Cargando…

Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals

An assessment was conducted on the level of inactivation of relevant pathogens that could be present in processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals when methods 2 to 5 and method 7, as detailed in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, are applied. Five approved...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos, Allende, Ana, Alvarez Ordoñez, Avelino, Bolton, Declan, Bover‐Cid, Sara, Chemaly, Marianne, Herman, Lieve, Hilbert, Friederike, Lindqvist, Roland, Nauta, Maarten, Nonno, Romolo, Peixe, Luisa, Skandamis, Panagiotis, Suffredini, Elisabetta, Fernandez Escamez, Pablo, Gonzales‐Barron, Ursula, Roberts, Helen, Ru, Giuseppe, Simmons, Marion, Cruz, Ruben Barcia, Lourenço Martins, Joana, Messens, Winy, Ortiz‐Pelaez, Angel, Simon, Ancuta Cezara, De Cesare, Alessandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10320699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37416785
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8093
_version_ 1785068490937335808
author Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos
Allende, Ana
Alvarez Ordoñez, Avelino
Bolton, Declan
Bover‐Cid, Sara
Chemaly, Marianne
Herman, Lieve
Hilbert, Friederike
Lindqvist, Roland
Nauta, Maarten
Nonno, Romolo
Peixe, Luisa
Skandamis, Panagiotis
Suffredini, Elisabetta
Fernandez Escamez, Pablo
Gonzales‐Barron, Ursula
Roberts, Helen
Ru, Giuseppe
Simmons, Marion
Cruz, Ruben Barcia
Lourenço Martins, Joana
Messens, Winy
Ortiz‐Pelaez, Angel
Simon, Ancuta Cezara
De Cesare, Alessandra
author_facet Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos
Allende, Ana
Alvarez Ordoñez, Avelino
Bolton, Declan
Bover‐Cid, Sara
Chemaly, Marianne
Herman, Lieve
Hilbert, Friederike
Lindqvist, Roland
Nauta, Maarten
Nonno, Romolo
Peixe, Luisa
Skandamis, Panagiotis
Suffredini, Elisabetta
Fernandez Escamez, Pablo
Gonzales‐Barron, Ursula
Roberts, Helen
Ru, Giuseppe
Simmons, Marion
Cruz, Ruben Barcia
Lourenço Martins, Joana
Messens, Winy
Ortiz‐Pelaez, Angel
Simon, Ancuta Cezara
De Cesare, Alessandra
collection PubMed
description An assessment was conducted on the level of inactivation of relevant pathogens that could be present in processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals when methods 2 to 5 and method 7, as detailed in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, are applied. Five approved scenarios were selected for method 7. Salmonella Senftenberg, Enterococcus faecalis, spores of Clostridium perfringens and parvoviruses were shortlisted as target indicators. Inactivation parameters for these indicators were extracted from extensive literature search and a recent EFSA scientific opinion. An adapted Bigelow model was fitted to retrieved data to estimate the probability that methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive modes, and the five scenarios of method 7 are able to achieve a 5 log(10) and a 3 log(10) reduction of bacterial indicators and parvoviruses, respectively. Spores of C. perfringens were the indicator with the lowest probability of achieving the target reduction by methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive mode, and by the five considered scenarios of method 7. An expert knowledge elicitation was conducted to estimate the certainty of achieving a 5 log(10) reduction of spores of C. perfringens considering the results of the model and additional evidence. A 5 log(10) reduction of C. perfringens spores was judged: 99–100% certain for methods 2 and 3 in coincidental mode; 98–100% certain for method 7 scenario 3; 80–99% certain for method 5 in coincidental mode; 66–100% certain for method 4 in coincidental mode and for method 7 scenarios 4 and 5; 25–75% certain for method 7 scenario 2; and 0–5% certain for method 7 scenario 1. Higher certainty is expected for methods 2 to 5 in consecutive mode compared to coincidental mode.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10320699
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103206992023-07-06 Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos Allende, Ana Alvarez Ordoñez, Avelino Bolton, Declan Bover‐Cid, Sara Chemaly, Marianne Herman, Lieve Hilbert, Friederike Lindqvist, Roland Nauta, Maarten Nonno, Romolo Peixe, Luisa Skandamis, Panagiotis Suffredini, Elisabetta Fernandez Escamez, Pablo Gonzales‐Barron, Ursula Roberts, Helen Ru, Giuseppe Simmons, Marion Cruz, Ruben Barcia Lourenço Martins, Joana Messens, Winy Ortiz‐Pelaez, Angel Simon, Ancuta Cezara De Cesare, Alessandra EFSA J Scientific Opinion An assessment was conducted on the level of inactivation of relevant pathogens that could be present in processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals when methods 2 to 5 and method 7, as detailed in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, are applied. Five approved scenarios were selected for method 7. Salmonella Senftenberg, Enterococcus faecalis, spores of Clostridium perfringens and parvoviruses were shortlisted as target indicators. Inactivation parameters for these indicators were extracted from extensive literature search and a recent EFSA scientific opinion. An adapted Bigelow model was fitted to retrieved data to estimate the probability that methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive modes, and the five scenarios of method 7 are able to achieve a 5 log(10) and a 3 log(10) reduction of bacterial indicators and parvoviruses, respectively. Spores of C. perfringens were the indicator with the lowest probability of achieving the target reduction by methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive mode, and by the five considered scenarios of method 7. An expert knowledge elicitation was conducted to estimate the certainty of achieving a 5 log(10) reduction of spores of C. perfringens considering the results of the model and additional evidence. A 5 log(10) reduction of C. perfringens spores was judged: 99–100% certain for methods 2 and 3 in coincidental mode; 98–100% certain for method 7 scenario 3; 80–99% certain for method 5 in coincidental mode; 66–100% certain for method 4 in coincidental mode and for method 7 scenarios 4 and 5; 25–75% certain for method 7 scenario 2; and 0–5% certain for method 7 scenario 1. Higher certainty is expected for methods 2 to 5 in consecutive mode compared to coincidental mode. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10320699/ /pubmed/37416785 http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8093 Text en © 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Scientific Opinion
Koutsoumanis, Konstantinos
Allende, Ana
Alvarez Ordoñez, Avelino
Bolton, Declan
Bover‐Cid, Sara
Chemaly, Marianne
Herman, Lieve
Hilbert, Friederike
Lindqvist, Roland
Nauta, Maarten
Nonno, Romolo
Peixe, Luisa
Skandamis, Panagiotis
Suffredini, Elisabetta
Fernandez Escamez, Pablo
Gonzales‐Barron, Ursula
Roberts, Helen
Ru, Giuseppe
Simmons, Marion
Cruz, Ruben Barcia
Lourenço Martins, Joana
Messens, Winy
Ortiz‐Pelaez, Angel
Simon, Ancuta Cezara
De Cesare, Alessandra
Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title_full Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title_fullStr Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title_full_unstemmed Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title_short Assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
title_sort assessment on the efficacy of methods 2 to 5 and method 7 set out in commission regulation (eu) no 142/2011 to inactivate relevant pathogens when producing processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals
topic Scientific Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10320699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37416785
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8093
work_keys_str_mv AT assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT koutsoumaniskonstantinos assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT allendeana assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT alvarezordonezavelino assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT boltondeclan assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT bovercidsara assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT chemalymarianne assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT hermanlieve assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT hilbertfriederike assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT lindqvistroland assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT nautamaarten assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT nonnoromolo assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT peixeluisa assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT skandamispanagiotis assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT suffredinielisabetta assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT fernandezescamezpablo assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT gonzalesbarronursula assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT robertshelen assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT rugiuseppe assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT simmonsmarion assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT cruzrubenbarcia assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT lourencomartinsjoana assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT messenswiny assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT ortizpelaezangel assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT simonancutacezara assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals
AT decesarealessandra assessmentontheefficacyofmethods2to5andmethod7setoutincommissionregulationeuno1422011toinactivaterelevantpathogenswhenproducingprocessedanimalproteinofporcineoriginintendedtofeedpoultryandaquacultureanimals