The impact of the proposed revised Australia's microbiological monitoring programme for beef and sheep meat exported to the EU.

The European Commission asks scientific and technical assistance from EFSA to determine the impact of the revision of the Australian monitoring programme on its ability to detect microbiological contamination. Considering that, in 2010, the European Commission determined the current Australian monitoring programme to be equivalent to the EU requirements for microbiological monitoring further to an EFSA scientific assessment, the current and proposed programmes were described and the total number of alerts was compared using a probabilistic modelling approach. In the current programme, only beef and sheep carcasses are monitored using three-class moving window sampling plans, while in the proposed programme, carcass, bulk meat, primal and offal are monitored using four two-class sampling plans and Salmonella testing is excluded. The models revealed that the current programme provides a higher number of alerts for APC, while the proposed monitoring programme provides a higher number of alerts for E. coli. For APC and E. coli combined, the mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the total number of alerts in the current and the proposed monitoring programme are 201 [179, 227] and 172 [149, 194] for beef, and 199 [175, 222] and 2897 [2795, 3008] for sheep, respectively. For Salmonella, there are no alerts for the proposed programme since sampling is excluded while for the current programme, the estimated mean, 5th and 95th centiles of the uncertainty distribution of the number of alerts for a 5-year period were 143 [126, 144] for heifer/steer, 1.6 [0, 4] for cow/bull and 0 [0, 0] for lamb/sheep. Overall, for APC and E. coli, the estimated total number of alerts was similar (beef) or higher (sheep) for the proposed compared to the current programme. In contrast, Salmonella sampling is excluded from the proposed programme and thus cannot detect the number of current alerts.

Use of risk assessment and predictive microbiology in regulatory science related to the scientific opinions of the EFSA BIOHAZ Panel.

EFSA's Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ Panel) deals with questions on biological hazards relating to food safety and food-borne diseases. This covers food-borne zoonoses, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, antimicrobial resistance, food microbiology, food hygiene, animal-by products, and associated waste management issues. The scientific assessments are diverse and frequently the development of new methodological approaches is required to deal with a mandate. Among the many risk factors, product characteristics (pH, water activity etc.), time and temperature of processing and storage along the food supply chain are highly relevant for assessing the biological risks. Therefore, predictive microbiology becomes an essential element of the assessments. Uncertainty analysis is incorporated in all BIOHAZ scientific assessments, to meet the general requirement for transparency. Assessments should clearly and unambiguously state what sources of uncertainty have been identified and their impact on the conclusions of the assessment. Four recent BIOHAZ Scientific Opinions are presented to illustrate the use of predictive modelling and quantitative microbial risk assessment principles in regulatory science. The Scientific Opinion on the guidance on date marking and related food information, gives a general overview on the use of predictive microbiology for shelf-life assessment. The Scientific Opinion on the efficacy and safety of high-pressure processing of food provides an example of inactivation modelling and compliance with performance criteria. The Scientific Opinion on the use of the so-called 'superchilling' technique for the transport of fresh fishery products illustrates the combination of heat transfer and microbial growth modelling. Finally, the Scientific Opinion on the delayed post-mortem inspection in ungulates, shows how variability and uncertainty, were quantitatively embedded in assessing the probability of Salmonella detection on carcasses, via stochastic modelling and expert knowledge elicitation.

Microbiological safety of aged meat.

The impact of dry-ageing of beef and wet-ageing of beef, pork and lamb on microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria was examined and current practices are described. As 'standard fresh' and wet-aged meat use similar processes these were differentiated based on duration. In addition to a description of the different stages, data were collated on key parameters (time, temperature, pH and aw) using a literature survey and questionnaires. The microbiological hazards that may be present in all aged meats included Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, enterotoxigenic Yersinia spp., Campylobacter spp. and Clostridium spp. Moulds, such as Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp., may produce mycotoxins when conditions are favourable but may be prevented by ensuring a meat surface temperature of -0.5 to 3.0°C, with a relative humidity (RH) of 75-85% and an airflow of 0.2-0.5 m/s for up to 35 days. The main meat spoilage bacteria include Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp. Enterococcus spp., Weissella spp., Brochothrix spp., Leuconostoc spp., Lactobacillus spp., Shewanella spp. and Clostridium spp. Under current practices, the ageing of meat may have an impact on the load of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria as compared to standard fresh meat preparation. Ageing under defined and controlled conditions can achieve the same or lower loads of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria than the variable log10 increases predicted during standard fresh meat preparation. An approach was used to establish the conditions of time and temperature that would achieve similar or lower levels of L. monocytogenes and Yersinia enterocolitica (pork only) and lactic acid bacteria (representing spoilage bacteria) as compared to standard fresh meat. Finally, additional control activities were identified that would further assure the microbial safety of dry-aged beef, based on recommended best practice and the outputs of the equivalence assessment.

