To mark the International Year of Plant Health, EFSA has launched a special website highlighting the work it is doing with its partners to combat plant pests and protect Europe’s cultivated and wild plants.
The website will be updated throughout the year with news and information on activities aimed at raising awareness about plant health in Europe and beyond.
EFSA’s website is now available in Spanish, one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. The addition of Spanish means that all EFSA’s essential information, news stories and background materials are accessible in five languages – the content is already available in English, French, German and Italian.
The launch of a Spanish version of the website marks the beginning of the gradual introduction of full EU-24 multilingualism to EFSA’s communications.
In addition to the 46 million citizens of Spain, there are around 400 million Spanish native speakers in the word. After Mandarin Chinese, Hindustani and English, Spanish is the most widely spoken language in the world.
As well as broadening the reach of EFSA’s communications, the addition of Spanish is also a response to the new European Transparency Regulation, which emphasises the need for EFSA and other EU bodies to be as clear and accessible as possible when communicating with the general public.
Basic information about EFSA is already available in all the official EU languages in EFSA’s Corporate Brochure “Science protecting consumers from field to fork”. The document is available on the EFSA website as well as on the EU Bookshop website. All EFSA vacancy notices for recruiting staff are available in all 24 EU official languages.
English, as the EU lingua franca, remains the main language used for all EFSA communications externally and in-house.
EFSA is a forward-looking organisation keen to have a state-of-the-art approach to communications, one of the main pillars of its mandate. To pursue this goal, EFSA is planning to avail itself of new technologies such artificial intelligence and automated translation in its current and future approach to multilingualism.
EFSA evaluates the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) before they can be authorised for use as food or feed and/or for cultivation in the EU. This includes GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals.
Applications are submitted to the national competent authority of a Member State, which forwards the application to EFSA. The technical dossier of an application must be compiled according to EFSA’s guidance.
EFSA assesses the scientific basis of nutrition and health claims submitted for authorisation in the EU. Work in the area of nutrition related to applications also includes the evaluation of novel foods, infant formulae and food allergens. The European Commission and Member States then decide whether to grant authorisation.
In the case of health claims applications are submitted to the national competent authority of a Member State. This includes applications for authorisation of a new health claim or for the modification of an existing authorisation. An applicant who intends to place on the EU market a novel food submits an application to the European Commission. The European Commission (EC) receives applications also for infant formulae and food allergens.
The competent authority or the EC pass on the application and any supplementary information to EFSA, which carries out the scientific evaluation.
Salmonella and Campylobacter are becoming increasingly resistant to ciprofloxacin, one of the antibiotics of choice for treating infections caused by these bacteria. The conclusion is part of the latest report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonoses released today by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which also presents some positive trends in the animal sector.
The latest data from humans, animals and food show that a large proportion of Salmonella bacteria are multidrug-resistant (resistant to three or more antimicrobials). In humans, resistance to ciprofloxacin is common, particularly in certain types of Salmonella, and resistance to high concentrations of ciprofloxacin increased overall from 1.7% (2016) to 4.6% (2018). For Campylobacter, 16 out of 19 countries report very high or extremely high percentages of ciprofloxacin resistance.
High proportions of resistance to ciprofloxacin are also reported in Salmonella and E. coli bacteria from poultry. Ciprofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone, a class of antimicrobials categorised as critically important for use in humans. If fluoroquinolones lose their effectiveness, the impact on human health could be significant. However, combined resistance – simultaneous resistance to two critically important antimicrobials – to fluoroquinolones and third generation cephalosporines in Salmonella and to fluoroquinolones and macrolides in Campylobacter remains low.
For 2018, the report lists sporadic cases of human Salmonella infection with resistance to carbapenems, a last-line antimicrobial.
Mike Catchpole, ECDC’s chief scientist, said: “Finding carbapenem resistance in foodborne bacteria in the EU is a concern. The most effective way to prevent the spread of carbapenem-resistant strains is to continue screening and respond promptly to positive detections. ECDC is working with EU Member States and with EFSA in a One Health approach to enhance the early detection and monitoring, in an effort to fight the persisting threat of antimicrobial-resistant zoonotic infections.”
The report also includes key outcome indicators that help EU Member States assess their progress in reducing the use of antimicrobials and combatting antimicrobial resistance.
In food-producing animals, the summary indicator of susceptibility to all antimicrobials has increased in E. coli in just under 25% of Member States (6) over the period 2014-2018. This is a positive development as it means that in these countries, in case of need, treatments with antimicrobials would have a higher chance to be successful. Decreasing trends in the occurrence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) or AmpC-producing E. coli have been observed in about 40% Member States (11) during 2015-2018. This is also important because ESBL-AmpC producing E. coli are responsible for serious infections in humans.
Regarding last-line antimicrobials, resistance to colistin was not common in Salmonella and E. coli, and carbapenemase-producing E. coli were not detected in broilers, turkeys and broiler meat.
“The positive findings in food-producing animals are encouraging because they are a sign of improvement. However, we need to further investigate the reasons behind this change. Antimicrobial resistance is a serious threat to global public and animal health – or One Health – that requires global action,” said Marta Hugas, EFSA’s chief scientist.
In humans, the decline in resistance to ampicillin and to tetracyclines in Salmonella Typhimurium in many countries is another encouraging trend observed in 2013-2018.
The EU Summary Report is an annual ECDC and EFSA publication which looks at the status of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria affecting humans, animals and food.
A balanced diet is one that provides adequate amounts of various nutrients to maintain health and well-being. Protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and water are all nutrients. Each nutrient has a particular function in the human body. The amount of each individual nutrient needed to maintain an individual’s health is called the nutrient requirement. Nutrient requirements vary depending on age and gender. Level of physical activity, physiological status (such as pregnancy), dietary habits and genetic background are also important factors.
Dietary reference values (DRVs) is an umbrella term for a set of nutrient reference values that includes the average requirement (AR), the population reference intake (PRI), the adequate intake (AI) and the reference intake range for macronutrients (RI). These values guide professionals on the amount of a nutrient needed to maintain health in an otherwise healthy individual or group of people. DRVs also include the tolerable upper intake level (UL), which is the maximum amount of a nutrient that can be consumed safely over a long period of time.
DRVs are not nutrient goals or recommendations for individuals (see FAQs). They are used by policy makers in the EU and its Member States to issue recommendations on nutrient intake to consumers. DRVs are also used as the basis for information on food labels and for establishing dietary guidelines. Such guidelines can help consumers make healthy dietary choices.
DRVs are intended for healthy people. Those who suffer from diseases may have different needs. Health professionals provide guidance to individuals or groups with specific needs.
The publication of DRVs for sodium and chloride in September 2019 marked the end of ten years of work by EFSA’s nutrition scientists. This work started in 2009 after the European Commission asked EFSA to update values last set in the 1990s for macronutrients such as proteins and carbohydrates, and all vitamins and minerals.
Many EFSA scientists contributed to this achievement over the years. The following interviews tells their story.
2019 The completion of DRVs for sodium and chloride mark the end of ten years of work by EFSA’s nutrition scientists.
Our assessment of dietary sugars is extended due to the high volume of datasets and studies to be collected, analysed and assessed.
2018 The DRV Finder is launched, an easy-to-use interactive tool that allows health professionals to make quick and easy calculations using EFSA’s DRVs.
A special issue on DRVs comes out in the EFSA Journal collecting all the DRVs published so far and an overview of EFSA’s work in this area, in particular all the numerical values by population groups.
2013-2017 A series of DRVs for micronutrients (except ULs) are published, covering 14 vitamins and 13 minerals.
2012 Publication of ULs for calcium and vitamin D updating previous opinions from the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF).
2009-2012 A series of DRVs for macronutrients are published, covering water, fats, carbohydrates and dietary fibre, protein, energy.
2010 EFSA publishes a scientific opinion laying down the general principles for establishing DRVs and starts the review of DRVs for macro- and micronutrients established by the SCF in 1993.
EFSA assists public authorities in Member States with its opinion on food-based dietary guidelines that advises policy makers how to translate nutritional recommendations into messages to consumers about foods.
