Advertisement

Sweden Led Salmonella Control in Broilers: Which Countries Are Following?

  • Tanya RobertsEmail author
  • Johan Lindblad
Chapter
Part of the Food Microbiology and Food Safety book series (FMFS)

Abstract

Sweden was the first country to achieve control of Salmonella in the production of broilers. In 1994, the World Health Organization’s Veterinary Public Health Unit published a report summarizing the steps Sweden took, such as monitoring critical control points in production with Salmonella tests and depopulating flocks when tests were positive. This chapter explores the evolution of Sweden’s successful control strategy and the role of economic incentives embodied in strong regulations, in private insurance policies, and in consumer demand. Spread of the control in other Nordic countries is discussed. Swedish researchers estimate that Salmonella control costs 2.6 US cents per broiler or less than 1 cent per pound of meat. Comparisons are made to the US poultry industry, US Salmonella regulations, and the demand for Salmonella control by retailers. The economic externalities imposed on the US public by the current low level of Salmonella control in broilers are also explored. One externality, the societal cost of foodborne salmonellosis, is estimated at $5–$16 billion annually (Chap.  8). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that poultry, at 29%, is the largest cause of US Salmonella illnesses.

Keywords

Salmonella control Broilers Chicken Standards Insurance Economic externalities Economic incentives Salmonellosis 

Abbreviations

BCA

Benefit/cost analysis

CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CSPI

Center for Science in the Public Interest

DVM

Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ERS

Economic Research Service, USDA

EU

European Union

FSCP

Finnish Salmonella control program

FSIS

Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA

GIPSA

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA

HACCP

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

Kg.

kilogram

Lb.

