Prerequisites for high-quality official control in Finnish slaughterhouses

Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Prerequisites for high-quality official control in Finnish slaughterhouses
n Jenni Luukkanen*, Maria Fredriksson-Ahomaa, Mari Nevas, Janne Lunde Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 66, 00014, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 January 2017 Received in revised form 13 March 2017 Accepted 14 March 2017 Available online 27 March 2017

To ensure the safety of meat, official control, including meat and food safety inspections in slaughterhouses, should be of high quality. The prerequisites for high-quality official control were examined by sending a questionnaire to meat inspection personnel, slaughterhouse representatives, and officials who guide and organize the official control of slaughterhouses at the central level in Finland. The questionnaire inquired about the sufficiency of meat inspection personnel resources and its effects on official control. The post-mortem inspection skills of the official auxiliaries (OAs) and steps taken by the official veterinarians (OV) to evaluate OAs’ performance in post-mortem inspection were explored. Furthermore, OAs’ independence from the slaughterhouses in meat inspection, and further training and guidance provided to meat inspection personnel were surveyed. Our results showed that in most slaughterhouses at least occasional shortage of OVs was experienced, and it decreased especially the time dedicated to food safety inspections, meat inspection personnel’s participation in further training, and guidance given to OAs by OVs. All but one chief OV considered the skills of the regular OAs in post-mortem inspection to be totally sufficient, whereas over a third of the chief OVs did not find the post-mortem inspection skills of the OA substitutes totally sufficient. In red meat slaughterhouses, the frequency of the observation of the post-mortem inspection performed by the OAs was variable, and one-third of the red meat OAs considered that their performance in post-mortem inspection was not sufficiently evaluated by the OVs. Although most of the meat inspection personnel agreed that OAs understand working independently from the slaughterhouse in meat inspection, a substantial number of poultry OAs in particular stated that the independency was not entirely clear to them. A majority of the chief OVs considered that the officials guiding meat and food safety inspections at the central level are unaware of the practical problems involved in OVs’ work. Our results highlight the importance of practical experience for the officials guiding the official control in slaughterhouses and increased feedback between OVs and OAs in slaughterhouses. An adequate number of OVs should be guaranteed in all slaughterhouses. The practices to evaluate the red meat OAs’ performance in post-mortem inspection should be standardized and the maintenance of the post-mortem inspection skills of OA substitutes improved. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Meat inspection Food safety inspection Meat inspection skills Quality Evaluation Guidance

1. Introduction For consumers’ health and for the reliability of the meat industry, it is important that the official control (comprising meat inspection and food safety inspections) in slaughterhouses is of high quality and efficiently performed. Meat inspection, consisting of the inspection of food chain information (FCI), ante-mortem

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: jenni.luukkanen@helsinki.fi (J. Luukkanen), maria.fredrikssonahomaa@helsinki.fi (M. Fredriksson-Ahomaa), mari.nevas@helsinki.fi (M. Nevas),
n). janne.lunden@helsinki.fi (J. Lunde http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.020 0956-7135/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

inspection, and post-mortem inspection (EC No 854/2004), is performed to ensure the safety of meat, animal health and welfare, and prevention of transmissible animal diseases (Alban, Steenberg, Stephensen, Olsen, & Petersen, 2011; EC No 854/2004; EFSA, 2011, 2012). In slaughterhouses, official veterinarians (OVs) perform also food safety inspections to verify the slaughterhouse’s own-check system, which is based on “hazard analysis and critical control point” (HACCP) principles and basic hygiene aspects (EC No 854/2004). A well-implemented own-check system is important, for instance, to ensure process hygiene in the slaughterhouse (Blagojevic & Antic, 2014; FAO, 2004), which is an essential contributing factor to meat safety (Blagojevic & Antic, 2014; Nørrung & Buncic, 2008).

