Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Marianne Chemaly is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Marianne Chemaly.


EFSA Journal | 2017

EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA)

David Murphy; Antonia Ricci; Zanda Auce; J. Gabriel Beechinor; Hanne Bergendahl; Rory Breathnach; Jiří Bureš; João Pedro Duarte Da Silva; Judita Hederová; Peter Hekman; Cornelia Ibrahim; Emil Kozhuharov; Gábor Kulcsár; Eva Lander Persson; Johann M. Lenhardsson; Petras Mačiulskis; Ioannis Malemis; Ljiljana Markus‐Cizelj; Alia Michaelidou‐Patsia; Martti Nevalainen; Paolo Pasquali; Jean‐Claude Rouby; Johan Schefferlie; Wilhelm Schlumbohm; Marc Schmit; Stephen Spiteri; Stanko Srčič; Lollita Taban; Toomas Tiirats; Bruno Urbain

Abstract EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food‐producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non‐prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on‐farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Update of the list of QPS‐recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 6: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2017

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Rosina Girones; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Lieve Herman; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Pier Sandro Cocconcelli; Günter Klein; Luísa Peixe; Miguel Prieto Maradona; Amparo Querol; Juan E. Suárez; Ingvar Sundh; Just Vlak; Sandra Correia; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSAs scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSAs scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. Between the end of September 2016 and March 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 87 applications for market authorisation. From these, 32 biological agents already had a QPS status, and 37 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. Streptomyces species (Streptomyces cinnamonensis, Streptomyces mobaraensis and Streptomyces violaceoruber), Bacillus circulans (three notifications) and Escherichia coli (seven notifications) were re‐confirmed not suitable for QPS. Streptomyces rubiginosus and Streptomyces netropsis, not evaluated within the previous mandate, were also not recommended for QPS. Streptomyces spp. and E. coli will be excluded from further QPS evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, which has never been evaluated before, was not recommended for the QPS list and for Pseudomonas amyloderamosa, the QPS assessment was not applicable because it is not a validated species. Lactobacillus animalis was a new taxonomic unit recommended to have the QPS status.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Genetic resistance to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in goats

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Panagiotis N. Skandamis; Niko Speybroeck; Marion Simmons; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Pier‐Luigi Acutis; Olivier Andreoletti; Wilfred Goldmann; Jan Langeveld; Jack J Windig; Angel Ortiz Pelaez; Emma Snary

Abstract Breeding programmes to promote resistance to classical scrapie, similar to those for sheep in existing transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) regulations, have not been established in goats. The European Commission requested a scientific opinion from EFSA on the current knowledge of genetic resistance to TSE in goats. An evaluation tool, which considers both the weight of evidence and strength of resistance to classical scrapie of alleles in the goat PRNP gene, was developed and applied to nine selected alleles of interest. Using the tool, the quality and certainty of the field and experimental data are considered robust enough to conclude that the K222, D146 and S146 alleles both confer genetic resistance against classical scrapie strains known to occur naturally in the EU goat population, with which they have been challenged both experimentally and under field conditions. The weight of evidence for K222 is greater than that currently available for the D146 and S146 alleles and for the ARR allele in sheep in 2001. Breeding for resistance can be an effective tool for controlling classical scrapie in goats and it could be an option available to member states, both at herd and population levels. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of K222, D146 and S146 alleles on susceptibility to atypical scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or on health and production traits. These alleles are heterogeneously distributed across the EU Member States and goat breeds, but often at low frequencies (< 10%). Given these low frequencies, high selection pressure may have an adverse effect on genetic diversity so any breeding for resistance programmes should be developed at Member States, rather than EU level and their impact monitored, with particular attention to the potential for any negative impact in rare or small population breeds.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) in cervids

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Moez Sanaa; Panagiotis Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Sylvie L. Benestad; Dolores Gavier‐Widen; Michael W. Miller; Giuseppe Ru; Glenn C. Telling; Morten Tryland; Angel Ortiz Pelaez; Marion Simmons

Abstract In April and May of 2016, Norway confirmed two cases of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in a wild reindeer and a wild moose, respectively. In the light of this emerging issue, the European Commission requested EFSA to recommend surveillance activities and, if necessary, additional animal health risk‐based measures to prevent the introduction of the disease and the spread into/within the EU, specifically Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden, and considering seven wild, semidomesticated and farmed cervid species (Eurasian tundra reindeer, Finnish (Eurasian) forest reindeer, moose, roe deer, white‐tailed deer, red deer and fallow deer). It was also asked to assess any new evidence on possible public health risks related to CWD. A 3‐year surveillance system is proposed, differing for farmed and wild or semidomesticated cervids, with a two‐stage sampling programme at the farm/geographically based population unit level (random sampling) and individual level (convenience sampling targeting high‐risk animals). The current derogations of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1918 present a risk of introduction of CWD into the EU. Measures to prevent the spread of CWD within the EU are dependent upon the assumption that the disease is already present; this is currently unknown. The measures listed are intended to contain (limit the geographic extent of a focus) and/or to control (actively stabilise/reduce infection rates in an affected herd or population) the disease where it occurs. With regard to the zoonotic potential, the human species barrier for CWD prions does not appear to be absolute. These prions are present in the skeletal muscle and other edible tissues, so humans may consume infected material in enzootic areas. Epidemiological investigations carried out to date make no association between the occurrence of sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans and exposure to CWD prions.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Hazard analysis approaches for certain small retail establishments in view of the application of their food safety management systems

