Search

Abstract The transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) between food‐producing animals (poultry, cattle and pigs) during short journeys ( 8 h) directed to other farms or to the slaughterhouse lairage (directly or with intermediate stops at assembly centres or control posts, mainly transported by road) was assessed. Among the identified risk factors contributing to the probability of transmission of antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria (ARB) and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs), the ones considered more important are the resistance status (presence of ARB/ARGs) of the animals pre‐transport, increased faecal shedding, hygiene of the areas and vehicles, exposure to other animals carrying and/or shedding ARB/ARGs (especially between animals of different AMR loads and/or ARB/ARG types), exposure to contaminated lairage areas and duration of transport. There are nevertheless no data whereby differences between journeys shorter or longer than 8 h can be assessed. Strategies that would reduce the probability of AMR transmission, for all animal categories include minimising the duration of transport, proper cleaning and disinfection, appropriate transport planning, organising the transport in relation to AMR criteria (transport logistics), improving animal health and welfare and/or biosecurity immediately prior to and during transport, ensuring the thermal comfort of the animals and animal segregation. Most of the aforementioned measures have similar validity if applied at lairage, assembly centres and control posts. Data gaps relating to the risk factors and the effectiveness of mitigation measures have been identified, with consequent research needs in both the short and longer term listed. Quantification of the impact of animal transportation compared to the contribution of other stages of the food‐production chain, and the interplay of duration with all risk factors on the transmission of ARB/ARGs during transport and journey breaks, were identified as urgent research needs.

Abstract Background Lately, one of the major clinical and public health issues has been represented by Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy and the risk of transmission of the infection from mother to child. Debate on perinatal management and postnatal care is still ongoing, principally questioning the option of the joint management of mother and child after birth and the safety of breastfeeding. According to the available reports, neonatal COVID-19 appears to have a horizontal transmission and seems to be paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic, compared to older age groups. The aim of this work is to describe a cluster of neonatal COVID-19 and discuss our experience, with reference to current evidence on postnatal care and perinatal management. Methods This is a retrospective observational case series of five mother-child dyads, who attended the Labor and Delivery Unit of a first-level hospital in Italy, in March 2020. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables consisted of number of observations, mean and the range of the minimum and maximum values. Results Five women and four neonates tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In one case, the mother-child dyad was separated and the neonate remained negative on two consecutive tests. Two positive neonates developed symptoms, with a predominant involvement of the gastrointestinal tract. Blood tests were unremarkable, except for a single patient who developed mild neutropenia. No complications occurred. Conclusions We agree that the decision on whether or not to separate a positive/suspected mother from her child should be made on an individual basis, taking into account the parent’s will, clinical condition, hospital logistics and the local epidemiological situation. In conformity with literature, in our study, affected neonates were asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic. Despite these reassuring findings, a few cases of severe presentation in the neonatal population have been reported. Therefore, we agree on encouraging clinicians to monitor the neonates with a suspected or confirmed infection.

Abstract The specific concentrations of amprolium in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.

Abstract The specific concentrations of colistin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of colistin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of flumequine and oxolinic acid in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin.

Abstract The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.

Abstract The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Abstract The specific concentrations of trimethoprim in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for trimethoprim was estimated. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for trimethoprim.

Abstract The specific concentrations of tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tilmicosin and tylosin, whilst for tylvalosin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these three antimicrobials.

