Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32

DOI 10.1007/s11259-008-9084-4

ABSTRACT

Duties and functions of veterinary public health

for the management of food safety: present needs
and evaluation of efficiency

M. Trevisani & R. Rosmini

Published online: 8 August 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Functions of veterinarians in the context of food safety assurance have changed
very much in the last ten years as a consequence of new legislation. The aim of this review
is to evaluate the management tools in veterinary public health that shall be used in
response to the actual need and consider some possible key performance indicators. This
review involved an examination of the legislation, guidelines and literature, which was then
discussed to analyse the actual need, the strategies and the procedures with which the public
veterinary service shall comply. The management of information gathered at different
stages of the food chain, from both food production operators and veterinary inspectors
operating in primary production, food processing and feed production should be exchanged
and integrated in a database, not only to produce annual reports and plan national sampling
plans, but also to verify and validate the effectiveness of procedures and strategies
implemented by food safety operators to control risks. Further, the surveillance data from
environmental agencies and human epidemiological units should be used for assessing risks
and addressing management options.

Keywords Food inspection . Food legislation . LISA . Surveillance . Veterinary public health

Abbreviations
FSO Food Safety Objectives
LISA Linked Integrated Food Safety Assurance
RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed

M. Trevisani (*) : R. Rosmini

Department of Veterinary Public Health and Animal Pathology, University of Bologna,
via Tolara di Sopra 50,
40064 Ozzano Emilia, Bologna, Italy
e-mail: marcello.trevisani@unibo.it
S26 Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32

Introduction

The major threats that have challenged industry and public institutions responsible for food
safety management in recent decades have provoked big changes in the control system. One
main issue was the assignment of control responsibility for all safety matters to business
operators (i.e. food or feed producers and farmers). Producers of food and other
commodities alike must ensure that their trade goods are safe and meet adequate standards
for their purpose. In addition, they have tools to organise the process control. The EU and
national legislations define standards for safety and fitness for consumption. The so called
“hygiene package” is divided into two regulations concerning hygienic provisions and two
concerning official controls. The former two are directed at food and feed business
operators and the others at Public Health Authorities. The hygienic provisions define the
characteristics of purity and authenticity (chemical and microbial characteristics) and
required productive standards that ensure safety and fitness for consumption. Hygienic
issues relative to characteristics of processing facilities are more detailed than production
practices, because these are deemed to be a matter for specific guidelines developed by the
producers’ organizations. The Governments consider that a detailed regulation of
processing practices is problematic and useless because of technological developments
and the variety of processing conditions. Guidelines and control strategies (i.e. HACCP) are
autonomously developed by business organizations to achieve the objectives of Regulation
EU 2073/2005 (microbiological criteria) and other provisions relative to drugs used for
animals (Directive 2377/1990/EC), additives for food (Directives (89/107/EC, 94/34/EC,
94/35/EC, 94/2/EC, 203/115), and environmental contaminants (Regulation EU 466/2001).
These rules are frequently updated and the lists of additives and drugs approved for use are
periodically reviewed. The analytical methods and sampling plans for environmental
contaminants are also often updated. Bans and restrictions have been issued for specific
drugs that can be illegally used for animal breeding as well as for additives, colours,
materials that are in contact with foods and genetically modified organisms, because these
are deemed dangerous under some circumstances (Arvanitoyannis et al. 2005). Achieve-
ment of the specific objectives established by the legislation must be assured by self
control. In the slaughterhouse specific diagnostic examinations are carried out to detect
zoonotic parasites and prevent the spread of the major food-borne and animal epidemic
diseases. These investigations are mainly actuated by official veterinarians. Inspections are
also carried out in other food and feed processing industries for assessing compliance with
food legislation. Some biological and chemical contaminants cannot be removed in the
primary processing steps, therefore, primary products must be checked before further
processing. The inspections in these cases are aimed at assessing the hygienic quality of
raw materials and the procedures that producers adopt to ensure that maximum allowed
limits for residues and contaminants are not exceeded. The processing criteria that are used
to achieve FSO are not always defined by producers. The storage temperature of fresh meat,
milk, fish and shellfish or the thermal processing temperature of meat products, milk,
cooked fish and shellfish products are regulated by specific provisions because these
processing criteria were deemed critical for the inhibition or elimination of major food-
borne organisms. Similar considerations were made for food characteristics like water
activity, minimum ageing time or pH, which are critical for the growth of Clostridium
botulinum in foods that are not refrigerated. Traceability rules were introduced in the food
legislation because they are needed to allow management of emergencies and ensure clear
and factual information on food products and farming practices. Labels must report safety
information like conditions for storage, relevant instructions for preparation (i.e. cooking,
Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32 S27

washing, or peeling) and content of allergens. It should also acquaint consumers with the
presence of OGM, specific ingredients or farming practices that they may refuse.

Food safety and production systems

The implementation of the HACCP system requires that food business operators have the
knowledge and capability for assessing every risk that can affect the safety of their
products. They must detect hazards and establish an effective control system that removes
or reduces any risk to a tolerable level and fulfills the product criteria set in the food
legislation. These criteria were defined on the basis of scientific evaluations (risk analysis)
and political considerations. The possible management options have to be compatible,
indeed, with the organization of official controls and markets. Analytical and epidemic data,
processing conditions, consumption data and all existing knowledge useful to assess and
characterize risks due to food contaminants are evaluated within the risk evaluation
framework. Acceptability criteria for food and feed additives or biological and toxic
contaminants are now reviewed on the basis of risk analysis results and therefore these must
be carried out at an international or national level. These criteria and the FSO must be
shared globally and the precautionary principle can be provisionally introduced only in a
few cases (Wiener and Rogers 2002). Food business operators must define their
performance criteria (safety objectives in processing steps before the products are placed
on the market) and process criteria (critical limits). These are set after evaluation of the
quality of raw materials and the processing technologies applied (Gorris 2005). Govern-
ments need comprehensive risk analysis models in order to set FSO and performance
objectives (acceptability criteria), whereas business operators are interested in importance
analysis, which assesses the relative effect (sensitivity scenario) of process variables that are
capable of controlling the output of risk assessment within the risk assessment framework
(Vose 2001). Although risk analysis uses the monitoring and surveillance data recorded at a
national level or from published studies as inputs their results cannot be implemented
directly in specific contexts (Mayes 1998). The risk analysis is useful to evaluate the
effectiveness of control systems and to assess the priority in establishing official controls.
The quality of data and sources of uncertainty are also evaluated. In some cases, indeed, the
data are estimated by experts or are not representative. Often the information needed for
risk characterization are relative to animal models or specific populations. When sampling
plans and analytical methods are inadequate the estimates are not reliable.
Regulation EU 178/2002 places emphasis on the demand for subsequent integrated
control in the food chain. Quite often production systems can only offer weak guarantees
concerning the purity of food (i.e. its freedom from any contaminants) because they cannot
effectively prevent the access of many pathogenic micro-organisms and parasites or toxic
substances. This lack of efficiency depends on the fact that HACCP and quality assurance
systems do not fully involve farmers and breeders. On the other side, they have few
possibilities to assess the quality of feed, animals and service that industry supplies.
EU regulations oblige farmers to control the hygiene of farming and the use of drugs and
biocides (OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group 2006). Although rule
makers noted that hazard analysis and definition of control measures should be
implemented at this step for ensuring food safety, farmers have duties concerning hygiene
of their operating procedures (pre-requisites for safety assurance) but no obligation to
establish control systems (e.g. HACCP). However, epidemic surveillance of some major
food-borne zoonoses (e.g. salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis) has been shown to be
S28 Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32

incapable of achieving the expected results and many animals have been infected.
Monitoring activities show that controls on the use of animal or plant drugs and biocides
are unsatisfactory because evidence of abuse or misuse are sometimes found. Inspections at
the processing step are therefore needed to decide if raw materials can be processed
regularly or not. Implementations of HACCP-based control systems in primary production
require specific competences and management capabilities (Berends and van Knapen 1999;
FSIS/USDA 2006) and the difficulties are greatest for operators of primary production that
are not involved in integrated quality management systems (Bailey et al. 2002). The new
risk assessment based control strategies require definition of risk categories for farmers and
feedstuff producers. For example stringency of checks in the ‘risk based food inspection’ is
related to the health status and hygienic level of farms (Noordhuizen and Frankena 1999;
Sauli et al. 2003; Lievaart et al. 2005). Knowledge relative to the prevalence of diseases at
the farm level in different regions, information on contamination of feedstuffs and the
environment and other relevant data recorded by Public Authorities cannot be managed
autonomously by food business operators, but the use of different sources of information
and data allow an effective validation of the control programmes actuated by food business
operators (Trevisani 2007). On the other side, Public Authorities have to tailor surveillance
measures to address risks that cannot be managed by privates alone. They also have to
adopt monitoring strategies for early detection of emerging problems and must establish
priorities and criteria for specific control plans.

