Response of the competent authority in Brazil to the recommendations

Published 21 July 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enhanced-controls-for-beef-poultry-meat-and-poultry-meat-products-from-brazil/response-of-the-competent-authority-in-brazil-to-the-recommendations

English translation of the competent authority response to recommendations, received 19 January 2023.

This page includes:

To put in place contingency plans to ensure that sufficient AFFA resources are available to undertake inspections at the required frequency, even if changes in risk levels lead to additional demand for inspection.

The finding referenced on page 14 is described thus: “However, as the frequency of inspections is dependent on the level of risk, changes in risk levels and/or additional demands on staff may result in available resources being stretched and potentially unable to carry out inspections at the required frequency at all establishments.”

However, we emphasize that the frequency of inspections applied for official verification of self-controls is determined by DIPOA as a risk-based calculation and does not depend on the contingent of staff available to execute it. SIPOAs, which are the regional authority, manage human resources using an annual inspection schedule, and notify DIPOA of any exceptional cases that require contingency measures.

Whenever there is pressure on resources, including human resources, the SIPOAs and DIPOA carry out a critical reassessment to establish a priority among activities and to deploy the available resources so as to ensure the performance of the essential activities that are among their duties.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure that written protocols are in place and effectively communicated to competent authority staff at all relevant levels to ensure that consignments rejected at the border of Great Britain are prevented from being re-exported to Great Britain. Protocols should ensure that any remaining products from rejected batches still at the establishments are also excluded from future exports to Great Britain.

After the official communication by the importing country’s authorities, DIPOA identifies the rejected consignment and declares it as being disqualified for re-export to the United Kingdom.

All the links involved within the official service and the interested company are notified by means of specific communication systems such as the electronic information system (SEI), which is MAPA’s official case file and digital documentation management system, as well as by means of the PGA-SIGSIF system.

The publication of Joint Circular Letter no. 01/2023/CGI-CGCOA/ MAPA/SDA/DIPOA (Appendix I) set forth procedures to be followed in the event of international notifications of violations of microbiological, physical and chemical parameters, and other parameters, from the legislation applicable to the United Kingdom, including cases where the parameters laid down in CE Regulation no. 2073/2015 are not met, Salmonella spp violations in prepared poultry meat products and poultry meat products, and E. coli STEC violations in beef.

Additionally, the document CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix III) reinforces the supplementary requirements for poultry meat and poultry meat products and bovine meat products for export to the United Kingdom.

a) The circular letter No. 01/2023 refers to “batches” and “lots”. How does MAPA define these terms?

b) The circular letter No. 01/2023 states ‘In the event the European sanitary authorities do not notify the specific lot or manufacturing date, after being asked by DINV/CS, the products that failed to meet the requirements in Regulation (EC) no. 2073/2005, and that had been precautionarily recalled, shall be released for sale’. How long does Mapa wait before releasing the products held?

a) We noticed that there was a problem with the translation of the Joint Circular Letter No. 01/2023/CGI-CGCOA/MAPA/SDA/DIPOA. The correct term to designate products of the same type, processed by the same manufacturer or fractionator, in a certain period of time, under essentially the same conditions is batch.

It should be clarified that the batch is always defined by the company producing the food, within its self-control programs, as a way of guaranteeing product traceability.

A certain number of batches of the product, to be defined by the establishment, will make up a shipment or consignment to be exported to the United Kingdom.

b) Per Brazilian side, there is no maximum deadline for product release. Each notification will be conducted individually according to the product involved, the public health risk involved and the precautionary actions to be taken among different stakeholders.

To establish more robust communication processes between the local, regional and national competent authorities to ensure that establishments no longer eligible for approval for export to Great Britain are promptly removed from the approved list.

Establishments that are suspended or delisted are presented in SDA Ordinance no. 431/2021.

The publication of Circular Official Letter no. 325/2021/DHC/CGI/DIPOA set forth the general internal procedure for suspending approval, or for delisting an establishment from the approval list, which is to be carried out by means of an official communication from the SIF operating in the establishment to the SIPOA and then from SIPOA to the Division for Approval and Certification by means of an administrative case file.

DIPOA is currently revising Official Circular Letter no. 325/2021/DHC, and will include as an additional procedure that the official internal communication of a suspension or delisting is to be carried out by means of an institutional e-mail, so as to provide greater security and speed of response in the process, preventing access by the company to the health certificate template, as well as to the exports from the establishment that is involved.

