Food Safety Authority Seeks Public Input as EU Reassesses Xylella Fastidiosa Control Options

Summary

The European Union insti­tu­tions are seek­ing new approaches to the Xylella fas­tidiosa epi­demic after find­ing no sin­gle effec­tive solu­tion to stop the bac­terium from spread­ing. The EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has launched a pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion on two draft sci­en­tific opin­ions that draw on exten­sive research to shape the EU’s approach to Xylella, focus­ing on sur­veil­lance, con­tain­ment pro­to­cols, vec­tor con­trol, and other man­age­ment mea­sures in affected regions.

European Union insti­tu­tions are look­ing for new approaches to the Xylella fas­tidiosa epi­demic as a broad review of sci­en­tific research found no sin­gle effec­tive solu­tion or prod­uct capa­ble of stop­ping the bac­terium from spread­ing.

The EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has launched a pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion on two draft sci­en­tific opin­ions address­ing the issue.

Both opin­ions draw on an exten­sive review of stud­ies and field obser­va­tions reported across the 27-nation bloc in recent years. Once adopted, the con­clu­sions are expected to shape the European Union approach to Xylella, influ­enc­ing sur­veil­lance, con­tain­ment pro­to­cols, vec­tor con­trol and other man­age­ment mea­sures in affected regions.

The con­sul­ta­tion is part of a broader update to shared pro­ce­dures requested by mem­ber states after recent devel­op­ments in the epi­demi­ol­ogy of Xylella fas­tidiosa. Since the pathogen was first detected in Europe in 2013, it has been reported in sev­eral Mediterranean areas and on a grow­ing num­ber of host plants. Member states asked EFSA to reassess the risks posed by the bac­terium and eval­u­ate the effec­tive­ness of con­trol mea­sures cur­rently used or pro­posed.

EFSA said it is seek­ing com­ments from stake­hold­ers, researchers and insti­tu­tions on the evi­dence, inter­pre­ta­tion and con­clu­sions in the draft reports before they are final­ized. After the April 24, 2026 dead­line, EFSA’s Plant Health Panel will review the feed­back before for­mally adopt­ing the opin­ions later in 2026.

Policy changes that could fol­low include updates to erad­i­ca­tion or con­tain­ment mea­sures, revi­sions to vec­tor man­age­ment guid­ance and con­sid­er­a­tion of addi­tional risk-reduc­tion options sup­ported by the sci­en­tific lit­er­a­ture.

The two opin­ions exam­ine mea­sures tar­get­ing two key points in the dis­ease cycle: meth­ods intended to reduce or sup­press the bac­terium inside infected plants, and meth­ods intended to con­trol insect vec­tors respon­si­ble for trans­mis­sion. Together, the doc­u­ments offer an updated assess­ment of the evi­dence for con­trol­ling the pathogen.

Both drafts update EFSA assess­ments pub­lished in 2019, when evi­dence for sev­eral approaches was lim­ited and many exper­i­men­tal meth­ods were still under inves­ti­ga­tion. The new reviews incor­po­rate stud­ies pub­lished since then, along with data from ongo­ing research pro­grams and exper­i­men­tal tri­als.

The opin­ions also come as the cur­rent EU frame­work con­tin­ues to rely heav­ily on pre­ven­tion and con­tain­ment, includ­ing the removal of infected plants and the estab­lish­ment of buffer zones around out­breaks. While these mea­sures can limit spread, they can be eco­nom­i­cally and socially dis­rup­tive, par­tic­u­larly where the pathogen is already wide­spread.

That has fueled inter­est among pol­i­cy­mak­ers, farm­ers and researchers in addi­tional options that could com­ple­ment exist­ing strate­gies, includ­ing treat­ments that reduce bac­te­r­ial pop­u­la­tions in infected plants, new vec­tor-man­age­ment approaches and agro­nomic prac­tices that help limit trans­mis­sion.

The first opin­ion focuses on ​“in planta” con­trol mea­sures — meth­ods designed to curb Xylella activ­ity within infected plants — and eval­u­ates whether chem­i­cal, bio­log­i­cal or agro­nomic inter­ven­tions can reduce bac­te­r­ial pop­u­la­tions or alle­vi­ate symp­toms in infected hosts.

EFSA’s panel car­ried out a sys­tem­atic lit­er­a­ture review of exper­i­men­tal stud­ies test­ing treat­ments applied directly to infected plants. The review cov­ers chem­i­cal com­pounds, bio­log­i­cal con­trol agents, plant extracts, micronu­tri­ent for­mu­la­tions and other sub­stances exam­ined for their abil­ity to sup­press the bac­terium. It also includes lab­o­ra­tory research aimed at iden­ti­fy­ing antibac­te­r­ial com­pounds that could even­tu­ally be used in plant-pro­tec­tion strate­gies.

The opin­ion also exam­ines phys­i­cal treat­ments and agro­nomic prac­tices reported to reduce dis­ease sever­ity or dis­rupt pathogen spread. Examples include ther­mal treat­ments, prun­ing, weed man­age­ment and cover-crop man­age­ment. EFSA treats these as risk-reduc­tion options because they may influ­ence the dis­ease cycle even if they do not elim­i­nate the pathogen.

Despite the range of approaches described in the lit­er­a­ture, the panel con­cludes that none of the tested meth­ods can elim­i­nate the bac­terium from infected plants under open-field con­di­tions. Some treat­ments were asso­ci­ated with reduced symp­toms or lower bac­te­r­ial pop­u­la­tions, but the effects were gen­er­ally lim­ited and often insuf­fi­cient to pre­vent dis­ease pro­gres­sion or trans­mis­sion by insect vec­tors.

The sec­ond opin­ion eval­u­ates direct con­trol of the insect vec­tors that spread Xylella fas­tidiosa. In Europe, the meadow spit­tle­bug (Philaenus spumar­ius) is con­sid­ered the pri­mary vec­tor, although other xylem-feed­ing insects may also con­tribute to trans­mis­sion.

Based on another sys­tem­atic review, the panel assessed stud­ies test­ing vec­tor-con­trol strate­gies in lab­o­ra­tory and field con­di­tions. The evi­dence spans syn­thetic insec­ti­cides, bio­log­i­cal con­trols and agro­nomic prac­tices intended to reduce insect pop­u­la­tions.

Measures reviewed include syn­thetic active sub­stances, non-syn­thetic insec­ti­ci­dal com­pounds, fungi and microor­gan­isms toxic to vec­tors, nat­ural preda­tors and prac­tices such as mow­ing or soil tillage that can alter vec­tor habi­tats.

EFSA found that syn­thetic insec­ti­cides cur­rently approved in the European Union tend to pro­duce the largest reduc­tions in vec­tor sur­vival. At the same time, the analy­sis notes sub­stan­tial uncer­tainty, reflect­ing lim­ited data for many inter­ven­tions and wide vari­a­tion in study designs and con­di­tions.

The opin­ion also high­lights key knowl­edge gaps, includ­ing lim­ited evi­dence directly link­ing reduced vec­tor pop­u­la­tions to reduced pathogen trans­mis­sion. In other words, while some mea­sures lower insect num­bers, it remains unclear how con­sis­tently that trans­lates into lower infec­tion rates in crops.

The pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion will run until April 24, 2026. EFSA said it will review sub­mis­sions and final­ize the opin­ions for adop­tion later in 2026, after which they will be shared with the European Commission and mem­ber states to inform reg­u­la­tory and risk-man­age­ment deci­sions.