Health Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Mike Dungate]

I think our point is we're working closely with CIPARS. CIPARS knows there's a gap in the data and CIPARS has a very rigorous testing process. That is the type of study that needs to be done, and we're getting there.

One of the recommendations we would have before the committee is Chicken Farmers of Canada has developed the CIPARS protocol with CIPARS on-farm testing. We want to move ahead with it. We're the only commodity of those here that hasn't had the on-farm testing. We want to have that. We want to know and understand what that connection is, because we want to make good decisions. We don't want to make them on the basis of a study that, in our view, was questionable in terms of the protocols it used.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you very much.

We are now going into our second round of questioning, a five-minute round.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I'm going to begin by asking for a number of you to table some information with the committee, if you'd be so willing.

First, I would ask the various animal organizations to table the number of animals that have actually been removed from the system for inappropriate antibiotic use.

Second, I'd like to know how each of you defines “judicious”. That's a very loose term. I'd like to know what that actually means in terms of dosage, usage, etc.

Third, how many pounds of antibiotics are given to livestock? I know people didn't want to go into pounds, but I'm going to ask it anyhow. How many pounds are given to livestock per year, and what percentage of that is given to treat disease? In the U.S. I believe the figures are 25 million pounds of antibiotics given to livestock and three million pounds given to treat disease.

The last request is for Dr. Hansen and Dr. Prescott if they would be so willing. Dr. Prescott, you talked about the 2002 report. You thought it was a very good report, but you said a number of those recommendations had not been followed up on. So I would like to know which of those recommendations have been completed and which have not.

Thank you.

Now I will ask some questions, if I may.

I think it's been brought up that the U.S. FDA released draft guidelines in June on the judicious use of medically important antimicrobial drugs. Has Canada undertaken a similar study since 2002 or produced draft guidelines?

Dr. Hansen.

[Dr. Gail Hansen]

I wish I could tell you for sure, but I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I do know that, as has been mentioned, the veterinary drug directorate here in Canada issues guidelines, but the enforcement of that, if you will, is really a provincial matter, and that's different from how it is in the United States.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

But we don't know if there's been any update in guidelines? I think Dr. Prescott wanted to get in there.

[Dr. John Prescott]

I'll hand it over to Jean. I'm not aware of any.

[Jean Szkotnicki]

As part of our submission review, we do have guidelines that outline the technical requirements a new drug would have to meet in order to be licensed in Canada. Companies must conduct studies to meet those standards, and those are reviewed and assessed by the veterinarians at Health Canada.

So that is guidance in the human safety department. Then based on their risk analysis, they will also schedule drugs. So you have schedule F, part I drugs, similar to what is on the human side, which are prescription--

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, I'm going to interrupt there, because that's not where I was going to go, but thank you.

Dr. Hansen, could I come back to you? The FDA sets forth its recommendations for food producers to discontinue using medically important antimicrobials on healthy animals for growth promotion purposes and instead reserve them for disease treatment and prevention. It has also recommended that food producers use such drugs only under veterinary consultation. Could you comment on those recommendations?

[Dr. Gail Hansen]

Yes, that's exactly how the draft guidances are today. They're still getting comments. They got literally thousands of comments from people who thought that was a good idea--

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What is your opinion on that?

[Dr. Gail Hansen]

I think it's a very good start. In the United States those are just guidelines, and the industry has had similar guidelines and has had, as you said, judicious-use guidelines for 30 to 40 years. We don't think we've seen a change in the amount of antibiotic that's used.

I would also like to respond with regard to the amount of antibiotics sold in the United States for food animals versus what's sold in the United States for human use. Three-quarters of the antibiotics are used both in humans and in animals. Three-quarters of those antibiotics are used in food animals. If you add the ionophores, which keep coming up, because they're not a drug for humans, then that figure for the United States goes up to over 80%, and that isn't tracked here in Canada.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoback, you have five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank everybody for coming here today. This is a great discussion.

I don't think there's one Canadian in Canada who isn't concerned about the improper use of any type of antibiotic or drugs in that case. This is a good discussion to have.

At first glance, when you look at it you think, “Oh my God, this is horrible”, but when you actually start to dig down and see exactly what's going on, it's an example of there being a lot more to the story than just the headline.

I'll start with you, Mr. Dungate.

The chicken industry is using antibiotics that are not being used in the human chain. I'll use that expression—maybe it's not correct, but as a farmer from Saskatchewan, I'll use those words. In the process of putting the antibiotics in the feed, you are actually using antibiotics that would not normally be used in a hospital or that type of situation. Is that fair to say?

[Mike Dungate]

That's fair to say, correct.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You're actually looking at ways to ensure we have healthy livestock coming through the system and make sure we're not building up any type of resistance to antibiotics that would be used in a hospital situation. Is that fair to say?

[Mike Dungate]

That's correct, and this is one of the things that comes out in the study.

It isn't just by antibiotic use that you develop resistance. That resistance is endemic out there. It comes in the environment. That's why from a management perspective, for example, for all of our flocks we clean out all the litter, take it down, clean, and disinfect the barn, because we're trying to make sure the environment is good and we don't get resistance building up from one flock to the next flock.

So it isn't just in the use aspect; it's also management practices and our on-farm food safety program. We're tackling this from as many different perspectives as we can.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You have a system of best practices established for your barns.

I know the hog industry. If you want to visit a hog barn, after you shower and go through the scrubbing process, you may actually be allowed to enter the hog barn. Is it similar in the chicken industry?

[Mike Dungate]

It is very similar in the chicken industry. We put in place our on-farm program back in 1998, but it has been updated. It's the biosecurity part that is really doing it.

In fact, we found that the biggest transmission and cause of bacteria entering is from other service industries within our industry, not people from the city who come and have none of that connection. So we've really tightened that down and I think we're going to see the results of that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

On this issue, how do we educate the general population on your responsible use of the antibacterial drugs right now? Are there any ideas on that? As I said, at first glance at the headlines, you say “Oh my God”, but then you start to dig down into it. Do you have any suggestions on that?

[Mike Dungate]

This is where we think we need to understand for ourselves. Our farmers need to understand what that connection is. This is where we're talking about the CIPARS on-farm study. Where is that resistance coming from? We want to do the testing when those chicks arrive in the barn and then at 30 days and see if there's a difference that happened in the barn. Is there something coming in with the chick before we even get there? Where is it from?

I think a key part is making sure we carry on and get a causal link. As Dr. Rosengren said, we need to try to take the grey down to fewer shades of what we've got, and then we can make some real decisions in terms of the policy we want to have.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When we look at comparing countries to countries—for example, the European situation to Canada—we always hear that the Europeans do it this way and we should do it this way in Canada. The reality is that when we go through, for example, PMRA for pesticide use, we look at it in the environmental conditions in Canada, which are different from the environmental conditions in another part of the world.

How valid is it to take a study from Australia or Europe and put it into Canada?

[Mike Dungate]

Dr. Rosengren might add a couple of things, but I think there are a couple of points here.

It isn't just the environment we're in, and that's a key part, but it's also the regulatory environment and what is approved. There are vaccines that are approved in some countries that are not allowed in others.

You're probably aware that in a lot of agriculture we have issues in terms of approving what I'll call “antibiotic alternatives” in this country, because the manufacturers don't see a big enough market for us in the animal sector here in Canada and therefore they're not approved. We need the ability to use other alternatives that other jurisdictions might have.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Tim Uppal]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for you, Mr. Dungate, and then I will yield the floor to my colleague Ms. Beaudoin, who also has several questions.

You told us that $5.1 million has been invested in research. Mr. Bergen also mentioned money invested for research purposes. I am just wondering about what percentage of this amount was invested in efforts to find alternatives to antibiotics and what results were achieved.

Did your research lead to any advances in this area?

[Mike Dungate]

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Malo.

We have invested $5.1 million in the poultry industry, with all of this money going to research into antibiotic resistance and alternative solutions. Real discussions are underway.

I'm going to switch to the other language, because this is too technical.

It's gut microbiology, and to understand what is going on inside the bird so we can create healthy bacteria alternatives and treat it that way. Those are called probiotics. So there's a lot of investigation there.

In our submission we have included a list of the projects that have been funded with that $5.1 million, and it's ongoing. We're just starting to see the results of that research coming in. Many of them are three- or five-year projects.