LUXEMBOURG The Report referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC TRENDS AND SOURCES OF ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS IN HUMANS, FOODSTUFFS, ANIMALS AND FEEDINGSTUFFS including information on foodborne outbreaks, antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic agents and some pathogenic microbiological agents. IN 2009
INFORMATION ON THE REPORTING AND MONITORING SYSTEM Country: Reporting Year: Luxembourg Laboratory name Description Contribution Laboratoire de Médecine Vétérinaire de l`etat (LMVE) Laboratoire Nationale de la Santé (LNS) Inspection Sanitaire (IS) Laboratoire d`essai (ASTA) Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels Animal health and zoonoses laboratory under the ministery of agriculture Human Health Laboratory under the ministery of health Administration of preventive medecine under the ministeryof health Administration des services techniques de l`agriculture - Contrôle des aliments pour animaux National belgian and luxemburgish Reference Laboratory Belgian National Reference Institute for zoonoses Reporting of zoonoses in animals and in food from animal origin (meat) Reporting of human zoonoses Reporting of human zoonoses Reporting of zoonoses in feedingstuff Confirmation of tests from Luxembourg Confirmation of tests from Luxembourg
PREFACE This report is submitted to the European Commission in accordance with Article 9 of Council Directive 2003/99/ EC*. The information has also been forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The report contains information on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents in Luxembourg during the year 2009. The information covers the occurrence of these diseases and agents in humans, animals, foodstuffs and in some cases also in feedingstuffs. In addition the report includes data on antimicrobial resistance in some zoonotic agents and commensal bacteria as well as information on epidemiological investigations of foodborne outbreaks. Complementary data on susceptible animal populations in the country is also given. The information given covers both zoonoses that are important for the public health in the whole European Community as well as zoonoses, which are relevant on the basis of the national epidemiological situation. The report describes the monitoring systems in place and the prevention and control strategies applied in the country. For some zoonoses this monitoring is based on legal requirements laid down by the Community Legislation, while for the other zoonoses national approaches are applied. The report presents the results of the examinations carried out in the reporting year. A national evaluation of the epidemiological situation, with special reference to trends and sources of zoonotic infections, is given. Whenever possible, the relevance of findings in foodstuffs and animals to zoonoses cases in humans is evaluated. The information covered by this report is used in the annual Community Summary Report on zoonoses that is published each year by EFSA. * Directive 2003/ 99/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Decision 90/ 424/ EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/ 117/ EEC, OJ L 325, 17.11.2003, p. 31
List of Contents 1 ANIMAL POPULATIONS 1 2 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS 6 2.1 SALMONELLOSIS 7 2.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation 7 2.1.2 Salmonella in foodstuffs 8 2.1.3 Salmonella in animals 14 2.1.4 Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates 16 2.2 CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS 23 2.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation 23 2.2.2 Campylobacter in foodstuffs 24 2.2.3 Campylobacter in animals 26 2.2.4 Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates 27 2.3 LISTERIOSIS 31 2.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation 31 2.3.2 Listeria in foodstuffs 32 2.3.3 Listeria in animals 34 2.4 E. COLI INFECTIONS 35 2.4.1 General evaluation of the national situation 35 2.4.2 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in foodstuffs 35 2.5 TUBERCULOSIS, MYCOBACTERIAL DISEASES 36 2.5.1 General evaluation of the national situation 36 2.5.2 Mycobacterium in animals 37 2.6 BRUCELLOSIS 39 2.6.1 General evaluation of the national situation 39 2.6.2 Brucella in animals 40 2.7 YERSINIOSIS 43 2.7.1 General evaluation of the national situation 43 2.8 TRICHINELLOSIS 43 2.8.1 General evaluation of the national situation 43 2.8.2 Trichinella in animals 44 2.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS 46 2.9.1 General evaluation of the national situation 46 2.9.2 Echinococcus in animals 47 2.10 TOXOPLASMOSIS 48 2.10.1 General evaluation of the national situation 48 2.11 RABIES 48 2.11.1 General evaluation of the national situation 48 2.11.2 Lyssavirus (rabies) in animals 50 2.12 Q-FEVER 52 2.12.1 General evaluation of the national situation 52
2.12.2 Coxiella (Q-fever) in animals 53 3 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC INDICATORS OF ANTIMICROBIAL 54 3.1 ESCHERICHIA COLI, NON-PATHOGENIC 55 3.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation 55 3.2 ENTEROCOCCUS, NON-PATHOGENIC 55 3.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation 55 4 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC MICROBIOLOGICAL AGENTS 56 4.1 ENTEROBACTER SAKAZAKII 57 4.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation 57 4.1.2 Enterobacter sakazakii in foodstuffs 57 4.2 HISTAMINE 58 4.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation 58 4.3 STAPHYLOCOCCAL ENTEROTOXINS 58 4.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation 58 4.3.2 Staphylococcal enterotoxins in foodstuffs 58 5 FOODBORNE OUTBREAKS 60
1. ANIMAL POPULATIONS The relevance of the findings on zoonoses and zoonotic agents has to be related to the size and nature of the animal population in the country. 1
A. Information on susceptible animal population Sources of information STATEC (luxemburgish Institute of statistics) Dates the figures relate to and the content of the figures Annual request on 15th of may Geographical distribution and size distribution of the herds, flocks and holdings Luxemburg, with a total surface of 2585 sqkm is considered in total as a region 2
Table Susceptible animal populations Cattle (bovine animals) Deer meat production animals mixed herds dairy cows and heifers calves (under 1 year) - in total farmed - in total Ducks - in total broilers Number of herds or flocks * Only if different than current reporting year Number of slaughtered animals Livestock numbers (live animals) 318 2009 12368 2009 24700 2009 318 2009 515 2009 57834 2009 515 2009 647 2009 11915 2009 61526 2009 647 2009 1699 2009 52410 2009 1480 2009 25982 2009 196470 2009 1480 2009 334 2009 40 2009 208 2009 40 2009 69300 2009 17325 2009 Number of holdings Animal species Category of animals Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Gallus gallus (fowl) laying hens 410 2009 53395 2009 80093 2009 410 2009 - in total 425 2009 122695 2009 97418 2009 425 2009 Geese - in total 63 2009 213 2009 63 2009 Goats meat production animals animals over 1 year 196 2009 178 3
Table Susceptible animal populations Goats Pigs Pigs - breeding animals - unspecified milk goats animals under 1 year - in total fattening pigs Pigs - in total breeding animals - unspecified - sows and gilts animals over 1 year milk ewes Number of herds or flocks Number of slaughtered animals Livestock numbers (live animals) 9 2009 1776 2009 9 2009 37 2009 980 2009 37 2009 92 2009 521 2009 3130 2009 92 2009 29475 2009 84 2009 7473 2009 84 2009 151 2009 139936 2009 80217 2009 151 2009 436 2009 8 2009 176 2009 Number of holdings Animal species Category of animals Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Sheep meat production animals 198 2009 4493 2009 198 2009 animals under 1 year (lambs) 187 2009 3719 2009 187 2009 - in total 223 2009 3176 2009 8824 2009 223 2009 Solipeds, domestic horses - in total 529 2009 44 2009 4562 2009 529 2009 Turkeys - in total 10 2009 105 2009 10 2009 4 Comments: calculated by difference
Table Susceptible animal populations Footnote: As Luxembourg does not have any agreated slaughterhouses, broilers are slaughtered in the neighbouring countries. Luxembourg does not have slaughterhouses special for horses. Luxemburgish consumers do not eat a lot of horse meat. That may explain the low number of slaughtered animals (horses) 5
2. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS Zoonoses are diseases or infections, which are naturally transmissible directly or indirectly between animals and humans. Foodstuffs serve often as vehicles of zoonotic infections. Zoonotic agents cover viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites or other biological entities that are likely to cause zoonoses. 6
2.1 SALMONELLOSIS 2.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. General evaluation National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection As the last baseline study in breeding and in slaughter pigs revealed a high prevalence for salmonella the situation is considered to be serious and efforts are undertaken to ameliorate hygienic measures in order to decrease the prevalences in a significant amount (installation of biosecurity in the pig holdings). The impact of poultry is considered less important, because Luxembourg does not have agreated slaughterhouses for poultry Relevance of the findings in animals, feedingstuffs and foodstuffs to human cases (as a source of infection) It is thaught that the main source of infection are fattening pig holdings, and subsequently breeding pig holdings Recent actions taken to control the zoonoses Hygienic measures (biosecurity) are undertaken and slaughterhouses are alerted Suggestions to the Community for the actions to be taken Concrete preventive measures should be untertaken by communitary legislation 7
2.1.2 Salmonella in foodstuffs Table Salmonella in poultry meat and products thereof Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - fresh - at retail Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - meat products - cooked, ready-to-eat - at retail Meat from turkey - fresh - at retail Meat from turkey - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail 2) 3) 4) 5) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella LMVE Single 25g 81 3 1 LMVE Single 25g 12 0 LMVE Single 25g 6 0 S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified S. Agona S. Blockley S. Hadar LMVE Single 25g 22 3 1 1 LMVE Single 25g 7 1 1 S. Infantis S. Paratyphi B S. Paratyphi B var. Java Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - fresh - at retail 1 1 Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail 2) Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - meat products - cooked, ready-to-eat - at retail 3) Meat from turkey - fresh - at retail 4) 1 8
Table Salmonella in poultry meat and products thereof Meat from turkey - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Comments: 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) S. Infantis S. Paratyphi B S. Paratyphi B var. Java 9
