Search

Food chain information (FCI) as stated in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 plays a vital role in supporting decision-making and guiding of risk managers at abattoirs by providing valuable insights into inspection methods and intensity. However, the lack of specific guidelines on data collection within FCI presents a challenge. To address this issue, we conducted an online survey among stakeholders in the European pig industry to assess the current state of FCI implementation and identify areas for improvement. Out of the 93 respondents, over 50% reported they had access to data on ante- and post-mortem findings as well as on treatments with withdrawal periods during the fattening period. Additionally, 49% had access to data on veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) administered to the pigs. Despite the mandatory nature of this data according to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, our findings revealed a lack of legally required information in the transmission of FCI. When evaluating the usefulness of FCI in food safety decision-making, 60% of the respondents found it helpful, while 40% expressed varying levels of dissatisfaction with the currently available FCI. These results highlight the current challenges in the implementation of FCI for pigs in Europe. Furthermore, our study identified a significant correlation between the assessment of FCI usefulness and access to animal health data and additional information on abnormalities. We also identified research gaps in establishing critical thresholds for mortality rate and determining the relevant period for VMP documentation. To enhance the FCI system and improve animal health and food safety, management, comprehensive legislation and technical implementations for data exchange are crucial. Close collaboration among stakeholders, stakeholder training, development of abattoir-specific strategies and integration of harmonised epidemiological indicators into FCI are recommended. In conclusion, clear specifications regarding the necessary data for FCI are vital as FCI plays an integral role in the risk-based meat safety assurance system. Implementing these recommendations will enhance the effectiveness of FCI, improve decision-making processes and strengthen the overall food safety management. • FCI is crucial for the decision-making of risk managers at abattoirs • The lack of specific guidelines on data collection/FCI content poses a challenge • There is a serious lack in transmission of legally required and informative FCI • Access to animal health data significantly correlates with the usefulness of FCI • Effective FCI needs comprehensive, meaningful data and proper, targeted training [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) introduced harmonised epidemiological indicators (HEIs) for pigs to be utilised as part of the risk-based meat inspection within the meat safety assurance framework. However, the application of HEIs is not regulated by law. HEIs enable risk categorisation of farms regarding the main foodborne biological hazards associated with pigs and pork in Europe: Salmonella , Yersinia enterocolitica , Toxoplasma gondii , Trichinella and Cysticercus cellulosae. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the current implementation of HEIs for pigs in Europe and was targeted at official veterinarians and food business operators experienced or involved in the official monitoring and surveillance at abattoirs. The study examined which of the HEIs for pigs were applied by asking for i) the corresponding private and/or official monitoring and surveillance systems (MoSSs) in place, ii) the stages at which the testing was conducted, iii) the diagnostic methods and iv) the sample materials used. In general, 88% of the respondents stated monitoring for Salmonella , 10% for Yersinia enterocolitica , 2% for Toxoplasma gondii , 90% for Trichinella and 31% for Cysticercus cellulosae was in place. In most cases, MoSSs for Salmonella , Trichinella and Cysticercus cellulosae were in place at abattoir level. Monitoring for these pathogens at abattoir level is already regulated by EU legislation. When corresponding HEIs for a regulated pathogen existed, they largely overlapped with the testing regime of the MoSSs. HEIs for the same pathogens that focus on a different stage of the food chain were mostly declared by respondents to not have been implemented; the same situation was found with HEIs for the other pig-associated hazards, Yersinia enterocolitica and Toxoplasma gondii. The results also revealed some alarming inconsistencies in the mandatory monitoring prescribed by EU regulations. Some respondents demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding diagnostic procedures, failing to correctly match diagnostic methods with the appropriate sample materials or vice versa. While HEIs provide valuable data, especially in terms of a novel risk-based meat safety assurance system, this survey showed that they are currently underutilised for pigs in Europe. • HEIs are useful as part of the risk-based meat safety assurance system. • HEIs enable risk categorisation of pig farms and abattoirs. • HEIs for pigs that are equivalent to testing regulated by law were mostly implemented. • Additional HEIs for pigs are underutilised and not implemented properly in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]