LSD, HPAI, ASF, BTV, FMD…. this may sound like alphabetti spaghetti to some, but to cattle, poultry, pig, sheep, and goat farmers across Europe, these acronyms often induce a sense of fear and dread. Over the past decade outbreaks of lumpy skin disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza, African swine fever, bluetongue virus, and foot-and-mouth disease seem to have followed one after the other, bringing with them animal losses, financial losses, reduced food production, and increased social and psychological strain.
Diseases which were once only reported outside of Europe’s borders are now more frequently occurring on European soil, and not solely in the continent’s southern climes where the warmer climate and proximity to endemic regions previously made them hotspots for disease transmission. With disease outbreaks occurring with more frequency in western and eastern Europe, there is a growing need to review the EU’s approach to animal disease management.
Last year’s outbreak of a new strain of bluetongue virus (BTV3) brought to light the rather reactive approach taken by authorities and the farming community, as the call for vaccine development came after the disease had already affected a number of farms. This reactive approach to disease prevention was relatively sufficient in this instance as the strain - BTV3 - was known to the animal health industry. Although no vaccines were available at the time of the outbreak in the Netherlands, animal medicines manufacturers swiftly developed, produced and distributed the much-needed vaccines to limit the impact of this outbreak on Europe’s farming sector.
But in some cases vaccines already exist, like for FMD and HPAI. Yet even in the face of continued outbreaks a proactive approach such as vaccination is not the automatic policy, and other more reactive measures are taken such as animal culling.
As it is only a question of time until the next animal disease outbreak occurs, relying on this reactive approach may not be the best strategy to protect Europe’s animals – and maybe even its human population.
Global trade, rapid and more international travel, a more prolonged and wider presence range of disease-carrying vectors, like mosquitoes, alongside sometimes contradictory animal health and trade policies, such as vaccination versus culling have served to increase both the risks and negative impacts of disease outbreaks among animals, and their potential spillover to people. Changes in climate have also exacerbated the challenges, with rising temperatures and fluctuations in rainfall patterns affecting the incidence and spread of diseases across Europe.
We clearly need a fundamental shift from a “firefighting” approach to a “fire prevention” approach. Otherwise, the consequences of a future outbreak could spiral beyond our control, dealing a serious blow to European agriculture, public health, and the wider economy.
When authorities send urgent requests for a vaccine to be developed and supplied only after the emergence of an outbreak, it is very difficult for companies to act within the required timeframe to immediately address the outbreak. If the EU wants a ‘Preparedness Union’, we need to establish a more structured partnership or dialogue between the animal health industry and the veterinary authorities in the member states would help to ensure industry can anticipate demands for vaccines and increase preparedness to ensure predictable disease outbreaks are prevented and managed more effectively. This would also help respond to increasing societal opposition to mass culls, and encourage vaccination acceptance in the animal farming community
In the case of known diseases, surveillance data is available which could allow for rough predictions of the likelihood of disease occurrence and potential impacts, forming a baseline for regular discussions. Antigen, vaccine and diagnostic reagent banks could form part of the outbreak preparedness arsenal. And response could be further supported by adapted regulatory pathways with quicker authorisation processes aligned with specific needs and concerted coordination between authorities from impacted countries
We therefore need a regular dialogue between industry and national chief veterinary officers coupled with rapid and early decisions as to whether a vaccination programme will be implemented so that animal health companies do not invest time and financial resources unduly. Last but not least, we need the European Commission and EU Member States to better champion vaccines acceptance in global trade, through WOAH.
Taking this more proactive approach under a clear and timely animal vaccination strategy would not just help gain valuable time, but it would help to protect the health and welfare of Europe’s animals, while preserving the farming community and Europe’s wider economy.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.