Table Salmonella in red meat and products thereof Meat from bovine animals - fresh - at retail Meat from bovine animals - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at processing plant Meat from bovine animals - meat preparation - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Meat from bovine animals - meat products - cooked, ready-to-eat - at retail Meat from bovine animals - meat products - raw but intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Meat from bovine animals - minced meat - intended to be eaten raw - at retail Meat from bovine animals - minced meat - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Meat from horse - fresh - at retail 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella LMVE Single 25g 4 0 LMVE Single 25g 1 0 LMVE Single 25g 2 0 LMVE Single 25g 6 0 LMVE Single 25g 1 0 LMVE Single 25g 124 0 LMVE Single 25g 26 0 LMVE Single 25g 2 0 S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified Meat from pig - fresh - at retail Meat from pig - meat preparation - intended to be eaten raw - at retail Meat from pig - meat products - cooked, ready-toeat - at retail Meat from pig - meat products - raw but intended to be eaten cooked - at processing plant Meat from pig - meat products - raw but intended to be eaten cooked - at retail 9) 10) 1 12) 13) LMVE Single 25g 3 0 LMVE Single 25g 14 0 LMVE Single 25g 150 0 LMVE Single 25g 2 0 LMVE Single 25g 1 0 10
Table Salmonella in red meat and products thereof Meat from pig - minced meat - intended to be eaten cooked - at retail Meat from sheep - fresh - at retail Meat from bovine animals - offal - chilled - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - selective sampling Meat from bovine animals and pig - meat preparation - intended to be eaten raw - at retail - domestic production - - official sampling - convenience sampling Meat from bovine animals and pig - meat products - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - objective sampling Meat from bovine animals and pig - meat products - at retail - domestic production - - official sampling - objective sampling 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella LMVE Single 25g 6 0 LMVE Single 25g 12 0 LMVE Single 25g 15 0 LMVE Single 25g 62 1 1 LMVE Single 25g 141 0 LMVE Single 25g 45 0 S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified Meat from bovine animals and pig - minced meat - intended to be eaten raw - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - objective sampling 20) LMVE Single 25g 27 0 11 Comments: 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
Table Salmonella in red meat and products thereof 7) 8) 9) 10) 1 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) Footnote: As normally no specifically directed sampling is done,the consequences are unclear 12
Table Salmonella in other food Crustaceans - at retail Egg products - at retail Eggs - table eggs - at retail Fruits and vegetables - precut - ready-to-eat Cereals and meals - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - objective sampling Comments: 2) 3) 4) 5) restaurant bakeries pre-cooked meals 2) 3) 4) 5) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella LMVE Single 25g 4 0 S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified LNS Single 25g 19 2 2 LMVE Single 25g 5 3 3 LNS Single 25g 840 1 1 LNS Single 25g 485 3 3 13
2.1.3 Salmonella in animals Table Salmonella in other poultry Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm - Control and eradication programmes - official and industry sampling Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers - before slaughter - at farm - Control and eradication programmes - official and industry sampling Comments: 2) Footnote: Commission Regulation 1168/2006 Commission Regulation 646/2007 2) Number of existing flocks Source of information Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella 7 LMVE Flock 7 0 S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified S. Senftenberg 4 LMVE Flock 4 1 1 Method used: ISO 6579, ANNEX D Sampling is done once by an official and for the remaining by business operators All farms have less than 1,000 birds The results show that neither S. typhimurium, nor S. enteritidis were found The sampling is ordered by the European Commission.All the flocks mentioned are tested at the end of egg production 14
Table Salmonella in other animals Cattle (bovine animals) Pigs - breeding animals Pigs - fattening pigs Cattle (bovine animals) - others - at farm - animal sample - faeces - - industry sampling - selective sampling Comments: 2) 3) Footnote: aborted fetus Commission Regulation 2160/2003 Commission Regulation 2160/2003 60 lymph nodes were taken from 17 demands 50 swabs were taken from 13 demands: they were all negative 2) 3) Source of information CERVA-Coda -Var Animal 9 0 LMVE Holding 1 0 LMVE Sampling unit Slaughter batch Units tested Total units positive for Salmonella S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp., unspecified S. Derby S. Dublin S. enterica, monophasic 60 8 5 2 1 LMVE Animal 83 7 4 2 1 15
2.1.4 Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates A. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella in foodstuff derived from pigs Sampling strategy used in monitoring Frequency of the sampling The State Veterinary Laboratory (LMVE) tries to realise as much antibiogramms as possible. Type of specimen taken Positive colonies from culture (ISO 6579, annex D) Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques) Sampling of socks and feces Procedures for the selection of isolates for antimicrobial testing As much as possible Laboratory methodology used for identification of the microbial isolates Biochemical identification and serotypage for salmonella Laboratory used for detection for resistance Antimicrobials included in monitoring LMVE and LNS Cut-off values used in testing yes Notification system in place Notification is done to O.I.E. periodically 16
Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella in Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers Salmonella Antimicrobials: Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol Cephalosporins - 3rd generation cephalosporins Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin Quinolones - Nalidixic acid Trimethoprim Sulfonamides - Sulfonamide Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin Aminoglycosides - Neomycin Aminoglycosides - Kanamycin Isolates out of a monitoring program (yes/no) Number of isolates available in the laboratory S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium Salmonella spp. N n N n N n no 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Trimethoprim + sulfonamides 1 0 Penicillins - Ampicillin 1 0 Tetracyclines - Tetracycline 1 0 Resistant to 1 antimicrobial 1 0 17
Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella in Cattle (bovine animals) Salmonella Antimicrobials: Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol Amphenicols - Florfenicol Cephalosporins - 3rd generation cephalosporins Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin Quinolones - Nalidixic acid Trimethoprim Sulfonamides - Sulfonamide Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin Aminoglycosides - Neomycin Aminoglycosides - Kanamycin Isolates out of a monitoring program (yes/no) Number of isolates available in the laboratory S. Enteritidis S. Typhimurium 4 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 3 1 3 1 4 0 2 0 3 1 Salmonella spp. S. Dublin S. enterica, monophasic N n N n N n N n N n Trimethoprim + sulfonamides 3 1 Penicillins - Ampicillin 1 0 Tetracyclines - Tetracycline 1 0 18
Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Animals Test Method Used Disc diffusion Standard methods used for testing NCCLS/CLSI Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Amphenicols Chloramphenicol 12 Florfenicol 16 Tetracyclines Tetracycline 11 Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin 15 Enrofloxacin 16 Quinolones Nalidixic acid 13 Trimethoprim Trimethoprim 10 Sulfonamides Sulfonamide 19 Aminoglycosides Streptomycin 11 Gentamicin 12 Neomycin 20 Kanamycin 13 Trimethoprim + sulfonamides Trimethoprim + sulfonamides 10 19 Cephalosporins Cefotaxim 14
Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Animals Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Penicillins Ampicillin 13 Penicillin 16 20
Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Food Test Method Used Disc diffusion Standard methods used for testing NCCLS/CLSI Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Amphenicols Chloramphenicol 12 Florfenicol 16 Tetracyclines Tetracycline 11 Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin 15 Enrofloxacin 16 Quinolones Nalidixic acid 13 Trimethoprim Trimethoprim 10 Sulfonamides Sulfonamide 19 Aminoglycosides Streptomycin 11 Gentamicin 12 Neomycin 20 Kanamycin 13 Trimethoprim + sulfonamides Trimethoprim + sulfonamides 10 21 Cephalosporins Cefotaxim 14
Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Food Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Penicillins Ampicillin 13 Penicillin 16 22
2.2 CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS 2.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Thermophilic Campylobacter general evaluation History of the disease and/or infection in the country First it is generally admitted that campylobacter infections in humans are mostly transmitted by poultry. In Luxemburg, there is no slaughterhouse agreated for broilers, but it is a fact that fresh poultry meat at retail has a quite high prevalence of Campylobacter National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection As the luxemburgish status is very bad, despite the fact that it is not significant, other reasons for the bad human situation are to be taken in account (high prevalence in fresh poultry meat) Relevance of the findings in animals, feedingstuffs and foodstuffs to human cases (as a source of infection) It is a fact that fresh imported broiler meat is highly infected with thermophilic campylobacter. It would be necessary to initiate directed investigations beginning with the human cases and tracing back to the food eaten Recent actions taken to control the zoonoses None Additional information Additional information would be needed to make a significant link between human infections and food 23
2.2.2 Campylobacter in foodstuffs Table Campylobacter in poultry meat Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - fresh - at retail Meat from turkey - fresh - at retail Comments: 2) Footnote: 2) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Campylobact er C. coli C. jejuni C. lari LMVE Single 10g 84 67 20 47 LMVE Single 10g 29 16 7 8 1 From 5 other unspecified poultry meat 2 were campylobacter positive, one with C. coli and one with C. jejuni (cooked meat!!!) Thermophilic Campylobact C. upsaliensis er spp., unspecified 24
Table Campylobacter in other food Meat from bovine animals - fresh - at retail Meat from pig - fresh - at retail Meat from sheep - fresh - at retail Meat from bovine animals and pig - at retail - domestic production - - official sampling - convenience sampling Comments: 2) 3) 4) 2) 3) 4) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Campylobact er LMVE Single 10g 151 0 LMVE Single 10g 26 1 1 LMVE Single 10g 4 1 1 LMVE Single 10g 169 1 1 C. coli C. jejuni C. lari Thermophilic Campylobact C. upsaliensis er spp., unspecified Footnote: 1 sample of pig meat was Vidas+, but culture was negative 25
2.2.3 Campylobacter in animals Table Campylobacter in animals Cattle (bovine animals) - calves (under 1 year) Cattle (bovine animals) - dairy cows Goats Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm - animal sample - faeces - - industry sampling - selective sampling Comments: 2) 3) 4) 2) 3) 4) Source of information LMVE Animal 2 0 LMVE Animal 1 0 LMVE Sampling unit Animal Units tested Total units positive for Campylobact er C. coli C. jejuni C. lari LMVE Flock 2 2 1 1 Thermophilic Campylobact C. upsaliensis er spp., unspecified Footnote: The sampling for campylobacter in broilers was not realised in an official program, as it was in the baseline study 2008 26
2.2.4 Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter in Gallus gallus (fowl) Campylobacter Antimicrobials: Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin Quinolones - Nalidixic acid Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin Macrolides - Erythromycin Penicillins - Ampicillin Tetracyclines - Tetracycline Trimethoprim Isolates out of a monitoring program (yes/no) Number of isolates available in the laboratory Campylobacter spp., unspecified no 2 N 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 n 27
Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter in Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) Campylobacter Antimicrobials: Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin Quinolones - Nalidixic acid Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin Macrolides - Erythromycin Penicillins - Ampicillin Tetracyclines - Tetracycline Isolates out of a monitoring program (yes/no) Number of isolates available in the laboratory Campylobacter spp., unspecified no 15 N n 6 4 4 0 15 0 15 0 5 5 6 4 28
Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter in Animals Test Method Used Disc diffusion Standard methods used for testing NCCLS/CLSI Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Tetracyclines Tetracycline 18 Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin 17 Quinolones Nalidixic acid 15 Aminoglycosides Gentamicin 14 Macrolides Erythromycin 12 Penicillins Ampicillin 14 29
Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter in Food Test Method Used Disc diffusion Standard methods used for testing NCCLS/CLSI Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm) Standard Resistant > Resistant <= Tetracyclines Tetracycline 18 Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin 17 Quinolones Nalidixic acid 15 Aminoglycosides Gentamicin 14 Macrolides Erythromycin 12 Penicillins Ampicillin 14 30
2.3 LISTERIOSIS 2.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Listeriosis general evaluation National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection The real situation is not clear 31
2.3.2 Listeria in foodstuffs Table Listeria monocytogenes in other foods Meat from bovine animals - fresh Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - fresh Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) - meat products - cooked, ready-to-eat - at retail Bakery products - cakes - containing raw cream - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - selective sampling Cereals and meals - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - selective sampling 2) 3) 4) 5) Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Listeria Units tested with detection method Listeria monocytogen es presence in x g LMVE Single 25g 147 35 147 35 0 LMVE Single 25g 78 33 78 33 0 LMVE Single 25g 6 2 6 2 0 LNS Single 25g 824 12 824 12 LNS Single 25g 336 19 336 19 Units tested with enumeration method > detection limit but <= 100 cfu/g L. monocytogen es > 100 cfu/g Comments: 2) 3) 4) 5) Footnote: Methods used: Detection: BRD 07/04-09/98 Enumeration: BRD 07/05-09/01 32 Remark concerning bakery products and cereals and meals: The 12 respectively the 36 samples positiuve for listeria monocytogenes were tested with the enumeration method: The results are as followed:
Units tested with enumeration method: 12 >detection limit, but<=100 cfu/g: 11 L.monocytogenes >100 cfu/g: 1 Cereals and meals: Units tested with enumeration method: 19 >detection limit, but<=100 cfu/g: 16 L.monocytogenes >100 cfu/g: 3 N.B. These results could not be introduced directly in the tables because of internal problems of the system 33
2.3.3 Listeria in animals Table Listeria in animals Cattle (bovine animals) Comments: aborted fetus Source of information CERVA-Coda -Var Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Listeria Animal 4 0 L. Listeria spp., monocytogen unspecified es 34
2.4 E. COLI INFECTIONS 2.4.1 General evaluation of the national situation 2.4.2 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in foodstuffs Table VT E. coli in food Meat from bovine animals - fresh - at retail Comments: Footnote: Method used: Vidas Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) - VTEC O157 LMVE Single 307 1 1 Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) - VTEC non- O157 Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) - VTEC, unspecified 35
