Search

Abstract The objective of this opinion was to determine if any wild caught fish species, originating from specific fishing grounds and consumed in the EU/EFTA could be considered free of zoonotic parasites. In this Opinion the term ‘fishery products’ only refers to fresh finfish. As there are multiple fish species and numerous potential parasites, Anisakis sp. was used as an indicator of zoonotic parasites in marine areas. This parasite species is particularly suited as it is common in marine environments, capable of infecting multiple fish species and is the subject of the majority of published studies. On the rare occasion where Anisakis sp. data were not available, or all tests were negative, other parasites such as Contracaecum osculatum (s.l.) and/or Phocanema spp. were considered. In freshwater systems, all zoonotic parasites were investigated. Consumption, import and landing data were used to determine the most relevant fish species and, where possible, the source fishing areas were identified. The most commonly consumed wild caught fish species in the EU/EFTA include tuna, cod, Alaskan pollock, hake, herring, sardines, mackerel, trout and saithe. Although the majority of these fish are caught in the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (37) as well as several areas in the Indian Ocean, imported fish may originate from any global fishing areas, with the exception of Antarctica. Based on the data, at least one zoonotic parasite has been reported in at least one fish species in each of the FAO marine fishing areas. Thus, due to relative low fish host specificity of the zoonotic parasites, the panel concluded that all wild caught fish species may be exposed to and infected with zoonotic parasites. The same applies to freshwater fishing areas, with many areas having multiple studies reporting the presence of zoonotic parasites in the wild caught fish species.

Abstract The European Commission asks scientific and technical assistance from EFSA to determine the impact of the revision of the Australian monitoring programme on its ability to detect microbiological contamination. Considering that, in 2010, the European Commission determined the current Australian monitoring programme to be equivalent to the EU requirements for microbiological monitoring further to an EFSA scientific assessment, the current and proposed programmes were described and the total number of alerts was compared using a probabilistic modelling approach. In the current programme, only beef and sheep carcasses are monitored using three‐class moving window sampling plans, while in the proposed programme, carcass, bulk meat, primal and offal are monitored using four two‐class sampling plans and Salmonella testing is excluded. The models revealed that the current programme provides a higher number of alerts for APC, while the proposed monitoring programme provides a higher number of alerts for E. coli. For APC and E. coli combined, the mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the total number of alerts in the current and the proposed monitoring programme are 201 [179, 227] and 172 [149, 194] for beef, and 199 [175, 222] and 2897 [2795, 3008] for sheep, respectively. For Salmonella, there are no alerts for the proposed programme since sampling is excluded while for the current programme, the estimated mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the number of alerts for a 5‐year period were 143 [126, 144] for heifer/steer, 1.6 [0, 4] for cow/bull and 0 [0, 0] for lamb/sheep. Overall, for APC and E. coli, the estimated total number of alerts was similar (beef) or higher (sheep) for the proposed compared to the current programme. In contrast, Salmonella sampling is excluded from the proposed programme and thus cannot detect the number of current alerts.

Abstract This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day‐old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: ‘bone lesions’, ‘cold stress’, ‘gastro‐enteric disorders’, ‘group stress’, ‘handling stress’, ‘heat stress’, ‘isolation stress’, ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour’, ‘inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour’, ‘locomotory disorders’, ‘prolonged hunger’, ‘prolonged thirst’, ‘predation stress’, ‘restriction of movement’, ‘resting problems’, ‘sensory under‐ and overstimulation’, ‘soft tissue and integument damage’ and ‘umbilical disorders’. These WCs and their animal‐based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de‐toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast‐growing, slower‐growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, ‘total mortality’, ‘wounds’, ‘carcass condemnation’ and ‘footpad dermatitis’ are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on‐farm.

Abstract This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

Abstract The impact of dry‐ageing of beef and wet‐ageing of beef, pork and lamb on microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria was examined and current practices are described. As ‘standard fresh’ and wet‐aged meat use similar processes these were differentiated based on duration. In addition to a description of the different stages, data were collated on key parameters (time, temperature, pH and aw) using a literature survey and questionnaires. The microbiological hazards that may be present in all aged meats included Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, enterotoxigenic Yersinia spp., Campylobacter spp. and Clostridium spp. Moulds, such as Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp., may produce mycotoxins when conditions are favourable but may be prevented by ensuring a meat surface temperature of −0.5 to 3.0°C, with a relative humidity (RH) of 75–85% and an airflow of 0.2–0.5 m/s for up to 35 days. The main meat spoilage bacteria include Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp. Enterococcus spp., Weissella spp., Brochothrix spp., Leuconostoc spp., Lactobacillus spp., Shewanella spp. and Clostridium spp. Under current practices, the ageing of meat may have an impact on the load of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria as compared to standard fresh meat preparation. Ageing under defined and controlled conditions can achieve the same or lower loads of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria than the variable log10 increases predicted during standard fresh meat preparation. An approach was used to establish the conditions of time and temperature that would achieve similar or lower levels of L. monocytogenes and Yersinia enterocolitica (pork only) and lactic acid bacteria (representing spoilage bacteria) as compared to standard fresh meat. Finally, additional control activities were identified that would further assure the microbial safety of dry‐aged beef, based on recommended best practice and the outputs of the equivalence assessment.

