The likelihood that the Government will back a ban on four antibiotics used in livestock production is "political expediency at its absolute worst", according to Irish veterinary drugs manufacturers. The EU-wide ban is an attempt to halt growing resistance to antibiotics and increasing incidence of "superbugs" affecting humans.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) said it will quickly enforce any such measure. But the Animal and Plant Health Association, which represents the industry, said it would do little to protect human health.
A decision is to taken by agriculture ministers next week.
APHA director Mr Declan O'Brien said a ban would lead to greater use of therapeutic antibiotics, which was not in the interest of public health, and would "put European food producers at a considerable disadvantage" in competing with non-EU produce.
He said: "Once again, the European Commission is undermining its own legislation. I'm afraid the Minister for Agriculture will cave in. It's easier to implement a ban than take on a battle."
The antibiotics, known as antimicrobials or digestive enhancers, are added in low doses to feeds to promote growth and disease-resistance. The ban coincides with increasing resistance among bacteria that infect humans.
The exact cause of this is unknown, though the strains involved can be similar to those found in animals. Antibiotics due to be banned are spiramycin, bacitracin zinc, virginiamycin and tylosin phosphate. They have international annual sales in excess of £500 million.
Antimicrobials do not cause a significant "kill" of microbes, Mr O'Brien said. They simply modify the bacterial flora in the animal gut, allowing the most advantageous bacteria to prosper. This subtle mechanism was not sufficiently powerful to facilitate survival of resistant strains.
The Commission's undermining of its health legislation by banning products it had already approved, and member-states' inconsistency, meant EU consumers no longer believed assurances of safety.
He said the Commission should await the findings of two EU reports on antibiotic resistance. These would show no indication of resistance caused by digestive enhancers, the APHA director believed. Its motivation, he claimed, was to fit in with Sweden, which banned these antibiotics yet must be in tune with EU legislation by January.
Sweden had pressed for an EU-wide ban. The Commission had gone against positions taken up to recently by its independent scientific committee on animal nutrition, which found a ban was unnecessary.
A ban would make pig and poultry producers less efficient, lead to increased non-EU imports, particularly of chicken and pork produced with digestive enhancers, and threaten many jobs. Because of the debacle over an EU ban on hormones in beef, the Commission would not move to stop such produce because it would lead to conflict at World Trade Organisation (WTO) level, Mr O'Brien said.
FSAI chief executive Dr Patrick Wall said a group affiliated to its scientific advisory committee was looking at the issue and comparing strains in animals and humans. It would row in with any decision taken by the EU, given the extent of the problem.
The Green MEP Ms Nuala Ahern said the ban was vital to public health. Sweden had banned the remaining four antibiotics used in feed.
Such antibiotics were estimated to be in 80 per cent of animal feeds, she said, and used as a means of counteracting the effects of intensive rearing.
More research was needed on their effects in animals intended for human consumption, she said. "Moreover, there seems to conflict between those responsible for public health and the activities of the WTO."
