salmonella control and occurence of salmonella from

Transcription

Julkaisuja 4/2006
SALMONELLA CONTROL AND
OCCURENCE OF SALMONELLA
FROM 1995 TO 2004
Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Salmonella control and occurence of Salmonella from 1995 to 2004
Eviran julkaisuja 4/2006
Salmonella control and
occurence of Salmonella
from 1995 to 2004
Helsinki 2006
Kuvailulehti
Julkaisija
Elintarviketurvallisuusvirasto Evira
Tekijät
Huttunen Anna, Johansson Tuula, Kostamo Pirkko, Kuronen Henry, Laaksonen
Terhi, Laihonen Mari, Lievonen Satu, Myllyniemi Anna-Liisa, Niskanen Taina,
Ranta Jukka, Rosengren Heidi, Siitonen Anja, Tuominen Pirkko, Varimo Kaija
ja Varjonen Mika
Julkaisun nimi
Salmonellavalvonta ja salmonellan esiintyminen 1995 - 2004
Tiivistelmä
Salmonellaa esiintyy Suomessa tuotantoeläimissä hyvin vähän. Euroopan
unioniin liittymisen yhteydessä vuonna 1995 Suomelle hyväksyttiin kansallinen
salmonellavalvontaohjelma. Sen tuottama näyttö maan hyvästä tautitilanteesta
mahdollistaa erityistakuut, eli oikeudet vaatia maahantuotavalta sian-, naudan- ja
siipikarjanlihalta sekä kananmunilta salmonellatutkimuksia. Ohjelman tavoitteena
on pitää salmonellan esiintyminen tuotantoeläimissä ja niistä saaduissa elintarvikkeissa alle 1 % tasolla vuosittain.
Salmonellavalvonnan kohteena olevien tuotantoeläimien määrissä tapahtui
muutoksia ohjelman ensimmäisen 10 vuoden aikana. Siipikarjanlihan tuotanto
lisääntyi 104 %, sianlihan 19 % ja naudanlihan tuotanto laski noin 3 %. Salmonellaa
tutkitaan siipikarjassa ensisijaisesti elävien lintujen ulostenäytteistä. Nautojen ja
sikojen salmonellaseuranta perustuu pääasiassa teurastamonäytteenottoon sekä
tiloilla tapahtuvaan näytteenottoon, kun epäillään salmonellatartuntaa.
Kanojen vanhempais- ja isovanhempaispolvissa ei todettu vuosina 1995 - 2004
salmonellaa. Tuotantopolven kasvattamoissa positiivisten parvien määrä oli
yhtä vuotta lukuun ottamatta alle 0,6 % ja tuotantopolven kanaloissa alle 0,2 %.
Broilerin- ja kalkkunan vanhempais- ja isovanhempaispolven parvista on löytynyt salmonellaa enimmillään vain 0,5 % parvista. Tuotantopolvessa on todettu
salmonellaa alle 1,0 % lukuun ottamatta vuosia 1995 ja 1999.
Naudoista otettiin teurastamoissa ja leikkaamoissa lähes 90 000 imusolmuke-,
pintasively- ja leikkaamonäytettä. Positiivisia näytteistä oli alle 0,2 %. Vastaavat
määrät sioilla olivat noin 155 000 ja 0,1 %.
Valvontaohjelman ulkopuolella on tutkittu salmonellan esiintymistä myös rehuissa sekä lemmikkieläinten ruuissa. Salmonellan esiintyminen tuotantoeläinten
rehuissa on ollut harvinaista huolimatta siitä, että rehuihin käytettävissä kasviperäisissä tuontiraaka-aineissa (esim. öljykasvirouheet) on esiintynyt viime
vuosina yhä enenevässä määrin salmonellaa (5 - 16 % tuontieristä). Toimijoiden
omavalvonta ja viranomaisvalvonta ovat löytäneet tehokkaat menettelyt salmonellan leviämisen estämiseksi rehutehtaiden prosesseihin ja sitä kautta rehuissa
eläintiloille. Valtakunnalliset ja paikalliset tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, että myös
vähittäismyynnin elintarvikkeissa salmonellan esiintyminen on erittäin harvinaista.
Tehtyjen riskinarviointien perusteella valvontaohjelmalla on kuluttajia suojaava
vaikutus. Broilerin- ja kananmunien kohdalla vaikutus on suuri, naudan- ja sianlihan kohdalla vähäisempi.
Väestössä raportoitiin 1990-luvun loppupuolella noin 3000 salmonellatapausta
vuosittain. Vuosina 2000 - 2004 on tapausmäärä ollut alle 2500. Tapauksista
on 14 - 34 % ollut kotimaassa saatuja tartuntoja, loput tartunnat ovat liittyneet
matkailuun. Salmonellan aiheuttamia ruokamyrkytysepidemioita on raportoitu
vuosittain 1 - 8.
Asiasanat
Salmonella, eläintaudit, elintarviketurvallisuus, antibioottiresistenssi, valvontaohjelmat
Julkaisusarjan nimi
ja numero
Eviran julkaisuja 4/2006
Julkaisun teema
ISSN
1796-4369
Sivuja
94
Luottamuksellisuus Julkinen
Julkaisun myynti/jakaja
Evira, puh. 02077 2003, fax 02077 24350
www.evira.fi
Julkaisun kustantaja
Evira Elintarvikehygienia
Painopaikka ja -aika
Edita Prima, Helsinki 2006
Muut tiedot
E-julkaisu: www.evira.fi
Julkaisun ulkoasu
Teija Pesonen, Evira
ISBN
ISBN (pdf)
Kieli
Hinta
952-5662-06-3
952-5662-07-1
Suomi
10,10 euroa
Beskrivning
Utgivare
Livsmedelsäkerhetsverket Evira
Författare
Ranta Jukka, Rosengren Heidi, Siitonen Anja, Tuominen Pirkko, Varimo Kaija ja
Varjonen Mika
Verkets titel
Salmonellakontroll och förekomst av Salmonella 1995 – 2004
Resumé
Salmonella uppträder sällan bland produktionsdjur i Finland. I samband med
anslutningen till Europeiska unionen år 1995 beviljades Finland ett nationellt program för salmonellakontroll. De belägg för landets utmärkta smittosituation som
programmet framför gör att ytterligare garantier är möjliga, dvs. rätten att kräva
att ägg, samt kött från svin, nötdjur och fjäderfä ska analyseras för Salmonella.
Målet för programmet är att hålla förekomsten av Salmonella hos produktionsdjur
och i livsmedel av dessa under nivån 1 % årligen.
Under programmets första årtionde inträffade det förändringar i antalet produktionsdjur som var underkastade salmonellakontrollen. Produktionen av fjäderfä
ökade med 104 %, den av griskött med 19 % och nötköttsproduktionen minskade
med ca 3 %. För fjäderfä analyserades förekomsten av Salmonella huvudsakligen
ur exkrementer från levande fåglar. För nötdjur och svin bygger övervakningen
på prover från slakterier samt lantgårdar där det misstänks förekomst av Salmonella.
Under perioden 1995 till 2004 upptäcktes ingen Salmonella bland föräldra- och
farföräldergenerationer av hönsdjur. Bland produktionsgenerationer på uppfödningsanläggningar var antalet positiva flockar under 0,6 %, ett år undantaget,
medan antalet för köttproduktionsflockar låg under 0,2 %. Bland föräldra- och
farföräldergenerationer upptäcktes Salmonella endast bland högst 0,5 % av
flockarna. För produktionsflockar upptäcktes Salmonella bland 1,0 %, utom åren
1995 och 1999.
Nästan 90 000 prover av lymfkörtlar, kroppsytor och från styckningsprov togs i
slakterier och styckningsanläggningar. Färre än 0,2 % av proverna var positiva.
För svin var motsvarande siffror ca 155 000 och 0,1 %.
Utom kontrollprogrammet undersöktes även förekomsten av Salmonella i foder
samt i mat för keldjur. Förekomsten av Salmonella i foder avsett för produktionsdjur
har varit sällsynt fastän det under senare år allt oftare har konstaterats Salmonella i sådant råmaterial av vegetabiliskt ursprung (t.ex. krossade oljeväxter) som
används i produktionen av foder (5 - 16 % importerade partier). Företagarnas
egenkontroll och myndighetstillsynen har funnit effektiva tillvägagångssätt för att
hindra Salmonella från att spridas till processer i foderfabrikerna och därifrån med
fodret till djurgårdar. Nationella och lokala undersökningar har visat att Salmonella
förekommer högst sällan i livsmedel i minutförsäljning. Verkställda riskbedömningar visar att effekterna av kontrollprogrammet skyddar konsumenterna. För broiler
och ägg är effekten väsentlig, för nötkött och griskött mindre utpräglad.
I slutet av 1990 talet rapporterades ca 3000 fall av Salmonella årligen bland befolkningen. Åren 2000 till 2004 har antalet fall legat under 2500. Mellan 14 och
34 % av fallen har varit smittor som man har fått i hemlandet medan resten har
samband med resor. Årligen rapporterades 1 - 8 epidemier av Salmonella som
hade orsakats av matförgiftningar.
Sökord
Salmonella, djursjukdomar, livsmedelssäkerhet, antibiotik resistens, finsk Salmonella kontroll program
Publikationsseriens
namn och nummer
Evira Publikationer 4/2006
Publikationens tema
ISSN
Antal sidor
Konfidentialitet
Publikationen säljs
Livsmedelssäkerhetsverket Evira, tel. 02077 2003, fax 02077 24350;
www.evira.fi
Förläggare
Evira, Enheten för livsmedelshygien
Tryckeri och tryckningstid
Edita Prima, Helsingfors 2006
Övriga uppgifter
E-publikation (beskrivning): www.evira.fi, och www.mmm.fi
Publikationens ombrytning
1796-4369
94
Offentlig handling
ISBN
ISBN (pdf)
Språk
Pris
952-5662-06-3
952-5662-07-1
Finska
10,10 euro
Description
Publisher
Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Authors
Ranta Jukka, Rosengren Heidi, Siitonen Anja, Tuominen Pirkko, Varimo Kaija
ja Varjonen Mika
Title
Salmonella control and occurence of Salmonella from 1995 to 2004 in
Finland
Abstract
Salmonella rarely appears among production animals in Finland. In connection
with joining the European Union in 1995, Finland established a national Salmonella control programme. Evidence of the country’s excellent disease situation
produced by this programme makes additional guarantees possible, i.e., the right
to demand that imported eggs and the meat of pigs, cattle and poultry are analyzed for Salmonella. The objective of the programme is to keep the occurrence
of Salmonella in production animals and foodstuffs originating from these below
the level of 1% annually.
During the first decade of the programme, variations became apparent in the
number of production animals covered by the Salmonella control. The production
of poultry increased by 104%, that of pork by 19% and beef production declined
by about 3%. For poultry, the prevalence of Salmonella is primarily determined
from the faeces of living birds. Among cattle and swine, monitoring of Salmonella
is based on samples from slaughterhouses and those collected at farms when
Salmonella infection is suspected.
During the period from 1995 to 2004, no Salmonella was detected among the parent and grandparent flocks of hens. Except for one year, the proportion of positive
rearing flocks of laying hens was below 0.6%, while the respective figure for egg
production flocks was below 0.2 %. Among parent and grandparent generations
of broilers and turkeys, Salmonella was only found among a maximum of 0.5%
of the flocks. For meat production flocks, Salmonella was found less than 1.0%,
except in 1995 and 1999.
Close to 90 000 lymph node samples, surface-swabs and meat samples were
taken in slaughterhouses and cutting plants. Less than 0.2% of the tested samples
were positive for Salmonella. Corresponding figures among swine were approximately 155 000 and 0.1%.
Beyond the control programme, the occurrence of Salmonella was also examined in feedstuffs and pet-animal feeds. The occurrence of Salmonella in feeds
intended for food production animals has been rare, irrespective of the fact that
raw materials of vegetable origin (e.g. crushed oil plant seeds) that are used in
the production of feedstuffs have increasingly displayed Salmonella (5 to 16% of
import batches) in later years. Self-checking by operators and control by authorities
have been found efficient in preventing Salmonella from spreading to processes
in feed factories and from there in feedstuffs to animal farms. National and local
investigations have shown the occurrence of Salmonella in foodstuffs in retail
sale to be extremely rare. Risk assessments performed demonstrate that in effect
the control programme protects consumers. For broilers and eggs the effects are
substantial, while for beef and pork they are less clear.
At the end of the 1990s, some 3000 cases of Salmonella were reported annually
among the population. From 2000 to 2004, the number of cases was less than
2500. From 14 to 34% of the cases were infections acquired in the home country, while the rest were associated with travelling. From one to eight food borne
outbreaks caused by Salmonella were reported annually.
Key words
Salmonella, animal diseases, food safety, antimicrobial resistace, finnish Salmonella control programme
Name and number of
series of publications
Evira Publications 4/2006
Theme
ISSN
Pages
Confidentiality
Distributor
Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira, Tel. +358 2077 5003,
Fax +358 2077 24350, www.evira.fi
Puiblisher
Evira, Food Hygiene Unit
Printed in
Edita Prima, Helsinki 2006
Other information
E-publication: www.evira.fi and www.mmm.fi
Layout
1796-4369
ISBN
ISBN (pdf)
94Language
Public
Price
952-5662-06-3
952-5662-07-1
Finnish
10,10 euro
Contents
1 introduction
11
2 national Salmonella control programme 12
12
13
16
23
30
2.1 Legislation
2.2 Sampling and control
2.3 Production structure
2.4 Programme results 1995 – 2004 / Poultry
2.5 Programme results 1995 – 2004 / Cattle and pigs
3 EVALUATION of the Salmonella control programme
40
40
40
43
44
44
45
3.1 Background
3.2 Risk assessment of Salmonella in Finland
3.3 Remarks on the Salmonella risk assesment
3.4 Evaluating the Finnish Salmonella Control Programme
3.5 Economic aspect of the Salmonella Control in Finland
3.6 Literature related to the project for assessing Salmonella risks
4 Salmonella control of feedstuffs
47
47
47
48
49
4.1 Legislation
4.2 Sampling
4.3 Results in 1995 to 2004 4.4 Deliberation
5 OCCURence of Salmonella in retail food IN 1995 TO 2004
50
50
52
53
5.1 Occurence of Salmonella in raw meat
5.2 Occurence of Salmonella in other food
5.3 Occurence of Salmonella in local food-control samples
6 additional guarantees and control in the internal market 55
6.1 Addirional guarantees regarding Salmonella
6.2 Internal market control of foods of animal origin
55
55
7 other Salmonella investigations 1995 – 2004
57
57
58
7.1 Typing of isolates other than those from the National
Salmonella Control Programme 7.2 Discussion
8 domestic Salmonella OUTBREAKs 1995 – 2004
60
61
8.1 Descriptions of example outbreaks
9 HUMAN Salmonella FINDINGS IN 1995 – 2004
63
63
63
64
66
9.1 Surveillance of infections 9.2 Prevalence of infections
9.3 Domestic infections
9.4 Infections acquired abroad
10 antimicrobial resistanCE OF Salmonella strains
67
10.1 Background
10.2 Production animals and domestic foodstuffs
10.3 Salmonellas strains isolated from humans
10.4 Literature
APPENDICES
67
67
68
69
APPENDICES
1.
Salmonella Typhimurium phagetypes isolated from cattle, pigs and poultry
samples in 1995-2004
2.
Salmonella analysis of domestic feed in 1995 - 2004. Number of official
control samples
3.
Salmonella analysis of imported feedstuffs (3rd countries and EU imports)
in 1995 - 2004. Number of official control samples
4.
Serotypes isolated from feed samples in 1995 - 2004. Samples of domestic
manufactures
5.
Serotypes isolated from feed samples in 1995 - 2004. Imported feed samples
(excepting pet animal feeds)
6.
Salmonella analysis of pet animal feeds in 1995 - 2004. Number of official
control samples
7.
Serotypes isolated from pet feed samples in 1995 - 2004
8.
Feedstuffs contaminated by Salmonella in 1995 - 2004. Domestic manufacture
9.
Feedstuffs contaminated by Salmonella in 1995 - 2004. Imported feeds (3rd
countries and EU imports)
10. Pet feeds contaminated by Salmonella in 1995 - 2004.
11. Serotypes isolated from animals other than those included in the control
programme in 1997 - 2000
12. Salmonella Typhimurium phagetypes in animals other than those included
in the control programme animals in 1996 - 2004
13. Salmonella Enteritidis phagetypes in animals other than included in the
control programme in 1995 - 2004
14. Serotypes found in imported food in 1997 - 2004
15. Salmonella Typhimurium phagetypes in imported food in 1996 - 2004. Salmonella Enteritidis phagetype in imported food in 1996 - 2004
16. Outbreaks caused by various Salmonella types (A) and number of persons
becoming ill in these epidemics (B) in 1995 - 2004
17. Descriptions of Salmonella outbreaks in 2000 - 2004
18. International standards and legislational
10
1 Introduction
Terhi Laaksonen, Senior Veterinary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, MMM
Food borne infections caused by Salmonella bacteria continuously present a
significant economic and national health problem throughout the world. By international estimates, the situation in Finland is particularly good. The country has
invested in preventing Salmonella among production animals, and subsequently
in feeds, and for decades the occurrence of Salmonella in foods of animal origin
has been low.
The National Salmonella Control Programme covers poultry, pigs and cattle,
and meat and eggs from these. This programme has been in effect since 1995
and reached 10 years of age in 2004. Salmonella legislation by the European
Union has developed significantly in recent years. Current efforts are aimed at
revising the national control programme in accordance with requirements of new
EC legislation. This publication is a compilation of results obtained during the
decade the programme has been in operation. Besides celebrating the ten-year
span of the programme, the purpose of the publication also is to bring together
accumulated experiences as a basis for assessing the programme, which is
required for its improvement.
Salmonella prevention requires co-operation among several fields. Actions are
necessary in areas involving the control and research of health care, food production, feedstuff production and veterinary medicine. In addition to surveying
the Salmonella control programme, the authors of the publication also wish to
account for other activities pertaining to Salmonella prevention and thus produce
a more comprehensive overall picture.
In Finland, Salmonella prevention has been found cost-efficient. Prevention demands ample resources, though. The authors of this publication particularly wish
to express their gratitude to all municipal veterinarians, inspection veterinarians,
feed and food supervisors, laboratory personnel, health-care workers, food-chain
operators and all the other parties in the field, whose daily work efforts have made
efficient Salmonella prevention possible.
11
2 National Salmonella control programme
Senior Veterinary Officer Terhi Laaksonen, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, veterinarian Henry Kuronen, senior officer Anna Huttunen, senior officer Mika Varjonen, senior food control officer Mari Laihonen, Evira
2.1 Legislation
The Finnish National Salmonella Control Programme has been applied since 1995.
This programme was approved by decision 94/968/EC of the EU Commission
and covers poultry, swine and cattle, and meat and eggs from these. The control
programme has the objective of protecting consumers against Salmonella infections spread by foods of animal origin. The aim of the continuous programme is
to keep the occurrence of Salmonella in production animals and food originating
from these below 1%.
Under the control programme, the occurence of Salmonella at production farms,
hatcheries, slaughterhouses and meat cutting facilities is regularly examined.
Continuous control is applied to detect occurrences of Salmonella in advance in
foodstuffs of animal origin appearing on markets and for consumption. Detection
of Salmonella will always invoke legal actions to prevent the spread of diseases
and to clarify the origin of contaminations. The programme covers all the various
Salmonella serotypes, and actions required are always same regardless of which
serotype of Salmonella is detected.
Requirements on the control of Salmonella in cattle and swine have been issued
in Decision 23/EEO/1995 by the Veterinary and Food Department at the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry. Requirements on poultry were issued in decisions
19/EEO/1995, 20/EEO/1995 and 21/EEO/1995. These decisions were amended
in 2001 and then they were replaced by Decrees 23/EEO/2001 (on the control of
Salmonella in broilers and turkeys) and 24/EEO/2001 (on the control of Salmonella
in hens) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Requiremets on controlling
Salmonella in slaughterhouses and cutting plants were issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry in decision 8/EEO/1995. The decision was replaced in
2001 by Decree 20/EEO/2001 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Throughout the time it has been in effect, the National Salmonella Control Programme has largely remained unchanged. Modifications effected to the requirements have mainly involved the fine-tuning of details to make them more efficient
in practice. Planning for the reformulating of the control programme began in
2005. A basis for changing the programme was to comply with requirements in
the new EU Regulation 2160/2003 on zoonotic agents, but the primary objective
for the renewal was to make the programme still more functional. For poultry, the
new control programme is planned to begin from 2007 and for cattle and swine
a few years later.
12
2.2 Sampling and control
2.2.1Poultry
Salmonella control of poultry is primarily based on analysis of faecal samples
from live birds. Laying hens, broilers and turkeys are included in the control
programme for live birds. Samples are taken in all production phases from
grandparent, parent and production generation flocks at rearing and production
Reading
stage
Laying
stage
Sampling
time
Sampling
location
Sample
Day-old chicks
Production farm
Bed paper or swab sample
from 10 transport boxes 1
At age of 4 weeks
Production farm
Faecal sample (60 x 1 g) 2
2 weeks before
starting laying
Production farm
Every 2 weeks
Hatcheries
Bed paper from 5 hatching
boxes or meconium sample
of 250 chicks 1
Every 8 weeks
Production farm
Production farms and
hatcheries
Table 1. Basic sampling from
grandparent and parent flocks;
hens, broiler and turkey
1 Samples are pooled into one composite sample
2 Broilers and turkeys: samples are pooled into six composite samples,
hens: samples combined into one common sample.
Sampling
time
Sampling
location
Sample
Reading
stage
2 weeks before
start of laying stage
Production farm
Laying
stage
3 times during laying
period
Production farm
Table 2. Basic sampling from the
production flocks of laying hens
1 Samples are pooled into one composite sample
Reading
stage
1
Sampling
time
Sampling
location
Sample
4 weeks before
slaughtering
Production farm
Samples are pooled into six composite samples
13
Table 3. Basic sampling from
production flocks of broilers and
turkeys
holdings as well as hatcheries. Basic sampling from poultry flocks is presented
in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Basic sampling is the producer’s responsibility. In addition to flock sampling
as shown in the tables, basic sampling also includes production-environment
sampling in hatcheries as required by their self-control plans. Samples taken by
producers at production farms are replaced by official sampling once per year, for
which the control authority is responsible. Official sampling in hatcheries occurs
at eight-week intervals.
Municipal veterinarians appointed as responsible veterinarians function as supervisors of production farms and hatcheries. In addition to taking official samples,
during control visits the responsible veterinarian inspects data collected at the
farm on sampling and on results from laboratory analyses, as well as the hygiene
of production conditions at that farm. Furthermore, the veterinarian gives necessary advice on preventing Salmonella contamination and on good production
hygiene.
Besides basic sampling, the control programme covers additional sampling in
cases where Salmonella contamination has been detected or is suspected. The
municipal veterinarian issues restrictive orders for production holdings where
Salmonella has been detected. Transfer of birds and products from such holdings
is restricted by these orders. In cases of Salmonella, the provincial veterinarian
always also directs an epidemiological investigation to clarify the origin and
distribution of the infection.
Meat of Salmonella-positive flocks must not be delivered to the market untreated.
The meat must be directed to an establishment approved for manufacturing of
heated meat products. In addition, eggs produced by positive flocks must be
used in the manufacturing of heated egg products. If infection by certain invasive
serotypes (S. Enteritidis, S. Typhmurium, S. Infantis, S. Bertha, and S. Thompson) has been detected from a flock, eggs from it must be destroyed. After the
elimination of a positive flock, no new flock may be brought to the same facilities
before the farm has been thoroughly washed and disinfected and environmental
samples taken from the building.
Slaughterhouse and
cutting plants
Table 4. Sampling of poultry meat
in cutting plants
The control programme does not cover Salmonella analysis of poultry flocks in
slaughterhouses. Sampling from neck skins of slaughtered broilers is a regular
practice in many countries. In Finland, neck skin sampling has not been considered
necessary, as the occurrence of Salmonella is low and flocks are examined prior
to slaughtering. Results from Salmonella analysis of flocks must be delivered to
the slaughterhouse and the inspection veterinarian before the flock is slaughtered. Positive flocks are the last to be slaughtered during a day, after which the
Production capacity kg / week
Sampling frequency
> 100 000
20 000 - 100 000
< 20 000
< 5 000
Once a day
Once a week
Once a month
Twice a year
14
slaughterhouse facilities are cleaned and disinfected. Slaughterhouses must also
take care that meat from positive flocks is kept separate from other meat and
directed to heat processing.
The occurence of Salmonella in poultry meat is rearly monitored at cutting plants.
The primary purpose of sampling at cutting plants is to monitor the effects of
flock analysis, i.e., whether positive flocks are successfully eliminated from the
production chain of fresh poultry meat prior to slaughter. Sampling at cutting
plants covers broiler, turkey and hen meat in addition to the meat of duck, goose
and guinea fowl. Cutting plants must include in self-control sampling of meat
from poultry groups they are processing. The sampling frequency depends on
the production capacity of the cutting plants (Table 4). Crushed meat from the
production line, e.g., cutting tables, is taken as samples.
2.2.2Cattle and swine
Monitoring of Salmonella in cattle and swine is based on sampling in slaughterhouses. Lymph node and carcass surface-swab samples are annually taken
from 3 000 cattle, fattening pigs and sows in slaughterhouses. The National Food
Agency annually prepares sampling plans in which the annual sample amounts
are distributed among the different slaughterhouses in proportion to their slaughter
volumes in the previous year. Slaughterhouses are to include sampling in their
self-control plan. Sampling in slaughterhouses must be carried out at random
and be distributed evenly over the entire year. The official veterinarian checks
that sampling is being carried out.
Slaughterhouses and
cutting facilities
For each carcass being analyzed, at least five lymph nodes are collected from
the ileocaecal region. Lymph nodes from one carcass are examined as one
sample. Swab samples are taken by swabbing a total area of about 1 400 cm²
on the carcass. Cattle carcasses have two swabbing areas while those of swine
have three.
In addition to sampling in slaughterhouses, samples of meat from cattle, fattening
pigs and sows are examined in cutting plants for the presence of Salmonella.
Sampling in cutting plants follows the same principles as that in cutting plants
for chickens. In addition, sampling frequency is similar to that in cutting plants
for chickens (Table 4).
If sampling of lymph nodes reveals Salmonella, the municipal veterinarian is
to examine the herd from where the slaughter animal came. If Salmonella is
found in samples from a carcass surface or the cutting plant, the plant must take
measures to clarify the origin of the contamination, increase sampling and also
include environmental samples in the sampling. In addition, facilities and tools
must carefully be washed and disinfected.
This control programme does not similarly include the periodical control of all cattle
and pig holdings as in the poultry programme. Samples are taken at holdings if
the presence of Salmonella is suspected, i.e., if lymph node samples taken from
a farm’s slaughter animal have shown Salmonella, or if Salmonella is suspected
due to clinical symptoms or pathological-anatomical discoveries. Farm animals
are also to be examined if a person participating in taking care of the animals has
been diagnosed with Salmonella infection. In suspect situations, the municipal
veterinarian is always responsible for sampling.
15
Cattle and pig farms
The control programme includes occasional basic sampling even when no Salmonella is suspected. Breeding pig holdings included in the health control programme are to be annually examined for Salmonella. In addition, cattle holdings, of
which bull calves are sent to artificial insemination stations, shall be examined for
Salmonella before the calves are transferred. In addition to the samples included
in the control programme for these, the industry annually collects a significant
volume of self-control samples.
In sampling at holdings, individual and composite faecal samples are taken of
the animals, the number of which depends on the size of the cattle herd and
whether analysis is performed because of suspicion or for some other reason. If
Salmonella is found, the municipal veterinarian issues restrictive orders for the
holding. Animals must not then be delivered from the holding to anywhere other
than slaughterhouses, whereby meat originating from these slaughter animals
must be heated. If the case is a dairy farm, milk must not be transferred from the
farm to anywhere other than a dairy for preparation as pasteurized products. To
eliminate Salmonella contamination from the farm, a specific eradication plan is laid
out. The farm is released from restrictions when the faecal samples of the farm’s
animals have tested negative in Salmonella analysis at two-month intervals.
2.2.3Analysis of samples and data collection
Samples taken as part of the Salmonella Control Programme are analyzed in laboratories approved by either the National Veterinary and Food Research Institute
of Finland, EELA (animal samples), or the National Food Agency (samples from
slaughterhouses and cutting facilities). There are about 50 laboratories in all, most
of which are municipal food laboratories or laboratories at the slaughterhouses.
Accepted methods of analysis are ISO 6579:2002 (previously, ISO 6579:1993)
and NMKL No. 71:1999. In 1999, pre-enrichment not previously used was included
in analyses of faecal samples.
EELA has functioned as national reference laboratory. Other laboratories must
send Salmonella strains they have isolated to EELA for confirmation and characterisation of the serotype. Classification of phage type is carried out by the enteric
bacteria laboratory at the National Public Health Institute.
2.3 Production structure
2.3.1Poultry meat production
From 1995 to 2004, the number of poultry farms in Finland declined by 73% (TIKE
2006). In 2004, Finland had 2041 poultry farms. (TIKE, 2006). A few suppliers
provided chicks of grandparent and parent poultry generations to Finland.
The number of holdings of parent generations of broilers remained almost the
same from 1995 to 2004, when there were 45 altogether. In 2004 there were seven holdings of parent generations of turkeys. The number of holdings of parent
generations of hens has declined since 1995, from about twenty to fourteen in
2004 (Evira, 2006). In 2004, among breeding holdings, 45 produced parent generations of broilers, about 210 produced broilers and 27 produced laying hens
(Finland’s Poultry Association and Finland’s Broiler Association, each at website:
www.siipi.net)
The number of incubated chickens increased between 1995 and 2004. Most incubation was of broiler chicks. Their incubation volume grew by 16.6% between
1997 and 2004. Among incubated poultries, the volume of incubated turkeys grew
16
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Broilers
Turkeys
Chickens
Total
1000 hds
1000 hds
1000 hds
1000 hds
498
741
878
1472
1634
1841
1938
3474
3359
3367
3147
2977
3238
3186
3039
3233
3138
54843
51715
58490
60158
60161
61586
61692
46820
49200
45998
52374
53499
53486
54509
54612
Poultry Association; number of incubations (1995 - 1.9.1997) EELA; number of incubations (1.9.1997 - 28.2.2001)
National Food Agency; number of incubations (1.3.2001 - 2004)
relatively the most, by 289.2% between 1998 and 2004. The number of incubated
laying hens decreased in the control period by 9.7% (Table 5).
There were 6 to 7 poultry slaughterhouses in operation in 1995 and their number
stayed the same until 2004. There were about 30 low-capacity poultry slaughterhouses in 1995 and they numbered 22 in 2004.
In 2004, there were 74 cutting plants and 159 small-scale cutting plants. The
number of cutting plants as well as small-scale cutting plants is estimated to have
slightly decreased since 1995 (Evira, 2006).
From 1995 to 2004, poultry meat represented the third largest percentage (14%)
of meat produced in Finland. In 1995 to 2004, an average of 62.2 million kilograms
of poultry meat was produced annually in Finland.
Most poultry meat produced in Finland in 1995 to 2004 consisted of broilers and
turkeys. Meat production also involved products of ducks, mallards, ostriches,
emus and geese, but breeding these was small-scale (Table 6).
Broilers represented 90% of poultry production. In 1995, 38.2 million kilograms
broiler were produced, and by 2004 production had grown to 71.4 million kilograms. Proportionally, the production of turkey meat grew most compared to
other poultry. In 1995, 1.1 million kilograms turkey meat were produced, which
increased to 14.2 million kilograms in 2004 (Table 7).
Compared to meat of broiler and turkey, the use of hen meat in Finland was minor.
Its production fell from 3.3 million kilograms produced in 1995 to about one third
of this by 2004 (Tike, 2005).
In 1995 to 2004, domestic production of poultry meat significantly increased its
proportion in Finnish meat production (104%). The greatest growth appeared in
turkey production (1218%), while broiler production also grew significantly (85%).
Slaughters of laying hens decreased by one third from 1995 to 2004. In 1995
to 2004, as production became more efficient, the number of slaughterhouses,
slaughter sites and cutting facilities decreased, even though production volumes
increased. In 2004, the production of meat of ducks, mallards, ostriches, emus
and geese was still very small-scale.
17
Table 5. Incubated poultry in
Finland 1995 - 2000
Table 6. Number of poultries in
Finland 1995- 2004
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Laying
hens 1
Chicks 2
1000 hds
4178,8
4183,5
4151,5
3801,8
3361,3
3110,0
3201,7
3212,5
3016,2
3069,2
Roosters
1000 hds
1482,3
1245,6
1287,8
1184,7
1025,3
914,4
1043,0
772,3
930,9
911,6
1
1000 hds
25,2
24,6
32,0
29,5
17,2
17,6
12,4
9,4
10,1
10,4
Broiler
mothers 3
Broilers
Turkeys
Other
poultry
1000 hds
239,8
278,6
299,2
347,1
382,4
363,5
393,9
401,6
346,0
287,4
1000 hds
4276,4
4052,4
4911,1
5507,2
5998,2
7917,9
5412,1
5766,3
6050,3
5573,2
1000 hds
80,0
1000 hds
75,2
1000 hds
10357,7
111,6
144,8
210,0
214,5
455,4
530,5
603,4
535,3
33,4
34,5
39,2
31,6
35,1
41,4
40,2
18,1
10826,6
11049,6
11033,6
12569,5
10553,6
10733,9
10997,0
10405,2
Totally
MMMTike; Annual book of farm statistics 2005. Number poultry by region 1.4.2004 and total country 1990- 2004.
TIKE 2006.
1
In 1995 to 2004 at least 20 weeks.
2
In 1995 to 2004 less than 20 weeks
3
At least 18 weeks
In 1995- 2003, number of poultry 1.5. Table 7. Production and slaughters of
poultry in Finland 1995 - 2004
Year
Broiler
production
1, 2, 3
mil.kg/year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
38,2
44,1
47,6
56,1
59,6
56,3
64,2
68,2
68
70,5
Turkey
production
4, 5
Broiler
slaughters
6, 7, 8
mil.kg/year
1000 hds
1,1
1,2
1,4
2,5
3,9
5,6
8,6
12,2
14,3
14,5
37743,3
42149
43747,1
46522,5
43593,7
49671,6
51872,3
50431,8
51712
7, 8
Chickens and
roosters
slaughters
Total
farm
slaughters
1000 hds
1000 hds
1000 hds
Turkey
slaughters
749,9
1164,9
1521,2
1761,1
1708,5
7, 8
10, 11
2981,1
2721,6
2443,7
1287,1
1321,2
1433,1
990,5
457,6
981,7
10,8
8,8
5,2
10,7
8
14,2
2,6
6,3
1
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2000. Amounts of poultry, lamb and horsemeat slaughtered in slaughterhouses (1996). Tike 2000.
Includes broilers and broiler mothers.
2
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2001. Amounts of poultry, lamb and horsemeat slaughtered in slaughterhouses (1996-2000).
Tike 2000
3
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Slaughters of poultry, lambs and horses (2001- 2004). Tike 2006.
4
Poultry Association; Poultry production in Finland 1995- 2005 (vuodet 1995- 1999). Http://www.siipi.net/broileri/index.
html. Checked 8.4.2006.
5
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Slaughters of poultry, lambs and horses (2001- 2004). Tike 2006.
6
Broiler slaughters in 1995
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2001. Amonts of pigs, poultry, lambs and horses slaughtered in slaughterhouses (1996-2000).
Tike 2006.
8
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Slaughters of poultry, lambs and horses (2001- 2004). Tike 2006. Includes broilers and
broiler mothers
9
Farm slaughters 1995-1996
7
10
Tike; Annual book of farm statistics 2004. Number of slaughtered animals1997-2003. (slaughtered af farms)(19972003). Tike 2005.
11
Tike; Annual book of farm statistics 2005. Number of slaughtered animals 1998- 2004. (2004). Tike 2006.
18
2.3.2Egg production
In 1995 to 2004, egg production could be practised in Finland in cage or barn
holdings. There were 4,2 million laying hens in Finland in 1995. By 2004, the
number of laying hens dropped by 27 %. At the same time, egg production fell
by 19.4 %. In 1995, egg production amounted to 74.7 million kilograms, while
production in 2004 had dropped to 60.2 million kilograms. Egg consumption was
60.5 million kilograms in 1995 and 50.6 million kilograms in 2004. A reduction by
16 % appeared in consumption (Food Facts, 2005).
Eggs exports dropped by 24 %. In 1995, exports amounted to 14 million kilograms, while exports in 2004 were 10.6 million kilograms. For eggs, the degree
of self-sufficiency remained positive throughout 1995 to 2004. Data showing egg
production in 1995 - 2004 are presented in Table 8.
In 1995, there were 65 egg-packing centres, while in 2004 their number had
increased to 149 packing centres (Table 8). The number of packing centers particularly increased at farmsteads. Consumption of eggs dropped in Finland (16.4
%), which also decreased the number of packaged eggs (6.6 %).
In 2004, included in the egg production chain were 2 importers of grandparentgeneration chicks and 12 holdings of parent generations (www.siipi.net/Poultry
Association). During the period from 1995 to 2004, a considerable reduction
occured in the numbers of breeding holdings and egg production holdings. There
were about 60 breeding holdings in 2004, and about 1100 egg-producing holdings
(TIKE 2006).
Although egg production dropped during the control period by 19 %, in 2004, the
degree of self-sufficiency was still 120 %. In 1995, the exported proportion (18.5
%) of total production reached a maximum. This volume was lowest in 2002 (8.6
%) (Table 8).
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Holdings
1
7092
1725
1145
Packing
plants 2, 3
65
129
164
168
160
160
155
157
148
149
Production
5, 6, 7
mil. kg/year
74,7
70,8
66,7
63,9
58,9
59
56,5
54,7
56,2
60,2
To packing
plant 4, 5
mil. kg/year
61
57
56
52
47
47
54,6
52,9
54,9
56,5
Selfsufficiency
Export
%
mil. kg/year
124
125
124
120
115
114
113
110
116
120
8, 9
13,8
14,1
12,9
6,9
6,4
7,1
4,7
8,8
10,4
1
Tike; Holdings register (2004). (1145 holdings in total, of which 745 were pen holdings, 336 floor holdings and 46
biodynamic holdings.)
2
EELA; Packing plant register (1995-2001).
3
National Food Agency; Packing plant register (2001 - 2004).
4
EELA; Number egg delivered to packing plants (1995 - 2000)
5
Tike; Egg production and incubation in 2001 - 2004. Tike 2006. Amounts received by packing plants, does not
include direct sale nor own use.
6
Tike; Annual book of farm statistics 2004 (1995 - 2003). TIKE 2005.
7
Poultry Association / Gallup Food Facts (2004). Http://www.siipi.net/broileri/index.html
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2000. Eggs and incubation in 1995 - 1999. Tike 2000. Period 1995 - 1999 includes egg
mass.
9
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Export of meat and eggs in 2004. Tike 2006. The period 2000 - 2004 includes egg mass
converted to eggs with shell. 8
19
Table 8. Structure
of egg production in
Finland 1995 - 2004
2.3.2.1 Literature
National Food Agency; Register of meat-sector plants.
National Food Agency; Register of packing plants, 2001- 2004.
National Food Agency; Register of small-scale meat-sector plants.
National Food Agency; Poultry incubation statistics, 1997- 2004.
National Food Agency; Registered grandparent and parent generation poultry
plants in Finland 1997- 2004.
National Food Agency; Slaughterhouse register, xx - 2004.
Gallup Food Facts; Poultry production volumes in Finland, 1995 - 2004.
Tike; Egg production structure. Farm research in 1995- 2000.
Tike; Egg production structure. Packing plant statistics and farm register, 19952000.
Tike; Poultry volumes in Finland in 1995 - 1990. Integrated Administration and
Control System (IACS) in 1995 - 1990,
Tike; Poultry volumes in Finland in 2000 - 2004. Integrated Administration and
Control Sys-tem (IACS) in 2000- 2003.
Tike; Poultry volumes in Finland in 1995 - 2004. Separate statistical survey of
farms not applying for supports.
Tike; Structure of egg exports in 1995 - 2004.
Poultry Association; Poultry hatchery registers for 1995 - 1997.
2.3.3Production of pork and beef
In 1995 to 2004, the average annual meat production was about 340 million
kilograms in Finland. Total meat production in 1995 was 306 million kilograms
(with hot-weight reduction). By 2004, production had increased by 19 % to 377
million kilograms. Meat production in Finland was distributed in 2004 such that
pork production represented 53 % and beef 27 %, while chicken production came
third (20 %). Production of sheep and horsemeat was very low. When combined,
they represented about 3 % of Finnish meat production in 2004. Table 9 shows
the amounts of meat production in 1995 to 2004.
Finland had about 25 slaughterhouses for red meat in 1995, and 6 - 7 slaughterhouses for poultry. The low-capacity slaughterhouses for red meat numbered
about 100 and those for poultry about 30. They declined in number by 2004, at
which time there were 18 slaughterhouses for red meat and 7 for poultry. The
slaughter sites for red meat numbered 74 and those for poultry 22. In 2004, there
were 74 cutting plants and 159 small-scale cutting plants (Evira, 2006).
Pigs
The number of pigs other than sows dropped somewhat from 1995 to 2004. In
1995, there were about 1.4 million pigs in Finland, while in 2004 they numbered
about 1.36 millions. The number of hogs (≥ 50 kg) dropped the most in relative
terms, by 28 %. From 1995 to 2004 the number of pigs (20 to 50 kg) and piglets
(< 20 kg) dropped by 4.8 to 4.9 %, while the number of sows (≥ 50 kg) grew by
8.6 % and the number of fattening pigs (≥ 50 kg) decreased somewhat, by 2.1
%. The numbers of pigs is shown per annum in Table 10.
About 168 million kilograms of pork were produced in Finland in 1995. Production
had increased about 19 % by 2004. The number heads of pigs slaughtered in
slaughterhouses grew from 1997 to 2004 by about 8 % (Table 11).
20
The number of bovine animals decreased in Finland by 16 % from 1995 to 2004.
The reduction in the numbers was greatest for calves (22 %) and dairy cows (19
%), while the number of heifers dropped by 8 %. The number of bulls remained
almost the same. Mother cows increased in number by 5 %. Table 12 shows the
numbers of cattle in Finland from 1995 to 2004.
Cattle
On the average, 93 million kilograms of beef were annually produced in Finland. The proportion dropped by 2.8 % from 1995 to 2004. The number of cattle
slaughtered in slaughterhouses dropped by about 20 % from 1997 to 2004
(Table 11).
Pigs
Cattle
Veal
Poultry
mil. kg/yr
mil. kg/yr
mil. kg/vr
milj. kg/yr
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
167,6
171,8
179,7
184,5
181,6
172,8
173,7
184,2
193,2
96
96,4
99,2
93,5
90,2
91,2
89,6
90,6
95,7
0,16
0,19
0,4
0,28
0,24
0,27
0,21
0,12
0,11
42,6
49,4
52,7
61,1
66,1
64,4
75,7
82,6
83,7
1,57
1,35
1,27
1,18
0,91
0,75
0,67
0,64
0,59
0,43
0,47
0,4
0,48
0,41
0,39
0,36
0,31
0,19
308,36
319,61
333,67
341,04
339,46
329,81
340,24
358,47
373,49
2004
198,1
91,2
0,11
87
0,65
0,09
377,15
Year
1, 2
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1, 3
Hogs
≥ 50 kg
1000 hds
6,5
6,6
7,1
7,8
5,8
6,0
5,4
5,3
5,0
4,7
1, 4
Sows
≥ 50 kg
1000 hds
161,1
179,8
185,2
186,5
180,2
184,0
163,6
172,2
178,1
175,0
1, 5
Fattening
pigs
≥ 50 kg
1000 hds
450,8
444,7
470,4
420,6
431,1
404,9
391,2
404,8
444,0
441,2
Lamb and
mutton 1, 6
mil. kg/yr
Pigs
20- 50 kg
1000 hds
Horse
Total
mil. kg/yr
mil. kg/yr
1, 6
Piglets
< 20 kg
1000 hds
306,1
308,8
366,7
357,4
296,9
289,2
291,6
296,0
297,1
291,3
475,7
455,5
437,6
428,7
437,3
411,7
408,9
436,7
450,7
452,4
Pigs total
1000 kpl
1400,2
1395,4
1467,0
1401,0
1351,3
1295,8
1260,7
1315,0
1374,9
1364,6
MMMTike; Annual book of farm statistics 2004. The number of pigs by region and for the whole country, 1.5 1990-2004. TIKE 2005.
Measured weight was live weight.
21
Table 9. Production and slaughter
of meat in Finland 1995 - 2004
Table 10. Number of pigs in
Finland 1995 - 2004
Table 11. Production and slaughter of beef and pork in Finland
1995 - 2004
Year
Beef 1, 2
mil. kg/year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Pork 1, 2
mil. kg/year
96,01
96,36
99,21
93,48
90,24
91,16
89,56
90,61
95,71
93,3
Total beef animals
3, 4
in slaughterhouses
1000 hds
167,55
171,82
179,67
184,52
181,86
172,79
173,7
184,24
193,22
198,5
Pigs 3, 5
in slaughterhouses
1000 hds
397,8
376,8
361,1
355,1
339,1
330,6
335,7
318,5
2181,5
2194,3
2169,7
2045,7
2036,3
2142,6
2289,6
2351,2
1
MMMTIKE: Slaughterhouse statistics and farm research 1995-1999, MMMTIKE: Slaughterhouse statistics 2000 - 2004. (incl. animals slaughtered in slauthterhouses, not slaughters at farms)
3
MMMTike; Agricultural statistics yearbook 2004. Number of slaughtered animals 19972003. TIKE 2004.
4
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Cattle slaughters (hds) in 2004. Tike 2006. Year 2004 includes
cattle slaughtered in slaughterhouses, not slaughters at farms.
5
Tike; Tietokappa 3/2006. Pig slaughters in 2004. Tike 2006. Year 2004 includes pigs
slaughtered in slaughterhouses, not slaughters at farms. 2
Table 12. Number of bovine
animals in Finland
1995 - 2004
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Milk cows
1000 hds
Mother
cows
1000 hds
398,5
392,2
390,9
383,1
372,4
364,1
354,8
347,8
333,9
324,4
29,2
31,1
32,4
30,6
29,6
27,8
27,2
28,1
28,1
30,8
Bulls over
Heifers
1 yr
1000 hds
1000 hds
109,3
114,7
120,5
114,8
118,1
114,9
111,3
115,3
115,5
110,5
188,9
201,1
196,8
190,3
187,5
185,0
181,7
180,0
178,5
173,0
Calves below 1 yr
1000 hds
422,0
406,5
401,8
398,3
379,2
364,8
362,3
354,2
344,1
330,4
Nautaeläimet
yhteensä
1000 hds
1147,9
1145,6
1142,4
1117,1
1086,8
1056,7
1037,4
1025,4
1000,2
969,1
1
MMMTike Annual book of farm statistics 2004. Number of bovine animals by region and total
country in 1984 - 2003. TIKE 2005. (Data for 1995 - 2003).
2
MMMTike; Farm register 2005. Number of domestic animals 1.5.2004 (Data for 2004).
22
2.4 Programme results 1995 – 2004 / Poultry
2.4.1 Laying hen production line
Salmonella was found at egg producing parent and grandparent holdings in 1995
to 2004 only once in 2004 (Table 13).
Salmonella was only isolated from 1- 6 flocks annually among flocks of production-generation laying hens in 1995 to 2000 and 2004, and none at all in 2001 to
2003. For production-generation rearing facilities, Salmonella was found during
four years; 1995, 1997, 2003 and 2004 (Table 14).
Altogether seven serotypes were identified from laying hens (Table 15). Salmonella Typhimurium was the most common serotype and DT 1 the most common
phage type (Appendix 1). The serotype Salmonella Enteritidis, transferred through
products containing raw eggs and thus presenting a greater health risk to people,
was found during two years (1995 and 1999, Table 15) and their phage types
were DT 1 and DT 4. As for the occurrence in 1995, eggs from a holding with
Enteritidis DT 1 caused two epidemics among people.
Poltry production holdings
Year
Total no.
of flocks
tested *
No. of
positive
flocks
% positive
flocks
No. of
positive
holdings
Breeding flocks of Gallus gallus
Rearing period
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
544
441
303
227
318
290
221
98
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Production
period
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
106
62
203
36
145
144
262
74
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
* Flocks are examined every second months at the holding. The same flock repeatedly
may appear in the numbers.
23
Table 13. Breeding flocks of
Gallus gallus egg production line
- sampling at holdings
Table 14. National Salmonella
Control Programme 1995-2004:
Gallus gallus laying hen flocks
Poultry
production
holdings
Year
Total no.
of flocks
tested*
No. of
positive
flocks
No. of
positive
holdings
% positive
flocks
Rearing period
Production period
1995
220
1
0,5
1
1996
262
0
0
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
331
198
113
104
77
281
175
168
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0,3
0
0
0
0
0
0,6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2935
3742
4942
3440
2443
2118
1728
1883
1974
1967
5
4
1
1
6
1
0
0
0
1
0,17
0,11
0,02
0,03
0,2
0,05
0
0
0
0,05
5
4
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
1
* Flocks are examined thrice during the laying period. The same flock repeatedly may
appear in the numbers.
Serovar
Salmonella positive flocks
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Laying hen flocks
Rearing period
Infantis
Typhimurium
Production
period
Corvallis
Enteritidis
Infantis
Mbandaka
Oranienburg
Tennessee
Typhimurium
11)
1
1
1
1
1
11)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Total
6
4
2
1
6
1
0
0
1
2
1)
Same farm
24
2.4.2Meat-producing line (poultry and broilers)
Salmonella was very rarely found in broiler and turkey breeding flocks in 1996
to 2004 (Table 16).
At one rearing holding for broiler parents, several serotypes were isolated in 1999.
In 2002, Infantis contamination was detected at 2 parent-rearing holdings, while
in 2004, Tennessee was isolated from a sample of day-old chicks at one parentrearing holding (Table 17). At broiler-breeding holdings for the production period
during 1996 - 2004, only one Infantis contamination was observed in 1996.
At one turkey parent-rearing holding, Enteritidis DT 4 contamination was found
in 1997, which had possibly come to the holding with foreign breeding eggs.
Contamination was also found at two contact holdings of this rearing holding.
Even in turkey breeding holdings for the production period, Salmonella was only
isolated in 2002 (one Agona flock) and 2003 (three Typhimurium DT1 flocks).
The flocks testing positive in 2003 were at the same farm and at the same time
and the contamination was traced through production environment samples from
the hatchery. At one of the farms that had obtained chicks from this hatchery,
Typhimurium DT1 infection was found.
In day-old chicks samples from hatcheries of fattening broilers and turkeys during
1996 to 2004, Salmonella was found in three years from 1997 to 1999 (Table 18). A
hatchery-originated contamination occurred in 1999, which caused rising numbers
of positive broiler fattening flocks in 1999 compared to previous years.
Poultry
production
holdings
Year
Total no.
of flocks
tested*
No. of
positive
flocks
% positive
flocks
No. of
positive
holdings
Breeding flocks of Gallus gallus and turkey
Rearing period
Production period
1)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
340
211
960
547
319
309
410
308
291
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1212
1268
1253
1171
984
1036
3256
2003
2004
1001
994
0
11)
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0,5
0
0,18
0
0
0,5
0
0,3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
11)
0,08
0
0
0
0
0
0,03
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
31)
0
0,3
0
1
0
Turkey flock
* Flocks are examined every second month at the holding. The same flock may appear
repeatedly in the numbers.
25
Breeding flocks of Gallus gallus,
meat production line and turkey
- sampling at holdings
Control Programme: Breeding
flocks of Gallus gallus meat
production line and turkeys
Serovar
1996
1997
Rearing
Bardo
Brandenburg
Enteritidis
Infantis
Newport
Tennessee
1
11)
Egg production
Agona
Infantis
Typhimurium
1
Total
1
1
Hatcheries
Salmonella positive flocks
1998 1999 2000
Breeding flocks 1)
1
2001
2002
2003
2004
11
2
1
1
32)
0
1
0
0
3
32)
1
1)
1)
Three different serotypes at the same broiler breeding rearing farm
2)
In three turkey breeding flocks at the same farm at the same fime
Samples
Samples from dayold chicks of laying
hens
Samples from dayold chicks of broilers and turkeys
26
Year
No. of
samples
No. of positive
samples
% positive
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
266
235
129
92
86
91
95
76
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1504
1373
1113
996
1274
2040
1998
1697
2087
0
13
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,9
0,2
0,5
0
0
0
0
0
Poultry producing holdings
Year
Total no.
of flocks
No. of positive flocks
% positive
Meat production flocks,
broiler
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2112
2568
2951
2846
2939
2669
2954
3157
3287
80
23
21
20
64
26
17
11
5
3,8
0,9
0,7
0,7
2,2
1
0,6
0,3
0,15
2004
3132
5
0,16
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
238
225
95
252
160
251
312
555
1055
989
0
0
2
0
2
4
2
3
6
1
0
0
2,1
0
1,2
1,6
0,6
0,5
0,6
0,1
Meat production flocks,
turkey
5000
3,5
4500
4000
3
3500
2,5
3000
2500
2
2000
1,5
1500
1
1000
500
0,5
0
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Teurastettu parvia / flocks slaughtered
% positiivisia parvia / % positive flocks
27
% positiivisia / % positive
Näytteitä kpl / No of samples
Siipikarja / Poultry 1995-2004
Control Programme 1995 - 2004:
Meat production flocks of broilers
and turkey
Figure 1. National Salmonella
Control Programme: Prevalence of Salmonella in broiler and
turkey flocks in 1995 to 2004
Control Programme: Salmonella
serovars isolated from broiler
flocks in 1996-2004
Serovar
No. of Salmonella positive flocks
1996
1997
1998
1999
4
10
4
2
3
23
5
9
5
2
21
2
15
1
1
1
20
2
56
5*
2
64
Anatum
Bardo
Infantis
Isangi
Livingstone
Montevideo
Salmonella ssp.
Stockholm
Tennessee
Thompson
Typhimurium
Total
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1
1
14
7
2
1
26
1
5
7
1
2
1
17
3
4
2
1
1
11
1
2
1
1
5
2
2
1
5
* S. Infantis also isolated from one broiler flock
Control Progremme: Salmonella
serovars isolated from turkey
flocks in 1996-2004
Enteritidis phage types isolated
from cattle, swine and poultry in
1995-2004
Serovar
No. of Salmonella positive flocks
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Agona
Enteritidis
Infantis
Mbandaka
Montevideo
Tennessee
Typhimurium
Total
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
5
6
1
1
Phage type
1995
1997
1998
1996
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1)
4)
1 1
1
1 1
4
1
1)
1)
3 3
8
21)
11)
13)
1 2
1
1
33
14)
34
1
NST
12)
2
24)
4
14B
20
1)
6)
2)
7)
6)
7)
NT
14)
Total
7
1
7
0
4
1)
Cattle herds, faecal samples
2)
Cattle, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
3)
Swine herds, faecal samples
4)
Sow, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
5)
Fattening pig, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
6)
Egg production line (all)
7)
Turkeys (all)
28
11)
1)
7)
1
24)
4
15)
2
15)
1
1)
The percentages of Salmonella-positive fattening flocks of broilers and turkeys are
shown in Figure 1, and total numbers in Table 19. In 1995, the overall proportion
of positive flocks was in excess of 3 %. After that, their combined proportion
remained well below 1 %, except for a rise in 1999 (2.1 %). Besides contamination
originating in broiler hatcheries, the increase in 1999 was also affected by the
inclusion of pre-enrichment in the analysis of samples. After 1999, the proportion
constantly declined and was only 0.15 % in 2004.
Serotypes isolated fattening flocks of broilers and turkeys are shown in Tables 20.
and 21. Around 10 serotypes were identified in broilers and seven in turkeys. The
most common serotype in broilers during 1996 - 2004 was Infantis, but Livingstone has been most frequently isolated serotype since 2001. Typhimurium was
isolated from only one fattening flock in 2001 (DT 1) and Enteritidis did not at all
occur in broilers from 1996 to 2004. The most common serotype among turkeys
has been Typhimurium, and Enteritidis was isolated from turkeys in three years.
Enteritidis strains were of phage type DT 4 (Table 22), and the most common
phage type of Typhimurium strains was DT 1 (Appendix 1).
The percentages of Salmonella-positive samples of poultry meat are shown in Figure 2. In 1995, they represented 9.4 %; since 1998, the proportion constantly has
been below 0.8 %, and from 2000 onwards, 0.2 % or less. Not even the increase
in the number of positive fattening flocks in 1999 raised the number of positive
meat samples, Hence, it can be deducted that more efficient cultivation methods
have prevented Salmonella-contaminated meat from reaching consumption.
1200
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Siipikarja / Poultry 1995-2004
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Siipikarjan liha / poultry meat
% positiivisia lihanäytteitä / % positive meat samples
2.4.3Discussion
Salmonella control of poultry is primarily based on the control of production
farms and prevention of Salmonella infection. Controlling primary production and
regular sampling is particularly important poultry, as Salmonella infections are
not generally as evident as diseases in animals. Faecal samples from broilers,
turkeys and laying hens are analyzed in all stages of production, and hatcheries
are also regularly examined for Salmonella. Thus, the objective is to detect Salmonella infections in the early stages before broilers and turkeys are slaughtered
or prior to laying eggs. This efficiently lessens the probability of eggs or meat
contaminated by Salmonella reaching consumption. In addition, meat samples
taken from the production line are regularly examined in cutting plants.
29
Control Programme: Occurence
of Salmonella in poltry samples in
1995 - 2004
Most Finnish broiler farms use a voluntary CE processing (competitive exclusion)
method in which three-day-old chicks are fed with a product made of normal intestinal bacterial flora from adult birds. The treatment has been seen to prevent the
implantation of Salmonella bacteria in chick intestines and to increase resistance
against them. The method has been successfully used in Finland since the 1970s
to prevent Salmonella in poultry.
For poultry, the Salmonella situation was already relatively good when the national control programme took effect in 1995. By regular sampling at all stages
and through preventive actions, the occurrence of Salmonella has continuously
decreased. When detecting contamination, effort is always placed into tracing
the source of contamination and preventing it from spreading in birds in the production chain and to food originating from these. Preventive actions include the
destruction or heating of eggs, the use of meat from Salmonella-contaminated
flocks only in heat-treated products, and disinfection of production farms. The
functionality of the programme has also been monitored, and the efficiency of the
control programme was improved for poultry in 2001. In 1999, pre-enrichment
was added to the procedure for analyzing samples of Salmonella, whereby is
possible to detect ever smaller quantities of bacteria.
The Salmonella control programme is aimed at keeping the percentage of positive Salmonella samples below 1 % in all sampling categories. For poultry, this
goal was satisfactorily achieved during the programme, except for exceeding the
limit in 1999 for in broiler tattening flocks (2.2 %). Internationally, even this level
is very low.
From the results of the control programme, one may thus deduce that the above
risk management activities efficiently prevent the spread of Salmonella infections
and that Salmonella-positive food reaches consumers.
2.5 Programme results 1995 – 2004 / Cattle and pigs
2.5.1Cattle and beef
As a rule, Salmonella infections was detected due to clinical suspicions, more
efficient monitoring, and findings from slaughterhouses. In addition from cattle
were examined when bulls were sold to artificial insemination stations, and Salmonella analysis was mostly also required in connection with other animal trade,
particularly at the end of the period covered by this report. These analyses have
also revealed Salmonella-positive cattle while the control programme has been
in effect.
The results of the national Salmonella control for cattle in slaughterhouses are
shown in Table 23.
The results of the national Salmonella control for cattle in cutting facilities are
shown in Table 24, and percentages of Salmonella-positive meat samples in
Figure 3. In 1995, this percentage was about 0.6 %. Since 1998, as a rule, the
percentage has been 0.1 % or less except, for slight increases in 2001 to 2002.
Before 1995, Salmonella infections occurred relatively seldom among cattle (Fig.
4). The year 1995 was the peak year for Salmonella infections, when it was isolated
from 287 herds. In the period from 1995 to 1996 an S. Infantis outbreak carried
by contaminated feed spread among cattle in Finland. Since 1996, the number
of infections has been decreasing. In 2000, less Salmonella was found among
cattle than ever in the 1990s; in 2002 to 2004, fewer than ten of Salmonella-posi-
30
Cattle
Lymph node samples
Carcass surface swabs
Year
Total no.
of
samples
No. of
positive
samples
% positive
samples
Total no.
of samples
No. of
positive
samples
% positive
samples
1995
2728
23
0,8
3209
24
0,8
1996
2550
6
0,2
2781
15
0,5
1997
3116
2
0,1
3131
7
0,2
1998
3189
10
0,31
3227
7
0,22
1999
3104
5
0,16
3100
3
0,1
2000
3025
1
0,03
3154
3
0,1
2001
3189
10
0,30
3535
12
0,3
2002
3141
2
0,06
3146
1
0,03
2003
3141
2
0,06
3406
2
0,06
2004
3058
6
0,20
3251
0
0
Beef
Year
No. of crushed meat
samples
No. of positive samples
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
2329
3001
3189
3016
15
4
5
2
0,64
0,13
0,16
0,07
1999
3035
3
0,1
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2600
2050
1948
2404
2485
2
4
7
2
1
0,1
0,2
0,4
0,08
0,04
0,7
3000
0,6
Näytteitä kpl/No of
samples
3500
2500
0,5
2000
0,4
1500
0,3
1000
0,2
500
0,1
0
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Leikkaamo: lihanäytteet / Cutting plant: meat samples
31
Naudat / Cattle 1995-2004
control progremme 1995-2004:
Salmonella samples from slaughterhouses and low capacity
slaughterhouses, cattle.
Control Progremme 1995-2004:
Salmonella samples from cutting
plants, beef.
Control Programme: Occurence
of Salmonella in beef samples in
1995 – 2004
Figure 4. Salmonella-positive
cattle herds in 1993 – 2004
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Salmonellapositiiviset karjat yhteensä/total no. of positive herds
Infantis
Typhimurium
Muut serotyypit/other serotypes
Table 25. National Salmonella Control Programme:
Salmonella serovars isolated
from cattle herds in 19952004
Serovar
No. of Salmonella positive herds
Abony
Agona
Altona
Anatum
1995
7
1996
4
1997
1
7
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
12)
2
1
1
1
12)
1
12)
1
1
2
1
18
2
2
433)
53)
15)
5)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1)
8
4
5
6
2
5
10
Bovismorbificans
Brandenburg
Bredeney
Chailey
Enteritidis
Gatuni
Hadar
Havana
Infantis
1
1
3
243
1
1
1
1
125
21)
31)
1
1
60
Kentucky
Konstanz
Mbandaka
Panama
Poona
Reading
Rubislaw
Saintpaul
Schwarzengrund
S. ssp. IIIb (50:z10:z)
Stanley
Takoradi
Tennessee
Typhimurium
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
15
1
8
14
Salmonella ssp.
Total no. of positive
herds
2
44
1
6
5
287
196
97
69
31
4)
1)
S. Infantis also isolated from one herd
2)
Salmonella sp. also isolated from the same herd
3)
Salmonella sp. also isolated from two herds
4)
S. Infantis also isolated from four herds
5)
S. Infantis and S. Kentucky isolated from the same herd
32
14
11
95
7
7
tive herds were found annually. In 1995 to 2004, about thirty different serotypes
were found altogether among cattle (Table 25). The most common serotype in
1995 to 2000 was Infantis and after 2001, Typhimurium. Even of these, only 2
to 6 were annually found among cattle in 2001 to 2004. Typhimurium was found
in 2004 at two calf-rearing units and at one beef farm. Previously, Salmonellapositive cattle had as a rule been at dairy farms, but Salmonella infections had
also earlier been found in beef cattle at individual combined farms.
The percentages of Salmonella-positive cattle lymph node samples from 1995
to 2004 are illustrated in Figure 5. In 1995, during the initial year of the control
programme, this percentage was 0.8 %, after which it decreased to remain below
0.35 %.
For 1995 to 2004, the percentages of Salmonella-positive swab samples from
cattle carcasses are presented in Figure 6. The percentage in 1995 for this sample
group was 0.7 %, but since 1999 it has as a rule been 0.1 % or less.
Control Programme: Lymph node
samples from cattle in 1995-2004
Naudat / Cattle 1995-2004
0,9
0,8
3000
0,7
2500
0,6
2000
0,5
1500
0,4
0,3
1000
0,2
500
0,1
0
3500
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Teurastamo: imusolmuke / Slaughterhouse: lymph nodes
% positiivisia imusolmukkeita / % positive lymph nodes
Control Programme: Cattle carcass-surface swabs in 1995-2004
4000
0,8
3500
0,7
3000
0,6
2500
0,5
2000
0,4
1500
0,3
1000
0,2
500
0,1
0
Naudat / Cattle1995-2004
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Teurastamo: ruhon pintasively / Slaughterhouse: carcass surface swabs
% positiivisia pintasivelyjä / % positive surface swabs
33
In samples from cattle at slaughterhouses and cutting facilities, Typhimurium was
the most common serotype in 1999 to 2004 and Infantis in 1997 to 1998 (Table
26). Altogether, around ten serotypes were recorded.
Results of S. Typhimurium phage types among cattle are shown in Appendix
1. During 1995 to 2004, 14 phage types were recorded. DT 1 has by far been
the most common phage type, DT 68 the next most frequent. After 1997, no
S.Typhimurium phage type DT 104, resistant to many antibiotics and a importat
cause for disease among people abroad, has been found among cattle. Phage
types DT 40, DT 41 and DT u277, which are typical for wild birds, have appeared
as individual infections along the years.
At the end of 1996, the serotype S. Poona was found at one farm, when it had
spread to people via raw milk directly sold from the farm. In 1997, seven additional
Poona herds were found; they also caused a few people to become ill. Previously
S. Poona serotype had been isolated in Finland a fur farms, and it has annually
been isolated from fur-animal feedstuffs. Unripened cheese made from raw milk
from one farm in 1999 apparently directly or indirectly caused four Typhimurium
DT 1 epidemics in August-September.
In 2004, in a faeces sample from one farm sending bulls to an artificial insemination station, Salmonella ssp. IIIb (= subsp. diarizonae) was detected. Previously,
no other subspecies than enterica strains have been isolated from cattle faeces
in Finland, and as a rule, isolations of subspecies diarizonae have been from
poikilothermic animals (lizards, snakes, turtles). From the results, one cannot
determine the incidence of Salmonella infections among cattle; sampling was
not carried out randomly, but selectively based on suspicions. One may assume,
however, that number of Salmonella-positive herds has been few in proportion to
the total number of herds (on average about 30 000 hds, the number constantly
decreasing).
serovars isolated from beef
Serovar
Agona
Enteritidis
Heidelberg
Indiana
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1
11)
32)
12)
21)
12)
23)
3)
13)
2002 2003 2004
Infantis
52) 13)
Kentucky
Konstanz
Poona
41)
6 62)
13)
Typhimurium
11) 13)
13)
Salmonella ssp.
61)
152)
43)
25
22) 13)
12)
13)
21)
12)
73)
11)
14
19
11
6
26
10
6
7
ns
1)
23 24
153)
Total
62
ns = no statistics
1)
Lymph node sample
2)
Carcass surface swabs
3)
Crushed meat samples
2)
34
1)
11) 32)
13)
11) 13)
31) 13) 32) 13)
1)
2
11)
71) 92)
43)
11)
51)
13)
2.5.2Pigs and pork
Faecal samples are examined based on clinical suspicion and discoveries at
slaughterhouses, as well as samples from hogs being sold to artificial insemination stations, and from swine farms included in health control. In 1995 to 2004,
Salmonella infections in swine herds were particularly rare (Table 27).
Results for the national Salmonella control of pigs in cutting plants are presented
in Table 28, and the percentages of Salmonella-positive meat samples in Figure
7. In 1995, the percentage was about 0.4 %, but since 1996 it has generally been
0.05 % or less. In 1996, 2000 to 2001 and 2004, no positive meat samples at
all were recorded.
serovars isolated from swine.
Serovar
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Abony
Agona
1
13)
Brandenburg
Cerro
Derby
Eastbourne
Enteritidis
Hadar
Hvittingfoss
16)
13)
21)
21)
11) 22)
46)
16)
22)
16) ,A)
11) 14)
Kentucky
Konstanz
Litchfield
Livingstone
Muenster
Poona
Tennessee
11 16
33 15
Salmonella ssp.
16)
22) 23)
13)
15)
11)
13)
21) 12)
23)
15)
11)
21)
11) 23)
15) 16)
11)
26
21)
23)
11)
Typhimurium
11)
13)14)
16)
11)
21) 12)
43)
15)
Infantis
16)
11) 12) 23)
15)
11) 12)
13)
36)A)
15)
11)
81) 62)
53) 54)
13)
12) 24)
25
11)
16
13
13
6
9
14
16A
9
ns
not typed
Total
91) 42)
103) 44)
105)
44
3)
15)
11)
11)
11)
11) 32)
ns = not statistics
1)
Lymph node samples, sow
2)
Carcass surface swabs, sow
3)
Lymph node sample, fattening pig
4)
Carcass surface swabs, fattening pig
5)
Crushed meat samples
6)
Faecal sample from positive swine herds
A)
S. Brandenburg and Infantis were isolated from faecal samples from one swine herd
B)
Faecal samples were already positive in November 2003
35
16) B)
11)
14)
31)
samples from cutting plants, pork
Pork
Year
No. of crushed
meat samples
No. of positive
samples
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2695
3358
3741
4427
3502
3472
2605
1840
2826
3092
10
0
1
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0,37
0
0,03
0,05
0,03
0
0
0,1
0,07
0
The percentages of Salmonella-positive lymph-node samples from sows and
fattening pigs in 1995 to 2004 are illustrated in Figure 8. This percentage has
constantly been 0.3 % or less, and 0.15 % or less since 1997.
The percentages Salmonella-positive carcass-swab samples from sows and fattening pigs in 1995 to 2004 are shown in Figure 9. This percentage has constatly
been 0.1 % or less, except for 1996, when it was still only 0.2 %. No positive
swab samples were recorded from fattening pigs in 2000 to 2003.
The most common serotype during 1995 to 2004 in samples from slaughterhouses and cutting plants for pigs was Typhimurium, while the next most common
were Infantis and Enteritidis (Table 27). Altogether, 18 different serotypes were
detected.
The phage type results for S. Typhimurium in pigs are presented in Appendix 1.
In 1995 to 2004, around ten phage types were confirmed, DT1 being the most
common. Multi-resistant phage type DT 104 was isolated from just one lymph
node sample in 2004.
No Salmonella-positive faecal samples at all were found in 1998 from 2001 to
2002. Most infections were recorded in 1995; when there were seven positive
pig farms. In addition, at one farm with positive faeces (S. Infantis) in 1999, S.
Enteritidis was found in another herd while an autopsy was being performed on
a piglet, but no Salmonella was detected in samples of faeces from that herd. At
one cattle farm in 2000, S. Infantis infections were found in both cattle and pigs.
These pigs were not covered by the health control programme for pigs. In 2003,
S. Brandenburg was isolated in faeces from three and S. Typhimurium DT1 from
one swine herd not included in the health control programme. Two of the farms
with S. Brandenburg had mutual activities, and Infantis was also found at one of
them. Generally, the infected swine farms were quickly cleaned from contamination, but Salmonella was isolated from faeces from the farm with Typhimurium
almost throughout 2003. The farm that tested positive in 2004 (Brandenburg) had
already been found positive in November 2003. In 1995 to 2004, from all samples
of faeces from pigs, five different serotypes were isolated (Table 27).
The results from the National Salmonella Control Programme for sows and fattening pigs in slaughterhouses are presented in Table 29.
36
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
Näytteitä kpl / No of
samples
emakot ja lihasiat /
Sows and fattening pigs 1995-2004
Control Programme: Meat samples from sows and fattening pigs
in 1995 – 2004
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Leikkaamo: lihanäytteet / Cutting plant: meat samples
0,35
6000
0,3
samples
7000
5000
0,25
4000
0,2
3000
0,15
2000
0,1
1000
0,05
0
Control Programme: Lymph node
samples from sows and fattening
pigs in 1995 - 2004
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Teurastamo: imusolmuke / Slaughterhouse: lymph nodes
% positiivisia imusolmukkeita / % positive lymph nodes
samples
6800
0,25
6600
0,2
6400
6200
0,15
6000
0,1
5800
5600
0,05
5400
5200
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Teurastamo: ruhon pintasively / Slaughterhouse: carcass surface swabs
% positiivisia pintasivelyjä / % positive surface swabs
37
Control Programme: Carcasssurface swab samples from
sows and fattening pigs in 1995
Control Programme: Salmonella samples from slaughterhouses and low capacity slaughterhouses, pigs.
Origin of
the
sample
Sows
Lymph node samples
Year
Total no.
of
samples
No. of
positive
samples
%
positive
samples
Total no.
of
samples
No. of
positive
samples
%
positive
samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2725
2627
3165
3070
2984
3120
3181
2952
2962
3304
9
8
4
3
4
2
6
4
6
6
0,3
0,3
0,1
0,1
0,13
0,06
0,19
0,14
0,20
0,18
2867
2711
3137
3041
2968
3123
3177
2963
2963
3201
4
6
3
1
1
0
3
5
1
0
0,1
0,2
0,1
0,03
0,03
0
0,1
0,17
0,03
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2792
2683
3209
3247
3143
3242
3223
3210
3300
10
5
6
5
5
3
0
3
3
0,30
0,20
0,20
0,16
0,15
0,09
0,00
0,09
0,09
2995
2964
3196
3224
3187
3264
3272
3297
3223
4
5
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0,1
0,2
0
0,06
0,03
0
0
0
0
Fattening
pigs Carcass surface swabs
2.5.3Discussion
Subsequent to the Infantis outbreak among cattle in 1995 and the consequent
more efficient survey, the number of Salmonella-positive herds peaked in that
year. Since 1996, their number each year has decreased, and in 2000 it dropped
for the first time below the level at the beginning of the 1990s. In 2002 to 2004,
Salmonella was annually isolated at fewer than ten farms. For cattle and pigs,
the level of Salmonella findings in all sample groups positively met the objective
of less than 1 % set by the National Salmonella Control Programme.
Eliminating common infection sources is extremely important in preventing the
spread of Salmonella outbreaks. The S. Infantis outbreak demonstrated how
Salmonella might rapidly spread over wide areas via fodder. Disinfection of the
factory distributing the contaminated feed was essential for getting that outbreak
under control. In preventing the spread of the outbreak on the local level, the
use of efficient farm-specific preventive actions absolutely was and is important.
Salmonella may spread further from one farm to another while having no common
source of infection, for example, through people and tools, and via animals being
sold. Particularly in densely populated areas, wild birds and rodents may also
transfer infections. Knowledge of these risks and careful prevention and compliance with protective actions at farms reduces the spread of infections. During
the Infantis outbreak and afterwards, particularly due to advisory work on the local
level and action subsequently taken, the number of Salmonella infections has
continuously decreased over the years. Preventive actions against Salmonella
also prevent the access of other contagious diseases to farms and their spread;
hence, multiple advantages are achieved.
While reviewing the statistics on infections among cattle, it appears that infections
38
by serotypes S. Infantis and particularly S. Agona prevailed among certain cattle
for years. Serotype S. Enteritidis was only isolated in individual cases over the
years, but even this has had a tendency to remain within a herd for a long. After
becoming infected by S. Typhimurium, cattle are generally cleaned of infection
within a few months. No multi-resistant strains of Typhimurium DT 104 were
isolated at cattle farms after 1997. Infection with Typhimurium DT 41, typical
for wild birds and particularly seagulls, did not appear to very easily spread to
cattle; generally, this has no longer been isolated from repeated samples, and
disinfection of infection with Typhimurium DT 41 appears to rapidly take effect.
A large proportion of other individual serotypes have also rapidly disappeared
and have often only been isolated once. Serotype Poona, causing human infection via raw milk in 1996 to 1997, has repeatedly been isolated from fur-animal
feedstuffs. Cattle or pig farms may be located in the vicinity of fur farms or be
run by the same owner, and the risk of spread of disease must then be taken
into account at these at farms.
The expanding unit sizes among cattle farms, as well as increasiang frequency
of freestall dairy barns and three-stage rearing units in meat production have
presented new challenges in the prevention of Salmonella. Animals moving
freely in freestall barns run a greater risk of becoming infected under disease
conditions and their disinfection may then be more difficult than for cows in tie
stall barns. Hence, disease prevention must receive particular attention.
Calves may arrive at calf-rearing units from 30 to 40 farms. Isolating the original
source of Salmonella infection is then laborious, expensive and often impossible.
Disinfection of these farms is also demanding because of the risk of repeated
infection if no separate facilities are available where decontaminated animals
can be transferred to. Even then, while samples are being analyzed for Salmonella, disinfected animals may become re-infected before being transferred to a
separate place when the results are ready. In addition, the planning of sampling
requires a great deal of thought when the number of individuals is large.
While the National Salmonella Control Programme has been in effect, Salmonella
has only been isolated in swine as individual cases. However, Salmonella has
more often been detected in lymph nodes from pigs than in faecal samples from
farms. Lymph nodes have also carried out three times the number of serotypes
in relation to faecal samples. Generally, as pigs excrete little Salmonella in their
faeces, finding infections in live animals is very difficult, and analysis of faeces
will not always reveal infections. Analysis of lymph nodes is therefore more efficient than faecal sampels for controlling Salmonella infections in pigs. In EU
countries, where infection is abundant, survey research and efforts to reduce
occurrences are applying analysis of meat fluids through serological methods
carried out at slaughterhouses. Although these are considered cost-efficient methods for screening, serotype data are necessary for epidemiological monitoring
and hence, to that end, bacteriological isolations are necessary.
As pig-producing units are also increasing in size, quantifying the number of
animals to be extended increasingly demands evaluation to reveal subliclinical
infections, particularly because of the poor secretion in faeces. Symptomless
infections in holdings of hundreds of sows may quickly spread infection to several fattening units. This has so far been avoided, and preventive actions are
of essential importance. Through efficient cleaning and disinfecting actions, the
few Salmonella-positive herds have mostly been cleaned relatively rapidly. In
locations where infection has prevailed for longer, deficiencies in the implementation of the disinfection plan have been observed.
39
3 Evaluation of the Salmonella Control
Programme
Researcher Satu Lievonen, researcher Heidi Rosengren, mathematician Jukka Ranta, researcher Pirkko
Tuominen, Evira
3.1 Background
The current Salmonella prevelence and risk caused to Finnish consumers through
animal-derived foods related to the Finnish Salmonella Control Programme were
quantitatively assessed in order to present the current Salmonella situation in
Finland. The need to evaluate the situation in a format comparable with other
coutries arose from the commercial policy carried out both internationally and in
the European Union.
Efforts to achieve global free trade led to the establishment of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the so-called SPS Agreement) (SPS 1994). Acoording to the SPS Agreement,
every member has the right to protect human, animal or plant life or health within
its territory, but only if the measures adopted are not applied ”in a manner which
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
Members where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade”. Furthermore, the measures applied have to be based on scientific
principles and cannot be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.
The SPS Agreement also provides that the evidence about the justification of the
measurements is based on an assessment of the risks to human, animal or plant
life or health. Since Finland entered the EU and WTO in 1995, the requirement
triggered the need to evaluate the Finnish Salmonella Control Programme and
to assess the risk caused to the Finnish consumers by the foods associated with
the control programme.
3.2Risk assessment of Salmonella in Finland
As consequence of international developments, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry commissioned the National Veterinary and Food Research Institute of
Finland, EELA (since 1.5.2006 the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira) in 1998,
to carry out a risk assessment on Salmonella in the broiler, egg, beef and pork
production chains. In addition, evaluation was required of the efficiency of the Finnish Salmonella Control Programme, and the special guarantees (until 1.1.2006
’additional guarantee’) that were granted Finland on entrering the EU. At EELA,
the scientific risk assessment was concentrated in a research unit established
in 2001 for risk assessment.
Risk assessments conducted at EELA on Salmonella have been carried out in
accordance with the principles approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission
(CAC/GL-30 1999). They were quantitatively assessed, as the goal was to assess
the risk along production chains with quantified uncertainty. Probabilistic methods
with a Bayesian approach were exploited in order to reach both of the goals with
40
the same simulation models. The information used in the assessments was based
on that collected from official statistics and on data from different authorities and
agencies, scientific literature and the expertise of those representing industry.
The statistics mainly concerned the situation in 1999 (except those concerning
egg production that were mostly based on the data for 2001). Risk assessments
cover all Salmonella serovars, as does the control programme.
As an approach to the assessments, the Salmonella prevalences along the production chains in a given year were assessed, and the results was considered
as the default Salmonella situation in Finland. The default was then compared
with scenarios in which 1. the risk management actions would be partially or
completely removed; 2. the occurrence of Salmonella would significantly increase
or 3. imports from countries where Salmonella is more common than in Finland
would increase. The risk assessment on Salmonella in broiler, egg and pork
production have been completed (Maijala and Ranta 2003, Ranta et. al. 2004,
Lievonen et. al. 2006). Assessment of broiler production has also been utilized
in the evaluation of economic implacts.
3.2.1Salmonella risk in Finnish broiler production
Risk assessment was based on the control programme’s results in 1999, when
the occurence of Salmonella in broilers was at its highest since launching the
programme. The situation in 1999 was compared with hypothetical situations in
which the control programme’s risk management actions would not be in use,
and/or Salmonella would be found in one grandparent generation flock or in five
parent generation flocks. Furthermore, using a model characterising consumption,
a situation was examined in which half of the broiler meat consumed in Finland
would be replaced by meat having a projected Salmonella presence of 20 to 40
%.
In 1999, the control programme detected Salmonella in 64 broiler flocks. In that
year, there were altogether 2939 flocks. As estimated by the simulation model,
Salmonella occurred on the average in 91 flocks, i.e., the actual prevalence was
0.9 to 5.8 % (95 % credible interval). Irrespective of the Salmonella situation,
efficient risk management tools for protecting consumers proved to be the elimination of Salmonella-positive breeder flocks from production and the heating of
meat originating from positive broiler flocks. If Salmonella-positive breeder flocks
were not removed from production, the prevalence of Salmonella would rise to
1.3 to 17.4 % in broiler flocks. Then, the number of people infected by Salmonella
originating from broiler meat would increase by the same percentage, i.e., an
average approximate increase of 1.6-fold. If Salmonella-positive breeder flocks
were removed from production, but meat of Salmonella-positive broiler flock was
not heated, the number of human infections would increase 4.1-fold (95 % range
2.9- to 5.4-fold). If neither risk-management action were in use, the number of
infections among humans would increase 5.6-fold (95 % range 3.8- to 9.0-fold).
By deductions, the risk management actions included in the control programme
would still be more efficient at protecting consumers in situations where the
presence of Salmonella among breeder flocks would increase in relation to the
situation in 1999.
According to this risk assessment, the additional Salmonella guarantees for
Finland regarding broilers have effects that protect consumers. The assessment
determined that if half the broiler meat consumed in Finland were replaced by meat
having a 20 to 40 % presence of Salmonella, the number of Salmonella-infected
people would display a 33- to 93-fold increase. The assessment concluded that
the mandatory actions as employed in the National Control Programme, such
41
as eliminating Salmonella-positive breeder flocks from production and heat processing meat from positive broiler flocks, significantly reduce domestic human
cases of Salmonella. The combining of actions targeted at different stages in
the production chain is more efficient than the effects of such actions applied
separately. The preventive effect would be even more significant if Salmonella
appearance in production chains was more frequent than today.
3.2.2Salmonella risk in Finnish pork production
The risk assessment on Salmonella in pork production covered chain from slaughter animals up to the consumer. According to the results, Salmonella prevalence
of the slaughtered fattening pigs was 0.6 % (mean, 95 %, credible interval [0.2
%, 1.3 %]). The special guarantees covered only by 1 % of all pork consumed
in Finland. According to the assessment, Salmonella contaminated 0.3 % - 2.7
% of pork (with 95 % credibility) and pork-derived (computational) food portions
leaving the industry for consumption. (Ranta et al. 2005)
Pork and pork-derived foods available in Finland were estimated to cause at most
about 4.5 % of the totall number (less than 3000) of human Salmonella cases
registered in 1999. Domestically produced pork and pork-derived products were
estimated to have caused about 55 %, whereas the share of the imported pork
and pork-derived products was about 45 % of all the Salmonella cases acquired
from pork.
Based on the risk assessment, the occurrence of Salmonella in primary production
had a clear effect on the consumer risk. Even though domestic pork was estimated
to cause over half of the human Salmonella cases due to pork, the influence of
imported pork and pork-derived foods was assessed as being larger. The ability
of the special guarantees (Commission Decision 95/161/EC) to protect consumers
against Salmonella in pork and pork-derived products is limited in a situation similar to that of the assessment year, because the guarantees only target a small
proportion of imports (11 %) and consumption (0.9 %). In the scenario with import
increasing and/or with import countries changing, the significance of the special
guarantees will possibly increase
3.2.3Salmonella risk in Finnish beef production
The risk assessment of beef production covered the chain from live animals up
to the consumer. If revealed that the true Salmonella prevalence among live bovine animals (mean 0.2 %, 95 % credible interval [0.2 %, 0.4 %]) and slaughter
animals (mean 0.2 %, 95 % credible interval [0.1 %, 0.4 %]) was clearly below
the 1 % target level (Ranta et al. 2005). The true Salmonella prevalence among
cattle herds was assessed at almost 1 %. (mean 0.9 %; 95 % credible interval
[0.5 %, 1.4 %]).
The true prevalence of Salmonella in imported beef and beef-derived foods was
assessed as being minor (mean 0.7 %, 95 % credible interval [0.5 %, 1.0 %])
(Tuominen et al. 2006). Without applying the special guarantees, the prevalence
would clearly have been greater (95 % credible interval [0.9 %, 1.6 %], mean
1.2 %). However, as the guarantees concerned only a part of imports, those not
included decidedly affects the occurrence of Salmonella. The total amount of fresh
beef and beef-derived products imported in 1999 was assessed to cover about
13 % of consumption, and beef imported under special guarantees about 3 %.
Changes in the percentage of imports and/or that of imports from countries with
greater Salmonella prevalence also directly affect the presence of Salmonella in
foods available in Finland and the consumer risk via them.
42
According to preliminary calculations, the magnitude of the risk caused by the
beef and beef-derived foods available in Finland is of the same magnitude as
that caused by pork and pork-derived foods.
3.2.4Salmonella risk in Finnish egg production
The risk assessment evaluating egg production assessed the probability of
Salmonella appearinwag in primary production, starting from imported grandparent-generation chicks and ending in eggs being for sale. This analysis assessed
how often hens having caught Salmonella infection lay eggs containing Salmonella and how these eggs are distributed among households, industrial kitchens
and the food industry for use by these, and the probability of a dish containing
Salmonella-contaminated raw or soft-cooked eggs being prepared. Finally, the
number of cases in Finland caused by eggs containing Salmonella was assessed,
according to the situation of 2001.
Based on the risk assessment, Salmonella appears on average among 0.3 %
of industrial egg-producing flocks annually. According to the model, production
flocks with Salmonella contamination would have produced from 0 to 7400 eggs
containing Salmonella in 2001 (95 % credible interval), the mean value being
1800 contaminated eggs annually, i.e., about two contaminated eggs for each one
million eggs produced. This level is particularly low by international standards.
According to the model, an average of 3 % of the domestic human Salmonella
infections reported in 2001 (390 cases) would have been transmitted by eggs.
Using the model, the protective effects on consumers was assessed for risk
management actions included in the control programme, which were mandatory
the removal of Salmonella-positive flocks, and special guarantees concerning
imported eggs. The elimination of positive flocks proved an efficient means of risk
management, also offering consumers significant protection when prevalence
of Salmonella in the egg production chain is rare. With Salmonella occurrence
increasing, the protective effect was found to be increasingly pronounced. The
special guarantees for imported eggs were also found to have significant protective effects on consumer health. When 30 % egg consumption was replaced by
eggs in which the Salmonella occurrence was 0.06, 0.5 or 1 %, the numbers of
Salmonella infections transmitted by eggs increased 70 to 1000 -fold.
3.3Remarks on the Salmonella risk assessment
According to the above-described risk assessments, the true Salmonella prevalence remained on average below the target level for the national control
programme of 1 % in all assessed food production chain (i.e. egg, broiler, meat,
pork and beef production).
The risk management were also applied to assess the influence of some of
the risk management options. Not all risk management measures associated
with the Finnish Salmonella control programme could be assessed because
of a lack of data suitable for quantitative assessment. Measures that had to be
ignored included restrictive regulations imposed on farms, sanitation measures
carried out in cow-pens, and additional sampling and sanitation to carried out in
slaughterhouses and meat cutting plants. They have all been applied in order
to limit the spread of Salmonella after a positive Salmonella detection, but were
not included in the assessment.
43
The interventions associated with the broiler and egg control programs (such
as heat-treatment of broiler meat and elimination of the flocks with detected
Salmonella) protect the consumers effectively from the risks caused by broiler
meat and eggs in production chains. However, there are no similar interventions
in the control programme concerning pork and beef production. Therefore, the
sole risk management option for pork and beef production modelled was special
guarantees acquired as a consequence of the control programme.
Eggs, broiler meat, pork and beef were assessed to cause only part of all the
endemic food-borne Salmonella cases. However, the estimation of the total risk of
food-borne Salmonella also requires information on and research into the impact
of other sources, such as vegetable foods. Therefore, it would be necessary to
further investigate the factors causing human cases, and create a common model that combines all the sources of cantamination for human Salmonella cases.
This presents a future challenge in the development of scientific risk-assessment
methods that will presumably evolve towards assessing increasingly complex
food chains and exploiting fragmental information through novel computational
methods that integrate system analysis, modern biostatistics and modelling. Here,
we have only made a start, albeit a good one.
Calculations have primary been based on the production, consumtion and
morbidity data from 1999, but the results are applicable as long as the basic
situation mostly remains the same. If the current situation or the structure of the
production changes, the risk assessment may be repeated using existing models
or by altering them. Experience from conducting risk assessments of production
chains as well as their results might also be uset to prepare and develop other
control programmes.
3.4 Evaluating the Finnish Salmonella Control Programme
Changes to EC’s legislation on zoonotic agents and its regulation on microbial
criteria (2160/2003/EC, 1003/2005/EC, 2073/2005/EC) made it necessary to
amend Finland’s National Salmonella Control Programme. Therefore, the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry commissioned EELA to carry out a qualitative and
partly quantitative evaluation of how sampling by the current national Salmonella
control programme corresponds to the requirements of the regulation on microbial
criteria. Investigations are carried out for beef, pork and chicken. The evaluation
will be completed in 2007.
3.5 Economic aspects of the Salmonella control in Finland
Economics were taken into account when evaluating the efficiency of the Finnish
Salmonella control programme concerning broiler production (Maijala and Peltola 2000, Peltola et. al. 2001, Kangas et. al. 2003, Kangas et al. in press). In
collaboration, EELA and MTT Agrifood Research Finland assessed the costs-ofillness concerning Salmonella in the broiler production chain. The results of the
Salmonella risk assessment were utilized and the costs of the broiler programme
were compared with the public health costs. In addition to the studies, the Finnish Salmonella control programme was compared with the Zoonosis directive
92/117/EC. The willingness of consumers to pay for Salmonella control was also
researched.
44
The Finnish broiler programme for Salmonella control was assessed to cost annually less than 1,000,000 euros (€ 990,400) or 0.02 euros per kilogram of broiler
meat. One prevented loss of human life equals the annual costs of FSCP, according to the assessment. The estimated relative share of control costs was 38 %
for primary production, 60 % for the food industry and 2 % for the government.
The Salmonella control according to Zoonosis directive 92/117/EC would have
had seven times higher costs. The public health costs according to the directive
would have been up to 33 times higher. The survey carried out revealed that
consumers were prepared to pay about 70 euros extra annually to preserve the
Salmonella control programme and its advanteges. It was therefore concluded
that consumers felt that the national control program is important.
3.6 Literature related to the project for assessing
Salmonella risks
• Kangas, S. Lyytikäinen, T. Peltola, J. Ranta, J. Maijala, R. 2003. ��
Economic
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
impacts of the Finnish Salmonella control programme for broilers. EELA publications 02/2003.
Lievonen, S. Ranta, J. Maijala, R. 2006. Salmonella in Egg production in
Finland - a quantitative risk assessment. EELA publications 04/2006.
Maijala, R. 2000. Zoonoosien riskinarviointi. Finnish Veterinary Journal
2000/106/pp.143-145
Maijala, R. Peltola, J. 2000. Elintarviketurvallisuuden talous Suomessa – esimerkkinä Kansallinen Salmonella-valvontaohjelma. Agrifood Research Finland
(MTT). Reports 13/2000.
Maijala, R. Ranta, J. 2002. A probabilistic transmission model of Salmonella
in the primary broiler production chain. ��
Risk Analysis 22(1):47-58.
Maijala, R. Ranta, J. 2003. Salmonella in Broiler production in Finland - a
quantitative risk assessment. EELA publications 04/2003.
Maijala, R. Ranta, J. Seuna, E. Peltola, J. 2005a. ��
The efficiency of the Finnish
Salmonella Control Programme. Food Control 16. pp. 669-675.
Maijala, R. Ranta, J. Seuna, E. Pelkonen, S. Johansson, T. 2005b A quantitative risk assessment of the public health impact of the Finnish Salmonella control
program for broilers. International Journal of Food Microbiology 102:21-35.
Peltola, J. Aakkula, J. Maijala, R. Siikamäki, J. 2001. Valuation of Economic
Benefits from the Finnish Salmonella control program. ��
Agrifood Research
��
Finland (MTT). Reports 30/2001.
Ranta, J. Tuominen, P. Maijala, R. 2005. Estimation
��
of true Salmonella prevalence jointly in cattle herd and animal populations using Bayesian hierarchical
modeling. ��
Risk Analysis 25(1):1-37.
Ranta, J. Tuominen, P. Rautiainen, E. Maijala, R. 2004. Salmonella in Pork
Production in Finland – a quantitative risk assessment. EELA publications
03/2004.
Tuominen, P. Ranta, J. Maijala, R. 2005. Salmonella in Cattle production in
Finland - a quantitative risk assessment. (Luonnos)
Tuominen, P. Ranta, J. Maijala, R. 2006. S��
almonella risk in imported fresh
beef, beef preparations, and beef products. J. Food Prot. 69(8): 1814-1822.
45
3.5.1International standards and legislation
• SPS. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
World trade organistation . 15. 4 1994. www.wto.org
CAC/GL-30. CAC Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological
Risk Assessment, 1999. Codex Alimentarius. http://www.codexalimentarius.
net
Commission Decision 94/968/EC of 28 December 1994 approving the operational programme for the control of Salmonella in certain live animals and
animal products presented by Finland. OJ No. L 371, 31/12/1994 s. 36–37.
Suomenk. Erityispainos Alue 3 Nide 64 s. 252.
Commission Decision 95/161/EC of 21 April 1995 establishing additional
guarantees regarding Salmonella for consignments to Finland and Sweden of
laying hens. OJ No. L 105, 09/05/1995 pp. 44-46.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1688/2005 of 14 October 2005 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as
regards special guarantees concerning Salmonella for consignments to Finland
and Sweden of certain meat and eggs. OJ. L 271, 15/10/2005 pp. 17-28.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. OJ. L 338, 22/12/2005 pp. 1-25.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1003/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 as regards a Community target for the reduction
of the prevalence of certain Salmonella serotypes in breeding flocks of Gallus
gallus and amending Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003. OJ. L 170, 1/7/2005 pp.
12–17.
Council directive 92/117/EEC of 17 December 1992 concerning measures for
protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals
and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications. OJ No. L 062, 15/03/1993 pp. 0038–0048. Suomenk.
Erityispainos Alue 3 Nide 48 s. 183.
Council directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat
preparations. OJ No. L 127, 29/04/1998 pp. 34.
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified foodborne zoonotic agents. OJ. L 325, 12/12/2003 pp. 1–15.
46
4 Salmonella control of feedstuffs
Kaija Varimo, director, Evira
4.1 Legislation
For over forty years already, inspections have been carried out in Finland for
Salmonella in feedstuffs according to the Feed Act. In 1995 - 2004, both the
Feed Act and the Animal Diseases Act were applied to imports of feeds of animal
origin and to the production and control of certain feeds of animal origin. Hygiene requirements for feedstuffs has been complemented by national legislation
more extensively than by EU regulations, e.g., regarding feedstuffs of vegetable
origin. Official inspection has controlled each batch of imported raw materials of
vegetable origin presenting Salmonella risks. The EU regulation on by-products
of animal origin applied since 2003 has covered the handling, use and control of
by-products being forwarded for use in feedstuffs as well as other purposes.
Annually, 1.20 - 1.49 million tons of feed mixtures has been produced in Finland.
This trend in production amounts has been slowly growing. Raw materials carefully controlled for Salmonella by authorities as also partly by operational parties
create prerequisites for the manufacture of products of good hygienic quality.
Feed manufacturers have self-control systems based on the HACCP principle
to eliminate pathogens from feed-manufacturing processes. Authorities control
the production of raw materials as well as compound feeds by taking samples
of final products, and by controlling the company’s self-control. Manufacturers
themselves take samples of the processes and in the production facilities in
accordance with self-control plans that have been verified by the authorities. As
feed mixtures are generally delivered as bulk feeds directly to farms, the Salmonella risks must already be eliminated in raw materials before manufacturing and
from all the stages of manufacture. Final products are inspected for Salmonella
by random sampling. However, the authority will always increase the frequency
of manufacturing control when hygiene problems occur.
The authority sets marketing prohibitions for feed batches contaminated by
Salmonella. If the owners of the raw material of feedstuffs choose to process
the feed to destroy Salmonella (heating or acidation), they must apply to the
authority for a permit for the procedure. If after processing and repeated analysis
for Salmonella, the batch is found clean, it is released for use as feedstuff. If feed
mixtures are found to contain Salmonella they are not processed but destroyed,
and the factory’s contaminated manufacturing line is closed down for disinfection.
The cause of contamination is investigated, the feeds are traced to farms and
markets, and if necessary, the facilities are disinfected from Salmonella under
supervision by municipal veterinarians.
4.2 Sampling
The Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira regularly inspects manufacturers of
feedstuffs, feed mixtures and feed additives. Samples are taken of feed products
imported, being produced and in markets for analysis in accordance with annual
control plans. Evira has authorized and trained about one hundred part-time
samplers who collect samples for official control. The frequency of sampling and
analysis is decided by the respective Salmonella risks as estimated for each
feed product. Risks are assessed based on long-term control results, the type
of feed product and manner of transport. When estimating the requirements and
47
frequency of sampling the origin of the product is also accounted for, and when
necessary, the reliability of the manufacturer’s self-control. Eliminating risks in
the initial stages of the feed chain has made possible to carry out only random
sampling for analysis of feed mixtures.
When importing from third countries to Finland, feedstuffs of both animal and
vegetable origin are inspected as official inspections of imported lots. For imports
from the EU, the importer performs voluntary inspections as self-control from
each imported lot of animal origin before its used in compound feed production.
Each lot of raw materials of vegetable origin presenting Salmonella risks are also
inspected by the authority.
The sampling frequency in Salmonella analysis is a 1 kg sample/50,000 kg feed
for raw materials and a randomly sampled 1 kg sample of feed mixtures/0.5 – 1
mil. kg of total products manufactured. The final sample comprises 20 to 40 partial
samples combined. Smaller samples are taken of concentrated products, 250 g
of pre-mixtures and 20 to 30 g of vitamins.
Sampling is as representative as possible. Samples are taken of raw materials
from their bulk cargoes while being unloaded, either from crab batches or by
collecting samples using automatic samplers. The whole feed cargo is rejected
if Salmonella is found in some of the samples.
The method for analysing Salmonella is modified ISO 6579:2002. Analysis
methods used in official control have been accredited in accordance with the
standard ISO 17025.
4.3Results in 1995 to 2004
Results from analysing Salmonella in samples taken of domestic feedstuffs are
presented in Appendix 2, and those for samples of imported feed in Appendix 3.
For samples of domestic manufacture taken in 1995 to 2004, 0.2 % of samples
of feeds of vegetable as well as animal origin have been Salmonella positive.
Serotypes found in feed samples have been S. Agona, S. Livingstone, S. Muenster
and S. Tennessee (Appendix 4). For domestic feed mixtures for food production
animals, the percentage of Salmonella-positive samples has been below 0.1 %.
S. Infantis found in feed mixtures caused an epidemic in 1995 among milk cattle.
Since then, no Salmonella case caused by feedstuffs has been recorded in food
production farms. Positive samples found in 1998 to 2004 in feeds mixed to be
used for other production animals were in dry-feed mixtures for fur animals.
Among the samples of imported feed, 0.8 % of samples of feeds of vegetable
origin have been Salmonella positive, and 0.6 % of those of animal origin. The
serotypes found in imported feeds are listed in Appendix 5. The most common
serotype found has been S. Senftenberg in sunflower seeds, and S. Tennessee,
S. ssp as well as S. Mbandakaka in crushed oil plant seeds and concentrates.
The most common serotype during the same period in cereal grains and products
and by-products originating from these was S. Livingstone. No distinct serotype
commonly appearing in feedstuffs of animal origin can be named.
For pet animal feeds, samples for Salmonella analysis have been taken as samples
of domestic manufacture, as import samples, as well as market control samples
(Appendix 6). Samples taken in the first half of the survey period (1995 - 1999),
of teethers and dried pig ears mainly intended for dogs, were about 10 - 20 %
Salmonella positive. In the final years of the survey period, the percentage of
positive sample has varied from 2 % to 8 %. The most commonly found serotypes
have been S. Havana, S. Montevideo and S. Ohio, of which the prevalence of
48
the latter two was concentrated in the first years of the survey period (Appendix
7). However, S. Havana was found in all the years of the period.
For feedstuffs of vegetable as well as animal origin, the proportion of Salmonellacontaminated feed as a percentage of the total volumes of domestic feed produce
has remained below 0.1 % and for feed mixtures considerably lower than this
(Appendix 8). In Appendices 9 and 10, the same matter is reviewed for imported
feeds, albeit so that the relative percentage of Salmonella-contaminated feed has
been calculated on imported amounts targeted by control inspections.
4.4 Deliberation
Strict control of imported feedstuffs, i.e., of raw materials imported from third
as well as EU countries for use in feedstuffs, has been found the most efficient
means to restrict the spread of Salmonella to factories and farms. Official control by national legislation can be targeted on each batch of the raw materials
of vegetable origin that carry Salmonella risks. Liabilities included in legislation
concerning compensation for damages as a consequece of Salmonella in feeds
have, for their part, promoted the desire of importers and feed manufacturers to
develop their activities. The feed industry has also developed self-control systems
to eliminate Salmonella hazards from feed chains. Later in the 90s, a requirement
for self-control systems was added to the national legislation. It has become a
rare incident to find Salmonella in feed-factory processes.
The latest Salmonella epidemic involving feedstuffs for animals in food production occurred in 1995, when over one hundred farms were contaminated by
feed mixtures containing Salmonella from one feed factory, but after successful
decontamination procedures the farms were disinfected from Salmonella.
The self-control systems established by factories, and their self-control laboratories, found about half of all the Salmonella-contaminated control samples, which
were regularly taken either by the authorities or through voluntary self-control.
The number of self-control systems among manufacturers of production-animal
feed increased in 1995 to cover almost all manufacturers, and these systems
were further developed in 1996 to 1999.
Most Salmonella found in 1995 to 2004 were from raw materials, from which
they can be eliminated by heating prior to use in feed mixtures and pet-animal
products for the market. Therefore, these have not been found to cause Salmonella problems in the food chain.
49
5 Occurence of Salmonella in retail food in
1995 to 2004
Tuula Johansson, Head of Food Microbiology Team, Evira
5.1 Occurence of Salmonella in raw meat
Salmonella investigations of retail food have mainly been focused on raw meat,
but in later years the survays have increasingly been focused on other foods as
well, to get data for risk assessment. Salmonella control of raw meat has for decades been targeted at broiler carcasses, because it is known that Salmonella can
very easily colonize broiler chicks. Professor Esko Nurmi started investigations
as early as the 1970s. At that time, he developed a competitive exclusion method
to prevent colonization of broiler chicks by Salmonella. This so-called ’Nurmi concept’ is still being used in broiler production, not only in Finland but also abroad,
and its use has supported the maintenance of of the good Salmonella situation
in broiler meat. Broiler meat in retail sale has regularly been investigated yearly,
at least since 1989. In later years, control has also been targeted at pork and,
for example at kebab meat. These results could have been used in assessment
of the efficiency of the National Salmonella Control Programme.
5.1.1Investigations
Salmonella investigations of poultry meat were performed by the National Veterinary and Food Research Institute (EELA) until 1999 and since then in co-operation between the National Food Agency (NFA), EELA and local food control
authorities and laboratories, as surveys of the national control programme, or as
co-ordinated programmes for the official control of foodstuffs recommended by
European commission.
In 1995 - 1998, the investigations were targeted at fresh broiler cuts and EELA
collected the samples from retail stores in Helsinki and its surroundings. Samples
originated from the three largest domestic broiler slaughterhouses. Since 1999,
local food control authorities have taken samples. Thus control authorities could
have utilized the analysis results for control actions without delay, if necessary. For
surveys in 1999 and 2000 raw poultry and pork from retail stores were sampled,
and in 2004, poultry from retail stores and restaurants. The origin of meat was
asked in connection of sampling. A survey of Salmonella besides E. coli O157
in kebab-meat was carried out in 2001, after Dutch kebab meat transmitted an
outbreak caused by E. coli O157 in Finland. Municipal food control authorities
collected the samples from restaurants and meat establishments in May-July,
and these were analyzed by EELA.
Poultry and pork samples were rinsed in pre-enrichment broth (225 – 250 ml),
and rinsing liquid (100 ml) was analyzed as described by the method No. 71 of
the Nordic Committee of Food Analysis (NMKL). In the Kebab-meat survey the
sample size was 25 g.
50
5.1.2 Results and discussion
From 1995 to 1998, Salmonella was annually detected in 0.9 to 3.0 % of domestic
fresh broiler cuts at retail level (n=315) (Table 1). From 1999 to 2004, Salmonella
was not detected in any of the poultry samples analyzed (n = 449). The ocuurence
has decreased compared to that of the respective studies in 1989 - 1994, when
Salmonella was detected in approximately 10 % of raw broiler cuts. Our as such
good Salmonella situation further improved after implementation of the National
Salmonella Control Programme in beginning of May,1995 and still further after
the change of the analysis method of the control programme in 1999 in a way
that faecal samples were pre-enriched and sample size was increased from a
loopful (1 μl) to 1g. This probably received domestic Salmonella-positive poultry
from entering retail sale in 1999 to 2004.
Poultry
Number of samples annually analysed in the surveys of poultry meat at retail level
have been low (90 to 161 samples), but survey have been repeated regularly
over several years, which improves reliability of the results. In fact, the analysis
method and sample size of these studies have also been changed during years, which may have contributed to the fact that less or no Salmonella has been
detected in survays of recent years compared to those of previous ones. In the
investigations of 1993 to 1998, the methods and sample sizes were the same
from year to year. By contrast, in 1999 to 2000, the sample amount rinsed in
pre-enrichment broth was 250 g instead of the previous 500 g, which reduced
the sensitivity of the method. Moreover, in previous years (1989 - 1992), when
Salmonella was more frequently detected, samples were examined using MPN
(most probable number) techique, the sensitivity of which is greater than for
methods used in the investigations of 1993 to 2004.
Salmonella was not detected in any of the raw pork samples (n = 338) analyzed
Year
Poultry
Analysed
Positive
N
n
%
1995 1011)
1996 100
1998 114
Pork
Analysed Positive
N
n
Kebab meat
Analysed
Positive
N
n
18)
1
-
-
-
-
9)
3
-
-
-
-
1)
3
1)
1
0,9
-
1999 158
2)
0
0
2000 161
3)
0
-
2001 -
-
-
-
171
4)
0
-
-
0
167
5
0
-
-
-
-
220
6)
0
2004 1307)
0
0
Origin of meat:
1)
domestic fresh broiler meat
2)
147 of the samples domestic, 11 originated from other EU member states
3)
160 of the domestic, 1 from other EU member states and 1 from third coutries
170 of the domestic,1 from other EU memeber states
165 of the domestic, 2 from other EU member states
6)
112 ot the domestic, 16 from other EU member states, for 92 samples no data on
country of origin
4)
5)
7)
125 of the domestic, 5 from other EU member states; 104 broilers and 26 turkey
8)
Salmonella Infantis
Salmonella Isangi
9)
51
Table 30. Occurence of Salmonella in raw meat in 1995 - 2004.
Pork
in 1999 to 2000 (Table 1). The samples were of domestic origin, except for three.
Few data exists about the oocurence of Salmonella in pork at retail level, and
thus these investigations provided important information on the Salmonella risks
of pork to consumers.
Kebab meat
For the kebab study a total of 220 meat samples were collected from 206 restaurants and 9 meat establishments in 72 municipalities. Of these, 209 were either
raw minced meat intended for preparing of kebab meat or raw kebab meat (raw
meat product). Type of meat was either beef (n=130), pork-beef (n=10) , pork (n=4),
beef-lamb (n=1) or lamb-turkey (n=1). Of 14 samples, the data about the type of
meat was lacking. 16 of the samples originated from other EU member states.
Country of origin was not given in the sampling certificate of 92 samples.
In this study, no Salmonella was detected in the samples (n = 220) (Table 1).
Previously, in spring 2001, during the investigation associated with the EHEC
epidemic, raw kebab meat from three Dutch manufacturers was examined for
Salmonella in addition to E. coli O157. In total, 40 sub-samples were analyzed.
Two batches revealed Salmonella bacteria. In one batch 6 out of 15, and in
another bach 1 out of 20 sub-samples were detected to be positive. In the most
contaminated lot 3 serotypes were found: Salmonella Manhattan (4 sub-samples),
Salmonella Lexington (1 sub-sample) and Salmonella Kottbus (1 sub-sample).
In the less contaminated lot Salmonella Manhattan was detected. The levels of
Salmonella were enumerated by analyzing several combinations 5 sub-samples
using MPN technique (5 x 25 g, 5 x 5 g and 5 x 1 g). The most contaminated
batch revealed Salmonella contents of 0.02 and 0.04 MPN/g, and the less contaminated one a cont of 0.03 MPN/g. Besides the serotypes mentioned above,
Salmonella Bredeney was detected in the most contaminated batch in the enumeration procedure.
5.2 Occurence of Salmonella in other food
5.2.1 Investigations
In addition to meat, Salmonella investigations have targeted to cheeses, vegetables, shellfish and mussels as well as spices. The surveys have been performed
either by NFA and/or EELA, and since 2002, in co-operation between NFA, EELA,
local control authorities and laboratories, primarily as surveys of co-ordinated
programmes for the official control of foodstuffs recommended by European
commission, but also as surveys of the national control programmes. Samples
have been analyzed using the methods of NMKL 71, ISO 6579 or VIDAS SLM.
Cheese
In 1996, 40 traditional Finnish cottage cheeses were examined. Samples were
collected from minor cheese manufacturers or from retail outlets in the region
of Kemijärvi. In addition, 24 domestic un-ripened cheeses and 20 blue cheeses
from Helsinki metropolitan area and the region around Turku were examined, 4
of which were domestic and the remaining 16 from other EU member states. In
1998, 58 un-ripened cheese samples were examined from 51 cheese manufacturers. This investigation covered 2/3 of our minor cheese manufacturies. In the
survey of co-ordinated EU programme in 2004, a total of 90 sub-samples of soft
and semi-hard cheeses made of raw milk were taken from 18 production batches
at manufacturing locations. From retail outlets and sites of first destination, 60
sub-samples were collected from 30 production batches. Samples were collected
in 26 municipalities and were examined by eight local food laboratories in various
parts of Finland.
52
In the EU survey carried out in 2002, packaged, peeled and cut vegetables (n=25),
packaged sprouts (n=7) and non-pasteurized fruit juices (n=1) were examined.
The samples (n=33) originated from 13 production plants and from 3 retail stores
in southern and eastern Finland.
Packaged, peeled and cut
vegetables, fruit juices
and sprouts
Cooked crustacean and molluscan shellfish were the targets of EU investigations
in 2003. Samples (n = 119) were collected at sites of first destination and from
retail stores in the Helsinki metropolitan area. Samples were taken of shrimps,
lobsters, blue mussels, river crayfish, jumbo shrimps, octopus and green-lipped
mussels originating in 17 countries. 15 samples were fresh and 104 frozen. 5
samples came from retail outlets and the rest were sold packaged.
Cooked crustacean and
molluscan shellfish
The EU survey of spices was carried out in the counties of southern and western
Finland in June-August 2004. A total of 110 samples were taken of 22 spice lots
originating from eight import companies and four retail stores. Various peppers,
paprikas, herb spices and ginger, turmeric and cinnamon were sampled. The
samples were analyzed by three local food control laboratories.
Spices
In 2004, for a strawberry survey included in the national food control programme
samples (n = 142) were collected from 29 farms in the counties of western and
central Finland in June-August. The samples were taken 2 - 5 times from the
same farm. Three of the farms were organic. The samples were analyzed at three
local food control laboratories.
Strawberries
5.2.2 Results and discussion
No Salmonella was detected in any of the samples of the other foods.
Even raw milk cheeses were not contaminated, because Salmonella situation
in cattle in Finland is very good. Salmonella originating from animal faeces may
enter milk, if milking hygiene is deficient. If cheese is made of raw milk and manufacturing process does not include heat treatment to kill pathogens, Salmonella
can survive in the cheese and may cause food poisonings. Therefore, products
made of pasteurized milk are safer than those of raw milk. However, even the
former may become post-contaminated when manufacturing hygiene is poor.
Strawberries attract birds and other wild animals and may thus be contaminated
by Salmonella possibly appearing in faeces. The soil may also be a source of
contamination. In addition, watering by contaminated surface water may transfer
to strawberries bacteria such as Salmonella that cause diseases. Salmonella
has reported to survive on the surface of strawberries long enough to be able to
pose risk to consumers.
5.3 Occurence of Salmonella in local food-control samples
5.3.1Investigations
Since 1998, data has been collected on Salmonella analyses carried out by local
laboratories as official control focused on pathogenic bacteria. Altogether, 32 to
36 laboratories have annually responded to these inquiries made by NFA and
EELA. The service areas of these laboratories comprise on the average 75 %
of the Finnish population. Inquiries has concerned samples collected from retail
sale as well as from food industry. The inquiry does not differentiate between
samples taken of domestic and foreign products. In 1998 to 2002 and 2004, the
53
investigations primarily targeted at raw meat and meat products (n ≈ 1200 - 2000),
milk products (n ≈ 300 - 1000), vegetables and vegetable product (n ≈ 500 - 700)
and ice cream and desserts (n ≈ 300 - 600). From the other food categories, 300
or fewer samples have been taken annually.
Samples were taken as part of contnuing official control, but occasionally these
also included sampling because of food poisoning or other reasons caused suspicions of contamination. In addition, analysis results of samples of local surveys,
locally-executed national surveys, and co-ordinated programmes for the official
control of foodstuffs recommended by European commission were also included.
As sampling was not randomized, the results are only indicative.
5.3.2Results
From 1998 to 2002 and 2004, an annual total of about 3200 to 4500 samples
was investigated, of which only 0.2 to 0.7 % were detected to be Salmonella-positive. Salmonella has annually been detected in meat and meat products, while
less often or never in other food groups (Table 2). Food categories, in which no
Salmonella was detected during the research period were: certain vegetable fats
and oils; egg and egg products; fish and fish products; nuts, nut products and
crackers; soups, consommés and sauces, icecream and desserts; juices, drinks,
mineral water and packaged water; and unspecified products. In 2002, chocolate
samples collected from retail sale and detected to be Salmonella-positive were
associated with multi-state outbreak mediated by German chocolate.
Results of official control of pathogenic bacteria by local authorities also show
that Salmonella rarely appear in food in Finland.
Table 31. Occurence of Salmonella in samples reported by
local food control in 1998 to 2002
and 2004.
Food group / Food
Year
Analyzed
Positive
n
%
1147-1956
0,4-1,6
671
0,2
1999
458
0,4
1998
43*
14,0*
1999
1017
0,1
Ready-made food
1999
205
0,5
Cereals and bakery products
2000
169
2,4
Herbs and spices
2000
23
4,3
2004
110
0,9
2002
63**
6,3**
Meat and meat products
Vegetable and vegetable products
Cocoa, cocoa products,
coffee and tea
Milk and milk products
Sweets, honey and sugar
1998-2002,
2004
1998
No Salmonella was detected in samples of other food categories included in
the survey.
1)
* herb tea
** chocolate
54
6 Additional guarantees and
control in the internal market
Pirkko Kostamo, Senior officer, Evira
6.1 Additional guarantees regarding Salmonella
Due to its particularly good Salmonella situation nationally, Finland was granted
additional guarantees concerning Salmonella for reasons of public health when
joining the EU. A condition for additional guarantees was that a national Salmonella control programme was to be established. Regarding food, the additional
guarantees cover the sale of fresh meats of cattle, pigs and poultry, and eggs
aimed for consumption. Additional guarantees means that meat consignments
are to be examined for Salmonella prior to delivery to Finland, and that analysis
results must be negative. Similarly, before delivery of eggs, the hen flock producing the eggs must be examined for Salmonella. Additional guarantees do
not concern beef and pork or eggs that are intended for preparation of heated
products. For live animals, the additional guarantees cover poultry flocks for
delivery to Finland.
6.2Internal market control of food of animal origin
In Finland, foods of animal origin delivered from other EU member states are
controlled at first destination, meaning the food premises in Finland that first
receive food of animal origin. The sites of first destinations are as part of their
self-checking required to inspect consignments received and take samples of the
consignments for laboratory analysis. This self-checking also ensures that the
additional guarantees are implemented for Salmonella. Municipal food control
authorities supervise first destinations, except for those operating in connection
with slaughterhouses, which are supervised by the government’s inspection
veterinarians.
Salmonella has repeatedly been found in meat consignments covered by special
guarantees. However, no complete statistics are available on the occurrence of
Salmonella in meat delivered to Finland. According to reports on rejections by
authorities to the National Food Agency, an annually average of 10 consignments of meat have been disqualified because of Salmonella. Salmonella has
only randomly been found in beef and pork consignments, but more frequently
in poultry meat consignments.
The City of Vantaa carried out a control survey in 2000 that examined 37 meat
consignments from the internal-market trade. Salmonella was found in half the
poultry meat consignments analyzed. In 2003, the National Food Agency organized a control survey in which about 300 imported consignments of meat and meat
preparations were examined. For each consignments analyzed, only two samples
were taken. Salmonella was found in 11 of the consingnments analyzed.
55
It is difficult to assess the effects of imported meat on illness in people. According
to information in the register on contagious diseases, the number of Salmonella
infections acquired domestically among the population has not increased since
Finland joined the EU. In individual cases of infection, however, rare types of Salmonella bacteria have been observed that have not previously been found among
the population. These cases may have been caused by imported food. So far,
only one foodbourne outbreak has been traced to imported meat. This outbreak
was caused by broiler meat of Brazilian origin served in restaurants in 2004.
56
7 Other Salmonella investigations 1995 –
2004
Vetenarian Henry Kuronen, Evira
7.1 Typing of isolates other than those from the National Salmonella Control Programme
During 1995 to 2004, the National Veterinary and Food Research Institute (EELA)
annually confirmed and serotyped about 400 to 1000 strains not included in the
Salmonella control programme. In 2000 to 2004, this number was about 400
to 550 annually. Hence, the number of isolated strains has decreased, as also
among samples from production animals.
In Appendix 11 presents the serotype distribution samples from animals not included in the control programme during 1997 to 2004. These strains were isolated
from samples taken of wild animals, pet animals, zoo animals, and production
animals other than species covered by the control programme. About 50 to 100
of these strains have been confirmed annually, among which about 60 different
serotypes have been identified. Clearly, the most isolated serotype has been
Typhimurium, followed by Enteritidis. Almost a third of the strains belonged to other
subspecies than Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica (subsp. salamae, subsp.
arizonae, subsp. diarizonae and subsp. houtenae) in 2001 to 2004. Almost all of
these strains were isolated from turtles, snakes or lizards.
About twenty Typhimurium phage types were confirmed, and most common
among these have been DT1, DT40 and DT41 (Appendix 12). The latter two are
typically from wild animals, particularly, phage types of strains isolated from birds,
and DT1 has also been the most common phage type in animals covered by the
control programme. The multi-resistant DT104 phage type was only found twice,
both times from dogs in 1996 and 2002. There have been around ten different
Enteritidis phage types, the most common among these being DT20 (Appendix
13). Almost all DT20 strains were isolated from hedgehogs.
In 1997 to 1999, about 60 to 90 strains were isolated from foodstuffs annually,
and about 25 to 70 strains in 2000 to 2004. These contained samples of domestic
as well as foreign origin and were sampled by both food business operators and
authorities. Appendix 14 shows the serotype distribution confirmed by EELA for
imported foodstuffs. From these, about 60 different serotypes were isolated, some
30 of which have not been found in the National Control Programme samples.
The most common serotype in these samples has been Typhimurium, followed
by Enteritidis and Hadar. Notably, at the end of the period, little Salmonella was
isolated in domestic foodstuffs samples and their serotype distribution was similar
to that of strains isolated from production animals.
In imported food, fifteen Typhimurium phage types and four Enteritidis phage
types were identified (Appendix 15). Among Typhimurium phage types, the most
common were multi-resistant DT104 (7 cases) and DT12 (6 cases). Almost all
Enteritidis strains were of phage type DT4.
57
In addition to samples from animals and foodstuffs not included in the control
programme, EELA has annually confirmed about 250 - 700 strains isolated
from other samples. This group includes various environmental samples and
individual feed samples and, as a rule, they are sampled by business operators.
Environmental samples include surface swabs, drain and wastewater samples
from slaughterhouses and cutting plants, samples from controlling the effect of
disinfection at production farms, surface swab samples from feed-producing
plants, and samples and compost samples from wastewater-purifying plants. The
monitoring of Salmonella in fodders is not required of EELA, but strains appear
annually for confirmation, primarily as samples from feedstuffs of fur animals and
individual pet-animal titbits. The identified serotypes have mostly been falimiar from
samples of the control programme. The most unusual serotypes in this sample
group that EELA received for confirmation were mainly taken from wastewaterpurifying plants and composts.
7.2 Discussion
Because of the good Salmonella situation in Finland, Salmonella isolated from
foodstuff samples mostly have their originate from imported foodstuffs. The positive
samples have been detected through monitoring by authorities (e.g. at sites of first
arrival and through suspicion of food poisoning) and by food business operators.
Most of the strains isolated from these foodstuffs are by their serotype such that
they do not appear in domestic samples. The monitoring and proper processing
of imported foodstuffs and raw materials play a significant role in preventing the
spread of Salmonella in Finland.
Salmonella infections intermittently appear among animals other than those
covered by the Salmonella control programme, for example, when investigating
the cause of an animal’s illness or death, or when there is some other reason to
suspect Salmonella contamination. Hence, EELA’s statistics do not present the
occurrence of contamination among these animal species. However, analysis of
samples provides the necessary background information on, for example, hazards
caused by various pets. It is already long been known that reptiles in general are
particularly symptomless Salmonella carriers. The danger of acquiring an infection is particularly great when small children are in close contact with animals or
handle basins with live animals in water, not being sufficiently cautious.
Contamination by wild animals is also a possible risk to production animals. However, often the source of contamination cannot be demonstrated with sufficient
confidence, and the wild animals may have caught the contamination from faeces
of production animal. In this case, this cause-effect relationship is impossible
to verify by examining wild animals after the onset of an epidemic. The rarest
serotypes are usually isolated from wild animals, which have been provided for
examination from the environs of cities and waste dumps.
Among environmental samples, serotypes isolated at slaughterhouses, cutting
plants and production farms are mostly the same as those found in control programme samples. By contrast, most samples arriving from wastewater-purifying
plants and composts are serotypes appearing rarely in the Salmonella control
programme. It is reasonably probable that such serotypes are from human contaminations with an origin in some other country.
Occasionally, in monitoring associated with feedstuffs, pet titbits imported from
abroad have been found to contain contaminated batches. These present a
potential hazard to animals, although efforts are made to prevent contaminated
58
batches from entering markets. Infections distributed via pets are generally limited to epidemics in specific families, but may become serious when acquired
by children.
Foodstuffs of vegetable origin have increasingly been observed to be sources of
Salmonella epidemics among people. Here, the contamination of the environment
and wild animals plays a major role. Therefore, it is worthwhile to monitor the
Salmonella situation in the environment and among wild animals. On account
of Finland’s excellent Salmonella situation, the risk for contamination of the environment is less marked than in countries, where factory farming of production
animals and abundant Salmonella infections cause widespread contamination
of the environment.
59
8 Domestic Salmonella outbreaks 1995 –
2004
Taina Niskanen, Senior officer, Evira
In the last decade, a total of 47 food- or waterborne Salmonella outbreaks were
reported to the National Food Poisoning Register maintained by the National
Food Agency (NFA), during which almost 2000 persons (Appendix 16) became
ill. Generally, Salmonella outbreaks are food-borne, but in 2000 and 2003, waterborne outbreaks were also reported. In 2003, two persons became ill after
drinking water from a stream and in 2000 about 300 vacationers became ill in
one week after consuming tap water from community water supply that had been
contaminated by wastewater leakage. In addition to Salmonella, calicivirus was
also found in the drinking water, and Campylobacter upsalieniensis was isolated
from the patients with long-term symptoms.
The number of Salmonella outbreaks reported annually has varied from one to
eight (Appendix 16). In 1998 and 2003, only one food- or waterborne outbreaks
was registered, while in 1999 eight outbreaks were reported, being the largest
number of Salmonella outbreaks in a year. In 1995 there were seven, and in 1996
and 2000 six domestic outbreaks in each year. These epidemics have generally
been medium or minor in extent. In the last five years, more minor outbreaks
(fewer than 10 persons ill) have been reported in the 1990s, when the extent of
the outbreaks was clearly greater. During the decade there were totally six major
outbreaks (more than 100 persons ill altogether), altogether, five of which were
reported from 1995 to 1999. Sources of infections have included eggs, alfalfa
sprouts grown industrially, brochette piglets served at grill parties, and unripened
cheese made of non-pasteurized milk. Only one major Salmonella outbreak has
been reported in the 2000s. This was the above-mentioned waterbourne outbreak
due to contamination of drinking water at a ski centre in 2000.
Figure 10. Reported foodborne
Salmonella outbreaks according
to the food source in 1995 - 2004
30
25
#/%
20
15
10
5
0
Meat and meat
products
Milk and milk
products
60
Egg and egg
products
Vegetables
Water
Total
%
The most significant vehicle in Salmonella outbreaks is meat and meat products
(26 %), but contaminated fresh vegetables (11 %) served without prior heating
may also present a significant risk. Eggs have caused one outbreak in the last
decade. In 1995, contamination was transferred via eggs from a domestic producer. Since then, eggs have not caused any Salmonella outbreaks. Milk or milk
products have altogether caused three outbreaks (Figure 1). In 1998, the use of
non-pasteurized milk taken directly from a farm in cheese preparation caused an
outbreak originating from the domestic raw materials; in other two cases, imported
food was the cause of outbreaks. Significant causes of Salmonella outbreaks also
include infected kitchen workers and participation in the preparation of food in
combination with poor hand hygiene. Most Salmonella outbreaks are associated
with eating in restaurants (Figure 2).
5%
5%
5%
30 %
Restaurant
5%
Other
Home
Multiple places
7%
Edu. Institution
Daycare
Hosp./home for elderly
7%
Staffs canteen
Catering
12 %
24 %
8.1 Descriptions of example outbreaks
8.1.1Salmonella outbreaks from German chocolate
in Finland and elsewhere in Europe
At the end of 2001 and beginning of 2002, S. Oranienburg made about 300
people ill in various parts of Europe via chocolate of the brand Chateau. Besides
Finland, illnesses associated with the chocolate were reported in at least Sweden,
Holland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Canada and Australia. In all cases,
the manufacturers of the contaminated chocolate batches proved to be the same
German factory. The contaminated chocolate was also for sale in Finland. Two
chocolate batches were found Salmonella-positive and the same Salmonella
type was isolated from both the chocolate and patients. The Salmonella content
of the chocolate analyzed in Finland was rather small, but enough to also make
several persons ill here. Nine persons were reported to have acquired infection
with S. Oranienburg in Finland via the chocolate. The contaminated chocolate
batches were withdrawn from the market and several reports on them were filed
to the EU Commission.
61
Figure 11. Foodborne Salmonella
outbreaks according to the place
of consumption in 1995 - 2004
8.1.2Salmonella outbreak via mung beans in
eastern Finland
In October, 2002, S. Abony caused an outbreak through mung beans sprouts
in northern Savonia. Salmonella infections were acquired by 13 persons, two
of whom were food workers. These employees had no symptoms. Interview
surveys revealed that all who caught the infection had eaten mung bean sprouts
produced by the same sprout-making plant. This plant had delivered the sprouts
to school canteens and other eateries. The sprout seeds were from China. Their
colour was found anomalous and sprouting was weak. No Salmonella bacteria,
however, could be isolated from remaining seeds of sprouts. Based on the exposure data the sprouts were probably the cause of infections. Sprouts caused
several Salmonella outbreaks in Finland in the 1990s and the beginning of the
2000s. A previous outbreak transferred by sprouts had been reported in 2000.
Altogether, seven persons became ill when alfalfa sprouts sprouted in a course
centre caused an outbreak among participants in the course. Five persons were
taken to hospital for treatment. A person suffering from symptoms of stomach
illness had taken part in preparing the sprouts.
8.1.3A multi-resistant Salmonella caused two
outbreaks in 2004
In Oulu in September 2004, four people were found to be infected by Salmonella
within a short period. Symptoms by the infected persons included fever, stomach
pain and diarrhoea. The cause of infections was found to be antibiotic-resistant S.
Enteriditis DT4 (Nal-R), which is rare in Finland, and which was probably of foreign
origin. None of the patients had recently travelled abroad. In the days before becoming ill, though, they had all eaten in the same local restaurant. While carrying
out an inspection, several hygienic deficiencies in food processing and kitchen
facilities were identified in the restaurant. Brazilian frozen broilers had been used
by the restaurant. The broilers were thawed, cut and marinated in the restaurant.
The same antibiotics-resistant S. Enteriditis DT 4 (Nal-R) -type was isolated from
the marinated broiler and from the patients. Personnel in the restaurant had no
symptoms and no Salmonella was isolated from kitchen employees. The cause of
the outbreak was contaminated Brazilian broiler meat and deficiencies in kitchen
hygiene during handling. It is also possible that cross-contamination via other
food occurred, e.g., salads or food served without prior heating. No separate tools
were used when handling raw broiler meat, and facilities for washing hands were
deficient, making it possible for bacteria to spread via tools or hands.
During a wedding party arranged in in Lapinlahti in January, one third of 80
persons participating in the dinner fell ill with stomach diseases. Food served
at the wedding party had been prepared by a catering service. S. Typhimurium
var. Copenhagen DT 104 (ACSSuT-R), which is multi-resistant to antibiotics
not normally appearing in Finland, was isolated from the patients. An interview
survey performed could not clearly reveal any particular food served as being a
cause of the infections. Food samples analyzed were also negative. However,
not all of the food being served was available for analysis. Faecal samples of the
employees at the catering service were negative for Salmonella. These samples
were taken almost one and a half month after the outbreak. A farm housewife
had participated in preparing the food and she had had symptoms of stomach
disease while preparing the food. However, the original source of the Salmonella
infections remained unknown.
Additional descriptions of outbreaks are given in Appendix 17.
62
9 Human Salmonella findings
in 1995 – 2004
Arja Siitonen, research professor, KTL
9.1 Surveilance of infections
The exact identification and typing of Salmonella strains forms the basis for
their epidemiological surveillance and for tracing the infections tehy cause. Two
species of Salmonella are known, Salmonella enterica and Salmonella bongori. Salmonella enterica can be divided into six subspecies (enterica, salamae,
arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae and indica) and further into some 2500 different
serotypes. In addition, many serotypes of the ssp. enterica can be divided into
tens of phage types by applying an internationally-standardized phage typing
method. In Finland, phage typing is applied to the serotypes Salmonella Enteritidis, Typhimurium and Paratyphi B. In addition, molecular genetic DNA fingerprint
analysis was recently standardized among nine EU countries, including Finland.
This can be applied to all salmonellae, and by the beginning of 2006 a ”fingerprint
bank” was established at the National Public Health Institute (KTL) that contains
the genetic fingerprints of about 3000 Salmonella strains isolated from humans.
This bank is continuously being updated.
Since the 1960s, clinical microbiological laboratories have sent Salmonella strains
isolated from humans to the Enteric Bacteria Laboratory at KTL for verification
and more precise epidemiological typing and characterisation. Along with each
strain, data are also sent on possible trips abroad of the patient prior to the
person becoming ill. If these data are not available, such trips are asked about
separately. Since 1994, the laboratory have also had the obligation to report human Salmonella findings to the National Infectious Diseases Register maintained
by the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at KTL. Thus, KTL has
data that cover about forty years on the epidemiology of Salmonella infections
of domestic as well as foreing origin. These data were significant for granting
Finland additional Salmonella guarantees when the country joined the EU. They
are also a major benefit to the Finnish National Salmonella Control Programme.
In addition, surveilance of the large spectrum of imported types has provided
the possibility to influence the improvment of food hygiene in tourist locations
favoured by Finns, in co-operation with authorities in these countries.
9.2 Prevalence of infections
At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, almost 8 000 Salmonella cases were annually
reported in Finland. Over 80 % of these were infections acquired abroad. However, by the middle of the 1990’s, in conjunction with the economic depression,
the number of Finns travelling abroad on holiday dropped by almost 70 % and
at the same time the number of detected Salmonella cases decreased by almost
50 %. Even though travelling abroad has subsequently revived, the number of
human Salmonella infections has dropped further. Nevertheless, at the end of
the 1990s, there were about 3 000 cases annually, but from 2002 to 2004 the
annual number of cases clearly have remained below 2 500.
63
During the previous decade, the incidence of salmonellosis among the population
varied in 1995 to 1999 from 54 to 65 cases per 100 000 inhabitants/year and
in 2000 to 2004 from 44 to 53 cases/100 000 inhabitants/year. This reduction is
apparent in the numbers of both domestic and foreign cases. Until 2001, most
foreign cases were associated with travelling to Spain, but subsequently most
have clearly been acquired in Thailand (358 to 406 cases/year). The number of
infections originating in Bulgaria, Egypt and Brazil has in recent years also increased. By contrast, the numbers of those associated with Estonia, Tunisia and
Morocco have decreased.
Of the approximately 2 500 known serotypes, about 100 different serotypes are
annually identified in Finland in infections from abroad, but less than 50 serotypes
in domestic infections. An overall majority of all the salmonellae found belong to
Salmonella enterica ssp. enterica, which is also the most common subspecies
found in production animals. Salmonellae of other subspecies even normally
occur in cold-blooded animals, and these are also annually found in human
infections. Of all the Salmonella infections detected in 1995 to 2004, about 75
% annually were caused by only 10 serotypes and among these only two, Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis, caused most infections both
domestically and abroad.
9.3 Domestic infections
Depending on the number of epidemics, the percentage of domestically acquired
infections varied from 18 % to 34 % in 1995 to 1999, and 14 % to 18 % in 2000
to 2004. However, it shoud be noted that the percentages of domestic infections
could be significantly greater than estimated above. Namely, Finns are frequent
travellers to neighbouring areas and to holiday resorts in the south. Thus, some of
the domestic infections might have been misclassified as foreign ones. Indications
of this have been gathered when tracing domestic, clearly confined outbreaks.
On the other hand, such infections where the cause is a type of Salmonella
previously never encountered, such as in domestic production animals, may be
misclassified as domestic ones.
The number and cause of epidemics also affected which sero- or phage types
each year were included among the most common types (Figure 1). However,
Salmonella Typhimurium was the most common and Salmonella Enteritidis the
next most common serotype in all other years except in 1995, then the Enteritidis
cases exceeded the Typhimurium cases (38 % of all domestic infections). That
year, Enteritidis phagetype PT1 caused several infections clusters. In all of these,
the vehicle was eggs produced by a farm in Turku. As far as is known, domestic
eggs have not transferred any Salmonella infections since then, and there should
also be no permanent reservoir of Salmonella Enteritidis in domestic cattle.
Salmonella Typhimurium, particularly its phage type DT1 is Finland’s traditional
endemic sero-/phage type. The percentage of all Typhimurium infections for all
domestic salmonelloses varied annually from 28 % (in 1995) to 64 % (in 1997),
and for foreign salmonelloses from 5 % (1995) to 10 % (2004). In the 1990s,
there were still an average of 350 Typhimurium cases/year, but in the 2000s
only less than half that (on the average 160 Typhimurium cases/yr). In all other
years except in 1997 phage type DT1 was the most common domestic Typhimurium phage type. In 1997, however, the cases caused by phage type DT124
(160 cases) exceeded in number those caused by DT1 (140 cases). In the same
year there were almost as many DT12 cases (110). The phage type DT124 and
DT12 are ”foreign” for Finland; the infections that year were, however, related to
domestic outbreaks. Previously, Typhimurium phage type DT104 was associated
with infections acquired while travelling abroad. However, the infections caused
64
in the 2000s by this multi-resistant phage type were domestically acquired in
several years.
Salmonella Infantis, in addition to Typhimurium, is the other traditional endemic
serotype. The number of cases it has caused, however, decreased significantly
in the 1990s. In 1995 to 1999 an average of 33 cases/yr were found, while in
2000 to 2004 8 cases/yr on the average were reported.
In 1995 to 1998, an annual average of less than 10 domestic cases caused by
Salmonella Agona were recorded. However, in 1999 there were 85 cases. The
number has subsequently dropped, but from 2000 to 2004 the average remained
around 25 cases per year.
Salmonella serotypes Stanley, Panama and Muenchen (all found in 1995), Poona
(1996), Hadar (1997), Newport (1997 and 1998), Saintpaul (1998) and Hvittingfoss
(2002) randomly caused at least 20 domestic infections.
2004
2003
Agona
Enteritidis
2002
Hvittingfoss
2001
Infantis
2000
Newport
Panama
1999
Poona
1998
Saintpaul
1997
Stanley
1996
Typhimurium
Others
1995
0
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
2004
2003
2002
Agona
2001
Corvallis
Braenderup
Enteritidis
Hadar
2000
Infantis
1999
Newport
Stanley
1998
Typhimurium
Virchow
1997
Others
1996
1995
0
Figure 12. The most common
Salmonella serotypes found in
domestic infections in 1995 to
2004: The five most common
types each year, and also their
numbers in other years.
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
65
2400
Figure 13. The most common
Salmonella serotypes in foreign
infections in 1995 to 2004: The
five most common types each
year, and also their numbers in
other years.
9.4 Infections acquired abroad
A major part of salmonelloses found in Finland have been associated with travelling abroad: on the average 76 % of all cases in 1995 to 1999 and 85 % in 2000
to 2004. The five most common serotypes of all cases associated with travelling
abroad varied between years (Figure 2). In all these years, however, the three
most common serotypes were Salmonella Enteritidis (average about 1000 foreign
cases/yr), Salmonella Typhimurium (average 150 cases/yr) and Salmonella Virchow (average 80 cases/yr).
The percentage of Salmonella Enteritidis infections among all the foreign infections
varied from 41 % (2004) to 54 % (2002) throughout the decade. Among Salmonella
Enteritidis phage types only two, PT4 (181 - 385 cases detected) and PT1 (131
- 229), each year caused the majority of Enteritidis infections. These phage types
are known to be able to infect the ovaries of laying hens (they are so-called egg
invasive types), wherein Salmonella enter the eggs and may thus easily spread,
e.g. via products containing raw eggs. Infections caused by both these phage
types were usually associated with several countries. Infections by Enteritidis
PT4 in particular were acquired in Spain and other Mediterranean countries, but
also in Central Europe. Infections by Enteritidis PT1 often associated with trips
to the Baltic countries and Russia. Besides phage types PT1 and PT4, and only
in 2001, PT14b caused over 100 infections, most of which were associated with
travelling to Greece.
Various Salmonella Typhimurium phage types and Salmonella Virchov were found
in infections caught in several different countries. During eight years (1996 to 2003)
Salmonella Hadar and in five (1999 and 2001 to 2004) Salmonella Stanley was
included among the five most common foreign serotypes (Figure 2). Infections by
Salmonella Hadar in particularly were acquired in Mediterranean countries and
those by Salmonella Stanley in Thailand.
66
10 Antimicrobial resistance of
Salmonella strains
Research professor Anja Siitonen, KTL and veterinarian Anna-Liisa Myllyniemi, Evira
10.1 Background
Antimicrobial resistance, i.e., resistance to antimicrobials, is one of the most
serious problem of the medical and veterinary sciences. Resistance has increased during recent years and has become more versatile, rapidly increasing
morbidity and mortality in humans and animals, and associated health-care costs.
The greatest danger to human health is posed by increasing resistance among
zoonootic bacteria such as Salmonella.
10.2 Production animals and domestic foodstuffs
10.2.1 Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance
among Salmonella
Systematic antimicrobial sensitivity testing of Salmonella isolated from animals
has been carried out in Finland since 1983. In association with the National
Salmonella Control Programme, at least one isolate from each positive farm
has been tested. The antimicrobial sensitivity of Salmonella collected through
self-control has also intermittently tested.
In connection with the FINRES-Vet programme starting in 2002, surveillance of
the resistance of other groups of bacteria also became regular. The programme
monitors the antimicrobial resistance of zoonotic bacteria of importance to human healt, and the resistance of so-called indicator bacteria and certain animal
pathogenes. Included in the FINRES-Vet programme are Salmonella isolated
from domestic foodstuffs, cattle, pigs and poultry. In some years, the antimicrobial
susceptibility of Salmonella isolated from pet animals has also been tested.
Objectives of the programme are to monitor the antimicrobial resistance of bacteria, analyze trends in the prevalence of resistance prevalence, and to monitor
the emergence of new resistant clones and phenotypes. The programme also
monitors the consumption of antimicrobials and feed additives.
Prior to 2002, a disk diffusion method was used in the susceptibility testing of
Salmonella, and since 2002 a broth dilution method has been applied. In 2002,
epidemiological cut-off values were taken into use: the so-called wild population, i.e., sensitive, bacteria do not possess mutational or acquired resistance
mechanisms. By contrast, a micro-organism is defined as non-wild type (NWT)
for a species by the presence of an acquired or mutational resistance mechanism
to the drug in question.
67
Using these cut-off values it is possible to quickly to observe whether any bacterial population is developing resistance to some antimicrobial. The FINRESVet programme applies cut-off values established among the Nordic countries.
Since 2002, the following antimicrobials have been included in the resistance
monitoring: ampicillin, ceftiofur, chloramphenicol, florfenicol, nalidixic acid, enrofloxacin, gentamicin, neomycin, streptomycin, oxitetracyclin, sulfamethoxazole
and trimethoprim.
10.2.2 Antimicrobial resistance among Salmonella
As Salmonella infection is only rarely found among production animal, only a
small number of isolates are entered for susceptibility testing. Generally, isolates
tested are very sensitive, no resistance whatsoever being found in some years.
In 1995 - 2004, the number of resistant isolates from animals was around 10 %,
or noticeably less. For example, in 2003 no resistance at all was found for antimicrobials included in the test panel, and in 2004, resistance in strains isolated
from production animals was found only in multi-resistant S. Typhimurium DT 104
from one pig. S. Typhimurium DT 104 was detected in Finland at two cattle farms
in 1995. Since then, multi-resistant bacteria have only randomly been detected.
Salmonella isolates resistant to fluoroquinolones have also been encountered. In
addition, Salmonellae isolated from domestic foodstuffs have been susceptible
to antimicrobials tested.
The favourable resistance situation is due to prudent use of antimicrobials.
Antimicrobials are not used in Finland to treat Salmonella infections in animals.
Only Veterinarians may prescribe antimicrobial for animals. Recommendations
for using antimicrobial agents in the treatment of the most significant infectious
diseases in animals have been published.
10.3 Salmonella strains isolated from humans
Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella strains provides the possibility to detect epidemiological changes in the distribution of sensitive and resistant
strains isolated from infections acquired domestically and also abroad. Since 1995,
the MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) of 100 successive domestic and 100
successive foreign Salmonella strains isolated from sporadic human infections has
annually been determined for several antimicrobials. However, ”epidemiological”
susceptibility testing of all Salmonella strains using the disk diffusion method only
started in 2000 and involves the use of 12 antimicrobials (ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, sulphonamide, tetracycline, trimethoprim, ciprophloxacin,
gentamycin, nalidixic acid, cephotaxim, mecillinam and imipenem [Amp, Chl, Str,
Sul, Tet, Tmp, Cip, Gen, Nal, Ftx, Mec, Imp]). In addition, for the strains resistant
to nalidixic acid, MIC determination for ciprophloxacin is carried out.
Between the years 2000 and 2004 the sensitivity of about 10 600 strains was
tested. The percentage of multi-resistant strains has remained relatively constant
during these years: resistance to at least three drugs has been about 16 % and
that to at least four about 10 %. An average of 24 % of foreign strains and 9 % of
the domestic strains were resistant to Nal. However, among foreign Nal-resistant
strains, the percentage of those strains whose sensitivity to ciprophloxacin had
decreased (MIC ≥ 0.125 mg/L), had increased significantly between 2000 (51
%) and 2004 (83 %).
Resistance to Nal acid was common among Salmonella Enteritidis strains. On
the other hand, the occurrence of resistance depended on the country in which
the infection had been acquired, and thus also on the phage type; certain phage
types are often associated with infections in particular countries. Thus, for instance,
68
Enteritidis PT1 infections caught in Spain were generally caused by Nal-R strains,
while in Greece by Nal-S-strains. However, PT4 strains acquired in Spain were
often Nal-S, while those from Bulgaria, for instance, were Nal-R.
Endemic Salmonella Typhimurium DT1, Salmonella Infantis and Salmonella
Agona strains have generally been sensitive to all antimicrobials tested. By
contrast, foreign Infantis and Agona strains showed resistance to one or several
drugs. However, Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, was almost always resistant
to many antimicrobials, irrespective of its origin (domestic or foreign). Multi-resistance is especially typical for this phage type, and the typical resistance profile
is AmpChlStrSulTet.
10.4 Literature
• FINRES-Vet 2002-2003, Finnish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monito•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ring and Consumption of Antimicrobial Agents. National Veterinary and Food
Research Institute (EELA), Helsinki, Finland. ISSN 1458-6878.
FINRES-Vet 2004, Finnish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and
Consumption of Antimicrobial Agents. National Veterinary and Food Research
Institute (EELA), Helsinki, Finland. ISSN 1458-6878. The report is available
at www.evira.fi.
Hakanen A.J., Kotilainen P., Pitkänen S., Huikko S., Siitonen A., Huovinen
P. Reduction in fluoroquinolone susceptibility among non-typhoidal strains of
Salmonella enterica isolated from Finnish patients. J Antimicrob Chemother.
2006;57(3):569-572.
Hakanen A, Lindgren M, Huovinen P, Jalava J, Siitonen A, Kotilainen P. New
quinolene resistance phenomenon in Salmonella enterica: nalidixic acid-susceptible isolates with reduced fluoroquinolene susceptibility. J Clin Microbiol
2005;43:11:5775-5778.
Hakanen A, Siitonen A, Kotilainen P, Huovinen P. Increasing fluoroquinolone
resistance in Salmonella serotypes in Finland during 1995-1997. ��
J Antimicr
Chemother 1999;43:145-148.
Hakanen A, Siitonen A, Kotilainen P, Huovinen P. Increasing fluoroquinolone
resistance and multiresistance in Salmonella isolates of foreign origin in Finland.
Clin Microbiol Infect 1999:5;S3:302.
Kotilainen P, Pitkänen S, Siitonen A, Huovinen P, Hakanen A. In vitro activities
of 11 fluoroquinolenes against 816 non-typhoidal strains of Salmonella enterica
isolated from Finnish patients with special reference to reduced ciprofloxacin
susceptibility. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2005 Sep 5;4:12.
Lukinmaa S, Nakari U-M, Liimatainen A, Siitonen A. Genomic diversity within
phage types of Salmonella enterica ssp. enterica serotypes Enteritidis and
Typhimurium. Foodborne Pathogens & Disease 2006;3:97-105.
69
APPENDIX 1
National Salmonella Control Programme
Salmonella Typhimurium phagetypes isolated from cattle, swine and poultry samples in 1995 - 2004
Faagityypit /
phagetype
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1
181 13
81 25 16
81 22 13 14
26
71 35 16
41 22 24 35
26 27
21 15
21 14 18
21 24
21 13 14 15
77
51
1 var
9
12
35
40
41
41 var
68
72
104
120
124
135
135 var
195
NST
NT
U277
Total
14
1
1
1
5
1 3
1
1
1
1
11
21
11
11
11
1
1
11
2
1
15
1
24
23
20
5
2
2
5
1 1 1
21
41
1
16
1 1 1
12
162
15
11
16
14 17
14
16
14
22
92 14
12
15
52 15 17
42 16
29
21
21
15
21
1) = cattle herds, faecal samples
2) = cattle, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
3) = swine herds, faecal samples
4) = sow, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
5) = fattening pig, lymph node, carcass swab or meat sample
6) = egg production line (all)
7) = turkeys (all)
8) =meat production line (all), broilers
7
5
1 1
1
1 1
11 15
1
1
21
21
1
1
2
1
11
11 24 16
15
2
15
23
9
APPENDIX 2
Salmonella analysis of domestic feedstuffs in 1995 - 2004
Number of official control samples.
Number of samples analyzed (pcs)
Positive samples (pcs)
Feedstuff
Oil plant seeds and
products of these
Other feeds of vegetable
origin
Feeds of vegetable
origin, total
Milk products
Meat and meat-bone
powder
Other feeds of animal
origin
Feeds of animal origin,
total
Feed mixtures for
production animals*
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 - 2004
327
238
217
252
212
187
186
190
234
237
2 280
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0,4
0
0,4
0
0
0
0
0
0,8
0,2
32
19
26
4
41
43
41
41
43
50
340
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
257
243
256
253
230
227
231
277
287
2 620
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0,4
0
0,4
0
0
0
0
0
0,7
0,2
15
39
34
40
28
4
13
27
30
47
277
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
468
432
400
336
357
405
183
97
97
117
2 892
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0,5
0,3
0,6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,2
0
4
0
40
14
14
6
1
14
9
102
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3 271
483
475
434
416
399
423
202
125
141
173
0
2
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0,4
0,2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,2
1 136
1 070
952
796
802
714
830
1 123
1 213
1 038
9 674
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
9
<0,1
0,2
0
0,1
0,1
0
0
0,2
<0,1
<0,1
0,1
* Feed mixtures for animals in food production and dry feed mixtures for fur animals
APPENDIX 3 (1/2)
Salmonella analysis of imported feedstuffs (3rd countries and EU import) in 1995 - 2004
Number of official control samples
Feedstuffs
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 -2004
94
174
828
987
626
800
511
1 054
576
346
5 996
0
1
0
1
0
0
10
3
1
0
16
0
0,6
0
0,1
0
0
2
0,3
0,2
0
0,3
Oil plant seeds and by-products of
these (except sunflower seeds)
851
1 071
1 443
1 771
3 012
2 975
3 333
5 511
4 464
5 479
29 910
0
2
9
3
2
5
2
118
29
118
288
0
0,2
0,6
0,2
<0,1
0,2
0,1
2,1
0,6
2,1
1
Sunflower seeds (for feeding birds
outdoors)
248
231
234
186
277
187
276
295
388
14
2 336
Seeds of grains and products and byproducts of these
Sugar and starch indurstry products
Grass and hay powders
Other feed of vegetable origin
Feeds of plant origin, total
11
3
5
7
11
4
14
10
7
0
72
4,4
1,3
2,1
3,8
4
2,1
5,1
3,4
2,8
0
3,1
416
365
186
333
770
748
668
863
668
921
5 938
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
35
25
0
206
23
39
7
51
21
507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
61
7
1
56
49
4
0
198
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
37,5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,5
1717
1884
2752
3281
4898
4734
4883
7779
6151
6781
44 885
14
6
14
11
13
9
26
131
37
118
379
0,8
0,3
0,5
0,3
0,3
0,2
0,5
1,7
0,6
1,7
0,8
4
APPENDIX 3 (2/2)
Salmonella analysis of imported feedstuffs (3rd countries and EU import) in 1995 - 2004
Feedstuffs
Fish powder
Feed fish and fish refuse
Meat and meat-bone powder
Other feed of animal origin
Feed of animal origin, total
Feed mixtures for production
animals
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 -2004
740
782
610
356
43
92
51
81
101
37
2 893
1
1
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
0,1
0,1
0,2
1,7
0
0
0
1,2
0
0
0,3
1
4
16
4
0
15
17
36
4
2
99
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
1
465
371
444
406
15
6
0
0
0
0
1 707
0
5
7
4
0
0
0
1,3
1,6
1
0
0
96
216
178
24
14
6
16
1
0
1
1
1
537
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0,5
1,1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,6
1 302
1 373
1 248
790
72
119
68
118
106
40
5 236
1
7
10
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
<0,1
0,5
0,8
1,4
0
0
0
0,8
0
0
0,6
124
54
32
77
99
13
22
16
28
108
573
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
APPENDIX 4
Serotypes isolated from feed sample in 1995 - 2004
Samples from domestic manufacturing
Feedstuff
1995
1996
Number of samples, from where isolated
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2004 Total
S. Agona
S. Livingstone
S. Muenster
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
S. Agona
S. Tennessee
1
Turnip rape conc.
1
1
2
1
Feed-mixtures for production animals
S. Agona
S. Infantis
S. Livingstone
S. Mbandaga
S. Typhimurium
1
1
6
1
1
2
6
1
1
2
Feed for fur animals
S. Agona
S. Havana
S. Infantis
S. Poona
S. Tennessee
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
APPENDIX 5 (1/2)
Serotypes isolated from feedstuff samples in 1995 - 2004
Samples of imported feedstuffs (except for pet animals feeds)
Feedstuff
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
Sunflower seeds
S. Agona
S. Anatum
S. Braenderup
S. Brandenburg
S. Cubana
S. Derby
S. Enteritidis
S. Give
S. Havana
S. Infantis
S. Jerusalem
S. Kottbus
S. Lexington
S. Lille
S. Livingstone
S. London
S. Montevideo
S. Muenster
S. Ohio
S. Oranienburg
S. Senftenberg
S. ssp.
S. Szentes
S. Taksony
S. Tennessee
S. Typhimurium
1
2
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
2
1
5
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
7
1
1
8
16
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
8
2
2
1
1
1
Oil vegetables crushed and conc., etc.
S. Agona
S. Altona
S. Amsterdam
S. California
S. Cubana
S. Lexington
S. Mbandaka
S. Meleagridis
S. Rissen
S. Sambre
S. Senftenberg
S. ssp.
S. Tennessee
S. Typhimurium
S. Urbana
S. Wien
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
6
1
1
33
1
12
1
1
4
56
44
1
15
12
1
1
13
2
22
45
1
1
1
4
9
1
53
1
2
13
2
93
105
1
1
1
APPENDIX 5 (2/2)
Serotypes isolated from feedstuff samples in 1995 - 2004
Samples of imported feedstuffs (except for pet animals feeds)
Feedstuff
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
Seeds of grains and products and by-products of these
S. Agona
S. Infantis
S. Kottbus
S. Muenchen
S. Livingstone
S. Typhimurium
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
S. Adeleide
S. Anatum
S. Cerro
S. Infantis
S. Kentucky
S. Liverpool
S. Livingstone
S. Montevideo
S. Senftenberg
S. Tennessee
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fish powder
S. Agona
S. Anatum
S. Liverpool
S. Montevideo
S. Schwarzengrund
S. Tilburg
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Other feedstuffs of animal origin
S. Anatum
S. Infantis
S. Isangi
S. Orion
S. Typhimurium
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
Feed mixtures for production animals
S. Taksony
1
1
APPENDIX 6
Salmonella analysis of pet animal feed in 1995 - 2004
Feedstuff
% positive samples
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 -2004
544
Control samples of domestic manufacturing
Pet animal feeds (all)
77
94
34
69
70
55
33
47
32
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Import and market control samples1):
Pet animal feeds (except
teethers)
Pet animal teeethers and pig ears
Pet animals feeds and teethers,
total
1)
85
173
111
162
53
59
21
46
46
56
812
8
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
16
9,4
1,2
1,8
0
0
0
0
0
6,5
1,8
2
1 252
284
100
63
117
91
144
217
202
192
2 662
252
118
58
17
9
12
7
4
13
3
11
9,4
20,4
17
14,3
10,3
7,7
2,8
6
1,5
5,7
9,5
1 337
457
211
225
170
150
165
263
248
248
3 474
126
60
19
9
12
7
4
13
6
12
268
9,4
13,1
9
4
7,1
4,7
2,4
4,9
2,4
4,8
7,7
Market control samples include both imported products and domestic products
APPENDIX 7
Pet animal serotypes isolated from feedstuff samples in 1995 - 2004
Feedstuff
S. Abony
S. Agona
S. Anatum
S. Augustenborg
S. Braenderup
S. Brunei
S. Cerro
S. Derby
S. Dublin
S. Enteritidis
S. Give
S. Goldcost
S. Hadar
S. Havana
S. Indiana
S. Infantis
S. Kedougou
S. Lexington
S. Livingstone
S. London
S. Manhattan
S. Montevideo
S. München
S. Ohio
S. Orion
S. Panama
S. Rissen
S. Sagona
S. Schwarzengrund
S. Senftenberg
S. Ssp.
S. Stanley
S. Tennessee
S. Thompson
S. Typhimurium
S. Weltevreden
S. Westhampton
S. Worthington
1995
1996
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1
2003
2004
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
43
1
31
2
6
1
4
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
29
7
1
27
13
6
10
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
2
3
Total
1
2
3
1
1
2
19
9
1
1
1
2
1
91
1
12
2
2
3
4
1
41
1
37
30
1
5
1
5
3
3
1
3
3
22
12
1
1
APPENDIX 8
Salmonella contaminated feestuffs in 1995 - 2004
Domestic manufacturing
Manufacturing of domestic feedstuffs, mil. kg
Contaminated feedstuffs, mil. kg
Feedstuff
Contaminated feedstuffs, %
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 - 2004
Oil plant seeds and
products and byproducts of these
208,069
210,144
223,804
212,124
216,856
229,457
219,52
225,008
206,79
Feeds of plant
origin, total
397,328
Milk products
10,5
191,973
2 143,745
0,288
0,962
1,349
2,599
0,1
0,5
0,7
0,1
463,428
485,22
4 812,470
0,288
0,962
1,349
2,599
<0,1
0,2
0,3
<0,1
16,5
82,923
0,855
510,528
1,971
528,106
504,082
3,085
7,04
543,208
6,415
438,436
2,36
490,035
18,976
452,099
15,221
0
0
Meat and meat-bone
powder
Feeds of animal origin,
total
21,625
34,96
24,652
23,412
23,872
0,143
0,054
0,113
0,6
0,2
0,5
30,238
28,742
31,27
29,792
24,014
17,793
10,934
10,509
11,533
198,136
0,31
0,2
36,832
30,429
118,883
149,415
182,993
166,293
810,055
0,31
<0,1
Feed mixtures for
production animals*
1 172,50
1 161,08
0,006
0,026
0,005
0,037
<0,01
<0,001
<0,01
<0,001
1 156,49
1 226,77
1 284,04
* Feed mixtures for food-production animals and dry feed mixtures for fur animals
1 295,30
1 327,84
1 397,56
1 413,76
1 430,51
12 865,834
APPENDIX 9 (1/2)
Salmonella contaminated feedstuffs in 1995 - 2004
Imported feedstuffs 1)
(3rd countries and EU import)
Imported feed volumes, mil. kg 1)
Feedstuff
1995
Seeds of grains and products and byproducts of these
Oil plant seeds and by-products of
these (except sunflower seeds)
Sunflower seeds (for feeding birds
outdoors)
1996
7,07
1997
12,64
1998
47,08
1999
55,96
74,74
2002
2003
2004
1995 - 2004
22,21
39,4
72,45
39,54
1,01
6,38
0,8
2,8
8,8
2
157,96
158,22
248,12
257,98
216,69
1 418,08
75,2
446,29
8,19
1,8
65
3,67
9,73
1,8
2
6,1
3,65
41,79
8,9
48,02
125,66
7,3
15
2,2
1,4
3,9
2,3
16,8
3,5
22,1
8,9
9,31
4,11
5,49
3,18
7,28
2,06
6,74
8,39
11,52
0,45
58,53
0,27
0,06
0,11
0,14
0,82
0,11
0,47
0,25
0,18
2,9
1,5
2
4,4
11,3
5,4
7
3
1,6
20,16
14,3
8,94
24,16
38,03
34,76
28,47
33,75
25,79
Sugar and starch industry products
0,04
142,37
2001
50,32
38,59
82,83
2000
2,41
4,1
49,16
277,52
0
0,03
0,03
<0,1
0,1
<0,1
0,02
0,02
0,08
-
0,02
-
0,02
0,05
0,08
0,33
0
One-cell whites
0
4,84
1,8
0,13
-
9,66
2,13
1,92
2,21
2,47
1,03
26,19
0
Grass and hay powder
0
0,37
Other feed of vegetable origin
-
1,32
-
0,06
-
2,81
2,28
0,05
-
6,89
0
0
APPENDIX 9 (2/2)
Salmonella contaminated feedstuffs in 1995 - 2004
Imported feedstuffs 1)
(3rd countries and EU import)
Imported feed volumes, mil. kg 1)
Feedstuff
1995
Feeds of plant origin, total
Fish powder
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 - 2004
80,38
83,19
127,98
166,21
272,14
272,13
237,56
367,22
337,4
289,62
2 233,83
0,27
3,73
9,84
1,97
2,82
6,21
4,13
48,42
9,88
48,02
136,29
0,3
4,5
7,7
1,2
1
2,3
1,7
13,2
2,9
16,6
6,1
31,4
34,24
31,9
20,08
10,66
9,39
12,29
12,95
13,02
10,33
186,26
0,02
1,32
0,3
3,68
6,35
0,1
3,9
0,9
18,3
49
1,1
1,03
5,34
0,51
-
0,26
1,98
1,97
11,67
6,3
0,09
0,06
0,03
Feed fish and fish refuse
0,03
5,9
16,84
4,67
Other feed of animal origin
Feeds of animal origin, total
Feed mixtures for production
animals
1)
10,97
13,68
12,93
0,12
0,28
0,73
1,1
2
5,6
6,03
5,94
0,58
12,34
0,2
6,54
0,79
-
-
-
-
61,75
1,13
1,8
1,49
-
0,02
0,03
0,02
0,09
18,87
0,06
0,05
0,1
1,2
0,8
0,6
54,01
52,27
55,86
34,1
0,08
1,45
0,62
4,44
6,35
12,94
0,1
2,8
1,1
13
42,5
4,6
0,8
0,44
0,3
3,32
Imported volumes submitted to control inspections
18,68
3,37
10,44
0,35
14,29
0,27
14,95
0,21
13,13
0,28
10,48
1,2
279,22
10,54
0
0
APPENDIX 10
Salmonella contaminated pet animal feeds in 1995 - 2004
Feed volume, mil. kg 1)
Feedstuff
Domestic
manufacturing
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995 -2004
22,52
21,656
27,483
23,814
22,442
10,692
7,98
7,872
7,742
7,29
159,491
0
0
Imported 1)
1)
0
1,14
1,11
0,95
0,36
0,05
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,8
4,2
1,9
0,5
2,8
2,4
Imported volumes submitted to control inspections (3rd countries and EU import).
0,003
-
-
-
0,01
3,57
APPENDIX 11 (1/2)
Serotypes isolated from animals other than those included in
the National Salmonella Control program 1997 - 2000
Serovar
Abony
Agona
Agoueve
Ahuza
Alger
Banana
Bardo
Bredeney
Cerro
Enteritidis
Finkenwerder
Give
Hadar
Hillingdon
Hvittingfoss
Indiana
Infantis
Montevideo
Muenchen
Newport
Oslo
Paratyphi B var. Java
Poona
Saintpaul
Salmonella ssp. I
S. ssp.II = salamae
S. ssp.III
S. ssp.IIIa = arizonae
S. ssp.IIIb = diarizonae
S. ssp.IV = houtenae
Typhimurium
Virchow
Total
1997
114
113 119
1998
1999
2000
128
114
113 635
114
114
116
15
114
121
121
2 38
1 6
113 126 1638
213 116 738
119
116
138
114
116
116
113
121
122
14
16
1
26
1
1
32
1
41
4
1
15
1 1
121
114
121
121
219
21
2
126
121
14
2
38
1
113
119
112 113 214 121
133
114 215 121
314 121
119
114 119 121
419
121
19
1
114 221
211 113 115 216 1022 19 111 115 516 722
123 126 238 140
124 938 141
54
57
213 214 119 147
514
11 319
219
114 221
121
1 1 112 115 316
822 124 626 129 233 115 116 322 233
238 140
835 139 247
121
63
53
5
11
Total
1
10
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
19
12
5
5
3
7
93
1
227
1 duck; 2 ferret; 3 goose; 4 horse; 5 mouse; 6 mouse, zoo; 7 howk owl, zoo; 8 lynx; 9 hen, not production; 10 rabbit; 11
pigeon; 12 fox, natural; 13 fox, ranched; 14 turtle; 15 cat; 16 dog; 17 great spotted woodpecker; 18 ermine; 19 snake;
20 pet hedgehog; 21 lizard; 22 seagull; 23 guinea pig; 24 mountain hare/brown hare; 25 mink; 26 other bird; 27
peregrine; 28 badger; 29 artic fox; 30 aquirrel; 31 parrot; 32 reideer; 33 bullfinch; 34 ptarmigan, zoo; 35 rat; 36 longeared owl; 37 otter, ranched; 38 hedgehog; 39 mallard; 40 raccoon; 41 lamb; 42 great git; 43 swift; 44 undulate; 45
redpoll; 46 sparrow; 47 greenfinch; 48 siskin; 49 boar
APPENDIX 11 (2/2)
Serotypes isolated from animals other than those included in
the National Salmonella Control Program 2000 - 2004
Serovar
Abony
Agona
Anatum
Bardo
Bonn
Braenderup
Brandenburg
Bredeney
Derby
Enteritidis
Florida
Fluntern
Gaminara
Halle
Hessarek
Hvittingfoss
Infantis
Jangwani
Kisarawe
Konstanz
Korkeasaari
Kottbus
Lexington
London
Madelia
Manhattan
Montevideo
Muenster
Newport
Newyork
Nima
Oranienburg
Panama
Patience
Poona
Sandiego
Schwarzengrund
Salmonella ssp. I
S. ssp.II = salamae
S. ssp.IIIa = arizonae
S. ssp.IIIb = diarizonae
S. ssp.IV = houtenae
Tennessee
Typhimurium
Virchow
Total
2001
2002
2003
1
2004
16
116
119
114
122
14
1
114 222
119
115
7
38
122
122
5 438
13
17 120 238
118 119 1138
119
121
121
114
18
119
113
1
19
1
13
116 125
121
12
1
121
114
119
1
21
121
121
121 122
116
19 22
4 1
219
121
121
119
1
19
2
14
14
113 121 225
119
3 519 121
114 219
110 319
119 121
14
224 113 315 316 117 2422
227 136 238 240 143 144 245
114 118
214 119
919 121
16 114 719 321
119 321
114
64 19 513 116 822 225
230 133 137 138 142
103
89
119
313
14
113
121
21
2 3
619 131
619 121
119 121
113 222 124
233 134 148
116
48
114 118 119
5 119 120 321
619
719 121
221
14
43 14 19 415 316 322 224
933 638 345 246 147
95
Total
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
33
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
1
2
2
8
1
1
14
21
27
29
8
1
141
1
335
1 duck; 2 ferret; 3 goose; 4 horse; 5 mouse; 6 mouse, zoo; 7 howk owl, zoo; 8 lynx; 9 hen, not production; 10 rabbit; 11
pigeon; 12 fox, natural; 13 fox, ranched; 14 turtle; 15 cat; 16 dog; 17 great spotted woodpecker; 18 ermine; 19 snake; 20
pet hedgehog; 21 lizard; 22 seagull; 23 guinea pig; 24 mountain hare/brown hare; 25 mink; 26 other bird; 27 peregrine; 28
badger; 29 artic fox; 30 aquirrel; 31 parrot; 32 reideer; 33 bullfinch; 34 ptarmigan, zoo; 35 rat; 36 long-eared owl; 37 otter,
ranched; 38 hedgehog; 39 mallard; 40 raccoon; 41 lamb; 42 great git; 43 swift; 44 undulate; 45 redpoll; 46 sparrow; 47
greenfinch; 48 siskin; 49 boar
APPENDIX 12
S . Typhimurium phagetypes, animals other than those included in
Phagetype
1
2
8
12
12 var
21 var
35
36
1996
1997
513 116 338 14 122 123
240
238 140
1998
1999
4
316 638
11
1
16
1
NT
Total
15
2002
16
4 2 1
138
15 124 238
4
9
2003
2004
113
19 116 438
122 133 134
148
14 315 116
224 633 345
246 147
122
23 322
13
4 1 1
225 130 142
16
16
1
16
1
13
2
44
1
33
15
41
1
1
1
26
4
11
1
U277
NST
2001
1
40
41
41 var
66
72
104
110
120
135
135 var
195
2000
11
922 126
113
2
13
422
1
33
3
13
33
22
2 2
1 5
129
122
322
122
16
1
47
222
15
16
36
1 1 1
2222 227
240
33
1
722 138
38
1
16
1
116
17
1
3
9
1 1
16
22
1
1
13
1
13
1
35
8
13
1
38
38
1
2
15
1
113 116 140
26
26
16
116
22
1
22
1
3
222 124
26
15
1
40
1
27
38
22
1
1
43
1
39
2
37
1
18
115 116 333
238
45
1
122
45
23
6
37
1 duck; 2 ferret; 3 goose; 4 horse; 5 mouse; 6 mouse, zoo; 7 howk owl, zoo; 8 lynx; 9 hen, not production; 10 rabbit;
11 pigeon; 12 fox, natural; 13 fox, ranched; 14 turtle; 15 cat; 16 dog; 17 great spotted woodpecker; 18 ermine; 19
snake; 20 pet hedgehog; 21 lizard; 22 seagull; 23 guinea pig; 24 mountain hare/brown hare; 25 mink; 26 other bird;
27 peregrine; 28 badger; 29 artic fox; 30 aquirrel; 31 parrot; 32 reideer; 33 bullfinch; 34 ptarmigan, zoo; 35 rat; 36
long-eared owl; 37 otter, ranched; 38 hedgehog; 39 mallard; 40 raccoon; 41 lamb; 42 great git; 43 swift; 44
undulate; 45 redpoll; 46 sparrow; 47 greenfinch; 48 siskin; 49 boar
APPENDIX 13
S . Enteritidis phagetypes, animals other than those included in
Phagetype
1
4
6
8
20
20a
33
NST
NT
Total
1995
138
1996
1997
149
12
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
17
118
138
119
1138
116
115
338
138
338
138
126 1338
738
538
438
213
15 138
113
213
138
138
15
9
1
6
120 138
5
1
4
See explanations Appendix 12
7
5
6
4
13
APPENDIX 14 (1/2)
Salmonella isolates from imported foodstuffs 1997 - 2004
Serovar
Agona
Amsterdam
Anatum
Bardo
Blockley
Braenderup
Brandenburg
Bredeney
Charity
Chincol
1997
Hadar
Haifa
Heidelberg
Hvittingfoss
Indiana
Infantis
Isangi
Istanbul
Kentucky
Kottbus
Krefeld
Lexington
Livingstone
London
Manhattan
Mbandaka
Montevideo
Muenchen
Muenster
Newlands
1999
2000
2001
2002
45
317
130
140
19
127
111
2
116 345
111
138
127
128
138 139 142
149 153
126
145
347
123 144 147
111
411 132
135
234
11
111
1
17 111
29
1
111
127
29
140
127
111
127
12 17 111 111 227 156
111 312
1411
130
127
140
127
12
42
19
240
54
245
54
1
111
13 511
244
311
111
56 110 311
251
611
137
140
11
133
421
119
120
142
111
411
924
127
1
125
140
136 451
111
159
2004
140
140
154
2003
9
1
Derby
Dessau
Dublin
Emek
Enteritidis
Fischerkietz
Gaminara
Give
Goldcoast
Haardt
1998
143
533
150
117
26
12
140
APPENDIX 14 (2/2)
Salmonella isolates from imported foodstuffs 1997 - 2004
Serovar
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
11
Newport
Ohio
Oranienburg
Orion
Panama
Potsdam
Rubislaw
Saintpaul
Saphra
Schwarzengrund
Senftenberg
S. ssp. I
S. ssp.IIIb=diarizonae
Telhashomer
Thompson
Typhimurium
Virchow
Weltevreden
Total
120
4
227
16
2002
3 1
148
145
57
1
312
130
12
340
117
211 141
111
458
111
26
111
140
116 140
140
11 40
1 1
211 134
111
148
125 130
125 127
211
143 245
128
14 140 452 114 126 252
27
2004
3
19
127 130
2003
26
118
25 16
12 115 120 122 149 151
149 150 152 152 357 143 351 153
211
40
1
23
427 143 651
35
68
28
152 155
211 331 140
57
24
1 duck meat, Holland; 2 duck meat, France; 3 duck meat, Thailand; 4 duck meat, foreign; 5 broiler, Argentina; 6
broiler, Brazil; 7 broiler, Spain; 8 broiler, Great Britain; 9 broiler, France; 10 broiler, Germany; 11 broiler, Thailand;
12 broiler foreign; 13 broiler, USA; 14 food, Great Britain; 15 food, foreign; 16 horsemeat, Argentina; 17
horsemeat, Brazil; 18 horsemeat, Poland; 19 horsemeat, Uruguay; 20 horsemeat, USA; 21 minced meat, Holland,
22 minced meat, Germany; 23 hamburger, Danish-Finnish; 24 sponge cake, Denmark; 25 turkey, Brazil; 26
turkey, Great Britain; 27 turkey, France; 28 turkey, Germany; 29 turkey, Denmark; 30 turkey, foreign; 31 turkey,
Hungary; 32 kebab meat, Great Britain; 33 kebab meat, unspecified; 34 kebab meat, Germany; 35 kangaroo fillet,
Australia; 36 ham pepper snack, foreign; 37 dried mint, Egypt; 38 meat, Germany; 39 meat, Denmark; 40 spices;
41 minimaize, Thailand; 42 beef, Belgium; 43 beef, Holland; 44 beef, Ireland; 45 beef, Paraguay; 46 beef
Germany; 47 beef, Denmark; 48 frog's leg, Indonesia; 49 pork, Belgium; 50 pork, Holland; 51 pork, Germany; 52
pork, Denmark; 53 pork, foreign; 54 mussels, Thailand;
55 Tapas salami, Spain; 56 wild duck meat, Holland; 57 wild duck meat, Great Britain; 58 chocolate, Germany; 59
pheasant meat, foreign
APPENDIX 15
S . Typhimurium phagetypes, imported foodstuffs 1996-2004
Phagetype
8
12
15A
17
104
104B
108
120
135
185
195
U277
U302
NST
NT
Total
1996
14
1997
252
1998
52
1
115
52
2000
357
122 151
2001
2002
114
120 143 146
150
152
1
49
151
143
143
151
151
151
151
127
15
3
2004
153
1
40
1
4
4
1
2003
152
126
18
1999
12
149
9
1
8
7
4
0
5
152
155
2
2003
2004
111
111
111
3
56 110
311
S. Enteritidis phagetypes, imported foodstuffs 1996-2004
Phagetype
1
4
6
21
Total
1996
1997
1998
18
111
17 111
1
1
2
1999
0
2000
2001
111
211 132
2002
111
211
1
3
3
9
APPENDIX 16
Epidemics caused by various Salmonella types (A) and
number of ill persons in these epidemics (B) in 1995 - 2004
1995
Salmonella type
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Enteriditis
Typhimurium
Stanley
Panama
Total
A
3
2
1
1
B
287
51
114
20
7
1996
Salmonella type
Salmonella Enteriditis
Salmonella Typhimurium
Salmonella Poona
472
A
2
3
1
6
1997
Salmonella Hadar
Salmonella Newport
A
2
1
1
Total
4
385
A
1
1
6
1
Total
8
Enteriditis
Typhimurium
Dublin
Seftenberg
B
5
244
63
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Enteriditis
Typhimurium
Ohio
Saitpaul
312
Total
A
1
1
1
1
A
1
3
1
1
B
7
39
300
12
6
358
2002
B
20
30
11
3
4
32
2000
2001
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
B
32
1
1999
Salmonell a Agona
85
1998
B
260
25
100
A
B
31
34
20
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Enteriditis
Typhimurium
Abony
Oranienburg
64
A
1
3
1
1
B
60
56
13
9
6
2003
138
2004
Salmonella Potsdam
A
1
B
2
Total
1
2
Salmonella Agona
A
2
1
1
B
30
25
19
4
74
APPENDIX 17 (1/2)
Descriptions of Salmonella epidemics 2000 - 2004
Year
2000
2001
2002
Sero-/phagetype
Typhimurium var. Copenhagen FT NST
Ill
(estimate)
20
Saintpaul
12
Typhimurium FT1
8
Enteriditis FT1
7
Typhimurium FT1
Ohio
11
300
Dublin
Seftenberg
11
3
Typhimurium FT1
Enteriditis FT9
30
20
Abony
Oranienburg
13
9
Disease carrier / other notes
Disease associated with dinner in a restaurant. The same Salmonella type was found
from two symptomless personnel in the kitchen.
Infections at family party via food served. Salmonella carrier had taken part in the
preparation of food.
Smoked meat bought at a summer event and stored for long at room temperature caused
disease at a family party. Altogether, 1200 kg of the meat had been sold, but no other
illnesses were reported.
Alfalfa sprouts grown at a course centre caused an epidemic among course participants.
Five persons were taken to hospital for treatment. A person having stomach symptoms
had participated in preparing the sprouts.
Illnesses in several locations. All the ill had eaten at the same hotel.
During the Christmas season at a slalom centre, they had to start using an extra water
supply of the municipality. Water from this water supply was contaminated by wastewater
leaking from a broken wastewater line. About 300 vacationers fell ill in one week after
drinking contaminated utility water. In addition to Salmonella, calicivirus, and
Campylobacter upsaliensis were found in ill with long-term symptoms and in the water.
Illness associated with eating at a pizzeria.
Eating at a hamburger restaurant. The same type of Salmonella was also isolated from
one kitchen worker without symptoms.
Associated with a wedding dinner at a restaurant.
Infection apparently caught during a trip to Latvia. Yoghurt dessert was the suspected
source of infection.
Brown mung bean sprouts. The seeds were from China. Outbreak in Northern Savonia.
Contaminated German chocolate caused an outbreak in several countries. In addition to
Finland, Salmonella was isolated from the chocolate in Germany and Sweden. At least
300 people in Europe fell ill.
APPENDIX 17 (2/2)
Descriptions of Salmonella epidemics 2000 - 2004
Year
Sero-/phagetype
Sick
(estimate)
47
Disease carrier / other notes
Typhimurium FT120
4
Typhimurium FT104
Enteriditis FT4
5
44
16
Infection associated with eating in a work-place canteen in Helsinki. Epidemiological
analysis found a significant association between eating food containing Lebanese
sesame mass (Halva) and being ill. Two Salmonella phage types were isolated. No
Salmonella was isolated from food samples.
Eating in a work-place canteen. The same type of Salmonella was also found in a kitchen
worker lacking symptoms.
Illness associated with eating in a kebab restaurant
Eating at a restaurant in Latvia suspected being the source of infection.
Secondary infections
2003
Potsdam
2
Illness associated with drinking water from a stream by a nature trail.
2004
Agona
19
Typhimurium var. Copenhagen
FT104 (ACSSuT-R),
multi-resistant, rare in Finland
25
Enteriditis FT13 var.
rare phagetype
26
Food served at a housewarming party. Food was prepared at home. The source of
infection could not be found.
A wedding dinner arranged by catering service. Of 85 persons exposed, 25 became ill
from whom multi-resistant foreign type of Salmonella was isolated. No food or catering
service employees was available for sampling. One person taking part in preparing food
has symptoms of stomach illness at the time of preparation.
Food prepared by catering service and served at a wedding. From epidemiological
analysis, a significant connection was found between eating macaroni salad and being ill.
The same type of Salmonella was isolated from one employee at the company who had
no symptoms. The employee had participated in preparing the salad.
Enteriditis FT4 (Nal-R)
multi-resistant, rare in Finland
4
In a restaurant where broilers originatinated from Brazil were cut, marinated and
frozen.Multi-resistant foreign-type Salmonella were isolated from the broiler meat, and
also from the persons being ill. Several deficiencies were apparent in the restaurant’s
hygiene and self-control.
Typhimurium FT1, FT9
APPENDIX 18
International standards and legislation
SPS. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. World
trade organisation. 15. 4 1994. www.wto.org
CAC/GL-30. CAC Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk
Assessment, 1999. Codex Alimentarius. http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
Commission Decision 94/968/EC of 28 December 1994 approving the operational
programme for the control of Salmonella in certain live animals and animal
products presented by Finland. OJ No. L 371, 31/12/1994 s. 36–37. Suomenk.
Erityispainos Alue 3 Nide 64 s. 252.
Commission Decision 95/161/EC of 21 April 1995 establishing additional
guarantees regarding Salmonella for consignments to Finland and Sweden of
laying hens. OJ No. L 105, 09/05/1995 pp. 44-46.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1688/2005 of 14 October 2005 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as
regards special guarantees concerning Salmonella for consignments to Finland
and Sweden of certain meat and eggs. OJ. L 271, 15/10/2005 pp. 17-28.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on
microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. OJ. L 338, 22/12/2005 pp. 1-25.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1003/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 as regards a Community target for the reduction of
the prevalence of certain Salmonella serotypes in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus
and amending Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003. OJ. L 170, 1/7/2005 pp. 12–17.
Council directive 92/117/EEC of 17 December 1992 concerning measures for
protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and
products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and
intoxications. OJ No. L 062, 15/03/1993 pp. 0038–0048. Suomenk. Erityispainos
Alue 3 Nide 48 s. 183.
APPENDIX 18
Council directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements
for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat
preparations. OJ No. L 127, 29/04/1998 pp. 34
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne
zoonotic agents. OJ. L 325, 12/12/2003 pp. 1–15.

salmonella control and occurence of salmonella from

Transcription

Similar documents

Diagnostic Laboratory Updates — Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic

Salmonella - European Food Safety Authority

Chromosomal rearrangements in Salmonella spp. s2-2

Nuts/Seeds Process Expectations

Presentation

Case Study

jmorata/TYPES OF AGAR

CFA/BRC Micro Criteria Guidance v1.2

Agricultural Science Lecture Series

Children on the move in street situations