African swine fever virus (ASFV) has been notified in the Baltic countries and the eastern part of Poland from the beginning of 2014 up to now. In collaboration with the ASF‐affected Member States (MS), EFSA is updating the epidemiological analysis of ASF in the European Union which was carried out in 2015. For this purpose, the latest epidemiological and laboratory data were analysed in order to identify the spatial–temporal pattern of the epidemic and a risk factors facilitating its spread. Currently, the ASF outbreaks in wild boar in the Baltic countries and Poland can be defined as a small‐scale epidemic with a slow average spatial spread in wild boar subpopulations (approximately from 1 in Lithuania and Poland to 2 km/month in Estonia and Latvia). The number of positive samples in hunted wild boar peaks in winter which can be explained by human activity patterns (significant hunting activity over winter). The number of positive samples in wild boar found dead peaks in summer. This could be related to the epidemiology of the disease and/or the biology of wild boar; however, this needs further investigation. Virus prevalence in hunted wild boar is very low (0.04–3%), without any apparent trend over time. Apparent virus prevalence at country level in wild boar found dead in affected countries ranges from 60% to 86%, with the exception of Poland, where values between 0.5% and 1.42%, were observed. Since the beginning of the epidemic, the apparent antibody prevalence in hunted wild boar has always been lower than the apparent virus prevalence, indicating an unchanged epidemiological/immunological situation. The risk factor analysis shows an association between the number of settlements, human and domestic pigs population size or wild boar population density and the presence of ASF in wild boar for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The history of agriculture includes many animal and plant disease events that have had major consequences for the sector, as well as for humans. At the same time, human activities beyond agriculture have often driven the emergence of diseases. The more that humans expand the footprint of the global population, encroach into natural habitats, alter these habitats to extract resources and intensify food production, as well as move animals, people and commodities along with the pathogens they carry, the greater the potential for pathogens and pests to spread and for infection to emerge or re-emerge. While essential to human well-being, producing food also plays a major role in disease dynamics. The risk of emergence of pests and pathogens has increased as a consequence of global changes in the way food is produced, moved and consumed. Climate change is likely to increase pressure on the availability of food and provide newly suitable conditions for invasive pests and pathogens. Human population displacements due to economic, political and humanitarian crises represent another set of potential drivers for emerging issues. The overlapping drivers of plant, animal and human disease emergence and environmental changes point towards the concept of 'One Health'. This paradigm underlines the urgent need to understand the influence of human behaviour and incorporate this understanding into our approach to emerging risks. For this, we face two major challenges. One is cultural; the second is methodological. We have to look at systems not under the narrow view of specific hazards but with a wider approach to system dynamics, and consider a broad spectrum of potential outcomes in terms of risk. In addition, we have to make sense of the vast amounts of data that are available in the modern age. This paper aims to help in preparing for the cultural and methodological shifts needed in our approach to emerging risks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.