Logo

Informal meeting on Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance - Shared screen with speaker view
CSGLI interpretation MONITOR
03:45:23
interpretation is on from 20:00 exactly
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
03:45:43
Open a browser: Go to www.menti.com Enter the passcode: 8901862. We will have some questions for you there in Part 1 of the webinar
CODEX - Giuseppe Di Chiera
03:48:02
Visiten www.menti.com usando la clave de acceso: 8901862. Tenemos algunas preguntas para ustedes en la primera parte del seminario
COLOMBIA - Blanca Cristina Olarte Pinilla
03:51:08
Muy bien
LIBERIA - Diana K Gahn-Smith
04:01:34
Hello everyone, I am Diana K. Gahn-Smith National AMR FOCAL Point from Liberia. Glad to be a part of this meeting.
Melvin Tokpah
04:07:27
Yes Liberia is in participation
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
04:09:33
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR NAME APPEARS AS FOLLOWS:
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
04:09:48
COUNTRY NAME / FULL NAME
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
04:09:58
See report of CCEXEC79 paras 42 - 49 http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-702-79%252FReport%252FREP20_EXEC2e.pdf
TANZANIA - mwajuma Dukulai
04:10:19
Hello everyone. Am happy to be part in this meeting
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
04:10:20
OBSERVER NAME / FULL NAME
Χρήστος Ζαφειρίδης
04:10:53
from GREECE - Christos Zafeiridis
Diana K Gahn-Smith
04:11:43
Liberia/Diana K. Gahn-Smith
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
04:13:23
y el informe del CCEXEC79 en español, párra. 42 -49. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-702-79%252FReport%252FREP20_EXEC2s.pdf
Canada - Y.Rouleau
04:23:45
Hi, how can we have the interpretation?
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
04:24:33
Go to the toolbar on Zoom and select the globe like interpretation button.
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
04:24:44
you can then choose English or Spanish.
Canada - Y.Rouleau
04:25:05
thank you
ITALY - Antonio Battisti
04:28:40
Comment form Italy. We have to acknowledge that AMU dos impact on AMR along the foof chain, so that it seems appropriate to discuss any aspect concerning AMU, including its surveillance AND ACTIONS TO BE SUGGESTED AND TAKEN, at FAO-CODEX level
LIBERIA - Melvin Tokpah
04:32:04
AMU is a Cardinal party AMR as such emphasizing it through the document is important. I think it should not be removed as requested.
GERMANY - Anke Schröder
04:33:08
It is international scientific Consensus that AMU is a Major Driver for AMR. Surveillance is more than data Collection, but includes putting AMU data in relation to AMR data. For data Collection on AMU in animals reference can and should be made to OIE terrestrial Code chapter 6.9. But Standards for Collection of AMU in plants and for integrated Interpretation of AMU and AMR data are missing. This is what the GLIS are developed for.
COLOMBIA - MARCELA PILAR ROJAS
04:33:08
Considero que se debe incluir el USO, ya que la RAM se genera precisamente por un mal uso de los mismos,en especial si habla de alimentos de origen animal
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
04:34:00
Canada strongly supports the retention of AMU reference in Section 1 and is agreeable to not have it under the definition section. Canada's suggested revision in this section 1 is as follows : "For the purpose of these guidelines, AMU means the quantities of antimicrobials intended for use in animals; which is inclusive of antimicrobials sold and/or used. "
ROMANIA - Adrian Ardelean
04:34:41
We need to keep the evidence of all elements essentials in AMR, so AMU has their place. Just a personal point of view.
Co Chair - Constanza Vergara
04:36:57
CHile: The emphasis in the document, in addition to section 9, that is given to AMU should be lessened. Currently, every time we talk about integrated monitoring and surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance, we add “and the use of Antimicrobials (AMU), so it seems that it was a single system, and it is not clear what should be done. integrate, if the results of the collection of data on the use of antimicrobials in different parts of the food chain or the results of the use of antimicrobials in farms and crops with the results of the integrated surveillance of resistance in the food chain. This same importance given to RAM and AMU can also confuse countries about what to prioritize when establishing their antimicrobial resistance surveillance systems.In our view, the guideline should focus more on the surveillance of foodborne AMR that is within the scope of CODEX, give some recommendations on the need for antimicrobial use data and how to integrate it into section 9 and make reference to the OIE in everythi
AUSTRALIA - Barbara Butow
04:37:12
Australia recommends having a formal definition for AMU. Though this definition should equate to the therapeutic use definition in the CoP. Guidelines need to align with the OIE Code and Australia strongly recommends retaining the focus on foodborne AMR in the document as it highlights that the focus of the document is on AMR rather than AMU.
Chile- Karla Carmona
04:38:22
Comentario de Chile sobre este tema: El énfasis en el documento, además de la sección 9, que se le da a AMU debe ser disminuido. Actualmente, cada vez que hablamos de monitoreo y vigilancia integrados de la Resistencia a los antimicrobianos agregamos “ y el uso de los Antimicrobianos (AMU), por lo que parece que fuera una solo sistema, además que no está claro que es los que se debe integrar, si los resultados de la recolección de datos de uso de antimicrobianos en distintas partes de la cadena alimentaria o los resultados del uso de antimicrobianos en granja y cultivos con los resultados de la vigilancia integrad de la resistencia en la cadena alimentaria. Esta misma importancia dada a RAM y AMU, puede además confundir a los países sobre lo que deben priorizar al establecer sus sistemas de vigilancia de la resistencia antimicrobiana.
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
04:38:23
Nuestro pais aclara que si se mantiene AMU sea utilizado como marco de referencia. En estos términos las organizaciones como OIE continuarían siendo la referencia por excelencia. Si salud vegetal carece de esta información sobre AMR o AMU seria valioso un llamado a la FAO para ampliar sobre el tema. La AMU es fundamental, pero debería serlo bajo en un enfoque mesurado para no perder la verdadera orientación real del GLIS.
Chile- Karla Carmona
04:38:36
A nuestro parecer, la directriz debería centrarse más en la vigilancia de la RAM transmitida por los alimentos que está dentro del alcance del CODEX, dar algunas recomendaciones sobre la necesidad de contar con datos de uso de antimicrobianos y como integrarlos en la sección 9 y hacer referencia a la OIE en todo lo que ya está cubierto por el Código Terrestre en cuanto a uso en animales.
Chile- Karla Carmona
04:38:51
Si tomamos en consideración lo que se acordó en el Grupo de trabajo fisico en Londres y luego se presentó en el CAC 40, el alcance de este documento era brindar orientación sobre la vigilancia integrada de la RAM a lo largo de la cadena alimentaria, reconociendo que una vigilancia efectiva de la RAM También debe considerar los datos sobre el uso de antimicrobianos en humanos, animales y cultivos. No de elaborar directrices para la vigilancia integrada del uso de los antimicrobianos.
LIBERIA - Diana K Gahn-Smith
04:39:01
For an Integrated surveillance system on AMR, AMU is important for complete prevention and control, and should therefore be considered in this document. Thanks
AUSTRIA - Elfriede Österreicher
04:40:10
Austria supports Risto (EU) and reference to OIE
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
04:41:59
Brazil understands that we have to consider AMU as an element of foodborne AMR surveillance but we are of the opinion that only high level recommendations should be kept in section 9 with clear reference to OIE work on the issue. Currently in the text AMR and AMU surveillance have the same emphasis, we understand that this can mislead countries on what to prioritize. The document should focus on AMR surveillance. We understand that we have to consider AMU, but it is not the main focus of this guideline and we should reference OIE on this issue. There is no merit to enter in detail on AMU section, this work is permanently updated at OIE. No need for the emphasize AMU in the introduction and scope. The "definition" on AMU should be amended and included in section 9. There is still lack of consensus on many of the details included now in section 9. During the EWG Brazil has proposed a revision of whole section 9 to keep it with high level recomendations and referencing to OIE.
NETHERLANDS - Ana Viloria
04:46:27
the Netherlands support the position stated by the EU, Zweden and Portugal. AMR surveillance systems should incluye surveillance of both AMR and AMU to provide a solid and integrated system.
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
04:47:47
Costa Rica apoya a Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Brasil, Estados Unidos y demás países que remarcan el mantener el AMU en el GLIS únicamente desde un marco de referencia. Eso permitiría como corresponde que la OIE pueda fortalecer y actualizar los documentos en materia de AMU.
TANZANIA - mwajuma Dukulai
04:50:34
Tanzania supports the surveillance of both AMR and AMU in the document
South Africa Penny Campbell
04:51:56
AMU has to be included given that its part of the ToRs
BELGIUM - Katie Vermeersch
04:52:49
Belgium also supports the position stated by the EU, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France and Germany. AMU is an essential part of an integrated monitoring and should not be neglected in these guidelines.
ROMANIA - Adrian Ardelean
04:53:01
Just to add. If we are referring just to antibiotics or to all antimicrobials?If we consider all the antimicrobials we can not exclude at all AMU, but the contrary.
URUGUAY Norman Bennett
04:53:30
Estamos de acuerdo en que AMU sea tenido en cuenta en el documento. Nuestra recomendación es no avanzar en el detalle de este aspecto que la OIE viene trabajando a fin de no duplicar el trabajo ni generar confusión a los países que necesiten el documento para avanzar en el desarrollo del combate de la resistencia antimicrobiana.
SPAIN - Cristina Muñoz Madero
04:54:17
Spain support the EU position s well. AMU should be part of the document and a reference to the OIE iss no enought
South Africa Penny Campbell
04:54:23
the view of Brazil is supported in that it should be high level and not fully discussed or guidance given in light of OIE guidance and tools
IDF - Jamie Jonker
04:54:40
Successful integration of OIE reference will help clarify the AMU dialogue as just discussed.
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:00:08
Canada supports the proposals under Principle 2 move the text to the Introduction section.
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:01:29
Canada suggests that Principle 9 should focus on a consistent and harmonized way of collecting, analysing, and reporting the data.Additionally, Canada would support ending the sentence after “…ensure that data are comparable”.
South Africa Penny Campbell
05:02:30
South Africa supports moving the text from Principle 2
AUSTRALIA - Barbara Butow
05:02:40
Principle 2 - Australia supports removing last part of the last sentence .
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:03:22
Canada supports the proposal to move the text from Principal 10 as a new paragraph 10 under the Introduction section.
AUSTRALIA - Barbara Butow
05:04:41
Principle 9 - Australia recommends removing data sharing as this is beyond the remit of this document. Principle 10 - we support deletion of this text and moving to a new para in section 1.
ITALY - Antonio Battisti
05:05:14
Italy/Antonio Battisti: we are not in favour of removing the sentence regarding "the contribution to the food safety system"
JAPAN - Tomoko Ishibashi
05:05:38
Japan agree s with Australia about the deletion of "imported" from Principle 10. No reason for limiting it to imported food has been explained so far. Let's delete it.
Chile- Karla Carmona
05:06:02
comentario de Chile sobre principio 2: Pendiente de una revisión más exhaustiva, estamos de acuerdo con mover el texto entre corchetes en el principio 2 al párrafo 6 en la introducción, con algunas ediciones menores de borrar "un importante", ya que creemos que no es necesario utilizar adjetivos en un documento Codex. Cada país le dará a sus estrategias de inocuidad alimentaria la importancia que le sea adecuada para proteger a su población.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:06:11
Principle 2 – Brazil agrees with the proposal to delete text in brackets [and contributes to a national food safety system] and to add new text in the introduction as proposed in paragraph 6. Also the reference to AMU should be deleted.Principle 9 – Brazil proposes to delete “and AMU” and to delete “to facilitate sharing data”, because the purpose is to ensure data are comparable to allow integrationPrinciple 10 – Brazil agrees with the proposal to move the text to the introduction, and we propose to delete “in imported foods” so not to limit the statement, once it should not be limited, but to apply to “all foods” surveillance.
ITALY - Antonio Battisti
05:06:18
As regards principle 10, we consider the term "unsjustified" a better wording, and the sentence could be moved to the Intro
Chile- Karla Carmona
05:06:30
comentario de Chile sobre principio 9: el principio aún exige compartir datos y confunde en que sería la razón para la armonización, cuando a nuestro parecer el principal objetivo de la armonización es la comparación de los datos de distintos sectores de la cadena alimentaria a nivel nacional.
Chile- Karla Carmona
05:06:49
comentario de Chile sobre principio 10: Consideramos una buena medida el mover este principio a la sección 1, sin embargo, el párrafo debería aplicarse a todos los alimentos, no solo a los importados.
AUSTRALIA - Leigh Nind
05:07:29
Australia- We also have additional comments for other principles and other sections beyond the foci of this webinar. We would appreciate being advised how we can supply these to support the Co-chairs.
URUGUAY Norman Bennett
05:07:49
De acuerdo con lo expresado por Chile y Australia
Ecuador Geovanna Amancha
05:08:10
Ecuador solicita eliminar alimentos importados en el principio 10
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:12:26
Canada believes that the level of detail is appropriate and the provided examples are a necessity and essential for this technical document. Options for softening language could include things like - " Some examples of bacterial species may include but are not limited to "
CODEX - David Massey
05:13:23
Thanks Canada and to all those dropping comments here
IDF - Jamie Jonker
05:13:52
Section 8 could benefit from some additional streamlining. For example, the "Examples" seem country specific.
IDF - Jamie Jonker
05:14:03
and could be removed.
ROMANIA - Adrian Ardelean
05:14:17
Some part overlaps the ISO 17025
USA - Neena Anandaraman
05:17:07
Thanks to the work on section 8. The Section is better but still too detailed and prescriptive. We should stay away from naming specific bacteria beyond Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, Enterococcus as well as resistance genes since priorities change and it could make the document outdated. Under 8.7, we stated that para 114 disappeared from the previous version and we ask that it be retained.We would ask the EWG to reconsider our edits to paragraphs 50, 80, and 82 as there are important concepts there that were not captured. For example, we have stated in the TFAMR5 and repeatedly in our comments that sample types, such as dust for MRSA (a nonfoodborne organism) is inappropriate and too much detail to include in the document. If we want to reach consensus, we need to keep this section at a high level.
LIBERIA - Melvin Tokpah
05:17:38
Liberia proposed that facilitate data sharing should should not be removed. Because data may be generated in one sector and the authority to act may be with another sector, therefore if data is not share among relevant stakeholders the appropriate action might not be taken to address the gap reflected by the data.in principle two, for emphasis and clarity Liberia agrees that the bracket phrase can be made new paragraph.
NETHERLANDS - Ana Viloria
05:19:52
NL support to retain examples to facilitate practical implementation of the guidelines , examples should be balanced and will not be updated frequently.
AUSTRALIA - Barbara Butow
05:20:05
Australia is happy with the level of detail in section 8 but recommend removing the examples in section 8.4 as they are country specific and also may quickly become outdated. Also consider softening language to allow flexibility. Para 44 remove 'longitudinal studies' as not epidemiologically possible. Para 48 - insert 'if known or relevant' at end of sentence. Para 50, incorporate this ref in para 12 of introduction; para 52 add in 'at one or more specific points' to allow flexibility
Chile- Karla Carmona
05:20:44
comentarios de Chile para sección 8: Para mantener la directriz con recomendaciones de alto nivel, Los ejemplos que agregan valor al documento en esta sección deben ser eliminados, el texto debería ser suficiente para el entendimiento de la recomendación.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:22:59
It is important to highlight that these sections 8 and 9 have not been discussed in plenary and there is still a lot of work ahead of us and space for improvement if we want to achieve consensus and advance with this document during TFAMR mandate.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:23:42
Section 8 – This section is still too detailed and should remove many of the examples, as Brazil has reiterated this in many opportunities in our comments, since priorities vary regionally and change, so many of the examples presented can lead to confusion.
ITALY - Antonio Battisti
05:23:57
Italy/Antonio Battisti supports the opinion that "to facilitate sharing data" at Principle 9 should be kept
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
05:25:19
Apoyamos a Japón, Chile y Brasil. Es una sección que requiere bastante depuración y trabajo.
South Africa Penny Campbell
05:29:18
As a newbie, section 8 is very prescriptive in places and may need a high degree of language softening. e.g 'should consider' vis a vis ' may consider' ' be accredited' vis a vis ' ideally be' or 'consider: Accreditation or SOPs etc.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
05:31:16
Section 9 should make reference to OIE with text describing AMU, to distinguish it from sales data, some high-level statements, and stop with Section 9.1 (para 88).Further, there is no consensus on metrics for AMU for various species or even within species. Different metrics relay different information and there are no standard metrics. Challenges to AMU data collection in various food animal species are described in the recent edition of Zoonoses and Public Health (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/18632378/2020/67/S1 ). The text should stop at Section 9.1 (paragraph 88).We support including a description of AMU in the text under Section 9.1, where AMU is discussed rather than in the introduction, scope, or definition. We are concerned that the current text of AMU does not clarify AMU and sales. The fact that we have to make a statement that there aren't metrics for plants, makes it clear that the issue is premature to develop Codex guidelines
CODEX - David Massey
05:31:39
Thanks again USA
AUSTRALIA - Barbara Butow
05:34:20
Australia appreciates all the efforts put into this section but recommends shortening the text as much is covered by OIE and to prevent duplication of effort, we recommend stopping at para 88.
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:34:50
Canada would suggest proposed revisions for Section 9.4 with the following wording : “The denominator in the context of antimicrobial use or sales data for plant/crop production should be determined according to relevant international standards/guidance, and, if no such standards are available, then according to national approaches. Options for consideration may include: quantities (kg) of harvested crops or area (hectares) of land used for crop production that may be at risk of being exposed to the quantities of antimicrobial agents reported. "
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
05:35:33
Apoyamos la posición de Australia y Chile.
JAPAN - Tomoko Ishibashi
05:35:52
Japan agrees with Australia about substantial deletion of Section 9. OIE has been working on AMU data collection for years and the methodology is still under development. It is premature to develop detailed guidelines at the Codex.
Chile- Karla Carmona
05:36:23
comentarios de chile sobre sección 9: En esta sección aún existen recomendaciones sobre recolección de datos de uso de antimicrobianos en animales que deberían ser referenciadas a la OIE en lugar de estar escritas en este documento, esto debido a que la OIE las aborda específicamente, además sus participantes se reúnen anualmente, lo que garantizaría la actualización de la información. Es importante recordar que la OIE es un organismo multilateral, considerada una organización hermana del Codex en el establecimiento de normas internacionales, por lo que es relevante que el CODEX reconozca el trabajo realizado por la OIE y no se duplique.
COLOMBIA - Blanca Cristina Olarte Pinilla
05:37:27
Estamos de acuerdo con Australia y Chile, el tema de OIE, a lo largo del tiempo han generado muchas confusiones y por eso, me parece que al reconocer el trabajo de la OIE avanzaríamos
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:38:53
Section 9 – There have been many divergent opinions about section 9 during the EWG, as has been mentioned by the Canada in the short video, so there is still a lot of work ahead of us and space for improvement if we want to achieve consensus and advance. Brazil has proposed a revision of whole section 9 to keep it high level during the EWG. There is no merit to enter in detail, this work is permanently updated at OIE and we should avoid duplication and overlap.We support the interventions by Australia, Chile and Japan.
FRANCE - Cécile Adam
05:39:34
we support EU: section 9 is fine, and does not bring any confusion.
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
05:40:34
Costa Rica que este tema reabre la discusión previa sobre AMU y que se han introducido en el GLIS, y que aun no se resuelve. No estamos de acuerdo en introducir en el GLIS colecta de datos, ni fuentes de venta de antimicrobianos ya que la OIE ya cuenta con toda una sistema de colecta de datos y categorización de los países según la capacidad de colecta y procesamiento de datos.
ITALY - Antonio Battisti
05:40:43
Italy/Antonio Battisti are in favour to keep Section 9 and keep the wording "imported" in the text of this section
CANADA - Manisha Mehrotra
05:40:56
Canada supports retaining sections 9.2- 9.5 in the document to make the document complete and to provide guidance to cover all aspects of the integrated surveillance components.
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
05:40:58
Examples in Codex: see CCGP report para 27-39 - Example see CCGP report - para 27-39 http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/it/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-716-31%252FREPORT%252FFinal%252520report%252FREP19_GPe.pdf
FRANCE - Cécile Adam
05:41:07
Francia Apoya la posición del Unión Europea
SWEDEN - Ministry of Enterprise GUNILLA Eklund
05:41:11
Sweden supports the comment by the EU on section 9 - sufficiently balanced as is
SPAIN - Cristina Muñoz Madero
05:42:14
España apoya la posicion de la UE.
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
05:42:31
aper on Use of examples in Codex
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:42:43
Brazil supports deleting the appendix and need adequate reference to OIE in sections 8 and 9
NORWAY - Kjersti Nilsen Barkbu
05:42:47
Norway supports the interventions made by the EU.
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
05:42:48
Background paper on use of examples on Codex http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-716-31%252FWD%252Fgp31_04e.pdf
PORTUGAL - Andrea Cara d Anjo
05:43:05
Portugal supports the position of the EU
USA - Neena Anandaraman
05:43:23
As discussed yesterday, we appreciate the hard work of the EWG Chair and Co-chairs. We recognize the comments in the webinar are limited to specific sections, however, we have concerns in other sections of the document as well. Many of our comments have not been taken after multiple rounds and were summarily dismissed as “no broad support for this suggestion” as the justification. It is unclear how we are supposed to get broad support for these technical comments when countries are commenting in isolation, recognizing there has been minimal time to spend on GLIS at the Task Force meetings. It is also unclear how many Members need to comment on an issue when the EWG Chair has not posed a specific question for that comment to be considered.
GERMANY - Anke Schröder
05:44:25
Germany supports EU's Position. Re Section 9 is espacially needed for crops and plants, which unquestionably should be part of integrated Surveillance. For this there are no other Standards which could be refered to.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
05:45:51
Taking a One Health approach means different sectors working together. We should have the experts at IPPC develop plant standards instead of food safety experts tring to do that at Codex. One Health does not mean one organization does all the work, but works with the other sectors that have expertise to do the work.
IDF - Jamie Jonker
05:47:13
Thank you for the opportunity to participate today.
LIBERIA - Diana K Gahn-Smith
05:48:24
Thanks for affording me the opportunity to participate.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
05:48:39
Thank you Chairs of the EWG and Codex Secretariat for this great opportunity and all the hard work. We will be available participating in the EWG and waiting for the feedback of this discussion at the webinar.
ICA-Kazuo Onitake
05:50:54
ICA I understood the background of this agenda very clearly. Thank you for your hard work.
CR-Heilyn Fernández-Carvajal
05:51:30
Muchas gracias!! saludos
COLOMBIA - Delcy Lugo
05:51:33
Gracias por socializar el trabajo de RAM., una oportunidad para avanzar n nuestras tareas
FAO - Luisa Milagros Ozuna
05:52:01
Gracias