1. Dr Marta Hugas Head of Unit Unit on Biological Hazards
Overview of existing and ongoing EFSA Risk Assessments on Meat Inspection
SANCO Round Table on the revision of Meat Inspection
Brussels, 18th May 2010
Dr Marta Hugas
Head of Unit
Unit on Biological Hazards

2. Contents The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The Scientific Panel on Biological Hazard (BIOHAZ).
Risk Assessments in Meat Inspection by the BIOHAZ Panel
Existing
Ongoing: Risk-based
Conclusions

3. EFSA's Mission
Provide scientific advice and scientific and technical support for the Community’s legislation and policies in all fields which have a direct or indirect impact on Food and Feed Safety.
Provide independent information on all matters within these fields with a high level of openness and transparency;
Risk Communication;
Collaboration and Networking.
Tasks:
Provide:
Risk assessment
Coordinate the development of risk assessment methodologies
Collecting scientific and technical data
Commissioning scientific studies
Identifying emerging risks
Establishing networks of relevant organisations

4. Risk Analysis [CAC,01]: a decision paradigm for Food Safety Governance
COM
Preliminary
activities
Review
Monitoring EC
EFSA
EC+EFSA
RISK
MANAGEMENT =
The Policy
RISK
COMMUNICATION =
The Exchange
RISK ASSESSMENT =
The Science
Implementation
Options
selection
Options
identification

5. EFSA’s organisational structure

6. The BIOHAZ Panel

7. The BIOHAZ Panel
The Panel on Biological Hazards deals with questions on biological hazards relating to Food Safety and Food-borne Diseases, including:
Food-borne Zoonoses;
Food Hygiene;
Microbiology;
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies;
Associated Waste Management.

8. From the “question” to the “answer”
European Commission
European Parliament
Member States
EFSA (“self tasking”)
Question?
Risk
Assessment

9. From the “question” to the “answer”
Mandate
BIOHAZ Panel
Working Group
Opinion adopted
Draft Opinion

10. Risk Assessment players

11. From the “question” to the “answer”
European Commission
European Parliament
Member States
EFSA (“self mandate”)
Question?
Opinion
Risk
Assessment
Consumers
Media
Risk Communication
Industry
Professionals
Risk
Management

12. What happens after adoption?
Publication in EFSA website.
Communicated to originator of question (EC, MS, Parliament) and support for changes of legislation.
In the Scientific Opinion:
Background and explanation of the ToR.
Assessment (detailed report of the Working Group).
Conclusions.
Set of recommendations:
Reduce data gaps and scientific uncertainty.
Communicated to RM;
Communicated to DG Research of the EC (DG RTD);
Mostly advice for future research topics

13. Existing opinions on
Meat Inspection
BIOHAZ Panel

14. BIOHAZ work on Meat Inspection
“Classical” Meat Hygiene Inspection
Microbiological Meat Hygiene
Specified Risk Materials controls

15. “Classical” Meat Hygiene Inspection
Tuberculosis in bovine animals: Risk for human health and control strategies (EFSA-Q ; November, 2003).
Pre-harvest measures and meat inspection practices ensure low risk.
Meat Inspection procedures for lambs and goats (EFSA-Q ; April, 2004).
Non disease suspect animals sourced from integrated systems.
Importance of “chain information”.
Benefits compared against risk of cross-contamination during palpation/incision.
Importance of meat inspection from animal health perspective.
Revision of Meat Inspection for beef raised in integrated production systems (EFSA-Q B; December, 2004).
Non disease suspect animals.
Benefits compared against risk of cross-contamination during palpation/incision, but considering issues related to Mycobacterium bovis.
Risk Assessment of a revised inspection of slaughter animals in areas with low prevalence of Cysticercus (EFSA-Q B; January, 2005).
Proposal of a risk profile framework for the evaluation of integrated veal calves production systems.
Traditional meat inspection important in medium and high risk areas.
Potential benefit of serological cysticercosis tests.

