Abstract
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.
Highlights
In addition to the common legislative framework for food safety in the European Union (EU), Sweden has a salmonella control programme that aims to ensure that domestic food of animal origin is entirely free of all Salmonella
The largest information losses are due to salmonellosis cases not seeking care (71%), samples not being taken of salmonellosis cases seeking care (33%) and imperfect test sensitivity (22%)
The estimated increases in reported domestic cases in SE in all scenarios are based on a previous study [4]
Summary
In addition to the common legislative framework for food safety in the European Union (EU), Sweden has a salmonella control programme that aims to ensure that domestic food of animal origin is entirely free of all Salmonella. The strategy for control has been to prevent Salmonella in any part of the production chain. The current Swedish control programme covers the entire food chain from feed to food [1]. The level of co-funding varies with animal species and whether the farm is affiliated to a voluntary control programme. For other food-producing animals, 50% of documented costs are covered by the government, unless the farm is affiliated to a voluntary control programme, in which case up to 70% of documented costs may be covered by the government. The costs for the control in animal products are paid for by the food industry
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