Suspended or delisted establishments lose their access to the health certificate and are unable to issue one.

The Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health will be notified of the delisting by the Division for Approval and Certification, and will actuate the official channels in the Secretariat of International Relation in order to notify the United Kingdom.

Establishments that cease trading and have their SIF registration number cancelled in the SIGSIF system lose access to the health certificate template, which is then impossible to issue. The Division for Registering Establishments, which is responsible for cancelling the establishment, notifies the Division for Approval and Certification of this cancellation by means of an administrative case file; the Division for Approval and Certification then notifies the Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health so that it can actuate official channels by means of the Secretariat of International Relations, which will in turn notify the United Kingdom. The procedure has been reinforced in instructions to both Divisions so as to mitigate any failures of communication.

The publication of Joint Circular Official Letter no. 01/2023/CGI-CGCOA/ MAPA/SDA/DIPOA (Appendix I) included further details on actions to be taken at each tier (Local level: the SIF operating in the establishment that is involved, and the establishment itself; Regional level: SIPOA; and Federal level - DIPOA) for cases of international violations (of microbiological, physical, chemical parameters and conformity criteria) that are communicated by the international authority; and on the flow of official communications and conditions for the lifting of the suspension.

This Official Circular Letter contains procedures to be followed in the event of international notifications of violations of microbiological, physical and chemical parameters, and other criteria from the legislation applicable to the United Kingdom, including cases where the parameters laid down in CE Regulation no. 2073/2015 are not met, Salmonella spp violations in poultry meat preparations and poultry meat products, and E. coli STEC violations in beef.

The lifting of the suspension of eligibility, production and sanitary certification to the United Kingdom is dependent upon the restoring of control concerning the pathogens in question, assessment of the processes by the responsible areas, the closing of the international notifications of violations, and the communication of the actions to the United Kingdom.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure that information on delisted establishments is passed to the UK Competent Authority without delay so that the lists of approved establishments for export to Great Britain held by Brazil and Great Britain are the same.

Establishments that are suspended or delisted are presented in SDA Ordinance no. 431/2021.

Circular Official Letter no. 325/2021/DHC/CGI/DIPOA establishes the general internal procedure for suspending approval or for delisting an establishment from the approval list, which is to be carried out by means of an official communication from the SIF operating in the establishment to the SIPOA and then from SIPOA to the Division for Approval and Certification by means of an administrative case file.

Suspended or delisted establishments lose their access to the health certificate and are unable to issue one.

Establishments that cease trading and have their SIF registration number cancelled in the SIGSIF system lose access to the health certificate template, which is then impossible to issue.

The Division for Registering Establishments, which is responsible for cancelling the establishment, notifies the Division for Approval and Certification of this cancellation by means of an administrative case file; the Division for Approval and Certification then notifies the Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health so that it can actuate official channels by means of the Secretariat of International Relations, which will in turn notify the United Kingdom. The procedure has been reinforced in instructions to both Divisions so as to mitigate any failures of communication.

Joint Circular Official Letter no. 01/2023/CGI-CGCOA/ MAPA/SDA/DIPOA (Appendix I) was also published as referenced in item 3 of the present Report, and provides specific guidance in the event of the suspension of approval of an establishment for export to the United Kingdom, including details as to actions to be taken at each tier (Local level: the SIF operating in the establishment that is involved, the establishment itself; Regional level: SIPOA; and Federal level - DIPOA) for cases of international violations (of microbiological, physical, chemical, and conformity parameters) that are communicated by the international authority, and the flow of official communications, and conditions for the lifting of the suspension.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

No further clarification requested.

To provide SIF staff with additional flexibility to add extra elements to their scrutiny of FBOs’ own controls, for example to address shortcomings in maintenance, cleaning and hygiene practices.

The applicable DIPOA guidance in force is currently DIPOA Internal Standard no. 1/2017. DIPOA guidance for on-site SIFs state that the frequency of official verification of at least one in situ control element is to be every two weeks, and sets forth that each element is to be actively verified in detail at least once annually regardless of whether documentary or on-the-spot violations have been identified. As stated in the aforementioned guidance, the frequency that is defined is a minimum frequency to be applied to the verification of those elements for which there is no evidence of recurrent failures in self-control. In the face of flagrant violations of the legislation, or recurrent issues, the AFFA is to act immediately, and is free, at his/her discretion, to justify the performance of more frequent assessment of the inspection elements, always taking the applicable enforcement measures in accordance with what is set forth in Decree no. 9,013 enacted 29/03/2017, and Law no. 1,283/1950 and amendments.

On an ad hoc basis, when the recommendation is motivated by a public servant’s report, all approved SIFs are to be given guidance as to the application of the legislation in force by the official veterinarians (AFFAs) in order to avoid further mistakes.

It is worth clarifying that the Law governing the careers of Federal Agricultural Inspector/Auditors, in combination with the Laws (Laws no. 1,283 enacted December 18,1950, and 7,889 enacted November 23, 1989) and Decrees (Decree no. 9,013, enacted March 29, 2017) governing agricultural and livestock oversight, ensure the autonomous and discretionary performance by public servants of their duties.

Finally, we inform you that Internal Standard no. NI 1/2017, addressing the verification of self-control programs, is currently being revised by DIPOA. In this process of updating, the verification frequencies and procedures will be reviewed so as to facilitate understanding and application, thereby improving the performance of oversight, maintaining its discretionary nature (the AFFA’s decision-making power) and the flexibility in the frequency that is necessary for the activities of auditing and inspecting.

No further clarification requested.

To give SIF officers the opportunity and support to add additional elements to the inspection criteria to identify shortcomings relating to general food safety requirements.

The answer to this recommendation is the same as was given in number 5, with the additional information that DIPOA believes that during the DEFRA audit, there was an operational failure on the part of the companies as well as in what the SIF was expected to do, including the possible taking of suitable enforcement measures.

During audits of SIFs by the Division for Audits in Establishments (DAE), DIPOA, in its guidance for audits to be carried out in 2023, will reinforce the point that official action must be taken when the company’s failure is not addressed by its own Quality Assurance department, and will allude to the findings of the DEFRA audit.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure current competent authority guidance on cattle post-mortem inspection is implemented consistently in beef establishments to comply with MAPA internal instructions and Great Britain’s requirements.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER No. 4/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix II), cancelling and replacing CIRCULAR LETTER No. 14/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA, establishes a deadline of May 1, 2023 for SIFs with oversight over approved establishments to deploy at the inspection stations on their lines only auxiliary staff supplied by third-party companies accredited by MAPA, or workers with a government employment connection (thus banning the direct hiring of inspection auxiliaries by the inspected establishments).

No further clarification requested.

To amend SIF instructions to bring them into line with Great Britain’s certification requirements that require SRM to be removed as soon as practicable after the kill and in any case before the final post-mortem inspection by competent authority officials.

Brazil has been at negligible risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy since 2012 as recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (https://www.woah.org/en/disease/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy/#ui-id-2, accessed on 10/02/23) and has an active surveillance system in operation.

The National Program for Prevention and Surveillance of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (PNEEB) takes into account the scientific information on BSE and the recommendations of the WOAH, and is organized into sub-programs in accordance with the scope of its activities, including:

Control of imports — The sub-program on import control aims to prevent the entry of the BSE agent into Brazil;

Surveillance – including procedures for the notification and investigation of nerve diseases in ruminants, and the performance of diagnostic tests for TSEs in specific animal populations;

Risk mitigation measures - Typical BSE is a multi-factor infectious disease and it is therefore necessary to manage the factors that favor the entry of the agent into the beef production chain (in slaughterhouses, rendering plants and feed mills for ruminants).

Control and evaluation - This sub-program aims to manage BSE measures in order to ensure that PNEEB remains up to date and feasible, and to provide information to reply to animal health questionnaires required by the WOAH and third-party countries.

The publication of SDA Ordinance no. 651 enacted 08/09/2022 approves surveillance and risk-mitigation measures in the case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in slaughterhouses, and determines that the removal and neutralization of specified BSE-risk animal products and parts of all bovines sent for slaughter is mandatory, and bans the use or sale of such parts for human consumption under any circumstances. These animal products and parts may not be removed prior to the completion of the post-mortem inspection of the animals by the Official Inspection Service, because post-mortem inspection consists of an evaluation of the carcass, head, carcass parts, cavities, organs, tissues and lymph nodes involving the senses of sight and smell, palpation and (when necessary) incision, and a macroscopic evaluation of the external and internal surfaces of the carcass, of the head-and-tongue set, of the thoracic, abdominal and pelvic organs, of the lymph nodes, of the mammary glands, and of the interdigital space and coronary band, and it is therefore forbidden to remove or scrape off such tissues, or apply any practice that might mask lesions of the organs of the carcasses prior to the post-mortem examination performed by the Official Inspection Service. We therefore clarify that the operation whereby specific BSE risk materials are removed is to be performed rigorously by the slaughter establishment, and is to be provided for in its self-control programs, which are to include cross-contamination mitigation measures and any other corrective and preventive measures if deviations are found. This entire scope is verified by the official service by means of the Official Verifications of the Control Elements (VOEC).

