Insects are, by far, the most common animals on our planet. The ubiquity and plethora of ecological niches occupied by insects, along with the strict and sometimes forced coexistence between insects and humans, make insects a target of public health interest. This article reports the negative aspects historically linked to insects as pests and vectors of diseases, and describes their potential as bioindicators of environmental pollution, and their use as food and feed. Both negative and positive impacts of insects on human and animal health need to be addressed by public health professionals who should aim to strike a balance within the wide range of sometimes conflicting goals in insect management, such as regulating their production, exploiting their potential, protecting their health and limiting their negative impact on animals and humans. This requires increased insect knowledge and strategies to preserve human health and welfare. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of traditional and emerging topics bridging insects and public health to highlight the need for professionals, to address these topics during their work. The present and future role and activities of public health authorities regarding insects are analyzed.

SUMMARY: Zoonotic strains of hepatitis E virus (HEV) in Europe have been reported to belong to genotypes 3 and 4. In 2012 and 2013, 57 pig farms in Northern Italy that had previously resulted seropositive for HEV were surveyed for the presence of the virus, with positive samples subsequently genotyped. Hepatitis E RNA was identified in 17/57 (29·8%) seropositive farms. Phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that distinct subtypes of genotype 3 were circulating in the north-east of Italy; as well, for the first time in the Italian swine population, genotype 4 was identified and attributed to subtype d.

This research evaluates the economic sustainability of rabbit farms using different housing systems—bicellular (BI), conventional dual-purpose (DP) and enriched cages designed according to the World Rabbit Science Association guidelines (WRSA)—through a field-based study involving six farms over the course of five years. The cages were compared based on three productivity indices expressed in kg of produced live weight/m² and on eight cost indices expressed in EUR/kg of produced live weight. The results showed that WRSA significantly reduced the productivity index per walkable cage area in buildings and cages, thanks to the longer platform area included in the cage compared to the other systems. Concerning cost indexes, total variable costs were not different among housing systems, whereas significant differences were observed within costs items. As for the feed costs, DP underperforms compared to BI or WRSA (1.15 vs. 1.02 and 0.99 EUR/kg produced live weight); for drugs costs, BI was less competitive compared to DP and WRSA (0.12 vs. 0.06 and 0.05 EUR /kg). In conclusion, under the conditions of the present study, the economic results of farms that adopted housing systems designed to improve rabbit welfare, such as WRSA enriched systems, were economically sustainable and, comparable to conventional housing systems based on BI or DP cages, also provided a significant reduction in drug use in the tested farms. A comprehensive collection of data from more farms at a European level would be necessary to confirm these results on the economics of farms adopting alternative housing systems for rabbits.

Several factors drive consumer behavior in buying meat, particularly rabbit meat. The consumption of rabbits has decreased in Europe, and the main causes of this trend are an increasing association with the perception of rabbits as pets, consumers’ changes in lifestyle, and eating habits. Additionally, increasing attention is paid to ethical issues regarding animal welfare. Investigating consumers’ knowledge, perceptions, and concerns about rabbit meat production and consumption are crucial for improving market strategies. This study investigated consumers’ perspectives of rabbit meat to provide useful information to producers for promoting this sector to consumers. A mixed-methods research design was applied. Qualitative data were collected through four focus group discussions involving 32 consumers and quantitative data through a semi-structured questionnaire administered nationally and completed by 1001 consumers. The limited use of antibiotics in inbreeding and the absence of animal suffering are factors that most influence consumers’ willingness to purchase rabbit meat. Rural/domestic farms were recognized as places where animal welfare measures can be applied and have a positive influence not only on organoleptic quality but also on ethical value and food safety. The cage was perceived as unsuitable for rabbit growth and was oriented to a process of fattening based on industrial feed and antibiotics. Respondents sought information on rabbit farming during purchase, and the label was the most used tool. The rabbit meat production sector should consider these results to meet consumers’ demands and raise awareness among operators on the use of animal welfare-based farming systems, helping to build a more positive image of the rabbit meat industry.

We conducted a survey of attitudes towards antimicrobial use and awareness of antimicrobial resistance among turkey and rabbit farmers (N = 117 and N = 41, respectively) in Italy’s utmost turkey- and rabbit-producing region. We found either similarities or significant differences between these two livestock sectors. Most farmers of both groups (72% of turkey farmers vs 76% of rabbit farmers) reported that antimicrobials are properly used in their farms. Almost three-quarters of the farmers reported that antimicrobials solve the health problem treated for. However, 47% of turkey farmers and 78% of rabbit farmers reported that antimicrobial use could be decreased, with a 20–30% reduction being the most frequently chosen range. Genetic improvement was reported to be the main factor able to reduce antimicrobial use in turkeys, whereas improvements in feed quality and microclimate were the main factors for rabbits. Most farmers reported that high antimicrobial use may affect the quality of meat products and be hazardous to human health, but they also reported that antimicrobial resistance is mainly related to antimicrobial use in humans. In conclusion, turkey and rabbit farmers have a generally positive opinion on veterinary antimicrobial use, but also low levels of awareness of the negative impact on public health. Economic and structural factors of rabbit production industry may explain the differences observed. Farm veterinarians will be crucial to support farmers’ education and the expected transition to lower antimicrobial use while maintaining high animal health/welfare standards.