DAFF LABORATORIES, BACKWESTON - Department of Agriculture

DAFF LABORATORIES, 

BACKWESTON 

Volume 3, Issue 4 Winter 2009 

NRL Contacts 

Antimicrobial 

Resistance 

Zoonoses 

(salmonella) 

Dr M Gutierrez 

Listeria 

Staphylococci 

Milk & Milk Products 

Ms B Hickey 

Ecoli (VTEC) 

Dr L Scott 

Parasites 

Dr T Murphy 

TSE’s 

Dr P Collery 

Residues/Chemical 

Elements 

Mr P Rafter 

Pesticide Residues 

Dr D O’Sullivan 

Campylobacter 

Dr J Egan 

Animal Proteins 

Mr G Roe 

Activities of National Reference Laboratories (NRL’s) 

Introduction 

In 2006 following the designation of a number of additional Community 

Reference Laboratories (CRL’s) by EU, Member States were required under 

Article 33 of Regulation 882 / 2004 to designate one or more National 

Reference Laboratory (NRL) for each CRL.The Departments of Health and 

Children and Agriculture and Food, as the Irish Competent Authorities, 

assigned these NRL functions to a number of laboratories including those 

within the Backweston Laboratory Campus. 

In this issue: 

(a) Report from the 4th Annual Workshop, Community Reference 

Laboratory on Campylobacter. 

(b) Report from the 4th Annual Workshop, Community Reference 

Laboratory on E. coli. 

(c) Report on the 3rd meeting of the Codex Alimentarius AdHoc 

Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance. 

Director of Laboratories: Dr Michael Gunn 

Newsletter 

1

DAFF Laboratories, Backweston Newsletter 

Report 

Fourth Annual Workshop of the 

Community Reference 

Laboratory for Campylobacter, 

Uppsala, Sweden, 5th - 7th 

October 2009 

NRL Representative: Dr. June Fanning, (CVRL, Backweston 

Campus). 

Fifty-four participants, representing NRL’s in Member States 

(MS) and Switzerland and Norway attended this meeting.A wide 

range of topics was discussed, including the zoonoses report, 

ISO and CEN activities, molecular typing methods and the ring 

trial results. There were presentations on MLST from 

Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Linda Svensson from the 

CRL presented the preliminary findings of PGFE-typing of the 

isolates from the baseline survey. She noted that the Campy- 

Net protocol was used, as it’s more robust than the Pulse-Net 

one. She found a large diversity between isolates. Marjaana 

Hakkinen (Finland) and Elina Lahti (CRL) summarised presentations 

of specific interest from the CHRO 2009 conference in 

Japan including vaccination of chickens against Campylobacter, 

qualitative microbiological risk assessment of Campylobacter 

and the Campylobacter situation in New Zealand. Åsa 

Rosengren (National Food Administration, Sweden) gave a presentation 

on the activities of NordVal in relation to the validation 

of alternative microbiological methods. 

Leena Räsänen (DG-Sanco) gave an overview of the role of 

NRL’s in official controls. She outlined the ‘Network of Cooperation’ 

that includes the European Commission, EFSA, 

ECDC, the CRL’s and NRL’s. The aim of this network is to 

improve food safety and human health. She focused particularly 

on the responsibilities of CRL’s and NRL’s under Regulation EC 

882/2004. ‘NRL’s are responsible for the quality of laboratory 

analyses in the official controls the MS. She also outlined the 

planned baseline survey of Campylobacter in broiler retail meat, 

which has been postponed for the present. 

Teresa Felicio (EFSA) presented an update on the EU baseline 

survey on Campylobacter in broiler flocks and Campylobacter 

and Salmonella in broiler carcases, however the results couldn’t 

be presented, as they were still confidential. In the data presented 

there were differing trends amongst MS’s in the notification 

rates of human Campylobacterosis from 2004 - 2007, 

which is similar to other Zoonoses. She outlined that 

Campylobacterosis in humans is still increasing and that broiler 

meat is the main food-borne source with high contamination 

levels.The aims of the Campylobacter and Salmonella in broilers 

baseline survey included obtaining comparable prevalences 

across MS’s in broiler flocks (Campylobacter) and broiler meat 

(Campylobacter and Salmonella) in order to implement com- 

2 

munity-wide control measures and legislation.This survey consisted 

of two sub-surveys (Salmonella and Campylobacter) and 

will be reported in three reports. One common report part A 

(due at the end of January 2010) and two separate reports part 

B (due at the end of April 2010). 

Teresa Felicio (EFSA) also presented results of an EU-wide 

questionnaire on the availability of molecular typing methods 

for food-borne pathogens.Twenty-six MS’s and four others took 

part.The findings showed that typing is performed occasionally 

for all pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter,VTEC, Listeria and 

S. aureus) and only a few countries type isolates routinely.There 

was also variation in the typing frequency between isolates from 

different sources (animals, food and feed). PFGE was the most 

commonly used typing method. Other methods used were 

MLVA, MLST, Spa typing, ribotyping and RFLP. The report has 

been published at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale- 

1178621753812_1211902507851.htm and the outcome will be 

discussed with the Commission and ECDC. It is likely the 

ECDC will carry out a similar survey in the human sector.They 

are also likely to take over Pulse-Net Europe, which is currently 

quite dormant. 

Eva Engvall (CRL) presented the quality assurance results of the 

identification of Campylobacter isolates from the baseline survey 

in 2008. 456 isolates from 28 countries were submitted for 

testing.The CRL tested 434 isolates (218 caecal isolates and 216 

carcase isolates) by the multiplex PCR described by Denis et al. 

1999.Additional assays were used for isolates that gave conflicting 

(or no) results. The assays used for difficult isolates are 

detailed in Fermér and Engvall 1999, Marshall et al. 1999 and 

Wang et al. 2002. There was 91.7% correlation between NRL 

and CRL results. 97% of isolates were either C. jejuni or C. coli. 

36 isolates either did not correspond or the species could not 

be determined by the NRL. Most diverging results were due to 

C. jejuni or C. coli mis-identification. PCR was found to be more 

reliable for species identification than phenotypic tests. 

Ingrid Hansson (CRL) presented the results of Ring Trial No. 5 

(May 2009).The ring trial involved detection of Campylobacter 

spp. by enrichment and culture on selective agar plates; subculture 

of suspected colonies on non-selective agar plates, confirmation 

and speciation by phenotypic and/or molecular methods 

and enumeration by direct culture on selective agar plates. 

There were 11 samples of meat (10g breast fillets) from broilers 

from Campylobacter negative flocks sent to each NRL. 

These 11 samples included varying levels of Campylobacter jejuni/coli 

inoculation dose (low, medium or high). There was also 

one un-innoculated sample and one containing A. butzlerii. 27 of 

the 35 NRL’s got all the results correct after enrichment and 

plating on mCCDA. Most NRL’s had a 1 - 3 log difference 

between sample with different concentrations of Campylobacter 

jejuni, Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter lari. There 

was no significant difference found in the amount of 

Campylobacter recovered from samples analysed 1, 2 or 3 days 

(or even 2 weeks in one case) after dispatch from the CRL. She 

Winter 2009


also pointed out that the CRL can provide limited support to 

NRL’s in preparing national ring trials. 

John Rodgers (VLA, UK) presented the results from a microbiological 

and epidemiological investigation of Campylobacter in 

broilers in the UK carried out at the VLA in 2007.A prevalence 

of 82% was found in UK broiler flocks in 2007. Higher prevalences 

were associated with summer, thinning and age of birds. 

C. jejuni was more prevalent than C. coli and present in most 

positive batches.Although mixed C. jejuni and C. coli were commonly 

found. Boot swabs, faecal droppings and caecal contents 

were tested. Boot swabs were found to be sensitive and convenient 

to sample and test. 

Steen Nordentoft (DTU Vet) presented surveillance and strategies 

employed to control Campylobacter in the Danish broiler 

primary production. Campylobacter and Salmonella are the two 

major zoonoses in Denmark. A monitoring programme for 

Campylobacter was established between 1998 and 2001 in 

which all broiler flocks were sampled. The initial results from 

this programme showed that C. jejuni was the most prevalent 

species (86%) in positive flocks; with much lower prevalences of 

C. coli (11%) and C. lari (1%). Within one year of the programme 

45% of flocks were positive, with a peak in the summer 

months (June – September), coinciding with peaks in human 

cases.There were large differences observed in the prevalence 

of positive flocks between farms. Risk factors for the introduction 

of Campylobacter in broiler flocks were identified as the 

lack of hygiene barrier, other animals or animal production in 

close proximity on the farm, thinning and the length of the 

down period between batches. A number of measures were 

introduced at farm (consultants, improved bio security and 

between batch cleaning and disinfection, higher prices for negative 

flocks and abandoning batch slaughter), in the laboratory 

(faster result turnaround times) and at the slaughter house 

(cloacal swabs, avoid cross-contamination between positive and 

negative flocks and negative flock used for fresh produce, 

whereas positive flocks were frozen) to lower the level of 

Campylobacter in broilers. As a result of these measures the 

prevalence was lowered from 45% to 25% of flocks. Many farmers 

in Denmark are able to produce Campylobacter negative 

broilers (even with thinning), however individual farmers need 

motivation to do something, still lack good bio security and 

good fly control.The quality of external labour and the maintenance 

of buildings were also found to be important factors. 

Enne de Boer (VWA,The Netherlands) gave a presentation on 

the recent activities of ISO concerning the revision of part 1 

and 2 of the detection of Campylobacter (ISO10272). An Ad 

Hoc Working Group of experts from Belgium, France, Italy, the 

Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,Thailand and the UK has been set 

up to revise this ISO standard. Part 1 is concerned with the 

detection of Campylobacter.A number of items are up for revision, 

including the enrichment medium, the isolation medium 

and the microaerobic incubation conditions. Part 1 of ISO10272 

is not optimal for the detection of Campylobacter in all matri- 

ces. Bolton broth is not sufficiently selective for several matrices 

(e.g. chicken products) and incubation conditions are not 

optimal for all matrices.The revised choice of enrichment medium 

will depend on a number of factors: the matrix to be tested, 

the microflora present (number and state of Campylobacters 

and the types and number of other microflora), incubation 

temperature and period and the choice of isolation medium.The 

main problem is that no single enrichment medium is 

optimal for detection of Campylobacter in all types of food.The 

other microflora in the product will determine the preferred 

enrichment medium. Preston broth is more selective than 

Bolton broth. 

It is proposed to split Part 1 into 2 sub-parts A and B. Part 1A: 

The detection of Campylobacter in foods with low background 

count of non-Campylobacters and/or with stressed Campylobacter 

(Bolton broth would be the preferred enrichment medium, 

4-6 hours at 37°C, 40-48 hours at 41.5°C, microaerobic, 

mCCDA and a second agar medium as isolation media) and 

Part 1B: The detection of Campylobacter in foods with high 

background counts of other organisms (Preston broth would 

be the preferred enrichment medium, 24 hours at 41.5°C, 

microaerobic, mCCDA as isolation medium). mCCDA is the 

first choice for an isolation medium and it is proposed/ideal to 

have a second medium that is principally different from 

mCCDA to increase the chance of detecting Campylobacter. It 

is proposed to combine mCCDA with a medium that does not 

contain cefoperazone, such as Butzler agar or Preston agar. In 

relation to microaerobic incubation there are 3 main options: a 

cabinet with the gaseous atmosphere automatically controlled, 

jars filled with the appropriate gas mixture and the use of jars 

and gas-generating kits.The automatically controlled cabinet is 

the best option and there can be problems with the other two 

if incubating for long times. 

Part 2 of ISO10272 is concerned with enumeration and confirmation. 

There are a number of suggested revisions. In relation 

to colony-count technique on mCCDA it is proposed to plate 

the initial suspension and do decimal dilutions according to 

ISO7218: 2007 (so not in duplicate) and if low counts are 

expected to put 1ml of the initial suspension onto 1 large or 3 

small agar dishes in duplicate.A number of changes to the confirmation 

are proposed also. Morphology/Motility and oxidase 

are considered the most valuable confirmation tests, whereas 

the value of microaerobic growth at 25°C and aerobic growth 

at 41.5°C are questionable. Microaerobic incubation at 25°C 

may be changed to aerobic and aerobic incubation at 41.5°C 

may be removed as some Campylobacter grow aerobically at 

41.5°C. It is also proposed to change to carrying out the microscopic 

examination directly from the selective plates and to 

delete the antibiotic sensitivity tests for nalidixic acid and 

cephalothin. Other tests, such as latex agglutination tests, PCR 

and microarray, may be useful for confirmation and identification.There 

will be a call for participation in a comparative study 

to be organised by the Ad Hoc Working Groups in the next 6 

months. 

Winter 2009 

3


Eva Engvall (Campylobacter CRL) presented a summary of the 

findings to a CRL questionnaire on molecular typing of 

Campylobacter in NRL’s. The results were similar to those 

found by EFSA. PFGE and MLST were the most commonly used 

methods; however different protocols were applied by various 

laboratories. Some NRL’s expressed an interest in obtaining 

some training on typing methods. 

Eva Engvall and Ingrid Hansson (Campylobacter CRL) outlined 

the CRL’s plans for NRL activities in 2010.The Campylobacter 

CRL will be held at the same time next year. NRL’s were asked 

to consider whether there is a need for reference standards for 

molecular methods (e.g. PFGE). There are two ring trials 

planned for 2010: one in detection and enumeration of 

Campylobacter in different matrices, which will be compulsory 

and one in identification of swabs of pure cultures (of isolates 

submitted by NRL’s to the CRL during the baseline survey of 

2008) which will be voluntary. The compulsory ring trial is 

planned for the Spring of 2010 (probably April) and must be 

carried out using the ISO standard. 

Report 

Fourth Annual Workshop of the 

Community Reference 

Laboratory for E. coli and 

VTEC, ISS, Rome, 30th 

October 2009 

NRL Representative: Dr J. Egan (CVRL, Backweston Campus). 

30 National Reference Laboratories (NRL) from 27 EU MS 

attended.The network covered 32 NRL’s in 27 MS and 3 others 

(Switzerland, Norway and Republic of Macedonia). 

Dr Johanna Takkinen gave a presentation on ECDC and its surveillance 

of VTEC infections in Europe. 49 diseases are now covered 

by EU legislation and monitored under 7 ECDC horizontal 

programmes. Half of the disease surveillance networks are 

linked directly to ECDC and the others should be by 2011. Dr 

Takkinen referred participants to a number of important strategy 

documents published by ECDC including its Long Term 

Surveillance Strategy (2007 - 2013) and its document on General 

Strategy on Cooperation with Microbiology Laboratories. 

The European Surveillance system (TESSy) has been up and 

running since 2008. Cooperation between public health, food 

and veterinary authorities was essential in ensuring consumer 

safety, as was the need for more integrated surveillance and 

adequate laboratory capacity in all sectors. 

Dr. Flemming Scheutz gave an update on progress on an agreed 

nomenclature of verotoxins. A group of experts from various 

institutions had been looking at a protocol for some time.The 

4 

benefits of an agreed system would facilitate comparability of 

results, minimising errors in conclusions, allowing for improved 

epidemiology and predictions of clinical outcomes including 

more appropriate public health actions. It was agreed that subtypes 

already designated should be respected as much as possible 

as specific subtypes have been shown to exhibit significant 

differences in biological activities (including association with 

HUS) and also to avoid the introduction of additional confusion 

to the nomenclature of these toxins. 

Dr. Beloeil, EFSA presented preliminary data on the VTEC situation 

in Europe as collated from the 2008 Zoonoses Report. 

This data remains confidential until released officially by EFSA. 

25 MS’s reported data on human infections in 2008, 18 reported 

data on food and 14 reported data on animals.VTEC cases 

reported in humans increased by over 8% from 2007. As was 

the case in 2007, the United Kingdom and Germany accounted 

for most (64%) of all cases reported in MS’s.VTEC continues to 

be mainly a Northern European problem.The notification rate 

was highest in Ireland with 4.8 cases per 100,000 population.As 

infection with VTEC is not notifiable in some MS’s and as there 

are differences in the sensitivities of the reporting systems, the 

data may not be fully comparable between states.The fact that 

over 60% of isolations are reported from two MS’s illustrates 

the difficulty analysing data and highlights the need for more 

compatible surveillance systems. 

More than half of confirmed human VTEC infections were associated 

with the 0157 serogroup. The majority of these were 

reported by the UK. Other prevalent serogroups were 026, 

0103, 0145, 091. Over 25% of isolates were untypable or 

untyped. As in previous years the distribution of infections 

followed a seasonal pattern with cases rising over the 

summer/autumn and peaking in September. 

VTEC contamination in food was low, a finding similar to previous 

years. However there was an increased frequency in isolations 

reported from raw cows milk. VTEC was also found in 

cheeses made from raw milk or from milk treated at low temperatures.VTEC 

was also reported at low levels from vegetables.Tests 

on over 14000 bovine meat samples were reported. 

Data presented to the meeting from the NRL (Food, Feed and 

Animal Health) in Ireland is captured in the poster at the end 

of this Newsletter. 

Dr Geraldine Smith (HPA, UK) gave a presentation outlining 

validation and application of MLVA for comparing VTEC 0157 

strains in UK. Typing methods currently used for VTEC in her 

laboratory include phage type,VT type and subtype, PFGE and 

MLVA.While PFGE has proven to be a valuable tool in epidemiological 

investigations it is slow and complex and impossible to 

maintain in real time for all isolates. The MLVA method, based 

on the occurrence of tandem repeats of short DNA sequences 

at specific loci, allows for isolates to be labelled numerically and 

results presented as a string of numbers. Studies in UK have 

shown that MLVA gives similar levels of discrimination to PFGE 

Winter 2009


and allows for similar epidemiological conclusions. Other factors 

favouring routine use of MLVA include data being available 

in less than half the time of PFGE, easier testing of larger batches 

of strains and more rapid data analysis. 

Dr Patrick Fach gave an overview of the molecular approach to 

serotyping STEC isolates.While numerous molecular methods, 

with varying performance, are available for serotyping, including 

more recently developed methods (e.g., Direct sequencing, 

PCR, RT-PCR, microarray etc.) their use in any laboratory will 

depend on factors such as the expertise of staff and the equipment 

and facilities available. 

Dr Stefano Morabito (CRL) presented the results of the 3rd 

inter-laboratory study on the detection of VTEC in carcass 

swabs. The study was focused on determining NRL’s ability to 

detect the “top 5” VTEC pathogenic serogroups (0157, 026, 

0103, 0111 and 0145) using the modified ISO 16654 procedure 

and RT-PCR based on the ISO technical specification. 29 NRL’s 

from 25 MS and one NRL from Switzerland participated. 

Samples for the trial contained one or more of the following 

organisms at various concentrations (2, 20, 2 x 103) VTEC 0157 

(vtx1, vtx2, eae),VTEC 026 (vtx1, eae), E. coli, K. pneumonia or 

S. faecalis. Performance of NRL’s in detection of VTEC 0157 by 

the modified ISO method was excellent. The 14 NRL who 

undertook the serogrouping correctly detected the presence of 

the serogroup-associated genes. With regard to detection of 

the virulence genes 15/16 NRL’s detected correctly the presence 

of vtx1 and eae and 5/16 the presence of vtx2.Thirteen of 

the fourteen NRL’s isolated 026 after performing RT-PCR from 

the 3 positive samples. 

Dr Alfredo Caprioli, in summing up the workshop and the work 

programme of the CRL, stated that good progress had been 

made in establishing and consolidating the EU NRL Network on 

E. coli. 30 NRL’s attended the 4th workshop compared with 19 

and 24 for the 1st and 2nd workshops respectively. Participation 

in the CRL ring trials had increased from 21 to 30 for the current 

trial.All NRL’s were now able to identify VTEC correctly by 

PCR. Although the number of NRL’s performing RT-PCR was 

low the number was increasing. The CRL would continue to 

provide the expertise and training to NRL’s as required. The 

next ring trial would involve detection of the top four VTEC 

non-0157 in foodstuffs and vtx subtyping would be undertaken 

with the ECDC-FWD network. 

Report 

Third Session Codex Ad Hoc 

Intergovernmental Task Force 

on Antimicrobial Resistance 

Introduction 

The Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on 

Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) was set up to develop science 

based guidance, taking full account of its risk analysis principles 

and the work and standards of other relevant international 

Organizations, such as FAO,WHO and OIE.The purpose 

of this guidance is to assess the risks to human health associated 

with the presence in food and feed including aquaculture and 

the transmission through food and feed of antimicrobial resistant 

microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes and to 

develop appropriate risk management advice based on that 

assessment to reduce such risk. 

The TFAMR recognizes that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a 

major global public health concern and a food safety issue. 

When pathogens become resistant to antimicrobial agents they 

can pose a greater human health risk as a result of potential 

treatment failure, loss of treatment options and increased likelihood 

and severity of disease. Problems related to AMR are 

inherently related to antimicrobial use in any environment, 

including human and non-human uses.The use of antimicrobial 

agents in food-producing animals/crops provides a potentially 

important risk factor for selection and dissemination of antimicrobial 

resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance 

determinants from animals/food crops to humans via the consumption 

of food. 

In accordance with Codex principles, risk analysis is an essential 

tool in assessing the overall risk to human health from foodborne 

AMR microorganisms and determining appropriate risk 

mitigation strategies to control those risks. Over the past 

decade, there have been significant developments with respect 

to the use of risk analysis approaches in addressing AMR. A 

series of FAO/OIE/WHO expert consultations on AMR have 

agreed that foodborne AMR microorganisms are possible 

microbiological food safety hazards. 

Consequently, the need for the development of a structured 

and coordinated approach for AMR-risk analysis has been 

emphasized. WHO/FAO and OIE guidelines on risk analysis 

provide broad, structured approaches to address the potential 

public health impact of AMR microorganisms of animal/crop origin 

via food. However, due to the biological complexity of AMR, 

the multidisciplinary aspects of AMR within the entire food 

production to consumption continuum and the need to identify 

appropriate risk mitigation strategies, these guidelines present 

a consolidated framework specific to foodborne AMR-risk 

analysis. 

Winter 2009 

5


More specifically, the TFAMR hopes that these guidelines will 

provide a structured risk analysis framework to address the 

risks to human health associated with the presence in food and 

animal feed, including aquaculture, and the transmission through 

food and animal feed, of AMR microorganisms or antimicrobial 

resistance determinants linked to non-human use of antimicrobial 

agents.The initial phase of the risk analysis framework consists 

of a group of tasks collectively referred to as “Preliminary 

Risk Management Activities”, which are carried out by the risk 

managers.This allows the risk manager to decide what action to 

take. This may involve the establishment of a risk assessment 

policy and the commissioning of a risk assessment or, perhaps, 

a more appropriate action. If it is decided to commission a risk 

assessment, the preliminary risk management activities will provide 

some of the basic information required by risk assessor 

undertaking this task. Later phases of the risk analysis framework 

include the identification, evaluation, selection and implementation 

of appropriate risk management actions to, if necessary, 

minimise and contain the identified risk to human health. 

Risk managers are responsible for verifying that the risk mitigation 

measures implemented are achieving the intended results, 

that unintended consequences associated with the measures 

are limited and that the risk management goals can be sustained. 

Good communication between risk assessors, managers 

and interested parties is essential for a transparent and 

informed risk analysis. 

The TFAMR held its Third Session in Korea, 12 -16 October 

2009. The Session was attended by 148 delegates from 43 

Member countries, 1 Member organization and Observers from 

8 international organizations and FAO and WHO. Dr John Egan 

(DAFF) was the Irish delegate. 

At the session the Representative of FAO, highlighted projects 

and workshops in the field of aquaculture to promote biosecurity 

and food safety through prudent and responsible use of 

antimicrobials. The Representative further informed the Task 

Force that the Guidelines on Risk Characterization of 

Microbiological Hazards in Foods, prepared by the Joint 

FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Microbiological Risk 

Assessment (JEMRA), had been recently published. 

The Representative of WHO informed the Task Force of the 

establishment of a WHO Advisory Group on Integrated 

Surveillance (WHO-AGISAR) to support WHO activities on 

integrated surveillance and containment of foodborne antimicrobial 

resistance. The Representative also informed the Task 

Force that the World Alliance for Patient Safety Programme in 

WHO had elected “Antimicrobial Resistance” as topic for the 

Third Global Patient Safety Challenge. The challenge would be 

launched in 2010 and WHO was preparing a policy document 

with specific intervention and implementation strategies to 

control and contain antimicrobial resistance in various areas, 

including animal husbandry. 

The Observer of OIE informed the Task Force on OIE’s activi- 

6 

ties to promote the responsible and prudent use of antimicrobials 

and to favour a harmonized approach to surveillance and 

monitoring of antimicrobial resistance, based on the development 

and regular updating of international standards and guidelines 

published in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code and that 

OIE was currently developing similar standards related to aquaculture. 

OIE activities to support its Members include: the 

development of tools to evaluate the performance of veterinary 

services (the OIE-PVS and PVS Gap analysis); a laboratory twining 

programme; support to modernize or update Members’ 

national legislation for marketing approval and control of veterinary 

products; and implementation of a coherent communication 

and training programme directed to OIE Delegates and 

designated focal points on veterinary products. 

The TFAMR congratulated to USA on their comprehensive 

work in progressing individual components of the risk analysis 

into one comprehensive document. Although the integrated 

document differed to some extent in text from that agreed at 

the previous meeting, the TFAMR agreed to accept most 

changes. There was agreement that the document should be 

practical, relevant, specific to foodborne AMR and not overly 

prescriptive. 

There were a number in-session WG’s established to deal with 

issues causing most concern and reflecting the many comments 

received i.e. (i) Supplementary Risk Management Options, (ii) 

Monitoring and Surveillance, (iii) Figures (outlining the RA 

framework and pathways) and (iv) Definitions. 

A general principle sought by EU to address animal health was 

agreed by TFAMR following extensive discussions. However the 

ECMS request for inclusion of animal welfare in this general 

principle was overwhelmingly rejected, as welfare was outside 

remit of Codex. 

The USA, supported by a number of other delegates, proposed 

the inclusion of appropriate references to international trade 

and SPS obligations/agreements in the guidelines. After the 

Codex secretariat pointed out that all codex members were 

members of WTO, all Codex texts voluntary and references to 

SPS inappropriate, the TFAMR did not support the US request. 

After some debate the TFAMR agreed to retain the 

reference to lists of critically important antibiotics formulated 

by national/regional authorities when developing a foodborne 

AMR risk profile. 

There was good agreement on all elements of the Risk 

Assessment section of the document. 

As with all previous meetings there was considerable discussion 

regarding the content of supplementary risk management 

options and their placement within the document. Some delegations 

favoured their placement in an Appendix while others, 

including the ECMS, strongly of the view that they should be 

Winter 2009


maintained in the main body of the text (some delegations felt 

that placement in an Appendix would reduce their importance). 

The TFAMR agreed to maintain these in a table in the main body 

of the document and with significant compromises on contentious 

issues there was agreement on most options. 

Text to outline actions to prevent food containing antimicrobial 

resistant microorganisms from being placed on the market or 

to subsequently withdraw it proved difficult to agree. A wording 

including the text “when identified as constituting a risk to 

public health that requires urgent action”, was agreed. 

Overall the TFAMR acknowledged that substantial progress was 

achieved at this session with a good spirit of cooperation by 

members and observers. However in order to facilitate discussion 

and finalisation of the document at the next and final session, 

the TFAMR agreed to establish a physical WG, under the 

chairmanship of Canada, to further consider Elements of Risk 

Profile. 

Following are the list of elements suggested to date for inclusion 

in the AMR Risk Profile. If any of our readers or local 

groups wish to provide input into this or other aspects of the 

TFAMR, please contact Dr John Egan, the Irish Representative 

on the TFAMR.The full report of the 3rd session of the TFAMR 

is available from the Codex website at the following link: 

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?lang=en 

Suggested elements to include in an 

foodborne AMR risk profile 

The objectives of an AMR risk profile are to present prerequisite 

scientific information on the identified food safety issue to 

inform risk managers prior to decision-making. An AMR risk 

profile should incorporate, to the extent possible, information 

on the following: 

1. Description of the AMR food safety issue 

• What is the potential hazard - the defined combination of the 

food commodity, the microorganism/antimicrobial resistance 

determinant, and the antimicrobial agent to which resistance 

is expressed? 

2. Food commodity information 

• How and where does the identified microorganism/ 

antimicrobial resistance determinant enter the food supply? 

• Which foods expose consumers to the identified 

microorganism/antimicrobial resistance determinant? 

• How much of those foods are consumed by the target 

populations? 

• What are the frequency, distribution and levels of occurrence 

of the identified microorganism/antimicrobial resistance 

determinant in foods? 

3. Microorganism/antimicrobial resistance determinant information 

• What are the microbiological characteristics of the 

identified food borne microorganism (e.g., virulence, growth 

conditions, etc.)? 

• What are the characteristics of the resistance expressed by 

the microorganism (e.g., spectrum of resistance, involvement 

of co- or cross-resistance, transferability, etc.)? 

4. Information on the antimicrobial agent to which resistance is 

expressed 

• How important is the antimicrobial agent in the treatment of 

human disease? 

• How important is the antimicrobial agent to animal medicine? 

• What pathways may have led to the presence of resistance to 

the antimicrobial agent? 

• Was the antimicrobial agent used in food production? If so, 

how was it used (e.g., applications, amounts)? Were related 

antimicrobial agents used in food production (potential role 

of cross-resistance or co-resistance)? 

• What other factors may affect the dissemination of AMR 

microorganisms and Antimicrobial resistance determinants 

through the food chain? 

5. Information on adverse public health effect(s) 

• What are the characteristics of the disease caused by the 

identified food borne microorganism (e.g., severity of effects, 

susceptible populations)? 

• What are the effects of antimicrobial resistance in the 

identified food borne microorganism (e.g., loss of treatment 

options, availability of alternative treatments, added burden of 

disease)? 

6. Other Relevant Information 

• What is the evidence of a relationship between the presence 

of the AMR microorganisms or antimicrobial resistance 

determinants on the food commodity and the occurrence of 

the adverse health effect(s) in humans? 

• What is the evidence of a relationship between the use of the 

antimicrobial agent and the occurrence of AMR microorgan 

isms, or antimicrobial resistance determinants, in the food 

commodity of concern? 

• What are potential risk mitigation strategies that could be 

used to control the hazard? 

• Are there current risk management practices in place? What 

is their effectiveness? 

7. Assessment of available information and major knowledge 

gaps 

• How much uncertainty exists in the available data? 

• Are there areas where major absences of information exist 

that could hamper risk management activities, including, if 

warranted, the conduct of a risk assessment? 

Winter 2009 

7

DAFF LABORATORIES, BACKWESTON - Department of Agriculture

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?