Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis

Y.K. van Dam, L.J. Frewer, E. Marier, D. Armstrong, A.J.C. Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)50-58
JournalThe Pig Journal
Volume2009
Issue number63
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

zoonoses
stakeholders
salmonellosis
Salmonella
swine
farms
pork
food safety
slaughter
meat juices
farmers
safety standards
funding
animal health
food quality
slaughterhouses
veterinarians
human health
control methods
interviews

Cite this

van Dam, Y. K., Frewer, L. J., Marier, E., Armstrong, D., & Cook, A. J. C. (2010). Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis. The Pig Journal, 2009(63), 50-58.
van Dam, Y.K. ; Frewer, L.J. ; Marier, E. ; Armstrong, D. ; Cook, A.J.C. / Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis. In: The Pig Journal. 2010 ; Vol. 2009, No. 63. pp. 50-58.
@article{4fcbc672c82f4de9baf29d0d5aa23e38,
title = "Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis",
abstract = "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",
author = "{van Dam}, Y.K. and L.J. Frewer and E. Marier and D. Armstrong and A.J.C. Cook",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "2009",
pages = "50--58",
journal = "The Pig Journal",
issn = "1352-9749",
number = "63",

}

van Dam, YK, Frewer, LJ, Marier, E, Armstrong, D & Cook, AJC 2010, 'Barriers to adoption of measures to control salmonella in pigs in the UK: A stakeholder analysis' The Pig Journal, vol. 2009, no. 63, pp. 50-58.

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 journalArticleAcademicpeer-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 -