FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT international 2/2018

Fleischwirtschaft international 2_2018
11
Animal Welfare
total, 28 questionnaires were fully answered by
official veterinarians, 22 of them working in
different pig abattoirs. The occupational background
of the respondents represented the
situation in Germany quite well; eight small
abattoirs (100,000
slaughtered pigs/week). On 12 abattoirs, visualonly
inspection was not applied. Five out of
these 12 abattoirs were small abattoirs. In the
group of abattoirs, where visual­only inspection
is applied fully (N= 8) or partially (N= 2) (10/22),
large abattoirs were the majority.
In Portugal, visual­only inspection has been
implemented at all slaughterhouses except
those that are authorized for export to the
Customs Union (Russian Federation, Kazakhstan
and Belarus) and to Brazil, due to trade
requirements raised by these countries. The
specific, additional procedures that constitute
the difference between traditional inspection
and visual­only may be applied only for the
slaughter batches intended for export to these
countries. However,ifthe abattoir is unable to
determine which consignments are intended
for export to the countries requiring extra
procedures, traditional inspection shall be
applied to all slaughter batches at the day of
slaughter.Additionally,according to the Portuguese
legislation, aminimum level of monitoring
for Mycobacterium avium is in place by
incision of mandibular and mesenteric lymph
nodes from all pigs from positive farms or 10%
of pigs from negative farms as well as for
Cysticercus cellulose infection by examining 10%
of all carcasses from each batch.
In Australia, leading into the workshop several
reports from an extensive risk­based review
of PM inspection and disposition judgements of
the Australian Standard 4696 (Anon., 2007) had
been submitted to meat safety regulators for
consideration. Since the Safepork workshop, the
routine visual inspection has been approved, in
principle, by meat safety regulators (POINTON et
al., 2017)asan equivalent alternative PM inspection
procedure with the domestic meat inspection
standard (Anon., 2007). The decision is
based on acomparison of visual inspection with
traditional procedures (POINTON et al., 2000:
HAMILTON et al., 2002), aqualitative risk­based
assessment considering contemporary data
(POINTON et al., 2018)and an assessment of the
counterproductive net effect of incision of
lymph nodes on contamination of edible tissues
(EFSA 2011;KIERMEIER and POINTON,2017). The
assessment of the equivalence of alternative
procedures with the standard included food
safety,wholesomeness and effect on animal
health and welfare surveillance, including
zoonoses. Aprocess is underway to support
implementation in domestic and export­licensed
abattoirs. These equivalent alternative
inspection procedures apply equally to indoor
reared pigs, those reared at any stage in outdoor
production systems and to cull breeding stock.
In large part, these changes have been enabled
by improvements in herd health especially due
to the eradication or prevention of traditional
meat­borne zoonoses and recognition of contamination
of edible tissues by “hidden” foodborne
hazards due to traditional inspection
procedures.
In Brazil, anational risk­based assessment is
being undertaken to acquaint the inspection
procedures to current epidemiological status,
involving fattening pigs raised under controlled
housing conditions. In Colombia, traditional
meat inspection is undertaken and there
is currently no discussion about visual­only
inspection.
In the USA, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) Agency has proposed to amend
the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish
anew optional inspection system for market
hog (finishing pig) slaughter establishments,
called the NewSwine Slaughter Inspection
Advertisement