Looking back on the recent outbreak of major animal diseases in Europe, Roxan Ferler, executive director of veterinary diseases, is calling for an urgent revision to Europe’s approach to animal disease prevention.
In an increasingly complex environment of animal disease control, Europe faces a fork. In recent years, the continent has seen an increase in prevalence and geographical spread of boundary and emerging animal diseases. Increased climate change, globalization, and ecosystem interdependence all contribute to this trend.
What was once considered remote concerns, such as the blue tong virus and certain strains of fever in African pigs, is now a repeated threat within the borders of the European Union.
These advances are followed by a growing understanding that traditional reactive approaches to disease prevention are no longer appropriate, as outlined in the 2024 AnimalHealtheurope Annual Report and corresponding policy recommendations. Coordinated, advanced vaccination policies are more than just technical or regulatory considerations and are important for public health, food security and economic stability.
A new approach to preventing and responding to animal diseases
Historically, European responses to the animal disease epidemic have been primarily responsive. When a new outbreak is detected, the initial response is often a rapid containment measure, followed by an urgent request to the animal health department, speeding up vaccine research and deployment. This paradigm helped to reduce damage from time to time, but its limitations became increasingly apparent. The outbreak of 2023-2024 (still ongoing) of the Dutch Blue Tongue Virus Serotype 3 (BTV3) provides a dramatic illustration. In September 2023, BTV3 appeared in the Netherlands, infecting more than 5,000 livestock farms, with 55,000 sheep nearly dying compared to the same period between 2020 and 2022. The animal health sector has been quick to create and disseminate vaccines, but the absence of existing preparations and reaction structures slowed the overall response.
The highly pathogenic avian flu outbreak shares a similar story. Between October 2021 and September 2022, Europe experienced a total of 2,520 outbreaks in poultry, affecting 37 European countries. This led to culling 50 million birds at the affected facilities. This causes similar problems, and is repeated again with the current occurrence of foot and mouth diseases, which have been applied with measurements such as animal culling and boundary closure. These outbreaks highlight the systemic inefficiencies inherent in strategies that wait for disease to appear before action is taken. And it contradicts the principle of “better than treatment,” an important doctrine of the European Union’s animal health strategy from 2007 to 2013.
Increased preparation for animal diseases
The idea that preparation should be based on foresight rather than responses is supported, especially as it becomes clear that the next animal disease is a question of “when” rather than “if”. The reliance on the current reactive paradigm in Europe puts it at various risks. For one thing, developing and distributing vaccines during a crisis requires a lot of resources and is frequently hampered by regulatory and logistical hurdles.
More importantly, the lack of a adjusted demand plan puts the economic viability of vaccine manufacturers who may hesitate to invest in solutions without clear and predictable signals from civil servants, but may be willing to support it. This dynamic ultimately leads to a vicious cycle in which malicious public action slows industry responses and worsens the severity of disease outbreaks.
One Health
Furthermore, this issue is expanding beyond the animal welfare and the agriculture sector. Animal bone diseases – things that can be transmitted from animals to humans – are becoming an increasingly common source of developing the risk of infection. Along with the outbreak of Ebola, Mers and SARS, the Covid-19 pandemic has served as a reminder to the global community of human and animal health interconnected.
According to the World Health Organization, more than 75% of new human infectious diseases start in animals, and scientists say about 72% of these pathogens have wildlife origins. In this context, vaccination of animal populations is important not only to control animal-specific diseases, but also to reduce the likelihood of the spread of zoonotic diseases. As a result, systematic and aggressive vaccination policies are essential to bridge the gap between animal health and broader public health initiatives.
This perception is important for one health approach that promotes a holistic view of human, animal and ecological health. However, despite the recognition of policy conversations, one health situation is actually underutilized. Animal and environmental concerns are often overlooked in global health policymaking.
This fragmented approach leads to reactive, isolated and ultimately less effective systems. Incorporating a veterinarian perspective, rigorous biosecurity measures, and strategic vaccine development plans into a health governance framework will not only align with one health ideology, but will also strengthen community resilience in the face of increasingly complex biological threats.
policy
Diversity of approaches between EU countries is a key barrier to the development of coordinated animal vaccination policies, levels of preparation, and animal movement restrictions. This fragmented landscape hinders efficient disease management and complicates the internal market. Coordinated EU responses – Responses that allow cross-border vaccination programs, establish uniform rules, and distribute resources are important to achieving efficiency and equity. The recent demands by numerous member states for coordinated vaccination efforts supported by the Agrifish Council in October 2024 are a major step towards achieving this objective, but a clear implementation mechanism remains necessary.
What exacerbates the problem is that existing EU trade policies do not necessarily promote a stimulating attitude. Vaccinated animals may be limited by cross-border trade due to concerns about disease detection or residual levels. This is particularly myopic, as today’s animal health technology allows for vaccination and serological differentiation of naturally infected animals. The DIVA vaccine, also known as a marker vaccine, represents the differentiation of infections from vaccinated animals, is particularly useful in areas where the disease is endemic, as it allows for vaccination while maintaining the ability to detect and monitor outbreaks.
This policy ambiguity prevents farmers from actively using vaccinations. The outcome is a conundrum where there are ways to recurrence of illnesses, but the incentives to adopt them are inadequate or misguided. To break this impasse, we need to reevaluate the trade framework so that vaccinations are considered not a responsibility but a symbol of best practice.
Comprehensive dialogue
Farmers must also be meaningful in this discourse. Vaccine uptake is not guaranteed just because it is available. Practical issues such as costs and logistics, as well as doubts about the complete eradication of the disease, can affect farm-level decisions. Therefore, effective vaccination campaigns must incorporate outreach, education, and support mechanisms unique to the realities of European agriculture. Additionally, financial risk sharing systems or public-private partnerships may be implemented to promote vaccine production and use, particularly for diseases with low economic benefits but significant public health impacts.
The currently revised EU Animal Health Act (Regulations (EU) 2016/429) establishes a legislative framework to address infectious animal diseases. However, the ever-changing nature of the disease threat requires a more adaptive and flexible regulatory framework. Continuing reviews of these rules provide an opportunity to update disease lists, allow vaccinations, and implement more flexible ways to promote cross-border collaboration. EU-level vaccine banks and antigen repository development, as well as diagnostic reagent banks, can also be investigated to facilitate rapid deployment in emergencies.
Importantly, this transition relies heavily on strong coordination between public agencies and animal health companies. A structured mechanism for periodic dialogue that allows monitoring data to be analyzed assesses risk. Adjusted response – greatly improves preparation. Predictable demand signals allow businesses to invest in research and development, allowing public agencies to benefit from greater foresight and faster response times. Such a partnership model is not only desirable based on transparency and mutual trust, but also requires a transition from reactive to preventive paradigms. We should not overlook the value of early warning systems and digital tools. Surveillance data provides useful insight into disease trends and probability of occurrence, and can lay the foundation for active vaccination initiatives.
In this context, investments in data infrastructure, diagnostic capabilities and real-time monitoring technologies must coexist with policy changes. Preparation cannot be improvised. It must be planned, funded and institutionalized.
Uniform Strategy Leading by a One Health Principle
Overall, the evidence for organized vaccination strategies in animal health is overwhelming. This study shows that in the face of the rapidly evolving, cross-border disease threat, reactive approaches are no longer appropriate. Inactions have widespread effects, including food insecurity, economic instability, and public health concerns. Based on one health principle, a unified animal vaccination strategy implemented through collaboration across the EU provides a pathway to increasing resilience.
This article will also be featured in the 22nd edition of Quarterly Publication.
Source link
