A modern risk-based meat safety assurance system (RB-MSAS) for poultry includes information systems to better adapt to risks for meat safety. Food Chain Information (FCI) according to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 includes data on animal health, laboratory test results and further information that is relevant for consumer protection. FCI has to be transferred from the farm to the abattoir where the data analysis leads to adaptations of the slaughter process and/or meat inspection. As the EU regulation describes the required FCI imprecisely and without recommendations for meaningful reactions to specific information, implementation differs between European countries and even between abattoirs within one country. To assess the status quo of transfer, use and the usefulness of FCI in Europe, we conducted a survey on FCI for broilers among European stakeholders. The answers of 32 respondents, working in 14 different European countries as official veterinarians/meat inspection officers, food business operators/quality assurance managers, or in other positions in broiler meat hygiene, were included in the analysis. Overall, 75% (24/32) of the respondents stated they find FCI helpful for decision-making. All respondents (56%, 18/32) with electronic access to FCI find the transmission procedure practical. Most respondents get information about previous ante-mortem (81%, 26/32) and post-mortem (91%, 29/32) inspection results for flocks from the same holding of provenance. Likewise, most respondents receive data on mortality rate (88%, 28/32) and veterinary medications with a withdrawal period that have been administered during the fattening period (84%, 27/32). Overall, 53% of the respondents indicated that the entire fattening period would be the optimal relevant period for recording the administration of veterinary medications with a withdrawal period. In addition to this information, the respondents desired to have more data about further treatment (28%, 9/32) and data from the private veterinarian responsible for the farm (25%, 8/32). Knowledge of these data especially led to various measures being initiated at the abattoir, according to the respondents. In contrast, some specific production data were reported as also an important part of FCI, even though these data have little impact on the measures to protect human health that are taken in the slaughter process or at post-mortem inspection. All respondents transferred information about findings in the abattoir back to the farmers: these data were ante-mortem (72%, 23/32) and post-mortem (100%, 32/32) inspection results as well as further information (28%, 6/32).
Our study shows that FCI for broilers is already widely successfully established as part of the RB-MSAS in Europe. Important information, like the ante- and post-mortem inspection results, is mostly available. Recommendations for improvement and for data to be included based on our study and literature are, inter alia: electronic data transfer; on-farm mortality; diseases occurring on-farm, especially those shortly before slaughter; all data on treatment with veterinary medications; EFSA's harmonised epidemiological indicators and; specific production data. Further studies are needed to gain a deeper understanding of correlations between ante-mortem data for the flock and findings at post-mortem inspection. Specific measures to be taken as a result of incoming information need to be stipulated in order that FCI is used more efficiently as a risk assessment tool in RB-MSAS.