Antonia Ricci; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Ana Allende; Lars Barregard; Liesbeth Jacxsens; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Moez Sanaa; Theo Varzakas; Katleen Baert; Michaela Hempen; Valentina Rizzi; Yves Van der Stede; Declan Bolton

Abstract Under current European hygiene legislation, food businesses are obliged to develop and implement food safety management systems (FSMS) including prerequisite programme (PRP) activities and hazard analysis and critical control point principles. This requirement is especially challenging for small food retail establishments, where a lack of expertise and other resources may limit the development and implementation of effective FSMS. In this opinion, a simplified approach to food safety management is developed and presented based on a fundamental understanding of processing stages (flow diagram) and the activities contributing to increased occurrence of the hazards (biological, chemical (including allergens) or physical) that may occur. The need to understand and apply hazard or risk ranking within the hazard analysis is removed and control is achieved using PRP activities as recently described in the European Commission Notice 2016/C278, but with the addition of a PRP activity covering ‘product information and customer awareness’. Where required, critical limits, monitoring and record keeping are also included. Examples of the simplified approach are presented for five types of retail establishments: butcher, grocery, bakery, fish and ice cream shop.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases born after the total feed ban

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Moez Sanaa; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Amie Adkin; Aline de Koeijer; Christian Ducrot; John W. Griffin; Angel Ortiz Pelaez; Francesca Latronico; Giuseppe Ru

Abstract Sixty bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases of Classical or unknown type (BARB‐60 cases) were born after the date of entry into force of the EU total feed ban on 1 January 2001. The European Commission has requested EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the most likely origin(s) of these BARB‐60 cases; whether feeding with material contaminated with the BSE agent can be excluded as the origin of any of these cases and, if so, whether there is enough scientific evidence to conclude that such cases had a spontaneous origin. The source of infection cannot be ascertained at the individual level for any BSE case, including these BARB‐60 cases, so uncertainty remains high about the origin of disease in each of these animals, but when compared with other biologically plausible sources of infection (maternal, environmental, genetic, iatrogenic), feed‐borne exposure is the most likely. This exposure was apparently excluded for only one of these BARB‐60 cases. However, there is considerable uncertainty associated with the data collected through the field investigation of these cases, due to a time span of several years between the potential exposure of the animal and the confirmation of disease, recall difficulty, and the general paucity of documented objective evidence available in the farms at the time of the investigation. Thus, feeding with material contaminated with the BSE agent cannot be excluded as the origin of any of the BARB‐60 cases, nor is it possible to definitively attribute feed as the cause of any of the BARB‐60 cases. A case of disease is classified as spontaneous by a process of elimination, excluding all other definable possibilities; with regard to the BARB‐60 cases, it is not possible to conclude that any of them had a spontaneous origin.


EFSA Journal | 2018

Scientific opinion on chronic wasting disease (II)

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Panagiotis N. Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Sylvie L. Benestad; Dolores Gavier‐Widen; Michael W. Miller; Glenn C. Telling; Morten Tryland; Francesca Latronico; Angel Ortiz-Pelaez; Pietro Stella; Marion Simmons

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on chronic wasting disease in two parts. Part one, on surveillance, animal health risk‐based measures and public health risks, was published in January 2017. This opinion (part two) addresses the remaining Terms of Reference, namely, ‘are the conclusions and recommendations in the EFSA opinion of June 2004 on diagnostic methods for chronic wasting disease still valid? If not, an update should be provided’, and ‘update the conclusions of the 2010 EFSA opinion on the results of the European Union survey on chronic wasting disease in cervids, as regards its occurrence in the cervid population in the European Union’. Data on the performance of authorised rapid tests in North America are not comprehensive, and are more limited than those available for the tests approved for statutory transmissible spongiform encephalopathies surveillance applications in cattle and sheep. There are no data directly comparing available rapid test performances in cervids. The experience in Norway shows that the Bio‐Rad TeSeE™ SAP test, immunohistochemistry and western blotting have detected reindeer, moose and red deer cases. It was shown that testing both brainstem and lymphoid tissue from each animal increases the surveillance sensitivity. Shortcomings in the previous EU survey limited the reliability of inferences that could be made about the potential disease occurrence in Europe. Subsequently, testing activity in Europe was low, until the detection of the disease in Norway, triggering substantial testing efforts in that country. Available data neither support nor refute the conclusion that chronic wasting disease does not occur widely in the EU and do not preclude the possibility that the disease was present in Europe before the survey was conducted. It appears plausible that chronic wasting disease could have become established in Norway more than a decade ago.


