Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39272540›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Lessons Learned and Outcomes from Risk-Based Modernisation of Post-Mortem Inspection and Disposition Criteria of Beef, Sheep, Goat, and Pig Carcasses in Australia.

Andrew Pointon, Andreas Kiermeier, David Hamilton, Samantha Allan, Ian Jenson, Daryl Stevens, Ann McDonald, John Langbridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Andrew PointonAPFoodIntegrity Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 7070, West Lakes, Adelaide, SA 5022, Australia.
Andreas KiermeierStatistical Process Improvement Consulting and Training Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 301, Gumeracha, SA 5233, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6240-2919
David HamiltonD Hamilton Consulting Pty. Ltd., 46 High Street, Willunga, SA 5172, Australia.
Samantha AllanMeat Export Branch, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Ian JensonMeat & Livestock Australia, 1/40 Mount St., North Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3111-4217
Daryl StevensAtura Pty. Ltd., Mount Martha, Melbourne, VIC 3934, Australia.
Ann McDonaldAustralian Meat Processor Corporation, Suite 2, Level 6, 99 Walker Street, North Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia.
John LangbridgeTeys Australia, Building 3, 2728 Logan Rd., Eight Mile Plains, Brisbane, QLD 4113, Australia.ORCID 0009-0000-0138-6337

Funding

Australian Pork (Australia) 2015-023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lessons learned from reviewing national risk assessments to modernise the Australian Standard for the post-mortem inspection and disposition judgement of beef, sheep, goat, and pig carcases are discussed. The initial risk profiles identified priorities for quantitative assessments. Broadly, the main difficulty encountered was the paucity of quantified performance for the current inspection. Resolving this involved acquiring gross abnormality data representing regional production/proportional abattoir volumes, the range of gross abnormalities appearing nationally, proportional occurrence at carcase sites, and seasonality to enable the comparison of procedures. The methodologies followed the Codex Alimentarius Commission's risk assessment guidelines and are fully documented in the associated publications. The evidence and discussion are provided for the associated challenges experienced, including preventing contamination, the use of food chain information to support amendment, inspection as a part of industry Quality Assurance programmes, and opportunities to improve inspector training. The criteria considered by the Competent Authority for the determination of the equivalence of alternative post-mortem inspection techniques included comparisons of public health risk, non-detection rates for gross abnormalities, and microbial contamination resulting from inspection activities, as appropriate. Most of the gross abnormalities detected arose from animal health and welfare conditions affecting wholesomeness and did not present as food safety hazards. The non-detection rates between the current and alternative inspection (observation) were negligible. A quantitative risk assessment for

Indexed as

cattledispositiongoatspigspost-mortem inspectionrisksheep

Identifiers

PMID39272540
PMCPMC11395562

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.