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

Meat inspection legislation in the EU requires that authorities have a sufficient number of qualified and experienced staff to carry out their inspection duties in all slaughterhouses (EC No 854/2004). In previous reports, an insufficient number of official meat inspection personnel has been assessed to lower the quality of official control in some European countries (EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2014; FVO, 2002). However, scientific research on the possible shortage of meat inspection personnel and how it affects the quality of the official control and different duties of the OVs in slaughterhouses, has not, to our knowledge, been published. In the EU, OVs in meat inspection may be assisted by official auxiliaries (OAs), who in poultry and lagomorph slaughterhouses can be slaughterhouse staff (EC No 854/2004). In Finland, poultry OAs are employed by the slaughterhouse and red meat OAs by the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira. The extent of the meat inspection training for the poultry and red meat OAs is the same in the legislation, and all OAs and OVs must participate in regular further training (EC No 854/2004). On a previous audit performed by the FVO in Finland, deficiencies in relation to poultry OAs’ training were observed (FVO, 2009). Sufficient expertise is important for the quality of the meat inspection, and thus, it is essential to investigate the sufficiency of skills of the OAs and their substitutes, and the possibilities of the meat inspection personnel to participate in further training. All OAs work under the OVs, who must ensure that meat inspection is done properly and independently from the slaughterhouse (EC No 854/2004). OVs are also required to administer performance tests for OAs who are slaughterhouse staff (EC No 854/ 2004). The frequency in which the OVs check the work of OAs should be sufficient in all slaughterhouses, and the OVs should be readily available to provide guidance to the OAs. In some countries in Europe, including Finland, insufficient supervision of meat inspection by the OVs has been reported (EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2014; FVO, 2002; 2009). However, a more thorough investigation on how the meat inspection personnel assess the sufficiency of supervision has not been performed in Finland. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of guidance provided to the OVs (Kotisalo, Luukkanen, Fredriksson-Ahomaa, &
n, 2015; Lepisto € & Ha €nninen, 2011; Luukkanen & Lunde
n, Lunde 2016). In Finland, OVs receive guidance from the officials in the control department of Evira, responsible for guiding and organizing official control in slaughterhouses. Slaughterhouses are divided regionally and each region has a director who is the immediate superior for the OVs and OAs, leads the meat inspection personnel in his or her region, and takes care of personnel administration (Evira, 2012). The chief OVs (one in each slaughterhouse) lead the OAs and possible other OVs and have the main responsibility for ensuring that official control is performed according to legislation. It has previously been demonstrated that the chief OVs in slaughterhouses were not satisfied with the guidance they received in relation to food safety
n, 2016). Therefore, the quality of inspections (Luukkanen & Lunde the guidance in meat and food safety inspections and possible targets for development should be investigated more thoroughly. The aim of our study was to investigate the sufficiency, independence, further training, and guidance of the meat inspection personnel. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the meat inspection skills of the OAs and their evaluation were examined. Our results can be used to enhance the quality of official control in slaughterhouses. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Questionnaire To evaluate the prerequisites of effective meat inspection and food safety inspections in Finnish slaughterhouses, we constructed

51

a questionnaire that contained open-ended questions, Likert scale questions, and other multiple-choice questions. The Likert scales used were from 1 to 4 (totally disagree to totally agree), with no midpoint. The questionnaire was tailored for the various respondent groups, but all questionnaires examined the following issues: a) information on the respondent (meat inspection personnel and slaughterhouse representatives were also asked to give the number of OVs, OAs, and slaughter animals per week in the slaughterhouse), b) sufficiency of meat inspection personnel, c) skills of the OAs and the uniformity of meat inspection, d) meat inspection personnel’s’ participation in further training, e) steps taken to evaluate OAs’ performance in post-mortem inspection f) meat inspection personnel’s independence from the slaughterhouse, and g) quality of guidance received by the meat inspection personnel. Uniformity of the meat inspection was measured on a scale from 1 (very nonuniform) to 6 (very uniform), where scales from 1 to 3 (somewhat non-uniform) were considered non-uniform. In November 2014, respondents received electronic questionnaires, except for OAs who received a paper copy. One reminder was sent after three weeks. 2.2. Respondent groups The questionnaire was sent to eight different respondent groups (Table 1). All full-time OVs (n ¼ 45) and OAs (n ¼ 110) performing meat inspection in 13 red meat and 4 poultry slaughterhouses in Finland received the questionnaire. Small slaughterhouses processing under 20 livestock units (one livestock unit ¼ one bovine or five pigs) per week, under 1000 livestock units per year, or under 150 000 birds per year were excluded from the study (Anonymous, 2011). In addition to meat inspection personnel, one to four representatives in each slaughterhouse (n ¼ 17) were sent the questionnaire. Slaughterhouse directors, foremen, or quality and production managers familiar with meat inspection issues in each slaughterhouse were included in the study. Officials (n ¼ 17) in the control department of Evira, including the five regional directors, responsible for guiding and organizing official control in slaughterhouses also received the questionnaire (Table 1). All respondents were requested to answer from their own standpoint. 2.3. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 21.0. (SPSS IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The ‘do not know’ answers were converted to missing. To analyse the significance of difference between respondent groups’ answers, Fisher’s exact test and non-parametric ManneWhitney U test, which does not assume a normal distribution, were used. A confidence level of 95% was applied in evaluating the results. 3. Results 3.1. Respondents and categorization of slaughterhouses The total response rate was 59% (116/198) (Table 1). Red meat slaughterhouse representatives had the highest response rate, whereas poultry slaughterhouse representatives had the lowest (Table 1). Still, we received representatives’ answers from three of four poultry slaughterhouses. Of the OVs, 10 were chief OVs in red meat slaughterhouses and 4 in poultry slaughterhouses. According to the basic information given by the respondents (on the number of OVs, OAs, and slaughter animals per week in the slaughterhouse), we were able to divide the respondents into different slaughterhouses. From 11/17 of the slaughterhouses, we received answers from at least one respondent from each of the respondent groups

