Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe. / Alban, L.; Antunović, B.; Belous, M.; Bonardi, S.; García-Gimeno, R. M.; Jenson, I.; Kautto, A. H.; Majewski, M.; Oorburg, D.; Sakaridis, I.; Sirbu, A.; Vieira-Pinto, M.; Vågsholm, I.; Bērziņš, A.; Petersen, J. V.

I: Food Control, Bind 153, 109899, 2023.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Alban, L, Antunović, B, Belous, M, Bonardi, S, García-Gimeno, RM, Jenson, I, Kautto, AH, Majewski, M, Oorburg, D, Sakaridis, I, Sirbu, A, Vieira-Pinto, M, Vågsholm, I, Bērziņš, A & Petersen, JV 2023, 'Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe', Food Control, bind 153, 109899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899

APA

Alban, L., Antunović, B., Belous, M., Bonardi, S., García-Gimeno, R. M., Jenson, I., Kautto, A. H., Majewski, M., Oorburg, D., Sakaridis, I., Sirbu, A., Vieira-Pinto, M., Vågsholm, I., Bērziņš, A., & Petersen, J. V. (2023). Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe. Food Control, 153, [109899]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899

Vancouver

Alban L, Antunović B, Belous M, Bonardi S, García-Gimeno RM, Jenson I o.a. Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe. Food Control. 2023;153. 109899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899

Author

Alban, L. ; Antunović, B. ; Belous, M. ; Bonardi, S. ; García-Gimeno, R. M. ; Jenson, I. ; Kautto, A. H. ; Majewski, M. ; Oorburg, D. ; Sakaridis, I. ; Sirbu, A. ; Vieira-Pinto, M. ; Vågsholm, I. ; Bērziņš, A. ; Petersen, J. V. / Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe. I: Food Control. 2023 ; Bind 153.

Bibtex

@article{dbb484c9b8f2414eaf5a463caab19423,
title = "Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe",
abstract = "Withdrawal periods after antimicrobial treatment have been defined as preventing in meat the presence of residues above the maximum residue limits (MRLs). However, errors can lead to residues above MRLs. The RIBMINS COST Action network investigated the question of how detection and handling are applied in different countries, and what the best practices may be, when balancing consumer safety with EU policy on minimising food waste. Two questionnaires were developed focusing on pigs, targeting the competent authority and the food business operator. The survey was undertaken in spring 2022 and resulted in 78 answers representing 27 countries. The results showed that most countries operate their system as a kind of monitoring, where the tested carcass is not detained. We suggest two best practice models where Model A (monitoring) could reflect small abattoirs placing meat on the national market, whereas Model B (surveillance) could reflect abattoirs also trading and exporting. In Model A, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted in the same way as a process hygiene criterion, requires on-farm inspection to correct mistakes only, and therefore no retention of tested carcases. In Model B, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted as a food safety criterion, requires on-farm inspection and the tested carcass is retained to avoid expensive recalls in case residues are found.",
keywords = "Antibiotics, Food waste, Monitoring, Pork, Residues, Risk management, Veterinary public health",
author = "L. Alban and B. Antunovi{\'c} and M. Belous and S. Bonardi and Garc{\'i}a-Gimeno, {R. M.} and I. Jenson and Kautto, {A. H.} and M. Majewski and D. Oorburg and I. Sakaridis and A. Sirbu and M. Vieira-Pinto and I. V{\aa}gsholm and A. Bērziņ{\v s} and Petersen, {J. V.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899",
language = "English",
volume = "153",
journal = "Food Control",
issn = "0956-7135",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe

AU - Alban, L.

AU - Antunović, B.

AU - Belous, M.

AU - Bonardi, S.

AU - García-Gimeno, R. M.

AU - Jenson, I.

AU - Kautto, A. H.

AU - Majewski, M.

AU - Oorburg, D.

AU - Sakaridis, I.

AU - Sirbu, A.

AU - Vieira-Pinto, M.

AU - Vågsholm, I.

AU - Bērziņš, A.

AU - Petersen, J. V.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Withdrawal periods after antimicrobial treatment have been defined as preventing in meat the presence of residues above the maximum residue limits (MRLs). However, errors can lead to residues above MRLs. The RIBMINS COST Action network investigated the question of how detection and handling are applied in different countries, and what the best practices may be, when balancing consumer safety with EU policy on minimising food waste. Two questionnaires were developed focusing on pigs, targeting the competent authority and the food business operator. The survey was undertaken in spring 2022 and resulted in 78 answers representing 27 countries. The results showed that most countries operate their system as a kind of monitoring, where the tested carcass is not detained. We suggest two best practice models where Model A (monitoring) could reflect small abattoirs placing meat on the national market, whereas Model B (surveillance) could reflect abattoirs also trading and exporting. In Model A, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted in the same way as a process hygiene criterion, requires on-farm inspection to correct mistakes only, and therefore no retention of tested carcases. In Model B, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted as a food safety criterion, requires on-farm inspection and the tested carcass is retained to avoid expensive recalls in case residues are found.

AB - Withdrawal periods after antimicrobial treatment have been defined as preventing in meat the presence of residues above the maximum residue limits (MRLs). However, errors can lead to residues above MRLs. The RIBMINS COST Action network investigated the question of how detection and handling are applied in different countries, and what the best practices may be, when balancing consumer safety with EU policy on minimising food waste. Two questionnaires were developed focusing on pigs, targeting the competent authority and the food business operator. The survey was undertaken in spring 2022 and resulted in 78 answers representing 27 countries. The results showed that most countries operate their system as a kind of monitoring, where the tested carcass is not detained. We suggest two best practice models where Model A (monitoring) could reflect small abattoirs placing meat on the national market, whereas Model B (surveillance) could reflect abattoirs also trading and exporting. In Model A, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted in the same way as a process hygiene criterion, requires on-farm inspection to correct mistakes only, and therefore no retention of tested carcases. In Model B, detection of a residue above the MRL is interpreted as a food safety criterion, requires on-farm inspection and the tested carcass is retained to avoid expensive recalls in case residues are found.

KW - Antibiotics

KW - Food waste

KW - Monitoring

KW - Pork

KW - Residues

KW - Risk management

KW - Veterinary public health

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899

DO - 10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109899

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85162176614

VL - 153

JO - Food Control

JF - Food Control

SN - 0956-7135

M1 - 109899

ER -

ID: 370579154