Modernisation of meat inspection – the UK experience

Parma (Italy), 11 May 2012

1

Javier Dominguez

Deputy Veterinary Director and Head of Strategy Hygiene & Microbiology Division

Today…

• The Food Standards Agency – role & context

• Programme for the modernisation of meat

inspection

– Background (UK & EU)

– Research programme (current and future)

– Campylobacter risk management programme

– Challenges

Francisco Javier Dominguez Orive (UK FSA) 3

Food Standards Agency

Independent Government Department

• To protect consumers in all aspects related to food

Vision:

• Safe food [and healthy eating] for all

Values:

• putting the consumer first

• openness and independence

• science and evidence-based

History Set up in April 2000 as a government department run by an independent board acting in the public interest.

Responsibilities Food safety, choice, [diet and nutrition]; risk assessment, management and communication

Purpose To protect consumers by improving the safety of food and by giving honest, clear information. [To make it easier for everyone to chose a healthier diet].

Food Standards Agency: who are we? …

Figures Budget: £155m/ Staff: 2,100 (1,150 meat inspectors)

5

Liz Redmond

Veterinary Director

&

Head of Food Safety: Hygiene &

Microbiology Division

Science & Knowledge Unit

Paul Cook

Geraldine Hoad

Strategy Unit

& Deputy Veterinary Director

Javier Dominguez

Policy Unit

David Hart

Admin: £3m - Research: £7m - Staff: 65

Javier Dominguez

Head

Kate Todd

(G7 – EU Regulatory Reform)

Ouafa Doxon (SEO)

Carles Orri

(HEO)

Linda Schidlof (EO)

Bob Martin (G7 – Foodborne

Disease Strategy)

Vacancy

(SEO)

Kath Callaghan

(SSO)

Anne Booth (HSO)

Nick Laverty

(HEO)

Milorad Radakovic

(G7 – Vet Adviser)

Strategy Unit

7

Meat Controls

8

In September 2009…

• FSA Board Paper:

– Effective consumer protection is maintained by an official control regime that is:

• risk based,

• proportionate,

• targeted, and

• cost effective

– more responsibility is taken by the FBO for food safety actions;

– a more robust enforcement regime that provides incentives for FBOs that

comply with the rules and punitive actions on non-compliant FBOs who present

the greatest public health risk; and

– official role shifts from inspection to verification

• Also: Tierney Review (July 2007) & Farming Regulation

taskforce (May 2011)

9

During the last years…

• Lyon Conference (July 2008)

• EU Commission Round Tables [May 2010,

October 2010 & December 2011 (pigs) –

next one by the end of 2012? (poultry?)]

10

11 http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/reviewofmeatcontrols/

Published

6 Sep 2011 Engaging with… •EU Commission

•EFSA

•Other MSs

•3rd countries

Veterinary Research

Critical review

FCI

Outcomes of

inspections

Data

collection

Veterinary Research

Risk assessments

Visual

inspection

Ante mortem

inspection

Supervision of

PIAs

Veterinary Research

Practical application

Application of the

EFSA opinion

Visual inspection

outdoor pigs

Alternative model

for poultry official

controls

Pilot Visual Inspection Outdoor Pigs

15

Evisceration

Vis

ual o

nly

Carc

ase

sw

ab

Tra

dit

ion

al in

sp

ecti

on

Carc

ase

sw

ab

Social science research

Citizens’ forum

(consumers)

Slaughterhouse social

science study

17

~1,000,000 cases each year

20,000 hospitalisations

500 deaths

Cost £1.5bn each year

Food-borne disease

United Kingdom [2009]

Summary: Key Pathogens 2009 – E & W

• Campylobacter is clearly the highest priority pathogen in terms of public health impacts

• Salmonellas and Listeria monocytogenes are also significant

• Contribution of VTEC O157 to deaths and costs are low by comparison

• Food related Norovirus cases are estimated to have almost quadrupled between 2003 and 2009 however, there are large uncertainties around the role of food, which make this trend far from certain – new IID study will provide a clearer picture.

Pathogens Total Cost Death Hospitalisations Cases Key Sources of risk from the

UK food chain % Rank % Rank % Rank % Rank

Campylobacter

spp 46% 1 23% 2 85% 1 49% 1

Poultry meat & environmental

contamination by farm animals

Salmonellas non-

typhoidal 12% 3 18% 3 4% 2 3% 5

Varied - but eggs important

sources

VTEC O157 5% 5 6% 5 2% 4 0% 9 Beef, lamb & environmental

contamination by farm animals

Listeria

monocytogenes 16% 2 38% 1 2% 5 0% 10

Ready to eat foods by high risk

consumers

Norovirus 12% 4 9% 4 1% 8 30% 2 Molluscs, food handlers

Total

(Based on

2009 HPA

Data)

£1,502m

388

20,570

759,225

Note: Estimates of ‘unknown agents’ and C. perfringens have been excluded from the rankings and total figures due to significant changes in reporting rates impacting the current estimation

methodology

Campylobacter in Chicken at Retail Sale

• Survey in 2007-08

– 65% of chickens contaminated with

Campylobacter

7 October

2009

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/1503.htm

Campylobacter

Campylobacter Risk Management Programme:

• Identify practical and effective interventions

• Develop agreed target with industry

• Establish strategic research strategy

• Reinforce messages to consumers and caterers

on cooking and cross-contamination

Primary Production/ On-farm

Harvest/ catching/ collection

Transit to slaughter-

house/ primary

processing

Slaughterhouse

Transit to processingproduction

(may be integrated)

Processing Production

(produces saleable product)

Product Transit

(direct to point of

sale/use or via

distribution network)

Retail to consumers

Or

Prep and serve in catering

Possible Interventions along the food chain

Biosecurity

Hygiene barriers

Fly screens

Water treatments

Rapid test

Vaccination

Feed

Crate washers

Drying crates

Silver ion

Module sanitation

Lactic acid

Ozonated water

Electrolysed water

spray washers

Surface chilling

Leak proof packaging

MAPs

Instructions for consumers

Consumer attitudes to

decontaminants

Campylobacter Reduction Target

Bands & Modelling

Campylobacter enumeration

<100 cfu/g 100-1,000 cfu/g >1,000 cfu/g

Baseline 42% 31% 27%

Model estimates

(2013)

Expected

improvement

(58%)

Expected

improvement

(23%)

19%

Review target 2013, reset 2015 target as appropriate

Model estimates

(2015)

Expected

improvement

(68%)

Expected

improvement

(22%)

10% Target 2015

Challenges

• Lack of data

• Suspicion of ‘true’ reasons – cost cutting?

• ‘resistance’ to change

• Poor understanding – including meat industry

• Consumers’ concerns

• Difficulties of commissioning research

• Public health vs animal health vs animal

welfare

Summary

26

Meat controls

• We require data (research)

• Key:

– First: what needs to be done?

– Then: by whom?

• Moving to a more risk based system

(livestock and slaughterhouses)

• Integrated model

• Compromises – risk communication

• Step by step: revolution • International trade

• Key role of the Officials (OVs & MHIs)

27

javier.dominguez@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk