Biosecurity in Swine Production: Preventing Zoonotic Disease Introduction and Spread

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Biosecurity in swine production is bifurcated into external measures (preventing pathogen introduction via animal sourcing, feed safety, visitor/vehicle control, wildlife exclusion) and internal measures (limiting spread through flow design, cleaning/disinfection, movement segregation, mortality management).
• Primary zoonotic agents of concern in swine production include Influenza A virus (respiratory transmission), Hepatitis E virus (fecal-oral transmission), and Leptospira spp. (urinary shedding), necessitating targeted surveillance and control strategies.
• The human-animal interface is a critical control point for zoonotic disease transmission; effective biosecurity mandates strict personnel protocols, including downtime declarations, farm-specific attire, and robust hand hygiene.
• Risk assessment frameworks, such as those used by EFSA for African Swine Fever, are crucial for prioritizing interventions by identifying specific transmission pathways (e.g., respiratory aerosols for influenza, fecal-oral for HEV) and human exposure points.
• Effective cleaning and disinfection protocols are paramount for internal biosecurity, requiring a sequential process of dry cleaning, detergent washing, rinsing, disinfection, and drying to overcome the inactivating effect of organic matter on disinfectants.
• Surveillance for zoonotic agents should be targeted, utilizing indicators like acute respiratory illness in workers for influenza, elevated liver enzymes for HEV, and reproductive losses for Leptospira, coupled with laboratory confirmation via methods like RT-PCR or serology.

This article provides a structured reference for veterinary researchers and practitioners engaged in swine health management, focusing on biosecurity measures that reduce the risk of zoonotic pathogen introduction and dissemination within commercial pig operations. It addresses the epidemiological rationale for external and internal biosecurity, the specific zoonotic agents of concern in swine production, and the practical implementation of barrier-based control strategies. The clinical question at the center of this reference is how a veterinarian can design, audit, and correct a biosecurity program that protects both animal health and public health, with particular attention to influenza viruses, hepatitis E virus, and leptospira species.

The conceptual framework rests on a distinction between external biosecurity, which aims to prevent pathogen introduction, and internal biosecurity, which limits pathogen spread once present on a farm. This distinction is well established in the veterinary literature, and its application to swine production has been reviewed extensively in the context of emerging and re-emerging diseases. The same principles that govern the control of production-limiting pathogens such as porcine epidemic diarrhea virus also apply to zoonotic agents, although the consequences of failure extend beyond the farm gate to human populations.

At a Glance

The Epidemiological Basis of Biosecurity in Swine Operations

Biosecurity in pig production is the application of measures designed to reduce the probability of pathogen introduction and subsequent spread within a farm. The key idea is to interrupt transmission, either between farms or within a single farm, and this requires an understanding of the limited number of transmission pathways common to most swine pathogens. Even when detailed epidemiological data for a specific agent are incomplete, effective interventions can be designed because the routes of transmission are finite and predictable.

The consequences of biosecurity failure are illustrated by the global experience with African swine fever, a disease for which no vaccine exists and for which prevention depends entirely on preventing contact between the virus and the susceptible host. Strict biosecurity measures that place barriers between the source of virus and the pigs can prevent infection, but this has significant implications for free-ranging pig husbandry systems that remain widespread in developing countries. The same barrier logic applies to zoonotic agents, although the source of infection may be a human worker instead of a wild boar or contaminated feed.

Transmission Pathways and Their Relevance to Zoonotic Agents

Pathogen introduction into a swine operation occurs through a limited set of pathways: live animal movement, semen, feed and water, fomites including vehicles and equipment, wildlife and vectors, and human movement. Formal international trade of pigs and pork products is regulated by legislation and by measures designed to protect animal populations from exotic diseases, but informal trade, including illegal smuggling and cross-border transfer of products, is much more difficult to control. The same classification applies at the farm level, where the distinction between formal and informal pathways determines the feasibility of intervention.

For zoonotic agents, the human pathway deserves particular attention. Farm workers, veterinarians, and other visitors can carry influenza viruses, hepatitis E virus, and bacterial pathogens on clothing, footwear, and skin. The animal-human interface in industrial food animal production has been identified as a critical point for pathogen movement, with substantial evidence of pathogen transfer between facilities, release to the external environment, and exposure of farm workers. This challenges the assumption that large-scale operations are inherently more biosecure than smaller holdings, and it places worker health protocols at the center of zoonotic disease prevention.

