Meat safety legislation and its opportunities and hurdles for innovative approaches: A review.

Albert Einstein has been quoted "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". Innovations are necessary to meet future challenges regarding sustainability, animal welfare, slaughter hygiene, meat safety and quality, not at least for optimal balance between these dimensions. The red meat safety legislation texts from Europe, New Zealand, USA, and global guidelines, were analysed for normative formulations ("how it is or should be done") that may create non-intentional hurdles to innovation and new technology. Detailed descriptions of slaughtering techniques and meat processes may hinder innovative processing from being investigated and implemented. The identified problematic normative phrases typically either conserve conventional technologies or organisation of the work, prescribe solutions where no established method, objective criteria or limits exits, or put forward visions impossible to obtain. The Codex Alimentarius was found to have less normative formulations and more functional demands ("what to achieve") than the national and regional regulations. European, New Zealand's and US' legislation share many similarities and challenges, and they all reflect the prevailing processing methods. Consequences are briefly commented, and alternative objective functional demands suggested. Normative legislation texts provide familiar context easier to understand, but also make legislation voluminous. This review underlines the mutual dependency between risk-based legislation and conditional flexibility, and between functional demands and control activities targeted on measurable objective criteria. The legislation does not have to be either or. Objective normative phrases in legislation can function as a least common multiple if alternative methods are allowed on condition that they fulfil objective criteria. Context and practical advice should mainly come from textbooks, consultants, white papers and in Food Business Operator's own guidelines, among others.

Rapid detection of Campylobacter spp. in chickens before slaughter.

Campylobacter continues to be the number one cause of bacterial gastroenteritis in Europe. Poultry, and especially broiler chickens, is considered an important reservoir for Campylobacter spp. Poultry producers prioritize to identify and reduce the number of Campylobacter contaminated chicken flocks by tightening biosecurity and mitigation actions at slaughter. Campylobacter-positive flocks must therefore be identified as close to slaughter as possible, and rapid detection methods are needed. Here we evaluated the applicability, sensitivity, and specificity of four commercially available rapid methods to detect Campylobacter in naturally contaminated chicken cecal droppings on-farm before slaughter against an established qPCR method. The Biofire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel assay, the VIDAS Campylobacter assay, the Singlepath® Campylobacter test, and OptiGenes' Genie Campylobacter isothermal DNA amplification were assessed in a pilot-study. The OptiGenes' Genie Campylobacter isothermal DNA amplification was also tested under field conditions. The Biofire® FilmArray® showed superior sensitivity and specificity compared to the three other rapid tests but had a lower throughput and a higher cost. While the VIDAS Campylobacter, Singlepath® Campylobacter and the isothermal DNA amplification were affordable, their unsatisfactory sensitivity (10%-71%) left these unsuitable to monitor Campylobacter carriage in chickens. An additional finding of this study is that 38% of flocks positive for Campylobacter at slaughter became contaminated during the last week of rearing. Therefore, increased efforts to develop suitable methods to detect Campylobacter rapidly and reliably in chickens close to slaughter are needed.