2006 EFSA and the SCF publish a report of their scientific opinions identifying possible adverse health effects of individual vitamins and minerals at intakes in excess of dietary requirements and, where possible, establishing tolerable upper intake levels (UL) for different population groups. The report also covers trace elements such as boron, nickel, tin and vanadium.
2005 EFSA initiates its review and update of the reference values for nutrient and energy intakes established in 1993 by the SCF.
EFSA's Role
EFSA gives independent scientific advice on nutrient intakes to EU risk managers and policy makers. Our advice provides an important evidence base to underpin nutritional policies, the setting of diet-related public health targets and the development of consumer information and educational programmes on healthy diets. Importantly, it is not our role to establish nutrition goals for populations or recommendations for individuals. Our scientific advice supports policy makers at national and EU level and health professionals who are responsible for this work.
In 2005, the European Commission asked EFSA to review and update the dietary reference values for nutrient and energy intakes established in 1993 by the Scientific Committee on Food (EFSA’s precursor). EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA Panel) laid the foundations for the task in a 2010 scientific opinion on the general principles for deriving and applying DRVs. The NDA Panel completed this work in 2019, producing a total of 34 scientific opinions that recommend DRVs for water, fats, carbohydrates and dietary fibre, protein, energy, as well as 14 vitamins and 15 minerals.
In addition, our scientists provide advice on the setting of tolerable upper levels of intake (UL) for vitamins and minerals (overview table). These values represent the highest daily intake of a nutrient over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects in humans. EFSA continues to receivead hoc requests from the European Commission or Member States to review ULs for nutrients, such as vitamin D in infants or the on-going assessment of dietary sugars. ULs are used as a reference in EFSA’s evaluations of the safety of nutrient sources added to food supplements.
The welfare of adult rabbits kept in conventional cage systems is worse than that of those housed in other systems used in the EU, EFSA has concluded. The main welfare issue they experience is restricted movement. The findings are part of a comprehensive comparison of the different rabbit housing systems used in the EU.
EFSA’s scientific opinion is based on an extensive survey of rabbit experts in the EU. The opinion relies on expert judgement because there is little data available on the subject. In its recommendations, EFSA emphasises the need for data on welfare of farmed rabbits to be collected across the EU. EFSA also suggests that conventional cages should be enlarged and structurally enhanced to improve rabbit welfare.
The experts considered a number of welfare consequences related to health and behaviour, such as restricted movement, resting problems, prolonged thirst or hunger, thermal stress and skin disorders.
Most rabbit farming in the EU takes place in five Member States: France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Farming practices vary widely both between and within these countries.
To capture this variability, EFSA’s scientific opinion focuses on six examples of housing systems: conventional cages; structurally enriched cages; elevated pens; floor pens; outdoor/partially outdoor systems; and organic systems.
The main conclusions are that:
the welfare of adult rabbits is lower in conventional cages than in the five other housing systems (with a certainty of 66-99%). The most significant welfare consequence is restricted movement;
the welfare of unweaned rabbits (kits) is lowest in outdoor systems and highest in elevated pens (certainty 66-99%). The highest welfare impact on kits raised in outdoor systems is thermal stress;
organic systems are generally good.
EFSA has published two other opinions on welfare issues associated with farming of rabbits: one looks at stunning methods and identifies welfare hazards and indicators of consciousness in the slaughter process. It proposes corrective measures. The other covers welfare issues associated with killing for reasons other than meat production (e.g. disease control).
Background
Rabbits are the second most farmed species in the EU in terms of numbers. Although there are rules stipulating minimum standards for the protection of farmed animals, including rabbits, there is no species-specific legislation protecting the welfare of farmed rabbits in the EU.
In 2017, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on minimum standards for the protection of farmed rabbits, and asked EFSA to provide a scientific opinion that would help implement the resolution.
The parliament was acting in response to concerns raised by NGOs, stakeholders and consumer groups about the poor welfare, high stress levels and high mortality and morbidity rates of rabbits farmed in Europe. There is also concern that electrical stunning of rabbits does not always render them fully unconscious, causing pain, stress and suffering.