12 Amendments of Martin HÄUSLING related to 2012/2041(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 1
Section 1 – paragraph 1
1. Notes that, although the Commission's action plan goes in the right direction, it does not go far enough to contain the rising threat from antimicrobial resistance; calls therefore on the Commission for an integrated roadmap outlining relevant policy responses including possible legislative action.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 2
Section 1 – paragraph 2
2. Agrees that a holistic approach is needed, based on prudent, appropriatnd responsible use of antimicrobials and improving biosecurity and animal husbandry systems to avoid high densities which encourage disease transmissionhat promote good animal health, limit disease transmission, so reducing the need for antimicrobials to be prescribed, and allow animals to express species-specific behaviour;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for more and better coordinated research to be performed on new antimicrobials as well as other alternatives (vaccination, bio security, breeding for resistance) and evidence based strategies to avoid and control infectious diseases in animals;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 3
Section 1 – paragraph 3
3. Proposes to promote sustainable livestock systems which reduce farmers' dependency on costly and unsustainable inputs which pose a high- risk inputsto the environment and public health;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 6
Section 1 – paragraph 6
6. ProposesEmphasises that the ultimate objective is to maintain antimicrobials as an effective tool to combat disease, both in animals and in humans, while strictly keeping the use of antimicrobials to the minimum necessary; Proposes therefore phasing out the use for livestock of antimicrobials classified by the WHO as critically important for human treatment, and banning ‘'off-label’' use;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 7
Section 1 – paragraph 7
7. Notes the importance of vaccines in limiting antimicrobial resistance, but believes this should not be a substitute for good husbandry or appropriate biosecurity measures;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 8
Section 1 – paragraph 8
8. Calls for a statutory management requirement on prudent use of antimicrobials to be developed and included in cross-compliance, while minimising administrative requirements for farmers;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises the importance of sharing best practice between member state and regional authorities.
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 8 b (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls for a prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals and for more information to veterinarians and farmers to minimise the development of AMR; calls for the exchange of best practices such as the acceptance of guidelines on the prudent use of antimicrobials as important tools to combat the development of AMR;"
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 9
Section 1 – paragraph 9
9. Proposes a target of halving antimicrobial use in animal treatment in the EU as a whole by 2018, compared to 2012 figures, while taking due consideration of the kind of substances used;;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Section 1 – paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that the Parliament, in its resolution of 12 May 2011 on antibiotic resistance, stressed the need to get a full picture of when, where, how and on which animals antimicrobials are used, and believes that such data should be collected, analysed and made public by the Commission without delay; data collected should be harmonised and comparable to enable proper analysis and effective, co-ordinated, species-specific action tailored to different types of animal husbandry, in order to combat AMR on both EU and Member State level.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 10
Section 1 – paragraph 10
10. PTo this end, proposes that the action point on monitoring should be strengthened by establishing a database on antimicrobial use, to be run by the appropriate competent authorities; notes th detailing species, diagnosis, active substance, dose and treatment period, to be run by the Member States; data can be entered electronically by farmers or by veterinarians; the database should use existing monitoring data farmers are already obliged, under phytosanitary rules, to record antimicrobial applications in on-farm registers; that data can be entered electronically by farmers or by veterinarians; the rawrom networks operated by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), the ESVAC network (EMA (European Medical Agency) European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption, the ECDC (European Centre for Disease Control) European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network (ESAC-Net), the ECDC European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS- Net), and the ECDC Food- and Waterborne Disease Network (FWD-Net). Raw farm data would be used by the competent authorities and would not be available to third parties, and collated data would be available at Member State and EU levels for monitoring purposes.