Quality Assurance schemes.

This paper considers the consumer's changing definition of quality in relation to meat and the current development of Quality Assurance (QA) schemes to ensure that certain quality standards are met. The key ingredients of QA schemes are food safety, animal welfare and sensory aspects (meat quality) although the latter is not a major feature of many schemes at present. For each of these components, points in the production-processing chain where problems can arise should be identified and control procedures introduced. Monitoring is required to check the effectiveness of these. This approach is based on HACCP principles although best practice rules are the basis of most current QA schemes. The paper identifies key points on the farm and in the abattoir where food safety, animal welfare and meat quality can be compromised and shows how best practice procedures are introduced to reliably raise standards. There is some concern about the credibility of some QA schemes in relation to the standards set, the strictness of inspection and especially the impartiality of auditing procedures. This may be ensured in schemes within Europe which comply with EN 45011 standards. The move towards more tightly regulated QA schemes to raise consumer confidence could benefit some traditional products and organic meat production schemes which already operate with strict specifications.

[1]  J S Holder,et al.  Microbial status of chicken portions and portioning equipment. , 1997, British poultry science.

[2]  H. Vos Trade and Industry , 1946 .

[3]  S. Wotton,et al.  Electrical stunning and slaughter of pigs : Guidelines for good welfare assurance , 1997 .

[4]  J. Woolliams,et al.  Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , 2020, Advances in Animal Biosciences.

[5]  M. Hinton,et al.  Effects of fleece soiling and skinning method on the microbiology of sheep carcases , 1997, Veterinary Record.

[6]  C. Warkup,et al.  Improving pork quality by electricalstimulation or pelvic suspension ofcarcasses. , 1995, Meat science.

[7]  M. Hinton,et al.  Relevance of abattoir hygiene assessment to microbial contamination of British beef carcases , 1996, Veterinary Record.

[8]  M. Hinton,et al.  Effect of changes in processing to improve hygiene control on contamination of poultry carcasses with campylobacter , 1995, Epidemiology and Infection.

[9]  A. Wingstrand,et al.  Salmonella Reduction at the Farm Level , 1996 .

[10]  G. Nute,et al.  The effect of cooking conditions on the eating quality of pork. , 1995, Meat science.

[11]  C. Warkup,et al.  The influence of rate of lean and fat tissue development on pork eating quality , 1999 .

[12]  M. Hinton,et al.  The bacteriological quality of British beef 1. Carcasses sampled prior to chilling. , 1998, Meat science.

[13]  P. Warriss,et al.  Choosing appropriate space allowances for slaughter pigs transported by road: a review , 1998, Veterinary Record.

[14]  C. Warkup,et al.  Improving pork quality by electrical stimulation or hip suspension of carcasses , 1992 .

[15]  S. Brown,et al.  Effects of breed, feed level and conditioning time on the tenderness of pork. , 1996, Meat science.

[16]  Dirk U. Pfeiffer,et al.  Comparison of electronic and visual identification systems in pigs , 1998 .

[17]  P. Sheard,et al.  Injection of water and polyphosphate into pork to improve juiciness and tenderness after cooking. , 1999, Meat science.

[18]  R. G. Kauffman,et al.  The effectiveness of examining early post-mortem musculature to predict ultimate pork quality. , 1993, Meat science.