ALINORM 04/27/16  |
| ALINORM 04/27/16 |
JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
Twenty-Seventh Session
Geneva, Switzerland, 28 June - 2 July 2004
REPORT OF THE TENTH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON
MEAT HYGIENE
Auckland, New Zealand, 16 - 20 February 2004
Note: This report includes Codex Circular Letter CL 2004/4-MH
CL 2004/4-MH
| ||
TO: |
Codex Contact Points | |
FROM: |
Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, | |
SUBJECT: |
Distribution of the Report of the Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (ALINORM 04/27/16) | |
The report of the Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (CCMH) is attached. It will be considered by the 27th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Geneva, 28 June - 2 July 2004) | ||
Request for Comments/Information | ||
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat, at Step 6 of the Codex Procedure (ALINORM 04/27/16, Appendix II). See also paras. 10 through 49 of this report. | ||
Governments and interested international organizations are invited to provide their comments on Appendix II to this report. Comments should be forwarded to Ms. Cindy Newman, Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, P.O. Box 2835 Wellington, New Zealand Fax +64 4 463 2583 - E-mail: [email protected] with a copy to the Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy (fax +39 06 57054593; e-mail [email protected]) for not later than 30 September 2004. | ||
Contents
Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... page v
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................... page vi
Report of the 10th Session of the Codex Committee on Meat hygiene ............... page 1
Summary status of work .............................................................................................. page 13
Paragraph
Opening of the Session 1
Adoption of the Agenda (Agenda Item 1) 2
Matters Referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission
and Other Codex Committees (Agenda Item 2) 3 - 9
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (Agenda Item 3) 10 - 49
Proposed Draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination
Procedures for Meat (Agenda Item 4) 50 - 66
Proposed Draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of
Process Control of Meat Hygiene (Agenda Item 5) 67 - 77
Discussion Paper on Hygiene Provisions for Process Meat (Agenda Item 6) 77 - 106
Other Business and Future Work (Agenda Item 7). 107
Date and Place of Next Session (Agenda Item 8) 108
Appendix I : List of Participants page 13
Appendix III : Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat
(At Step 6 of the Codex Procedure) page 27
Summary and Conclusions
The Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene reached the following conclusions:
The Committee agreed:
- to incorporate the Hygiene Provisions for Processed Meat in the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat for discussion in Agenda Item 3 (para. 106);
- to attach the two proposed draft Annexes on Risk-Based Evaluation of Organolepetic Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat and on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene to the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat as Annex I and II respectively (paras 66 and 77);
- to circulate the entire draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat for comments and further finalization at its next meeting (ALINORM 04/27/16, para. 49 and Appendix II).
Matters of Interest to the Commission:
The Committee took note of the request of the Codex Alimentarius Commission concerning the development of specific guidelines on risk analysis, and concluded that the texts developed or being developed by the Codex Committee on General Principles and other horizontal Codex Committees provided adequate guidance to its work (para. 5).
The Committee agreed to inform the Commission of the decision to discontinue the development of the Annexes on Risk-Based Evaluation of Organolepetic Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat and on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene (paras 66 and 77).
List of Abbreviations Used in this Report
ALOP Appropriate Level of Health Protection
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
CAC/RCP Codex Alimentarius Commission / Recommended Code of Practice
CAC/GL Codex Alimentarius Commission / Guidelines
CCFH Codex Committee on Food Hygiene
CCMH Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene
CL Circular Letter
CRD Conference Room Document
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FSO Food Safety Objectives
GHP Good Hygienic Practices
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
JEMRA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment
OIE Office International des Epizooties / International Office of Epizootics
QA Quality Assurance (systems)
RTE Ready to Eat
SSOP Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures
WHO World Health Organization
REPORT OF THE 10TH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON MEAT HYGIENE
1. The Hon Annette King, Minister for Food Safety, opened the Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene, which was held from 16-20 February 2004 in Auckland, New Zealand at the kind invitation of the Government of New Zealand. The Session was chaired by Dr Andrew McKenzie, Executive Director, New Zealand Food Safety Authority. The Session was attended by 120 participants from 36 Member countries and 1 Member organization1 and 5 international organizations. A complete List of Participants is attached as Appendix I.
2. The Committee agreed to reverse the order of Agenda Item 3 “Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat” and Agenda Item 6 “Discussion Paper on Hygiene Provisions for Processed Meat”. It further agreed that Agenda Item 3 would be discussed on the basis of a document (CRD 7) that would merge the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (ALINORM 03/16A, Appendix III) and the hygiene provisions for processed meat, as discussed during the session. With the above changes the Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as its Agenda for the Session.
3. The Committee noted matters arising from the 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Rome, 30 June – 7 July 2003) regarding the Amendments to the Procedural Manual, the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards and the FAO/WHO Trust Fund for Participation of Developing Countries in Codex Standards Setting Procedure.
4. In particular, the Committee commented and/or made decisions on the following matters:
5. The Committee took note of the request of the Codex Alimentarius Commission that “relevant Codex committees develop or complete specific guidelines on risk analysis in their respective areas, for inclusion in the Procedural Manual, as recommended in the Action Plan adopted by the 22nd Session of the Commission (Geneva, June 1997)”4. In this regard, the Committee concluded that the texts developed or being developed by the Codex Committee on General Principles and other horizontal Codex Committees provided adequate guidance to its work.
6. The Committee was informed that the 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the revised terms of reference of the Committee as proposed and agreed that its name should read “Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene”. The Commission adopted the draft General Principles of Meat Hygiene at Step 8 and the proposed draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat at Step 5 as proposed.
7. The Committee noted the report prepared by FAO/WHO on the activities of risk assessment of microbiological hazards in food, which was relevant to its work. It also noted discussion papers on Risk management strategies for Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in poultry and on Risk Profile for Enterohaemorragic E. coli including the identification of commodities of concern, including sprouts, ground beef and pork prepared for the 36th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (Washington, D.C., United States of America, 29 March – 4 April 2004).
8. The Committee was informed on the status of collaboration between the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the OIE and the discussion at the 53rd Session of the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Geneva, Switzerland, 4-6 February 2004).
9. The Representative of the OIE informed the Committee about recent activities of the OIE Working Group on Animal Production Food Safety, in particular as it related to the development of documents addressing the duality of objectives during ante- and post-mortem inspection. The intent of the OIE was to have in relevant Chapters of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code reference to the work of the Codex Alimentarius on meat hygiene and other food safety areas. During its July 2003 meeting, the Working Group reviewed and modified a draft document entitled "Role and functionality of Veterinary Services in food safety throughout the food chain" that was circulated to all OIE Member Countries for comment and for discussion at the OIE General Session in May 2004. A second document on Good Farming Practices in the Food Safety Continuum, as well as a third one on the Role of Veterinary Services During Ante- and Post-mortem Inspection were also under preparation and will be discussed by the Working Group during its upcoming meeting in early April 2004.
10. The 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the proposed draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat at Step 5 as proposed by the 9th Session of the Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene.6
11. As agreed during the adoption of the agenda (see para. 2), the Committee discussed this item on the basis of a document prepared by the Secretariat (CRD 7), which merged the provisions for processed meat as discussed during Agenda Item 6 (see paras 78-116) into the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat. In addition to editorial amendments, it agreed to the following changes:
General Comments
12. The Committee recognized the value of integrating all provisions on meat hygiene into a consolidated text.
13. The Committee noted that the emphasis of the Code was on a risk-based approach and since it was developed internationally, it could not reflect all national legislations. The Code did not deal with specific diseases as the risks that existed in one region or countries in the world did not necessarily exist in another, the hazards were not necessarily homogeneous internationally and there were different animal husbandry practices around the world.
