Opinion of the Scientific Panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) on the revision of the Geographical BSE risk
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.463
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards
Panel Members
Olivier Andreoletti, Herbert Budka, Sava Buncic, Pierre Colin, John D Collins,
Aline De Koeijer, John Griffin, Arie Havelaar, James Hope, Günter Klein, Hilde Kruse,
Simone Magnino, Antonio Martínez López, James McLauchlin, Christophe Nguyen-The,
Karsten Noeckler, Birgit Noerrung, Miguel Prieto Maradona, Terence Roberts,
Ivar Vågsholm, Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch.
Acknowledgment
The Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards wishes to thank the working group for preparing
the draft opinion: Aline de Koeijer, Gavin Thomson, Michael Gravenor, John Griffin, Dagmar
Heim, Noel Murray, Ludovic Plee, Mo Salman, Vittorio Silano, Ivar Vågsholm (Rapporteur),
Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch (Chairman), Stig Widell.
EFSA and its Working Group wish to thank the representatives of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) and the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the
European Commission (DG SANCO) for their attendance, as external observers, at the WG
meetings. Furthermore, EFSA and its WG would like to thank those who submitted comments
during the public consultation and hence contributed to the development of this methodology.
Olivier Andreoletti, Herbert Budka, Sava Buncic, Pierre Colin, John D Collins,
Aline De Koeijer, John Griffin, Arie Havelaar, James Hope, Günter Klein, Hilde Kruse,
Simone Magnino, Antonio Martínez López, James McLauchlin, Christophe Nguyen-The,
Karsten Noeckler, Birgit Noerrung, Miguel Prieto Maradona, Terence Roberts,
Ivar Vågsholm, Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch.
Acknowledgment
The Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards wishes to thank the working group for preparing
the draft opinion: Aline de Koeijer, Gavin Thomson, Michael Gravenor, John Griffin, Dagmar
Heim, Noel Murray, Ludovic Plee, Mo Salman, Vittorio Silano, Ivar Vågsholm (Rapporteur),
Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch (Chairman), Stig Widell.
EFSA and its Working Group wish to thank the representatives of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) and the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the
European Commission (DG SANCO) for their attendance, as external observers, at the WG
meetings. Furthermore, EFSA and its WG would like to thank those who submitted comments
during the public consultation and hence contributed to the development of this methodology.
Type:
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Question number:
EFSA-Q-2004-150
Adopted:
07 March 2007
Published:
30 March 2007
Last updated:
30 March 2007. This version replaces the previous one/s.
Abstract
No abstract available
The Geographical BSE-Risk assessment (GBR) is an indicator of the likelihood of the presence of one or more bovines being infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), pre-clinically as well as clinically, at a given point in time, in a country.
The methodology (SSC GBR), developed by the previous Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) of the European Commission between 1998 and 2002, categorizes the assessed countries into four different risk levels.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) requested its Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) to review and update the SSC GBR method, taking into account the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Chapter 2.3.13 and appendix 3.8.5 to that chapter) and quantitative surveillance data and models. The Panel was requested to publish a draft document for public consultation, and to consider the comments received when finalising the method.
The Working Group (WG) under the EFSA BIOHAZ Panel proceeded by evaluating the SSC GBR method and, based on this evaluation, suggested possible amendments and improvements. In interpreting and addressing the terms of reference, the BIOHAZ Panel considered experience gained from previous assessments, new data and information, developments in EU policies, and the development of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
The BIOHAZ Panel and its WG produced a stand-alone document describing the EFSA GBR methodology. The main purpose of this document is to describe the basic methodology to carry out the risk assessment. Where necessary, the document provides the rationale and scientific basis for specific parts of the methodology. This stand-alone document serves as the set of instructions that can be used by the members of any international independent expert group responsible for assessing a country, as well as by the contact points in the countries being assessed.
The BIOHAZ Panel agreed to refer to SSC GBR as the previous method and EFSA GBR as the revised method.
The main changes of the EFSA GBR with respect to the SSC GBR can be summarized in three main categories: changes in the external challenge assessment, changes in the stability assessment and changes in the categories of assessment. Furthermore the EFSA GBR considers the possibility of assessing zones such as defined in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
The revised challenge assessment in the EFSA GBR methodology introduces an adjustment for the size of the challenged cattle population; defines in more detail the steps for the assessment (i.e. acquisition of import data, determination of whether the imports entered the BSE/Cattle system, estimation of the infectivity level in the imported material); clarifies the rules for the inclusion or exclusion of the imported material or animals; and introduces a weighting factor for the scaling of these imports.
The changes in the stability assessment consist of the utilization of a semi-quantitative approach, instead of the previous mostly qualitative approach to assess the impact of practices related to the BSE infection (Specified Risk Materials utilization, Rendering system and Feeding system).
The EFSA GBR no longer categorizes the countries. It assesses the overall challenge and the number of expected BSE cases and infections over time in a country, and includes an estimation of the future course of the infection.
BSE, Geographical Risk Assessment, GBR, Methodology
