QuestionsQuestions (DOH ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 91)
It declares a ban on the use of chloramphenicol in food-producing animals due to public health dangers arising from high residues of chloramphenicol in meat, milk, and eggs.
The order recognizes chloramphenicol’s value as an antibiotic for life-threatening human infections, but stresses that it must be used discriminately through physicians’ prescription after sound diagnosis; meanwhile, residues from animal use cannot be assured safe for human consumption.
It cited: (1) residue build-up in animal tissues that humans ingest; (2) inability to establish human tolerance/acceptable residue levels (per FAO/WHO—no safe assurance even at low levels for sensitive individuals); and (3) risks such as increased chance of aplastic anemia and alteration of microbial ecology leading to chloramphenicol-resistant human pathogens.
A Subcommittee on Veterinary Drugs of the National Drug Committee (DOH) determined the public health danger and recommended prohibition; a task force created by the Department of Agriculture reached the same conclusion and concurred.
Chloramphenicol is banned from use in all food-producing animals, including aquaculture, regardless of the route of administration.
It means the ban covers any method of administering chloramphenicol to food-producing animals—oral, injectable, or other routes—without exception.
Registration is withdrawn for such use.
Future applications for similar registration shall be disapproved.
All concerned personnel are instructed to implement the ban and educate the public on the reasons for the ban.
Increased chance of aplastic anemia (a rare but fatal condition associated with chloramphenicol) and alteration of microbial ecology leading to increased chloramphenicol resistance of human pathogens.
Because the effect may or may not be dose- or duration-related, and the FAO/WHO expert committee did not recommend an acceptable residue level since no assurance can be given that even low residues would be safe for certain sensitive individuals.
It states that indiscriminate or even discriminate use can lead to build-up of residues that alter microbial ecology and increase chloramphenicol resistance among human pathogens.
It was adopted on 30 April 1990; for law studies, the adoption date helps determine when the administrative ban and regulatory actions (withdrawal of registrations, disapproval of new applications) became effective.