14. The Committee noted the recommendation of the Observer from the OIE that the Code should specifically address the duality of objectives that slaughterhouses activities deliver in the field of biosecurity in terms of public and animal health, including zoonoses. It agreed to insert some references in the Code to the work of the OIE in utilising ante- and post-mortem inspection in the production of meat to reduce hazards of public and animal health significance.
15. The Delegation of the European Community stated that they reserved their position concerning the role of veterinary inspector, the definitions of ante- and post-mortem inspection and the requirements in some other sections of the draft Code, as the EC legislation concerning these issues was in the process of being finalised. It was also suggested to restructure the draft Code into three parts to address: i) generic requirements applicable to all establishments, and specific requirements for ii) fresh meat and iii) processed meat (see CRD 6). This proposal was not further developed by the Committee.
Specific Comments
Section 1 – Introduction
16. A new paragraph 2 bis was introduced to refer to the duality of public and animal health objectives of meat hygiene activities in the slaughterhouse, in particular in relation to ante- and post-mortem inspection, and to acknowledge the importance of this duality when specifying and carrying out meat hygiene activities.
17. In paragraph 4, the Committee added a reference to the work of JEMRA, JECFA and FAO/WHO Expert Consultations as contributing to risk management recommendations. Paragraph 4 bis was deleted as already covered in other parts of Section 2.
Section 2 – Scope and Use of this Code
18. Paragraph 5 was amended to include all types of meat covered by the Code, such as raw meat, manufactured meat, etc. The Committee added a new paragraph 8 bis to refer to linkages to relevant texts contained in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
Section 3 – Definitions
19. The Committee agreed that in the revision of this section, it should focus its consideration on:
a. New definitions that were added due to the widening the scope of the draft Code to include processed meat (e.g. meat preparations);
b. Definitions under development in the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (e.g. FSOs, performance criteria);
c. Definitions of ante- and post mortem examination;
d. Definitions related to competent authority, competent persons, official inspectors, etc.
20. The Committee agreed to change “processed meat” to “manufactured meat” to avoid confusion with the general terms “process” and “product”. It generally agreed to the proposal of an ad hoc working group, which met during the session, presented in CRD 9 on the following terms: i) raw meat i.e fresh meat, minced meat, mechanically separated meat; ii) manufactured meat; and, iii) meat preparations.
21. The Committee amended the proposed definitions in CRD 9 of “manufactured meat” by adding “raw” and specifying that when cut, the cut surface of the product had no longer the characteristic of fresh meat; and of “Raw meat” by adding the footnote “this does not preclude interventions for the purpose of pathogen reduction”.
22. The Committee deleted the footnote in the definition of “meat”. The Committee agreed to use the term “Ready-to-Eat Products” and replaced “meat and meat preparations” with “products” in the definition.
23. The Committee noted that at its 9th Session it was already decided at to use these definitions in the draft Code on an interim basis, pending their finalization by CCFH. In noting that the work in CCFH had been further protracted, the Committee decided to leave these definitions unchanged.
24. While discussing the definitions of ante- and post-mortem examination, the Committee noted that at its last Session it was generally accepted to use the term “examination” as it encompassed activities that were much broader than inspection per se and provided more flexibility to governments in assigning responsibility for this function. However, some delegations expressed their concern in this regard.
25. The Committee noted that the written comments addressed two main elements: i) the use of the word “examination” versus “inspection”; and, ii) the inclusion of animal health objectives. It was agreed to revert to the term “inspection” in the definitions and throughout the Code with the understanding that the term was accepted in its common usage and was not regarded as a function to be undertaken only by a person employed by the Competent Authority. It was also noted that the use of the term “inspection”, better contributed to consumer’s confidence in food safety.
26. The Committee agreed that ante- and post-mortem inspection were fundamental for public health, animal health as well as for other purposes such as animal welfare, animal identification, etc. and that it was necessary to indicate a link between these activities in the Code. To this effect, it added to the two definitions a footnote to indicate that procedures other than these solely for public health, might also be conducted, in particular for the purpose of animal health.
27. The Committee noted that the Code attempted to accommodate the flexibility of different regulatory systems worldwide. It recognized that accountability for meat hygiene always rested with the Competent Authority of national governments, but that flexibility should be allowed on how the service was delivered, e.g. either by the Competent Authority itself or by an officially recognized competent body operating under the supervision and control of the Competent Authority. It was also noted that the competent person was not necessarily the person with overarching and final responsibility for ante- and post-mortem judgements and that the activities of a range of competent persons could contribute to such judgement.
28. With this understanding the Committee accepted the above definitions as proposed.
29. In addition, it added a footnote to the definition of Competent Authority to clarify that it provided official assurances in international trade of meat and to refer to the requirements for certification for public health and fair trade purposes as developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and for certification for animal health, zoonoses and fair trade purposes as developed by OIE.
30. The Committee expanded the definition of Veterinary inspector to specify that the veterinary inspector carried out official meat hygiene activities as specified by the Competent Authority. However, in recognizing the need for further discussion, the Committee put this definition in square brackets for finalization at its next meeting.
Section 5.2- Hygiene of slaughter animals
31. In the first bullet of paragraph 19, the nature of suitable interventions for cleaning of the external surfaces of the animal was clarified by providing examples of washing or shearing and for consistency with principles in Section 6.1.
Section 5.6.2 -Transport of killed wild game
32. Paragraph 33 was amended to allow for more flexibility.
Section 6.3 - Ante-mortem examination
33. Paragraph 40 was amended to clarify that procedures and/or tests for ante-mortem examination should also take into account signs of disease in live animals.
Section 6.3.1 - Design of ante-mortem examination systems
34. The Committee added paragraph 43 bis to complement information contained in the Introduction on the duality of objectives of ante-mortem inspection and to stress that ante-mortem inspection procedures be science-based and tailored to the relevant risks.
Section 8.2 - Design and construction of lairages
35. The Committee amended the second last bullet in the first box in order to be less prescriptive.
Section 8.4 - Design and construction of areas where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present
36. The Committee noting that in small businesses it was not always possible to have separate rooms for skin-on dressing of pigs or other animals, amended the bullet point to allow also for the use of separate areas for these operations.
Section 8.5 - Design and construction of equipment where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present
37. The Committee added a sentence at the end of paragraph 70 to highlight that the layout and equipment of establishments be design to prevent cross-contamination between products of different status and products at various production stages.
Section 8.9 - Transport vehicles
38. Section on “Transport vehicles” was renamed to “Means of transport” in order to facilitate translation into other languages.
39. The text of the second bullet in the box was amended to clarify that provisions related to unprotected meat, not contacting the floor.
Section 9 - Process control
40. The Committee noted that actions required as a result of non-compliance with performance criteria should be not only corrective but also “preventative”, therefore amended the second sentence of paragraph 93 to this effect.
41. The Committee amended paragraph 99 by adding “wherever practicable” to allow for more flexibility.
Section 9.2.5 - Quality assurance (QA) systems
42. The Committee did not expand this Section. One delegation noted that the Section provided very little guidance on how QA systems could contribute to meat safety and suitability outcomes.
Section 9.5.1 - Design of post-mortem examination systems
43. The Committee:
• added paragraph 121 bis to be consistent with provisions in Section 6.3.1;
• divided paragraph 137 into two and deleted paragraph 137 bis, as redundant;
• amended footnote 44 in order to be consistent with earlier decisions (see para 97);
• amended paragraph 138 bis to emphasize that the operator of the establishment was responsible not only for the establishment but also for the implementation of procedures for determining and validating shelf life of manufactured meat and meat preparations.
Section 9.9 - Recall Systems
44. The Committee had an extensive debate on recall procedures. Some delegations pointed out that there was not clear distribution of functions and responsibilities between the establishment and the Competent Authority(s) in relation to product tracing, withdrawal, recall, and/or seizure procedures (the latter being an action available to the Competent Authority) and suggested that clearer explanations were needed for these terms. It was suggested that as the Section did not contain specific provisions for recall of meat, references to other Codex texts might be sufficient in this regard. The Committee noted that although recall procedures were briefly covered by the General Principles of Food Hygiene, there was a need to clarify the various terms and the different responsibilities and interrelations of the Competent Authority(s) and the establishment in this regard.
