Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:05:47.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Zoonotic risks of pathogens from dairy cattle and their milk-borne transmission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2024

Menno Holzhauer*
Affiliation:
Ruminant Health Department, Royal GD AH Deventer, Deventer, The Netherlands
Gerrit Jan Wennink
Affiliation:
Wennink Consultancy and Interim Management, Oss, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Menno Holzhauer; Email: m.holzhauer@gddiergezondheid.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dairy products are major sources of high-quality protein and bioavailable nutrients and dairy production contributes to local, regional and national-level economies. Consumption of raw milk and raw milk products does, however, carry a zoonotic risk, as does direct contact with cattle by farm husbandry staff and other employees. This review will mainly focus on the latter, and deal with it from the standpoint of a well-developed dairy industry, using the example of the Netherlands. With regard to dairy cattle, the main bacterial pathogens are Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Leptospira hardjo as well as Brucella abortus and Chlamydia abortus. The main viral pathogens associated with dairy are Rift Valley fever virus, rabies virus, cowpox virus and vaccinia virus. The main parasitological infections are Echinococcus granulosis, Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia duodenalis, however, the last mentioned have mainly swimming pools as sources of human infection. Finally ectoparasites such as lice and mites and Trichophyton verrucosum may affect employees. Some pathogens may cause health problems due to contamination. Bacterial pathogens of importance that may contaminate milk are Campylolobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Leptospira hardjo and Salmonella typhimurium. Excretion of zoonotic viruses in milk is negligible in the Netherlands, and the endoparasite, Toxocara vitulorum is mainly found in suckling and fattening calves, whilst the risk in dairy cattle is limited. Excretion of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) or mycoses in milk are not expected and are, therefore, not of importance here.

Being aware of the risks and working according to hygiene standards can substantially limit zoonotic risks for employees. Additionally, diseased employees are advised to limit their contact with cattle and to indicate that they work with cattle when consulting a physician. To prevent zoonotic risks through excretion of pathogens in milk, standard hygiene measures are necessary. Further, using only pasteurised milk for consumption and/or processing of milk can considerably limit the risks. If these measures are not possible, well-constructed monitoring can be followed. Monitoring programmes already exist for pathogens such as for Salmonella spp., Leptospira hardjo and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. For others, like Campylobacter jejuni and E. coli, programmes are not available yet as far as we know.

Type
Invited Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

Introduction

Dairy production and consumption have mainly positive effects on society and individual consumers, but can have negative effects on human health also (Hawkes and Ruel, Reference Hawkes and Ruel2006). Dairy products are major sources of high-quality protein and bioavailable nutrients (eg calcium; Todd et al., Reference Todd, Stewart, Burg, Hughes and Espenshade2006). Dairy production can also contribute to local, regional and national-level economies and provide opportunities for employment and income generation (Hawkes, Reference Hawkes2006), which are critical determinants of health (Marmot et al., Reference Marmot, Friel, Bell, Houweling and Taylor2008). However, a number of potential health risks associated with dairy production and consumption have also been identified, such as diet-related chronic diseases like milk allergy, environmental change, foodborne and occupational hazards and zoonotic diseases (Horrigan et al., Reference Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker2002; Hawkes, Reference Hawkes2006; Kimman et al., Reference Kimman, Hoek and de Jong2013). Globally, there is strong demand for milk and dairy products (IDF, 2016; USDA, 2021). This is largely due to global population growth (IDF, 2016), although increases per capita in dairy intake have also driven global demand (OECD and FAO, 2016). As demand for food increases, agricultural sectors have sought to increase production to meet that demand, and the dairy sector is no exception. In 2020, more than 906 million tons of milk were produced by the global dairy sector (FAO, 2021), and global production is projected to increase by 23% in 2025, compared to years 2013–2015 (OECD and FAO, 2016).

