## Goat carcases

<table><caption>**TABLE 16** Comparisons of proportions (%) of *Salmonella*-positive single samples from goat carcases after dressing but before chilling, by sampler and reporting MS, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority (CA)</th><th colspan="4">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>119</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.1]<sup>b</sup></td><td>149</td><td>2 (1.3)</td><td>[0.16; 4.8]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 30.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>178</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.1]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>65</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 5.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>15</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 21.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>206</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 17.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>43</td><td>3 (7.0)</td><td>[1.5; 19.1]</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 8.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>72</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 5.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>981</td><td>17 (1.7)</td><td>[1.0; 2.8]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>22</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 15.4]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>49</td><td>4 (8.2)</td><td>[2.3; 19.6]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>92</td><td>1 (1.1)</td><td>[0.03; 5.9]</td><td>57</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>694</td><td>1 (0.14)</td><td>[0; 0.80]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 16.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>15</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 21.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>22</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 15.4]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>152</td><td>14 (9.2)</td><td>[5.1; 15.0]</td><td>30</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 11.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.0724</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27 + XI)</td><td>573</td><td>18 (3.1)</td><td>[1.9; 4.9]</td><td>2496</td><td>24 (0.96)</td><td>[0.62; 1.4]</td><td><0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27 + XI) providing CA and FBOp data</td><td>508</td><td>18 (3.5)</td><td>[2.1; 5.5]</td><td>1450</td><td>19 (1.3)</td><td>[0.79; 2.0]</td><td><0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: –, Data not reported; [–], The confidence interval is not provided because of the small sample size.

<sup>a</sup>p-value: NS, not significant.

<sup>b</sup>One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.

## Horse carcases

<table><caption>**TABLE 17** Comparisons of proportions (%) of *Salmonella*-positive single samples from horse carcases before chilling, by sampler and reporting MS, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority (CA)</th><th colspan="4">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 10.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>50</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 7.1]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 8.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>14</td><td>1 (7.1)</td><td>[0.18; 33.9]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>65</td><td>5 (7.7)</td><td>[2.5; 17.0]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>143</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>635</td><td>1 (0.16)</td><td>[0; 0.87]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>[–]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>367</td><td>19 (5.2)</td><td>[3.1; 8.0]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>45</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 7.9]<sup>b</sup></td><td>125</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.9]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>39</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 9.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>53</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td>190</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.9]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 17 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority (CA)</th><th colspan="3">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested samples</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 10.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 16.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>200</td><td>1 (0.50)</td><td>[0.01; 2.8]</td><td>NS</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27 + XI)</td><td>303</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>1761</td><td>27 (1.5)</td><td>[1.0; 2.2]</td><td>0.0134</td><td>CA &lt; FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27 + XI) providing CA and FBOp data</td><td>296</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>1200</td><td>2 (0.17)</td><td>[0.02; 0.60]</td><td>NS</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: –, Data not reported; [–], The confidence interval is not provided because of the small sample size.

<sup>a</sup>p-value: NS, not significant.

<sup>b</sup>One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.

## Occurrence in food

Monitoring data reported for food sampling units, which do not fit with the criteria described in the previous paragraphs, were described by merging investigations from all sampling stages (primary production, manufacturing, distribution and others), all samplers except 'HACCP and own-checks' and 'private sampling', and all sampling units (single, batch and slaughter animal batch). Only sampling units collected through 'objective sampling' were considered in this context.

### RTE food and non-RTE food

For 2023, 86,115 RTE and 478,743 non-RTE food sampling units were reported from 24 and 28 MSs with very low (0.25%) and low (2.2%) proportions of positive samples, respectively.

Within the category of RTE food, the vast majority of the sampled matrices had very low proportions of *Salmonella*-positive units, with the exception of 'sprouts (sprouted seeds)', for which the prevalence of positive sampling units was low (1.4%; N=644).

Within the category of non-RTE food, the highest percentages of positive sampling units were reported for 'meat and meat products from turkeys' (4.3%; N=16,533), 'meat and meat products from broilers' (4.1%; N=106,699), 'other meat and meat products' (2.1%; N=108,988), 'meat and meat products from pigs' (1.8%; N=129,115), 'mixed meat products' (1.7%; N=9498) and 'milk and milk products' (1.1%; N=1566). *Salmonella* isolates were also reported from 'fish and fishery products' (0.81%; N=8896), 'meat and meat products from bovine animals' (0.50%; N=84,907), 'cereals, dried seeds' (0.47%; N=638), 'eggs and egg products' (0.21%; N=6828) and 'fruits, vegetables and juices' (0.16%; N=1262). Comparing the results for the year 2023 and the previous 3-year period (2020–2022), the overall percentage of *Salmonella*-positive sampling units was rather stable, both for RTE food sampling units (0.25% in 2023 and 0.21% in the previous 3 years) and for non-RTE food (2.2% in 2023 and 2.1% previously).

### Fresh meat

In 2023, 2.1% of fresh meat sampling units (N=396,548) tested positive for *Salmonella*. The highest percentages of positive samples were reported for 'fresh meat from turkeys' (N=16,110; 4.1%) and 'fresh meat from broilers' (N=98,929; 3.9%). Compared to the previous 3-year period (2020–2022), no important changes in prevalence were detected.
2.4.4 | Salmonella in animals

Poultry monitoring data in accordance with the national control programmes for Salmonella

Achievement of Salmonella reduction targets

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

**FIGURE 3** Prevalence of poultry flocks (breeding flocks of *Gallus gallus*, laying hens, broilers, breeding turkeys and fattening turkeys) positive for target *Salmonella* serovars, EU MSs and non-MS countries, 2023. Vertical bars indicate the target to be reached, which was set at 1% for all poultry populations with the exception of laying hens, for which it was 2%. The solid red vertical lines indicate the target for all poultry populations except laying hens, while the dotted vertical lines denote the target specifically for laying hens. For laying hens, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 517/2011,<fnref n="22" /> Lithuania and Luxembourg reached the reduction target (Article 1(b): one adult flock can remain positive for target *Salmonella* serovars for MSs with less than 50 flocks). For breeding turkeys, according to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1190/2012, Germany reached the reduction target (Article 1: one adult flock can remain positive for target *Salmonella* serovars for MSs with less than 100 flocks).

<footnote n="22">²²Commission Regulation (EU) No 517/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of certain *Salmonella* serotypes in laying hens of Gallus gallus and amending Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010. OJ L 138, 26.5.2011, p. 45–51.</footnote>
Breeding flocks of Gallus gallus

All MSs and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) (except Poland) reported *Salmonella* NCP data for breeding flocks of *G. gallus*. Luxembourg and Malta do not have such flocks. In 2023, the EU *Salmonella* flock prevalence was 2.3% (compared with 2.1% and 2.5% for 2022 and 2021, respectively), whereas the prevalence of flocks that were positive for any of the five target serovars (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium, S. Infantis, S. Virchow, S. Hadar) was 0.58% (compared with 0.84% and 0.58% in 2022 and 2021, respectively) (Table 18). All reporting countries, except Greece, Ireland and Sweden, met the flock prevalence reduction target of 1% maximum (Figure 3).

<table><caption>TABLE 18 *Salmonella* in breeding flocks of *Gallus gallus* during the production period (all types of breeding flocks, flock-based data) in countries running control programmes in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">N tested flocks</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for <em>Salmonella</em> spp.</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for target serovars</th><th colspan="5">N (%) positive flocks for</th></tr><tr><th>S. Enteritidis</th><th>S. Typhimurium<sup>a</sup></th><th>S. Hadar</th><th>S. Infantis</th><th>S. Virchow</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>176</td><td>2 (1.1)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>570</td><td>8 (1.4)</td><td>4 (0.70)</td><td>3 (0.53)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.18)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>327</td><td>3 (0.92)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>88</td><td>5 (5.7)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>32</td><td>3 (9.4)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>649</td><td>4 (0.62)</td><td>2 (0.31)</td><td>2 (0.31)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>208</td><td>3 (1.4)</td><td>1 (0.48)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.48)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>142</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>1308</td><td>26 (2.0)</td><td>12 (0.92)</td><td>5 (0.38)</td><td>6 (0.46)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.08)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>937</td><td>8 (0.85)</td><td>2 (0.21)</td><td>1 (0.11)</td><td>1 (0.11)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Greece</strong></td><td><strong>209</strong></td><td><strong>13 (6.2)</strong></td><td><strong>7 (3.3)</strong></td><td><strong>5 (2.4)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.48)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.48)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>507</td><td>5 (0.99)</td><td>5 (0.99)</td><td>2 (0.39)</td><td>3 (0.59)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ireland</strong></td><td><strong>138</strong></td><td><strong>3 (2.2)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (1.4)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.72)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.72)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>1228</td><td>36 (2.9)</td><td>6 (0.49)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (0.24)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (0.24)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>43</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>1487</td><td>11 (0.74)</td><td>6 (0.40)</td><td>3 (0.20)</td><td>1 (0.07)</td><td>0</td><td>2 (0.13)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>515</td><td>12 (2.3)</td><td>3 (0.58)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (0.58)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>512</td><td>12 (2.3)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>121</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>130</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>1651</td><td>102 (6.2)</td><td>14 (0.85)</td><td>4 (0.24)</td><td>4 (0.24)</td><td>1 (0.06)</td><td>5 (0.30)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sweden</strong></td><td><strong>160</strong></td><td><strong>2 (1.2)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (1.2)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (1.2)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>248</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>11,428</strong></td><td><strong>258 (2.3)</strong></td><td><strong>66 (0.58)</strong></td><td><strong>28 (0.25)</strong></td><td><strong>24 (0.21)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.01)</strong></td><td><strong>12 (0.11)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.01)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>45</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>252</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>125</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Countries not meeting the reduction target are highlighted in bold font.

Flocks of laying hens

All MSs and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) reported *Salmonella* NCP data for laying hen flocks (Table 19). In 2023, the EU *Salmonella* flock prevalence was 3.7% (compared with 3.4% and 3.3% in 2022 and 2021, respectively), whereas the EU prevalence of flocks positive for any of the two target serovars (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium) was 1.4%, which was comparable with previous years (1.2% and 1.3% in 2022 and 2021, respectively).

<footnote>ª*Salmonella* Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-).</footnote>
Seven MSs (Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, France, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland) did not meet the reduction target of 2% or less (Figure 3). In 2022, the number of MSs not meeting the target was four.

<table><caption>TABLE 19 *Salmonella* in laying hen flocks of *Gallus gallus* during the production period (flock-based data) in countries running control programmes in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">N tested flocks</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for <i>Salmonella</i> spp.</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for target serovars</th><th colspan="2">N (%) positive flocks for</th></tr><tr><th>S. Enteritidis</th><th>S. Typhimurium<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>3430</td><td>45 (1.3)</td><td>12 (0.35)</td><td>2 (0.06)</td><td>10 (0.29)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Belgium</strong></td><td><strong>751</strong></td><td><strong>28 (3.7)</strong></td><td><strong>17 (2.3)</strong></td><td><strong>15 (2.0)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (0.27)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria<sup>b</sup></td><td>1392</td><td>10 (0.72)</td><td>2 (0.14)</td><td>2 (0.14)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Croatia</strong></td><td><strong>195</strong></td><td><strong>31 (15.9)</strong></td><td><strong>5 (2.6)</strong></td><td><strong>3 (1.5)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (1.0)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>106</td><td>14 (13.2)</td><td>1 (0.94)</td><td>1 (0.94)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>484</td><td>12 (2.5)</td><td>9 (1.9)</td><td>9 (1.9)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>378</td><td>7 (1.9)</td><td>1 (0.26)</td><td>1 (0.26)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Estonia</strong></td><td><strong>23</strong></td><td><strong>2 (8.7)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (8.7)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (4.3)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (4.3)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>538</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>France</strong></td><td><strong>6727</strong></td><td><strong>314 (4.7)</strong></td><td><strong>170 (2.5)</strong></td><td><strong>126 (1.9)</strong></td><td><strong>44 (0.65)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>6840</td><td>63 (0.92)</td><td>34 (0.50)</td><td>24 (0.35)</td><td>10 (0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>704</td><td>38 (5.4)</td><td>3 (0.43)</td><td>2 (0.28)</td><td>1 (0.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>813</td><td>15 (1.8)</td><td>15 (1.8)</td><td>14 (1.7)</td><td>1 (0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>465</td><td>2 (0.43)</td><td>2 (0.43)</td><td>0</td><td>2 (0.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>4606</td><td>368 (8.0)</td><td>48 (1.0)</td><td>36 (0.78)</td><td>12 (0.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>32</td><td>1 (3.1)</td><td>1 (3.1)<sup>c</sup></td><td>1 (3.1)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>42</td><td>2 (4.8)</td><td>1 (2.4)<sup>c</sup></td><td>1 (2.4)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Malta</strong></td><td><strong>127</strong></td><td><strong>26 (20.5)</strong></td><td><strong>3 (2.4)</strong></td><td><strong>3 (2.4)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Netherlands</strong></td><td><strong>2516</strong></td><td><strong>112 (4.5)</strong></td><td><strong>87 (3.5)</strong></td><td><strong>83 (3.3)</strong></td><td><strong>4 (0.16)</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Poland</strong></td><td><strong>1424</strong></td><td><strong>66 (4.6)</strong></td><td><strong>38 (2.7)</strong></td><td><strong>36 (2.5)</strong></td><td><strong>2 (0.14)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>511</td><td>32 (6.3)</td><td>10 (2.0)</td><td>6 (1.2)</td><td>4 (0.78)</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>898</td><td>30 (3.3)</td><td>6 (0.67)</td><td>2 (0.22)</td><td>4 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>293</td><td>2 (0.68)</td><td>2 (0.68)</td><td>2 (0.68)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>257</td><td>5 (1.9)</td><td>1 (0.39)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.39)</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>3399</td><td>208 (6.1)</td><td>59 (1.7)</td><td>37 (1.1)</td><td>22 (0.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>1024</td><td>17 (1.7)</td><td>16 (1.6)</td><td>16 (1.6)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>737</td><td>2 (0.27)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>38,766</strong></td><td><strong>1452 (3.7)</strong></td><td><strong>545 (1.4)</strong></td><td><strong>423 (1.1)</strong></td><td><strong>122 (0.31)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>863</td><td>2 (0.23)</td><td>1 (0.12)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>821</td><td>11 (1.3)</td><td>11 (1.3)</td><td>8 (0.97)</td><td>3 (0.37)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Countries not meeting the reduction target are highlighted in bold font.

## Broiler flocks

All MSs and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) reported *Salmonella* NCP data for broiler flocks (Table 20). *Salmonella* was found in 3.9% (3.5% in 2022 and 3.8% in 2021) of the tested flocks. The EU prevalence of flocks positive for any of the two target serovars (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium) was 0.19%, which was similar to the prevalence in previous years (0.25% in 2022 and 0.28% in 2021). Lithuania and Luxembourg did not meet the reduction target of 1% or less (Figure 3), unlike in the previous year, when all MSs met the target.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>*Salmonella* Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium with the antigenic formula 1,4,[5],12:i:-.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>During the final phase of report production, Bulgaria reported a correction, stating that the number of tested laying hen flocks was 226, of which 3 (1.33%) were positive for target serovars. Notably, all three positive cases were identified as S. Enteritidis.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 517/2011, Article 1.1(b) 'for Member States with less than 50 flocks of adult laying hens, not more than one adult flock may remain positive', Lithuania and Luxembourg met the reduction target for laying hens.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 20 *Salmonella* in broiler flocks of *Gallus gallus* before slaughter (flock-based data) in countries running control programmes in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">N tested flocks</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for <em>Salmonella</em> spp.</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for target serovars</th><th colspan="2">N (%) positive flocks for</th></tr><tr><th>S. Enteritidis</th><th>S. Typhimurium<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>6232</td><td>198 (3.2)</td><td>5 (0.08)</td><td>2 (0.03)</td><td>3 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>11,294</td><td>244 (2.2)</td><td>19 (0.17)</td><td>3 (0.03)</td><td>16 (0.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>408</td><td>4 (0.98)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>3093</td><td>87 (2.8)</td><td>3 (0.10)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>2 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>950</td><td>4 (0.42)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>4776</td><td>55 (1.2)</td><td>21 (0.44)</td><td>20 (0.42)</td><td>1 (0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>3966</td><td>15 (0.38)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>685</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>3889</td><td>4 (0.10)</td><td>4 (0.10)</td><td>0</td><td>4 (0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>56,645</td><td>1431 (2.5)</td><td>360 (0.64)</td><td>187 (0.33)</td><td>173 (0.31)</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>20,486</td><td>204 (1.0)</td><td>6 (0.03)</td><td>2 (0.01)</td><td>4 (0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>8785</td><td>29 (0.33)</td><td>2 (0.02)</td><td>2 (0.02)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>7696</td><td>5 (0.06)</td><td>5 (0.06)</td><td>1 (0.01)</td><td>4 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>3658</td><td>59 (1.6)</td><td>28 (0.77)</td><td>0</td><td>28 (0.77)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>27,142</td><td>7364 (27.1)</td><td>30 (0.11)</td><td>24 (0.09)</td><td>6 (0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>768</td><td>19 (2.5)</td><td>2 (0.26)</td><td>0</td><td>2 (0.26)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Lithuania</strong></td><td><strong>191</strong></td><td><strong>18 (9.4)</strong></td><td><strong>17 (8.9)</strong></td><td><strong>17 (8.9)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Luxembourg</strong></td><td><strong>12</strong></td><td><strong>4 (33.3)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (8.3)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (8.3)</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>449</td><td>16 (3.6)</td><td>1 (0.22)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>15,605</td><td>428 (2.7)</td><td>17 (0.11)</td><td>4 (0.03)</td><td>13 (0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>49,342</td><td>11 (0.02)</td><td>3 (0.01)</td><td>3 (0.01)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>10,430</td><td>38 (0.36)</td><td>6 (0.06)</td><td>2 (0.02)</td><td>4 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>14,930</td><td>231 (1.5)</td><td>17 (0.11)</td><td>15 (0.10)</td><td>2 (0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>2481</td><td>46 (1.9)</td><td>2 (0.08)</td><td>2 (0.08)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>2512</td><td>346 (13.8)</td><td>4 (0.16)</td><td>0</td><td>4 (0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>37,791</td><td>1006 (2.7)</td><td>40 (0.11)</td><td>18 (0.05)</td><td>22 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>3912</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>7033</td><td>17 (0.24)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>305,161</strong></td><td><strong>11,884 (3.9)</strong></td><td><strong>595 (0.19)</strong></td><td><strong>305 (0.10)</strong></td><td><strong>290 (0.10)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>676</td><td>11 (1.6)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>4576</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>595</td><td>1 (0.17)</td><td>1 (0.17)</td><td>1 (0.17)</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Countries not meeting the reduction target are highlighted in bold font.

