The Risk of Development of Antimicrobial Resistance with the Use of Coccidiostats in Poultry Diets

Background: Antimicrobials revolutionized human as well as animal medicine in the 20th century by providing effective treatment of diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms. However, microorganisms have the ability to develop antimicrobial resistant strains. This occurs when microorganisms mutate or when resistance genes are exchanged between them. The use of antimicrobial drugs accelerates the emergence of drug-resistant strains. A priority is to safeguard the efficacy of antimicrobial drugs we depend on for treatment of infectious diseases in humans. Use of antimicrobials in food animals can create a source of antimicrobial resistant bacteria that can spread to humans both by direct contact and through the food supply. Coccidiosis is an intestinal disease in animals caused by unicellular parasites called coccidia. As most of the damage of this infection is done by the time signs of the disease are widespread, preventive measures are preferred. Coccidiostats are animal feed additives used to prevent coccidiosis by inhibiting or killing coccidia. There are two major groups of coccidiostats; ionophores and non-ionophores, the latter also referred to as “non-ionophore coccidiostats” (but also called chemicals). One main difference between these groups is that ionophores also inhibit or kill some bacterial species, whereas non-ionophore coccidiostats do not. Consequently, some bacterial infections may also be controlled by ionophore coccidiostats, e.g. the poultry disease necrotic enteritis caused by the bacterium Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens). Eleven different coccidiostats have been authorised for use in the EU, both ionophores and non-ionophore coccidiostats. Norway has been exempted from the EEA Agreement in this field and has approved only five; all ionophores. The two ionophore coccidiostats currently used in Norway are narasin for broilers and monensin for turkeys. Resistance to coccidiostats in coccidia and bacteria: Development of resistance in coccidia to all eleven coccidiostats has been described in the scientific literature, but the prevalence of resistance is unknown. Cross-resistance between various ionophore coccidiostats has also been shown, i.e. development of resistance to one ionophore may also render the coccidia resistant to another ionophore. Various rotation and shuttle programmes with exchange between ionophores and non-ionophore coccidiostats are believed to prevent or delay development of resistance in coccidia. In Norway, such programmes will have little effect as long as only ionophores and not non-ionophore coccidiostats are approved for use. Development of resistance against ionophores has also been observed in bacteria. In the Norwegian surveillance programme NORM-VET during the years 2002 - 2013, between 50 - 80% of the tested flocks had narasin resistant faecal enterococci, which are bacteria that are part of the normal intestinal microbiota. However, the pathogenic bacterium C. perfringens has not been shown to be resistant against any ionophore. Cross-resistance in bacteria to more than one ionophore has been observed. In addition, a limited amount of data may indicate an association between narasin and resistance to the antibacterials bacitracin and vancomycin. As these are antibacterials used for treatment in humans, more research should be performed to validate these results. Non-ionophore coccidiostats, which do not have antibacterial effect, are not approved in Norway. If such coccidiostats were approved in Norway, coccidiostats with negligible probability of inducing resistance in bacteria would be available. Human exposure to resistant bacteria and coccidiostats: Humans may theoretically be exposed to coccidiostat resistant bacteria from poultry in a number of ways, e.g. by handling live animals and their manure, through slaughtering and processing, and by preparation and consumption of poultry meat. Furthermore, bacteria of the human normal microbiota, which cover all skin and mucosal surfaces, might develop resistance if they are exposed to coccidiostats. In this assessment, the probabilities of exposure are classified as: Negligible (extremely low), Low (possible, but not likely), Medium (likely), High (almost certain) and Not assessable. The Panel has estimated the following probabilities of human exposure: Handling manure from coccidiostat fed poultry without sufficient risk-reducing measures entails a high probability of exposure to both resistant bacteria and coccidiostats. Without proper protection, the probability of exposure to coccidiostats is also high when handling coccidiostat premixes and feeds containing coccidiostats without proper protection measures. Various treatments, e.g. composting, of the manure may reduce the probability. The probability of exposure to resistant bacteria is medium for workers handling carcasses and raw meat on a daily basis if risk-reducing measures are not applied, whereas the probability of exposure to coccidiostats is negligible. For consumers, the probability of exposure to coccidiostats is negligible. The probability for exposure to resistant bacteria is also negligible in heat treated food since heat treatment kills the bacteria. The probability of exposure to coccidiostat resistant bacteria is low to medium if handling raw meat without proper hygienic procedures, because raw meat may harbour resistant bacteria. Risk-reducing measures will lower the probabilities. However, little is known concerning the consequences of human exposure to coccidiostat resistant bacteria or to to coccidiostats. There is little information in scientific literature indicating whether such bacteria in fact will colonize the human body, either transitionally or permanently. Furthermore, there is no information on the probability of exchange of resistance genes from transferred bacteria to bacteria of the human natural microbiota or to pathogens. Likewise, the Panel has no information on the level of exposure, e.g. the amount of coccidiostats and their metabolites, or the time period, necessary for the various bacteria to give rise to resistant variants. As coccidiostats are not used to treat infectious diseases in humans, concern of resistance is related to possible cross- or co-resistance with antibacterials considered important in human medicine. Such resistance has so far not been confirmed. Use of therapeutic antibacterials for poultry: If the ionophore coccidiostats used in Norway are replaced by one or more non-ionophore coccidiostat with no antibacterial effect and no other changes are done, the coccidiostats used will no longer inhibit the bacterium Clostridium perfringens, which is the cause of necrotic enteritis. Over time this will likely to lead to a need for intermittent or continuous use of higher levels of therapeutic antibacterials due to increased incidence of this desease in poultry production. The magnitude of the increase is difficult to predict. Alternatives to in-feed antimicrobials: Eradication from the birds’ environment of coccidia causing coccidiosis is difficult to achieve because the coccidia form oocysts that survive outside the host and resist commonly used disinfectants. Vaccination with non-pathogenic vaccines is now used increasingly in commercial Norwegian broiler farms, instead of in-feed coccidiostats. So far coccidiosis has not been reported as a problem in this transition process to broiler rearing without in-feed coccidiostats in Norway. Non-antimicrobial feed additives with purported health-promoting benefits, i.e. acid-based products, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, yeast-based products, plant-derived products, combinations of these, and other products have been developed and used in feed. These products have been tested for efficacy against coccidia with conflicting, non-consistent or non-convincing results. The majority of these products appear to target the bacterial microbiota rather than coccidia. The Panel has not assessed possible effects of other types of management changes.

