Florfenicol, salmonid aquaculture and APVMA emergency permit PER96499

Question

Florfenicol was found in a range of species, impacting wild-caught fisheries' ability to export products, including genuine concerns for human health given the extent (incl. geographic) at which antibiotic residues were detected. The permit was subsequently suspended by the APVMA because ''Information received by the APVMA on 2 March 2026 has been reviewed, and it has been concluded that there was no new data, or any evidence of measures that would address the APVMA's concerns.'' Under Section 161 of the Agvet Code, Abbey Laboratories has a mandatory legal obligation to provide the APVMA with any new information that shows the product may not be ''efficacious'' (effective). Under the APVMA's Adverse Experience Reporting Program (AERP), permit holders and registrants are required to report ''Lack of Efficacy.'' If the salmonid mortality rate did not drop as expected, or if there were ''unexpected'' deaths (toxic reactions to the drug itself), this information should have been reported. Although salmon deaths are not recognised (at least, publicly) as the driver for the permit being suspended, to justify the emergency permit, Abbey Laboratories had to prove there was a crisis, i.e. forecast mortality rates in the absence of florfenicol. Thus, in an effort to keep the permit, they may have also had to show the drug was working (ie. reducing x amount of salmon mortalities) and not causing secondary harm. 1. Exactly what were APVMAs concerns that required 'new data' or 'measures'? 2. In the report lodged with AVPMA (presumably by Abbey Laboratories); a. What specific data was reported? b. What was the total volume of florfenicol used during the permitted period? c. What was the reported concentration of florfenicol within wild-caught fishery products? d. What was the geographic extent at which florfenicol was detected, and at what concentration was it at its furthest extent? 3. What evidence is there to show florfenicol was working for its intended purpose that justified an 'emergency' permit, i.e. reducing salmon mortalities? 4. What is the estimated loss in economic value of wild caught fisheries closed/suspended as a consequence of florfenicol use? 5. Tasmania's Environment Protection Authority has said the use of florfenicol in Tasmania's marine waters between November 2025 and March 2026 posed a ''low risk of causing unacceptable environmental harm'' after releasing its Environmental Risk Assessment recently. a. What does this mean about the use of florenicol going forward, does it change the use and application of the antibiotic moving forward? 6. Could florfenicol be ''normalised'' and used as a long-term treatment option? Why or why not? 7. What is known about the cumulative impacts of florfenicol to marine environments over time? 8. There is documented scientific evidence of the significant impacts of florfenicol in Chilean waters, especially to bacterial communities. However the conclusion by the EPA that florfenicol is supposedly low risk excluded assessing Tasmania's bacterial communities. Is this something that will be looked into in a Tasmanian context?

Answer

Please see PDF attachment.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000576.pdf (opens in a new tab)