Risk-based surveillance for human health hazards: the example of Trichinella

Increasing demands for cost-effectiveness in surveillance for human health hazards can be met by introducmg risk-based principles. This implies targeting subpopulations w1th higher risk of infection compared to the whole population. We demonstrate how historical data from surveillance can be used to assess risk of infection. The model is called Discounting historical evidence and depends mainly on two variables: Annual risk of introduction Plntro and surveillance system sensitivity SSe (ability to detect infection if present). The model Implies simulations that reiterate for a number of years, and for each year the output is updated with the confidence on absence of infection. Trichinella spiralis infection in pigs is used as an example. In Denmark, pigs at slaughter are tested (currently 23 million per year), and despite of \u3e 70 years of sampling no pigs have been found positive. Hence, we concluded that Plntro is low. SSe can be estimated from the maximum number of infected carcasses expected under the specified design prevalence, and the sensitivity of the test applied. According to the assessment, the prevalence of Trichmella in Danish pigs is negligible (\u3c1 case/million). Based on this , a risk-based surveillance programme for Trichinella is designed that targets all out-door reared pigs as well as all sows and boars (currently 610,000 per year). Compared to confined pigs, outdoor-reared pigs have higher risk of getting Trichinella because of their exposure to wildlife, which might harbour Trichinella. Sows and boars are at increased risk, because they live longer than fimshers. Again, SSe and Plntro are estimated and the model is used to show how risk-based surveillance can be applied without jeopardizing human health. Finally, we incorporate wildlife surveys and test quality assurance in the programme. The model results are included in an application to the European Commission concern1ng Denmark\u27s status as a region with negligible risk of Trichinella

Salmonella in Pork (SALINPORK), a new EU- project on pre-harvest and harvest control options based on epidemiologic, diagnostic and economic research

The occurrence of foodborne infections caused by consumption of animal products, contaminated with Salmonella enterica, has drawn increasing attention worldwide (Acha and Szyfres, 1987). Pork has been identified as a potential reservoir of infection (e.g. Oosterom et al., 1982; Wegener and Baggesen, 1996) and is presently estimated to be responsible for about 15% of the human cases of Salmonellosis in Denmark (Anon., 1997). Part of recently completed Danish research project, entitled \u27Reduction and control of salmonella-infection in pig herds\u27, stood model for an international research program funded by the European Union, entitled \u27Salmonella in Pork\u27 or SALINPORK. This three-year program started on April 1st 1996 and involves institutes and universities from 6 EU-member states

Assessing the risk of Salmonella transmission within primary pork production in Denmark

Since the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (\u27SPS Agreement\u27) under the governance of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), risk analysis has become the standard method for the scientific documentation of risks related to animal products and trade (I). Similar principles have also been adopted in food safety as described by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (2). The framework of risk analysis appears - therefore to be appropriate for the assessment of salmonella transmission and contamination in the Danish pork production chain

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines stunned with penetrative captive bolt or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with captive bolt stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in bovine animals at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting; (b) during neck cutting or sticking; and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter of bovines without stunning, a set of indicators and outcomes are proposed in another toolbox to be used for (a) assessing unconsciousness, before releasing bovines from restraint; and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that can be included in the toolboxes. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person responsible for ensuring animal welfare. Personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before release from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouse) and tolerance level (number of potential failures). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse