Suchergebnisse

The EFSA Panel on Plant Health was requested to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the relevant Implementing Acts as 'High risk plants, plant products and other objects' [Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031]. The current Scientific Opinion covers all plant health risks posed by bare rooted plants for planting of Robinia pseudoacacia (1 year old with a stem diameter of less than 2.5 cm) imported from Israel, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Israel by 26 December 2019. The relevance of an EU-quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Israel; (ii) R. pseudoacacia is a host of the pest, and (iii) the pest can be associated with the commodity. The relevance of this opinion for other non EU-regulated pests was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Israel (ii) the pest is absent in the EU; (iii) R. pseudoacacia is a host of the pest; (iv) the pest can be associated with the commodity and (v) the pest may have an impact and can pose a potential risk for the EU territory. Two pests (one insect and one fungus, Euwallacea fornicatus and Fusarium euwallaceae) that fulfilled all criteria were selected for further evaluation. For the two selected pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from Israel were evaluated. Limiting factors in the effectiveness of the measures were documented. For the selected pests an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment, therefore the Panel is 95% sure that 9,950 or more plants per 10,000 will be free from these two pests.

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.

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 ...

EFSA was asked for a partial risk assessment of Spodoptera frugiperda for the territory of the EU focussing on the main pathways for entry, factors affecting establishment, risk reduction options and pest management. As a polyphagous pest, five commodity pathways were examined in detail. Aggregating across these and other pathways, we estimate that tens of thousands to over a million individual larvae could enter the EU annually on host commodities. Instigating risk reduction options on sweetcorn, a principal host, reduces entry on that pathway 100-fold. However, sweetcorn imports are a small proportion of all S. frugiperda host imports, several of which are already regulated and further regulation is estimated to reduce the median number entering over all pathways by approximately 10%. Low temperatures limit the area for establishment but small areas of Spain, Italy and Greece can provide climatic conditions suitable for establishment. If infested imported commodities are distributed across the EU in proportion to consumer population, a few hundreds to a few thousands of individuals would reach NUTS 2 regions within which suitable conditions for establishment exist. Although S. frugiperda is a known migrant, entry directly into the EU from extant populations in sub-Saharan Africa is judged not feasible. However, if S. frugiperda were to establish in North Africa, in the range of thousands to over two million adults could seasonally migrate into the southern EU. Entry into suitable NUTS2 areas via migration will be greater than via commercial trade but is contingent on the establishment of S. frugiperda in North Africa. The likelihood of entry of the pest via natural dispersal could only be mitigated via control of the pest in Africa. If S. frugiperda were to arrive and become a pest of maize in the EU, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or broad spectrum insecticides currently used against existing pests could be applied.

The Plant Health Panel reviewed the paper by Guarnaccia et al. (2017) and compared theirfindingswith previous predictions on the establishment ofPhyllosticta citricarpa. Four species ofPhyllostictawere found by Guarnaccia et al. (2017) in Europe.P. citricarpaandP. capitalensisare well-definedspecies, withP. citricarparecorded for thefirst time in Europe, confirming predictions by Magareyet al. (2015) and EFSA (2008, 2014, 2016) thatP. citricarpacan establish in some European citrus-growing regions. Two new speciesP. paracitricarpaandP. paracapitalensiswere also described, withP. paracitricarpa(found only in Greece) shown to be pathogenic on sweet orange fruits.Genotyping oftheP. citricarpaisolates suggests at least two independent introductions, with the population inPortugal being different from that present in Malta and Italy.P. citricarpaandP. paracitricarpawereisolated only from leaf litter in backyards. However, sinceP. citricarpadoes not infect or colonise deadleaves, the pathogen must have infected the above living leaves in citrus trees nearby. Guarnacciaet al. (2017) considered introduction to be a consequence ofP. citricarpahaving long been present orof illegal movement of planting material. In the Panel's view, the fruit pathway would be an equally ormore likely origin. The authors did not report how surveys for citrus black spot (CBS) disease werecarried out, therefore their claim that there was no CBS disease even where the pathogen was presentis not supported by the results presented. From previous simulations, the locations where Guarnacciaet al. (2017) foundP. citricarpaorP. paracitricarpawere conducive forP. citricarpaestablishment, withnumber of simulated infection events by pycnidiospores comparable to sites of CBS occurrence outsideEurope. Preliminary surveys by National Plant Protection Organisations (NPPOs) have not confirmed sofar thefindings by Guarnaccia et al. (2017) but monitoring is still ongoing