Breaking – Three UK supermarkets sell antibiotic dosed chickens linked to deadly superbug outbreak

Three UK supermarkets sell antibiotic dosed chickens linked to deadly superbug outbreak | ITV News

Three of the UK’s biggest supermarkets are sourcing chickens dosed with antibiotics by a poultry producer in Poland linked to the spread of deadly superbugs.

An investigation by ITV News, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and The Guardian has discovered Asda, Iceland and Lidl are buying frozen chicken products from SuperDrob – a major European meat supplier – who we’ve discovered was the source of an outbreak of antibiotic resistant Salmonella in the UK and Europe in 2020, which killed five people and infected around 1,300 others. 

A letter obtained via Freedom of Information request from the UK’s Chief Veterinary Office Christine Middlemiss to her Polish counterpart in December 2020 stated her investigations “have now firmly linked the outbreaks with frozen, raw breaded chicken products imported from Poland, and to a specific poultry production company in Poland”. SuperDrob is then named in the letter as the company. 

Two and half years on, we carried out tests of waste samples collected from different poultry farms in different locations in Poland which produce chickens for SuperDrob, to see if antibiotics are being given to the chickens. The results indicated they are.

The samples tested positive for bacteria – including E. Coli, a source of food poisoning in humans – resistant to fluoroquinolones, the same group of antibiotics used in humans to treat life threatening infections. 

The tests were carried out at the University of Oxford by Professor of Medical Microbiology, Tim Walsh and his team. He told ITV News it is “extremely concerning” that the same antibiotics used to treat sickness in human beings are still being used in animals. 

“There is a direct link between the use of antibiotics in farms and the resistance that occurs, and then what happens in the human population,” he said. 

“We found enrofloxacin resistance, which would then give resistance to a drug that is a very similar drug we use in humans called ciprofloxacin. So, the use of enrofloxacin on the farms would actually mediate resistance to a human antibiotic, which is really important. 

“We know that this shouldn’t be happening but regrettably it seems to continue.” 

The samples also tested positive for colistin; an antibiotic of last resort used to treat very serious infections in humans. 

“Colistin should be banned for use in animals per se,” argues Professor Walsh. 

He likened the rise of antibiotic resistance to the whole human race “staring down the barrel of a gun”, or “a slow tsunami coming towards us.” 

The World Health Organisation has declared antimicrobial resistance a top global public health threat, directly killing more than 1.2 million people and associated with five million deaths in 2019. 

The United Nations estimates up to ten million deaths could be caused by superbugs and associated forms of antimicrobial resistance by 2050, matching the annual global death toll of cancer.  

As a result, the use of antibiotics in farming is subject to strict rules. 

Last year the European Union banned the excessive and routine use of antibiotics in farm animals as compensation for unhygienic cramped conditions where diseases like salmonella and E. coli can easily spread, often on factory farms. 

The new regulations mean that only sick, individual animals may be administered antibiotics.  

SuperDrob told us antibiotics are used in their chickens, and the company does not deny using the same groups of antibiotics used to treat human infection. 

A spokesperson said: “SuperDrob has imposed a reduction policy of a minimum of 10% year-on-year, with a view to phasing out the use of enrofloxacin and colistin in poultry treatment by the end of 2025.  This policy was initiated in 2020 and SuperDrob has achieved at least the minimum reduction each year.   

“Antibiotics are only used in SuperDrob’s farms or in the farms of its suppliers when (1) recommended by a veterinarian, and (2) justified by presence of a disease and where administration of antibiotics would achieve therapeutic success. The whole treatment process is recommended, supervised, and coordinated by the Government veterinarian based on knowledge, case analysis, results of testing.” 

SuperDrob declined to comment on the salmonella outbreak in 2020. 

Wow, what a surprise (I dont think)– Mark

13 June 2023

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the update to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which for the first time includes an explicit mention of animal welfare.

On 8 June 2023, the OECD released a “targeted update” of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, which for the first time calls on businesses to uphold animal welfare in their policies and practices. The guidelines, which are regarded as a global benchmark for ethical business practices, could have far-reaching positive implications for animals across the 38 member countries of the OECD.

Unlike the 2011 Guidelines, which did not discuss animal welfare, the updated Environment chapter calls on enterprises to respect international animal welfare standards and describes “good welfare” as requiring, among other things, that the animal is healthy, comfortable, and well nourished, provided a stimulating and appropriate environment, ensured humane handling, and subjected only to humane slaughter or killing:

85. Enterprises should respect animal welfare standards that are aligned with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Terrestrial Code. An animal experiences good welfare if the animal is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress, and is able to express behaviours that are important for its physical and mental state. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and appropriate veterinary care, shelter, management and nutrition, a stimulating and safe environment, humane handling and humane slaughter or killing. In addition, enterprises should adhere to guidance for the transport of live animals developed by relevant international organisations.

While animal welfare has not consistently been considered a Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) issue, the new additions make clear that respecting animal welfare is part of due diligence and necessary to ensure RBC. The text allows civil society to file complaints via National Contact Point (NCP) mechanisms and engage directly with enterprises regarding their failure to ensure, through due diligence, good animal welfare for animals in their value chains. This marks a significant improvement on the previous Guidelines and we are grateful that civil society had the opportunity to provide input during the public consultation phase.

Nonetheless, the language on animal welfare leaves some room for improvement. First, the guidance to align with WOAH standards is disappointing, given that these are often much less ambitious than EU welfare standards. Further, in emphasising the necessity to comply with existing laws and regulations, the guidance overlooks the need to proactively minimise potential harms. Also, there is nothing about the need to strive for a good quality of life for animals, nor to decrease the amount of live animal transport journey time. The OECD is therefore urged to issue improved guidance moving forward.

This update is also highly welcome as it coincides with the preparation of mandatory due diligence legislation in the EU, which draws partly from the OECD Guidelines. The EU legislation will seek to embed sustainability in  global value chains by ensuring EU companies  identify, prevent or repair environmental and/or human rights adverse impacts. However, the legislative proposal makes no reference to animal welfare at present. Eurogroup for Animals therefore calls on the Council and the European Parliament to remedy this omission in the wake of this update, and to include robust and explicit language on animal welfare during the trilogue stage.

Regards Mark

8 June 2023

Photo – Mark

The importance of a comprehensive and ambitious revision of the animal welfare legislation took centre stage at Eurogroup for Animals’ annual conference in Brussels.

Yesterday, over two hundred guests from all over Europe came together in Brussels and more than one hundred participants followed the online streaming for Eurogroup for Animals’ annual conference, just months before the European Commission (EC) is set to unveil its revised legislation on animal welfare. 

This conference comes at a critical moment in time and animal protection organisations, along with MEPs, are calling on the European Commission to uphold its commitment to animal welfare, and to ensure a bold new legislation that allows for the true protection of animals. 

Held at the Royal Library of Belgium, the event hosted Eurogroup for Animals’ member organisations from 26 Member States, MEPS, representatives of the European Commission, and other stakeholders.

The organisation was honoured to welcome Peter Singer, Professor of bioethics and author of ‘Animal Liberation Now’, The book is a revised version of the classic ‘Animal Liberation’, which was one of the foundations of today’s animal protection movement. 

I am delighted to be able to present my new book, ‘Animal Liberation Now’, at the annual conference of Eurogroup for Animals. This book renews and brings fully up to date the ideas I presented in 1975 in Animal Liberation. Since that time, there has been a significant improvement in the conditions in which hundreds of millions of animals live in Europe, especially those in factory farms, and Eurogroup for Animals has been leading the way in its advocacy of these changes. Nevertheless, these reforms still fall far short of what is required for us to treat animals ethically, and without speciesism. What happens in Europe is important not only for animals in Europe, but worldwide, as it sets an example of what’s possible. The EU institutions have the opportunity to be a leader

Peter Singer

Peter Singer at Eurogroup for Animals’ Conference

During the event, Tilly Metz MEP (Greens, LU) insisted that the revision should not be further delayed because of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board that failed to analyse the long-term impact of such policies:“The science is clear, there is enough data, it is incomprehensible that this is delayed any further,” she said.

Niels Fugslang MEP (S&D, DK) expressed the strong desire among MEPs to have an Animal Welfare Commissioner, a significant role that will ensure more accountability and which has been widely supported by citizens. 

The importance of securing a budget to protect farmers and support them in transitioning to cage-free systems was put forward by Andrea Gavinelli, Head of the Animal welfare and Antimicrobial Resistance Unit (EC), a remark supported by Joanna Stawowy, Member of the Cabinet of the European Commissioner for Agriculture.

“2023 is a critical year for the animals – after ten years, change is in sight, as the EC is set to revise its animal welfare legislation which is seriously outdated when it comes to science and civil societies’ demands. Over 20 EFSA opinions have not been incorporated in actual legislative provisions. This has resulted in a dire situation for the animals across the board. With 5- soon to be 6- European Citizens Initiatives calling for better animal welfare, the institutions can’t ignore this any longer. We trust the European Commission will uphold its commitments”, commented Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals. 

“Factory farming is the biggest cause of food waste in the world, it undermines the very thing we all need – healthy soil. Not addressing the meat and dairy industry will mean that climate, biodiversity and food security talks will fail. Regenerative farming is the only way forward, we simply cannot afford not to change,” added Philip Lymbery, President of Eurogroup for Animals.

Keynote speaker Melanie Challenger, writer, researcher and broadcaster on environmental history, philosophy of science and bioethics added: “This is both an exciting and a testing time for our relations with other animals. Our exploitation of non-human animals has increased at the same time as our moral sensitivity, and those two shifts are out of sync. Exceptional times require exceptional responses. I believe we need to recognise the dignity of other species and find ways to allow them to be heard in the political arena.”  

During the event, Eurogroup for Animals presented its awards, which aim to acknowledge the efforts of member organisations and corporates in their fight for animal welfare. Djurens Rätt was awarded the Campaign for Animal Award for their campaign “The World’s Best Animal Welfare”, which featured an animated short movie that reflects the life of broiler chickens, and was streamed across cinemas in Sweden. 

The Corporate Campaign Award was presented to IKEA Belgium for offering innovative solutions to the substitution of animal products and the use of animals in their products. GAIA, which submitted the candidature, welcomed the award: “We nominated IKEA Belgium for its commitment and approach. This is highly visible to both staff and customers in their restaurants where plant-based alternatives are given priority and are also offered at lower costs. This is the way forward for other businesses”, commented Ann De Greef, CEO at GAIA. 

Participants at conference

Regards Mark

You support killing animals so you can boast they ate grass before they were killed? | Our Compass (our-compass.org)

The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter how nice a life an animal has, the moment we exploit them for what is rightfully theirs and eventually take them to the slaughterhouse or to the yard to kill them, that is abuse. Animals don’t want bigger cages or larger barns, they don’t care whether or not they’re grass-fed, or organic. All the animals want is to be free, truly free. Not free-range, not free to pasture months of the year. Free to live their lives in their entirety, without fear of human inflicted pain, suffering or exploitation. Earthling Ed

Do remember that small farms are largely defunct due to the global demand for cheap flesh; while there are still small farms in existence, they are the exception, and even though everyone in the multiverse claims to be opposed to factory farms, given their dominance “producing” 99% of animals consumed in the USA and >75% according to one source and >90% according to another, of animals consumed globally, each year, someone’s lying. Case in point: I recently came across a person who vehemently defended his position as being opposed to factory farms … while admitting he eats factory-farmed animals. This is why a welfarist position is meaningless: it requires animal suffering and death, and for many humans is 100% verbal and includes 0% actual concern and action FOR THE ANIMALS. (And the discrepancy in factory-farmed numbers is likely because the numbers of animals violently killed globally each year is so mind-numbingly high, it’s difficult for humans, the “intellectually superior species”, to count.) SL

Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE

Order a FREE vegan kit HERE

Dairy-Free Info HERE

Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE

Click HERE for more Dairy-Free

Fish alternatives can be found HERE

Learn about eggs HERE

Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE

Click HERE for clothing without suffering

Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only humane:

PETA HERE

Vegan Outreach HERE

Get your FREE Anti-Speciesism Activist Kit from PETA HERE

Click HERE for Well-Fed World’s Free Climate Food Guide PDF

Thanks Stacey – Regards Mark

5 June 2023

Food safety is a matter of growing concern for the health of EU citizens: how we produce and consume food has an impact not only on animals but also on public health, environment, people and climate.

Kangaroos

60-75 % of human disease comes from wildlife disease transmitted to humans, in part by the wildlife trade and consumption. After they are shot in remote areas, the carcasses of kangaroos are eviscerated and transported in unrefrigerated open trucks, sometimes all night long, and under very high temperatures. In order to tentatively prevent Salmonella and E.coli contaminations, the carcasses are washed with lactic acid, although this isn’t an allowed practice for fresh game meat in the EU and does not fully eliminate contamination risks. Russia has banned imports of kangaroo meat based on these hygienic issues. Lead poisoning from the bullets is another health concern, also posing a serious environmental risk, as highlighted by recent ECHA reports on the restriction of lead ammunition in the EU. In this context, Eurogroup for Animals calls on an EU ban on imports of kangaroo products, including meat. You can sign our petition to support this call.

The EU must stop imports of kangaroo products

BROWSE TO THIS PUBLICATION

Horse meat

Despite the 2013 horse meat scandal, little has been done to prevent such food safety issues. In the EU, horses can be excluded from the food chain when they are administered substances making the consumption of their meat unsafe. However, recent Europol investigations revealed massive frauds with horses excluded from the food chain slaughtered and their meat distributed throughout the EU, highlighting the insufficiencies in the implementation of traceability requirements. We call on the EU to ensure the proper implementation of traceability requirements and to introduce Country of Origin Labelling for horse meat, indicating the country where the animal has been born, reared and slaughtered.

Besides horse meat produced in the EU, EU audits, NGO investigations, also summarised in the Stable to Fork report, and academic papers (see, for example, Weber et al., 2023),   reveal severe shortcomings in the traceability and identification of horses slaughtered in third countries whose meat is imported into the EU. Veterinary medical treatments are not properly recorded leading to horses that were administered banned drugs, such as phenylbutazone, to enter the food chain. It is important to note that equine traceability requirements implemented in the EU do not apply to animals whose products are imported.

From stable to fork: EU Horse Meat Imports (updated version)

BROWSE TO THIS PUBLICATION

Reducing meat and dairy consumption

Highly contagious diseases, either emerging or endemic, in animal populations such as Avian Influenza, African Swine Fever or, more recently, COVID-19 stress the need to build more resilient and sustainable societies. 

How we produce and consume food has an impact not only on animals but also on public health,environment, people and climate.

An increased focus on animal welfare can play a key role in finding solutions to many of the current global food safety challenges we are facing. De-intensifying animal production by reducing the numbers of animals coupled with better animal welfare will improve animal health and welfare and contribute to reducing the risk of future pandemics.

Regards Mark

5 June 2023

Impact study by lobby organisation on the phasing out of cages contradicts scientific findings.

The impact study on transitioning to cage-free farming presented by Copa-Cogeca, the largest industry body representing the biggest farming entities, is a far stretch from EFSA’s scientific conclusions. The assumptions by the lobby organisation uses fear mongering to paint a picture that is far from the truth.  

In this assessment, Copa-Cogeca starts from the premise that EU producers would need to adhere to standards mostly higher than those applied in third countries. This would turn the EU, currently a net exporter of animal products, into a net importer of such products. Moreover, it ends on the unsubstantiated assumption that the European Commission could be considering a “shock scenario” in their revised animal welfare legislation. This vision does not match the numerous commitments made by the European Commission to consider introducing import requirements in the new legislation. 

Copa-Cogeca put forward calculations of welfare consequences which are strikingly different from those presented by EFSA in their scientific opinion on pig welfare, claiming a rise in piglet mortality and sow injuries, increased aggressive behaviour in sows and increase of culling. 

Numerous scientific sources included in the EFSA opinion point to the opposite conclusions: that cage-free systems and free farrowing do not increase piglet mortality and generally improve the welfare of the animals. 

Sows are calmer when they are free to move around and the satisfaction of staff is improved when they interact with animals with lower levels of stress. With the correct management, free-farrowing systems can be beneficial to both animals and staff, contrary to claims by the industry.  The lobbying industry continued to ignore scientific basis, claiming that rabbits are impossible to farm commercially without cages, ignoring the fact that numerous farmers have been doing this for years. The basis of the revised animal welfare legislation, which is also looking into the ban of cages for rabbits, is based on scientific evidence and industry experience.  

The economic analysis also contradicts the findings of existing studies on the matter. While Copa-Cogeca claims that cage-free systems are less profitable, existing studies establish that the most profitable system to the farmer is indeed free-range. The Best Hens Practice project has also demonstrated to farmers that there will be no difference in income when they transition from cages. Furthermore, the number of eggs produced in all EU Member States is growing despite the increase of cage-free systems being adopted. 

Conveniently, the massive animal welfare consequences resulting from the current farming practices in caged systems were completely left out of the presentation. Scientists around the globe concur that cages are detrimental to animal welfare, and EFSA scientific opinions are very clear about the need to phase out cages for all farmed species. Consumer preferences were also absent from the presentation, despite the fact that millions of European citizens support the transition to cage-free farming and have high expectations when it comes to protection of animal welfare in the EU.

Despite the numerous claims of the report that contradict reputable welfare and economic studies, we agree with one of the conclusions: financial support from the EU is crucial for farmers to transition sustainably and keep farmers in the profession. We are pleased to see that this call is being echoed among all stakeholders in this debate, together with the ask to apply the same animal welfare standards to domestically produced products and imported goods.  

The transition to cage-free will ensure a level-playing field across Europe, safeguarding the livelihoods of farmers. With that in mind, the shift should be swift to avoid creating more disparity among Member States and incurring any negative impacts, such as those that the industry encountered when the ban on barren cages came into force in 2012. As indicated in the report on the fitness check of the current animal welfare legislation, the long transition period to enriched cages led some producers to wait until the last possible moment before changing their infrastructure, which unnecessarily increased egg prices and created a situation of unfair competition among Member States. Such a situation can be avoided by setting short but realistic transition periods. 

In the European survey of farmers’ experiences, early adopters of this transition encouraged others to do the same, and to look at how different animal farming can be, when based on best practices and backed up by science. As one of the farmers interviewed for our report said: “To sum up, it is worth it. I think we all agree on that”.

Regards Mark