The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain: Campylobacter in broiler meat
Open accessAbstract
Abstract It is estimated that there are approximately nine million cases of human campylobacteriosis per year in the EU27. The disease burden of campylobacteriosis and its sequelae is 0.35 million disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) per year and total annual costs are 2.4 billion €. Broiler meat may account for 20% to 30% of these, while 50% to 80% may be attributed to the chicken reservoir as a whole (broilers as well as laying hens). The public health benefits of controlling Campylobacter in primary broiler production are expected to be greater than control later in the chain as the bacteria may also spread from farms to humans by other pathways than broiler meat. Strict implementation of biosecurity in primary production and GMP/HACCP during slaughter may reduce colonization of broilers with Campylobacter, and contamination of carcasses. The effects cannot be quantified because they depend on many interrelated local factors. In addition, the use of fly screens, restriction of slaughter age, or discontinued thinning may further reduce consumer risks but have not yet been tested widely. After slaughter, a 100% risk reduction can be reached by irradiation or cooking of broiler meat on an industrial scale. More than 90% risk reduction can be obtained by freezing carcasses for 2–3 weeks. A 50–90% risk reduction can be achieved by freezing for 2–3 days, hot water or chemical carcass decontamination. Achieving a target of 25% or 5% BFP in all other MS is estimated to result in 50% and 90% reduction of public health risk, respectively. A public health risk reduction > 50% or > 90% could be achieved if all batches would comply with microbiological criteria with a critical limit of 1000 or 500 CFU/gram of neck and breast skin, respectively, while 15% and 45% of all tested batches would not comply with these criteria.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wheeler, J. G., Sethi, D., Cowden, J. M., Wall, P. G., Rodrigues, L. C., Tompkins, D. S., Hudson, M. J., & Roderick, P. J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7190.1046 · Cited by 794
Weak Organic Acids: A Panoply of Effects on Bacteria
Hirshfield, I. N., Terzulli, S., & O'Byrne, C. (2003) · Science Progress · doi:10.3184/003685003783238626 · Cited by 245
Gastroenteritis in Sentinel General Practices, the Netherlands
de Wit, M. A. S., Koopmans, M. P. G., Kortbeek, L. M., van Leeuwen, N. J., Bartelds, A. I. M., & van Duynhoven, Y. T. H. P. (2001) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid0701.010113 · Cited by 236
Norepinephrine increases the pathogenic potential of Campylobacter jejuni
Cogan, T. A., Thomas, A. O., Rees, L. E. N., Taylor, A. H., Jepson, M. A., Williams, P. H., Ketley, J., & Humphrey, T. J. (2007) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2006.114926 · Cited by 203
Luning, P. A., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., & Marcelis, W. J. (2008) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.03.005 · Cited by 159
Whyte, P., McGill, K., & Collins, J. D. (2003) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0740-0020(02)00084-9 · Cited by 75
Cited by
The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report
European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (EFSA and ECDC) (2019) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5926 · Cited by 874
Knowledge gaps in control of Campylobacter for prevention of campylobacteriosis
Hansson, I., Sandberg, M., Habib, I., Lowman, R., & Engvall, E. O. (2018) · Transboundary and Emerging Diseases · doi:10.1111/tbed.12870 · Cited by 172
Perez-Arnedo, I., & Gonzalez-Fandos, E. (2019) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods8030111 · Cited by 70
Ssemanda, J. N., den Besten, H. M. W., van Wagenberg, C. P. A., & Zwietering, M. H. (2024) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2024.110637 · Cited by 15
Reducing Campylobacter numbers on chicken carcasses using lactic acid in processing plants
Burfoot, D., Allen, V., Mulvey, E., Jewell, K., Harrison, D., & Morris, V. (2015) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.12912 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- (BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H.
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2105
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4211166583
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 34.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain: Campylobacter in broiler meat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105
- The paper
- (BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H. (2011). Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain: Campylobacter in broiler meat. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.