Rift Valley Fever - assessment of effectiveness of surveillance and control measures in the EU

Addressing biohazards to food security in primary production

This review addresses ways to prepare for and to mitigate effects of biohazards on primary production of crops and livestock. These biohazards can be natural or intentional introductions of pathogens, and they can cause major economic damage to farmers, the agricultural industry, society, and international trade. Agroterrorism is the intentional introduction of animal or plant pathogens into agricultural production systems with the intention to cause socioeconomic harm and generate public fear. Although few acts of agroterrorism are reported, the threat of agroterrorism in Europe is real. New concerns about threats arise from the rapid advancements in biotechnology and emerging technologies. FORSA, an analytical framework for risk and vulnerability analysis, was used to review how to prepare for and mitigate the possible effects of natural or intentional biohazards in agricultural production. Analyzing the effects of a biohazard event involves multiple scientific disciplines. A comprehensive analysis of biohazards therefore requires a systems approach. The preparedness and ability to manage events are strengthened by bolstered farm biosecurity, increased monitoring and laboratory capacity, improved inter-agency communication and resource allocation. The focus of this review is on Europe, but the insights gained have worldwide applications. The analytical framework used here is compared to other frameworks. With climate change, Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, the supply chains are challenged, and we foresee increasing food prices associated with social tensions. Our food supply chain becomes more fragile with more unknowns, thereby increasing the needs for risk and vulnerability analyses, of which FORSA is one example.

Guidance on good practice in conducting scientific assessments in animal health using modelling

The EFSA asked the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to develop a guidance document on good practice in conducting scientific assessments in animal health using modelling. In previous opinions, the AHAW Panel has responded to two‐thirds of animal health‐related mandates using some kind of modelling. These models range from simple to complex, employing a combination of scientific, economic, socio‐economic or other types of data. Hence, there is strong interest in the development of a guidance document to integrate modelling efforts into the routine process of EFSA working groups. In this document, an ‘operating procedure' (OP) for the use of modelling within an AH working group is presented. The OP provides a detailed flowchart enabling modelling to be transparently and consistently integrated in the assessment. The OP is structured into phases. These phases combine the relevant standard operating procedures and working instructions of EFSA with the modelling process. Each phase includes roles and actions to be taken, expected output and the sequence of agreements that need to be made between all partners in the scientific assessment. In conclusion, it is expected that adherence to the OP will improve transparency of models in EFSA outputs, and it is recommended to adopt it as a standard procedure when responding to AHAW mandates.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Rift Valley Fever

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures were assessed for several diseases, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Rift Valley Fever (RVF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different risk-based sampling procedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion, granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The length of monitoring period and minimum duration of measures to be implemented in the restricted zones as defined in the Delegated Regulation (30 days) are considered effective for the investigation and control of suspected and confirmed RVF outbreaks, as well as the size of protection and surveillance zone of 20 and 50 km, respectively, which are assessed as sufficient to contain disease transmission with at least 95% probability.

Quantitative Assessment of the Entry through Mechanical Transport in Aircraft of Rift Valley Fever Virus-Infected Mosquitoes into Previously Unaffected Areas

(1): Rift Valley Fever (RVF) is a zoonotic disease of significant international health concern and considered as an emerging risk to Europe, where no RVF outbreaks in humans or animals have been reported so far. (2): Using a stochastic approach, we estimated the risk of RVF virus (RVFV) introduction during the period of May to October (the period when mosquito populations, including RVFV potential vectors, are present in European countries), into previously unaffected areas (e.g., United Kingdom, UK) via virus-carrying vectors traveling in commercial aircraft from RVF-affected countries (e.g., East Africa); (3): On average N = 68 (95% CI: 0-337), RVF-virus-infected mosquitoes are estimated to be mechanically transported by planes (with N = 0 as most likely), in direct flights from RVF-affected East African countries to the UK, between May and October. This estimate is considered as low but not negligible. The model developed should be easily scaled up to other European countries by amending appropriately country-specific variables (e.g., number of flights between countries) in order to map the areas/airports of higher risk and inform risk management per country accordingly and to adopt risk-mitigation measures.