Search EFSA Journal
Refine your search
Type
All article types
Special Issue Item
Journal Editorial
Scientific opinions of Scientific/Scientific Panel
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Statement of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Guidance of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Other scientific outputs of EFSA
Statement of EFSA
Guidance of EFSA
Conclusion on pesticides
Reasoned opinion on pesticide
Scientific report of EFSA
Technical Report
Subject
All subjects
Animal health & welfare
Biological hazards
Biological monitoring
Contaminants
Dietary & chemical monitoring
Emerging risks
Feed
Food Ingredients and Packaging
GMO
Nutrition
Pesticides
Plant health
Assessment and methodological support
Scientific Committee
Scientific cooperation
Article ID
Digital Object ID
Sort by:
Publication date
Relevance

Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine)

EFSA Journal 2011;9(10):2351 [198 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351
  EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)   EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM)   EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel Members Olivier Andreoletti, Herbert Budka, Sava Buncic, John D Collins, John Griffin, Tine Hald, Arie Havelaar, James Hope, Günter Klein, Kostas Koutsoumanis, James McLauchlin, Christine Müller-Graf, Christophe Nguyen-The, Birgit Noerrung, Luisa Peixe, Miguel Prieto Maradona, Antonia Ricci, John Sofos, John Threlfall, Ivar Vågsholm and Emmanuel Vanopdenbosch.Jan Alexander, Diane Benford, Alan Boobis, Sandra Ceccatelli, Bruce Cottrill, Jean-Pierre Cravedi, Alessandro Di Domenico, Daniel Doerge, Eugenia Dogliotti, Lutz Edler, Peter Farmer, Metka Filipič, Johanna Fink-Gremmels, Peter Fürst, Thierry Guérin, Helle Katrine Knutsen, Miroslav Machala, Antonio Mutti, Josef Schlatter, Martin Rose and Rolaf van Leeuwen.Anette Bøtner, Donald Broom, Marcus G. Doherr, Mariano Domingo, Jörg Hartung, Linda Keeling, Frank Koenen, Simon More, David Morton, Pascal Oltenacu, Albert Osterhaus, Fulvio Salati, Mo Salman, Moez Sanaa, James M. Sharp, Jan A. Stegeman, Endre Szücs, Hans-H. Thulke, Philippe Vannier, John Webster and, Martin Wierup. Acknowledgment The BIOHAZ Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat from swine: Sava Buncic, Birgit Noerrung, Marcelo De Las Heras, Gunter Klein, Truls Nesbakken, Katharina Staerk Spallek, Iva Steinhauserova and Frans van Knappen for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and ECDC staff member Vicente Lopez and EFSA staff: Pablo Romero-Barrios and Ernesto Liebana for the support provided to this scientific opinion.The CONTAM Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on meat inspection and contaminants: Johanna Fink-Gremmels, Peter Fürst, Steve Mcorist and Michael O’Keeffe for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and EFSA staff: Silvia I. Nicolau-Solano and Valeriu Curtui for the support provided to this scientific opinion.The AHAW Panel wishes to thank the members of the AHAW Working Group on meat inspection: Simon More, Donald Broom, Marcus G. Doherr, Mariano Domingo, Frank Koenen, Pascal Oltenacu, Mo Salman, Moez Sanaa, Martin Wierup for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and EFSA staff: Milen Georgiev and Ana Afonso for the support provided to this scientific opinion. Contact biohaz@efsa.europa.eu
contam@efsa.europa.eu
ahaw@efsa.europa.eu
Type: Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel On request from: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2010-00886 , EFSA-Q-2010-00930 , EFSA-Q-2010-01019 Adopted: 31 August 2011 Published: 03 October 2011 Affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Abstract

