Search

Food chain information (FCI) refers to information that is gathered along the food chain for animals intended for slaughter and is exchanged between the stakeholders at the different stages of production. FCI includes, for example, information on veterinary medicinal products or other treatments administered to the animals within a relevant period (RP) and with a withdrawal period greater than 0 days according to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. Since the EU regulation does not specify which exact data should be collected, there are different definitions of the RP and different forms for collecting FCI across Europe. As a consequence, the information content of FCI has become heterogenous. Our study aimed to gather FCI report forms and the definitions of RPs from 35 European countries via an expert survey. Our research showed that the time frame for the RPs ranges from 0 days to the entire fattening period for all three species across Europe. For pigs and bovines, there is no clear consensus on a meaningful time frame for the RP. However, for broilers, in most European countries the RP covers the entire fattening period. Thus, harmonising the RP to the entire fattening period for broilers should be considered across the EU. Further research is necessary to determine appropriate RPs for pigs and bovines. In the case of bovines, RPs should vary depending on production types. Establishing an animal health database and transitioning from paper-based to electronic FCI transmission could standardise RPs and bring data harmonisation. Currently, the various FCI forms have different structures and request differing information. While our study did not aim to identify the optimal parameters, we advise against using forms that only require a signature stating that there is no data that could affect meat safety. Instead, farmers should provide relevant data or answer yes-no-questions. Additionally, improving and modernising FCI should also include educating and training those who work with it daily. Reporting meaningful information and subsequent action at the abattoir are crucial to achieving the intended purpose of FCI as part of risk-based meat safety assurance systems. • Unspecific EU Regulation led to different content of FCI in Europe. • There are various FCI forms across Europe; either species-specific or covering all. • Type and amount of information reported via FCI are dissimilar between countries. • For broilers, the relevant period mostly covers the entire fattening period. • The defined relevant periods for pigs and bovines are very inconsistent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Over the last 15 years dedicated markets for halal meat have emerged in a number of European countries. While ethnic stores still constitute the major retail outlet for halal meat in most countries, ‘halal’ labelled meat and meat products are increasingly available in supermarkets and fast food restaurants. Market expansion has also facilitated the rise of new certification bodies, each with their own marketing strategies and interpretations of what constitutes authentic ‘halal’, who question the reliability of certification policies that allow the practice of stunning before slaughter. This paper offers a comparative analysis of these market trends and developments across four European countries. Based on research carried out during the EU funded Dialrel project, it draws attention to the ways in which EU legislation and WTO trade guidelines hinder attempts to standardize halal certification by giving equal weight to pre-stun and non-stun halal slaughter practices emanating from different regional schools of thought within Sunni Islam. Whilst recognising the impact of global politics on the identity claims of Muslim groups across Europe, the paper draws on Einstein''s work on the ‘supply side’ theory of religion to demonstrate how the diverse halal practices evident in the marketing strategies of commercial and religious actors are now driving the rapid growth and development of halal meat markets across Europe. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As part of the project “Religious slaughter (DIALREL): improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and debate on issues of welfare, legislation and socio-economic aspects”, this paper discusses an evaluation of current practices during Halal and Shechita slaughter in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. During religious slaughter, animals are killed with and without stunning by a transverse incision across the neck that is cutting the skin, muscles (brachiocephalic, sternocephalic, sternohyoid, and sternothyroid), trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and the major, superficial and deep nerves of the cervical plexus. In this report, the restraint methods, stunning, neck cutting, exsanguination, slaughter techniques and postcut handling in the abattoir were assessed for religious slaughter. Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. To standardize the information gathered during the spot visits three guidelines were designed, one for each species, and translated into the national languages of the countries involved. The document included questions on the handling and restraint methods (stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/slaughter techniques and postcut handling performed under religious practices) and for pain and distress of the animal during the restraint, neck cutting and induction to death in each abattoir. Results showed differences in the time from restraining to stun and to cut in the neck cutting procedures and in the time from cut to death. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Producers, retailers and other food chain actors increasingly recognize that consumer concerns for good animal welfare represent a business opportunity that could be profitably incorporated into their commercial strategies. Therefore, during the last decade, numerous trade groups (producers, processors, retailers and restaurant chains) have developed certification systems with their suppliers which include elements of animal welfare. The Welfare Quality® project has developed an integrated and standardised welfare assessment system based on twelve welfare criteria grouped into four main principles (good feeding, good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour) according to how they are experienced by animals. One of the innovations of the Welfare Quality® assessment system is that it focuses more on outcome measures (e.g. directly related to animal body condition, health aspects, injuries, behaviour, etc.). This paper has the objective to discuss the rationale behind the welfare assessment and to describe the Welfare Quality® assessment of pigs and cattle at the slaughterhouse. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) is working with industry to promote social housing during cardiovascular telemetry recordings within non-rodent safety pharmacology and toxicology studies. Following surveys to capture current practice, benefits and concerns to adoption of this refinement (2015 and 2017), a 2018 European workshop shared experience and practical advice to address common barriers such as sensitivity of different study designs and the potential for cross-contamination with test article in socially-housed conditions. A similar number of responses were received to each survey (38 in 2015; 36 in 2017), from biopharmaceutical companies and CROs that perform or outsource non-rodent telemetry studies. Each dataset had different respondents, but 19 facilities provided answers regarding dogs and non-human primates (NHPs) for both surveys. More respondents socially-housed their non-rodents in 2017; increases were apparent for both the non-recording/acclimatisation periods and the telemetry recording periods compared with 2015. However, on recording days only 60, 75 and 89% of respondents from Europe and 25, 14 and 36% of respondents from outside of Europe socially-housed their dogs, minipigs or NHPs respectively. The potential for contamination with test article between animals housed together is considered by some facilities as justification for individual housing during recordings, however, survey data did not support this rationale. Nine organisations provided data on prevalence of vomiting during telemetry studies, showing the risk was moderate for dogs and very low for minipig and NHP. Further, if vomiting did occur, this could be managed effectively with little impact on study outcomes or validity and with careful dose selection, the risk is further diminished. A recent increase in published papers and posters on this topic would suggest many more companies are planning, or have recently implemented, this refinement. The continued willingness of the community to share practical experience and publish validation data may lead to this approach becoming the 'new standard' across the industry in the near future, representing a core component of 'best-practice' recommendations to increase animal welfare whilst maintaining quality data provision for investigational and regulatory purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive identification of on-farm animal-health issues still requires extensive efforts so that in practice such monitoring is applied only sparsely. An appealing approach to improve on-farm animal health and welfare monitoring is the application of organ lesion scoring data from the abattoir as such is instantly available for every commercial farm in Europe. Unfortunately, it is also well-known that organ lesion scoring is often unreliable because results are altered by several non-health-related factors, diluting the validity of lesion scoring prevalence as a proxy for on-farm animal health. However, it is theoretically possible to improve prevalence reliability a-posteriori by application of time-series smoothing. The aim of this paper was therefore to analyse whether it is practically possible to increase apparent prevalence estimation reliability retrospectively using a running average, and, if so, which window length and smallest sample size should be preferred in such an approach. Because no gold standard for direct evaluation of lesion reliability is available for field-data, apparent prevalence reliability had to be approximated using prevalence agreement over time. Results indicate that by raising the number of lesion scores per prevalence estimate, apparent prevalence agreement over time can in general be considerably increased. Based on findings presented, a reasonable threshold for prevalence estimation is given by at least n = 50 lesions per farm/abattoir/time-series segment. Results further suggest that it is necessary to consider differences in prevalence sample size for future monitoring purposes, because prevalences that are estimated on a continuum of different sample sizes put together in one evaluation may induce substantial error in prevalence estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]