Reflecting on recent major animal disease outbreaks in Europe, Roxane Feller, Secretary General of AnimalhealthEurope, is calling for an urgent revision to Europe’s approach to animal disease prevention.
In the increasingly complicated environment of animal disease control, Europe is facing a watershed moment. In recent years, the continent has seen an increase in the prevalence and geographic spread of transboundary and emerging animal diseases. Climate change, globalisation, and the increasing interdependence of ecosystems have all contributed to this trend.
What were once considered remote concerns, such as certain strains of bluetongue virus or African swine fever, are now recurring threats within the European Union’s borders.
Following these advances, as outlined in the 2024 AnimalhealthEurope annual report and corresponding policy recommendations, there is a growing understanding that the traditional, reactive approach to disease prevention is no longer adequate. A co-ordinated, forward-thinking immunisation policy is more than just a technical or regulatory consideration, it is critical for public health, food security, and economic stability.
A new approach to animal disease prevention and response
Historically, the European reaction to animal disease epidemics has been primarily reactive. When a new outbreak is detected, the first response is often quick containment measures, which are frequently followed by urgent demands to the animal health sector to hasten vaccine research and deployment. While this paradigm has occasionally helped to mitigate damage, its limitations have become increasingly apparent. The 2023-2024 outbreak (still ongoing) of blue tongue virus serotype 3 (BTV3) in the Netherlands offers a dramatic illustration. In September 2023, BTV3 emerged in the Netherlands, infecting over 5,000 livestock farms, with an additional 55,000 sheep dying compared to the same period in 2020–2022. Although the animal health sector was successful in creating and disseminating a vaccine swiftly, the absence of a pre-existing preparedness and response structure slowed the overall response.
The highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks share a similar story. Between October 2021 and September 2022, Europe experienced a total of 2,520 outbreaks in poultry, with 37 European countries affected. This resulted in 50 million birds culled in affected establishments. This is again repeated with the current foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, which have posed similar issues and seen measures such as animal culling and border closures applied. These occurrences underscore the systemic inefficiencies inherent in a strategy that waits for disease to manifest before action is taken. And it is contradiction to the principle ‘prevention is better than cure’, which was a key tenet of the European Union’s animal health strategy from 2007-2013.
Increasing preparedness for animal disease
The idea that preparedness should be based on foresight rather than reaction is gaining support, especially as it becomes obvious that the next animal disease outbreak is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. Europe’s current reliance on a reactive paradigm exposes it to 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 crucially, the lack of co-ordinated demand planning jeopardises the economic viability of vaccine manufacturers, who are willing to help but may be hesitant to invest in solutions without clear, predictable signals from public officials. This dynamic eventually results in a vicious cycle in which tardy public action breeds delayed industry response, exacerbating the severity of disease outbreaks.
One Health
Furthermore, the issue extends beyond animal welfare and the agricultural sector. Zoonotic illnesses – those that can be transmitted from animals to people – are becoming an increasingly common source of developing infectious risks. The COVID-19 pandemic, alongside outbreaks of Ebola, MERS, and SARS, have served as a reminder to the world community of the interconnection of human and animal health.
According to the World Organisation for Animal Health, over 75% of new human infectious diseases begin in animals, with scientists saying that around 72% of these pathogens have a wildlife origin. In this context, vaccination of animal populations is crucial not only for controlling animal-specific diseases, but also for reducing the possibility of zoonotic spread. As a result, a systematic and proactive vaccination policy is crucial for pandemic preparedness, bridging the gap between animal health and broader public health efforts.
This awareness is important to the One Health approach, which promotes a holistic view of human, animal and ecological health. However, despite it gaining awareness in policy conversations, One Health remains underutilised in practice. In global health policymaking, animal and environmental concerns are frequently overlooked.
This fragmented approach leads to systems that are reactive, isolated, and ultimately less effective. Incorporating veterinary perspectives, rigorous biosecurity measures, and strategic vaccine development planning into health governance frameworks would not only be consistent with the One Health ideology, but would also strengthen communities’ resilience in the face of increasingly complex biological threats.
Policy
The diversity of approaches among EU Member States is a significant barrier to the development of a co-ordinated animal vaccination policy, levels of preparedness and animal movement restrictions. This fragmented landscape impedes efficient disease control and complicates the internal market. A co-ordinated EU response – one that allows cross-border vaccination programmes, establishes uniform rules, and distributes resources – is critical for attaining efficiency and equity. The recent demand by numerous Member States for co-ordinated immunisation efforts, backed by the Agrifish Council in October 2024, is a major step toward achieving this aim, but clear implementation mechanisms are still needed.
Compounding the problem is that existing EU trade policies do not necessarily promote a pro-vaccination attitude. Vaccinated animals may be restricted in cross-border trade due to concerns about disease detection or residual levels. This is particularly short-sighted as today’s animal health technologies allow for serological differentiation between vaccinated and naturally infected animals. DIVA vaccines, which stands for Differentiation of Infected from Vaccinated Animals, also known as marker vaccines, are particularly useful in areas where diseases are endemic, as they enable vaccination while maintaining the ability to detect and monitor outbreaks.
This policy ambiguity prevents farmers from using vaccinations proactively. The consequence is a conundrum in which disease-prevention methods exist but the incentives to adopt them are insufficient or misplaced. To break this impasse, trade frameworks clearly need to be re-evaluated so that vaccination is viewed as a symbol of best practice rather than a liability.
Inclusive dialogue
Farmers must also be meaningfully included in this discourse. Vaccine uptake is not guaranteed just because they are available. Practical issues, such as cost and logistics, as well as doubts about the full eradication of the disease, may affect farm-level decisions. Any effective vaccination campaign must therefore incorporate outreach, education and support mechanisms that are specific to the reality of European agriculture. Additionally, financial risk-sharing systems or public-private partnerships might be implemented to encourage vaccine production and use, particularly for diseases with low economic returns but important public health implications.
Currently undergoing revision, the EU Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429) sets a legislative framework for addressing transmissible animal diseases. However, the continually changing nature of disease threats necessitates a more adaptable and flexible regulatory framework. The ongoing review of these rules provides an opportunity to implement more flexible methods for updating disease lists, authorising vaccinations, and encouraging cross-border collaboration. The development of EU-level vaccine banks and antigen repositories, and diagnostic reagent banks could also be investigated in order to facilitate quick deployment during emergencies.
Crucially, this transition will rely heavily on strong co-ordination between public authorities and animal health companies. A structured mechanism for regular dialogue – in which the parties can analyse surveillance data, assess risks; and co-ordinate responses – would considerably improve readiness. Predictable demand signals would allow businesses to invest in research and development, while public authorities would profit from greater foresight and faster response times. Such a partnership model, based on transparency and mutual confidence, is not only desirable but also required for the transition from a reactive to a preventive paradigm. The value of early warning systems and digital tools should not be overlooked. Surveillance data can provide useful insights into disease trends and outbreak probability, laying the groundwork for proactive immunisation initiatives.
In this context, investments in data infrastructure, diagnostic capability and real-time monitoring technology must co-exist with policy changes. Preparedness cannot be improvised; it must be planned, funded and institutionalised.
A unified strategy, led by One Health principles
As a whole, the evidence for an organised immunisation strategy in animal health is overwhelming. The research indicates that reactive approaches are no longer adequate in the face of rapidly evolving, cross-border disease threats. Inaction has far-reaching effects, including food insecurity, economic instability and public health concerns. A unified animal vaccination strategy based on One Health principles and implemented through EU-wide co-operation provides a path to enhanced resilience.
Please note, this article will also appear in our Animal Health Special Focus publication.
