Animal Health Law Research Articles

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infection with Equine Herpesvirus-1.

Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of: Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of the disease to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of the disease according to disease prevention and control measures as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, and expert judgement on each criterion at individual and collective level. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether the criterion is fulfilled (66–100%) or not (0–33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment (33–66%). For the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. According to the assessment performed, Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the Animal Health Law with 33–90% certainty. According to the criteria as in Annex IV of the AHL related to Article 9 of the AHL for the categorisation of diseases according to the level of prevention and control, it was assessed with less than 1% certainty that EHV‐1 fulfils the criteria as in Section 1 (category A), 1–5% for the criteria as in Section 2 (category B), 10–66% for the criteria as in Section 3 (category C), 66–90% for the criteria as in Section 4 (category D) and 33–90% for the criteria as in Section 5 (category E). The animal species to be listed for EHV‐1 infection according to Article 8(3) criteria are the species belonging to the families of Equidae, Bovidae, Camelidae, Caviidae, Cervidae, Cricetidae, Felidae, Giraffidae, Leporidae, Muridae, Rhinocerontidae, Tapiridae and Ursidae.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox.

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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for sheep and goat pox. 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 radii of the protection and surveillance zones, 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 radii 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 monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective. The estimated probability of transmission beyond the protection zone of 3 km radius from an infectious establishment is 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) for the surveillance zone of 10 km radius. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 Km). To contain 99% of the spread, the radius should be increased to 19.4 km (95% CI: 9.8–26.8). This may increase the number of farms in the surveillance zone, since the area would increase fourfold.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Newcastle disease.

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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Newcastle disease (ND). 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. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period (21 days) was assessed as effective in non‐vaccinated chicken and turkey flocks, although large uncertainty remains surrounding the effectiveness of this period in vaccinated galliform flocks and flocks of other bird species. It was also concluded that the protection (3 km radius) and the surveillance (10 km radius) zones contain 99% of the infections from an infectious establishment. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to ND.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: cattle.

In this opinion, the antimicrobial resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of cattle have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play on antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli (non‐VTEC), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, Mycoplasma bovis, Moraxella bovis, Fusobacterium necrophorum and Trueperella pyogenes is provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and S. aureus with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in cattle in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Poultry.

In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to poultry health have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play is provided for: Avibacterium (Haemophilus) paragallinarum, Bordetella avium, Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus cecorum, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Escherichia coli, Gallibacterium spp., Mycoplasma synoviae, Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Pasteurella multocida, Riemerella anatipestifer and Staphylococcus aureus. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus cecorum with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, and their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the Animal Health Law Framework, will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Horses

In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of horses have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collected via an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial‐resistant Actinobacillus equuli, Dermatophilus congolensis, Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pasteurella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhodococcus equi, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae/equisimilis and Streptococcus equi subsp. equi and subsp. zooepidemicus has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and R. equi with more than 66% certainty as the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in the EU, given their importance as causative agents of clinical disease in horses and the significant levels of resistance to clinically relevant antimicrobials. The animal health impact of these ‘most relevant’ bacteria as well as their eligibility of being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Swine.

In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of pigs have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli, Streptococcus suis, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida, Glaeserella parasuis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hyicus, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Trueperella pyogenes, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Mycoplasma hyosynoviae, Mycoplasma hyorhinis, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Brachyspira pilosicoli has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and B. hyodysenteriae with > 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: sheep and goats.

In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of sheep and goats have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play on antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli (non‐VTEC), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Dichelobacter nodosus, Moraxella ovis, Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, Mycoplasma agalactiae, Trueperella pyogenes, Streptococcus uberis, Bibersteinia trehalosi, Campylobacter fetus, Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. capri, Mycoplasma capricolum subsp. capricolum, Fusobacterium necrophorum is provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in sheep and goat in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

‘Preventing Pandemics by Building Bridges in EU Policy and Law’