Veterinary public health and food safety management

Veterinary Public Health is a scientific and professional area that gathers up agriculture
science and medicine. This includes all veterinary activities aimed at protecting and or
improving public health in a broad sense, by adopting control, eradication and preventive
strategies. Controls in the steps following primary production must be actuated for every
disease due to pathogens whose access in the food chain cannot be prevented, but these
must be limited in their prevalence and concentration at farm level in order to achieve an
acceptable level of protection. Eradication measures help to eliminate pathogens from
geographic areas, specific populations or productive districts (i.e. farms and/or areas free
from tuberculosis, invasive salmonellas, Trichinella spiralis). Preventive strategies are
aimed at hampering the entrance of new (exotic) pathogens into the animal population or
the food chain (Vagsholm 2006). These combined activities complement each other to
achieve protected productive districts. Implementation of biosafety measures, monitoring
and restriction/regulation of imports are the tools used, although different results are
obtained in relation to the present epidemiological status. Therefore, these should only be
used after evaluating their potential effectiveness.
Control and prevention are also useful for biological contaminants like chemicals, such
as animal/plant drugs, food/feed additives and other environmental pollutants. Restrictions
of use are equal, indeed, to preventive measures, whereas surveillance activities are
included in the control activities. A high number of hazards that threaten human health and
welfare have their source at the primary production level. Links between farmed animals
and humans can be foods, but also wastes from farms and slaughterhouses that pollute the
environment (i.e. misuse of organic fertilizers and improper disposal of animal by-
products). Water used for growing produce or for drinking and processing foods (potable)
can be polluted and become a source of food-borne diseases. Therefore, the hygienic status
of the environment should be assessed and controlled (i.e. when intensive or uncontrolled
Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32 S29

productive activities have significant effects). Cases of food-borne zoonoses and laboratory
reports have often involved produce. The source of outbreaks can be traced to animal
sources that have contaminated fresh produce, like fresh spinach and rucola salads, alfaalfa
sprouts and fruit juices. It has been estimated that more than 50% of new human diseases
occurring in the last ten years were of animal origin or food-borne (Tauxe 1997;
Sivapalasingam et al. 2004; Palmer et al. 2005). Veterinary Public Health is committed to
controlling and preventing any release of zoonotic agents in the environment, through
manure, sewage and sludge (Tauxe 1997; Johnston et al. 2006) because they can
contaminate produce, other than grass and fodder. Four alert notifications received through
RASFF in 2005, concerned Salmonella spp. in rocket salad (rucola) and beet. In 2004 it
was reported that rucola has been contaminated by Campylobacter jejuni. Tracing the
source of Salmonella outbreaks is troublesome, due to its environmental persistence and
high number of reservoirs (domestic and wild animals) but it is well known that sewage
treatments at farm and abattoir level are sometimes inadequate to prevent environmental
contamination. Reported outbreaks and alerts concerning fresh raw produce also involved
verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (Bell 2002) Campylobacter jejuni and coli (Evans et al.
2003; Devane et al. 2005) and Yersinia enterocolitica (Jalava et al. 2004) related to
dissemination from animal sources. Contamination of fresh produce can arise from the
water used to irrigate cultures due to release from organic fertilizers that have not received
proper treatment (Sahlström 2003; Hutchison et al. 2004) but also from wild animals and
pests. In addition, contamination can originate from working practices during harvesting
and processing. Other bio-hazards, like Cryptosporidium parvum, Cyclosporum cayeta-
nensis, Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium perfringens, Aeromonas hydrophyla and
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis must also be controlled in farms and wild animals with
the aim of preventing human diseases. The environmental persistence of bio-hazards is
related to specific niches, the knowledge of which and their connection to the food chain is
of primary importance for reducing their impact on food safety. A comprehensive approach
is needed, then, in order to protect humans and animals from emerging zoonoses and other
contamination at farm level. Not only control by food business operators, but also survey
by the Public Authorities of farming practices that have an impact on Public Health must be
carried out. The Veterinary Services have responsibilities in ensuring compliance with food
legislation, but also in facing the new emerging risks.

