Suchergebnisse

Veterinary antimicrobial consumption patterns vary considerably across Europe. These differences are not only limited to the total amount consumed but are also observed with regards to the relative proportion of the various antimicrobial classes used. Currently, most of the data on veterinary antimicrobials are reported at sales level without any information on the consumption by different animal species. This hinders a proper comparison of antimicrobial consumption at the species level between countries. However, it is imperative to improve our understanding on antimicrobial usage patterns at the species level, as well as on the drivers contributing to those differences. This will allow for development of tailored interventions with the lowest possible risk for human health, while ensuring effective treatment of diseased livestock. An important step to attain such an objective is to perform detailed comparisons of the antimicrobial consumption in each species between countries. We compared antimicrobial consumption estimates for cattle and pigs in Switzerland and Denmark, in order to distinguish species-specific patterns and trends in consumption from 2007 to 2013. Swiss data were obtained from a previous study that assessed methodologies to stratify antimicrobial sales per species; Danish antimicrobial consumption estimates were assembled from Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme reports. A decrease in antimicrobial consumption in milligrams per kilogram of biomass was observed for both countries (4.5% in Denmark and 34.7% in Switzerland) when comparing 2013 to 2007. For pigs and cattle, the overall consumption per kilogram of biomass of most antimicrobial classes was higher in Switzerland than in Denmark. Large variations in the relative consumption of different antimicrobial classes were also evident. Sulfonamides/trimethoprim and tetracyclines were consumed in a higher proportion in Switzerland than in Denmark, whereas the relative consumption of penicillins was higher in Denmark. The differences observed in veterinary antimicrobial consumption are not solely related to animal demographic characteristics in these two countries. Other factors, such as the level of biosecurity and farming practices, veterinarians and farmers' education, or governmental/industry programs put in place might also partly explain these variations. These differences should be taken into account when aiming to implement targeted interventions to reduce antimicrobial consumption.

Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) it is often a suppurative lesion that, in Portugal, represents the main cause of total condemnation of slaughtered finishing pigs. Based on the EU Meat Inspection legislation, meat from generalized VO cases presenting signs of pyemia should be declared unfit for human consumption. For that reason, the main objective of this study is to establish a classification scheme to differentiate between localized and generalized VO cases using macroscopic findings and validate it based on the presence of pyemia. To assist in, a combination of macroscopic characteristics of gross lesions (e.g., presence of pyaemia-related lesions (PRL), acute/chronic characteristics of VO) was used to create a classification scheme to differentiate between localized and generalized VO cases. The scheme was applied to 40 VO cases that had been totally condemned in an undifferentiated way. In those 40 cases, histopathological analysis was used to validate acute/chronic macro-criteria, and microbiological analysis was performed to identify the pyemia cases. From the 40 selected VO cases, 20 were macroscopically classified as chronic and 20 as acute. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ = 0.80; p < 0.001), revealed a substantial agreement between macroscopic and histopathology classification. Microbiological analyses identified 13 pyemia cases (13/40; 32.5%). Among those, 12 were macroscopically classified as acute, this association being highly significant (p < 0.001). By using the proposed VO classification scheme, 14 possible cases out of 40 could have been spared from total condemnation. This scheme can be used to harmonize the classification of VO and meat inspection decisions in Portuguese abattoirs. The output would lead to avoidance of unnecessary carcasses condemnation (food waste/economic losses), under an evidence-based approach, without compromising food safety and public health as demanded by the EU Meat Inspection legislation.

Veterinary antimicrobial consumption patterns vary considerably across Europe. These differences are not only limited to the total amount consumed but are also observed with regards to the relative proportion of the various antimicrobial classes used. Currently, most of the data on veterinary antimicrobials are reported at sales level without any information on the consumption by different animal species. This hinders a proper comparison of antimicrobial consumption at the species level between countries. However, it is imperative to improve our understanding on antimicrobial usage patterns at the species level, as well as on the drivers contributing to those differences. This will allow for development of tailored interventions with the lowest possible risk for human health, while ensuring effective treatment of diseased livestock. An important step to attain such an objective is to perform detailed comparisons of the antimicrobial consumption in each species between countries. We compared antimicrobial consumption estimates for cattle and pigs in Switzerland and Denmark, in order to distinguish species-specific patterns and trends in consumption from 2007 to 2013. Swiss data were obtained from a previous study that assessed methodologies to stratify antimicrobial sales per species; Danish antimicrobial consumption estimates were assembled from Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme reports. A decrease in antimicrobial consumption in milligrams per kilogram of biomass was observed for both countries (4.5% in Denmark and 34.7% in Switzerland) when comparing 2013 to 2007. For pigs and cattle, the overall consumption per kilogram of biomass of most antimicrobial classes was higher in Switzerland than in Denmark. Large variations in the relative consumption of different antimicrobial classes were also evident. Sulfonamides/trimethoprim and tetracyclines were consumed in a higher proportion in Switzerland than in Denmark, whereas the relative consumption of penicillins was higher in Denmark. The differences observed in veterinary antimicrobial consumption are not solely related to animal demographic characteristics in these two countries. Other factors, such as the level of biosecurity and farming practices, veterinarians and farmers' education, or governmental/industry programs put in place might also partly explain these variations. These differences should be taken into account when aiming to implement targeted interventions to reduce antimicrobial consumption.

Background The traditional meat inspection system is often found to be inefficient. Meat inspection in European countries is in a phase of modernisation to reflect improvements in livestock health and advances in understanding meat safety. The key point of progress is to replace the traditional meat inspection with risk-based meat inspection, including the elements of a meat safety assurance system (MSAS). Scope and approach Modernisation of meat inspection was launched by the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) opinions and recommendations in the period 2011–2013 and consequent amendments to the EU meat inspection legislation in the period 2014–2019. For this study, the EU-funded RIBMINS COST Action conducted a comprehensive survey using an in-depth questionnaire to estimate the level of implementation of new risk-based meat inspection systems in Europe, stakeholders' confidence in the new systems and the main identified obstacles. Key findings and conclusions The implementation of new meat inspection systems is still ongoing, as they have been fully implemented in just 61%, 42% and 38% of the surveyed countries in the pig, bovine, and poultry sectors, respectively. The main identified obstacles are existing trade agreements with 3rd countries, costs of implementation, inadequate food chain information and resistance from meat inspectors. Improvement of all components of the current meat inspection systems is a prerequisite for further modernisation.

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

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. ; Peer reviewed

AbstractIn the EU, a post-mortem inspection of finishing pigs comprises visual inspections of the carcass and offal followed by additional examinations, such as palpation and incision of parts, when needed. Moreover, it can include various laboratory tests. Since European meat inspection is regulated by the EU, one may assume that post-mortem inspection is performed in the same way in the Member States. However, previous studies showed that variations exist. This article shows the results of a survey performed in September 2020 on how visual meat inspection of finishing pigs is applied in Europe. By using a questionnaire, palpations, incisions and other procedures for 10 gross pathological findings and laboratory methods applied by official veterinarians to evaluate the fitness of meat for human consumption were assessed. We received 44 responses from 26 European countries. Most respondents reported that visual meat inspection was a generally applied inspection method. The main reason for not applying visual meat inspection was export requirements. The most important reasons for applying palpations and incisions in addition to visual inspection were findings detected in ante- or post-mortem inspection. There was considerable variation in the use of palpations and incisions, other post-mortem procedures and laboratory tests to assess meat fitness for human consumption. The respondents mentioned some country-specific practices, but we also observed variations within the responding official veterinarians that could not be explained by country of origin or years of work experience. Additional detailed studies on the variation are needed before harmonisation of meat inspection procedures are attempted.

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.

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.

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

The traditional meat safety system has significantly contributed to public health protection throughout the last century. However, it has been recognised that this system suffers many flaws – the main being its limited ability to control the currently most important meat-borne hazards. The European Food Safety Authority evaluated meat inspection in the public health context, prioritised meat-borne hazards and proposed a generic framework for a new, risk-based meat safety assurance system. The proposed system aims to combine a range of preventive and control measures, applied at farms and abattoirs and integrated longitudinally, where official meat inspection is incorporated with producers' food safety management systems into a coherent whole. The modernisation process has recently started as a direct result of changes to relevant legislation in the European Union. Many challenges have been experienced while many opportunities are foreseen. More focus on targeted and risk-based inspection along the supply chain as well as use of new technologies may be a cost-effective and feasible way forward. Practical implementation of the system is expected to be a slow and careful process followed by thorough development, fine-tuning, and testing of practical feasibility and general impacts. Further progress that will lead to the full implementation is dependent on intensive research to fill knowledge gaps, enhance education and training and foster close collaboration of all the new system's stakeholders.

The traditional meat safety system has significantly contributed to public health protection throughout the last century. However, it has been recognised that this system suffers many flaws ? the main being its limited ability to control the currently most important meat-borne hazards. The European Food Safety Authority evaluated meat inspection in the public health context, prioritised meat-borne hazards and proposed a generic framework for a new, risk-based meat safety assurance system. The proposed system aims to combine a range of preventive and control measures, applied at farms and abattoirs and integrated longitudinally, where official meat inspection is incorporated with producers? food safety management systems into a coherent whole. The modernisation process has recently started as a direct result of changes to relevant legislation in the European Union. Many challenges have been experienced while many opportunities are foreseen. More focus on targeted and risk-based inspection along the supply chain as well as use of new technologies may be a cost-effective and feasible way forward. Practical implementation of the system is expected to be a slow and careful process followed by thorough development, fine-tuning, and testing of practical feasibility and general impacts. Further progress that will lead to the full implementation is dependent on intensive research to fill knowledge gaps, enhance education and training and foster close collaboration of all the new system?s stakeholders.