Uppsala, 30 September 2014

Klaus Kostenzer, Unit G4

DG SANCO workshop on the control of Campylobacter

General conclusions

• Campylobacteriosis is causing a high burden of human disease in the EU, both in terms of numbers of human cases and in DALY’s. In addition considerable underreporting is suggested from studies done by ECDC and EFSA.

• The consumption of poultry meat is directly linked to 20-30 % of the human cases and indirectly to 50-80 % to the poultry reservoir.

• All control measures (except the early-slaughter of birds) calculated in the cost-benefit analysis, turn out positive, which means that the necessary investments are weighted out by the gained public health costs.

• The commitment of all stakeholders along the food chain of poultry meat is required to ensure an integrated control approach.

• Biosecurity at farm level is key, however will not lead to success as a stand-alone measure.

• Improved monitoring of the hygiene in the slaughter process by implementing a process hygiene criterion on Campylobacter is among the most cost-beneficial control options, is already available and has rather low impact on the industry and consumers.

• Additional measures such as washing of carcases with water or decontamination can be seen as supplements depending on specific situations e.g. outdoor birds or highly contaminated batches.

• Harmonising performance targets is better than harmonising measures on the EU level.

• EU market to benefit in principal from harmonised measures and the level of the protection for the consumers should be equal in all MSs

• Awareness raising e.g. by campaigns on the avoidable risks of foodborne pathogens and on good cooking practises could empower the partial responsibility of the consumer.

• Dedicated enforcement actions by competent authorities are needed for strengthening the implementation of current and future hygiene provisions.

• More research is needed on the epidemiology of Campylobacter both on farm and in the infectious pathways to the consumer. Also further studies on the seroprevalence and the source attribution of Campylobacter can be recommended.

• Interesting new control options such as crust chilling or fly nets are on the horizon, however not yet fully assessed and/or available

• Other sources of campylobacteriosis such as cattle or the environment could be relevant under specific circumstances, however on the EU-level a focus should be given to foodborne campylobacteriosis deriving from poultry meat.

•

Questionnaire to stakeholders

• Automated tool: EU-SURVEY

• Personified access links for:

• Contacts of WG Microbiological Criteria 1 answer per Member State

26 replies

• Stakeholders registered for the workshop

1 answer per registered organization

17 replies

Participation

• 26 answers from countries:

• Member States: all but MT, RO, LI + Norway

• 17 answers from stakeholders:

• national: poultry industry (9), retailers (5)

• EU-level : CAMPYBRO FPVII project, a.v.e.c., FVE

Question 1

Do you recognise campylobacteriosis as a major public health problem in your country?

Member States:

Answers Ratio

Yes 21 81 %

No 5 19 %

Question 1

Do you recognise campylobacteriosis as a major public health problem in your country?

Stakeholders:

Answers Ratio

Yes 14 82 %

No 3 18 %

Question 2

Did you already envisage to implement certain control options (multiple answers possible)?

Member States

Answers Ratio

Enhanced biosecurity at farm level 13 50 %

Sampling of flocks at farm level 3 12 %

Testing of live animals prior to slaughter 4 15 %

Logistic slaughter 4 15 %

Improvement of slaughter hygiene 14 54 %

A process hygiene criterium at national level 3 12 %

Decontamination of poultry carcases 1 4 %

A process hygiene criterium at industry level 3 12 %

A food safety criterium at national level 1 4 %

Specific consumer advice on handling of raw poultry meat

16 62 %

No specific control option envisaged yet 9 35 %

Question 2

Did you already envisage to implement certain control options (multiple answers possible)?

Stakeholders Answers Ratio

Enhanced biosecurity at farm level 12 71 %

Sampling of flocks at farm level 6 35 %

Testing of live animals prior to slaughter 5 29 %

Logistic slaughter 3 18 %

Improvement of slaughter hygiene 12 71 %

A process hygiene criterium at national level 5 29 %

Decontamination of poultry carcases 4 24 %

A process hygiene criterium at industry level 8 47 %

A food safety criterium at national level 1 6 %

Specific consumer advice on handling of raw poultry meat

11 65 %

No specific control option envisaged yet 6 35 %

Question 3

Would you support an EU-wide harmonised process hygiene criterion for Campylobacter?

Member States

Answers Ratio

Yes 20 77 %

No 6 23 %

Question 3

Would you support an EU-wide harmonised process hygiene criterion for Campylobacter?

Stakeholders

Answers Ratio

Yes 15 88 %

No 2 12 %

Question 4

Would you support an EU-wide harmonised food safety criterion for Campylobacter?

Member States

Answers Ratio

Yes 8 31 %

No 18 69 %

Question 4

Would you support an EU-wide harmonised food safety criterion for Campylobacter?

Stakeholders

Answers Ratio

Yes 2 12 %

No 15 88 %

Question 5

Would you continue/proceed with national measures even if the Union did not propose/agree on a harmonised approach?

Member States

Answers Ratio

Yes 14 54 %

No 12 46 %

Question 5

Would you continue/proceed with national measures even if the Union did not propose/agree on a harmonised approach?

Stakeholders

Answers Ratio

Yes 11 65 %

No 6 35 %

Question 6

Thresholds for a process hygiene criterion to provide most appropriate protection for public health in view of the contamination of carcases with Campylobacter in your country?

Member States Answers Ratio

<500 cfu/g neckskin 5 19 %

<1.000 cfu/g neckskin 10 38 %

<5.000 cfu/g neckskin 4 15 %

<10.000 cfu/g neckskin 7 27 %

Question 6

Thresholds for a process hygiene criterium to provide most appropriate protection for public health in view of the contamination of carcases with Campylobacter in your country?

Stakeholders Answers Ratio

<500 cfu/g neckskin 1 6 %

<1.000 cfu/g neckskin 7 41 %

<5.000 cfu/g neckskin 2 12 %

<10.000 cfu/g neckskin 7 41 %

Question 7

Would you consider implementation of other variants than mentioned in question 6?

Member States

Answers Ratio

Process hygiene criterion on E. coli/Enterobacteriaceae

11 42 %

Other sampling matrices 5 19 %

Other 10 38 %

Question 7

Would you consider implementation of other variants than mentioned in question 6?

Stakeholders

Answers Ratio

Process hygiene criterion on E. coli/Enterobacteriaceae

4 24 %

Other sampling matrices 3 18 %

Other 10 59 %

Question 8

Did you already calculate the cost-benefit for your country along the tool elaborated by the European Commission? Link

Only AT and NL did.

Both results had a positive outcome for an envisaged option.

Question 9

Do you think that chemical decontamination could in principal be of additional benefit for the control of Campylobacter in the poultry meat food chain?

Member States Answers Ratio

Yes 13 50 %

No 13 50 %

Question 9

Do you think that chemical decontamination could in principal be of additional benefit for the control of Campylobacter in the poultry meat food chain?

Stakeholders Answers Ratio

Yes 7 41 %

No 10 59 %