Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36329973›Full record

ReviewFood control2022

Meat safety legislation and its opportunities and hurdles for innovative approaches: A review.

Gunvor Elise Nagel-Alne, Emil Murphy, Brittany McCauslin, Sigrun J Hauge, Dorte Lene Schrøder-Petersen, Janne Holthe, Ole Alvseike

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Steps towards operationalizing One Health approaches.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Robot Technology for Pork and Beef Meat Slaughtering Process: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gunvor Elise Nagel-AlneAnimalia - Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Center, P.O. Box 396, Økern, N-0513, Oslo, Norway.
Emil MurphyDeer Industry New Zealand, PO Box 10701, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand.
Brittany McCauslinBX Foods Oamaru, PO Box 50, Oamaru, 9400, New Zealand.
Sigrun J HaugeAnimalia - Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Center, P.O. Box 396, Økern, N-0513, Oslo, Norway.
Dorte Lene Schrøder-PetersenDanish Technological Institute, Gregersensvej 9, 2630, Taastrup, Denmark.
Janne HoltheAnimalia - Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Center, P.O. Box 396, Økern, N-0513, Oslo, Norway.
Ole AlvseikeAnimalia - Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Center, P.O. Box 396, Økern, N-0513, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Albert Einstein has been quoted "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". Innovations are necessary to meet future challenges regarding sustainability, animal welfare, slaughter hygiene, meat safety and quality, not at least for optimal balance between these dimensions. The red meat safety legislation texts from Europe, New Zealand, USA, and global guidelines, were analysed for normative formulations ("how it is or should be done") that may create non-intentional hurdles to innovation and new technology. Detailed descriptions of slaughtering techniques and meat processes may hinder innovative processing from being investigated and implemented. The identified problematic normative phrases typically either conserve conventional technologies or organisation of the work, prescribe solutions where no established method, objective criteria or limits exits, or put forward visions impossible to obtain. The Codex Alimentarius was found to have less normative formulations and more functional demands ("what to achieve") than the national and regional regulations. European, New Zealand's and US' legislation share many similarities and challenges, and they all reflect the prevailing processing methods. Consequences are briefly commented, and alternative objective functional demands suggested. Normative legislation texts provide familiar context easier to understand, but also make legislation voluminous. This review underlines the mutual dependency between risk-based legislation and conditional flexibility, and between functional demands and control activities targeted on measurable objective criteria. The legislation does not have to be either or. Objective normative phrases in legislation can function as a least common multiple if alternative methods are allowed on condition that they fulfil objective criteria. Context and practical advice should mainly come from textbooks, consultants, white papers and in Food Business Operator's own guidelines, among others.

Indexed as

Innovation friendlyLegislationRed meatSlaughter

Identifiers

PMID36329973
PMCPMC9290325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.