Testing meat for bird flu

Posted by Andrew Wadge on February 15th 2007 in Science, safety and health

The Agency's Board was very interested to get an update this morning on the bird flu outbreak in Suffolk and the subsequent investigations into how the outbreak occurred in the first place. 

In a report to the Board's open meeting in London, I summarised the reasons which I have set out earlier into why this is not a food safety issue.

I also talked about testing of meat for the virus, since this has been the topic of some enquiries to the Agency.  We are aware of one laboratory that uses a molecular test using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In general PCR methods are semi-quantitative and will not be able to distinguish between live and dead virus. Additionally, this test takes about 5-10 working days to complete.

Why then do we not recommend testing of meat on sale?  The answer is that testing of the product on sale for any microbiological contamination is not a reliable way of ensuring food safety. 

Because the distribution of microbes is not even the only way to guarantee safety would be to test every single piece of meat on sale which is clearly not a practicable or sensible suggestion. In any case, the level of virus in meat from an infected bird is much lower than the levels found in the blood, for example. 

We are not alone here, since the internationally-agreed approach to ensuring food safety is to prevent pathogens from entering the food chain in the first place. 

This is the basis of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) which was first developed by NASA who could not rely on testing of the food provided to their astronauts and they could not run the risk of them getting food poisoning.

HACCP plans are the key measure of food business operators to ensure safety of their food. 

Part of a HACCP approach is to have accurate records so that the movement of products and supplies can be traced and scrutinised if necessary by regulatory bodies. 

The approach that we have adopted in this investigation has been to examine the records of movement of meat to ensure that none of it has come from the restricted zones in Hungary and this has now been confirmed by the Hungarian authorities.

Attachments

Bird flu Powerpoint presentation to FSA Board 15 February 2007258 KB

add new comment

Bird Flu

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 26/11/2007 - 16:38

Why , as we approach Christmas has the coverage on this latest outbreak been suppressed ?

Christmas Turkeys

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 26/11/2007 - 16:30

I would like to know the freezing date of a turkey with a 2009 or 2010 sell by date .

You're right

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 17/03/2007 - 09:41

Indeed zero tolerance will not always mean zero incidence of a threat , I do agree with you on your first post about the waste of resources which will imply testing meat for bird flu because we both know that unlike othern diseases like BSE is of little benefit for public health.

I do also agree and experience myself as an OV working for the Meat Hygiene Service that HACCP is an important tool to improve standards within the meat industry. The only point of dissagreement with you is when I thought that you were implying that HACCP itself will be the answer to all our prayers in public health just because I believe that countries like the USA with a much longer experience on implementing it in the meat industry still find necessary to have inspectors and veterinarians to keep the standards to a certain level.

I am almost certain that Bernard Mathews have a HACCP plan and lots of documentation and still bird flu striked into their premises and with all that documentation we are still not certain about the origin of the problem . I certainly do not believe that self regulation is the answer , will we be expecting the drivers of this country to abide by the traffic rules with no police? I do not think so... but certainly that is the matter of a different debate and I want to thank you for giving me the oportunity of stating a different point of view.

Better if not....

Posted by Alvaro Pastoriza (not verified) on 15/03/2007 - 17:08

Though I have to completely agree with you about your introduction as it is certainly the case that testing poultry meat for bird flu is expensive and not needed to protect public health, I found also some distorsion of the truth when describing how we can prevent foodborne pathogens into the food chain.

In this country (at least at the moment),there is a Meat Hygiene Service which provide a frontline service at abattoirs all over the country and were fundamental to detect important diseases like foot and mouth ; Tuberculosis ; BSE; and many other diseases that affect humans.

The Codex approach , leaded en Europe by the FSA that HACCP is the best tool to save costs in inspection services has it's risks as it is the case that self reliance in good practice can lead to complacency and new biological threats are always on the horizon.... Let's hope that you are right and the industry embrace HACCP with open arms and good disposition however please do not forget inspectors and vets that work everyday hard at meat plants to ensure that no public health threats get undetected, many thanks.

What if....?

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 16/02/2007 - 16:17

Thank you. You are absolutely right that there are no guarantees on food safety, but there is general agreement among international scientific bodies such as the World Health Organization that preventative measures such as HACCP are the most effective means of ensuring the microbiological safety of food, rather than relying on end-product testing, which is the microbiological equivalent of searching for a needle in a haystack.

As you rightly point out, the focus on the documentation then becomes critical. Again there are no guarantees, but there are a series of measures which provide reassurance. All food businesses are subject to inspection by trained inspectors and the Food And Veterinary Office ensures compliance with EU food hygiene rules in each Member State. Failure to comply with the regulations can lead to large financial penalties and damage to brand reputation - which is something that food businesses work very hard to avoid.

Hungarian Turkey Imports

Posted by Malcolm Kane (not verified) on 16/02/2007 - 14:43

The UK joint report lists the Hungarian turkey received legitimately into the UK from Gallfood and Saga Food, but the report fails to include confirmation data of production at these two plants with correlating explanations of the disposals of their product to all destinations? Can these two Hungarian plants account fully for all their production? If so, has a confirmatory survey been done on their labour employment records to confirm that the output volumes tally with consistent labour loadings?

A further point not covered in the UK joint report is the question of the disposal records of all poultry plants within the restricted zones. Can all poultry held or destroyed within the restricted zones also be fully accounted for?

Finally, all poultry processing plants will take chicks from specific breeder hatcheries. It should be possible to trace and identify all breeder hatcheries supplying all processing plants within the restricted zones and DNA profile their 'family' stock. Has this been done and has the UK imported meat been DNA profiled for comparison?

What if ...?

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 16/02/2007 - 09:29

While agreeing that HACCP is very important in keeping food safe, it does not guarantee it. There are three possibilities, unlikely but significant, that this reliance on HACCP won't detect.
1. Someone has made a mistake on their documentation
2. Someone has fiddled their documentation
3. The restriction zone has failed (deliberate or otherwise).

It is foolish to assume that HACCP always works, I am fairly sure that most recent recalls have been from businesses with first class HACCP systems in place.

One minor point, I would be careful about drawing parallels with NASA. Their confidence in their safety systems led to an arrogance about the risk of failure that had tragic consequences.