2.5 TUBERCULOSIS, MYCOBACTERIAL DISEASES 2.5.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Tuberculosis general evaluation History of the disease and/or infection in the country At the end of the 19th century, it was recognized that bovine tuberculosis takes a big part in the progress of human tuberculosis In Germany the method of Ostertag was adopted by legislation in 1909 2 methods: 1.Mandatory elimination of all cases of open tuberculosis in lung, intestine, uterus and mammary glands found in one premise. After elimination of the open cases: facultative elimination of the bovine suspected of tuberculosis. Isolation of all suspected animal and reexamination on regular intervals 2.Separation of every calf, 2 days after birth and watering exclusively with milk heated at 85 C. These animals have to undergo tuberculination, in order to eliminate all reagents All animals introduced have to be tested by tuberculination The law of July 29th 1912 and the ministerial instructions of the 14th of July 1913 adopted the procedure of Ostertag, but reduced to his 1st step So only those animals where the pulmonary, intestinal, uterine and mammar secretions revealed the bacteriological presence of the bacteria were considered to be eliminated. The sanitary effect was none Examples of infection with tuberculosis at the slaughterhouses:(pigs) 1939:28,5%2,5% 194838,0%4,2% In December 1950, a grand ducal order declared tuberculosis as an official disease with mandatory enforcement, and all bovine elder than 1 year were to be tuberculinated once a year By ministerial order of the 22th of June 1957, all positive animals at tuberculination have to be eliminated and are compensated After 1959, after an intensive effort, the prevalence fall under 1% 1960:0,65% 1961:0,25% 1962:0,17% 1963:0,054% In 1980 the last bovine has been eliminated because of tuberculosis In the same sense a campaign against avian tuberculosis has been started in 1963/64 National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection Because of the statuses of not officially free in UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the baltic countries, the west european countries, i.e. Luxembourg have to get vigilant.food inspection at slaughterhouse is carefully done. If suspected lesions were detected, isolation and/or PCR tests would be ordered 36
2.5.2 Mycobacterium in animals A. Mycobacterium bovis in bovine animals Status as officially free of bovine tuberculosis during the reporting year The entire country free Yes: decision 97/76/CE, confirmed by decision 1999/467/CE Additional information This sanitary status has been maintained following the dispositions of annex of the luxemburgish grand ducal reglement of 20th of august 1999 concerningsanitary policy in intra community exchange of animals from bovine and ovine species system Sampling strategy The tuberculosis is detected by food inspection in the slaughterhouses. No suspected lesions were found Case definition In case of suspected lesions, specimen (lymph nodes or parts of pathologic lung are conducted for PCR and culture Diagnostic/analytical methods used PCR and culture 37
Table Bovine tuberculosis in countries and regions that do not receive Community co-financing for eradication programmes Comments: N.A. Region Luxembourg (Grand- Duché) Total : Total number of existing bovine Herds Animals Number of herds Officially free herds % Number of herds Infected herds % Routine tuberculin testing Interval between routine tuberculin tests Number of animals tested Number of tuberculin tests carried out before the introduction into the herds (Annex A(I)(2)(c) third indent ( of Directive 64/432/EEC) Number of animals with suspicious lesions of tuberculosis examined and submitted to histopathological and bacteriological Number of animals detected positive in bacteriological examination 1480 191930 1480 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1480 191930 1480 100 0 0 N.A. 0 0 0 0 38
2.6 BRUCELLOSIS 2.6.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Brucellosis general evaluation History of the disease and/or infection in the country Bovine brucellosis was first recognised in 1844 Since the 7th of June, 1948 bovine brucellosis is a mandatory official disease, transmissible to humans zoonosis. Crude infected milk is a source of contamination for humans. At the end of the fifties, bovine herds have been tested serologically with A.B.R.-Test (milk) In spring 1960, 30,000 milk samples were tested with a positive result of 7,79% In 1962, 8114 bovine were diagnosed sero-positive. At the end of 1962, 91,78 % were eliminated Exploitations with positive results: 1960: 742 1968 21 Spring 1969: 14 December 1969: 12 April 1970: 6 After stamping out of those exploitations, the country remains at a prevalence of 0,82% Periodical re-emergences occur mainly by pasturage of Belgian cattle National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection Actually the country is OBF. Annual monitorings and strict surveillance at importation guarantee the status Additional information Ovine and caprine brucellosis is not considered as a problem in Luxemburg, as Luxemburg does not have industrial holdings and as the total number of goats and sheep is very low.(see susceptible animal population) 39
