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

Abstract

A risk ranking process identified Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazard in the context of meat inspection of domestic solipeds. Without a full and reliable soliped traceability system, it is considered that either testing all slaughtered solipeds for Trichinella spp., or inactivation meat treatments (heat or irradiation) should be used to maintain the current level of safety. With regard to general aspects of current meat inspection practices, the use of manual techniques during current post-mortem soliped meat inspection may increase microbial cross-contamination, and is considered to have a detrimental effect on the microbiological status of soliped carcass meat. Therefore, the use of visual-only inspection is suggested for -non-suspect‖ solipeds. For chemical hazards, phenylbutazone and cadmium were ranked as being of high potential concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account Food Chain Information (FCI), covering the specific on-farm environmental conditions and individual animal treatments, and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated and include new hazards. Sampling, testing and intervention protocols for chemical hazards should be better integrated and should focus particularly on cadmium, phenylbutazone and priority -essential substances‖ approved for Meat inspection of solipeds EFSA Journal 2013;11(6):3263 2 treatment of equine animals. Implementation and enforcement of a more robust and reliable identification system throughout the European Union is needed to improve traceability of domestic solipeds. Meat inspection is recognised as a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. If visual only post-mortem inspection is implemented for routine slaughter, a reduction in the detection of strangles and mild cases of rhodococcosis would occur. However, this was considered unlikely to affect the overall surveillance of both diseases. Improvement of FCI and traceability were considered as not having a negative effect on animal health and welfare surveillance.© European Food Safety Authority, 2013 KEY WORDSmeat inspection, soliped, horse, slaughterhouse, surveillance, contaminants, residuesMeat inspection of solipeds EFSA Journal 2013;11(6):3263 3 SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat for several animal species, with the contribution of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) and the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Briefly, the main risks for public health that should be addressed by meat inspection were identified and ranked, the strengths and weaknesses of the current meat inspection system were evaluated, and recommendations were made regarding inspection methods fit for purpose to meet the overall objectives of meat inspection fo...

The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report

“…In the last 11 years, only four horses tested positive out of more than one million tested animals in 2008, 2010(EFSA and ECDC, 2011, 2012, 2015a). This extremely low (< 0.001%) prevalence could be related to the effective control which according to EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (2013d) should be maintained as long as there is no full and reliable solipeds traceability system in place.…”

Technical specifications on harmonised epidemiological indicators for biological hazards to be covered by meat inspection of domestic solipeds

“…The epidemiological situation is summarised in the Community Summary Reports and EU Summary Reports on zoonoses and food-borne outbreaks as well as by Alban et al (EFSA, 2005c, 2010EFSA andECDC, 2011, 2012;Alban et al, 2011). The epidemiological situation is summarised in the Community Summary Reports and EU Summary Reports on zoonoses and food-borne outbreaks as well as by Alban et al (EFSA, 2005c, 2010EFSA andECDC, 2011, 2012;Alban et al, 2011).…”

“…Most of these outbreaks were caused by consumption of pork or wild boar meat, whereas none of them was reported to be caused by meat from solipeds (EFSA, 2005c(EFSA, , 2006(EFSA, , 2007(EFSA, , 2009(EFSA, , 2010EFSA and ECDC, 2011, 2013. Most of these outbreaks were caused by consumption of pork or wild boar meat, whereas none of them was reported to be caused by meat from solipeds (EFSA, 2005c(EFSA, , 2006(EFSA, , 2007(EFSA, , 2009(EFSA, , 2010EFSA and ECDC, 2011, 2013.…”

“…In addition, according to the first ToR, the epidemiological indicators for possible additional hazards identified in a Scientific Opinion on the hazards to be covered by inspection of meat from solipeds (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013), which can be used to consider adaptations to meat inspection methodology, should be addressed as well. The EFSA BIOHAZ Scientific Opinion identifies only Trichinella as such hazard.…”

“…The Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) (later referred to as the 'EFSA BIOHAZ Scientific Opinion' or 'Scientific Opinion') on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat from solipeds (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013) concluded that, in a riskbased system, carcases from domestic solipeds could be separated and undergo different inspection procedures according to the risk for Trichinella. It is foreseen that the harmonised epidemiological indicators (HEIs) will be used as part of this system.…”