March 4, 2026

 

Tasmania, Australia authorities highlight absence of strong evidence concerning application for antibiotic use in salmon farms

 

 

The application to use the antibiotic florfenicol in southern Tasmanian, Australia salmon farms did not cite "robust" evidence about the potential impact on human health, three Tasmanian government agencies argued.

 

Documents released under right to information (RTI) show Tasmania's Health Department, Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and Department of Natural Resources and Environment questioned the scientific rigour of the application with the federal regulator.

 

Tasmania's salmon industry is arguing the case to keep using an antibiotic being used to combat bacterial infection in fish stocks, as a possible ban on the drug's usage looms because of it being found in "non-target" species. This included concerns about a lack of Tasmania-specific evidence on the potential impact on human health.

 

The three agencies provided feedback to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) in November, after an application was made to expand the use of florfenicol to the east coast region to cover Tassal's Okehampton Bay lease for farming Atlantic salmon.

 

The first application for the south-east region was approved in November, and was soon followed by a second application for the east coast — both made by Abbey Laboratories on behalf of the salmon industry.

 

It was during this second application that Tasmanian agencies raised their concerns with the APVMA via a joint response.

 

"There is public and scientific interest in florfenicol use in aquaculture, including consideration of matters such as human health, antibiotic resistance, environment and ecology," the response reads.

 

"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."

 

At this point, the merits of florfenicol had also not been established, the government agencies argued.

 

This included a lack of scientific evidence that "florfenicol's safety is well established" — as argued by the industry last year — and there was no Tasmanian data to address environmental risks.

 

"Laboratory results have started to come in, however, the residue monitoring programme remains far from complete," the response reads.

 

"As such, the EPA has not been able to confirm that the potential benefits of florfenicol mentioned in the scientific literature, such as high uptake within the salmon and shorter half-life in the environment, are applicable to real-world Tasmanian circumstances."

 

The agencies also questioned if allowing the expansion of the use of florfenicol into another region "may provide an avenue for fish to receive multiple treatments".

 

They pointed out that the first florfenicol approval did not require the veterinary prescription to detail specifically which cohort of fish were to be treated.

 

The application to use florfenicol in the east coast region has not been approved at this stage.

 

Neither the APVMA nor Salmon Tasmania would confirm if it had been rejected, or if the application was ongoing.

 

An APVMA spokesperson said the reguator maintains an open dialogue with the state government.

 

"The APVMA consults with the relevant state government, in this case the Tasmanian Government, as part of their consideration of any emergency permit application," APVMA said.

 

"The feedback, views — and in this case, additional conditions sought by the Tasmanian Government, were all factored into the final permit application before approval."

 

- ABC News