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2012,<fnref n="23" /> MSs must separately report the results obtained by the FBOp and the CA for broiler flocks. Hungary provided data exclusively from the CA, while Croatia, Lithuania and the Netherlands, as in the previous year, did not meet this requirement by failing to submit broiler flock data differentiated by sampler. A comparison of the prevalence of flocks positive for either of the two target serovars, based on CA and FBOp data, along with the *p*-value and its interpretation, is presented in Table 21. The prevalence found for official controls was significantly higher than for own-checks, both considering overall EU data and for nine MSs.

<footnote>ª*Salmonella* Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i-).</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2012 of 8 March 2012 concerning a Union target for the reduction of *Salmonella* Enteritidis and *Salmonella* Typhimurium in flocks of broilers, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 21 Comparisons of the prevalence of target *Salmonella* serovar-positive broiler flocks, by sampler and by reporting MS, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority (CA)</th><th colspan="3">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>123</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>6121</td><td>5 (0.08)</td><td>[0.03; 0.19]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>91</td><td>2 (2.2)</td><td>[0.27; 7.7]</td><td>11,280</td><td>17 (0.15)</td><td>[0.09; 0.24]</td><td>0.0099</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>129</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>3752</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.10]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 30.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>950</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.39]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>36</td><td>2 (5.6)</td><td>[0.68; 18.7]</td><td>4746</td><td>19 (0.40)</td><td>[0.24; 0.62]</td><td>0.0106</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>274</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td>3966</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>[0; 0.14]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>230</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>419</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.88]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>506</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.73]<sup>b</sup></td><td>3383</td><td>4 (0.12)</td><td>[0.03; 0.30]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>583</td><td>15 (2.6)</td><td>[1.4; 4.2]</td><td>56,062</td><td>345 (0.62)</td><td>[0.55; 0.68]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>294</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>20,484</td><td>6 (0.03)</td><td>[0.01; 0.06]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>101</td><td>2 (2.0)</td><td>[0.24; 7.0]</td><td>8785</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.04]<sup>b</sup></td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>7696</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.05]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>76</td><td>1 (1.3)</td><td>[0.03; 7.1]</td><td>3658</td><td>27 (0.74)</td><td>[0.49; 1.1]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>441</td><td>16 (3.6)</td><td>[2.1; 5.8]</td><td>27,081</td><td>14 (0.05)</td><td>[0.03; 0.09]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>759</td><td>2 (0.26)</td><td>[0.03; 0.95]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 26.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>12</td><td>1 (8.3)</td><td>[0.21; 38.5]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>5</td><td>1 (20.0)</td><td>[-]</td><td>444</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.83]<sup>b</sup></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Poland<sup>c</sup></td><td>1199</td><td>50 (4.2)</td><td>[3.1; 5.5]</td><td>49,264</td><td>19 (0.04)</td><td>[0.02; 0.06]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>104</td><td>1 (0.96)</td><td>[0.02; 5.2]</td><td>10,421</td><td>5 (0.05)</td><td>[0.02; 0.11]</td><td>0.0579</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>327</td><td>2 (0.61)</td><td>[0.07; 2.2]</td><td>14,565</td><td>15 (0.10)</td><td>[0.06; 0.17]</td><td>0.0526</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>24</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 14.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>2477</td><td>2 (0.08)</td><td>[0.01; 0.29]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>31</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 11.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>2481</td><td>4 (0.16)</td><td>[0.04; 0.41]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>437</td><td>4 (0.92)</td><td>[0.25; 2.3]</td><td>37,751</td><td>36 (0.10)</td><td>[0.07; 0.13]</td><td>0.0011</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>177</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.1]<sup>b</sup></td><td>3912</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>[0; 0.14]</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>49</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 7.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td>6984</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.05]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27+XI)</td><td>12,964</td><td>96 (0.74)</td><td>[0.60; 0.90]</td><td>279,757</td><td>523 (0.19)</td><td>[0.17; 0.20]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27+XI) providing CA and FBOp data</td><td>5268</td><td>96 (1.8)</td><td>[1.5; 2.2]</td><td>279,757</td><td>523 (0.19)</td><td>[0.17; 0.20]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: –, Data not reported; [–], The confidence interval is not provided because of the small sample size.

a p-value: NS, not significant.

b One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.

c The data reported by Poland in the context of Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2012 (50 flocks positive for target serovars tested by the CA and 19 by the FBOp) are not consistent with the data reported for broiler flocks as overall merged data (Table 20) (three flocks positive for target serovars).

Breeding flocks of turkeys

For breeding turkeys, 12 MSs and 2 non-MSs reported *Salmonella* NCP data, and the overall EU *Salmonella* flock prevalence was 6.4%, compared with 4.3% in 2022 and 3.9% in 2021. The prevalence of flocks positive for any of the two target serovars (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium) was 0.35% (0.32% and 0.49% in 2022 and 2021, respectively). All MSs met the reduction target of 1% (Figure 3, Table 22).
<table><caption>TABLE 22 *Salmonella* in breeding flocks of turkeys during the production period (flock-based data) in countries running control programmes in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">N tested flocks</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for <em>Salmonella</em> spp.</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for target serovars</th><th colspan="2">N (%) positive flocks for</th></tr><tr><th>S. Enteritidis</th><th>S. Typhimurium<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>398</td><td>17 (4.3)</td><td>2 (0.50)</td><td>2 (0.50)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>79</td><td>2 (2.5)</td><td>1 (1.3)<sup>b</sup></td><td>0</td><td>1 (1.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>4</td><td>2 (50.0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>102</td><td>1 (0.98)</td><td>1 (0.98)</td><td>1 (0.98)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>279</td><td>41 (14.7)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>122</td><td>1 (0.82)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>53</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>99</td><td>10 (10.1)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>1156</strong></td><td><strong>74 (6.4)</strong></td><td><strong>4 (0.35)</strong></td><td><strong>3 (0.26)</strong></td><td><strong>1 (0.09)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2012,<fnref n="24" /> MSs are required to report breeding turkey flock results separately for the CA and FBOp, in addition to the overall merged data. Nine MSs complied with this requirement, whereas three MSs (Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland) did not report separate results from the CA and FBOp. A comparison of the prevalence of flocks positive for either of the two target serovars, based on the CA and FBOp data, along with the *p*-value and its interpretation, is presented in Table 23. There were no significant differences in prevalence found from official and own-check controls.

<table><caption>TABLE 23 Comparisons of the prevalence of target *Salmonella* serovar-positive flocks of breeding turkeys, by sampler and by reporting MS, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority (CA)</th><th colspan="4">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Finland</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>34</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 10.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td>358</td><td>2 (0.56)</td><td>[0.07; 2.0]</td><td></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>77</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 4.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td>79</td><td>1 (1.3)</td><td>[0.03; 6.9]</td><td></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>165</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>279</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>37</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 9.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>53</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>57</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.3]<sup>b</sup></td><td>99</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td></td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>391</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>[0; 0.94]<sup>b</sup></strong></td><td><strong>891</strong></td><td><strong>3 (0.34)</strong></td><td><strong>[0.07; 0.98]</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>NS</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI) providing CA and FBOp data</strong></td><td><strong>391</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>[0; 0.94]<sup>b</sup></strong></td><td><strong>891</strong></td><td><strong>3 (0.34)</strong></td><td><strong>[0.07; 0.98]</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>NS</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: –, Data not reported; [-], The confidence interval is not provided because of the small sample size.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>*Salmonella* Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>In accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1190/2012, Article 1.1 'for Member States with less than 100 flocks of adult breeding or fattening turkeys, the Union target shall be that annually no more than one flock of adult breeding or fattening turkeys may remain positive', Germany met the reduction target for breeding turkeys.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>*p*-value: NS, not significant.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Commission Regulation (EU) No 1190/2012 of 12 December 2012 concerning a Union target for the reduction of *Salmonella* Enteritidis and *Salmonella* Typhimurium in flocks of turkeys, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council.</footnote>
## Flocks of fattening turkeys

For fattening turkey flocks, 22 MSs and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) provided data (Table 24). The overall EU *Salmonella* flock prevalence for fattening turkey flocks was 8.0%, compared with 9.2% and 9.1% in 2022 and 2021, respectively. The EU prevalence of flocks positive for any of the two target serovars (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium) was 0.28%, compared with 0.32% in 2022 and 0.31% in 2021. All reporting countries met the reduction target of 1% or less (Figure 3).

<table><caption>TABLE 24 *Salmonella* in fattening flocks of turkeys before slaughter during the production period (flock-based data) in countries running control programmes in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">N tested flocks</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for <i>Salmonella</i> spp.</th><th rowspan="2">N (%) positive for target serovars</th><th colspan="2">N (%) positive flocks for</th></tr><tr><th>S. Enteritidis</th><th>S. Typhimurium<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>498</td><td>12 (2.4)</td><td>1 (0.20)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.20)</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>193</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>426</td><td>6 (1.4)</td><td>2 (0.47)</td><td>1 (0.23)</td><td>1 (0.23)</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>5</td><td>3 (60.0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>236</td><td>1 (0.42)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>151</td><td>1 (0.66)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>286</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>4953</td><td>164 (3.3)</td><td>48 (0.97)</td><td>30 (0.61)</td><td>18 (0.36)</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>3819</td><td>18 (0.47)</td><td>7 (0.18)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>6 (0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>53</td><td>1 (1.9)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>1314</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>461</td><td>9 (2.0)</td><td>1 (0.22)</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>4792</td><td>1882 (39.3)</td><td>8 (0.17)</td><td>0</td><td>8 (0.17)</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>443</td><td>4 (0.90)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>6348</td><td>1 (0.02)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>1254</td><td>66 (5.3)</td><td>8 (0.64)</td><td>0</td><td>8 (0.64)</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>250</td><td>3 (1.2)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>125</td><td>2 (1.6)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>105</td><td>7 (6.7)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>3857</td><td>193 (5.0)</td><td>9 (0.23)</td><td>1 (0.03)</td><td>8 (0.21)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>119</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>58</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total (27 + XI)</strong></td><td><strong>29,753</strong></td><td><strong>2373 (8.0)</strong></td><td><strong>84 (0.28)</strong></td><td><strong>33 (0.11)</strong></td><td><strong>51 (0.17)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>31</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>286</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>28</td><td>1 (3.6)</td><td>1 (3.6)</td><td>1 (3.6)</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1190/2012, MSs are required to report fattening turkey flock results separately for the CA and FBOp, in addition to the overall merged data. Seventeen MSs and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) complied with this reporting requirement, while Croatia and the Netherlands did not provide separate results for the CA and FBOp. Bulgaria and Hungary reported only CA data, and Denmark submitted solely own-check results. A comparison of the prevalence of flocks positive for either of the two target serovars, based on the CA and FBOp data, along with the *p*-value and its interpretation, is presented in Table 25. The prevalence found from official controls was significantly higher than that from own-checks, both considering overall EU data and for six MSs.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>*Salmonella* Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-).</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 25 Comparisons of the prevalence of target *Salmonella* serovar-positive flocks of fattening turkeys, by sampler and by reporting MS, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th colspan="3">Competent authority(CA)</th><th colspan="4">Food business operator (FBOp)</th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th>N tested flocks</th><th>N (%) flocks positive for target serovars</th><th>CI<sub>95</sub></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>22</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 15.4]<sup>b</sup></td><td>492</td><td>1 (0.20)</td><td>[0.01; 1.1]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>193</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.9]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>[-]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 30.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>226</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>151</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 2.4]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>33</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 10.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>253</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.4]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>129</td><td>4 (3.1)</td><td>[0.85; 7.7]</td><td>4824</td><td>44 (0.91)</td><td>[0.66; 1.2]</td><td>0.0354</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>154</td><td>2 (1.3)</td><td>[0.16; 4.6]</td><td>3814</td><td>5 (0.13)</td><td>[0.04; 0.31]</td><td>0.0276</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 24.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td>53</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>1314</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.28]<sup>b</sup></td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>13</td><td>1 (7.7)</td><td>[0.19; 36.0]</td><td>461</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 0.80]<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.0274</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>135</td><td>4 (3.0)</td><td>[0.81; 7.4]</td><td>4779</td><td>4 (0.08)</td><td>[0.02; 0.21]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poland<sup>c</sup></td><td>168</td><td>12 (7.1)</td><td>[3.7; 12.1]</td><td>6293</td><td>3 (0.05)</td><td>[0.01; 0.14]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>18</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 18.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>1251</td><td>8 (0.64)</td><td>[0.28; 1.3]</td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>23</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 14.8]<sup>b</sup></td><td>250</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 1.5]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>123</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.0]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>102</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.6]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>75</td><td>2 (2.7)</td><td>[0.32; 9.3]</td><td>3850</td><td>7 (0.18)</td><td>[0.07; 0.37]</td><td>0.0119</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>26</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 13.2]<sup>b</sup></td><td>119</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 3.1]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>[-]</td><td>53</td><td>0</td><td>[0; 6.7]<sup>b</sup></td><td>NS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27+XI)</td><td>2158</td><td>25 (1.2)</td><td>[0.75; 1.7]</td><td>27,291</td><td>72 (0.26)</td><td>[0.21; 0.33]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EU Total (27+XI) providing CA and FBOp data</td><td>843</td><td>25 (3.0)</td><td>[1.9; 4.3]</td><td>27,140</td><td>72 (0.27)</td><td>[0.21; 0.33]</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td>CA > FBOp</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: -, Data not reported; [-], The confidence interval is not provided because of the small sample size.

<sup>a</sup>p-value: NS, not significant.

<sup>b</sup>One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.

<sup>c</sup>Poland's data reported under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1190/2012 (12 flocks positive for target serovars tested by the CA and three by the FBOp) conflict with the merged fattening turkey flock data displayed in Table 24, which shows zero flocks positive for target serovars.

## Achievement of final *Salmonella* reduction targets since the start of the NCPs

Final *Salmonella* reduction targets have been applied for breeding *G. gallus* since 2010, for laying hens since 2011, for broilers since 2012 and for breeding and fattening turkeys since 2013. From 2010 to 2019, the United Kingdom was included in the EU-level assessment, while from 2021 onwards, only Northern Ireland was included (see Introduction).

For breeding *G. gallus*, during the NCP implementation period (2010–2023), the number of reporting countries fluctuated between 24 and 26. The lowest compliance rates were recorded in 2012 (76.0%) and 2019 (79.2%), while the highest rates were observed in 2015 and 2016, with 92.0% of MSs meeting their reduction targets. In the last 3 years (2021–2023), compliance steadily improved, with 80.8%, 84.6% and 88.0% of MSs meeting their targets, respectively.

For laying hens (2011–2023), 26 to 28 countries reported data. The lowest compliance rates, where fewer than 80% of MSs met the target, were observed in 2021 (71.4%), 2020 (73.1%), 2023 (75.0%) and 2018 (77.8%). In contrast, in 2013, all reporting countries met their targets. Overall, compliance rates have been lower in recent years compared to the initial years of NCP implementation.

In the case of broilers (2012–2023), 26 to 28 countries submitted reports. Annual compliance rates consistently exceeded 88.5%. Notably, all reporting countries met the target in 2022. In years such as 2013, 2017, 2018 and 2019, only one country failed to meet the target, while the highest number of non-compliant countries (three) was observed in 2012, 2014, 2020 and 2021.
For breeding turkeys (2013–2023), 12 to 15 reporting countries provided data. The highest non-compliance occurred in 2017, with three reporting countries not meeting the target. However, in six separate years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2019, 2022 and 2023), all reporting MSs met their targets.

Regarding fattening turkeys (2013–2023), 21 to 24 countries reported data. The greatest number of reporting countries failing to meet the target (three) occurred in 2018 and 2020. By 2023, all reporting countries successfully met the final reduction target.

The results for all poultry populations, reporting MSs and years are available at Zenodo [here](https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9106).

## Salmonella prevalence trends in poultry flocks

Trends in the estimated EU prevalence of poultry flocks positive for *Salmonella* spp. and target *Salmonella* serovars, for different poultry populations, since the implementation of the EU-wide 2007–2023 NCPs, are displayed in Figure 4.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** Trend in the estimated prevalence of poultry flocks positive for *Salmonella* spp. and target *Salmonella* serovars, at EU level for different poultry populations, 2007–2023. The apparent discrepancy between the proportion of positive flocks (both for target *Salmonella* serovars and for *Salmonella* spp., as described in the previous paragraphs) and the estimated prevalence shown above is due to the fact that the first value is the ratio of all positive to all tested flocks, whereas the estimated prevalence is obtained by modelling the ratio of positive to all tested flocks in each reporting country, taking into account inter-country variability and the correlation between years.</figcaption></figure>

In the supporting information for this report ('*Salmonella* poultry outcome trend analyses', available at Zenodo [here](https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9106)), trends in EU level percentages of flocks positive for *Salmonella*, for target and for non-target serovars, as well as for S. Enteritidis, are presented and compared across the poultry populations covered by the NCPs. Moreover, figures show the modelling results for trends in prevalence for *Salmonella* spp. and target *Salmonella* serovars in poultry flocks. Detailed outputs of trend analyses (at subject level and population level) are reported.