16. “Classical” Meat Hygiene Inspection
Risk Assessment of a revised inspection of slaughter animals in areas with low prevalence of Trichinella (EFSA-Q A; March 2005).
In consideration of Trichinella-free farms.
Importance of surveillance tools in place to detect increases in exposure.
Consideration of piglets allowed outdoors before weaning.
Feasibility of establishing Trichinella free areas, and if feasible on the risk increase to public health of not examining pigs from those areas for Trichinella spp. (EFSA-Q ; October 2005).
Difficultness in establishing of true Trichinella freedom in geographical areas.
Health risk associated with the adoption of a visual inspection system in veal calves raised in a Member State (or part of a Member State) considered free of tuberculosis (EFSA-Q ; May, 2006).
Importance of surveillance of M. bovis in cattle both for animal and human health reasons.
Considerations for the case of integrated production units and in officially bovine tuberculosis-free herds.

17. Specified Risk Materials controls
Assessment of the age limit in cattle for removal of certain specified risk materials (SRM) (EFSA-Q ; April 2005).
Analysis of epidemiological and pathogenesis data EU
Consideration on prevalence and age of detection (minimum and average).
Assessment of the likelihood of the infectivity in SRM derived from cattle at different age groups estimated by back calculation modelling (EFSA-Q ; April 2007).
Consensus on a back calculation model not achievable.
Analysis of epidemiological, pathogenesis and age/incubation data.
Infectivity would be sub-detectable or still absent in CNS in cattle aged 33 months.

18. Integrating risk assessment in legislation
April 2004 –
Reg. (EC) 854/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption.
Between 2003 and 2005 – Five EC questions to EFSA on meat inspection issues (small ruminants and veal calves).
Between 2003 and 2006 – EFSA adopts and publishes the requested Scientific Opinions.
October 2007 –
Reg. (EC) 1244/2007 of 24 October amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards implementing measures for certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and laying down specific rules on official controls for the inspection of meat.
Risk-based meat inspection without incisions
Source: NCSU Library – Copyright free for non-commercial purpose.

19. Integrating risk assessment in legislation
From 2001 – Bovines over 12 months.
Opinion (s) from the EC Scientific Steering Committee.
Reg. (EC) 999/2001.
October 2004 – EC “question” to EFSA:
Review age limit for removal certain bovine tissues as SRM, taken into account OIE report.
April 2005 – EFSA Scientific Opinion:
Opinion on the assessment of the age limit in cattle for removal of certain specified risk materials (SRM). The EFSA Journal (2005), 220, 1-7
January 2006 – Bovines over 24 months.
Reg. (EC) 1974/2005
January 2006 – EC “question” to EFSA:
Assessment of the likelihood of the infectivity in SRM derived from infected cattle at different age groups estimated by a back calculation modelling.
April 2007 – EFSA Scientific Opinion:
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) on the assessment of the likelihood of the infectivity in SRM derived from cattle at different age groups estimated by back calculation modelling. The EFSA Journal (2006) 476, 1-47.
April 2008 – Bovines over 30 months of age
Reg. (EC) 357/2008
Vertebral column as SRM
Source - Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Copyright free for non-commercial purpose

20. Ongoing Risk Assessments on “Risk-based meat inspection”

21. New Mandate from the EC: background
In Nov 2008 CVO’s agreed on conclusions on modernisation of sanitary inspection in slaughterhouses based on the recommendations issued during a seminar organised by the French Presidency. They were considered at a the Commission report
Council Conclusions on the Commission report (Nov 2009) invite the Commission to prepare concrete proposals allowing the effective implementation of modernised sanitary inspection in slaughterhouses while making full use of the principle of the: 'risk-based approach‘
In accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, the Commission shall consult EFSA on certain matters falling within the scope of the Regulation whenever necessary.

