FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT international 2/2018

More documents

Info

14 Fleischwirtschaft international 2_2018 Animal Welfare Modernization of meat inspection of pigs replaced by local condemnation. Assessment of disposition judgement criteria has been afeature of the review undertaken in Australia also. Also, the personnel dealing with the plucks and intestines must know that if they find anything abnormal, they must rapidly identify the carcass corresponding to the offal and immediately inform the official veterinarian, so that they can take any measure deemed necessary to assess the risk of the lesion found. Segregation of the carcass may be necessary to reevaluate the sanitary decision. Outside the EU, similar work has been commenced; In Brazil, work is being undertaken regarding adjustments of the slaughter line and how to share responsibilities between the veterinary authorities and the food business operator. Compared to the 2015 workshop, it seems as although there is awide variation regarding how much the countries have modernized their meat inspection, the countries are moving in the same direction; the challenges are somewhat similar and so are the technological tools which are found useful. Trichinella Denmark and Belgium have obtained EU status of negligible risk for Trichinella.This implies that there is no requirement for testing for Trichinella in pigs from the indoor compartments located in these two countries, if the pigs originate from premises that are complying with the requirements for controlled housing, listed in the EU Trichinella Regulations (EU Commission, 2015). In Denmark, the compliance is checked at least once every three years by an independent thirdparty auditor.Still, all pigs are tested on exportoriented abattoirs due to trade requirements (ALBAN and PETERSEN,2016). In the Netherlands, all pigs slaughtered on exportoriented abattoirs are tested for the same reasons as in Denmark. In Portugal, there has been no discussion about negligible risk status, although Trichinella is not found in domestic pigs but occasionally in wildlife. No information was provided for Australia. In Brazil, the digestion assay is in place, and PCR testing is also being done for Trichinella although Trichinella is not found in domestic pigs. In Colombia, the diagnostic testing is currently being improved. The USA is considering whether to make use of the concept of negligible risk compartments; the current discussion is debating how apremise may maintain its negligible risk status. In the USA, the use of private standards involving routine visits to check compliance with specified requirements has so far not been that common as in the EU. Currently,there seems to be varying interest in the concept of negligible risk compartments, although international recognition could involve savings due to fewer pigs being tested. However,the costs of establishing aprivate standard with regular visits by an independent thirdparty auditor may be considered too high, if only undertaken to for Trichinella. Preharvest program Awareness of risk for exposure to bacteria, viruses and parasites through food has risen among consumers according to recent market surveys. Consumers and official authorities place increasingly more responsibility on producers, manufacturers and food retailers to protect consumer health. Meat and meat products bring unique challenges to food safety;as these foodstuffs have azoonotic potential implying transmission of infection from animals to humans. Forfood animals, AM and PM inspection in the slaughter plant has historically played a critical role in ensuring product safety.The introduction of ahazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) approach to food safety was intended to provide additional safety assurances to consumers, by identifying and mitigating risks. However,ensuring adequate food safety requires participation throughout the entire food supply chain. With amore integrated approach, the probability of exposure to potential contaminants can be decreased. Ariskbased approach, supported by knowledge obtained from supplychain testing, provides acompetitive advantage for addressing food safety issues throughout the entire process. The PreHarvest Approach of Thermo Fisher Scientific, allows testing under ariskbased approach and supports continuous improvement of the supply chain, through herd/supplier monitoring and feedback. This concept has already been implemented by leading European packers. The principle is simple: When pigs are delivered to the slaughterhouse, adefined percentage of pigs are sampled and analyzed using apanel of diagnostic tests for the detection of microbial and zoonotic infections. The diagnostic results are linked to additional information about the herd or farm. Based upon this, appropriate measures can be identified and implemented in the animal production phase to e.g. increase biosecurity or improve hygiene. The implementation of ariskbased food safety approach allows packers to assess their supply chain. They gain abetter understanding of the health and safety status of sourced pigs. This allows the packer to implement measures to steadily increase the knowledge and the quality of the entire supply chain. The approach not only enables the meat producers to introduce healthy animals into their supply chain, but also helps to reduce their costs, increase profit and strengthen their market position. Feedback of information from meat inspection to pig producers Feedback of slaughterhouse information may assist pig producers in improving the health of the animals. Such information may consist of registrations collected during meat inspection. Vion Food has developed asystem, whereby information, judged as relevant, is sent to pig producers. This among others encompasses the prevalence of liver white spots, pneumonia and pleurisy,lung embolia, skin lesions and joint inflammations. The prevalence of these lesions, detected during inspection, are compared to the abattoir average. Moreover,the costs associated with these infections, among others in the form of retarded growth, is estimated. Producers can also order an extended slaughter check for agiven batch or period, to go into details with aspecific condition. The entire system is aunique counseling tool not just for the producer but also for the veterinarian and other advisers. Other findings, such as contaminations occurring during slaughter,may not be relevant for the producer but can be used to improve slaughter management. Riskbased monitoring of antimicrobial residues In general, residues of antimicrobials are unwanted by consumers and, therefore, monitoring is needed. Residues of antimicrobials are only found infrequently.Sampling in ahighrisk subpopulation would give ahigher probability of finding apositive sample compared to sampling at random. This implies that the sample size may be lowered without jeopardizing the safety of the system. Danish and Dutch experience points to chronic pleuritis as arisk factor in finishing pig herds (a highrisk herd has a withinherd prevalence >40%). Today,such riskbased systems are in place in Denmark and the Netherlands (ALBAN et al., 2016). The EU Residue Directed 96/23 is currently being renegotiated. This implies an opportunity for improving the legislation; setting meaningful standards for sampling and analyzing allowing acomparison of monitoring results. Moreover,arequirement for own check monitoring by large abattoirs would make sense, as explained by ALBAN et al. (2018). Common discussion The 2017 workshop showed that there is still a lot of variation in how meat inspection of pigs is being undertaken and why it is done. Formore details about this issue, please see POINTON et al. (2018). Discussions are in place about these issues, whereby common sense is expected to prevail. In general, more evidencebased approaches are being used, and there is more focus on the microbiological implication of the various lesions, which may be found at meat inspection. To makemeat inspection fully functional, FCI should be objective, practical and feasible. Moreover,information from meat inspection should be canalized back to producers for them to act upon together with their veterinarian or other advisers. However,this also requires that the lesions and reasons for condemnation are clearly defined and harmonized. To facilitate visualonly inspection, the place of inspection in the slaughterline may need to be improved on a plant, and hence, require investments. The abattoir employees and other staffatthe plant may also be in need of more training and supervision by the official veterinarian.
Fleischwirtschaft international 2_2018 15 Animal Welfare Safepork 2019 in Berlin The next Safepork Conference will take place from 2629 August, 2019,inBerlin, Germany. And aworkshop about the status for modernization of meat inspection is expected to be organized again. Formore information about the 2019 Safepork Conference, Prof. Diana Meemken and Dr.Nina Langkabel from Freie Universität Berlin will be happy to assist. Diana Meemken will be the next President of the Safepork Community.Additional information is also available via http://www.safepork-conference. com. The value of the workshop is to establish a forum for people involved in modernization of meat inspection. In this forum, information about the development, effect of various technologies, and solutions to the identified challenges may be shared. This may be used to by the countries and food business operators to identify costeffective inspection systems. Moreover,anunderstanding the approach in place in the different countries, might result in fewer trade issues for the benefit of all stakeholders and society. References 1. ALBAN,L., PETERSEN,J.V.,(2016): Ensuring anegligible risk of Trichinella in pig farming from acontrol perspective. Vet. Parasitol. 231, 137–144. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.07.014 –2.ALBAN, L., RUGBJERG,H., PETERSEN,J.V.,NIELSEN,L.R., (2016): Stochastic scenario tree modelling of cost-effectiveness of risk-based antimicrobial residue monitoring in Danish pork. Prev. Vet. Med. 128, 87–94. –3.ALBAN, L., LÉGER,A., VELDHUIS,A., SCHAIK,G.V., (018):Modernizing the antimicrobial residue monitoring programs for pig meat in Europe -the balance between flexibility and harmonization. Food Control, 86, 403–414 –4.Anonymous, (2007): Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption AS 4696:2007.Food Regulation Standing Committee Technical Report Series 3. Standards Australia. – 5. BÆKBO,A.K., PETERSEN,J.V. et al. (2015): Visual-only inspection in swine –different status for implementation in European countries. Fleischwirtschaft International 30 (6) 26–31. http://english.fleisch wirtschaft.de/epaper/29/epaper/ index.html – 6. EFSA (2011): EFSA Panels on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CON- TAM), and on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA Journal 9 (10), 2351. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351/epdf –7.EUCommission, 2014.Regulation (EC) No 218/2014 amending annexes to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, (EC), No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and (EC) Regulation 2074/2005. https:// ?uri=CELEX:32015R1375&rid=1 –9.EUCommission (2004): Regulation EC No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Consolidated version. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Reg218_2014.pdf –8.EU Commission (2015): Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1375 laying down specific rules on official control for Trichinella in meat. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853- 20171121&qid=1519035298163&from=EN –10. HAMIL- TON, D.R., GALLAS, P., LYALL, L., LESTER, S., MCORIST, S., HATHAWAY,S.C., POINTON,A.M. (2002): Risk-based evaluation of post mortem inspection for pigs in Australia. Vet. Rec. 151 (4), 110–116. –11. KIERMEIER,A.K., POINTON, A.M. (2017): Net effect modelling of Lymph node incision. In Final Report Review of the Post-mortem Inspection and Disposition Schedules of the Australian Standard Pork. Final Report Project Number 2015/023: Appendix 2. Australian Pork Ltd, Canberra, Australia. –12. OIE (2017): Infection with Trichinella spp. Chapter 8.17.OIE Animal Health Code. http:// www.oie.int/index.php ?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_trichinella_spp.htm –13. POINTON, A.M., HAMILTON,D., KOLEGA,V., HATHAWAY,S.(2000): Risk assessment of organoleptic post-mortem inspection procedures for pigs. Vet. Rec. 146, 124-131. – 14.POINTON,A.M., HAMILTON,D.H., KIERMEIER,A.K. (2017): Review of the Post-mortem Inspection and Disposition Schedules of the Australian Standard –Pork. Final Report Project Number 2015/023. Australian Pork Ltd, Canberra, Australia. –15. POINTON, A.M., HAMILTON, D.H., KIERMEIER,A.K. (2018): Assessment of the Postmortem Inspection of Beef, Sheep, Goats and Pigs in Australia: Approach and Qualitative Risk-Based Results. Food Control 90 (August 2018), 222–232. – 16.SEGES –Danish Pig Research Centre (2017): Danish Product Standard, June 2017. http://www.pigre- searchcentre.dk/~/media/Files/DANISH/DAN- ISH%20produktstandard/Produkt_Standard_UK.pdf – 17.USFood Safety and Inspection Service (2018): Modernization of Swine Slaughter.Federal Register / Vol. 83,No. 22 /Thursday, February 1, 2018 /Proposed Rules. US Department of Agriculture, 9CFR Parts 301, 309, and 310–18.[Docket No. FSIS–2016–0017]RIN 0583–AD62. https:// www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/c17775a2- fd1f-4c11-b9d2-5992741b0e94/2016%E2%80% 930017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Author’s addresses Lis Alban (corresponding author: lia@lf.dk), Danish Agriculture &Food Council, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark, E. Ruttscheidt Albuquerque, Brazilian Federal Inspection Service ,Claudia Valeria G. Cordeiro de Sá, Brazilian Federal Inspection Service, Head Office, Patrik Buholzer, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Switzerland, Madalena VieiraPinto, Universidade de TrásosMontes eAlto Douro, Portugal, Nina Langkabel, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, Diana Meemken, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, Andrew Pointon, APFoodIntegrity Pty Ltd, South Australia, David Hamilton, South Australian Research and Development Institute, South Australia, and Melanie Abley, US Food Safety and Inspection Service, USA. Advertisement
Page 1: Volume 33 _D42804 F Journal for mea
Page 4 and 5: ...................................
Page 6 and 7: ...................................
Page 8 and 9: 8 Fleischwirtschaft international 2
Page 10 and 11: ...................................
Page 12: 12 Fleischwirtschaft international
Page 17 and 18: Fleischwirtschaft international 2_2
Page 19 and 20: Cutter „Blitz“ Transmission dri
Page 28 and 29: ...................................
Page 30 and 31: 30 Fleischwirtschaft international
Page 32: ...................................
Page 36 and 37: ...................................
Page 38 and 39: WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO INCREASE OUT
Page 40 and 41: ...................................
Page 42 and 43: ...................................
Page 44 and 45: ................................ 44
Page 54 and 55: ...................................
Page 58 and 59: ...................................
Page 60 and 61: ...................................
Page 64 and 65:
...................................
Page 66 and 67:
...................................
Page 68 and 69:
...................... .......... .
Page 70:
Guidelines for authors of FLEISCHWI
show all

FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT international 2/2018

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?