A successful strategy aimed at preventing the emergence and spread of Emerging Infectious Diseases – and therefore a strategy to avoid future pandemic scenarios – should take into account the human dependency on – and profound connection with nature and include not just health considerations but also animal welfare and health, agriculture and food production, environmental protection and climate action in all their facets, including spending and finances, and trade. In this light, policy and legislative acts not only need to be sufficiently ambitious to tackle the drivers behind the emergence of infectious diseases, but they also need to work in symbiosis, in synergy, to avoid that progress made in a certain field is eroded by a lack of ambition and foresight in another field. This research article aims to shed some light on the issue by considering key areas and key recent developments in EU law and policy. It shows how approaches and stances taken by the EU and by Member States frequently lack grit and ambition and are only limitedly synergetic and coherent with each other, often representing veritable missed opportunities both in terms of ambition and in building bridges across different fields. Covid-19, zoonoses, One Health, EU health policy, animal welfare law, animal health law, CAP, EU Climate Law, climate change, environmental protection

Is the end in sight for bovine viral diarrhoea virus, or is it just a mirage?

Bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) is an infectious disease that significantly affects the health, welfare and productivity of cattle. Elimination of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is technically feasible. There are mandatory BVDV elimination programmes in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Scotland. There are voluntary BVD programmes in England and Wales. The main focus of BVDV elimination programmes is the identification and slaughter of cattle persistently infected with BVDV (PIs). PI animals shed large amounts of virus in all excretions and secretions and are the main source of infection for other cattle. BVDV elimination can only succeed within a realistic timescale if PIs are removed quickly enough to minimise the risk of infection resulting in the generation of further PI animals. Maintaining stakeholder cohesion, commitment and engagement is also key in a BVD programme. All cattle farms need to be free of BVDV to eliminate the risk of infection and voluntary programmes are unlikely to reach all farms. The mandatory programme in Ireland started in 2013 and it is aiming to seek a declaration of freedom under the EU Animal Health Law in 2023. The other programmes are at various stages along the pathway to BVDV elimination. The stated intention of the cattle industry in the UK is elimination of BVDV by 2031. This will be a stretch target, particularly in England, but should be possible if the approach is science-based and the delivery programmes have the committed support of farmers and veterinary surgeons.

Challenges and Insights Regarding Fenced Large Game Populations and the New EU Animal Health Law.

Challenges and Insights Regarding Fenced Large Game Populations and the New EU Animal Health Law.

Control and Eradication Programs for Six Cattle Diseases in the Netherlands.

Within the European Union, infectious cattle diseases are categorized in the Animal Health Law. No strict EU regulations exist for control, evidence of disease freedom, and surveillance of diseases listed other than categories A and B. Consequently, EU member states follow their own varying strategies for disease control. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the control and eradication programs (CPs) for six cattle diseases in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2019 and to highlight characteristics specific to the Dutch situation. All of these diseases were listed as C,D or E in the New Animal Health Law. In the Netherlands, CPs are in place for six endemic cattle diseases: bovine viral diarrhea, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, salmonellosis, paratuberculosis, leptospirosis, and neosporosis. These CPs have been tailored to the specific situation in the Netherlands: a country with a high cattle density, a high rate of animal movements, a strong dependence on export of dairy products, and a high-quality data-infrastructure. The latter specifically applies to the dairy sector, which is the leading cattle sector in the Netherlands. When a herd enters a CP, generally the within-herd prevalence of infection is estimated in an initial assessment. The outcome creates awareness of the infection status of a herd and also provides an indication of the costs and time to achieve the preferred herd status. Subsequently, the herd enrolls in the control phase of the CP to, if present, eliminate the infection from a herd and a surveillance phase to substantiate the free or low prevalence status over time. The high-quality data infrastructure that results in complete and centrally registered census data on cattle movements provides the opportunity to design CPs while minimizing administrative efforts for the farmer. In the CPs, mostly routinely collected samples are used for surveillance. Where possible, requests for proof of the herd status are sent automatically. Automated detection of risk factors for introduction of new animals originating from a herd without the preferred herd status i.e., free or unsuspected, is in place using centrally registered data. The presented overview may inspire countries that want to develop cost-effective CPs for endemic diseases that are not (yet) regulated at EU level.

Overview of Cattle Diseases Listed Under Category C, D or E in the Animal Health Law for Which Control Programmes Are in Place Within Europe.

The COST action “Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control),” aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for selected cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A selected cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of the selected cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.

Overview of Slovenian Control Programmes for Cattle Diseases Not Regulated by the European Union.