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) provides a generic pre‐assessment of the safety of microorganisms intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. QPS assessment allows a fast track evaluation of strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs): species for bacteria, yeast, fungi, protists/microalgae and families for viruses. QPS TUs are assessed for their body of knowledge and safety. Safety concerns related to a QPS TU are reflected, when possible, as ‘qualifications’, which should be tested at strain and/or product level. Based on the possession of potentially harmful traits by some strains, filamentous fungi, bacteriophages, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and Clostridium butyricum are excluded from the QPS assessment. Between October 2019 and September 2022, 323 notifications of TUs were received, 217 related to feed additives, 54 to food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 14 to plant protection products and 38 to novel foods. The list of QPS‐recommended TUs is reviewed every 6 months following an extensive literature search strategy. Only sporadic infections with a few QPS status TUs in immunosuppressed individuals were identified and the assessment did not change the QPS status of these TUs. The QPS list has been updated in relation to the most recent taxonomic insights and the qualifications were revised and streamlined. The qualification ‘absence of aminoglycoside production ability’ was withdrawn for Bacillus velezensis. Six new TUs received the QPS status: Bacillus paralicheniformis with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic activity’ and ‘absence of bacitracin production ability’; Bacillus circulans with the qualifications for ‘production purposes only’ and ‘absence of cytotoxic activity’; Haematococcus lacustris (synonym Haematococcus pluvialis) and Ogataea polymorpha, both with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’; Lactiplantibacillus argentoratensis; Geobacillus thermodenitrificans with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic activity’.

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre‐evaluation of the safety of microorganisms, intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge, safety concerns and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of the 50 microorganisms notified to EFSA in October 2021 to March 2022 (inclusive), 41 were not evaluated: 10 filamentous fungi, 1 Enterococcus faecium, 1 Clostridium butyricum, 3 Escherichia coli and 1 Streptomyces spp. because are excluded from QPS evaluation, and 25 TUs that have already a QPS status. Nine notifications, corresponding to seven TUs were evaluated: four of these, Streptococcus salivarius, Companilactobacillus formosensis, Pseudonocardia autotrophica and Papiliotrema terrestris, being evaluated for the first time. The other three, Microbacterium foliorum, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Ensifer adhaerens were re‐assessed. None of these TUs were recommended for QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens, Microbacterium foliorum, Companilactobacillus formosensis and Papiliotrema terrestris due to a limited body of knowledge, Streptococcus salivarius due to its ability to cause bacteraemia and systemic infection that results in a variety of morbidities, Pseudonocardia autotrophica due to lack of body of knowledge and uncertainty on the safety of biologically active compounds which can be produced, and Pseudomonas fluorescens due to possible safety concerns.

Abstract The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a generic pre‐evaluation of the safety of biological agents. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. The QPS list was updated in relation to the revised taxonomy of the genus Bacillus, to synonyms of yeast species and for the qualifications ‘absence of resistance to antimycotics’ and ‘only for production purposes’. Lactobacillus cellobiosus has been reclassified as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS taxonomic units (TU)s. Of the 70 microorganisms notified to EFSA, 64 were not evaluated: 11 filamentous fungi, one oomycete, one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, five Escherichia coli, one Streptomyces sp., one Bacillus nakamurai and 43 TUs that already had a QPS status. Six notifications, corresponding to six TUs were evaluated: Paenibacillus lentus was reassessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Enterococcus lactis synonym Enterococcus xinjiangensis, Aurantiochytrium mangrovei synonym Schizochytrium mangrovei, Schizochytrium aggregatum, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii synonym Chlamydomonas smithii and Haematococcus lacustris synonym Haematococcus pluvialis were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: P. lentus due to a limited body of knowledge, E. lactis synonym E. xinjiangensis due to potential safety concerns, A. mangrovei synonym S. mangrovei, S. aggregatum and C. reinhardtii synonym C. smithii, due to lack of a body of knowledge on its occurrence in the food and feed chain. H. lacustris synonym H. pluvialis is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’.