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to assess, in collaboration with EMA, the specific concentrations of antimicrobials resulting from cross‐contamination in non‐target feed for food‐producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in microbial agents relevant for human and animal health, as well as the levels of the antimicrobials which could have a growth promotion/increase yield effect. The assessment was performed for 24 antimicrobial active substances, as specified in the mandate. This scientific opinion describes the methodology used, and the main associated data gaps and uncertainties. To estimate the antimicrobial levels in the non‐target feed that would not result in emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance, a model was developed. This ‘Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration’ (FARSC) model is based on the minimal selective concentration (MSC), or the predicted MSC (PMSC) if MSC for the most susceptible bacterial species is unavailable, the fraction of antimicrobial dose available for exposure to microorganisms in the large intestine or rumen (considering pharmacokinetic parameters), the daily faecal output or rumen volume and the daily feed intake. Currently, lack of data prevents the establishment of PMSC and/or FARSC for several antimicrobials and animal species. To address growth promotion, data from an extensive literature search were used. Specific assessments of the different substances grouped by antimicrobial classes are addressed in separate scientific opinions. General conclusions and recommendations were made.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA whether the scientific data on the 2‐year intensified monitoring in atypical scrapie (AS) outbreaks (2013–2020) provide any evidence on the contagiousness of AS, and whether they added any new knowledge on the epidemiology of AS. An ad hoc data set from intensified monitoring in 22 countries with index case/s of AS in sheep and/or goats (742 flocks from 20 countries, 76 herds from 11 countries) was analysed. No secondary cases were confirmed in goat herds, while 35 secondary cases were confirmed in 28 sheep flocks from eight countries. The results of the calculated design prevalence and of a model simulation indicated that the intensified monitoring had limited ability to detect AS, with no difference between countries with or without secondary cases. A regression model showed an increased, but not statistically significant, prevalence (adjusted by surveillance stream) of secondary cases in infected flocks compared with that of index cases in the non‐infected flocks (general population). A simulation model of within‐flock transmission, comparing a contagious (i.e. transmissible between animals under natural conditions) with a non‐contagious scenario, produced a better fit of the observed data with the non‐contagious scenario, in which each sheep in a flock had the same probability of developing AS in the first year of life. Based on the analyses performed, and considering uncertainties and data limitations, it was concluded that there is no new evidence that AS can be transmitted between animals under natural conditions, and it is considered more likely (subjective probability range 50–66%) that AS is a non‐contagious, rather than a contagious disease. The analysis of the data of the EU intensified monitoring in atypical scrapie infected flocks/herds confirmed some of the known epidemiological features of AS but identified that major knowledge gaps still remain.

Abstract The role of food‐producing environments in the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in EU plant‐based food production, terrestrial animals (poultry, cattle and pigs) and aquaculture was assessed. Among the various sources and transmission routes identified, fertilisers of faecal origin, irrigation and surface water for plant‐based food and water for aquaculture were considered of major importance. For terrestrial animal production, potential sources consist of feed, humans, water, air/dust, soil, wildlife, rodents, arthropods and equipment. Among those, evidence was found for introduction with feed and humans, for the other sources, the importance could not be assessed. Several ARB of highest priority for public health, such as carbapenem or extended‐spectrum cephalosporin and/or fluoroquinolone‐resistant Enterobacterales (including Salmonella enterica), fluoroquinolone‐resistant Campylobacter spp., methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and glycopeptide‐resistant Enterococcus faecium and E. faecalis were identified. Among highest priority ARGs blaCTX‐M, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaOXA‐48-like, blaOXA‐23, mcr, armA, vanA, cfr and optrA were reported. These highest priority bacteria and genes were identified in different sources, at primary and post‐harvest level, particularly faeces/manure, soil and water. For all sectors, reducing the occurrence of faecal microbial contamination of fertilisers, water, feed and the production environment and minimising persistence/recycling of ARB within animal production facilities is a priority. Proper implementation of good hygiene practices, biosecurity and food safety management systems is very important. Potential AMR‐specific interventions are in the early stages of development. Many data gaps relating to sources and relevance of transmission routes, diversity of ARB and ARGs, effectiveness of mitigation measures were identified. Representative epidemiological and attribution studies on AMR and its effective control in food production environments at EU level, linked to One Health and environmental initiatives, are urgently required.

Abstract This paper focusses on biological hazards at the global level and considers the challenges to risk assessment (RA) from a One Health perspective. Two topics – vector‐borne diseases (VBD) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – are used to illustrate the challenges ahead and to explore the opportunities that new methodologies such as next‐generation sequencing can offer. Globalisation brings complexity and introduces drivers for infectious diseases. Cooperation and the application of an integrated RA approach – one that takes into consideration food farming and production systems including social and environmental factors – are recommended. Also needed are methodologies to identify emerging risks at a global level and propose prevention strategies. AMR is one of the biggest threats to human health in the infectious disease environment. Whereas new genomic typing techniques such as whole genome sequencing (WGS) provide further insights into the mechanisms of spread of resistance, the role of the environment is not fully elucidated, nor is the role of plants as potential vehicles for spread of resistance. Historical trends and recent experience indicate that (re)‐emergence and/or further spread of VBD within the EU is a matter of when rather than if. Standardised and validated vector monitoring programs are required to be implemented at an international level for continuous surveillance and assessment of potential threats. There are benefits to using WGS – such as a quicker and better response to outbreaks and additional evidence for source attribution. However, significant challenges need to be addressed, including method standardisation and validation to fully realise these benefits; barriers to data sharing; and establishing epidemiological capacity for cluster triage and response.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract EFSA was requested to: 1) assess the risk for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) due to feeding on farm of calves with colostrum potentially containing residues of antibiotics; 2) assess the risk for the development of AMR due to feeding on farm of calves with milk of cows treated during lactation with an antibiotic and milked during the withdrawal period, and 3) propose possible options to mitigate the risk for the development of AMR derived from such practices. Treatment of dairy cows during the dry period and during lactation is common in the EU Member States. Penicillins, alone or in combination with aminoglycosides, and cephalosporins are most commonly used. Residue levels of antimicrobials decrease with the length of the dry period. When the interval from the start of the drying‐off treatment until calving is as long as or longer than the minimum specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics of the antimicrobial, faecal shedding of antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria will not increase when calves are fed colostrum from treated cows. Milk from cows receiving antimicrobial treatment during lactation contains substantial residues during the treatment and withdrawal period. Consumption of such milk will lead to increased faecal shedding of antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria by calves. A range of possible options exist for restricting the feeding of such milk to calves, which could be targeting the highest priority critically important antimicrobials. β‐Lactamases can reduce the concentration of β‐lactams which are the most frequently used antimicrobials in milking cows. Options to mitigate the presence of resistant bacteria in raw milk or colostrum are mainly based on thermal inactivation.

Abstract This report of EFSA presents the results of surveillance activities on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in bovine animals, sheep and goats as well as genotyping data in sheep, carried out in 2015 in the EU and in three non‐Member States (non‐MS). Since 2001, approximately 114 million cattle in the EU have been tested for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) according Regulation (EC) 999/2001. In 2015, 1.4 million bovine animals were tested and five cases were detected in four MS (Ireland: one case; Slovenia: one case; Spain: one case; and the United Kingdom: two cases) and one case was detected in Norway. Two cases (in Ireland and the United Kingdom) were affected by classical BSE and both cases were born after the EU‐wide feed ban enforced in 2001. The remaining four cases were atypical BSE cases (three H‐BSE type and one L‐BSE type). Since 2002, approximately 8.4 million small ruminants have been tested during the EU‐wide surveillance for scrapie. In 2015, 319,638 sheep and 135,857 goats were tested. In total, 641 scrapie cases in sheep were detected in 18 MS while 1,052 scrapie cases in goats were detected in nine MS, respectively. In two non‐MS (Iceland and Norway), 40 scrapie cases in sheep were detected. Although in a number of MS the decrease in classical scrapie is clear, at the EU level there is no clear decreasing trend in the occurrence of scrapie in small ruminants. Results obtained from genotyping in sheep confirm that cases of classical scrapie are clustered among certain genotypes, and animals with these genotypes seem to account for less than 20% of the European randomly sampled sheep population. In total, 580 samples from species other than domestic ruminants were tested for TSE in three MS, all with negative results.

A 75-year-old man presented with a multicentric basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the penis and scrotum with skin metastases. The lesion was large, affecting the whole shaft, the scrotum, and the pubic and inguinal areas. The patient was operated on and the defect covered with a split thickness skin graft. At six months followup, the patient was well, with no evidence of recurrence. This site is extremely rare (we know of 24 cases described) but seems to metastasise widely. Surgery is the best treatment option in these cases, and must be aggressive, considering the particular biological behaviour of BCC of the genital region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]