22. New Mandate from the EC
EFSA (BIOHAZ Panel) and the Commission's former SCVPH issued in the past a a number of opinions on meat inspection considering
specific hazards
or production systems separately
In order to guarantee a more risk-based approach, it is needed:
an assessment of the risk caused by specific hazards, taking into account the evolving epidemiological situation in Member States.
In addition, methodologies may need to be reviewed taking into account
risks of possible cross-contamination, t
rends in slaughter techniques and
possible new inspection methods.

23. ANNEX 1
Requests for scientific opinions on the hazards to be covered by inspection of meat

24. Terms of reference (1) SCOPE:
To evaluate meat inspection in order to assess the fitness of the meat for human consumption and
To monitor food-borne zoonotic infections (public health)
without jeopardizing the detection of certain animal diseases nor the verification of compliance with rules on animal welfare at slaughter
For the species:
domestic swine, poultry,
bovine animals over six weeks old,
bovine animals under six weeks old,
domestic sheep and goats,
farmed game and
domestic solipeds
Ensuring a risk-based approach
Considering relevant international guidance (CAC, OIE)
In consultation with ECDC

25. Terms of reference (1)
Identify and rank the main hazards (risks?) for PH to be addressed by meat inspection at EU level, taking into account implications for AHAW.
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current methodology of meat inspection
Recommend additional inspection methods in case other previously not considered hazards have been identified above (e.g. salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis).
recommend possible alternative methods and adaptations of inspection methods and/or frequencies of inspections that provide an equivalent level of protection within the scope of meat inspection or elsewhere in the production chain that may be used by risk managers in case they consider the current methods disproportionate to the risk,
e.g. based on the risks or on data obtained using harmonised epidemiological criteria). When appropriate, food chain information should be taken into account.
The definition of the responsibilities of the different actors (official veterinarians, official auxiliaries, staff of food business operators) is excluded from this mandate

26. ANNEX 2
Requests for technical assistance defining harmonised human health epidemiological criteria to carry out risk analysis within the scope of meat inspection

27. Terms of reference (2) SCOPE:
to request technical assistance on harmonised epidemiological criteria for specific public health hazards in food and animals to be used by risk managers in case they consider the current methods for meat inspection address the relevant risk not adequate
Where possible, such epidemiological criteria should be based on monitoring activities already laid down in European Union provisions, in particular in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and their implementing acts.
For the species:
domestic swine, poultry,
bovine animals over six weeks old,
bovine animals under six weeks old,
domestic sheep and goats,
farmed game and
domestic solipeds

28. Terms of reference (2)
Define harmonised epidemiological criteria for specific hazards already covered by current meat inspection (trichinellosis, tuberculosis, cysticercosis, …) and for possible additional hazards identified in a scientific opinion on the hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (see Annex 1), which can be used to consider adaptations of meat inspection methodology (e.g. prevalence, status of infection).
Provide a summary of comparable data from Member States based on the above defined harmonised epidemiological criteria, if existing, e.g. from ongoing monitoring in humans, food or animals.
Recommend methodologies and minimum monitoring/inspection requirements to provide comparable data on such harmonised epidemiological criteria, in particular if comparable data are missing.

29. EFSA’s organisational structure
BIOHAZ – RA
CONTAM – RA
AHAW – RA
ZOON – SCA
DATEX – SCA
AMU – SCA

30. Conclusions
EFSA provides scientific advice and scientific and technical support for legislation and policies in all fields which have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety.
The BIOHAZ Panel deals with questions on biological hazards (including TSE agents) relating to Food Safety and Food-borne Diseases.
The BIOHAZ Panel work in the field of meat hygiene inspection falls within distinct areas, ranging from “classical” meat hygiene inspection, to microbiological issues and to the review of SRM related issues.
EFSA’s scientifically based risk assessments serve as a means for the identification of food safety risk control options, which are then reflected in EU legislation.

31. Thank You !!! Excellence, Independency, Responsiveness and
EFSA is committed to:
Excellence,
Independency,
Responsiveness and
Transparency
.eu