2.6.2 Brucella in animals A. Brucella abortus in bovine animals Status as officially free of bovine brucellosis during the reporting year The entire country free Yes: by decision 99/466/CE system Sampling strategy All dairy farms are tested annually by pooled bulk milk samples Frequency of the sampling once a year Type of specimen taken Milk Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques) Ab-ELISA Case definition In 2009 abortions after vaccination with bluetongue were used to test brucelloses in cattle Diagnostic/analytical methods used Bacteriological isolation (in CERVA-Coda-Var) 40
Table Brucellosis in other animals Pigs Goats - at farm - animal sample - blood - - official sampling - convenience sampling Sheep - at farm - animal sample - blood - - official sampling - convenience sampling Comments: 2) 3) Footnote: 2) 3) Source of information Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Brucella LMVE Animal 90 0 LMVE Animal 8 0 LMVE Animal 117 0 B. abortus B. melitensis B. suis Brucella spp., unspecified In the past Luxembourg did not have a lot of ovine and caprine, so that the incidence of brucelloses was not significantly influenced. But meanwhile Luxembourg has 9 herds of milk goats with about 1700 animals But until now no initiative was taken to test the goat herds for brucellosis( what is demonstrated by the low number of tested goats) So in accordance with the European Commission, those herds should be tested in the near future for brucelloses 41
Table Bovine brucellosis in countries and regions that do not receive Community co-financing for eradication programme Comments: N.A. Region Luxembourg (Grand- Duché) Total : Total number of existing bovine Herds Animals Officially free herds Number of herds % Infected herds Number of herds % Number of bovine herds tested Serological tests Number of animals tested Surveillance Number of infected herds Examination of bulk milk Information about Epidemiological investigation Number of bovine herds tested Number of animals or pools tested Number of infected herds Number of notified abortions whatever cause Number of isolations of Brucella infection Number of abortions due to Brucella abortus Investigations of suspect cases Number of animals tested with serological blood tests Number of suspended herds Number of positive animals 846 40040 846 100 0 0 537 0 846 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 846 40040 846 100 0 0 0 537 0 846 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 Sero logically BST Number of animals examined microbio logically Number of animals positive microbio logically 42
2.7 YERSINIOSIS 2.7.1 General evaluation of the national situation 2.8 TRICHINELLOSIS 2.8.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Trichinellosis general evaluation National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection It seems that Luxemburg is free from trichinellosis 43
2.8.2 Trichinella in animals A. Trichinella in pigs system Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques) General Self- control of the slaughterhouses Wild boar destinated for human consumption Imported horse meat, mainly from third countries Diagnostic/analytical methods used General Digestion method following communitary legislation 44
Table Trichinella in animals Foxes Pigs Solipeds, domestic - horses Wild boars - wild Comments: 2) 3) 4) Import 2) 3) 4) Source of information Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Trichinella LSGV Animal 24 0 LMVE Animal 1955 0 LMVE Animal 36 0 LMVE Animal 883 0 T. spiralis Trichinella spp., unspecified 45
2.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS 2.9.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Echinococcus spp. general evaluation History of the disease and/or infection in the country It is known that some cases of human echinococcoses are documentated Recent actions taken to control the zoonoses Regular deparasitation procedures for dogs Suggestions to the Community for the actions to be taken Actions to inform public on preventive measures 46
2.9.2 Echinococcus in animals Table Echinococcus in animals Foxes Comments: Footnote: Echinococcus granulosus is tested at the slaughterhouses: No one was found in 2009 Source of information Sampling unit In 2009 8968 adult bovine and 648 calves were analysed for cysticerci from Taenia saginata: 16 calcified and 1 alive cysticerci were detected Units tested Total units positive for E. granulosus Echinococcus E. multilocularis LSGV Animal 23 4 4 Echinococcus spp., unspecified 47
2.10 TOXOPLASMOSIS 2.10.1 General evaluation of the national situation 2.11 RABIES 2.11.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Rabies general evaluation History of the disease and/or infection in the country The last cases of citadine rabies were detected in 1912.3 dogs were affected. Vulpine rabies was first detected in 1966 coming from Germany Evolution of rabies from 1966 to 2000 Year feral domestic Remark 1966 27 1 gazage of fox's dens 1967 280 81 gazage of fox's dens 1968 23 8 gazage of fox's dens 1969 6 6 gaz used: polithanol 1970 7 3 1971 0 0 1972 0 0 1973 10 2 1974 28 15 1975 29 23 1976 19 5 1978 48 14 1979 13 10 1980 17 8 1981 59 27 1982 107 98 1983 51 56 1984 36 29 1985 37 32 1986 84 43 legal base: vaccination 1987 9 16 1st campaign: september 1988 2 1 2 campaigns 1989 73 67 2 campaigns 1990 26 38 2 campaigns 1991 7 9 2 campaigns 1992 0 2 2 campaigns 1993 0 1 2 campaigns 1994 1 0 1 campaign 1995 9 6 2 campaigns 1996 11 6 2 campaigns 48
