One Health (OH) positions health professionals as agents for change and provides a platform to manage determinants of health that are often not comprehensively captured in medicine or public health alone. However, due to the organization of societies and disciplines, and the sectoral allocation of resources, the development of transdisciplinary approaches requires effort and perseverance. Therefore, there is a need to provide evidence on the added value of OH for governments, researchers, funding bodies, and stakeholders. This paper outlines a conceptual framework of what OH approaches can encompass and the added values they can provide. The framework was developed during a workshop conducted by the “Network for Evaluation of One Health,” an Action funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. By systematically describing the various aspects of OH, we provide the basis for measuring and monitoring the integration of disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders in health initiatives. The framework identifies the social, economic, and environmental drivers leading to integrated approaches to health and illustrates how these evoke characteristic OH operations, i.e., thinking, planning, and working, and require supporting infrastructures to allow learning, sharing, and systemic organization. It also describes the OH outcomes (i.e., sustainability, health and welfare, interspecies equity and stewardship, effectiveness, and efficiency), which are not possible to obtain through sectoral approaches alone, and their alignment with aspects of sustainable development based on society, environment, and economy.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) should be tackled through a One Health approach, as stated in the World Health Organization Global Action Plan on AMR. We describe the landscape of AMR surveillance in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and underline a gap regarding veterinary medicine. Current AMR surveillance efforts are of limited help to veterinary practitioners and policymakers seeking to improve antimicrobial stewardship in animal health. We propose to establish the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in Veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet) to report on the AMR situation, follow AMR trends and detect emerging AMR in selected bacterial pathogens of animals. This information could be useful to advise policymakers, explore efficacy of interventions, support antimicrobial stewardship initiatives, (re-)evaluate marketing authorisations of antimicrobials, generate epidemiological cut-off values, assess risk of zoonotic AMR transmission and evaluate the burden of AMR in animal health. EARS-Vet could be integrated with other AMR monitoring systems in the animal and medical sectors to ensure a One Health approach. Herein, we present a strategy to establish EARS-Vet as a network of national surveillance systems and highlight challenges of data harmonisation and bias. Strong political commitment at national and EU/EEA levels is required for the success of EARS-Vet.

Despite common use of oral group medication in pig rearing, the homogeneity, stability and carry-over of frequently used medicinal products in feed and drinking water are largely unknown. Therefore, a field study was performed on 52 Belgian pig farms, characterising preparation and administration of medicinal products via these systems, and farmers’ user experiences with medicated feed and medicated drinking water. The study showed that medicated drinking water is more commonly used than medicated feed, since 90.4 per cent of the farms sometimes use medicated drinking water and 69.2 per cent of the farms sometimes use medicated feed. The drinking water quality is evaluated at least once a year on only 30.7 per cent of the farms. Separate pipelines for medicated and non-medicated circuits were not present in any of the farms using medicated feed and in 27.7 per cent of the farms using medicated drinking water. With drinking water medication, 63.5 per cent of the farmers reported encountering practical problems, often related to solubility issues and precipitation of the active compounds. In contrast, medicated feed is bought ready-to-use from the feed manufacturer in 68.2 per cent of the cases, thus reducing the number of practical problems experienced by the farmer. This study shows room for improvement of oral group treatment, developing appropriate pharmaceutical formulations for drinking water medication, quality control of drinking water, using separate pipeline circuits, and cleaning and disinfecting protocols.

This study aimed to review the transmission routes of important infectious pig diseases and to translate these into biosecurity measures preventing or reducing the transmission between and within pig herds. Furthermore, it aimed to identify the level of implementation of these measures in different European countries and discuss the observed variations to identify potentials for improvement. First, a literature review was performed to show which direct and indirect transmission routes of 24 infectious pig diseases can be prevented through different biosecurity measures. Second, a quantitative analysis was performed using the Biocheck.UGent™, a risk-based scoring system to evaluate biosecurity in pig herds, to obtain an insight into the implementation of these biosecurity measures. The database contained farm-specific biosecurity data from 574 pig farms in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, entered between January 2014 and January 2016. Third, a qualitative analysis based on a review of literature and other relevant information resources was performed for every subcategory of internal and external biosecurity in the Biocheck.UGent™ questionnaire. The quantitative analysis indicated that at the level of internal, external and overall biosecurity, Denmark had a significantly distinct profile with higher external biosecurity scores and less variation than the rest of the countries. This is likely due to a widely used specific pathogen-free (SPF) system with extensive focus on biosecurity since 1971 in Denmark. However, the observed pattern may also be attributed to differences in data collection methods. The qualitative analysis identified differences in applied policies, legislation, disease status, pig farm density, farming culture and habits between countries that can be used for shaping country-specific biosecurity advice to attain improved prevention and control of important pig diseases in European pig farms.

Background Building the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in Veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet) was proposed to strengthen the European One Health antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance approach. Objectives To define the combinations of animal species/production types/age categories/bacterial species/specimens/antimicrobials to be monitored in EARS-Vet. Methods The EARS-Vet scope was defined by consensus between 26 European experts. Decisions were guided by a survey of the combinations that are relevant and feasible to monitor in diseased animals in 13 European countries (bottom-up approach). Experts also considered the One Health approach and the need for EARS-Vet to complement existing European AMR monitoring systems coordinated by the ECDC and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Results EARS-Vet plans to monitor AMR in six animal species [cattle, swine, chickens (broilers and laying hens), turkeys, cats and dogs], for 11 bacterial species (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Staphylococcus hyicus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae and Streptococcus suis). Relevant antimicrobials for their treatment were selected (e.g. tetracyclines) and complemented with antimicrobials of more specific public health interest (e.g. carbapenems). Molecular data detecting the presence of ESBLs, AmpC cephalosporinases and methicillin resistance shall be collected too. Conclusions A preliminary EARS-Vet scope was defined, with the potential to fill important AMR monitoring gaps in the animal sector in Europe. It should be reviewed and expanded as the epidemiology of AMR changes, more countries participate and national monitoring capacities improve.

Collaboration across sectors, disciplines and countries is a key concept to achieve the overarching One Health (OH) objective for better human, animal and environmental health. Differences in terminology and interpretation of terms are still a significant hurdle for cross-sectoral information exchange and collaboration within the area of OH including One Health Surveillance (OHS). The development of the here described glossary is a collaborative effort of three projects funded within the One Health European Joint Programme (OHEJP). We describe the infrastructure of the OHEJP Glossary, as well as the methodology to create such a cross-sectoral web resource in a collaborative manner. The new OHEJP Glossary allows OH actors to identify terms with different or shared interpretation across sectors. Being aware of such differences in terminology will help overcome communication hurdles in the future and consequently support collaboration and a more inclusive development of OHS. The OHEJP Glossary was implemented as a web-based, user-friendly and searchable infrastructure that complies with the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data principles. Maintenance, enrichment and quality control of the OHEJP Glossary is supported through a flexible and updatable curation infrastructure. This increases the uptake potential and exploitation of the OHEJP Glossary by other OH initiatives or tools and services.

Summary As part of the Emerging Risk Identification (ERI) activities of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), a literature search was conducted to identify the microbiological agents transmitted between livestock animals and humans that have been suggested as having emerged between 2007 and 2015 in peer‐reviewed scientific literature published during the same period (2007–2015). According to the criteria set, the search identified seven such zoonotic agents, namely West Nile Fever virus, Rift Valley Fever virus, Crimean‐Congo Haemorrhagic Fever virus, Influenza A H1N1 virus, Coxiella burnetii, Streptococcus suis and livestock‐associated methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus clonal complex 398. An explanation of the agents' consideration as emerging risks is provided. The experience gained from these emergences has shown that the detection of and response to such risks can be achieved faster and more successfully within a multidisciplinary, collaborative context at the field, local, national and international levels.

The cross-contamination of non-medicated feed with residues of antimicrobials causes an animal and public health concern associated with the potential for the selection and dissemination of resistance in commensal bacteria and potentially zoonotic bacteria. To identify the extent of this situation, we built a risk model that provides a way to estimate the percentage of cross-contaminated feed in total and at the different levels at which cross-contamination may occur (i.e. the feed mill, the transport truck, the farm), for different levels of antimicrobial medicated feed produced in a country per year. The model, estimated that when antimicrobial medicated feed represents a hypothetical xi = 2% of the total feed produced in a country per year, then 5.5% (95% CI = 3.4%; 11.4%) of the total feed produced in a year could be cross-contaminated with different levels of antimicrobials due to practices related to medicated feed. In detail, 1.80% (95% CI = 0.2%; 7.7%) of the total feed produced in such a country would be cross-contaminated due to antimicrobial carryover occurring at the feed mill level, 1.83% (95% CI = 1.3%; 2.0%) at the transport truck level and 1.84% (95% CI = 1.2%; 2.0%) at the farm level. The model also demonstrated that even in cases where antimicrobial medicated feed would be produced in end-of-line mixers or a fine dosing system on trucks, the risk of cross-contamination would not be negligible; the percentage of cross-contaminated feed produced in a country (where xi = 2%) per year would be 3.7% (95% CI = 2.9%; 4.0%) and 2.4% (95% CI = 1.6%; 2.7%), respectively. It is hard to reduce the risk to zero as it is the result of factors occurring at different levels. Thus, the use of antimicrobial medicated feed should be avoided as much as possible to reduce selection pressure.