Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the organic acids lactic and acetic acids to reduce microbiological surface contamination on pork carcasses and pork cuts
2018; Wiley; Volume: 16; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5482
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresVittorio Silano, José Manuel Barat Baviera, Claudia Bolognesi, Beat Johannes Brüschweiler, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Riccardo Crebelli, David Michael Gott, Konrad Grob, Evgenia Lampi, Gilles Rivière, Inger‐Lise Steffensen, Pavel Tlustoš, Henk Van Loveren, Laurence Vernis, Holger Zorn, Declan Bolton, Sara Bover‐Cid, Joop de Knecht, Luísa Peixe, P.N. Skandamis, Andrea Baù, Carla Martino, Winy Messens, Eleonora Sarno, Daniela Tomčíková, Alicja Mortensen,
Tópico(s)Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 16, Issue 12 e05482 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the organic acids lactic and acetic acids to reduce microbiological surface contamination on pork carcasses and pork cuts EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP)Search for more papers by this authorVittorio Silano, Vittorio SilanoSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Manuel Barat Baviera, José Manuel Barat BavieraSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Bolognesi, Claudia BolognesiSearch for more papers by this authorBeat Johannes Brüschweiler, Beat Johannes BrüschweilerSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Chesson, Andrew ChessonSearch for more papers by this authorPier Sandro Cocconcelli, Pier Sandro CocconcelliSearch for more papers by this authorRiccardo Crebelli, Riccardo CrebelliSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Michael Gott, David Michael GottSearch for more papers by this authorKonrad Grob, Konrad GrobSearch for more papers by this authorEvgenia Lampi, Evgenia LampiSearch for more papers by this authorGilles Riviere, Gilles RiviereSearch for more papers by this authorInger-Lise Steffensen, Inger-Lise SteffensenSearch for more papers by this authorChristina Tlustos, Christina TlustosSearch for more papers by this authorHenk Van Loveren, Henk Van LoverenSearch for more papers by this authorLaurence Vernis, Laurence VernisSearch for more papers by this authorHolger Zorn, Holger ZornSearch for more papers by this authorDeclan Bolton, Declan BoltonSearch for more papers by this authorSara Bover-Cid, Sara Bover-CidSearch for more papers by this authorJoop de Knecht, Joop de KnechtSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorPanagotis Skandamis, Panagotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Baù, Andrea BaùSearch for more papers by this authorCarla Martino, Carla MartinoSearch for more papers by this authorWiny Messens, Winy MessensSearch for more papers by this authorEleonora Sarno, Eleonora SarnoSearch for more papers by this authorDaniela Tomcikova, Daniela TomcikovaSearch for more papers by this authorAlicja Mortensen, Alicja MortensenSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP)Search for more papers by this authorVittorio Silano, Vittorio SilanoSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Manuel Barat Baviera, José Manuel Barat BavieraSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Bolognesi, Claudia BolognesiSearch for more papers by this authorBeat Johannes Brüschweiler, Beat Johannes BrüschweilerSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Chesson, Andrew ChessonSearch for more papers by this authorPier Sandro Cocconcelli, Pier Sandro CocconcelliSearch for more papers by this authorRiccardo Crebelli, Riccardo CrebelliSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Michael Gott, David Michael GottSearch for more papers by this authorKonrad Grob, Konrad GrobSearch for more papers by this authorEvgenia Lampi, Evgenia LampiSearch for more papers by this authorGilles Riviere, Gilles RiviereSearch for more papers by this authorInger-Lise Steffensen, Inger-Lise SteffensenSearch for more papers by this authorChristina Tlustos, Christina TlustosSearch for more papers by this authorHenk Van Loveren, Henk Van LoverenSearch for more papers by this authorLaurence Vernis, Laurence VernisSearch for more papers by this authorHolger Zorn, Holger ZornSearch for more papers by this authorDeclan Bolton, Declan BoltonSearch for more papers by this authorSara Bover-Cid, Sara Bover-CidSearch for more papers by this authorJoop de Knecht, Joop de KnechtSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorPanagotis Skandamis, Panagotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Baù, Andrea BaùSearch for more papers by this authorCarla Martino, Carla MartinoSearch for more papers by this authorWiny Messens, Winy MessensSearch for more papers by this authorEleonora Sarno, Eleonora SarnoSearch for more papers by this authorDaniela Tomcikova, Daniela TomcikovaSearch for more papers by this authorAlicja Mortensen, Alicja MortensenSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 December 2018 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5482Citations: 3 Correspondence: fip@efsa.europa.eu Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00666 Panel members: Vittorio Silano, José Manuel Barat Baviera, Claudia Bolognesi, Beat Johannes Brüschweiler, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Riccardo Crebelli, David Michael Gott, Konrad Grob, Evgenia Lampi, Alicja Mortensen, Gilles Riviere, Inger-Lise Steffensen, Christina Tlustos, Henk Van Loveren, Laurence Vernis, Holger Zorn. Acknowledgements: The CEP Panel wishes to thank the Working Group on the evaluation of substances used to remove microbial contamination from product of animal origin of the former EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion, in particular Fernando Aguilar, Paul Fowler, Konstantinos Koutsoumanis and John Threlfall. In addition, the CEP Panel wishes to thank the members of the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ): Ana Allende, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Marianne Chemaly, Robert Davies, Alessandra De Cesare, Lieve Herman, Friederike Hilbert, Roland Lindqvist, Maarten Nauta, Giuseppe Ru, Marion Simmons and Elisabetta Suffredini for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion. Finally the CEP Panel wishes to thank the hearing expert Fidel Toldrà and Giorgia Vianello for the support provided to this scientific output. Adopted: 25 October 2018 Amended: 21 December 2018 Annexes 1 and 2 are available under the Supporting Information section. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of lactic and acetic acids to reduce microbiological surface contamination on pork carcasses pre-chill and pork meat cuts post-chill were assessed. Lactic acid treatments consisted of 2–5% solutions at temperatures of up to 80°C applied to carcasses by spraying or up to 55°C applied on cuts by spraying or dipping. Acetic acid treatments consisted of 2–4% solutions at temperatures of up to 40°C applied on carcasses by spraying or on cuts by spraying or dipping. The maximum treatment duration was 30 s. The Panel concluded that: [1] the treatments are of no safety concern, provided that the substances comply with the European Union specifications for food additives; [2] spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill with lactic acid was efficacious compared to untreated control, but based on the available data, the Panel could not conclude whether lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment when spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill or pork meat cuts post-chill. The Panel concluded that dipping of pork meat cuts post-chill in lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment. However, it could not conclude on the efficacy of acetic acid treatment of pork carcasses pre-chill and/or pork meat cuts post-chill; [3] the potential selection and emergence of bacteria with reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of the substances is unlikely as long as Good Hygienic Practices are implemented; and [4] the release of both organic acids is not of concern for the environment, assuming that wastewaters released by the slaughterhouses are treated, if necessary, to counter the potentially low pH caused by lactic or acetic acid, in compliance with local rules. Summary Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on a technical dossier submitted by the National Pork Producers Council (United States) for the approval of lactic and acetic acid solutions used individually by food business operators (FBOs) during processing to reduce microbial surface contamination on pork carcasses and cuts. The approval was sought for treatments using either lactic acid solutions with concentrations from 2% to 5% or acetic acid solutions with concentrations from 2% to 4%. Lactic acid solutions are to be applied at temperatures of up to 80°C on pork carcasses by spraying or up to 55°C on pork meat cuts by spraying or dipping. Acetic acid solutions are to be applied at a temperature of up to 40°C on pork carcasses by spraying or on pork meat cuts by spraying or dipping. For both organic acids, the maximum duration treatment is 30 s. The primary purpose of the proposed treatment is to reduce the incidence of food-borne illness in consumers by reducing the prevalence and/or abundance of human pathogens on pork products. The target pathogens on pork products identified by the applicant are: Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium, Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophilia and Staphylococcus aureus. The proposed treatments will also target other non-pathogenic members of the Enterobacteriaceae family, which are considered hygiene indicators. EFSA was requested to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lactic and acetic acids considering (i) the toxicological safety of the substances (Term of Reference (ToR) 1); (ii) the efficacy, i.e. does the use of these two substances significantly reduce the level of contamination of pathogens on carcasses and cuts from pork (ToR 2); (iii) the potential for the emergence of reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of the substances (ToR 3); and (iv) the risk related to the release of the processing plant effluents, linked to the use of the substances, into the environment (ToR 4). The questions as specified in the ToRs 1, 3 and 4 have been addressed by evaluating the information provided by the applicant, supplemented with relevant studies identified by the Panel, and based on the EFSA guidance document: 'Revision of the joint AFC/BIOHAZ guidance document on the submission of data for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin intended for human consumption' (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010a). For the question about the efficacy of lactic and acetic acids, as specified in ToR 2, a systematic, stepwise approach was applied. Concerning the human toxicological safety of lactic and acetic acids (answer to ToR 1), no safety concerns are foreseen, provided that the substances used comply with the European Union (EU) specifications for food additives. This conclusion is based on the fact that both substances are authorised food additives in the EU at quantum satis and their intakes from selected components of the typical diet far outweigh the exposure from the intended uses as decontamination treatments. Twelve records were included in the efficacy assessment based on predefined eligibility criteria (answer to ToR 2). These yielded 19 eligible experiments (16 for lactic acid and 3 for acetic acid) providing 71 comparisons or log10 reduction estimates (67 for lactic acid and 4 for acetic acid). The experiments used a wide range of experimental designs and thus differed in relation to products, settings, method of application, acid concentration, use