dg(sante) 2020-6926 final report of an audit …
TRANSCRIPT
In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.
EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY
Health and food audits and analysis
DG(SANTE) 2020-6926
FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT
CARRIED OUT OF
FRANCE
FROM 23 NOVEMBER 2020 TO 04 DECEMBER 2020
IN ORDER TO
EVALUATE THE FOOD SAFETY CONTROL SYSTEMS IN PLACE GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND PLACING ON THE MARKET OF BOVINE MEAT, INCLUDING
TRACEABILITY
Ref. Ares(2021)7428487 - 02/12/2021
I
Executive Summary
This report describes the outcome of an audit of France from 23 November to 4 December 2020 by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission in order to assess the food safety control system in place governing the production of bovine meat, including traceability. In addition, the audit gathered information on the ante- and post-mortem arrangements in place regarding the poultry sector.
The COVID-19 pandemic precluded on-site verifications and assessment of the performance of official controls. The audit outcome is therefore based on a review of documentation and control records pertinent to the audit scope, and interviews of and discussions with representatives of the competent authority at various levels, via videoconference.
The Directorate-General for Food is the central supervisory authority with responsibility over the animal health, welfare and animal identification. National legislation, procedures and guidelines for official controls are in place. The central bovine database provides detailed information of all bovines and their holdings, and is used to target controls. The official staff perform controls including their follow-up, and take enforcement action where needed.
Regarding ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of bovine animals, the arrangements in place do not ensure the presence of an official veterinarian in the slaughterhouse at all times. As a consequence, and contrary to Regulation (EU) 2019/624 the following tasks may be carried out by the official auxiliary under the responsibility, rather than under the supervision (i.e. present on the slaughterhouse premises) of the official veterinarian: a) the ante-mortem inspection carried out in absence of ante-mortem inspection by an official veterinarian in the holding of provenance, and b) the post-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 1000 livestock units per year.
The slaughter of dangerous domestic ungulates on-farm is allowed and is considered as emergency slaughter. The information provided to the audit team indicates that official veterinarians at the slaughterhouses accept bovine animals that have suffered an accident, including fracture, as being fit for transport if certain criteria established in a specific guidance are fulfilled. This is not in line with EU requirements since it cannot be precluded that the journey does not cause additional suffering to these animals. Furthermore, the competent authorities have not introduced any specific safeguard measures to ensure that private veterinarians act independently and are free from any conflict of interest when performing their official duties.
In relation to the official controls applied in poultry slaughterhouses, and despite efforts made in recruiting new staff, a considerable number of these establishments continue not to operate in line with the EU requirements regarding the presence of official staff. The data available suggest that this concerns 880 poultry slaughterhouses, responsible for 30 % of total national production. The arrangements in place do not ensure that the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 are complied with as the ante-mortem and the post-mortem inspections in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 150,000 poultry per year do not systematically take place under the supervision of the official veterinarian. In addition, in slaughterhouses slaughtering less than 150,000 poultry per year, the ante-mortem inspection is not carried out under the supervision of the official veterinarian and, where the post-mortem inspection takes place under the responsibility of the official veterinarian, the presence of the official auxiliary is not ensured. The latter contravenes the provisions of Article 18(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 which stipulate that slaughterhouse staff may only perform such tasks under the instruction, and in the presence, of the official
II
veterinarian or of the official auxiliary. Furthermore, the post-mortem inspection of poultry with the current staff allocation arrangements is not performed as required on a representative sample of each flock on a daily basis.
The report contains recommendations to the central competent authority to address the shortcomings identified and to further enhance the control system.
III
Table of contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................6
2. Objectives and scope......................................................................................................................6
3. Legal Basis .....................................................................................................................................7
4. Background ....................................................................................................................................7
5. Findings and Conclusions ..............................................................................................................8
5.1. Legislation and implementing measures ................................................................................8
5.2. Competent Authorities .........................................................................................................10
5.2.1. Structure and organisation..............................................................................................10
5.2.2. Impartiality, freedom from conflict of interest...............................................................11
5.2.3. Staffing and equipment ..................................................................................................11
5.2.4. Training ..........................................................................................................................12
5.2.5. Supervision and Audits ..................................................................................................12
5.2.6. Actions in case of non-compliance ................................................................................13
5.3. Approval of establishments..................................................................................................15
5.4. Organisation and implementation of official controls .........................................................16
5.4.1. Official controls on cattle identification and movements of animals.............................16
5.4.2. Official controls at establishment level (slaughterhouses).............................................18
5.4.3. Animal welfare at transport and at the time of slaughter or killing ...............................26
5.5. Follow-up of previous recommendations.............................................................................28
6. Overall Conclusion.......................................................................................................................29
7. Closing Meeting ...........................................................................................................................30
8. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................30
Annex 1 - Legal references
IV
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation ExplanationAMI Ante-mortem inspection
BDNI National Identification Database / Base de Données Nationale d'Identification
CA(s) Competent Authority(ies)CCA Central Competent Authority
CRPM Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code / Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime
CRAQ Regional network of qualified auditors / Chargé de mission Régional d’Animation Qualité
Cull cows Cows at the end of their production life
CVI Veterinary Certificate of Information / Certificat Vétérinaire d'Information)
DDCSPP Departmental Directorates for Social Cohesion and Protection of the Population / Direction Départementale de la Cohésion Sociale et de la Protection des Populations
DDPP Departmental Directorates for the Protection of the Population /Direction Départementale de la Protection des Populations
DG Health and Food Safety
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission
DGAL Directorate-General for Food / Direction Générale de l'Alimentation
DGCCRF Directorate-General for Controls, Competition and the Repression of Fraud / Direction Générale des Contrôles, de la Concurrence et de la Répression des Fraudes
EDE Departmental Livestock Registration Authorities / Etablissement Départemental de l'Elevage
EU European Union
FBO(s) Food Business Operator(s)
FCI Food Chain Information
FTE Full-time equivalents
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
INFOMA Training Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture /INstitut de FOrmation du Ministère de l'Agriculture
LVU livestock units
MO Ministerial Order of 18 December 2009
MAA Ministry of Agriculture and Food / Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
MS Member States
OA(s) Official Auxiliary(ies)
V
Abbreviation ExplanationOV(s) Official Veterinarian(s)
PMI Post-mortem inspection
RESYTAL Directorate-General for Food Information System /Refonte du Système d'Information de la DGAL
SI2A Information system on abattoir inspection /Système d'Information sur l'Inspection à l'Abattoir
SRAL Regional Food Service / Service régional de l’alimentation
VIS Veterinary Inspection Services
6
1. INTRODUCTION
The remote audit took place from 23 November to 4 December 2020. The audit team comprised 3 auditors from the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission (DG Health and Food Safety) and included the participation of representatives of the central competent authority (CCA), the Directorate-General for Food (DGAL). In addition, representatives of local and regional authorities involved in the control systems participated in the relevant sessions of the audit.
An opening meeting was held by videoconference on 23 November 2020. At this meeting, the audit team confirmed the objectives of, and agenda for the audit, and requested some additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit.
NOTE: The COVID-19 pandemic precluded on-site verifications and assessment of the performance of official controls. The audit outcome is therefore based on a review of documentation and control records pertinent to the audit scope, and interviews of/discussions with representatives of the competent authorities (CAs) at various levels, via videoconference.
2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The main objective of the audit was to evaluate the operation of official controls and the enforcement of the applicable European Union (EU) requirements over and along the production chain of bovine meat. In particular, the audit focused on the official controls exerted over culled cows (at the end of their production life).
In terms of scope, the audit covered bovine slaughter, and in particular:
the organisation and competencies of the CAs, including oversight and enforcement, at all relevant levels, in particular the controls over production and traceability of bovine animals at the end of their production life, and certain aspects of animal welfare especially the evaluation of fitness for transport and slaughter;
the CAs' performance in terms of the design and implementation of the official control systems in place covering the production, processing and distribution chains of beef, and products derived therefrom;
This included the gathering of relevant information and verification as appropriate, by means of interviews/discussions, review of documents and records.
In addition, the audit collected information on the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection arrangements in France regarding the poultry sector. Finally, the audit team took the opportunity of this audit to review the progress with one recommendation from a previous audit report (Section 5.5 of this report).
The table below lists the video-conference meetings that were held in order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives:
7
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Central 4 Including opening, technical, clarification and closing meeting.
Regional 2 Present during the meetings about slaughterhouses.
Local 2 With official veterinarians (OVs) performing their duties in one small to medium-sized and one medium-sized slaughterhouse exclusively slaughtering bovine animals.
Central Bovine Database 1 With representatives from the CCA.
3. LEGAL BASIS
The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and, in particular Articles 116, 117 and 119 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Controls Regulation).
A full list of the EU legal instruments relevant to the scope of this audit is provided in Annex 1 to this report. Legal acts quoted refer, where applicable, to the last amended version.
4. BACKGROUND
This audit took place as part of a series of audits in Member States (MS), planned and initiated in 2019 after media allegations of slaughter, in several MS, of unfit cows. Recent Commission audits (1), and those media reports, have pointed to gaps in the official control system that could have an impact on the slaughter of cows.
Against this background, and in the context of the enactment of Regulation (EU) 2017/625, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/624 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/627, DG Health and Food Safety initiated this audit series with the aim to assess the performance of the CAs in this area of official controls. The table below indicates the volume (tonnes) of dairy cows slaughtered in France during 2019 and some additional figures concerning dairy cows and bovine animals relevant to the scope of the audit.
No of dairy cows
No of bovine animals more
than 12 months rendered
Dairy Cows slaughtered
(tonnes)
Injured animals
with CVI* (2)
Injured animals without CVI (2)
Emergency Slaughter at
farm with CVI (2)
Unfit for slaughter (2)
2,467,599 (on 1 Jan.
2020)361,836 279,573 4,384 230 445 789
* CVI = Veterinary Certificate of Information
(1) Audit report refs. DG(SANTE) 2019-6839, DG(SANTE) 2019-6843 and DG(SANTE) 2019-6848.(2) Bovine animals.
8
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1. LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
Legal requirements
Article 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 1(3)(d) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
Findings
1. There are certain national legal texts relevant for the official controls in bovine meat and traceability. This includes national legislation on displaying information of the origin of meat in catering with the Directorate-General for Controls, Competition and the Repression of Fraud (DGCCRF) being responsible to monitor its enforcement. There are certain derogations (flexibility) in place in the form of national legislation adapting the requirements laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 defined in the Ministerial Order of 18 December 2009 (hereafter: MO), on the sanitary rules applicable to food of animal origin and foodstuffs containing food of animal origin.
2. The MO sets out special provisions applicable to slaughterhouses and cutting plants for domestic ungulates (Article 4). These provisions are mentioned in Annex V to MO and those more relevant to the scope of the audit are:
the possibility for departments to grant temporary slaughtering structures approval for slaughter linked to a religious festival and for a period of a few days;
certain authorisations granted by the CA as indicated in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 in relation to the emptying and cleaning of stomachs and intestines, the cleaning and disinfection of animal vehicles in the slaughterhouse and the use of non-drinking water for the cleaning of vehicles, stables and facilities;
the possibility for live animals to leave the slaughterhouse provided that they are not unloaded from the vehicle and they are destined for another slaughterhouse;
animals prohibited in the slaughterhouse i.e. sick domestic ungulates or in a state of physiological misery or any bovine which has suffered an accident more than 48 hours previously;
the decisions taken by the OV when an animal not allowed to be slaughtered arrives at the slaughterhouse, in such a case the OV can request the operator of the slaughterhouse to either euthanize the animal by a lethal injection performed by a private veterinarian or to stun and kill the animal following the foreseen procedure by competent personnel. Each slaughterhouse operator can either invoice the euthanasia to the owner of the animal (either fully or as a flat rate) or to pay himself. The MO also specifies that if the operator of the slaughterhouse finds that an animal is suffering severely outside of slaughter hours and, in the absence of an OV, the
9
operator shall have the animal humanely killed and shall inform the OV as soon as possible;
the registration of condemnations made in the slaughterhouses in a national database; the conditions of exit from the slaughterhouse of carcasses with a core temperature
which has not reached 7°C (linked to Regulation (EC) 853/2004); the provisions relating to the emergency slaughter of injured animals and emergency
slaughter outside the slaughterhouse. The on-farm slaughter of dangerous domestic ungulates (i.e. any domestic ungulate that, by its behaviour, poses a risk to the safety of people approaching or manoeuvring it) and the killing of animals during bullfighting are considered as emergency slaughter because of an accident. The slaughter of dangerous domestic ungulates as emergency is not in line with point 1 of Chapter VI of Section I of Annex III to Regulation (EC) 853/2004.
NB.: It should be noted that the EU legislation (a possible new Chapter VIa of Section I of Annex III to Regulation (EC) 853/2004) concerning slaughter at the holding of provenance of animals, other than emergency slaughter, is currently under review, the outcome of which could impact on the legality or otherwise of elements of this MO.
3. A number of slaughterhouses agree to receive either live injured animals (animals injured less than 48 hours beforehand and fit for transport according the EU rules, delivered to the slaughterhouse with a “Veterinary Certificate of Information” (Certificat Vétérinaire d'Information, CVI), or animals which were injured, and which underwent emergency slaughter on the farm premises also accompanied by a CVI in line with the MO. The OV performing the AMI and/or PMI at the slaughterhouse also needs to sign the CVI document (in the case of on-farm emergency slaughter the AMI is performed by the veterinarian present at the farm), note the outcome and return a copy of the CVI to the veterinarian who issued it.
4. All bovine animals slaughtered for human consumption must be processed in an approved slaughterhouse, even if they have undergone emergency slaughter outside the slaughterhouse or/and destined for the personal consumption of the farmer or his family.
5. Farm slaughter in approved mobile slaughter units is authorised in France. However, since the applications are recent and still under examination, no mobile units have yet been approved. Currently there are about 15 projects ongoing that include either complete mobile slaughterhouses or mobile units (i.e. stunning and bleeding).
Conclusion on legislation and implementing measures
6. France is implementing national legislation for slaughterhouses and emergency slaughter. The on-farm slaughter of dangerous domestic ungulates is not in line with point 1 of Chapter VI of Section I of Annex III to Regulation (EC) 853/2004 as currently in force, which only allows on-farm emergency slaughter for an otherwise healthy animal, which has suffered an accident that prevents its transport to the slaughterhouse for welfare reasons.
10
5.2. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
Legal requirements
Articles 4, 5, 6, 138, 139 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624.
Findings
5.2.1. Structure and organisation
7. The CAs relevant for this audit and the control system organisation are described in the country profile for France which is available at the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=FR
8. All of the controls that fall within the scope of this audit are under DGAL’s remit. This includes identification and registration controls at farms, markets and assembly centres, animal welfare rules at both farm and slaughterhouses and official controls (AMI/PMI) at slaughterhouse level.
