Risk assessment in fish welfare, applications and limitations

Müller‐Graf, Christine; Berthe, Franck; Grudnik, Tomasz; Peeler, E. J.; Afonso, Ana

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5383-9_15

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When providing objective and independent science-based advice, the risk assessment approach should be followed, whenever possible (EC, 2002;EFSA, 2007d;Müller-Graf et al, 2008). In the case of experimental animals, EFSA adopted a pro-active animal welfare approach in the Management Board document produced during its meeting of June 2004, saying that "…while recognizing that animal testing cannot be eliminated at present, EFSA should make every effort to stimulate and participate in the development of new food and feed assessment approaches that would minimize the use of experimental animals and would reduce, to the extent possible, the level of suffering of animals…" (EFSA, 2004a).…”

Section: Efsa's Scientific Opinions On Animal Welfare (2004-2008)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in providing scientific advice on the welfare of food producing animals

Ribò¹,

Candiani²,

Serratosa³

2009

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the survey describes the work of the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel of the European FoodSafety Authority (EFSA) in the provision of scientific advice on the welfare of food producing animals including animal health and food safety aspects, where relevant, and on the impact of these scientific assessments on the EU regulatory framework. EFSA was created in 2002 with the mission to provide advice and scientific and technical support for the Community legislation and policies in all fields which have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, plant health, environment and animal health and animal welfare. When providing objective and independent science-based advice, the risk assessment approach should be followed, whenever possible. The AHAW Panel of EFSA provides specific advices on risk factors related to animal diseases and welfare, mainly of food producing animals, including fish. According to EFSA's remit, ethical, socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects are outside the scope of the EFSA's assessments. Since 2004, the Animal Health and Welfare Panel of EFSA adopted a total of 21 scientific opinions on animal welfare. Animal diseases and food safety aspects have also been taken into account, where relevant. Animal welfare aspects have been considered in some scientific opinions on animal diseases (e.g. AI, FMD). The AHAW Panel is currently working on five scientific opinions on the welfare of dairy cows and on the welfare aspects of the stunning and killing of farmed fish for eight fish species (salmon, trout, carp, eel, tuna, sea bass, sea bream and turbot). The possible interactions and implications for food safety and animal disease have been considered, when relevant, in most of the AW scientific opinions, involving other areas of expertise in EFSA, like Biohazards, Contaminants and Plant Health. The final aim of EFSA's scientific assessments on animal welfare is to support animal welfare EU legislation on the basis of the available scientific evidence. Many examples illustrate how EFSA's scientific opinions are taken into consideration when legislative measures are proposed by the European Commission. In order to evaluate the overall impact of animal welfare, factors with possible incidence on animal diseases and food safety should also be considered. the evaluation of the interactions between animal welfare, animal disease and food safety could help the development of control and monitoring plans at farm level. RIASSuntORUolo DEll'AUToRITà EURoPEA DI SICUREzzA AlIMEnTARE (EFSA) nEl FoRnIRE PARERI SCIEnTIFICI SU vARI ASPETTI DEl BEnESSERE DEglI AnIMAlI DA REDDITo. (salmone, trota, carpa, anguilla, tonno, branzino, orata e rombo

show abstract

Section: Efsa's Scientific Opinions On Animal Welfare (2004-2008)mentioning

confidence: 99%