A qualitative risk assessment for human salmonellosis due to the consumption of fresh pork in Belgium

Although pigs contaminated with Salmonella rarely show clinical symptoms, control is important because of the public health concern. Both producers and consumers are interested in procedures for minimizing the risk of Salmonella infections. This study outlines the entire production path for fresh pork in Belgium, from farm to fork. Additionally, it describes the different critical points for Salmonella contamination, with emphasis on those steps that need extra attention and/or improvement. The data was collected by means of questionnaires at the different steps of the process. In total, 3658 questionnaires were collected, which made it possible to draw up a nationwide image of the pork production process. In the primary production phase, there are several points relating to biosecurity that can be improved in order to minimize the risk for Salmonella in fattening pigs that are sent to slaughter. In the slaughterhouse, there has been an increase in the number of pigs or carcasses that become infected with Salmonella. Attention should be paid to avoiding contact of the feces and tonsils of contaminated pigs with the carcass, and strict hygienic measures should be taken to avoid cross-contamination. During the transformation and distribution of the carcasses, there is a low risk of further spreading of Salmonella spp. Finally, during the consumer phase, the risk for Salmonella contamination increases because of inappropriate temperature conditions during storage, manipulation of the meat and possible cross-contamination with other food products, and the consumption of insufficiently heated and/or raw meat. The present study illustrates that the risk of Salmonella infection by consumption of fresh pork is relatively low under Belgian conditions. Nevertheless, it can be further decreased by implementing additional control measures, mainly in the slaughterhouse and in the domestic kitchen

Public health risks associated with food‐borne parasites

Parasites are important food-borne pathogens. Their complex lifecycles, varied transmission routes, and prolonged periods between infection and symptoms mean that the public health burden and relative importance of different transmission routes are often difficult to assess. Furthermore, there are challenges in detection and diagnostics, and variations in reporting. A Europe-focused ranking exercise, using multicriteria decision analysis, identified potentially food-borne parasites of importance, and that are currently not routinely controlled in food. These are Cryptosporidium spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Echinococcus spp. Infection with these parasites in humans and animals, or their occurrence in food, is not notifiable in all Member States. This Opinion reviews current methods for detection, identification and tracing of these parasites in relevant foods, reviews literature on food-borne pathways, examines information on their occurrence and persistence in foods, and investigates possible control measures along the food chain. The differences between these three parasites are substantial, but for all there is a paucity of well-established, standardised, validated methods that can be applied across the range of relevant foods. Furthermore, the prolonged period between infection and clinical symptoms (from several days for Cryptosporidium to years for Echinococcus spp.) means that source attribution studies are very difficult. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the domestic animal lifecycle (involving dogs and livestock) for Echinoccocus granulosus means that this parasite is controllable. For Echinococcus multilocularis, for which the lifecycle involves wildlife (foxes and rodents), control would be expensive and complicated, but could be achieved in targeted areas with sufficient commitment and resources. Quantitative risk assessments have been described for Toxoplasma in meat. However, for T.gondii and Cryptosporidium as faecal contaminants, development of validated detection methods, including survival/infectivity assays and consensus molecular typing protocols, are required for the development of quantitative risk assessments and efficient control measures

Development of Reporting Guidelines for Animal Health Surveillance—AHSURED

With the current trend in animal health surveillance toward risk-based designs and a gradual transition to output-based standards, greater flexibility in surveillance design is both required and allowed. However, the increase in flexibility requires more transparency regarding surveillance, its activities, design and implementation. Such transparency allows stakeholders, trade partners, decision-makers and risk assessors to accurately interpret the validity of the surveillance outcomes. This paper presents the first version of the Animal Health Surveillance Reporting Guidelines (AHSURED) and the process by which they have been developed. The goal of AHSURED was to produce a set of reporting guidelines that supports communication of surveillance activities in the form of narrative descriptions. Reporting guidelines come from the field of evidence-based medicine and their aim is to improve consistency and quality of information reported in scientific journals. They usually consist of a checklist of items to be reported, a description/definition of each item, and an explanation and elaboration document. Examples of well-reported items are frequently provided. Additionally, it is common to make available a website where the guidelines are documented and maintained. This first version of the AHSURED guidelines consists of a checklist of 40 items organized in 11 sections (i.e., surveillance system building blocks), which is available as a wiki at https://github.com/SVA-SE/AHSURED/wiki. The choice of a wiki format will allow for further inputs from surveillance experts who were not involved in the earlier stages of development. This will promote an up-to-date refined guideline document

Risk factors for African swine fever incursion in Romanian domestic farms during 2019

African swine fever (ASF) entered Georgia in 2007 and the EU in 2014. In the EU, the virus primarily spread in wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the period from 2014–2018. However, from the summer 2018, numerous domestic pig farms in Romania were affected by ASF. In contrast to the existing knowledge on ASF transmission routes, the understanding of risk factors and the importance of different transmission routes is still limited. In the period from May to September 2019, 655 Romanian pig farms were included in a matched case-control study investigating possible risk factors for ASF incursion in commercial and backyard pig farms. The results showed that close proximity to outbreaks in domestic farms was a risk factor in commercial as well as backyard farms. Furthermore, in backyard farms, herd size, wild boar abundance around the farm, number of domestic outbreaks within 2 km around farms, short distance to wild boar cases and visits of professionals working on farms were statistically significant risk factors. Additionally, growing crops around the farm, which could potentially attract wild boar, and feeding forage from ASF affected areas to the pigs were risk factors for ASF incursion in backyard farms.We acknowledge financial support from EFSA, ANSVSA and from the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (FVST) as part of the agreement of commissioned work between the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and the University of Copenhagen.Peer reviewe

Research priorities to fill knowledge gaps in wild boar management measures that could improve the control of African swine fever in wild boar populations

The European Commission asked EFSA to provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains (RDs) according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: (RD 1) African swine fever (ASF) epidemiology in wild boar; (RD 2) ASF transmission by vectors; (RD 3) African swine fever virus (ASFV) survival in the environment, and (RD 4) the patterns of seasonality of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU. In this Scientific Opinion, the second RD on ASF epidemiology in wild boar is addressed. Twenty-nine research objectives were proposed by the working group and broader ASF expert networks and 23 of these research objectives met a prespecified inclusion criterion. Fourteen of these 23 research objectives met the predefined threshold for selection and so were prioritised based on the following set of criteria: (1) the impact on ASF management; (2) the feasibility or practicality to carry out the study; (3) the potential implementation of study results in practice; (4) a possible short time-frame study (< 1 year); (5) the novelty of the study; and (6) if it was a priority for risk managers. Finally, after further elimination of three of the proposed research objectives due to overlapping scope of studies published during the development of this opinion, 11 research priorities were elaborated into short research proposals, considering the potential impact on ASF management and the period of one year for the research activities

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: peste des petits ruminants

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad-hoc requests in relation to PPR