Suchergebnisse

International audience ; A methodology based on the combination of two complementary approaches to rank microbiological risks in foods is presented. In the forward approach data on the pathogenicity of hazards and their behaviour in food during processing and following steps, up to consumption, are used in decision trees to qualitatively estimate the risk associated with foods. In the backward approach risks are evaluated based on the analysis of data available on the past occurrence of hazards and food-borne outbreaks. The categorisation of foods using the forward approach should prevail, and whenever it leads to a likely risk for a given food, the risk can be further qualified with the results from the backward approach. The methodology developed was applied to rank the public health risk posed by certain composite products, which contain both processed products of animal origin and products of plant origin (e.g., bread, cakes, chocolate). Despite limitations in the data available for these foods, valuable results were obtained. The method is therefore considered suitable for application with success to other types of food, and is proposed as a tool for risk managers to rank foods based on their potential food safety risks. Introduction In the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures it is stated that sanitary measures should be based on an assessment of the risks to humans, taking into account risk assessment techniques. In the European Union (EU), the general principles governing food and feed safety are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (General

International audience ; A methodology based on the combination of two complementary approaches to rank microbiological risks in foods is presented. In the forward approach data on the pathogenicity of hazards and their behaviour in food during processing and following steps, up to consumption, are used in decision trees to qualitatively estimate the risk associated with foods. In the backward approach risks are evaluated based on the analysis of data available on the past occurrence of hazards and food-borne outbreaks. The categorisation of foods using the forward approach should prevail, and whenever it leads to a likely risk for a given food, the risk can be further qualified with the results from the backward approach. The methodology developed was applied to rank the public health risk posed by certain composite products, which contain both processed products of animal origin and products of plant origin (e.g., bread, cakes, chocolate). Despite limitations in the data available for these foods, valuable results were obtained. The method is therefore considered suitable for application with success to other types of food, and is proposed as a tool for risk managers to rank foods based on their potential food safety risks. Introduction In the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures it is stated that sanitary measures should be based on an assessment of the risks to humans, taking into account risk assessment techniques. In the European Union (EU), the general principles governing food and feed safety are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (General

International audience ; A methodology based on the combination of two complementary approaches to rank microbiological risks in foods is presented. In the forward approach data on the pathogenicity of hazards and their behaviour in food during processing and following steps, up to consumption, are used in decision trees to qualitatively estimate the risk associated with foods. In the backward approach risks are evaluated based on the analysis of data available on the past occurrence of hazards and food-borne outbreaks. The categorisation of foods using the forward approach should prevail, and whenever it leads to a likely risk for a given food, the risk can be further qualified with the results from the backward approach. The methodology developed was applied to rank the public health risk posed by certain composite products, which contain both processed products of animal origin and products of plant origin (e.g., bread, cakes, chocolate). Despite limitations in the data available for these foods, valuable results were obtained. The method is therefore considered suitable for application with success to other types of food, and is proposed as a tool for risk managers to rank foods based on their potential food safety risks. Introduction In the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures it is stated that sanitary measures should be based on an assessment of the risks to humans, taking into account risk assessment techniques. In the European Union (EU), the general principles governing food and feed safety are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (General

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on chronic wasting disease in two parts. Part one, on surveillance, animal health risk‐based measures and public health risks, was published in January 2017. This opinion (part two) addresses the remaining Terms of Reference, namely, 'are the conclusions and recommendations in the EFSA opinion of June 2004 on diagnostic methods for chronic wasting disease still valid? If not, an update should be provided', and 'update the conclusions of the 2010 EFSA opinion on the results of the European Union survey on chronic wasting disease in cervids, as regards its occurrence in the cervid population in the European Union'. Data on the performance of authorised rapid tests in North America are not comprehensive, and are more limited than those available for the tests approved for statutory transmissible spongiform encephalopathies surveillance applications in cattle and sheep. There are no data directly comparing available rapid test performances in cervids. The experience in Norway shows that the Bio‐Rad TeSeE™ SAP test, immunohistochemistry and western blotting have detected reindeer, moose and red deer cases. It was shown that testing both brainstem and lymphoid tissue from each animal increases the surveillance sensitivity. Shortcomings in the previous EU survey limited the reliability of inferences that could be made about the potential disease occurrence in Europe. Subsequently, testing activity in Europe was low, until the detection of the disease in Norway, triggering substantial testing efforts in that country. Available data neither support nor refute the conclusion that chronic wasting disease does not occur widely in the EU and do not preclude the possibility that the disease was present in Europe before the survey was conducted. It appears plausible that chronic wasting disease could have become established in Norway more than a decade ago.

International audience ; EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase

International audience ; EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures