Search

Withdrawal periods are used to avoid animals being delivered to slaughter before the concentration of the antimicrobial has declined to values below the maximum residue limit (MRL). This paper characterises the withdrawal periods in force for oxytetracycline 100 mg/ml for intramuscular use in pigs. We investigated the variation in duration of the withdrawal period between 68 oxytetracycline products from 29 countries in- and outside the European Union. More specifically, we tested whether there is a regional difference, a difference between major and minor pig meat exporting countries, whether the product is long-acting or not, and whether year of market authorisation correlated with the withdrawal period. The results showed a large variation in duration of the withdrawal periods, ranging from 5 to 40 days. Variation was observed both between and within countries. Moreover, major exporting countries were associated with a longer withdrawal period than minor exporting countries (P = 0.00099). There were no regional differences, and the year of market authorisation had no impact, but long-acting products had a shorter withdrawal period than short-acting products (P = 0.048). The variation in withdrawal periods observed questions the utility of using compliance with the withdrawal period as a means of assessing whether the meat is safe for consumption. This is particularly relevant when a pig producer unintentionally delivers pigs for slaughter before the withdrawal period has expired and, aware of this, informs the abattoir. The findings call for further harmonisation in determining the withdrawal periods for all veterinary medicinal products (VMP). Until this happens, if animals are prematurely sent to slaughter, we suggest that the concentration of the VMP at the time of slaughter is calculated and compared with the MRL to determine meat safety., Withdrawal periods are used to avoid animals being delivered to slaughter before the concentration of the antimicrobial has declined to values below the maximum residue limit (MRL). This paper characterises the withdrawal periods in force for oxytetracycline 100 mg/ml for intramuscular use in pigs. We investigated the variation in duration of the withdrawal period between 68 oxytetracycline products from 29 countries in- and outside the European Union. More specifically, we tested whether there is a regional difference, a difference between major and minor pig meat exporting countries, whether the product is long-acting or not, and whether year of market authorisation correlated with the withdrawal period. The results showed a large variation in duration of the withdrawal periods, ranging from 5 to 40 days. Variation was observed both between and within countries. Moreover, major exporting countries were associated with a longer withdrawal period than minor exporting countries (P = 0.00099). There were no regional differences, and the year of market authorisation had no impact, but long-acting products had a shorter withdrawal period than short-acting products (P = 0.048). The variation in withdrawal periods observed questions the utility of using compliance with the withdrawal period as a means of assessing whether the meat is safe for consumption. This is particularly relevant when a pig producer unintentionally delivers pigs for slaughter before the withdrawal period has expired and, aware of this, informs the abattoir. The findings call for further harmonisation in determining the withdrawal periods for all veterinary medicinal products (VMP). Until this happens, if animals are prematurely sent to slaughter, we suggest that the concentration of the VMP at the time of slaughter is calculated and compared with the MRL to determine meat safety.

The purposes of meat inspection have been formulated for more than 100 years as (a) protecting health of consumers, (b) maintain the reputation of the meats in home and export markets, and (c) detecting communicable diseases of animals before they have spread beyond easy control. Today, one would add to protect animal welfare, clarify that protecting consumer health includes both chemical and biological hazards, and add food fraud to the issues of reputation. To transform the scientific knowledge into modern meat safety assurance systems (MSAS), the risk managers need to understand the social capital in the meat value chain to align the behaviors of farmers, food business operators and competent authorities with technical knowledge. The meat value chain could be perceived as a commons – a material or immaterial property held jointly by the members of a community, whom may govern access to and use of the property through social structures, traditions, and/or formal rules i.e. social capital. The social capital and food safety culture amongst farmers and food business operators is a key driver for successful meat safety while information asymmetry increases risks for a tragedy of commons scenario. Ostrom's core design principles for stable commons could inform the design of MSASs. Tools for reducing the information asymmetry and building trust and social capital between all stakeholders within the meat value chain include the food safety culture, food chain information, use of health epidemiological indicators, sensors and block chains, industry/private standards, and the applying system approach from farm to fork.

Withdrawal periods after treatment with antimicrobials are set to minimise the frequency and concentration of residues in meat from treated pigs. Still, by mistake, pigs can be sent for slaughter too early. How should the abattoir respond when a pig producer contacts the abattoir to inform them of such a mistake? To address this, two questionnaire surveys were undertaken during spring of 2022, targeting the competent authority (CA) and the food business operator (FBO) from countries in- and outside the European Union. The results covering answers from 78 respondents from 27 countries show that most countries have procedures in place, but also various ways of responding, between CA and FBO, as well as between countries with a large export volume versus countries with a small export volume of pig meat. We developed a best practice model for handling such events, which covers stages before and after the pig is slaughtered and is subjected to official meat inspection and resulting decisions in accordance with relevant legislation. The model involves a quantitative exposure risk assessment, which should be undertaken by the FBO and verified by the CA. The assessment produces estimates of the concentrations of residues at the time of slaughter. If higher than the maximum residue limit, the expected use of the carcasses should be considered. Hereby, the consumer exposure risk can be assessed using the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value, and a risk-based management decision about the safe handling of the meat can be made. This approach would compensate for the huge variation in withdrawal periods for the same substances in force in the European countries.

The traditional meat safety system has significantly contributed to public health protection throughout the last century. However, it has been recognised that this system suffers many flaws – the main being its limited ability to control the currently most important meat-borne hazards. The European Food Safety Authority evaluated meat inspection in the public health context, prioritised meat-borne hazards and proposed a generic framework for a new, risk-based meat safety assurance system. The proposed system aims to combine a range of preventive and control measures, applied at farms and abattoirs and integrated longitudinally, where official meat inspection is incorporated with producers' food safety management systems into a coherent whole. The modernisation process has recently started as a direct result of changes to relevant legislation in the European Union. Many challenges have been experienced while many opportunities are foreseen. More focus on targeted and risk-based inspection along the supply chain as well as use of new technologies may be a cost-effective and feasible way forward. Practical implementation of the system is expected to be a slow and careful process followed by thorough development, fine-tuning, and testing of practical feasibility and general impacts. Further progress that will lead to the full implementation is dependent on intensive research to fill knowledge gaps, enhance education and training and foster close collaboration of all the new system's stakeholders.

The traditional meat safety system has significantly contributed to public health protection throughout the last century. However, it has been recognised that this system suffers many flaws – the main being its limited ability to control the currently most important meat-borne hazards. The European Food Safety Authority evaluated meat inspection in the public health context, prioritised meat-borne hazards and proposed a generic framework for a new, risk-based meat safety assurance system. The proposed system aims to combine a range of preventive and control measures, applied at farms and abattoirs and integrated longitudinally, where official meat inspection is incorporated with producers' food safety management systems into a coherent whole. The modernisation process has recently started as a direct result of changes to relevant legislation in the European Union. Many challenges have been experienced while many opportunities are foreseen. More focus on targeted and risk-based inspection along the supply chain as well as use of new technologies may be a cost-effective and feasible way forward. Practical implementation of the system is expected to be a slow and careful process followed by thorough development, fine-tuning, and testing of practical feasibility and general impacts. Further progress that will lead to the full implementation is dependent on intensive research to fill knowledge gaps, enhance education and training and foster close collaboration of all the new system's stakeholders.