# L_2004199EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/1

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2004/379/EC of 26 April 2004 amending Decision 2001/471/EC as regards bacteriological tests in certain meat establishments

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 144 of 30 April 2004
  )

Decision 2004/379/EC should read as follows:

COMMISSION DECISION

of 26 April 2004

amending Decision 2001/471/EC as regards bacteriological tests in certain meat establishments

(notified under document number C(2004) 1519)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/379/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2001/471/EC (2) obliges operators of meat establishments to conduct regular checks on the general hygiene conditions of production in their establishments. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2001/471/EC (2) obliges operators of meat establishments to conduct regular checks on the general hygiene conditions of production in their establishments.

| (2) | That Decision lays down rules for the bacteriological testing of carcasses of cattle, swine, sheep, goats and horses. It provides that the results of the bacteriological tests are to be converted into daily log mean values in order to compare them to the limits it lays down. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

That Decision lays down rules for the bacteriological testing of carcasses of cattle, swine, sheep, goats and horses. It provides that the results of the bacteriological tests are to be converted into daily log mean values in order to compare them to the limits it lays down.

| (3) | Member States are currently implementing two different methods of calculation to convert the test results into a log mean value, which results in different numerical values. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Member States are currently implementing two different methods of calculation to convert the test results into a log mean value, which results in different numerical values.

| (4) | The implementation of bacteriological testing should be harmonised within the Community. The method of calculation for the conversion of the results of the bacteriological tests of meat set out in Decision 2001/471/EC should therefore be clarified. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The implementation of bacteriological testing should be harmonised within the Community. The method of calculation for the conversion of the results of the bacteriological tests of meat set out in Decision 2001/471/EC should therefore be clarified.

| (5) | Decision 2001/471/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Decision 2001/471/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (6) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2001/471/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 20 May 2004

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 April 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

Part 1 of the Annex to Decision 2001/471/EC is amended as follows:

| 1. | In the Section entitled ’Applying microbiological criteria to excised-sample test results (Table 1)’, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

  ’The daily mean of the log results should be allocated into one of three categories for process control verification: acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Section entitled ’Applying microbiological criteria to excised-sample test results (Table 1)’, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

’The daily mean of the log results should be allocated into one of three categories for process control verification: acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.’

| 2. | Table 1 is replaced by the following:
  ’Table 1
  Daily mean of the log values 1 for marginal and unacceptable results for bacterial performance criteria for cattle, pig, sheep, goat and horse units (cfu/cm2) for samples taken by the destructive method. | Acceptable range | Marginal range | Unacceptable range |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cattle/sheep/goat/horse | Pig | Cattle/pig/sheep/goat/horse | Cattle/pig/sheep/goat/horse |
| Daily mean of the log values for | Total viable counts (TVC) | < 3,5 | < 4,0 | 3,5 (pig: 4,0)
  - 5,0 | > 5,0 |
| Entero-bacteria-cae | < 1,5 | < 2,0 | 1,5 (pig: 2,0)
  - 2,5 (pig: 3,0) | > 2,5
  (pig: > 3,0) |
| (3) | The daily mean of the log values is calculated by first taking a log (log10) value of each individual test result and then calculating the arithmetical mean of these log values.’ |

2.

Table 1 is replaced by the following:

’Table 1

Daily mean of the log values 1 for marginal and unacceptable results for bacterial performance criteria for cattle, pig, sheep, goat and horse units (cfu/cm2) for samples taken by the destructive method.

Acceptable range

Marginal range

Unacceptable range

Cattle/sheep/goat/horse

Pig

Cattle/pig/sheep/goat/horse

Cattle/pig/sheep/goat/horse

Daily mean of the log values for

Total viable counts (TVC)

< 3,5

< 4,0

3,5 (pig: 4,0)

- 5,0

> 5,0

Entero-bacteria-cae

< 1,5

< 2,0

1,5 (pig: 2,0)

- 2,5 (pig: 3,0)

> 2,5

(pig: > 3,0)

(3)

The daily mean of the log values is calculated by first taking a log (log10) value of each individual test result and then calculating the arithmetical mean of these log values.’

---

(1)  
  OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012/64. Directive as last amended by Directive 95/23/EC (OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 7).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 165, 21.6.2001, p. 48.

2

---