pound

NCC

National Chicken Council

PEW

PEW Research Center

SVA

Swedish Board of Agriculture

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

WHO

World Health Organization

References

  1. Ahearn MC, Korb P, Banker D. Industrialization and contracting in U.S. agriculture. J Agric Appl Econ. 2005;37(2):347–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourassa DV, Holmes JM, Cason JS, Cox NA, Rigsby LL, Buhr RJ. Prevalence and serogroup diversity of Salmonella for broiler neck skin, whole carcass rinse, and whole carcass enrichment sampling methodologies following air or immersion chilling. J Food Prot. 2015;78(11):1938–44.  https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockotter F. Big in niche markets. Poult World. 2017a;23(7):18–9.Google Scholar
  4. Brockotter F. Focus on cost price and quality. Poult World. 2017b;23(7):11–3.Google Scholar
  5. Brown M. NCC Statement on USDA proposed rule to allow importation of cooked chicken from China, National Chicken Council website June 15, 2017. www.nationalchickencouncil.org.
  6. Buhr RJ, Richardson LJ, Cox NA, Fairchild BD. Comparison of four sampling methods for the detection of Salmonella in broiler litter. Poult Sci. 2007;86(1):21–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabazan C. Key factors influencing day old chick quality. Int Hatchery Pract. 2004;18(5):11. 13, 14Google Scholar
  8. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Petition to the USDA re: antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. 2015. https://cspinet.org/resource/petition-usda-re-antibiotic-resistant-salmonella.
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Foodborne illness from Salmonella and Campylobacter associated with poultry, United States. 2011. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/00023142-2971-40b2-bc17-1a26f12693d3/Salmonella_Campylobacter_011811_190.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
  10. Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the control of salmonella and other food-borne zoonotic agents and amending Council Directives 64/432/EEC, 72/462/EEC and 90/539/EEC. Annex II, Section E, Council Directive 92/117/EEC. 2001. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/en_501PC0452_01.pdf13.
  11. Eales JS, Unnevehr L. Demand for beef and chicken products: separability and structural change. Am J Agric Econ. 1988;70:521–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engvall A, Andersson Y, Cerenius F. The economics of Swedish Salmonella control: a cost/benefit analysis. Control of foodborne diseases in humans and animals: the Swedish Salmonella control program. 1994. pp. 16–32, WHO/Zoon./94.171.Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Chesapeake Bay progress: wastewater pollution reduction leads the way. 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/wastewater_progress_report_06142016.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.
  14. European Union (EU). 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. Off J Eur Commun. 1993; L062: 15/03/1993, pp. 38–48. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31992L0117&from=EN
  15. Gamble GR, et al. Effect of simulated sanitizer carryover on recovery of Salmonella from broiler carcass rinsates. J Food Prot. 2016;79:710–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gieraltowski L, Higa J, Peralta V, Green A, Schwensohn C, Rosen H, et al. National outbreak of multidrug resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infections linked to a single poultry company. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162369.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gradel KO, Rattenborg E. A questionnaire-based, retrospective field study of persistence of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in Danish broiler houses. Prev Vet Med. 2003;56(4):267–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00211-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopp P, Wahlström H, Hirn J. A common Salmonella control programme in Finland, Norway and Sweden. Acta Vet Scand Suppl. 1999;91:45–9.Google Scholar
  19. Kangas S, Lyytikäinen T, Peltola J, Ranta J, Maijala R. Costs of two alternative Salmonella control policies in Finnish broiler production. Acta Vet Scand. 2007;49(1):35. Published online 2007 Dec 4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-49-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindblad J. Lessons from Sweden’s control of Salmonella and Campylobacter in broilers, USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum. 2007. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/8109/files/fo07li01.pdf.
  21. Lindblad J Updated estimate of costs of producing Salmonella negative broilers. 2017.Google Scholar
  22. MacDonald JM, Technology, organization and financial performance in US broiler production, EIB 126, ERS/USDA, June 2014.Google Scholar
  23. MacDonald JM. Technology, organization, and financial performance in U.S. broiler production, EIB-126, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2014a. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43869/48159_eib126.pdf?v=41809
  24. MacDonald JM. Technology financial risks and incomes in contract broiler production. Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2014b. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014/august/financial-risks-and-incomes-in-contract-broiler-production/
  25. McKenna M. Big chicken. Washington, DC: National Geographic; 2017.Google Scholar
  26. National Chicken Council (NCC) website, worried about Salmonella? 2017a. http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/. Accessed 3 Dec
  27. National Chicken Council (NCC) website, NCC praises USDA’s withdrawal of controversial ‘GIPSA Rules’ on competitive injury, unfair practices, and undue preferences. 2017b. http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/. Accessed 3 Dec
  28. PEW and CSPI, Meat and Poultry Inspection 2.0: How the United States can learn from the practices and innovations in other countries. 2014. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2014/10/meat-and-poultry-inspection-20.
  29. Sundström K, Wahlström H, Ivarsson S, Lewerin SS. Economic effects of introducing alternative Salmonella control strategies in Sweden. PLoS One. 2014:e96446.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Terry L, Contaminated chicken: illnesses surge, Denmark attacks Salmonella in program that proves a success. The Oregonian. 2014. http://www.oregonlive.com. Accessed 16 Sep 2017.
  31. USDA/GIPSA. Unfair practices and undue preferences in violation of the packers and Stockyards Act. Fed Reg. 2016a;81(244):92703–23.Google Scholar
  32. USDA/GIPSA. Poultry grower ranking systems. Fed Reg. 2016b;81(244):92723–40.Google Scholar
  33. USDA/GIPSA. Unfair practices and undue preferences in violation of the packers and Stockyards Act. Fed Reg. 2017;82(200):48603–4.Google Scholar
  34. Wegener HC, Hald T, Wong DLF, Madsen M, Korsgaard H, Bager F, Gerner-Smidt P, Mølbak K. Salmonella control programs in Denmark. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:774–80. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/7/03-0024_articleCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu SJ, MacDonald J. Economics of agricultural contract grower protection legislation, Choices, 2015; 3rd quarter, 30(3):1–5. https://www.aaea.org/publications/choices-magazine.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Research ServiceUSDA (retired), Center for Foodborne Illness Research and PreventionVashonUSA
  2. 2.The Swedish Poultry Meat Association (Retired)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations