Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems
Saxmose Nielsen, Søren ; Alvarez, Julio ; Bicout, Dominique Joseph ; Calistri, Paolo ; Depner, Klaus ; Drewe, Julian Ashley ; Garin‐bastuji, Bruno ; Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis ; Gortázar Schmidt, Christian ; Michel, Virginie ; Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel ; Roberts, Helen Clare ; Sihvonen, Liisa Helena ; Spoolder, Hans ; Stahl, Karl ; Velarde Calvo, Antonio ; Viltrop, Arvo ; Buijs, Stephanie ; Edwards, Sandra ; Candiani, Denise ; Mosbach‐schulz, Olaf ; Stede, Yves Van Der; Winckler, Christoph - \ 2019
EFSA Journal 18 (2019)1. - ISSN 1831-4732 - 96 p.
animal welfare - animal production - rabbits - animal housing - animal behaviour - animal health
The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientiﬁc opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientiﬁc opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, ﬂoor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identiﬁed from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2-step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the ﬁve other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in ﬂoor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good.
Implementation of PROMETHEUS 4‐step approach for evidence use in EFSA scientific assessments: benefits, issues, needs and solutions
Aiassa, Elisa ; Martino, Laura ; Barizzone, Fulvio ; Ciccolallo, Laura ; Garcia, Ana ; Georgiadis, Marios ; Guajardo, Irene Muñoz ; Tomcikova, Daniela ; Alexander, Jan ; Calistri, Paolo ; Gundert‐remy, Ursula ; Hart, Andrew David ; Hoogenboom, Ron Laurentius ; Messean, Antoine ; Naska, Androniki ; Navarro, Maria Navajas ; Noerrung, Birgit ; Ockleford, Colin ; Wallace, Robert John ; Younes, Maged ; Abuntori, Blaize ; Alvarez, Fernando ; Aryeetey, Monica ; Baldinelli, Francesca ; Barrucci, Federica ; Bau, Andrea ; Binaglia, Marco ; Broglia, Alessandro ; Castoldi, Anna Federica ; Christoph, Eugen ; Sesmaisons‐Lecarré, Agnes De; Georgiadis, Nikolaos ; Gervelmeyer, Andrea ; Istace, Frederique ; López‐Gálvez, Gloria ; Manini, Paola ; Maurici, Daniela ; Merten, Caroline ; Messens, Winy ; Mosbach‐Schulz, Olaf ; Putzu, Claudio ; Bordajandi, Luisa Ramos ; Smeraldi, Camilla ; Tiramani, Manuela ; Martínez, Silvia Valtueña ; Sybren, Vos ; Hardy, Anthony Richard ; Hugas, Marta ; Kleiner, Juliane ; Seze, Guilhem De - \ 2018
EFSA Supporting Publications 15 (2018)4. - ISSN 2397-8325
In 2014, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) started the PROMETHEUS (PROmoting METHods for Evidence Use in Scientific assessments) project to improve further and increase the consistency of the methods it uses in its scientific assessments. The project defined a set of principles for the scientific assessment process and a 4‐step approach (plan/carry out/verify/report) for their fulfilment, which was tested in ten case studies, one from each EFSA panel. The present report describes the benefits, issues, needs and solutions related to the implementation of the 4‐step approach in EFSA, identified in a dedicated workshop in October 2017. The key benefits of the approach, which was deemed applicable to all types of EFSA scientific assessment including assessments of regulated products, are: 1) increased ‘scientific value’ of EFSA outputs, i.e. the extent of impartiality, methodological rigour, transparency and engagement; 2) guarantee of fitness‐for‐purpose, as it implies tailoring the methods to the specificities of each assessment; 3) efficiency gain, since preparing a protocol for the assessment upfront helps more streamlined processes throughout the implementation phase; 4) innovation, as the approach promotes the pioneering practice of ‘planning before doing’ (well established in primary research) for broad scientific assessments in regulatory science; and 5) increased harmonisation and consistency of EFSA assessments. The 4‐step approach was also considered an effective system for detecting additional methodological and/or expertise needs and a useful basis for further defining a quality management system for EFSA's scientific processes. The identified issues and solutions related to the implementation of the approach are: a) lack of engagement and need for effective communication on benefits and added value; b) need for further advances especially in the field of problem formulation/protocol development, evidence appraisal and evidence integration; c) need for specialised expertise in the previous aspects; and specific needs for d) assessments of regulated products and e) outsourced projects.
The EFSA quantitative approach to pest risk assessment – methodological aspects and case studies
Gilioli, G. ; Schrader, G. ; Grégoire, J.C. ; MacLeod, A. ; Mosbach-Schulz, O. ; Rafoss, T. ; Rossi, V. ; Urek, G. ; Werf, W. van der - \ 2017
EPPO Bulletin 47 (2017)2. - ISSN 0250-8052 - p. 213 - 219.
A new method for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of risk-reducing options is currently under development by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Plant Health Panel. The draft method has been tested on pests of concern to the European Union (EU). The method is adaptable and can focus either on all the steps and sub-steps of the assessment process or on specific parts if necessary. It is based on assessing changes in pest population abundance as the major driver of the impact on cultivated plants and on the environment. Like other pest risk assessment systems the method asks questions about the likelihood and magnitude of factors that contribute to risk. Responses can be based on data or expert judgment. Crucially, the approach is quantitative, and it captures uncertainty through the provision by risk assessors of quantile estimates of the probability distributions for the assessed variables and parameters. The assessment is based on comparisons between different scenarios, and the method integrates risk-reducing options where they apply to a scenario, for example current regulation against a scenario where risk-reducing options are not applied. A strategy has been developed to communicate the results of the risk assessment in a clear, comparable and transparent way, with the aim of providing the requestor of the risk assessment with a useful answer to the question(s) posed to the EFSA Plant Health Panel. The method has been applied to four case studies, two fungi, Ceratocystis platani and Cryphonectria parasitica, the nematode Ditylenchus destructor and the Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma. Selected results from these case studies illustrate the types of output that the method can deliver.