In any case, and in accordance with our reply to recommendation no. 9 of the United Kingdom audit report, approved establishments will be required compulsorily to attach a sequential stamp and health mark, under the observation of the official service, in accordance with United Kingdom regulations, after the complete removal of all specified risk material.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure that all beef carcasses passing final official inspection are health marked in line with Great Britain’s Regulations.

In accordance with DIPOA guidance given in OFFICIAL CIRCULAR LETTER no. 35/2022/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA): which is the Consolidated Document of supplementary Sanitary Requirements for the Export of Beef to the EU, the placement of a sequential stamp or tag ensuring the correlation of the slaughter serial number and the slaughter date is necessary, and this also assists in traceability. That procedure is to be extended to slaughterhouses approved for export to United Kingdom, particularly so as to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom certification requirements. The issue of the placement of an ink stamp on bovine carcass quarters will be addressed in a Manual on the specific procedures of inspection and oversight of bovines and beef in federally-inspected establishments (SIF) in order to standardize procedures.

It was reinforced by means of CIRCULAR LETTER no. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix III) which lays down that for markets demanding the mandatory use of stamps, companies are to maintain the use of carcass stamps.

No further clarification requested.

(A): to ensure effective control on the application of the health mark and use of labels. Boxes must be sealed in such a way that opening of the box is not possible without breaking the health mark label.

Note: This Item was not included in the final listing of recommendations, but is present on page 24 of the report.

(B) To ensure that establishments that do not meet Great Britain’s salmonella testing requirements are promptly removed from the list of establishments approved for Great Britain.

10 (A) The use of the health seal is mandatory for the European Union (and for the United Kingdom). In accordance with DIPOA guidance given in OFFICIAL CIRCULAR LETTER no. 35/2022/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA): The Consolidated Document of Supplementary Sanitary Requirements for the Export of Beef to the EU, the use of the health seal is mandatory on packaging intended for that market, and this requirement must be complied with for production intended for the United Kingdom.

The way in which this health seal is to be applied has been reinforced in the document CIRCULAR LETTER no. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix III).

10 (B) Establishments that are suspended or delisted are presented in SDA Ordinance no. 431/2021.

Suspended or delisted establishments lose their access to the health certificate and are unable to issue one.

Establishments that cease trading and have their SIF registration number canceled in the SIGSIF system lose access to the health certificate template, which is then impossible to issue. The Division for Registering Establishments, which is responsible for cancelling the establishment, notifies the Division for Approval and Certification of this cancellation by means of an administrative case file; the Division for Approval and Certification then notifies the Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health so that it can actuate official channels by means of the Secretariat of International Relations, which will in turn notify the United Kingdom. The procedure has been reinforced in instructions to both Divisions so as to mitigate any failures of communication.

Specifically for the case of violations concerning Salmonella spp in poultry meat prepared products and poultry meat-products, in addition to the actions applicable at local level (SIF/Establishment) and at regional level (SIPOA), there will be direct management by the competent divisions at central level (DINV/CSI and CGCOA/DIPOA), including, when appropriate, audits on the establishments involved, by a team appointed by the Division for Audits of Establishments - DIAE/CGCOA, with a focus on following up the investigation process and on the control measures adopted to address the violations notified by the United Kingdom.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER no. 11/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix IV) addresses the microbiological criteria applicable to animal foodstuffs contained in Regulation no. 2073/2005. They include Salmonella sampling requirements and their frequency.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure that guidance and training is available on the requirements for export to Great Britain for official staff.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix III) reinforces the supplementary requirements for poultry meat, poultry meat preparations, and beef products for export to the United Kingdom.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER no. 11/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix IV) addresses the microbiological criteria applicable to animal foodstuffs contained in Regulation no. 2073/2005. This official letter contains laboratory testing requirements for compliance, frequency and sampling for specific pathogens in animal products.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

No further clarification requested.

To regularly assess compliance with Great Britain’s sampling requirements and to ensure that establishments that do not meet these requirements are promptly removed from the list of establishments approved for Great Britain.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER no. 11/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix IV) addresses the microbiological criteria applicable to animal foodstuffs contained in Regulation no. 2073/2005. This official letter contains laboratory testing requirements for compliance, frequency and sampling for specific pathogens in animal products.

a) Paragraph 1 of official circular letter No. 11/2023 clearly states that ‘establishments eligible to export to the United Kingdom shall implement the microbiological controls set forth in Chapter 2 (process hygiene criteria) and in Chapter 1 (food safety criteria) of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005’. However, the line referring to chicken and turkey carcasses in Table 1 in circular letter 11/2023 requires compliance with Normative Instruction 20 of 2016 which does not contain the same testing requirements as Regulation 2073/2005 with regards to the number of samples, the material taken and the Salmonella positives acceptance level. This appears to be an error in the table. Can you please clarify if the reference to NI 20/2016 is intentional or should be updated?

b) Why has paragraph 7 of the circular letter No. 7/2023 (‘Maintaining that the laboratory tests for food safety, according to Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, shall be performed exclusively in laboratories approved in the MAPA network’) been removed from the replacement letter No 11/2023?

a) The reference to Normative Instruction No. 20/2016 was intentional due to the fact that we consider its requirements equivalent to those of Regulation (EC) 2073/2005, with regard to process hygiene control.

Although the number of samples is not exactly equal to that stipulated in Regulation (EC) 2073-2005, we believe that the sampling plan stipulated by Normative Instruction No. 20/2016 achieves the objective of controlling the process hygiene of poultry production, according to the following arguments:

First, it should be clarified that the Normative Instruction is oriented by cycles.

The “n” and “c” specified in its Table 1 represent a single cycle. For each category of establishment (P = small; M = medium; L = large; GG = extra-large), the minimum number of cycles per year is indicated in the column “Número de ciclos/ano”. That said, according to the size of the establishment, the minimum number of carcasses to be sampled per year will be: P = 48; M = 104; G = 255; GG = 510.

In addition, the sampling procedures of Normative Instruction No. 20/2016 will include a whole carcass for poultry and for turkeys and the samples will consist of at least five hundred grams of skin and muscle parts from the pericloacal, neck and wings regions from carcasses collected at random, immediately after dripping and before packaging. These sampling procedures are intended to enhance the detection of specific pathogens.

Chapter 2 (process hygiene criteria) - Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005:

The 50 samples will be collected during 10 consecutive sampling sessions. After each sampling session, the results of the last ten sampling sessions will be evaluated in order to obtain the number n of samples.

Sampling by cycles allows for more assertive intervention as soon as a violation of the number of acceptable samples in the cycle is verified. Normative Instruction No. 20/2016 establishes that, when there is a violation of the monitoring cycle for Salmonella spp. in poultry and turkeys, the slaughter establishment must identify the cause of the violation, review the self-control programs, adopt corrective and preventive actions with the objective of restore compliance related to that agent. Therefore, shorter cycles allow greater efficiency in resuming control of the production process, while the total number of annual samples remains significant, as showed above.

Item 2.1.5, Chapter 2, Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 provides, in its process hygiene criteria for poultry carcasses, the limit of absence of Salmonella in 25g of a sample collected from neck skin. Therefore, the understanding of the Brazilian legislation for this microorganism, in relation to the type of sample collected and analyzed, contemplates the requirement of Regulation (EC) nº 2073/2005.

Finally, the level of acceptance really shows differences, since Regulation (EC) 2073-2005 establishes the acceptability of 5 Salmonella presences in 51 collected samples, while Normative Instruction nº 20/2016 establishes the acceptability according to the size of the establishment. For establishments considered small (slaughter of less than 50,000 chickens/day) 2 presences of Salmonella in 8 samples are accepted; for establishments considered medium (slaughter between 50,001 and 100,000 chickens/day) 6 presences in 26 samples are accepted; for establishments considered large (slaughter between 100,001 and 200,000 chickens/day) 12 presences in 51 samples are accepted; finally, for establishments considered very large (slaughter of more than 200,001 chickens/day) the level of acceptability is also 12 presences in 51 samples.

Despite the differences identified, we consider that the acceptability parameters stipulated by Normative Instruction No. 20/2016 meet the result expected by Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005.

b) According to current Brazilian regulations, self-control analyzes can also be carried out in private laboratories, provided they are in accordance with those officially recognized by MAPA. In any case, the minimum requirement is that these private laboratories have implemented ISO 17025 and are accredited by the competent body.

We would like to emphasize, however, that all official analyzes (performed by MAPA’ staff) to assess the conformity of the products are carried out on the official MAPA network available at https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/lfda/legislacao-metodos-da-rede-lfda/poa/DSCQL004_CC.pdf.

To ensure robust standardized interlaboratory comparison exercises are carried out on a regular basis for salmonella testing across both private and government laboratories using all relevant methods in routine use for both PACPOA and PNSA programmes.

The General Coordination Office for Agricultural Laboratories (CGAL) will resume its role as a provider of proficiency tests in the food microbiology field in 2023. Samples will be sent to LFDAs, accredited laboratories and self-control laboratories.

No further clarification requested.

To provide guidance to the SIFs to help them to identify and investigate implausible or unusual patterns and trends in test results that may raise concern regarding the integrity of the laboratory testing process.

AFFAs working in the Federal Inspection Services operating in establishments (SIFs) will be trained in April 2023, and this training initiative will involve the participation of Technically Responsible AFFAs (deployed in the LFDAs) working in the field of microbiology, who will explain the methods published on the MAPA web page and used in laboratory assays, as well as how to interpret the results ( both qualitative and quantitative) so as to identify unusual patterns, and the causes for rejecting samples.

To supplement the training initiative referred to above, DIPOA underscores that it assesses the microbiological testing results data on an establishment-by-establishment basis and refers such guidance to the audit divisions (DIAN and DAE) to be checked during on-site audits.

In addition to the actions listed above, a class has been receiving Distance Education tuition since November 2022 on the topic of harvesting, packing and shipping samples of animal products and animal feeds. The aim of the course is to improve sample-taking procedures as carried out by DIPOA public servants, so as to enhance the extent to which the laboratories can make use of the samples, and boosting the effectiveness of official service sample-taking, making the results obtained more reliable.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure that the number of on-farm samples for salmonella testing taken before slaughter conforms with Great Britain’s legislation for farms with a single poultry house.

After in-depth analysis of Regulation (EC) 1086/2011, which amends annex II of Regulation (EC) 2160/2003, it was identified that the requirement in question would apply to live animals or hatching eggs (article 10 - Imports from Third Countries), and therefore CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 5/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA was cancelled and replaced by CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Annex III) which sets forth supplementary requirements for the export of poultry meat and beef to the United Kingdom (UK), so as to complement the legislation in force in Brazil.

Paragraph 3.1 in the (repealed) circular letter 5/2023 addressed this recommendation, however this paragraph is no longer part of the new letter 9/2023.

Why has paragraph 3.1 of circular letter No. 5/2023: “Sanitary controls on farms and Sanitary Bulletin”, been removed from the replacement letter No 9/2023?

The Brazilian side informs that, at first, when drafting CIRCULAR LETTER No. 5/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA, there was an error in the interpretation of the DEFRA Recommendation. In a deeper analysis of the matter, in particular of Regulation (EC) No. 1086/2011, which amends Annex II of Regulation (EC) No. 2160/2003, it was found that the said Recommendation would apply to live animals or eggs for hatching (Article 10 - Imports from Third Countries). Once the error was identified, it was necessary to cancel and replace CIRCULAR LETTER No. 5/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA with CIRCULAR No. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA, establishing the additional requirements for exporting poultry and cattle to the United Kingdom (UK), in addition to the legislation in force in Brazil.

To develop and implement formal training and operating procedures for official staff involved in export health certification.

In recent years DIPOA has delivered training initiatives for the public servants of the Department, including a specific training course given in 2022 on “Basic DIPOA guidelines with the participation of public servants working in these certification centers — distance capacity-building”

The publication of Circular Official Letter no. 212/2022/DHC/CGI/DIPOA, addresses procedures for the issuing of domestic and international health certificates by SIF and certifications centers. This will be underscored in the aforementioned meeting.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

Whilst we recognise there are partial measures in place, we request MAPA to directly address the recommendation which requires that specific training and operational procedures be developed and made available for staff working in certification centres, including temporary staff.

