Abstract
African swine fever (ASF) is one of the most threatening diseases for the pig farming sector worldwide. Prevention, control and eradication remain a challenge, especially in the absence of an effective vaccine or cure and despite the relatively low contagiousness of this pathogen in contrast to Classical Swine Fever or Foot and Mouth disease, for example. Usually lethal in pigs and wild boar, this viral transboundary animal disease has the potential to significantly disrupt global trade and threaten food security. This paper outlines the importance of a disease-specific legal framework, based on the latest scientific evidence in order to improve ASF control. It compares the legal basis for ASF control in a number of pig-producing regions globally, considering diverse production systems, taking into account current scientific evidence in relation to ASF spread and control. We argue that blanket policies that do not take into account disease-relevant characteristics of a biological agent, nor the specifics under which the host species are kept, can hamper disease control efforts and may prove disproportionate.
Highlights
Like other transboundary animal diseases (TADs), African swine fever (ASF) can impact economies in affected countries significantly due to losses in trade, pig production and associated food security threats [1, 2]
Whilst it is commonly accepted that ASF disease control in wild boar warrants a tailored approach, no special dispensation exists for domestic pigs, despite the fact that differences in Evidence-Based African Swine Fever Policies the epidemiology of ASF have been observed in the various production systems: e.g., commercial industrial farming vs. traditional pig farming systems with backyard and smallholders or even free-ranging, feral pigs [5,6,7]
European Union (EU) legislation requires a minimum number of samples to be tested in the absence of clinical signs to detect 10% sero-prevalence with 95% confidence in infected areas [28, 30], whilst in the United States of America (USA) and Australia, the pattern and timing of testing may be determined according to the local disease situation and its specific circumstances [8, 9]
Summary
Like other transboundary animal diseases (TADs), African swine fever (ASF) can impact economies in affected countries significantly due to losses in trade, pig production and associated food security threats [1, 2]. Where evidence emerges, based on scientific studies and/or well-documented field observations, that aspects of current strategies could be improved, efforts must be made to amend the relevant animal health legislation in order to ensure a progressive and measured disease control approach. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stresses the use of strategies that (a) detect, control, and contain the disease in animals as quickly as possible, (b) eradicate the disease using strategies that seek to stabilize animal agriculture, the food supply, the economy, and to protect public health and the environment and (c) provide science- and risk-based approaches and systems to facilitate continuity of business for non-infected animals and non-contaminated animal products [8]. Recent events have highlighted that international trade can be significantly interrupted when ASF is detected even in just one region of a country, despite the fact that the principle of zoning
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