A qualitative risk assessment identified Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazards in the context of meat inspection of swine. A comprehensive pork carcass safety assurance is the only way to ensure their effective control. This requires setting targets to be achieved in/on chilled carcasses, which also informs what has to be achieved earlier in the food chain. Improved Food Chain Information (FCI) enables risk-differentiation of pig batches (hazard-related) and abattoirs (process hygiene-related). Risk reduction measures at abattoir level are focused on prevention of microbial contamination through technology- and process hygiene-based measures (GMP/GHP- and HACCP-based), including omitting palpation/incision during post-mortem inspection in routine slaughter, as well as hazard reduction/inactivation meat treatments if necessary. At farm level, risk reduction measures are based on herd health programmes, closed breeding pyramids and GHP/GFP. Chemical substances listed in Council Directive 96/23/EC were ranked into four categories. Dioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls and chloramphenicol were ranked as being of high potential concern. However, chemical substances in pork are unlikely to pose an immediate or short term health risk for consumers. Opportunities for risk-based inspection strategies by means of differentiated sampling plans taking into account FCI were identified. Regular update of sampling programmes and inclusion of inspection criteria for the identification of illicit use of substances were also recommended. Meat inspection is a key component of the overall surveillance system for pig health and welfare but information is currently under-utilised. The changes proposed to the pig meat inspection system will lead to some reduction in the detection probability of diseases and welfare conditions. The difference is likely to be minimal for diseases/conditions that affect several organs. To mitigate the reduced detection probability, palpation and/or incision should be conducted as a follow-up to visual inspection whenever abnormalities are seen.

© European Food Safety Authority, 2011

Summary

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) and the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) were asked to deliver a Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards (biological and chemical respectively) to be covered by inspection of meat for several animal species. This Opinion is the first of the series and deals with swine. Briefly, the Panels were asked to identify and rank the main risks for public health that should be addressed by meat inspection, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current meat inspection methodology, to recommend inspection methods fit for the purpose of meeting the overall objectives of meat inspection for hazards currently not covered by the meat inspection system and to recommend adaptations of inspection methods and/or frequencies of inspections that provide an equivalent level of protection. In addition, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to consider the implications for animal health and animal welfare of any changes suggested in the light of public health risks to current inspection methods.

In order to fulfill its mandate, EFSA’s Panels made the following key conclusions and recommendations:

On biological hazards, a qualitative risk assessment of foodborne hazards was conducted using data on prevalence in/on chilled carcases, incidence and severity of disease in humans, and source attribution of hazards to pork, with the chilled carcasses as the target. Based on this assessment, Salmonella spp. were considered of high relevance and Yersinia enterocolitica, Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella spp. as of medium relevance presently in the EU, and were specifically addressed. The risk reduction measures indicated for Salmonella spp. and Y. enterocolitica would also be beneficial for controlling a number of other microbial hazards.

Also in the area of biological hazards, food safety-related strengths identified were that ante-mortem inspection enables using Food Chain Information (FCI), the detection of clinically observable zoonotic diseases, animal identification enabling traceability, and evaluation of visual cleanliness of animals. Also, post-mortem inspection enables detection of macroscopic abnormalities caused by some zoonotic agents, visual contamination, as well as of Trichinella spp. by laboratory examination.

The following food safety-related weaknesses were also identified: practical difficulties to clinically examine animals individually ante-mortem and that current use of FCI does not include all indicators to classify the pigs in relation to public health risk. In addition, current ante- or post-mortem inspection does not enable detection of the bacterial and parasitic foodborne hazards of most relevance as identified above; and microbial agents associated with common pathological conditions detected post-mortem are caused by non-zoonotic or zoonotic hazards which pose an occupational rather than foodborne risk. Also, using palpation/incision techniques during post-mortem inspection mediates bacterial cross-contamination. The Panel considered that the current judgement of the fitness of meat for human consumption does not differentiate food safety aspects from meat quality aspects, control of animal diseases or occupational hazards.

With respect to inspection methods for biological hazards, it was concluded that a comprehensive pork carcass safety assurance, with a range of preventive measures and controls applied both on-farm and at-abattoir in an integrated way is the only way to ensure an effective control of the main hazards. This would require setting targets with respect to the main hazards to be achieved for chilled carcasses, which would then inform what has to be achieved at earlier steps in the food chain. At the abattoir, the goal would be risk reduction for the main hazards through programmes based on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)/Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), including: hygienic practice- and technology-based measures to avoid cross-contamination; additional interventions if necessary such as surface decontamination of carcasses (for bacterial hazards); and/or heat/freezing treatments (for parasitic hazards) as an alternative to related laboratory testing; and use of FCI to differentiate incoming pig batches with respect to the risk they pose in respect to the main hazards and to differentiate abattoirs according to risk-reduction capacity (based on process hygiene). At farm level, the goal is risk reduction for the main hazards, which can be achieved through measures such as herd health programmes and closed breeding pyramids, GHP and GFP.

