Author:
,Blagojevic Bojan,Guillier Laurent,Lindqvist Roland,Hempen Michaela,Martino Laura,Goudjihounde Sonagnon Martin,Koutsoumanis Konstantinos
Abstract
Abstract
The European Commission asks scientific and technical assistance from EFSA to determine the impact of the revision of the Australian monitoring programme on its ability to detect microbiological contamination. Considering that, in 2010, the European Commission determined the current Australian monitoring programme to be equivalent to the EU requirements for microbiological monitoring further to an EFSA scientific assessment, the current and proposed programmes were described and the total number of alerts was compared using a probabilistic modelling approach. In the current programme, only beef and sheep carcasses are monitored using three‐class moving window sampling plans, while in the proposed programme, carcass, bulk meat, primal and offal are monitored using four two‐class sampling plans and Salmonella testing is excluded. The models revealed that the current programme provides a higher number of alerts for APC, while the proposed monitoring programme provides a higher number of alerts for E. coli. For APC and E. coli combined, the mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the total number of alerts in the current and the proposed monitoring programme are 201 [179, 227] and 172 [149, 194] for beef, and 199 [175, 222] and 2897 [2795, 3008] for sheep, respectively. For Salmonella, there are no alerts for the proposed programme since sampling is excluded while for the current programme, the estimated mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the number of alerts for a 5‐year period were 143 [126, 144] for heifer/steer, 1.6 [0, 4] for cow/bull and 0 [0, 0] for lamb/sheep. Overall, for APC and E. coli, the estimated total number of alerts was similar (beef) or higher (sheep) for the proposed compared to the current programme. In contrast, Salmonella sampling is excluded from the proposed programme and thus cannot detect the number of current alerts.
Reference7 articles.
1. Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments;Burmaster;Risk Analysis,1994
2. DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry), Australia . (2023). Microbiological manual for sampling and testing of export meat and meat products. Version 1.06, Australian Government. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity‐trade/export/controlled‐goods/meat/elmer‐3/microbiological‐manual
3. DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry), Australia . (2024). Microbiological monitoring results for bovine and ovine carcase production in Australia. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12645870
4. Fitdistrplus: An R package for fitting distributions;Delignette‐Muller;Journal of Statistical Software,2015
5. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) . (2010). The assessment of the comparison of the Australian monitoring programme for carcasses to requirements in regulation