1997 2 0 2 campaigns 1998 0 0 2 campaigns 1999 0 1 2 campaigns 2000 0 0 2 campaigns Luxembourg was declared officially free from rabies in 2001 by O.I.E. Every year screenings are done in order to maintain the status Recent actions taken to control the zoonoses Yearly screenings of shot foxes 49
2.11.2 Lyssavirus (rabies) in animals A. Rabies in dogs system Sampling strategy Vaccination is mandatory in Luxemburg Imported animals must be free of rabies, and are tested serologically for antibodies Type of specimen taken Blood Vaccination policy Vaccination is mandatory in Luxemburg. Control is realised because all dogs must be registrated by the communes ( see dog taxes) Other preventive measures than vaccination in place Serological control of imported dogs. Control of vaccination by certificates is done, but isnot suffisant. Stray dogs are avoided as far as possible. 50
Table Rabies in animals Cattle (bovine animals) Deer - wild - red deer Foxes - wild Comments: 2) 3) 2) 3) Source of information CERVA-Coda -Var CERVA-Coda -Var Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Lyssavirus (rabies) Animal 1 0 Animal 1 0 LSGV Animal 23 0 Lyssavirus, unspecified Classical rabies virus (genotype European Bat Lyssavirus - unspecified 51
2.12 Q-FEVER 2.12.1 General evaluation of the national situation A. Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever) general evaluation National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection As the zoonotic character is more related to special circumstances (see scientific opinion on Q fever: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare and EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards 22 April 2010 and 27 April 2010),Luxemburg is less concerned, but nevertheless has to take some care 52
2.12.2 Coxiella (Q-fever) in animals Table Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in animals Cattle (bovine animals) Goats Comments: 2) Footnote: aborted fetus bulk tank milk 2) Source of information CERVA-Coda -Var CERVA-Coda -Var Sampling unit Units tested Total units positive for Coxiella (Qfever) Herd 8 0 C. burnetii Herd 2 1 1 Real-time PCR was used as well for cattle as for goat The positive case in a goat herd has to be followed, because risks of transmission to humans with illness exist, mainly during abortion With the same aim, Chlamydiosis and Leptospirosis were examined. All 8 samples were negative for chlamydiosis, but from 11 samples examined 6 samples were doubtfull for Leptospirosis. It would be usefull to test more in detail such samples 53
3. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC INDICATORS OF ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE 54
3.1 ESCHERICHIA COLI, NON-PATHOGENIC 3.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation 3.2 ENTEROCOCCUS, NON-PATHOGENIC 3.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation 55
4. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC MICROBIOLOGICAL AGENTS 56
4.1 ENTEROBACTER SAKAZAKII 4.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation 4.1.2 Enterobacter sakazakii in foodstuffs Table Enterobacter sakazakii in food Infant formula - dried Comments: at retail Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Enterobacter sakazakii LNS Single variable 40 0 E. sakazakii 57
4.2 HISTAMINE 4.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation 4.3 STAPHYLOCOCCAL ENTEROTOXINS 4.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation 4.3.2 Staphylococcal enterotoxins in foodstuffs Table Staphylococcal enterotoxins in food Dairy products (excluding cheeses) - milk powder and whey powder Cereals and meals - at retail - environmental sample - - industry sampling - selective sampling Source of information Sampling unit Sample weight Units tested Total units positive for Staphylococc al enterotoxins LNS Single 150g 10 3 LNS Single 150g 728 20 Chocolate - at retail - domestic production - - industry sampling - selective sampling 2) LNS Single 150g 28 4 Comments: 2) restaurants pastries 58
5. FOODBORNE Foodborne outbreaks are incidences of two or more human cases of the same disease or infection where the cases are linked or are probably linked to the same food source. Situation, in which the observed human cases exceed the expected number of cases and where a same food source is suspected, is also indicative of a foodborne outbreak. 60
A. Foodborne outbreaks System in place for identification, epidemological investigations and reporting of foodborne outbreaks All human cases where possible foodborne outbreaks have occured were transmitted to ECDC by Joël Mossong. He refuses to submit his data to the reporting officer for the EFSA-report The reporter Joël Mossong refuses to submit the human data for the EFSA-report, with the argument, that he gave them to ECDC 61
Table Foodborne Outbreaks: summarised data Total number of outbreaks Outbreaks Human cases Hospitalized Deaths Number of verified outbreaks Bacillus 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Campylobacter 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Clostridium Escherichia coli, pathogenic Foodborne viruses 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Listeria 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Other agents 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Parasites 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Salmonella 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Staphylococcus 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Unknown 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 Yersinia 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 0 62