6 issues in 2009! - fleischwirtschaft.com - Allgemeine Fleischer Zeitung

U1_FLWI01_Cover.indd 32 22.08.2008 9:49:41 UhrVolume 23D 42804 FMedia-Kit 2009Journal for meat production and meat processing4/2008Nutritive ValueMeat – an essentialpart of balanced dietRefining Raw MaterialsVirtually unlimitedcombinations possibleFermentationDevelopment of newformats and productsMeat QualityInfluence of black boneon meat qualitySlicing and Packaging: Precise adjustment necessary for safe packsResearch & DevelopmentQuality indicatorsof pectorals of partridgesJournal for meat production and meat processing6 issues in 2009!Also available asE-paperonwww.fleischwirtschaft.comГод издания 1Журнал для мясоперерабатывающих предприятий и научных учреждений381 / 2008ИнтервьюСергей Е. Юшин:Проблемах и перспективахрынка мяса в РоссииВыращиваниеУлучшение качественныепоказатели мясаОбвалка ПтицыЭффективность обвалкиокорочков бройлеровКлиматехникаРавномерныеклиматические условияАнализ РынкаРынок мяса имясопродуктов в РоссииЗадачи перед мясной отраслью РоссииИсследования и РазработкиВлияние высокого давления накачество ферментированных колбасIn Russia – on the way to new markets. Circulation in Russia 9,000 copies in Cyrillic scriptAsk for our separate folder – contact 069 7595-1852Also available as E-paper on www.fleischwirtschaft.com

Media-Kit 2009Time Schedule and Topics in FocusTIssues Closing Date Topics in Focus Fairs and Exhibitions391 February18, 20092 April16, 20093 June25, 20094 August28, 20095 October1, 20096 December4, 2009Jan. 21, 2009 Anuga FoodTec Preview Issue /Natural and Synthetic Casings,Closing Casings and Wrappings /Slaughtering and DressingMarch 17, 2009 Industrial and Staff Hygiene, Disinfecting /Seasonings, Additives and Ingredients(cheese, vegetable etc.)May 26, 2009 Production of Convenience Foods /Production of Meat Products: Smoking,Liquid Smoke, Ripening Technology,Cooking, Pickling, Tumbling /New TechnologiesJuly 31, 2009 South America Country Special /Self-service Packaging / Cutting TechnologySeptember 3, 2009 Anuga Preview Issue /Worldwide Food Expo Preview Issue /Slaughtering, Rough and Fine DismantlingNovember 6, 2009Computer Systems, Logistics, Sortingand Transport Technology /Planning, Building and Fitting Out of PlantsIn addition the latest news from international meat research anddevelopment in every issue.We reserve the right to make any necessary changes.Prodexpo 2009, Moscow, Russia,February 9 – 13, 2009Foteg, Istanbul, Turkey, March 5 – 8, 2009Anuga FoodTec, Cologne, Germany,March 10 – 13, 2009Technoalimentaria, Barcelona, Spain,March 11 – 15, 2009Internorga, Hamburg, Germany, March 13 – 18, 2009IPACK-IMA, Milan, Italy, March 24 – 28, 2009Ingredients, St. Petersburg, Russia, April 1 – 3, 2009Hannover Messe 2009, Hannover, Germany,April 21 – 25, 2009Eurocarne, Verona, Italy, May 21 – 24, 2009Meat Industry, Moscow, Russia,May 26 – 28, 2009Fooma, Tokyo, Japan, June 9 – 12, 2009Pack Expo, Las Vegas, USA, October 5 – 7, 2009Anuga, Cologne, Germany, October 10 – 14, 2009AgroProdMash, Moscow, Russia,October 12 – 16, 2009FI India, Mumbai, India, October 23 – 24, 2009China Foodtech, Beijing, China,October 27 – 29, 2009Worldwide Food Expo, Chicago, USA,October 28 – 31, 200938 | 39Fleischwirtschaft International

Media-Kit 2009Advertising Rate Card N0. 23effective Jan. 1, 2009P401 Circulation Print run: 9,778 copiesDistributed circulationon an average9,329 copies2 Trim Size 210 mm width, 297 mm height, DIN A4Type Area189 mm width, 265 mm heightNumber of columns: 4 columns, breadth of columns: 45 mm1 column 45 mm2 columns 93 mm3 columns 141 mm4 columns 189 mm3 Printing process and binding method, printing materialSheet-fed offset printing, Adhesive binding,ColoursIn accordance with the Euroscale,DIN 16539 OffsetColour sequence black, cyan, magenta, yellowScreen ruling 60 screen,Paper quality Cover: 250 g/m 2 , art paper,almost wood-free, glossyContents: 90 g/m 2 , art paper, glossyDot gain values 40 % area: 14 % (tolerance ± 3 %)80 % area: 12 % (tolerance ± 2 %)Printing materialOur printing company works with CtP (Computer to Plate).We therefore prefer digital data files on CD-ROM con formingwith the guidelines of Deutscher Fachverlag GmbH.A pre-press proof must be supplied. Bleed advertisements mustbe created with 4 mm trim/bleed difference. In the event of nonobservationof the dfv guidelines guarantees are excluded.4 Dates Frequency of publication: 6 issues yearlyPublishing dates see editorial calendarClosing dates see editorial calendar5 Publisher Deutscher Fachverlag GmbHAdvertising Dept. ‘Fleischwirtschaft’House address Mainzer Landstr. 25160326 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyPostal address 60264 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyTelephone +49 (0) 69 7595-1852Telefax +49 (0) 69 7595-1840Internetwww.fleischwirtschaft.come-mailanz-flw@dfv.de6 Paymentconditions 3 % discount on payments on advance calculations ororder confirmation or direct debits received by the dateof the advertisement‘s publication2% discount on payments within 14 days of invoice date2% discount on direct debits received within 14 days ofinvoice dateNet payment within 30 days of invoice dateBank DetailsFrankfurter SparkasseFrankfurt am MainAccount no. 34 926Sort-code 500 502 01SWIFT BIC HELADEF1822IBAN DE56 5005 0201 0000 0349 26Agency Commission 15 %CommerzbankFrankfurt am MainAccount no. 586 555-500Sort-code 500 400 00SWIFT BIC COBA DE FFIBAN DE68 5004 0000 0586 5555 00

Media-Kit 2009Advertising Rate Card No. 23effective Jan. 1, 2009P7 Advertisement sizes and ratesDiscount scale see page 44, point 11size columns total width x height single coloured multicoloured 1x 3x 6x 12xmm mm H H H H H H1/1 page 4 1060 189 x 265 4,092.00 5,925.00 5,332.50 5,036.25 4,740.00 4,443.753/4 page landscape 4 780 189 x 195 3,011.00 4,360.00 - 3,924.00 3,706.00 3,488.003/4 page portrait 3 795 141 x 265 3,069.00 4,444.00 - 3,999.60 3,777.40 3,555.20Juniorpage 3 570 141 x 190 2,200.00 3,186.00 - 2,867.40 2,708.10 2,548.801/2 page landscape 4 520 189 x 130 2,007.00 2,907.00 - 2,616.30 2,470.95 2,325.601/2 page portrait 2 530 93 x 265 2,046.00 2,963.00 - 2,666.70 2,518.55 2,370.401/3 page landscape 4 340 189 x 85 1,312.00 1,901.00 - 1,710.90 1,710.90 1,520.801/3 page ** portrait 353 72 x 297 - 2,122.00 - 1,909.80 1,909.80 -1/4 page landscape 4 260 189 x 65 1,004.00 1,453.00 - 1,380.35 1,307.70 1,162.401/4 page corner 2 260 93 x 130 1,004.00 1,453.00 - 1,380.35 1,307.70 1,162.401/4 page portrait 1 265 45 x 265 1,023.00 1,481.00 - 1,406.95 1,332.90 1,184.801/8 page landscape 4 120 189 x 30 463.00 671.00 - 637.45 603.90 536.801/8 Seite corner 2 130 93 x 65 502.00 727.00 - 690.65 654.30 581.60Special positions 2nd. 3rd and 4th cover 6,128.00 5,515.20 5,208.80 4,902.40 -41Price per one column width/one mm height per mm 3.86 per mm 5.59Island advertisements per one column width/one mm height per mm 7.70 per mm 12.30** Special placement next to index of contents. Only available multicoloured and bleeded. 40 | 41Fleischwirtschaft International

