- Email: [email protected]
Effects of centralizing meat inspection and food safety inspections in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses
Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Effects of centralizing meat inspection and food safety inspections in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses Niina Kotisalo, Jenni Luukkanen, Maria Fredriksson-Ahomaa, Janne Lundén ⇑ Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 December 2014 Received in revised form 19 May 2015 Accepted 23 May 2015 Available online 6 June 2015 Keywords: Small-scale slaughterhouse Meat inspection Food safety Official control
a b s t r a c t The official control of small-scale slaughterhouses has received criticism for inconsistent meat inspection fees and for the poor quality guidance and cooperation with food business operators (FBO) in Finland. The official control including both meat inspection (ante and post mortem) and food safety inspections (verification of FBO’s self-inspection) of small-scale slaughterhouses was centralized from municipalities to the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) in 2011 to address these perceived shortcomings. This study aimed to investigate the early effects of the centralization of meat inspection and food safety inspections, specifically the standardization of meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services. In March all small-scale slaughterhouses (n = 52) received a questionnaire on the effects of centralizing meat inspection. We interviewed 12 small-scale slaughterhouses on site and the official veterinarians of ten of these small-scale slaughterhouses by phone. The results showed that introducing a meat inspection fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation that includes a fixed travel expense, can lead to more standardized fees. The variation in meat inspection fees after centralization was significantly smaller (Levene’s test, p = 0.013) than before. Moreover, after centralization, meat inspection fees and the number of slaughtered animal units per year showed no significant correlation. Meat inspection fees decreased for the majority of FBOs, which was expected because of the government subsidies the FBOs received. The majority of FBOs perceived the guidance as good both before and after centralization, and both FBOs and official veterinarians assessed their cooperation as good. The availability of official veterinarians to perform ante and post mortem inspections posed no problem for most FBOs. However, 50% of the FBOs interviewed stated that the official veterinarian had performed no food safety inspections after centralization, which can negatively impact food safety. The majority of the official veterinarians stated that the guidance they received from the NFSA improved after centralization, but they still urged more guidance on interpreting food safety requirements and performing food safety inspections. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Small-scale meat businesses are important for maintaining local meat production, however, they face many challenges, some of which are related to food safety regulations and their implementation. Such challenges have been recognized in both Europe (Yapp and Fairman, 2006; Tähkäpää et al., 2009) and North-America (Worosz et al., 2008; Miewald et al., 2013; Charlebois and Summan, 2014). Also, high and unfairly distributed fees for official food inspection are considered problematic for food business operators (FBOs) in the EU (EC, 2009).
Similar problems have been observed in small-scale meat processing in Finland, an EU member state. Previous studies have found the quality of meat inspection (ante and post mortem inspection) and food safety inspections (verification of FBO’s self-inspection1) inconsistent, and cooperation between official veterinarians and FBOs poor (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). Cooperation with official veterinarians plays a central role, as they perform both meat and food safety inspections in small-scale slaughterhouses. The inconsistency of meat inspection fees in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses has also been criticized (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). Meat inspection fees are high and vary widely between small-scale
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 66, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358 294157148. E-mail address: janne.lunden@helsinki.fi (J. Lundén).
1 FBO’s self-inspection comprises, for example, HACCP, cleaning and waste management. The official veterinarian verifies that the FBO carries out the self-inspection adequately.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.007 0306-9192/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
16
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
slaughterhouses. Meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland are on average seven times higher, and in some cases 30 times higher, than EU minimum meat inspection fees (Rahkio, 2009). FBOs have also criticized the unavailability of official veterinarians, and according to inspectors of the Food and Veterinary Office, food safety inspections have failed to adequately address non-compliance in slaughterhouses (FVO, 2013). To improve the quality of meat inspection services and to standardize meat inspection fees, meat inspection organization was centralized in 2011 (Food Act, 2011). The main consequences of this centralization were a shift in responsibility for meat inspection and food safety inspections from the local to the central level and a restructuring of meat inspection fees. Not only has the centralization of meat inspection come under discussion, but the centralization of food control in Finland in general has also been a subject of debate due to inconsistent food control (Hirn, 2011). Therefore, experiences of this centralization of meat inspection in small-scale slaughterhouses can prove valuable when evaluating the possible centralization of overall food control in Finland. Previously, independent municipalities bore responsibility for small-scale slaughterhouses, but since September 2011 the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) has been responsible for meat inspection and food safety inspections. Official (state) veterinarians working for the NFSA or municipal veterinarians contracted by the NFSA carry out meat and food safety inspections. Before centralization, meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses were based on travel and inspection time or the number of animals slaughtered, and municipal control fees varied (Rahkio, 2009; Tähkäpää et al., 2013), leading to differences in meat inspection fees between FBOs (Rahkio, 2009). After centralization NFSA introduced a fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation (MMM, 2012) which is same for all small-scale slaughterhouses. To increase opportunities for small-scale slaughterhouses to operate, the government began subsidizing small-scale slaughterhouses after centralization at 600,000 euros per year (Haltiala, 2013), which aims to keep meat inspection fees closer to the EU minimum fees. In addition to ante and post mortem inspections, food safety inspections in small-scale slaughterhouses must take place regularly (EC, 882/2004). Food safety inspections ensure that FBOs’ self-inspection is sufficient and fulfills the requirements of food safety legislation. The frequency of food safety inspections is risk-based (EC, 882/2004) and set individually for each slaughterhouse based on its functions and size (Control Program, 2010). Food safety inspections in all small-scale slaughterhouses should occur at least twice annually (Haltiala, 2013) or as often as needed (EC, 882/2004). Non-compliance, such as lack of hygiene and poor traceability, has occurred in small-scale slaughterhouses (FVO, 2013; Haltiala, 2013), which may compromise meat safety (Rahkio and Korkeala, 1996; Blagojevic and Antic, 2014). Food safety regulations are complex, and previous studies have shown that FBOs often require guidance and education in implementing food safety requirements (Fairman and Yapp, 2004; MMM, 2007; Tähkäpää et al., 2009; Nevas et al., 2013). Such advice is often provided during food safety inspections (Fairman and Yapp, 2004; Tähkäpää et al., 2009; Nevas et al., 2013). Although EU-legislation (EC, 854/2004) regulates meat inspection in detail, official veterinarians can play an important role in the implementation of these requirements on site. An assistive approach by inspectors is considered beneficial to compliance (Buckley, 2015). Not only do FBOs require guidance in implementing food safety regulations, but also official veterinarians conducting meat and food safety inspections need guidance in implementing the requirements and promoting compliance. The interaction between the FBO and the inspector has become an important factor in promoting or impeding operations and the implementation of regulations (Buckley, 2015). This places high demands on the guidance that the NFSA provides for its official veterinarians.
Meat and food safety inspections aim to ensure meat safety. Meat inspection is also crucial in preventing animal diseases and in ensuring animal welfare (EFSA, 2011). Although the numbers of slaughtered animals are much smaller in small-scale slaughterhouses than in large slaughterhouses (HE, 2010), the biological hazards remain the same. It is therefore important that small-scale slaughterhouses also benefit from high quality meat inspection services. The aim of this study was to investigate the early effects of the centralization of meat inspection and food safety inspections on small-scale slaughterhouses. The specific aims were to investigate whether the new meat inspection fee structure standardized fees between small-scale slaughterhouses and to study the quality of meat inspection services from the perspective of FBOs and official veterinarians both before and after centralization.
Material and methods Small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland This study included all small-scale slaughterhouses in operation in Finland. In March 2012, the NFSA’s list of approved establishments (NFSA, 2012) contained 52 small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland (Table 1). A small-scale slaughterhouse in Finland is allowed to slaughter up to 1000 animal units per year. One animal unit equals one bovine or horse, five pigs, ten sheep or 150,000 poultry (MMM, 2011).
The questionnaire and the interviews All small-scale slaughterhouses received a questionnaire in March 2012 on the effects of the centralization of meat inspection. The FBOs received a printed questionnaire by mail, but could also answer this same questionnaire online. The questionnaire inquired about meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services both before and after meat inspection centralization. Questions about the availability of official veterinarians, cooperation with the official veterinarians and opinions on the advice they provided measured the quality of meat inspection services. The questionnaire contained both Likert-scale questions (totally agree, partially agree, partially disagree, totally disagree and do not know) and open-ended questions. The small-scale slaughterhouses received the questionnaire when the official control had been centralized for seven months. The study was conducted early after the centralization in order to recognize the first effects of the change. This would enable NFSA to intervene at an early stage if the results implied the need for changes. With the help of a structured form, we interviewed 12 small-scale slaughterhouse owners on site to obtain detailed information about meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services. The interviews allowed us to further explore the FBO’s opinions concerning the causes of possible problems in the availability of official veterinarians, cooperation or guidance. For instance, if the cooperation was considered poor, we asked the interviewee to provide specific examples of poor cooperation. The small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed for the study were chosen based on their locations to cover the country (Table 1). Ten of the official veterinarians responsible for the official control of these small-scale slaughterhouses were interviewed by phone about the cooperation with the FBO as well as the FBO’s knowledge of food safety regulations. We also investigated the official veterinarians’ opinions on the guidance that the NFSA provided to them. Two of the official veterinarians did not participate in the interview.
17
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21 Table 1 Location of the small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland and number of respondents to the questionnaire and small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed. Regional State Administrative Agency
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses that replied to the questionnaire (%)
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed (%)
Southern Finland Southwestern Finland Eastern Finland Western and Inland Finland Northern Finland Lapland Total
10 11 15 12 2 2 52
9 (90.0) 6 (54.5) 11 (73.3) 7 (58.3) 2 (100) 0 (0) 35 (67.3)
1 (10.0) 2 (18.2) 6 (40.0) 3 (25.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (23.1)
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21 (IBM SPSS Software). The Chi square test was used to analyze the relation between the size of the slaughterhouse and changes in meat inspection fees. The equality of variances of the meat inspection fees before and after centralization was tested with Levene’s test. The correlation between the numbers of slaughtered animal units per year and the fee per unit (euro) was analyzed with Spearman’s rho. Spearman’s rho also served to analyze the correlation between the Likert-scale answers concerning meat inspection fees and improved business viability. The Sign test served to analyze the differences in FBOs’ perceptions of guidance before and after the centralization, and the Mann–Whitney U test to analyze the significance of differences in the FBOs’ and the official veterinarians’ perceptions of their cooperation. In the analysis, the ‘don’t know’ answers were categorized as missing. A confidence level of 95% was applied when evaluating the results of the statistical analyses. Results Response rates The response rate for the FBOs questionnaire was 67%, and the FBOs interviewed represented 23% of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Table 1). The FBOs’ responses were received from all provinces (Regional State Administrative Agency) except Lapland (Table 1). Meat inspection fees The subsidizing of small-scale slaughterhouses began at the same time as the centralization, and questionnaire responses indicated that a decrease in meat inspection fees was observed in 60% (21/35) of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Fig. 1). The average decrease was 36 euros per animal unit or on average 7560 euros per small-scale slaughterhouse interviewed per year (based on the number of animals slaughtered in 2011). However, the questionnaire also revealed that after centralization, meat inspection fees increased for 23% (8/35) of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Fig. 1). The rise in meat inspection fees was more common in small-scale slaughterhouses slaughtering under 100 animal units per year than in small-scale slaughterhouses slaughtering over 100 animal units per year, although the difference was not statistically significant (Chi square test, p > 0.05) (Fig. 1). The meat inspection fees in all small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed exceeded the minimum fees defined in the EU regulation (EC, 882/2004) (Table 2). The variance of the meat inspection fees differed significantly between the interviewed small-scale slaughterhouses before and after centralization (Levene’s test, p = 0.013) (Table 2). Before centralization, the highest inspection fee per animal unit was four times the lowest fee. After centralization, the highest inspection
fee was 2.9 times the lowest fee (Table 2). The meat inspection fees correlated strongly with the number of slaughtered animal units per year before centralization (correlation coefficient 0.775, p = 0.041), with a higher fee for those FBOs slaughtering small numbers of animal units. No significant correlation was observed after centralization (Table 2). Of those FBOs whose meat inspection fees decreased, and of those FBOs whose meat inspection fees increased, 81% (17/21) and 75% (6/8), respectively, stated that the change in fees was economically significant. In addition, the FBOs stating that the decrease in meat inspection fees was economically significant correlated significantly with the FBOs’ opinion that the preconditions for operating in the small-scale slaughtering sector had improved (correlation coefficient 0.486, p = 0.01). In total, 35% (12/34) of the FBOs stated that after centralization, the preconditions for operating in the small-scale slaughtering sector improved substantially or somewhat, 38% (13/34) stated that the preconditions did not change, and 12% (4/34) stated that the preconditions worsened. Most of the small-scale slaughterhouses stated that they intend to continue with small-scale slaughtering in the following years with certainty (77%, 27/35) or possibly (17%, 6/35). Only two of the FBOs did not know whether they would continue operations. Availability of official veterinarians and quality of official control The majority of the FBOs stated that the availability of official veterinarians to perform ante and post mortem inspections was not a problem before (82%) or after (85%) centralization (Fig. 2). However, 50% of the FBOs stated that the official veterinarian had performed no food safety inspections during the period between centralization and receipt of the questionnaire.
1-100 animal units/year (n = 18)
101-500 animal units/year (n = 6)
501-1000 animal units/year (n = 8)
0%
50% Increase in fees No change in fees
100% Decrease in fees Fee change unknown
Fig. 1. Changes in meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses of different sizes after centralization according to the questionnaire. The size of the small-scale slaughterhouses was measured in animal units slaughtered per year (three food business operators failed to provide the number of slaughtered animals in the questionnaire and have therefore been excluded from the figure).
18
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
Table 2 Meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed before and after centralization. Small-scale slaughterhousea
Number of slaughtered animal units/yearb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90 98 130 213 376 650 800
Meat inspection fees before and after centralization (euro/slaughter animal unit)c Before
After
79 60 77 79 54 20 26
18 21 25 29 25 10 15
Meat inspection fees after centralization expressed in euro/slaughter animal
3.6
Minimum meat inspection fees according to regulation EC 882/2004 (euro/slaughter animal)
1.0 (pig)
d
5.0
1.0 (pig)
d
2.5
0.25 (sheep)
d
1.5
0.25 (sheep)
a
Table includes small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed with documented fees before and after centralization (bills). Five of the small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed provided incomplete documentation of fees and are therefore excluded from the table. b One animal unit = 1 bovine, 1 horse, 5 pigs or 10 sheep. c The variance of meat inspection fees differed significantly before and after centralization (Levene’s test p = 0.013). d Calculating species-specific fees was not possible because the slaughterhouse slaughtered several animal species.
