Search

Abstract Parasites are important food‐borne pathogens. Their complex lifecycles, varied transmission routes, and prolonged periods between infection and symptoms mean that the public health burden and relative importance of different transmission routes are often difficult to assess. Furthermore, there are challenges in detection and diagnostics, and variations in reporting. A Europe‐focused ranking exercise, using multicriteria decision analysis, identified potentially food‐borne parasites of importance, and that are currently not routinely controlled in food. These are Cryptosporidium spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Echinococcus spp. Infection with these parasites in humans and animals, or their occurrence in food, is not notifiable in all Member States. This Opinion reviews current methods for detection, identification and tracing of these parasites in relevant foods, reviews literature on food‐borne pathways, examines information on their occurrence and persistence in foods, and investigates possible control measures along the food chain. The differences between these three parasites are substantial, but for all there is a paucity of well‐established, standardised, validated methods that can be applied across the range of relevant foods. Furthermore, the prolonged period between infection and clinical symptoms (from several days for Cryptosporidium to years for Echinococcus spp.) means that source attribution studies are very difficult. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the domestic animal lifecycle (involving dogs and livestock) for Echinoccocus granulosus means that this parasite is controllable. For Echinococcus multilocularis, for which the lifecycle involves wildlife (foxes and rodents), control would be expensive and complicated, but could be achieved in targeted areas with sufficient commitment and resources. Quantitative risk assessments have been described for Toxoplasma in meat. However, for T. gondii and Cryptosporidium as faecal contaminants, development of validated detection methods, including survival/infectivity assays and consensus molecular typing protocols, are required for the development of quantitative risk assessments and efficient control measures.

Abstract EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture.

Abstract Food safety criteria for Listeria monocytogenes in ready‐to‐eat (RTE) foods have been applied from 2006 onwards (Commission Regulation (EC) 2073/2005). Still, human invasive listeriosis was reported to increase over the period 2009–2013 in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Time series analysis for the 2008–2015 period in the EU/EEA indicated an increasing trend of the monthly notified incidence rate of confirmed human invasive listeriosis of the over 75 age groups and female age group between 25 and 44 years old (probably related to pregnancies). A conceptual model was used to identify factors in the food chain as potential drivers for L. monocytogenes contamination of RTE foods and listeriosis. Factors were related to the host (i. population size of the elderly and/or susceptible people; ii. underlying condition rate), the food (iii. L. monocytogenes prevalence in RTE food at retail; iv. L. monocytogenes concentration in RTE food at retail; v. storage conditions after retail; vi. consumption), the national surveillance systems (vii. improved surveillance), and/or the bacterium (viii. virulence). Factors considered likely to be responsible for the increasing trend in cases are the increased population size of the elderly and susceptible population except for the 25–44 female age group. For the increased incidence rates and cases, the likely factor is the increased proportion of susceptible persons in the age groups over 45 years old for both genders. Quantitative modelling suggests that more than 90% of invasive listeriosis is caused by ingestion of RTE food containing > 2,000 colony forming units (CFU)/g, and that one‐third of cases are due to growth in the consumer phase. Awareness should be increased among stakeholders, especially in relation to susceptible risk groups. Innovative methodologies including whole genome sequencing (WGS) for strain identification and monitoring of trends are recommended.

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 The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, considered to be ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. The BIOHAZ Panel confirms that the QPS approach can be extended to a genetically modified production strain if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Between April and September 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 46 applications for market authorisation. From these, 14 biological agents already had QPS status and 16 were not included as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. One notification of Streptomyces K‐61 (notified as former S. griseoviridis) and four of Escherichia coli were not considered for the assessment as they belong to taxonomic units that were excluded from further evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Eight notifications of Bacillus thuringiensis and one of an oomycete are pending the reception of the complete application. Two taxonomic units were evaluated: Kitasatospora paracochleata, which had not been evaluated before, and Komagataella phaffii, previously notified as Pichia pastoris included due to a change in the taxonomic identity. Kitasatospora paracochleata cannot be granted QPS status due to lack of information on its biology and to its possible production of toxic secondary metabolites. The species Komagataella phaffii can be recommended for the QPS list when used for enzyme production.

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. Between the end of September 2016 and March 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 87 applications for market authorisation. From these, 32 biological agents already had a QPS status, and 37 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. Streptomyces species (Streptomyces cinnamonensis, Streptomyces mobaraensis and Streptomyces violaceoruber), Bacillus circulans (three notifications) and Escherichia coli (seven notifications) were re‐confirmed not suitable for QPS. Streptomyces rubiginosus and Streptomyces netropsis, not evaluated within the previous mandate, were also not recommended for QPS. Streptomyces spp. and E. coli will be excluded from further QPS evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, which has never been evaluated before, was not recommended for the QPS list and for Pseudomonas amyloderamosa, the QPS assessment was not applicable because it is not a validated species. Lactobacillus animalis was a new taxonomic unit recommended to have the QPS status.

Abstract Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is an important infection in humans in EU/EEA countries, and over the last 10 years more than 21,000 acute clinical cases with 28 fatalities have been notified with an overall 10‐fold increase in reported HEV cases; the majority (80%) of cases were reported from France, Germany and the UK. However, as infection in humans is not notifiable in all Member States, and surveillance differs between countries, the number of reported cases is not comparable and the true number of cases would probably be higher. Food‐borne transmission of HEV appears to be a major route in Europe; pigs and wild boars are the main source of HEV. Outbreaks and sporadic cases have been identified in immune‐competent persons as well as in recognised risk groups such as those with pre‐existing liver damage, immunosuppressive illness or receiving immunosuppressive treatments. The opinion reviews current methods for the detection, identification, characterisation and tracing of HEV in food‐producing animals and foods, reviews literature on HEV reservoirs and food‐borne pathways, examines information on the epidemiology of HEV and its occurrence and persistence in foods, and investigates possible control measures along the food chain. Presently, the only efficient control option for HEV infection from consumption of meat, liver and products derived from animal reservoirs is sufficient heat treatment. The development of validated quantitative and qualitative detection methods, including infectivity assays and consensus molecular typing protocols, is required for the development of quantitative microbial risk assessments and efficient control measures. More research on the epidemiology and control of HEV in pig herds is required in order to minimise the proportion of pigs that remain viraemic or carry high levels of virus in intestinal contents at the time of slaughter. Consumption of raw pig, wild boar and deer meat products should be avoided.

Abstract Sixty bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases of Classical or unknown type (BARB‐60 cases) were born after the date of entry into force of the EU total feed ban on 1 January 2001. The European Commission has requested EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the most likely origin(s) of these BARB‐60 cases; whether feeding with material contaminated with the BSE agent can be excluded as the origin of any of these cases and, if so, whether there is enough scientific evidence to conclude that such cases had a spontaneous origin. The source of infection cannot be ascertained at the individual level for any BSE case, including these BARB‐60 cases, so uncertainty remains high about the origin of disease in each of these animals, but when compared with other biologically plausible sources of infection (maternal, environmental, genetic, iatrogenic), feed‐borne exposure is the most likely. This exposure was apparently excluded for only one of these BARB‐60 cases. However, there is considerable uncertainty associated with the data collected through the field investigation of these cases, due to a time span of several years between the potential exposure of the animal and the confirmation of disease, recall difficulty, and the general paucity of documented objective evidence available in the farms at the time of the investigation. Thus, feeding with material contaminated with the BSE agent cannot be excluded as the origin of any of the BARB‐60 cases, nor is it possible to definitively attribute feed as the cause of any of the BARB‐60 cases. A case of disease is classified as spontaneous by a process of elimination, excluding all other definable possibilities; with regard to the BARB‐60 cases, it is not possible to conclude that any of them had a spontaneous origin.

Abstract EFSA was requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notifications for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended) and the completeness of the body of knowledge were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as ‘qualifications’ in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. A total of 57 biological agents were notified to EFSA between the end of April 2016 and the beginning of September 2016. From these, 34 biological agents already had a QPS status and did not require further evaluation, and 10 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci, biological groups which have been excluded from QPS evaluation since 2014. Three notifications for Streptomyces violaceoruber, one for Streptomyces albus, one for Bacillus circulans and four for Escherichia coli were not evaluated for QPS status because these species were recently assessed and considered not suitable for QPS status. Therefore, only four notifications related to three taxonomic units were evaluated for QPS status. Of these, Arthrobacter ramosus and Pseudomonas fluorescens are not recommended for the QPS list. Bacillus smithii is recommended for the QPS status.

Abstract EFSA is requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notification for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended), and the completeness of the body of knowledge are assessed. Identified safety concerns for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as ‘qualifications’ in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. The list of QPS recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore becomes the valid list. The 2016 update reviews previously assessed microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts and viruses used for plant protection purposes following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. The taxonomic units related to the new notifications received since the 2013 QPS opinion, were periodically evaluated for a QPS status and the results published as Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel. Carnobacterium divergens, Lactobacillus diolivorans, Microbacterium imperiale, Pasteuria nishizawae, Pediococcus parvulus, Bacillus flexus, Bacillus smithii, Xanthomonas campestris and Candida cylindracea were recommended for the QPS list. All taxonomic units previously recommended for the 2013 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well their qualifications with the exception of Pasteuria nishizawae for which the qualification was removed. The exclusion of filamentous fungi and enterococci from the QPS evaluations was reconsidered but monitoring will be maintained and the status will be re‐evaluated in the next QPS Opinion update. Evaluation of bacteriophages should remain as a case‐by‐case procedure and should not be considered for QPS status.

Abstract Under current European hygiene legislation, food businesses are obliged to develop and implement food safety management systems (FSMS) including prerequisite programme (PRP) activities and hazard analysis and critical control point principles. This requirement is especially challenging for small food retail establishments, where a lack of expertise and other resources may limit the development and implementation of effective FSMS. In this opinion, a simplified approach to food safety management is developed and presented based on a fundamental understanding of processing stages (flow diagram) and the activities contributing to increased occurrence of the hazards (biological, chemical (including allergens) or physical) that may occur. The need to understand and apply hazard or risk ranking within the hazard analysis is removed and control is achieved using PRP activities as recently described in the European Commission Notice 2016/C278, but with the addition of a PRP activity covering ‘product information and customer awareness’. Where required, critical limits, monitoring and record keeping are also included. Examples of the simplified approach are presented for five types of retail establishments: butcher, grocery, bakery, fish and ice cream shop.

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 In April and May of 2016, Norway confirmed two cases of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in a wild reindeer and a wild moose, respectively. In the light of this emerging issue, the European Commission requested EFSA to recommend surveillance activities and, if necessary, additional animal health risk‐based measures to prevent the introduction of the disease and the spread into/within the EU, specifically Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden, and considering seven wild, semidomesticated and farmed cervid species (Eurasian tundra reindeer, Finnish (Eurasian) forest reindeer, moose, roe deer, white‐tailed deer, red deer and fallow deer). It was also asked to assess any new evidence on possible public health risks related to CWD. A 3‐year surveillance system is proposed, differing for farmed and wild or semidomesticated cervids, with a two‐stage sampling programme at the farm/geographically based population unit level (random sampling) and individual level (convenience sampling targeting high‐risk animals). The current derogations of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1918 present a risk of introduction of CWD into the EU. Measures to prevent the spread of CWD within the EU are dependent upon the assumption that the disease is already present; this is currently unknown. The measures listed are intended to contain (limit the geographic extent of a focus) and/or to control (actively stabilise/reduce infection rates in an affected herd or population) the disease where it occurs. With regard to the zoonotic potential, the human species barrier for CWD prions does not appear to be absolute. These prions are present in the skeletal muscle and other edible tissues, so humans may consume infected material in enzootic areas. Epidemiological investigations carried out to date make no association between the occurrence of sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans and exposure to CWD prions.