Scientific Opinion on Review of the European Union Summary Report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks—Terms of reference 2 to 7

Tabs

Article
Panel on Animal Health and Welfare
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3074 [29 pp.].
doi
10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3074
Panel members at the time of adoption
Edit Authie, Charlotte Berg, Anette Bøtner, Howard Browman, Ilaria Capua, Aline De Koeijer, Klaus Depner, Mariano Domingo, Sandra Edwards, Christine Fourichon, Frank Koenen, Simon More, Mohan Raj, Liisa Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Jan Arend Stegeman, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Antonio Velarde, Ivar Vågsholm, Preben Willeberg and Stéphan Zientara.
Acknowledgements

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on zoonoses review: Aline De Koeijer, Simon More, Mariano Domingo, Mo Salman, Martin Wierup, Mike Sharp and Hans-Hermann Thulke for the preparation of this scientific opinion and Ana Afonso and Franck Boelart for the support provided.

Contact
Type
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
EFSA
Question Number
EFSA-Q-2012-00631
Adopted
21. Dezember 2012
Published in the EFSA Journal
21. Januar 2013
Affiliation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Note
Abstract

The Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated the European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks by EFSA and ECDC (the report) with regard to data needs and subsequent analyses that will minimise the impact of existing data gaps and inconsistencies. Specific assessments performed for bovine tuberculosis, echinococcosis, Q fever, brucellosis, rabies, cysticercosis and tularaemia show that the report gives an accurate picture of the epidemiological situation for the infections which have an EU harmonised monitoring system. Generally the data analysis is descriptive; further analysis for specific purposes and quantification of the trends should be considered. Specific information for each disease should contain (i) a clear case definition, (ii) a clear description of sampling techniques and diagnostic tests used, (iii) relevant epidemiological characteristics and (iv) relevant control measures or surveillance. Prioritisation of diseases from a public health viewpoint is not in the remit of the AHAW Panel. Proposed criteria to assess the value of including additional diseases in the report are (1) the disease is reported regularly in animals and humans in some EU Member States; (2) the disease is considered a serious public health issue; and (3) monitoring in animals is epidemiologically justifiable. The first two criteria are inclusion criteria; the third is used to prioritise diseases for inclusion in the report. The last section of the opinion addresses the value of the data included in the report for AHAW risk assessment. Their usefulness is often compromised by missing case definition, insufficient metadata or outdated data. It is recommended that data needs are further analysed to improve the preparedness of the AHAW Panel to answer risk questions, via some readily available and stable data as well as good knowledge of ad-hoc data models and sources throughout the EU.

Keywords
Zoonosis, Data, risk assessment, animal health and welfare
Print on demand
Number of Pages
29