Welfare of broilers on farm.

This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day-old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: 'bone lesions', 'cold stress', 'gastro-enteric disorders', 'group stress', 'handling stress', 'heat stress', 'isolation stress', 'inability to perform comfort behaviour', 'inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour', 'inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour', 'locomotory disorders', 'prolonged hunger', 'prolonged thirst', 'predation stress', 'restriction of movement', 'resting problems', 'sensory under- and overstimulation', 'soft tissue and integument damage' and 'umbilical disorders'. These WCs and their animal-based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de-toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast-growing, slower-growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, 'total mortality', 'wounds', 'carcass condemnation' and 'footpad dermatitis' are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on-farm.

Update of the list of QPS-recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 16: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2022.

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of microorganisms, intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge, safety concerns and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of the 50 microorganisms notified to EFSA in October 2021 to March 2022 (inclusive), 41 were not evaluated: 10 filamentous fungi, 1 Enterococcus faecium, 1 Clostridium butyricum, 3 Escherichia coli and 1 Streptomyces spp. because are excluded from QPS evaluation, and 25 TUs that have already a QPS status. Nine notifications, corresponding to seven TUs were evaluated: four of these, Streptococcus salivarius, Companilactobacillus formosensis, Pseudonocardia autotrophica and Papiliotrema terrestris, being evaluated for the first time. The other three, Microbacterium foliorum, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Ensifer adhaerens were re-assessed. None of these TUs were recommended for QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens, Microbacterium foliorum, Companilactobacillus formosensis and Papiliotrema terrestris due to a limited body of knowledge, Streptococcus salivarius due to its ability to cause bacteraemia and systemic infection that results in a variety of morbidities, Pseudonocardia autotrophica due to lack of body of knowledge and uncertainty on the safety of biologically active compounds which can be produced, and Pseudomonas fluorescens due to possible safety concerns.

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 15: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2021.

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. The QPS list was updated in relation to the revised taxonomy of the genus Bacillus, to synonyms of yeast species and for the qualifications 'absence of resistance to antimycotics' and 'only for production purposes'. Lactobacillus cellobiosus has been reclassified as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS taxonomic units (TU)s. Of the 70 microorganisms notified to EFSA, 64 were not evaluated: 11 filamentous fungi, one oomycete, one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, five Escherichia coli, one Streptomyces sp., one Bacillus nakamurai and 43 TUs that already had a QPS status. Six notifications, corresponding to six TUs were evaluated: Paenibacillus lentus was reassessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Enterococcus lactis synonym Enterococcus xinjiangensis, Aurantiochytrium mangrovei synonym Schizochytrium mangrovei, Schizochytrium aggregatum, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii synonym Chlamydomonas smithii and Haematococcus lacustris synonym Haematococcus pluvialis were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: P. lentus due to a limited body of knowledge, E. lactis synonym E. xinjiangensis due to potential safety concerns, A. mangrovei synonym S. mangrovei, S. aggregatum and C. reinhardtii synonym C. smithii, due to lack of a body of knowledge on its occurrence in the food and feed chain. H. lacustris synonym H. pluvialis is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'for production purposes only'.

Guidance on date marking and related food information: part 2 (food information).

A risk-based approach was used to develop guidance to be followed by food business operators (FBOs) when deciding on food information relating to storage conditions and/or time limits for consumption after opening a food package and thawing of frozen foods. After opening the package, contamination may occur, introducing new pathogens into the food and the intrinsic (e.g. pH and aw), extrinsic (e.g. temperature and gas atmosphere) and implicit (e.g. interactions with competing background microbiota) factors may change, affecting microbiological food safety. Setting a time limit for consumption after opening the package (secondary shelf-life) is complex in view of the many influencing factors and information gaps. A decision tree (DT) was developed to assist FBOs in deciding whether the time limit for consumption after opening, due to safety reasons, is potentially shorter than the initial 'best before' or 'use by' date of the product in its unopened package. For products where opening the package leads to a change of the type of pathogenic microorganisms present in the food and/or factors increasing their growth compared to the unopened product, a shorter time limit for consumption after opening would be appropriate. Freezing prevents the growth of pathogens, however, most pathogenic microorganisms may survive frozen storage, recover during thawing and then grow and/or produce toxins in the food, if conditions are favourable. Moreover, additional contamination may occur from hands, contact surfaces or contamination from other foods and utensils. Good practices for thawing should, from a food safety point of view, minimise growth of and contamination by pathogens between the food being thawed and other foods and/or contact surfaces, especially when removing the food from the package during thawing. Best practices for thawing foods are presented to support FBOs.

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 14: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2021.

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents, intended for addition to food or feed, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge, safety concerns and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Schizochytrium limacinum, which is a synonym for Aurantiochytrium limacinum, was added to the QPS list. Of the 78 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2020 and March 2021, 71 were excluded; 16 filamentous fungi, 1 Dyella spp., 1 Enterococcus faecium, 7 Escherichia coli, 1 Streptomyces spp., 1 Schizochytrium spp. and 44 TUs that had been previously evaluated. Seven TUs were evaluated: Corynebacterium stationis and Kodamaea ohmeri were re-assessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, Bacillus paralicheniformis, Enterobacter hormaechei, Eremothecium ashbyi and Lactococcus garvieae were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: A. caldiproteolyticus due to the lack of a body of knowledge in relation to its use in the food or feed chain, E. hormaechei, L. garvieae and K. ohmeri due to their pathogenic potential, E. ashbyi and C. stationis due to a lack of body of knowledge on their occurrence in the food and feed chain and to their pathogenic potential. B. paralicheniformis was recommended for the QPS status with the qualification 'absence of toxigenic activity' and 'absence of genetic information to synthesize bacitracin'.

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 13: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2020.

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents, intended for addition to food or feed, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. It is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at strain or product level, and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of the 36 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2020, 33 were excluded; seven filamentous fungi (including Aureobasidium pullulans based on recent taxonomic insights), one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, three Escherichia coli, one Streptomyces spp. and 20 TUs that had been previously evaluated. Three TUs were evaluated; Methylorubrum extorquens and Mycobacterium aurum for the first time and Bacillus circulans was re-assessed because an update was requested in relation to a new mandate. M. extorquens and M. aurum are not recommended for QPS status due to the lack of a body of knowledge in relation to use in the food or feed chain and M. aurum, due to uncertainty concerning its pathogenicity potential. B. circulans was recommended for QPS status with the qualifications for 'production purposes only' and 'absence of cytotoxic activity'.

Update and review of control options for Campylobacter in broilers at primary production.

The 2011 EFSA opinion on Campylobacter was updated using more recent scientific data. The relative risk reduction in EU human campylobacteriosis attributable to broiler meat was estimated for on-farm control options using Population Attributable Fractions (PAF) for interventions that reduce Campylobacter flock prevalence, updating the modelling approach for interventions that reduce caecal concentrations and reviewing scientific literature. According to the PAF analyses calculated for six control options, the mean relative risk reductions that could be achieved by adoption of each of these six control options individually are estimated to be substantial but the width of the confidence intervals of all control options indicates a high degree of uncertainty in the specific risk reduction potentials. The updated model resulted in lower estimates of impact than the model used in the previous opinion. A 3-log10 reduction in broiler caecal concentrations was estimated to reduce the relative EU risk of human campylobacteriosis attributable to broiler meat by 58% compared to an estimate larger than 90% in the previous opinion. Expert Knowledge Elicitation was used to rank control options, for weighting and integrating different evidence streams and assess uncertainties. Medians of the relative risk reductions of selected control options had largely overlapping probability intervals, so the rank order was uncertain: vaccination 27% (90% probability interval (PI) 4-74%); feed and water additives 24% (90% PI 4-60%); discontinued thinning 18% (90% PI 5-65%); employing few and well-trained staff 16% (90% PI 5-45%); avoiding drinkers that allow standing water 15% (90% PI 4-53%); addition of disinfectants to drinking water 14% (90% PI 3-36%); hygienic anterooms 12% (90% PI 3-50%); designated tools per broiler house 7% (90% PI 1-18%). It is not possible to quantify the effects of combined control activities because the evidence-derived estimates are inter-dependent and there is a high level of uncertainty associated with each.