52

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56 Table 1 Respondent groups, response rates, and proportion of responding slaughterhouses (SHs). Respondent group

Response rate % (n/Na)

Proportion of responding SHs % (n/N b)

Red meat official veterinariansc Poultry official veterinarians Red meat official auxiliaries Poultry official auxiliaries Representatives of red meat SHsd Representatives of poultry SHs Regional directorse Officials in control departmentg Total

56 (19/34) 55 (6/11) 50 (24/48) 61 (38/62) 89 (16/18) 38 (3/8) 100 (5/5) 42 (5/12) 59 (116/198)

92 (12/13) 100 (4/4) 62 (8/13) 100 (4/4) 85 (11/13) 75 (3/4) -f e 100 (17/17)

a Number of respondents/number of official veterinarians, official auxiliaries, SH representatives, regional directors, or officials from the control department to whom the survey was sent. b Number of SHs with a response from this group/number of red meat or poultry SHs to which the questionnaire was sent. c Official veterinarians working in SHs for pigs, bovines, horses, sheep, and/or goats. d SH directors, foremen, or quality and production managers familiar with meat inspection issues in each SH. e Immediate superiors of the OVs working in the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira (not located in SHs). f Not applicable. g Officials other than regional directors in the control department of Evira who guided and organized official control in SHs at the central level.

(OVs, OAs, and slaughterhouse representatives). Slaughterhouses were split in two groups of approximately the same size according to the number of slaughtered animals. Smaller slaughterhouses (six red meat and two poultry) processed under 1000 red meat animals or 200 000 birds per week whereas larger slaughterhouses (seven red meat and two poultry) processed over 1000 red meat animals or over 200 000 birds per week. 3.2. Sufficiency of the number of meat inspection personnel Many of the chief OVs (8/14) had experienced a shortage of OVs in the slaughterhouse, and in three of the slaughterhouses the shortage of OVs existed often or constantly (Table 2). In most cases, the shortage of OVs was caused by difficulties in finding substitutes for the OVs (answer chosen by 7/14 of the chief OVs). In two larger red meat slaughterhouses, a shortage of OVs existed because of too few permanent vacancies according to the chief OVs, and at least one of the slaughterhouse representatives in these slaughterhouses also considered that too few OVs were employed. According to the chief OVs, the main areas suffering from the shortage of OVs were the food safety inspections, participation of meat inspection personnel in further training, and guidance given to OAs (Table 2). The shortage of OVs had also sometimes led to delayed slaughtering

according to the slaughterhouse representatives in 45% (5/11) of the red meat and in 33% (1/3) of the poultry slaughterhouses. In the majority of the slaughterhouses (8/14), chief OVs had also experienced a shortage of OAs. Shortage of OAs existed often or constantly in two of the slaughterhouses, both of which were red meat slaughterhouses. In case the number of OAs was not always sufficient, it was mostly because of difficulties in finding substitutes for the OAs (response chosen by 4/10 of the chief OVs, all of whom were from red meat slaughterhouses). In 55% (6/11) of the red meat slaughterhouses and in none of the poultry slaughterhouses, the slaughtering had sometimes been delayed because of the shortage of OAs according to the slaughterhouse representatives. 3.3. Skills of the regular OAs and their substitutes in post-mortem inspection All of the chief OVs in the poultry slaughterhouses and 9/10 of the chief OVs in red meat slaughterhouses considered the skills of the regular OAs in post-mortem inspection to be totally sufficient. However, almost one-half (4/10) of the chief red meat OVs and one of the four chief poultry OVs did not assess the skills of OA substitutes as totally sufficient in performing the post-mortem inspection. The opinions of the red meat and poultry OAs differed, as

Table 2 Sufficiency of the number of official veterinarians (OVs) and influence of the shortage of OVs on different tasks according to the chief OVs in 14 slaughterhouses (SHs) in Finland. Information on the shortage of OVs and its effects on OVs’ tasks

Red meat SHs

Poultry SHs

Larger SHsa A Shortage of OVs existed yes 4 Shortage occurredc Tasks or areas receiving less attention when shortage of OVs occurred FCI surveillance yes Ante-mortem inspection e Post-mortem inspection and its supervision e Food safety inspections yes Animal welfare surveillance yes Surveillance of transmissible animal diseases e Further training of OVs yes Providing guidance and further training to OAs yes a

