Black and White thinking
I notice in everyday practice that there is much uncertainty about the availability and use of antibiotics of today. I also notice that there are also many old wives' tales going around that are based on nothing. Reason enough to nuance that.
When Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin in 1928, not as everyone would have realized that it would become the base of a multibillion industry. This discovery can still be called a blessing for human and animal. Infections that are now considered relatively harmless could, before this discovery, often lead to death. I myself have a great respect for the discovery of Fleming because it saved my life when I was a little child. Due to blood poisoning I spend 6 months in the hospital. The discovery of Fleming led to the development of a large number of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents.
For convenience, we call everything antibiotics, although that is not correct. Tetracycline compounds such as Doxycycline and oxytetracycline for example, belong to this group of chemotherapeutic agents. For convenience, we categorize them popularly among the group of antibiotics because they have in common that they can it pretty damn difficult of bacteria. In the early days of antibiotics, one had the illusion that this all might get the pathogens under control. Words to that effect when I read an article from the late fifties of the last century, in which an expert from that time made it plain.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that this was a silly assertion. But our government, with the knowledge that we had back then, had no objection to add preventive antibiotics to the food of pigs and poultry well into the second half of the last century. This because they discovered that the animals grow faster and one could urn more.
Criticism of this policy was at that time barely tolerated. Voices caveats placed on this policy were ridiculed. But gradually it became clear that bacteria were not crazy and managed to find an answer to the overuse of antibiotics in the form of resistance to the medicine used. Critical minds began when more stirring. Where the now older vets were still crammed during their studies with the knowledge that they could use rampant antibiotics was also shown the other side of the coin with the next generation of veterinarians. They became aware of the dangers of the resistance of the bacteria to the frequent use of antibiotics. There was more research done. This resistance slowly began to be a problem in hospitals and in the treatment of humans. In the Netherlands a development of less use of these products began. More rules where sett after that. But these regulations were hardly seen abroad. And now there is a big gap between the legislation as it is in the Netherlands now and neighboring countries to implement and monitor compared to the Southern European countries. Not even talking about the Countries far, far away.
So there is a big difference in the approach of antibiotic use between countries. And yet the world is getting smaller. Stepping into a plane and a few hours later you will find yourself in a land far away where all other rules apply. Also with regard to use of antibiotics. In European society, in any country, at their own pace to find a solution to the problem that has arisen with regard to the resistance around antibiotics. These regulations vary from very loose to very strict. The policy with regard to antibiotics in the Netherlands and surrounding countries is also in a period of transition. The regulations regarding the use of antibiotics is changing. Total Logically this leads to misunderstanding and questions. After all, we are in the middle of this process. The policy that one stands in the Netherlands can be gathered under the group of more stringent regulations if they put it against the regulations of the globe as a whole.
In 1987 the first Veterinary Medicines law was introduced. It was arranged that all veterinary drugs used in the Netherlands had to be registered. Also antibiotics. The aim was obviously to get into the proliferation of funds of previous decades had emerged. Regarding antibiotics was, however, an exception was made at the time of the so-called minor species. That meant that if there are less than 5% antibiotics was in a game that could be sold. Freely All this was at that time, of course, a purely political decision. After these 5% pots only worked the resistance, which they now want to fight to get in hand. The dosages of the antibiotics used were often much too low to effectively kill off all harmful bacteria. However this rule managed to stay alive for more than 25 years. Because this exception was removed only on 1 January of this year and the 5% pots may not be sold freely since. This put a misunderstanding in the world. Customers approached veterinarians with the question if it was no longer allowed to sell antibiotics. This is not the case (yet).
The events in public health in the nineties of the last century and the first years of this century, were the spirits and the public is ripe for further intervention. Everyone became convinced that situations such as MRSA and EHEC bacteria were totally undesirable. There should be measures. Politicians took her responsibility and if there was an Authority Antibiotics were leading in the regulations and the use of antibiotics. This setting is trying shape the changes what are going on right now. The politics dictated the dangers that threaten public health and food safety states that there should be a drastic reduction in the use of antibiotics in humans and animals. In addition to public health in the first place, the food on the second and animal health in third place. Purely rational this is not as justifiable.
But practically when you are wearing the veterinarian had you have to swallow sometimes knowing that, that for which you are trained, the healing of animals, has become subordinate to other issues and interests.
The sector in which the reduction in the use of antibiotics in a short time could be carried out, with success was in the bio-industry. During the annual conference of the Association vet the minister also praised the reduction of 50% in less than two years was achieved. Unfortunately, she also had a less pleasant communication. There must still be at 40% reduction. This means in practice that this hardly feasible even without painful procedures are necessary and that victims will fall within the meaning of animals not the most optimal drug prescribed can and will get. On the dividing line of the revolution the other species will no longer remain unaffected.
An example may clarify this. In order to give the reduction in the use of antibiotics, hands and feet, the Authority Antibiotics, this anti-bacterial agents classified into so-called first-, second-and third-choice means. The use of the latter two groups are only possible under certain conditions.
The stringent conditions apply to these third choice drugs (eg end belonged Baytril). Where these regulations in 2012 only applied to the livestock sector, this in 2013 also apply to the pet industry. Vets have their own policies drastically adapt to these new regulations. That this may lead to misunderstanding will be clear. For example, I was approached by a fancier who spoke shame that his vet where he bought Baytril for years to cure paratyphoid, did not want to supply the good anymore. I calmly explained that the veterinarian wishes to maintain only to the rules. That it was no reason to speak of shame The government sets the rules. The freedom of action that the vets knew regarding antibiotic use is no more.
Another fan asked me why trimsulfa still could be prescribed for paratyphoid and Baytril not. This has to do with, as said that trimsulfa is a first choice product and, therefore, takes a different approach.
So there are a lot of changes coming, partially already introduced. But what does this mean for our pigeons? Firstly, the current legislation requires that only registered veterinary medicinal product can be used. Are out there for a particular condition or may not be used in other animal species used.
Are there no products who can cure these particular condition or may not be used in other animal species, is there a specific problem then a vet (still) has the right to prepare a Magistrial product for the treatment of a disorder to solve the problem. Here is added that the use of second and third choice of products should be limited and subject to strict conditions that must be met. In practice, this means concretely that resources could not be, or with very great reluctance, should be used. A sanction on this will not wait long aswell I assume.
For many fanciers this will be difficult to digest. But things become reality. In Belgium and Germany they apply more and more restrictive rules regarding the use of antibacterial products. Here, each country has its own priorities. That makes it even more difficult to understand especially for pigeon breeders who have many international contacts.
Since the eighties of the last century I am working on developing natural products that can be used to prevent that pigeons/birds get sick.
For years these products where ridiculed and called off by many colleagues After all, it was much easier to cure with drugs than to take the disease to stay. The paradigm however is totally changed.
Disease prevention is now a must to be, because the resources that can be used to cure sick animals gets less accessible (in the interest of public health ...). Yes there will be funds left over to treat animals. But the question is whether the specific problems that pigeons sometimes have, can be effectively cured or not. I still believe that veterinarians should be able to continue to keep the right, integrity, to continue to work in specific severe cases, without running to sanctions.
Time will tell how hot the soup will be served in the future. But I fear that one does not want to see the color gray between black and white for the time being.
Good Luck!
Peter Boskamp