Media-Kit 2009P30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success1/2 page portrait W x HType Area 93 x 265Bleed * 102 x 297single col. F 2,046.00multicol. F 2,963.00Information Sheet FormatsSupplement toAdvertising Rate Card No. 23effective Jan. 1, 2009Cutting scheduleAd type areaAd with bleed4 mm trim each outer edge in addition to size bleed4 mmSizeType AreaSizeBleed1/1 page W x HType Area 189 x 265Bleed * 210 x 297single col. F 4,092.00multicol. F 5,925.0036 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007MicrobiologyGram-negative bacteria a public health riskber of 1.3x10 5 , 4.1x10 4 , 6.8x10 3 ,and 3.6x10 3 cfu/g, respectively inTable 4.Highest proteolytic activitywas observed in P. putida underpsychrotrophicconditionswhereas P. acidovorans isolatesshowed no proteolytic activity(Tab. 5). Antibiotic susceptibilityresults of the isolates obtainedfrom the raw minced meat areshown in Table 6.DiscussionIn this study, Pseudomonaswas the most dominant organismfollowed by Acinetobacter. SAHAand CHOPADE(2001) reportedsimilar results; 47 (47.96%) outof 98 bacterial strains were Pseudomonasand 28 (28.57%) wereAcinetobacter in 12 retail meatsamples. NORTJE et al. (1990) reportedthat Pseudomonas spp.comprised 37.2% of 1,265 psychrotrophicmicrobial populationsfrom meat and meat contactsurfaces, and Acinetobacter andAlcaligeneswere isolated in4.5% and 2.5%, respectively. Infresh meat samples, ERIBO andJAY (1985) found Acinetobacterin 14.6% (n=20), of which 16were A. lwoffii and 4 were A. calcoaceticusisolates. However, in astudy by GENNARI and LOMBAR-DI (1993), A. lwoffii (71.7%) andA. anitratum (24.1%) were reportedas the frequent Acinetobacterspecies in food strains.With this investigation, P. fluorescens(biotype I, II) has beenisolated as predominant speciesfrom Pseudomonas isolates.These biotypes of meat associatedPseudomonas fluorescens havebeen dealt with only a few studies(MOLIN and TERNSTROM, 1982).SHAW and LATTY (1984). P. fluorescensbiotypes I and III werereported to exist in meat (MOLINand TERNSTROM, 1982). SHAWand LATTY (1984) found P. fluorescensbiotype I in 4% and P.fluorescens biotype II in 0.9%amongst 787 strains of Pseudomonasisolated from meat.Microbial growthThe results of this work regardingtotal mesophilic bacteriaand Enterobacteriaceaewerelower than in the previous studiesperformed in Turkey (ELMALIand YAMAN, 2005; TEKINSEN etal., 1980). In this study, the meancount of Enterobacteriaceae wassimilar to and the total mesophilicbacteria count was lower thanthose of KHALAFALLA and EL-SHERIF, (1993). According to theTurkish Food Codex 2000/5(Anonymous), maximum countof total aerobe mesophilic bacteriain fresh minced meat has to be5x10 6 cfu/g. So, presented resultsshow that the total aerobe mesophilicbacteria counts in rawminced meat are within the acceptablelimits.Psychrotrophic Enterobacteriaceaeare widely distributed inmeat and meat products, their existenceindicates the possiblepresence of harmful bacteria(LINDBERG et al., 1998; O’BRIENand MARSHALL, 1996). Some ofthe psychrotrophic Enterobacteriaceaemay constitute a publichealth problem if present in largenumbers (LINDBERG et al., 1998).According to this study, the meanamount of psychrotrophic Enterobacteriaceaewas 3.6x10 3 cfu/g.This result correlates the resultsKHALAFALLAand EL-SHERIF’s,(1993). MOUSA et al., (1993) reportedthat the mean values fortotal mesophilic and Enterobacteriaceaewere 7.2x10 8 cfu/g. and4.3x10 5 cfu/g., respectively.UZUNLU and YILDIRIM (2003) reportedthat Pseudomonas spp.could be isolated by 4.6x10 4 cfu/gin ground beef. The presence ofthese bacteria indicates that generalhygiene and especially thehigh level of aerobe mesophiliccount and Pseudomonas countaffect the shelf life of ground beef.Proteolytic activityProteolytic activity is importantfor the development of rawmeat texture and flavour (TOL-DRA, 1998). However, extra-cellularenzymes, especially proteasessecreted by psychrotrophicbacteria mostly Pseudomonasspecies, are well-known causes ofspoilage in meat, milk and dairyproducts. Spoilage bacteria suchas Pseudomonas are generallynot harmful, but they will causefood to deteriorate or lose qualityby getting mouldy, developing abad odour, or feeling sticky on theoutside (SIRAGUSA et al., 1998).Pseudomonas in meat can also allowfor aerobical spoiling at refrigeratortemperatures (GENNA-RI et al., 1989; SAHA and CHO-PADE, 2001). In addition, Acinetobacterplay an important role inthe spoilage of meat and foodsunder various conditions (FRA-ZIER and WESTHOFF, 1995).In the present study, 48% ofthe P.putida isolates had proteolyticactivity under psychrotrophicconditions. The otherPseudomonas species such asP.fluorescens biotype I and P. fluorescensbiotype II showed proteolyticactivity in 40% and 12%of the isolates, respectively. P.acidovoransisolates had no proteolyticeffect (Tab. 5). GRIFFITH(1989) reported that P. fluorescensisolates showed proteolyticactivity. In another study; BRAUNet al. (1999) also reported proteolyticactivity of Pseudomonasfluorescens in raw and heatedfood.Antibiotic resistanceAntibiotic use may cause an increasein antibiotic resistance notonly in pathogenic bacterialstrains but also in strains of endogenousflora of humans and animals.Multiresistant bacterialstrains of animal origin mayspread into human population eitherby direct contact or throughfoods of animal origin. From resistantstrains in the human intestine,genes coding for resistanceto antibiotics can be transferredto bacterial strains belongingto natural microflora (BO-GAARD and STOBBERINGH, 2000).Antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonasis critical especially whenhospital infections are concerned,in which contamination withmeat may play a role. In recentyears, Acinetobacter hasemerged as an important nosocomialpathogen and it is one of themost resistant bacteria to antibioticsand metals (DESHPANDE etal., 1993; GENNARI and LOMBAR-DI, 1993). According to the presentresults, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacterand Alcaligenes specieswere mostly resistant toamoxicillin, ampicillin and secondgeneration cephalosporinswhereas these bacteria were notresistant to ceftriaxone, a thirdgeneration cephalosporin. This iscomparable to the results of GEN-NARI and LOMBARDI, 1993, exceptfor ceftriaxon resistance (Tab. 6).ConclusionRaw minced meat sampleswere contaminated with foodTab. 5: Proteolytic activities of Pseudomonas isolates from raw minced meatsamplesSpecies Number of isolation Proteolysis at +4 °Cabs. % abs. %P. fluorescens biotype I 12 40.0 10 40.0P. fluorescens biotype II 3 10.0 3 12.0P. putida 14 46.7 12 48.0P. acidovorans 1 3.3 – –Total 30 25Source: CITAK and KAMANLI Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Only P. acidovorans non-proteolyticTab. 4: Microbial counts (cfu/g) of the analysed microorganisms in mincedmeat samples (n±=±53; positive samples: 100% each)BacteriaCount cfu/g (log10/ml)Min Max MeanTotal aerobe mesophilemicroorganisms (30 °C) 2.8x10 2 (2.45) 5.5x10 6 (6.74) 1.3x10 5 (5.11)Total psychrotrophicmicroorganisms (4 °C) 1.2x10 2 (2.08) 8.5X10 5 (5.93) 4.1x10 4 (4.61)Total Enterobacteriaceae(30 °C) 1.0x10 2 (2.00) 6.8x10 4 (4.83) 6.8x10 3 (3.83)Total psychrotrophicEnterobacteriaceae (4 °C) 2.2x10 (1.34) 3.75x10 4 (4.57) 3.6x10 3 (3.56)Source: CITAK and KAMANLI Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Aerobe mesophile counts within acceptable limits3/4 page portrait W x HType Area 141 x 265Bleed * 150 x 297single col. F 3,069.00multicol. F 4,444.0030 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success3/4 page landsc. W x HType Area 189 x 195Bleed * 210 x 215single col. F 3,011.00multicol. F 4,360.00*4 mm trim each outer edge in addition to size bleed!Advertisement sizes and rates30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success1/2 page landsc. W x HType Area 189 x 130Bleed * 210 x 150single col. F 2,007.00multicol. F 2,907.0030 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without successJuniorpageW x HType Area 141 x 190Bleed * 150 x 210single col. F 2,200.00multicol. F 3,186.0042