Smaller SHsb

Larger SHs

Smaller SHs

B

D

E

C

I

G, H, F and J

L

K

N

M

yes 4

yes 1

yes 1

no 0

yes 2

no 0

yes 3

yes 2

yes 1

no 0

ed e e yes e e yes yes

e e e yes e e yes yes

e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e

e e e yes yes e e e

e e e e e e e e

e e e yes e e yes yes

e e e yes e e yes e

e e e yes e e yes yes

e e e e e e e e

Larger SHs processed over 1000 red meat animals (pigs, bovines, horses, sheep and/or goats) or 200 000 birds per week. Smaller SHs processed less than 1000 red meat animals (pigs, bovines, horses, sheep and/or goats) or 200 000 birds per week, but more than 1000 livestock units (one livestock unit ¼ one bovine or five pigs) or 150 000 birds per year. c 0 ¼ never, 1 ¼ seldom, 2 ¼ sometimes, 3 ¼ often, 4 ¼ constantly. d Task was not chosen by the chief OV. b

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

79% (19/24) of the red meat and 29% (10/34) of the poultry OAs did not find the skills of their substitutes to be totally sufficient (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). Maintenance of post-mortem inspection skills of OA substitutes was considered insufficient by the majority of the red meat OVs (11/16) and OAs (11/18), whereas 2/5 poultry OVs and only 7/32 of the poultry OAs deemed the maintenance of skills as insufficient. Some of the respondents (four OVs and four OAs) commented that the substitutes worked too irregularly to maintain their meat inspection skills. Non-uniformity of the post-mortem inspection between the regular OAs was observed by only one chief OV in a red meat slaughterhouse. In this slaughterhouse, also 2/5 of the OAs and 3/3 slaughterhouse representatives assessed post-mortem inspection between the regular OAs as non-uniform. The quality of postmortem inspection between the OAs was considered non-uniform by one or several OAs in 6 slaughterhouses (four red meat and two poultry slaughterhouses), but only in one slaughterhouse (red meat) did the majority of OAs (2/3) consider the quality of postmortem inspection as non-uniform. A few OAs (5/58) and one red meat slaughterhouse representative (1/12) commented that some OAs reject more organs and parts of the carcasses than others, and two red meat slaughterhouse representatives mentioned that some OAs make unnecessary incisions. 3.4. Evaluation of the OAs’ performance in post-mortem inspection The frequency with which OVs observed post-mortem inspection performed by OAs in red meat slaughterhouses varied markedly and was on average more infrequent than in poultry slaughterhouses (Table 3). The time used for one observation period ranged from two to 30 min, and in two red meat slaughterhouses OVs observed the working of the OAs only once a week (Table 3). The size of the slaughterhouse did not affect the frequency with which postmortem inspection was observed (p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test). In three of the four poultry slaughterhouses, OVs also administered performance tests for the OAs, and in one poultry slaughterhouse the tests were about to be introduced. No instructions for the OVs on how to conduct the performance tests were available. In both the red meat and poultry slaughterhouses, a majority of the OVs (18/22) considered that the performance of the OAs was sufficiently evaluated to ensure the quality of post-mortem inspection. However, the views of the red meat and poultry OAs differed, as 33% (6/18) of the red meat OAs from four different slaughterhouses, but only 9% (3/34) of the poultry OAs, all from the same slaughterhouse, considered that the performance of the OAs in post-mortem inspection was not sufficiently evaluated (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). All OAs who answered that their performance was not sufficiently evaluated were from larger slaughterhouses. Interestingly, in the only slaughterhouse (red meat) in which

53

respondents from every respondent groups considered the meat inspection quality as non-uniform, OVs observed the post-mortem inspection constantly, and still half of the OAs (2/4) considered that their performance was insufficiently evaluated. 3.5. Further training of meat inspection personnel All of the poultry OVs (5/5) and nearly all of the red meat OVs (18/19) considered it important that OVs participate in further training. The most important topic of further training according to the OVs was the application of legislation (Table 4). The majority of the OVs (13/24) had participated in further training regarding their work at least two times a year. The frequency of participation was considered too low by three red meat OVs, who had been participating only once a year or every other year. The participation in further training had been hindered because of difficulties in getting substitutes. Most of the red meat (22/24) and poultry OAs (22/32) also considered participation in further training essential, and the most important topics of further training according to the OAs were animal diseases, meat inspection pathology, and legislation and its changes (Table 4). Most of the red meat OAs participated at least once a year (13/24) or once in two years (7/24) in further training organized at the central level. The frequency of participation was considered too low by five red meat OAs who had been participating either once a year (3/5) or once every two years (2/5). Further training for the poultry OAs at the central level was not organized, and most of the poultry OVs, OAs, and slaughterhouse representatives (4/5, 17/31, 2/3, respectively) considered it necessary that it would be organized in the future. The further training of poultry OAs was the responsibility of the OVs in the slaughterhouses, but 3/4 of the chief poultry OVs stated that they could not organize training occasions often enough. 3.6. OAs independence from the slaughterhouse and the interaction between the meat inspection personnel and the slaughterhouse Most of the red meat and poultry OAs totally or partly agreed (100% and 97%, respectively) that OAs understand OVs’ role as the leader in meat inspection and that the OAs understand working independently from the slaughterhouse in meat inspection (96% and 88%, respectively) (Table 5). However, especially a part of the poultry OAs and OVs considered that the independence was not entirely clear to the OAs in the slaughterhouse (Table 5). All poultry OVs and the majority of the poultry OAs, red meat OVs, and red meat OAs (5/5, 31/36, 17/19, 12/23, respectively) considered that the slaughterhouse never or very seldom tries to affect meat inspection decisions. The rest of the respondents answered that the slaughterhouse tries to affect meat inspection decisions occasionally and

Table 3 Frequency with which official veterinarians (OVs) observed post-mortem inspections performed by official auxiliaries (OAs) in red meat and poultry slaughterhouses (SHs) according to the chief OVs in 14 SHs in Finland. Observation of meat inspection by OVs

Red meat SHs

Poultry SHs

Larger SHsa

Frequency with which OVs observed meat inspections performed by OAs Time used by OVs for observation each time (min) a

c

A E

D

1 3

3

11e20 e

Smaller SHsb

d

Larger SHs

Smaller SHs

C B

G

H

J

I

F

L

K

N

M

4 6

3

4

4

5

6

2

3

2

3

e 2e10 20e30 11e20 2e10 2e10 20e30 2e10 2e10 11e20 11e20

Larger SHs processed over 1000 red meat animals (pigs, bovines, horses, sheep and/or goats) or 200 000 birds per week. b Smaller SHs processed less than 1000 red meat animals (pigs, bovines, horses, sheep and/or goats) or 200 000 birds per week, but more than 1000 livestock units (one livestock unit ¼ one bovine or five pigs) or 150 000 birds per year. c 1 ¼ all the time, 2 ¼ at least once in 2 h, 3 ¼ many times a day but more seldom than once in 2 h, 4 ¼ once a day, 5 ¼ many times a week, 6 ¼ once a week. d Question not answered.

54

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

Table 4 Need for further training according to official veterinarians (OVs) (n ¼ 25) and official auxiliaries (OAs) (n ¼ 62). Topic of further traininga

Proportion of OVs who chose the topic %

Proportion of OAs who chose the topic %

Application of legislation Meat inspection pathology Food industry processes Animal welfare Legislation and its changes Meat hygiene Animal diseases Official control of by-products Evaluation of the suitability of meat for consumption Leading and superior skills Administrative procedures such as enforcement measures Meat inspection anatomy

60 36 28 28 28 20 16 16 16 12 4 0

N/Ab 29 5 26 27 21 52 3 21 N/A N/A 15

a b

OVs and OAs chose a maximum of three training topics that they considered essential for improving their work performance. Not applicable; OAs were not given this option.

one poultry OA claimed often. For example, it was mentioned by seven OAs that slaughterhouse staff sometimes loudly criticize the number of rejections or their reasons. Red meat OAs felt more often than poultry OAs that the slaughterhouse tries to affect meat inspection decisions (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

Only one regional director had worked as a poultry OV (for a short period). Of the other officials responsible for guiding and organizing meat inspection in the control department, 3/5 had worked as OVs in red meat slaughterhouses for 1e3 months and 1/5 as an OV in a poultry slaughterhouse for some months.

3.7. Guidance and support given to the meat inspection personnel

4. Discussion

The majority (78%) of the OVs in the red meat slaughterhouses totally agreed that the OVs were sufficiently available for the OAs, but only 38% of the red meat OAs totally agreed with this statement (Table 5). Poultry OAs found the guidance and support received from OVs in meat inspection to be more sufficient than the red meat OAs (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test), and they also considered OVs to be more readily available than did the red meat OAs (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) (Table 5). The majority of the chief OVs totally or partly agreed that when they have to make difficult decisions in meat inspection or in food safety inspections they apply for guidance from the central authority, i.e. the officials guiding and organizing meat inspection and food safety inspections in slaughterhouses at the central level (Fig. 1). Most of the chief OVs considered that their superiors were readily reachable, but that the guidance could have been more rapid (Fig. 1). The guidance in meat inspection was assessed as insufficient by almost one-half of the chief OVs (4/4 of chief poultry OVs and 2/9 of chief red meat OVs), and a majority of the chief OVs also stated that the officials at the central level are unaware of the practical problems involved in OVs’ work (Fig. 1).