External Biosecurity: Preventing Pathogen Introduction

External biosecurity measures are those that place barriers between the farm and the outside world. The design of these measures follows a risk-based logic in which each potential introduction pathway is assessed for its likelihood and consequences, and control measures are prioritized accordingly. Qualitative risk assessment frameworks have proven useful in data-scarce environments, particularly for diseases such as African swine fever where the evidence base is incomplete but decisions cannot be deferred.

Animal Sourcing and Quarantine

The introduction of new breeding stock is one of the highest-risk activities in swine production. A closed herd policy, in which no animals are introduced from outside, is the most effective measure but is not always commercially feasible. Where introductions are necessary, the sourcing herd should have a documented health status, and incoming animals should be isolated for a period sufficient to cover the incubation period of the pathogens of concern. The isolation facility should be physically separate from the main herd, and the same personnel should not move between isolation and production areas without changing clothing and footwear.

Feed and Water Safety

Feed has been identified as a vehicle for pathogen introduction in swine operations. A documented investigation of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus introduction into an Ohio swine operation identified an outsourced, pelleted piglet diet as a potential route of infection, confirmed by a bioassay in which naive piglets fed the suspect feed developed disease. This finding has broader implications for zoonotic agents, as feed ingredients can be contaminated with fecal material carrying bacterial or viral pathogens. Heat treatment of feed, sourcing from certified suppliers, and regular testing of finished feed are the primary control measures.

Personnel and Visitor Management

Human movement is the most difficult pathway to control because it is continuous and involves individuals with varying levels of training and compliance. A functional protocol includes a visitor log, a minimum downtime since last contact with other swine, provision of farm-specific clothing and footwear, and a shower-in policy where the facility design permits. The effectiveness of these measures depends on enforcement, and the attending veterinarian should audit compliance during routine farm visits.

Internal Biosecurity: Limiting Spread Within the Farm

Internal biosecurity measures reduce the probability of pathogen spread once it has entered the farm. The organizing principle is segregation of animals by age, health status, and production stage, combined with strict attention to the movement of people, equipment, and materials between zones.

Flow Design and All-In-All-Out Production

The most effective internal biosecurity measure is the physical separation of production stages, with an all-in-all-out flow that allows complete cleaning and disinfection of a room or building between groups. Continuous flow systems, in which animals of different ages share airspace or contact surfaces, permit the maintenance of pathogens within a farm and increase the difficulty of elimination. The choice of flow design is often dictated by facility constraints, but the veterinarian should advocate for the highest level of segregation that the infrastructure can support.

Cleaning and Disinfection Protocols

Cleaning and disinfection are effective only when performed in the correct sequence: dry cleaning to remove organic material, wet cleaning with detergent, rinsing, disinfection, and drying. The critical failure mode is the presence of residual organic matter, which inactivates many disinfectants and protects pathogens from their action. Validation of cleaning effectiveness can be performed using visual inspection, adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence testing, or environmental sampling for specific pathogens.

Zoonotic Risk Assessment and Prioritization

A structured risk assessment should precede any biosecurity intervention. The objective is to identify which zoonotic agents pose the greatest threat to a given operation, then allocate resources accordingly. The assessment must consider agent prevalence in the region, the production system's vulnerability, and the human exposure pathways that exist on the farm.

The risk pathway for each zoonotic agent follows a consistent sequence: source, release, exposure, and consequence. For influenza A viruses of swine origin, the source is typically infected pigs entering the herd or wild bird contamination of feed or water. Release occurs through respiratory aerosols and contaminated fomites. Exposure of humans occurs through direct contact with respiratory secretions, contaminated surfaces, or aerosolised particles during handling and processing. For hepatitis E virus, the pathway involves fecal-oral transmission, with human exposure through contact with contaminated manure, equipment, or inadequately cooked pork products. Leptospirosis follows a urinary shedding pathway, with human infection through contact with contaminated water, urine, or placental fluids.

