Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine): Meat inspection of swine

Open access
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)·2011·EFSA Journal

Abstract

Abstract A qualitative risk assessment identified Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazards in the context of meat inspection of swine. A comprehensive pork carcass safety assurance is the only way to ensure their effective control. This requires setting targets to be achieved in/on chilled carcasses, which also informs what has to be achieved earlier in the food chain. Improved Food Chain Information (FCI) enables risk‐differentiation of pig batches (hazard‐related) and abattoirs (process hygiene‐related). Risk reduction measures at abattoir level are focused on prevention of microbial contamination through technology‐ and process hygiene‐based measures (GMP/GHP‐ and HACCP‐based), including omitting palpation/incision during post‐mortem inspection in routine slaughter, as well as hazard reduction/inactivation meat treatments if necessary. At farm level, risk reduction measures are based on herd health programmes, closed breeding pyramids and GHP/GFP. Chemical substances listed in Council Directive 96/23/EC were ranked into four categories. Dioxins, dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls and chloramphenicol were ranked as being of high potential concern. However, chemical substances in pork are unlikely to pose an immediate or short term health risk for consumers. Opportunities for risk‐based inspection strategies by means of differentiated sampling plans taking into account FCI were identified. Regular update of sampling programmes and inclusion of inspection criteria for the identification of illicit use of substances were also recommended. Meat inspection is a key component of the overall surveillance system for pig health and welfare but information is currently under‐utilised. The changes proposed to the pig meat inspection system will lead to some reduction in the detection probability of diseases and welfare conditions. The difference is likely to be minimal for diseases/conditions that affect several organs. To mitigate the reduced detection probability, palpation and/or incision should be conducted as a follow‐up to visual inspection whenever abnormalities are seen.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10
Volume
9
Issue
10
Pages
2351
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W319651075
Cited by
267
References
2
FWCI
30.13
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 the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine): Meat inspection of swine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351
The paper
(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H. (2011). Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine): Meat inspection of swine. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351

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.