{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02795538022037818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017616650795810092, 'mean_word_length': 5.214285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in providing scientific advice on the welfare of food producing animals

Abstract The survey describes the work of the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the provision of scientific advice on the welfare of food producing animals including animal health and food safety aspects, where relevant, and on the impact of these scientific assessments on the EU regulatory framework. EFSA was created in 2002 with the mission to provide advice and scientific and technical support for the Community legislation and policies in all fields which have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, plant health, environment and animal health and animal welfare. When providing objective and independent science-based advice, the risk assessment approach should be followed, whenever possible. The AHAW Panel of EFSA provides specific advices on risk factors related to animal diseases and welfare, mainly of food producing animals, including fish. According to EFSA’s remit, ethical, socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects are outside the scope of the EFSA’s assessments. Since 2004, the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA adopted a total of 21 scientific opinions on animal welfare. Animal diseases and food safety aspects have also been taken into account, where relevant. Animal welfare aspects have been considered in some scientific opinions on animal diseases (e.g. AI, FMD). The AHAW Panel is currently working on five scientific opinions on the welfare of dairy cows and on the welfare aspects of the stunning and killing of farmed fish for eight fish species (salmon, trout, carp, eel, tuna, sea bass, sea bream and turbot). The possible interactions and implications for food safety and animal disease have been considered, when relevant, in most of the AW scientific opinions, involving other areas of expertise in EFSA, like Biohazards, Contaminants and Plant Health. The final aim of EFSA’s scientific assessments on animal welfare is to support animal welfare EU legislation on the basis of the available scientific evidence. Many examples illustrate how EFSA’s scientific opinions are taken into consideration when legislative measures are proposed by the European Commission. In order to evaluate the overall impact of animal welfare, factors with possible incidence on animal diseases and food safety should also be considered. The evaluation of the interactions between animal welfare, animal disease and food safety could help the development of control and monitoring plans at farm level.


Introduction
Following a series of food crisis in the late 990s, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was created in 2002, with the mission to provide advice and scientific and technical support for the Community legislation and policies in all fields which have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, plant health, environment and animal health and animal welfare. EFSA shall also provide independent information on all matters within these fields and communicate on risks (EC, 2002).
EFSA can be requested by the different European Commission services, but also by the European Parliament, EU Members States or by EFSA itself as a self-mandate, to provide a scientific assessment following, whenever possible, a risk assessment approach, in accordance to the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO, 995) which establishes that SPS measures should be based on a risk assessment approach taking into account all available scientific evidence.
When EFSA receives a mandate requesting to issue a Scientific Opinion, a working group is set up, composed by experts on the specific issue and a risk assessor in charge of defining the risk pathways and the risk assessment methodology. The working group, through different meetings, compiles in a document all available scientific data and information on the issue and a Scientific Opinion containing all conclusions and recommendations from the compiled document is finally reviewed and adopted by a permanent Panel of experts. After that, and in agreement with EFSA's policy on transparency, all scientific documents issued are published on EFSA's web site (www.efsa. europa.eu).
Within the 0 Scientific Panels of EFSA, the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel provides specific scientific advices on risk factors related to animal diseases and welfare, primarily of food producing animals, including fish. In the case of animal welfare, it is important to stress that, in agreement with Regulation 78/2002(EC, 2002, ethical, socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects are outside the scope of the EFSA's remit. Only risk managers (European Commission) deal with legitimate and legal factors, including social, economic, traditional, ethical and environmental factors and the feasibility of controls.
The objective of this paper is to review the work done by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA on the provision of scientific advice on the welfare aspects of food producing animals, the interaction between animal welfare, animal disease and food safety and the impact of these scientific assessments on the EU regulatory framework.

EFSA's Scientific Opinions on Animal Welfare (2004-2008)
The main role of EFSA on animal welfare is to provide assessments and address animal welfare issues from a scientific point of view, also defining animal welfare in relation to animal health. When providing objective and independent science-based advice, the risk assessment approach should be followed, whenever possible (EC, 2002;EFSA, 2007d;Müller-Graf et al., 2008). In the case of experimental animals, EFSA adopted a pro-active animal welfare approach in the Management Board document produced during its meeting of June 2004, saying that "…while recognizing that animal testing cannot be eliminated at present, EFSA should make every effort to stimulate and participate in the development of new food and feed assessment approaches that would minimize the use of experimental animals and would reduce, to the extent possible, the level of suffering of animals…" (EFSA, 2004a).
Since 2004 to December 2008, the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA has adopted a total of 2 Scientific Opinions on animal welfare, focused on pig welfare (5 SO), fish welfare (5 SO), stunning and killing of animals (3 SO), animal transport (2 SO), calves' welfare, import of wild birds, rabbits, laying hens, laboratory animals and the "Framework for EFSA AHAW Risk Assessments" (EFSA, 2007d). Also, animal welfare aspects were requested to be considered in the scientific opinions on animal diseases, such as, avian influenza (EFSA, 2005a), import of captive birds (EFSA, 2006a) and avian influenza vaccines (EFSA, 2007c). It is important to point out that the European Commission when committing an animal welfare mandate, requests to take into account, where relevant, animal disease and food safety aspects. Table , shows the animal welfare scientific opinions adopted since 2004 and highlights when animal disease aspects and food safety issues have been considered.
The AHAW Panel is currently working on five scientific opinions on the welfare aspects of Dairy Cows. Four of these scientific opinions will be based on four Risk Assessments of the impact of housing, nutrition and feeding, management and genetic selection on ) leg and locomotion problems; 2) metabolic and reproductive problems; 3) udder problems and 4) behavioural, fear and pain problems in dairy cows. The fifth opinion will be an overall welfare assessment of the effects of farming systems on dairy cows' welfare and disease integrating the conclusions from the 4 risk assessments and the conclusions from the data compiled in a scientific report. Additional scientific opinions on welfare aspects of the stunning and killing of farmed fish, including 8 fish species (salmon, trout, carp, eel, tuna, sea bass, sea bream and turbot) are currently under development and are expected to be adopted during 2009.