**Figure 5** provides a summary of the EU-wide prevalence of *Salmonella* spp.-positive and target *Salmonella* serovar-positive flocks across different poultry populations. This includes both the long-term trend from 2007 to 2023, covering the entire period of NCP implementation and the short-term trend from 2019 to 2023. A significant long-term decrease in the prevalence of target *Salmonella* serovar-positive flocks was observed in breeding *Gallus gallus*, laying hens and broilers. In contrast, no significant changes were detected in the short term for any of these populations. Regarding the prevalence
of *Salmonella* spp.-positive flocks, a significant long-term decrease was observed solely in laying hens over the NCP implementation period.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5** Trends in EU level prevalence of target *Salmonella* serovars (Target)-positive or *Salmonella* spp. (Spp.)-positive flocks of poultry populations (2007–2023 and 2019–2023).</figcaption></figure>

**Salmonella data for other animals**

Excluding data from NCPs for poultry, 149,814 samples for *Salmonella* detection collected from animals of various species were reported by 18 MSs. Among these, 6.2% of the samples were positive for *Salmonella* spp. The largest number of samples came from pigs (N = 75,621 reported by 16 MSs, 50.5% of the total number of samples), of which 9.3% tested positive for *Salmonella*. The second largest number of samples was from cattle (bovine animals) (N = 29,437 reported by 16 MSs, 19.6%) and 3.7% of these were positive. Cats had the highest percentage, with 14.0% of samples testing positive, reported by six MSs. Also noteworthy was the prevalence of *Salmonella* spp.-positive wild boar, 8.0%, reported by two MSs. For soli-peds, 3.7% of samples were positive for *Salmonella* and were reported by six MSs. These statistics should be interpreted with caution, as the reported prevalence may have been influenced by the sampling context and scope.

2.4.5 | Salmonella in feed

In 2023, the overall EU-level occurrence of *Salmonella*-positive sampling units in any 'animal and vegetable-derived feed' was 0.48% (N = 59,337). In compound feed (finished feed for animals), the prevalence of *Salmonella*-positive sampling units was 0.54% for cattle feed (N = 1120), 0.38% for poultry feed (N = 9267) and 0.43% for pig feed (N = 2824). There were no noticeable isolates in 2023. The prevalence of *Salmonella*-positive sampling units for pet food was 1.0% (N = 3163).
## 2.4.6 | *Salmonella* serovars in humans, food and animals

### Humans

#### *Serovars acquired in the EU*

To estimate the impact of *Salmonella* infections acquired at the EU level, serovar data were analysed for domestic and travel-associated cases in which the probable country of infection was an EU MS. Information on *Salmonella* serovars with travel data (importation and/or probable country of infection) was available from 25 MSs (Bulgaria and Croatia did not report serovar data), representing 66.7% of cases with known serovar data in 2023. As in 2022, one country less (the Netherlands) reported domestic cases in 2023. Most cases (90.6%) with a known serovar and with travel data were infected within the EU. Most human salmonellosis cases acquired in the EU (72.8%) had information on *Salmonella* serovars. For the travel-associated cases, the most frequently reported travel destinations in the EU were Spain (22.3%), Greece (17.0%), Italy (12.5%) and Croatia (8.0%). For the reported cases of human salmonellosis acquired in the EU, S. Enteritidis dominated and 70.8% of these reported cases were infected with this serovar. S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium and monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) together represented 84.8% of the confirmed human cases acquired in the EU in 2023 (Table 26) and were at the same level as in 2021–2022. In detail, the proportion of S. Enteritidis increased, while the proportion of S. Typhimurium decreased compared with 2022 and 2021 (Table 26). S. Infantis remained approximately at the same level, while S. Chester, S. Thompson, S. Poona, S. Strathcona, S. Paratyphi B var. Java and S. Senftenberg showed an increase during the entire period and S. Coeln increased only compared with 2022.

<table><caption>**TABLE 26** Distribution of reported cases of human salmonellosis acquired in the EU, 2021–2023, for the 20 most frequently reported serovars in 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Salmonella Serovar</th><th colspan="3">2023</th><th colspan="3">2022</th><th colspan="3">2021</th></tr><tr><th>Cases</th><th>MSs</th><th>%</th><th>Cases</th><th>MSs</th><th>%</th><th>Cases</th><th>MSs</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Enteritidis</td><td>24,019</td><td>24</td><td>70.8</td><td>19,752</td><td>25</td><td>65.0</td><td>23,932</td><td>24</td><td>69.5</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>3015</td><td>24</td><td>8.9</td><td>3793</td><td>24</td><td>12.5</td><td>4078</td><td>24</td><td>11.8</td></tr><tr><td>Monophasic Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:-</td><td>1738</td><td>16</td><td>5.1</td><td>1684</td><td>15</td><td>5.5</td><td>1529</td><td>15</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Infantis</td><td>682</td><td>22</td><td>2.0</td><td>717</td><td>22</td><td>2.4</td><td>669</td><td>24</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Coeln</td><td>262</td><td>18</td><td>0.77</td><td>206</td><td>17</td><td>0.68</td><td>331</td><td>15</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Chester</td><td>259</td><td>15</td><td>0.76</td><td>135</td><td>13</td><td>0.44</td><td>159</td><td>11</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Derby</td><td>239</td><td>17</td><td>0.70</td><td>281</td><td>18</td><td>0.92</td><td>250</td><td>17</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>193</td><td>13</td><td>0.57</td><td>55</td><td>14</td><td>0.18</td><td>59</td><td>15</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>Virchow</td><td>153</td><td>14</td><td>0.45</td><td>132</td><td>12</td><td>0.43</td><td>136</td><td>13</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Newport</td><td>151</td><td>17</td><td>0.45</td><td>245</td><td>20</td><td>0.81</td><td>193</td><td>18</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Bovismorbificans</td><td>144</td><td>19</td><td>0.42</td><td>162</td><td>16</td><td>0.53</td><td>156</td><td>14</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Poona</td><td>125</td><td>11</td><td>0.37</td><td>67</td><td>11</td><td>0.22</td><td>52</td><td>10</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Agona</td><td>123</td><td>16</td><td>0.36</td><td>177</td><td>16</td><td>0.58</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky</td><td>105</td><td>16</td><td>0.31</td><td>104</td><td>15</td><td>0.34</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Stanley</td><td>104</td><td>16</td><td>0.31</td><td>139</td><td>12</td><td>0.46</td><td>107</td><td>14</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>Strathcona</td><td>102</td><td>11</td><td>0.30</td><td>36</td><td>8</td><td>0.12</td><td>30</td><td>5</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Paratyphi B var. Java</td><td>101</td><td>14</td><td>0.30</td><td>85</td><td>13</td><td>0.28</td><td>54</td><td>11</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Senftenberg</td><td>101</td><td>13</td><td>0.30</td><td>64</td><td>14</td><td>0.21</td><td>41</td><td>11</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>Mikawasima</td><td>97</td><td>10</td><td>0.29</td><td>101</td><td>12</td><td>0.33</td><td>82</td><td>10</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Mbandaka</td><td>92</td><td>15</td><td>0.27</td><td>140</td><td>14</td><td>0.46</td><td>77</td><td>11</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2102</td><td>–</td><td>6.2</td><td>2331</td><td>–</td><td>7.7</td><td>2345</td><td>–</td><td>6.8</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total<sup>a,b</sup></td><td>33,907</td><td>24</td><td>100</td><td>30,406</td><td>25</td><td>100</td><td>34,420</td><td>24</td><td>100</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Abbreviations: MSs, Member States; –, Data not reported.

A seasonal trend was observed for confirmed S. Enteritidis infections acquired in the EU in 2019–2023, with more cases reported during summer months. A decrease in cases was observed in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic; an increase was then registered in the following years, although without reaching the pre-pandemic number of cases. Notwithstanding, the overall

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Source(s): 2023–24 MSs: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia. 2022–25 MSs: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia. 2021–24 MSs: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Only isolates with the complete antigenic formula and/or serovar name have been considered.</footnote>
trend for S. Enteritidis in 2019–2023 did not show any significant increase or decrease (Figure 6). Latvia showed a significant decreasing ($p < 0.05$) trend in S. Enteritidis infections within the EU over the last 5 years (2019–2023). A significant increasing trend in S. Enteritidis infections ($p < 0.05$) was observed in Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 6** Trend in reported confirmed human cases of S. Enteritidis infections acquired in the EU, by month, 2019–2023. Source: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.</figcaption></figure>

## Food and animals

Descriptive analyses were undertaken using serotyped isolates (isolates with the complete antigenic formula and/or serovar name) from food and animals. In this context, only isolates related to the most common food-producing animal species and food matrices thereof were considered and were aggregated into the following categories for further analysis: ‘broiler flocks – broiler meat’, ‘laying hen flocks – eggs’, ‘fattening turkey flocks – turkey meat’, ‘fattening pigs – pig meat’ and ‘cattle – bovine meat’. Overall, a total of 19,295 serotyped *Salmonella* isolates meeting the aforementioned inclusion criteria were obtained (Table 27).

<table><caption>**TABLE 27** Distribution of *Salmonella* isolates with and without serotype identification among the different selected sources (food and animals), EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Source</th><th colspan="2">Salmonella-positive sampling units without serotyped isolates</th><th colspan="2">Salmonella-positive sampling units with serotyped isolates</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Broilers</td><td>1850</td><td>24.8</td><td>10,114</td><td>52.4</td></tr><tr><td>Broiler meat</td><td>2227</td><td>29.8</td><td>3984</td><td>20.6</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>11</td><td>0.15</td><td>86</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle meat</td><td>290</td><td>3.9</td><td>214</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Pigs</td><td>37</td><td>0.50</td><td>178</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Pig meat</td><td>1771</td><td>23.7</td><td>1133</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Turkeys</td><td>255</td><td>3.4</td><td>2164</td><td>11.2</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey meat</td><td>666</td><td>8.9</td><td>252</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Layers</td><td>351</td><td>4.7</td><td>1145</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eggs and egg products</td><td>13</td><td>0.17</td><td>25</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7471</td><td>100</td><td>19,295</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
The large majority of the serotyped isolates were from 'broilers' (both animals (52.4%) and food (20.6%)). 'Turkey' sources (animals and food) accounted for 12.5% of the serotyped isolates, while 'pig' and 'laying hen' sources represented 6.8% and 6.0% of the serotyped isolates, respectively. Serotyped isolates from 'cattle' sources made up about 1.5% of the total.

Isolates belonging to the four most frequently reported *Salmonella* serovars involved in cases of human salmonellosis acquired in the EU in 2023 (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) and S. Infantis) were considered for further analysis. Unlike in previous years, in 2023 only the top four human serovars, rather than five, were considered. This change was made because the numbers of reported human cases for the next three serovars on the list (S. Coeln, S. Chester and S. Derby) were very similar (N=262, N=259 and N=239, respectively) (Table 26). From the above-mentioned food-animal sources, a total of 10,326 serotyped isolates were reported, of which S. Infantis accounted for 74.2%, S. Enteritidis 14.8%, S. Typhimurium 6.8% and monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) 4.2%. Regarding S. Infantis, a consistent increase in the number of reported serotyped isolates was shown in 2023 (7665) compared to 2022 (6840) and these isolates were mainly from a single MS (Italy).

A Sankey diagram (Figure 7) illustrates how these top four EU-level *Salmonella* serovars involved in human salmonellosis cases acquired in the EU were linked with the major food-animal species.

*Salmonella* Enteritidis was primarily related to 'broiler' sources (62.6% of the S. Enteritidis isolates were from broiler flocks and meat) and also to 'layers and eggs' (28.4%). S. Typhimurium isolates were distributed among the different sources, although they were mainly related to 'broiler' and 'pig' sources (44.0% and 30.4% of the isolates were from these sources respectively), followed by 'laying hen', 'turkey' and 'bovine' sources (15.5%, 5.6% and 4.6% respectively). Monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) was related mainly to 'pig' (60.0%), followed by 'broiler' (21.4%) and 'turkey' (21.4%) sources. Lastly, S. Infantis was strictly related to 'broiler' sources (96.1%). To interpret these data, it is important to be aware that the distribution of the serotyped isolates among the different sources is very unbalanced in terms of the number of isolates per source, and the large majority of the serotyped isolates for the subsets considered were from poultry populations covered by NCPs, especially broilers.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 7** Sankey diagram of the distribution of the top four EU-level *Salmonella* serovars involved in human salmonellosis cases acquired in the EU, reported from specified food-animal categories, by food-animal source, EU, 2023. The left side of the diagram shows the four most commonly reported *Salmonella* serovars involved in human salmonellosis cases acquired in the EU: S. Enteritidis (light blue), S. Infantis (green), S. Typhimurium (orange) and monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) (Indigo). Animal and food data from the same source were merged: 'broiler' includes isolates from broiler flocks and broiler meat, 'bovine' includes isolates from bovine animals for meat production and from bovine meat, 'pig' includes isolates from fattening pigs and pig meat, 'turkey' includes isolates from fattening turkey flocks and turkey meat, and 'layers' includes isolates from laying hen flocks and eggs. The right side shows the five sources considered (broilers (blue), bovine animals (violet), pigs (light green), turkeys (red) and layers (light orange)). The width of the coloured bands linking the sources and serovars is proportional to the percentage of isolates of each serovar from each source.</figcaption></figure>

Table 28 lists the top 20 serovars reported, based on all serotyped isolates from food and animals, including laying hens, broilers, turkeys, pigs and bovine animals. Among the isolates from the laying hens-eggs source, 48.0% were identified
as one of the three target serovars: S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, including monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-). S. Kentucky and S. Infantis remained the second and fourth main serovars from this source (as in 2022). S. Kentucky was reported by seven Member States, with the vast majority of isolates coming from a single country, whereas S. Infantis was reported by 13 Member States, with a more balanced distribution of isolates across the reporting countries. In the broiler source (N=14,098), three serovars (S. Infantis, S. Enteritidis and S. Mbandaka) represented 66.7% of the serotyped isolates, with S. Infantis accounting for more than one out of two isolates reported. S. Thompson was the fourth main serovar notified from broiler sources. In the turkey source, two serovars (S. Agona and S. Anatum) were by far the most common ones, accounting for 68.8% of the isolates reported and confirming the scenario already described in 2022. S. Infantis was the third main serovar reported from turkey sources (4.2%). In the pig-pig meat source, monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-), S. Derby and S. Typhimurium represented 69.5% of the serotyped strains, with S. Infantis (6.7%) being another serovar frequently reported. In the bovine source, S. Dublin and S. Typhimurium were by far the most common ones, followed by S. Enteritidis and S. Infantis. The distribution of serovars among the different species reported for 2023 was very similar to that reported in 2022.
<table><caption>TABLE 28 Distribution of the top 20 Salmonella serovars by food-animal source (laying hens, broilers, turkeys, pigs and bovine animals), EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Poultry population</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Serovar</th><th>N(%) positive samples</th><th>N MSs</th><th>Broilers</th><th>Serovar</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>N MSs</th><th>Turkeys</th><th>Serovar</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>N MSs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Laying hens</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>433 (3.71)</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>Infantis</td><td>7365 (52.2)</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>Agona</td><td>1206 (48.7)</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky</td><td>170 (14.6)</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>Mbandaka</td><td>1082 (7.7)</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>Anatum</td><td>499 (20.1)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>108 (9.2)</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>957 (6.8)</td><td>19</td><td></td><td>Infantis</td><td>104 (4.2)</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Infantis</td><td>62 (5.3)</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>Thompson</td><td>757 (5.4)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Newport</td><td>93 (3.8)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Mbandaka</td><td>36 (3.1)</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>Livingstone</td><td>371 (2.6)</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium, monophasic</td><td>59 (2.4)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Corvallis</td><td>29 (2.5)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>Paratyphi B var. Java</td><td>347 (2.5)</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>Senftenberg</td><td>41 (1.6)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Agona</td><td>23 (2.0)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Give</td><td>339 (2.4)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium</td><td>40 (1.6)</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium, monophasic</td><td>20 (1.7)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Kedougou</td><td>330 (2.3)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>Derby</td><td>38 (1.5)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Braenderup</td><td>19 (1.6)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium</td><td>307 (2.2)</td><td>19</td><td></td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>38 (1.5)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Coeln</td><td>17 (1.5)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Paratyphi B<sup>a</sup></td><td>210 (1.5)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Coeln</td><td>33 (1.3)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Newport</td><td>16 (1.4)</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>Montevideo</td><td>170 (1.2)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Bredeney</td><td>32 (1.3)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Senftenberg</td><td>16 (1.4)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Agona</td><td>141 (1.0)</td><td>9</td><td></td><td>Mbandaka</td><td>27 (1.1)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>16 (1.4)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Senftenberg</td><td>136 (0.96)</td><td>10</td><td></td><td>Saintpaul</td><td>27 (1.1)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Ohio</td><td>15 (1.3)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Virchow</td><td>129 (0.92)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Kedougou</td><td>26 (1.0)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Mikawasima</td><td>12 (1.0)</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>Napoli</td><td>111 (0.79)</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>Heidelberg</td><td>18 (0.73)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Montevideo</td><td>12 (1.0)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Newport</td><td>95 (0.67)</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>Kentucky</td><td>17 (0.69)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Hadar</td><td>11 (0.94)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium, monophasic</td><td>74 (0.52)</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>Napoli</td><td>17 (0.69)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Livingstone</td><td>11 (0.94)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>Niloese</td><td>60 (0.43)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>Give</td><td>14 (0.56)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Rissen</td><td>10 (0.86)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>Tennessee</td><td>57 (0.40)</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>Haifa</td><td>14 (0.56)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Havana</td><td>9 (0.77)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>Saintpaul</td><td>56 (0.40)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Goldcoast, Stanley</td><td>13 (0.52)</td><td>1, 3</td></tr><tr><td>Other serovars</td><td>122 (10.4)</td><td>26</td><td></td><td>Other serovars</td><td>1004 (7.1)</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>Other serovars</td><td>109 (4.4)</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1167</td><td></td><td></td><td>Total</td><td>14,098</td><td></td><td></td><td>Total</td><td>2478</td><td></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="10">(Continues)</td></tr></tfoot></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 28 (Continued)</caption><caption>Pigs and cattle (bovine animals)</caption><thead><tr><th>Pigs</th><th>Serovar</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>N MSs</th><th>Bovine animals</th><th>Serovar</th><th>N (%) positive samples</th><th>N MSs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Typhimurium, monophasic</td><td>Derby</td><td>394 (28.0)</td><td>18</td><td></td><td>Dublin</td><td>386 (36.9)</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Infantis</td><td>349 (24.8)</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium</td><td>352 (33.6)</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Rissen</td><td>235 (16.7)</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>57 (5.4)</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>95 (6.7)</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>Infantis</td><td>40 (3.8)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>67 (4.8)</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>Bovismorbificans</td><td>28 (2.7)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>54 (3.8)</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>Derby</td><td>20 (1.9)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>39 (2.8)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Agona</td><td>19 (1.8)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Typhimurium</td><td>Enteritidis</td><td>30 (2.1)</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>Typhimurium, monophasic</td><td>19 (1.8)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>28 (2.0)</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>Bredeney</td><td>15 (1.4)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>14 (0.99)</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>Indiana</td><td>13 (1.2)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>11 (0.78)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Mbandaka</td><td>11 (1.0)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>9 (0.64)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>Muenchen</td><td>10 (0.96)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>9 (0.64)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>Anatum</td><td>7 (0.67)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>8 (0.57)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>Newport</td><td>6 (0.57)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>6 (0.43)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Muenster</td><td>5 (0.48)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>5 (0.35)</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>Coeln</td><td>4 (0.38)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>5 (0.35)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Goldcoast</td><td>4 (0.38)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>5 (0.35)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>Kentucky</td><td>4 (0.38)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis</td><td>Give</td><td>4 (0.28)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>Meleagridis</td><td>4 (0.38)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis var., Panama</td><td>Give</td><td>4 (0.28)</td><td>1,3</td><td></td><td>Napoli, Rissen</td><td>4 (0.38)</td><td>1,2</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis var., Panama</td><td>Give</td><td>34 (2.4)</td><td>26</td><td></td><td>Other serovars</td><td>34 (3.2)</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Choleraesuis var., Panama</td><td>Give</td><td>1409</td><td></td><td></td><td>Total</td><td>1046</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: MSs, Member States.