The European Union (EU) regulates the control of cattle diseases listed in categories A and B of the European Animal Health Law (AHL). However, no strict mandatory EU regulation exists for the control of other cattle diseases that are listed in categories C, D and E. Slovenia has five control programmes (CPs) for the latter cattle diseases: bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL), bluetongue and anthrax. Two (IBR and BVD) are voluntary and the others (EBL, anthrax and bluetongue) are compulsory. The three compulsory CPs are funded by the government. All the CPs are run by the government and laboratory tests are performed by the National Veterinary Institute. The rules for the CPs are laid down in Slovenian legislation. In addition, there is a national directive for the control of salmonellosis. Both BVD and IBR are endemic and have CPs based on increased biosecurity, testing and culling or vaccination, financed by the animal owners. Slovenia has been officially free of EBL since 2005 and carries out surveillance based on serological testing of a representative number of herds and inspection of carcasses at slaughter or necropsy. Vaccination is the main disease control measure for anthrax (sporadic) and bluetongue (currently perceived free—vaccination since 2017). Lack of motivation of farmers to participate in voluntary disease CPs and to implement and follow strict biosecurity measures are the most pressing issues in improving the health status of Slovenian cattle. An overview of the existing CPs and the circumstances leading to their implementation are presented.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: peste des petits ruminants

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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). 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 radii of the protection and surveillance zones, 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 radii 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. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad‐hoc requests in relation to PPR.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Classical Swine 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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Classical swine fever (CSF). 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 radii of the protection and surveillance zones, 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, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non‐effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CSF.

Overview of Mitigation Programs for Non-EU-Regulated Cattle Diseases in Austria.

Background: The non-mandatory regulation of animal diseases at the European Union (EU) level enables member states to implement mitigation programs based on their own country-specific conditions such as priority settings of the governments, availability of financial resources, and epidemiological situation. This can result in a heterogeneous distribution of mitigation activities and prevalence levels within and/or between countries, which can cause difficulties for intracommunity trade. This article aims to describe the past, current, and future mitigation activities and associated prevalence levels for four animal diseases, i.e., enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis/infectious pustular vulvovaginitis (IBR/IPV), bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), and bluetongue disease (BT) for Austria. Over a period of 40 years (1978–2020), regulations concerning EBL, IBR/IPV, BVD, and BT were retraced to analyze the changes of legislation, focusing on sampling, testing, and mitigation activities in Austria, and were linked to the collected diagnostic testing results. The study results clearly demonstrate the adoption of the legislation by the Austrian governments in dependency of the epidemiological situations. Furthermore, our study shows that, related to the forthcoming Animal Health Law on April 21, 2021, Austria has a good initial situation to achieve disease-free status and/or free from infection status based on the current available epidemiological situation and previously implemented mitigation activities. The study results presented here are intended to contribute to a better comparison of the eradication status across European countries for cattle diseases by providing information about the mitigation activities and data of testing results over a period of 40 years.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Foot and Mouth Disease.

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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for foot and mouth disease (FMD). 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 zones, 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 zone of 3 km and of the surveillance zone of 10 km are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, and it was concluded that the protection and the surveillance zones comprise > 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to FMD.

Ad hoc method for the assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials.

The European Commission requested EFSA assess antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for animal transmissible diseases, with a view to listing such pathogens for European Union action. This Scientific Opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed: (i) to give a global state of play as regards resistant animal pathogens that cause transmissible animal diseases, (ii) to identify the most relevant bacteria in the EU and (iii) to summarise their actual or potential animal health impact, and to perform their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the criteria of Articles 7, 5, 9 and 8 within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. An extensive literature review is carried out to give the global state of play of selected resistant bacteria that constitute a threat to animal health (i). An expert judgement procedure, based on the outcome of the literature review, is applied to identify which among those bacteria subjected to the literature review are the ‘most relevant’ in the European Union (ii). Their animal health impact in the European Union and their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the AHL framework will follow the ‘ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law’ that EFSA has developed in the past (iii). The assessment of (i) and (ii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately by animal species of interest (dogs and cats, horses, pigs, poultry, cattle, small ruminants, rabbits and aquatic animal species). The assessment of (iii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions and published separately by the animal pathogen.

Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Dogs and cats.

In this opinion the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to dog and cat health have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected via an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus schleiferi, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridioides difficile, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified S. pseudintermedius, E. coli and P. aeruginosa with > 90% certainty as the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.