of Food Safety Control in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    FAO. Basic overview of the regulatory procedures for authorisation of veterinary medicines with emphasis on residues in food animal species Table of Contents; 2002. http://www.fao.org/documents/search/en/?sel=ZmRyX2pvYl9udW1iZXI6IkFDMzQzIg%3D%3D.
  28. 28.
    Wilson JS, Otsuki T, Majumdsar B. Balancing food safety and risk: do drug residue limits affect international trade in beef? J Int Trade Econ Dev. 2003;12(4):377–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0963819032000154810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Pork Board. Pork: export product withdrawal: MRL; 2016. http://www.pork.org/mrl/. Accessed 20 Oct 2018.
  30. 30.
    European Commission. Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle; 2000. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001&from=EN.
  31. 31.
    Macfarlane R. Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: The role of science and other factors. Food Policy. 2002;27(1):65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alban L, Pacheco G, Petersen JV. Risk-based surveillance of antimicrobial residues in pigs–identification of potential risk indicators. Prev Vet Med. 2014;114(2):88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’). Off J Eur Union. 2016;2016:59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anaïs Léger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lis Alban
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anouk Veldhuis
    • 4
  • Gerdien van Schaik
    • 4
    • 5
  • Katharina D. C. Stärk
    • 1
  1. 1.SAFOSO AGLiebefeldSwitzerland
  2. 2.Danish Agriculture & Food CouncilCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.GD Animal HealthDeventerNetherlands
  5. 5.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations