Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 9;20(8):e07443.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7443. eCollection 2022 Aug.

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk-mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel); Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, José Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Kris De Clercq, Ylva Sjunnesson, Andrea Gervelmeyer, Helen Clare Roberts

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk-mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel) et al. EFSA J. .

Abstract

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of prohibitions of certain activities in restricted zones, and of certain risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin and other materials with respect to diseases included in the Category A list in the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where other disease-specific control measures have been assessed. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of (i) prohibiting the movements of certain products, notably germinal products (semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs), products of animal origin and animal by-products and feed of plant origin, hay and straw, and (ii) risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin. In terms of semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs, it was agreed that there was a lack of evidence particularly for embryos and oocytes reflected in a varying degree of uncertainty, whether these commodities could potentially contain the pathogen under consideration. The scenario assessed did not consider whether the presence of pathogen would lead to infection in the recipient animal. In terms of animal products, certain animal by-products and movement of feed of plant origin and straw, the assessment considered the ability of the commodity to transmit disease to another animal if exposed. For most pathogens, products were to some degree considered a risk, but lack of field evidence contributed to the uncertainty, particularly as potential exposure of ruminants to meat products is concerned. In terms of the risk mitigating treatments, recommendations have been made for several of these treatments, because the treatment description is not complete, the evidence is poor or inconclusive, or the evidence points to the treatment being ineffective.

Keywords: Category A diseases; animal products; control measures; germinal products; movement prohibitions; risk‐mitigating treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of the causative agents of the Category A diseases as a result of the movements of animals listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 2
Figure 2
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of FMDV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 3
Figure 3
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of RPV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 4
Figure 4
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of PPRV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 5
Figure 5
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of RVFV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 6
Figure 6
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of LSDV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 7
Figure 7
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of SPGPV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 8
Figure 8
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 9
Figure 9
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of Mycoplasma capricolum subsp. capripneumoniae in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 10
Figure 10
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of CSFV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 11
Figure 11
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability (in %) ranges expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of ASFV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 12
Figure 12
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of AHSV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 13
Figure 13
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of HPAIV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 14
Figure 14
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of presence of NDV in the germinal products subjected to activities listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 15
Figure 15
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of FMDV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 16
Figure 16
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of RPV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 17
Figure 17
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of PPRV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 18
Figure 18
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of RVFV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 19
Figure 19
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of LSDV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 20
Figure 20
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of SPGPV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 21
Figure 21
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 22
Figure 22
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 23
Figure 23
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of CSFV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 24
Figure 24
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of ASFV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 25
Figure 25
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of AHSV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 26
Figure 26
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of HPAIV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 27
Figure 27
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the possibility of spread of NDV as a result of the movements of animal products, animal by‐products and feed of plant origin and straw listed in Annex VI, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (the vertical line represents the cut‐off between confirmatory answers (> 1%) and negative answers (0–1%))
Figure 28
Figure 28
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for FMDV (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33 to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 29
Figure 29
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for PPR virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33 to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 30
Figure 30
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for RVF virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33 to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 31
Figure 31
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for LSD virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33 to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 32
Figure 32
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 33
Figure 33
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for Mycoplasma capricolum subsp. capripneumoniae (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 34
Figure 34
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for CSF virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 35
Figure 35
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for ASF virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 36
Figure 36
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for HPAI virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 37
Figure 37
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for animal products to mitigate the risk for ND virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 38
Figure 38
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for non‐animal products to mitigate the risk for FMD virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
Figure 39
Figure 39
Median of the lower and upper bounds of the subjective probability ranges (in %) expressed by individual experts in the group discussion regarding the effectiveness of treatments for non‐animal products to mitigate the risk for RP virus (the vertical lines represent cut‐offs for categorisation of treatments as not effective (< 33%), inconclusive (33% to < 90% and medians spanning two or more areas) or effective (90–100%))
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alexander DJ and Manvell RJ, 2004. Heat inactivation of Newcastle disease virus (strain Herts 33/56) in artificially infected chicken meat homogenate. Avian Pathology, 33, 222–225. 10.1080/0307945042000195795 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Annandale CH, Holm DE, Ebersohn K and Venter EH, 2014. Seminal transmission of lumpy skin disease virus in heifers. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 61, 443–448. 10.1111/tbed.12045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bielanski A, 2014. Biosafety in embryos and semen cryopreservation, storage, management and transport. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 753, 429–465. 10.1007/978-1-4939-0820-2_17 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blackwell JH and Hyde JL, 1976. Effect of heat on foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) in the components of milk from FMDV‐infected cows. Journal of Hygiene (London), 77, 77–83. 10.1017/s0022172400055534 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cardona C, Wileman B, Malladi S, Ceballos R, Culhane M, Munoz‐Aguayo J, Flores‐Figueroa C, Halvorson D, Walz E, St. Charles K and Bonney P, 2021. The risk of highly pathogenic influenza A virus transmission to turkey hen flocks through artificial insemination. Avian Diseases, 65, 303–309. 10.1637/aviandiseases-D-20-00132 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources