P01 | Objectives and methods for planning inspections and audits in animal food production establishments in the Emilia-Romagna region

A. Rosamilia¹, C. Travaglio², M.L. Bartczak³, F. Vergani⁴, M. Pierantoni⁵, A. Poeta³, D. Fabbri⁶, G. Dell’Orfano⁷, P. Gandolfi⁸, I. Buscemi⁹, F. Zanchini¹⁰, S. Benedetti², A. Padovani². | ¹Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna; ²Settore Prevenzione Collettiva e Sanità Pubblica, Regione Emilia-Romagna; ³AUSL di Reggio Emilia; ⁴AUSL di Piacenza; ⁵AUSL di Parma; ⁶AUSL di Modena; ⁷AUSL di Ferrara; ⁸AUSL di Bologna; ⁹AUSL di Imola; ¹⁰AUSL della Romagna, Italy

Purpose. This study examined the frequency of non-conformities detected during inspections and audits in various sectors and production activities of animal food production establishments in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, between 2020 and 2024. Methods. For carrying out the checks, the Competent Authority (CA) uses manuals, checklists, and a record. The AC schedules inspections at frequencies established based on the risk category assigned to each production activity; For audits, it refers to the provisions of the national guidelines. In order to assess whether the balance between the frequency of checks and non-conformity findings was adequate, the Complaint Index (ComIn) was calculated: Positive values indicate the need to intensify monitoring, while negative values suggest that the frequency of checks was higher than necessary. Results. 582,833 checks (inspections and audits) were carried out, and 14,287 production activities were inspected and 2,418 audited. There were 12,237 (2.3%) non-conformities in inspection reports and 1,956 (4.6%) in audits. Positive aspects include staff training in poultry slaughterhouses; traceability procedures, withdrawal/recall in repackaging centers; the handling of the finished product and labeling in meat preparation establishments; the management of raw materials and semi-finished products in bivalve mollusk packaging and shipping centers. More frequent inspection controls would be necessary in dairy product manufacturing plants for: registration and recognition, facilities and equipment, cleaning and sanitation conditions, personnel and processing hygiene, pest control, and raw material and semi-finished product management. From the analysis of the data obtained, the need for more frequent audits of staff training in ungulate slaughterhouses, poultry cutting plants, and meat product manufacturing establishments is highlighted. Furthermore, the need for increased controls regarding pre-operative and operative cleaning and disinfection procedures in domestic ungulate slaughterhouses and meat product processing establishments is noted. It would be appropriate to increase the frequency of audits in meat and dairy product production facilities, with reference to structures and equipment, personnel and processing hygiene, pest control, and the management of raw materials and semi-finished products. In ungulate slaughterhouses, numerous non-compliances were detected regarding traceability, withdrawal/recall, raw materials and semi-finished products, finished products, and labeling. Other aspects of the investigation, checked beyond what is necessary, include: raw materials and semi-finished products and self-monitoring plans in meat product production facilities; pre-operational and operational cleaning and disinfection and self-monitoring/HACCP plans in dairy processing facilities. For cold storage facilities, the Commission highlights that many areas of investigation are excessively controlled. Conclusions. The results obtained highlight the opportunity to move from a systematic control approach based on generic risk categories to targeted checks on the specific risks of production chains with greater criticalities.