FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / A comparative survey of veterinarians, equine owners, and eq...
PloS one2023; 18(4); e0283371; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283371

A comparative survey of veterinarians, equine owners, and equine keepers regarding the knowledge and implementation of legal requirements in Germany for the use and documentation of veterinary medicines in equines intended for slaughter.

Abstract: In Europe, equines destined for human consumption (hereafter called slaughter equines) are subject to the same restrictions of usage of veterinary drugs as other food-producing animals, with amendments regulated in the so-called 'positive list', Regulation (EC) No. 1950/2006. Due to the complex legal requirements for drug administration in slaughter equines, it might be that specific knowledge regarding the legislation of slaughter equines may be insufficient among veterinarians, equine owners, and equine keepers. To study this assumption, three target group-specific surveys were conducted in 2021. Answers from 153 equine treating veterinarians, 170 equine owners, and 70 equine keepers were included in the analysis. In total 68.4% (91/133) of the participating veterinarians, the regulations of the 'positive list', Regulation (EC) No. 1950/2006, were 'rather complicated' to 'complicated'. Among the participating veterinarians, 38.4% (58/151) did not or could not answer correctly how to proceed if a slaughter equine is scheduled to receive phenylbutazone, usage of which is prohibited in all livestock by Regulation (EU) No. 37/2010. Simultaneously, 56.2% (86/153) of the participating veterinarians named phenylbutazone as the, or one of the, most often used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Altogether, 41.2% (70/170) of participating equine owners and 42.9% (30/70) of equine keepers did not know under which circumstances an equine can legally be slaughtered for human consumption. In total, 34.3% (24/70) of the equine keepers classified their knowledge of national regulations for animal keepers regarding the documentation of drug usage in equines as 'poor' to 'nonexistent'. This lack of knowledge in all three surveyed groups, combined with the complex legal regulations regarding the usage and documentation of drugs in slaughter equines, could result in missing and false documentation, treatment of slaughter equines with prohibited substances and therefore pose a risk factor for drug residues in equine meat.
Copyright: © 2023 Schneider et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-04-06 PubMed ID: 37023045PubMed Central: PMC10079036DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283371Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research aims to compare the understanding and implementation of legal requirements for the use of veterinary medicines in horses intended for slaughter among veterinarians, horse owners, and horse keepers in Germany. The study highlights that a lack of knowledge and complexity of the laws could lead to potential risks like incorrect documentation and the use of prohibited drugs in these equines.

Survey and Participants

  • The assumption that there might be insufficient knowledge about the complicated legal requirements for drug administration in equines among veterinarians, horse owners, and horsekeepers, led the researchers to conduct three specific surveys targeting these groups in 2021.
  • The responses from 153 veterinarians who treat horses, 170 horse owners, and 70 horse keepers were included in the analysis.

Findings and Challenges

  • The regulations set in the ‘positive list’ by Regulation (EC) No. 1950/2006 were found to be rather complex or complicated for 68.4% of the participating veterinarians.
  • About 38.4% of the veterinarians did not know the correct procedure to follow if a horse intended for slaughter is scheduled to receive phenylbutazone, a drug that is prohibited in all livestock according to Regulation (EU) No. 37/2010.
  • Despite the ban, 56.2% of the veterinarians named phenylbutazone as one of the most frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
  • About 41.2% of horse owners and 42.9% of horse keepers did not know under what circumstances a horse can legally be slaughtered for human consumption.
  • Additionally, 34.3% of the horse keepers rated their understanding of national regulations regarding the documentation of drug use in horses as poor to nonexistent.

Conclusions and Implications

  • The study concluded that the perceived complexity of the legal regulations and a clear lack of knowledge among all three surveyed groups could lead to improper documentation and administration of prohibited drugs in horses intended for slaughter.
  • This unawareness poses a risk factor for the presence of drug residues in horse meat which is intended for human consumption, posing potential health risks.
  • Improving awareness and understanding of the legal regulations can help to minimize such risks and ensure animal welfare and public health safety.

Cite This Article

APA
Schneider ST, Meemken D, Gehlen H, Merle R, Langkabel N. (2023). A comparative survey of veterinarians, equine owners, and equine keepers regarding the knowledge and implementation of legal requirements in Germany for the use and documentation of veterinary medicines in equines intended for slaughter. PLoS One, 18(4), e0283371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283371

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 18
Issue: 4
Pages: e0283371

Researcher Affiliations

Schneider, Shary Tamara
  • Institute for Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Meemken, Diana
  • Institute for Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Gehlen, Heidrun
  • Division for Internal Medicine, Equine Clinic, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Merle, Roswitha
  • Institute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Langkabel, Nina
  • Institute for Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Humans
  • Veterinarians
  • Animal Husbandry
  • Veterinary Drugs
  • Phenylbutazone
  • Germany
  • Livestock

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 27 references
  1. Anonymous. Pferdesport in Deutschland [Internet]. Deutsche Reiterliche Vereinigung e.V. Bundesverband für Pferdesport und Pferdezucht, Fédération Equestre Nationale (FN). IPSOS Studie. 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.pferd-aktuell.de/deutsche-reiterliche-vereinigung/zahlen—fakten.
  2. DESTATIS. Landwirtschaftszählung 2020 –Qualitätsbericht [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 06]. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Methoden/Qualitaet/Qualitaetsberichte/Land-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/landwirtschaftszaehlung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
  3. BLE (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung). Versorgung mit Fleisch in Deutschland seit 1991 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 17]. Available from: https://www.ble.de/DE/BZL/Daten-Berichte/Fleisch/fleisch.html;jsessionid=C82A10A51F64996B820733F8AB9C9C10.1_cid325?nn=8904230.
  4. DESTATIS. Schlachtungs- und Schlachtgewichtsstatistik Deutschland [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 18]. Available from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=abruftabelleBearbeiten&levelindex=1&levelid=1656831399251&auswahloperation=abruftabelleAuspraegungAuswaehlen&auswahlverzeichnis=ordnungsstruktur&auswahlziel=werteabruf&code=41331-0001&auswahltext=&werteabruf=Werteabruf#abreadcrumb.
  5. Kołodziejczyk D, Socik M, Socha S. Importance of breeding and management of cold-blooded horses in terms of their meat utilization. Acta Sci. Zootechnica 2019; 18(4), 63–72.
    doi: 10.21005/asp.2019.18.4.09google scholar: lookup
  6. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). BVL-Report 16.4, Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit, Jahresbericht 2020 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrüberwachungsplan (EÜP) [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: Berichte_zur_Lebensmittelsicherheit_2020.pdf;jsessionid = 2D605C5DD8333A289F33468739675960.1_cid290 (bund.de).
  7. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). BVL-Report 14.5, Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit, Jahresbericht 2018 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrüberwachungsplan (EÜP) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/05_Weitere_Berichte_LM_Sicherheit/Berichte_zur_Lebensmittelsicherheit_2018.pdf;jsessionid=3F1F8E0F4273538629578967F47FB882.1_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  8. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). BVL-Report 15.5, Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit, Jahresbericht 2019 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrüberwachungsplan (EÜP) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/05_Weitere_Berichte_LM_Sicherheit/Berichte_zur_Lebensmittelsicherheit_2019.pdf;jsessionid>=DB2D9E602210E87A93AA4E32514D85C3.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  9. EC (European Commission). COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/262 of 17 February 2015 laying down rules pursuant to Council Directives 90/427/EEC and 2009/156/EC as regards the methods for the identification of equidae (Equine Passport Regulation) [Internt]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 23]. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/262/oj.
  10. EC (European Commission). COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1950/2006 of 13 December 2006 establishing, in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, a list of substances essential for the treatment of Equidae. (Current consolidated version: 16/02/2013) [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2022 Sep 14]. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1950/oj.
  11. EC (European Commission). COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, L 15/1. (Current consolidated version: 09/05/2022) [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 Sep 14]. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/37(1)/oj.
  12. TÄHAV. Verordnung über tierärztliche Hausapotheken in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 8. Juli 2009 (BGB1. I S. 1760) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/t_hav/.
  13. THAMNV. Verordnung über Nachweispflichten der Tierhalter für Arzneimittel, die zur Anwendung bei Tieren bestimmt sind (Tierhalter-Arzneimittelanwendungs- und Nachweisverordnung) vom 17. Juli 2015 (BGB1. I S. 1380, 1382) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/thamnv/index.html.
  14. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Jahresbericht 2015 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/04_NRKP_und_EUeP/nrkp2015_bericht.pdf;jsessionid=3DE509EA7EDBFB0B82149459993E2A02.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  15. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Jahresbericht 2016 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/04_NRKP_und_EUeP/nrkp2016_bericht.pdf;jsessionid=804AC02F63E5C5FD5607E55204361CA4.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=7.
  16. EFSA, Brocca D, Salvatore S. Report for 2020 on the results from the monitoring of veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances in live animals and animal products. EFSA supporting publication 2022, 19 (2);2397–8325.:EN-7143. 91 pp..
    doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7143google scholar: lookup
  17. EFSA, EMA. Joint Statement of EFSA and EMA on the presence of residues of phenylbutazone in horse meat. EFSA Journal 2013;11(4), 3190, 45 pp..
    doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013google scholar: lookup
  18. Rubio Lozano MS, Hernández Chávez J F, Ruíz López FA, Medina Medina R, Delgado Suárez E, Méndez Medina RD. Horse meat sold as beef and consequent clenbuterol residues in the unregulated Mexican marketplace. Food Control 2020, 110;107028.
    doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.107028google scholar: lookup
  19. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit 2011, Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/05_Weitere_Berichte_LM_Sicherheit/Berichte_zur_Lebensmittelsicherheit_2011.pdf;jsessionid=3DE509EA7EDBFB0B82149459993E2A02.2_cid290?__blobpublicationFile&v=8.
  20. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). BVL-Report 8.7, Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit, Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) 2012 [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/05_Weitere_Berichte_LM_Sicherheit/Berichte_zur_Lebensmittelsicherheit_2012.pdf;jsessionid=3DE509EA7EDBFB0B82149459993E2A02.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  21. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Jahresbericht 2013 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/04_NRKP_und_EUeP/nrkp2013_bericht.pdf;jsessionid=3DE509EA7EDBFB0B82149459993E2A02.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  22. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Jahresbericht 2014 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/04_NRKP_und_EUeP/nrkp2014_bericht.pdf;jsessionid=3DE509EA7EDBFB0B82149459993E2A02.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
  23. BVL (Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit). Jahresbericht 2017 zum Nationalen Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/04_NRKP_und_EUeP/nrkp2017_bericht.pdf;jsessionid=3F1F8E0F4273538629578967F47FB882.1_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.
  24. Scheibl P. Animal welfare problems from rearing to slaughter on cattle farms from an official veterinarian’s perspective. Tierärztliche Praxis Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2020, 48 (5);338–343.
    doi: 10.1055/a-1236-4886pubmed: 33080657google scholar: lookup
  25. Merle R, Hajek P, Käsbohrer A, Hegger-Gravenhorst C, Mollenhauer Y, Robanus M. Monitoring of antibiotic consumption in livestock: A German feasibility study. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2012;104(1–2), 34–43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.10.013pubmed: 22115924google scholar: lookup
  26. Nielsen MK, Reist M, Kaplan RM, Pfister K, van Doorn DCK, Becher A. Equine parasite control under prescription-only conditions in Denmark–Awareness, knowledge, perception, and strategies applied. Veterinary Parasitology 2014;204 (1–2), 64–72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.10.016pubmed: 24275444google scholar: lookup
  27. Isbrandt R, Meemken D, Langkabel N. Animal welfare training at cattle and pig slaughterhouses–Results of an online survey in German-speaking countries. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 2022;135, 1–16.
    doi: 10.2376/1439-0299-2021-25google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.