Clarification - Veterinary Times Medicines Article

Main Category: Veterinary
Article Date: 24 Feb 2009 - 0:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

The lead article in the Veterinary Times on 16 February on the Veterinary Medicine Directorate's (VMD) classification review of veterinary medicinal products does not accurately reflect the position of the BVA on the VMD's proposed changes.

The classification of the great majority of products reviewed by the VMD has been recommended to remain unchanged and the BVA supports that. Within those are the sheep vaccines Enzovac, Mydiavac and Scabivax Forte. VMD has, however, been pressed by farmers and distributing bodies to reclassify them from POM V to POM VPS. The BVA contacted the VMD last month to re-emphasise the arguments why these products (and Toxovax) should remain POM V.

As a general principle the BVA does not support the reclassification of products that takes away the veterinarian's role of providing professional advice on the safe and effective use of products to ensure that animal health and welfare and, where appropriate, human health are protected. This is particularly important in the case of sheep vaccines where evidence of incorrect use of such products by farmers in the past has been reported. For the products mentioned in the article - Advantage, Frontline Combo, Program, and Panacur - the BVA responded to the VMD opposing their reclassification and not supporting it as suggested in the article.

The review of classification of veterinary medicinal products is an important issue for the veterinary profession. The BVA will continue to work with the VMD to ensure the review does not harm the profession's ability to give sound advice on the use of medicines thus ensuring the protection of animal and indeed human health.

More on reclassification

General information on veterinary medicine

British Veterinary Association

• Additional
• References
• Citations