Criteria for Safe Use of Plant Ingredients in Diets for Aquacultured Fish

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsynet) asked the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet) to assess if the criteria for safe use of plant ingredients in diets for aquacultured fish fulfil the Feed regulative §7 to “not induce negative health effects in the animal”, and in this context aquacultured fish. The use of feed ingredients of both plant and animal origin is set by the regulation “Forskrift 7. November 2002 nr 1290”, and amendments. The objective of the regulation is to protect animals, consumers and the environment. For animals, the feed shall not pose a risk, or danger, to their health. Aspects to be assessed were whether the changes in fish diet ingredient composition seen in recent years with high levels of plant ingredients, plus additions of immunostimulants, would in any manner challenge fish health and if any ingredient should be limited due to its negative effect, or induce any long-term negative effect. “Long-term” here extends beyond normal production time for consumption, e.g. when substances that might affect fish health are included in broodstock diets. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), rainbow trout (Onchorhyncus mykiss), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) should especially be addressed. However, since all life stages should be included, especially broodstock, and also possible long-term effects, and literature on these for the requested species is scarce, the assessment mentions studies on other species when relevant. With the exception of full-fat and extracted soybean meal for salmonids, substituting at least part of the fishmeal fraction of aquafeeds with individual plant ingredients is promising, at least in the short to medium term. Indeed in some cases, diets containing up to 20% inclusion level of high-quality plant protein sources have resulted in better nutrient digestibility and growth parameters than the fishmeal-based control diets. When substituting fishmeal with plant ingredients, however, it is necessary to balance the diets regarding limiting amino acids and minerals. Adding plant proteins to fish diets result in the introduction of anti-nutritional factors. There is an urgent need to investigate consequences of various anti-nutritional factors, individually and in combinations, to nutrient digestibility, utilization and metabolism as well as to intestinal function, structure, defence mechanisms and microbiota. Long-term effects also merit investigation. This will aid in the ability to predict how a newly introduced plant ingredient as well as combinations of plant ingredients may affect the fish and identify steps needed to avoid adverse health effects. As many of the potential disadvantages of using plant oils in salmonid diets are related to either very high levels of n-6 PUFA (most available oils) or very high levels of linseed oil, it would be recommended that mixtures of plant oils should be used as feed inclusions. By adjusting the ratio of n-6 and n-3 the level of eicosanoids can be controlled. By including palm oil, potential problems in lipid digestibility and transport can be controlled. A standard inclusion of soybean lecithin may also be advisory. These and other variants of mixtures of oil sources have been explored in recent years with some success in salmonid fish. Such mixtures do not seem to be necessary for marine fish. Modern finfish aquaculture faces problems such as bone and skeletal deformities, cataracts, heart disorders, unspecific ulceration and various digestive disorders including intestinal colic in Atlantic cod, gastric dilatation (bloat) in rainbow trout, and intestinal tumours, at low incidence, in Atlantic salmon broodstock. Most of the mentioned problems have been related to malnutrition, feed, intensive growth and/or unfavourable environmental conditions. The disorders are often not lethal, but may imply a fish welfare problem and increase the susceptibility to secondary disorders and infectious diseases. Major changes in feed composition and feed ingredients may increase the risk for such production-related disorders in intensive fish farming. Care should be taken when choosing plant alternatives, both types and qualities, to prevent nutrition-related diseases such as skeletal deformities, cataracts, heart conditions, and other, unspecific symptoms. The change from marine- to plant-based diet ingredients, results in changed profile and content of undesirable substances. The list of undesirable substances included in the feed legislation is, in general, sufficient, but it should be considered to include pesticides in use today and more of the mycotoxins. Currently only aflatoxin B1 is included, while only recommendations exist for other mycotoxins. Studies of dietary exposure to undesirable substances, e.g. pesticides and mycotoxins, and their toxic effects and toxicokinetics in fish are scarce. To date, the application of pre- and probiotics for the improvement of aquatic environmental quality and for disease control in aquaculture seems promising; however, the information is limited and sometimes contradictory. Currently there are numerous gaps in existing knowledge about exogenous nucleotide application to fish including various aspects of digestion, absorption, metabolism, and influences on various physiological responses, especially expression of immunogenes and modulation of immunoglobulin production. As limited information is available about the effect of immunostimulants, prebiotics and nucleotides on gut morphology, this topic should be given high priority in future studies. Heat processing of raw materials and of the complete fish diets may potentially alter nutritional properties of plant materials. However, the negative effects appear to be modest under practical conditions.

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified LLcotton25

Genetically modified LLcotton25 from Bayer Crop Science expresses the bar gene from Streptomyces hygroscopicus ATCC21705 encoding the phosphinothricin-acetyl–transferase (PAT) enzyme, which confers tolerance to the active herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. Updated bioinformatics analyses of the inserted DNA and flanking sequences in LLCotton25 have not indicated potential production of putatively harmful toxins or allergens caused by the genetic modification. Genomic stability of the functional insert and consistent expression of the bar gene have been shown over several generations of LLCotton25. Data from field trials indicate that with the exception of the newly introduced trait, LLCotton25 is compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to its conventional counterpart Coker 312 and other cotton cultivars. A 33-day nutritional assessment trial with broilers has not revealed adverse effects of cottonseed meal from LLCotton25. Toxicity testing of the PAT protein in a repeated-dose dietary exposure test with rats did not indicate adverse effects. The PAT protein produced in LLCotton25 does not show amino acid sequence resemblance to known toxins or IgEdependent allergens, nor has it been reported to cause IgE-mediated allergic reactions. It is therefore unlikely that the PAT protein will cause toxic or IgE-mediated allergic reactions to food or feed containing LLCotton25 compared to conventional cotton cultivars. Cotton is not cultivated in Norway, and there are no cross-compatible wild or weedy relatives of cotton in Europe. Based on current knowledge and with the exception of the introduced traits, the VKM GMO Panel concludes that LLCotton25 is nutritionally, compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to and as safe as its conventional counterpart and other cotton cultivars. Considering the intended uses, which exclude cultivation, the VKM GMO Panel concludes that LLCotton25 does not represent an environmental risk in Norway.

Final Health and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Cotton GHB614

Genetically modified cotton GHB614 from Bayer Crop Science expresses a modified epsps gene (2mepsps) gene from maize encoding the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase (2 mEPSPS), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Updated bioinformatics analyses of the inserted DNA and flanking sequences in GHB614 have not indicated potential production of putatively harmful toxins or allergens caused by the genetic modification. Genomic stability of the functional insert and consistent expression of the 2mepsps gene has been shown over several generations of cotton GHB614. Field trials indicate that with the exception of the introduced trait, cotton GHB614 is compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to its conventional counterpart Coker 312 and other cotton cultivars. A 42-day nutritional assessment trial with broilers did not reveal adverse effects of cottonseed meal from GHB614. The 2mEPSPS protein produced in GHB614 does not show amino acid sequence resemblance to known toxins or IgE-dependent allergens, nor has it been reported to cause IgE-mediated allergic reactions. It is therefore unlikely that the 2 mEPSPS protein will cause toxic or IgE-mediated allergic reactions to food or feed containing cotton GHB614 compared to conventional cotton cultivars. Cotton is not cultivated in Norway, and there are no cross-compatible wild or weedy relatives of cotton in Europe. Based on current knowledge and with the exception of the introduced trait, the VKM GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB614 is nutritionally, compositionally, phenotypically and agronomically equivalent to and as safe as its conventional counterpart and other cotton cultivars. Considering the intended uses, which exclude cultivation, the VKM GMO Panel concludes that GHB614 does not represent an environmental risk in Norway.