The prioritization of zoonotic risks should be informed by regional surveillance data and occupational health records. Veterinarians should consult WHO One Health initiative guidance and CDC zoonotic disease resources to align farm-level assessments with current public health priorities. These sources provide frameworks for cross-sector collaboration and disease prioritization that can be adapted to individual operations.

Risk Pathway Documentation

Each farm should maintain a written risk pathway for the zoonotic agents of concern. The document should list, for each agent, the likely introduction routes, the amplification points within the farm, the human exposure points, and the control measures that interrupt each step. This document serves as the basis for the biosecurity checklist and should be reviewed at least annually or whenever a disease event occurs.

The following table provides a prioritization framework for zoonotic agents commonly relevant to swine operations. The scoring criteria are qualitative and should be adjusted to regional conditions.

The Biosecurity Checklist

A functional checklist must be specific to the operation and its assessed risks. Generic checklists fail because they omit the details that matter on a particular site. The checklist should be organized by the external and internal biosecurity domains already described, with each item linked to a named risk pathway step.

External Biosecurity Checklist Items

• Animal sourcing records: verify health status of source herds, transport disinfection logs, and quarantine completion certificates for all incoming animals.
• Feed and water: document feed mill biosecurity certifications, test water sources for fecal coliforms at least quarterly, and verify that feed storage excludes wildlife and rodents.
• Personnel entry: confirm that all visitors and staff complete a 48-hour downtime declaration, shower-in protocols are followed, and farm-specific clothing and boots are used.
• Vehicle and equipment entry: verify that all vehicles are washed and disinfected before entering the loading area, and that shared equipment is cleaned and disinfected between sites.
• Wildlife and pest control: maintain bait stations, proof buildings against birds and rodents, and keep a log of pest sightings and control actions.

Internal Biosecurity Checklist Items

• Flow separation: confirm that animals are moved in one direction only, that all-in-all-out is practised at the room or building level, and that cross-fostering is limited to the first 24 hours.
• Cleaning and disinfection: verify that the cleaning protocol includes dry cleaning, detergent application, rinsing, disinfection, and drying, and that disinfection contact times are met.
• Manure management: confirm that manure handling equipment is not shared between clean and dirty areas, and that slurry storage prevents runoff into water sources.
• Carcass disposal: verify that dead animals are removed promptly, stored in sealed containers, and disposed of through rendering, incineration, or composting according to local regulations.
• Worker health: document that workers with febrile illness or gastrointestinal symptoms are excluded from pig contact, and that hand-washing facilities are available and stocked.

The checklist should be completed weekly by the herd manager and reviewed monthly by the attending veterinarian. Each item should have a defined failure mode and a corrective action. For example, if the downtime declaration log shows incomplete entries, the corrective action is retraining of staff and a temporary suspension of visitor access.

Monitoring and Surveillance Parameters

Monitoring serves two purposes: detecting pathogen introduction early and verifying that biosecurity measures are functioning. The choice of monitoring parameters depends on the zoonotic agents of concern and the production stage.

For influenza A virus, monitoring includes weekly recording of acute respiratory signs in pigs, particularly sudden onset of coughing, sneezing, and fever in multiple pens. In breeding herds, an abrupt drop in feed intake across a barn is an early indicator. Diagnostic confirmation requires PCR on nasal swabs or oral fluids, and samples should be collected within 24 hours of clinical onset. In workers, monitoring includes reporting of influenza-like illness to the farm manager, with a low threshold for medical evaluation.

For hepatitis E virus, monitoring focuses on manure management integrity and water quality. Quarterly testing of well water for fecal coliforms provides an indirect indicator of contamination risk. In pigs, hepatitis E is often subclinical, so surveillance relies on seroprevalence studies in finishing herds. Worker monitoring includes awareness of jaundice, dark urine, and unexplained fatigue, with prompt medical referral.

For leptospirosis, monitoring includes tracking reproductive performance, particularly abortion rates and stillbirths. A rise in abortions above baseline should trigger serological testing of sows and culture of urine or kidney tissue. Rodent activity should be monitored through bait consumption records and visual inspections. Worker monitoring focuses on febrile illness, headache, and muscle pain, especially in those with skin abrasions or frequent water contact.

The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance on sample collection, diagnostic test selection, and interpretation of results for these agents. Veterinarians should consult current diagnostic laboratory catalogues for test availability and sample requirements.

Documentation and Audit

Biosecurity documentation must be more than a record of activities. It should enable retrospective analysis of failures and support continuous improvement. The core documents are the risk pathway, the checklist, the monitoring log, and the incident report.

The incident report is triggered by any of the following: confirmed zoonotic infection in a worker, detection of a listed zoonotic agent in pigs, a biosecurity breach identified during audit, or an unexplained disease event. The report should describe the event, the likely pathway, the control measures that failed, and the corrective actions taken. The attending veterinarian should review all incident reports within 14 days.

An annual biosecurity audit should be conducted by a veterinarian who is not the routine herd health provider. This external perspective reduces the risk of overlooking habitual deviations. The audit should include a walk-through of the farm, review of all documentation, and interviews with staff. The audit report should score each biosecurity domain and prioritize corrective actions by risk reduction potential and cost.

The WOAH terrestrial animal health standards provide a reference framework for surveillance and reporting that can be adapted to farm-level documentation. Compliance with these standards is particularly relevant for operations involved in international trade or located near borders, where transboundary disease spread through trade and travel poses an elevated risk.

Decision Points That Change the Protocol

Several factors should alter the standard biosecurity protocol. Herd size and production stage matter. A farrow-to-finish operation has different exposure points than a wean-to-finish site, and the checklist must reflect those differences. For example, farrowing units require specific protocols for handling placental fluids and abortion material, while finishing units require greater attention to carcass disposal and worker contact during loading.

The regional disease status changes the required intensity of measures. In areas where African swine fever is present, strict biosecurity barriers between virus sources and susceptible pigs become the dominant priority, and internal biosecurity measures may be relaxed in favour of external ones. In areas free of the disease, the focus shifts to endemic zoonotic agents and production diseases.

Worker availability and skill level also influence protocol design. A small operation with family labor may rely on downtime declarations and personal protective equipment, while a large operation with hired staff may require shower-in facilities and dedicated clothing. The protocol must be realistic for the workforce, or compliance will fail.

The evidence base for specific biosecurity measures varies. Some measures, such as all-in-all-out production and cleaning between batches, have strong support. Others, such as specific disinfection products or downtime durations, have limited comparative data. Veterinarians should acknowledge this uncertainty and base decisions on risk assessment principles instead of assumed efficacy. The review of biosecurity in pig farms provides a structured overview of measures and their rationale, but it also notes gaps in the evidence for many practices.

Recognized Failure Modes and Early Detection

Biosecurity programs fail through predictable pathways. The most common is the gap between documented protocol and daily practice, where written standards describe ideal procedures that staff do not consistently execute. A second failure mode is the single unmanaged vector, often a feed delivery, a shared trailer, or a worker who also keeps pigs at home. A third is the assumption that a negative clinical picture equates to freedom from infection, which fails for pathogens with silent shedding such as hepatitis E virus or leptospirosis.

Early detection depends on surveillance that is matched to the specific zoonotic risk profile of the operation. Passive surveillance, relying on clinical recognition, detects influenza-like illness in workers before it is recognized in pigs only if the farm has a reporting culture. Active surveillance, using pooled oral fluid sampling or serological panels, detects subclinical circulation. The discriminating check for a suspected protocol breach is a targeted investigation: review entry logs, compare them against the written schedule, and swab high-contact surfaces such as door handles, boot wash stations, and feed delivery chutes. A positive environmental sample in the absence of clinical disease indicates contamination, not yet infection, and triggers a response that is different from a confirmed animal case.

Common Errors and Corrective Action

Less experienced personnel make characteriztic mistakes. The first is treating disinfection as a substitute for cleaning. Organic material inactivates most disinfectants, so a contact time measured from the moment of spraying is meaningless if visible fecal matter remains. The corrective action is to enforce a two-step sequence, clean, dry, then disinfect, and to verify dryness before disinfection begins.

A second error is the misuse of the shower-in, shower-out barrier. Personnel who shower but then walk through a contaminated area, or who carry personal items such as phones or cigarettes through the barrier, negate its function. The corrective action is to define a clean line, provide a transfer hatch for items that cannot be disinfected, and audit compliance through spot checks instead of self-reporting.

A third error is the conflation of external and internal biosecurity. A farm with excellent perimeter control but poor internal flow, for example moving pigs from older to younger groups, will amplify any pathogen that breaches the perimeter. The corrective action is to map pig movement and human movement separately, then identify every point where a younger animal can be exposed to an older one. This distinction between external and internal measures is central to effective program design, as the review of biosecurity in pig farms makes clear biosecurity in pig farms: a review.

Limitations of the Evidence and Areas of Expert Divergence

The evidence base for swine biosecurity is uneven. Controlled trials comparing specific interventions are scarce, and much of the literature consists of outbreak investigations and expert opinion. The investigation of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus introduction into an Ohio operation, for example, identified contaminated feed as the likely vehicle, but the authors could not exclude other pathways with certainty investigating the introduction of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus into an Ohio swine operation. This uncertainty is typical.

Expert opinion diverges on several points. The first is the value of air filtration, which some authorities consider essential for high-health herds and others consider cost-ineffective outside regions with high pathogen pressure. The second is the acceptable interval between cleaning and restocking, with recommendations ranging from days to weeks depending on the pathogen and the production system. The third is the role of free-ranging production, where strict biosecurity that places barriers between the virus and the host may be incompatible with the husbandry system, as noted in the review of African swine fever transmission and control Review of African swine fever: transmission, spread and control. Where evidence is contested, the veterinarian should document the rationale for the chosen approach and revisit it as new data emerge.

Referral, Specialist Consultation, and Regulatory Reporting

Referral is warranted when a zoonotic agent is suspected but the diagnostic capacity of the practice is insufficient, when a cluster of human illness occurs among farm workers, or when the epidemiological picture suggests an exotic or notifiable disease. Laboratory involvement should begin early, not after clinical signs have become widespread, because the diagnostic window for some agents is narrow. The World Organization for Animal Health terrestrial animal health standards define the reporting obligations for listed diseases, and veterinarians must be familiar with the requirements of their jurisdiction WOAH terrestrial animal health standards.

Regulatory reporting is triggered by a confirmed or strongly suspected case of a notifiable disease, by a zoonotic event involving human cases, or by an unusual cluster of disease that cannot be explained by routine causes. The decision to report should not be delayed pending full laboratory confirmation. Public health authorities should be engaged through the One Health framework, which links human, animal, and environmental health for zoonotic disease control WHO One Health Initiative. The attending veterinarian should coordinate with the relevant public health and agricultural authorities, and should document all findings, decisions, and communications in a form that can be shared across agencies.

Troubleshooting Guide

Frequently Asked Questions

How Should Biosecurity Priorities Be Adjusted When Financial or Structural Resources Are Limited?

Prioritize interventions that interrupt the highest-risk transmission pathways first. External biosecurity measures that prevent contact between domestic pigs and wild suids or contaminated fomites carry the greatest weight where African swine fever is concerned, since no vaccine exists and prevention depends entirely on barrier placement between virus and host. Personnel and vehicle disinfection points, dedicated farm footwear, and controlled animal entry should precede investments in air filtration or automated monitoring. A functional quarantine area for incoming stock, even a simple off-site pen, outperforms elaborate but unmaintained systems. When ideal equipment is unavailable, procedural discipline compensates partially: single-use coveralls, footbaths changed daily, and clear segregation of clean and dirty zones require minimal capital. Document what was done and why, so risk assessment remains transparent when resources change.

What Records Should Be Kept to Demonstrate Biosecurity Compliance and Support Outbreak Investigations?

Maintain a written biosecurity plan with dated revisions, visitor and vehicle logs, animal movement records, mortality and morbidity trends, cleaning and disinfection schedules with product names and concentrations, and staff training attendance. Feed delivery records and water source testing results support traceback during disease investigations. In the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus investigation of an Ohio operation, the epidemiologic link was identified only because feed records allowed assessment of a suspect pelleted diet, illustrating how routine documentation becomes the backbone of root-cause analysis. Review records at least quarterly against the plan and amend both when gaps appear. Records also support qualitative risk assessment when authorities request evidence of mitigation measures during disease control negotiations.

How Does Biosecurity Planning Differ Between Intensive Indoor Units and Outdoor or Free-Range Systems?

Outdoor and free-range systems cannot achieve the same barrier integrity as indoor units because direct contact with wildlife, feral pigs, and contaminated environment is inherently harder to control. For African swine fever, strict biosecurity that places barriers between virus source and pigs has direct implications for free-ranging husbandry systems widespread in developing countries, where eliminating contact with wild suids may be practically impossible. In these systems, focus shifts to site selection, double fencing, feeding practices that avoid contaminated forage, and rigorous wild boar deterrence. Indoor systems allow tighter control of personnel, fomites, and air quality but concentrate risk within a high-density population, so internal flow design and all-in-all-out discipline become proportionally more important. Regional disease pressure should dictate which compromises are acceptable.

What Immediate Actions Should a Practitioner Take When a Zoonotic Disease Is Suspected on Farm?

Isolate affected animals, restrict personnel movement, and notify the farm owner and relevant public health authority without delay. Use personal protective equipment appropriate to the suspected agent, and collect diagnostic samples according to the relevant laboratory protocol. For diseases with occupational exposure risk such as leptospirosis or hepatitis E, advise workers on symptom awareness and medical follow-up. Concurrently, review the external biosecurity plan to identify likely introduction pathways and prevent further spread. The WHO One Health framework and CDC zoonotic disease resources provide cross-sector guidance for coordinating veterinary and human health responses. Do not wait for laboratory confirmation before implementing control measures, particularly where neonatal mortality or worker illness is already present.

How Should Biosecurity Protocols Be Communicated to Farm Staff to Ensure Consistent Execution?

Protocols must be written, demonstrated, and reinforced through regular training sessions that include practical drills instead of passive review. Assign named individuals responsibility for each critical control point, such as the loading bay, footbath maintenance, or visitor log completion. Use visual cues at transition zones, for example color-coded boots and clothing for different barn areas, to reduce decision fatigue. When staff understand the disease consequences, for instance that porcine epidemic diarrhea virus can be transmitted through contaminated feed or fomites, compliance improves because the rationale is explicit. Schedule brief refresher sessions after any protocol change and whenever an audit identifies drift. Encourage staff to report breaches without fear of reprisal, since hidden errors undermine the entire system.

When Should a Veterinarian Escalate a Biosecurity Concern Beyond the Farm Level?

Escalation is warranted when a notifiable disease is suspected, when a zoonotic agent poses an occupational or public health threat, or when an outbreak crosses production flows despite existing controls. Regional and international movement of pigs and pork products through formal and informal trade is a documented pathway for transboundary disease introduction, so suspicion of an exotic agent should trigger immediate reporting to the competent authority. Consult WOAH terrestrial animal health standards for notification obligations and trade-related control measures. Engage specialist swine veterinarians or diagnostic laboratories when the epidemiological picture is unclear. Early escalation preserves options for containment and demonstrates due diligence, whereas delayed reporting can convert a contained incident into a regional epizootic.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• Wildlife Disease Surveillance: Designing and Implementing a One Health Program
• Biosecurity Risk Assessment for Livestock Operations: A Practical Framework
• Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis in Veterinary Personnel

References and Further Reading

• Review of African swine fever: transmission, spread and control.. 2009.
• Biosecurity in pig farms: a review.. 2021.
• Investigating the introduction of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus into an Ohio swine operation.. 2015.
• The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment.. 2008.
• Transboundary spread of pig diseases: the role of international trade and travel.. 2019.
• Qualitative risk assessment in a data-scarce environment: a model to assess the impact of control measures on spread of African Swine Fever.. 2011.
• WHO One Health Initiative. WHO.
• CDC One Health and Zoonotic Disease Resources. CDC.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.

Related Articles

• Biosecurity in Poultry Production: Comprehensive Measures for Zoonotic Pathogen Control
• Zoonotic Disease Risk Assessment in Veterinary Practice
• Biosecurity in Poultry Production: Risk-Based Approach
• Veterinary Epidemiology: Study Designs for Zoonotic Disease Research
• Zoonotic Disease Risk Communication in Veterinary Practice

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.