Regulators should ban poultry feed additive

The Food Standards Agency has failed to support a ban on a poultry feed additive which contains the antimicrobial drug, nicarbazin.

Nicarbazin residues have been a persistent problem in a high proportion of UK-produced chicken liver and in some chicken meat, but can also be found in more than a quarter of a million eggs eaten each day by British consumers.

An EU scientific review [1] found that a safe level for residues could not be established because the company producing the feed additive, Elanco, had failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the chemical is not capable of causing damage to genes, genetic mutations, birth deformities or malformations.

Despite the findings of their scientific advisers, the European Commission and the UK's Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) have used a legal loophole [2] to permit the continued routine use of nicarbazin in the intensive poultry industry.

The FSA and the industry are trying to reduce the risk through a voluntary approach, issuing an advisory leaflet, and reminding farmers that they need to ensure that the drug withdrawal period before chickens are killed is fully respected. [3] However, a similar leaflet has been sent to poultry producers several times before. The fundamental problem is that the recommendations do not stop bored chickens eating their own droppings and recycling nicarbazin during the five days before slaughter when their feed is supposed to be entirely free from it.

The latest figures from the VMD indicate that, in 2008, 9% of chicken liver were still contaminated with residues above official safety limits (42 out of 475 samples tested). [4] In 17% of the cases where residues were found, they were five times above the safety limit, requiring a Defra farm investigation. Two of the residues were the highest found since 1999, with one of these being 21 times above safety limits. Residues of nicarbazin were also found in one per cent of eggs. [5]

The Soil Association has repeatedly called for nicarbazin to be banned and accuses the FSA and veterinary medicines regulators of weak and ineffective regulation. [6]

In a letter to Dame Deirdre Hutton, the outgoing Chair of the FSA, Soil Association Policy Adviser, Richard Young says:

"By issuing a pathetic leaflet instead of demanding a ban on the poultry feed additive nicarbazin, you are failing in your most fundamental duty to protect consumers from dangerous chemicals in food."

Richard Young adds:

"This is a serious and persistent food-contamination issue which puts the public's health at risk. It is totally unacceptable that regulators are using a loophole to avoid taking action against the financial interests of the pharmaceutical and intensive-livestock industries. It is precisely this kind of cosiness with industry the FSA are meant to be regulating."

A scientific review of nicarbazin's safety was carried out by one of the European Food Safety Authority's scientific advisory committees in 2003. It found that many of the toxicological studies carried out on nicarbazin had been performed in the 1950s and did not meet current standards. [7]

1] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620783857.htm


[2] The European safety evaluation led to an EU ban on all feed additives containing only nicarbazin as an active ingredient. However, the feed additive Maxiban, containing nicarbazin and another antibiotic, narasin, was not up for review, and has been permitted to continue in use even though it causes residues in food in just the same way.


[3] UK regulators have made numerous attempts to encourage 'safer' use of nicarbazin, with only limited success. In addition to the latest FSA leaflet [issued 3 March], the poultry industry has repeatedly been leafleted on nicarbazin by Elanco. Last July the FSA, the VMD and the industry jointly produced a 71-page report.
To read more about the leaflet click here 
To read more about the report click here


[4] Nearly all veterinary medicines used in the UK have a 'maximum residue limit' (MRL) established by the EU, below which residues in food must normally be kept. Residues below the MRL are effectively considered to be safe. However, due to safety concerns, in the case of nicarbazin the EU found that no MRL could be established through the normal scientific process. As a result, the UK Government have adopted a more scientifically arbitrary 'action level' recommended by a joint FAO/WHO committee. This action level is the official safety limit being referred to.


[5] All the figures in the paragraph are from the VMD's publication, MAVIS, available for download from http://www.vmd.gov.uk/Publications/MAVIS/Full/mavis69.pdf.
For statistics from earlier years, see the Veterinary Residues Committee website. 


[6] Contrary to the recommendations of a report by Professor Philip James, commissioned by the incoming Labour administration in 1997, the FSA is not directly responsible for the regulation of veterinary medicines. It was, however, given a formal advisory role in this area and can make recommendations to the Government where it sees fit.


[7] One study reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority's scientific advisory committee found evidence that nicarbazin was genotoxic to bacteria but, despite repeated requests from regulators in the UK and EU, Elanco have failed to carry out tests with animal cells. As result, nicarbazin's genotoxicity to humans cannot be confirmed or ruled out. High doses of nicarbazin have also been shown to cause foetal abnormalities in rats, but the evidence presented by Elanco was insufficient to rule out the possibility that these could also be caused by lower doses. See also note [1].