Informal meeting on Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance - Shared screen with speaker view
Nicolò Cinotti
Please, again the passcode
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
there is not option CCLAC in the first survey
NIGERIA Dr Mabel Aworh
Hello everyone! Please can the link for mentimeter be posted here in the chat. Thanks
Kimutai Maritim
Hello everyone
Malaysia - Syahnaz Mohd Azali
hello everyone. I'm Syahnaz from Malaysia
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
Go to menti.com Enter passcode 8582449
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
no CCLAC option
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
we are here
Jamaica-Suzan Mclennon-Miguel
CCLAC is missing
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
Our apologies for that but great to see that we the region is represented in this webinar.
CODEX - Sarah Cahill
14 pages not 40
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
From Chile, regarding AMU: SECTION 1 and SCOPE:The emphasis in the document, apart from section 9, that is given to AMU should be de- emphasis or playing down. Currently every time we talk about integrated monitoring and surveillance of AMR we add and AMU, so it seems like there are one, given them the same importance could mislead countries on what they need to prioritize and accomplish to fight AMR. The guideline should focus more on foodborne AMR surveillance that is within the scope of CODEX give some recommendations on the need of AMU data at section 9, and reference OIE to not duplicate.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
USA: Here's our comments in chat if helpful along with proposed text to explain AMU vs. Sales:
USA - Neena Anandaraman
The description in Section 1 is not adequate as it does not distinguish between use and sales. AMU should not be in section 1, definitions, or scope, as foodborne AMR is in Codex’s purview. OIE is developing AMU guidelines which Codex should not develop duplicative or contradictory advice for. So we believe the GLIS should make high level reference to AMU under Section 9.1, where AMU is discussed rather than in the introduction or definition with a reference to OIE. We suggest the following text be inserted at the beginning of Section 9.1 to clarify what AMU and sales data are:o “For the purpose of these Guidelines “antimicrobial use” and its abbreviation “AMU” represents the quantities of antimicrobials administered and would include information such as indication for use. Additional information included with AMU estimates would be dose, route of administration and duration of use. Because obtaining precise estimates of AMU can be challenging, surrogates are often needed. One surrogate for AMU commonly co
USA - Neena Anandaraman
One surrogate for AMU commonly collected by countries would be the quantities of antimicrobials sold and/or the quantities intended for use. Importantly, sales data are not synonymous with actual AMU and should not be construed as such.”
NORWAY Vigdis s. Veum Møllersen
Norway would like to support the intervention by the EU, we would like AMU explained in the introduction, definition and in section 9. We will come back With Our reasoning in written comments in the step procedure. AMU is a part of an Integrated surveillance and therefore cannot be left out.
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Suggested edit for the Introduction section - "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."
Switzerland - Katharina Staerk
The words proposed by Canada are useful and should be included in the introduction.
GHANA - Harriet Ofori- Antwi
We cannot look at AMR in isolation . AMU monitoring is important and integration of AMR and AMU data is enable the development of effective strategies to combat the problem of resistance
We are having issues with the internet band width but we appreciate the work of EWG. W e support the inclusion of AMU in the Introduction and definition section. This is because the monitoring of AMR is an outcome of AMU.
Switzerland - Katharina Staerk
The link between AMU and AMR is essential and should be outlined in the introduction as proposed by the EU and others.
Italy - Antonio Battisti
This is my comment as Italian delegate:
NIGERIA Dr Mabel Aworh
Nigeria appreciates the work of EWG and would like to support the intervention of the USA. Nigeria also states that it is not appropriate to include the definition of AMU in the introduction and it should also be removed from the scope. AMU has implications for AMR however the purview of AMU lies with the OIE and the focus of this guidelines is on AMR and not AMU. Details on AMU should be provided in section 9 of the document
Italy - Antonio Battisti
The need of dealing with both AMU and AMR in the surveillance Guidelines: In order to take action and mitigating the impact of AMR bacterial pathogens, and especially AMR zoonotic food-borne pathogens in primary productions and along the food chain, there should be a tight interaction between the two areas and integration of information on trends on both kind of data (AMR and AMU). The following aims should be achieved:a. Trends of AMR should be analyzed in the light of trends on AMU within the same country and the same geographic area, for risk management options and strategies;b. Data on Antimicrobial Use are "per se" quantitative, and they need to be "normalised" vs the biomass on which they exert their selection pressure (numerator/denominator) in a harmonised way...As an example, there are in place surveillance systems on AMU (e. g. in the EU/EEA) which refer the amount of a given antimicrobial administered to a "denominator" (e. g. biomass of animals in a given production type).
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
We understand 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. There is no merit to enter in detail, 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.
QATAR - Mohammad Okashah
From Qatar I think for the purpose of the integrated surveillance and monitoring better to keep AMU
NORWAY Vigdis s. Veum Møllersen
Norway to add on Our previous comment: In our opinion, the data on use/consumption of antimicrobial agents is a vital element for risk analysis undertaken prior to risk management activities. Consequently, the surveillance on use/consumption of antimicrobial agents should be included in at specific chapter in the guidelines. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that there should be made cross-references to other Codex chapters and OIE documents where relevant.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
Integration may mean integration of AMR and AMU to some countries, but to others it means integration of AMR data from multiple sectors rather than integrating AMR and AMU data. There is also no consensus on how AMU and AMR data should be integrated. Is there any accounting for possible lag period between changes in AMR that may possibly come about because of a change in AMU practices? Is there scientific consensus on what that lag period is? Should AMU data collected in the same year be interpreted as being relevant to the possible increases or decreases in AMR that year? It is challenging enough to collect AMU data, but integrating AMR and AMU data is impossible in many sectors in many countries and we believe it is important to leave flexibility in these guidelines if the guideline is to be globally achievable.
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Agree with Codex secretariat's intervention on AMU history in the context of these guidelines and reiterate our comment on including the explanation on what we mean by AMU in the introduction section.
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Canada supports the compromise proposed for principle 10.
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
Chile think on principle 2 Upon further revision, It is fine to move the bracketed text at principle 2 to paragraph 6 at introduction, with some minor editions of erase “an important”, since There is no need to use adjectives in a codex document. Each country will give the importance on their food safety strategies that is adequate for them in order to protect their population.
JAPAN_Tomoko Ishibashi
Thank you Neena for the observation about "what to integrate." Until today, I thought it means to integrate AMR surveillance results from various sectors. However some people seem to see integrate AMR and AMU. We need clarification.
GHANA - Harriet Ofori- Antwi
Agree that principle 10 is moved to the introduction with the deletion of imported foods however maintaining the reference to unjustified trade barriers rather than inappropriate trade barriers
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
Chile on principle 9 : we appreciate the effort done by the co -chairs, but the principle still mandate data sharing with a principle is beyond the scope of this TF. “the need of harmonization is for comparable data interpretation at national level”, not for data sharing
IMS - Ian Jenson
Principle 2: it is difficult to equate foodborne AMR with food safety. The risks are of a different nature and scale. Only after thorough and convincing risk assessment could foodborne AMR be considered to be an objective of a national food safety system. This is not to suggest that that control of foodborne AMR is not an important objective in itself but it is confusing and potentially detrimental to food safety to conflate these two concepts without sufficient justification.
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Canada agrees with the proposals brought forward for principle 2. 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”.
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
Chile in principle 10: Upon further revision, It is fine to move principle 10 under section 1, but the paragraph should apply to all food a not just imported one and retained the phrase unjustified barriers to trade. Very similar with was establish in the COP
Switzerland - Katharina Staerk
Switzerland supports the compromise proposed for principle 10.
NIGERIA Dr Mabel Aworh
Nigeria supports the interventions of Brazil and USA with regards to Principle 2 however we would like to add the word "assess" to the current text. Regarding Principle 10, we propose that we move the text in principle 10 to the introduction in line with the COP and retain the word "unjustified" barriers to trade and delete the word "imported" from the text.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
Brazil still has concerns on other principles.P2 – we agree with the proposal to delete text in brackets [and contributes to a national food safety system] and proposal to add new text in the introduction as proposed in paragraph 6P9 – we propose to delete “and AMU” and “to facilitate sharing data”, the purpose is to ensure data are comparable and there is harmonization and integrationP10 – we agree with the proposal to move to introduction, delete “in imported food” so not to limit the statement
Madagascar Ilo TsimokHaja RAMAHATAFANDRY, TFAMR CODEX Madagascar
je suis désolée mais je dois quitter pour rejoindre une autre réunion. C'était un plaisir de particiêr à cet webinar. Je remercie l'organisateur
JAPAN_Tomoko Ishibashi
My question is why it has to be "imported" food. " only. I cannot think of any reason. I think that "imported" should be deleted.
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Canada suggests the following Proposed revisions for Section 9.4: “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. "
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
For Section 8 Canada has the following comment: 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:"
JAPAN_Tomoko Ishibashi
We don't need details of how to collect AMU data and how to derive denominator at last about animals. It would make confusion and eventually conflict between Codex and OIE documents. We are quite happy to follow OIE's guidance for AMU in animals.
HealthforAnimals HD Observer Carel du Marchie Sarvaas
Regarding examples …. does Codex have an agreed definition of the use and value of including examples? From the discussion, it appears some countries don't like examples because examples in previous codex docs may have been inappropriately used/applied?
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
Chile, section 9 need to be short, There are still recommendations on AMU in animals that should be referenced to OIE rather to be written in the document. AMU in animals is specifically address by OIE, they meet every year, so that guarantee the recommendations will be update constantly.as a sister standard setting body, it is important for CODEX to recognize the work done by OIE and not overlapped or duplicate.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
Concur on Section 9 with Chile.
USA - Neena Anandaraman
What is meant by not having enough support? We have been commenting on drafts in isolation, not considering other countries' comments. How much support do we need for enough support on specific technical edits?
Switzerland - Katharina Staerk
To minimise the risk of the text becoming outdated, reference to other texts / standards that are regularly revised is preferable to duplication and would also help shorten the text.
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
It is important to highlight that these sections have not been discussed in plenary and there is still a lot of work ahead us and space for improvement if we want to achieve consensus.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. This section should focus on high level recommendations.Section 9 – As we have submitted in our comments before, we understand 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 in the case of AMU in animals. This section is still too detailed and should be shortened. There is no merit to enter in detail, this work is permanently updated at OIE and we should avoid duplication and overlap.
GHANA - Harriet Ofori- Antwi
In the summary of comments we realize the consideration was given to main comments. in as much explanation cannot be given for all comments we insists that all comments should be thoroughly discussed for their validity to ensure the progress. Ghana has made a comment on section 8.4 twice in the round of comments for TFAMR 7 and TFAMR 8. It’s a bit frustrating to continue to make these comments over and over again
CHILE - Constanza Vergara
Chile supports the idea of deleting the annex from the document
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Canada would also support deleting the appendix.
NIGERIA Dr Mabel Aworh
Nigeria supports the deletion of the appendix
USA - Neena Anandaraman
Section 9 should make reference to OIE and stop with section 9.1 with high level statements. This section 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). Codex should not provide duplicative or inconsistent advice with OIE on collection of antimicrobials intended for use.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).
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
We support deleting the appendix and need adequate reference to OIE in sections 8 and 9
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Great job by the ewgp contributors and to the fantastic Co-chairs !
Switzerland - Katharina Staerk
Thanks everyone, really usful to stay in touch!
Brazil - Suzana Bresslau
Thank you Chairs of the EWG and Codex Secretariat for this great opportunity
JAMAICA - Suzan Mclennon-Miguel
Jamaica agrees for the appendix to be remove
JAMAICA - Suzan Mclennon-Miguel
Great webinar. Many thanks
USA - Neena Anandaraman
Thanks so much for arranging the webinar and providing this opportunity-great job
JAPAN_Tomoko Ishibashi
Thank you from me too. This is very helpful.
EU - Risto Holma
Thanks a lot for the chairs and the Secretariat for an excellent event!
CANADA- Manisha Mehrotra
Excellent webinar. Big thanks to the organizers and the secretariat.
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
PORTUGAL - Andrea Cara d Anjo
Thank you very much for all the work and for this webinar
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
8 P.M. CET
NIGERIA Dr Mabel Aworh
Thanks so much for this webinar! We appreciate the codex secretariat and the Chairs for a great job done
Indonesia-Purwiyatno Hariyadi
Thank you very much. And... congratulations
UAE - Maryam Al Sallaqi
thank you very much, very nice webinar
Philippines_January Nones
Thanks so much!
GREECE - Anthoula Lagiou
Germany-Annemarie Käsbohrer
thank you very much
UAE - Jehad Al Bayari
thanks a lot very much
THAILAND - Mintra Lukkana
Thank you. Bye bye
CODEX - Ilaria Tarquinio
Thanks so much
Thanks so much
GHANA - Harriet Ofori- Antwi
Thanks for webinar. Very well presented!
UGANDA - sibwomu
Thanks very much for this webinar an opportunity to invite me to attend, Bye
USA - Julius Fajardo
thanks much
China - Haihong Hao
thank you. see you then
QATAR - Mohammad Okashah
Thanks for every one