Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been proactive. In response, they cancelled the approval of use of antibiotic florfenicol in Tasmania’s salmon farming industry. The decision follows the concern about the “unacceptable risk of residue exposure” to non-target species. This concern intensified when traces of the antibiotic were detected in wild fish, including abalone and rock lobster. It was shocking, too, because these wild fish were being caught more than 10 kilometres away from the nearest fish pens.
The APVMA’s review process unearthed deadlines of great importance to the salmon trade. They now have until March 2 to provide further information demonstrating that florfenicol should continue to be used. The regulator determined that the application did not present “robust” evidence about potential impacts on human health or antibiotic resistance. On March 2, the APVMA responded decisively by informing the product holder that the permit had been suspended. In turn, the antibiotic is then rendered unusable under its provisions.
Concerns Over Safety and Impact
In November of last year, state officials responded by granting an emergency license for alternative antibiotic Florfenicol. This controversial decision was a direct response to the bacterial disease Piscirickettsia salmonis, which had caused widespread mortality in salmon the summer prior. These recent actions have legitimately called into question the safety of these antibiotics for use in aquaculture.
Tasmania’s Health Department, Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and Department of Natural Resources and Environment have all expressed concerns about the scientific merits of the application. They are challenging the scientific integrity of the submission provided to the APVMA. They argued that the supporting evidence was not enough to give regulators confidence that the antibiotic would not harm human health. Moreover, they highlighted the risk of the specific drug leading to increased antibiotic resistance.
“Regardless of whether or not florfenicol causes harm in these domains, there is a concern that neither the current nor the previous application provides considered and robust evidence, relevant to Tasmanian circumstances, to address these matters,” – [source].
Implications for Export Markets
The presence of florfenicol residues in wild fish poses significant risks for Tasmania’s export markets, as some countries enforce strict zero-tolerance policies regarding antibiotics. Detection of such residues would subject local industries dependent on international trade to harsh sanctions.
In response to the protests, the APVMA has revoked the licence. Environmental safety and public health advocates should cheer this decision, as it demonstrates a recent trend toward stricter regulations in aquaculture. This unrealized situation would have a tremendous effect on Tasmania’s salmon export industry. If we don’t find new ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease quickly, the consequences will be catastrophic.
“The product holder has been advised that the permit has been suspended and that the product can no longer be used under the provisions of the permit,” – [source].
Industry Reactions and Future Steps
As the suspension becomes reality, industry specialists are sharing their perspectives on what this means in the wake of the decision. Dr. John Whittington, a noted figure in aquaculture, stated, “Florfenicol has proven to be a very effective treatment for Piscirickettsia salmonis and does not impact the environmental health of our waterways or affect the safety of fish caught from them.” His statements point to the larger question of balancing providing effective treatment options with environmental safety.
This means that Tasmania finds itself in a political, economic and environmental “perfect storm”. To ensure fish health and market integrity, stakeholders need to push hard for alternative treatments and smart strategies.
