Análisis del sector

The new “contemporary approach to meat hygiene requires that hygiene measures

should be applied at those points in the food chain where they will be of greatest value in reducing foodborne risks to consumers”. “Greater emphasis” is placed on prevention and control of unseen microbiological contamination during processing, and a reduced reliance on organoleptic post-mortem meat inspection (Hathaway, 2001).

Traditional meat inspection involves examination of the carcass and organs. It includes a requirement to examine certain lymph nodes by incision, and any other additional inspection as required by regulations. These procedures often work reasonably well with septicaemic, generalised or acute conditions and detecting such animals is not perceived as a major problem. However, detection of individual lesion or abnormalities is often less certain (Edwards et al., 1997). Modern views consider existing meat inspection practices

as resource intensive (Hathaway and McKenzie, 1989) while their cost-effectiveness

(Hathaway et al., 1987), effectiveness in detecting “aesthetic defects”(Hathaway and

Pullen, 1990), or gross abnormalities of public health significance was also questioned (Pointon et al., 2000). Several comparative studies have been carried out to determine the effectiveness of organoleptic and visual16 meat inspection techniques (Mousing et al., 1997a; Pointon et al., 2000; Hathaway and Pullen, 1990; Kobe et al., 2000). Organoleptic assessment of various conditions (e.g. abscesses, bruising, pleurisy and peritonitis, physical defects, other abnormalities) that would be extremely distasteful to consumers

may be of some value (Edwards et al., 1997; Collins, 1995). Implementing visual meat

inspection may have the potential for decreased cross-contamination and reduced inspection costs while resources may be reallocated to hygiene and surveillance programmes (Mousing et al., 1997a). However, an alternative to the traditional system would have to be determined by a formal risk assessment (Hathaway and Pullen, 1990).

The USA is moving towards change from an inspection system that requires extensive carcass palpation to a system with no palpation of lamb carcasses. Palpation is considered to be of little value to preventing hazards that may result in meat borne diseases while adding to the spread of pathogens or cross-contamination of carcass (Walker et al., 2000). In assessing the merits and limitations of the meat inspection and meat control procedures, it has been acknowledged that other regulatory measures provide essential support to the industry and protection of consumers. These measures include health certification of the national herd, approval of premises for slaughter for trade, product protection (e.g. through in plant design and operation, control and disposal of contaminated material), controls during all stages of processing, transport hygiene and secure product identification, and health certification of product. As such they illustrate the extent to which the basic principles of HACCP may have been incorporated (Collins, 1995) into the national legislation of many trading nations for a long time. In such a scenario, processing companies remain fully responsible for the safety of their produce and liable in case of any damage to consumer’s health (Berends and van Knappen, 1999) while the regulators specify certain safety levels and verify compliance.

The Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene new proposed draft “Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat” has been on the agenda for discussion at the Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene meeting at the beginning of 2002. If adopted, the new Code will replace the existing recommended codes for fresh meat, game, ante- mortem and post mortem inspection of animals, and post-mortem judgement of slaughtered animals and meat. In addition, it includes new material on poultry, farmed game birds and wild game birds. It is comprehensive in nature and includes ante- and post-mortem activities as an integral part of processing operations, thereby facilitating the application of a “farm-to-plate” risk based approach to meat hygiene.

Given that meat hygiene is complex by nature, the proposed draft code reflects the modern scientific approach to risk based design and implementation. Verification is focused on outcome-based performance parameters. There is increasing attention to health monitoring and surveillance, and alternative regulatory models for delivery of post- mortem inspection in an effort to reduce the incidence of food borne illness. Figure 1.3

represents a summary17 of how the proposed draft general principles of meat hygiene

envisage the roles of a competent authority and production plant.

PRODUCED FRESH MEAT

(Safe and suitable for consumption)

MANUFACTURING PLANT • Has legal obligation to comply with

MHR,

• Provide information as required by the Competent Authority,

• Apply HACCP principles in the design and implementation of hygiene measures

• Implement Quality Assurance (QA) systems to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of meat hygiene

• Have personnel appropriately trained to carry out a range of meat hygiene measures,

• Have adequate “treaceability” systems in place,

COMPETENT AUTHORITY

• Has legal power to set/enforce meat hygiene requirements (MHR)

• Ensures that MHR are based on scientific evaluation of meat-borne risks to human health,

• Require that MHR should involve the “farm-to-plate” continuum to optimise control of hazards throughout the food chain,

• Require MHR to be based on principles of food safety risk management,

• Formulate food safety objectives and performance parameters

• Ensures MHR are met – take establishment QA system into consideration during on- going verification of regulatory requirements,

• Define competency standards and training requirements for different activities (including the role of veterinary inspector),

• Initiate monitoring and surveillance of animal and human populations for food safety purposes, including review when required,

• Facilitate adoption of new

procedures/technologies based on scientific evaluation,

• Recognise equivalence of alternative hygiene measures and promulgate meat hygiene measuresthat facilitate fair practices in international trade.

Figure 1.3. The new proposed draft Code – Production of fresh meat