Finally, it was considered that palpation/incisions used in current post-mortem inspection should be omitted in pigs subjected to routine slaughter, because of the risk of microbial cross-contamination. These techniques should be limited to suspect pigs identified through FCI/ante-mortem inspection and/or post-mortem visual detection of relevant abnormalities and where it would lead to risk reduction. In such situations, palpation/incision should be performed separately from the slaughterline and accompanied by laboratory testing as required. The elimination of abnormalities on aesthetic/meat quality grounds can be ensured through a meat quality assurance system.

A series of recommendations were made regarding biological hazards on data collection, future evaluations of the meat inspection system and hazard identification/ranking, training of all parties involved in the pork carcass safety assurance system, and needs for research on testing methodologies, validation of carcass treatments and methods to assess abattoir process hygiene.

On chemical hazards, the current meat inspection methodology related to the occurrence of chemical compounds in pigs was assessed. Such compounds can result from the exposure of pigs to contaminants in feed materials as well as following the application of authorized and possibly non-authorized drugs. It was concluded that chemical substances are unlikely to pose an immediate or short term health risk for consumers. In the current meat inspection procedures, these contaminants and chemical residues are not specifically addressed. The only measure taken at the abattoir is the sampling of tissue specimens according to the National Residue Control Plans (NRCP) as defined in Council Directive 96/23/EC.

Considering the outcome of the NRCP for the period 2005-2009, as well as substance specific parameters such as the toxicological profile and the likelihood of the occurrence of residues in pig meat, a ranking of substances is presented. This ranking comprises four categories, denoted as high, medium, low and negligible potential concern. Dioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs) and the banned antibiotic chloramphenicol were ranked as being of high potential concern. Ranking should be updated regularly when new data become available.

Opportunities were identified to develop strategies for risk-based inspection of chemical hazards by means of differentiated sampling plans taking into account FCI data. It was also suggested to include competent ante- and post-mortem inspection criteria for the identification of illicit use of substances and to encourage analyses at the farm level. It was noted, however, that all measures taken to improve the efficacy of meat inspection protocols need to address the compliance of imports from Third Countries into the EU with these strategies.

In this mandate, the implications for animal health and welfare and surveillance of changes to the current meat inspection system proposed were also evaluated. These changes included a shortened duration of transport and lairage, removal of palpation and incision from post-mortem inspection, and the introduction of risk categorisation. In broad terms, surveillance for animal health and welfare is conducted for early detection, case-finding and estimating prevalence, and measurements of surveillance quality vary according to surveillance purpose. Two methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) were used to assess the quality of both the current and proposed modified meat inspection systems. The former relied on expert opinion and a review of the literature, and the latter used a three stage epidemiological modelling approach. During current systems of meat inspection, the probability of detection is often low, particularly for non-typical cases. There will be some reduction in detection probability with a shift from the current to the proposed modified system of pig meat inspection. The magnitude of this difference will vary, depending on the disease/condition. For typical cases of diseases/conditions that generally affect several organs, the difference is likely to be minimal. To mitigate the reduced disease/condition detection probability of the proposed modified system, palpation and/or incision should be conducted as a follow-up to visual inspection whenever abnormalities are seen. Meat inspection, both ante- and post-mortem, was highlighted as a key component of the overall surveillance system for pig health and welfare. There have been several occasions within the EU where outbreaks of epidemic diseases have first been detected during meat inspection. It was also noted that pig health and welfare surveillance information is currently greatly under-utilised. Several recommendations were made.

Keywords

Meat inspection, swine, surveillance, safety, ante-mortem, post-mortem, contaminants, residues