EFSA Journal | 2018

Evaluation of the application for a new alternative processing method for animal by‐products of Category 3 material (ChainCraft B.V.)

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Lieve Herman; Konstantinos Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis N. Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Rosina Girones; Avelino Alvarez Ordoñez; John W. Griffin; Sandra Correia; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez

Abstract EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Guidance on the requirements for the development of microbiological criteria

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Konstantinos Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis N. Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Jens Kirk Andersen; Mieke Uyttendaele; Antonio Valero; Maria Teresa da Silva Felício; Winy Messens; Birgit Nørrung

Abstract The European Food Safety Authority asked the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) to deliver a scientific opinion providing: (i) a review of the approaches used by the BIOHAZ Panel to address requests from risk managers to suggest the establishment of microbiological criteria; (ii) guidance on the required scientific evidence, data and methods/tools necessary for considering the development of microbiological criteria for pathogenic microorganisms and indicator microorganisms; (iii) recommendations on methods/tools to design microbiological criteria and (iv) guidelines for the requirements and tasks of risk assessors, compared to risk managers, in relation to microbiological criteria. This document provides guidance on approaches when: (i) a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is available, (ii) prevalence and concentration data are available, but not a QMRA model, and (iii) neither a QMRA nor prevalence and/or concentration data are available. The role of risk assessors should be focused on assessing the impact of different microbiological criteria on public health and on product compliance. It is the task of the risk managers to: (1) formulate unambiguous questions, preferably in consultation with risk assessors, (2) decide on the establishment of a microbiological criterion, or target in primary production sectors, and to formulate the specific intended purpose for using such criteria, (3) consider the uncertainties in impact assessments on public health and on product compliance and (4) decide the point in the food chain where the microbiological criteria are intended to be applied and decide on the actions which should be taken in case of non‐compliance. It is the task of the risk assessors to support risk managers to ensure that questions are formulated in a way that a precise answer can be given, if sufficient information is available, and to ensure clear and unambiguous answers, including the assessment of uncertainties, based on available scientific evidence.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Evaluation of the Application for new alternative biodiesel production process for rendered fat of Cat 1 (BDI‐RepCat process, AT)

Antonia Ricci; Ana Allende; Declan Bolton; Marianne Chemaly; Robert H. Davies; Rosina Girones; Lieve Herman; Konstantinos Koutsoumanis; Roland Lindqvist; Birgit Nørrung; Lucy J. Robertson; Giuseppe Ru; Moez Sanaa; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis N. Skandamis; Emma Snary; Niko Speybroeck; Benno Ter Kuile; John Threlfall; Helene Wahlström; Avelino Alvarez Ordoñez; John W. Griffin; John Spiropoulos; Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch; Sandra Correia; Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez

Abstract A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat of all categories of animal by‐products was assessed. The process was compared to the approved biodiesel production process described in Chapter IV Section 2 D of Annex IV of Commission Regulation (EU) 142/2011. Tallow derived from Category 1 material is treated according to Method 1 from the same Regulation (133°C, 20 min, 3 bar) and subsequently mixed with 15% methanol, heated to reaction temperature (220°C) in several heat exchangers and transferred into the continuous conversion reactor by means of a high pressure pump (80 bar) for 30 min. In the conversion phase, there is an exposure to methanol in the absence of alkaline or acidic conditions. The impact of this procedure on the thermostability of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) has not been assessed in the literature. After the reaction, the biodiesel/glycerol mixture is distilled under vacuum at a minimum temperature of 150°C and a maximum pressure of 10 mbar, which is equivalent to the distillation step in the approved biodiesel production process, for which a 3 log10 reduction factor in PrP27–30 was obtained. Therefore, a similar level of TSE infectivity reduction could be expected for that phase of the method. A previous EFSA Opinion established that a reduction of 6 log10 in TSE infectivity should be achieved by any proposed alternative method in order to be equivalent to the approved processing method. This level of reduction has not been shown with experimental trials run under conditions equivalent to the ones described for the RepCat process. It was not possible to conclude whether or not the level of TSE infectivity reduction in the RepCat process is at least of 6 log10. Therefore, it was also not possible to conclude about the equivalence with the approved biodiesel production process.

Collaboration


Dive into the Marianne Chemaly's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ana Allende

Spanish National Research Council

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John Threlfall

Health Protection Agency

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marion Simmons

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Robert H. Davies

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Helene Wahlström

National Veterinary Institute

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Roland Lindqvist

National Food Administration

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lucy J. Robertson

Norwegian University of Life Sciences

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Niko Speybroeck

Université catholique de Louvain

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge