Title: Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination on carcases from kangaroos, wild pigs, goats and sheep
Abstract: EFSA JournalVolume 20, Issue 5 e07265 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination on carcases from kangaroos, wild pigs, goats and sheep EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) [email protected] Correspondence:[email protected] for more papers by this authorClaude Lambré, Claude LambréSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Manuel Barat Baviera, José Manuel Barat BavieraSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Bolognesi, Claudia BolognesiSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Chesson, Andrew ChessonSearch for more papers by this authorPier Sandro Cocconcelli, Pier Sandro CocconcelliSearch for more papers by this authorRiccardo Crebelli, Riccardo CrebelliSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Michael Gott, David Michael GottSearch for more papers by this authorKonrad Grob, Konrad GrobSearch for more papers by this authorEugenia Lampi, Eugenia LampiSearch for more papers by this authorGilles Riviere, Gilles RiviereSearch for more papers by this authorInger-Lise Steffensen, Inger-Lise SteffensenSearch for more papers by this authorChristina Tlustos, Christina TlustosSearch for more papers by this authorHenk Van Loveren, Henk Van LoverenSearch for more papers by this authorLaurence Vernis, Laurence VernisSearch for more papers by this authorHolger Zorn, Holger ZornSearch for more papers by this authorDeclan Bolton, Declan BoltonSearch for more papers by this authorSara Bover-Cid, Sara Bover-CidSearch for more papers by this authorJoop de Knecht, Joop de KnechtSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorPanagotis Skandamis, Panagotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorCarla Martino, Carla MartinoSearch for more papers by this authorWiny Messens, Winy MessensSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Tard, Alexandra TardSearch for more papers by this authorAlicja Mortensen, Alicja MortensenSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) [email protected] Correspondence:[email protected] for more papers by this authorClaude Lambré, Claude LambréSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Manuel Barat Baviera, José Manuel Barat BavieraSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Bolognesi, Claudia BolognesiSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Chesson, Andrew ChessonSearch for more papers by this authorPier Sandro Cocconcelli, Pier Sandro CocconcelliSearch for more papers by this authorRiccardo Crebelli, Riccardo CrebelliSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Michael Gott, David Michael GottSearch for more papers by this authorKonrad Grob, Konrad GrobSearch for more papers by this authorEugenia Lampi, Eugenia LampiSearch for more papers by this authorGilles Riviere, Gilles RiviereSearch for more papers by this authorInger-Lise Steffensen, Inger-Lise SteffensenSearch for more papers by this authorChristina Tlustos, Christina TlustosSearch for more papers by this authorHenk Van Loveren, Henk Van LoverenSearch for more papers by this authorLaurence Vernis, Laurence VernisSearch for more papers by this authorHolger Zorn, Holger ZornSearch for more papers by this authorDeclan Bolton, Declan BoltonSearch for more papers by this authorSara Bover-Cid, Sara Bover-CidSearch for more papers by this authorJoop de Knecht, Joop de KnechtSearch for more papers by this authorLuisa Peixe, Luisa PeixeSearch for more papers by this authorPanagotis Skandamis, Panagotis SkandamisSearch for more papers by this authorCarla Martino, Carla MartinoSearch for more papers by this authorWiny Messens, Winy MessensSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Tard, Alexandra TardSearch for more papers by this authorAlicja Mortensen, Alicja MortensenSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 May 2022 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7265 Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2020-00541 Panel members: CEP: Claude Lambré, José Manuel Barat Baviera, Claudia Bolognesi, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Riccardo Crebelli, David Michael Gott, Konrad Grob, Evgenia Lampi, Alicja Mortensen, Gilles Riviere, Inger-Lise Steffensen, Christina Tlustos, Henk Van Loveren, Laurence Vernis and Holger Zorn. Declarations of interest: The declarations of interest of all scientific experts active in EFSA's work are available at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/doisearch. Acknowledgments: The CEP Panel wishes to thank the members of the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ): Ana Allende, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Marianne Chemaly, Robert Davies, Alessandra De Cesare, Lieve Herman, Friederike Hilbert, Konstantinos Koutsoumanis, Roland Lindqvist, Maarten Nauta, Giuseppe Ru, Marion Simmons and Elisabetta Suffredini for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion. In addition, the CEP Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: Nikolaos Giannoulis (EFSA trainee). Adopted: 24 March 2022 Annexes A and B are available under the Supporting Information section. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination from carcases of wild game (i.e. kangaroos and wild pigs) and small stock (i.e. goats and sheep) before chilling at the slaughterhouse were assessed. Wild pig and kangaroo hide-on carcases may have been chilled before they arrive at the slaughterhouse and are treated after removal of the hides. Lactic acid solutions (2–5%) are applied to the carcases at temperatures of up to 55°C by spraying or misting. The treatment lasts 6–7 s per carcass side. The Panel concluded that: [1] the treatment is of no safety concern, provided that the lactic acid complies with the European Union specifications for food additives; [2] based on the available evidence, it was not possible to conclude on the efficacy of spraying or misting lactic acid on kangaroo, wild pig, goats and sheep carcases; [3] treatment of the above-mentioned carcases with lactic acid may induce reduced susceptibility to the same substance, but this can be minimised; there is currently no evidence that prior exposure of food-borne pathogens to lactic acid leads to the occurrence of resistance levels that compromise antimicrobial therapy; and [4] the release of lactic acid is not of concern for the environment, assuming that wastewaters released by the slaughterhouses are treated on-site, if necessary, to counter the potentially low pH caused by lactic acid, in compliance with local rules. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor 1.1.1 Background EU food hygiene legislation is aimed at protecting consumers against potential risks to health and maintaining a high level of consumer protection at all stages of the food chain. This objective must be achieved by applying the appropriate measures, including good hygiene practices and hazard control measures at each step of the food chain. According to EU scientific advice11 SCVPH: Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating To Public Health - 1998. Report on the benefits and limitations of antimicrobial treatments for poultry carcasses, 30 October 1998. SCVPH (2003) - Opinion on the evaluation of antimicrobial treatments for poultry carcasses https://ec.euroDa.eu/fs/sc/scv/out63.en.pdf). EFSA Journal 388, 1–19., decontamination practices can be a tool to further reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms but the use of substances intended to remove microbial surface contamination should only be permitted if a fully integrated control programme is applied throughout the entire food chain. Those substances shall be assessed thoroughly before their use is authorised. Regulation (EC) No 853/200422 Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55–205. prohibits the use of any substance other than potable water (or in certain cases, clean water) to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. However, Article 3 (2) of this Regulation provides for a derogation from that rule and empowers the Commission to authorise the use of substances other than potable water to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. In addition to the safety of the substance, other matters of concern are the potential emergence of reduced susceptibility to biocides, the potential emergence of resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials and the impact of the substance or its by-products on the environment. Therefore, before taking any risk management decisions on their approval, a risk analysis process should be carried out taking into account the results of a risk assessment based on the available scientific evidence and undertaken in an independent, objective and transparent manner. EFSA Guidance On 14 April 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a revision of a guidance document33 EFSA Journal 2010;8(4):1544. on the submission of data for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin intended for human consumption. Application for approval On 20 January 2020, the Commission received an application dossier from the Australian Competent Authorities44 Mr. Greg Read - Exports Division - Department of Agriculture in Canberra – Australia. for the approval of lactic acid for use during processing for the reduction of pathogens on carcases of wild game and small stock. The dossier is enclosed with this request. 1.1.2 Terms of Reference In accordance with Article 29 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 178/200255 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L31, 1.2.2002, p. 1–24., EFSA is requested to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lactic acid intended to be used by food business operators during processing to reduce microbiological surface contamination from carcases of the following wild game: kangaroo, and wild pigs, and of the following small stock: goats and sheep. In particular, the EFSA shall assess: The toxicological safety of the substance (ToR 1); The efficacy, i.e. does the use of this substance significantly reduce the level of contamination of pathogens on carcases from wild game and small stock aforementioned (ToR 2); The potential emergence of reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of the substance (ToR 3); The risk related to the release of the processing plant effluents, following the use of the substance, into the environment (ToR 4). 1.2 Information on existing authorisation and/or evaluations from other authorities In the European Union (EU), Commission Regulation (EU) No 101/201366 Regulation (EU) No 101/2013 of 4 February 2013 concerning the use of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination on bovine carcases. OJ L 34, 5.2.2013, p. 1–3. authorises the use of lactic acid to reduce microbiological surface contamination on bovine carcases, half or quarter carcases at the level of the slaughterhouse in compliance with the conditions set out in the Annex to this Regulation (up to 5% lactic acid solutions at temperatures of up to 55°C). USDA FSIS Directive 7120.177 FSIS Directive 7120.1, Revision 46, Safe and Suitable Ingredients Used in the Production of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products, 19/3/18 https://www.indiantradeportal.in/uploads/General%20Documents/NU_SPS-TBT/22-03-2018/Production_Of_Meat_Poultry_And_Egg_Products.pdf authorised the use of pathogen reduction treatments on meat, poultry and egg products. Lactic acid is authorised at concentrations up to 5%. Health Canada issued Letters of No Objection for antimicrobial processing aids, among which lactic acid is listed.88 Health Canada, 'Antimicrobial Processing Aids for which Health Canada has Issued a Letter of No Objection (LONO) or an interim Letter of No Objection (iLONO)', 17 December 2015. In 2016, FAO/WHO issued the 'Guidelines for the control of non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. in beef and pork meat'99 Codex Alimentarius, 'Guidelines for the control of non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. in beef and pork meat' CAC/GL 87-2016. and concluded that organic acid treatments, such as lactic acid washes, can significantly reduce Salmonella prevalence on carcases. The experts considered that the realistic reductions to be possibly achieved would not exceed 1 log10 CFU/cm2. In the EU, lactic acid is an authorised food additive (E 270), according to Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/20081010 Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 16–33. https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1333/oj, belonging to group I additives. Its use is permitted in several food categories, mainly at quantum satis. As foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 257/20101111 Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 of 25 March 2010 setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives. OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 19–27., it is currently re-evaluated.1212 EFSA-Q-2011-00596: re-evaluation of E270, lactic acid. According to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, lactic acid is authorised for use in meat preparations with the following restriction: 'only prepacked preparations of fresh minced meat and meat preparations to which other ingredients than additives or salt have been added'. Moreover, only the L(+)-isomer can be used in food for infants and young children, as specified in category 13.1. In the EU, lactic acid is also authorised as food flavouring (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1334/20081313 Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC. OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 34–50. https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1334/oj; FL-no: 08.004). In 1974, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) issued an opinion on lactic acid and several of its salts, allocating an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 'not limited' (JECFA, 1974, 1998). In 1991, this ADI was supported by the Scientific Committee of Food (SCF) for lactic acid and its salt when used as food additive (SCF, 1991). The applicant also informed about the following additional authorisations: in Singapore, lactic acid solutions not exceeding 2.5% (w/w) are permitted as an antimicrobial agent on fresh/frozen meat and poultry carcases, cuts and meat, applied as a spray (Documentation provided to EFSA No. 1). The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) included lactic acid in the Food Additive list as having no potential to cause damage to human health (Food Sanitation Act 20101414 https://www.jetro.go.jp/ext_images/en/reports/regulations/pdf/foodext2010e.pdf). In Australia and New Zealand, lactic acid is permitted under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code1515 https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx at a level not exceeding that necessary to achieve the technological purpose for which it is applied. 1.3 Additional information 1.3.1 Introduction As indicated in the technical dossier, the applicant is seeking approval for Australian meat processors to export to the EU carcases of wild game (wild pigs and kangaroos) and small stock (sheep and goats) treated with lactic acid to reduce microbial contamination. According to the applicant, 'this application is intended to reduce the microbial load, primarily in terms of enteric pathogenic microorganisms (i.e. Campylobacter, verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (e.g. E. coli O157:H7), Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes). A secondary effect of the application of lactic acid is likely to be a reduction in the load of spoilage microorganisms resulting in an increased product shelf-life'. 1.3.2 Conditions of use and mode of application The applicant submitted the following information in relation to the treatment: Lactic acid may be applied as a spray or mist onto the surfaces of the sheep, goat, wild pig and kangaroo carcases. It must not be applied to carcases with visible faecal contamination. The spraying or misting may be applied at the end of the slaughter line after inspection and final trim prior to entering the chiller. The temperature of the carcass at the time of application will vary depending on the slaughtered species and the temperature in the slaughter house. Typically, surface temperatures of small stock carcases range from 15°C to 30°C prior to entering the chiller. The applicant considers this temperature as not likely to be a factor influencing the efficacy of treatment. Game carcases are refrigerated remotely with hides on and arrive at the processing plant in refrigerated vehicles. Application of lactic acid will be after hide removal, immediately before entering the boning room, where the carcass surface temperature is < 7°C. Lactic acid will be applied at a concentration of 2–5% and at up to 55°C, using an upper pressure limit of 50 psi. The application will be for 6–7 s per carcass side, delivering an amount of lactic acid solution to result in an excess to the point of run-off. For a kangaroo carcass, this is approximately 1 L. There will be no removal of residual lactic acid from the carcass surface after treatment. The lactic acid solution will not be recycled. 2 Data and methodologies The present evaluation is based on the data on lactic acid used for the reduction of pathogens on carcases of wild game (kangaroos and wild pigs) and small stock (goats and sheep) provided by the applicant in a dossier submitted in support of the application (see Documentation provided to EFSA No. 1). Additional information was received from the applicant during the assessment process (see Documentation provided to EFSA No. 2) in response to a request from EFSA sent on 24 February 2021. To assist the assessment of the safety and efficacy of a decontaminating agent applied to foods of animal origin, in 2010, EFSA issued a guidance document entitled 'Guidance document on the submission of data for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin intended for human consumption' (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010). The assessment was conducted in line with the principles described in this guidance document. 2.1 Methodology for ToR1, 3 and 4 ToRs 1, 3 and 4 refer to toxicological safety, potential emergence of resistance to biocides and/or to therapeutic antimicrobials and environmental risk assessment. The questions as specified in the ToRs 1, 3 and 4 have been addressed by evaluating the information provided by the applicant, supplemented by other information based on the knowledge/expertise of the Working Group and Panel members. 2.2 Methodology for ToR 2 The question as specified in ToR 2 (efficacy) was addressed by applying a systematic, stepwise approach, as follows: Formulation of the question under assessment and definition of the eligibility criteria for selecting experiments in the records provided (e.g. articles published in the scientific literature) and relevant for answering the question(s); Ascertainment of the comprehensiveness and relevance of the evidence provided by the applicant; Data extraction from the included experiments, using predefined data extraction tables designed to record the required information for the assessment; Appraisal of individual experiments included in the assessment, using a predefined critical appraisal tool (CAT) for the reliability evaluation; Data synthesis and interpretation of results. 2.2.1 Formulation of the question under assessment and eligibility criteria for study selection The question under assessment (review question) is whether or not the application of lactic acid can achieve a significant reduction in the surface load of bacterial pathogens on wild pig, kangaroo, sheep and goat carcases after the final wash and before chilling at the slaughterhouse. The pathogens considered include: Campylobacter spp., Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) (also called verocytotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC)), Salmonella spp. and L. monocytogenes. The proposed treatments will also reduce spoilage microorganisms, which, according to the applicant, may result in an increased product shelf-life. However, this was not assessed in this opinion. In the EFSA guidance document (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010), the use of decontaminating agents in a formulated product, under defined conditions, will be regarded efficacious 'when a reduction of the prevalence and/or numbers of pathogenic target microorganisms set according to determined criteria, is statistically significant1616 The extent of reduction is a risk management decision. when compared to a non-treated control group (considering both a control group treated with potable water and a control group not treated at all)'. In this assessment, the comparison was made with the untreated control if the water treatment control was not included in the experimental design. The EFSA guidance document on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. The achieved reduction in contamination should be expected to provide benefits to public health (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010). The eligibility criteria for selecting studies for inclusion in the assessment are outlined in Table 1. These have been defined based on the conditions of use and mode of application as provided by the applicant (see Section 1.3.2) and were applied for assessing the relevance of the studies. Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms and/or E. coli have been added as indicators. The outcome of interest was a change in numbers (log10 reduction) and/or in the presence of Campylobacter spp., STEC/VTEC, Salmonella spp., Listeria spp., Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms and/or E. coli on the treated carcass at any time point after the treatment. Table 1. Eligibility criteria for study selection related to their characteristics Criteria related to study characteristics Population In Wild pig(a(a) Domestic pork is not considered eligible because, compared with wild pigs, the legal definitions, slaughterhouse practices and meat composition differ. , kangaroo, sheep and goat carcases before chilling at the slaughterhouse (referred to in the text as pre-chill). Wild pig and kangaroo hide-on carcases may have been chilled before they arrive at the slaughterhouse and are treated after removal of the hides. Intervention In Lactic acid used by spraying or misting at a concentration of 2–5% and at a temperature of up to 55°C for a duration of 6–7 s per carcass side. The concentration and temperature of the lactic acid solution and duration of treatment needed to be reported/available to assess these aspects. Comparator In Water (or other solution)-treated or untreated controls(b)(b) No treatment applied. These carcases or cuts were left as they were without applying organic acids or water or any other solution. Outcome of interest In The change in the presence and/or numbers (log10 reduction) of Campylobacter spp., STEC/VTEC, Salmonella spp., Listeria spp., Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms and/or E. coli on the treated carcass at any time point after the treatment (e.g. immediately after treatment, during storage or of the retail cuts at the end of shelf-life) Study design and setting In Experimentally controlled studies were included (studies without a control group were excluded). These may have been undertaken in a laboratory, pilot-scale plant or in an industrial (commercial) setting Criteria related to report characteristics Language of the full text In English Time In No restriction Publication type In Primary research studies (i.e. studies generating new data) Out Systematic reviews Narrative reviews(b)(b) No treatment applied. These carcases or cuts were left as they were without applying organic acids or water or any other solution. Expert opinions, editorials and letters to the editors STEC: Shiga toxin-producing E. coli; VTEC: verocytotoxigenic E. coli. (a) Domestic pork is not considered eligible because, compared with wild pigs, the legal definitions, slaughterhouse practices and meat composition differ. (b) No treatment applied. These carcases or cuts were left as they were without applying organic acids or water or any other solution. 2.2.2 Ascertainment of the comprehensiveness and relevance of the evidence provided by the applicant Search for studies In total, 17 potentially relevant records were obtained from the application dossier, of which, one contained an in-house study on kangaroo carcases. The applicant has provided the following search strings that have been used to retrieve the records covering lactic acid efficacy: 'Google search (application of lactic acid to (beef OR pig) carcases) Google search (temperature and application of lactic acid to (beef OR pig) carcases) Google search (lactic acid AND sheep carcases) PubMed ('lactic acid' AND sheep AND decontamination AND carcases) Google search (body surface area of sheep) Google search (surface pH of sheep carcases) Wiley Online Library (search string - Grau F H) Referenced inGrau (1983)1717 Grau FH, 1983. Microbial growth on fat and lean surfaces of vacuum-packaged chilled beef. Journal of Food Science, 48, 326–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1983.tb10735.x Referenced in Grau (1980)1818 Grau FH, 1980. Inhibition of the anaerobic growth of Brochothrix thermosphacta by lactic acid. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 40, 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.40.3.433-436.1980' Study selection process and identification of relevant experiments Applying the eligibility criteria illustrated in Table 1, the records were screened at full-text level for relevance to the review question in two steps. The reasons for exclusion are reported. Step I: Identification of records to be excluded: not primary research study, not in English or full text not available. Step II: Identification of experiments within each record and evaluation of their relevance to the question under assessment based on their objective and the relevant experimental design (e.g. substance, experimental setting, type of contamination, application method, product category and product subcategory). Each experiment was identified by a Ref_ID number and a brief description of its objective. Then, each experiment was screened for relevance to the question under assessment and validated. Possible divergences were solved by discussion within the WG. 2.2.3 Data extraction from included experiments The list of parameters to be extracted from the records included in the assessment was predefined and adapted from EFSA CEF Panel (2018). Excel was used to record the data. The extracted data can be found in Annex A. The first columns contain the experiment-defining variables, i.e. the experimental setting (laboratory scale, pilot-scale representative of industrial process and industrial scale), the type of contamination (natural or experimental), the substance (lactic acid), the application method (spraying or dipping), the product category (sheep, goat, wild pig or kangaroo carcases pre-chill) and the product subcategory (product as described in the record). The further columns captured information related to: treatment characteristics: the concentration, temperature and pH of the decontamination solution, the duration of treatment and pressure of the application. contamination characteristics: the bacterial group (Campylobacter spp., STEC/VTEC, Salmonella spp., Listeria spp., Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms and/o