Differences in code terminology and frequency of findings in meat inspection of finishing pigs in seven European countries
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Dokumenter
- Fulltext
Forlagets udgivne version, 750 KB, PDF-dokument
The overall objectives of meat inspection are to contribute to food safety, animal welfare, and animal health. In the European Union (EU), there is a request for a modernised meat inspection system that addresses these objectives in a more valid, feasible and cost-effective way than does the traditional system. One part of the modernisation deals with the coding system to register meat inspection findings. Although unified standards are set at the EU level for judgement criteria regarding fitness of meat for consumption, different national systems are in force. The question is the extent of the differences and whether there is a basis for harmonisation. To investigate this, information was gathered about the code systems in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Moreover, meat inspection data covering pigs slaughtered in 2019 were collected. A comparison of the number of codes available, the terminology and the frequencies of the findings registered was undertaken. Codes with a similar meaning were grouped. Hereby, two lists were compiled showing the most common codes leading to total and to partial condemnation. Substantial variations in the percentage of condemned pigs and in the terms used were identified, and possible reasons behind this are discussed. Moreover, a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT)-like analysis was applied to the coding systems. Finally, the reasons for unfitness of meat given in the EU Food Inspection Regulation 2019/627 were compared to the national code lists. The results show the systems in force varied substantially, and each system had its advantages and disadvantages. The diverse terminology observed made it a challenge to compare data between countries. Development of harmonised terminology for meat inspection findings is suggested, enabling comparison of data between abattoirs, regions, and countries, while respecting the national epidemiological situation, the local food safety culture, and the trade agreements in force.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Artikelnummer | 108394 |
| Tidsskrift | Food Control |
| Vol/bind | 132 |
| ISSN | 0956-7135 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2022 |
Bibliografisk note
Funding Information:
LA and OA work for organisations that give advice to farmers and meat-producing companies. SG, DM, PM, NL, and MVP declare no conflict of interest. RLN's employment is partly funded by the Finnish Food Authority. SS works for the Portuguese veterinary authorities. JGL is supported by a “Ramón y Cajal” contract from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness ( RYC-2014-16735 ).
Funding Information:
LA and OA work for organisations that give advice to farmers and meat-producing companies. SG, DM, PM, NL, and MVP declare no conflict of interest. RLN's employment is partly funded by the Finnish Food Authority. SS works for the Portuguese veterinary authorities. JGL is supported by a ?Ram?n y Cajal? contract from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (RYC-2014-16735).This study is based on work from COST Action 18105 RIBMINS (www.ribmins.com) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu), funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union. The abattoir companies are kindly acknowledged for providing the meat inspection data used for the analyses. Maybritt Kiel Poulsen (Danish Agriculture & Food Council), Michael Koch (Federal Statistical Office (DESATIS), Germany), Vera Elvnes (The Norwegian Food Authority), Rafael J. Orozco Castro (Andalusian Ministry of Health, Spain), and Bojan Blagojevic (University of Novi Sad, Serbia), provided data or contributed to discussion of the data. The OVs, OAs and FBOs are warmly acknowledged for contributing to the SWOT-like analysis.
Funding Information:
This study is based on work from COST Action 18105 RIBMINS ( www.ribmins.com ) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu ), funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union. The abattoir companies are kindly acknowledged for providing the meat inspection data used for the analyses. Maybritt Kiel Poulsen (Danish Agriculture & Food Council), Michael Koch (Federal Statistical Office (DESATIS), Germany), Vera Elvnes (The Norwegian Food Authority), Rafael J. Orozco Castro (Andalusian Ministry of Health, Spain), and Bojan Blagojevic (University of Novi Sad, Serbia), provided data or contributed to discussion of the data. The OVs, OAs and FBOs are warmly acknowledged for contributing to the SWOT-like analysis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
ID: 289325824