Black and white thinking

I notice in the daily practice that much slur is about the availability and use of antibiotics today. Further, I note that there many Hammenmärchen are based on nothing. Enough reasons to say something about.

When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928 not all realized is determined that it would be the basis for a multi-billion industry. This discovery is still a blessing for man and animal. Infections are seen as relatively harmless, could often lead to deaths before this discovery. Personally, I have a great respect for the discovery of Fleming because it almost half a year in the hospital was allowed to spend me as a child that saved lives, as I because of blood poisoning. This discovery of Fleming led to the development of a large number of antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs. We call convenience sake all antibiotics even though that is not correct. Tetracycline compounds such as doxycycline and Oxytetracycline belong to this group of chemotherapy drugs.
Popularly we divide it into the Group of antibiotics because they have in common with each other that they can make pretty difficult it the bacteria. In the early days of antibiotics, you had the illusion that you could get all pathogens under control with this. I read words this way in an article from the end of the fifties of the last century, wherein an expert from this time outright claimed that. With the science of today, we know that this was a simple assertion. But our Government also saw with the former knowledge mix no problems in the preventive antibiotics in the feed of pigs and poultry until well into the second half of the last century, since you discovered that these animals as a result grew faster and so more could be earned. Criticism on this policy was then barely tolerated. Voices that made marginal notes, were frowned upon. But after that was not crazy clear bacteria were and found an answer on the excessive use of antibiotics and although in the form of resistance to the medium used. Critics made itself increasingly felt. Where she could use during their study still crammed antibiotics were with the knowledge that man unabated now older vets vets was shown the next generation also the other side of the coin. You became aware of the dangers of resistance of bacteria to prevent the frequent use of antibiotics. It has been researched more. This resistance slowly started a problem to be in the hospitals and in the treatment of people. In the Netherlands, then also a restrained statement in terms of the evolved to the use of this equipment. There were more and more rule. But abroad, hardly the speech was by this legislation. And today is a big gap between the legislation as it is introduced and controlled in the Netherlands and surrounding countries and which the E.g. South European countries. To talk about the countries further away did not.
So there is a big difference in how of the antibiotic use between the different countries. Nevertheless, the world is getting smaller and smaller. You get on a plane and a couple hours later it is far in a country away, where different rules apply. Also with regard to antibiotic use.
European society searches for a solution of the problem which has arisen about antibiotics in terms of resistance in each country at its own pace. This legislation varies from very loose to very strict. The policy with regard to antibiotics in the Netherlands and surrounding countries is located in a Transitionsperiode. In relation to the use of antibiotics the legislation changes completely. Logically that this leads to misunderstanding and questions. Because we are in the middle of this process. Can be divided the policy which it advocates in the Netherlands in the Group of the more stringent legislation if we compare it with the legislation on the rest of the world.
The first animal medicines Act was introduced in 1987. Herein was regulated that all veterinary medicinal products used in the Netherlands had to be registered. Even antibiotics. Goal was to get in the proliferation of funds created in the decades before naturally to insight. With regard to antibiotics, an exception was made at the time but for the so-called 'minor species'. This meant that if less than 5% contained antibiotics in a box they were allowed to be sold freely. One or the other was of course a pure Politike decision. Because this 5% bottles had only the resistance that you would like to fight today in the hand. The dosages of antibiotics used to kill off effectively all defective bacteria were mostly too low. Nevertheless, knew this rule are yet 25 years able to keep. Because this exception has been removed only from January 1 this year and may be freely sold bottles of this 5%. This was a misunderstanding in the world immediately. Veterinarians were addressed with the question whether antibiotics now may be placed by customers. It is not so far (yet). One had in principle to do nothing at all with the other.

What is happening in the public health in the nineties of the last century made the public opinion ripe for another intervention. Everyone was convinced that situations such as with MRSA and EHEC bacteria were completely undesirable. Measures had produced. Policymakers took their responsibility and so one was ' authority antibiotics ' was the leader in the legislation and the use of antibiotics. This facility is so busy to make revolution taking place at the moment. The policy has, entered on the risk that threaten public health and food safety determines that a drastic reduction in the use of antibiotics in humans and animals must come. Play role in public health on first place, second place food safety and animal health on third place. Purely rationally, that is no more than logical. But practically you have to swallow with the veterinarian cap on sometimes when you consider that what it is trained, the recovery is become subordinated by animals, on other issues.

The sector with the reduction in the use of antibiotics could be performed in a short time with success, was the bio-industry. The Minister was then also praise regarding the reduction of 50% was reached in more than two years during the annual Congress of the Association of veterinary surgeon. Unfortunately, she had even less good news. It must happen reduction still 40%. This means specifically that the one and other hard to realize without the embarrassing interventions are necessary and that there will be victims on the divorce of upheaval within the meaning of animals that can no longer get prescribed the most optimal drug and be. Also the other species will remain no longer far from the scene.
An example to illustrate this. To give the reduction of the use of antibiotics hands and feet the authority has classified antibiotics these antibakterriëlle funds in so-called first -, second -, and third choice means. Here, the use of the latter two groups is only possible under certain conditions. The strictest conditions means for this third choice (this includes E.g. Baytril).
Where in 2012 this legislation only applied to the animals of economic sector, it applies also for the pets from 2013. Dramatically, veterinarians have to adapt their own rules to this new legislation. That this can lead to incomprehension will be clear. So I mentioned as a pigeon fancier who said shame that his veterinarian, where he buys for years Baytril to cures against paratyphoid, no longer wanted to deliver him. I explained to calm this man that the vet wanted to adhere only to the rule. So no reason there to speak of shame. The Government determines the laws. The freedom of Act that the vets knew in relation to Antibiotikabenutzung no longer exists.

An other growers no longer asked me why Trimsulfa was allowed to be prescribed even for paratyphoid and Baytril. That has so as we have said so to do, the Trimsulfa of a first choice is medium and therefore knows a different approach.

There are so many changes on the doorstep, partly already performed. But what does that mean for our pigeon sport? First writes the today's law that only registered veterinary medicinal products may be used. There not for a certain disease, then funds may be used for other species. Talking about a problem that cannot be solved with aforementioned means, then the veterinarian has (still) the right a so-called ' Magistrales means ' to prepare for the treatment of the disease.
Now is this come the use should be restricted by second and third election funds and is subject to strict conditions. In practice that means in concrete terms means that until now used were not allowed, or with very great reluctance, be allowed to use. A consequent policy of sanctions are not likely to remain out also. This will be difficult to digest for many pigeon fanciers. But it is the reality. There are ever more restrictive rule in relation to the use of antibacterial agents in Belgium and Germany. Here, every country has its own priorities. That will make it often even more difficult to understand for many pigeon fanciers with international contacts.

I am for the 80 years of the last century with the development of natural resources which can be used to prevent disease in pigeons. These funds were for years frowned upon by some colleagues and ridiculed. Because it was much easier to make in order to stay on the diseases to cure sick animals with drugs as is it trouble. The paradigm has changed but totally. Disease prevention is now a must, because the resources used can be to recover less and less accessible to sick animals (in the interests of public health,...). Certainly, it means will be left to treat animals. But the question is whether the specific problems sometimes have the pigeons this nor can more effectively be denied. I remain of the opinion that vets must reserves the right to, to be decent, that means staying mostly to work in specific serious cases, without running the risk to victims of sanctions.

The time will show us how hot is served the soup in the future. However, I fear you the shades of gray between black and white for the time being does not want to see.

Good luck

Peter Boskamp