Mapping ways of detecting and handling antimicrobial residues in pigs and pig meat in- and outside Europe
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Dokumenter
- Fulltext
Forlagets udgivne version, 546 KB, PDF-dokument
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.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Artikelnummer | 109899 |
| Tidsskrift | Food Control |
| Vol/bind | 153 |
| Antal sider | 10 |
| ISSN | 0956-7135 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2023 |
Bibliografisk note
Funding Information:
Fernando Perez Rodriguez from University of Córdoba in Spain is acknowledged for contributions to the questionnaires and the collection of data in Spain. The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr Gaetano Liuzzo and Dr Massimiliano Ravecchi from Italy for their contribution to the pilot study. All respondents are acknowledged for providing information. Participation of Madalena Vieira-Pinto was supported by projects UIDP/00772/2020 and LA/P/0059/2020 funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). This publication is based upon work from COST Action 18105 (Risk-based Meat Inspection and Integrated Meat Safety Assurance; www.ribmins.com), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu).
Funding Information:
This publication is based upon work from COST Action 18105 (Risk-based Meat Inspection and Integrated Meat Safety Assurance; www.ribmins.com ), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu ).
Funding Information:
Fernando Perez Rodriguez from University of Córdoba in Spain is acknowledged for contributions to the questionnaires and the collection of data in Spain. The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr Gaetano Liuzzo and Dr Massimiliano Ravecchi from Italy for their contribution to the pilot study. All respondents are acknowledged for providing information. Participation of Madalena Vieira-Pinto was supported by projects UIDP/00772/2020 and LA/P/0059/2020 funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
ID: 370579154