Direct or indirect contact with contaminants such as bacteria, viruses and other pathogens is a potential risk when working with animals (WOAH, 2022). Exposure to contaminants can occur by respiration or by contact with excreta such as urine, faeces, milk and abortive fluids. Individuals may also have direct contact with the animal's coat and skin. Contact with the pathogenic agents can cause an infection or even disease and the same risk of transmission of pathogens from animals to humans applies to the consumption of raw milk products (Maunsell and Donovan, Reference Maunsell and Donovan2008). Fortunately, not all infectious agents and infections lead to health problems for cows and humans, though some pathogens unmistakably contain a markedly increased zoonotic risk. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the micro-organisms that may affect dairy cows under Dutch circumstances, the risk that these micro-organisms are presented to herd mates and to the employees working with dairy cattle and their effect on safety of the milk. Based on this overview, the pathogens with the highest zoonotic risk are identified and listed in the database. A distinction is made between pathogens that pose a risk to employees that work with dairy cattle and those that threaten the safety of milk and milk products. Reviewing the health impacts associated with dairy production and consumption will enhance understanding of the potential consequences associated with intensification of the dairy sector. To the authors' knowledge, no other comprehensive reviews of the potential health impacts of bacterial, viral, parasitological and mycotic infections associated with dairy production and consumption have been published.

With these objectives into mind, a broad review was undertaken in an effort to provide a comprehensive overview of the linkages between the dairy sector and public health. Specifically, the review aimed to identify the potential public health risks associated with dairy production. The content of this review can be used to support improved decision making for the future development of the dairy sector, from a public health perspective. Such decisions include:

  • Prioritisation of potential health hazards associated with the dairy sector that require specific risk communication and management actions;

  • Resource allocation for the management of specific hazards associated with dairy production and consumption and

  • Identification of knowledge gaps that require further research to improve understanding and management of the public health impacts associated with dairy production and consumption.

There are several methods that can be used to support these decision-making processes by providing systematic assessments of the public health impacts of dairy production and consumption at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales and with varying levels of detail. This inventory covered the clinical symptoms in cattle, the impact on animal welfare, the route and estimated risk of transmission to herd mates and to humans, the excretion in milk, the production of endotoxins, possible biosecurity measurements, vaccinations, diagnostic tools and the prevalence in our country (The Netherlands) as an example of a developed dairy sector.

Materials and methods

The infectious contaminants that may be found on Dutch dairy farms for now and in the near future were identified and listed in a database. Next, relevant background information for these micro-organisms was added, including their prevalence, the risk of excretion in milk, available diagnostic tests and preventive measures that can be taken to minimise the risk of infection. The relevant information was obtained from the literature, specialists of and the diagnostic results from the Royal GD laboratory in the last decade.

The pathogens with the highest zoonotic risk were identified based on the following criteria: causes of diseases of infectious origin in dairy cattle, characteristics of the agents, zoonotic aspects of the agents, route and risk of transmission to herd mates and humans, prevalence or the risk that the disease will be introduced in the Netherlands, laboratory diagnosis and excretion in or contamination of milk.

Scope of the literature review to support the risk analysis

First, lists were composed of micro-organisms including bacteria, viruses, parasites, TSEs, mycoses and emerging diseases that may be found on Dutch dairy. The following information was included in the list for each micro-organism:

  • Species

  • General information including size, RNA- or DNA, presence of an envelope (viruses), Gram status and production of endotoxins (bacteria), route of transmission (all pathogens).

  • Prevalence in Dutch dairy herds as known from the literature (in case not known from the literature, a best guess was made by Royal GD experts).

  • If an emerging disease, the likelihood of occurrence in the Netherlands in the next decade.

  • Likelihood of pathogen to be found in milk.

  • Zoonotic potential, including possible route(s) of transmission and estimated risk to humans by direct contact or contact with raw milk.

  • What can be done to prevent disease, including biosecurity measures, vaccination, testing and others.

  • The harmfulness to animal welfare and animal health.

  • Testing possibilities, including available tests, frequency of testing and materials required.

This information was obtained from the literature, experts and laboratory staff employees of Royal GD Animal Health. The Dutch information was combined with papers about zoonotic infectious diseases from other countries with modern dairy production systems. Attention was given to TSEs and viral, bacterial, parasitological and mycotic infections. Specific attention was paid to list A diseases (ie diseases regulated by the EU Animal Health Law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-eu-animal-health-law).

Literature regarding production systems other than the dairy system (suckler cows, for example) was not included in this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in July–August 2021 to identify all relevant publications addressing infectious diseases in dairy cows, excretion of agents in milk, faeces and urine, as well as zoonotic risks. Literature search terms included specific phrases such as ‘salmonella’, ‘trichophyton’ and ‘dairy cows’ in the title, abstract, or as a keyword. The search terms were entered into the following three search databases:

To complete this systematic review in a reasonable period of time, we included literature published in the last five years as far as possible, thus, publications between January 2015 and August 2021. An exception was made in the case of high-quality reviews published before 2015 or where there were no publications in period mentioned. The database search of scientific articles resulted in papers published predominantly in Western countries. All of the information was presented in an Excel file data base that distinguished between bacterial, mycotic, parasitological and viral infections as well as TSEs.

Risk analysis

The pathogens with the highest zoonotic risk were identified based on the following criteria:

  • Causing diseases of infectious origin in dairy cattle

  • Characteristics of agents

  • Zoonotic aspects of agents

  • Route and risk of transmission to herd mates and humans

  • Prevalence in the Netherlands or the risk of being introduced

  • Laboratory diagnosis

  • Excretion in or contamination of milk

The prioritisation of the pathogens in this report is based on knowledge and discussion with the scientific staff of the Bovine Health Department and the Laboratory of Royal GD, which manages diseases in cattle with zoonotic consequences on a daily basis. Among the 223 publications identified in the literature, 119 were not considered useful because better or more recent examples or reviews of a given pathogen were consistently identified. In total, 104 papers provided usable information, but the pathogens discussed were either not all present or not emerging in the Netherlands. Ultimately, about 60 papers were selected to support the conclusions presented in this paper.

Results

An alphabetic overview of the pathogens of importance in the Netherlands or from regions important for the Netherlands was compiled. Viral, bacterial and parasitological infections are presented in Tables 1–3, respectively. Mycoses are presented in Table 4 transmission of pathogens from cattle to humans is especially possible through direct or indirect contact with the skin or excreta, and through faecal contaminated milk produced by clinically healthy animals. Transmission by excretion of pathogens in the milk is considered to be very limited (with exception of Salmonellae), especially if milk from sick cows is treated with care.

Table 1. Potential zoonotic viruses of importance in Western Europe, DNA or RNA, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Table 2. Potential zoonotic bacteria of importance in Western Europe, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Table 3. Potential zoonotic parasitological infections, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their detection methods, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Table 4. Potential zoonotic fungal infections, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their route of transmission, their presence in milk, control measures and their risk of transmission

Viral infections

There are said to be a total of 42 viruses, including Toro or Breda virus, that are causing serious infections in cattle and are of potential zoonotic risk in The Netherlands (Hoet and Saif, Reference Hoet and Saif2004). Many viruses are species-specific, in which case the risk for transmission to humans is considered to be minimal. Other viruses (such as Enterovirus) have a low zoonotic potential but currently (January 2022) are limited present in the Netherlands. They are also found in other European regions and in the US (Gomez and Weese, Reference Gomez and Weese2017) and may become a concern in the near future in our region.

Rabies and Rift Valley fever (RVF) were identified as viral infections with the highest risk to employees working with cattle. Rabies can occur in all warm-blooded animals and is principally transmitted via direct contact with the saliva of an infected animal. Infection with rabies can be fatal without rapid intervention, which is the main reason for it being classified as a high-risk pathogen. Rabies is found in wildlife in Eastern Europe, in Africa, Asia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Mexico and Cuba (WHO, 2019). RVF, genus Phlebovirus, order Bunyavirales, is most commonly seen in domestic animals in sub-Sahara Africa and considered a serious risk to animals by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, 2022), with high economic impact. The virus can be transmitted to humans by contact with the body fluids of infected animals or through bites from infected mosquitoes (Culicoides). Most infected humans do not show signs of clinical illness or have only mild symptoms. However, a small percentage develop severe symptoms such as eye disease, haemorrhage and encephalitis (Wright and Kortekaas, Reference Wright and Kortekaas2019). The risk of future RVF introduction in Europe is relatively high given intercontinental traffic and storms.

Cattle warts, caused by bovine papillomavirus, are highly prevalent in Dutch cattle but appear to be species-specific and transmission to humans is unproven (Lawson et al., Reference Lawson, Salmons and Glenn2018). In contrast, cowpox (mainly observed in cats) and related vaccinia virus may infect humans (Lapa et al., Reference Lapa, Beltrame, Arzese, Carletti, Di Caro, Ippolito, Capobianchi and Castilletti2019). These viruses usually cause skin lesions, although the ocular form may lead to serious complications. Both viruses are not present in cattle in the Netherlands, but may become a threat in the near future through worldwide travelling and trade. At present, viruses with high zoonotic risk that are excreted in the milk of dairy cows have not been identified in the Netherlands. For an overview of potential zoonotic viruses, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their total occurrence and importance in our region, see Table 1.

Bacterial infections

There are a total of 37 bacteria species and their various subspecies, causing infections in cattle and of which roughly 17 species present a potential zoonotic risk. Some species such as Salmonella typhimurium, Bacillus cereus and Brucella abortus have a high potential pathogenic character. Bacillus cereus can cause clinical mastitis in cows. In case of clinical mastitis, milk delivery for consumption is forbidden, so the zoonotic risk for direct transmission by milk is considered low, if mastitis milk is removed and if hygiene measures are followed by employees. Brucella abortus can cause substantial health problems in humans, but the Netherlands has been declared by the European Union to be officially free of bovine brucellosis for over 20 years. In the Netherlands, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and possibly paratuberculosis were identified as bacterial infections with serious zoonotic risk. Other bacterial pathogens with non-negligible zoonotic risk are Leptospira hardjo, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes. Most of these bacterial zoonotic infections are a consequence of direct excretion in or contamination of the milk or contact with manure (eg Salmonella spp., Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, E. coli [STEC O157], Campylobacter spp.; Christidis et al. Reference Christidis, Pintar, Butler, Nesbitt and Thomas2016; Whittington et al. Reference Whittington, Donat, Weber, Kelton, Nielsen, Eisenberg and Arrigoni2019; Ameer et al., Reference Ameer, Wasey and Salen2021; Stevens and Kingsley, Reference Stevens and Kingsley2021). Other vectors are excreta associated with abortion (e.g. Brucella abortus, Listeria monocytogenes and Chlamydia abortus; Walker et al., Reference Walker, Lee, Timms and Polkinghome2015; Chlebicz and Śliżewska, Reference Chlebicz and Śliżewska2018; Whatmore and Foster, Reference Whatmore and Foster2021), with urine (e.g. Leptospira hardjo; Ellis, Reference Ellis2015) or with cadavers (e.g. Clostridium botulinum; Holzhauer et al., Reference Holzhauer, Roest, de Jong and Vos2009).

As said before, mastitis pathogens themselves are normally not a problem in food-borne diseases because these products are not used for human consumption. In the milk of dairy cows with mastitis, endotoxins (lipopolysaccharides) may be present at the moment of bacterial death (ie after treatment with antimicrobials that kill mastitis pathogens). Experts at our company estimated that endotoxins remain in milk for roughly seven days after removal of the bacterial infection (vd Merwe, Royal GD, personal communication). These endotoxins can cause fever and local inflammatory reactions in the gastro-intestinal tract of humans if the milk of cows cured of mastitis is consumed (Wang and Quinn, Reference Wang and Quinn2010). However, this risk is limited because cows that contract clinical mastitis will be treated with antibiotics and the milk of treated cows is not allowed for consumption during the withdrawal period. Special attention must be paid to mastitis caused by potentially methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA; Vanderhaeghe et al., Reference Vanderhaeghen, Cerpentier, Adriaensen, Vicca, Hermans and Butaye2010). However, these MRSA are mostly linked to the intensive beef industry (van Loo et al., Reference van Loo, Diederen, Savelkoul, Woudenberg, Roosendaal, van Belkum, Lemmens den Toom, Verhulst, van Keulen and Kluytmans2007). For an overview of potential zoonotic bacteria, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their total occurrence and importance in our region, see Table 2.

Parasitological and mycotic infections

Parasitological infections can be distinguished as being caused by endo- or ectoparasites. Endoparasites affecting host tissues and organs of live cattle include:

  • In the gastro-intestinal tract, worms: Ostertagia ostertagi and Toxocara ventilorum;

  • In the gastro-intestinal tract, protozoa: mostly Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia duodenalis and various Eimeria spp. Recently an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was diagnosed in Sweden (Outbreak News Today, 2022)

  • In the liver: leaf-shaped worms: Fasciola hepatica and bladder worms: Echinococcus granulosis;

  • In the lungs: roundworm (Dictyocaulus viviparus) and bladder worms Echinococcus granulosis;

  • In the uterus, protozoa: Neospora parvum;

  • In blood: tick-borne diseases: Babesia divergens.

Some of these parasites, such as Cryptosporidium parvum (Thomson et al., Reference Thomson, Hamilton, Hope, Katzer, Mabbott, Morrison and Ines2017), Toxocara ventilorum (Borgsteede et al., Reference Borgsteede, Holzhauer, Herder, Veldhuis-Wolterbeek and Hegeman2012), Echinococus granulosis (Eckert and Deplazes, Reference Eckert and Deplazes2004) and Giardia duodenalis (G. duodenalis; Geurden et al., Reference Geurden, Claerebout and Vercruysse2004; Olson et al., Reference Olson, Handley, Ralston, McAllister and Thompson2004), are of zoonotic importance. C. parvum infections in humans are frequently related to contact with surface water (e.g. in swimming pools). The T. ventilorum parasite is known to be excreted in milk, but is mainly found in the colostrum of suckling cattle from southern Europe. The prevalence of E. granulosis in the Netherlands is also low and the main risk is consumption of imported raw meat of cattle from Eastern Europe (Berends et al., Reference Berends, Holzhauer, van der Giessen and van Schaik2009). G. duodenalis is predominantly found in young calves (Geurden et al., Reference Geurden, Claerebout and Vercruysse2004). Therefore, the overall zoonotic risk of endoparasites from dairy cattle in the Netherlands is estimated as low.

Ectoparasites such as lice and mites may cause problems of the coat and skin. They can be a risk for employees working with cattle, and may be principally responsible in humans for zoonotic dermatitis symptoms – red spots and itch, in the case of infection with mites (Pérez de León et al., Reference Pérez de León, Mitchell and Watson2020). Consuming milk from cattle infected with ectoparasites does not carry a zoonotic risk.

By far the most important mycotic infection with a serious zoonotic risk is Trichophyton verrucosum (Lund et al., Reference Lund, Bratberg, Næss and Gudding2014) which results in proliferative dermatitis with crust. The spores of this infection are highly resistant and are mostly seen in animal crusts but can also be present throughout the barn. Therefore, eliminating this infection from the herd is very challenging. Trichophyton verrucosum (commonly known as ringworm) can be transmitted to humans by direct contact and causes circular skin lesions (Lund et al., Reference Lund, Bratberg, Næss and Gudding2014). The agent is not excreted in milk. For an overview of potential zoonotic parasitological and mycotic infections of importance in Western Europe, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their total occurrence and importance in our region, see Tables 3 (parasitological infections) and 4 (fungal infections).

Transmissible spongiform encephalitis

The most important TSE in the last several decades has been bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE), which has been responsible for a considerable number of outbreaks with most economic damage in the UK (Alarcon et al., Reference Alarcon, Wall, Barnes, Arnold, Rajanayagam and Guitian2022). The Netherlands has observed 31 clinical cases and a total of 89 confirmed cases (58 after slaughterhouse control, www.wur.nl). The last confirmed case was in 2023. Humans have been diagnosed with variant Creutzfeldt–Jacob disease, but a relationship with BSE has not been proven. Evidence does not support transmission of TSE by milk consumption. Therefore, the zoonotic risk of BSE is estimated as very low.

Conclusions and recommendations

Dairy cattle can be a source of various types of zoonotic infections. Therefore, working with cattle includes a risk that farmers or employees become infected with a pathogen. Some infections may cause serious symptoms such as fever, diarrhoea, respiratory problems or worse in humans. The risk of transmission of infectious agents from dairy cattle to humans is mainly through air, by direct or indirect contact with manure, urine or abortive material (where indirect contact is largely through contaminated milk) and by direct contact with the coat. Risks can be limited by taking good preventive hygiene measures. We advise that all employees working with cattle or milk be aware of the risks and take preventive measures, for example using coveralls, gloves and protective glasses and washing hands frequently with disinfectant soap after contact with cows or their milk. Additionally, sick dairy farm employees are advised to limit their contact with cattle and to indicate they work with cattle when consultation with a physician is required. Excluding milk from infected dairy cattle also limits the risk of pathogen transmission. Other measures include the use of cattle that are free of specific pathogens such as L. hardjo, S. typhimurium and M. paratuberculosis.

Bacterial infections caused by pathogens excreted in milk (Salmonella spp. and paratuberculosis) or faecal contamination of milk (eg Campylobacter jejuni and E. coli) and mycosal infections (eg Trichophyton verrucosum) are particular risks for farmers and employees working with cattle. They should be aware of possible risks, avoid the consumption of raw milk and take protective measures such as those just described. More extreme measures, like having lunch in dedicated rooms, must be considered as well. Dairy farms are advised to follow certification programmes for L. hardjo, Salmonella spp. and M. paratuberculosis. All these measures should result in an acceptably low risk of becoming affected by a zoonotic disease.

References

Alarcon, P, Wall, B, Barnes, K, Arnold, M, Rajanayagam, B and Guitian, J (2022) Classical BSE in Great Britain: review of its epidemic, risk factors, policy and impact. Food Control 146, 109490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameer, MA, Wasey, A and Salen, P (2021) Escherichia coli (E coli 0157 H7). StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing.Google Scholar
Berends, IM, Holzhauer, M, van der Giessen, JW and van Schaik, G (2009) Risk of Echinococcus granulosus becoming endemic in Dutch cattle. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 134, 104109.Google ScholarPubMed
Borgsteede, FH, Holzhauer, M, Herder, FL, Veldhuis-Wolterbeek, EG and Hegeman, C (2012) Toxocara vitulorum in suckling calves in The Netherlands. Research in Veterinary Science 92, 254256.10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.11.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chlebicz, A and Śliżewska, K (2018) Campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, yersiniosis, and listeriosis as zoonotic foodborne diseases. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christidis, T, Pintar, KD, Butler, AJ, Nesbitt, A and Thomas, MK (2016) Campylobacter spp. Prevalence and levels in raw milk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Food Protection 79, 17751783.10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckert, J and Deplazes, P (2004) Biological, epidemiological, and clinical aspects of echinococcosis, a zoonosis of increasing concern. Clinical Microbiology Review 17, 107135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, WA (2015) Animal leptospirosis. Current Topics Microbiology Immunology 387, 99137.Google ScholarPubMed
FAO (2021) Dairy market review. Available online at https://www.fao.org/3/cb4230en/cb4230en.pdf (Accessed December 2023).Google Scholar
Geurden, T, Claerebout, E and Vercruysse, J (2004) Protozoan infection causes diarrhea in calves. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 130, 734737.Google Scholar
Gomez, DE and Weese, JS (2017) Viral enteritis in calves. Canadian Veterinary Journal 58, 12671274.Google ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, C (2006) Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Globalization and Health 2, 4.10.1186/1744-8603-2-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, C and Ruel, M (2006) The links between agriculture and health: an intersectoral opportunity to improve the health and livelihoods of the poor. Bulletin of World Health Organization 84, 984990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoet, AE and Saif, LJ (2004) Bovine torovirus (Breda virus) revisited. Animal Health Research Review 5, 157171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzhauer, M, Roest, HIJ, de Jong, MG and Vos, JH (2009) Botulism in dairy cattle in 2008: symptoms, diagnosis, pathogenesis, therapy, and prevention. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 134, 564570.Google ScholarPubMed
Horrigan, L, Lawrence, R and Walker, P (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, 445456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IDF (2016) The global dairy sector: facts. Available at www.fil-idf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FAO-Global-Facts-1.pdf (Accessed November 2023).Google Scholar
Kimman, T, Hoek, M and de Jong, MCM (2013) Assessing and controlling health risks from animal husbandry. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 66, 714.10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapa, D, Beltrame, A, Arzese, A, Carletti, F, Di Caro, A, Ippolito, G, Capobianchi, MR and Castilletti, C (2019) Orthopoxvirus seroprevalence in cats and veterinary personnel in north-eastern Italy in 2011. Viruses 11, 101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawson, JS, Salmons, B and Glenn, WK (2018) Oncogenic viruses and breast cancer: mouse mammary tumor virus, bovine leukemia virus, human papilloma virus and Epstein-Barr virus. Front Oncology 22, 1.10.3389/fonc.2018.00001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, A, Bratberg, AM, Næss, B and Gudding, R (2014) Control of bovine ringworm by vaccination in Norway. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 158, 3745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marmot, M, Friel, S, Bell, R, Houweling, TAJ and Taylor, S (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet 372, 16611669.10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maunsell, F and Donovan, GA (2008) Biosecurity and risk management for dairy replacements. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 24, 155190.Google ScholarPubMed
OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) Dairy and dairy products. In OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016–2025. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Olson, ME, Handley, RM, Ralston, J, McAllister, TA and Thompson, RCA (2004) Update on Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia infections in cattle. Trends in Parasitology 20, 185191.10.1016/j.pt.2004.01.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Outbreak News Today (2022) Sweden investigates Cryptosporidium outbreak. Available at http://outbreaknewstoday.com/sweden-investigates-cryptosporidium-outbreak-92667 (Accessed November 2023).Google Scholar
Pérez de León, AA, Mitchell, RD and Watson, DW (2020) Ectoparasites of cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 36, 173185.Google ScholarPubMed
Stevens, MP and Kingsley, RA (2021) Salmonella pathogenesis and host adaptation in farmed animals. Current Opinion in Microbiology 63, 5258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, S, Hamilton, CA, Hope, JC, Katzer, F, Mabbott, NA, Morrison, LJ and Ines, EA (2017) Bovine cryptosporidiosis: impact, host-parasite interaction and control strategies. Veterinary Research 48, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, BL, Stewart, EV, Burg, JS, Hughes, AL and Espenshade, PJ (2006) Sterol regulatory element binding protein Is a principal regulator of anaerobic gene expression in fission yeast. Molecular Cell Biology 26, 28172831.10.1128/MCB.26.7.2817-2831.2006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
USDA (2021) Dairy: World Markets and Trade. Available at www.usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/5t34sj56t?locale=en#release-items (Accessed November 2023).Google Scholar
van Loo, IHM, Diederen, BMW, Savelkoul, PHM, Woudenberg, JHC, Roosendaal, R, van Belkum, A, Lemmens den Toom, N, Verhulst, C, van Keulen, P and Kluytmans, JAJW (2007) Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in meat products, the Netherlands. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13, 17531755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderhaeghen, W, Cerpentier, T, Adriaensen, C, Vicca, J, Hermans, K and Butaye, K (2010) Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ST398 associated with clinical and subclinical mastitis in Belgian cows. Veterinary Microbiology 144, 166171.10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.12.044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, E, Lee, EJ, Timms, P and Polkinghome, A (2015) Chlamydia pecorum infections in sheep and cattle: a common and under-recognised infectious disease with significant impact on animal health. Veterinary Journal 206, 252260.10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.09.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X and Quinn, PJ (2010) Endotoxins: Structure, Function and Recognition. Springer Science + Business Media B.V. ISBN 978-90-481-9077-5.10.1007/978-90-481-9078-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatmore, AM and Foster, JT (2021) Emerging diversity and ongoing expansion of the genus Brucella. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 92, 104865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittington, R, Donat, K, Weber, MF, Kelton, D, Nielsen, SS, Eisenberg, S, Arrigoni, N, et al. (2019) Control of paratuberculosis: who, why and how. A review of 48 countries. BMC Veterinary Research 15, 198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, D and Kortekaas, J (2019) Rift valley fever: biology and epidemiology. Journal General Virology 100, 11871199.10.1099/jgv.0.001296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Potential zoonotic viruses of importance in Western Europe, DNA or RNA, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Figure 1

Table 2. Potential zoonotic bacteria of importance in Western Europe, the laboratory test to detect them, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Figure 2

Table 3. Potential zoonotic parasitological infections, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their detection methods, their presence in milk, control measures and their importance in The Netherlands

Figure 3

Table 4. Potential zoonotic fungal infections, their clinical symptoms in cattle, their route of transmission, their presence in milk, control measures and their risk of transmission