During the committee debate Animals in livestock farming and the NVWA On 23 April 2026, the risk assessment of the red meat and big game sector was on the agenda. The report was drawn up by the NVWA’s Risk Assessment & Research Bureau, known as BuRO for short.
BuRO recommends reforming the system that ensures food safety, animal health and animal welfare. The focus should not be solely on inspecting individual carcasses at the end of the process. The chain begins much earlier.
An animal lives on a farm, is fed, may fall ill, is transported, sometimes ends up at the abattoir via a collection point, and is then sold on the market as a carcass, cut or processed product. A risk that arises early in the chain may resurface later on.
Traditional approach | Supply chain approach |
Check the carcass | Also consider origin, animal welfare and feed |
Rate one company | Examine patterns between companies and links |
Report an issue | Identify where the discrepancy arises |
Check forms | Use information to identify risks at an earlier stage |
Review the incident | Spot trends before things go wrong |
Fecal contamination of carcasses remains a significant risk to microbiological food safety. BuRO recommends stricter measures to prevent this and to step up hygiene monitoring at the slaughterhouse. According to BuRO, Salmonella in pork also requires specific attention.
This has an impact on day-to-day operations. A slaughterhouse may record a great deal of data and yet miss the point if insufficient attention is paid to:
So the question is not simply: is this carcass clean? A better question would be: “Why are we seeing this anomaly, where does it originate, and what pattern lies behind it?”
BuRO is firmly committed to an integrated approach. Biosecurity on the primary farm affects more than just animal health. It also impacts animal welfare, the use of antibiotics, antibiotic resistance and, ultimately, food safety.
The same applies to transport. Mixing animals from different sources can lead to stress and the spread of disease. The condition in which animals arrive at a slaughterhouse has consequences for both the animals and the process.
Topic | Touches |
Housing and biosecurity | Animal health, antibiotic resistance and food safety |
Transport and collection points | Animal welfare, disease transmission and traceability |
Slaughter rate and process control | Animal welfare and hygiene |
Contamination of carcasses | Microbiological food safety |
Veterinary medicines | Animal health, residues and public health |
Origin information | Risk selection, feedback and supply chain management |
This shifts the focus of the discussion. Not every problem can be attributed to a single link in the chain anymore.
BuRO advises the NVWA to collect, process and make data available more effectively. It also advocates for the early detection of new risks and the use of new technologies, such as rapid tests, validated sensor technology and artificial intelligence.
The government wants to be able to use information to compare risks, identify patterns and intervene at an earlier stage.
A notable feature of the BuRO report is the reference to a so-called meat safety assurance system, or MSAS for short.
The idea behind this is that food safety is managed more effectively across the entire supply chain. Primary producers, abattoirs and meat processors are responsible for control and feedback. The government sets clear targets and oversees the system.
Food chain information (FCI) could play a more significant role in this. Not as a form that is included simply because it is required, but as a source of information used to categorise risks and provide feedback.
BuRO even states that, in the long term, certain aspects of the individual inspection of each animal for slaughter could be organised differently if such a system is shown to work effectively. The capacity freed up could then be channelled into process hygiene, animal health and animal welfare.
That isn’t official policy yet. But it does show the direction the movement is heading in.
The BuRO report points not only to increased oversight, but also to a different distribution of oversight.
Old emphasis | New focus |
Individual inspection | Risk-based supply chain management |
Snapshot | Historical patterns |
Registration | Analysis |
Company boundary | Supply chain management |
Paper proof | Useful data |
Response to an offence | Early detection |
This can improve food safety. But there is also a risk involved. Large companies often have quality assurance departments, digital systems and dashboards. For small and medium-sized enterprises, the situation is different. Much of their knowledge resides in the minds of experienced staff and in the short lines of communication on the shop floor.
It would be a mistake if craftsmanship were to be supplanted by a digital reality that bears little resemblance to the real world.
Conclusion: Practice is becoming secondary to protocol. The sector is being heavily regulated, and those who cannot keep up with the system are falling by the wayside.
Source: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?