45. The Committee agreed to clarify that establishments should have systems for tracing and withdrawal of products as well as for recall of products that had passed beyond the immediate jurisdiction of the establishment.
46. The Observer of CLITRAVI proposed to amend the first sentence of paragraph 141 to include retailers, however the Committee did not retain this suggestion as such provisions were of difficult application for some developing countries.
47. The Committee agreed that the Competent Authority had the responsibility to verify that establishments take necessary steps to ensure that all affected products are included in a recall, and added additional language in paragraph 141 bis to this effect.
48. The Committee agreed that there was need for further discussion and work on this Section.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat
49. The Committee noted that considerable progress was made on the revision of the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat, which now encompassed also provisions for processed meat. However some issues, especially on the fundamental definition of Veterinary Inspector and on Recall System required further consideration. It therefore agreed to return the draft Code to Step 6 for comments and further consideration at its next session (see Appendix II). The Committee also agreed that Annexes on Risk Based Evaluation of Organoleptic Post-Mortem Inspection Procedures for Meat and on Microbiological Verification of Process for Control of Meat Hygiene would constitute an integral part of the draft Code and attached them to Appendix II (see paras 66 and 77).
50. The 9th Session of the Committee decided to append the proposed draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat to its report for comments at Step 3. The Committee agreed that a drafting group, under the direction of New Zealand, would prepare a revised version of the Annex for circulation, additional comments and further consideration at its next meeting8 .
51. The Committee considered document CX/MH 04/10/4 and agreed that comments of general nature including those related to definitions, would be taken into account during the discussion of Agenda Item 3 (see paras 10-48). It reviewed the document section by section and, in addition to editorial amendments, agreed to the following changes:
Title
52. The title was amended to “Annex on Risk-Based Evaluation of Organoleptic Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat” to better reflect that the scope of the Annex was intended to provide risk-based guidance on the evaluation of organoleptic procedures. Consequential changes were made throughout the text in this regard.
Section 1 - Introduction
Paragraph 2
53. The Committee agreed to refer to “many long-standing post-mortem examination procedures” in order to avoid possible misinterpretation of the term “traditional”.
Paragraph 3
54. The sentence was amended and the reference “not developed methodologies” was deleted for clarity. A new paragraph 3 bis was added to better explain the scope of the Annex.
Section 2 - Objectives of risk-based post-mortem examination procedures for meat
Paragraph 4
55. The Committee added after the third bullet “positive predictive value” as an example of comparison of effectiveness of different examination procedures; it clarified the fifth bullet to refer to a “production-to-consumption” approach to meat hygiene.
Section 3.2 - Risk Assessment
56. In the last sentence, the wording “In the latter case” was changed to “In any case” to reflect that risk management decision applied to both quantitative and qualitative risk assessments.
Section 4 - General principles for development of risk-based post-mortem examination procedures
57. Two bullet points were added to (ii) to specify that risk-based post-mortem procedures should take into account disease prevalence and all relevant information from primary production and ante-mortem examination of the animals.
58. The second bullet of (iv) was broadened to include the detection of visible contamination.
59. The Committee deleted the reference to regulatory guidelines and standards in (viii) so as to avoid contradiction.
60. An additional (ix) was added to refer to possible utilisation of alternative examination procedures.
61. The Committee was of the view that it was not necessary to insert language on the need for risk communication with all interested parties during development and prior to implementation of new or alternative inspection procedures in the Annex as proposed by the Observer from IACFO, as risk communication aspects were already covered in the general provisions of the Code. The Observer of IACFO expressed her concern regarding this decision that the Code lacked of sufficient risk communication elements to ensure transparency.
