Evaluation of public and animal health risks in case of a delayed post‐mortem inspection in ungulates
2020; Wiley; Volume: 18; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6307
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresKonstantinos Koutsoumanis, Ana Allende, Avelino Álvarez‐Ordóñez, Declan Bolton, Sara Bover‐Cid, Marianne Chemaly, Robert Davies, Alessandra De Cesare, Lieve Herman, Roland Lindqvist, Maarten Nauta, Luísa Peixe, Giuseppe Ru, Marion Simmons, Panagiotis Skandamis, Elisabetta Suffredini, Julio Álvarez, Bojan Blagojević, Peter Fürst, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Henrik Elvang Jensen, Peter Paulsen, Katleen Baert, Federica Barrucci, Alessandro Broglia, Marios Georgiadis, Michaela Hempen, Friederike Hilbert,
Tópico(s)Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 18, Issue 12 e06307 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Evaluation of public and animal health risks in case of a delayed post-mortem inspection in ungulates EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) biohaz@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence:biohaz@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorKonstantinos Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos KoutsoumanisSearch for more papers by this authorAna Allende, Ana AllendeSearch for more papers by this authorAvelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Avelino Alvarez-OrdóñezSearch 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 authorMarianne Chemaly, Marianne ChemalySearch for more papers by this authorRobert Davies, Robert DaviesSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandra De Cesare, Alessandra De CesareSearch for more papers by this authorLieve Herman, Lieve HermanSearch for more papers by this authorRoland Lindqvist, Roland LindqvistSearch for more papers by this authorMaarten Nauta, Maarten NautaSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorGiuseppe Ru, Giuseppe RuSearch for more papers by this authorMarion Simmons, Marion SimmonsSearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Skandamis, Panagiotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorElisabetta Suffredini, Elisabetta SuffrediniSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Álvarez Sánchez, Julio Álvarez SánchezSearch for more papers by this authorBojan Blagojevic, Bojan BlagojevicSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Fürst, Peter FürstSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorHenrik Elvang Jensen, Henrik Elvang JensenSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Paulsen, Peter PaulsenSearch for more papers by this authorKatleen Baert, Katleen BaertSearch for more papers by this authorFederica Barrucci, Federica BarrucciSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandro Broglia, Alessandro BrogliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarios Georgiadis, Marios GeorgiadisSearch for more papers by this authorMichaela Hempen, Michaela HempenSearch for more papers by this authorFriederike Hilbert, Friederike HilbertSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) biohaz@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence:biohaz@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorKonstantinos Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos KoutsoumanisSearch for more papers by this authorAna Allende, Ana AllendeSearch for more papers by this authorAvelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Avelino Alvarez-OrdóñezSearch 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 authorMarianne Chemaly, Marianne ChemalySearch for more papers by this authorRobert Davies, Robert DaviesSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandra De Cesare, Alessandra De CesareSearch for more papers by this authorLieve Herman, Lieve HermanSearch for more papers by this authorRoland Lindqvist, Roland LindqvistSearch for more papers by this authorMaarten Nauta, Maarten NautaSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorGiuseppe Ru, Giuseppe RuSearch for more papers by this authorMarion Simmons, Marion SimmonsSearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Skandamis, Panagiotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorElisabetta Suffredini, Elisabetta SuffrediniSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Álvarez Sánchez, Julio Álvarez SánchezSearch for more papers by this authorBojan Blagojevic, Bojan BlagojevicSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Fürst, Peter FürstSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorHenrik Elvang Jensen, Henrik Elvang JensenSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Paulsen, Peter PaulsenSearch for more papers by this authorKatleen Baert, Katleen BaertSearch for more papers by this authorFederica Barrucci, Federica BarrucciSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandro Broglia, Alessandro BrogliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarios Georgiadis, Marios GeorgiadisSearch for more papers by this authorMichaela Hempen, Michaela HempenSearch for more papers by this authorFriederike Hilbert, Friederike HilbertSearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 December 2020 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6307Citations: 3 Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2019-00124 Panel members: Ana Allende, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Declan Bolton, Sara Bover-Cid, Marianne Chemaly, Robert Davies, Alessandra De Cesare, Lieve Herman, Friederike Hilbert, Konstantinos Koutsoumanis, Roland Lindqvist, Maarten Nauta, Luisa Peixe, Giuseppe Ru, Marion Simmons, Panagiotis Skandamis and Elisabetta Suffredini. Acknowledgments: The BIOHAZ Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: the AHAW Panel: Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian AshleyDrewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortazar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler; the CONTAM Panel: Margherita Bignami, Laurent Bodin, James Kevin Chipman, Jesus del Mazo, Bettina Grasl-Kraupp, Christer Hogstrand, Laurentius (Ron) Hoogenboom, Jean-Charles Leblanc, Carlo Stefano Nebbia, Elsa Nielsen, Evangelia Ntzani, Annette Petersen, Salomon Sand, Dieter Schrenk, Tanja Schwerdtle, Christiane Vleminckx and Heather Wallace; Andy Hart, Peter Craig; Kelly Niermans, Katrin Bote, Loran Postolovski, Erik Jergil, Asima Aganovic, Thea Ottinger, Jaime Garcia Alcorlo, Eduardo Medina, Jean-Michel Cappelier, Vincent Hinoux, Manuel Varillas, Tina Lysgaard Hale, Gerardo Domínguez Peñafiel, Isabel Murillo, Carmen Olmos, Karel Dossche. The BIOHAZ Panel wishes to thank the hearing experts: Joachim Polzer, Saskia Sterk and Eric Verdon for the support provided to this scientific output. Adopted: 21 October 2020 This article was originally published on the EFSA website www.efsa.europa.eu on 2 December 2020 as part of EFSA's publication procedures. 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 The potential effects of a 24 or 72-h delay in post-mortem inspection (PMI) of ungulates on public health and monitoring of animal health and welfare was evaluated. The assessment used a survey of meat inspectors, expert opinion, literature search and a stochastic model for Salmonella detection sensitivity. Disease detection sensitivity at a delayed PMI is expected to reduce detection sensitivity to a variable extent, depending on the hazard and on the signs/lesions and organs involved. No reduction is expected for Trichinella detection in meat from susceptible animal species and any decrease in detection of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) will not exceed the current tolerance for fallen stock. A 24-h delay in PMI could result in a small reduction in sensitivity of detection for tuberculosis, echinococcosis and cysticercosis. A greater reduction is expected for the detection of pyaemia and Rift valley fever. For the detection of Salmonella, the median model estimates are a reduction of sensitivity of 66.5% (90% probability interval (PI) 0.08–99.75%) after 24-h delay and 94% (90% PI 0.83–100%) after 72-h delay of PMI. Laboratory testing for tuberculosis following a sampling delay of 24–72 h could result in no, or a moderate, decrease in detection depending on the method of confirmation used (PCR, culture, histopathology). For chemical contaminants, a delay in meat inspection of 24 or 72 h is expected to have no impact on the effectiveness of detection of persistent organic pollutants and metals. However, for certain pharmacologically active substances, there will be a reduced effectiveness to detect some of these substances due to potential degradation in the available matrices (tissues and organs) and the non-availability of specific preferred matrices of choice. Summary Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) was asked to assess the impact on effectiveness of post-mortem inspection (PMI) in terms of any change in the sensitivity of detection of a list of diseases/conditions when carried out after up to 24 h or up to 72 h after slaughter, or arrival in the game-handling establishment, in comparison to when it is carried out immediately after slaughter or arrival in the game handling establishment. The expertise required for the diseases/conditions specified in the terms of reference was covered by three EFSA Panels. The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) evaluated the effect of delayed PMI on the sensitivity of detection of animal diseases of domestic and wild ungulates listed according to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2016/429 (Animal Health Law (AHL)) and cysticercosis, and on the sensitivity of detection of septicaemia, pyaemia, toxaemia or viraemia. The BIOHAZ Panel evaluated the effect of delayed PMI on the sensitivity of detecting transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) and Trichinella, and on the use of Salmonella detection as a process hygiene criterion (PHC). The EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) evaluated the effects of delayed PMI on the sensitivity of detecting chemical residues and contaminants in light of Council Directive 96/23/EC which lays down the requirements for official control for these substances at farm level and PMI at slaughterhouse level. Almost all animal diseases that affect ungulates and are listed according to the AHL are transmissible. They provoke, in most cases, acute forms of disease with clinical signs, and should therefore be detected mainly at the farm or at ante-mortem inspection (AMI) at the slaughterhouse; thus, any possible decrease in the sensitivity of the delayed PMI relative to the current procedure would not be relevant in practice for the clinical forms of these diseases. For suspect animals detected in the frame of official active surveillance programmes (as for some diseases listed under AHL), there should not be any delay at PMI, and thus, these do not fall within the remit of this assessment. Diseases where target organs and related lesions are not screened/observed at slaughterhouse, in particular those inducing lesions in the brain, e.g. rabies, also fall outside the remit of this assessment. Nevertheless, for certain diseases, subclinical or asymptomatic presentations that could be missed at AMI have been described, and therefore, animals affected by such conditions could be sent to the abattoir and culled as part of the routine slaughter process. Thus, the targets of this assessment are subclinically infected animals that enter the abattoir, pass the AMI, are slaughtered and may present detectable lesions at PMI. The lesions associated with each disease evaluated in this opinion were retrieved from the scientific literature and/or based on expert knowledge. There is, however, very little data on the frequency, distribution and severity of the lesions in subclinical/asymptomatic cases, which results in some uncertainty. Information about the lesions related to each disease was screened by the WG experts to select those for which detection might be affected by a delay of 24 or 72 h. Information on the possible decrease in the sensitivity of PMI for detecting these lesions resulting from delayed PMI was collected through a survey undertaken by 18 meat inspectors from six EU MSs. This information was used as evidence in a set of Expert Knowledge Elicitation workshops conducted with the participation of the EFSA WG, during which the mean number of carcasses from infected animals assessed as diseased in a PMI carried out immediately after slaughter (current procedure) per 100 inspections that would still be detectable after 24 or 72 h for each disease was elicited. According to the results from the present assessment, the sensitivity of disease detection at a delayed PMI is expected to decrease, with the magnitude of this decrease depending on the type of lesions and organs involved. This reduction in sensitivity is highly variable and depends on the type of lesions, for example, from more than 80 carcasses out of 100 still detected at both 24- or 72-h delay for tuberculosis (with greater than 95% certainty), to values between 36 and 97 after a 72-h delay for Rift Valley Fever (RVF) (with a 90% certainty). At 24-h delayed PMI, the only diseases for which there was less than 95% certainty of being able to detect at least 50 out of 100 affected carcasses with the current procedure are foot and mouth disease in wild boars and surra. At 72-h delayed PMI, diseases for which there was less than 95% certainty of being able to detect at least 50 out of 100 affected carcasses with the current procedure are RVF, surra, foot and mouth disease (FMD), West Nile fever, African Swine Fever and African horse sickness. For diseases for which the diagnosis at the slaughterhouse is most important, i.e. tuberculosis, echinococcosis, cysticercosis and pyaemia, the estimated mean number of affected carcasses, out of 100 detected with the current procedure, that would be still detectable with a 90% certainty is (i) after a 24-h PMI delay, between 83 and 100 (median = 95) for tuberculosis, echinococcosis and cysticercosis, and between 53 and 99 (median = 86) for pyaemia and (ii) after a 72-h PMI delay, between 83 and 98 (median = 92) for tuberculosis, between 72 and 99 (median = 92) for cysticercosis and echinococcosis and between 47 and 94 (median = 76) for pyaemia. For chronic type lesions, including those due to tuberculosis, the assessment concluded that a 24- or 72-h delay for PMI would not lead to a decrease in their detectability. Concerning tuberculosis, the overall effect of a delay in the PMI on the ability to confirm tuberculosis in infected animals is a combination of the effect of such delay on the ability to detect compatible lesions during the PMI, and on the performance of the laboratory tests used to confirm the infection. There is considerable uncertainty about the impact of delayed inspection and testing due to the lack of available data. Nevertheless, a 24-h delay could result in the confirmation of between 73 and 100 animals out of 100 confirmed with the current procedure depending on the diagnostic test used. A 72-h delay could result in the confirmation of between 74 (direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR)), 65 (culture) and 61 (histopathology) and affected 100 animals out of every 100 animals confirmed using the current procedure. The sources of uncertainty that could explain the width of the elicited distribution of estimates relating to this first assessment question were (i) uncertainty on the severity, distribution and type of lesions that may be observed in subclinical and/or asymptomatic infected animals and (ii) the lack of data on the effect that the delay could have on their detection during a routine PMI. The current primary testing requirements for TSEs do not include animals slaughtered for human consumption. Should the testing of healthy slaughter animals be introduced or reintroduced for any species, delays in PMI of 24 or 72 h could potentially reduce diagnostic sensitivity of the testing programme but any decrease in TSE detection will not exceed the tolerance already in place for surveillance testing in fallen stock. The analytical sensitivity and specificity of TSE tests have been shown to be unaffected by delays of this length. For the detection of Trichinella, the panel did not find any evidence that would suggest a decrease in sensitivity during cold storage and it is almost certain (99–100%) that there is no decrease in sensitivity of detection after a delay of PMI of 24 or 72 h. The effect of delayed PMI on the sensitivity of Salmonella detection as a process hygiene criterion has been estimated using a stochastic model. Factors included were the initial concentration of Salmonella cells on the carcass after dressing before chilling, viability and culturability of Salmonella, detachment of Salmonella by the used sampling method, and selectivity and capacity of enrichment media on Salmonella detection. Model input variables have been elicited by expert knowledge elicitation (EKE), informed by data from the literature. The median estimate for the reduction in sensitivity of Salmonella detection with a 24-h delay of PMI after slaughtering is 66.5%. The 90% probability interval for this reduction in sensitivity ranges from 0.08% (5th percentile) to 99.75% (95th percentile). The median estimate for the reduction in sensitivity of Salmonella detection with a 72-h delay of PMI after slaughtering is 94%. The 90% probability interval for this reduction in sensitivity ranges from 0.83% (5th percentile) to 100% (95th percentile). The high uncertainty on the above estimates originates mainly from the uncertainty in the initial Salmonella concentration among carcasses. In general, the lower the initial Salmonella counts, the higher the estimated reduction in the sensitivity of detection. The CONTAM Panel evaluated the effects of delayed meat inspection on chemical residues and contaminants in light of the Council Directive 96/23/EC which lays down the requirements for official control for these substances at farm level and post-mortem meat inspection at slaughterhouse level. The national residue control plans (NRCPs) implement these demands. The objective of the NRCPs is to detect illegal treatment of food producing animals, controlling compliance with withdrawal periods and the MRLs for veterinary medicinal products, and the maximum levels for certain contaminants. The CONTAM Panel emphasised the fact that substances to be analysed at PMI cover a broad range with different physico-chemical properties and biological behaviour. This is especially true for the groups of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and metals on the one hand and pharmacologically active substances on the other hand. The CONTAM Panel concluded that due to their stability, poor microbial and chemical degradation and persistence, there is no impact of a delayed meat inspection of 24 or 72 h on the effectiveness to detect POPs and metals. The fate of legally and illegally administered pharmacologically active substances in the animal's body depends on the mode of application, formula, biological half-life, elimination rate and withdrawal period, while the possibility of their detection is related not only to the sensitivity of the analytical method applied, but especially to the matrices chosen for analysis and their proper handling between collection and analysis. The CONTAM Panel concluded that due to potential degradation in the available matrices and the non-availability of specific preferred matrices of choice, the effectiveness to detect certain pharmacologically active substances may be reduced when meat inspection is delayed by 24 or 72 h. In general, there is very little information on the potential post-mortem degradation in organs and tissues. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor The scope of this mandate is to evaluate certain aspects of meat inspection in order to assess the fitness of the meat for human consumption and to monitor food-borne zoonotic infections (public health) without jeopardising the timely detection of certain animal diseases at slaughter. Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections (together called "meat inspection") are essential official controls to monitor animal and public health at slaughter through the verification of human and animal health requirements of animals and to evaluate if the meat can be declared fit for human consumption and not causing any concern on the transmission of animal diseases. Revised meat inspection procedures for all species apply from 14 December 2019. As regards ungulates, the revision took into account the Scientific Opinions of the BIOHAZ Panel of the European Food Safety Authority on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat in: swine, published on 3 October 2011, bovine animals; domestic sheep and goats, farmed game and domestic solipeds, all published on 27 June 2013. According to the above Scientific Opinions, the main biological and chemical hazards to public health to be addressed in meat inspection are summarised in Table 1. Table 1. The main biological and chemical hazards to public health to be addressed in meat inspection Species Biological hazards Chemical hazards Swine Salmonella, Yersinia enterocolitica, Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella Dioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls and the antibiotic chloramphenicol Cattle Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC), Salmonella Dioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls Sheep and goats VTEC, Toxoplasma Dioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls Solipeds Trichinella Phenylbutazone*, chemical elements (cadmium) Farmed game (deer) Toxoplasma None Farmed game (wild boar) Salmonella, Toxoplasma * None Farmed game (reindeer, ostriches, rabbits) None* None * For some biological hazards, available evidence was considered insufficient to rank related tasks. The Opinions also stress the importance of meat inspection in the monitoring of animal diseases, such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, enzootic bovine leukosis and glanders (solipeds), and the (early) detection of the animal diseases listed in Article 5(1)(a) and according to Article 5(1)(b)1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Animal Health Law). The listing of diseases under Article 5(1)(b) of the Animal Health Law resulting in Regulation (EC) 2018/1629 involved also a large number of EFSA scientific opinions that are relevant for this mandate. The practical arrangements for the revised meat inspection have been laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/6272. In summary: Ante-mortem inspection (AMI) must take place within 24 h of arrival in the slaughterhouse and less than 24 h before slaughter. By way of derogation, AMI may take place at the holding of provenance within 3 days before slaughter, except for small producers of farmed game where AMI can be carried out up to 28 days before slaughter. AMI includes a verification of food business operators' obligation to ensure that animals are clean, and an inspection in order to verify if there are any signs that animal health and welfare are compromised (presence of abnormalities or disease that make the meat unfit for human consumption or that adversely affect animal health; use of prohibited or unauthorised substances; misuse of veterinary medicinal products or the presence of residues or contaminants). AMI is not required for wild game, but a trained person must be present during hunting.3 Post-mortem inspection (PMI) must be carried out without undue delay after slaughter or as soon as possible after arrival of wild game carcasses at a game-handling establishment. However, wild game might be stored in refrigerated collection centres before transport to a game-handling establishment, without a defined time limit. In low capacity slaughterhouses or game-handling establishments, a delay of a maximum of 24 h can be allowed by the competent authorities under certain conditions. PMI comprises checking of all external surfaces, including those of the body cavities of carcasses and offal and pay particular attention, including additional examinations, to the detection of zoonoses or relevant animal diseases. In case of wild game, the viscera and head (except in case of Trichinella susceptible species), may not accompany the carcasses to the game-handling establishment (and therefore might not undergo PMI). Species- and age-specific arrangements for the visual inspection, incisions and palpation of carcasses during PMI are laid down in the Articles 18 to 23 and 27–28 of the Regulation. When there are indications of possible risks to public or animal health, additional incisions and palpations must be carried out (Article 24). Additional official controls on specific hazards are included in PMI: TSE testing in ruminants Cysticercus in domestic bovine animals and Suidae Trichinella in Suidae and solipeds Glanders in solipeds Tuberculosis and brucellosis in all ungulates Salmonella (process hygiene criterion on carcasses) in all ungulates Testing for chemical residues and contaminants in all ungulates For practical reasons, requests have been made for the possibility to delay PMI in order to consider: Carrying out PMI of carcasses and offal of animals slaughtered on the day before when AMI has been carried out on the animals slaughtered that day; Carrying out PMI on wild game in game-handling establishment after the weekend on carcasses arriving on Friday evening or Saturday to the game handling establishment. When delaying PMI, the obligation remains that the meat must be chilled immediately after slaughter to ensure a temperature throughout the meat of not more than 3°C for offal4 and 7°C for other meat (carcasses5) along a chilling curve that ensures a continuous decrease of the temperature. In case of large wild game (e.g. red deer, wild boar, etc.), chilling must begin within a reasonable period of time after killing and achieve a temperature throughout the meat of not more than 7°C. Terms of Reference EFSA is asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the evaluation of the public and animal health risks in case of a delayed PMI of ungulates in any slaughterhouse or game-handling establishment. More specifically, considering implementation of AMI and PMI according to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/6276, EFSA is asked to assess the effectiveness of PMI (in terms of its sensitivity in detecting the diseases/conditions listed below) when carried in both the following delays: a) up to 24 h after slaughter or arrival in the game-handling establishment, or b) up to 72 h after slaughter or arrival in the game-handling establishment, in comparison to when it is carried out immediately after slaughter or arrival in the game handling establishment. The effectiveness should be evaluated considering the implications for public and animal health of any changes suggested to current meat inspection methods, and in particular: timely detection of animal diseases listed according to Article 57 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 in all ungulates; detection of generalised conditions such as septicaemia, pyaemia, toxaemia or viraemia in all ungulates; detection of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in cattle, sheep, goats and cervids; detection of cysticercosis in domestic bovine animals and Suidae; detection of Trichinella in Suidae and solipeds; detection of glanders in solipeds; detection of tuberculoid lesions in all ungulates; detection of Brucella in all ungulates; detection of Salmonella spp. (process hygiene criterion on carcasses) in all ungulates; detection of chemical residues and contaminants in all ungulates. When comparing the effectiveness, inspection or sampling of carcasses and offal must be considered. Differentiation per species should be considered if relevant. 1.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference Ante- and post-mortem meat inspections are undertaken to ensure safe meat for human consumption and to monitor animal health and welfare. Zoonotic diseases and poor hygienic conditions of slaughtered animals may generate meat that could cause human diseases, while undetected animal diseases may spread via meat and offal. Animal welfare is essential for meat quality and because good animal welfare is demanded by consumers. Thus, European-wide uniform controls have been laid down for AMI and PMI practices including location and time when this examination must be performed. AMI must be performed within 24 h of arrival in the slaughterhouse and less than 24 h before slaughter and PMI should be performed immediately after slaughter. This opinion focuses on the reduction in the sensitivity of detecting diseases or conditions in ungulates as specified in the TORs after a 24-h and 72-h delay of PMI as compared to PMI immediately after slaughter. Public health risk due to a delayed PMI is not assessed in this opinion. In addition, EFSA has been asked to assess the potential reduction in the sensitivity of detecting Salmonella as a Process Hygiene Criterion (PHC), which is only defined for domestic ungulates and, therefore, is not assessed for wild game. Only animals that are categorised with no expected food safety risk, according to the Food Chain Information (FCI) and AMI, that can progress to slaughter and be subjected to routine PMI, are the target of the assessment of this opinion. As far as bovine tuberculosis is concerned, the assessment perf
Referência(s)