of controls, microorganisms studied, storage time after application, etc. All these parameters may have impacted the efficacy both within and between studies, but the present assessment did not attempt to differentiate efficacy based on potentially influencing factors. The Panel concluded that: Spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill with lactic acid was efficacious compared to untreated control; the Panel could not conclude, based on the available data, whether spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill or pork meat cuts post-chill with lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment. In 24/29 comparisons, lactic acid spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill or pork meat cuts post-chill was at least equally efficacious as water spraying, but delivered significantly higher mean log10 reductions in nine comparisons, depending on the conditions of application. The range of the statistically significant additional mean log10 reductions reported for carcasses and cuts were 1.30–1.82 and 1.10–2.50 log10, respectively. Dipping of pork meat cuts post-chill in lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment, as this delivered significantly higher log10 reductions than dipping in water. The range of the statistically significant mean log10 reductions was 0.73–4.01 log10. In the experiments where evidence was available, both immediately after treatment and during storage, the reductions were at least maintained throughout the duration of the experiments under chill storage. The Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of acetic acid on pork carcasses pre-chill and/or pork meat cuts post-chill, considering that only three eligible experiments, which in addition were also characterised as of medium strength of evidence, were available. Concerning the potential for reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of the substances (answer to ToR 3), the Panel concluded that there is no evidence suggesting the promotion of a horizontally transferable reduced susceptibility to lactic or acetic acid or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials as a result of exposure to lactic or acetic acid. Considering the extensive natural presence of lactic and acetic acid, including in feed and food, the possibility of development of resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials is unlikely to be a significant issue. There is some evidence that repeated exposure to lactic acid can select for reduced susceptibility to the same substance. However, under Good Hygienic Practices (GHP), the Panel did not consider this a significant issue. Regarding the environmental toxicity of lactic and acetic acids (answer to ToR 4), the Panel concluded that the release of both substances is of no concern for the environment, assuming the wastewaters released by the slaughterhouses are treated, if necessary, to counter the potentially low pH caused by lactic or acetic acid. Additional studies are required to assess the efficacy of acetic acid on pork carcass and pork meat cuts, the potential of treatments to induce acid adaptation and/or select acid resistant bacteria, or cross-/co-resistance to biocides and antibiotics. To prevent acid adaptation and increased resistance in pathogenic organisms, the treatments with organic acids (lactic and acetic acids), subject to authorisation, should be sufficient to inactivate the target bacteria. Adherence to GHP, within the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) framework, is considered essential for various reasons. Sublethal stress exposure of pathogens may lead to acid adaptation and potentially reduced susceptibility to the acid treatment. For use as a dip, the operator would be required to write into their HACCP plans their flow rate for replacement of dipping solutions, along with testing programmes to assure that the dipping solution maintains effective conditions of application and microbial testing of the product post-application to assure effectiveness. The latter is also recommended for spray applications. In addition, the dipping treatment should be performed in such way that minimises the likelihood of cross-contamination of treated meat cuts by pathogens accumulated in the dipping tank through consecutive meat treatments, should there be viable pathogens in the treatment solution. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor 1.1.1 Background The EU food hygiene legislation is aimed at protecting consumers against potential risks to health and maintaining a high level of consumer protection at all stages of the food chain. This objective must be achieved by applying the appropriate measures, including Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) and hazard control measures at each step of the food chain. According to EU scientific advice,1 decontamination practices can constitute a useful tool in further reducing the number of pathogenic microorganisms but the use of substances intended to remove microbial surface contamination should only be permitted if a fully integrated control programme is applied throughout the entire food chain. Those substances shall be assessed thoroughly before their use is authorised. Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 853/20042 provides a legal basis to approve, and therefore authorise, the use of substances other than potable water to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. In addition to the safety of the substance, are also a matter of concern the potential emergence of reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials and the impact of the substance or its by-products on the environment. Therefore, before taking any risk management decisions on their approval, a risk analysis process should be carried out taking into account the results of a risk assessment based on the available scientific evidence and undertaken in an independent, objective and transparent manner, other legitimate factors and the precautionary principle. 1.1.2 Terms of Reference In accordance with Article 29 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 178/20023, EFSA is requested to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two organic acids, lactic and acetic acid, intended to be used individually by food business operators during processing to reduce microbiological surface contamination on carcasses and cuts from pork. In particular the EFSA shall assess: The toxicological safety of the two substances (ToR 1); The efficacy, i.e. does the individual use of these two substances significantly reduce the level of contamination of pathogens on carcasses and cuts from pork (ToR 2); The potential emergence of reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of these two substances (ToR 3); The risk related to the release of the processing plant effluents, following the use of these substances, into the environment (ToR 4). 1.2 Information on existing authorisation and/or evaluations from other authorities In the European Union (EU), Commission Regulation (EU) No 101/20134 authorises the use of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination on bovine carcasses or half carcasses or quarters at the level of the slaughterhouse in compliance with the conditions set out in the Annex to this Regulation. In the United States, USDA FSIS regulation 7120.15 authorises the use of pathogen reduction treatments on meats. Both lactic acid and acetic acid are included. In Canada, Health Canada issues Letters of No Objection for antimicrobial processing aids, among which both lactic acid and acetic acid are listed.6 FAO/WHO issued in 2016 the 'Guidelines for the control of non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. in beef and pork meat'7 and concluded that organic acid treatments, such as lactic and acetic acids washes can significantly reduce Salmonella prevalence on carcasses. The experts considered that the realistic reductions to be possibly achieved would not exceed 1 log10 CFU/cm2. In the EU, lactic acid (E 270) and acetic acid (E 260) are also authorised food additives, according to Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, belonging to group I additives. Their use is permitted in several food categories mainly at quantum satis. Currently, their re-evaluation as food additives, as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 257/20108, is still ongoing.9 According to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, both food additives are authorised for use in meat preparations with the following restriction: 'only prepacked preparations of fresh minced meat and meat preparations to which other ingredients than additives or salt have been added'. Moreover for lactic acid, only the l-(+)-isomer can be used in food for infants and young children as specified in category 13.1 under Regulation (EU) No 1333/2008. In addition in the EU, lactic and acetic acids are authorised as food flavourings, according to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1334/2008 (i.e. FL-no: 08.004 and 08.002 respectively). In 1974, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) issued an opinion on lactic acid and several of its salts as well as on acetic acid and its potassium and sodium salts, allocating an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 'not limited' (JECFA, 1974, 1998). In 1991, this ADI was also supported by the Scientific Committee of Food (SCF) for lactic and acetic acids and their salts when used as food additives (SCF, 1991). 1.3 Additional information 1.3.1 Additional background information 1.3.1.1 Introduction As indicated in the application dossier, the primary purpose of the proposed treatment is to reduce the incidence of food-borne illness in consumers by reducing the prevalence and/or abundance of human pathogens on pork products. The target pathogens on pork products identified by the applicant are: Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium, Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophilia and Staphylococcus aureus. The proposed treatments will also target other non-pathogenic members of the Enterobacteriaceae family, which are considered hygiene indicators. The second purpose of the treatment is to reduce spoilage bacteria,10 measured by total viable counts or by enumerating specific spoilage organisms, on products, extending suitable storage periods, both under proper refrigerated storage and under temperature abuse. This can contribute to the reduction of food waste. Approval was sought for lactic or acetic acid treatments on fresh hot/warm carcasses (referred to in the Scientific Opinion as pork carcass pre-chill) by spray and on chilled sections or cuts during fabrication, including pieces before retail packaging (referred to in the Scientific Opinion as pork meat cuts post-chill) by spray or dip. 1.3.1.2 Conditions of use and mode of application The applicant submitted the following information in relation to the parameters for treatment application: Application type: either organic acid may be applied by spraying onto the surfaces of the meat carcasses or by either spraying or dipping during the fabrication process of meat cuts. The use of both organic acids is foreseen at any step in the production process after bleeding of the carcasses up to just prior to retail packaging. The size of the meat that may be sprayed ranges from whole carcasses immediately before chilling to retail meat cuts on the conveyor belt in the processing hall. Type of application in the processing line: Hot carcasses – pre-chill The organic acids may be applied by spraying onto the surfaces of the carcass. This would occur in any wash, applied in the final carcass wash or separately as a dedicated acid treatment. The spray may be carried out using a manual spray for smaller operations or an organic acid system cabinet. Meat cuts – post-chill The organic acids may be applied to cuts either by spray or dipping during the fabrication process, including immediately before bulk or retail packaging. Concentrations and conditions of use: the proposed concentration and the conditions of use may vary between the following limits: Lactic acid − 2–5% lactic acid at temperatures of up to 80°C on pork carcasses pre-chill by spray; − 2–5% lactic acid at temperatures of up to 55°C on pork meat cuts post-chill by spray or dip. Acetic acid − 2–4% acetic acid at temperatures of up to 40°C on pork carcasses pre-chill by spray; − 2–4% acetic acid at temperatures of up to 40°C on pork meat cuts post-chill by spray or dip. 'Pre-chilled carcass' refers to a carcass that is chilled before fabrication (boning/cutting in the boning hall). The different terminology stems from two different types of processing. In some operations, carcasses are chilled before fabrication. In other facilities, fabrication is conducted before chilling (i.e. hot-boned pork). The applicant specified that concentrations of lactic or acetic acid higher than the limits specified above can, at least temporarily, change the appearance of meat cuts. Therefore, the maximum concentration of the acids used may depend on the final purpose of the cuts. Duration of exposure: The duration of either spray or dip would be sufficient to coat the surface, typically 5–10 s, and up to 30 s. This may be followed by a drip time that increases the effective treatment time. While not considered necessary, treatment may be followed by a subsequent spray or wash treatment, after sufficient drip time. A second treatment of individual cuts from a carcass that had a prior treatment is possible. While the first treatment would reduce pathogenic bacteria transferred to the carcass during slaughter and dressing, the second treatment would target cross-contamination from the processing environment. Volume to apply: The volume to be applied should be 'sufficient to coat the surface'. It depends upon the size of the piece being treated, i.e. a carcass requires a much greater volume than an individual retail cut. Subsequent removal conditions: No washing after treatment is foreseen. According to the applicant, as there is evidence that leaving a residue of the organic acids on meat surfaces helps inhibit bacterial growth, for example through recontamination, non-rinse is an important option to consider. Recycling: The recycling of organic acids solutions is not supported. For use as a dip, the operator would be required to write into their HACCP plans the frequency of replacing the liquid (batch system) or the flow rate for replacement of dipping solution (continuous system), along with testing programmes to assure that the dipping solution remains effective (temperature and concentration). Moreover, the product should be tested to ensure that the bacterial reduction expected by the acid treatment is actually being achieved on a consistent basis. 2 Data and methodologies 2.1 Data The present evaluation is based on the data on lactic acid and acetic acid used for the reduction of pathogens on pork carcasses and cuts provided by the applicant in a dossier submitted in support of its application (see Documentation provided to EFSA n. 1). Additional information was sought from the applicant during the assessment process in response to a request from EFSA sent on 22 February 2018 and was consequently provided (see Documentation provided to EFSA n. 2). A second request for additional information was sent by EFSA on 22 June 2018; however, the applicant did not provide the additional data (see Documentation provided to EFSA n. 3). Consequently, the Panel concluded this assessment on the basis of the available data. 2.2 Methodologies To assist in assessing the safety and efficacy of a proposed decontaminating agent of foods of animal origin, EFSA issued in 2010 a revised guidance document titled 'Revision of the joint AFC/BIOHAZ guidance document on the submission of data for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin intended for human consumption' (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010a). The assessment was conducted in line with the principles described in this guidance document. 2.2.1 Toxicological safety, potential emergence of resistance to biocides and/or to therapeutic antimicrobials and environmental risk assessment (ToRs 1, 3 and 4) The questions as specified in the ToRs 1, 3 and 4 have been addressed by evaluating the information provided by the applicant supplemented with relevant studies identified by the Working Group and Panel members through a literature review. 2.2.2 Efficacy (ToR 2) The question as specified in ToR 2 (efficacy) has been addressed by applying a systematic, stepwise approach, as follows: Formulation of the question under assessment and definition of the eligibility criteria for selecting experiments relevant to answer the question; Ascertainment of the comprehensiveness and relevance of the evidence provided by the applicant; Data extraction from the included experiments, using predefined data extraction forms; Appraisal of individual experiments included in the assessment, using a predefined critical appraisal tool (CAT) for the reliability evaluation; Data synthesis and interpretation of results in the light of the identified uncertainties. 2.2.2.1 Formulation of the question under assessment and eligibility criteria for study selection The question under assessment is if individual application of lactic or acetic acid can achieve a significant reduction in the surface concentration of bacterial pathogens on pork carcasses pre-chill or pork meat cuts post-chill. The pathogens considered include: S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, Campylobacter spp., L. monocytogenes, E. coli 0157:H7, Y. enterocolitica, A. hyd
Referência(s)