Section 5.1 - Identification of the Meat Hygiene Issues
Paragraph 8
62. The Committee clarified the sentence to explain that abnormalities or visible contamination were the target of the examination procedure. It agreed to delete the terms “grossly detectable” and “gross” and to refer to abnormalities only throughout the text. In the second sentence it added a reference to “new technologies” for consistency with the scope of the Annex.
Section 5.2 - Field trials
Paragraph 11
63. In recognizing that the use of target tissues acting as “indicators” was not always possible, the Committee amended the second sentence to make it less prescriptive.
Section 5.4 - Risk management decisions
Paragraph 21
64. The Committee clarified the sentence to recognize the responsibility of the Competent Authority to determine the frequency and extent of risk-based post-mortem examination procedures.
Paragraph 22
65. The Committee added a sentence with regard to incentives for improving the system.
Status of the Proposed Draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat
66. The Committee agreed to attach the renamed Annex on Risk-Based Evaluation of Organolepetic Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat to the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (see para. 49). It agreed to inform the Commission of the decision to discontinue the development of the Annex as a separate document.
67. The 9th Session of the Committee decided to append the proposed draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene to its report for comments at Step 3. The Committee agreed that a drafting group, under the direction of New Zealand, would prepare a revised version of the Annex for circulation, additional comments and further consideration at its next meeting10.
68. The Committee considered document CX/MH 04/10/5 and agreed that comments of general nature including those related to definitions would be taken into account during the discussion of Agenda Item 3 (see paras 10-48). It reviewed the document section by section and, in addition to editorial amendments, agreed to the following changes:
Section 2 – Verification of process control by microbiological testing
69. The Committee amended the first bullet of paragraph 5 by adding “and efficacy” between “adequacy” and “of establishment process control” as suggested by Egypt in its written comments.
70. The Committee deleted the reference to “export” in the last bullet of paragraph 5 in order to be less restrictive.
Section 4.1 – Specifications
71. The Committee noted that sampling plan should include specifications of time and day of sampling, and amended paragraph 6 to this effect.
72. The Committee agreed to add a sentence to paragraph 8 to recognize that microbiological verification should be conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure the effectiveness of process criteria.
73. The Committee agreed that paragraph 9 should be rewritten to read: “In the case of indicator microoorganisms e.g. generic Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaceae and total viable counts (aerobic plate counts), the presence and/or concentration of these indicator organisms should reflect states or conditions that indicate process control, or lack of process control. In the case of specific hazards (e.g. Salmonella spp. on carcasses, Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat), the prevalence will generally be reflective of hazards arising pre-slaughter (e.g. Salmonella present on hides of incoming animals) and at specific steps during product processing”. The Committee also agreed to add a footnote regarding the ongoing work in the CCFH and JEMRA with respect to foodborne pathogens.
74. The Committee added an additional sentence to paragraph 10 with regard to the number of units comprising the sample or testing against alternative indicator microorganisms.
Section 4.2 Frequency of verification
75. The Committee amended paragraphs 12 and 13 to clarify conditions for determining the frequency of sampling and microbiological testing for slaughter and dressing establishments.
Section 4.4 Regulatory application
76. The Committee noted that programs to verify the results of on-farm control might be driven by industry therefore deleted the reference to “regulatory” in paragraphs 18 and 19 in order allow more flexibility. It further clarified that responses in relation to process control in the case of Salmonella spp. in fattening pigs and broilers in some intensive production systems should be “at the establishment level”.
Status of the Proposed Draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene
77. The Committee agreed to attach the proposed draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene to the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat as Annex II (see para. 49). It agreed to inform the Commission of the decision to discontinue the development of the Annex as a separate document.
78. The 9th session of the Committee agreed that a drafting group, under the direction of New Zealand, would prepare a revised version of Provisions Related to Processed Meat (CX/MPH 03/7) for circulation, additional comments and further consideration at its next Session.12
79. The Committee agreed to consider CX/MH 04/10/6 prior to the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (ALINORM 03/16A, Appendix III) and to incorporate the revised provisions for processed meat in the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat for consideration under Agenda Item 3 (see para 2). The Committee also agreed that comments of general nature would be taken into account during the discussion on Agenda Item 3 (see paras 10-48).
80. The Committee reviewed document CX/MH 04/10/6 section by section and agreed to the following changes.
Section 3 - Definitions
81. The Committee amended the definitions of :
• “Meat product” by clarifying that the product no longer had the characteristics of raw meat “when cut”;
• “Raw meat” by deleting the wording “in any way” and substituting the wording “modified atmosphere packaging or vacuum packaging” with “protective packaging” in order to have a more general definition. It inserted an additional wording at the end of the sentence to clarify that the product retains its natural characteristics;
• “Processed meat” to read: “meat that has been treated in some physical or chemical way (including that for the purposes of preservation) that is in addition to chilling/freezing or packaging” in order to allow more flexibility and to make it consistent with the definition of “ Raw meat”;
• “Ready-to-eat” to read: “processed meat and meat preparations that are intended to be consumed without any further biocidal steps” as meat products were already included in processed meat definition. Consequential changes were made throughout the text.
Section 8 - Establishments: design, facilities and equipment
Paragraph 66 bis 2
82. The Committee deleted the reference to construction material for clarity.
Section 9.1
New principle x bis
83. The Committee reworded the first sentence as follows: “Where appropriate, microbiological testing, for verification purposes, should be included in processed meat HACCP plans” and amended the last sentence by including vulnerable sub-populations.
New paragraph 91 bis
84. The Committee amended the paragraph to reflect that the responsibility of the Competent Authority was to issue guidelines on process and performance criteria to be met and that HACCP plans should be specifically developed by establishment operators to reflect their actual operations. It also included reference to other interested stakeholder organizations to recognize the possible contribution of other groups, including academia in developing guidance for HACCP plans.
85. The Committee amended the fourth bullet to refer to “cooked ham” and inserted a last bullet point to refer a category encompassing specific ethnic processes.
New paragraph 91 bis 2
86. In addition to editorial changes, the reference to thermal death of vegetative pathogens was deleted from the first sentence for clarity.
New paragraph 95
87. The Committee amended the second sentence to reflect that the primary responsibility to produce safe food lay with industry and the frequency of microbiological verification testing should be appropriate to the circumstances. It added an additional sentence to clarify that: “The Competent Authority may also implement testing to verify that appropriate control is maintained by industry”. The Committee also amended the last sentence to clarify that the HACCP plans implemented by the establishment should document not only corrective but also “preventive” measures to be taken in the event of positive tests for pathogens or toxins.
Paragraph 102
88. The Committee clarified the wording of the last sentence to refer only to “role of the Competent Authority(s)”.
Section 9.7 Hygiene requirements for process control after post-mortem examination
Paragraph 137
89. The Committee amended the first sentence of this paragraph by deleting the reference to “processing” of meat; it took out the sentence containing reference to rooms reserved for processing as it was already covered in the general provisions of the Code.
New paragraph 137 bis
90. The Committee agreed that new paragraph should read: “Processed meat and meat preparations should only be handled in rooms or areas that are solely used for the relevant process and are clearly identified as such. The packaging and storage of raw meat should not take place in these rooms or areas”.
New paragraph 137 bis 2 (new second box)
91. The Committee noted that all parts of animals approved by the Competent Authority should be safe, therefore deleted the footnote regarding the reference to examination for Trichinella.
New paragraph 137 bis 3 (new third box)
92. The Committee deleted the last bullet as the provisions were too restrictive.
New paragraph 137 bis 5 (new fifth box)
93. The Committee amended the last part of the first bullet to stress the importance to avoid possible cross-contamination.
94. It amended the second bullet by adding “and practicable” to acknowledge the problem of small business and developing countries in implementing good hygienic practice and HACCP.
95. As nutrition provisions of final product were outside of the scope of the Code, the Committee deleted the last part of the third bullet.
96. The Committee amended the fifth bullet to recognize the responsibility of the establishment to specify the appropriate storage temperatures and manner of achieving them and to demonstrate to the Competent Authority that these were sufficient to minimize growth of target microorganisms.
97. The Committee amended the seventh bullet for clarification purposes and the eleventh bullet to generally refer to all animal species affected by Trichinella.
98. In the twelfth bullet, the Committee deleted the reference to contamination with L. monocytogenes during slicing or peeling steps as too restrictive, and clarified that use of SSOPs and GHPs were subject to routine micriobiological verification.
99. The thirteenth bullet was deleted as already covered in the general provisions of the Code.
New paragraph 138 bis
100. The Committee clarified the paragraph to read: “The establishment operator should establish a procedure to determine and validate the shelf life of processed meat and meat preparations”.
New paragraph 138 bis 2
101. The Committee amended the first sentence to clarify what should be done when RTE products do not meet microbiological performance criteria, process criteria or microbiological criteria and deleted the third sentence containing the reference to the Competent Authority, as superfluous.
The last sentence was clarified to refer to pathogens that could pose a public health risk.
New paragraph 138 bis 3
102. The Committee clarified that the instruction for storage of processed meat and meat preparations should be clearly presented on the packaging and decided to move the amended text after paragraph 155.
Paragraph 141 bis
103. The Committee amended the last part of the paragraph to emphasize that all available microbiological data should be used when making risk-based decisions.
Section 13 – Product information and consumer awareness
Paragraph 155 bis
104. The Committee amended this paragraph to clarify that processed meat and meat preparation labelling should also incorporate instructions on refrigeration and storage.
Appendices and additional provisions to the draft code of hygienic practice
105. The Committee deleted the wording of paragraph 13 as superfluous.
106. The Committee agreed to incorporate the provisions for processed meat in the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat for discussion in Agenda Item 3 (paras 10-49).
107. The Committee noted that there were no matters to be discussed under this Agenda Item.
108. The Committee noted that its 11th Session was tentatively scheduled to be held from 14-18 February 2005 in New Zealand, subject to further discussions between the Codex and New Zealand Secretariats.
Subject Matter |
Step |
Action by: |
Document Reference (ALINORM 04/27/16) |
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat |
6 |
Comments |
Paras 10-49 |
Proposed Draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat |
Discontinued |
27th CAC |
Paras 50-66 |
Proposed Draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene |
Discontinued |
27th CAC |
Paras 67-77 |
Discussion Paper on Hygiene Provisions for Processed Meat |
- |
Paras 78-106 | |
1 CRD 1 (EC Annotated Agenda for the 10th Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene).
2 CX/MH 04/10/1.
3 CX/MH 04/10/2; CRD 2 (updating on JEMRA activities).
4 ALINORM 03/41, para. 147.
5 ALINORM 03/16A, Appendix III; Comments submitted by Australia, Switzerland, European Community and OIE (CX/MH 04/10/3), India (CRD 4), and the Philippines (CRD 5); Revised draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (CRD 7); European Community’s suggestions on Agenda item 3 (CRD 8); Report of ad hoc Working Group on definitions (CRD 9); US suggestions on definitions (CRD 10).
6 ALINORM 03/41, para. 134 and Appendix VI
7 CX/MH 04/10/4; Comments submitted by Argentina, Egypt, Thailand, European Community (CX/MH 04/10/4, Add. 1), India (CRD 4), the Philippines (CRD 5), and European Community (CRD 6).
8 ALINORM 03/16A, para. 90 and Appendix IV.
9 CX/MH 04/10/5; Comments submitted by Argentina, Egypt, United States, European Community (CX/MH 04/10/5, Add. 1), India (CRD 4), European Community (CRD 6).
10 ALINORM 03/16A, para. 102 and Appendix V.
11 CX/MH 04/10/6; Comments submitted by Argentina, Canada, Thailand, United States, European Community (CX/MH 04/10/6, Add. 1), India (CRD 4) and the European Community (CRD 6).
12 ALINORM 03/16A, para. 106.