Campylobacter Status quo on European level Uppsala, EURL-Campylobacter Workshop 02.10.2012 Klaus Kostenzer, END European Commission, DG SANCO, G4
Overview EU structures in food safety Baselinestudy EFSA opinions Status quo
EU structures Parliament Commission DG SANCO EFSA Council FVO ECDC Member States
EFSA/ECDC Zoonoses report 2010
Campylobacter trend
EU baselinestudy in 2008 based on Reg. (EC) No 2007/516 broilers flocks and carcases objectives: 'baseline' prevalence in all MSs in broiler flocks (caeca content) and on carcases (neck-/breastskin) Quantified information about carcase contamination extent: 10.132 flocks in 561 slaughterhouses in 26 EU MSs (plus NO&CH)
Risk factors Positive flock results 30x more probable in a positive carcase Positive flock results in higher contamination of carcase Contamination risk differs within MSs and slaughterhouses
Risk assessments of EFSA Background: EFSA: Scientific opinion on Campylobacter in animals and food; 2005 EU-baselinestudy; 2008 EFSA: Scientific Opinion on Quantification of the risk posed by broiler meat to human campylobacteriosis in the EU; 2010 Report: A quantitative microbiological risk assessment of Campylobacter in the broiler meat chain; 2011 Legal base for possible targets or criteria given in Reg. (EC) No 2160/2003 and hygiene package (incl. Reg. (EC) No 2073/2005)
Mandate to EFSA: 1. Contribution of broiler-meat to human campylobakteriosis 2. Identification and ranking of possible control options 3. Proposals for potential performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain in order to obtain e.g. 50 and 90% reduction of human disease Focus was set on primary production, transport, slaughter. Retail and consumers were excluded. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain (EFSA Journal 2011;9(4):2105)
Selected interventions Biosecurity Fly screens Discontinued thinning Reduction of slaughter age Reducing colonization Decontamination Scheduled slaughter
Estimated effect of interventions CAMO -model developed Data sources: EU-wide baseline survey and CSR of 2008 Peer-reviewed literature Expert opinion Intervention analysis run for four countries Output: relative reduction of human cases attributable to broiler meat
Performance indicators Targets Specific model (CamPrev): expected risk reduction if BFP reached a target of 50, 25, 10, 5, 1%, or 0% Microbiological criteria Specific model (CAMC) EU baseline survey data The percentage of batches not complying with the criterion (BNMC) is calculated to evaluate the public health impact of a MC
Limitations Local (slaughter-house) situation and practices not taken into account Unclear correlation between faecal or caecal samples, skin samples and meat products Diagnostic sensitivities of both tests varied significantly between Member States Campylobacter strains and variants were assumed to have identical properties Many data gaps e.g. slaughterhouse variability, effect of interventions, consumer behaviour, dose response, effects of immunity
General conclusions Approximately 9 million cases per year in the EU Estimated disease burden is 0.35 million DALYs per year and total annual costs are 2.4 billion Handling, preparation and consumption of broiler meat may account for 20-30% of human cases, while 50-80% may be attributed to the chicken reservoir as a whole. The public health benefits of controlling Campylobacter in primary broiler production are expected to be greater than control later in the chain
Interventions (1) primary production Results of QMRA based on data from four countries: Linear relationship between prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler flocks and public health risk Biosecurity measures are essential to prevent flock colonization The rigorous and continuous application of strict biosecurity measures that is necessary to prevent Campylobacter from entering the broiler house is mostly not achieved in the EU Colonization with Campylobacter of flocks with outdoor access is very likely to occur
Interventions (2) primary production 50-90% risk reduction by an equivalent reduction of flock prevalence through e.g. fly screens (based on 1 MS) Up to 50% risk reduction by modifications of primary production: restriction of slaughter age to a max 28 days (only indoor flocks) discontinued thinning.
Interventions (3) slaughter 100% risk reduction by reduction of carcass concentration by > 6 log10 units Which can be achieved by irradiation/cooking More than 90% risk reduction by reduction of carcass concentrations by > 2 log10 units, which can be achieved by freezing for 2-3 weeks or reduction of the concentration in intestines at slaughter by > 3 log units; 50-90% risk reduction by reduction of carcass concentrations by 1-2 log10 units, which can be achieved by freezing for 2-3 days, hot water or chemical carcass decontamination with lactic acid, acidified sodium chlorite or trisodium phosphate
Targets (1) Flocks 25% resp. 5% flock prevalence = 50% resp. 90% risk reduction The realistic time period needed to obtain reductions will differ between countries. It is not realistic to consider targets for flocks with outdoor access.
Targets (2) Microcriteria < 1000 resp. < 500 cfu/g skin = >50% resp. >90% risk reduction EU-wide 15-45% of all slaughter batches not conform (refers to data from baselinestudy)
Example PHC Food catego ry Microorgani sms n c m M Analytical reference method Stage where the criterio n applies Action in case of unsatisfactory results Poultry carcases of broilers Campy lobacter ISO/TS 10272-2 (for enumeration) Carcases after chilling Improvements in slaughter hygiene and review of process controls, origin of animals and biosecurity measures in the farms of origin
Status quo cost-benefit-analysis to be discussed EC-Proposal on PHC postponed Revision of meat inspection in poultry EFSA opinion published Scientific framework program of DG Research Discussion with MSs
Weblinks EC http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/index_en.htm FVO http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm EFSA http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ RASFF http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm ECDC http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/pages/home.aspx EURL Campylobacter http://www.sva.se/en/about-sva/eurl---campylobacter/
Thank you very much for your attention! DG Health & Consumers Europe working for healthier, safer, more confident citizens Public Health Food safety Consumer Affairs