Interactions among animal welfare, animal disease and food safety in EFSA's scientific opinions on animal welfare
Whenever relevant and needed, the possible interactions and implications for food safety and animal disease have been considered in most of the animal welfare scientific opinions, involving other areas of expertise in EFSA, like Biohazards, Contaminants, and Plant Health. Some examples of this interaction are illustrated (Table 2). In the scientific opinion on welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (EFSA, 2004e) it was concluded that keeping laying hens in non-cages systems will improve their welfare. However, it was also concluded that the risk of contamination with Salmonella spp. might be higher when eggs are produced in some non-cage systems because of the greater exposure of layers and their eggs to environmental contamination.
In the scientific assessment related with the migratory birds and their possible role in the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza (EFSA, 2006b), it was concluded that allowing chickens to open air access, and thus improving their welfare, may increase the risk of exposure to contagious diseases such as Avian Influenza (AI).
Several examples of the interactions between animal welfare and risk of disease can be also found on the scientific opinions on the welfare of pigs (EFSA, 2005b;2007a, 2007b. For instance in the scientific opinion about the effect of different space allowances and floor types in pigs it was concluded that floor type may have an influence on enzootic multifactorial diseases, including enteric and respiratory infections and that types of floor leading to bad urine drainage and to insufficient faeces removal increase the risk of infections, especially those leading to enteric disorders in pigs (EFSA, 2005b). The bedding material has been considered in each pig scientific opinion, concluding that using straw as bedding material might act as vehicle of diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) or Aujeszky's disease. As mentioned for poultry, keeping the pigs outdoors with possible contact with the wild fauna, mainly wild boars, is believed to be a source of Brucellosis in domestic pigs (EFSA, 2007a(EFSA, , 2007b. In relation to the interaction between animal welfare and food safety aspects, the use of "penetrating captive bolt" stunning system has been recognised as one of the most appropriate systems in terms on animal welfare, when properly applied. However the potential dissemination of central nervous system emboli into edible tissues with consequent exposure of humans to BSE can not be excluded (EFSA, 2004c;2006c).
Considering previous literature about the importance of the interaction between animal welfare, animal disease and food safety (EC, 2000;EC, 2007;Blokhuis et al., 2008;Ribó et al., 2008b), all above-mentioned aspects and the role of EFSA on defining animal welfare in relation to animal health, it could be stated that, for assessing the overall impact of animal welfare, it is important to also consider factors with possible incidence on animal diseases and food safety. Finally, the evaluation of this overall impact and interaction between animal welfare, animal disease and food safety should help the development of control and monitoring plans at farm level.

Impact of the EFSA scientific assessments on the EU policy on the welfare of animals
The final aim of the scientific assessments on animal welfare by EFSA, is to support animal welfare EU legislation based on scientific evidence. In this sense, there are many examples which illustrate how EF-SA's scientific opinions are taken into consideration when legislative measures are proposed by the European Commission (EC, 2002;Blokhuis et al., 2008;Ribó et al., 2008a, b).
Council Regulation (EC) No /2005 (EC, 2005) on the protection of animals during transport amends previous EU legislation on Animal Welfare during transport and takes into account new available scientific evidence. Some of the measures laid down Table 2.

Foodborne pathogens Risk of Toxoplasmosis, Salmonellosis and Brucellosis
in this new Regulation take into consideration the conclusions and recommendations, from previous EFSA Scientific Opinions on Animal Transport (EFSA, 2004c(EFSA, , 2004d and hence are based on scientific evidence. Table 3 presents some examples of the impact of the scientifically based conclusions and recommendations on the measures laid down in the Regulation. The EFSA opinion on the animal health and welfare risks associated with the import of wild birds other than poultry into the European Union (EFSA, 2006a) was adopted in October 2006. Following some of the recommendations of the Scientific Opinion, the European Commission adopted in November 2006 a Commission Decision (EC, 2006) which, in summary, permanently banned the import of "pet birds" and wild caught birds, allowing only the import of captive- bred birds only from authorised countries.
The AHAW Panel adopted in 2004 and 2006 two scientific opinions (EFSA, 2004c;2006c) on the welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing (main commercial species: cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses and farmed fish and deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese and quail, respectively) with consideration of Directive 93/9/ EC. The opinions focused on the welfare at the point of application of the main stunning and stun/killing methods. Killing of animals without stunning and stunning and killing methods for disease control were also considered. The two EFSA opinions on slaughter and killing, taken together, address stunning and killing of most species kept for farming purposes within the EU. The Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing made last 8 September 2008 (EC, 2008), clearly states that EU legislation on this area should be updated to take into account those EFSA scientific opinions. It is also written in the proposal that fish species are not included, as further scientific opinions and economic evaluation on farmed fish are also needed. Furthermore, EFSA received a mandate on the welfare aspects of the stunning and killing of farmed fish on June 2008 and the respective scientific opinions are expected to be adopted during 2009. Table 3.
Impact of the scientific evidence in the provisions of Regulation (EC) no. 1/2005 (adapted from Ribó et al., 2008b). Council Regulation (1/2005) The education of personnel involved in handling animals, moving animals, or driving vehicles can greatly improve animal welfare.