The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2016

Abstract

This report of the European Food Safety Authority and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control presents the results of the zoonoses monitoring activities carried out in 2016 in 37 European countries (28 Member States (MS) and nine non-MS). Campylobacteriosis was the most commonly reported zoonosis and the increasing European Union (EU) trend for confirmed human cases since 2008 stabilised during 2012-2016. In food, the occurrence of Campylobacter remained high in broiler meat. The decreasing EU trend for confirmed human salmonellosis cases since 2008 ended during 2012-2016, and the proportion of human Salmonella Enteritidis cases increased. Most MS met their Salmonella reduction targets for poultry, except five MS for laying hens. At primary production level, the EU-level flock prevalence of target Salmonella serovars in breeding hens, broilers, breeding and fattening turkeys decreased or stabilised compared with previous years but the EU prevalence of S. Enteritidis in laying hens significantly increased. In foodstuffs, the EU-level Salmonella non-compliance for minced meat and meat preparations from poultry was low. The number of human listeriosis confirmed cases further increased in 2016, despite the fact that Listeria seldom exceeds the EU food safety limit in ready-to-eat foods. The decreasing EU trend for confirmed yersiniosis cases since 2008 stabilised during 2012-2016, and also the number of confirmed Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) infections in humans was stable. In total, 4,786 food-borne outbreaks, including waterborne outbreaks, were reported. Salmonella was the most commonly detected causative agent - with one out of six outbreaks due to S. Enteritidis - followed by other bacteria, bacterial toxins and viruses. Salmonella in eggs continued to represent the highest risk agent/food combination. The report further summarises trends and sources for bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, trichinellosis, echinococcosis, toxoplasmosis, rabies, Q fever, West Nile fever and tularaemia.

Keywords: Campylobacter; Listeria; Salmonella; food‐borne outbreaks; monitoring; parasites; zoonoses.

Figure 1

Reported numbers and notification rates of confirmed human zoonoses in the EU, 2016

1. Note: Total number of confirmed cases is indicated in parenthesis at the end each bar. Exception: West Nile fever where the total number of cases was used.

Figure 2

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of campylobacteriosis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia and Portugal did not report data at the level of detail required for the analysis. In Greece, campylobacteriosis is not under surveillance.

Figure 3

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of non‐typhoidal salmonellosis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria and Croatia did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 4

Proportion of units (A – single samples; B – batches) not complying with the EU Salmonella criteria, per food category, MS, 2014–2016

1. Total sample size at EU‐level per year is indicated at the top of each bar.

Figure 5

Prevalence of poultry flocks (breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, laying hens, broilers, breeding turkeys and fattening turkeys) positive for target Salmonella serovars in MS, 2016

1. Red vertical bars indicate the target to be reached, which was fixed at 1% for all categories with the exception of laying hens, which was 2% for all MS with the exception of Poland, for which it was 2.5%. Malta met the target in laying hens because only 1 flock tested positive for target serovars (S. Enteritidis) but had less than 50 flocks of adult laying hens.

Figure 6

Prevalence of the S. Enteritidis‐positive breeding flocks of Gallus gallus during the production period, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 7

Prevalence of the S. Typhimurium‐positive breeding flocks of Gallus gallus during the production period, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 8

Prevalence of the S. Infantis‐positive breeding flocks of Gallus gallus during the production period, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 9

Prevalence of the S. Enteritidis‐positive laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus during the production period, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR, Serbia.

Figure 10

Prevalence of the S. Typhimurium‐positive laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus during the production period, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 11

Prevalence of the S. Enteritidis‐positive broiler flocks of Gallus gallus before slaughter, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 12

Prevalence of the S. Typhimurium‐positive broiler flocks of Gallus gallus before slaughter 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 13

Overall prevalence of poultry flocks positive for Salmonella target serovars relevant for public health in different animal populations, among all reporting MS, 2007–2016

Figure 14

Estimate of the trend prevalence of poultry flocks positive for Salmonella serovars relevant for public health, at EU‐level, in different animal populations

Figure 15

Percentage of positive laying hen flocks for S. Enteritidis and number of EU domestic cases of S. Enteritidis, MS, 2012–2016

Figure 16

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of S. Enteritidis acquired in the EU, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria and Croatia did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 17

Sankey diagram of the distribution of the EU top‐five Salmonella serovars in human salmonellosis acquired in the EU, across different food, animal and meat sectors (broiler, cattle, pig and turkey), by source, EU, 2016

1. The left side of the diagram shows the five most commonly reported serovars from EU domestic cases of human infection: S. Infants (blue), S. Typhimurium (green), S. Enteritidis (pink), monophasic S. Typhimurium (yellow) and S. Derby (violet). Animal and food data from the same source were merged: broiler includes isolates from broilers and broiler meat, cattle includes isolates from bovine animals and bovine meat, pig includes isolates from pigs and pig meat, turkey includes isolates from turkeys and turkey meat. The right side shows the four sources considered (broiler, cattle, pig and turkey). The width of the coloured bands linking sources and serovars is proportional to the percentage of isolation of each serovar in each source.

Figure 18

Pyramid plot showing the distribution of S. Enteritidis among food (meat) and animal sources for each species, EU, 2016

1. The percentages are calculated on the total number of isolates for each category (animal and food). The values at the side of each bar are the number of S. Enteritidis isolates for each species and category and the number in parentheses indicates the number of reporting Member States.

Figure 19

Pyramid plot showing the distribution of S. Typhimurium among food (meat) and animal sources for each species, EU, 2016

1. The percentages are calculated based on the total number of isolates for each category (animal and food). The values at the side of each bar are the number of S. Typhimurium isolates for each species and category and the number in parentheses indicates the number of reporting Member States.

Figure 20

Pyramid plot showing the distribution of monophasic variants of S. Typhimurium, grouped as one serovar, among food (meat) and animal, for each species, EU, 2016

1. The percentages are calculated on the total number of isolates for each category (animal and food). The values at the side of each bar are the number of monophasic variant of S. Typhimurium isolates for each species and category and the number in parentheses indicates the number of reporting Member States.

Figure 21

The surveillance and monitoring of L. monocytogenes in food, animals and feed according to the sampling stage, the sampler and the objective of the sampling

1. Lm: Listeria monocytogenes; CA: Competent Authorities. HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points; RTE: ready‐to‐eat.

Figure 22

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of listeriosis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxembourg and Portugal did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 23

Proportion of L. monocytogenes‐positive sampling units in ready‐to‐eat fish and fishery‐product categories in the reporting Member States, 2016 across all sampling stages (overall), retail and processing plant levels

1. ‘Overall’ and the number of MS correspond to data across all major sampling stages (‘retail’ + ‘processing’ + ‘border inspection activities’ + ‘unspecified’). ‘Retail’ corresponds to data obtained from catering, hospitals or medical care facilities, retail, wholesale and restaurants or cafes or pubs or bars or hotels or catering services. ‘Processing’ corresponds to data obtained from packing centres, cutting plants and processing plants. For each sampling stage (‘overall’, ‘retail’ and ‘processing’), data are pooled across both types of sampling units (‘single’ and ‘batch’). As data were mostly reported by a limited number of MS, the findings presented in this figure may not be representative of the EU‐level.

   ‘Fish, RTE ’ includes detection data on RTE fish from 18 MS (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden) and includes data on ‘Fish’ of the following types: ‘chilled’, ‘cooked’, ‘gravad lax/slightly salted’, ‘marinated’ and ‘smoked (hot‐ and cold‐smoked)’.

2. ‘Fishery products, RTE ’ includes detection data from 12 MS (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden) and includes data on the following types: ‘prawns, cooked’, ‘prawns‐shelled, shucked and cooked’, ‘shrimps, cooked’, ‘shrimps, shelled, shucked and cooked’, ‘crustaceans, unspecified, cooked’, ‘crustaceans, unspecified, shelled, shucked and cooked’, ‘molluscan shellfish, cooked’, ‘unspecified’ (cooked, ready‐to‐eat, pâté, smoked) and ‘Surimi’.

Figure 24

Proportion of L. monocytogenes‐positive sampling units in ready‐to‐eat meat‐product categories in the reporting Member States, 2016 across all sampling stages (overall), retail and processing plant levels

1. ‘Overall’ and the number of MS correspond to data across all major sampling stages (‘retail’ + ‘processing’ + ‘border inspection activities’ + ‘unspecified’). ‘Retail’ corresponds to data obtained from catering, hospital or medical care facilities, retail, wholesale and restaurants or cafes or pubs or bars or hotels or catering services. ‘Processing’ corresponds to data obtained from packing centres, cutting plants and processing plants. For each sampling stage (‘overall’, ‘retail’ and ‘processing’) data are pooled across both types of sampling units (‘single’ and ‘batch’). Since data were mostly reported by a limited number of MS, the findings presented in this figure may not be representative of the EU‐level.

2. ‘ RTE pork meat’ includes detection data on RTE pig meat products from 18 MS (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden) and includes data on ‘Meat from pig, meat products’ of the following types: ‘cooked ham (sliced or non‐sliced)’, ‘cooked, RTE’, ‘fermented sausages’, ‘fresh raw sausages’, ‘meat specialities’, ‘pâté’, ‘raw and intended to be eaten raw’, ‘raw ham’, ‘unspecified, ready‐to‐eat’.

3. ‘ RTE turkey meat’ includes detection data on RTE turkey meat products from 10 MS (Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and includes data on turkey ‘meat products’ of the following types: ‘cooked, RTE’, ‘preserved’ and ‘raw and intended to be eaten raw’.

4. ‘ RTE broiler meat’ includes detection data on RTE broiler meat products from 10 MS (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and includes data on broiler ‘meat products’ of the following types: ‘cooked, RTE’ and ‘cooked, RTE, chilled’.

5. ‘ RTE bovine meat’ includes detection data on RTE bovine meat products from 12 MS (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden) and includes data on ‘Meat from bovine animals, meat products’ of the following types: ‘cooked, RTE’, ‘cooked, RTE, chilled’, ‘fermented sausages’, ‘raw and intended to be eaten raw’, ‘unspecified, RTE’.

Figure 25

Proportion of L. monocytogenes‐positive sampling units in soft and semi‐soft cheeses, and in hard cheeses made from raw or low‐heat‐treated milk or pasteurised milk in the reporting Member States, 2016 across all sampling stages (overall), retail and processing plant levels

1. LHT: low heat treated. ‘Overall’ and the number of MS correspond to data across all major sampling stages (‘retail’ + ‘processing’ + ‘farm’ + ‘border inspection activities’ + ‘unspecified’). ‘Retail’ corresponds to data obtained from catering, hospital or medical care facilities, retail, wholesale and restaurants or cafes or pubs or bars or hotels or catering services. For each sampling stage (‘overall’, ‘retail’ and ‘processing’), data are pooled across both types of sampling units (‘single’ and ‘batch’). ‘Processing’ corresponds to data obtained from packing centres, cutting plants and processing plants. Since data were mostly reported by a limited number of MS, the findings presented in this figure may not be presentative of the EU‐level. Soft and semi‐soft cheeses as well as hard cheeses include all cheeses for which Level 2 at matrix level was specified (‘fresh’ or ‘soft’ or ‘semi‐soft’ or ‘hard’).

2. ‘Soft and semi‐soft cheeses, made from raw‐ LHT milk’ includes detection data from 13 MS (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain).

3. ‘Hard cheeses, made from raw‐ LHT milk’ includes detection data from 7 MS (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).

4. ‘Hard cheeses, made from pasteurised milk’ includes detection data from 13 MS (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).

5. ‘Soft and semi‐soft cheeses, made from pasteurised milk’ includes detection data from 15 MS (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain).

Figure 26

Trend in reported confirmed cases of human STEC infection in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Portugal did not report data to the level of detail required for analysis.

Figure 27

Frequency distributions of reported STEC serogroups in food and animals, Member States and non‐Member States, during 2012 and 2016

1. Note: Presence (red boxes) and absence of STEC serogroups in foods (left) and animals (right). STEC: Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli.

Figure 28

Relative presence of reported STEC serogroups in foods, Member States and non‐Member States, 2016

1. STEC: Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli.

2. Proportions of STEC serogroups: red boxes > 1%, orange boxes > 0.1% and ≤ 1%, yellow boxes > 0.0001% and ≤ 0.1% of positive samples. White boxes indicate absence of the serogroup.

3. (a) Other ruminants’ meat includes meat from deer.

4. (b) Other meat includes meat from animals other than ruminants.

5. (c) Milk and dairy products include any type of dairy product, cheese and milk other than raw milk.

6. (d) Raw milk includes raw milk from different species but most of the tested, and all the positive, samples were from cows.

7. (e) Seeds category includes mostly sprouted seeds, but dry seeds are also included.

8. Sources: 19 MS and Switzerland.

Figure 29

Relative presence of reported STEC serogroups in animals, Member States and non‐Member States, 2016

1. STEC: Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli.

2. Proportions of STEC serogroups: red boxes > 1%, orange boxes > 0.1% and ≤ 1%, yellow boxes > 0.0001% and ≤ 0.1% of positive samples. White boxes indicate absence of the serogroup.

3. (a) The animal category ‘other ruminants’ includes deer.

4. (b) The ‘other animal’ category comprises bats, Cantabrian chamois, deer, dogs, ibex and wild boar.

   Sources: 9 MS.

Figure 30

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of yersiniosis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Iceland and Portugal did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis. Greece and the Netherlands do not have any formal surveillance system for the disease.

Figure 31

Number of confirmed tuberculosis cases due to M. bovis in individuals of native cases of EU origin and country‐level aggregated prevalence of bovine tuberculosis‐positive cattle herds (due to M. bovis and/or M. caprae), EU, 2016

Figure 32

Status of countries on bovine tuberculosis, EU/EEA, 2016

1. OF: Officially bovine tuberculosis free in cattle; MS: Member State.

Figure 33

Proportion of cattle herds infected with or positive for bovine tuberculosis, EU/EEA, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 34

Proportion of cattle herds infected with or positive for bovine tuberculosis, in OTF regions, EU, 2010–2016

1. OTF: Officially bovine tuberculosis free in cattle.

Figure 35

Proportion of cattle herds infected with or positive for bovine tuberculosis, in non‐OTF regions, EU, 2010–2016

1. OTF: Officially bovine tuberculosis free in cattle.

Figure 36

Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis test‐positive cattle herds, in non‐OTF regions of five non‐OTF cofinanced Member States and of one non‐OTF not funded Member State, Greece, 2004–2016

Figure 37

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of brucellosis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. Sweden. Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis. Denmark does not have a surveillance system for this disease.

Figure 38

Number of domestically acquired confirmed brucellosis cases in humans, and prevalence of Brucella test‐positive cattle, sheep and goats herds, EU, 2016

Figure 39

Status of countries on bovine brucellosis, EU/EEA, 2016

1. OF: Officially brucellosis free in cattle.

Figure 40

Proportion of cattle herds infected with or positive for Brucella, EU/EEA, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR, Serbia.

Figure 41

Proportion of Brucella‐positive cattle herds, in non‐OBF regions, EU, 2012–2016

1. Non‐OBF: Non‐officially brucellosis free in cattle.

Figure 42

Prevalence of Brucella test‐positive cattle herds, in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, 2004–2016

Figure 43

Status of countries and regions on ovine and caprine brucellosis, EU/EEA, 2016

1. OF: Officially B. melitensis free in sheep and goats.

2. In France, all but one of the 96 metropolitan departments (due to Rev.1 vaccination against Brucella ovis) are ObmF and no cases of brucellosis have been reported in small ruminants since 2003.

Figure 44

Proportion of sheep and goat herds infected with or positive for brucellosis, EU/EEA, 2016

1. Note. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; and SR: Serbia.

Figure 45

Proportion of sheep and goat herds infected with or positive for B. melitensis, in non‐ObmF regions, EU, 2012–2016

1. Non‐ObmF: Non‐officially B. melitensis free in sheep and goats.

Figure 46

Prevalence of Brucella melitensis test‐positive sheep and goat herds, in three cofinanced MS: Italy, Portugal and Spain, 2004–2016

Figure 47

Prevalence of Brucella melitensis test‐positive sheep and goat herds, in the Greek islands where an eradication programme is implemented, 2004–2016

1. Note: During the final production stage of the present report, Greece informed that in mainland Greece where a control programme is implemented; of 20,569 sheep and goats herds tested with blood sampling in the vaccination zone (male animals only), 1,206 (5.9%) were positive, in 2016. The total number of animals tested serologically in the vaccination zone during was 124,770 and 2,294 (1.8%) were positive.

Figure 48

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of trichinellosis in the EU/EEA by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania and Spain did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis. Belgium and Denmark do not have any formal surveillance system for the disease.

Figure 49

Confirmed domestically acquired Trichinella cases in humans, and prevalence of Trichinella in wild animals (wild boar, red foxes, brown bear and other wild animals), EU, 2016

1. The results by Greece, reported in 2016, refer to samples taken between 2012 and 2015.

Figure 50

Trichinella spp. in domestic pigs of 28 Member States and 3 non‐Member States (IS, NO and CH) in the last 21 years and reported to EFSA for 2016

1. This distribution map has been built based on data from the International Trichinella Reference Centre (ITRC, online) EFSA reports and published papers.

Figure 51

Pooled prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis in red and Arctic foxes within the European Union and adjacent countries at national level depicting current epidemiological situation in Europe (Oksanen et al., 2016)

1. Map adopted from Oksanen et al. (2016) and based on studies performed between 2000 and 2016: the pooled prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis on the main land of Norway is zero, however the pooled prevalence is 9% on the Svalbard islands due to Artic foxes. Prevalence data from Spain originated from single studies.

Figure 52

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of E. multilocularis in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 53

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of E. granulosus in the EU/EEA, by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and the United Kingdom did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 54

The geographical distribution in EU of reported cases in foxes in 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; SR: Serbia.

Figure 55

The geographical distribution of reported cases (EBLV‐1 or EBLV‐2) in bats, EU, 2016

1. AL: Albania; BA: Bosnia and Herzegovina; FYRM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; ME: Montenegro; SR: Serbia.

Figure 56

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of Q fever in the EU/EEA by month, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 57

Trend in reported cases of human West Nile fever in the EU/EEA, by month, 2008–2016

1. Source(s): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom. Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland and Portugal did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 58

Distribution of human and equine West Nile fever cases by affected areas, EU/EEA region, transmission season 2016 (Source: TESSy and ADNS)

Figure 59

Trend in reported confirmed human cases of tularaemia in the EU/EEA, by month of reporting, 2012–2016

1. Source(s): Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands and Portugal did not report data to the level of detail required for the analysis.

Figure 60

Distribution of strong‐evidence and weak‐evidence food‐borne and waterborne outbreaks, per causative agent, EU, 2016

1. Other bacterial agents include Francisella, Enterococcus, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), Shigella and other unspecified bacteria. Bacterial toxins other than Clostridium botulinum include toxins produced by Bacillus, Clostridium other than Clostridium botulinum and Staphylococcus and other unspecified bacterial toxins. Viruses other than calicivirus and hepatitis A virus include flavivirus, rotavirus and other unspecified viruses. Other causative agents include chemical agents, histamine, lectin, marine biotoxins, mushroom toxins and scombrotoxin. Parasites other than Trichinella and Cryptosporidium include Giardia and other unspecified parasites.

Figure 61

Number of food‐borne and waterborne outbreaks reported in the reporting Member States, 2010–2016

Figure 62

Reporting of food‐borne and waterborne outbreaks, by causative agent and by reporting Member States and reporting non‐Member States, 2016

1. Other bacterial agents include Francisella, Enterococcus, Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), Streptococcus, Shigella and other unspecified bacteria. Other bacterial toxins include toxins produced by Bacillus, Clostridium other than Clostridium botulinum and Staphylococcus and other unspecified bacterial toxins. Other viruses include adenovirus, flavivirus, rotavirus and other unspecified viruses. Other causative agents include chemical agents, histamine, lectin, marine biotoxins, mushroom toxins and scombrotoxin. Other parasites include Giardia and other unspecified parasites.Percentage out of total outbreaks caused by the agent reported in the EU (column %): Grey boxes indicate reporting by non‐MS.

Figure 63

Number of food‐borne and waterborne outbreaks reported by causative agent in reporting Member States, 2010–2016

1. Other bacterial agents include Francisella, Enterococcus, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), Streptococcus, Shigella and other unspecified bacteria. Other bacterial toxins include toxins produced by Bacillus, Clostridium other than Clostridium botulinum and Staphylococcus and other unspecified bacterial toxins. Other viruses include adenovirus, flavivirus, rotavirus and other unspecified viruses. Other causative agents include chemical agents, histamine, lectin, marine biotoxins, mushroom toxins and scombrotoxin. Other parasites include Giardia and other unspecified parasites.

Figure 64

Number of food‐borne and waterborne outbreaks reported from 2010 to 2016, by Member State

1. Bacterial toxins other than Clostridium botulinum include toxins produced by Bacillus, Clostridium other than Clostridium botulinum and Staphylococcus and other unspecified bacterial toxins. Other causative agents include chemical agents, histamine, lectin, marine biotoxins, mushroom toxins and scombrotoxin.

2. Only MS with statistically significant trends (either increasing or decreasing) over years are shown.

Figure 65

Frequency distribution of causative agents associated with strong‐evidence food‐borne outbreaks (excluding waterborne outbreaks), by food vehicle, reporting Member States, 2016

1. Ten strong‐evidence outbreaks with food vehicle ‘unknown’ are not shown in the figure. Other bacterial agents include Shigella and other unspecified bacteria. Bacterial toxins include toxins produced by Bacillus, Clostridium other than Clostridium botulinum and Staphylococcus and other unspecified bacterial toxins. Other viruses include flavivirus and other unspecified viruses. Other causative agents include ciguatoxin and other unspecified toxins.

Figure 66

Frequency distribution of causative agents associated with strong‐evidence food‐borne outbreaks (excluding waterborne outbreaks), by place of exposure, reporting Member States, 2016

1. Thirty‐seven food‐borne‐outbreaks with setting ‘unknown’ are not shown in the figure. Other setting include: Camp or picnic, farm, multiple places of exposure in more than one country, multiple places of exposure in one country, temporary mass catering (fairs or festivals), other unspecified settings.

Figure 67

Rate of outbreak reporting (*100,000 population) of strong‐evidence and weak‐evidence food‐borne outbreaks by the causative agent and implicated food vehicle, reporting Member States, 2014–2016

1. Only combinations with at least 10 outbreaks reported per year are shown. Food vehicles reported as ‘Unspecified’ and those classified as ‘Other Foods’ are not shown.