Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 9.1
Early centralised slaughter facility in the UK - Provided by the Association of Meat Inspector from their archive.
the release of control resources for hygienic surveillance
programmes and wider risk assessment strategies.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion
on 'the public health hazards to be covered by the inspec-
tion of meat (swine) 2011' concluded that 'palpation/
incision used in traditional post-mortem inspection
should be omitted in pigs subject to routine slaughter,
because the risk of micro-biological cross-contamination
is higher than the risk associated with potentially reduced
detection of conditions targeted by these techniques. The
opinion identified
Salmonella
spp.,
Y. enterocolitica
,
Toxoplasma gondii
and
Trichinella
spp. by qualitative risk
assessment as the only significant hazards. The (bovine)
opinion 2013 again identified
Salmonella
spp. as a signifi-
cant hazard along with verotoxigenic
Escherichia coli
, with
the risk from
T. gondii
and extended-spectrum and/or
AmpC β-lactamases being undeterminable due to lack of
data. In this case, the EFSA panel considered that 'palpa-
tion/incision, as used in current post-mortem inspection,
should be omitted in the case of bovine animals subjected
to routine slaughter, because these procedures do not add
to the identification and control of the high priority bovine
meat-borne hazards and
may
increase their spreading and
cross contamination. The use of 'may' is explained as a
need for further research into the extent to which manual
manipulation during post-mortem inspection contributes
to increasing spread and cross contamination. This opin-
ion also highlights the important role played by post-
mortem inspection in surveillance for animal health
pathogens particularly bovine TB and liver fluke.
incision) to an entirely visual form of inspection in
183 000 Danish slaughter pigs. Out of 58 lesion codes, 26
(45%) were assessed as merely aesthetic or as the healed
stage of an earlier lesion; 9 (15%) were active but local
lesions, occurring only in non-edible tissue; 5 lesion
codes (9%) were assessed as active, non-septic lesions
occurring in edible tissue caused by swine-specific path-
ogens; and 10 (17%) were abscessal or pyaemic lesions
occurring in edible tissue. Seven lesion codes (12%) may
be associated with consumer health hazards (two fre-
quently and five rarely). One lesion code was associated
with an occupational health hazard.
It was estimated that per 1000 pig carcases, an addi-
tional 2.5 with abscessal or pyaemic lesions in edible
tissue containing
Staphylococcus aureus
, 0.2 with arthri-
tis due to
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae
, 0.2 with caseous
lymphadenitis (
M. avium-intracellulare
), 0.7 faecally
contaminated with
Salmonella
species and 3.4 faecally
contaminated with
Yersinia enterocolitica
would remain
undetected as a result from changing from the tradi-
tional to the visual inspection procedure.
These authors concluded that the visual system would
result in about 4 additional pigs per 1000 carcases being
passed which might cross-contaminate other carcases
with
Salmonella/Y. enterocolitica
and that the main direct
benefit of the visual system (without manual handling,
palpation and incision) would probably be a lower level
of cross-contamination with hazardous bacteria, espe-
cially from the pharyngeal region and the plucks. In
addition, the visual system allows for less labour, with