Our results show that some Finnish slaughterhouses had a shortage of OVs occasionally and a few even constantly. Although a constant shortage of OVs was experienced, it did not influence the performance of meat inspection tasks, including ante- and postmortem inspections, or surveillance of transmissible animal diseases, according to the chief OVs. Ante-mortem inspection together with the FCI and post-mortem inspection have been assessed as especially important for animal health and welfare and identification of transmissible livestock diseases (Alban et al., 2011; EFSA, 2011). In a previous study in Finland, meat inspection personnel also considered both ante- and post-mortem inspections to be important for the quality and safety of meat and for the surveillance of animal welfare and transmissible animal diseases (Luukkanen,
n, 2015). Therefore, it is Kotisalo, Fredriksson-Ahomaa, & Lunde understandable that these core tasks of the OVs were prioritized when a shortage of OVs occurred. Another core task of the OVs is food safety inspection, performed to control the hygiene in the slaughterhouse (EC No 854/ 2004). It is of concern that the food safety inspections were assessed as the main control task affected if a shortage of OVs existed. Many important foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella spp., Campylobacter jejuni/coli, Yersinia enterocolitica, and verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC), occur in the gastrointestinal tracts of food-producing animals, and can contaminate meat, for instance, through dirty hides and deficiencies in slaughter hygiene (Nørrung & Buncic, 2008). Therefore,

3.8. Experience of the officials who guided and organized official control in slaughterhouses All of the regional directors had worked as OVs in red meat slaughterhouses (one for a month and the rest from 5 to 32 years).

Table 5 Opinions of meat inspection personnel regarding the independence of official auxiliaries (OAs) from slaughterhouses in meat inspection, the co-operation of the OAs with the official veterinarian (OV), and support and guidance given by OVs to OAs in meat inspection. Statement

Proportion of respondents who agreed with the given statement (totally/partly agreed) % Red meat OV (n ¼ 16e19)

Poultry OV (n ¼ 5e6)

Red meat OA (n ¼ 23e24)

Poultry OA (n ¼ 34e38)

OAs understand that the OV is leading the meat inspection OAs understand that they work independently from the slaughterhouse in meat inspection OAs work in good co-operation with the OV OVs are sufficiently available for OAs OVs give sufficient guidance and support in meat inspection to OAs

100 (84/16) 100 (84/16)

83 (50/33) 80 (60/20)

100 (83/17) 96 (75/21)

97 (92/5) 88 (59/29)

100 (74/26) 100 (78/22)Aa 94 (19/75)

84 (67/17) 100 (83/17) 100 (20/80)

100 (71/29) 88 (38/50)B 71 (29/42)A

95 (81/14) 98 (82/16)AC 90 (74/16)B

a

Respondent groups’ answers indicated with a different capital letter within a row differed significantly (p < 0.05, ManneWhitney U test).

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

55

Totally agree

My superiors are readily reachable (n=13)

Partly agree

If I have to make difficult decisions in meat inspec on or in food safety inspec ons, I apply for support from the CA (n=14)

Partly disagree Totally disagree

Guidance in rela on to food safety inspec ons from the CA is sufficient (n=13) Guidance in rela on to meat inspec on from the CA is sufficient (n=13) The CA is aware of the prac cal problems ralated to meat inspec on and food safety inspec ons (n=13) Guidance from the CA to the OVs is sufficiently rapid (n=13) 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fig. 1. Chief official veterinarians’ (OVs’) (n ¼ 13e14) views on statements regarding the guidance and support that they receive from the central authority (CA), referring to the officials guiding and organizing official control in slaughterhouses.

the control of hygiene at slaughter and on the slaughterhouse premises is of high importance. Poor hygiene in slaughter practices has also been associated with serious food poisoning outbreaks (Anonymous, 2006; Pennington, 2009). Previously, noncompliances in relation to hygiene were observed to be quite
n, common in the slaughterhouses of Finland (Luukkanen & Lunde 2016). Thus, sufficient OV resources should be guaranteed in all slaughterhouses so that OVs’ tasks, including hygiene control, can be thoroughly performed. The shortage of OVs, as well as OAs, was often caused by difficulties with recruiting substitutes, which sometimes also caused delays in slaughtering and in some slaughterhouses hindered the regular participation of the OVs in further training. The reasons for recruiting difficulties were not investigated in this study and should be evaluated. All but one of the OVs considered the post-mortem inspection skills of the regular OAs in the slaughterhouse to be sufficient, which is important for high-quality meat inspection. Still, it is worrisome that in both the red meat and poultry slaughterhouses the post-mortem inspection skills of the OA substitutes and the maintenance of their skills were not considered totally sufficient, and especially the red meat OAs assessed the maintenance of the skills of their substitutes as clearly insufficient. Without a thorough and skillfully conducted post-mortem inspection, important signs and conditions related to meat safety, transmissible animal diseases, and animal health and welfare could go unnoticed (Alban et al., 2011; EFSA, 2011). The insufficient maintenance of skills of the substitutes should be addressed in the future. Everyone working in meat inspection should be provided with regular work shifts and their skills should be guaranteed. Interestingly, the frequency at which the OVs observed the postmortem inspection performed by OAs varied markedly in red meat slaughterhouses, and one-third of red meat OAs assessed the evaluation of their performance in post-mortem inspection and the guidance and support that they received from the OVs in meat inspection to be insufficient. It is worrisome that in one slaughterhouse where the meat inspection was observed constantly, half of the OAs still considered the post-mortem inspection to be inadequately evaluated. These results suggest that the procedures to assess the performance of the OAs in post-mortem inspection should be standardized, at the same time highlighting the need to improve the interaction and feedback between OVs and OAs in post-mortem inspection, especially in larger slaughterhouses. After the study was conducted, instructions for poultry OVs on OAs’ performance tests have been composed (Evira, 2015), which has probably further unified the evaluation of OAs’ performance. We argue that common guidelines also for red meat OVs on the

