Search results

Avian influenza (AI) is a viral infectious disease that affects all species of domestic and wild birds. The viruses causing this disease can be of high (HPAI) or low (LPAI) pathogenicity and represent a continuous threat to poultry in Europe. Council Directive 2005/94/EC requests EU Member States (MSs) to carry out surveillance in poultry and wild birds and notify the results to the responsible authority. Therefore, MSs and Switzerland have implemented surveillance programmes to yearly monitor incursions of AI viruses in poultry and wild birds. EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission, to collate, validate, analyse and summarise in an annual report the data resulting from the avian influenza surveillance programmes. This is the first report produced under this mandate summarising the results of the surveillance activities carried out in poultry and wild birds in 2018. Overall 18,596 poultry establishments were sampled, of which 43 were seropositive for H5 AI and two for H7 AI. Seropositive establishments were found in 11 MSs, with the highest percentage of seropositive establishments being found in waterfowl gamebird, and geese and duck breeding establishments. A total of 9,145 dead/moribund wild birds were sampled, with 163 birds testing positive to HPAI virus H5N6. The infected birds were reported by eight MSs and were mostly found between January and April 2018. In this report, the wild bird species affected with HPAI are described and the strategy of targeted sampling is assessed. The crude odds ratio of HPAI detection as a function of the target species (species belonging to the list of target species versus species not belonging to the target list) is presented. The surveillance findings for poultry and wild birds for 2018 are also discussed in relation to findings from previous years and current knowledge on the epidemiology of AI in Europe.

Avian influenza (AI) is a viral infectious disease that affects all species of domestic and wild birds. The viruses causing this disease can be of high (HPAI) or low (LPAI) pathogenicity and represent a continuous threat to poultry in Europe. Council Directive 2005/94/EC requests EU Member States (MSs) to carry out surveillance in poultry and wild birds and notify the results to the responsible authority. Therefore, MSs and Switzerland have implemented surveillance programmes to yearly monitor incursions of AI viruses in poultry and wild birds. EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission, to collate, validate, analyse and summarise in an annual report the data resulting from the avian influenza surveillance programmes. This is the first report produced under this mandate summarising the results of the surveillance activities carried out in poultry and wild birds in 2018. Overall 18,596 poultry establishments were sampled, of which 43 were seropositive for H5 AI and two for H7 AI. Seropositive establishments were found in 11 MSs, with the highest percentage of seropositive establishments being found in waterfowl gamebird, and geese and duck breeding establishments. A total of 9,145 dead/moribund wild birds were sampled, with 163 birds testing positive to HPAI virus H5N6. The infected birds were reported by eight MSs and were mostly found between January and April 2018. In this report, the wild bird species affected with HPAI are described and the strategy of targeted sampling is assessed. The crude odds ratio of HPAI detection as a function of the target species (species belonging to the list of target species versus species not belonging to the target list) is presented. The surveillance findings for poultry and wild birds for 2018 are also discussed in relation to findings from previous years and current knowledge on the epidemiology of AI in Europe.

Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the risks related to a possible reduction of the waiting period after rabies antibody titration test to 30?days compared with 90?days of the current EU legislation, for dogs moving from certain non-EU countries to the EU. This Scientific Report assessed the probability of introduction of rabies into the EU through commercial and non-commercial movements of vaccinated dogs with a positive titration test (≥ 0.5?IU/mL) if the waiting period decreases from 90 to 30?days. Assuming that all the legal requirements are complied with, the risk of transmission of rabies through the movement of a vaccinated dog is related to the risk of introducing an animal incubating rabies that was infected before the day of vaccination or shortly after vaccination but before the development of immunity (21?days post-vaccination). Using published data on the incubation period for experimental and field cases in dogs and considering the rabies incidence data in certain countries, the aggregated probability for the annual introduction of rabies through dogs was assessed. Considering the uncertainty related to the duration of the incubation period, the number of imported dogs, and the disease incidence in some countries it was concluded with a 95% certainty that the maximum number of rabies-infected imported dogs complying with the regulations in a 20-year period could increase from 5 to 20 when decreasing the waiting period from 90 to 30?days. Nevertheless, the potential impact of even a small increase in probability means the risk is increased for a region like the EU where rabies has long been a focus for eradication, to protect human and animal health.

This opinion describes outdoor farming of pigs in the EU, assesses the risk of African swine fewer (ASF) introduction and spread associated with outdoor pig farms and proposes biosecurity and control measures for outdoor pig farms in ASF‐affected areas of the EU. Evidence was collected from Member States (MSs) veterinary authorities, farmers' associations, literature and legislative documents. An Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was carried out to group outdoor pig farms according to their risk of introduction and spread of ASF, to rank biosecurity measures regarding their effectiveness with regard to ASF and propose improvements of biosecurity for outdoor pig farming and accompanying control measures. Outdoor pig farming is common and various farm types are present throughout the EU. As there is no legislation at European level for categorising outdoor pig farms in the EU, information is limited, not harmonised and needs to be interpreted with care. The baseline risk of outdoor pig farms for ASFV introduction and its spread is high but with considerable uncertainty. The Panel is 66–90% certain that, if single solid or double fences were fully and properly implemented on all outdoor pig farms in areas of the EU where ASF is present in wild boar and in domestic pigs in indoor farms and outdoor farms (worst case scenario not considering different restriction zones or particular situations), without requiring any other outdoor‐specific biosecurity measures or control measures, this would reduce the number of new ASF outbreaks occurring in these farms within a year by more than 50% compared to the baseline risk. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on‐farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms.

This opinion describes outdoor farming of pigs in the EU, assesses the risk of African swine fewer (ASF) introduction and spread associated with outdoor pig farms and proposes biosecurity and control measures for outdoor pig farms in ASF-affected areas of the EU. Evidence was collected from Member States (MSs) veterinary authorities, farmers' associations, literature and legislative documents. An Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was carried out to group outdoor pig farms according to their risk of introduction and spread of ASF, to rank biosecurity measures regarding their effectiveness with regard to ASF and propose improvements of biosecurity for outdoor pig farming and accompanying control measures. Outdoor pig farming is common and various farm types are present throughout the EU. As there is no legislation at European level for categorising outdoor pig farms in the EU, information is limited, not harmonised and needs to be interpreted with care. The baseline risk of outdoor pig farms for ASFV introduction and its spread is high but with considerable uncertainty. The Panel is 66-90% certain that, if single solid or double fences were fully and properly implemented on all outdoor pig farms in areas of the EU where ASF is present in wild boar and in domestic pigs in indoor farms and outdoor farms (worst case scenario not considering different restriction zones or particular situations), without requiring any other outdoor-specific biosecurity measures or control measures, this would reduce the number of new ASF outbreaks occurring in these farms within a year by more than 50% compared to the baseline risk. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on-farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

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 Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and (iv) 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. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. 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 CBPP.