<footnote>ªSalmonella Paratyphi B var. Java which is tartrate positive and is non-typhoidal. Since the isolates reported were from food and animal sources, we can suppose that these isolates were S. Paratyphi B var. Java.</footnote>
## 2.5 | Discussion

Salmonellosis remained the second most common food-borne zoonosis in humans in the EU in 2023 after campylobacteriosis. The notification rate increased in 2023 compared to 2022 (18.0 and 15.4 respectively), but the number of human salmonellosis cases was lower in 2023 than before the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of outbreak-related cases and the number of food-borne salmonellosis outbreaks increased compared with 2022. Notwithstanding, the overall EU trend for salmonellosis in 2019–2023 did not show any significant increase or decrease. Conversely, over the period 2019–2023, France, Spain and Luxembourg reported a significantly increasing trend.

In addition, notification rates for salmonellosis in humans varied between MSs, reflecting potential variations, for example, in the quality, coverage and disease-severity focus of the surveillance systems, in sampling and testing practices, in disease prevalence in food-producing animal populations and in food and animal trade between MSs.

The three most commonly reported human serovars, S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant (1,4,[5],12:i:-), continued to account for over 70% of human cases acquired in the EU, as has been observed since 2014. In 2023, these serovars were responsible for 84.8% of cases. The increase in S. Enteritidis in 2023 may at least partly be attributable to an increase in outbreaks including three distinct microbiological clusters of S. Enteritidis ST11 reported in 14 EU/EEA countries, as well as in the United Kingdom and the United States. These outbreaks were possibly linked to the consumption of chicken meat, including chicken kebabs (ECDC and EFSA, 2023e). S. Infantis has consistently remained the fourth most frequently reported serovar from humans and is by far the most common serovar found in the 'broilers' animal-food source. However, it also ranks among the top four serovars reported from 'laying hens', 'fattening turkeys', 'fattening pigs' and 'beef cattle', though the number of isolates from these non-broiler sources was markedly lower. Following S. Infantis, serovars such as S. Coeln, S. Chester, S. Thompson, S. Poona and S. Strathcona saw notable increases. These trends may also be linked to specific outbreaks: for instance, five outbreaks of S. Coeln were reported by three MSs, while an outbreak of S. Thompson in Czechia affected 135 people. The increase in S. Strathcona can be explained by a multi-country outbreak affecting nine countries (ECDC, 2023). In addition, increases were observed for S. Paratyphi B var. Java and S. Senftenberg throughout the entire period. The increase in S. Paratyphi B var. Java could be connected to four outbreaks that occurred in three MSs, although in all but one case, the reported serovar was S. Paratyphi B. This discrepancy may be due to an unclear option in TESSy to indicate the variant Java. Furthermore, S. Paratyphi B isolates from food and animal sources, especially from broilers, in which it was among the top 20 *Salmonella* serovars, may belong to the variant Java, which could explain the observed increase in human cases. The increase in S. Senftenberg can be linked to the multi-country outbreak that affected 11 MSs between August 2022 and July 2023 (ECDC and EFSA, 2023a).

All MSs, EEA and EFTA countries reported *Salmonella* data from food and/or animal sources. Poultry remains one of the primary food sources associated with high levels of *Salmonella* contamination. This was evident from prevalence data collected under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, which includes food safety criteria for fresh poultry meat, minced meat, meat preparations and products, as well as process hygiene criteria for poultry carcasses. Additional prevalence data from other food sampling contexts further support these findings. The importance of poultry, in particular chicken meat, as a source of human infections has also been demonstrated by the multiple rapid outbreak assessments (ROAs) jointly published by EFSA and ECDC in recent years. One persistent cross-border outbreak of S. Virchow ST16 involved five EU/EEA countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. Epidemiological and analytical investigations identified kebab meat products containing contaminated chicken meat as the likely vehicles of infection (ECDC and EFSA, 2023b). Similarly, the multi-country outbreak due to S. Enteritidis ST11, already mentioned, was primarily linked to chicken meat consumption, with chicken kebabs identified as the most plausible vehicle of the human infections (ECDC and EFSA, 2023e). More recently, EFSA and ECDC published an ROA describing an ongoing multi-country outbreak linked to S. Mbandaka ST413, which has persisted in the EU/EEA and the UK for over 2 years. Initially, ready-to-eat chicken products and fresh chicken meat were identified as probable vehicles of infection. However, subsequent investigations pointed to frozen steam-cooked chicken breast as the likely vehicle of infection. Despite control measures being implemented, new cases have continued to emerge, suggesting that other undetected routes of exposure remain, which require further investigation (ECDC and EFSA, 2024a).

For *Salmonella*, surveillance approaches beginning at the primary production level and extending throughout the entire food chain are synergistic. They represent a unique collaboration between FBOp and CAs in control and surveillance efforts, unlike for any other zoonotic agents listed in Directive 2003/99/EC (Cota et al., 2024). The key distinction between *Salmonella* and other zoonoses lies in the implementation of NCPs at primary production level; these programmes are mandatory and harmonised across MSs and have been in place in poultry populations for more than a decade. While EU legislation sets a framework for NCPs, MSs have some flexibility to adapt their implementation according to their specific epidemiological situation. As part of corrective measures, NCPs typically include a range of actions, such as enhanced surveillance through targeted sampling protocols, vaccination of breeders and laying hens against target serovars (although this is not mandatory in all MSs), rigorous biosecurity measures, restrictions on animal movement and the destruction or heat treatment of infected birds and eggs. In the event of detecting targeted *Salmonella* serotypes in a poultry flock, additional actions such as testing derived meat may also be enforced. Lastly, effective cleaning and disinfection protocols at farm level are implemented (Tzani et al., 2021).

In the context of NCPs, an assessment of *Salmonella* flock prevalence trends revealed a significant decrease in target *Salmonella* serovars for *G. gallus* (all populations) from the NCP implementation period (2010–2013) to the present. However, over the last 5 years, no significant variations in target serovar prevalence were identified in any poultry population. A further descriptive analysis of NCP data was carried out to evaluate the successful achievement of final *Salmonella* targets by MSs across different poultry populations throughout the entire NCP implementation period, ranging from 11 years for turkeys to 14 years for breeding *G. gallus*. This assessment revealed that, in recent years, a notable number of MSs did not reach the
target in some poultry populations compared to the early years of NCP implementation. This trend was more evident in laying hens. Focusing on 2023 data, the number of MSs meeting the targets for all poultry populations was 15, whereas in 2022 this number was 19. In laying hens, in 2023, seven MSs (about one in four) did not meet the target. These findings suggest that, despite many years of NCP implementation, weaknesses remain in controlling *Salmonella* at the primary production level, including in the management of target *Salmonella* serovar-positive flocks. One possible factor that might have contributed to the increase in positive flocks is the practice of confirmatory sampling, which involves re-sampling and re-testing flocks identified as positive for target *Salmonella* before taking corrective action. While this practice is not routinely permitted, it is frequently applied in some MSs (personal communication, EURL-Salmonella Workshop 2024, available online here), and can lead to positive flocks remaining in production, increasing the risk of *Salmonella* spread (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2019).

Nonetheless, from a One Health perspective, it is important to acknowledge that some studies conducted in different MSs using various scientific methodologies have demonstrated the positive impact of NCP implementation on reducing human salmonellosis. This was particularly evident during the early years of NCP application (Poirier et al., 2008; Wegener et al., 2003), but positive effects have also been observed more recently (Tzani et al., 2021).

## 3 | LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

N of outbreaks

<table><tr><td>Austria</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>UK (N. Ireland)</td><td>0</td></tr></table>

N of outbreaks per 100,000 population **

<table><tr><td>AT</td><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td>BE</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>BG</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HR</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CY</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CZ</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>DK</td><td>0.067</td></tr><tr><td>EE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FR</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>DE</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>EL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HU</td><td>0.010</td></tr><tr><td>IE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>IT</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>LV</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>NL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>RO</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ES</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>0.019</td></tr><tr><td>XI</td><td>0</td></tr></table>

N of outbreak cases per 100,000 population

<table><tr><td>AT</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>BE</td><td>0.145</td></tr><tr><td>BG</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HR</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CY</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CZ</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>DK</td><td>0.169</td></tr><tr><td>EE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FR</td><td>0.013</td></tr><tr><td>DE</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>EL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HU</td><td>0.021</td></tr><tr><td>IE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>IT</td><td>0.080</td></tr><tr><td>LV</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>NL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>RO</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ES</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>0.162</td></tr><tr><td>XI</td><td>0</td></tr></table>

### Implicated food vehicles
(Strong-evidence outbreaks)

#### Top food vehicles

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

#### Pig meat and products thereof

3 Outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

#### Fish and fish products

2 Outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

#### Vegetables and juices and other products thereof

1 Outbreak

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

#### Milk

1 Outbreak

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

#### Cheese

1 Outbreak

EFSA data

<footnote>** Differences among countries shall be interpreted with caution as this indicator depends on several factors including the type of outbreaks under surveillance and does not necessarily reflect the level of food safety in each country.</footnote>
The summary data which make up this chapter, as well as additional information on related projects and internet sources, are published for this report on the EFSA Knowledge Junction at Zenodo [here]. Summary statistics on human surveillance data with downloadable files are retrievable using the ECDC Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases available [here].

For additional information about *Listeria monocytogenes* and for the consultation of data collected, the following interactive tools are available:

Listeria monocytogenes

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

DASHBOARD

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Listeria monocytogenes

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

STORY MAP

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

## 3.1 | Key facts

* In 2023, 27 Member States reported 2952 confirmed invasive human cases of *Listeria monocytogenes*, corresponding to a European Union notification rate of 0.66 cases per 100,000 population. This was an increase of 5.8% compared with the rate in 2022 (0.63 cases per 100,000 population) and the highest rate and number of cases reported since 2007.

* The overall trend for *L. monocytogenes* infections showed a statistically significant increase over the 2019–2023 period.

* A total of 186,997 sampling units from different 'ready-to-eat' food categories, collected at the distribution or manufacturing stages, were reported by 25 Member States. In 2023, a major decrease in sample submissions was noted, primarily due to the absence of data from Poland, which had previously been a major contributor.

* At distribution, the proportions of single samples testing positive for *L. monocytogenes*, based on enumeration tests conducted by competent authorities as part of verification of the food safety criteria listed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria, were either zero or remained rare (< 0.1%) to very low (0.1%–1.0%) in 6 out of 10 targeted 'ready-to-eat' food categories. The highest proportion of positive samples (14.8%) was found in 'products of meat origin, fermented sausage'. For 'hard cheeses', 'products of meat origin other than fermented sausages' and 'fish', the proportions of positive samples were relatively low (1.8%, 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively). Statistics on positive samples indicated further that the proportion of samples exceeding 100 CFU/g was either zero or consistently rare to very low across all 'ready-to-eat' food categories. The highest proportion, 0.78%, was reported for 'products of meat origin, fermented sausages'.

* At manufacturing, in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, the proportions of single samples testing positive for *L. monocytogenes*, based on detection tests conducted by competent authorities, were either zero or remained rare (< 0.1%) to very low (0.1%–1.0%) in 4 out of 8 targeted 'ready-to-eat' food categories. The highest proportion of positive samples (2.8%) was found in 'other products'. For 'fishery products', 'fish' and 'soft and semi-soft cheeses', the proportions of positive samples were low (1.8%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively). These proportions were higher at the manufacturing stage than at the distribution level across all targeted 'ready-to-eat' food categories, except for 'products of meat origin other than fermented sausages', where the proportion was lower (0.9%) compared to the distribution stage (1.4%). No *L. monocytogenes* was detected in 'milk', at any stage.

* In the context of other monitoring activities, the occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* gives an indication of the reasonably foreseeable contamination rate in these 'ready-to-eat' food categories. Results varied according to the 'ready-to-eat' food category, the sampling stage, the number of tested samples and the number of reporting countries. In the framework of objective sampling, all samplers and sampling units included, overall occurrences remained generally rare (< 0.1%) to low (1%–10%) in these categories. The overall highest values (from 2% to 10%) were observed for 'fish and fishery products', 'meat products from bovines or pigs', 'fruits and vegetables' and 'cheeses from raw or low heat-treated milk'.

* At primary production, the percentage of positive units was very low in pigs (0.26%) and low in small ruminants (sheep and goats) and cattle (4.2% and 1.5%, respectively). The low number of Member States reporting data reflects the absence of minimum legal requirements for harmonised sampling and reporting at primary production.

## 3.2 | Surveillance and monitoring of *Listeria monocytogenes* in the EU

### 3.2.1 | Humans

Surveillance of listeriosis in humans in the EU focuses on invasive forms of *L. monocytogenes* infection, mostly manifesting as septicaemia, influenza-like symptoms, meningitis or spontaneous abortion.

Surveillance of listeriosis is mandatory in all MSs, except in one country (Belgium). The EU case definition was used by 25 countries. One country (Germany) reported using other case definitions, and another (France) did not specify which case definition was used.
All countries have comprehensive surveillance systems. The surveillance systems for listeriosis cover the whole population in all MSs, except in two (Belgium and Spain). The estimated coverage of the surveillance system was 80% in Belgium and 97% in Spain for 2021–2023. These estimated proportions of population coverage were used in the calculation of notification rates for these two countries. No estimated population coverage was provided for Spain prior to 2021, so notification rates were not calculated. In 2020, Spain did not receive data from all regions that usually report, so the case numbers may therefore not be complete. Bulgaria and Croatia reported aggregated data, while the other 25 countries reported case-based data.

### 3.2.2 | Food, animals and feed

Monitoring of *L. monocytogenes* is carried out along the food chain, at primary production, manufacturing and distribution. The public health risk associated with RTE foods depends mainly on the effectiveness of control measures implemented by food business operators (FBOps), including:

* Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) at primary production

* Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) programmes at manufacturing and distribution

* Microbiological criteria for RTE foods, as defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.

**Listeria monocytogenes data in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005**

Official sampling is scheduled by national CAs to verify whether FBOps correctly implement the legal framework of their own-check programmes. Official control samples are thus part of the verification of *L. monocytogenes* food safety criteria (FSC). Data provided to EFSA within this context enable a descriptive summary of contamination levels, especially of RTE foods, at the EU level.

**Listeria monocytogenes monitoring data for food, animals and feed**

All the food testing data was provided through Member State reporting obligations under Directive 2003/99/EC. The rationale for surveillance and monitoring of *L. monocytogenes* in animals, feed and food at the different stages along the food chain and the number of samples provided to EFSA are shown in Figure 8. Most of the reported data in animals and feed are generated by non-harmonised monitoring schemes across MSs, and for which mandatory reporting requirements are not in place. Data on the occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in feed are only collected as part of clinical investigations in farm animals. Hence, monitoring data on *L. monocytogenes* in animal feed are rarely available.

## 3.3 | Data analyses

### 3.3.1 | Data on RTE foods in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005

These data are based on single samples collected by CAs as part of verification of *L. monocytogenes* FSC listed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, which are to be complied by FBOps. These FSC are specified by RTE food category, and by sampling stage, and are underpinned by the results of either detection or enumeration analytical methods (Table 29). These data were extracted from the database using the criteria 'official sampling' for the sampler, 'single units' for the sampling unit and 'objective sampling' for the sampling strategy (Table 32).

<table><caption>TABLE 29 *Listeria monocytogenes* FSC as described in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 for the different RTE categories across the food chain, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Sampling stage</th><th rowspan="2">RTE foods intended for infants and RTE foods for special medical purposes</th><th colspan="2">Other RTE foods</th></tr><tr><th>Able to support growth of L. monocytogenes</th><th>Unable to support growth of L. monocytogenes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Manufacturing<sup>a</sup></td><td>NA</td><td>Based on detection method: L. monocytogenes not detected in 25 g of sample (n=5, c=0)<sup>b</sup></td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Distribution<sup>c</sup></td><td>Based on detection method: L. monocytogenes not detected in 25 g of sample (n=10, c=0)</td><td>Based on enumeration method: limit of 100 CFU/g (n=5, c=0)<sup>d</sup></td><td>Based on enumeration method: limit of 100 CFU/g (n=5, c=0)</td></tr></tbody></table>
**TABLE 29** (Continued)

Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; RTE, ready-to-eat.

<sup>a</sup>Before the food has left the immediate control of the food business operator that has produced it.

<sup>b</sup>*n* = number of units comprising the sample (number of sample units per food batch that are required for testing); *c* = maximum allowable number of sample units yielding unsatisfactory test results. In a two-class attributes sampling plan defined by *n* = 10, *c* = 0 and a microbiological limit of 'not detected in 25 g', in order for the food batch to be considered acceptable, *L. monocytogenes* must not be detected in qualitative (detection) analyses of 25 g food test portions obtained from each one of 10 sample units taken from the batch. If even one of the sample units from the batch is found to contain *L. monocytogenes* (detected in 25 g), then the entire batch is deemed unacceptable. This criterion applies to products before they have left the immediate control of the producing food business operator, when the operator is not able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the CA, that the product will not exceed the limit of 100 CFU/g throughout the shelf-life.

<sup>c</sup>Products placed on the market during their shelf-life.

<sup>d</sup>This criterion applies if the manufacturer is able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the CA, that the product will not exceed the limit of 100 CFU/g throughout the shelf-life. The operator may fix intermediate limits during the process that should be low enough to guarantee that the limit of 100 CFU/g is not exceeded at the end of the shelf-life.

Data reported by MSs were classified into the different categories of RTE food/sampling stages based on the assumptions described in the EU Summary zoonoses and food-borne outbreaks report of 2016 (EFSA and ECDC, 2017). Briefly, these assumptions are: all sampling units that were collected from 'cutting plants' and 'processing plants' were considered units collected at the manufacturing stage, while sampling units that were obtained from 'catering', 'hospital or medical care facility', 'retail', 'wholesale', 'restaurant or cafe or pub or bar or hotel or catering service', 'border inspection activities', 'packing centre' and 'automatic distribution system for raw milk' were considered units collected at distribution. When the stage was 'not available' or 'unspecified', data were also considered part of the distribution stage. Other assumptions concerning the RTE categories are presented in the footnotes of Table 32.

### 3.3.2 | Monitoring data assessing *Listeria monocytogenes* occurrence in RTE foods

The overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in different RTE food categories, regardless of the stage, was assessed from detection results reported by MSs. All levels of sampling unit (single and batches), sampling stages, sampler and sampling contexts ('surveillance', 'monitoring' and 'surveillance based on Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005') were considered. Only data obtained from the sampling strategies 'objective sampling' and 'census sampling' were used, excluding data reported from 'convenient sampling', 'suspect sampling', 'selective sampling' and 'other' contexts.

Since data were mostly reported by a limited number of MSs and are of a heterogeneous nature, results may not be representative of the EU level nor directly comparable across years.

### 3.3.3 | Monitoring data for *Listeria monocytogenes* in animals and feed

For animals and feed, all sampling strategies were included, even data reported for 'suspect sampling' and 'selective sampling'.

## 3.4 | Results

### 3.4.1 | Overview of key statistics, EU, 2019–2023

Table 30 summarises EU-level statistics on human listeriosis and on sampling units from RTE foods tested for *L. monocytogenes* during the period 2019–2023. Food data of interest reported were classified into the major categories and aggregated by year to obtain an annual overview of the volume of data submitted. More detailed descriptions of these statistics are provided in the below subsections and in the chapter on food-borne outbreaks.

Compared to 2022, there was a general decrease in the number of reported sampling units across all major RTE food categories – 'meat and meat products', 'milk and milk products', and 'fish and fishery products' – except for 'food intended for infants or special medical purposes'. This decrease can be attributed, on the one hand, to the absence of data from some Member States, particularly Poland, which in 2022 accounted for over 30% of the reported data in each category. On the other hand, notable reductions in reported sampling units were observed for Italy in the 'fish and fishery products' category (2244 units in 2022 vs. 921 in 2023), and for Czechia in the 'meat and meat products' category (5132 units in 2022 vs. 4145 in 2023).
<table><caption>TABLE 30 Summary of *Listeria monocytogenes* statistics relating to invasive human infections and major RTE food categories, EU, 2019–2023.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>2023</th><th>2022</th><th>2021</th><th>2020</th><th>2019</th><th>Data source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Humans</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of confirmed cases</td><td>2952</td><td>2778</td><td>2365</td><td>1887</td><td>2621</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of confirmed cases/100,000 population (notification rates)</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.46</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Infection acquired in the EU</td><td>2031</td><td>1777</td><td>1546</td><td>1286</td><td>1816</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Infection acquired outside the EU</td><td>8</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>14</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown travel status or unknown country of infection</td><td>913</td><td>989</td><td>814</td><td>596</td><td>791</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Number of outbreak-related cases</td><td>133</td><td>296</td><td>106</td><td>123</td><td>349</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of outbreaks</td><td>19</td><td>35</td><td>24</td><td>17</td><td>21</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Sampled major RTE food categories<sup>a</sup></strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Meat and meat products</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>63,013</td><td>135,143</td><td>107,198</td><td>40,291</td><td>65,034</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>23</td><td>24</td><td>23</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Fish and fishery products</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>13,876</td><td>25,009</td><td>29,783</td><td>11,212</td><td>13,366</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>22</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>23</td><td>22</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Milk and milk products</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>60,199</td><td>97,157</td><td>66,633</td><td>49,132</td><td>62,016</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Products intended for infants or special medical purposes</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>4079</td><td>2672</td><td>2764</td><td>2394</td><td>2346</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Other products</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>104,743</td><td>120,432</td><td>94,693</td><td>81,487</td><td>80,149</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>23</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>EFSA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: ECDC, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; EFSA, European Food Safety Authority; MSs, Member States; RTE, ready-to-eat.

Figure 8 shows that in 2023, 25 MSs reported a total of 186,997 sampling units tested for *L. monocytogenes* across various RTE food categories at the manufacturing and distribution stages. Compared with 2022, there was a slight decrease in the number of reporting MSs (26 in 2022) and a 40% reduction in the number of sampling units tested at these stages (312,849 samples in 2022). As mentioned above, this decrease was primarily due to the absence of data from Poland, which contributed 36% (N = 113,766) of the samples in 2022. At the primary production level, the volume of reported data was also lower compared with previous years. In 2023, 12 MSs reported 15,422 samples, down from 22,370 samples in 2020 (reported by 11 MSs) and 23,564 samples in 2021 (reported by 12 MSs).

<footnote>ªNumber of sampling units tested by detection or enumeration method.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 8** Overview of *Listeria monocytogenes* testing of 'ready-to-eat' food along the food chain according to the sampling stage, the sampler and the objective of the sampling, EU, 2023.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.4.2 | Human listeriosis

In 2023, 27 MSs reported 2952 confirmed cases of invasive listeriosis in humans (Table 30, Table 31). The EU notification rate was 0.66 cases per 100,000 population, 5.8% higher than in 2022 (0.63 per 100,000 population). The highest notification rates were observed for Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Denmark and Belgium, with 1.7, 1.2, 0.95, 0.92, 0.89 and 0.89 cases per 100,000 population, respectively. The lowest notification rates were reported by Romania and Croatia (≤ 0.20 per 100,000). Cyprus reported no cases of listeriosis.

Overall, 21 MSs reported data on the travel status of cases. Most cases of listeriosis with information on the travel status (N=2042) were acquired in the EU in 2023 (99.5%; N=2031) (Table 30), including both domestic infections (N=2012) and infections associated with travel within the EU (N=19). Travel-associated cases of listeriosis were reported by 10 MSs (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden). The most frequently reported countries as probable origin of infection in the EU were France, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands.

<table><caption>**TABLE 31** Reported confirmed human cases of invasive listeriosis and notification rates per 100,000 population in EU MS and non-MS countries, by country and year, 2019–2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Country</th><th colspan="2">2023</th><th colspan="2">2022</th><th colspan="2">2021</th><th colspan="2">2020</th><th colspan="2">2019</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">National coverage<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Data format<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th></tr><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>37</td><td>0.41</td><td>47</td><td>0.52</td><td>38</td><td>0.43</td><td>41</td><td>0.46</td><td>38</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium<sup>b</sup></td><td>N</td><td>C</td><td>84</td><td>0.89</td><td>87</td><td>0.94</td><td>68</td><td>0.74</td><td>54</td><td>0.59</td><td>66</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>Y</td><td>A</td><td>15</td><td>0.23</td><td>5</td><td>0.07</td><td>3</td><td>0.04</td><td>4</td><td>0.06</td><td>13</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>Y</td><td>A</td><td>6</td><td>0.16</td><td>5</td><td>0.13</td><td>8</td><td>0.20</td><td>5</td><td>0.12</td><td>6</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.11</td><td>1</td><td>0.11</td><td>2</td><td>0.23</td><td>1</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>45</td><td>0.42</td><td>48</td><td>0.46</td><td>24</td><td>0.23</td><td>16</td><td>0.15</td><td>27</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>53</td><td>0.89</td><td>86</td><td>1.5</td><td>62</td><td>1.1</td><td>43</td><td>0.74</td><td>61</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>5</td><td>0.37</td><td>11</td><td>0.83</td><td>5</td><td>0.38</td><td>3</td><td>0.23</td><td>21</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>92</td><td>1.7</td><td>70</td><td>1.3</td><td>70</td><td>1.3</td><td>94</td><td>1.7</td><td>50</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>538</td><td>0.79</td><td>451</td><td>0.66</td><td>435</td><td>0.64</td><td>334</td><td>0.50</td><td>373</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>663</td><td>0.79</td><td>548</td><td>0.66</td><td>562</td><td>0.68</td><td>546</td><td>0.66</td><td>571</td><td>0.69</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 31 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Country</th><th colspan="2">2023</th><th colspan="2">2022</th><th colspan="2">2021</th><th colspan="2">2020</th><th colspan="2">2019</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">National coverage<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Data format<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th></tr><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Greece</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>31</td><td>0.30</td><td>7</td><td>0.07</td><td>21</td><td>0.20</td><td>20</td><td>0.19</td><td>10</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>46</td><td>0.48</td><td>64</td><td>0.66</td><td>35</td><td>0.36</td><td>32</td><td>0.33</td><td>39</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>18</td><td>0.34</td><td>17</td><td>0.34</td><td>14</td><td>0.28</td><td>6</td><td>0.12</td><td>17</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>231</td><td>0.39</td><td>385</td><td>0.65</td><td>230</td><td>0.39</td><td>155</td><td>0.26</td><td>202</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>11</td><td>0.58</td><td>8</td><td>0.43</td><td>10</td><td>0.53</td><td>8</td><td>0.42</td><td>6</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>20</td><td>0.70</td><td>13</td><td>0.46</td><td>7</td><td>0.25</td><td>7</td><td>0.25</td><td>6</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>4</td><td>0.61</td><td>4</td><td>0.62</td><td>4</td><td>0.63</td><td>4</td><td>0.64</td><td>3</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>2</td><td>0.37</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.97</td><td>5</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>95</td><td>0.53</td><td>94</td><td>0.53</td><td>86</td><td>0.49</td><td>90</td><td>0.52</td><td>103</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>240</td><td>0.65</td><td>142</td><td>0.38</td><td>120</td><td>0.32</td><td>57</td><td>0.15</td><td>121</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>99</td><td>0.95</td><td>63</td><td>0.61</td><td>57</td><td>0.55</td><td>47</td><td>0.46</td><td>56</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>21</td><td>0.11</td><td>14</td><td>0.07</td><td>11</td><td>0.06</td><td>2</td><td>0.01</td><td>17</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>21</td><td>0.39</td><td>25</td><td>0.46</td><td>13</td><td>0.24</td><td>7</td><td>0.13</td><td>18</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>16</td><td>0.76</td><td>20</td><td>0.95</td><td>19</td><td>0.90</td><td>26</td><td>1.2</td><td>20</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Spain<sup>c</sup></td><td>N</td><td>C</td><td>428</td><td>0.92</td><td>437</td><td>0.95</td><td>355</td><td>0.77</td><td>191</td><td>—</td><td>504</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>131</td><td>1.2</td><td>125</td><td>1.2</td><td>107</td><td>1.0</td><td>88</td><td>0.85</td><td>113</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>EU Total 27</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2952</td><td>0.66</td><td>2778</td><td>0.63</td><td>2365</td><td>0.53</td><td>1887</td><td>0.43</td><td>2467</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>154</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>EU Total</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2952</td><td>0.66</td><td>2778</td><td>0.63</td><td>2365</td><td>0.53</td><td>1887</td><td>0.43</td><td>2621</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>3</td><td>0.77</td><td>2</td><td>0.53</td><td>5</td><td>1.4</td><td>4</td><td>1.1</td><td>4</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>39</td><td>0.71</td><td>30</td><td>0.55</td><td>20</td><td>0.37</td><td>37</td><td>0.69</td><td>27</td><td>0.51</td></tr><tr><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland<sup>d</sup></td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>74</td><td>0.84</td><td>78</td><td>0.89</td><td>33</td><td>0.38</td><td>58</td><td>0.67</td><td>36</td><td>0.42</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: –, Data not reported.

<sup>a</sup>Y, yes; N, no; A, aggregated data; C, case-based data.

<sup>b</sup>Sentinel system: notification rates calculated with an estimated population coverage of 80%.

<sup>c</sup>Sentinel system: notification rates calculated with an estimated population coverage of 97% in 2021–2023. No information on estimated coverage in 2019–2020, so notification rate cannot be estimated.

<sup>d</sup>Switzerland provided data directly to EFSA. The human data for Switzerland include data from Liechtenstein for the years 2019–2020.

The distribution of cases by month in the last 5 years (2019–2023) shows a rise in case reports in the second half of the year, with a peak in the summer (Figure 9). The overall EU trend for listeriosis cases in the period 2019–2023 showed a significant increase. At the country level, a statistically significant increasing trend (p < 0.05) was reported for Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. No country exhibited a significant decreasing trend.
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 9** Trend in reported confirmed human cases of listeriosis in the EU by month, 2019–2023. Source: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.4.3 | *Listeria monocytogenes* in RTE food

**Data collected in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005**

In total, 20 MSs reported data in the context of the FSC according to the specifications mentioned above (Section 3.3.1) for 11 RTE food categories (Table 32).

Overall, *L. monocytogenes* occurrences reported from official sampling were rare to low, both at manufacturing and distribution (from 0% to 2.8%), except for 'products of meat origin, fermented sausages' for which a moderate positive proportion (14.8%) was observed at distribution. Occurrences were lower at distribution compared with manufacturing, except for 'products of meat origin, other than fermented sausages'.

At distribution, the highest occurrences were reported for 'products of meat origin, fermented sausages' (14.8%), 'hard cheeses' (1.8%), 'products of meat origin, other than fermented sausages' (1.4%) and 'fish' (1.1%). Statistics on positive samples indicated further that the proportion of samples exceeding 100 CFU/g was either zero or consistently rare to very low across all RTE food categories. The highest proportion, 0.78%, was reported for 'products of meat origin, fermented sausages'.

At manufacturing, the highest occurrences were reported for 'fish and fishery products' (1.8%), 'fish' (1.4%) and 'soft and semi-soft cheeses' (1.3%).
<table><caption>**TABLE 32** Proportions (%) of *Listeria monocytogenes* positive single samples at the manufacturing and distribution stages from official sampling by CAs in the context of verification of implementation by FBOps of the *L. monocytogenes* FSC in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, EU, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">RTE food category<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="2">Manufacturing<sup>b</sup></th><th colspan="2">Distribution<sup>c</sup></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Analytical method<sup>d</sup></th><th colspan="2">Detection (EN ISO 11290-1)</th></tr><tr><th>Detection (EN ISO 11290-1)<br>% positive samples<br>(N samples tested, N<br>reporting MSs)<sup>d</sup></th><th>Detection (EN ISO 11290-1)<br>% positive samples<br>(N samples tested,<br>N reporting MSs)<sup>d</sup></th><th>Enumeration (EN ISO 11290-2)<br>% positive samples<br>(N samples tested, N<br>reporting MSs)<sup>d</sup></th><th>% of samples<br>exceeding<br>100 CFU/g<sup>e</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Foods intended for infants and for<br>medical purposes: data reported from<br>BE, CY, CZ, ES, GR, HU, IT, LU, SI, SK</td><td></td><td>0 (N = 1667; 10 MSs)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fish: data reported from AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ,<br>DK, EE, ES, GR, HR, HU, IT, PT, SI, SK</td><td>1.4 (N = 640; 8 MSs)</td><td></td><td>1.1 (N = 873; 13 MSs)</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Fishery products: data reported from AT,<br>BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, GR, HR, IT, LU,<br>RO SI, SK</td><td>1.8 (N = 558; 10 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0.74 (N = 1887; 11 MSs)</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Cheeses, soft and semi-soft: data<br>reported from AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE,<br>ES, GR, HR, HU, IT, LT, PT, RO, SK</td><td>1.3 (N = 2970; 13 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0.23 (N = 2611; 14 MSs)</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Cheeses, hard: data reported from BG, ES,<br>GR, HR, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SK</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.8 (N = 492; 10 MSs)</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Cheeses, unspecified: data reported from<br>AT, BE, ES, GR, HR, HU, IT, RO, SI</td><td>0.55 (N = 2362; 6 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0 (N = 303; 7 MSs)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Other dairy products (excluding<br>cheeses) - entire category: data<br>reported from AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE,<br>ES, GR, HU, IT, LT, LU, RO, SI, SK</td><td>0.18 (N = 1689; 12 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0 (N = 1571; 13 MSs)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Milk: data reported from AT, BG, CZ, EE, ES,<br>GR, HR, HU, IT, RO</td><td>0 (N = 248; 7 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0 (N = 84; 7 MSs)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Products of meat origin, fermented<br>sausages: data reported from BE, BG,<br>CY, CZ, ES, GR, HR, LT, PT, SK</td><td></td><td></td><td>14.8 (N = 386; 10 MSs)</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>Products of meat origin, other than<br>fermented sausages: data reported<br>from AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR,<br>GR, HR, IT, LU, RO, SI, SK</td><td>0.90 (N = 8289; 11 MSs)</td><td></td><td>1.4 (N = 4728; 14 MSs)</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Other products: data reported from AT,<br>BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, GR, HR, HU, IT,<br>LT, LU, MT, PT, RO, SI, SK</td><td>2.8 (N = 878; 15 MSs)</td><td></td><td>0.37 (N = 6463; 17 MSs)</td><td>0.12</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Grey boxes are not applicable in relation to the analytical method for the specific food category and sampling stage in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.

Abbreviations: CFU, colony forming units; MSs, Member States; N, number of single samples tested; RTE, ready-to-eat.

<sup>a</sup>In the absence of relevant physicochemical data (pH, aw), EFSA assumes that foods listed under 'fish and fishery products', 'soft and semi-soft cheeses', 'unspecified cheeses', 'milk', 'products of meat origin other than fermented sausages', 'other dairy products' and 'other products' belong to the category of foods that are able to support the growth of *L. monocytogenes*. EFSA assumes that 'fermented sausages' and 'hard cheeses' belong to the category of foods that are unable to support the growth of *L. monocytogenes*, because foods classified under these two categories of RTE products undergo ripening/fermentation and are expected to have low pH and moderate aw values. For 'other dairy products', EFSA presents the results in a conservative way, by considering all foods included in this category as capable of supporting the growth of *L. monocytogenes*.

<sup>b</sup>Includes samples collected from 'cutting plants' and 'processing plants'.

<sup>c</sup>Includes samples collected from 'catering', 'hospital or medical care facility', 'retail', 'wholesale', 'not available', 'unspecified', 'restaurant or cafe or pub or bar or hotel or catering service', 'automatic distribution system for raw milk', 'border inspection' and 'packing centre'.

<sup>d</sup>Proportion (%) of positive samples (detection of *L. monocytogenes* in 25 g of sample for qualitative analyses, or number of *L. monocytogenes* > or ≤ 100 CFU/g for enumeration analyses); in parentheses, the number of tested samples and the number of reporting MSs.

<sup>e</sup>Proportion (%) of samples exceeding 100 CFU/g for enumeration analyses.

The below text summarises results for the major food categories according to the criteria described in section 3.3.2.

## Monitoring data assessing *L. monocytogenes* occurrence in RTE foods

### Fish and fishery products, RTE

In 2023, 17 MSs and four non-MSs (Albania, Iceland, Montenegro and Serbia) reported detection data for fish or fishery products.
In the EU, as in previous years, the overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in fish or fishery products remained among the highest across all RTE food categories, with an overall mean occurrence of 3.6% (N=4132), ranging from 0% to 10.0% depending on the MS. Seven MSs (Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain) accounted for 82.5% of the reported data for these categories.

## Meat and meat products, RTE

In 2023, 17 MSs and 4 non-MSs (Albania, Iceland, Republic of North Macedonia and Serbia) reported detection data for meat and meat products.

In the EU, the overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in meat and meat products was 3.1% (N=16,445 units tested for detection), ranging from 0% to 16.7% depending on the MS. Three MSs accounted for 67% of the reported data (Czechia, Romania and Spain). A total of 79.7% of tested units were associated with the four main animal species (pigs, cattle, broilers and turkeys), while the remaining 20.3% came from other or unspecified animals. RTE meat and meat products from pigs were the most frequently tested (72.8%). RTE meat and meat products from cattle, broilers and turkeys represented 4.1%, 2.3% and 0.49% of the tested sampling units, respectively.

### Pork products

Fifteen MSs and four non-MSs (Albania, Iceland, Republic of North Macedonia and Serbia) reported data for RTE pork meat products.

In the EU, the overall occurrence was low and comparable to previous years: 3.1% in 2023 (N=11,976), 1.9% in 2022 (N=32,068) and 2.6% in 2021 (N=24,688). As in previous years, four MSs accounted for 80.4% of the reported data on pork meat products (Czechia, Germany, Romania and Spain).

### Poultry meat products (broilers and turkeys)

Eleven MSs reported data for RTE poultry meat products.

In the EU, the overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in RTE poultry meat products was 0.44% (N=455). This very low occurrence was comparable with previous years: 0.64% (N=1248) in 2022, 1.3% (N=895) in 2021 and 0.65% (N=464) in 2020. In 2023, only one positive sampling unit was detected in RTE meats from each category: broilers (N=374) or turkeys (N=81). In 2023, five MSs accounted for 82.2% of the reported data on poultry meat products (Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Romania and Spain).

### Bovine meat products

Twelve MSs and two non-MSs (Albania and Serbia) reported data for RTE bovine meat products.

In the EU, the overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* reported in RTE bovine meat products was 9.9% (N=679). Four MSs accounted for 84.7% of the accounted data on bovine meat products (Bulgaria, Czechia, Italy and the Netherlands). For comparison, occurrences were 4.9% in 2022 (N=2712), 3.9% in 2021 (N=2217) and 7.4% in 2020 (N=856).

## Milk and milk products, RTE

In 2023, 19 MSs and four non-MSs (Albania, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia and Serbia) reported detection data for RTE milk and milk products. Six MSs provided 79% of the reported data (Bulgaria, Czechia, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain).

In the EU, the overall occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in RTE milk products was 0.47% (N=22,112 tested units). The occurrence was 0.26% in cheeses made from pasteurised milk (N=7371), 1.4% in cheeses made from raw milk or low heat-treated milk (N=1704) and 0% in milk (N=727). The highest occurrences were observed in cheeses made from raw or low heat-treated milk (including fresh cheese), with occurrences reaching up to 6.7%. In this category, five MSs (Austria, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Spain) accounted for 85.3% of the reported data. Of the tested sampling units, 76.3% of cheese and 92.4% of milk sampling units were of bovine origin.

## Fruits, vegetables and juices, RTE

Fifteen MSs reported detection data for RTE fruits, vegetables and juices.

The overall occurrence in the EU was 1.6% (N=1075). A total of 80.1% of the data were reported by six MSs (Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Spain).
### 3.4.4 | *Listeria* spp. in animals

In 2023, 11 MSs, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and two non-MSs (Republic of North Macedonia and Switzerland) reported 15,422 samples across various animal categories, including food-producing, wild, zoo and pet animals, as well as birds, from different species.

In the EU, the majority of the data (Table 33) were derived from individual animals (92.0%, N = 14,181) compared to other samples such as herd/flock or holdings. Cattle accounted for the largest proportion of animals tested for *Listeria* (46.2% of the total units tested), followed by small ruminants (30.9%) and pigs (17.3%). The percentages of positive units for *Listeria* spp. were 1.5% in cattle, 4.2% in small ruminants and 0.26% in pigs. The sample size, sampling strategies and proportion of positive findings varied considerably among the reporting countries and animal species. Notably, 76.2% of the EU data were reported by two MSs: the Netherlands (38.0%) and Ireland (38.2%).

Among the 320 positive samples for *Listeria*, 56.6% were reported as *L. monocytogenes*. Limited positive findings were attributed to *L. ivanovii* (6.3%) and *L. innocua* (3.1%). As in previous years, a large proportion of positive findings (34.1%) were classified as other or unspecified *Listeria* species.

<table><caption>TABLE 33 Summary of *Listeria* species statistics relating to major animal species, MSs, 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th>Animal species</th><th>N reporting MSs</th><th>N tested units</th><th>% positive units</th><th>N positive units for L. monocytogenes</th><th>N positive units for L. ivanovii</th><th>N positive units for L. innocua</th><th>N positive units for other Listeria species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>10</td><td>7127</td><td>1.5</td><td>67</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Sheep and goats</td><td>12</td><td>4762</td><td>4.2</td><td>103</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Pigs</td><td>6</td><td>2672</td><td>0.26</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>6</td><td>861</td><td>0.58</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total EU</td><td>12</td><td>15,422</td><td>2.1</td><td>181</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>109</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.5 | Discussion

In 2023, the number of confirmed cases of human listeriosis was 2952, corresponding to an EU notification rate of 0.66 per 100,000 population and resulting in an increase of 5.8% in the notification rate compared with 2022. This was the highest notification rate and number of cases reported in the EU since the beginning of EU level surveillance in 2007. Listeriosis was the fifth most commonly reported zoonosis in humans in the EU in 2023, and one of the most serious food-borne diseases under EU surveillance due to the high rate of hospitalisations, and elevated morbidity and mortality, particularly among elderly people (Quereda et al., 2021).

Findings from the 2023 analysis of data reported to ECDC through TESSy indicate that listeriosis in Europe is increasing. It is noteworthy that for all MSs with statistically significant trends in cases of listeriosis reported in the period 2019–2023, the trend was towards a gradual increase, while no country reported a decreasing trend. This explains the statistically significant increasing trend at the EU level. Italy was the only country reporting far fewer cases in 2023, but this was due to a larger than expected number of cases observed in 2022 because of the occurrence of large community food-borne outbreaks of listeriosis (EFSA and ECDC, 2023).

In 2023, listeriosis caused 1497 hospitalisations and 335 deaths. In all, 80% of fatal cases were in the age group over 65 years and 89.3% when considering the age group over 60 years. Outbreaks were fewer than in previous years (19 in 2023 vs. 35 in 2022) with 133 related cases (296 in 2022). However, it is important to note that most human listeriosis cases are sporadic and until now sporadic cases of listeriosis were rarely traced to a food source (EFSA BIOHAZ et al., 2020a). Estimates of under-reporting and under-detection are lower than for other zoonotic agents due to the severity of invasive listeriosis (Haagsma et al., 2013).

Invasive listeriosis (fever, meningitis and septicaemia) affects mainly susceptible populations (elderly people over 65, pregnant women, newborns and immunocompromised people) (Quereda et al., 2021; Radoshevich & Cossart, 2018; Vázquez et al., 2024). With the ageing of the European population (21.3% of the European population is over 65) (Eurostat, 2024) and the increase in chronic age-related diseases (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020), more people are at risk of severe symptoms. Human cases of listeriosis are primarily caused by consuming RTE foods (such as cold smoked salmon, meat and meat products, and dairy products) (ECDC and EFSA, 2024b; Fernández-Martínez et al., 2022; Halbedel et al., 2023); frozen vegetables should also be considered as risky food, when consumed in raw state or improperly cooked under foreseeable conditions of use EFSA BIOHAZ et al., 2020a). These listeriosis cases are not necessarily linked to social and community events, but to consumption of these foods in households (ECDC and EFSA, 2018a, 2018b, 2019).

The molecular characterisation of clinical isolates of *Listeria* has moved from pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) (ECDC, 2021) to whole genome sequencing (WGS), combined with core genome multi-locus sequence typing (cgMLST) for strain typing, yielding greater accuracy (ECDC, 2019; Moura et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2017; Ruppitsch et al., 2015). Prior to the use of WGS, a system for rapid and accurate identification of clusters was lacking in sensitivity and, at the European
level, many outbreaks were not detected early (Van Walle et al., 2018); nowadays, WGS is a typing method for *Listeria* spp. that is in widespread use internationally (Fagerlund et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2023; Pietzka et al., 2019).

In the food sector, we observed an overall decrease of the number of tested units in RTE products (–40% in 2023 compared with 2022) mainly explained by the absence of data from Poland. Finland and Norway also did not provide data. Iceland and Northern Ireland provided very few monitoring results. The sampling effort at manufacturing and distribution remained focused on RTE products of animal origin. The occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* as assessed from detection results reported by MSs (covering objective sampling of single samples and batches) varied according to the food category and sample stage. Occurrences remained generally rare to low in RTE foods. The highest values were observed for ‘meat products from bovine animals’ (9.9%), ‘hard cheeses from raw or low heat-treated milk’ (6.7%), ‘fish and fishery products’ (3.6%), and ‘fruits and vegetables’ (1.6%). As in previous years, the highest proportions of positive official control samples, as part of verification of *L. monocytogenes* FSC, were observed at manufacturing compared with distribution, except for ‘products of meat origin other than fermented sausages’. No *L. monocytogenes* was detected in ‘milk’, at any stage. Contamination of the food processing environment is known to be a risk factor for food safety, particularly where persistent strains are concerned. For this reason, advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, strategic hygiene measures and environmental monitoring have recently been reviewed (EFSA, 2018; EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2024), in order to provide recommendations to FBOps and risk assessors.

The results from official sampling at distribution showed that the proportion of samples exceeding 100 CFU/g was either zero or consistently rare to very low across all RTE food categories, with a maximum of 0.78% observed for ‘Products of meat origin, fermented sausage’.

In primary production, cattle were the most frequently sampled animal species and presented a low proportion of positive units (1.5%).

National data and trends for the occurrence of *L. monocytogenes* in food or animals over time must be interpreted with caution. Currently, surveillance data come from systems that are not fully harmonised and that vary in nature and effectiveness depending on the MS. Moreover, data may be reported by a limited number of MSs depending on each food/animal category.

Combining human, animal and food epidemiological data with molecular and genotyping data provides an efficient methodology to better understand the ecology of this pathogen at different stages of the food chain and will improve the investigation of listeriosis outbreaks affecting one or more MSs. In this framework, EFSA and ECDC have developed the One Health WGS System that interoperates to exchange cgMLST profiles and minimum metadata (EFSA, 2022). The system has been open to MSs since 2022. The aim is to collect typing information to detect clusters of food-borne disease and to generate hypotheses on the possible food vehicles involved, supporting risk managers. In 2023, one Rapid Outbreak Assessment was prepared, which also included an MS consultation on the genomic data of their isolates, after a genomic cluster of *L. monocytogenes* sequence type 155 infections was identified in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK) (ECDC and EFSA, 2023c). At the international level, the joint FAO/WHO expert meetings on microbial risk assessment (JEMRA) recommended expanding risk assessments on *L. monocytogenes* in RTE foods, incorporating a primary production-to-consumption perspective and reviewing groupings of susceptible populations (FAO and WHO, 2022). Models for the risk assessment of *L. monocytogenes* for lettuce, cantaloupe, frozen vegetables and RTE fish were developed, and recommendations were made in November 2022 and June 2023 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert<fnref n="25" /> to possibly revise the Guidelines on the Application of General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Foods (CXG 61–2007). FAO and WHO also established a roster of experts in 2022 to obtain more representative data on *L. monocytogenes* in food and to develop a new, full farm-to-table risk assessment.

<footnote n="25">²⁵Summary and conclusions on https://www.fao.org/food-safety/resources/publications/en/?page=6&ipp=10&tx_dynalist_pi1%5Bpar%5D=YToxOntzOjE6lkwiO3M6MToiMCI7fQ%3D%3D (The issuance of these documents do not constitute formal publication).</footnote>
4 | SHIGA TOXIN-PRODUCING ESCHERICHIA COLI (STEC)

Human cases [EU, 2023]

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

10,217 Cases of illness

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

7192 Infections acquired in the EU

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

895 Infections acquired outside the EU

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

2130 Unknown travel status or unknown country of infection

Notification rate
(per 100,000 population)

3.1

Trend
(2019-2023)

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

↑ Increasing
↓ Decreasing
— Stable

1234 Hospitalisations (37.6%)*

31 Deaths (0.40%)*

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

ECDC data

Foodborne outbreaks & related cases [EU, 2023]

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

66 Foodborne outbreaks

6

Strong-evidence outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

60

Weak-evidence outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

270 Cases of illness

48 Hospitalisations (17.8%)*

1 Death (0.37%)*

N of outbreaks

<table><tr><td>Austria</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>UK (N. Ireland)</td><td>2</td></tr></table>

N of outbreaks
per 100,000 population **

<table><tr><td>AT</td><td>0.055</td></tr><tr><td>BE</td><td>0.119</td></tr><tr><td>BG</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HR</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CY</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CZ</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>DK</td><td>0.051</td></tr><tr><td>EE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FR</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>DE</td><td>0.009</td></tr><tr><td>EL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>IE</td><td>0.171</td></tr><tr><td>IT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LV</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MT</td><td>0.369</td></tr><tr><td>NL</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>PT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>RO</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ES</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>0.019</td></tr><tr><td>XI</td><td>0.105</td></tr></table>

N of outbreak cases
per 100,000 population

<table><tr><td>AT</td><td>0.132</td></tr><tr><td>BE</td><td>0.358</td></tr><tr><td>BG</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HR</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CY</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CZ</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>DK</td><td>0.202</td></tr><tr><td>EE</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FR</td><td>0.166</td></tr><tr><td>DE</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>EL</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>HU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>IE</td><td>0.379</td></tr><tr><td>IT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LV</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MT</td><td>1.107</td></tr><tr><td>NL</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>0.016</td></tr><tr><td>PT</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>RO</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SI</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ES</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>0.133</td></tr><tr><td>XI</td><td>0.419</td></tr></table>

Implicated food vehicles
(Strong-evidence outbreaks)

Top food vehicles

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

Dairy products (other than
cheeses)

3 Outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Cheese

2 Outbreaks

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

Bovine meat and products
thereof

1 Outbreak

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

EFSA data

The summary data which make up this chapter, as well as additional information on related projects and internet sources, are published for this report on the EFSA Knowledge Junction at Zenodo [here](https://doi.org/10.29033/j.efsa.2024.9.106), by Laboratoire De Fougères, Wiley Online Library on [25.02.2025](https://doi.org/10.29033/j.efsa.2024.9.106). See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlineLibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use, OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License.

For additional information about Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli* (STEC) and for the consultation of data collected, the following interactive tools are available:

Shiga toxin-producing
*E. coli*

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

DASHBOARD

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

Shiga toxin-producing
*E. coli*

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

STORY MAP

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<footnote>* The percentages are calculated on the number of cases with information available (for further details see Table 2)</footnote>

<footnote>* The percentages are calculated on the number of cases with information available (for further details see Table 2)</footnote>

<footnote>** Differences among countries shall be interpreted with caution as this indicator depends on several factors including the type of outbreaks under surveillance and does not necessarily reflect the level of food safety in each country.</footnote>
## 4.1 | Key facts

* STEC infection was the third most commonly reported gastrointestinal food-borne illness in humans in the European Union.

* In 2023, there were 10,217 confirmed cases of human STEC infections, corresponding to a European Union notification rate of 3.1 cases per 100,000 population. This was an increase of 30.0% compared with 2022 (2.4 cases per 100,000 population).

* The overall trend for STEC infections showed an increase in the 2019–2023 period.

* In 2023, a total of 505 HUS cases were reported from 20 Member States.

* In 2023, STEC were isolated from 354 food sampling units of the 16,117 units sampled with 'objective sampling' as sampling strategy and tested with methods detecting any STEC.<fnref n="26" /> The 'ready-to-eat' food category included 6863 sampling units reported by 19 Member States and 1.0% were positive for STEC, with positive sampling units originating mainly from the 'milk and milk products' (2.0% positives) and 'meat and meat products' (1.3%) food categories. However, 6.7% of the 45 sampling units belonging to the 'bakery products' food category were also positive for the presence of STEC. Out of the 9254 'non-ready-to-eat' samples reported by 21 Member States, 3.1% were positive, with the highest level of contamination in 'meat and meat products' (3.8%).

* Nine Member States tested 536 official control samples of 'sprouted seeds' in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 taken at retail and processing plants, with no positive results.

* In 2023, STEC testing was carried out by five Member States on animal samples belonging to different categories. Most of the units tested in the European Union (N=2129) were from 'cattle' (N=937), with 16.8% positives. The highest proportions of positive samples were obtained from the following animal categories: 'pigs' with 46.9%, 'goats and sheep' with 34.6%, based on 408 and 405 animal samples tested, respectively.

## 4.2 | Surveillance and monitoring of STEC infections in the EU

### 4.2.1 | Humans

In 2023, all 27 MSs reported information on STEC infections in humans. STEC surveillance is mandatory in 24 MSs, voluntary in 2 MSs (Belgium, France) and based on another system in Italy.

The EU case definition was used by 24 MSs. Three countries reported using a different case definition (France, Germany and the Netherlands).

All MSs, except Italy, indicated that the surveillance system is comprehensive. The surveillance systems for STEC infections cover the whole population in all EU MSs except for three MSs (France, Italy and Spain). The notification rates were not calculated in France and Italy, countries for which STEC surveillance is sentinel and primarily based on HUS cases. For Spain, as in 2022, population coverage of STEC cases was estimated at 97%.

All MSs reported case-based data, except Croatia which reported aggregated data.

### 4.2.2 | Food and animals

#### STEC data in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, STEC food safety criterion for sprouts and seeds at the distribution level

A food safety criterion has been in place for STEC in sprouts since 2013 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005). The regulation specifies that sprouts placed on the market during their shelf-life shall not contain detectable STEC O157, O26, O111, O103, O145 or O104:H4 in 25 g of product. The legal basis indicates that the ISO TS 13136:2012 method (ISO, 2012) with the adaptation developed by the EURL for *E. coli* for detecting O104:H4 is the reference testing methodology. However, FBOps are allowed to use alternative methods validated according to the requirements of ISO 16140-4 (ISO, 2020).

As the sampling objectives and frequency are not indicated, these activities vary or are interpreted differently among MSs, resulting in non-harmonised data.

#### Other STEC monitoring data from food and animals

All the food and animal testing data, except for those on sprouts and seeds, originate from the reporting obligations of MSs under Directive 2003/99/EC. Due to the absence of explicitly indicated sampling strategies in this directive, the data generated by MSs are based on investigations with non-harmonised sampling programmes. Therefore, STEC monitoring data in accordance with Directive 2003/99/EC are not comparable between MSs and preclude assessing temporal and spatial

<footnote n="26">²⁶The methods considered here are those not restricted to the detection of specific STEC serogroups e.g. ISO 16654 for O157.</footnote>
trends at the EU level. Different sampling designs and inaccuracies due to limited numbers of samples tested also preclude an accurate estimation of prevalence.

Nevertheless, descriptive summaries of sample statistics at the EU level can be used to indicate the circulation of certain STEC types in food and animals. This information may be used to design sampling strategies within the MSs, provided that the above-mentioned relevant limitations of the data set are taken into consideration.

The analysis of the data available suggests that the isolated STEC strains should be characterised. Indeed, typing and subtyping data (e.g. virulotyping and *stx* gene subtyping) are considered to be the most valuable information for inferring the circulation of the various STEC types and on their possible association with the severity of human disease (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020; FAO and WHO, 2019; NACMCF, 2019).

## 4.3 | Data analyses

### 4.3.1 | Occurrence in food and animals

The monitoring data on sprouts as part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 were aggregated and summarised for trend watching according to the following 'filters': Sampling context: 'surveillance, based on Regulation No 2073/2005'; Sampling unit type: 'single'; Sampling stage: 'distribution'; Sampling strategy: 'objective sampling' and Sampler: 'official sampling'.

For the description of the occurrence of STEC-positive samples in the different food categories, the subset of the monitoring data with 'objective sampling' specified as sampling strategy was used (N = 16,117), meaning that the reporting MSs collected the samples according to a planned strategy based on the selection of random samples statistically representative of the population to be analysed.

### 4.3.2 | Serogroups and virulence features in food and animals

In 2023, the methods targeting any STEC were based on *stx* gene PCR and included the ISO TS 13136:2012 method (ISO, 2012), other PCR-based methods and commercial kits using the same principle. The methods designed to detect only *E. coli* O157 were the ISO 16654:2001 method (ISO, 2001), the NMKL 164:2005 method (NMKL, 2005), the DIN 10167:2004–03 (DIN, 2004) method and the AFNOR BIO 12/25–05/09 ELFA method for *E. coli* O157. The method indicated as the OIE method for *E. coli* O157 is an adaptation of the ISO 16654:2001 method used for animal samples (WOAH, 2023).

For the descriptive analyses of STEC strains from food and animals (primarily those on virulence gene types and on their frequency distribution), the full data set, regardless of the sampling strategy but excluding the samples assayed with methods detecting *E. coli* O157 only, was used (N = 17,495 for food and N = 2107 for animals).

## 4.4 | Results

### 4.4.1 | Overview of key statistics, EU, 2019–2023

**Table 34:** summarises EU-level statistics on human STEC infections and on samples tested for STEC from food and animals during 2019–2023. Food and animal data were classified into major categories and aggregated by year to obtain an annual overview of the volume of data submitted. The number of food-borne outbreaks caused by STEC in 2023 (N = 66) was slightly lower than that reported in 2022 (N = 71). More detailed descriptions of these statistics are provided in the subsections below and in the chapter on food-borne outbreaks.

<table><caption>TABLE 34 Summary of STEC statistics relating to humans, major food categories and the main animal species, EU, 2019–2023.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>2023</th><th>2022</th><th>2021</th><th>2020</th><th>2019</th><th>Data source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Humans</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total number of confirmed cases</td><td>10,217</td><td>8031</td><td>6406</td><td>4489</td><td>7801</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of confirmed cases/100,000 population (notification rates)</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.4</td><td>1.9</td><td>1.5</td><td>2.1</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>27</td><td>26</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Infection acquired in the EU</td><td>7192</td><td>5272</td><td>4365</td><td>3370</td><td>4836</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Infection acquired outside the EU</td><td>895</td><td>564</td><td>117</td><td>148</td><td>751</td><td>ECDC</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown travel status or unknown country of infection</td><td>2130</td><td>2195</td><td>1924</td><td>971</td><td>2214</td><td>ECDC</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 34 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>2023</th><th>2022</th><th>2021</th><th>2020</th><th>2019</th><th>Data source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of food-borne outbreak-related cases</td><td>270</td><td>408</td><td>275</td><td>208</td><td>208</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of food-borne outbreaks</td><td>66</td><td>71</td><td>31</td><td>34</td><td>36</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Food<sup>a</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Meat and meat products</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>10,108</td><td>9932</td><td>12,160</td><td>10,866</td><td>14,110</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>19</td><td>17</td><td>20</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Milk and milk products</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>3582</td><td>5957</td><td>4094</td><td>4665</td><td>5479</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>13</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fruits and vegetables (and juices)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>2600</td><td>3075</td><td>4046</td><td>3398</td><td>2696</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>16</td><td>15</td><td>13</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Animals<sup>a</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cattle (bovine animals)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>937</td><td>282</td><td>2077</td><td>868</td><td>1615</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Small ruminants (sheep, goats) and deer</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of sampling units</td><td>421</td><td>822</td><td>151</td><td>227</td><td>320</td><td>EFSA</td></tr><tr><td>Number of reporting MSs</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>EFSA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: ECDC, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; EFSA, European Food Safety Authority; MSs, Member States; STEC, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli.

### 4.4.2 | STEC infections in humans

In 2023, 10,217 confirmed cases of STEC infections were reported in the EU (Table 35). Twenty-six MSs reported at least one confirmed STEC case, only Cyprus reported zero cases. In 2023, the EU notification rate was 3.1 per 100,000 population with an increase of 30.0% compared with year 2022 (2.4 cases per 100,000 population).

The highest country-specific notification rates among the EU MSs were observed in Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Sweden (24.1, 15.8, 12.2 and 8.9 cases per 100,000 population, respectively) (Table 35). Three countries (Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia) reported ≤ 0.07 cases per 100,000 population.

Most STEC cases reported with the information on the travel status were infected in the EU (88.0%), including both domestically acquired infections (N = 6877) and 315 cases of infections associated with travel in the EU (Table 35).

Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands reported the highest number of travel-associated cases (421, 309, 157 and 128, respectively), together representing 78.1% of all imported cases (EU and non-EU). The most frequently reported countries as probable origin of infection within the EU were Spain, Italy, Croatia and Greece, with 21.3%, 13.3%, 9.5% and 8.6% cases, respectively.

<table><caption>TABLE 35 Reported confirmed human cases of STEC and notification rates per 100,000 population in EU MSs and non-MS countries, by country and year, 2019–2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Country</th><th colspan="2">2023</th><th colspan="2">2022</th><th colspan="2">2021</th><th colspan="2">2020</th><th colspan="2">2019</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">National coverage<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Data format<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th></tr><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>584</td><td>6.4</td><td>469</td><td>5.2</td><td>383</td><td>4.3</td><td>288</td><td>3.2</td><td>284</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>337</td><td>2.9</td><td>187</td><td>1.6</td><td>124</td><td>1.1</td><td>84</td><td>0.73</td><td>131</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>1</td><td>0.02</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>Y</td><td>A</td><td>23</td><td>0.60</td><td>16</td><td>0.41</td><td>12</td><td>0.30</td><td>8</td><td>0.20</td><td>22</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Czechia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>52</td><td>0.48</td><td>58</td><td>0.55</td><td>36</td><td>0.34</td><td>32</td><td>0.30</td><td>33</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>1431</td><td>24.1</td><td>1329</td><td>22.6</td><td>928</td><td>15.9</td><td>445</td><td>7.6</td><td>623</td><td>10.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)

<footnote><sup>a</sup>The total number of sampling units was calculated by summing all reported sub-level entries for sampling units, stages, strategies and samplers, as listed in the EFSA Catalogue (EFSA and Ioannidou, 2019).</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 35 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Country</th><th colspan="2">2023</th><th colspan="2">2022</th><th colspan="2">2021</th><th colspan="2">2020</th><th colspan="2">2019</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">National coverage<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Data format<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th><th colspan="2">Confirmed cases and rate</th></tr><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th><th>Cases</th><th>Rate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>21</td><td>1.5</td><td>11</td><td>0.83</td><td>7</td><td>0.53</td><td>10</td><td>0.75</td><td>6</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>306</td><td>5.5</td><td>283</td><td>5.1</td><td>288</td><td>5.2</td><td>175</td><td>3.2</td><td>311</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>France<sup>b</sup></td><td>N</td><td>C</td><td>342</td><td>-</td><td>473</td><td>-</td><td>298</td><td>-</td><td>262</td><td>-</td><td>335</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>3485</td><td>4.1</td><td>1873</td><td>2.3</td><td>1635</td><td>2.0</td><td>1409</td><td>1.7</td><td>1907</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>22</td><td>0.21</td><td>14</td><td>0.13</td><td>10</td><td>0.09</td><td>3</td><td>0.03</td><td>5</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>41</td><td>0.43</td><td>26</td><td>0.27</td><td>24</td><td>0.25</td><td>8</td><td>0.08</td><td>23</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>833</td><td>15.8</td><td>892</td><td>17.6</td><td>878</td><td>17.5</td><td>734</td><td>14.8</td><td>798</td><td>16.3</td></tr><tr><td>Italy<sup>b</sup></td><td>N</td><td>C</td><td>96</td><td>-</td><td>118</td><td>-</td><td>65</td><td>-</td><td>45</td><td>-</td><td>62</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>31</td><td>1.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>13</td><td>0.69</td><td>2</td><td>0.10</td><td>48</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>2</td><td>0.07</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>16</td><td>2.4</td><td>9</td><td>1.4</td><td>10</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>66</td><td>12.2</td><td>78</td><td>15.0</td><td>68</td><td>13.2</td><td>43</td><td>8.4</td><td>53</td><td>10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>576</td><td>3.2</td><td>585</td><td>3.3</td><td>484</td><td>2.8</td><td>323</td><td>1.9</td><td>459</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>75</td><td>0.20</td><td>34</td><td>0.09</td><td>7</td><td>0.02</td><td>3</td><td>0.01</td><td>14</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>11</td><td>0.11</td><td>6</td><td>0.06</td><td>2</td><td>0.02</td><td>5</td><td>0.05</td><td>1</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>41</td><td>0.22</td><td>28</td><td>0.15</td><td>6</td><td>0.03</td><td>14</td><td>0.07</td><td>36</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>4</td><td>0.07</td><td>4</td><td>0.07</td><td>5</td><td>0.09</td><td>1</td><td>0.02</td><td>3</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>58</td><td>2.7</td><td>58</td><td>2.8</td><td>48</td><td>2.3</td><td>30</td><td>1.4</td><td>31</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Spain<sup>c,d</sup></td><td>N</td><td>C</td><td>824</td><td>1.8</td><td>623</td><td>1.4</td><td>422</td><td>0.92</td><td>74</td><td>-</td><td>269</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>939</td><td>8.9</td><td>857</td><td>8.2</td><td>653</td><td>6.3</td><td>491</td><td>4.8</td><td>756</td><td>7.4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total 27</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>10,217</strong></td><td><strong>3.1</strong></td><td><strong>8031</strong></td><td><strong>2.4</strong></td><td><strong>6406</strong></td><td><strong>1.9</strong></td><td><strong>4489</strong></td><td><strong>1.5</strong></td><td><strong>6214</strong></td><td><strong>2.0</strong></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1587</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>EU Total</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>10,217</strong></td><td><strong>3.1</strong></td><td><strong>8031</strong></td><td><strong>2.4</strong></td><td><strong>6406</strong></td><td><strong>1.9</strong></td><td><strong>4489</strong></td><td><strong>1.5</strong></td><td><strong>7801</strong></td><td><strong>2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>14</td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>1.1</td><td>7</td><td>1.9</td><td>4</td><td>1.1</td><td>27</td><td>7.6</td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>662</td><td>12.1</td><td>518</td><td>9.5</td><td>437</td><td>8.1</td><td>331</td><td>6.2</td><td>511</td><td>9.6</td></tr><tr><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>8</td><td>20.2</td><td>4</td><td>10.2</td><td>7</td><td>17.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland<sup>e</sup></td><td>Y</td><td>C</td><td>1224</td><td>13.9</td><td>1203</td><td>13.8</td><td>928</td><td>10.7</td><td>710</td><td>8.2</td><td>962</td><td>11.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: -, Data not reported.

The confirmed STEC cases maintained a stable marked seasonal trend, with most cases being reported during the summer months (Figure 10). The observed STEC infection seasonality is in line with that reported in the literature (Sapountzis et al., 2020). The overall trend for STEC in 2019–2023 showed a significant increasing trend (p < 0.05) (Figure 10). At the MS level, the significant increasing trend (p < 0.05) was observed over the same time period in 15 MSs: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Slovenia and Sweden. No countries reported decreasing trends from 2019 to 2023.

<footnote>ªY, yes; N, no; A, aggregated data; C, case-based data.</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇSentinel surveillance; mainly haemolytic-uraemic syndrome (HUS) cases are notified. Notification rate not calculated.</footnote>

<footnote>ᶜSentinel surveillance; notification rates calculated with an estimated population coverage of 97% in 2021–2022–2023.</footnote>

<footnote>ᵈNo information on estimated coverage in 2019–2020, so notification rate cannot be estimated.</footnote>

<footnote>ᶜSwitzerland provided the data directly to EFSA. The human data for Switzerland includes data from Liechtenstein for years 2019–2020.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 10** Trend in reported confirmed human cases of STEC infection in the EU by month, 2014–2023. Source: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.</figcaption></figure>

In 2023, 505 HUS cases were reported by 20 MSs, with 15 fatalities. As observed in 2022, the most common serogroups among STEC isolated from HUS cases in 2023 were O26, with 37.8% of all HUS cases with serogroup reported (N = 357), followed by O157 (19.6%), O145 (7.6%) and O80 (5.3%).

### 4.4.3 | STEC in food

In 2023, 24 MSs provided results from analyses of 17,495 food units (batches or single samples) regardless of the sampling strategy adopted, all assayed with methods detecting any STEC.<fnref n="27" /> In 2023, 56.0% of the total number of food sampling units tested in the EU were collected from the food categories 'bovine meat and products thereof', 'milk and milk products' and 'fruits, vegetables and products thereof', which are known to be the vehicles most frequently implicated in STEC infections (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020; FAO and WHO, 2019).

**Data collected in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005**

Regulation (EU) 2017/625 specifies that the CAs must only use methods complying with relevant internationally recognised rules or protocols (e.g. those accepted by the CEN) for food testing. Therefore, CAs are not allowed to use the alternative methods mentioned in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 when they carry out official controls aiming to verify the correct implementation by FBOps of provisions of this regulation. Year 2023 is the second one of reporting food data in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625; therefore, the implementation of this change should not affect the comparison of the official food control samples taken in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 results with those of 2022. Differences may still be present when the comparison is made with 2021 and earlier data and, for this reason, comparisons with previous years should be made with caution.

Regarding 2023 data for STEC on sprouted seeds in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, 447 samples taken at the distribution level and 89 at processing plants were tested by nine MSs with no positive batches (see the dashboard referenced at the start of the chapter). As noted in previous years, sprouted seeds are still not widely tested at the EU level. This may be due to the technical difficulties in testing this food commodity or to a poor perception of the risks associated with sprouts despite the German outbreak of STEC O104:H4 infections and the existence of a microbiological criterion for this food commodity in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 since 2013.

<footnote n="27">²⁷The methods considered here are those not restricted to the detection of specific STEC serogroups e.g. ISO 16654 for O157.</footnote>
## Other STEC monitoring data from food

Overall, 2.2% (N = 354) of the 16,117 food sampling units collected using an objective sampling strategy and tested by 23 MSs were positive for STEC. For years 2022, 2021, 2020 and 2019, the figures for the reported STEC-positive food sampling units were 1.8%, 2.9%, 2.4% and 2.8%, respectively (EFSA and ECDC, 2023).

### RTE food

As regards 'ready-to-eat' (RTE) food, the testing of 6863 sampling units was reported by 19 MSs, with 1.0% found positive. The food category with the highest number of sample units tested was 'milk and milk products' with 2405 sampling units assayed, of which 92.6% were cheese sampling units, followed by 'meat and meat products' (N = 1376) and 'fruits, vegetables and juices' (N = 1195). In total, 71 RTE food sampling units were positive for STEC: 1.3% in 'meat and meat products', 2.0% in 'milk and milk products' (particularly cheese), but no positive sampling units were identified among the 'fruits, vegetables and juices'. Interestingly, 'bakery products' was the most contaminated RTE food category, although a low number of sampling units were reported by only two MSs: 6.7% (N = 3) of the 45 sampling units assayed were found to be positive for the presence of STEC. One of the positive sampling units was taken at the distribution level, with the remaining two taken at the manufacturing level.

### RTE and non-RTE food

To provide overall statistics, the following descriptive analyses are based on merged data from RTE food and non-RTE food.

#### Meat and meat products

##### Bovine meat

In 2023, 4128 units of fresh and unprocessed bovine meat were tested by 17 MSs. At the distribution level, 1560 units were sampled by 12 MSs with 0.83% of positives. Sampling units taken at the manufacturing level (N = 2568) were the most contaminated (5.3%, 13 MSs). Most specimens sampled at the manufacturing level were taken at the slaughterhouse (72.4%, N = 1860) and 6.5% tested positive for STEC.

##### Sheep and goat meat

In 2023, four MSs reported the results of an investigation on 416 sampling units of fresh sheep meat with 8.2% of these being STEC-positive, confirming the importance of these animals as reservoirs of STEC (Persad & LeJeune, 2014). No fresh goat meat sampling units were taken or assayed for the presence of STEC in 2023.

The sampling stage that yielded the highest proportion of positive fresh sheep meat sampling units was the distribution level, with 9.3% of units producing a STEC isolate, while the units taken at the slaughterhouse, accounting for 98.5% of the manufacturing level samples, showed a lower STEC contamination rate (7.6%).

##### Meat from other ruminants

In 2023, only two MSs provided information on the presence of STEC in 104 fresh deer meat samples with 21 (20.2%) positive sampling units. The sampling units taken at the distribution and manufacturing levels displayed STEC contamination rates of 19.1% and 30.0%, respectively. Only 10 sampling units were taken at the manufacturing level, of which 6 were from processing plants and four from game handling establishments.

##### Meat from other animal species

Eight MSs tested fresh pig meat in 2023 and reported data on 1358 sampling units, with 27 (2.0%) of these being positive for STEC. The proportion of pig meat positive sampling units was similar to that detected in 2022.

Fresh meat from animal species other than bovine, ovine, goat, pig and deer species was tested in 2023 by five MSs that reported on analyses carried out on 330 sampling units. This category included samples of meat from broilers, ducks, land mammals, horses, rabbits, turkeys, wild boar, wild game and meat sampling units of unspecified origin. Thirty-three (10%) sampling units were reported as STEC-positive.

##### Meat products and meat preparations

Meat products and meat preparations other than fresh meat were sampled in 2023 by 13 MSs, which tested 2122 sampling units, resulting in 32 (1.5%) isolated STEC strains.
## Milk and milk products

Overall, STEC were found in 49 (2.0%) out of 2405 sampling units of RTE milk and milk products reported by eight MSs and in 10 (1.5%) out of 675 sampling units of non-RTE milk and milk products reported by eight MSs.

In 2023, seven MSs reported on the testing of 567 sampling units of raw cows' milk with 10 positive units (1.8%). One MS reported monitoring results on one sampling unit of raw goats' milk, and two MS reported only six sampling units of raw sheep milk. Neither category included positive sampling units.

The presence of STEC in RTE milk products other than milk and cheeses was reported by four MSs, which tested 190 sampling units of butter, cream, ice cream, yoghurt, whey and fermented dairy products. No positive sampling units were detected in this food category.

For the cheese samples, 2226 sampling units were tested for the presence of STEC, with 49 (2.2%) positive units from eight MSs in 2023.

## Fruits, vegetables and juices

STEC were found in one (0.04%) out of 2328 sampling units of fruits, vegetables and juices.

In total, 1408 sampling units of spice and herbs, salads and sprouted seeds were tested and one STEC-positive unit was reported (0.07%).

## Other foodstuffs

This category contains miscellaneous food commodities not comprised in the previously mentioned categories, and included 'cereals and meals', 'bakery products', 'fish and fishery products', 'infant formula' and other. For the whole category, 875 sampling units were analysed by nine MSs with 11 (1.3%) positive sampling units reported from the 'cereals and meals', including wheat (7), 'bakery products' (3) and 'other food of non-animal origin' (1) food categories (see the dashboard referenced at the start of the chapter).

### 4.4.4 | STEC in animals

In 2023, 2129 samples ('animal' or 'herds/flocks') from animals, regardless of the sampling strategy adopted, were assayed and reported by five MSs with 23.0% positive samples. The number of tested animals was very similar to that reported in 2022 (N = 1916), which, however, produced only 7.6% of positive samples.

The most tested animal category in 2023 was cattle, followed by goats and sheep, and pigs, with 937, 408 and 405 sample units tested, respectively, that yielded 16.8%, 34.6% and 46.9% positive units, respectively.

### 4.4.5 | Focus on STEC strain features: Virulence genes and serogroups

#### Humans

In 2023, the information on the serogroups of STEC was reported for 31.9% of the reported cases (N = 3259 cases of 10,217 total confirmed STEC cases). Seventy-eight more strains were reported as belonging to non-O157 serogroups and 1389 were reported as non-typable ('NT') (13.6% of the total number of human cases) and were not included in the isolates reported with serogroup information. The most common human STEC serogroups reported in the EU were O157 (22.7%) and O26 (18.9%), together representing 41.6% of the total number of confirmed human cases with known serogroups in 2023, excluding the NT isolates and those categorised as non-O157. Overall, the six most frequent serogroups of STEC from human infections were O157, O26, O146, O103, O145 and O63, representing 62.6% of the human isolates with serogroup information (3259 strains in total).

Data on virulotypes (based on the Shiga toxin genes stx1, stx2 and the intimin-coding gene eae) were reported for 29.4% (N = 3001) of confirmed STEC infections in 2023, including 892 STEC strains from cases of severe infection (Table 36). Subtyping of the stx gene was carried out for 713 (79.9%) of the latter isolates. The most frequently reported virulence gene combination in strains from severe STEC disease (HUS, bloody diarrhoea and hospitalised cases) was stx2/eae+, accounting for 45.1% of these cases (Table 36). The proportion of the second most common virulotype stx1/stx2/eae+ was 16.5% (Table 36). The most common stx gene subtypes in strains from severe human infections were stx2a (38.8% of 713 isolates with reported stx gene subtyping data), stx1a (24.1%), stx2c (10.5%) and stx2b (7.4%) (See dashboard referenced at the start of the chapter).
<table><caption>TABLE 36 Virulotypes (stx type and presence of eae) identified in food, animal and human STEC isolates causing severe infection (haemolytic-uraemic syndrome (HUS), hospitalisation and bloody diarrhoea) in 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Virulence gene profile</th><th rowspan="2">N of animal isolates in 2023<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">N of food isolates in 2023<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">N of human isolates in 2023 (%)</th><th colspan="3">Relative frequency of the virulotype in<sup>b</sup></th></tr><tr><th>HUS</th><th>Hospitalisation</th><th>Bloody diarrhoea</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>stx2; eae+</td><td>48</td><td>28</td><td>402 (45.1)</td><td>17.7</td><td>42.0</td><td>40.2</td></tr><tr><td>stx1; stx2; eae+</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>147 (16.5)</td><td>5.9</td><td>35.7</td><td>64.8</td></tr><tr><td>stx2; eae-</td><td>112</td><td>153</td><td>124 (13.9)</td><td>2.7</td><td>24.3</td><td>14.8</td></tr><tr><td>stx1; eae+</td><td>17</td><td>48</td><td>96 (10.8)</td><td>1.2</td><td>27.4</td><td>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>stx1; eae-</td><td>52</td><td>56</td><td>69 (7.7)</td><td>0.30</td><td>20.3</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>stx1; stx2; eae-</td><td>87</td><td>72</td><td>54 (6.1)</td><td>1.4</td><td>15.3</td><td>19.4</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th>Total</th><td>341</td><td>382</td><td>892 (100)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tfoot></table>

Abbreviations: STEC, Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli*. The *stx* genes were characterised at the type level (stx1 and stx2).

<sup>a</sup>Due to the low number of isolates virulotyped in food and animals, the percentages are not shown.

<sup>b</sup>Relative frequencies (%) of the different combinations of *stx* gene types with or without the *eae* gene in STEC isolated from severe disease (TESSy data, 2012–2017) (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020).

## Food

The information on the serogroups of STEC strains from food was reported for 63.9% of the isolates (260 strains out of the total 407 strains). The six serogroups most reported in food isolates were O26, O113, O157, O91, O103 and O146, together accounting for 42.7% of the strains with serogroup information.

Information on the presence of *stx1* and/or *stx2* and *eae* genes was provided for 382 (93.9%) of the 407 isolated STEC strains (Table 36), while only 127 (31.2%) of these were subtyped for the *stx* genes. As observed for human strains from severe disease, the most frequent *stx* gene subtype identified in STEC food isolates was *stx2a*, which was detected alone or in combination with *stx1a* in 19.7% and 18.9% of the STEC strains with the information on the toxin gene subtypes, respectively (see dashboard referenced at the start of the chapter).

## Animals

This section includes the analysis of the data relating to the 2107 animal samples tested with methods detecting any STEC,<fnref n="28" /> of which 23.2% (N=489) were positive for the presence of STEC.

For the analysis of the distribution of STEC serogroups and virulotypes, 510 STEC strains isolated from the 489 animal positive samples were considered. Of these, 207 strains (40.6%) were provided with serogroup information. The isolates with a known serogroup belonged to 43 different O-groups, with O146, O100, O157 and O8 being the most frequent, accounting for 54.1% of the total number of strains with a known serogroup.

For the analysis of the virulence genes, 341 STEC animal isolates (66.9%) were provided with their virulotype based on the identification of the *stx1*, *stx2* and *eae* genes (Table 36). None of the isolates from animal samples were provided with information on *stx* gene subtyping.

## 4.5 | Discussion

In 2023, all 27 MSs provided information on STEC infections in humans. The overall trend of STEC infections during the 2019–2023 5-year period showed a significant increase, and in 2023 the annual notification rate was 30.0% higher than in 2022.

The determination of the strains' serogroup, although ascertained as not being associated with virulence, is still a useful marker for understanding the epidemiology of human infections. In 2023, less than half of the confirmed human cases reported by EU MSs had information on the serogroup with the most frequently reported being O157, followed by O26. However, for HUS cases, the figures of these two serogroups were reversed, with O26 accounting for 37.8% of the HUS cases and O157 representing only 19.6%. This observation seems to indicate that infections caused by STEC O26 are more prone to become HUS cases. In 2023 the non-typable STEC isolates made up 13.6% of the total number of strains reported. This high proportion of uncharacterised isolates is possibly due to either the application of pheno/genotyping methods targeting only a reduced panel of serogroups or to the absence of serotyping, thereby hindering any analysis of this category. Similarly, a low proportion of STEC isolates was reported with information on the presence of virulence genes (*stx1* or *stx2* and the *eae* genes). However, *stx* gene subtyping was carried out for 79.9% isolates from severe cases of infection.

Data on serotypes and virulotypes of strains from confirmed STEC infections in 2023 decreased compared to 2022. Taken together, these decreases represent a challenge for the surveillance of trends over time and the association with

<footnote n="28">²⁸The methods considered here are those not restricted to the detection of specific STEC serogroups e.g. ISO 16654 for O157.</footnote>
both clinical presentation (HUS, bloody diarrhoea and hospitalisation) and for observing differences in serotypes and virulotypes between EU-acquired cases and those from non-EU countries.

In 2023, 24 EU MSs provided information on STEC either in food, feed or animals, while no data were reported to EFSA by Denmark, Greece, Malta, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland or the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland). Twenty-four MSs reported monitoring results of STEC in 17,495 food sampling units. The food categories most tested were 'bovine meat and products thereof', 'milk and milk products' and 'fruits, vegetables and products thereof', representing the majority of all food sampling units assayed. As in previous years, the selection of the tested matrices reflected the last available source attribution exercise (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020).

In 2023, 2.2% of the total food sampling units tested positive for STEC. This figure falls in the range of the fluctuations observed in the last 5-year period 2018-2022 (1.8%, 2.9%, 2.4%, 2.8% and 2.8%).

Overall, STEC were isolated in 1.0% of the RTE products; within this food group 'milk and milk products', particularly cheese, was the most tested and contaminated matrix (2.0%), excluding the 'bakery products' category, which accounted for 6.7% of positive sampling units, but with only 45 sampling units tested. These data confirm the importance of testing RTE food commodities for the presence of STEC, as these foods are consumed without any treatment to reduce or eliminate the possible presence of the pathogen, posing a direct risk to the consumer.

Fresh meat from small ruminants, with only sheep meat tested in 2023, was confirmed to be among the most contaminated meat categories, together with fresh deer meat, underlining the importance of these animal reservoirs. Fresh bovine meat sampling units taken at the manufacturing level (slaughterhouse) were more contaminated (6.5%) than those collected at the distribution level (0.83%). This finding suggests that the procedures in place in the EU to transform bovine meat ensure a significant reduction of the contamination originating from this animal reservoir. This does not appear to be the pattern for fresh sheep meat, which showed 7.6% contamination of sampling units taken at the slaughterhouse and 9.3% of the specimens collected at the distribution level.

The low testing rate of sprouts and seeds appears to be entrenched. In 2023, only nine MS tested 536 official control samples taken in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, with no positive results.

Similarly, in 2023, the number of animal samples assayed continued to be low. The total number of these specimens was 2129, with 23.0% positives. The highest proportion of positive STEC samples was detected in pigs (46.9%), followed by goats and sheep (34.6%) and cattle (16.8%). Although the total number of samples tested was similar to that sampled in 2022, the number of positive units was much higher in 2023. This discrepancy might be due to the differences in the animal species sampled and in the non-harmonised sampling strategies. In any case, the low sample numbers hinder any robust inference. Pigs are known to be colonised by STEC and are a recognised reservoir of strains producing the Stx2e subtype (Cornick et al., 1999), which is of lower importance in terms of public health, compared with the other Stx subtypes. Unfortunately, the subtyping of animal STEC strains was not carried out in 2023, precluding any inference on the high STEC proportion of positive samples in this animal category.

Strain characterisation is pivotal to understanding the epidemiology of human STEC disease and the dynamics of STEC circulation in the vehicles of infection. In 2023, 63.9% of food isolates were provided with information on the O-group. The four most reported serogroups in strains from human infections, namely O157, O26, O146 and O103, also ranked highest in the food isolates' serogroups, in accordance with their zoonotic and food-borne origin.

Regarding STEC isolate characterisation, the determination of the presence of the *stx* and *eae* virulence genes (virulotyping) and of the *stx* gene subtypes, are the most informative features for assessing the association of certain STEC with the most severe forms of human infection (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020). In 2023, 93.9% of the food isolates were typed for *stx* and *eae* genes, but data on virulotypes was available for only 66.9% of the animal isolates and only 29.4% of human strains. Certain *stx* gene subtypes, such as *stx2a* and *stx2d* are recognised as being the most frequently associated with the severe forms of human infections (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2020). Accordingly, the *stx2a* subtype was the most frequently identified in STEC from severe human cases of disease and in food isolates again in 2023. However, *stx* gene subtyping was provided for only 31.2% of the food isolates and was not carried out at all for animal strains.

Although the number of samples tested for the different food commodities has been relatively stable over the years, the typing and subtyping of the STEC isolates seems to fluctuate and fails to find a broad application. This lack of typing and subtyping persists despite the wide adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the food sector and the reference made to this technology in Regulation (EU) 2017/625. Encouraging NGS use in all sectors would be fundamental to promote a One Health approach in the assessment of the cases of disease in humans, the causative agents and the vehicles of infection and, more importantly, it has proven crucial in managing STEC outbreaks.
5 | INFECTION WITH MYCOBACTERIUM TUBERCULOSIS COMPLEX (FOCUSING ON MYCOBACTERIUM BOVIS AND MYCOBACTERIUM CAPRAE)

Human cases [EU, 2023]

138 Cases of illness

67 Infections acquired in the EU

62 Infection acquired outside the EU

9 Unknown travel status or unknown country of infection

Notification rate
(per 100,000 population)

0.04

NA Hospitalisations

19 Deaths*

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

ECDC data

Foodborne outbreaks & related cases [EU, 2023]

1 Foodborne outbreak**

1 Weak-evidence outbreak

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

3 Cases of illness

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

EFSA data

The summary data which make up this chapter, as well as additional information on related projects and internet sources, are published for this report on the EFSA Knowledge Junction at Zenodo [here]. Summary statistics on human surveillance data with downloadable files are retrievable using the ECDC Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases available [here].

For additional information about zoonotic tuberculosis focusing on *Mycobacterium bovis* and *M. caprae* and for the consultation of data collected, the following interactive tools are available:

Zoonotic tuberculosis

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

DASHBOARD

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

Zoonotic tuberculosis

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

STORY MAP

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

5.1 | Key facts

* In 2023, the percentage of zoonotic tuberculosis cases among the total number of tuberculosis cases in humans in European Union countries was 0.35%. There were 138 confirmed cases of human tuberculosis due to *M. bovis* or *M. caprae*, corresponding to a European Union notification rate of 0.04 cases per 100,000 population. This resulted in 6.1% decrease in notification in the European Union compared with 2022.

* In 2023 and 2022, the number of cases of human tuberculosis due to *M. bovis* or *M. caprae* in the European Union remained higher than during the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. In 2023, the number of human cases among the 25 Member States exceeded the number of cases reported in 2019.

* In 2023, the *M. bovis* and *M. caprae* case notification rate was 0.03 cases per 100,000 among European Union Member States with disease-free status and 0.05 cases per 100,000 in European Union Member States with non-disease-free status for the bovine population.

* The majority of *M. bovis* and *M. caprae* cases in humans (48.6%) were of European Union origin (native cases and/or cases originating from other Member States).

* In bovine animals, in 2023, the overall prevalence of tuberculosis (0.57%) due to *M. bovis* or *M. caprae* decreased slightly compared with the previous year (0.61%), and the number of infected cattle herds in the European Union decreased from 9845 to 8821 herds.

* Similar to previous years, the distribution of infected herds was heterogeneous and spatially clustered, with national herd-level prevalence ranging from < 0.01% (Austria, Germany, Poland, Romania) to 7.2% (the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)).

<footnote>* Data refers to 2022</footnote>

<footnote>** No information on the Mycobacterium species was provided</footnote>