evaluation of the performance of OAs would be beneficial. In red meat inspection, inadequate supervision, including the observation and evaluation of the OAs by the OVs, has previously been noted in other EU countries as well (Alban et al., 2011; FVO, 2002). Broader investigations on this subject and necessary corrective measures are thus recommended. Evaluation of the OAs’ performance in post mortem inspection should also contribute to the uniformity of meat inspection. Previously, for instance in Austria, differences between the OAs in rating skin lesions and hepatitis have been identified (Schleicher et al., 2013). The non-uniformity of the post-mortem inspection did not seem to be a considerable problem according to the chief OVs, but in those slaughterhouses where some of the OAs experienced non-uniformity, differences in the evaluation of the carcasses should be examined more carefully. The uniformity of inspection measures and rejections should be ensured, and also OA-specific inspection results could be utilized in the future. In addition, the reasons for some OAs’ views on the uniformity of post-mortem inspection differing from the view of the chief OV should be investigated. Different views of the OVs and OAs on this matter further highlight the need to improve the communication and feedback between OVs and OAs in slaughterhouses. According to EU legislation, the OAs must work as a part of an independent meat inspection team (EC No 854/2004), which is important for consumers’ and producers’ trust. A larger number of poultry OAs than red meat OAs considered independency from the slaughterhouse in meat inspection to not be entirely clear. When poultry OAs receive their salaries from the slaughterhouse and also their personnel administration is the slaughterhouse’s responsibility, the independence or at least their impression of their independence can become impaired. In situations where the slaughterhouse tries to affect meat inspection decisions, OAs must be aware of their independent status. These results indicate that independency from the slaughterhouses should be emphasized, especially in poultry slaughterhouses, and further investigations on this subject would be justified in Finland and other countries with similar meat inspection organizations. The work of OVs carries a great responsibility and includes in
n, Bjo € rkroth, & dependent and challenging decisions (Lunde Korkeala, 2007). A majority of the OVs required further training on application of the legislation, suggesting that interpretation of the legislation and making decisions by oneself in the slaughterhouse are not always easy. As the EU food safety legislation is the same in all EU countries, it is possible that the application of legislation is an important subject of further training in other countries as well. Because some of the OVs have solitary positions

56

J. Luukkanen et al. / Food Control 79 (2017) 50e56

in slaughterhouses, the investment in their guidance and support is also crucial. Our results show that most of the chief OVs turned to their superiors and to the officials in the control department when they had to make difficult decisions in slaughterhouses. Unfortunately, the knowledge of the officials in the control department about practical problems related to the control of slaughterhouses was assessed as insufficient by many chief OVs, and especially the guidance in relation to poultry meat inspection was criticised. One reason for this could be that although most of the regional directors had long experience as OVs, the other officials guiding and organizing meat inspection at the central level had only a brief experience or none at all as OVs. Especially experience as an OV in the poultry slaughterhouse was rare. In a previous study, the need for more practical experience for the officials guiding the official control in slaughterhouses of Finland was emphasized (Luukkanen &
n, 2016), and our results support these findings. Skill of the Lunde superiors in the core actions has also been considered to contribute to improved performance of the organizations (Goodall, 2012; Salas, Rosen, & DiazGranados, 2010). Therefore, it would be important that officials guiding meat and food safety inspections have experience as OVs in order to be able to give practical advice to the OVs. Given the moderately high response rates, our results represent the opinions of the meat inspection personnel in the slaughterhouses of Finland quite well. From most of the slaughterhouses, we received answers from all respondent groups, which gives a wide perspective to the topic of the study. In conclusion, chief OVs considered that post-mortem inspection in Finnish slaughterhouses was performed with sufficiently skilled regular OAs, and the inspection in most slaughterhouses was assessed as uniform by the majority of meat inspection personnel. However, the prerequisites for high-quality official control could be improved by increasing the maintenance of the post-mortem inspection skills of OA substitutes, especially providing OA substitutes with regular work shifts, and by implementing a standardized approach to the evaluation of also red meat OAs’ performance. In addition, a sufficient number of OVs should be guaranteed in all slaughterhouses to ensure that food safety inspections are thoroughly performed and that meat inspection personnel are able to participate in further training. Also important is that the guidance and support given to meat inspection personnel, including the feedback from OVs to OAs, be emphasized in the future. Acknowledgements The authors thank the meat inspection personnel, slaughterhouse representatives, and officials in the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira for their cooperation. This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland (grant no 1825/312/ 2012). References Alban, L., Steenberg, B., Stephensen, F. T., Olsen, A.-M., & Petersen, J. V. (2011). Overview on current practices of meat inspection in the EU. http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.EN-190/pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). Anonymous. (2006). E.coli-saken, Evaluering av myndighetenes og næringens

håndtering vinter/vår 2006. Rapport fra det regjeringsoppnevnte evalueringsutvalget for E.coli-saken. Levert til Landbruks- og matdepartementet og Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/ upload/kilde/lmd/rap/2006/0006/ddd/pdfv/301838-e-coli-rapport-151206.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). Anonymous. (2011). Regulation on food hygiene of the food establishments 1369/2011. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2011/ 20111369 (Accessed 7 March 2017). Blagojevic, B., & Antic, D. (2014). Assessment of potential contribution of official meat inspection and abattoir process hygiene to biological safety assurance of final beef and pork carcasses. Food Control, 36, 174e182. EC No 854/2004. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. http://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼celex:32004R0854 (Accessed 7 March 2017). EFSA, European Food Safety Authority. (2011). Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA Journal, 9(10), 2351. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2351 (Accessed 7 March 2017). EFSA. (2012). European Food Safety Authority, Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (poultry). EFSA Journal, 10(6), 2741. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2741 (Accessed 7 March 2017). EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Surveillance Authority. (2014). Final report of EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to Iceland from 4 to 8 November 2013 regarding the application of EEA legislation related to the food safety control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of poultry meat and products thereof. http://www.eftasurv.int/media/reports/700541.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). Evira. (2012). Working order of the meat inspection unit of Evira given on 20.12.2012. Evira. (2015). Qualifications and performance tests required for the OAs in poultry slaughterhouses. Instruction 16039/1 published by Evira. https://www.evira.fi/ files/attachments/fi/evira/lomakkeet_ja_ohjeet/elintarvikkeet/laitokset/eviran_ ohje_16039_1.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2004). Good practices for the meat industry. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual, 2, 1e308. http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5454e.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). FVO, Food and Veterinary Office. (2002). Overview of the results of a series of missions carried out during 2000-2001 to evaluate controls over pig meat production in member states. Document number DG(SANCO)/9005/2002. http://ec.europa.eu/ food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id¼44 (Accessed 7 March 2017). FVO. (2009). Food and Veterinary Office, Final report of a specific audit carried out in Finland from 02 June to 11 June 2009 in order to evaluate the food safety control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of poultry meat and poultry meat products in the context of a general audit. DG(SANCO)/ 2009-8065. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID¼7763 (Accessed 7 March 2017). Goodall, A. H. (2012). A theory of expert leadership. IZA Discussion paper No. 6566. http://ftp.iza.org/dp6566.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017).
n, J. (2015). Effects of Kotisalo, N., Luukkanen, J., Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M., & Lunde centralizing meat inspection and food safety inspections in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses. Food Policy, 55, 15e21. €, O., & H€ Lepisto anninen, M.-L. (2011). Effects of legal aspects on the use of compulsory procedures in environmental health and food control. Journal of Environmental Health Research, 11, 127e134.
n, J., Bjo €rkroth, J., & Korkeala, H. (2007). Meat inspection education in Lunde Finnish veterinary curriculum. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34, 205e211.
n, J. (2015). DistribuLuukkanen, J., Kotisalo, N., Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M., & Lunde tion and importance of meat inspection tasks in Finnish high-capacity slaughterhouses. Food Control, 57, 246e251.
n, J. (2016). Compliance in slaughterhouses and control Luukkanen, J., & Lunde measures applied by official veterinarians. Food Control, 68, 133e138. Nørrung, B., & Buncic, S. (2008). Microbial safety of meat in the European union. Meat Science, 78, 14e24. Pennington, H. (2009). The public inquiry into the September 2005 outbreak of E. coli 0157 in South Wales. http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/pdf/uk-09005-ecolireport-summary.pdf (Accessed 7 March 2017). Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management, 36, 941e973. € fer, J. (2013). Schleicher, C., Scheriau, S., Kopacka, I., Wanda, S., Hofrichter, J., & Ko Analysis of the variation in meat inspection of pigs using variance partitioning. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 111, 278e285.