Preparatory Work for Future Development of Four Scientific Opinions on Monitoring Procedures at Slaughterhouses Annette M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Reports Medicine 2013 Preparatory Work for Future Development of Four Scientific Opinions on Monitoring Procedures at Slaughterhouses Annette M. O'Connor Iowa State University, [email protected] Rungano Stan Dzikamunhenga Iowa State University, [email protected] Jan M. Sargeant University of Guelph J. Glanville York Health Economics Consortium H. Wood York Health Economics Consortium Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/vdpam_reports Part of the Food Science Commons, Laboratory and Basic Science Research Commons, and the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons Recommended Citation O'Connor, Annette M.; Dzikamunhenga, Rungano Stan; Sargeant, Jan M.; Glanville, J.; and Wood, H., "Preparatory Work for Future Development of Four Scientific Opinions on Monitoring Procedures at Slaughterhouses" (2013). Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Reports. 5. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/vdpam_reports/5 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Reports by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Preparatory Work for Future Development of Four Scientific Opinions on Monitoring Procedures at Slaughterhouses Abstract The bjo ective of this review was to summarize the currently available data describing the sensitivity and specificity of indicators of unconsciousness and death in the following stun-kill methods and species combinations: 1) penetrative captive bolt for bovine animals, 2) head-only electrical stunning for pigs, 3) headonly electrical stunning for sheep and goats, 4) electrical waterbath for poultry (chickens and turkeys), 5) carbon dioxide at high concentration for pigs, 6) all authorized gas methods to slaughter chickens and turkeys (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases and inert gases alone), 7) slaughter without stunning for bovine animals, 8) slaughter without stunning for sheep and goats, 9) slaughter without stunning for chickens and turkeys. The efer rence tests for unconsciousness and death were to have been measured using electroencephalography (EEG). The definition of unconsciousness and death based on EEG were not specified, and the definition used by authors was reported. The index et sts of interest were a variety of indicators requested by the funding agency such as no corneal reflex nda immediate collapse. The index et sts differed by stun-kill methods and species combination. A comprehensive search identified 22 publications contained 24 species-stun/kill method combinations. No studies explicitly reported the sensitivity and specificity of the indicators in conscious and unconscious animals. Many studies reported the proportion of stunned animals with indicators, rather than the proportion of unconscious or conscious animals at a set time point with the indicators. Such data could not be translated into sensitivity and specificity. Other studies reported the average time to occurrence of an indicator or average time to cessation of the indicators. Such data cannot be translated into sensitivity and specificity estimates without knowledge of the joint distributions. Keywords systematic review, slaughter, electroencephalography, diagnostic test evaluation Disciplines Food Science | Laboratory and Basic Science Research | Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Comments This report is EFSA Supporting Publication (2013): EN-467, 62 pp. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/ publications. Posted with permission. This report is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/vdpam_reports/5 EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-467 EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT Preparatory work for future development of four scientific opinions on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses1 A. O’Connor1, R. Dzikamunhenga1, J. Sargeant2, J. Glanville3 and H. Wood3 1College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames Iowa, USA, 2 Centre for Public and Health and Zoonoses, University of Guelph, Guelph, CA, 3York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, UK ABSTRACT The objective of this review was to summarize the currently available data describing the sensitivity and specificity of indicators of unconsciousness and death in the following stun-kill methods and species combinations: 1) penetrative captive bolt for bovine animals, 2) head-only electrical stunning for pigs, 3) head- only electrical stunning for sheep and goats, 4) electrical waterbath for poultry (chickens and turkeys), 5) carbon dioxide at high concentration for pigs, 6) all authorized gas methods to slaughter chickens and turkeys (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases and inert gases alone), 7) slaughter without stunning for bovine animals, 8) slaughter without stunning for sheep and goats, 9) slaughter without stunning for chickens and turkeys. The reference tests for unconsciousness and death were to have been measured using electroencephalography (EEG). The definition of unconsciousness and death based on EEG were not specified, and the definition used by authors was reported. The index tests of interest were a variety of indicators requested by the funding agency such as no corneal reflex and immediate collapse. The index tests differed by stun-kill methods and species combination. A comprehensive search identified 22 publications contained 24 species-stun/kill method combinations. No studies explicitly reported the sensitivity and specificity of the indicators in conscious and unconscious animals. Many studies reported the proportion of stunned animals with indicators, rather than the proportion of unconscious or conscious animals at a set time point with the indicators. Such data could not be translated into sensitivity and specificity. Other studies reported the average time to occurrence of an indicator or average time to cessation of the indicators. Such data cannot be translated into sensitivity and specificity estimates without knowledge of the joint distributions. © Iowa State University, University of Guelph, University of York KEY WORDS systematic review, slaughter, electroencephalography, diagnostic test evaluation DISCLAIMER The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. 1 Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00950. Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to [email protected] Suggested citation: O’Connor A, Dzikamunhenga R, Sargeant J, Glanville J and Wood H, 2013. Preparatory work for future development of four scientific opinions on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses. EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-467, 62 pp. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications © European Food Safety Authority, 2013 Indicators of unconsciousness and death at slaughter TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background as provided by EFSA ........................................................................................................... 3 Terms of reference as provided by EFSA ................................................................................................ 3 Introduction and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 5 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Research question ............................................................................................................................ 6 2. Selection criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6 3. Literature Search .............................................................................................................................. 8 3.1. Search terms ............................................................................................................................ 8 3.2. Information sources searched ................................................................................................. 9 3.3. Study selection ...................................................................................................................... 10 3.4. Data items ............................................................................................................................. 11 3.5. Risk of bias in individual