Suchergebnisse

EFSA received a mandate from the EC 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 are assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD). 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 radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time that 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 radius 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 was assessed as effective, and based on the transmission kernels available, it was concluded that the protection zone of 20 km radius and the surveillance zone of 50 km radius would comprise > 99% of the transmission from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the assessed scenarios 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 LSD.

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 Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). 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 effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and 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, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. 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 CCPP.

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 Classical swine fever (CSF). 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, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. 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 ...

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non-penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animalbased measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed.

The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2-step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lo wer in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good.

The performance of different bluetongue control measures related to both vaccination and protection from bluetongue virus (BTV) vectors was assessed. By means of a mathematical model, it was concluded that when vaccination is applied on 95% of animals even for 3 years, bluetongue cannot be eradicated and is able to re-emerge. Only after 5 years of vaccination, the infection may be close to the eradication levels. In the absence of vaccination, the disease can persist for several years, reaching an endemic condition with low level of prevalence of infection. Among the mechanisms for bluetongue persistence, the persistence in the wildlife, the transplacental transmission in the host, the duration of viraemia and the possible vertical transmission in vectors were assessed. The criteria of the current surveillance scheme in place in the EU for demonstration of the virus absence need revision, because it was highlighted that under the current surveillance policy bluetongue circulation might occur undetected. For the safe movement of animals, newborn ruminants from vaccinated mothers with neutralising antibodies can be considered protected against infection, although a protective titre threshold cannot be identified. The presence of colstral antibodies interferes with the vaccine immunisation in the newborn for more than 3 months after birth, whereas the minimum time after accination of animal to be considered immune can be up to 48 days. The knowledge about vectors ecology, mechanisms of over-wintering and criteria for the seasonally vector-free period was updated. Some Culicoides species are active throughout the year and an absolute vector-free period may not exist at least in some areas in Europe. To date, there is no evidence that the use of insecticides and repellents reduce the transmission of BTV in the field, although this may reduce host/vector contact. By only using pour-on insecticides, protection of animals is lower than the one provided by vector-proof establishments.

Tools are provided to assess the health status of managed honeybee colonies by facilitating further harmonisation of data collection and reporting, design of field surveys across the European Union (EU) and analysis of data on bee health. The toolbox is based on characteristics of a healthy managed honeybee colony: an adequate size, demographic structure and behaviour; an adequate production of bee products (both in relation to the annual life cycle of the colony and the geographical location); and provision of pollination services. The attributes 'queen presence and performance', 'demography of the colony', 'in-hive products' and 'disease, infection and infestation' could be directly measured in field conditions across the EU, whereas 'behaviour and physiology' is mainly assessed through experimental studies. Analysing the resource providing unit, in particular land cover/use, of a honeybee colony is very important when assessing its health status, but tools are currently lacking that could be used at apiary level in field surveys across the EU. Data on 'beekeeping management practices' and 'environmental drivers' can be collected via questionnaires and available databases, respectively. The capacity to provide pollination services is regarded as an indication of a healthy colony, but it is assessed only in relation to the provision of honey because technical limitations hamper the assessment of pollination as regulating service (e.g. to pollinate wild plants) in field surveys across the EU. Integrating multiple attributes of honeybee health, for instance, via a Health Status Index, is required to support a holistic assessment. Examples are provided on how the toolbox could be used by different stakeholders. Continued interaction between the Member State organisations, the EU Reference Laboratory and EFSA is required to further validate methods and facilitate the efficient use of precise and accurate bee health data that are collected by many initiatives throughout the EU.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was required to support the European Commission in preparing the review of Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. In Europe, red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the main definitive host of the Echinococcus multilocularis (EM) lifecycle. There is no evidence that any other carnivore species can maintain the lifecycle in the absence of red fox, and this makes it to most relevant target species for surveillance. Movement of infected definitive hosts is an important introduction pathway. The knowledge on the geographical distribution of the environmental factors for the persistence of the lifecycle is scarce. In areas where no suitable autochthonous wild canid hosts and no highly suitable intermediate hosts are present, e.g. Malta, establishment of the EM cycle is considered close to impossible. Such countries do not need to carry out surveillance on domestic dogs to substantiate absence of EM in the relevant animal population. Reconsideration of some aspects of the current legislation regarding surveillance activities might be relevant; for example the identification of epidemiologically relevant units should be independent from political borders. Studies to improve the knowledge on epidemiological risk factors should be encouraged to enable risk-based sampling. Echinococcus notification should always be done at species level in order to discriminate between the more severe alveolar echinococcosis and the cystic echinococcosis. Praziquantel is the substance of choice for the treatment of dogs. However, the treatment window should be reconsidered to reduce the risk of re-infection: a general rule is to treat as close as possible to entry into a non-infected country. There is a lack of standardization of the diagnostic methods between laboratories. The diagnostic sensitivity of the tests should be established in accordance to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards for validation. For the time being, the diagnostic sensitivity can be set conservatively to 78%.

This Scientific Opinion presents a characterisation of canine leishmaniosis (CanL) in Europe and its potential for spreading. The efficacy of available preventative measures to protect dogs against CanL was assessed, with the objective of mitigating the probability of introduction of CanL into free areas in the European Union through movement of infected dogs. Several systematic reviews (SRs) of literature were carried out to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines, topically applied insecticides and prophylactic medication. Additionally, SRs on the sensitivity of diagnostic tests and treatment efficacy were carried out to evaluate the possibility of testing and excluding or treating infected dogs to mitigate the risk of introduction into free areas. The probability of introduction and establishment of CanL in a non-endemic region with competent sandflies was estimated, using a stochastic simulation model. The probability of establishment defined as the local transmission of L. infantum from vector to host and vice versa, was very high. The most effective mitigation measure to reduce the probability of introduction and establishment of CanL was topically applied insecticide. Vaccination had only limited effect on the probability of establishment in a non-endemic region. Testing dogs before their introduction into a non-endemic area is of limited value if applied too soon after exposure to infected sandflies, because it takes several months to obtain a positive result after exposure. Test and treatment in the endemic area, prior to movement into a non-endemic area, does not appear to be an efficient and realistic option to mitigate the probability of introduction of CanL, as no treatment against CanL can guarantee to prevent future transmission. It was concluded that the main limitation to CanL spread is represented by the vectors. This reinforces the need for knowledge on the vectorial competence, distribution and abundance of potential vectors of CanL in the EU.