9. Regional Directorates for Food, Agriculture and Forestry in metropolitan France, each contain a Regional Food Service (SRAL) that is responsible for implementing the DGAL national programme No 206, on Food Safety and Quality. Similar arrangements are in place in the overseas departments and regions.
10. At departmental level and depending on the population of the department, the services which are implementing the policies for the safety of consumers and constitute the local executive agencies for DGAL actions, are the Departmental Directorates for Social Cohesion and Protection of the Population (DDCSPP) and Departmental Directorates for the Protection of the Population (DDPP).
11. Within DGAL, the Office for Animal Identification and Movement Control defines the rules and instructions for identification and registration.
12. Registration of cattle holdings is managed under national legislation by the Departmental Livestock Registration Authorities (EDE) and is subject to approval by the relevant department.
13. Other tasks delegated to the EDE apart from the registration of holdings/keepers are: the provision of means of animal identification and accompanying documents (i.e. bovine passports) to the various keepers of herds, as well as the entry of data relating to identification and movement data in local databases for onward transmission to the National Identification Database (BDNI).
14. The EDE are also required to inform animal keepers of their obligations and to conduct first-level compliance controls. They must report any non-compliance to the DDPP or DDCSPP. Also, in cases of anomalies identified during the registration of bovine
11
animals in the database, EDE must follow-up on these cases, after being informed by the BDNI manager.
15. The DDCSPP (departmental level) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAA) (national level) oversee the EDE and are responsible for the second level of official control of holdings (see paragraph 52).
5.2.2. Impartiality, freedom from conflict of interest
16. The basic requirements for impartiality for civil servants also apply to private veterinarians under contract. A number of private veterinarians are also involved in official control activities such as AMI and PMI and emergency slaughter related activities. Based on the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code (CRPM), all registered veterinarians in France can perform AMI of on farm emergency slaughtered bovines, which is considered as an official task.
17. When a new staff member takes up his post, the potential risks of loss of impartiality are identified during the initial interview conducted by his/her line manager. Subsequently, in particular when planning the staff member’s activities and during the annual interview, the elements that could have an impact on his/her impartiality are identified and traced. The staff members have to sign a charter of ethics and deontology.
18. The CCA informed the audit team that a private veterinarian, under contract, who would not respect the regulatory requirements during his activity as an OV at the slaughterhouse, exposes her/himself to the withdrawal of her/his mandate, which would also lead to the prohibition to carry out private practice activity.
19. The CVI can be signed by the private veterinarian who also provides services to the farm. There are no safeguard measures in place to ensure that the same private veterinarian attesting the suitability of an injured bovine animal to be transferred to the slaughterhouse or for on-farm slaughter, is excluded from performing the AMI/PMI of the same animal as a private veterinarian under contract.
20. The veterinarian’s fees and travel expenses for the initial examination of the animal outside a slaughterhouse and for the completion of the part of the CVI relating to the private veterinarian are borne by the applicant for the visit and are paid directly to veterinarian.
5.2.3. Staffing and equipment
21. For implementing the DGAL national programme No 206, 4,687 full-time equivalents (FTEs) were assigned to this work for the year 2019. Seventeen percent of the total FTEs were allocated at the regional level while the remaining 83% at departmental level (60% at DDPP and 40% at DDCSPP). For 2020 the budget for the programme No 206 was EUR 253 million and 4,792 FTEs were allocated to the regions and departments.
12
22. For the FTEs allocated in 2019, 34% concerned official controls at slaughterhouse level (slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates, poultry and lagomorphs). Regarding the 252 slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates, 1,209 FTEs were assigned to this work in 2019 (192 FTEs concerning OVs and 1010 FTEs concerning official auxiliaries (OAs)).
23. The number of officials needed to carry out official controls in the slaughterhouses is calculated on the basis of the annual tonnage of the slaughterhouse and other business criteria (species slaughtered, working hours, etc.). Efforts are made to allocate at least one OV per slaughterhouse, in this way covering slaughterhouses of high-and low-capacity (see points 94 and 130).
24. Management of access to the BDNI is carried out by DGAL. Requests for access are sent to the National Administrator of the BDNI who registers the applicant (either official staff or food business operators (FBOs)) in the business directory of the MAA and gives access rights (depending on the applicant’s profile).
5.2.4. Training
25. Relevant training is provided both to OVs and OAs when taking up their duties.
26. OAs working in slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates and poultry are recruited with a minimum baccalaureate level followed by a 4 months training course by the Training Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture (INFOMA) and a mentored traineeship in a slaughterhouse (for a period of 8 months). There is also an evaluation of skill requirements acquired and highlighting training needs in the framework of the national skills management plan.
27. In terms of continuous training for both OVs and OAs an annual assessment of the training needs of each member of staff is carried out during the professional interview. Based on the identified needs there is an annual request at regional and national level in order to fill any training gaps and to schedule training courses.
28. There are 2 training bodies that provide most of the initial and continuous training for official staff members working in slaughterhouses, the INFOMA and the national school of veterinary services.
29. The personnel of poultry slaughterhouses performing inspection tasks is trained by an organisation listed on the list of authorised bodies and on the basis of a validated training programme.
30. A course has been introduced for private veterinarians in order to train them on the requirements and the procedures that they need to follow in the case of emergency slaughter at the farm or regarding the transport of an animal to the slaughterhouse that has suffered an accident and the documents that should accompany it.
13
5.2.5. Supervision and Audits
31. Certain mechanisms are in place providing a reasonable level of assurance that controls are carried out uniformly, correctly and consistently and that corrective actions are taken when needed. This includes both supervision/mentoring of OVs and OAs as well as internal auditing.
32. For slaughterhouses, the CA also avails of the internal audit procedure implemented by one of the DGAL offices and underpinned by a regional network of qualified auditors (CRAQ). Each year, the CRAQ performs slaughterhouse internal audits according to an established schedule and with the aim of auditing all official staff working at slaughterhouses over a five-year cycle (currently the cycle has been extended to 6 years due to disturbance caused by the COVID-19 pandemic).
33. These audits of the official veterinary inspection services (VIS) at slaughterhouses are carried out on the basis of a specific practical methodology sheet and by auditors from national or regional level. Non-compliances identified during audits are followed-up by corrective action plans either at departmental or national level. An annual summary of the audit findings regarding the performance of official staff at slaughterhouses, which also includes identified good practices, is disseminated each year.
34. To ensure harmonised official controls, a network of 6 national coordinators/advisers for slaughterhouses, attached to DGAL, was created in 2007. These experts assist the DDPP or DDCSPP and DGAL as well as auditing establishments and provide technical support and training to inspectors.
35. As part of the everyday work carried out in the slaughterhouses, the OVs supervise the OAs while carrying out their official duties. There are also the possibilities of co-inspection between OV and coordinator/adviser for slaughterhouses, and of joint inspections of OA and OV.
5.2.6. Actions in case of non-compliance
36. The policy regarding the measures to be taken in cases of non-compliance is described in a technical instruction and prescribes that when non-compliances are found the operator must be notified with an administrative letter. This administrative action has to be proportionate and equitable ranging from a simple warning letter to a letter of formal notice or the suspension of activity. Criminal proceedings may also be initiated in the event of an offence or crime (resulting in a fine or prison sentence).
37. A follow-up check is carried out with a view to confirm that the non-compliance is corrected. Repeated non-compliances found can have an aggravating effect in determining the follow-up/enforcement policy. Non-compliances are classified as minor, medium and major. For medium and major non-compliances, the FBO needs to prepare and submit an action plan to the relevant CA.
14
38. The inspection reports are registered in DGAL’s Information System (RESYTAL), thereby allowing for follow-up and use of the data by the DGAL.
39. In the event of suspicion of fraud, the case may also be referred to the National Brigade for Veterinary and Plant Health Investigations and the DGCCRF. A guidance developed for the VIS provides details of what official staff can do in case they suspect fraud.
40. The audit team was presented with cases of enforcement measures taken in relation to the transport of unfit animals to slaughterhouses (warning letters, preparing files for the public prosecutor). In these cases, and depending on who was considered accountable, warnings were addressed to either the farmer, transporter or slaughterhouse operator. When issues were identified concerning the accompanying CVI documents then a letter was also sent to the veterinarian signing it.
41. The audit team was also presented with a case in which the OV at one of the slaughterhouses condemned a bovine carcase due to identification issues, as well as a case of a falsified food chain information (FCI) document accompanying a bovine animal, and for which fines were imposed. The audit team also saw an example of communication between the OV at the slaughterhouse with the departmental level to seek advice on how to proceed with an investigation.
42. The maximum fine that can be imposed for bringing an animal unfit for transport to the slaughterhouse is EUR 750 whereas in the case of poor handling of animals the maximum fine is EUR 15,000 and a 1-year prison sentence. An act of cruelty is punishable by a maximum fine of EUR 30 000 and a 2-year prison sentence.
Conclusions on competent authorities
43. Cooperation and communication arrangements are satisfactory and contribute to the effectiveness of the controls since they allow the proper follow-up on any identified non-compliances. The established supervision and internal audits are also assets.
44. Generally, enforcement measures are imposed (including warnings and administrative fines) and information is duly communicated between the different departmental levels. The different departments and other competent bodies can exchange information in the case of investigations.
45. There are procedures in place ensuring that private veterinarians when carrying out official tasks under contract are impartial and free of conflict of interest. Nonetheless, there are no safeguard mechanisms or measures in place to mitigate such risks when a CVI is issued. As a consequence, it is possible that the same private veterinarian can attest the fitness of transport or on-farm slaughter of a bovine animal under his/her care and subsequently carry out the AMI/PMI of the same animal when assigned to perform official control tasks.
15
5.3. APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHMENTS
Legal requirements
Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
Articles 10(2), 138(2)(j) and 148 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
Findings
46. CAs have procedures detailing the steps to follow in order to grant conditional and full approvals. The departments are the authorities empowered to grant and withdraw approvals.
47. Slaughterhouses for bovine animals are all subject to approval within the meaning of Regulations (EC) Nos 852/2004 and 853/2004 and Article 148 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. A Ministerial Order specifies that approval must be granted before the activity may be exercised, and defines the conditions for application, content and examination of the file.
48. For slaughterhouses, the Order defines which documentation and/or data must be submitted with the application (i.e. maximum number of animals per hour for each slaughter line) and the standard operational arrangements that need to be fulfilled with regard to animal welfare.
49. The CRPM sets out the conditions for suspension and withdrawal of the approval. This Code also sets out penal measures. The DDCSPP in case of significant changes to the premises, layout, equipment or volume of activity of the establishment can decide whether there is a need for updating the approval file.
50. All approved establishments are entered in RESYTAL and available on the MAA website. Listing is in line with technical specifications in relation to the master list and the lists of EU approved food establishments and certain other specified food establishments.
Conclusion on approval of establishments
51. The system in place for granting approval to establishments is in line with the EU requirements. The system provides adequate assurances that the establishments carry out the approved activities and fulfilling the relevant requirements and that the approvals are kept under review.
16
5.4. ORGANISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS
5.4.1. Official controls on cattle identification and movements of animals
Legal requirements
Articles 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9a of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Findings
On farm/dealer control
52. Official controls on cattle identification on farms are carried out in the context of cross-compliance checks. The DDCSPP and the regional directorates of the Services and Payments Agencies act as control bodies for the implementation of these inspections and follow-up in case of anomalies, including taking measures such as administrative sanctions, restriction of movements, etc. As a second step, the DDCSPP may request the EDE to implement follow-up actions for the monitoring of farms with irregularities.
53. Each year a minimum of 3% of holdings is controlled at departmental level, in accordance with the rules on the identification of bovine animals. The selection is done both randomly and on a risk-basis with the use of data available from the BDNI. Each department decides on criteria to use and also takes into account findings from the previous year. For that purpose, another web-based tool, which is interlinked with the BNDI, is used to target their controls. Certain data are obtained from BDNI in order to select and conduct on-site checks such as inventory of cattle present, notification deadlines (entries, exits, and births), ordered ear tags and requests for re-issuance of bovine passports.
54. During an on-site visit, inspectors check the identification and registration of the animals present at the farm by comparing the details of the animals present with the list of animals provided by BDNI; information such as the number of free ear tags or the number of bovine passports issued is also obtained. The inspectors also check if the farmer/keeper has fulfilled the relevant administrative obligations (reporting of movements) by selecting and examining a representative sample of past movements.
55. For assembly centres/markets, controls are carried out based on a predefined inspection frequency with a view to maintaining authorisations under national law; a vademecum and an inspection checklist have been drafted for these off-farm identification inspections, which are registered in RESYTAL. The DDCSPP is the competent inspection body, which also in this case avails of the data available in the BDNI to assist them in their controls.
56. For transport, an identification check is carried out during inspections of animal welfare. A vademecum is also available for this type of inspection. In the cases of non-
17
compliances linked to identification, the inspectors complete an off-farm identification inspection checklist. The DDCSPP is the competent inspection body.
BDNI
57. All information of bovine animals is registered in the BDNI. BDNI is an integral part of the food information system itself, and is a part of MAA’s information system.
58. A specific Decree on the identification of bovine animals lays down the responsibilities for the management of data relating to the identification of bovine animals by category of actors, which in the case of bovine animals are the farmers, dealers, operators of assembly centres and markets, slaughterhouses’ and rendering facilities’ operators.
59. All farmers’ notifications are sent to the local EDE either by mail, via a computer portal or by using a dedicated software. This data is then stored in a local (departmental or regional) database after a syntax check and an initial control of consistency with known information in the local database. Then the information is transferred daily to the BDNI where the registration will take place after a consistency check at national level.
60. Similarly, notifications from slaughterhouses about the slaughter of bovine animals and from commercial operators such as markets and assembly centres are done by computer files, which are transferred to the BDNI by specific focal points (i.e. dedicated bodies that are assigned with certain site tasks including notifications). Rendering facilities notify the information system of DGAL regarding bovine animals rendered and this information is also passed to the BDNI.
61. Following the notifications, BDNI carries out consistency checks and for cases where there are no issues identified the registration is completed. In the cases of anomalies (which may vary from type 1-5) a message is sent to the relevant EDE which needs to follow the case and correct the anomaly.
62. In the case of anomalies of type 1 or 2 which are considered as the most serious, the registration is not completed or if completed there is a prohibition in the movement of the animal until the necessary corrections are made. All anomalies with an active/open status are reordered in a specific database until they are addressed and, over the years, the CAs have made considerable efforts to minimise the number of active anomalies.
63. The notification deadline is 7 days, during which both sides need to confirm the movement. Information on the adherence to the existing deadline is also available in the BDNI and can be consulted during on-the-spot checks. A national consolidation is carried out annually and made available on the BDNI web portal.
64. Depending on which criteria they are requested, the management of the BDNI can generate various reports, which can be used by the CAs to target their controls. Each year the BDNI manager sends consolidated figures regarding pending bovine animal movements and the active anomalies to the relevant DDCSPP, which is used in the context of their risk analysis.
