Truls Nesbakken

This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of pre-harvest interventions to control the main foodborne pathogens in pork in the European Union. A total of 1180 studies were retrieved from PubMed^® and Web of Science for 15 pathogens identified as relevant in EFSA’s scientific opinion on the public health hazards related to pork (2011). The study selection focused on controlled studies where a cause–effect could be attributed to the interventions tested, and their effectiveness could be inferred. Altogether, 52 studies published from 1983 to 2020 regarding Campylobacter spp., Clostridium perfringens, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium avium, and Salmonella spp. were retained and analysed. Research was mostly focused on Salmonella (n = 43 studies). In-feed and/or water treatments, and vaccination were the most tested interventions and were, overall, successful. However, the previously agreed criteria for this systematic review excluded other effective interventions to control Salmonella and other pathogens, like Yersinia enterocolitica, which is one of the most relevant biological hazards in pork. Examples of such successful interventions are the Specific Pathogen Free herd principle, stamping out and repopulating with disease-free animals. Research on other pathogens (i.e., Hepatitis E, Trichinella spiralis and Toxoplasma gondii) was scarce, with publications focusing on epidemiology, risk factors and/or observational studies. Overall, high herd health coupled with good management and biosecurity were effective to control or prevent most foodborne pathogens in pork at the pre-harvest level.

Purpose of Review: Ensuring broilers’ meat safety is a priority to policy makers, producers, and consumers. This systematic review aims to update the recent knowledge on pre-harvest interventions to control main foodborne pathogens in broilers and to assess their effectiveness.Recent Findings: A total of 815 studies were retrieved from PubMed® and Web of Science for 13 pathogens. In total, 51 studies regardingCampylobacterspp.,Salmonellaspp., VTEC, ESBL-AmpCEscherichia coli, andClostridium perfringenswere included in this review.Summary: Research mostly focused onSalmonellaspp. andCampylobacterspp. Biosecurity and management interventions had mixed outcomes, while the effectiveness of feed additives, though intensively researched, remains controversial. Research on other pathogens (i.e. ESBL-AmpCE. coli/Salmonella, andToxoplasma gondii) was scarce, with publications focusing on epidemiology and/or on source-attribution studies. This is also true regarding research onListeria monocytogenes,Bacillus cereus,Clostridium botulinum,Clostridium perfringens, andStaphylococcus aureusas these are frequently controlled by post-harvest interventions. Overall, studies on recent developments of novel pathogen-specific immunisation strategies are lacking.

Summary: As Specific Pathogen‐Free (SPF) pig herds are designed and managed to prevent specific pig diseases, it might be feasible to expand the list of micro‐organisms also including zoonotic pathogens such as Campylobacter coli as this agent has its origin in pigs. In a previous survey, 15 of 16 of SPF herds were found free from human pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica. Accordingly, three nucleus and seven multiplying herds were surveyed for Campylobacter to investigate whether the Norwegian SPF pig pyramid also might be free from this agent. In conclusion, the intervention of Campylobacter at the herd level might be possible as four of 10 SPF herds tested negative in two sets of samples from both autumn 2008 and summer/early autumn 2010. The four negative herds were all located in remote areas several kilometres away from conventional pig farming while the positive SPF farms were all situated in neighbourhoods with conventional pig production. It seems more difficult to control Campylobacter than some specific animal disease agents and another significant zoonotic agent, Y. enterocolitica, in pig herds.