EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (bovine animals).

A risk ranking process identified Salmonella spp. and pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) as current high-priority biological hazards for meat inspection of bovine animals. As these hazards are not detected by traditional meat inspection, a meat safety assurance system for the farm-to-chilled carcass continuum using a risk-based approach was proposed. Key elements of the system are risk-categorisation of slaughter animals for high-priority biological hazards based on improved food chain information, as well as risk-categorisation of slaughterhouses according to their capability to control those hazards. Omission of palpation and incision during post-mortem inspection for animals subjected to routine slaughter may decrease spreading and cross-contamination with the high-priority biological hazards. For chemical hazards, dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls were ranked as being of high potential concern; all other substances were ranked as of medium or lower concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account the completeness and quality of the food chain information supplied and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated to include new hazards. Control programmes across the food chain, national residue control programmes, feed control and monitoring of environmental contaminants should be better integrated. Meat inspection is a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. Omission of palpation and incision would reduce detection effectiveness for bovine tuberculosis and would have a negative impact on the overall surveillance system especially in officially tuberculosis free countries. The detection effectiveness for bovine cysticercosis, already low with the current meat inspection system, would result in a further decrease, if palpation and incision are removed. Extended use of food chain information could compensate for some, but not all, the information on animal health and welfare lost if only visual post-mortem inspection is applied

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems

Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Mercury in dentistry has re-emerged as a contentious issue in public health, predominantly because so many people are inadvertently exposed to mercury in order to obtain the benefits of dental amalgam fillings, and the risks remain difficult to interpret. This commentary aims to examine the issues involved in public policy assessment of the continued use of dental amalgam in dentistry.AJ Spence

Scientific Opinion on African swine fever

The risk for endemicity of ASF in the eastern neighbouring countries of the EU and spread of ASFV to unaffected areas was updated until 31/01/2014. The assessment was based on a literature review and expert knowledge elicitation. The risk that ASF is endemic in Georgia, Armenia and the Russian Federation has increased from moderate to high, particularly due to challenges in outbreak control in the backyard production sector. The risk that ASFV will spread further into unaffected areas from these countries, mainly through movement of contaminated pork, infected pigs or contaminated vehicles, has remained high. In Ukraine and Belarus, the risk for ASF endemicity was considered moderate. Although only few outbreaks have been reported, which have been stamped out, only limited activities are ongoing to facilitate early detection of secondary spread. Further, there is a continuous risk of ASFV re-introduction from the Russian Federation, due to transboundary movements of people, pork or infected wild boar. The number of backyard farms is greatest in the west of Ukraine and westwards spread of ASFV could result in an infected area near the EU border, difficult to control. In Georgia, Armenia and the Russian Federation, the risk for endemicity of ASF in the wild boar population is considered moderate, mainly due to spill-over from the domestic pig population, whereas in Ukraine and Belarus this was considered to be low. In those areas in the Russian Federation where wild boar density is high, this risk may be higher. Intensive hunting pressure in affected wild boar populations may increase the risk for spread, possibly with severe implications across international borders. The risk for different matrices to be infected/contaminated and maintain infectious ASFV at the moment of transportation into the EU was assessed and ranged from very high for frozen meat, to very low for crops