74 Chapter 3
english/fssa/meavia/man/mane.shtml ). In
Australia, beef plants exporting meat to the
United States have used lactic acid decon-
tamination technologies (Smulders and Greer
1998 ). However, no organic acid - treated
meat is exported to Europe. Finally, even
though chemical hide washing is approved in
Australia, chemical dehairing is not allowed
(Midgley and Small 2006 ), while in the
United States chemical dehairing needs to be
approved on a case - by - case basis; no applica-
tion exists at this time.
The nonintervention HACCP relies on
monitoring, and application of hygiene mea-
sures (strict adherence to GMP) that prevent
occurrence of contamination (Bolton et al.
2001 ). It is currently adopted by the European
Union (EU) meat industry, even though the
new EU regulations have approved or provide
the basis for approval of decontamination
interventions. More specifi cally, the existing
Regulation 852/2004 on food hygiene
(Commission of the European Communities
2004a ) and the need for implementation of
HACCP principles in the entire food chain
have forced establishments to improve their
hygiene and processing procedures, as well
as to verify and validate their systems.
Furthermore, according to Regulation
2160/2003, proper and effective measures
should be taken for detection and control of
zoonotic agents throughout the food chain
(Commission of the European Communities
2003 ). In principle, such methods include
hygienic practices during feed production,
at the farm level and during transportation
of the animals, good animal husbandry
practices, record - keeping, and traceability
(Commission of the European Communities
2003 ). Application of strict hygiene mea-
sures and good slaughter practices may be
considered suffi cient to avoid problems asso-
ciated with carcass contamination during
slaughter under conditions of slow slaughter
speeds. In addition to these practices, thermal
decontamination interventions, such as hot
water and steam pasteurization are also per-not associated with resistance to the above
antimicrobial interventions (Arthur et al.
2008 ).
In conclusion, even though existing labo-
ratory data suggest that acid decontamination
interventions may increase the potential of
pathogens to develop acid resistance, there is
no clear evidence that chemical decontami-
nation poses additional risks due to faster
pathogen growth or higher acid resistance
during storage of products, compared with
physical decontamination. Furthermore, mul-
tidrug resistant pathogens are not more resis-
tant to decontamination treatments than
susceptible strains. Therefore, the proper use
of chemical rinses may lead to signifi cant
reduction of pathogens on meat without
raising concerns associated with stress -
adapted pathogens, provided that hygienic
and sanitary practices are applied throughout
the processing chain, as zero tolerance
inspection assures in the United States.
Legislative Aspects of
Decontamination
Two approaches are applied worldwide rela-
tive to microbial control during meat produc-
tion (Bolton et al. 2001 ; Midgley and Small
2006 ) : (i) the “ intervention HACCP ” ; and,
(ii) the “ nonintervention HACCP. ” The inter-
vention HACCP uses decontamination inter-
ventions along the production line to reduce
microbial contamination and is adopted by
the United States and many meat - processing
plants in Canada and Australia. More specifi -
cally, the USDA - FSIS has recognized and
approved that one or more physical or chemi-
cal decontamination steps should be included
in the slaughter/dressing process as critical
control points under HACCP. In Canada, the
use of lactic and acetic acid sprays is approved
as part of the Good Manufacturing Practices
(GMP) during the carcass - dressing process,
provided that proper facilities, equipment,
and quality control are available (Theron
and Lues 2007 ; http://www.inspection.gc.ca/