Efficiency indexes

Quality systems demand that discrepancies between planned and performed activities or hit
and missed scopes are carefully evaluated. This includes that registration and results of
inspections are in agreement, any deviation is known, efficiency of control systems and
corrective actions have been analyzed and that the overall system is reliable. When these
conditions are not met, reasons for the discrepancies have to be understood and a revision
of the hazards control plan must be performed. The inability to achieve expected results or
the existence of unexpected hazards must be analyzed. Public Authorities must ensure that
recognized food business operators (Regulation EU 853/2004) have planned and
implemented controls for the expected hazards. Audits concerning the HACCP system
and pre-requisites (i.e. sanitation, personnel hygiene, good processing design and practices,
quality of water) must be performed periodically and the results of these inspections must
give rise to revisions of the control plans applied by food business operators. Often audits
and inspections that are aimed at evaluating the quality assurance skill of food producers
S30 Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32

are carried out by private institutions with recognized expertise in the implementation of
ISO guidelines. Other audits are carried out by clients that are willing to check compliance
of food with specific quality standards detailed in contracts. Although protection of
consumers from the risks arising from products of animal origin must be assured by food
operators by meeting criteria set in food legislation, inspections to check compliance of
products and standards of hygiene are carried out by veterinarians employed in the local
health services. The frequency of auditing should be established on the basis of risk
analysis. Hazards to be addressed and the level of control needed in each enterprise must
take into account the problems encountered in comparable production systems and the
results of surveillance and monitoring (e.g. RASFF alerts, prevalence of zoonoses in animal
populations, level of environmental contamination, known abuse of drug and biocides at
farms, residues and contaminant levels in feeds). Professionals involved and their capability
should be adequate for this purpose. The audit activity includes controls on the effective
application of plans autonomously developed and implemented by industry, but also the
assessment of their capability of to address actual risks. Control plans must be actuated for
preventing or limiting the spreading of zoonosis and animal epidemic diseases, their access
to the food chain, as well as those of chemical and physical contaminants or additives.
Development of an integrated control system that uses information from different sources
(i.e. from public control activities) is specific for assessment and rating operated by Public
Authorities (Table 1). Few examples are useful to point out the importance of this approach.
Surveillance of animal drugs gives information on their use and possible misuse or abuse
(Trevisani 2007). These data should be integrated with other data relative to the emergence/
persistence of multi-resistant strains that can affect humans or the occurrence of irregular
residues in food and feed. The national monitoring plan for animal feeds (PNAA) gives
information on chemical contaminants, additives and Salmonella in feedstuffs, which
should be used to identify sources of hazards for animals and assess any lack of efficiency
in HACCP developed by feed producers or the reason for recurring Salmonella infections in
animal populations. The RASFF alerts are useful for recalling foods and feeds or for rating
risks of imported foods and products before they are placed on to the market. However,
these findings should also be used to review the control systems. Sampling plans to assess
the quality of production lots and validate the effectiveness of controls (e.g. HACCP)
should be developed on the basis of the estimated prevalence of defective products and the
uncertainty of analytical results should be reported. This uncertainty should also be reduced
(i.e. by increasing sampling or adopting more accurate and sensitive methods) when
unacceptable risk could arise. In any case alternative analytical methods and sampling
strategies must be validated in order to produce reliable data. The discrepancies found

Table 1 Hazards, actuated controls and evidence of weakness

Hazard Control Evidence

Drug residues above limits Registration drug use/commerce Prevalence/emergence (NPR)

Antibiotic resistant strains
Salmonella in eggs and poultry
Enteric pathogens in produce
C. botulinum in packed salami
Listeria in RTE foods
Registration drug use/commerce
HACCP at feed production
Control sewage disposal
Low water activity
Monitoring (sampling strategies);
Reduced temperature and shelf life
Prevalence/emergence (NPR)
Contaminated feed (PNAA)
Contaminated environment
Moisture condensation
Contaminated surfaces and food
outgrowth

NPR: National Plan for Residues in food;

PNAA: national monitoring plan for animal feeds
Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32 S31

between self control and official surveillance should be analysed. No deficiency should
arise from inadequate sampling procedures or analytical methods. Causes of failure in
eradication control plans for zoonotic diseases like tuberculosis, brucellosis or in the
reduction of salmonellosis should be sought and an appropriate aid to operators is needed to
achieve the planned objectives and remove inefficiencies. Ante and post mortem records of
veterinarians can also help producers to improve animal welfare and compliance with
legislation.

Conclusion

Veterinary Public Services are committed to protect human and animal health. Better results
can be achieved by an integrated management of the data that surveillance and monitoring
activities produce, which should be comparatively evaluated with results of self-control
actuated by food safety operators. HACCP plans are not only validated in the framework of
self-control, but also through other evidence and collection of relevant data (i.e. in other
steps or similar processing units and in monitoring and surveillance activities). Sampling
plans and other sources of uncertainty must be analysed in order to produce useful results
and rating risks associated with specific food processes.

References

Arvanitoyannis I.S., Choreftaki S., Tserkezou P., 2005. Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards
genetically modified foods, based on the ‘perceived safety vs. benefits’ perspective. International
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 40, 1021–1112.
Bailey D., Jones E., Dickinson D.L., 2002. Knowledge Management: A New Frontier in the Global Food
System: Knowledge Management and Comparative International Strategies on Vertical Information Flow
in the Global Food System. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 1337−1344.
Bell C., 2002. Approach to the control of entero-haemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC). International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 78, 197–216.
Berends B.R. and van Knapen F., 1999. An outline of a risk assessment-based system of meat safety
assurance and its future prospects. Veterinary Quarterly, 21, 128–134.
Devane M.L., Nicol C., Ball A., Klena J.D., Scholes P., Hudson J.A., Baker M.G., Gilpin B.J., Garrett N.,
Savill M.G., 2005. The occurrence of Campylobacter subtypes in environmental reservoirs and potential
transmission routes. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 98, 980−990.
Evans M.R., Ribeiro C.D., Salmon R.L., 2003. Hazards of health living: bottled water and salad vegetables
as risk factors for Campylobacter infection. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9, 1219−1225.
FSIS/USDA, 2006. Measuring Establishment Risk Control for Risk-Based Inspection. www.fsis.usda.gov
(accessed in July 2007).
Gorris L.G.M., 2005. Food safety objective: An integral part of food chain management. Food Control, 16,
801–809.
Hutchison M.L., Walters L.D., Moore A., Crookes K.M., Avery S.M., 2004. Effect of Length of Time before
Incorporation on Survival of Pathogenic Bacteria Present in Livestock Wastes Applied to Agricultural
Soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70, 5111–5118.
Jalava K., Hallanvuo S., Nakari U.M., Ruutu P., Kela E., Heinasmaki T., Siitonen A., Nuor J.P., 2004.
Multiple Outbreaks of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis Infections in Finland. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology, 42, 2789–2791.
Johnston L.M., Jaykus L.A., Moll D., Anciso J., Mora B., Moe C.L., 2006. A field study of the
microbiological quality of fresh produce of domestic and Mexican origin. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 112, 83–95.
Lievaart J.J., Noordhuizen J.P., van Beek E., van der Beek C., van Risp A., Schenkel J., van Veersen J.,
2005. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point's (HACCP) concept as applied to some chemical,
physical and microbiological contaminants of milk on dairy farms A prototype. Veterinary Quarterly, 27,
21–29.
S32 Vet Res Commun (2008) 32 (Suppl 1):S25–S32

Mayes T., 1998. Risk analysis in HACCP: burden or benefit? Food Control, 9, 171–176.
Noordhuizen J.P.T.M., Frankena K., 1999. Epidemiology and quality assurance: applications at farm level.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 39, 93–110.
OIE Animal Production Food Safety Working Group, 2006. Guide to good farming practices for animal
production food safety. Scientific and Technical Review, 25, 823–836.
Palmer S., Brown D., Morgan D., 2005. Early quantitative risk assessment of the emerging potential of
animal diseases. BMJ, 331, 1256–1260.
Sahlström L., 2003. A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in biogas plants.
Bioresource Technology, 87, 161–166.
Sauli I., Danuser J., Wenk C., Stark K.D., 2003. A semiquantitative approach for evaluating safety assurance
levels for Salmonella spp. throughout a food production chain. Journal of Food Protection, 66, 1146–
1153.
Sivapalasingam S., Friedman C.R., Cohen L., Tauxe R.V., 2004. Fresh produce: A growing cause of
outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, 1973 through 1997. Journal of Food Protection, 67,
2342–2353.
Tauxe R.V., 1997. Emerging foodborne diseases: an evolving public health challenge. Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 3, 425–434.
Trevisani M., 2007. Corrette prassi igieniche nelle produzioni avicole primarie. In Atti Convegno
Associazione Italiana Veterinari Igienisti. Cesenatico (FC). 14–16 Giugno 2007, AIVI, Bologna, Italia,
36–45.
Vagsholm I., 2006. Principles of epidemiology as applied to VPH. In Integrated Food Safety and Veterinary
Public Health. Buncic, S. (Ed.), CABI: Wallingford, 52–57.
Vose D., 2001. Risk Analysis. A Quantitative Guide, 2nd edition. Wiley: Chichester.
Wiener J.B., Rogers M.D., 2002. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk
Research, 5, 317–349.