Cooperaon with the OV was good
The OV's guidance was sufficient
Before (N = 35) Aer (N = 35)
Fully agree
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
Agree somewhat
The OV's guidance was professional
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
Disagree somewhat
The OV was competent
Before (N = 35) Aer (N = 35)
Fully disagree Don't know
Availability was not a problem
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 2. Food business operators’ opinions of the official veterinarian (OV) before and after centralization according to the questioinnaire.
The percentage of FBOs that fully or somewhat agreed that cooperation between the FBO and the official veterinarian was good before centralization was 86% (30/35), but after centralization, was 94% (33/35). In those small-scale slaughterhouses where cooperation was not considered good before centralization, but considered good after centralization, the official veterinarian after centralization was no longer the same. Of the official veterinarians interviewed, eight of ten agreed fully, and two of ten agreed somewhat that cooperation between the official veterinarian and the FBO after centralization was good. The perceptions of the veterinarians and FBOs interviewed about the cooperation between them showed no significant difference (Mann–Whitney U-test, p > 0.05). The majority of the FBOs fully or somewhat agreed that the guidance given by the official veterinarian both before and after centralization was sufficient and professional. The majority of the FBOs also considered the veterinarian competent both before and after centralization (Fig. 2.). FBOs’ opinions on the quality of official control both before and after centralization did not differ significantly (Sign test, p > 0.05). All of the official veterinarians interviewed (n = 10) fully or somewhat agreed that the FBOs knew the food safety regulations well. On the other hand, more than half of the official veterinarians interviewed agreed fully or somewhat that the official veterinarian often guided the FBOs in how to interpret the requirements of food safety regulations (6/10) (Fig. 3). The percentage of the interviewed official veterinarians who considered the guidance they received from NFSA sufficient was 30% (3/10) and 50% (5/10) before and after centralization, respectively. Of the official veterinarians, 50%
(5/10) fully or somewhat agreed that the guidance they received was professional both before and after centralization (Fig. 4). The majority of the official veterinarians interviewed (5/8) stated that the guidance they received from the NFSA improved after centralization. However, the majority of the official veterinarians interviewed (7/10) still expressed that they needed clear instructions like uniform checklists on what to inspect. Official veterinarians also claimed that it was difficult to obtain timely guidance for urgent situations concerning the interpretation of the requirements of food safety regulations. Official veterinarians commented that training provided by the NFSA should include more practical approaches to questions on how to interpret meat inspection and other food safety requirements (8/10) as well as visits to other slaughterhouses (2/10) in order to standardize control actions. Discussion The centralization of meat inspection was expected to solve many problems such as inconsistency in meat inspections fees, difficulties in the availability of official veterinarians and poor guidance of FBOs in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses. This study shows that, although there are challenges still to be addressed, the effects of this centralization have been positive. Meat inspection fees The European Commission is reviewing the legislation on official controls to standardize the fees for FBOs (EC, 2015). The fee structure for Finnish meat inspection with its fixed hourly taxation,
19
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
FBO knows food safety legislaon well (n=10) Fully agree Agree somewhat OV oen guides the FBO in the interpretaon of food safety legislaon (n = 10)
Disagree somewhat Fully disagree
OV oen guides the FBO in food safety requirements (n = 9) 0%
Don't know
50%
100%
Fig. 3. Interviewed official veterinarians’ opinions of the food business operators’ (FBO) knowledge of food safety legislation.
Guidance was professional (n = 10) Before Fully agree
Aer
Agree somewhat Disagree somewhat Fully disagree
Guidance was sufficient (n = 10) Before
Don't know
Aer 0%
50%
100%
Fig. 4. Interviewed official veterinarians’ (n = 10) opinions of the guidance they received from the National Food Safety Authority regarding meat and food safety inspections.
is an example of a more consistent fee structure in one food business sector. The experiences of this fee structure should be evaluated to determine its suitability in a larger context. Meat inspection fees in Finland are now significantly more standardized, and the treatment of small-scale slaughterhouses in relation to fees is more equal. Equal treatment of FBOs is a fundamental right that food control authorities must constantly aim at (Lepistö and Hänninen, 2011), not only in fees but in other areas as well. Before centralization, municipalities set meat inspection fees locally, and the fees varied widely (Rahkio, 2009). The introduction of a nationwide fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation that includes a fixed travel expense was able to make the fees more consistent. Also, throughout the EU, the minimum meat inspection fees set by the EU have a standardizing effect on these fees. In our study, however, the highest inspection fee after centralization was still 2.9 times the lowest fee. The differences may for instance stem from different working paces in meat inspection, which may vary due to the skills of the official veterinarian or to factors in the slaughter line affecting the smooth performance of meat inspection. However, this study did not investigate these factors. Factors leading to differences in meat inspection fees should be recognized to further standardize meat inspection fees whenever possible. The observed decrease in meat inspection fees for the majority of the small-scale slaughterhouses was expected since the government allocated 600,000 euros to subsidizing small-scale slaughterhouses. However, for 23% of small-scale slaughterhouses meat inspection fees surprisingly increased after the centralization according to the questionnaire. Although the questionnaire did not reveal the reason for the increase, understanding the background factors influencing the fees is important. One explanation could be that these small-scale slaughterhouses may have had low meat inspection fees prior to centralization. In such cases, the standardization would have raised the fees.
Availability of official veterinarians and quality of official control The availability of official veterinarians is crucial for meat production. If official veterinarians are unavailable for small-scale slaughterhouses, the animals cannot be slaughtered. In this study, the availability of official veterinarians before and after centralization was considered good by the FBOs. Earlier findings, however, indicated that the availability was not always considered good (Rahkio, 2009). The reasons for these contradictory results remain unclear, but one possibility is that the small-scale slaughterhouses that criticized the availability in the previous study may no longer be in business. At the end of 2008, 88 small-scale slaughterhouses were in business (Rahkio, 2009); at the time of this study 52. However, even if the official veterinarians carried out the meat inspection in a timely manner, this was less true for food safety inspections of the premises and the operations. According to the NFSA, small-scale slaughterhouses should undergo food safety inspections at least twice annually or more frequently in cases of non-compliance. Nevertheless, 50% of the small-scale slaughterhouses had no food safety inspections during the time between centralization and the distribution of the study questionnaire i.e. for seven months. At this point, all small-scale slaughterhouses should have undergone inspection at least once. Before centralization the food safety inspections carried out by the municipalities were criticized for ineffectiveness (FVO, 2013) and one of the goals with the shift of responsibility was to make sure that food safety inspections were carried out effectively. However, the results of this study show that the centralization was not able to address the shortcomings of the food safety inspections at least during the first seven months. It is possible that NFSA was not properly prepared to carry out food safety inspections from the beginning of the centralization. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the official veterinarians were not provided with enough guidance
20
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
on carrying out food safety inspections. These findings highlight the importance of thorough preparation before a shift in responsibility. Although the guidance on food safety inspections was insufficient, the majority of the official veterinarians interviewed reported improvements in their guidance after centralization. It appears, therefore that the shift of responsibility from the municipalities to NFSA were beneficial concerning the quality of guidance given to official veterinarians. This indicates that the NFSA had invested in providing guidance to official veterinarians. To further improve the guidance given to official veterinarians the NFSA should be able to provide guidance more rapidly in urgent situations. Official veterinarians would also appreciate visits to other slaughterhouses, because they would improve the congruence of the control actions. The results showed that the majority of small-scale slaughterhouses were satisfied with the quantity and quality of the guidance they received from the official veterinarians both before and after centralization. In our study, the official veterinarians also stated that the FBOs had a good knowledge in food safety legislation, but yet six of ten official veterinarians pointed out that FBOs needed advice in interpreting the requirements of food safety legislation. It seems difficult for some small-scale slaughterhouses to understand what the food safety legislation actually requires them to do. In such cases, the official veterinarian should be able to advise the FBO on how to interpret the legislation. When required, the official veterinarian should also use enforcement measures, although soft methods such as guidance and education are preferred as the initial control methods (Reske et al., 2007; Rouvière and Caswell, 2012). All FBOs agreed fully or somewhat that cooperation with the official veterinarian after centralization was good, and also only a few FBOs disagreed with the statement before centralization, which contradicts earlier findings (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). The reasons for these contradictory results remain unclear, but as for availability, a possible explanation is that the small-scale slaughterhouses that criticized the cooperation in previous studies may no longer be in business. Problems in the interaction between the inspectors and FBOs may stem from a number of reasons and should be investigated as individual cases. Our study showed that in cases where the FBOs’ opinions of the cooperation had become more positive, the official veterinarian had also changed to another veterinarian. Possible differences in the interactive skills of the veterinarians may have influenced the FBOs’ opinions. Also, before centralization, veterinarians working in municipalities had to perform meat and food safety inspections regardless of their motivation. In the centralized system, municipal veterinarians can now decide themselves whether to perform meat inspection for the NFSA. This may have created a situation where official veterinarians are more motivated to carry out the official veterinarian’s tasks. Non-problematic interaction between the official veterinarian and the FBO is important because it makes it easier to provide guidance to the FBO and to discuss the requirements of the legislation. In the future, if the NFSA will be more active in carrying out not only meat inspection, but also food safety inspections, guidance and cooperation skills will become even more important. Because there is non-compliance in small-scale slaughterhouses (Haltiala, 2013) possible disagreements about how to correct them may arise. Therefore, the NFSA in Finland should invest strongly in high-quality and consistent assistive guidance and enforcement of small-scale slaughterhouses. Future plans of small-scale slaughterhouses The most important aim of the centralization was to improve the preconditions for small-scale slaughterhouses and to contribute to sustainability in local meat slaughtering. Indeed, most
of the FBOs indicated that the preconditions for operating a small-scale slaughterhouse had improved or remained the same after centralization. Improvement in the preconditions correlated significantly with small-scale slaughterhouses reporting a substantial decrease in meat inspection fees. Because no significant change in availability of official veterinarians, cooperation or guidance occurred before or after centralization, the decrease in meat inspection fees appears to be the most important factor affecting FBOs’ opinions on the preconditions. The results describe the slaughterhouse sector’s opinions quite broadly, because the response rate of the questionnaire was quite high. Most of the small-scale slaughterhouses reported with certainty that they intended to continue with small-scale slaughtering in the following years, which is important for maintaining local slaughtering services and local meat production in Finland. It should be noted, however, that a possible increase in the frequency of food safety inspections and correcting of observed non-compliance in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses will incur some expenses for the FBOs, which may affect the future plans of some FBOs. Conclusions The meat inspection fee structure based on fixed hourly based fees led to more consistent meat inspection fees between small-scale slaughterhouses. Also the reduction on meat inspection fees proved significant for many small-scale slaughterhouses. The availability of official veterinarians, as well as the quality and sufficiency of guidance given to FBOs along with cooperation between the official veterinarians and the FBOs appeared to be good and showed no statistically significant changes before or after centralization. However, carrying out food safety inspections appeared to be ineffective and should be addressed by the NFSA. The guidance of the NFSA to official veterinarians improved, but still requires improvement in execution of food safety inspections and rapidness in urgent matters. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the FBOs and the veterinarians interviewed for participating in this study. This study was financially supported by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. References 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, 174–182. Buckley, J., 2015. Food safety regulation and small processing: a case study of interactions between processors and inspectors. Food Policy 51, 74–82. Charlebois, S., Summan, A., 2014. Abattoirs, meat processing and managerial challenges: a survey for lagging rural regions and food entrepreneurs in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Rural Manag. 10, 1–20. Control Program, 2010. Control Program for Environmental Health for 2011–2014. Valvira, Tukes, Evira. (accessed 17.11.14). EC, 2009. Study on fees or charges collected by the Member States to cover the fees occasioned by official controls. European Commission 28.1.2009. (accessed 15.3.15). EC, 2015. Review of legislation on official controls. (accessed 12.03.15). EC, 854/2004. Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. (accessed 22.03.15. EC, 882/2004. Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. (accessed 10.12.14).
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21 EFSA, 2011. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA J. 9(10): 2351. p. 198. (accessed 13.12.14). Fairman, R., Yapp, C., 2004. Compliance with food safety legislation in small and micro-businesses: enforcement as an external motivator. J. Environ. Health Res. 3, 44–52. Food Act, 2011. Amendment of the Food Act 352/2011. (accessed 17.11.14). FVO, 2013. Final report of an audit carried out in Finland from 10 to 20 June 2013 in order to evaluate the follow-up action taken by the competent authorities with regard to official controls related to the safety of food of animal origin, in particular meat, milk and their products. Food and Veterinary Office, DG SANCO 2013-6878. (accessed 13.12.14). Haltiala, H., 2013. The control of small-scale slaughterhouses and reporting of the control results (Abstract). Annual Veterinary Congress, Helsinki, Finland, 27– 29.11.2013. p. 172–173. Hatakka, M., 2010. The transfer of the meat inspection in the small-scale slaughterhouses and game establishments to the government. Report 2010. (accessed 10.12.14). HE, 2010. Government bill on the amendment of the Food Act. HE 293/2010. (accessed 16.11.14). Hirn, J. 2011. An efficient and collected environmental health system. Helsinki, p. 65. (accessed 13.03.15). Lepistö, O., Hänninen, M.-L., 2011. Effects of legal aspects on the use of compulsory procedures in environmental health and food control. J. Environ. Health Res. 11, 127–134. Miewald, C., Ostry, A., Hodgson, S., 2013. Food safety at the small scale: the case of meat inspection regulations in British Columbia’s rural and remote communities. J. Rural Stud. 32, 93–102. MMM, 2007. The effects of the animal derived food regulations on small and medium sized enterprises. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. MMM 6/2007. Helsinki 2007. (accessed 11.12.14). MMM, 2010. Working group report on the development of meat inspection. MMM 2010:8. Helsinki 2010.
21
julkaisut/tyoryhmamuistiot/2010/5rwmzDNWr/trm_8_2010_Lihantarkastuksen_ kehittamistrn_raportti.pdf> (accessed 11.12.14). MMM, 2011. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s regulation on the hygiene of establishments. Regulation 1369/2011. (accessed 11.12.14). MMM, 2012. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s regulation on the National Food Safety Authorities service fees. Regulation 1056/2012. (accessed 11.12.14). Nevas, M., Kalenius, S., Lundén, J., 2013. Significance of official food control in food safety; food business operators’ perceptions. Food Control 31, 59–64. NFSA, 2012. National Food Safety Authority’s list of approved establishments. (accessed 11.12.14). Rahkio, M., Korkeala, H., 1996. Microbiological contamination of carcasses related to hygiene practice and facilities on slaughring lines. Acta Vet. Scan. 37, 219– 228. Reske, K., Jenkins, T., Frnandez, C., VanAmber, D., Hedberg, C., 2007. Beneficial effects of implementing an announced restaurant inspection program. J. Environ. Health 69, 27–34. Rouvière, E., Caswell, J.A., 2012. From punishment to prevention: a French case study of the introduction of co-regulation in enforcing food safety. Food Policy 37, 246–254. Tähkäpää, S., Kaario, N., Maijala, R., Korkeala, H., Tulokas, A., Lundén, J., 2009. Problems for meat and fish operators in implementing food law in Finland. Arch. Lebensm. Hyg. 60, 172–178. Tähkäpää, S., Nevas, M., Kallioniemi, M., Korkeala, H., Maijala, R., 2013. Control fees and quality systems have improved food control as perceived by local food control officers in Finland. Food Control 32, 304–308. Worosz, M.R., Knight, A.J., Harris, C.K., Conner, D.S., 2008. Barriers to entry into the specialty red meat sector: the role of food safety regulation. South. Rur. Sociol. 23, 170–207. Yapp, C., Fairman, R., 2006. Factors affecting food safety compliance within small and medium-sized enterprises: implications for regulatory and enforcement strategies. Food Control 17, 42–51.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Effects of centralizing meat inspection and food safety inspections in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses Niina Kotisalo, Jenni Luukkanen, Maria Fredriksson-Ahomaa, Janne Lundén ⇑ Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 December 2014 Received in revised form 19 May 2015 Accepted 23 May 2015 Available online 6 June 2015 Keywords: Small-scale slaughterhouse Meat inspection Food safety Official control
a b s t r a c t The official control of small-scale slaughterhouses has received criticism for inconsistent meat inspection fees and for the poor quality guidance and cooperation with food business operators (FBO) in Finland. The official control including both meat inspection (ante and post mortem) and food safety inspections (verification of FBO’s self-inspection) of small-scale slaughterhouses was centralized from municipalities to the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) in 2011 to address these perceived shortcomings. This study aimed to investigate the early effects of the centralization of meat inspection and food safety inspections, specifically the standardization of meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services. In March all small-scale slaughterhouses (n = 52) received a questionnaire on the effects of centralizing meat inspection. We interviewed 12 small-scale slaughterhouses on site and the official veterinarians of ten of these small-scale slaughterhouses by phone. The results showed that introducing a meat inspection fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation that includes a fixed travel expense, can lead to more standardized fees. The variation in meat inspection fees after centralization was significantly smaller (Levene’s test, p = 0.013) than before. Moreover, after centralization, meat inspection fees and the number of slaughtered animal units per year showed no significant correlation. Meat inspection fees decreased for the majority of FBOs, which was expected because of the government subsidies the FBOs received. The majority of FBOs perceived the guidance as good both before and after centralization, and both FBOs and official veterinarians assessed their cooperation as good. The availability of official veterinarians to perform ante and post mortem inspections posed no problem for most FBOs. However, 50% of the FBOs interviewed stated that the official veterinarian had performed no food safety inspections after centralization, which can negatively impact food safety. The majority of the official veterinarians stated that the guidance they received from the NFSA improved after centralization, but they still urged more guidance on interpreting food safety requirements and performing food safety inspections. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Small-scale meat businesses are important for maintaining local meat production, however, they face many challenges, some of which are related to food safety regulations and their implementation. Such challenges have been recognized in both Europe (Yapp and Fairman, 2006; Tähkäpää et al., 2009) and North-America (Worosz et al., 2008; Miewald et al., 2013; Charlebois and Summan, 2014). Also, high and unfairly distributed fees for official food inspection are considered problematic for food business operators (FBOs) in the EU (EC, 2009).
Similar problems have been observed in small-scale meat processing in Finland, an EU member state. Previous studies have found the quality of meat inspection (ante and post mortem inspection) and food safety inspections (verification of FBO’s self-inspection1) inconsistent, and cooperation between official veterinarians and FBOs poor (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). Cooperation with official veterinarians plays a central role, as they perform both meat and food safety inspections in small-scale slaughterhouses. The inconsistency of meat inspection fees in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses has also been criticized (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). Meat inspection fees are high and vary widely between small-scale
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 66, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358 294157148. E-mail address: janne.lunden@helsinki.fi (J. Lundén).
1 FBO’s self-inspection comprises, for example, HACCP, cleaning and waste management. The official veterinarian verifies that the FBO carries out the self-inspection adequately.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.007 0306-9192/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
16
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
slaughterhouses. Meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland are on average seven times higher, and in some cases 30 times higher, than EU minimum meat inspection fees (Rahkio, 2009). FBOs have also criticized the unavailability of official veterinarians, and according to inspectors of the Food and Veterinary Office, food safety inspections have failed to adequately address non-compliance in slaughterhouses (FVO, 2013). To improve the quality of meat inspection services and to standardize meat inspection fees, meat inspection organization was centralized in 2011 (Food Act, 2011). The main consequences of this centralization were a shift in responsibility for meat inspection and food safety inspections from the local to the central level and a restructuring of meat inspection fees. Not only has the centralization of meat inspection come under discussion, but the centralization of food control in Finland in general has also been a subject of debate due to inconsistent food control (Hirn, 2011). Therefore, experiences of this centralization of meat inspection in small-scale slaughterhouses can prove valuable when evaluating the possible centralization of overall food control in Finland. Previously, independent municipalities bore responsibility for small-scale slaughterhouses, but since September 2011 the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) has been responsible for meat inspection and food safety inspections. Official (state) veterinarians working for the NFSA or municipal veterinarians contracted by the NFSA carry out meat and food safety inspections. Before centralization, meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses were based on travel and inspection time or the number of animals slaughtered, and municipal control fees varied (Rahkio, 2009; Tähkäpää et al., 2013), leading to differences in meat inspection fees between FBOs (Rahkio, 2009). After centralization NFSA introduced a fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation (MMM, 2012) which is same for all small-scale slaughterhouses. To increase opportunities for small-scale slaughterhouses to operate, the government began subsidizing small-scale slaughterhouses after centralization at 600,000 euros per year (Haltiala, 2013), which aims to keep meat inspection fees closer to the EU minimum fees. In addition to ante and post mortem inspections, food safety inspections in small-scale slaughterhouses must take place regularly (EC, 882/2004). Food safety inspections ensure that FBOs’ self-inspection is sufficient and fulfills the requirements of food safety legislation. The frequency of food safety inspections is risk-based (EC, 882/2004) and set individually for each slaughterhouse based on its functions and size (Control Program, 2010). Food safety inspections in all small-scale slaughterhouses should occur at least twice annually (Haltiala, 2013) or as often as needed (EC, 882/2004). Non-compliance, such as lack of hygiene and poor traceability, has occurred in small-scale slaughterhouses (FVO, 2013; Haltiala, 2013), which may compromise meat safety (Rahkio and Korkeala, 1996; Blagojevic and Antic, 2014). Food safety regulations are complex, and previous studies have shown that FBOs often require guidance and education in implementing food safety requirements (Fairman and Yapp, 2004; MMM, 2007; Tähkäpää et al., 2009; Nevas et al., 2013). Such advice is often provided during food safety inspections (Fairman and Yapp, 2004; Tähkäpää et al., 2009; Nevas et al., 2013). Although EU-legislation (EC, 854/2004) regulates meat inspection in detail, official veterinarians can play an important role in the implementation of these requirements on site. An assistive approach by inspectors is considered beneficial to compliance (Buckley, 2015). Not only do FBOs require guidance in implementing food safety regulations, but also official veterinarians conducting meat and food safety inspections need guidance in implementing the requirements and promoting compliance. The interaction between the FBO and the inspector has become an important factor in promoting or impeding operations and the implementation of regulations (Buckley, 2015). This places high demands on the guidance that the NFSA provides for its official veterinarians.
Meat and food safety inspections aim to ensure meat safety. Meat inspection is also crucial in preventing animal diseases and in ensuring animal welfare (EFSA, 2011). Although the numbers of slaughtered animals are much smaller in small-scale slaughterhouses than in large slaughterhouses (HE, 2010), the biological hazards remain the same. It is therefore important that small-scale slaughterhouses also benefit from high quality meat inspection services. The aim of this study was to investigate the early effects of the centralization of meat inspection and food safety inspections on small-scale slaughterhouses. The specific aims were to investigate whether the new meat inspection fee structure standardized fees between small-scale slaughterhouses and to study the quality of meat inspection services from the perspective of FBOs and official veterinarians both before and after centralization.
Material and methods Small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland This study included all small-scale slaughterhouses in operation in Finland. In March 2012, the NFSA’s list of approved establishments (NFSA, 2012) contained 52 small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland (Table 1). A small-scale slaughterhouse in Finland is allowed to slaughter up to 1000 animal units per year. One animal unit equals one bovine or horse, five pigs, ten sheep or 150,000 poultry (MMM, 2011).
The questionnaire and the interviews All small-scale slaughterhouses received a questionnaire in March 2012 on the effects of the centralization of meat inspection. The FBOs received a printed questionnaire by mail, but could also answer this same questionnaire online. The questionnaire inquired about meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services both before and after meat inspection centralization. Questions about the availability of official veterinarians, cooperation with the official veterinarians and opinions on the advice they provided measured the quality of meat inspection services. The questionnaire contained both Likert-scale questions (totally agree, partially agree, partially disagree, totally disagree and do not know) and open-ended questions. The small-scale slaughterhouses received the questionnaire when the official control had been centralized for seven months. The study was conducted early after the centralization in order to recognize the first effects of the change. This would enable NFSA to intervene at an early stage if the results implied the need for changes. With the help of a structured form, we interviewed 12 small-scale slaughterhouse owners on site to obtain detailed information about meat inspection fees and the quality of meat inspection services. The interviews allowed us to further explore the FBO’s opinions concerning the causes of possible problems in the availability of official veterinarians, cooperation or guidance. For instance, if the cooperation was considered poor, we asked the interviewee to provide specific examples of poor cooperation. The small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed for the study were chosen based on their locations to cover the country (Table 1). Ten of the official veterinarians responsible for the official control of these small-scale slaughterhouses were interviewed by phone about the cooperation with the FBO as well as the FBO’s knowledge of food safety regulations. We also investigated the official veterinarians’ opinions on the guidance that the NFSA provided to them. Two of the official veterinarians did not participate in the interview.
17
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21 Table 1 Location of the small-scale slaughterhouses in Finland and number of respondents to the questionnaire and small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed. Regional State Administrative Agency
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses that replied to the questionnaire (%)
Number of small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed (%)
Southern Finland Southwestern Finland Eastern Finland Western and Inland Finland Northern Finland Lapland Total
10 11 15 12 2 2 52
9 (90.0) 6 (54.5) 11 (73.3) 7 (58.3) 2 (100) 0 (0) 35 (67.3)
1 (10.0) 2 (18.2) 6 (40.0) 3 (25.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (23.1)
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21 (IBM SPSS Software). The Chi square test was used to analyze the relation between the size of the slaughterhouse and changes in meat inspection fees. The equality of variances of the meat inspection fees before and after centralization was tested with Levene’s test. The correlation between the numbers of slaughtered animal units per year and the fee per unit (euro) was analyzed with Spearman’s rho. Spearman’s rho also served to analyze the correlation between the Likert-scale answers concerning meat inspection fees and improved business viability. The Sign test served to analyze the differences in FBOs’ perceptions of guidance before and after the centralization, and the Mann–Whitney U test to analyze the significance of differences in the FBOs’ and the official veterinarians’ perceptions of their cooperation. In the analysis, the ‘don’t know’ answers were categorized as missing. A confidence level of 95% was applied when evaluating the results of the statistical analyses. Results Response rates The response rate for the FBOs questionnaire was 67%, and the FBOs interviewed represented 23% of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Table 1). The FBOs’ responses were received from all provinces (Regional State Administrative Agency) except Lapland (Table 1). Meat inspection fees The subsidizing of small-scale slaughterhouses began at the same time as the centralization, and questionnaire responses indicated that a decrease in meat inspection fees was observed in 60% (21/35) of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Fig. 1). The average decrease was 36 euros per animal unit or on average 7560 euros per small-scale slaughterhouse interviewed per year (based on the number of animals slaughtered in 2011). However, the questionnaire also revealed that after centralization, meat inspection fees increased for 23% (8/35) of the small-scale slaughterhouses (Fig. 1). The rise in meat inspection fees was more common in small-scale slaughterhouses slaughtering under 100 animal units per year than in small-scale slaughterhouses slaughtering over 100 animal units per year, although the difference was not statistically significant (Chi square test, p > 0.05) (Fig. 1). The meat inspection fees in all small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed exceeded the minimum fees defined in the EU regulation (EC, 882/2004) (Table 2). The variance of the meat inspection fees differed significantly between the interviewed small-scale slaughterhouses before and after centralization (Levene’s test, p = 0.013) (Table 2). Before centralization, the highest inspection fee per animal unit was four times the lowest fee. After centralization, the highest inspection
fee was 2.9 times the lowest fee (Table 2). The meat inspection fees correlated strongly with the number of slaughtered animal units per year before centralization (correlation coefficient 0.775, p = 0.041), with a higher fee for those FBOs slaughtering small numbers of animal units. No significant correlation was observed after centralization (Table 2). Of those FBOs whose meat inspection fees decreased, and of those FBOs whose meat inspection fees increased, 81% (17/21) and 75% (6/8), respectively, stated that the change in fees was economically significant. In addition, the FBOs stating that the decrease in meat inspection fees was economically significant correlated significantly with the FBOs’ opinion that the preconditions for operating in the small-scale slaughtering sector had improved (correlation coefficient 0.486, p = 0.01). In total, 35% (12/34) of the FBOs stated that after centralization, the preconditions for operating in the small-scale slaughtering sector improved substantially or somewhat, 38% (13/34) stated that the preconditions did not change, and 12% (4/34) stated that the preconditions worsened. Most of the small-scale slaughterhouses stated that they intend to continue with small-scale slaughtering in the following years with certainty (77%, 27/35) or possibly (17%, 6/35). Only two of the FBOs did not know whether they would continue operations. Availability of official veterinarians and quality of official control The majority of the FBOs stated that the availability of official veterinarians to perform ante and post mortem inspections was not a problem before (82%) or after (85%) centralization (Fig. 2). However, 50% of the FBOs stated that the official veterinarian had performed no food safety inspections during the period between centralization and receipt of the questionnaire.
1-100 animal units/year (n = 18)
101-500 animal units/year (n = 6)
501-1000 animal units/year (n = 8)
0%
50% Increase in fees No change in fees
100% Decrease in fees Fee change unknown
Fig. 1. Changes in meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses of different sizes after centralization according to the questionnaire. The size of the small-scale slaughterhouses was measured in animal units slaughtered per year (three food business operators failed to provide the number of slaughtered animals in the questionnaire and have therefore been excluded from the figure).
18
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
Table 2 Meat inspection fees in small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed before and after centralization. Small-scale slaughterhousea
Number of slaughtered animal units/yearb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90 98 130 213 376 650 800
Meat inspection fees before and after centralization (euro/slaughter animal unit)c Before
After
79 60 77 79 54 20 26
18 21 25 29 25 10 15
Meat inspection fees after centralization expressed in euro/slaughter animal
3.6
Minimum meat inspection fees according to regulation EC 882/2004 (euro/slaughter animal)
1.0 (pig)
d
5.0
1.0 (pig)
d
2.5
0.25 (sheep)
d
1.5
0.25 (sheep)
a
Table includes small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed with documented fees before and after centralization (bills). Five of the small-scale slaughterhouses interviewed provided incomplete documentation of fees and are therefore excluded from the table. b One animal unit = 1 bovine, 1 horse, 5 pigs or 10 sheep. c The variance of meat inspection fees differed significantly before and after centralization (Levene’s test p = 0.013). d Calculating species-specific fees was not possible because the slaughterhouse slaughtered several animal species.
Cooperaon with the OV was good
The OV's guidance was sufficient
Before (N = 35) Aer (N = 35)
Fully agree
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
Agree somewhat
The OV's guidance was professional
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
Disagree somewhat
The OV was competent
Before (N = 35) Aer (N = 35)
Fully disagree Don't know
Availability was not a problem
Before (N = 34) Aer (N = 34)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 2. Food business operators’ opinions of the official veterinarian (OV) before and after centralization according to the questioinnaire.
The percentage of FBOs that fully or somewhat agreed that cooperation between the FBO and the official veterinarian was good before centralization was 86% (30/35), but after centralization, was 94% (33/35). In those small-scale slaughterhouses where cooperation was not considered good before centralization, but considered good after centralization, the official veterinarian after centralization was no longer the same. Of the official veterinarians interviewed, eight of ten agreed fully, and two of ten agreed somewhat that cooperation between the official veterinarian and the FBO after centralization was good. The perceptions of the veterinarians and FBOs interviewed about the cooperation between them showed no significant difference (Mann–Whitney U-test, p > 0.05). The majority of the FBOs fully or somewhat agreed that the guidance given by the official veterinarian both before and after centralization was sufficient and professional. The majority of the FBOs also considered the veterinarian competent both before and after centralization (Fig. 2.). FBOs’ opinions on the quality of official control both before and after centralization did not differ significantly (Sign test, p > 0.05). All of the official veterinarians interviewed (n = 10) fully or somewhat agreed that the FBOs knew the food safety regulations well. On the other hand, more than half of the official veterinarians interviewed agreed fully or somewhat that the official veterinarian often guided the FBOs in how to interpret the requirements of food safety regulations (6/10) (Fig. 3). The percentage of the interviewed official veterinarians who considered the guidance they received from NFSA sufficient was 30% (3/10) and 50% (5/10) before and after centralization, respectively. Of the official veterinarians, 50%
(5/10) fully or somewhat agreed that the guidance they received was professional both before and after centralization (Fig. 4). The majority of the official veterinarians interviewed (5/8) stated that the guidance they received from the NFSA improved after centralization. However, the majority of the official veterinarians interviewed (7/10) still expressed that they needed clear instructions like uniform checklists on what to inspect. Official veterinarians also claimed that it was difficult to obtain timely guidance for urgent situations concerning the interpretation of the requirements of food safety regulations. Official veterinarians commented that training provided by the NFSA should include more practical approaches to questions on how to interpret meat inspection and other food safety requirements (8/10) as well as visits to other slaughterhouses (2/10) in order to standardize control actions. Discussion The centralization of meat inspection was expected to solve many problems such as inconsistency in meat inspections fees, difficulties in the availability of official veterinarians and poor guidance of FBOs in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses. This study shows that, although there are challenges still to be addressed, the effects of this centralization have been positive. Meat inspection fees The European Commission is reviewing the legislation on official controls to standardize the fees for FBOs (EC, 2015). The fee structure for Finnish meat inspection with its fixed hourly taxation,
19
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
FBO knows food safety legislaon well (n=10) Fully agree Agree somewhat OV oen guides the FBO in the interpretaon of food safety legislaon (n = 10)
Disagree somewhat Fully disagree
OV oen guides the FBO in food safety requirements (n = 9) 0%
Don't know
50%
100%
Fig. 3. Interviewed official veterinarians’ opinions of the food business operators’ (FBO) knowledge of food safety legislation.
Guidance was professional (n = 10) Before Fully agree
Aer
Agree somewhat Disagree somewhat Fully disagree
Guidance was sufficient (n = 10) Before
Don't know
Aer 0%
50%
100%
Fig. 4. Interviewed official veterinarians’ (n = 10) opinions of the guidance they received from the National Food Safety Authority regarding meat and food safety inspections.
is an example of a more consistent fee structure in one food business sector. The experiences of this fee structure should be evaluated to determine its suitability in a larger context. Meat inspection fees in Finland are now significantly more standardized, and the treatment of small-scale slaughterhouses in relation to fees is more equal. Equal treatment of FBOs is a fundamental right that food control authorities must constantly aim at (Lepistö and Hänninen, 2011), not only in fees but in other areas as well. Before centralization, municipalities set meat inspection fees locally, and the fees varied widely (Rahkio, 2009). The introduction of a nationwide fee structure based on fixed hourly taxation that includes a fixed travel expense was able to make the fees more consistent. Also, throughout the EU, the minimum meat inspection fees set by the EU have a standardizing effect on these fees. In our study, however, the highest inspection fee after centralization was still 2.9 times the lowest fee. The differences may for instance stem from different working paces in meat inspection, which may vary due to the skills of the official veterinarian or to factors in the slaughter line affecting the smooth performance of meat inspection. However, this study did not investigate these factors. Factors leading to differences in meat inspection fees should be recognized to further standardize meat inspection fees whenever possible. The observed decrease in meat inspection fees for the majority of the small-scale slaughterhouses was expected since the government allocated 600,000 euros to subsidizing small-scale slaughterhouses. However, for 23% of small-scale slaughterhouses meat inspection fees surprisingly increased after the centralization according to the questionnaire. Although the questionnaire did not reveal the reason for the increase, understanding the background factors influencing the fees is important. One explanation could be that these small-scale slaughterhouses may have had low meat inspection fees prior to centralization. In such cases, the standardization would have raised the fees.
Availability of official veterinarians and quality of official control The availability of official veterinarians is crucial for meat production. If official veterinarians are unavailable for small-scale slaughterhouses, the animals cannot be slaughtered. In this study, the availability of official veterinarians before and after centralization was considered good by the FBOs. Earlier findings, however, indicated that the availability was not always considered good (Rahkio, 2009). The reasons for these contradictory results remain unclear, but one possibility is that the small-scale slaughterhouses that criticized the availability in the previous study may no longer be in business. At the end of 2008, 88 small-scale slaughterhouses were in business (Rahkio, 2009); at the time of this study 52. However, even if the official veterinarians carried out the meat inspection in a timely manner, this was less true for food safety inspections of the premises and the operations. According to the NFSA, small-scale slaughterhouses should undergo food safety inspections at least twice annually or more frequently in cases of non-compliance. Nevertheless, 50% of the small-scale slaughterhouses had no food safety inspections during the time between centralization and the distribution of the study questionnaire i.e. for seven months. At this point, all small-scale slaughterhouses should have undergone inspection at least once. Before centralization the food safety inspections carried out by the municipalities were criticized for ineffectiveness (FVO, 2013) and one of the goals with the shift of responsibility was to make sure that food safety inspections were carried out effectively. However, the results of this study show that the centralization was not able to address the shortcomings of the food safety inspections at least during the first seven months. It is possible that NFSA was not properly prepared to carry out food safety inspections from the beginning of the centralization. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the official veterinarians were not provided with enough guidance
20
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21
on carrying out food safety inspections. These findings highlight the importance of thorough preparation before a shift in responsibility. Although the guidance on food safety inspections was insufficient, the majority of the official veterinarians interviewed reported improvements in their guidance after centralization. It appears, therefore that the shift of responsibility from the municipalities to NFSA were beneficial concerning the quality of guidance given to official veterinarians. This indicates that the NFSA had invested in providing guidance to official veterinarians. To further improve the guidance given to official veterinarians the NFSA should be able to provide guidance more rapidly in urgent situations. Official veterinarians would also appreciate visits to other slaughterhouses, because they would improve the congruence of the control actions. The results showed that the majority of small-scale slaughterhouses were satisfied with the quantity and quality of the guidance they received from the official veterinarians both before and after centralization. In our study, the official veterinarians also stated that the FBOs had a good knowledge in food safety legislation, but yet six of ten official veterinarians pointed out that FBOs needed advice in interpreting the requirements of food safety legislation. It seems difficult for some small-scale slaughterhouses to understand what the food safety legislation actually requires them to do. In such cases, the official veterinarian should be able to advise the FBO on how to interpret the legislation. When required, the official veterinarian should also use enforcement measures, although soft methods such as guidance and education are preferred as the initial control methods (Reske et al., 2007; Rouvière and Caswell, 2012). All FBOs agreed fully or somewhat that cooperation with the official veterinarian after centralization was good, and also only a few FBOs disagreed with the statement before centralization, which contradicts earlier findings (Rahkio, 2009; Hatakka, 2010; MMM, 2010). The reasons for these contradictory results remain unclear, but as for availability, a possible explanation is that the small-scale slaughterhouses that criticized the cooperation in previous studies may no longer be in business. Problems in the interaction between the inspectors and FBOs may stem from a number of reasons and should be investigated as individual cases. Our study showed that in cases where the FBOs’ opinions of the cooperation had become more positive, the official veterinarian had also changed to another veterinarian. Possible differences in the interactive skills of the veterinarians may have influenced the FBOs’ opinions. Also, before centralization, veterinarians working in municipalities had to perform meat and food safety inspections regardless of their motivation. In the centralized system, municipal veterinarians can now decide themselves whether to perform meat inspection for the NFSA. This may have created a situation where official veterinarians are more motivated to carry out the official veterinarian’s tasks. Non-problematic interaction between the official veterinarian and the FBO is important because it makes it easier to provide guidance to the FBO and to discuss the requirements of the legislation. In the future, if the NFSA will be more active in carrying out not only meat inspection, but also food safety inspections, guidance and cooperation skills will become even more important. Because there is non-compliance in small-scale slaughterhouses (Haltiala, 2013) possible disagreements about how to correct them may arise. Therefore, the NFSA in Finland should invest strongly in high-quality and consistent assistive guidance and enforcement of small-scale slaughterhouses. Future plans of small-scale slaughterhouses The most important aim of the centralization was to improve the preconditions for small-scale slaughterhouses and to contribute to sustainability in local meat slaughtering. Indeed, most
of the FBOs indicated that the preconditions for operating a small-scale slaughterhouse had improved or remained the same after centralization. Improvement in the preconditions correlated significantly with small-scale slaughterhouses reporting a substantial decrease in meat inspection fees. Because no significant change in availability of official veterinarians, cooperation or guidance occurred before or after centralization, the decrease in meat inspection fees appears to be the most important factor affecting FBOs’ opinions on the preconditions. The results describe the slaughterhouse sector’s opinions quite broadly, because the response rate of the questionnaire was quite high. Most of the small-scale slaughterhouses reported with certainty that they intended to continue with small-scale slaughtering in the following years, which is important for maintaining local slaughtering services and local meat production in Finland. It should be noted, however, that a possible increase in the frequency of food safety inspections and correcting of observed non-compliance in Finnish small-scale slaughterhouses will incur some expenses for the FBOs, which may affect the future plans of some FBOs. Conclusions The meat inspection fee structure based on fixed hourly based fees led to more consistent meat inspection fees between small-scale slaughterhouses. Also the reduction on meat inspection fees proved significant for many small-scale slaughterhouses. The availability of official veterinarians, as well as the quality and sufficiency of guidance given to FBOs along with cooperation between the official veterinarians and the FBOs appeared to be good and showed no statistically significant changes before or after centralization. However, carrying out food safety inspections appeared to be ineffective and should be addressed by the NFSA. The guidance of the NFSA to official veterinarians improved, but still requires improvement in execution of food safety inspections and rapidness in urgent matters. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the FBOs and the veterinarians interviewed for participating in this study. This study was financially supported by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. References 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, 174–182. Buckley, J., 2015. Food safety regulation and small processing: a case study of interactions between processors and inspectors. Food Policy 51, 74–82. Charlebois, S., Summan, A., 2014. Abattoirs, meat processing and managerial challenges: a survey for lagging rural regions and food entrepreneurs in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Rural Manag. 10, 1–20. Control Program, 2010. Control Program for Environmental Health for 2011–2014. Valvira, Tukes, Evira.
N. Kotisalo et al. / Food Policy 55 (2015) 15–21 EFSA, 2011. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA J. 9(10): 2351. p. 198.
21
julkaisut/tyoryhmamuistiot/2010/5rwmzDNWr/trm_8_2010_Lihantarkastuksen_ kehittamistrn_raportti.pdf> (accessed 11.12.14). MMM, 2011. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s regulation on the hygiene of establishments. Regulation 1369/2011.