« 00071 · Edit Form · 00073 »

Wood JD, Holder JS, Main DCJ (1998 ) ‘’Quality assurance schemes

‘’

Paper, MEAT SCIENCE
ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND

Document:

Abstract
This paper considers the consumer’s changing definition of quality in relation to meat and the current development of Quality Assurance (QA) schemes to ensure that certain quality standards are met. The key ingredients of QA schemes are food safety, animal welfare and sensory aspects (meat quality) although the latter is not a major feature of many schemes at present. For each of these components, points in the production-processing chain where problems can arise should be identified and control procedures introduced. Monitoring is required to check the effectiveness of these. This approach is based on HACCP principles although best practice rules are the basis of most current QA schemes. The paper identifies key points on the farm and in the abattoir where food safety, animal welfare and meat quality can be compromised and shows how best practice procedures are introduced to reliably raise standards. There is some concern about the credibility of some QA schemes in relation to the standards set, the strictness of inspection and especially the impartiality of auditing procedures. This may be ensured in schemes within Europe which comply with EN 45011 standards. The move towards more tightly regulated QA schemes to raise consumer confidence could benefit some traditional products and organic meat production schemes which already operate with strict specifications.

Keywords: PORK QUALITY; CARCASSES; CONTAMINATION

Relevance to our study:
This paper recognises the growing demand for quality produce and that quality produce is a key element in ensuring a sustainable and competetive agricultural sectors. Further states that food quality, certified to EN 45011? level not only inproves the quality of the produce but also provides reassurance to consumers that the food is being produced to a high standard.

Relevancy on a scale from 1 to 5 = 3

Review status:
Review started on 2009–07–14
Reviewed by

Comments: