Updated quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of the BSE risk posed by processed animal protein (PAP).

EFSA was requested: to assess the impact of a proposed quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) 'technical zero' on the limit of detection of official controls for constituents of ruminant origin in feed, to review and update the 2011 QRA, and to estimate the cattle bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk posed by the contamination of feed with BSE-infected bovine-derived processed animal protein (PAP), should pig PAP be re-authorised in poultry feed and vice versa, using both light microscopy and ruminant qPCR methods, and action limits of 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 DNA copies. The current qPCR cannot discriminate between legitimately added bovine material and unauthorised contamination, or determine if any detected ruminant material is associated with BSE infectivity. The sensitivity of the surveillance for the detection of material of ruminant origin in feed is currently limited due to the heterogeneous distribution of the material, practicalities of sampling and test performance. A 'technical zero' will further reduce it. The updated model estimated a total BSE infectivity four times lower than that estimated in 2011, with less than one new case of BSE expected to arise each year. In the hypothetical scenario of a whole carcass of an infected cow entering the feed chain without any removal of specified risk material (SRM) or reduction of BSE infectivity via rendering, up to four new cases of BSE could be expected at the upper 95th percentile. A second model estimated that at least half of the feed containing material of ruminant origin will not be detected or removed from the feed chain, if an interpretation cut-off point of 100 DNA copies or more is applied. If the probability of a contaminated feed sample increased to 5%, with an interpretation cut-off point of 300 DNA copies, there would be a fourfold increase in the proportion of all produced feed that is contaminated but not detected.

Present status, actions taken and future considerations due to the findings of E. multilocularis in two Scandinavian countries.

When Echinococcus (E.) multilocularis was first detected in mainland Scandinavia in Denmark in 2000, surveillance was initiated/intensified in Sweden, mainland Norway and Finland. After 10 years of surveillance these countries all fulfilled the requirements of freedom from E. multilocularis as defined by the EU, i.e. a prevalence in final hosts <1% with 95% confidence level. However, in 2011 E. multilocularis was detected in Sweden for the first time and surveillance was increased in all four countries. Finland and mainland Norway are currently considered free from E. multilocularis, whereas the prevalence in foxes in Sweden and Denmark is approximately 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively. E. multilocularis has been found in foxes from three different areas in Denmark: Copenhagen (2000), Højer (2012-14) and Grindsted (2014). Unlike Sweden, Norway and Finland, human alveolar echinococcosis (AE) is not notifiable in Denmark, and the number of human cases is therefore unknown. In Sweden, E. multilocularis has been found in foxes in four counties, Västra Götaland, Södermanland, Dalarna (2011) and Småland (2014). E. multilocularis has also been found in an intermediate host in Södermanland (2014). Two cases of AE have been reported in humans (2012), both infected abroad. No cases of E. multilocularis or AE have been reported in Finland and Norway. Recommendations and future considerations are discussed further.

Factors affecting costs for on-farm control of salmonella in Swedish dairy herds.

BACKGROUND: The Swedish control program for salmonella includes restrictions and on-farm control measures when salmonella is detected in a herd. Required control measures are subsidised by the government. This provides an opportunity to study costs for on-farm salmonella control. The aim of this study was to describe the costs for on-farm salmonella control in Swedish cattle herds and to investigate the effects of herd factors on these costs in dairy herds. RESULTS: During the 15 years studied there had been a total of 124 restriction periods in 118 cattle herds; 89 dairy herds, 28 specialised fattening herds and three suckler herds. The average costs per herd for on-farm salmonella control was 4.60 million SEK with a median of 1.06 million SEK corresponding to approximately 490 000 and 110 000 EUR. The range was 0.01 to 41 million SEK corresponding to 1080 EUR to 4.44 million EUR per farm. The costs cover measures required in herd-specific control plans, generally measures improving herd hygiene. A mixed linear model was used to investigate associations between herd factors and costs for on-farm salmonella control in dairy herds. Herd size and length of the restriction period were both significantly associated with costs for on-farm control of salmonella with larger herds and longer periods of restrictions leading to higher costs. Serotype detected and administrative changes in the Swedish Board of Agriculture aiming at reducing costs were not associated with costs for on-farm salmonella control. CONCLUSIONS: On-farm control of salmonella in Swedish cattle herds incurred high costs but the costs also varied largely between herds. Larger herds and longer restriction periods increased the costs for on-farm control of salmonella in Swedish dairy herds. This causes concern for future costs for the Swedish salmonella control program as herd sizes are increasing.

Preventing introduction of livestock associated MRSA in a pig population--benefits, costs, and knowledge gaps from the Swedish perspective.

Antibiotic resistance is a growing concern in human, as well as in veterinary medicine. Part of the problem concerns how to respond to the risk presented by animal reservoirs of resistant bacteria with the potential of spreading to humans. One example is livestock associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA). In countries where LA-MRSA is endemic in the pig population, people in contact with pigs have a higher risk of being colonised with LA-MRSA, and persons from this group are subjected to precautionary measures when visiting health care facilities. In the present study, it is assumed that, if LA-MRSA was introduced to the Swedish pig population, the prevalence in the risk groups would be the same as in Denmark or the Netherlands (two countries with low human prevalence that have implemented measures to detect, trace and isolate human LA-MRSA cases and, therefore, have comprehensive data with good coverage regarding prevalence of LA-MRSA), and that similar interventions would be taken in Swedish health care facilities. It is also assumed that the Swedish pig population is free of MRSA or that the prevalence is very low. We analyse if it would be efficient for Sweden to prevent its introduction by testing imported live breeding pigs. Given that quarantining and testing at import will prevent introduction to the pig population, the study shows that the preventive measures may indeed generate a societal net benefit. Benefits are estimated to be between € 870 720 and € 1 233 511, and costs to € 211 129. Still, due to gaps in knowledge, the results should be confirmed when more information become available.

Changes in the risk management of Salmonella enterica subspecies diarizonae serovar 61:(k):1, 5, (7) in Swedish sheep herds and sheep meat due to the results of a prevalence study 2012.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of Salmonella in food producing animals is very low in Sweden due to rigorous control programmes. However, no active surveillance is in place in sheep. The authorities decided to perform a prevalence study in sheep herds because findings at slaughter indicated that sheep associated S. diarizonae (S. enterica subspecies diarizonae serovar 61:(k):1, 5, (7)) might be common in sheep. Sampling was stratified by herd size in two groups, small herds with ≤ 30 animals and large herds with > 30 animals. In each stratum, 237 herds were selected at random. Faecal samples received from 244 out of the 474 randomly selected herds were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 40 of 100 (40%) of large herds and 17 of 144 (12%) of small herds were positive. The overall adjusted prevalence was 17.6% (95% CI, 12.9-22.2). Sheep associated S. diarizonae was detected in all counties (n = 21). Scientific opinions and an evaluation of on-farm control measures performed concluded that the impact of sheep associated S. diarizonae on human health is very low, and that risk management measures applied in response to findings of sheep associated S. diarizonae in sheep or sheep meat can be expected to have very little impact on reducing risks to human health. As a result, Swedish authorities decided to make an exemption for sheep associated Salmonella diarizonae in sheep and sheep meat in the current Salmonella control measures. CONCLUSIONS: Sheep associated S. diarizonae is endemic in Swedish sheep herds. It is more common in large herds and not limited to certain parts of the country. The responsible authorities concluded that current risk management actions regarding sheep associated S. diarizonae in sheep and sheep meat are not proportional to the risk. This is the first time in the history of the Swedish Salmonella control programme that an exemption from the legislation has been made for a specific serovar. If there is any future indication of an increasing risk, due to e.g. change in the pathogenicity or development of antimicrobial resistance, the risk assessment will be re-evaluated and control measures reinforced if needed.

Economic effects of introducing alternative Salmonella control strategies in Sweden.

The objective of the study was to analyse the economic effects of introducing alternative Salmonella control strategies in Sweden. Current control strategies in Denmark and the Netherlands were used as benchmarks. The true number of human Salmonella cases was estimated by reconstructing the reporting pyramids for the various scenarios. Costs were calculated for expected changes in human morbidity (Salmonella and two of its sequelae), for differences in the control programmes and for changes in cattle morbidity. The net effects (benefits minus costs) were negative in all scenarios (€ -5 to -105 million), implying that it would not be cost-effective to introduce alternative control strategies in Sweden. This result was mainly due to an expected increase in the incidence of Salmonella in humans (6035-57108 reported and unreported new cases/year), with expected additional costs of € 5-55 million. Other increased costs were due to expected higher incidences of sequelae (€ 3-49 million) and a higher cattle morbidity (€ 4-8 million). Benefits in terms of lower control costs amounted to € 4-7 million.

Willingness to pay for compulsory deworming of pets entering Sweden to prevent introduction of Echinoccoccus multilocularis.

To investigate if the Swedish entry rules for pets to prevent the introduction of Echinococcus multilocularis (EM) are proportional (i.e. that their costs do not exceed the value of their benefits), a dichotomous-choice contingent valuation study was conducted. The study was performed before the first case of EM was detected in Sweden in February 2011. About 5000, randomly selected, Swedish citizens were invited to participate and 2192 of them (44%) accepted to do so. Missing information on whether or not one would accept to pay for keeping the rules for 143 respondents resulted in 2049 observations (41%) available for the estimation of willingness to pay (WTP), and missing information on personal characteristics for another 274 respondents reduced the number of observations available for sensitivity analysis to 1775 (36%). Annual expected WTP for keeping the rules ranged between € 54.3 and € 99.0 depending on assumptions about compensations demanded by respondents not willing to pay. The estimates are conservative since only answers from respondents that were absolutely certain they would pay the suggested bid were regarded as yes-responses. That WTP is positive implies that Swedish citizens perceived the benefits of the rules to be larger than their costs.