Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 50-58 |
| Journal | The Pig Journal |
| Volume | 2009 |
| Issue number | 63 |
| Publication status | Published - 2010 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis. / van Dam, Y.K.; Frewer, L.J.; Marier, E.; Armstrong, D.; Cook, A.J.C.
In: The Pig Journal, Vol. 2009, No. 63, 2010, p. 50-58.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis
AU - van Dam, Y.K.
AU - Frewer, L.J.
AU - Marier, E.
AU - Armstrong, D.
AU - Cook, A.J.C.
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Salmonella infection in pigs may enter the pork chain and thus contribute to human salmonellosis. In 2002 the British Pig Executive (BPEX) launched the Zoonosis Action Plan (ZAP). ZAP is a monitoring scheme based on detecting antibodies to salmonella infection in meat juice sampled from pigs after slaughter. Farms were assigned a score (one to three) according to the test results. ZAP2 or ZAP3 farms had to act to control salmonella or potentially lose quality assured status. The aim of ZAP was to reduce the prevalence of salmonella infection in pigs at slaughter by 25%. However, prevalence of salmonella infection in pigs has not changed since ZAP was initiated. Stakeholder interviews in the UK (seven farmers, seven abattoir managers and two veterinarians) identified concerns regarding implementation of ZAP measures. General support for the implementation of measures to control salmonella in pigs and pork was identified, reflecting the perceived need to attain good food safety standards in order to generate consumer confidence in food safety and quality. The responsibility for prevention of human infection was perceived to be a consumer responsibility. Stakeholders thought that salmonella control measures should be adapted and related to individual farm conditions. The costs of implementation and maintaining control impeded implementation as the benefits were perceived to be indirect and unrelated to animal or human health. The voluntary implementation of ZAP was viewed favourably. Mandatory implementation was not. In conclusion, farmers considered that reduction of salmonella would be an achievable goal, but elimination was considered unfeasible
AB - Salmonella infection in pigs may enter the pork chain and thus contribute to human salmonellosis. In 2002 the British Pig Executive (BPEX) launched the Zoonosis Action Plan (ZAP). ZAP is a monitoring scheme based on detecting antibodies to salmonella infection in meat juice sampled from pigs after slaughter. Farms were assigned a score (one to three) according to the test results. ZAP2 or ZAP3 farms had to act to control salmonella or potentially lose quality assured status. The aim of ZAP was to reduce the prevalence of salmonella infection in pigs at slaughter by 25%. However, prevalence of salmonella infection in pigs has not changed since ZAP was initiated. Stakeholder interviews in the UK (seven farmers, seven abattoir managers and two veterinarians) identified concerns regarding implementation of ZAP measures. General support for the implementation of measures to control salmonella in pigs and pork was identified, reflecting the perceived need to attain good food safety standards in order to generate consumer confidence in food safety and quality. The responsibility for prevention of human infection was perceived to be a consumer responsibility. Stakeholders thought that salmonella control measures should be adapted and related to individual farm conditions. The costs of implementation and maintaining control impeded implementation as the benefits were perceived to be indirect and unrelated to animal or human health. The voluntary implementation of ZAP was viewed favourably. Mandatory implementation was not. In conclusion, farmers considered that reduction of salmonella would be an achievable goal, but elimination was considered unfeasible
M3 - Article
VL - 2009
SP - 50
EP - 58
JO - The Pig Journal
JF - The Pig Journal
SN - 1352-9749
IS - 63
ER -