KENYA STANDARD     DKS 2761 : 2017  
                      ICS ……  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Meat  Hygiene  – code  of practice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
      PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT, NOVEMBER 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© KEBS 2017          First Edition 2017   
 
KENYA STANDARD                                        
 
 DKS 2761 : 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Meat  Hygiene  – code  of practice  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No copying  of this standard  without  KEBS  permission  except  as permitted  by copyright  law  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © KEBS  2017         First Edition  2017  
 
 
KENYA  STANDARD           DKS 2761 : 2017  
 
ICS ………………  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Meat  Hygiene  – code  of practice  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No copying  of this standard  without  KEBS  permission  except  as permitted  by copyright  law  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © KEBS  2017         First Edition  2017  
 
 
TECHNICAL  COMMITTEE  REPRESENT ATION  
 
The following  organizations  were  represented  on the Technical  Committee:  
 
Ministry  of Health - food safety  unit 
Kenya  Industrial  Research  and Development  Institute  
National  Public  Health  Laboratory  
Government  Chemist ‘s Department  
Farmer ‘s Choice  (K) Ltd. 
University  of Nairobi  — Department  of Food  Science,  Nutrition  and Technology  
Egerton  University  – Department  of Dairy  and Food  Science  and Technology  
Consumer  Information  Network  
Kenchic  (K) Ltd. 
Kenya  Meat  Commission  
Directorate  of Livestock  Producti on 
Directorate  of Veterinary  Services  
Quality  Meat  Packers  
Choice  Meats  limited  
Kenya  Bureau  of Standards  — Secretariat  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVISION  OF KENYA  STANDARDS  
 
In order  to keep  abreast  of progress  in industry,  Kenya  standards  shall be regularly  reviewed.  
Suggestions  for improvement  to published  standards,  addressed  to the Managing  Director,  Kenya  Bureau  
of Standards,  are welcome.  
 
 
 
 
 
© Kenya  Bureau  of Standards , 2017 
 
Copyright.  Users  are reminded  that by virtue  of Section  25 of the Copyright  Act, Cap.  12 of 2001   of the Laws  of Kenya,  copyright  
subsists  in all Kenya  Standards  and except  as provided  under  Section  26 of this Act, no Kenya  Standard  produced  by Kenya  
Bureau  of Standards  may be reproduced,  stored  in a retrieval  system  in any form or transmitted  by any means  without  prior 
permission  in writing  from the Managing  Director.  
 
 
  
 
ISBN  9966 -19-638-2  
 
KENYA  STANDARD       DKS 2761 : 2017  
 
                     ICS ……..  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Meat  Hygiene  – code  of practice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KENYA  BUREAU  OF STANDARD S (KEBS)  
 
Head  Office:   P.O. Box 54974,  Nairobi -00200,  Tel.: (+254  020) 605490,  602350,  Fax: (+254  020) 604031  
E-Mail:  info@kebs.org,   Web:http://www.kebs.org   
 
Coast  Region     Lake  Region          Rift Valley  Region  
P.O. Box 99376,  Mombasa -80100   P.O. Box 2949,  Kisumu -40100        P.O. Box 2138,  Nakuru -20100   
Tel.: (+254  041) 229563,  230939/40                Tel.: (+254  057) 23549,  22396        Tel.: (+254  051) 210553,  
210555  
Fax: (+254  041) 229448    Fax: (+254  057) 21814  
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword  
 
This Kenya  Standard  was prepared  by the Meat  and Meat  Products  Technical  Committee  under  the 
guidance  of the Standards  Projects  Committee,  and it is in accordance  with the procedures  of the Kenya  
Bureau  of Standards.  
 
The preparation  of the first edition  of the standard  was found  necessary  so as to present  a standard  that 
offers a comprehensive  code  of practice  for meat  to produce  a hygienically  produced  meat  that is safe for 
consumption  that accommodates  meat  animals  and poultry  along  the value  chain.   
 
 
 During  the preparation  of this standard,  reference  was made  to the following  documents:  
 
Codex  Alimentarius  Commission  Standard,  Meat  and Meat  products  Volume  10 1994.  
 
The Food,  Drugs  and Chemical  Substances  Act, Cap 254, Cap 256 of the Laws  of Kenya.  
 
Kenya  Meat  Commission  Act Cap 363 of the laws of Kenya  
 
Meat  Control  Act Cap 356 of the laws of Kenya  
 
International  Commission  on Microbiological  Specifications  for Foods  - Micro -organisms  in Foods,  
Book  8. 
 
UNECE  Standard  for Porcine  Meat  Carcasses  and cuts 2006  Edition  
 
UNECE  standard  Porcine  Meat  carcasses  and cuts 2013  Edition  
 
Official  Methods  of Analysis  (AOAC)  20th edition  2016  
 
The assistance  derived  from the above  sources  is highly  acknowledged  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
CODE OF HYGIENIC PRACTICE FOR MEAT  
 
CAC/RCP 58 -2005  
 
1. INTRODUCTION  
2. SCOPE AND USE OF THIS CODE  
3. DEFINITIONS  
4. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MEAT HYGIENE  
5. PRIMARY PRODUCTION  
5.1 Principles of meat hygiene applying to primary production  
5.2 Hygiene of slaughter animals  
5.3 Hygiene of killed wild game  
5.4 Hygiene of feed and f eed ingredients  
5.5 Hygiene of the primary production environment  
5.6 Transport  
5.6.1 Transport of slaughter animals  
5.6.2 Transport of killed wild game  
6. PRESENTATION OF ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER  
6.1 Principles of meat hygiene applying to animals presented f or slaughter  
6.2 Conditions of lairage  
6.3 Ante -mortem inspection  
6.3.1 Design of ante -mortem inspection systems  
6.3.2 Implementation of ante -mortem inspection  
6.3.3 Ante -mortem judgement categories  
6.4 Information on animals presented for slaughter   
7. PRE SENTATION OF KILLED WILD GAME FOR DRESSING  
 
7.1 Principles of meat hygiene applying to inspection of killed wild game presented for 
dressing  
7.2 Inspection of killed wild game presented for dressing  
8. ESTABLISHMENTS: DESIGN, FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT  
8.1 P rinciples of meat hygiene applying to establishments, facilities and equipment  
8.2 Design and construction of lair ages  
8.3 Design and construction of slaughter areas  
8.4 Design and construction of areas where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may 
othe rwise be present  
meat may be present  
8.6 Water supply  
8.7 Temperature control  
8.8 Facilities and equipment for personal hygiene  
8.9 Transport vehicles  
9. PROCESS CONTROL  
9.1 Principles of meat hygiene applying to process control  
9.2 Process control systems  
9.2.1 Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (Sops)  
9.2.2 HACCP  
9.2.3 Outcome -based parameters for process control  
9.2.4 Regulatory systems  
9.2.5 Quality Assurance (QA) systems  
9.3 General hygiene requirements for process control  
9.4 Hygiene requirement s for slaughter and dressing  
9.5 Post -mortem inspection   
9.5.1 Design of post -mortem inspection systems  
9.5.2 Implementation of post -mortem inspection  
9.6 Post -mortem judgement  
9.7 Hygiene requirements for process control after post -mortem inspection  
9.8 Hy giene requirements for parts of animals deemed unsafe or unsuitable for human 
consumption  
9.9 Systems for removing products that are in circulation  
10. ESTABLISHMENTS: MAINTENANCE AND SANITATION  
 
10.1 Principles of meat hygiene applying to maintenance and sanitation of 
establishments, facilities and equipment  
10.2 Maintenance and sanitation  
11. PERSONAL HYGIENE  
11.1 Personal cleanliness  
11.2 Personal health status  
12. TRANSPORTATION  
13. PRODUCT INFORMATION AND CONSUMER AWARENESS  
14. TRAINING  
14.1 Principles  of training in meat hygiene  
14.2 Training programmes  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
CODE OF HYGIENIC PRACT ICE FOR MEAT 
 
 
1.   INTRODUCT ION 
 
1.      Meat has traditionally been  viewed  as a vehicle for a significant proportion of human 
food-borne disease. Although the spectrum o f meat-borne diseases of public health 
importance has changed with changing production and processing systems, continuation of 
the problem has  been well illustrated in recent years by hu man surveillance studies of 
specific meat-borne pathogens such as  Escherichia co li O157:H7, Salmonella spp.,  
Campylobacter spp. and Yersinia enterocolitica. In addition to existing biological, chemical 
and physical hazards, new hazards are also appearing e.g. the agent of bovine spongiform 
encepha lopathy (BSE). Fur thermore consumers have expec tations abo ut suitability issues 
which are not nece ssarily of human health significance. 
 
2.      A contemporary risk-based approach to meat hygiene requires that hygiene measu res 
should be applied at  those points in the food chain where they will be of greatest value in 
reducing food-borne risks to consumers. This should be reflected in app lication of specific 
measu res based on science and risk assessment, with a greater emphasis on prevention 
and control of contamination during a ll aspects of production of meat and its further 
processing. Application of HACC P principles is an essential element. The measu re of 
success of con temporary programmes is an objective demonstration of levels of hazard 
control in food that are correlated with required levels of consumer protection, rather than by 
concen trating on detailed and prescriptive measures that give an un known outcome. 
 
3.      At the national level the activities of the Co mpetent Authority having jurisdiction at the 
slaughterhouse (usually Veterinary Administrations2) very often serve animal health as well 
as public health objectives. This is particularly the case in relation to ante- and post-mortem 
inspection where the slaughterhouse is a key point in animal health surveillance, including 
zoonos es. Regardless of jurisdictional arrangements, it is important that this duality of 
functions is recognized and relevant public health and animal health activities are integrated. 
 
4.      A  number of national governments are implementing systems that redefine the 
respective roles of industry and government in delivering meat hygiene activities. 
Irrespective of  the delivery systems the competent authority is responsible for defining the 
role of personn el involved in meat hygiene activities where app ropriate, and verifying that all 
regulatory requirements are met. 
 
5.      The principles of food safety risk management3  should be incorporated wherever 
appropriate in the de sign and implementation of meat hygiene programmes. Spec ifically, 
work conduc ted by JEMRA, JECFA and  FAO/WHO  Expe rt Consu ltations and resulting risk 
management recommendations should be considered. Fur ther, newly-recognised meat-
borne risks to human health may require measu res additional to those usually app lied in 
meat hygiene, e.g. the potential for zoono tic transmission of central nervous system 
disorders of slaughtered livestock means  that additional animal health surveillance  
programmes may need  to be undertaken. 
 
 
2.       SCOPE AND USE OF THIS CODE 
  
6.      The scope of this code covers hygiene provisions for raw meat, meat prepar ations and 
manufac tured meat from the time of live animal production up to the point of retail sale. It further 
develops General Principles of Food  Hygiene' 4 in respect of these products 
 
For the purpos es of this code, meat is that derived from gazetted meat animals as per the Meat 
control Act cap 356.  
9.      Normative references  
Meat hygiene is by nature a complex activity, and this code refers to standards, texts and other 
recommendations developed elsewhere in the Codex system where linkages are appropriate, 
e.g.  
Principles for Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification (CAC/GL 20 - 1995),  
Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management (CAC/GL 63 -
2007), Genera l Guidelines for Use of the Term "Halal" (CAC/GL 24 -1997) and the  
Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (CAC/RCP 54 -2004).  
 General Principles of Food Hygiene6  
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code --- foreward  
 
11.    Subsets of the general principles (Se ction 4) are provided in subsequent sections within 
‗double -line boxes‘. Where guidelines are provided at the section level, those that are more 
prescriptive in nature are presented in ‗single -line boxes‘. This is to indicate that they are 
recommendations based on current knowledge and practice. They should be regarded as being 
flexible in nature and subject to alternative provisions so long as required outcomes in terms of 
the safety and suitability of meat are met.  
 
3.       DEFINITIONS  
13.    For the pur poses of this code, the following definitions apply.    
Abattoir/ slaughter house   
Any establishment where specified animals are slaughtered and dressed for  human 
consumption and that is approved, registered and/or listed by the competent authority for suc h 
purposes.  
Animal   
A gazetted food animal as per Meat control act cap 356.   
Ante -mortem inspection  
Any procedure or test conducted by a competent person on live animals for the purpose of 
judgement of safety and suitability and disposition  
Carcass   
The bo dy of any slaughtered animal after bleeding and dressing.  
Chemical residues   
Residues of veterinary drugs and pesticidess described in the Definitions for  the Purpose of the 
Codex Alimentarius.  
Pesticide Residue  
means any specified substance in food, agr icultural commodities, or animal feed resulting from 
the use of a pesticide. The term includes any derivatives of a pesticide, such as conversion 
products, metabolites, reaction products, and impurities considered to be of toxicological 
significance.  
Resid ues of Veterinary Drugs  
include the parent compounds and/or their metabolites in any edible portion of the animal 
product, and include residues of associated impurities of the veterinary drug concerned.  
Competent authority   
The official authority charged by the government with the control of meat hygiene, including 
setting and enforcing regulatory meat hygiene requirements.  
Competent person   
A person who has the training, knowledge, skills and ability to perform an assigned task, and 
who is subject to requ irements specified by the competent authority.  
Condemned   
Inspected and judged by a competent person, or otherwise determined by the competent 
authority, as being unsafe or unsuitable for human consumption and requiring appropriate 
disposal.  
Contaminant   
Any biological or chemical agent, foreign matter, or other substance not intentionally added to 
food that may compromise food safety or suitability.10  
Disease or defect   
Any abnormality affecting safety and/or suitability.   
Dressing   
The progressive separati on of the body of an animal into a carcass and other edible and 
inedible parts.  
Equivalence   
The capability of different meat hygiene systems to meet the same food safety and/or suitability 
objectives.  
Establishment   
A building or area used for performing meat hygiene activities that is approved, registered 
and/or listed by the competent authority for such purposes.  
Establishment operator   
The person in control of an establishment who is responsible for ensuring that the regulatory 
meat hygiene requirements  are met.  
Fresh Meat   
Meat that apart from refrigeration has not been treated for the purpose of preservation other 
than through protective packaging and which retains its natural characteristics.  
Game depot   
A building in which killed wild game is tempora rily held prior to transfer to an establishment, and 
which is approved, registered and/or listed by the competent authority for this purpose.  (Note 
that for the purposes of this code, a game depot is a particular type of establishment).  
Good Hygienic Prac tice 
(GHP)  All practices regarding the conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and 
suitability of food at all stages of the food chain.11  
Hazard   
A biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an 
adverse health effect.12  
Inedible   
Inspected and judged by a competent person, or otherwise determined by the competent 
authority to be unsuitable for human consumption.  
Manufactured Meat    
Products resulting from the processing of raw meat or from the f urther processing of such 
processed products, so that when cut, the cut surface shows that the product no longer has the 
characteristics of fresh meat.  
Meat   
All parts of an animal that are intended for, or have been judged as safe and suitable for, human 
consumption.  
Meat hygiene   
All conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and suitability of meat at all stages 
of the food chain.  
Meat preparation   
Raw meat which has had foodstuffs, seasonings or additives added to it.  
Mechanically separated meat (MSM)   
Product obtained by removing meat from flesh -bearing bones after boning or from poultry 
carcasses,  using  mechanical  means  that  result  in the loss or modification of the muscle fibre 
structure.  
Minced meat   
Boneless meat which has been red uced into fragments.  
Official inspector   
A competent person who is appointed, accredited or otherwise recognised by the competent 
authority to perform official meat hygiene activities on behalf of, or under the supervision of the 
competent authority.  
Organ oleptic inspection   
Using the senses of sight, touch, taste and smell for identification of diseases and defects.  
Performance criterion   
The effect in frequency and/or concentration of a hazard in a food that must be achieved by the 
application of one or m ore control measures to provide or contribute to a performance objective 
(PO) or a food safety objective (FSO).  
Performance objective   
The maximum frequency and/or concentration of a hazard in a food at a specified step in the 
food chain before the time of  consumption that provides or contributes to a food safety objective 
(FSO) or appropriate level of protection (ALOP), as applicable.   
Post -mortem inspection   
Any procedure or test conducted by a competent person on all relevant parts of 
slaughtered/killed a nimals for the purpose of judgement of safety and suitability and disposition.  
Primary production   
All those steps in the food chain constituting animal production and transport of animals to the 
abattoir, or hunting and transporting wild game to a game de pot. 
Process control   
All conditions and measures applied during the production processes that are  necessary to 
achieve safety and suitability of meat.  
Process criterion   
The physical process control parameters (e.g. time, temperature) at a specified step that can be 
applied to achieve a performance objective or performance criterion.  
Quality assurance (QA)   
All  the  planned  and  systematic  activities implemented  within the  quality system and 
demonstrated as needed, to provide adequate confidence that an entity will fulfill requirements 
for quality.  
Quality assurance (QA )system   
The organisational structure, procedures, processes and resources needed to  implement quality 
assurance.  
Raw meat   
Fresh meat, minced meat or mechanically separated meat . 
Ready -to-Eat (RTE) products   
Products that are intended to be consumed without any further biocidal steps.  
Risk -based   
Containing  any  performance  objective,  performance  criterion  or  process criterion developed 
accordin g to risk analysis principles.  
Safe f or human consumption   
Safe for human consumption according to the following criteria:  
• has  been  produced  by  applying  all  food  safety  requirements appropriate to its 
intended end -use;  
• meets risk -based performance and process criteria for specifie d hazards; and  
•        does not contain hazards at levels that are harmful to human health.  
Sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs)   
A documented system for assuring that personnel, facilities, equipment and utensils are clean 
and where necessary , sanitised to specified levels prior to and during operations.  
Suitable for human consumption   
Suitable for human consumption according to the following criteria:  
a. has been produced under hygienic conditions as outlined in this code;  
b. is appropriate to its intended use19; and  
c. meets outcome -based parameters for specified diseases or defects as established by 
the competent authority.  
Validation   
Obtaining evidence that the food hygiene control measure or measures selected to control a 
hazard in a food is capab le of effectively and consistently controlling the ha zard to the 
appropriate level.  
Verification   
Activities performed by the competent authority and/or competent body to determine compliance 
with regulatory requirements.  
Verification (Operator)   
The conti nual review of process control systems by the operator, including corrective and 
preventative actions to ensure that regulatory and/or specified requirements are met.  
Veterinary Inspector   
An official inspector who is professionally qualified as a veterina rian and carries out of ficial meat 
hygiene activities  as specified by the competent authority.  
 
4. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MEAT HYGIENE  
1. Meat must be safe and suitable for human consumption and all interested parties 
including government, industry and consum ers have a role in achieving this outcome. 
However, it is the responsibility of the establishment operator to produce meat that is 
safe and suitable in accordance with regulatory meat hygiene requirements. There 
should be a legal obligation on relevant par ties to provide any information and 
assistance as may be required by the competent authority.   
2. The competent authority should set and enforce regulatory meat hygiene requirements, 
and have final responsibility for verifying that regulatory meat hygiene requ irements are 
met.  
3. Meat hygiene programmes should have as their primary goal the protection of public 
health and should be based on a scientific evaluation of meat -borne risks to human 
health and take into account all relevant food safety hazards, as ident ified by research, 
monitoring and other relevant activities.  
4. The principles of food safety risk analysis should be incorporated wherever possible and 
appropriate in the design and implementation of meat hygiene programmes.  
5. Meat hygiene requirements shoul d control hazards to the greatest extent practicable 
throughout the entire food chain. Information available from primary production should 
be taken into account so as to tailor meat hygiene requirements to the spectrum and 
prevalence of hazards in the ani mal population from which the meat is sourced.  
6. The establishment operator should apply HACCP Prerequisite Programmes (PRPs), and 
to the greatest extent practicable, the PRPs should also be applied in the design and 
implementation of hygiene measures throu ghout the entire food chain.  
7. The range of activities involved in meat hygiene should be carried out by personnel with 
the appropriate training, knowledge, skills and ability as and where defined by the 
competent authority.  
8. The competent authority should verify that the establishment operator has adequate 
systems in place to trace and withdraw meat from the food chain. Communication with 
consumers and other interested parties should be considered and undertaken where 
appropriate.  
9. As appropriate to the cir cumstances, the results of monitoring and surveillance of animal 
and human populations should be considered with subsequent review and/or 
modification of meat hygiene requirements whenever necessary.  
10. Competent authorities should recognise the equivalence of alternative hygiene 
measures where appropriate, and promulgate meat hygiene measures that achieve 
required outcomes in terms of safety and suitability and facilitate fair practices in the 
trading of meat.  
5.       PRIMARY PRODUCTION  
Primary production i s a significant source of hazards associated with meat. A number of 
biological, physical and chemical hazards presents considerable challenges, e A risk -based 
approach to meat hygiene includes consideration of risk management options that may have a 
signif icant impact on risk reduction when applied at th e level of primary production.  
 
5.1     PRINCIPLES OF MEAT HYGIENE APPLYING TO PRIMARY PRODUCTION  
i. Primary production should be managed in a way that reduces the likelihood of 
introduction of hazards and appr opriately contributes to meat being safe and suitable for 
human consumption.   
ii. Whenever possible and practicable, systems should be established by the primary 
production sector and the competent authority, to collect, collate and make available, 
information on hazards and conditions that may be present in animal populations and 
that may affect the safety and suitability of meat.  
iii. Primary production should include official or officially -recognised programmes for the 
control and monitoring of zoonotic agents in animal populations and the environment as 
appropriate to the circumstances, and notifiable zoonotic diseases should be reported as 
required.  
iv. Good hygienic practice (GHP) at the level of primary production should involve for 
example the health and hygiene o f animals, records of treatments, feed and feed 
ingredients and relevant environmental factors, and should include application of 
HACCP principles.  
v. Animal identification practices should allow trace -back to the place of origin to the extent 
practicable, t o allow regulatory investigation where necessary.  
 
5.2     HYGIENE OF SLAUGHTER ANIMALS  
Both primary producers and the competent authority should work together to implement risk -
based meat hygiene programmes at the level of primary production that document  the general 
health status of slaughter animals, and implement practices that maintain or improve that status, 
e.g. zoonoses control programmes. QA programmes at the level of primary production should 
be encouraged and may include application of HACCP prin ciples as  appropriate to the 
circumstances. Such programmes should be taken into account by the competent authority in 
the overall design and implementation of risk -based meat hygiene programmes.  
So as to facilitate the application of risk -based meat hygi ene programmes:  
a) Primary producers should record relevant information to the extent possible on the 
health status of animals as it relates to the production of meat that is safe and suitable 
for human consumption. This information should be made available t o the abattoir as 
required.  
b) Systems should be in place for return from the abattoir to the primary producer, of 
information on the safety and suitability of slaughter animals and meat, in order to 
improve the hygiene on the farm and, where producer -led QA -programmes are applied, 
to be incorporated into these programmes to improve their effectiveness.  
c) The competent authority should systematically analyse monitoring and surveillance 
information from primary production so that meat hygiene requirements may be modified 
if necessary.  
The competent authority should administer an official programme for control of specified 
zoonotic agents, chemical hazards and contaminants.  This should be co -ordinated with other 
competent authorities that have responsibilities in public and animal health.  
Official programme for specified zoonotic agents should include measures to:   
a. control  and  eradicate  their  presence  in  animal  populations,  or  subsets  of  
populations,  e.g. particular poultry flocks;  
b. prevent the introducti on of new zoonotic agents;  
c. provide monitoring and surveillance systems that establish baseline data and guide a 
risk-based approach to control of such hazards in meat; and  
d. control  movement  of  animals  between  primary  production  units,  and  to  abatt oirs,  
where populations are under quarantine restrictions.  
e. Official programme for chemical hazards and contaminants should include measures to:  
f. control the registration and use of veterinary drugs and pesticides so that residues do 
not occur in meat at le vels that make the product unsafe  for human consumption, and  
g. provide monitoring and surveillance systems that establish baseline data and guide a 
risk-based approach to control of such hazards in meat.  
Animal identification systems, should be in place at p rimary production level so that the origin of 
meat can be traced back from the abattoir or establishment to the place of production of the 
animals.  
Animals should not be loaded for transport to the abattoir when:  
a) the degree of contamination of the external  surfaces of the animal is likely to 
compromise hygienic slaughter and dressing, and suitable interventions such as 
washing or shearing are not available,  
b) information is available to suggest that animals may compromise the production of meat 
that is safe a nd suitable for human consumption, e.g. presence of specific disease 
conditions or recent administration of veterinary drugs. In some situations, transport may 
proceed if the animals have been specifically identified (e.g. as ―suspects‖) and are to be 
slaughtered under special supervision; or  
c) conditions causing animal stress may exist or arise that are likely to result in an adverse 
impact on the safety and suitability of meat.  
 
5.4     HYGIENE OF FEED AND FEED INGREDIENTS  
Feeding of animals during primary production should be subject to good animal feeding 
practice28. Records should be maintained at the manufacturing level, on the origin of feed and 
feed ingredients to facilitate verification.  
There is a need for collaboration between all parties involved i n production, manufacturing and 
use of feed and feed ingredients, so as to establish any linkage between identified hazards and 
the level of risk to consumers that may result from transmission through the food chain29.  
Animals should not be given feed and feed ingredients that:  
a) are  recognised  as  likely  to  introduce  zoonotic  agents  (including  transmissible  
spongiform encephalopathies - TSEs) to the slaughter population; or   
b) contain chemical substances, (e.g. veterinary drugs, pesticides ) or contami nants that 
could result in residues in meat at levels that make the product unsafe for human 
consumption.  
The competent authority should implement appropriate legislation and controls governing the 
feeding of animal protein to animals where there is a like lihood of transmission of zoonotic 
agents, and this may include a ban on such feeding when justified by risk management. Any 
processed feed and feed ingredients should be subject to appropriate microbiological and other 
criteria according to a specified sa mpling plan and testing protocol, and maximum limits for 
mycotoxins.  
5.5     HYGIENE OF THE PRIMARY PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT  
31.    Primary production of animals should not be undertaken in areas where the presence of 
hazards in the environment could lead to  an unacceptable level of such hazards in meat.  
The  competent  authority  should  design  and  administer  monitoring  and  surveillance  
programmes appropriate to the circumstances that address:  
a) hazards arising from animals and plants that may compromise  the production of meat 
that is safe and suitable for human consumption;  
b) environmental contaminants that may result in levels in meat that make the product 
unsafe for human consumption; and  
c) ensuring that potential carriers such as water, are not significan t vehicles for 
transmission of hazards.  
Facilities and procedures should be in place to ensure that:  
a) housing and feeding platforms where used, and other areas where zoonotic agents and 
other hazards may accumulate, can be effectively cleaned, and are maint ained in a 
sanitary condition (refer to Section 10);  
b) systems for active processing and/or disposal of dead animals and waste should not 
constitute a possible source of food -borne hazards to human and animal health; and  
c) chemical hazards required for technol ogical reasons are stored in a manner so that they 
do not contaminate the environment or feed and feed ingredients and thereby pose a 
risk to human health.  
5.6 TRANSPORT  
5.6.1  Transport of slaughter animals  
Transport of slaughter animals should be carried  out in a manner that does not have an adverse 
impact on the safety and suitability of meat.  
Slaughter animals require transport facilities to the abattoir that ensure that:  
i. soiling and cross -contamination with faecal material is minimised;  
ii. new hazards are  not introduced during transport;   
iii. animal identification as to the place of origin is maintained; and  
iv. consideration is given to avoiding undue stress that may adversely impact on the safety 
of meat  (such as stress -induced shedding of pathogens).  
 
Transport vehicles should be designed and maintained so that:  
i. animals can be loaded, unloaded and transported easily and with minimal risk of injury;  
ii. animals of different species, and animals of the same species likely to cause injury to 
one another, are physically separated during transport;  
iii. use of floor gratings, crates or similar devices limits soiling and cross -contamination with 
faecal material;  
iv. where the vehicle has more than one deck, animals are protected from cross -
contamination as appropriate ;  
v. ventilation is adequate; and  
vi. cleaning and sanitising is readily achieved (refer to Section 10).  
Transport vehicles, and crates where used should be cleaned and if necessary sanitised as 
soon as practicable after animals have been unloaded at the establishment.  
 
6.       PRESENTATION OF ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER  
Only healthy, clean and appropriately identified animals should be presented for slaughter.  
All animals should be screened upon arrival at the abattoir. Where abnormalities in behaviour or 
appearance suggest that an  individual animal or a consignment of animals should be 
segregated, this should occur and the competent person undertaking ante -mortem inspection 
should be notified.  
Ante-mortem inspection is an important pre -slaughter activity, and all relevant informati on on 
animals presented for slaughter should be utilised in meat hygiene systems.  
6.1 PRINCIPLES OF MEAT HYGIENE APPLYING TO ANIMALS PRESENTED FOR 
SLAUGHTER  
i. Animals presented for slaughter should be sufficiently clean so that they do not 
compromise hygieni c slaughter and dressing.  
ii. The  conditions  of  holding  of  animals  presented  for  slaughter  should  minimise  
cross - contamination with food -borne pathogens and facilitate efficient slaughter and 
dressing  
iii. Slaughter animals should be subjected to ante -mortem inspection, with the competent 
authority determining the procedures and tests to be used, how inspection is to be 
implemented, and the necessary training, knowledge, skills and ability of personnel 
involved.   
iv. Ante-mortem inspection should be science - and risk -based as appropriate to the 
circumstances, and should take into account all relevant information from the level of 
primary production.  
v. Relevant information from primary production where available and results of ante -
mortem inspection should be uti lised in process control.  
vi. Relevant information from ante -mortem inspection should be analysed and returned to 
the primary producer as appropriate.  
6.2     CONDITIONS OF LAIRAGE  
Holding of animals presented for slaughter has an important effect on many aspe cts of 
slaughter, dressing and the production of meat that is safe and suitable for human consumption. 
The cleanliness of animals has a major influence on the level of microbiological cross -
contamination of the carcass and other edible parts during slaught er and dressing. A range of 
measures appropriate to the animal species may be applied to ensure that only animals that are 
sufficiently clean are slaughtered and to assist in reducing microbiological cross - contamination.  
Quality  assurance  (QA)  systems  implemented  by  the  establishment  operator  should  
enhance achievement of appropriate conditions of lairage on an on -going basis.  
The establishment operator should ensure conditions of lairage that include:  
i. facilities are operated in a way that soilin g and cross -contamination of animals with food -
borne pathogens are minimised;  
ii. holding of animals so that their physiological condition is not compromised and ante -
mortem inspection can be effectively carried out, e.g. animals should be adequately 
rested an d not overcrowded and protected from weather where necessary;  
iii. separation of different classes and types of slaughter animals as appropriate, e.g. 
separation of animals with special dressing requirements, and separation of ―suspects‖ 
that have been identifi ed as having the potential to transfer specific food -borne 
pathogens to other animals (refer to 6.3);  
iv. systems to ensure that only animals that are sufficiently clean are slaughtered;  
v. systems to ensure that feed has been appropriately withdrawn before slaug hter; 
vi. maintenance of identification of animals (either individually, or as lots, e.g. poultry) until 
the time of slaughter and dressing; and  
vii. conveying of relevant information on individual animals or lots of animals to facilitate 
ante- and post -mortem insp ection.  
The competent authority should take into account QA systems properly implemented by the 
establishment operator, in setting the frequency and intensity of verification activities necessary 
to determine that the conditions of lairage are in accordanc e with regulatory requirements.  
6.3     ANTE -MORTEM INSPECTION  
All animals presented for slaughter should be subjected to ante -mortem inspection, by a 
competent person whether on an individual or a lot basis. Inspection should include confirmation 
that the  animals are properly identified, so that any special conditions pertaining to their place of  
primary production are considered in the ante -mortem inspection, including relevant public and 
animal health quarantine controls.  
Ante-mortem inspection should su pport post -mortem inspection by application of a specific 
range of procedures and/or tests that consider the behaviour, demeanour and appearance, as 
well as signs of disease in the live animal.  
Animals described below should be subject to special controls,  procedures or operations 
imposed by the competent authority (which may include denial of entry to the abattoir) when:  
i. animals are not sufficiently clean;  
ii. animals have died in transit;  
iii. a zoonotic disease posing an immediate threat to either animals or huma ns is present, 
or suspected;  
iv. an animal health disease subject to quarantine restrictions is present, or suspected;  
v. animal identification requirements are not met; or  
vi. declarations  from  the  primary  producer or supplier,  if  required  by  the  competent  
authority  (including compliance with good veterinary practice in the use of animal 
medicines), are absent or inadequate.  
6.3.1  Design of ante -mortem inspection systems  
Ante-mortem inspection should be included as an integral component of an overarching risk-
based system for the production of meat, with systems for process control (refer to Section 9) 
incorporating appropriate components. Relevant information on the slaughter population, e.g. 
animal class, health status, geographical region of origin, sho uld be utilised in both the design 
and implementation of ante -mortem inspection systems.  
Ante-mortem inspection, including procedures and tests, should be established by the 
competent authority according to a science and risk -based approach. In the absence  of a risk -
based system, procedures will have to be based on current scientific knowledge and practice.  
Ante-mortem procedures and tests may be integrated and implemented together so as to 
achieve public health and animal health objectives. In such cases a ll aspects of ante -mortem 
inspection should be science - based and be tailored to the relevant risks.  
Where indicated by public health concerns, measures additional to routine ante -mortem 
inspection may be required.  
Characteristics of a risk -based ante -mortem inspection programme are:  
i. procedures  for  confirmation  of  proper  animal  identification  in  accordance  with  
national legislation;  
ii. design and application of organoleptic procedures and tests that are relevant and 
proportional to meat -borne risks a ssociated with clinical signs of illness and grossly -
detectable abnormalities;   
iii. tailoring of procedures to the spectrum and prevalence of diseases and defects 
reasonably likely to be present in the slaughter population, taking into account the type 
of anima l, geographical origin and primary production system;  
iv. integration with HACCP -based process control to the extent practicable, e.g. application 
of objective criteria for ensuring appropriate cleanliness of animals presented for 
slaughter;  
v. on-going tailoring  of procedures to information received from the primary production unit, 
where practicable;  
vi. use of laboratory tests for hazards that are unaddressed by organoleptic inspection 
when their presence is suspected, e.g. chemical residues and contaminants; and  
vii. return of information to the primary producer so as to seek continuous improvement in 
the safety and suitability status of animals presented for slaughter (refer to 6.4).  
6.3.2  Implementation of ante -mortem inspection  
The competent authority should determi ne how ante -mortem inspection is to be implemented, 
including identification of the components that may be applied at primary production rather than 
the abattoir, e.g. in the case of intensively -raised poultry.31 The competent authority should 
establish th e training, knowledge, skills and ability requirements of all personnel involved, and 
the roles of the official inspector, including the veterinary inspector (refer to 9.2). Verification of 
inspection activities and judgements should be undertaken as appro priate by the competent 
authority or competent body. The final responsibility for verifying that all regulatory requirements 
are met should lie with the competent authority.  
The responsibilities of the establishment operator in respect of ante -mortem inspe ction include:  
i. providing verifiable information required by the competent authority with respect to ante -
mortem inspection carried out at primary production;  
ii. segregation of animals if, for example, they have recently given birth during transport or 
in lair ages, or have recently aborted and/or show retained foetal membranes;  
iii. applying identification systems for individual animals or lots of animals until the time of 
slaughter that document the outcome of ante -mortem inspection, and after slaughter in 
the case  of ―suspect‖ animals;  
iv. presentation of animals that are sufficiently clean; and  
v. prompt removal of animals that have died in the lairage, e.g. from metabolic disease, 
stress, suffocation, with the permission of the competent person undertaking ante -
mortem i nspection.  
Ante-mortem inspection at the abattoir should occur as soon, as is practicable after delivery of 
slaughter animals. Only animals that are judged to be sufficiently rested should proceed to 
slaughter, but should not be withheld from slaughter any  longer than necessary. If ante -mortem 
inspection has occurred and there is a delay of more than 24 hours before slaughter, ante -
mortem inspection should be repeated.  
Ante-mortem inspection systems required by the competent authority should include the 
following:   
i. all relevant information from the level of primary production should be taken into account 
on an on -going basis, e.g. declarations from the primary producers relating to the use of 
veterinary drugs, information from official hazard control programm es; 
ii. animals suspected as being unsafe or unsuitable for human consumption should be 
identified as such and handled separately from normal animals (refer to 6.2 and 8.2);  
iii. results of ante -mortem inspection are made available to the competent person 
undertaki ng post - mortem inspection before animals are inspected at the post -mortem 
stations so as to augment final judgement. This is particularly important when a 
competent person undertaking ante -mortem inspection, judges that a suspect animal 
can proceed to sla ughter under special hygiene conditions;  
iv. in more equivocal situations, the competent person undertaking ante -mortem inspection 
may hold the animal (or  lot) in special facilities for more detailed inspection, diagnostic 
tests, and/or treatment;  
v. animals con demned as unsafe or unsuitable for human consumption should be 
immediately identified as such and handled in a manner that does not result in cross -
contamination of other animals with food -borne hazards (refer to 8.2); and  
vi. the reason for condemnation shoul d be recorded, with confirmatory laboratory tests 
being carried out if deemed necessary. Feedback of this information to the primary 
producer should take place  
Slaughter of animals under an official or officially -recognised programme for the eradication or  
control of a specific zoonotic disease, e.g. salmonellosis, should only be carried out under the 
hygiene conditions specified by the competent authority.  
6.3.3  Ante -mortem  judgement categories  
Ante-mortem judgement categories include:  
a) passed for slaught er; 
b) passed for slaughter subject to a second ante -mortem inspection, after an additional 
holding period, e.g. when animals are insufficiently rested, or are temporarily affected by 
a physiological or metabolic condition;  
c) passed for slaughter under special conditions i.e. deferred slaughter as ―suspects‖, 
where the competent person undertaking ante -mortem inspection suspects that post -
mortem inspection findings could result in partial or total condemnation;  
d) condemned for public health reasons i.e. due to: me at-borne hazards, occupational 
health hazards, or likelihood of unacceptable contamination of the slaughter and 
dressing en vironment following slaughter;  
e) condemned for meat suitability reasons;  
f) emergency slaughter, when an animal eligible for being passed under special conditions 
could deteriorate if there was a delay in slaughter; and  
g) condemned for animal health reasons, as specified in relevant national legislation.  
6.4     INFORMATION ON ANIMALS PRESENTED FOR SLAUGHTER   
Information provided on animals pre sented for slaughter may be an important determinant of 
optimal slaughter and dressing procedures and is a prerequisite for effective design and 
implementation of process control by the establishment operator. The competent authority 
should analyse relevan t information and take it into account when setting hygiene requirements 
for risk -based hygiene systems throughout the entire food chain (refer to 9.2).  
The competent authority may require monitoring of animals presented for slaughter to establish 
baseline  information on the prevalence of hazards in the slaughter population, e.g. specified 
meat -borne pathogens, chemical residues greater than maximum residue limits. The competent 
authority should design and implement these monitoring activities according to national public 
health goals. Scientific analysis and dissemination of results to interested parties is the 
responsibility of the competent authority.  
So as to facilitate science - and risk -based meat hygiene throughout the entire food chain, 
systems should  be in place that provide:  
i. on-going information on animals presented for slaughter for incorporation into HACCP 
plans and/or quality assurance (QA) programmes that are part of process control;  
ii. information back to the primary producer on the safety and suit ability status of animals 
presented for slaughter; and  
iii. information to the competent authority that facilitates on -going review.  
 
ESTABLISHMENTS: DESIGN, FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT  
The principles and guidelines presented in this section are supplemental to th e objectives and 
guidelines in Section IV of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969)…….. 
relevant KS and Act to be presented  
 
8.1 PRINCIPLES   OF   MEAT   HYGIENE   APPLYING   TO   ESTABLISHMENTS,   
FACILITIES   AND EQUIPMENT  
a) Establishments  should be located, designed and constructed so that contamination of 
meat is minimised to the greatest extent practicable.  
b) Facilities and equipment should be designed, constructed and maintained so that 
contamination of meat is minimised to the greatest e xtent practicable.  
c) Establishments, facilities and equipment should be designed to allow personnel to carry 
out their activities in a hygienic manner.  
d) Facilities and equipment that are in direct contact with edible parts of animals and meat, 
should be desig ned and constructed so that they can be effectively cleaned and 
monitored for their hygiene status.  
e) Suitable equipment should be available for control of temperature, humidity and other 
factors as appropriate to the particular processing system for meat.  
f) Water should be potable and complying to KS EAS 12.   
Each establishment should have appropriate facilities and equipment for competent persons to 
properly carry out their meat hygiene activities.  
Laboratory facilities necessary to support meat hygiene activ ities may be located in the 
establishment or provided at a separate location.  
8.2     DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LAIRAGES  
Lairages should be designed and constructed so that they do not lead to undue soiling of the 
animal, cause undue stress of the animal,  or otherwise adversely impact on the safety and 
suitability of meat derived from animals held therein.  
Lairages should be designed and constructed so that:  
i. animals can be held without overcrowding or injury, and are not exposed to climatic 
stress In the c ase of poultry, facilities should be available to park transport vehicles in 
areas that are well ventilated, and are protected from direct sunlight, inclement weather 
and extremes of temperature.;33  
ii. there are appropriate layout and facilities for cleaning and/or drying of animals;  
iii. ante-mortem inspection is facilitated;  
iv. floors are paved or slatted and allow good drainage;  
v. there is an adequate supply and reticulation of clean water for drinking and cleaning, and 
facilities are provided for feeding where neces sary;  
vi. there is a physical separation between lairages and areas of an abattoir where edible 
material may be present;  
vii. ―suspect‖ animals can be segregated and inspected in separate areas.34 These areas 
should include facilities that are capable of secure hol ding of ―suspect‖ animals pending 
slaughter under supervision, in a manner that precludes contamination of other animals; 
and34             In the case of poultry and , ―suspect‖ birds are usually slaughtered on the 
slaughter line under special hygiene pro visions.  
viii. there is an adjacent area with adequate facilities for cleaning and sanitation of transport 
vehicles and crates.,  
63.    Special facilities may be required to handle condemned animals.  
These facilities should be:  
i. constructed so that all parts, gu t contents and faeces from condemned animals can be 
held under secure containment as appropriate to the circumstances; and  
ii. constructed and equipped so as to facilitate effective cleaning and sanitation (refer to 
Section 10).  
8.3     DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION  OF SLAUGHTER AREAS  
Stunning and bleeding areas should be separated from dressing areas (either physically or by 
distance), so that cross -contamination of animals is minimised.   
Areas for scalding, dehairing, defeathering, scraping and singeing (or similar operations) should 
also be appropriately separated from dressing areas.  
Where slaughter is carried out the processing line should be designed so that there is constant 
progress of animals in a manner that does not cause cross -contamination.  
Special facilit ies may be required to slaughter and dress ―suspect‖ or injured animals.  
Where these facilities exist they should be:  
a) easily accessed from pens containing ―suspect‖ or injured animals;  
b) constructed with suitable facilities for hygienic storage of parts deri ved from ―suspect‖ or 
injured  animals; and  
c) constructed and equipped so as to facilitate effective cleaning and sanitising (refer to 
Section 10).  
8.4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AREAS WHERE BODIES OF ANIMALS ARE 
DRESSED OR MEAT MAY OTHERWISE BE PRESENT  
All areas and facilities where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present should be 
designed and constructed so that they facilitate GHP,35 and contamination of meat is minimised 
to the greatest extent practicable.  
Rooms and other areas in which bodie s of animals are dressed or meat may be present should 
be designed and constructed so that:  
i. cross -contamination during operations is minimised to the greatest extent practicable;  
ii. effective cleaning, sanitation and maintenance can be carried out during and between 
periods of operation; (refer to Section 10);  
iii. floors in areas where water is present slope sufficiently to grilled or otherwise protected 
outlets so as to ensure continual drainage;  
iv. exterior doors do not open directly into the area;  
v. chutes separatel y conveying different parts of animals are fitted with inspection and 
cleaning hatches where these are necessary for sanitation;  
vi. separate rooms or separated areas are used for skin -on dressing of pigs or other 
animals, when other classes of animals are bei ng dressed at the same time;  
  separate rooms are used for:  
a) emptying and cleansing of alimentary tracts, and further preparation of clean alimentary 
tracts, unless such separation is deemed unnecessary;  
b) handling of meat and inedible parts of animals after they have been so designated, 
unless these products are otherwise separated by time or distance;  
c) storage of inedible animal parts such as hides, horns, hooves, feathers and inedible fats;  
 
vii. there is adequate natural or artificial lighting for hygienic proce ss control;  
viii. there are appropriate facilities for the preparation and storage of edible fats;   
ix. access and harbouring of pests are effectively restricted; and  
x. adequate  facilities  are  provided  for  secure  storage  of  chemicals,  (e.g.  cleaning  
material s, lubricants, branding inks) and other hazardous substances so as to prevent 
accidental contamination of meat.  
Appropriately designed and insulated rooms should be available as necessary for cooling, 
chilling and freezing of meat.  
Establishments that de -bone or otherwise cut up meat should have for this purpose:  
i. facilities that allow constant progress of operations or that ensure separation between 
different production batches;  
ii. a room or rooms, capable of being temperature -controlled; and  
iii. separation of the  boning, cutting and primary wrapping area from the packaging area, 
unless hygiene measures are in place to ensure that packaging does not contaminate 
meat.  
Wood may be used in rooms for curing, smoking, maturing of meat preparations and 
manufactured meat when essential for technological reasons, as long as meat hygiene 
requirements are not compromised.  
Drainage and waste disposal systems should not be a source of contamination of meat, the 
potable water supply or the processing environment. All lines shoul d be watertight and 
adequately trapped and vented, with catch basins, traps and sumps that are isolated from any 
area where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present.  
Establishments   should   have   an   appropriate   area,   sufficiently   pro tected   from   
environmental contamination and capable of preventing adverse temperature variations, for 
dispatching meat.  
8.5 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT WHERE BODIES OF ANIMALS 
ARE DRESSED OR MEAT MAY BE PRESENT  
All equipment used in areas wher e bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present 
should facilitate good hygienic practices (GHP). Equipment and containers in rooms and other 
areas where bodies of animals are dressed or meat may be present should be designed and 
constructed so that contamination is minimised. Meat should not be allowed to contact the floor 
and walls, or fixed structures not designed for such contact.  
Where slaughter lines are operated, they should be designed so that there is constant progress 
of animal bodies, carca sses and other parts, in a manner that prevents cross -contamination 
between different parts of the slaughter line and between different slaughter lines. In 
establishments where meat preparations and manufactured meat are circulating, the layout and 
equipme nt should be designed to prevent cross contamination between products of different 
status and products at different production stages.   
All rooms and other areas in which animals are dressed or meat may be present should be 
equipped with adequate facilities  for hand - washing and hand -drying., they should also be 
equipped with adequate facilities for cleaning and sanitation of implements where required (refer 
to Section 10).  
Facilities for cleaning and sanitation of equipment should:  
a) be designed to effectivel y clean and sanitise the particular equipment;  
b) be located convenient to work stations; and  
c) have waste water ducted to drains.  
Equipment and implements for use with inedible or condemned parts of animals should be 
distinctively identified.  
Establishments sh ould be provided with adequate means of natural or mechanical ventilation so 
as to prevent excessive heat, humidity and condensation, and ensure that air is not 
contaminated with odours, dust or smoke.  
Ventilation systems should be designed and constructed  so that:  
a) air-borne contamination from aerosols and condensation droplets is minimised;  
b) ambient temperatures, humidity and odours are controlled; and  
c) air flow from contaminated areas, (e.g. slaughter and dressing areas) to clean areas, 
(e.g. chilling rooms  for carcasses) is minimised.  
Equipment used for heat treatment of manufactured meat and meat preparations should be 
fitted with all control devices necessary to ensure that an appropriate heat treatment is applied.  
8.6     WATER SUPPLY36  
Adequate faciliti es should be provided for monitoring and maintaining potability, storage, 
temperature control, distribution of water and for the disposal of waste water. Thewater shall 
comply with KS EAS 12.  
Equipment should be installed that provides:  
a) an adequate and eas ily accessible supply of hot and cold potable water at all times;  
b) hot potable water and/or steam for effective sanitising of equipment, or an equivalent 
sanitation system;  
c) potable water at a temperature appropriate for hand -washing; and  
d) Hand sanitising  so lution  used  according  to  manufacturers‘  specifications  supplied  
as  and  where  necessary;  
Where non -potable water is supplied for various uses e.g. fire fighting, steam production, 
refrigeration, reticulation systems should be designed and identifie d so that cross -contamination 
of the potable water supply is prevented.  
8.7     TEMPERATURE CONTROL   
In the absence of suitable temperature, humidity and other environmental controls, meat is 
particularly vulnerable to survival and growth of pathogens and s poilage micro -organisms.  
Facilities and equipment should be adequate for:  
a) Cooling, chilling and/or freezing of meat according to written specifications;  
b) Storage of meat at temperatures that achieve the safety and suitability requirements; 
and 
c) Monitoring of  temperature, so as to assure that process control regimes are achieved.  
Where steam is generated in the cooking of meat, it should be properly vented out of the area in 
order to minimise the potential for condensation and not be allowed to permeate into a djoining 
rooms.  
8.8 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONAL HYGIENE  
Slaughter and dressing of animals and animal parts, and further handling of meat preparations 
and manufactured meat presents many opportunities for cross -contamination of meat by food 
handle rs (refer to Section 11). Appropriate personal hygiene facilities are needed to minimise 
cross -contamination of meat from this source.  
Facilities and equipment should be provided, designed and located so that meat safety is not 
compromised. Where necessary , separate amenities should be provided e.g. for staff handling 
live animals, condemned products (refer Section 11).  
Facilities for personal hygiene should include:  
a) changing rooms, showers, flush toilets, hand -washing and hand -drying facilities in the 
appropriate locations, and separate areas for eating; and  
b) Personal Protective Equipments that can be effectively cleaned and minimises 
accumulation of contaminants.  
All areas in which exposed meat may be present, should be equipped with adequate facilities 
for washing hands that:  
i. are located convenient to work stations;  
ii. have taps that are not operable by hand;  
iii. supply potable water at an appropriate temperature, and are fitted with dispensers for 
liquid soap or other hand cleansing agents;  
iv. include hand drying eq uipment where necessary, and receptacles for discarded paper 
towels; and  
v. have waste water ducted to drains.  
8.9     MEANS OF TRANSPORT  
Vehicles or shipping containers should be compliant to the provisions of the Meat control Act  
cap 356 in which  in additi on, unprotected meat is transported should:   
i. be designed and equipped so that the meat does not contact the floor;  
ii. have joint and door seals that prevent entry of all sources of contamination; and  
iii. where necessary, be equipped so that temperature control and  humidity can be 
maintained and monitored.  
9.       PROCESS CONTROL  
An extensive range of hazards are associated with meat, e.g. Salmonella spp. and veterinary 
drug residues;  the  processing  environment,  e.g.  Listeria monocytogenes;  and  food  
handler s  themselves,  e.g. Staphylococcus aureus and hepatitis viruses. Effective process 
control, that includes both GHP and HACCP, is necessary to produce meat that is safe and 
suitable for human consumption.  
The principles and guidelines presented in this sec tion should satisfy the general objectives and 
guidelines in Section V of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969) and KS 
EAS 39 They are developed in this section in respect of hazards in meat however they are 
equally applicable to suitabil ity characteristics.  
Many aspects of slaughter and dressing procedures have the potential to result in significant 
contamination of meat, e.g. hide/feather removal, evisceration, carcass washing, post -mortem 
inspection, trimming, and further handling in th e cold chain. Systems for process control should 
limit microbial cross - contamination in these circumstances to as low as practicably achievable, 
and reflect the proportional contribution of these controls in reducing meat -borne risks to human 
health.  
Read y-to-eat (RTE) products should comply with relevant product standards.   
9.1     PRINCIPLES OF MEAT HYGIENE APPLYING TO PROCESS CONTROL  
i. Production of meat that is safe and suitable for human consumption requires that 
detailed attention be paid to the desig n, implementation, monitoring and review of 
process control.  
ii. The establishment operator has the primary responsibility for implementing systems for 
process control. Where such systems are applied, the competent authority should verify 
that they achieve all  meat hygiene requirements.  
iii. Process control  should limit  microbiological contamination to the lowest level  
practicable, according to a risk -based approach.  
iv. HACCP should be applied wherever practicable as the system of choice for process 
control, and sho uld be supported by prerequisite GHP that includes sanitation standard 
operating procedures (SSOPs).  
v. Process control should reflect an integrated strategy for control of hazards throughout 
the food chain, with information available from primary production and pre -slaughter 
being taken into account wherever possible and practicable.  
vi. All bodies of animals should be subjected to post -mortem inspection that is science - and 
risk-based, and is tailored to the hazards and/or defects that are reasonably likely to b e 
present in the bodies of animals presented for inspection.38   
vii. The competent authority should determine the procedures and tests to be used in post -
mortem inspection, how that inspection is to be implemented, and the necessary 
training, knowledge, skills a nd ability required of personnel involved (including the role of 
veterinarians, and personnel employed by the establishment 
operator)…………………….. roles in KS2299…  
viii. Post-mortem  inspection  should  take  into  account  all  relevant  information  from  
primary  production, ante -mortem inspection, and from official hazard control 
programmes.  
ix. Post-mortem judgements should be based on: food -borne risks to human health, other 
human health risks, e.g. from occupational exposure or handling of meat in the home, 
food-borne risks to animal health as specified in relevant national legislation, and 
suitability characteristics.  
x. Performance objectives or performance criteria for the outcome of process control and 
post- mortem inspection activities should be established by th e competent authority 
wherever practicable, and should be subject to verification by the competent authority.  
xi. Where appropriate, microbiological testing, for verification purposes, should be included 
in meat preparation and manufactured meat HACCP plans. S uch testing should be 
relevant to the type of product and the likely risks to consumers, including vulnerable 
sub-populations.  
xii. Handling of ready -to-eat (RTE) products up until the point of sale to the consumer 
should ensure that there is no contact with no n- ready -to-eat (RTE) products, and any 
other exposure to potential sources of microbiological contamination.  
xiii. quality assurance (QA) systems implemented by the establishment operator where they 
enhance meat hygiene activities, and they may be taken into a ccount in the verification 
of regulatory requirements by the competent authority.  
 
PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS  
Effective process control requires design and implementation of appropriate systems. Industry 
has the primary responsibility for applying and supervi sing process control systems to ensure 
the safety and suitability of meat, and these should incorporate prerequisite GHP and HACCP 
plans as appropriate to the circumstances.  
A documented process control system should describe the meat hygiene activities ap plied 
(including any sampling procedures), performance objectives or performance criteria (if set), 
verification activities, and corrective and preventative actions.  
Competent bodies or competent persons suitably recognised by the competent authority may b e 
engaged by the establishment operator to undertake prescribed process control activities, 
including post -mortem inspection. These activities should be part of HACCP or QA systems as 
appropriate to the circumstances.  
Process control systems relating to fo od safety should incorporate a risk -based approach. 
Application of HACCP principles in the design and implementation of process control systems  
should be according to The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and 
Guidelines for its Appl ication (Annex to CAC/RCP 1 -1969). The Guidelines for the Design, 
Operation, Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and 
Certification Systems (CAC/GL 26 -1997) provide general requirements for control of operations 
for food as the y relate to international trade……………….. adoption proposal.  
9.2.1  Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs)  
Pre-operational and operational sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) should 
minimise direct and indirect contamination of meat to  the greatest extent possible and 
practicable. A properly implemented SSOP system should ensure that facilities and equipment 
are clean and sanitised prior to start of operations, and appropriate hygiene is maintained during 
operations. SSOP guidelines may  be provided by the competent authority, which may include 
minimum regulatory requirements for general sanitation.  
Characteristics of sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) are:  
i. development of a written SSOP programme by the establishment that de scribes the 
procedures involved and the frequency of application;  
ii. identification of establishment personnel responsible for implementing and monitoring 
SSOPs;  
iii. documentation of monitoring and any corrective and/or preventative actions taken, which 
is made a vailable to the competent authority for purposes of verification;  
iv. corrective actions that include appropriate disposition of product; and  
v. periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the system by the establishment operator.  
Microbiological verification of SSOPs can utilize  a range of direct or indirect methods. 
Establishment operators should use statistical process control or other methods to monitor 
sanitation trends.  
In the case of ready -to-eat (RTE) products, microbiological verification of SSOPs for foo d 
contact and non -food contact surfaces is likely to be of higher intensity than for other types of 
product.  
9.2.2  HACCP  
HACCP systems for production of meat are a proactive means of process control for food safety 
purposes.41   Validation of a HACCP plan  for meat should ensure that it is effective in meeting 
performance objectives or performance criteria (refer 9.2.3), taking into account the degree of 
variability in presence of hazards that is normally associated with different lots of animals 
presented for processing.  
Verification frequency may vary according to the operational aspects of process control, the 
historical performance of the establishment in application of the HACCP plan, and the results of 
verification itself. The competent authority may c hoose to approve HACCP plans and stipulate 
verification frequencies.   
Microbiological testing for verification of HACCP systems, e.g. for verification of critical limits 
and statistical process control, is an important feature of HACCP for many products.  
Guidelines for the development of HACCP programmes to achieve pre -determined process 
criteria stipulated by the competent authority should be provided to establishment operators so 
as to guide development of process and product -specific HACCP plans.  Guideli nes should be 
developed in consultation with industry and other interested stakeholder organisations, and may 
be differentiated according to processing category, e.g.:  
i. Raw ground or comminuted e.g minced, sausage, burgers, etc  
ii. Meat with secondary inhibitor s / non -shelf stable e.g. cured  meat  
iii. Heat treated / not fully cooked, non -shelf stable e.g. partially -cooked patties, nuggets  
iv. Fully cooked / non -shelf stable e.g.  meat products  
v. Non-heat treated / shelf stable e.g. dry meat products  
vi. Heat treated / shelf s table e.g. beef jerky, corned meat  
vii. Thermally processed / commercially sterile e.g. canned meat  
viii. Specific ethnic processes, e.g. tandoori chicken, nyirinyiri,  
When developing HACCP plans for heat -treated meat preparations and manufactured meat, the 
establis hment operator should fully document as appropriate to the process, all thermal process 
parameters, post -heat treatment handling, and additional preservation treatments appropriate to 
the intended process outcome e.g. a pasteurized  product. Process paramet ers for cooling of 
heat-treated products may incorporate as appropriate to the product, rapid cooling, slow cooling, 
or interrupted cooling. Previously heated products should not be packaged above a minimum 
temperature, e.g. 4° C, unless it can be demonstr ated that cooling after packaging does not 
compromise product safety.  
HACCP plans for meat preparations and manufactured meat that are cooked should include 
monitoring and documentation of parameters that ensure appropriate internal temperatures are 
reache d. Internal temperatures of product should be taken as necessary to verify the adequacy 
of the cook.  
9.2.3  Outcome -based parameters for process control  
In a risk -based meat hygiene system, verification of process control is greatly strengthened by 
establi shment of performance objectives or performance criteria for the outcome of specified 
activities. In most cases these will be established by the competent authority. When 
performance objectives or performance criteria are established, industry can use them  to readily 
demonstrate adequate process control for food safety characteristics of meat.  
The establishment should have a documented process control system for implementing 
corrective actions that will allow it to consistently meet performance objectives o r performance 
criteria. Process review and any other corrective and preventative actions required as a result of 
non-compliance with performance objectives or performance criteria should be properly 
recorded. The competent authority should implement a syst em for collecting and analysing  
results from all establishments to the greatest extent possible, and periodically review process 
control trends in relation to national meat hygiene goals  
Where possible, performance objectives or performance criteria should  objectively express the 
level of hazard control as derived from the application of risk analysis principles.  In the absence 
of sufficient knowledge of risks to human health, performance objectives or performance criteria 
can initially be established from  baseline surveys of current performance, and subsequently 
modified as appropriate to reflect public health goals. Where outcome -based parameters have 
been established for suitability characteristics of meat, outcomes should be practically 
achievable and r eflect consumer expectations.  
Organoleptic parameters may also be established.  
Performance objectives or performance criteria for outcomes of process control systems act to:  
a) facilitate validation of process control systems;  
b) facilitate derivation of process  parameters at various steps in the food production 
system;  
c) allow maximum flexibility and technical innovation in the way the establishment operator 
achieves the required level of performance;  
d) facilitate industry -wide consistency in performance;  
e) provide an  objective basis for outcome -driven regulatory guidelines and standards, e.g. 
statistical process control requirements, prevalence of Salmonella spp.;  
f) improve hazard control over time so as to enhance the level of consumer protection; and  
g) facilitate determ ination of the equivalence of sanitary measures.  
Microbiological performance objectives or performance criteria, process criteria and 
microbiological criteria for ready -to-eat (RTE) products should be risk -based according to the 
category of product e.g. no t heat treated and shelf stable, heat treated and shelf stable, fully 
cooked and not shelf stable. Microbiological verification tests should be undertaken by the 
establishment at a frequency appropriate to the circumstances. The competent authority may 
also implement testing to verify that appropriate control is maintained by industry. HACCP plans 
applied by the establishment should document corrective and preventative measures to be 
taken in the event of positive tests for pathogens or toxins.  
Where perfor mance objectives or performance criteria are established as regulatory 
requirements e.g. guidelines for allowable levels of generic E. coli, standards for absence of E. 
coli O157:H7, maximum residue limits for chemicals with acute toxicity, explanation of the 
linkage to an appropriate level of consumer protection should be provided to all interested 
parties,.  
In some circumstances a performance criterion may be established as a microbiological 
criterion that defines the acceptability of a production lot, e. g. based on the presence/absence 
or number of microbes, and/or the quantity of their toxins or metabolites according to a specified 
sampling plan.42   
The competent authority should, wherever practicable, recognise different risk -based meat 
hygiene activitie s within its competence, which have been demonstrated to meet at least the 
same risk -based meat hygiene outcomes.  
9.2.4  Regulatory systems  
The competent authority should have the legal power to set and enforce regulatory meat 
hygiene requirements, and has  the final responsibility for verifying that all regulatory 
requirements are met. The competent authority should:  
i. Establish regulatory systems (e.g. recall, traceback, product tracing, etc., as appropriate) 
and requirements, e.g. training, knowledge, skill s and ability of personnel  
ii. Undertake  specified  meat  hygiene  controls  that  are  designated  activities  of  the  
competent authority, e.g. official sampling programmes, those aspects of ante and post -
mortem activities specified by the competent autho rity, or official certification.  
iii. Verify that process control systems implemented by the establishment operator meet 
regulatory requirements e.g. GHP, SSOPs, HACCP, as appropriate.  
iv. Carry out enforcement actions as necessary.  
The competent authority should v erify compliance with:  
i. GHP  requirements for: animals presented for slaughter establishments, facilities and 
equipment, process control, transport, and hygiene of personnel;  
ii. SSOPs;  
iii. HACCP plans;  
iv. all regulatory requirements relating to ante - and post -mortem inspection;  
v. microbiological performance objectives or performance criteria, process criteria or 
microbiological  
vi. criteria that are regulatory requirements‖;  
vii. chemical residue and contaminant levels that are below maximum limits as described in 
relevant legis lation and national sampling plans;  
viii. official or ―officially -recognised‖ zoonoses control programmes, e.g. microbiological tests 
for E. coli O157:H7; and  
ix. additional risk management measures as specified by the competent authority.  
Verification activities ma y include assessment of processing activities carried out by 
establishment personnel, documentary checks, organoleptic inspection of edible parts and 
meat,  taking of samples for laboratory tests and testing for pathogens, indicator organisms, 
residues, et c. Approval/registration/listing of an establishment may facilitate the ability of the 
competent authority to verify that it is operating in compliance with regulatory requirements.  
The competent authority(s) should conduct appropriate monitoring of verifi cation activities 
performed by the operator, and the nature and intensity of that monitoring should be based on 
risk and performance. The distribution and retail sale of products should be included in this 
monitoring to an extent that the risks to the cons umer are mitigated.   
The official inspector (including the veterinary inspector) should verify compliance with the 
regulatory requirements and may use additional documentary checks, procedures and tests in 
this role. Rules governing the presence of the offi cial inspector during ante - and post -mortem 
inspection, and during processing, cutting, and storage of meat, should be determined by the 
competent authority in relation to deployment of other competent persons, and in relation to 
potential risks to human h ealth associated with the classes of animals and meat involved.  
A national meat hygiene programme should be subject to verification by the competent 
authority.  
Where  the  establishment  operator  does  not  comply  with  regulatory  requirements,  the  
competent authority should carry out enforcement actions that may include:  
i. slowing of production while the operator regains process control;  
ii. stopping production, and withdrawing certification for meat deemed to be unsafe or 
unsuitable for its intended use;  
iii. withdrawing official supervision;  
iv. ordering specified treatment, recall or destruction of meat as necessary; and  
v. withdrawing or suspending all or part of the approval/registration/listing of the 
establishment if process control systems are invalid or repeate dly non -compliant.  
9.2.5  Quality assurance (QA) systems  
Whenever there are verifiable quality assurance (QA) systems in place in the industry, the 
competent authority should take them into account.43   
GENERAL HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS CONTROL  
Proce ss control should meet the general hygiene requirements of the General Principles of 
Food  Hygiene.44  
General hygiene requirements for process control should include for example:  
i. water for cleaning and sanitising of a standard that is appropriate for the sp ecific 
purpose, and used in a manner that does not directly or indirectly contaminate meat;  
ii. cleaning of facilities and equipment that involves disassembly where necessary, removal 
of all debris, rinsing of parts, application of an approved cleaner, repeat  rinsing, 
reassembly, and further sanitizing and rinsing as appropriate;  
iii. handling and storage of containers and equipment in a way that minimises the potential 
for contamination of meat;  
iv. assembly of containers or cartons in rooms or areas where meat may be  present in such 
a manner that there is minimal possibility of contamination; and  
v. controlled access of personnel to processing areas.  
The competent authority and industry should utilise appropriately accredited or otherwise 
recognised laboratories when ver ifying process control and carrying out other meat hygiene 
activities. Testing of samples should utilise validated analytical methods.45   
Laboratory testing may be required for:  
i. verification of process control;  
ii. Monitoring achievement of performance objectiv es or performance criteria;  
iii. residue monitoring;  
iv. diagnosis of disease conditions affecting individual animals; and  
v. monitoring of zoonoses.  
9.4     HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAUGHTER AND DRESSING  
Only live animals intended for slaughter should be brought int o an abattoir, with the exception of 
animals that have undergone emergency slaughter outside the slaughterhouse and have 
appropriate veterinary documentation.  
No animal other than an animal intended for slaughter should enter an abattoir, with the 
exceptio n of animals used for stock handling provided these animals stay in the live animal 
handling area of the abattoir.  
An animal should only be slaughtered or dressed in an abattoir if a competent person is 
available to undertake ante - and post -mortem inspecti on. In cases of emergency slaughter 
where a competent person is not available, special provisions established by the competent 
authority will apply to ensure that the meat is safe and suitable for human consumption.  
All animals brought to the slaughter flo or should be slaughtered without delay, and stunning, 
sticking and bleeding of animals should not proceed at a rate faster than that at which bodies of 
animals can be accepted for dressing.  
During initial dressing operations, and with due consideration to minimising contamination:  
i. slaughtered animals that are scalded, flamed or similarly treated should be scoured of all 
bristles, hair, scurf, feathers, cuticles and dirt;  
ii. the trachea and oesophagus should remain intact during bleeding, except in the case of 
ritual slaughter eg kosher or halal;  
iii. bleeding should be as complete as possible; if blood is intended for food, it should be 
collected and handled in a hygienic manner;  
iv. exposure of the tongue should be done in such a way that the tonsils are not cut;  
v. skinn ing of the head may not be required for some classes of animals e.g. goats, calves, 
sheep, provided that heads are handled in such a way as to avoid undue contamination 
of meat;  
vi. before the removal from the head of any parts intended for human consumption, the 
head should be clean and, except in the case of animal bodies that are scalded and 
dehaired, skinned to an extent sufficient to facilitate inspection and the hygienic removal 
of specified parts;  
vii. lactating or obviously -diseased udders should be removed from animal bodies at the 
earliest opportunity;  
viii. removal of udders should be done in such as way that the contents do not contaminate 
the animal bodies;   
ix. gas skinning or dehiding (pumping of air or gas between the skin or hide and the 
underlying tissue to fa cilitate skinning) should only be permitted if it can meet required 
criteria for process control; and  
x. hides/fleeces should not be washed, de -fleshed or left to accumulate in any part of an 
abattoir or establishment that is used for slaughter or dressing.  
Poultry following de -feathering, can only be effectively cleaned of dust, feathers and other 
contaminants by the application of potable water. Washing of the animal bodies at multiple 
steps in the dressing process, and as soon as possible after each contami nating step, reduces 
the adherence of bacteria to the skin which can minimise overall carcass contamination. 
(Washing after evisceration and post -mortem is also necessary for technological reasons, as 
this is the only method available to routinely clean ca rcasses before entry to the chilling 
process). Washing may be carried out by several methods e.g. spraying, immersion washing.  
Once the removal of the hide/fleece has commenced, or dehairing has occurred, animal bodies 
should be separated from each other t o avoid contact, and this should be maintained until each 
carcass has been inspected and judged by a competent person undertaking post -mortem 
inspection. (Note: While full separation of carcasses is more difficult in the case of poultry, such 
contact shoul d be minimised).  
During dressing, and with due consideration to minimising contamination:  
i. where bodies of animals are skinned, this process should be completed before 
evisceration;  
ii. water in scalding tanks should be managed so that it is not excessively con taminated;  
iii. Evisceration should be effected within 30 minutes in pigs and 45 minutes in  
iv. cattle, sheep and goats after slaughter, chicken time within one hour.  
v. discharge or spillage of any material from the oesophagus, crop, stomach, intestines, 
cloaca or re ctum, or from the gall bladder, urinary bladder, uterus or udder, should be 
prevented;  
vi. intestines should not be severed from the stomach during evisceration and no other 
opening should be made into an intestine, unless the intestines are first effectively tied to 
prevent spillage, except in the case of poultry and game birds;  
vii. stomachs and intestines and all inedible material derived from the slaughtering and/or 
dressing of bodies of animals should be removed as soon as possible from the dressing 
area, and p rocessed in a manner that does not cause cross -contamination of meat;  
viii. methods used to remove visible and microbial contamination should be demonstrated to 
be effective and meet other requirements as specified by the competent authority; and  
 
ix. faecal and oth er material should be trimmed or otherwise removed from carcasses in a 
manner that does not result in further contamination, and which achieves appropriate 
performance objectives or performance criteria for process control.   
Animal bodies and carcasses shou ld not come into contact with surfaces or equipment unless 
practically unavoidable. Where use of equipment involves contact by design, e.g. in the case of 
automatic eviscerating machines, the hygiene of the equipment should be appropriately 
maintained and monitored.  
Where a competent person undertaking post -mortem inspection, considers that the manner in 
which animals are being slaughtered or dressed, or meat is further handled, will adversely affect 
the safety and suitability of meat, that competent person  should enforce a reduction in the rate 
of production or the suspension of operations or other appropriate measures, as deemed 
necessary (refer to 9.2.4).  
Establishment operators should meet the requirements of the competent authority in terms of 
presentat ion of edible parts of bodies of animals for post -mortem inspection. Parts of 
slaughtered animals that have been removed before post -mortem inspection is performed 
should remain identifiable, as belonging to a single carcass (or a group of carcasses) when 
required for post -mortem judgement.  
Facilities and equipment for slaughtering and/or dressing may be used for other purposes, e.g. 
for emergency slaughter, provided appropriate cleaning and sanitation requirements are met.  
The competent authority should en courage development and adoption of innovative 
technologies and procedures at the establishment level that reduce cross -contamination and 
enhance food safety, e.g. enclosing the terminal rectal intestine in a bag and tying off.  
9.5     POST -MORTEM INSPECTI ON 
All carcasses and other relevant parts should be subjected to post -mortem inspection, which 
preferably should be part of an overarching, risk -based system for the production of meat.  
Post-mortem inspection of carcasses and other relevant parts should ut ilise information from 
primary production and ante -mortem inspection, together with the findings from organoleptic 
inspection of the head, carcass and viscera, to make a judgement on the safety and suitability of 
parts intended for human consumption. Where  the results of organoleptic inspection are 
insufficient to accurately judge carcasses and other relevant parts as safe or suitable for human 
consumption, the parts should be set aside and followed up with confirmatory inspection 
procedures and/or tests.  
9.5.1  Design of post -mortem inspection systems  
Post-mortem inspection procedures and tests should be established by the competent authority 
according to a science - and risk -based approach. The competent authority has responsibility for 
establishing judgeme nt criteria and verifying the post -mortem inspection system. In the absence 
of a risk -based system, procedures will have to be based on current scientific knowledge and 
practice …………….according to the meat control act cap 356   
Post-mortem procedures and test s may be integrated and implemented together so as to 
achieve public health and animal health objectives. In such cases, all aspects of post -mortem 
inspection should be science - based and be tailored to the relevant risks.  
Relevant information on the anima l population, e.g. animal type, health status, geographical 
region of origin, should be utilised in both the design and implementation of post -mortem 
inspection systems.  
Where indicated by public health concerns, routine screening of carcasses and other re levant 
parts by methods other than organoleptic inspection may be required for suspected hazards, 
e.g. testing for Trichinella spp.  
Characteristics of a risk -based post -mortem inspection programme are:  
i. design and application of organoleptic procedures and tests that are relevant and 
proportional to meat -borne risks associated with grossly -detectable abnormalities;  
ii. tailoring of procedures to the spectrum and prevalence of diseases and defects 
reasonably likely to be present in the particular slaughter popula tion, taking into account 
the type (age), geographical origin and primary production system of the slaughter 
animals, e.g. multiple incisions of relevant muscles in all pigs from geographical regions 
where Taenia solium is present;  
iii. procedures that minimise  cross -contamination through handling to the greatest extent 
practicable, and may include procedures that are limited to visual observation of 
carcasses and other relevant parts in the first instance if justified by risk assessment;  
iv. inspection of non -edibl e parts of animals where they may play an indicator role in the 
judgement of edible parts;  
v. modification of traditional procedures  where  scientific investigation  has shown  them to  
be ineffective, or, of themselves, hazardous to food, e.g. routine incis ion of lymph nodes 
of young animals to detect granulomatosus abnormalities;  
vi. application of more intensive organoleptic procedures on a routine basis when a disease 
or condition capable of general distribution is found in a single part of a carcass and 
other relevant parts, e.g. cysts of Taenia saginata in cattle, xanthosis;  
vii. application of additional risk -based inspection procedures on a routine basis when live 
animals are positive to a diagnostic test, e.g. tuberculin test in cattle,;  
viii. use of laboratory test s for hazards that are unaddressed by organoleptic inspection, e.g. 
Trichinella  spp., chemical residues and contaminants;  
ix. application of measurable outcomes of organoleptic inspection that reflect a risk -based 
approach;  
x. integration with HACCP plans for oth er process control activities;  
xi. on-going tailoring of procedures to take into consideration information received from the 
primary producer on a lot -by-lot basis; and  
xii. return of information to the primary producer so as to seek continuous improvement in 
the s afety and suitability status of animals presented for slaughter (refer to 6.4).  
9.5.2  Implementation of post -mortem inspection   
Post-mortem inspection should occur as soon as is practicable after slaughter of animals,. 
Inspection should take into account a ll relevant information from the level of primary production 
and ante -mortem inspection, e.g. information from official or officially -recognised hazard control 
programmes, information on animals slaughtered as ―suspects‖.  
The final responsibility for verif ying that all post -mortem inspection and judgement requirements 
are met should lie with the competent authority.  
Carcasses and other relevant parts condemned  by the  competent  person undertaking post -
mortem inspection, as unsafe or unsuitable for human c onsumption should be identified as 
appropriate and handled in a manner that does not result in cross -contamination of meat from 
other carcasses and relevant parts. The reason for condemnation should be recorded, and 
confirmatory laboratory tests may be tak en if deemed necessary.  
The responsibilities of the establishment operator in respect of post -mortem inspection include:  
1. maintenance of the identity of  a carcass and other relevant parts (including blood as 
appropriate)  until inspection is complete;   
2. skinning and dressing of heads to the extent necessary to facilitate inspection, e.g. 
partial skinning to allow access to sub -maxillary lymph nodes, detaching of the base of 
the tongue to allow access to the retropharyngeal lymph nodes;  
3. skinning of heads to th e extent necessary to allow hygienic removal of edible parts, 
when this is a processing option;  
4. presentation of a carcass and other relevant parts for inspection according to the 
requirements of the competent authority;  
5. a prohibition on establishment perso nnel intentionally removing or modifying any 
evidence of a disease or defect, or animal identification mark, prior to post mortem 
inspection;  
6. prompt removal of foetuses from the evisceration area, for rendering or other processes 
as allowed by the competen t authority, e.g. collection of foetal blood;  
7. retention in the inspection area of all carcasses and other relevant parts required for 
inspection, until inspection and judgement has been completed;  
8. provision of facilities for identifying and retaining all c arcasses and other relevant parts 
that require more detailed inspection and/or diagnostic tests before a judgement on 
safety and suitability can be made, in a manner that prevents cross -contamination of 
meat from other carcasses and other relevant parts;  
9. condemnation of parts of the carcass trimmed from the region of the sticking wound;  
10. routine condemnation of the liver and/or kidneys from older animals where the 
competent authority has determined that there may be accumulation of heavy metals to 
an unaccep table level;  
11. use of  i)  approval veterinary marks (as specified by the competent authority) that 
communicate the outcome of post - mortem inspection; and  
12. co-operation  with  competent  persons  undertaking post -mortem inspection,  in  all  
other  ways neces sary to facilitate effective post -mortem inspection, e.g. access to 
processing records, and easy access to all carcasses and other relevant parts.   
Post-mortem inspection systems, should include:  
1. procedures and tests that are risk -based to the extent possib le and practicable (refer to 
9.5.1);  
2. confirmation of proper stunning and bleeding;  
3. availability of inspection as soon as is practicable after completion of dressing;  
4. visual inspection of the carcass and other relevant parts, including inedible parts, as 
determined by the competent authority;  
5. palpation and/or incision of the carcass and other relevant parts, including inedible parts, 
as determined by the competent authority according to a risk -based approach;  
6. additional palpation and/or incisions, as necessa ry to reach a judgement for an individual 
carcass and other relevant parts, and under appropriate hygiene control;  
7. more detailed inspection of edible parts intended for human consumption compared with 
inspection of those parts for indicator purposes alone,  as appropriate to the 
circumstances;  
8. systematic, multiple incisions of lymph nodes where incision is necessary;  
9. other organoleptic inspection procedures, e.g. smell, touch;  
10. where necessary, laboratory diagnostic and other tests carried out by the competen t 
authority or by the establishment operator under instruction;  
11. performance objectives or performance criteria for the outcomes of organoleptic 
inspection, if available;  
12. regulatory authority to slow or halt processing so as to allow adequate post -mortem 
inspection at all times;  
13. removal of specified parts if required by the competent authority, e.g.   
14. proper use and secure storage of equipment for approval veterinary mark.  
The competent authority and industry should record and disseminate the results of post -mortem 
inspection as appropriate. Notifiable human or animal health diseases and cases of non -
complying residues or contaminants should be reported to national competent authorities as 
well as to the owner of the animal(s). Analysis of the results of post -mortem inspection over time 
is the responsibility of the competent authority, and the results of such analyses should be made 
available to all interested parties.  
 
9.6     POST -MORTEM JUDGEMENT  
Post-mortem judgement of edible parts as safe and suitable fo r human consumption should 
primarily be based on food -borne risks to human health. Other risks to human health, e.g. from 
occupational exposure or from handling of meat in the home, also are an important 
consideration.   Judgements in relation to suitabili ty characteristics of meat should reflect 
consumer acceptability requirements appropriate to intended end -use. 46  
Judgement of edible parts as safe and suitable should take into account information from the 
following sources:  
i. information from primary produ ction (refer to Section 6);   
ii. observations made of animals in the lairage;  
iii. ante-mortem inspection; and  
iv. post-mortem inspection, including diagnostic tests, where required.  
Judgements should be based on science and risks to human health to the greatest extent 
possible, with guidelines being provided by the competent authority.   
Where the initial results of post -mortem inspection are insufficient to accurately judge edible 
parts as safe or suitable for human consumption, a provisional judgement should be follow ed up 
with more detailed inspection procedures and/or tests. Pending the outcome of more detailed 
inspection and/or diagnostic tests, all parts of the animal that are required for further 
investigation should be held under the control of the competent pers on undertaking these 
activities.  
Judgement categories for edible parts include:  
i. safe and suitable for human consumption;  
ii. safe and suitable for human consumption, subject to application of a prescribed process, 
e.g. cooking, freezing;47;  
iii. held on suspicion o f being unsafe or unsuitable, pending the outcome of further 
procedures and/or tests.  
iv. unsafe for human consumption but able to be used for some other purpose, e.g. pet -
food, feed and feed ingredients, industrial non -food use, providing there are adequate 
hygiene controls to prevent any transmission of hazards, or illegal re -entry to the human 
food chain;  
v. unsafe for human consumption and requiring condemnation and destruction;  
vi. unsuitable for human consumption, but able to be used for some other purpose, e.g.  pet-
food, feed and feed ingredients, industrial non -food use, providing there are adequate 
controls to prevent illegal re -entry to the human food chain;  
vii. unsuitable for human consumption, and requiring condemnation and destruction; and  
viii. unsafe for animal he alth reasons as specified in national legislation, and disposed of 
accordingly.48  
When edible parts are judged to be safe and suitable for human consumption subject to 
application of a prescribed process, the specifications for that process should be verif ied by the 
competent authority as sufficient to eliminate/reduce or adequately remove the hazard or 
condition of concern, e.g. specifications for retorting, high temperature rendering and freezing.  
9.7     HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS CONTROL AFTER POS T-MORTEM 
INSPECTION  
Operations following post -mortem inspection include all procedures until the point of retail sales, 
e.g. chilling of carcasses, de -boning and cutting, further preparing, processing, packaging, 
freezing, storing, and distribution to the point of retail sale. Particular attention needs to paid to 
temperature control, with temperatures of freshly slaughtered and dressed carcasses and other 
edible parts being reduced as rapidly as possible to a temperature that minimise the growth of  
micro -organisms or the formation of toxins that could constitute a risk to human health. It is also 
important that the cold chain is not interrupted except to the minimal extent necessary for 
practical operations, e.g. handling during transportation.  
In the case of poultry, viscera or parts of viscera, apart from kidneys, should be entirely 
removed as soon as possible, unless otherwise permitted by the competent authority.  
Meat passed as safe and suitable for human consumption should be:  
a) removed without delay from  the dressing area;  
b) handled, stored and transported in a manner that will protect it from contamination and 
deterioration;  
c) held under conditions that reduce its temperature and/or water activity as quickly as 
possible, unless cut up or de -boned pre -rigor; and 
d) held at temperatures that achieve safety and suitability objectives.  
In the case of poultry undergoing immersion chilling:  
a) the immersion chilling process should meet hygiene criteria as specified by the 
competent authority;  
b) the reduction in carcass tem perature should be as rapid as possible;  
c) carcasses emerging from the process should have a lesser microbiological count for 
indicator organisms and pathogens than those entering the process; and  
d) sanitation requirements should include complete emptying, cle aning and sanitation of 
tanks as appropriate.  
An  approval veterinary mark applied to meat, wrapping or packaging, should provide 
recognition that the product has been produced in accordance with regulatory requirements, 
and should assist with trace -back t o the establishment of origin if required. When used as part 
of an official meat hygiene programme, the approval veterinary mark should include the 
approval/registration/listing number of the establishment, be applied in such a way that it cannot 
be re -used, and be legible. Other marks may denote conformance with commercial 
specifications, or unacceptability for human consumption, e.g. distinctive brands for pet -food.  
Official approval veterinary marks may be applied directly to the product, wrapping or 
packaging, or be printed on a label affixed to the product, wrapping or packaging. In 
circumstances of bulk transport to another establishment for further handling, processing or 
wrapping, approval veterinary marks may be applied to the external surface of th e container or 
packaging.  
Where carcasses, parts of carcasses or other meat is placed in a holding room:  
a) all requirements for hygienic control of operations must be adhered to e.g. chiller loading 
rates, stock rotation,  specifications for temperature and relative humidity;  
b) carcasses and parts of carcasses, whether hung or placed in racks or trays, should be 
held in a manner permitting adequate circulation of air;  
c) the potential for cross -contamination via dripping of fluids should be prevented; and   
d) water dr ipping from overhead facilities and condensation should be controlled to the 
extent practicable, to prevent contamination of meat and food contact surfaces.  
Rooms and equipment for cutting, mincing, mechanical separation, meat preparation and the 
manufactu ring of meat should be designed such that activities can be carried out separately, or 
in such a manner that does not led to cross contamination.  
Fresh meat intended for cutting or de -boning should be brought into work rooms progressively 
as needed, and sh ould not accumulate on work tables. If fresh meat is cut or de -boned prior to 
reaching temperatures that are appropriate for storage and transport, it should be immediately 
reduced in temperature to prescribed levels.  
When fresh meat is cut or de -boned pre -rigor:  
a) it should be transported directly from the dressing area to the cutting up or de -boning 
room;  
b) the cutting up or de -boning room should be temperature -controlled and directly linked to 
the dressing areas, unless the competent authority approves alter native procedures that 
provide an equivalent level of hygiene; and  
c) cutting up, de -boning and packing should be done without delay and should meet all 
requirements for hygienic process control.  
When raw meat is minced:  
a) it should be obtained only from parts of animals as approved by the competent authority 
e.g. striated muscle and adherent fatty tissues49;  
b) it should not contain bone fragments or skin;  
c) any grossly abnormal tissues and / or post -dressing contamination should be removed 
before mincing; and  
d) the c ompetent authority may specify compositional criteria.  
When raw meat is mechanically separated, the competent authority should:  
a) restrict the type of animal parts that can be used e.g. non -use of skulls;  
b) set compositional standards for maximum calcium conte nt; and  
c) require specific labelling of the final product.  
When raw meat is minced, mechanically separated or used in meat preparations:  
a) the competent authority can specify maximum time/temperature schedules for process 
control at each step of production e.g . maximum times and temperatures from chilling or 
freezing of raw material to the time of preparation, maximum temperatures during 
production, maximum times before chilling or freezing;  
b) unless used directly as an ingredient for meat preparations and manufa ctured meat, it 
should be immediately wrapped and/or packaged, followed by immediate refrigeration;   
c) the competent authority may specify microbiological performance objectives, 
performance criteria, process criteria or microbiological criteria for raw mater ials and 
final product;  
d) establishments should have in -line magnets or other means of detecting contamination 
with metal fragments as appropriate; and  
e) it should not be refrozen after thawing.  
When meat preparations or manufactured meat are handled:  
a) the proc ess flow of raw meat awaiting processing and during processing should ensure 
uniform turnover of accumulated product and avoid possible cross -contamination, e.g. 
between raw materials and ready -to-eat products;  
b) supply and addition of non -meat ingredients s hould be subject to good hygienic practice 
and HACCP as appropriate and practicable, and may involve decontamination 
treatments e.g. for herbs and spices;  
c) products that include non -meat protein products (as defined or standardised by Codex) 
should be appro priately labelled50;  
d) process control for non -commercially sterile products should prevent pathogen growth 
and toxin production during all processing activities e.g. during fermentation, partial heat 
treatment, drying, maturing and curing. Process criteria may include for example, correct 
pH after fermentation, correct time/temperature schedules during and after heating or 
smoking, correct moisture / protein ratio after drying, correct formulation and application 
of nitrite as a cure ingredient;  
e) if heat and/ or other processing treatments are not sufficient to ensure the stability of the 
product, the product should be cooled to an appropriate storage temperature and in a 
manner that ensures product safety is not compromised as a result of germination and 
subse quent growth of pathogenic sporeformers;  
f) product formulations e.g. distribution of antibacterial ingredients throughout cooked 
sausage emulsions, addition of cultures, adjustment of pH, should achieve required 
levels of pathogen control;  
g) microbiological co ntamination of raw meat used to produce fermented products should 
be as low as possible, and similarly, mechanically separated meat should only be used if 
appropriate time / temperature schedules to achieve product safety requirements of the 
competent auth ority are used;  
h) processing of shelf -stable products in hermetically sealed rigid containers should be 
according to  Codex guidelines;51  
i) cooked products should achieve time / internal temperatures that are validated as 
achieving appropriate pathogen reductio n, including meeting specified performance 
objectives, performance criteria and microbiological criteria;  
j) pasteurisation values or other heat processes should be validated for all heat treated 
chilled products in hermetically sealed containers so as to ens ure that product safety is 
maintained to the end of shelf life, taking into account all preservation factors that may 
be present;   
k) unless the absence of trichinellae can be assured by testing or other means, process 
treatments for products containing striat ed muscle from affected animal species, either 
alone or in combination, should be sufficient to destroy Trichinella spp.;  
l) contamination with L. monocytogenes of heat treated / non -shelf stable and non -heat 
treated / shelf stable products should be prevente d by use of SSOPs and GHPs that are 
subject to routine microbiological verification;  
m) dried products should be protected from environmental contamination and from 
reabsorption of moisture; and  
n) processes for products containing minced, comminuted or mechanic ally separated meat 
should have in -line magnets or other means of detecting contamination with metal 
fragments.  
Where meat is packaged or wrapped:  
a) packaging material should be suitable for use, stored and used in a hygienic manner; 
and 
b) cases or cartons sho uld have a suitable inner liner or other means of protecting the 
meat, except that the liner or other protection may not be required if pieces of meat, 
such as cuts, are individually wrapped before packing.  
Where meat is placed in a room for freezing:  
a) meat  that is not in cartons should be hung or placed on racks or trays in a manner that 
allows adequate circulation of air;  
b) meat  that  is  not  in  cartons  should  be  held  in  a  manner  whereby  the  potential  for  
cross - contamination via dripping of li quids is prevented;  
c) cartons containing meat should be stacked so as to permit adequate circulation of air; 
and 
d) meat held on trays should be placed so as to avoid contact with the base of an upper 
tray. 
e) Where meat is held in a freezer room or storage facili ty: 
f) the temperature of the meat should have been reduced to an acceptable level before 
placement;  
g) exposed meat must be stored in such a way that the hygiene cannot be compromised by 
the presence of packaged meat or packaging material;  
h) meat, whether in carc ass form or in cartons, should not be stacked directly on the floor 
and should be positioned so that there is adequate air circulation;  
i) the freezer store should be operated and maintained under conditions appropriate to 
maintaining the safety and suitabili ty of meat;  
j) temperatures should be continuously recorded and monitored; and  
k) adequate inventory control should be maintained.  
Where raw meat is thawed for further processing, hygiene controls should be such that thawing 
will not result in growth of micro -organisms or the formation of toxins to the extent that they may 
constitute a risk to human health. Hygiene controls should include adequate drainage of liquid 
run-off.  
The establishment operator should establish and implement a procedure for determining and  
validating the shelf life of manufactured meat and meat preparations.  
In some circumstances ready -to-eat (RTE) products that do not meet microbiological 
performance objectives, performance criteria, process criteria, or microbiological criteria, may 
be re -processed, condemned or treated as inedible. Where appropriate, follow -up sampling 
should verify that re -processed ready -to-eat (RTE) products comply with regulatory 
microbiological requirements. When ready -to-eat (RTE) products have been contaminated 
subsequent to cooking and/or other preservation treatment with pathogens such that they could 
pose a risk to public health, the products should be reworked or condemned without 
compromise.  
Where establishments are approved, registered and/or listed for differ ent animal species, all 
operations must be controlled in terms of space or time so that there is no possibility of 
accidental mixing of meat from different slaughter species, and no mis -identification at the time 
of packaging.  
9.8 HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTS OF ANIMALS DEEMED UNSAFE OR 
UNSUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION  
Special hygiene measures should be applied to operations involving parts of animals deemed 
unsafe or unsuitable for human consumption. These measures should prevent cross -
contamination to o ther edible parts and meat, and prevent any possibility of substitution.  
Parts of animals deemed unsafe or unsuitable for human consumption should be:  
a) placed without delay into specifically identified chutes, containers, trolleys, or other 
handling facilit ies; 
b) identified by means as appropriate to the type and end use of the tissue;  
c) in the case of condemned material, handled in rooms reserved for that purpose and 
conveyed in a secure manner to a place of disposal (e.g. rendering station).  
9.9     SYSTEMS FO R REMOVING PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN CIRCULATION  
Establishments should have adequate systems that enable removal of products that are in 
circulation. The competent authority should verify that the systems are adequate. The 
competent authority should be notified  when an establishment operator removes product for 
public health reasons. Consumers and interested parties should be notified as appropriate in 
these cases.  
Removal of product requires systems that are capable of:  
i. Withdrawal, where measures are applied by  the establishment operator to prevent the 
distribution, display or offer of a product that is not safe or suitable for human 
consumption;  
ii. Recall, where measures are applied to return unsafe or unsuitable product that has 
already been supplied or made avai lable to consumers;   
iii. Detention, where measures are applied by the competent authority to ensure that the 
product is not moved or tampered with pending a decision on its disposition; it includes 
storage by the establishment operator in accordance with instru ctions from the 
competent authority.  
The particular systems that are enacted in the case of a removal will depend on the specific 
situation and the likely risks to human health.  
Where removal of product is necessary, the amount of product involved may be m ore than that 
from a single production or sampled lot. The competent authority should verify to the extent 
practicable, that the establishment has taken all steps necessary to ensure all affected product 
or potentially affected product is included in the r emoval.  
Product removal systems designed by the establishment operator should:  
i. Incorporate identification, management and operational procedures that facilitates the 
rapid and complete removal of implicated lots;  
ii. Provide for records that facilitate trace -back to the origin of the problem;  
iii. Provide for records that facilitate investigation of any processing inputs that may be 
implicated;  
iv. Be reviewed and tested periodically; and  
v. Include provision for communication where appropriate to the competent authority, 
consumers and other interested stakeholders particularly where public health issues are 
involved.  
10.     ESTABLISHMENTS: MAINTENANCE AND SANITATION  
The principles and guidelines presented in this section are supplemental to the objectives and 
guidelines i n Section VI of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969).  
10.1   PRINCIPLES   OF   MEAT   HYGIENE   APPLYING   TO   MAINTENANCE   AND   
SANITATION   OF ESTABLISHMENTS, FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT  
i. Establishments, facilities and equipment should be maintained and sanitised in such a 
manner that contamination of meat is minimised to the greatest extent practicable.  
ii. Documented programmes for effective and appropriate maintenance and sanitation 
should be in place (refer to 9.2.1).  
iii. Monitoring of the e ffectiveness of maintenance and sanitation should be included as a 
basic component of meat hygiene programmes (refer to 9.2.1).  
iv. Special sanitation requirements should be applied to the slaughter and dressing of 
animals that  are condemned or designated as ― suspects‖.  
10.2   MAINTENANCE AND SANITATION  
Establishments, facilities and equipment should be kept in an appropriate state of repair and 
condition to facilitate all sanitation procedures and prevent contamination of meat, e.g. from 
metal shards, flaking plaster and chemical contaminants.   
Sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) should specify the scope of the cleaning 
programme, cleaning specifications, persons responsible, and monitoring and record keeping 
requirements.  
Cleaning procedures and pr ogrammes should:  
i. be specified in SSOPs as appropriate to the circumstances;  
ii. provide for removal and storage of waste;  
iii. ensure that there is no consequential contamination of meat with detergents or sanitising 
agents, unless allowable under conditions of use ; and  
iv. be monitored for their effectiveness, e.g. organoleptic checks and microbiological 
sampling of meat contact surfaces, and be redesigned if and when necessary.  
Particular cleaning programmes are required for equipment used in the slaughter and dressin g 
of carcasses e.g., knives, saws, machine cutters, evisceration machines and flushing nozzles.  
Such equipment should be:  
i. clean and sanitised before each new period of work;  
ii. cleaned, and sanitised, by immersion in hot water or alternative methods, with 
appropriate frequency during and/or between periods of work;  
iii. immediately cleaned and sanitised when coming into contact with abnormal or diseased 
tissue that may harbour food -borne pathogens; and  
iv. stored in designated areas in such a manner that it will not be come contaminated.  
Containers and equipment should not pass from an ―inedible‖ area to an ―edible‖ area before 
being  cleaned and sanitised.  
Pest control programmes are an essential part of maintenance and sanitation and should follow 
GHP as described in th e General Principles of Food Hygiene.52  
In particular:  
i. the programme should be properly documented and verified by the establishment 
operator;  
ii. treatment of areas, rooms, facilities and equipment, with an approved pesticide should 
be carried out according t o the conditions of use; and  
iii. pesticides and other pest control chemicals should be kept in secure storage, with 
access being limited to authorised persons.  
11.     PERSONAL HYGIENE  
Slaughter and dressing of animals, and handling and inspection of meat, pre sents many 
opportunities for cross -contamination. Personal hygiene practices should prevent undue general 
contamination, and prevent cross -contamination with human pathogens that may cause food -
borne disease. The guidelines presented in this section are su pplemental to the objectives and 
guidelines in Section VII of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969).   
Persons moving from rooms or areas containing raw meat to rooms or areas used for meat 
preparations and manufactured meat (especially whe n these products are cooked) should 
thoroughly wash, change and/or sanitise their protective clothing as appropriate, and otherwise 
limit the possibility of cross -contamination to the lowest level practicable.  
11.1   PERSONAL CLEANLINESS  
Persons who come i nto direct or indirect contact with edible parts of animals or meat in the 
course of their work should maintain appropriate personal cleanliness and behaviour, and 
should not be clinically affected by communicable agents likely to be transmitted by meat.  
Persons who come into direct or indirect contact with edible parts of animals or meat should:  
i. maintain an appropriate standard of personal cleanliness;  
ii. wear  protective  clothing  appropriate  to  the  circumstances,  and  ensure  that  non -
disposable prote ctive clothing is cleaned before and during work;  
iii. if wearing gloves during the slaughter and dressing of animals and the handling of meat, 
ensure that they are of an approved type for the particular activity, e.g. chain -mail 
stainless steel, synthetic fabr ic, latex, and they are used according to specifications, e.g. 
washing of hands before use, changing or sanitising gloves when contaminated;  
iv. immediately wash and sanitise hands and protective clothing when there has been 
contact with abnormal animal parts that are likely to harbour food -borne pathogens;  
v. cover cuts and wounds with waterproof dressings; and  
vi. store protective clothing and personal effects in locations that are separate from areas 
where meat may be present.  
11.2   PERSONAL HEALTH STATUS  
The esta blishment should maintain relevant personal health records of personnel.  
Persons who come into direct or indirect contact with edible parts of animals or meat in the 
course of their work should:  
i. where necessary, have a medical examination prior to and duri ng employment;  
ii. not work while clinically affected by, or suspected to be carrying, communicable agents 
likely to be transmitted through meat; and  
iii. be aware of and comply with reporting requirements to the establishment operator in 
respect of communicable ag ent. 
12.     TRANSPORTATION  
The guidelines presented in this section are supplemental to the objectives and guidelines in 
Section  VIII of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969) and Meat Control Act 
Cap 356  
Due to the potential for growth o f pathogenic and spoilage micro -organisms under conditions of 
inadequate temperature control, meat should be transported at temperatures that achieve safety 
and suitability objectives. Equipment for continuous monitoring and recording of temperatures  
shoul d accompany transport vehicles and bulk containers wherever appropriate. Additionally, 
the conditions of transport should provide adequate protection from exogenous contamination 
and damage, and should minimise growth of pathogenic and spoilage micro -organ isms.  
If meat is inadvertently exposed to adverse temperature conditions or sources of contamination 
that may affect safety and suitability, an inspection should be carried out by a competent person 
before further transport or distribution is allowed.  
13.     PRODUCT INFORMATION AND CONSUMER AWARENESS  
Appropriate product information and adequate knowledge of food hygiene is necessary to 
prevent mishandling at later stages in the food chain. Pre -packaged foods should be labelled 
with clear instructions to en able the next person in the food chain to handle, display, store and 
use the product safely. Principles and guidelines for product information and consumer 
awareness in the context of safety and suitability of meat are described in general terms in 
Section  IX of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969).  
The conditions of storage of meat preparations and manufactured meat should be clearly 
presented on the packaging.  
Meat preparations and manufactured meat should, where appropriate, be specifi cally labelled 
so as to provide safe handling, refrigeration and storage instructions for consumers. Foods 
containing meat that have not received an adequate biocidal treatment for pathogens (e.g. 
containing raw meat, partially cooked meat, or products wit h secondary inhibitors) should be 
labelled with handling, refrigeration, storage, cooking and preparation statements that have 
been validated as sufficiently biocidal.  
14.     TRAINING  
Adequate training of competent personnel is of fundamental importance i n the production of 
meat that is safe and suitable for human consumption. The principles and guidelines presented 
in this section are supplemental to the objectives and guidelines in Section X of the General 
Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969).  
14.1   PRINCIPLES OF TRAINING IN MEAT HYGIENE  
Persons engaged in meat hygiene activities should be trained, and/or instructed to a required 
level of training, knowledge, skills, and ability. Training specified or recognised by the competent 
authority, should be: 
i. appropriate to the activities and operations;  
ii. proportional to the potential of the particular meat hygiene activity to impact on food -
borne risks to human health;  
iii. properly documented, including records of training programme delivery;  
iv. verified as approp riate; and  
v. subject to recognition by the competent authority where delivered by third parties.  
14.2   TRAINING PROGRAMMES   
Training programmes should:  
i. provide personnel with the training, knowledge, skills and ability to carry out specified 
meat hygiene tas ks, e.g. post -mortem inspection, verification of statistical process 
control, HACCP;  
ii. provide practical training to the extent required;  
iii. where necessary, arrange for formal testing of personnel;  
iv. ensure that personnel involved in supervisory roles have appro priate skills;  
v. recognise and build on professional qualifications; and  
vi. provide for the continuing education of competent persons.  
 
Annex I  
RISK -BASED EVALUATION OF ORGANOLEPTIC POST -MORTEM INSPECTION 
PROCEDURES FOR MEAT  
1.       INTRODUCTION  
1.      Post -mortem meat inspection procedures are a set of food hygiene measures that are 
unique to the production of meat. Such procedures are regarded as a component of overall 
process control, which is defined as ―all conditions and measures applied during the produ ction 
process that are necessary to achieve safety and suitability of meat‖.  
2.      The General Principles of Food Hygiene state that ―in deciding whether a (food control) 
requirement is necessary or appropriate, an assessment of the risk should be made, preferably 
within the framework of the HACCP approach‖. 53 Many long -standing post -mortem meat 
inspection procedures are often complex, labour - intensive, undifferentiated for different classes 
of slaughtered livestock, and poorly evaluated in terms of the ir relative contribution to reducing 
food-borne risks to public health. For these reasons, competent authorities in a number of 
countries are carrying out investigations into the scientific basis of current procedures.54  
3.      This Annex generally applie s to the evaluation of routine on -line organoleptic inspection 
procedures. The performance of other inspection technologies, e.g. tissue imaging, relative to 
organoleptic procedures, may also be considered.  
4.      While risk -based evaluation of organolept ic post -mortem inspection procedures should be 
based on risk assessment for hazards of concern and development of performance objectives, 
currently few such risk assessments are available. In their absence, other sources of scientific 
knowledge on food -borne risks to human health e.g. human surveillance data, risk ranking 
processes, can be used to develop risk -based post -mortem inspection procedures.  
5.      The  principles  and  guidelines  presented  in  this  Annex  could  also  be  adapted  to  
evaluati on  of organoleptic post -mortem inspection procedures for determining the suitability of 
meat.   
2. OBJECTIVES OF RISK -BASED POST -MORTEM INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR 
MEAT  
6.      A risk -based approach to post -mortem inspection for meat can achieve the following  
objectives:  
i. Determination of the level of consumer protection provided by specified post -mortem 
inspection procedures;  
ii. Relative measurement of the contribution of post -mortem inspection to the overall level 
of control of hazards in meat (and risks to cons umers), thereby allowing risk managers 
to allocate meat hygiene resources proportionate to their greatest benefit in reducing risk 
by preventing exposure to meat -borne hazards;  
iii. Comparison of the effectiveness of different inspection procedures applied for the same 
purpose and in the same context, e.g. positive predictive value;  
iv. Provision of information that allows appropriate evaluation of different risk management 
options e.g. regionalisation of inspection programmes, feasibility and comparative costs 
of different post - mortem inspection procedures, potential for cross -contamination;  
v. Full  integration  of  post -mortem  inspection  procedures  into  a  ―production -to-
consumption‖  approach to meat hygiene.  
 
53             General Principles of Food Hygiene (C AC/RCP 1 -1969).  
54 Competent authorities have different approaches to defining the respective roles of industry and competent 
authority personnel in delivering meat hygiene activities, and this issue is not covered in this Annex.  
 
3.       RISK ANALYSIS  
3.1.    RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK  
7.      Development and implementation of risk -based post -mortem inspection procedures 
should utilise a risk management framework.55  The four components are: preliminary risk 
management activities, evaluation of risk manag ement options, implementation of management 
decisions, and monitoring and review of decision taken. All components require effective risk 
communication among risk assessors, risk managers and other interested parties as necessary. 
Utilisation of a risk man agement framework is the subject of on -going work within the Codex 
system, and is described in a number of Codex documents.  
3.2.    RISK ASSESSMENT  
8.      If required, a risk assessment is commissioned during preliminary risk management 
activities. A risk  assessment consists of four steps: hazard identification, hazard 
characterisation, exposure assessment, and risk characterisation. The output of this process 
should be qualitatively integrated with all other factors relating to post -mortem meat inspection  
to make risk management decisions on appropriate procedures for control of hazards.   
9.      In the ideal situation, risk estimates will be quantified in terms of risks to human health, 
and risk management decisions on an appropriate level of protection (A LOP) will dictate the 
nature and intensity of the post -mortem inspection procedures to be applied. However, risk 
assessment of microbiological hazards in meat is currently limited by a lack of quantitative risk 
assessment models. Nevertheless, appropriate assembly of scientific information and qualitative 
risk characterisation as to the probable impacts on human health can provide an objective basis 
for decision -making. In any case, risk management decisions will revolve around the 
acceptability of the like ly human health impact of differences in hazard levels brought about by 
different inspection procedures.  
4. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RISK -BASED POST -MORTEM 
MEAT INSPECTION PROCEDURES  
i. Risk-based post -mortem inspection procedures should be deriv ed from the application of 
risk analysis principles.  
ii. Development of risk -based post -mortem inspection procedures should:  
a) Involve application of a risk management framework;  
b) Include quantitative risk assessment where appropriate and practicable;  
c) Take into a ccount all relevant information available from the food chain;  
d) Take into account disease prevalence;  
e) Take into account all relevant information from primary production and ante -
mortem inspection of the animals.  
iii. Inspection procedures should be evaluated for  application within a specific context e.g. 
species and class of slaughtered animal, defined geographical region, defined animal 
husbandry system.  
iv. Where  different  inspection  procedures  that  have  the  same  purpose  and  context  
are  being evaluated:  
a) An objective basis for comparison of the level of control of hazards associated with these 
procedures, should be established;  
b) The  efficacy  of  each  inspection  procedure  in  detecting  abnormalities  and  visible 
contamination affecting the safety of meat should be taken into account;  
Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex 
Alimentarius. Codex  Procedural Manual.  
 Other risk management factors should be taken into account as appropriate e.g. 
potential for inadv ertent cross -contamination, feasibility, and practicality.  
v. Where needed, representative and sufficiently large field trials should be undertaken to 
determine the performance attributes of specified inspection procedures e.g. sensitivity, 
specificity, and n on- detection rates for abnormalities.  
vi. Where appropriate, laboratory investigations should be designed to detect the range of 
hazards of possible public health importance that have been described in hazard 
identification.  
vii. Routine application of post -mortem  inspection procedures should not inadvertently 
increase cross -contamination with microbiological hazards.   
viii. Irrespective of inspection delivery systems, the competent authority should be 
responsible for defining the role of personnel involved in post -mortem  inspection 
procedures, and verifying that any risk -based regulatory requirements are met.  
ix. Alternative inspection procedures (e.g. serology) may be utilised to complement post -
mortem inspection, which might be reduced to visual inspection.  
5. GUIDELINES FO R THE DEVELOPMENT OF RISK -BASED POST -MORTEM 
INSPECTION PROCEDURES  
5.1.    IDENTIFICATION OF THE MEAT HYGIENE ISSUES  
10.    A hazard identification process should be undertaken to determine the likely range of 
hazards of public health significance that may be present in the abnormalities or visible 
contamination that are the target  of the inspection procedure(s) being evaluated. Following this, 
field trials should be undertaken to determine the performance attributes of specified inspection 
procedures or ne w technologies relative to the hazards that may be present.  
5.2.    FIELD TRIALS  
11.    Once the likely range of hazards has been established, field trials may be an appropriate 
means to establish the prevalence of these hazards in the animal population, t he potential 
exposure of consumers to these hazards and the potential impact of different inspection 
procedures on this exposure. Field trials should be carried out under competent authority 
supervision and employing competent personnel. The number of anim als inspected by the 
inspection procedures under evaluation should give a statistically valid estimate of the detection 
rate of abnormalities achieved by specific post -mortem inspection procedures.  
12.    Sampling plans should be representative of the slau ghter population, and cater for known 
biological variation in respect of the type and prevalence of abnormalities e.g. influence of 
animal age, geographical region, farming type and season. Different trial designs may be 
employed, depending on the prevalen ce of abnormalities in the slaughter population, and the 
logistics of detailed inspection.  
13.    Where different post -mortem inspection procedures are being compared: all procedures 
should be applied to the same animals, each inspection station should be designed to provide 
independent results, and the trial should include enough samples so as to allow definite 
conclusions as to the consequences of changing inspection procedures. The possibility of target 
tissues acting as ―indicators‖ for detection of abn ormalities in other tissues and/or disposition of 
other tissues may be included in the design of field trials. Detailed recording of trial results is 
necessary, including appropriate pathological descriptions of all abnormalities detected.  
14.    Laborator y  investigations  e.g.  microbiological  examination  and  histology,  should  be  
designed  to identify the range of hazards of possible public health importance that have been 
identified in the hazard identification process. A representative number and range of samples 
should be taken from abnormalities, so as to confirm the outcome of the hazard identification 
process and provide as much information as possible on the prevalence (and concentration) of 
hazards in target tissue. Trial design should includ e representative surveying of the prevalence  
(and concentration) of hazards in target tissues that are organoleptically normal, so as to 
provide a comparison with the prevalence (and concentration) of hazards in those tissues that 
are organoleptically abno rmal.  
5.3     SENSITIVITY  
15.    An  understanding  of  the  level  of  consumer  protection  that  is  achieved  by  particular  
inspection procedures requires knowledge of the level of control of hazards that is attained by 
their application. The sensit ivity of post -mortem inspection procedures should be determined to 
establish their contribution to achieving overall public health goals.  
16.    The sensitivity of a post -mortem inspection procedure is the probability of identifying 
bodies or parts thereof  that contain grossly detectable abnormalities likely to contain hazards of 
concern.  
17.    The sensitivity of an inspection procedure e.g. visual inspection, palpation, and/or incision, 
should be determined within appropriate statistical limits establishe d by the competent authority. 
The intended end -use of the target tissues has an important influence on the development of 
risk-based post -mortem inspection procedures. When selecting post -mortem inspection 
procedures, priority should be given to those proc edures with high correlation between the 
detection of a specified abnormality and the presence of the hazard of concern.  
5.4     RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS  
18.    Risk management decisions on the acceptability or otherwise of specified post -mortem 
inspectio n procedures will generally be based on the worst case of non -detection of 
abnormalities included in an appropriate statistical confidence interval. Decisions should take 
into account the comparative public health risks associated with:  
a. The prevalence (and  concentration) of hazards in target tissues that are 
organoleptically abnormal;  
b. The prevalence (and concentration) of hazards in target tissues that are 
organoleptically normal;  
c. The overall prevalence (and concentration) of hazards being transmitted by al l 
pathways throughout the production of meat.  
19.    In the general case, new or alternative inspection procedures should provide a level of 
consumer protection that is at least equivalent to that provided by existing procedures, unless 
there are strong mi tigating factors that may influence a different risk management choice e.g. 
unacceptable introduction of new hazards, undue risks from occupational exposure.  
20.    Required  regulatory  outcomes  for  post -mortem  inspection  may  include  performance  
attributes expressed as limits on non -detection rates for particular abnormalities. Those 
performance attributes may be derived quantitatively from risk assessment models, or 
qualitatively from baseline surveys of current performance.   
21.    Where detailed i nformation on the health status of slaughtered animals is available from 
primary production, risk -based post -mortem inspection procedures may be modified on a lot -by-
lot basis, with the competent authority having responsibility for determining the frequenc y and 
extent of the procedures.  
22.   The competent authority should regularly analyse results of post -mortem inspection at both 
the establishment and national level, and provide appropriate feedback to establishments and 
other interested parties on the pe rformance of risk -based post -mortem inspection procedures. 
The competent authority could consider an incentive for improving the system, e.g. recognition 
of performance, decreased farm inspection frequency, additional change of inspection 
procedures, etc.  
23.   The competent authority may change presentation requirements and the sequence of 
inspection procedures as a result of scientific evaluation of different post -mortem inspection 
procedures, and allow introduction of new inspection tools e.g. mirrors. A lternative technologies 
for detecting abnormalities e.g. tissue imaging, should be acceptable to the competent authority 
if validated as being as effective as current procedures.  
 
Annex II  
VERIFICATION OF PROCESS CONTROL OF MEAT HYGIENE BY MICROBIOLOGICAL  
TESTING  
1.       INTRODUCTION  
1.      Microbiological testing at specific points in the food chain is an important tool for verifying 
a risk -based approach to food safety. Specification of food safety microbiological outcomes 
establishes appropriate level s of consumer protection, while providing maximum flexibility to 
industry in terms of the detailed process control systems that are employed.  
2.      The General Principles of Food Hygiene56 state that ―in deciding whether a (food control) 
requirement is n ecessary or appropriate, an assessment of the risk should be made, preferably 
within the framework of the HACCP approach‖, and any microbiological specifications ―should 
be based on sound scientific principles and state, where appropriate, procedures, anal ytical 
methods and action limits‖57. Process control is defined as ―all conditions and measures 
applied during the production process that are necessary to achieve safety and suitability of 
meat‖.  
3.      Where appropriate, microbiological performance obje ctives or performance criteria should 
be included in verification of process control.  
4.      As described in this Annex, microbiological performance objectives or performance criteria 
are different from microbiological criteria.  The latter are used for j udging the acceptability of a 
product or food lot.58   
Although not included in the scope of this Annex, microbiological testing of meat may also be 
used to assess suitability.  
2.       VERIFICATION OF PROCESS CONTROL BY MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING  
5.      A pre ventative, HACCP -based approach should be regarded as the most effective means 
of ensuring microbiological process control. Once process control has been validated, 
verification by microbiological testing can be important to assure that required food safet y 
outcomes are being met on an on -going basis. Verification by microbiological testing for process 
control purposes should be implemented where meaningful in terms of consumer protection.  
6.      Verification of process control of meat by microbiological t esting provides a tool for:  
a. Assessing the adequacy and efficacy of establishment process control in relation 
to faecal and other contamination;  
b. Assuring the level of control of specified hazards of public health importance;  
c. Facilitating development of proc ess criteria at a specified step or combination of 
steps that achieve microbiological performance objectives or performance 
criteria;  
d. Identifying the need for review and redesign of HACCP plans;  
e. Objective comparison of the outcome of different process cont rol systems in 
different situations;  
f. Provision of assurances by competent authorities.  
56             General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1 -1969)  
57 Specifications for microbiological testing in relation to the outcome of SSOPs are not regarded as 
microbiological performance objectives or performance criteria for process control.  
58             Principles and Guidelines for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria Related to 
Foods(CAC/GL 21 -1997).  
 
i. 3. PRINCIPLES  FOR  THE  ESTA BLISHMENT  OF  MICROBIOLOGICAL  
TESTING REQUIREMENTS  
ii. Establishment of microbiological testing requirements should take into account all 
information available throughout the food chain, including the health status of live 
animals relative to public health.  
iii. Microbiological  testing  requirements  should  be:  hazard -,  product -  and  process -
specific, reasonably achievable, and applied only at those points in the food chain 
specified. When validating the testing requirements, account should be taken of the 
likelihood of uneven distribution of micro -organisms in the sampled unit and the inherent 
variability of the analytical procedure.  
iv. Microbiological testing requirements should be based on scientific analysis and advice, 
and, where sufficient data is available , developed from risk analysis. Where a food 
safety objective based on the required level of consumer protection has been  
established, the relationship between the food safety objective (FSO) and performance 
objectives (POs) or performance criteria (PCs) s hould be specified.  
v. The stringency of microbiological testing requirements should be proportional to human 
health risk.  
vi. In  the  absence  of  sufficient  knowledge  of  risks  to  human  health,  microbiological  
testing requirements should initially be es tablished from baseline surveys of current 
industry performance, and subsequently be modified as appropriate to reflect public 
health goals. Sampling plans for baseline surveys should be representative of the 
slaughter population, and cater for known biolo gical variation in respect of hazards in the 
raw material supply e.g. influence of geographical region, farming type and season.  
vii. Microbiological testing requirements should be based on micro -organisms that are 
indices of the presence of hazards to human he alth, or the pathogen itself, in the food 
specified.  
viii. Establishment  of  microbiological testing requirements, including performance  
objectives or performance criteria should be the responsibility of competent authorities, 
in consultation with relevant int erested parties, and may consist of guidelines or 
regulatory standards.  
ix. The competent authority should verify compliance with microbiological testing 
requirements where they are specified in regulation e.g. microbiological statistical 
process control requi rements, standards for Salmonella spp.  
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMME FOR VERIFICATION OF PROCESS 
CONTROL BY MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING  
4.1     SPECIFICATIONS  
7.      A standardised random sampling plan should be developed, including specification of the 
process step, product, size and type of sample, time and date of sampling, collection methods 
and transport. Sampling and testing at multiple steps in the food chain may provide greater 
information on process control and allows for a more targeted response t o non -compliance by 
the establishment and the competent authority.  
8.      Sampling of tissue may be destructive e.g. by excision, or non -destructive e.g. by 
swabbing or sponging. No method will recover all the flora present on the surface. As non -
destruct ive sampling will recover only a proportion of those recovered by the destructive 
method, microbiological testing requirements specified in this manner should be established in 
relation to the type of sampling used.  
9.      For practical reasons, microbiol ogical testing requirements are unlikely to be verified on an 
on-going basis as part of a HACCP plan. However, microbiological verification should be 
conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure effectiveness of any process criteria that are part 
of a HAC CP plan. These criteria should be measurable in real time, will most likely constitute 
critical limits at critical control points in HACCP plans, and may be subject to microbiological 
verification as appropriate.   
10.    In the case of indicator micro -organisms e.g. generic Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaciae 
and total viable counts (aerobic plate counts), the presence and / or concentration of these 
indicator organisms should reflect states or conditions that indicate process control or lack of 
process co ntrol. In the case of specific hazards59 (e.g. Salmonella spp. on carcasses, Listeria 
monocytogenes in ready -to-eat products), the prevalence will generally be reflective of hazards 
arising pre -slaughter (e.g. Salmonella present on hides of incoming animal s) and at specific 
steps during product processing.  
11.    The competent authority should provide flexibility in regulation so that the most effective 
verification systems can be established at the establishment level e.g. provision for alternative 
carcass  sampling sites if an establishment can identify that they are equally as effective in 
assessing carcass contamination than those specified. Similarly, flexibility should be provided 
by the competent authority with regard to the number of units comprising the sample or testing 
against alternative indicator micro -organisms as long as the procedure can provide equivalent 
guarantees.  
12.    Alternative approaches to microbiological testing that are properly validated should be 
established where they offer prac tical advantages.  
4.2.    FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING  
13.    There is no single method for determining the frequency of sampling. For slaughter and 
dressing establishments frequency of sampling may be fixed in relation to the particular process 
or may be based o n throughput of animals. In addition to ensuring randomness, variables to be 
taken into account at the establishment level include: source of raw materials, type and nature 
of the meat process, and volume of production.  
14.    Sampling frequency should be increased or decreased according to performance. Once 
results show that the HACCP -based procedures are providing a consistent level of acceptable 
performance, subsequent microbiological testing must be sufficient to ensure that process 
control is maintaine d. 
4.3.    LABORATORY ANALYSIS  
15.    Methods for detection and enumeration should be practical, accurate, reproducible, 
sensitive and selective. Only methods for which the reliability and reproducibility have been 
validated should be used. Inter - laborato ry testing should be a feature of a microbiological 
verification programme. In cases of dispute, recognised reference methods should be used.  
16.     To allow meaningful analysis and to permit objective comparison of different control 
systems, methods for the computation of results should be specified, including handling of 
pooled/individual results, calculation of mean results (e.g. log means) from groups of samples 
from the same carcass or different carcasses.  
4.4.    REGULATORY APPLICATION   
17.    Regulat ory requirements in terms of microbiological testing may be specified in several 
ways. For indicator organisms, two or three class attribute sampling plans that specify limits for 
numbers of micro - organisms (m and M) may be useful, in other situations var iable sampling 
plans may be useful. Two class plans should be applied for pathogen criteria. Where 
requirements are set according to current industry performance, percentile values may be used 
e.g. 80th percentile for m and 98th percentile for M, a variety  of statistical approaches can be 
used.  
18.    Effective systems should be in place for distribution and sharing of information from the 
establishment to all interested parties, as appropriate, so as to maintain and improve process 
control of meat.  
19.    The competent authority should regularly analyse results at both the establishment and 
national level, and provide appropriate feedback to establishments and other interested parties.  
20.    Additional to verification of process control, the results of mic robiological testing may be 
used to establish on -farm controls e.g. intensive measures to reduce the prevalence of 
Salmonella spp. in fattening pigs.  
59             Ongoing work in CCFH and JEMRA with respect to foodborne pathogens should also be taken int o 
account.  
 
21.   In situations of non -compliance with microbiological requirements, actions should be 
specified. Regulatory and/or establishment responses should be proportional to test results as 
well as the public health impact of specific pathogens. W here detailed information on the status 
in relation to public health, of animals destined for slaughter, is available from primary 
production, e.g. in the case of Salmonella spp. in fattening pigs and broiler chickens in some 
intensive production systems, responses in relation to process control at the establishment 
level, may include consideration of pre -slaughter levels of hazards.  
22.    The competent authority should consider microbiological results in conjunction with public 
health and other relevant i nformation when taking regulatory action. Regulatory intervention 
and/or sanctions may be necessary when validated controls are not being properly 
implemented.  
23.    In cases of repeated non -compliance, the competent authority in addition to other actions , 
should require the establishment operator to review and revise the HACCP plan and may 
specify an increased sampling frequency to verify that the required level of process control is 
restored.