PMedia-Kit 2009Fleischwirtschaft International** Special placementnext to index of contents.Only available multicolouredand bleeded.*4 mm trim each outer edge in addition to size bleed!Information Sheet FormatsSupplement toAdvertising Rate Card No. 23effective Jan. 1, 2009Bediener: afrb Produkt: FLWI Ausgabe: 003 / 3 Ressort: Aktuell Name/Pagina: X030 /30 Status: IsTypeset Deadline: 06-06-2007 12:00FLWI NAME: X030 LETZTE. AEND.: 21Jun2007 17:47:51 BED.:afrb ZEIT: 09:49:31 DATUM:07Sep2007 BINTZ30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success30 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007ServiceT he Institute for Risk AssessmentSciences (IRAS) and theDepartment of Farm AnimalHealth of Utrecht Universityproduced a report on quantitativehistological studies of bovinesmall intestine before andafter processing into natural sausagecasings. In the conclusionsof the report it is stated that takinginto account: the available scientific data onthe distribution of BSE infectivityin the gastrointestinaltract of bovines; the fact that the ileum is notsuitable for casing production; the risk reduction during processing; the very low level of consumptionof bovine casings;it can be concluded that commerciallyprocessed casings do notpose a measurable risk, in termsof BSE, for consumers.EFSA was asked by the EuropeanCommission to providean opinion on the evaluation ofthe design of the study and, ifneeded, to issue recommendationson the topics that shouldbe addressed in future studies onthe subject. Furthermore EFSAwas asked to evaluate the conclusionsof the report and to reassessthe BSE related risk of bovineintestines after processinginto natural sausage casings.On the basis of several previousopinions of the ScientificSteering Committee (SSC), datingback to a period between December1997 and April 2005, EF-SA’s Scientific Panel on BiologicalHazards (BIOHAZ) analysedthe design of the study indetail and considered the IRASstudy inadequate for the purposeof demonstrating the safetyof bovine casings of cattleoriginating from BSE risk countriesdue to the following reasons.BIOHAZ assessmentThe BIOHAZ Panel and itsWorking Group examined in detailthe IRAS Report receivedand identified concerns in thefollowing sections.Materials and Methods The process of selection ofslaughterhouses and animals tobe sampled did not accord withscientific randomisation. The mean age of sampled cattlediffered from the mean age ofanimals slaughtered in EUMember States (MS). The proposed passage into asoaking tank could influence tissuevolume and compromise theresults. The casings production procedureused for the study is notequivalent to the protocols thatwere utilised in some EU MS before2001. It is not clear whether only onemachine or different machinescan be used to mechanicallyprocess the intestines in order toobtain reproducible results. The study does not considerpotential cross-contaminationsand does not provide evidencethat all the pre-conditions wouldbe verifiably met under real-life,commercial conditions. The process described involvespassage of all the jejuna processedon the day through “stripingfingers/blades” of the same(single) machine. For that reasoncontamination along the intestineof the same animal or to intestinesof different animals myoccur. With these mechanisms, ifBSE-agent were present in intestineof some animal(s) processedon the day, a risk of theagent being spread to processedintestines of the same batchcould be assumed. Unfortunately,the study provides no considerationof the cross-contaminationrisks and related controlmeasures. The further handling of theremoved material (ileum) is unknown;no decontamination proceduresare foreseen. This study was not conductedon infective material; thus anyinformation on the reduction ofinfectivity is lacking. The quantification was performedonly in a two-dimensionalway, and this could compromisethe results of the study.Results The weight reduction of theintestines after processing can bedue to water content reductionwhich could lead to a concentrationof the infective agent. The presumed reduction incontent of lymphoid tissue isquestionable. It is likely that, afterprocessing, some aggregatedand disaggregated lymphoidstructures remain in casings.However, immunohistochemistry(IHC) was not performed toidentify lymphoid cell types. There is variation in the percentageof total lymphoid tissuearea between Brazilian and Uruguayancattle. This raises concernsin terms of comparabilityof materials and reproducibility. There is no reduction in thequantity of enteric neural tissue. Given the uncertainties involvedin this study, the estimatedamount of residual lymphoidtissue is considered to be morevariable than indicated. TheIRAS study used a methodologypreviously described in a studyof casings from sheep; in comparisonwith the data fromsheep, casings processing frombovines according to IRAS producesmuch more residual lymphoidtissue. The report does not take intoaccount the possibility of crosscontaminationand the frequencyof casings consumption.Discussion and Conclusions In the report there is no volumetriccalculation to reliablyquantify tissue deformation. In the literature there are notenough data to prove that thereis no infectivity in the intestine,excluding ileum, of infected cattle. If prions were present into theintestines, the proposed processingof the material could allowcross-contamination. The assumptions drawn fromthe study can partially not beconfirmed by new data or arequestionable because of methodologicalproblems.BIOHAZ Conclusions1. The IRAS report provides evidencethat significant amountsof lymphoid tissue and the entireplexuses of the enteric nervoussystem remain after preparationof bovine casings.2. Preparation of bovine casingsby the methods described in theReport reduces to a limited extentthe amount of gut associatedlymphoid tissue in the finalproduct. Because of methodologicalproblems, however, thequantitative results provided inthe IRAS report cannot be utilisedfor a BSE quantitative riskassessment of bovine casings.3. The production methods ofbovine casings described in theReport and previously employedin MS would not preclude contaminationevents should a BSEinfected animal be processed.4. The IRAS Report does not includean infectivity study thatwould be relevant for risk assessmentof bovine casings.5. The conclusions made in theIRAS report go far beyond thevery limited original scientificdata provided in the report.6. No new data have emergedthat suggest a need for anychange of the previous risk assessmenton bovine intestine.7. For a re-assessment of the BSErisk of bovine casings there are,at present, insufficient data, requiringappropriately designedmorphometric,experimentalPrPsc and infectivity studies.For a relevant re-assessmentof the BSE risk of bovine casingsappropriately designed morphometric,experimental PrPsc andinfectivity studies would be necessary.Moreover, it would benecessary to study under reallife,commercial conditions thepotential for cross-contaminationof the processed intestines.EFSARe-assessment of BSE related risk of bovine intestines without success1/3 page landsc. W x HType Area 189 x 85Bleed * 210 x 105single col. F 1,312.00multicol. F 1,901.001/4 page landsc. W x HType Area 189 x 65Bleed * 210 x 85single col. F 1,004.00multicol. F 1,453.001/4 page corner W x HType Area 93 x 130Bleed * 102 x 150single col. F 1,004.00multicol. F 1,453.001/4 page portrait W x HType Area 45 x 265Bleed * 54 x 297single col. F 1,023.00multicol. F 1,481.001/8 page landsc. W x HType Area 189 x 30Bleed * 210 x 50single col. F 463.00multicol. F 671.00ContentsApplying clean room technology for packagingcooked sausages and ham, in addition to the microbiologicaladvantage, on expiry of the use-by dateafter 20 days sensory testing does not reveal anydifference by comparison with the fresh product.ColumnsEditorial ..................................... 3News ..................................... 6, 7Business News .......................... 7, 8Foreign Markets ........................... 10Industrial News .................. 22, 26, 32Abstracts .......................... 16, 40, 52Service ................................ 30, 40Advertisers, Flag .......................... 40Food lawMartin HartigThe new “Hygiene Package” of the EU ...................................................... 11Hygiene strategyJulius GrüterNo difference compared with fresh product ................................................ 17PackagingCarolin HeisterkampCoding solutions for the meat industry ..................................................... 24SlaughteringAhmet Daoudi, Mourat El Allouchi, Susanne Kaufmann and Andreas StolleDromedary Slaughter – Facing towards Mecca ............................................ 27MicrobiologySumru Citak and Neslihan KamanliGram-negative bacteria a public health risk .................................................... 34Meat processingAsirgeldi Besimov, Mustafa Karakaya, Mustafa T. Yilmaz and Cemalettin SariçobanSome emulsifying properties of turkey giblets .................................................. 38Preview! Christine ContzenPhone +49 (0)69 7595-1852christine.contzen@dfv.de Natalie Kruse, M.A.Phone +49 (0)69 7595-1854natalie.kruse@dfv.deShowcase yourproducts in time!Closing date August 28, 2007In our next issueFor information and offers contactfor example …IFFA5 to 10 May 2007the world's leading trade fairfor the meat industryin Frankfurt am Main, Germany Comprehensive reporting fromthe fair on the technical andtechnological innovationsPlanning, buildingand fitting out… of food-processingfirms and plants Technological andhygiene standards Report on the planningand construction of what iscurrently Europe's mostmodern meat plantAnuga (Cologne)Preview IssueWorld Wide Food Expo(Chicago) Preview IssueProduction of MeatProducts: Smoking,Liquid Smoke,Ripening Technology,Cooking, Pickling,TumblingYour daily newswww.fleischwirtschaft.comFleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Cover photo: Ernst Sutter AG1/3 page portr. ** W x HType Area –Bleed * 72 x 297single col. –multicol. F 2,122.00Advertisement sizes and rates42 | 4343

44Media-Kit 2009Advertising Rate Card No. 23effective Jan. 1, 20098 Additional chargesColourColour according to European scale 16539Spot colours, per colour F 1,223.00PositionsSpecial positions20 % surcharge9 Classified advertisements (no discount)per mm (1 column, 45 mm width)Situations vacant single coloured F 3.30*multicoloured F 4.78*Situations wanted single coloured F 2.70*multicoloured F 3.91*Wanted/For Sale single coloured F 2.85multicoloured F 4.13Charge for key numberadvertisement Abroad F 20.5010 Special forms of advertisingBanderole / Bookmark / Post-it / Gate fold see information sheet specialadvert forms page 46Production run/ Offprintplease ask for informationAdvertorialplease ask for information11 Discountswithin one year best of advertiserFrequency discountVolume discount3 advertisements 5 % 1 page (1000 mm) 10 %6 advertisements 10 % 3 pages (3000 mm) 15 %9 advertisements 15 % 6 pages (6000 mm) 20 %12 advertisements 20 % 12 pages (12000 mm) 25 %No discounts on extra technical costs.P12 Combinations Advertisements in Fleischwirtschaft and FleischwirtschaftInternational will be counted togetherfor discounts13 Bound InsertsInsert 2-page Insert 4-page Insert 6-pageRates H 4,300.– H 8,600.– H 12,900.–Quantity required 10,300 copies (incl. allowance)See information sheet bound inserts page 4514 Loose inserts (no discount)loose, maximum format 205 mm x 290 mm, long page closed,sample necessary in advance!up to 20 g per thsd. H 230.–up to 25 g per thsd. H 240.–Higher Weight: please ask for Information.Additional postage for sending objects 3 mm height and more.Part insert: please ask for information(plus one-off costs for selection F 300.–)15 Sticked-on postcardsplease ask for information16 Shipping address for positions 13 to 15Societätsdruckerei, Westdeutsche Verlags- und Druckerei GmbHWarenannahme Akzidenz, Kurhessenstraße 4 – 6,64546 Mörfelden-Walldorf, GermanyRemarks on delivery paper„For Fleischwirtschaft International, issue .. /2009“* Including four-week presentation on fleischwirtschaft.de –the internet platform of Fleischwirtschaft

Media-Kit 2009Information SheetBound InsertsSupplement toAdvertising Rate Card No. 23effective Jan. 1, 2009P4513 Bound InsertsBefore orders are accepted and confirmed a binding specimen mustbe submitted, if necessary a dummy specimen with details of size andweight. Bound inserts may only be used to advertise the sales programmeof one advertiser. According to postal regulations they must bedesigned in such a way that they cannot be confused with the editorialsection. The placing of bound inserts is dependant on the technicalpossibilities.Prices two-page four-page six-pageF 4,300.– F 8,600.– F 12,900.–Bound inserts are eligible for discounts in accordance with the volumediscount: one bound insert counts as 1 page irrespective of the extent.Sizes1 sheet (= 2 pages) untrimmed 217 mm wide x 305 mm high2 sheets (= 4 pages) untrimmed 434 mm wide x 305 mm high3 sheets (= 6 pages) or with fold-out-flap – please enquireQuantity required 10,300 copies (incl. allowance)DeliveryCarriage prepaid toSocietätsdruckerei,Westdeutsche Verlags- und Druckerei GmbHWarenannahme Akzidenz, Kurhessenstraße 4 – 6,64546 Mörfelden-Walldorf, GermanyTechnical dataBound inserts are to be supplied untrimmed, multiple-page inserts mustbe supplied pre-folded. The front page of the bound insert must be markedas such. Bound inserts must be designed and produced in such afashion that no extra treatment is required. Extra difficulties and additionalfolding and gumming work will be invoiced seperately.Maximum unit weight of paper 170 g/m 2Cutting schedule:untrimmed305 mm297 mm trimmed305 mm untrimmed2- and 4-page fold (gutter)6-page217 mmuntrimmed210 mmtrimmedcutting edge 3 mm each434 mm217 mmuntrimmed210 mmtrimmedfold (gutter)208 mm205 mm4 mm cutting edge 3 mm each615 mm297 mmtrimmed4 mmfold4 mm4 mm190 mm190 mm4 mm4 mm44 | 45Fleischwirtschaft International

Volume 22BINTZJournal for meat production and meat processingHygiene: Safe meat products appling clean room technologyFood lawlogyD 42804 FHygiene strategyNo difference comparedwith fresh productPackagingCoding solutions forthe meat industrySlaughteringRitual slaughterof dromedariesResearch & DevelopmentEffect of starter cultureduring Nham fermentationVolume 22Dr. Ralf Lautenschläger reflecting on increasing role of hygieneropean Union (EU), third countries andthe affected branches of industry the opportunityof preparing for the new foodand feed law requirements, was over.Coming into force 1 January 2006 themost fundamental, comprehensive and farreachingchange in the European food andfeed law now takes effect equally for allfeed and food establishments.Due to the motto “from stableto table” the new lawpursues an integrated approachand transfers full responsibilityto feed and foodcompanies for the healthsafety of the foods and feedsthey produce and bring intocirculation. And the regulationis also applying for allmeat processors and suppliersmerchandising with theEU Member States. The presentationof Irish beef farmersto EU Commission officials, which isreflecting on the lack of effective controlsand standards in the Brazilian beef sector,is one example of possible consequences(p. 10).age” and its effects on food enterprises isgiven. Furthermore, an interesting reporton the implementation of clean roomtechnology in a meat processing and packagingcompany is presented. This technologymay provide an important prerequisiteto prevent microbiological, chemicaland physical recontamination and thus toproduce safe packaged meat products forthe retail market and the consumer. Filmsand foils – the second topic focussed inthis issue – also regard health safety offoods. Only the combination of hygienicprocessing and application of suitablepackaging materials with special propertiesin terms of flexibility, oxygen barrier attributes,seal, bond and tensile strength asFleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Journal for meat production and meat processingHygiene: Safe meat products appling clean room technologyFood lawEditorialwell as chemical resistance guaranties forsafe products. Short news about how tocheck all these properties by analysing oxygen,controlling and measuring packagevolume complete this area.gories. Taking the annual meeting of theINSCA (International Natural SausageCasing Association), the presentationof the CMA (ChinaMeat Association) includingthe invitation to the WorldPork Conference in Nanjing2007 or the re-assessment ofBSE related risk of bovine intestinesby the EFSA (EuropeanFood Safety Authority) –they all show the raising globalshipping of meat and meatproducts which requires a highstandard in food safety andhygiene. Some of the scientificand research reports publishedwith this issue also deal with microbiologicalaspects of fresh meat and meat productsduring processing.essing and environmental conditions, respectively.Authors indicated that slaughterhouseconditions influence pH and temperaturedecline curves of the carcassesand thus the water holding capacity ofpork. With respect to the nutritional valueof pheasants it was shown that there is adifference between wild and farm animals.Investigating the emulsifying properties ofturkey giblets it was concluded that someare suitable to improve the product qualityof cooked wiener type sausages. And finally,the influence of additives and ingredientson the fermentation process – especiallyon the development of Salmonellaspp. – of Nham, a Thai fermented meat, isdescribed.D 42804 FHygiene strategyNo difference comparedwith fresh productPackagingCoding solutions forthe meat industrySlaughteringRitual slaughterof dromedariesResearch & DevelopmentEffect of starter cultureduring Nham fermentationVolume 22pVolume 22Journal for meat production and meat processingHygiene: Safe meat products appling clean room technologyFood lawMicrobiologyber of 1.3x10 5 , 4.1x10 4 , 6.8x10 3 ,and 3.6x10 3 cfu/g, respectively inTable 4.Highest proteolytic activitywas observed in P. putida underpsychrotrophic conditionswhereas P. acidovorans isolatesshowed no proteolytic activity(Tab. 5). Antibiotic susceptibilityresults of the isolates obtainedfrom the raw minced meat areshown in Table 6.3 RJournal for meat production and meat processingHygiene: Safe meat products appling clean room technologyFood lawAerobe mesophile counts within acceptable limitsTab. 4: Microbial counts (cfu/g) of the analysed microorganisms in mincedmeat samples (n±=±53; positive samples: 100% each)BacteriaCount cfu/g (log10/ml)Min Max MeanTotal aerobe mesophilemicroorganisms (30 °C) 2.8x10 2 (2.45) 5.5x10 6 (6.74) 1.3x10 5 (5.11)Total psychrotrophicmicroorganisms (4 °C) 1.2x10 2 (2.08) 8.5X10 5 (5.93) 4.1x10 4 (4.61)Total Enterobacteriaceae(30 °C) 1.0x10 2 (2.00) 6.8x10 4 (4.83) 6.8x10 3 (3.83)Total psychrotrophicEnterobacteriaceae (4 °C) 2.2x10 (1.34) 3.75x10 4 (4.57) 3.6x10 3 (3.56)D 42804 FHygiene strategyNo difference comparedwith fresh productPackagingCoding solutions forthe meat industrySlaughteringRitual slaughterof dromedariesResearch & DevelopmentEffect of starter cultureduring Nham fermentationSource: CITAK and KAMANLI Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Discussionet al. (1999) also reported proteolyticactivity of Pseudomonas5 In this study, Pseudomonas performed in Turkey (ELMALI 4.3x10 cfu/g., respectively.was the most dominant organism and YAMAN, 2005; TEKINSEN et UZUNLU and YILDIRIM (2003) reportedthat Pseudomonas spp. food.fluorescens in raw and heatedfollowed by Acinetobacter. SAHA al., 1980). In this study, the meanand CHOPADE (2001) reported count of Enterobacteriaceae was could be isolated by 4.6x104 cfu/gsimilar results; 47 (47.96%) out similar to and the total mesophilicbacteria count was lower than these bacteria indicates that gen-Antibiotic use may cause an in-in ground beef. The presence of Antibiotic resistanceof 98 bacterial strains were Pseudomonasand 28 (28.57%) were those of KHALAFALLA and EL- eral hygiene and especially the crease in antibiotic resistance notAcinetobacter in 12 retail meat SHERIF, (1993). According to the high level of aerobe mesophilic only in pathogenic bacterialsamples. NORTJE et al. (1990) reportedthat Pseudomonas spp. (Anonymous), maximum count affect the shelf life of ground beef. genous flora of humans and ani-Turkish Food Codex 2000/5 count and Pseudomonas count strains but also in strains of endo-comprised 37.2% of 1,265 psychrotrophicmicrobial populariain fresh minced meat has to be Proteolytic activitystrains of animal origin mayof total aerobe mesophilic bactemals.Multiresistant bacterialtions from meat and meat contact 5x10 6 cfu/g. So, presented results Proteolytic activity is importantfor the development of raw ther by direct contact or throughspread into human population ei-surfaces, and Acinetobacter and show that the total aerobe mesophilicbacteria counts in raw meat texture and flavour (TOL- foods of animal origin. From re-Alcaligenes were isolated in4.5% and 2.5%, respectively. In minced meat are within the acceptablelimits.lular enzymes, especially protestine,genes coding for resist-DRA, 1998). However, extra-celsistantstrains in the human in-fresh meat samples, ERIBO andJAY (1985) found Acinetobacter Psychrotrophic Enterobacteriaceaeare widely distributed in bacteria mostly Pseudomonas ferred to bacterial strains belongteasessecreted by psychrotrophic ance to antibiotics can be trans-in 14.6% (n=20), of which 16were A. lwoffii and 4 were A. calcoaceticusisolates. However, in a istence indicates the possible spoilage in meat, milk and dairy GAARD and STOBBERINGH, 2000).meat and meat products, their ex-species, are well-known causes of ing to natural microflora (BOstudyby GENNARI and LOMBAR- presence of harmful bacteria products. Spoilage bacteria such Antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonasis critical especially whenDI (1993), A. lwoffii (71.7%) and (LINDBERG et al., 1998; O’BRIEN as Pseudomonas are generallyA. anitratum (24.1%) were reportedas the frequent Acineto-the psychrotrophic Enterobacte-food to deteriorate or lose quality in which contamination withand MARSHALL, 1996). Some of not harmful, but they will cause hospital infections are concerned,bacter species in food strains. riaceae may constitute a public by getting mouldy, developing a meat may play a role. In recentWith this investigation, P. fluorescens(biotype I, II) has been numbers (LINDBERG et al., 1998). outside (SIRAGUSA et al., 1998). emerged as an important nosoco-health problem if present in large bad odour, or feeling sticky on the years, Acinetobacter hasisolated as predominant species According to this study, the mean Pseudomonas in meat can also allowfor aerobical spoiling at re-most resistant bacteria to antimialpathogen and it is one of thefrom Pseudomonas isolates. amount of psychrotrophic Enterobacteriaceaewas 3.6x10 3 cfu/g. frigerator temperatures (GENNA- biotics and metals (DESHPANDE etThese biotypes of meat associatedPseudomonas fluorescens have This result correlates the results RI et al., 1989; SAHA and CHO- al., 1993; GENNARI and LOMBARbeendealt with only a few studies KHALAFALLA and EL-SHERIF’s, PADE, 2001). In addition, Acinetobacterplay an important role in sent results, Pseudomonas, Aci-DI, 1993). According to the pre-(MOLIN and TERNSTROM, 1982). (1993). MOUSA et al., (1993) reportedthat the mean values for the spoilage of meat and foods netobacter and Alcaligenes spe-SHAW and LATTY (1984). P. fluorescensbiotypes I and III were total mesophilic and Enterobacteriaceaewere 7.2x10 8 cfu/g. and ZIER and WESTHOFF, 1995). amoxicillin, ampicillin and sec-under various conditions (FRA- cies were mostly resistant toreported to exist in meat (MOLINand TERNSTROM, 1982). SHAWond generation cephalosporinsand LATTY (1984) found P. fluorescensbiotype I in 4% and P. Tab. 5: Proteolytic activities of Pseudomonas isolates from raw minced meat resistant to ceftriaxone, a thirdOnly P. acidovorans non-proteolyticwhereas these bacteria were notfluorescens biotype II in 0.9% samplesgeneration cephalosporin. This isamongst 787 strains of Pseudomonasisolated from meat.abs. % abs. % NARI and LOMBARDI, 1993, exceptSpecies Number of isolation Proteolysis at +4 °C comparable to the results of GEN-P. fluorescens biotype I 12 40.0 10 40.0 for ceftriaxon resistance (Tab. 6).Microbial growthP. fluorescens biotype II 3 10.0 3 12.0The results of this work re-P. putida 14 46.7 12 48.0 ConclusionP. acidovorans 1 3.3 – –Hygiene strategyPackagingSlaughteringResearch & DevelopmentD 42804 FGram-negative bacteria a public health riskIn the present study, 48% ofthe P.putida isolates had proteolyticactivity under psychrotrophicconditions. The otherPseudomonas species such asP.fluorescens biotype I and P. fluorescensbiotype II showed proteolyticactivity in 40% and 12%of the isolates, respectively. P.acidovoransisolates had no proteolyticeffect (Tab. 5). GRIFFITH(1989) reported that P. fluorescensisolates showed proteolyticactivity. In another study; BRAUNgarding total mesophilic bacteriaand Enterobacteriaceae were Total 30 25Raw minced meat sampleslower than in the previous studies Source: CITAK and KAMANLI Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007 were contaminated with food36 Fleischwirtschaft International 3/2007Media-Kit 20091 Gate fold1. Maxi-VersionGate fold, front and back,inside and outside+ cover page 418,000.- €2. Mini-VersionGate fold, front,inside and outside6,200.- €Information SheetSpecial Advert Forms1.FLWI Ausgabe: 03 / 3et Deadline: 05-07-2 07 12: 0NAME: X 01 LETZTE. AEND.: 30Aug2 07 13p 07 BINTZVolume 22Volume 22Journal for meat productionNew “Hygiene Package”of the European Unionusgabe: 03 / 3 Re sort: Aktune: 05-07-2 07 12: 0X 01 LETZTE. AEND.: 30Aug2 07 13:07:56 BED.:a07:56 BED.:afrb ZEI3/2007D 42804 F2.FLWI Ausgabe: 03 / 3et Deadline: 05-07-2 07 12: 0NAME: X 01 LETZTE. AEND.: 30Aug2 07 13p2 07 BINTZVolume 22Journal for meat productionNew “Hygiene Package”of the European Union3/20074 Fold-in-flapGate fold with fold-in flap –also available perforatede.g. for reply cards12,800.- €5 Banderolerodukt: FLWI Ausgabe: 03 /peset Deadline: 05-07-2 07 12: 0NAME: X 01 LETZTE. AEND.: 30Aug2 077 BINTZVolume 22Journal for meat product07 13:07:56 BED.:afrb ZEction and meat processingNew “Hygiene Package”of the European Union3 007D 42804 F3/2007No difference comparedwith fresh productCoding solutions forthe meat industryRitual slaughterof dromedariesEffect of starter cultureduring Nham fermentationP2 FrenchcoverThe front cover can beunfolded to the left andright from the middle18,000.- €F od lawJournal for meat production and meat pHygiene: Safe meat products a pling clean r om technologyNew “Hygiene Package”of the European Unionand meat processing”3/2007Hygiene strategyNo di ference comparedwith fresh productPackagingCoding solutions forthe meat industrySlaughteringRitual slaughterof dromedariesResearch & DevelopmentE fect of starter cultureduring Nham fermentationPrintable on both sides5,850.- €6 Post-ItPlacement from page 5New “Hygiene Package”of the European Union3/20073 Gate-coverThe advertisement pagesare gatefolded once ortwice from insidefront cover18,000.- €Health safety of foodsrequires integrated approacht the end of June 2007 the 18-monthA transitional period, which was intendedto give the Member States of the Eu-inked and corresponding to this issue’sL focus topic on hygiene a detailed descriptionof the new EU “Hygiene pack-n a way many articles and news inIFLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT International reflectthe necessity of thinking in hygienic cate-ther papers highlight technological asOwell as nutritional properties of differentkinds of meat in dependence on proc-2,770.- €7 Bookmark + 1/1 AdvertisementBookmark printable on one sideplacement on a 1/1 advertisementpage multicoloured2,000.- € (technical cost)+ rate for 1/1 page,multicoloured 5,660.- €46Please ask for our complete rate card „Special Advert Forms“. Contact +49 (0) 69 7595-1852

Media-Kit 2009Title Portrait1471 Brief CharacteristicsDistributed world-wide in English. It presents authoritativespecialist information for abattoirs and cutting business, themeat products industry as well as large butchers and suppliers.‘Fleischwirtschaft International’ is aimed at the commercial andtechnical management at wich investment decisions are made.Designed to cover the demands of the business from a practicalangle, internationally renowned authors discuss the current topicsin the branch. These include the technology and techniques usedin meat processing and meat product manufacturing, also qualityassurance, business management, market research and sales.2 Frequencyof publication6 issues yearly3 Volume/year Volume 24 /20094 Web-Adress (URL) www.fleischwirtschaft.com5 Membership Media-Datenbank of Deutsche Fachpresse6 Organ –7 Publisher –8 Publishing company Deutscher Fachverlag GmbHHome address Mainzer Landstraße 251,60326 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyPostal address 60264 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyTelephone +49 (0) 69 7595- 01Fax +49 (0) 69 7595- 1850Internetwww.dfv.dee-mailinfo@dfv.de9 Editorial Board Overall editorial responsibility:Dipl. oec. troph. Renate Kühlcke,Editor-in-chief: Gerd Abeln, M. A.,Editorial staff: Yvonne Buch,Dr. Ralf Lautenschläger, Annika MüllerE-Mail red-flw@dfv.de10 Advertisement Manager: Claudia Besand-GrothAdvertising Sales Manager: Christine Contzen11 Distribution Gisela Reinhardt12 Subscription Annual subscription (Germany) H 100.00prices (incl. postage and VAT) (EU) H 107.00(World) H 102.00Single issues (Germany) H 15.00(excl. postage and VAT)13 ISSN-Nr. 0179-241514 Analysis of extent 2007 = 5 issuesMagazin size210 mm width x 297 mm heightTotal extent 384 pages = 100.0 %Editorial part 265 pages = 69.0 %Advertisement part 119 pages = 31.0 %of whichClassified ads = 0.3%Bound inserts 24 pages = 20.2 %Advertisements frompublishers and printers 11 pages = 9.2 %Inserts 10incl. partial inserts –15 Analysis of editorial extent not surveyed46 | 47Fleischwirtschaft International

Media-Kit 2009Analysis of Circulation and Distribution216 Circulation audited by17 Analysis ofcirculation:Print run: 9,778copies per issue on anannual average(July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008)Effectivecirculation: 9,329 of which of other countries: 8,95118 Analysis of geographical distribution:Economic regionShare of effective circulation% copiesGermany 4.1 378Other countries 95.9 8,951Effective circulation 100.0 9,329Net Sales: 210 of which of other countries: 179– Copies to subscribers: 210 of which to members: –– Individual sales: –– Other sales: –Free copies: 9,119North America2,674Europe4,227Asia719Remaining, archive,voucher copies: 449South & CentralAmerica1,296Africa264Australia/New Zealand14948Source: distribution file, August 2008

Media-Kit 2009Structural Analysis of Receivers3-EStructural analysis by distribution% copiesMeat products industry 75.9 7,078Slaughterhouses 15.4 1,436Other: guilds, associations 3.7 349Wholesalers (e.g. with technical suppliesand machines for the meat industry) 1.7 155Institutes/Universities/Research/veterinarians 2.0 189Poultry processing industry 0.7 68Government trade centers 0.6 54Structural analysis by continents% copiesEurope 45.3 4,227North America 28.7 2,674South America 13.9 1,296Asia 7.7 791Africa 2.8 264Australia/New Zealand 1.6 149Structural analysis by most important countries% copiesUSA 28.1 2,618Italy 12.3 1,145Spain 8.4 784France 8.2 765Russia 6.3 591United Kingdom 4.1 379Brasil 3.7 343Argentina 3.5 330Poland 2.8 258Mexico 2.2 206AUS / NZ 2.0 187India 1.9 177Canada 1.6 149South Korea 1.4 128China 1.4 126Ukraine 1.3 120Japan 1.2 11349Quarterly 9,329 copies, audited by IVW 2008Source: distribution file, August 200848 | 49Fleischwirtschaft International

Media-Kit 2009General Terms & Conditions551. “Adver tis ing order”, in the sense of the fol low ing Gen er al Terms and Con di tions,refers to the agree ment to pub lish one or more than one adver tise ment of an advertiser or other space buyer in a print ed pub li ca tion for pur pos es of cir cu la tion.2. In the event of doubt, adver tise ments are to be req ui si tioned for pub li ca tionwith in one year after the con clu sion of the con tract. According to the contrat theadvertiser has the right to requisition advertisements within the time period of thecontract, beyond the number of advertisements originally agreed upon.3. The pric es of the adver tise ments are con se quent on the Publisher’s Adver tis ingRate Card in effect at the time the con tract is con clud ed. If the adver tise ment rateshould change after the con clu sion of the con tract, the Pub lish er is enti tled tocharge the price in effect accord ing to the price list valid at the time of pub li ca tion;this does not apply to busi ness trans ac tions with non-trad ers, inso far as no morethan 4 months have elapsed between the con clu sion of the con tract and the timeof pub li ca tion.Adver tis ing agen cies and adver tis ing agents are pro hib it ed from pass ing on theagent’s fees grant ed by the Pub lish er whol ly or in part to their cli ents.4. If order should not be car ried out owing to cir cum stanc es for which the Pub lish eris not respon sible, then the Adver tis er must reim burse the Pub lish er for the dif ferencebetween the dis count grant ed and that cor re spond ing to the actu al sales,regard less of any fur ther legal obli ga tions. If the non-fulfilment of the contract iscaused by force majeure within the limitations of the Publisher´s risk, then the clienthas no claim for reimbursement.5. In the cal cu la tion of quan tities ordered, mil li me tres of text lines shall be con vert edinto mil li me tres of adver tise ment cor re spond ing to the price.6. Orders for adver tise ments and adver tis ing sup ple ments which are placed with thedeclared inten tion of being pub lished only in spe cif ic issues, in spe cif ic edi tions or inspe cif ic plac es in the pub li ca tion, must be sub mit ted to the Pub lish er early enoughthat the Adver tis er can be informed before the clos ing date if the order can not beexe cut ed in this man ner. Rubri cat ed adver tise ments shall be print ed in the respec tivecol umn, and do not require an express agree ment to this effect.7. Text adver tise ments are adver tise ments hav ing at least two sides bor der ing ontext and not on other adver tise ments.The Pub lish er is enti tled to mark with the word “Adver tise ment” those adver tisementswhose edi to ri al design is such that they are not read i ly rec og niz able asadver tise ments.8. The Pub lish er reserves the right to refuse adver tis ing orders – includ ing indi vid u alreq ui si tions under the terms of a trans ac tion – and adver tis ing sup ple ment orderson the basis of their tech ni cal form or their ori gin, in accor dance with uni form,objec tive ly jus ti fied prin ci ples; the same applies if the con tents vio late laws or offi cialreg u la tions, or if the pub li ca tion is unac cept able to the Pub lish er. This also applies toorders placed with agen cies, receiv ing offic es or rep re sen ta tives.Adver tis ing sup ple ment orders are not bind ing for the Pub lish er until a sam ple ofthe adver tis ing sup ple ment has been sub mit ted and approved. Adver tis ing sup plementswhich in form or appear ance give the read er the impres sion that they are aninte gral part of the news pa per or mag a zine, or which con tain out side adver tis ing,shall not be accept ed.The Adver tis er will be informed imme di ate ly if an order is refused.9. The Adver tis er is respon sible for the punc tu al deliv ery of the adver tis ing copy andreli able print ing data or the adver tis ing sup ple ments. The Pub lish er will immediatelyapply for new printing data if the originals are seen to be unsuitable or damaged.10. If the advertisement is printed in such a way that it is unreadable, either whollyor in part, or if it is incorrect, or incomplete the client has the right to claim for eithera reduction of the fee or a newly placed advertisement, but only to the extent thatthe purpose of the advertisement has been compromised. If the Pub lish er shouldexceed a rea son able peri od of time set for the pub li ca tion of the sub sti tute advertisement or if it should once again be incor rect, then the Adver tis er has the right toa price reduc tion or a can cel la tion of the order.Indem nity claims from pos i tive breach of obli ga tion, neg li gence in con tract ing andtort are exclud ed – espe cial ly in the case of orders placed by tele phone; indem nityclaims from impos sibil ity of per for mance and default are restrict ed to the replacementof the fore see able loss and, in the amount, to the remu ner a tion to be paidfor the adver tise ment or adver tis ing sup ple ment in ques tion. This does not apply topre med i ta tion and gross neg li gence on the part of the Pub lish er, its legal rep re sen tativesand its vicar i ous agents. A liabil ity of the Pub lish er for dam ag es owing to thelack of war rant ed qual ities remains unaf fect ed.Fur ther more, the Pub lish er is not liable for gross neg li gence of vicar i ous agents incom mer cial busi ness trans ac tions; in the remain ing cases, the liabil ity towards merchantsfor gross neg li gence is restrict ed in its extent to the fore see able dam age upto the amount of the remu ner a tion for the adver tise ment in ques tion.Com plaints must be put for ward with in 4 weeks of receiv ing the invoice and receipt– unless the defects are not obvi ous.11. Proofs shall be deliv ered only when express ly request ed. The Adver tis er shallbear the respon sibil ity for the cor rect ness of the returned proofs. The Pub lish er shalltake into account all error cor rec tions of which it shall be informed with in the peri odset at the time of for ward ing the proofs.12. If no spe cif ic size is stip u lat ed, the actu al print size cus to mary for the type ofadver tise ment will be used as a basis for invoic ing.13. In the event that the Adver tis er does not make an advance pay ment, the invoicewill be sent imme di ate ly, if pos sible, how ev er, 14 days after the pub li ca tion of theadver tise ment.The invoice is to be paid with in the peri od evi dent from the price list, begin ning fromthe time of receipt of the invoice, unless, in indi vid u al cases, another meth od of paymenthas been agreed upon or an advance pay ment has been made. Any dis countsfor advance pay ment shall be grant ed in accor dance with the price list.14. Interest and collection expenses will be charged if there is a delay in payment ora respite. In the event of default, the Pub lish er may post pone the fur ther exe cu tionof the cur rent order until pay ment and request advance pay ment for the remain ingadver tise ments.If there is rea son able doubt regard ing the Advertiser’s abil ity to pay, the Pub lish er isenti tled, even dur ing the term of the trans ac tion, to make the pub li ca tion of fur theradver tise ments depen dent upon advance pay ment of the amount charged and set tlementof unpaid bills, regard less of pre vi ous ly agreed terms of pay ment.15. Upon request, the Pub lish er shall deliv er a spec i men of the adver tise ment withthe invoice. Depend ing on the type and size of the adver tise ment, the spec i mensshall be deliv ered as clip pings, entire pages or entire issues. If a spec i men can nolong er be pro cured, a legal ly bind ing cer tifi ca tion from the Pub lish er regard ing thepub li ca tion and dis tri bu tion of the adver tise ment shall serve as a sub sti tute.16. The Adver tis er shall bear the costs for the pro duc tion of ordered print ing dataand draw ings, and for con sid er able chang es in pre vi ous ly deter mined ver sions,which the Adver tis er may request or be respon sible for.17. In the case of a trans ac tion involv ing sev er al adver tise ments, a claim to a reductionin price may result from a reduc tion in the cir cu la tion if the total aver age cir culation in the inser tion year begin ning with the first adver tise ment is less than theaver age amount stat ed in the price list or oth er wise, or – if no cir cu la tion amountis stat ed – is less than the aver age cir cu la tion of issues sold (for trade jour nals,this can also be the aver age num ber actu al ly dis trib ut ed) in the pre vi ous cal en daryear. A reduc tion in cir cu la tion shall grant the right to a price reduc tion only if itamounts to20 % for a cir cu la tion of up to 50,00015 % for a cir cu la tion of up to 100,00010 % for a cir cu la tion of up to 500,0005 % for a cir cu la tion of more than 500,000Claims to price reduc tions are exclud ed, how ev er, if the Pub lish er has informed theAdver tis er in due time of the drop in cir cu la tion and has offered the Adver tis er thechoice of with draw ing from the con tract.18. In the case of keyed adver tise ments, the Pub lish er shall take as much care inhan dling and punc tu al ly pass ing on the replies as would a respon sible busi ness man.Reg is tered and express let ters will only be for ward ed by ordi nary post.The replies to keyed adver tise ments shall be kept for 4 weeks. Replies which are notcol lect ed with in this peri od shall be destroyed. The Pub lish er shall return val u abledoc u ments with out being obli gat ed to do so.The pub lish er can be garant ed the right in a spe cif ic con tract to open incom ing offersas a rep re sen ta tive on behalf of, and in declared inter ests, of the cus tom er. Let terswhich exceed the per mis sible DIN A4 size, as well as goods, books, cat a logues andpack ag es, will be exclud ed from onward trans mis sion and will not be accept ed. Anyaccep tance or onward trans mis sion can, how ev er, be agreed by way of excep tion ifthe cus tom er bears the charg es/costs incurred as a result.19. Print ing data shall be returned to the Adver tis er only if express ly request ed. Theobli ga tion to save them shall end three months after the order has expired.20. Dis count cred it notes and sup ple men tary dis count charg es shall prin ci pal ly nottake place until the end of the inser tion year.21. Place ment con fir ma tions are only con di tion al ly valid and may be changed fortech ni cal rea sons. In such cases, the Pub lish er may not be made liable.22. The place of ful fil ment is the prin ci pal place of busi ness of the Pub lish er.Theplace of juris dic tion for legal pro ceed ings involv ing busi ness trans ac tions with merchants,bod ies cor po rate or spe cial assets is the prin ci pal place of busi ness of thePub lish er. Inso far as claims of the Pub lish er are not put for ward by col lec tion procedure, the place of juris dic tion for non-trad ers shall be deter mined accord ing totheir place of res i dence.It shall be agreed that the place of juris dic tion shall be the prin ci pal place of businessof the Pub lish er if the place of res i dence or cus to mary place of abode of theAdver tis er, includ ing non-trad ers, is unknown at the time that the legal pro ceed ingsare insti tut ed or if the Advertiser’s place of res i dence or cus to mary place of abodeshould be moved out side the pur view of the law after clos ing the con tract.54 | 55General Terms & Conditions

Your contact personYour contact person in our officeYour contact person in the regionOverall editorialresponsibility /Editor-in-chief afz -allgemeine fleischer zeitung+ afz-journalRenate KühlckeT +49 (0) 69 7595-1551F +49 (0) 69 7595-1550renate.kuehlcke@dfv.deEditor-in-chiefFleischwirtschaft +FleischwirtschaftInternationalGerd Abeln, M.A.T +49 (0) 69 7595-1571F +49 (0) 69 7595-1570gerd.abeln@dfv.deEditorFleischwirtschaftInternationalDr. Ralf LautenschlägerT +49 (0) 69 7595-1573F +49 (0) 69 7595-1570ralf.lautenschlaeger@dfv.deAdvertising ManagerClaudia Besand-GrothT +49 (0) 69 7595-2522F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850besand-groth@dfv.deAdvertising Sales ManagerFleischwirtschaft +FleischwirtschaftInternationalChristine ContzenT +49 (0) 69 7595-1852F +49 (0) 69 7595-1840christine.contzen@dfv.deAdvertising Sales Managerafz - allgemeine fleischerzeitung + afz-journalVera HerrnbrodtT +49 (0) 69 7595-1846F +49 (0) 69 7595-1840vera.herrnbrodt@dfv.deMarketing- + DistributionManagerJörg SchiffelerT +49 (0) 69 7595-1851F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850joerg.schiffeler@dfv.deDistribution ManagerGisela ReinhardtT +49 (0) 69 7595-1963F +49 (0) 69 7595-1960gisela.reinhardt@dfv.deSchleswig-Holstein,Hamburg,Bremen,Niedersachsen, WestfalenClaudia Besand-GrothT +49 (0) 69 7595-2522F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850besand-groth@dfv.deMecklenbg.-Vorpommern,Brandenburg, Berlin, Sachsen,Sachsen-Anhalt, ThüringenVera HerrnbrodtT +49 (0) 69 7595-1846F +49 (0) 69 7595-1840vera.herrnbrodt@dfv.deHessen, Nord-Rhein,Rheinland-Pfalz,Saarland, UnterfrankenManfred SchönT +49 (0) 69 7595-1841F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850manfred.schoen@dfv.deBaden WürttembergBeate UtzHermann-Hesse-Straße 4270794 FilderstadtT +49 (0) 7158 65820F +49 (0) 7158 7182verlagsbuero.utz@t-online.deBayernChristine ContzenT +49 (0) 69 7595-1852F +49 (0) 69 7595-1840christine.contzen@dfv.deAdvertisingInternational SalesNatalie Klein, M.A.T +49 (0) 69 7595-1854F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850natalie.klein@dfv.deSales fleischwirtschaft.deChrista HansenT +49 (0) 69 7595-1842F +49 (0) 69 7595-1850christa.hansen@dfv.de