When it comes to their own cat or dog, many people don’t understand jokes. There is great concern that something might happen to the beloved roommates. So it’s no wonder that pet owners are listening carefully when the life-saving antibiotics for animals are supposed to be banned.
This is exactly what a campaign by the Federal Association of Practicing Veterinarians suggests, for example on a poster with sad dog eyes and the alarming inscription “My life is in danger!” – and underneath in large letters: “Please sign so that everything can be done for my health in the future.” These posters are currently displayed in many veterinary practices, along with forms for collecting signatures. The excitement is great. But is it also justified?
The background to the campaign are plans at EU level to curb the massive use and abuse of antibiotics in large stalls, for example for pigs and poultry. Antibiotics, which are particularly important in human medicine, should be banned from stables. The Environment Committee of the European Parliament has therefore asked the EU Commission to officially classify five groups of antibiotics as so-called reserve antibiotics. Reserve antibiotics are drugs that are used for severe infectious diseases when other antibiotics no longer work.
Treatment of individual animals also with reserve antibiotics
At the same time, the commission is to present a draft law that will also allow the so-called treatment of individual animals with these reserve antibiotics. This means that pets should continue to be treated with the active ingredients.
The Federal Association of Practicing Veterinarians (bpt), on the other hand, has a completely different assessment of the situation: Animal owners have to find out what is going on in Brussels largely in secret and what consequences the decision to be feared will have for their animals, says Siegfried Moder, President of the Federal Association in a call for a signature campaign. The fact is that the European Parliament is ignoring scientific facts and not only, as people have been led to believe, farm animals are affected by a ban, but all animal species. He leaves open which scientific facts, in his opinion, are being ignored.
Molder continues: “For the well-being of all animals, we must therefore ensure that all antibiotics approved for veterinary medicine continue to be available for treatment in the future. Otherwise, in the worst case, it would mean the death of many animals.”
The EU MP Martin Häusling (Greens), member of the Environment Committee, vehemently contradicts this representation: “The medical care of pets and individual animals with antibiotics is neither currently nor in the future at risk,” says Häusling. A “far-reaching ban on antibiotics” is not in sight, either directly or indirectly. “This is dangerous nonsense that is being spread here,” criticized Häusling. The MP receives support from, among others, the German Environmental Aid. According to its own information, it commissioned an expert opinion that shows that it is legally possible to exempt pets such as horses, dogs or cats from the new rules.
Thousands of chickens in one house make the animals susceptible to diseases, which are often fought with antibiotics.
(Photo: Patrick Pleul / dpa)
In fact, there could be something else behind the emotional debate than the concerns of the veterinary association about Bello and Mieze. Because the use of antibiotics is also a lucrative business, not only for the pharmaceutical industry, but above all for veterinary practices that specialize in large animal stalls and make good money from the antibiotics distribution. According to industry insiders, manufacturers often grant generous discounts; the more of them are purchased, the greater the price reduction. This is not an incentive to consume less. Reserve antibiotics, which are important for humans, are still frequently used in poultry and pig farming, as data from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture shows. There, too, one sees an urgent need for action.
There is now a broad social consensus that fewer antibiotics should be used. Because the more of it is administered, the more likely it is that multi-resistant pathogens develop; these “spread worldwide and could threaten the safe treatment of fatal infectious diseases in the near future,” according to the German Center for Infection Research. The World Health Authority (WHO) has been warning against this for years.
The EU Parliament should decide in September on the restriction of antibiotics in animal husbandry. A new regulation could come into force next year.