A qualitative risk assessment for visual-only post-mortem meat inspection of cattle, sheep, goats and farmed/wild deer

The UK Food Standards Agency is currently funding research to build the evidence base for the modernisation of meat inspection. This includes an assessment of the risks to public health and animal health/welfare of moving to a visual-only post-mortem meat inspection (PMMI), where routine mandatory palpation and incision procedures are omitted. In this paper we present the results of a risk assessment for a change from current to visual-only PMMI for cattle, sheep/goats and farmed/wild deer. A large list of hazard/species pairings were assessed and prioritised by a process of hazard identification. Twelve hazard/species pairings were selected for full consideration within the final risk assessment. The results of the public health risk assessment indicated that all hazard/species pairings were Negligible with the exception of Cysticercus bovis in cattle, which was judged to be of low-medium increased risk for systems not conforming to criteria as laid down by EC Regulation 1244/2007, compared to systems that do conform to Regulations for visual-only PMMI. Most hazard/species pairings were concluded to pose a potential increased risk to animal health/welfare, including Mycobacterium bovis (very low – low increase in risk, but with considerable uncertainty), Fasciola hepatica (negligible – very low) and Cysticercus bovis (very low – low). Due to low feedback rates to farmers, the real risk to animal health/welfare for F. hepatica and C. bovis, including animals in non-conforming systems under visual-only PMMI, is probably negligible. That then leaves M. bovis as the only confirmed non-negligible animal health and welfare risk.

[1]  N. Praet,et al.  Taenia saginata in Europe. , 2007, Veterinary parasitology.

[2]  D. Pfeiffer,et al.  Opinion of the Scientific Panel Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) related with the Migratory Birds and their Possible Role in the Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza , 2006, EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority.

[3]  M. Chriel,et al.  European Food Safety Authority, 2013. Technical specifications on harmonised epidemiological indicators for biological hazards to be covered by meat inspection of bovine animals , 2013 .

[4]  Sava Buncic,et al.  A risk and benefit assessment for visual-only meat inspection of indoor and outdoor pigs in the United Kingdom , 2013 .

[5]  J. Grange,et al.  Zoonotic aspects of Mycobacterium bovis infection. , 1994, Veterinary Microbiology.

[6]  Stärk,et al.  A qualitative risk and benefit assessment for visual- , 2013 .

[7]  E. Sarti [Taeniasis and cysticercosis due to Taenia solium]. , 1997, Salud publica de Mexico.

[8]  Efsa Journal,et al.  European Food Safety Authority, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2009 , 2011 .

[9]  D. Vose,et al.  Risk Assessment Model for Human Infection with the Cestode Taenia saginata. , 1997, Journal of Food Protection.

[10]  Noel Murray,et al.  Handbook On Import Risk Analysis for animals and animal products: quantitative risk assessment , 2004 .

[11]  C Bauer,et al.  Estimating the true prevalence of Fasciola hepatica in cattle slaughtered in Switzerland in the absence of an absolute diagnostic test. , 2006, International journal for parasitology.

[12]  R. D. L. Rua-Domenech,et al.  Human Mycobacterium bovis infection in the United Kingdom: Incidence, risks, control measures and review of the zoonotic aspects of bovine tuberculosis. , 2006 .

[13]  P. Dorny,et al.  Development of harmonised schemes for the monitoring and reporting of Sarcocystis in animals and foodstuffs in the European Union: EFSA Scientific Report , 2010 .

[14]  P. Morris,et al.  The transmission of Mycobacterium bovis infection to cattle. , 2003, Research in veterinary science.

[15]  Moez Sanaa,et al.  Review of the Community Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic agents and Antimicrobial Resistance in the European Union in 2005 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) and Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2007 .

[16]  L. Alban,et al.  Development of harmonised schemes for the monitoring and reporting of Cysticercus in animals and foodstuffs in the European Union , 2010 .

[17]  Linda J. Keeling,et al.  Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine) , 2011 .

[18]  D. Williams,et al.  Development of an antibody-detection ELISA for Fasciola hepatica and its evaluation against a commercially available test. , 2005, Research in veterinary science.

[19]  Ellen Brooks-Pollock,et al.  Estimating the Hidden Burden of Bovine Tuberculosis in Great Britain , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  M A P M van Asseldonk,et al.  Evaluation of surveillance strategies for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) using an individual based epidemiological model. , 2005, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[21]  K. Murrell,et al.  Taeniasis and Cysticercosis , 1988 .

[22]  S. Downs,et al.  Pathology of naturally occurring bovine tuberculosis in England and Wales. , 2008, Veterinary journal.

[23]  P. Chiodini,et al.  Imported Human Fascioliasis, United Kingdom , 2009, Emerging infectious diseases.

[24]  S. More,et al.  Risk factors for disclosure of additional tuberculous cattle in attested-clear herds that had one animal with a confirmed lesion of tuberculosis at slaughter during 2003 in Ireland. , 2008, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[25]  G. Hickling,et al.  A simulation model for the spread of bovine tuberculosis within New Zealand cattle herds. , 1997, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[26]  D. Berkvens,et al.  Sero-epidemiological study of Taenia saginata cysticercosis in Belgian cattle. , 2000, Veterinary parasitology.