18
65. BDNI can perform various validity checks (290 in total) such as irregular intervals between two calvings, animals that were notified as slaughtered in the past or in case an identical notification already exits. BDNI only indicates whether a cow was slaughtered or rendered at the end of its production life and therefore there is no specific information in the BDNI when a cow is slaughtered as an emergency. Such information can be obtained from the information system of abattoir inspection (SI2A).
66. All officials (public servants) at different levels, including those working at slaughterhouses, have access to the BDNI. Private veterinarians that exercise official duties in the slaughterhouses also have access to the relevant databases (SI2A) and web-based tools from where they can obtain information concerning bovine identification and registration of bovine animals. BDNI is accessible at the regional level by the SRALs and locally by the EDE.
5.4.2. Official controls at establishment level (slaughterhouses)
Legal requirements
Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624.
Article 10 to 19, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 43 of Regulation (EU) 2019/627.
Ante-mortem inspection
67. In terms of capacity there are 51 low-capacity slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates and 201 high-capacity ones (slaughtering over 1000 livestock units (LVU) per year). AMI at the holding of provenance is currently not performed, although CCA is considering that possibility for the future in cases of low-capacity and mobile slaughterhouses.
68. All bovine animals must be inspected by the slaughterhouse operator on the following six points before slaughter: state of health and well-being upon arrival at the slaughterhouse, identification, provenance, FCI and cleanliness. The operator records the result of this inspection and sends it to the VIS, which in turn performs the AMI of all the bovine animals including the same points of inspection. On this basis, the animals fit for slaughter are slaughtered while the others are kept pending a decision or additional information.
69. The OV may carry out the AMI of animals prior to slaughter or entrust part of this task to one or more OAs under his/her supervision. The OV is required to perform AMI of animals which were not deemed fit for slaughter by the OA, in other words those presenting an abnormality on at least one of the six points and those set out in paragraph 3 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624. Animals found fit can be released for slaughter by the OA. In the framework of the responsibilities of the slaughterhouse operator for the AMI, the slaughterhouse staff carry out an initial sorting of the animals
19
received, isolating those showing irregularities in terms of identification, health, animal welfare, cleanliness or with regard to FCI.
70. In low-capacity slaughterhouses at least one OA and/or OV must be present during operations. OVs in these slaughterhouses are assigned with other tasks in the vicinity and therefore are not permanently present at the slaughterhouses in which case they should be available on-call during slaughter hours if the OAs needs help. In high-capacity slaughterhouses besides the OAs at least one OV needs to be present during slaughtering operations.
71. Depending on the local organisation, the AMI is performed by the OA or the OV. When carried out by the OA, the animals that have been rejected are then subject to AMI by the OV. The OV from one of the slaughterhouses reviewed explained that he endeavours to perform the AMI of all adult bovine animals by himself; this OV stated that he was present during activities and therefore the OA carried out the AMI under his supervision.
72. In the second slaughterhouse reviewed, also slaughtering over 1000 LVU per year it was explained that it is possible that on certain days, the OV is not permanently present throughout the day. Therefore, it is possible that the OA can carry out the AMI of bovine animals which do not present any abnormalities and those animals to be slaughtered. This is not in line with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 which requires that this task must be carried out under the supervision of the OV (that is, with the OV present in the premises). Animals presenting abnormalities are detained by the OA and undergo a second-level AMI, performed by the OV. This issue regarding the absence of the OV during AMI was identified during the 2019 internal audits, but no recommendations were made to address it.
73. It was also explained by the CAs that in the specific case where an animal is obviously in distress when the OV is not present at the premises, the OA informs the OV as quickly as possible and directly makes an appropriate decision, which may be:
the immediate slaughter of the animals fit for human consumption (for example, an animal which has just been injured either in the lairage or during transport and is obviously in distress), retaining the carcase and offal for inspection by the OV. This practice is not in line is with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624;
the emergency killing of the animals unfit for human consumption (for example, a sick animal in obvious distress).
74. According to DGAL's instructions, there shall be a permanent presence of the OV during slaughter and especially during the AMI of bovine animals. In addition, the DGAL makes a theoretical calculation of the number of staff required to apply this instruction and grants staff or budgets for the recruitment of staff under contract.
75. The audit team was informed that at local level, the local organisation and the priorities defined by the departmental authority may explain why the AMI might be carried out by
20
an OA under the responsibility and not under the supervision of the OV as required by Article 3(1) of Regulation 2019/624.
76. Based on the relevant CA instruction, only bovine animals eligible for human consumption may be transported to the slaughterhouse. It is therefore prohibited to transport to the slaughterhouse:
a sick animal; an animal in a state of physiological misery; a dead animal; an animal that has suffered from an accident that happened more than 48 hours
previously.
77. Bovine animals deemed unfit for slaughter are euthanised at the slaughterhouse and sent for destruction, and this is recorded in the SI2A. The audit team was presented with examples of this practice. The cost of rendering of bovine animals is partly covered by the keeper, while the rest is covered on the basis of a national contribution scheme.
78. The same CA instruction also specifies in which cases bovine animals are considered as unfit for transport. In order to make these assessments, the OV at the slaughterhouse can avail of a detailed guidance document prepared by the CCA and of various animal welfare guides written by different inter-professional organisations involved in this area as well as the information available on their web-page: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/bien-etre-animal-conditions-delevage-et-transport-des-animaux
79. The following are (non-exhaustive) examples of animals considered unfit for transport:
serious open wound; animal suffering from a severe prolapse; animal unable to move by itself without suffering (example: dairy cow with spread
legs); newborn whose navel has not healed; calves less than 10 days old, transported over 100 km; pregnant female ready to give birth (more than 90% gestation)/or having given birth
less than a week before transport.
80. It was evident from the documentation reviewed by the audit team that bovine animals that had suffered an accident (including a non-open fracture) or had a non-serious prolapse were transported to the slaughterhouses accompanied by a CVI document signed by a private veterinarian, provided that they were able to move independently/unassisted. In the CVI the private veterinarian attested their capability of transfer, the fulfilment of the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and indicated which additional measures should be taken in order to ensure that no additional suffering is caused during transport. This practice is permissible under DGAL’s relevant guidance document contrary to point 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) 1/2005 which lays down that animals unable to move independently without pain or to
21
walk unassisted shall not be considered fit for transport. This has already been identified in a previous DG Health and Food Safety audit (ref. DG(SANTE) 2015-7427).
81. Where an animal is presented to the slaughterhouse without being identified in accordance with the relevant provisions, or without being accompanied by the necessary documents the OV may grant a period of 48 hours to its owner or keeper to provide the missing information.
82. At the end of this period, the animal is slaughtered and in the absence of identification essentials to establish the age and origin of the animal, the OV seizes the meat. Prior to the execution of the seizure, the owner or keeper of the animal shall be able to submit his/her observations; they then have a further 48 hours in which to supply the necessary information.
83. In the case of questionable FCI documents authorities can initiate, on a case-by-case basis, an investigation. The audit team was presented with such an example. The CA has procedures to deal with dirty cattle and downer cows at arrival.
84. The audit team examined a number of cases of cows slaughtered and was able to confirm that AMI findings tally with PMI findings and vice versa. The VIS define the arrangements for internal communication/sharing of findings between official staff carrying out the AMI and PMI.
Post-mortem inspection
85. Based on the information provided by the CCA for bovine slaughterhouses, the staff of the VIS is systematically present during slaughter. The OV is present for decisions linked to the PMI and systematically validates this decision by signing the slaughterhouse seizure certificates. If the OV needs to be absent, including in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 1000 LVU per year, carcasses suspected of presenting abnormalities during the PMI are detained by the OA to be inspected at a later stage by the OV (see paragraph 87).
86. One OV in charge of a slaughterhouse slaughtering over 1000 LVU per year stated that it is possible that the OV might not be present at all times during slaughter since he/she might be assigned to other tasks elsewhere, during this period the OV can be reached by phone if needed. This is not in line with the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 that requires that PMI must be carried out under the supervision of the OV in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 1000 LVU.
87. The OV can carry out the PMI of slaughtered animals or entrust part of this task to one or more OAs under his supervision. If it is not the OV who directly performs the PMI, the OA performs the PMI of the animals after slaughter (first level of PMI). The OA sorts the animals depending on whether or not they present abnormalities. Animals presenting abnormalities are retained. The abnormalities might be pathological lesions, abnormalities requiring further investigations or inspection (e.g. identification or FCI issues, known health risks etc.) by the OV either on the same day or early the next day.
22
Due to the lack of continued presence of the OV highlighted in the paragraph above this procedure does not always ensure, in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 1000 LVU, that the PMI is carried out under the supervision of the OV as required by Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624. The issue regarding the absence of the OV during PMI was also identified during the 2019 internal audits.
88. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 (modified thresholds) is currently not applied in France but there is an ongoing evaluation to increase the threshold within the current 5% limit. The derogation on the timing of the PMI in slaughterhouses as provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 was not being applied at the time of the audit.
89. There are no specific instructions for carrying out the PMI, the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 apply. There are, however, specific instructions for certain diseases that emphasise certain control points during PMI (e.g. note on tuberculosis and cysticercosis)
90. Carcasses of certain animals can be officially detained pending the final decision on their fitness for human consumption; they are not health marked and are segregated. Offal also need to be kept available until the final decision is made. Condemned meat is denaturalised to avoid its re-use.
91. The owner is given the right to appeal the decision to condemn part or whole carcasses. Firstly, they can request further explanations from the OV as to the reasons for the confiscation. If they are not satisfied with the explanations received they can file an appeal at the departmental level. In such a case another OV needs to re-examine the case and collect the relevant information from the parties concerned. The outcome of the second opinion is final.
92. The CA does not have procedures in place to provide feedback to the holding of provenance on AMI and PMI results. The slaughterhouses provide such feedback to farmers. In the case of condemnation, a certificate is prepared and signed by the OV and is then given by the operator to the farmer/owner.
Procedures for poultry (ante- and post-mortem)
93. The slaughterhouse staff in the poultry sector is authorised to carry out the AMI/PMI under the responsibility or supervision of the OV provided that they comply with the requirements of the national regulations relating to the participation of operators in controls, namely:
operators’ staff should have undergone training adapted to the tasks of participation in official controls, provided by an authorised and registered training body (training renewed every 5 years);
slaughterhouse should comply with good hygiene practices and procedures implementing risk analysis and control of critical points;
staff involved in the controls should be evaluated regularly by the OV.
23
94. In view of recruitment difficulties and the fact that the number of official staff is not sufficient to ensure that the EU requirements are fully complied with in all slaughterhouses, an Instruction from the CCA regulates the presence of official staff. From 914 poultry slaughterhouses in total, 785 (2% of the total production) are considered low-capacity (less than 300 tonnes which the CA considers is equivalent to 150,000 poultry per year) and 129 as high-capacity (98% of the total production).
95. Similarly to domestic ungulates, there are no provisions in place to carry out AMI for poultry at the holding of provenance, therefore the AMI must be carried out at the slaughterhouse by or under the supervision of the OV, in line with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. The requirement that the OV is present during slaughter activities is implemented only in those poultry slaughterhouses slaughtering more than 15,000 tonnes per year (34 out of 914 slaughterhouses covering 70% of production).
96. In 17 slaughterhouses with an annual throughput between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes the procedures in place require the permanent presence of at least one member of official staff (OV/OA) during slaughter activities with a daily supervisory visit by the OV in case not permanently present. In the remaining 78 slaughterhouses (with a capacity ranging from 300 to 10,000 tonnes per year), at least one member of official staff (OV/OA) is present for certain days each week. These arrangements in place do always ensure that the AMI/PMI is carried out under the supervision of the OV. Article 7(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 requires that PMI can only be performed by an OA under the responsibility of the OV in slaughterhouses slaughtering less than 150,000 poultry per year.
97. In the low-capacity slaughterhouses, the VIS is not present throughout the slaughter activities and only visits the slaughterhouses with a minimum frequency of two visits per year while the slaughterhouse is in operation. Besides the AMI issue highlighted in paragraph 95 the current arrangements are not in line with Article 18(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 which allows slaughterhouse staff to assist in the performance of official control tasks in poultry and lagomorphs slaughterhouses when the task is carried out in the presence of the OV or the OA and following their instructions.
98. The slaughterhouse operator carries out a delivery check of the poultry prior to slaughter, covering the following six points: state of health and well-being upon arrival at the slaughterhouse, identification, provenance, FCI and cleanliness. The operator records the result of these checks, and any deviation from certain pre-defined criteria (alert criteria) are notified to the VIS in line with a procedure established in advance between the two parties. Similarly, slaughterhouse staff carries out the PMI and needs to inform the VIS in case of deviations from alert criteria.
99. “Alert criteria” are information on the batch of animals intended for slaughter or on the batch of meat from these animals that should lead the operator of the slaughterhouse to call upon the expertise of the VIS. These criteria can be identified at the different stages of the process of hygiene control of the production of meat from poultry. These can be qualitative or quantitative (with fixed threshold values). There are two main categories of
24
alert criteria i.e. health alert criteria reflecting the sanitary quality of poultry batches and their products, and welfare alert criteria indicating respect for animal welfare in husbandry, collection and transport.
100. Participation of slaughterhouse staff in official tasks is regulated by a Decree. The VIS may perform the AMI/PMI when notified of a deviation from alert criteria by the operator or during visits/inspections. When VIS are not permanently present in the establishment, in the case of deviations VIS can decide based on their own assessment if there is a need for an on-site control or not.
101. When permanently present at the slaughterhouse or during visits/inspections, the OV or OA carries out a PMI, which includes an inspection of the viscera and body cavities of a representative sample of each flock and an inspection of the poultry declared unfit for consumption by the slaughterhouse staff. The latter is not in line with Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 according to which the OV/OA shall inspect the viscera and body cavities of a representative sample of each flock, on a daily basis. In France, the derogation of Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 has not been applied to date.
102. The size of the sample to be officially inspected depends on the information on each batch and the observations of the VIS. The sample size can therefore differ from one batch to another, hence there is no national procedure in place that specifies what is considered as a representative sample.
103. Slaughterhouse staff that carry out AMI/PMI act independently when performing these tasks and under the instructions of the OV. The slaughterhouse staff carrying out official tasks need to follow specific training and their performance is evaluated by official staff while they are carrying out the actual work.
Emergency slaughter at the holding of provenance
104. Emergency slaughter is used to deal with healthy animals that have suffered an accident. The MO also contains a definition as to what is considered to be an animal that has suffered an accident (i.e. any domestic ungulate that exhibit clinical signs abruptly caused by trauma or failure of the body during surgery or obstetric surgery, while in good health prior to the trauma or intervention) which is in line with the provisions of Section I Chapter VI point 1 of Annex III of Regulation (EC) 853/2004.
105. In the case of an on-farm emergency slaughter the animal must be stunned by a person holding a certificate of competence for the particular species and the method of stunning. Individuals with a veterinary degree are also recognised to have such competence; this formal recognition is due to be published. According to the procedures in place, the veterinarian can decide up to 48 hours after the accident if the animal will be slaughtered as emergency.
106. The CVI, duly completed by the farmer or keeper of the animal and by the veterinarian conducting the examination, shall accompany the carcass to the slaughterhouse. The OV of the slaughterhouse shall complete the CVI and return a copy to the veterinarian who
25
carried out the examination. The CVI contains the information prescribed in the Annex V to Regulation (EU) 2019/628.
107. Statistics of emergency slaughter are available through a computerised system from which data on the outcome of the PMI can also be obtained. Both slaughterhouses selected by the audit team carried out emergency slaughter activities and provided data on the outcome of the PMI of those animals. In a number of cases the OV carrying out the PMI rejected parts or whole carcases.
108. The CCA informed the audit team that the commercial value of meat originating from bovine animals emergency-slaughtered on-farm farm is insignificant, since it does not always meet the specifications of the slaughterhouses’ clients. Viscera, blood and hide/skin of animals slaughtered outside of a slaughterhouse are not intended for human consumption.
Other official controls at slaughterhouse level
109. A relevant decree contains the requirements that need to be fulfilled in relation to the FCI. The FCI document must be sent to the slaughterhouse operator no later than the time of arrival of the animal at the slaughterhouse, so that it is available during the AMI carried out by the OV/OA and the controls carried out by the operator.
110. FCI is provided using a simplified template as defined by the instructions of the MAA. This document is valid from when it is first signed until its arrival at the slaughterhouse. Bovine animals arriving without FCI are isolated and reported to the OV who then decides on what action to take in accordance with the DGAL’s existing instructions.
111. Based on the relevant DGAL instruction, ear tags of bovine animals presented to the slaughterhouse are collected, under the responsibility of the slaughterhouse operator, and are destroyed.
112. A bovine animal is considered correctly identified if it has its two approved ear tags with a conforming identification number and if it has a passport in which data is complete and consistent with the characteristics and identification tags of the animal. Bovine animals with one ear tag can be accepted for slaughter, if such an incident is considered by the OV as being incidental.
113. All passports (paper documents) must be kept for a minimum of 3 months by VIS in the location dedicated to them, or any other place under their responsibility, within the slaughterhouse. At the end of this period, the VIS may transfer paper passports for storage for 9 months at DDCSPP level after which time they are destroyed.
114. There is harmonised plan of inspection regarding slaughterhouses which includes the following inspections, and which are performed by using specific inspection grids or special sheets. These are:
26
continuous supervision carried out by the OV or OA during the everyday operations (if non-compliances are identified these are reported on a non-compliance sheet and the FBO is requested to take corrective actions);
detailed random inspections to verify compliance with animal welfare requirements , the minimum frequency is once per year;
full animal welfare inspections which are carried out twice per year by the OV or OA;
full annual inspection carried out by the OV (sometimes in collaboration with the Head of Service at departmental level) and follow up if necessary. The CCA has established a minimum control frequency of once a year for the full annual inspection. The local authorities can perform their own risk analysis and increase the inspection frequency.
115. Based on local risk analysis, one or more additional full or targeted inspections may be carried out during the year. The audit team was presented with examples of past inspections and the checklist used.
116. The CA controls include verification of the specific Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) requirements for slaughterhouses. This is done systematically during the full annual inspection when issues related to the proper maintenance of the HACCP system are identified during the continuous supervision. Due to the remote nature of the audit, the audit team could not examine HACCP records against the actual slaughterhouse operations.
117. The assessment of the operator’s compliance with food safety and process hygiene criteria is described in the relevant DGAL instruction. Furthermore, during official controls, official staff verify that the FBOs take the necessary corrective actions in the cases of deviation from food safety and/or process hygiene criteria.
118. The joint activities between slaughterhouse staff and the VIS is governed by a specific protocol setting out the roles and responsibilities of each party. The framework for the protocol is provided in the CRPM. The protocol defines, amongst others, the arrangements concerning health marking.
119. The carcase of an animal which has been slaughtered in an approved slaughterhouse, recognised as fit for slaughter following AMI and which has undergone a favourable PMI, is then given the health mark. Health marking is applied either by the VIS or by the operator under the responsibility of the OV. In the second instance and depending on the one-site arrangements the operator or staff responsible for stamping carcasses or half-carcasses shall inform the VIS without delay in the event of a problem relating to the health marking of meat. The health mark is applied after the specific risk materials are removed and the (negative) test results for spongiform encephalopathies, where required, become available.
120. The CAs have procedures to verify the traceability of carcases, including a dedicated checklist. A reference number or code ensures the correlation between the identification
27
of the carcass, quarters or other cuts of meat, and the individual animal from which these were derived.
5.4.3. Animal welfare at transport and at the time of slaughter or killing
Legal requirements
Article 18(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009.
Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation (EU) 2019/627.
Findings
121. DDCSPP carry out inspections of animal welfare during transport (see paragraph 56). Records of animals deemed unfit for transport that arrive at the slaughterhouses are available at local level. Animals unfit for transport identified during official controls and which are also considered as unfit for slaughter are euthanised. A special decision-making guide prepared by DGAL is used by the VIS in order to assess and decide on how to handle such animals arriving at the slaughterhouses (see paragraph 78).
122. Injured cows can be sent to the slaughterhouse under certain conditions, accompanied by a CVI (see paragraph 80). The same applies for cows suffering from old injuries or chronic conditions (e.g. lameness) that affect their mobility but which do not (without prejudice to the AMI/PMI findings) affect the fitness of meat for human consumption, and also provided that they can move independently and unassisted. In such cases, the supervising private veterinarian needs to send a declaration accompanying the animal certifying amongst others its fitness for transport. In the case of old injuries, it is good practice, but not obligatory, for the private veterinarian supervising the holding to submit an information document.
123. Injured animals arriving at the slaughterhouse without CVI are also recorded in the SI2A national database. As explained by the CAs these animals may have been injured during transport, which would explain the absence of a CVI. Seeking information from the farmer and the transporter makes it possible to identify the conditions surrounding the accident and to provide guidance on appropriate follow-up. Animals injured on the farm and arriving without a CVI, making it impossible to establish the date of the accident, are euthanised. In other cases, the animals can be slaughtered after a favourable AMI is carried out by the OV, who must also perform the PMI in these cases.
124. Animal welfare at the time of slaughter or killing is covered during the welfare inspection at the slaughterhouse (see paragraph 114).
125. Ritual slaughter is allowed and can be performed by the approved slaughterhouses if certain requirements in relation to hygiene and animal welfare during slaughter are met and if such authorisation has been granted. The OV or OA carries out controls on the compliance with the conditions detailed in the authorisation, on each day that such ritual
28
slaughter takes place. In case of non-compliance enforcement action, which may include sanctions including withdrawal of the authorisation, can be taken.
Conclusions on organisation and implementation of official controls
126. The bovine database is reliable and contains information about the animal identification numbers, the location of animals, as well as other details which support official controls.
127. Controls over farms/assembly centres are carried out as planned and include checks against the BDNI, which are effective. Restrictions are imposed on cattle with incomplete traceability histories until the farmer/keeper provides the necessary clarifications.
128. The VIS perform various controls regarding bovine identification, checks on the FCI and on hygiene requirements during slaughter, including AMI/PMI and record their findings in the CA’s information systems. Regarding the AMI of bovine animals, the implementation of the central level instructions does not ensure the required (supervisory) presence of OV in the slaughterhouses at all times required by EU legislation. Similarly, the PMI of bovine animals is not performed at all times under the OV supervision in slaughterhouses slaughtering more than 1000 LVU per year.
129. There are procedures and guidelines in place for official staff for the relevant controls, which provide guidance on how to act in different scenarios regarding the handling of cull cows (i.e. emergency slaughter, identification of unfit animals for transport and/or slaughter). The controls system identifies relevant non-compliances, which are followed up satisfactorily. Yet, as already identified in a previous DG Health and Food Safety audit, bovine animals that have suffered an accident are transported to the slaughterhouses accompanied by a CVI, without all EU requirements being met.
130. The number of available official staff and the procedures in place for their deployment while on operation do not ensure in 880 poultry slaughterhouses (30 % of total national production) compliance with the requirements of Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 regarding the presence of official staff, of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/627 regarding the practical arrangements of the PMI of poultry and the supervision requirements of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and of Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2019/624.
5.5. FOLLOW-UP OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
No Previous recommendation
Assessment
2015-7427-10 The CA should extend the system for
In progress.
The CCA has decided to proceed with a
29
No Previous recommendation
Assessment
monitoring of broiler welfare so that full records of daily mortality rates accompany the broilers to slaughterhouses, as required by point 1.1 Annex III of Directive 2007/43/EC.
systematic transmission with analysis when the cumulative daily mortality threshold is exceeded.
To that end, a form for transmitting daily mortality rates that is expected to be fully adopted by poultry farmers and their associations, in 2021.
An instruction for the control services in poultry slaughterhouses specifying the actions to be taken in the event of a breach (absence of transmission, high mortalities) is under development.
6. OVERALL CONCLUSION
DGAL is the central supervisory authority with responsibility over the animal health, welfare and animal identification. National legislation, procedures and guidelines for official controls are in place. BDNI provides detailed information of all bovines and their holdings, and is used to target controls. The official staff perform controls including their follow-up and take enforcement action where needed.
Regarding AMI/PMI of bovine animals, the arrangements in place do not ensure the presence of an OV in the slaughterhouse at all times. As a consequence, and contrary to Regulation (EU) 2019/624 the following tasks may be carried out by the OA under the responsibility, rather than under the supervision (i.e. present on the slaughterhouse premises) of the OV: a) the AMI carried out in absence of AMI by an OV in the holding of provenance, and b) the PMI in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 1000 LVU per year.
The slaughter of dangerous domestic ungulates on-farm is allowed and is considered as emergency slaughter. The information provided to the audit team indicates that, official veterinarians at the slaughterhouses accept bovine animals that have suffered an accident, including fracture, as being fit for transport if certain criteria established in a specific guidance are fulfilled. This is not in line with EU requirements since it cannot be precluded that the journey does not cause additional suffering to these animals. Furthermore, the CAs have not introduced any specific safeguard measures to ensure that private veterinarians act independently and are free from any conflict of interest when performing their official duties.
In relation to the official controls applied in poultry slaughterhouses, and despite efforts made in recruiting new staff, a considerable number of these establishments continue not to operate in line with the EU requirements regarding the presence of official staff. The data
30
available suggest that this concerns 880 poultry slaughterhouses, responsible for 30 % of total national production. The arrangements in place do not ensure that the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/624 are complied with as the AMI/PMI in slaughterhouses slaughtering over 150,000 poultry per year do not systematically take place under the supervision of the OV. In addition, in slaughterhouses slaughtering less than 150,000 poultry per year, the AMI is not carried out under the supervision of the OV and, where the PMI takes place under the responsibility of the OV, the presence of the OA is not ensured. The latter contravenes the provisions of Article 18(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 which stipulate that slaughterhouse staff may only perform such tasks under the instruction, and in the presence, of the OV or of the OA. Furthermore, PMI of poultry with the current staff allocation arrangements is not performed as required on a representative sample of each flock on a daily basis.
7. CLOSING MEETING
A closing meeting was held on 4 December 2020 with the CCA. At this meeting, the audit team presented the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit team and advised the CCA of the relevant time limits for the production of the report and their response.
The representatives of CCA acknowledged the findings and conclusions presented by the audit team.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
The central competent authority should provide the Commission services with an action plan, including a timetable for its completion, within 25 working days of receipt of the translated draft report, intended to address the shortcomings identified and, in particular, the following recommendations:
No. Recommendation
1. The competent authority should introduce appropriate safeguard mechanisms to mitigate any risks related to conflict of interest when a private veterinarian is appointed as an official veterinarian, since it is possible that the same private veterinarian can attest for the fitness of transport/emergency slaughter of a bovine animal under his/her private practice and afterwards carry out the ante-mortem or/and post-mortem inspection of that same animal.
Recommendation based on conclusion No 45.
Associated findings Nos 19 and 20.
2. The competent authority should allocate the necessary official staff to ensure that in the case of slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates all relevant official tasks, primarily the ante-mortem inspection and when required the post-mortem inspection (i.e. in slaughterhouses slaughtering more than 1000
31
No. Recommendation
livestock units per year) are carried out by or under the supervision of the official veterinarian in line with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/624.
Recommendation based on conclusion No 128.
Associated findings Nos 72, 73, 75, 85, 86 and 87.
3. The competent authority should take measures to ensure that only fit bovine animals accompanied by a Veterinary Certificate of Information are transported to slaughterhouses, as required by point 1 of Chapter I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005.
Recommendation based on conclusion No 129.
Associated findings Nos 79 and 80.
4. The competent authority should allocate the necessary official staff to ensure, in the case of poultry slaughterhouses, that the requirements of Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and those of the relevant Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/627, are fully implemented; and that also primarily the ante-mortem inspection and when required the post-mortem inspection (i.e. in slaughterhouses slaughtering more than 150,000 poultry per year) are performed by or under the supervision of the official veterinarian in line with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2019/624.
Recommendation based on conclusion No 130.
Associated findings Nos 95, 96, 97 and 101.
The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2020-6926
ANNEX 1 – LEGAL REFERENCES
Legal Reference Official Journal TitleReg. 1760/2000 OJ L 204, 11.8.2000,
p. 1-10 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
Reg. 1825/2000 OJ L 216, 26.8.2000, p. 8-12
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1825/2000 of 25 August 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the labelling of beef and beef products
Reg. 178/2002 OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1-24
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety
Reg. 1082/2003 OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 9-12
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals
Reg. 852/2004 OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 3
Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs
Reg. 853/2004 OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 22
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin
Reg. 911/2004 OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 65-70
Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards eartags, passports and holding registers
Reg. 2073/2005 OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 1-26
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs
Reg. 2074/2005 OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 27-59
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004
Reg. 931/2011 OJ L 242, 20.9.2011, p. 2-3
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 of 19 September 2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin
Reg. 1169/2011 OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18-63
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004
Dir. 98/83/EC OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32-54
Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption
Reg. 1099/2009 OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1-30
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing
Reg. 1/2005 OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1-44
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97
Reg. 2017/625 OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1–142
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation)Text with EEA relevance.
Reg. 2019/624 OJ L 131, 17.5.2019, p. 1–17
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/624 of 8 February 2019 concerning specific rules for the performance of official controls on the production of meat and for production and relaying areas of live bivalve molluscs in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Reg. 2019/627 OJ L 131, 17.5.2019, p. 51–100
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/627 of 15 March 2019 laying down uniform practical arrangements for the performance of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards official controls