MAPA recognizes that ongoing training on operational procedures for export health certification is essential for personnel working in certification centers, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. In this sense, MAPA is developing training actions for all those involved in the activity. Next April, a leveling meeting will be held with everyone involved in international health certification, when the subject will be broadly addressed, with general procedures applicable to any market, and specifically, with operational procedures specifically applicable to the UK market.

Additionally, training on the subject will be developed and applied through the National School of Agricultural Management (ENAGRO) in the second half of this year, 2023.

To ensure that the IT systems used for certification require the salmonella laboratory test results to be uploaded, or to otherwise make them more readily available to certifying AFFAs.

In order to issue a DCPOA, the company must upload the supporting documentation defined in Circular Official Letter no. 346/2021/DHC/CGI/DIPOA into the DCPOA system.

Among the documents to be uploaded, the Report on the Consignment to Underpin the Health Certification Request is to be presented. In that document the company is to provide the identification of all laboratory testing reports relevant to this consignment, the test that was performed, the laboratory responsible for performing the assay, and the result. These laboratory reports are to be produced for the official service whenever requested.

These reports are also assessed during the audit procedures carried out by the on-site SIF and the central-level agency.

At the moment of issuing the health certificates, the company may be asked to present the laboratory test reports, and the health certificate will only be issued after the reports have been delivered by the company to the official service, and assessed by that service.

The publication of CIRCULAR LETTER No. 9/2023/CGCOA/DIPOA/SDA/MAPA (Appendix III) addresses the requirement to check the laboratory reports every two weeks.

No further clarification requested.

To ensure the IT certification system clearly records and marks each printed copy of the export health certificate as either “original” or “copy”.

The procedures for issuing health certificates have been set forth in SDA Ordinance no. 431/2021. This ordinance states that certificates are to be printed as 2 front-and-back copies only, whereby one copy is identified as the Original, and is to be sent to the competent authority of the importing country; while the other copy is to be identified as a Copy, and is to be filed by the Official Service.

The publication of SDA Ordinance no. 431/2021 laid down that the certificates will be deemed to have been issued only after the information that they contain and the quality of the printing have been checked, and that the date-stamp and signature of the AFFA have been attached to it.

Circular Official Letter no. 212/2022/DHC/CGI/DIPOA, addressing the procedures whereby the SIF or certification center issues domestic and international health certificates, also contains guidance to the official service concerning procedures that are to be followed when printing and issuing the certificates. We emphasize that it is the exclusive responsibility of the Official Service to print the certificates prior to attaching the stamp and signature. The establishment cannot access the printing of the document.

Article 62. The health certificate and animal movement permit is to be printed on an A4 sheet, as 2 two-sided copies, using a stamp identifying the 1st copy as the “ORIGINAL”, and the 2nd counterpart as the “COPY”, which is to be filed in the issuing unit.

Paragraph 1. For cases where there is a demand from the competent health authority of the importing country, the Department of Inspection of Animal Products may provide for other procedures than the printing of an international health certificate.

Paragraph 2. The health certificate and the transportation permit must be stamped with the date, and as ORIGINAL or COPY, legibly, in accordance with templates made available in Appendix I of the present Ordinance.

Paragraph 3. In the event that the health certificate and the movement permit are issued only electronically, it is not required to meet the measures laid down in the head provision and in Paragraphs 1 and 2.

Paragraph 4. The Department of Inspection of Animal Products, on the basis of the demand from the competent sanitary authority of the importing country, shall define which international health certificate templates are to be printed on special paper containing the security elements.

Article 63. The health certificate and transportation permit are to be deemed to have been issued after the following have been checked: that the information contained in them has been included; whether there is any need for striking-through; whether it must be printed; whether the date stamp has been applied and the competent authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply has signed it.

In April an alignment meeting of the DIPOA teams and the teams of the decentralized units will be held.

Our concern, which we consider needs addressing further, is that the IT system, when the certificate is first issued, does not record when multiple copies of the certificate are issued. It is therefore still possible to print multiple copies of the original certificate. There must only ever be a single copy that says “original”. Can MAPA further strengthen the IT system to reduce the risk of multiple originals?

There should be clarified that:

1. Printing the certificate copy is not the issuance of the certificate. The health certificate will only be considered issued (and therefore be valid for any means) after the information contained therein has been checked, the date stamp has been affixed and signature by the competent authority of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock has been placed.

2. Only upon sign-off, the handling of the issued certificate to the enterprise (single “original” copy) is recorded by SIF, including auditable records of the handling as well.

3. Therefore, there shall be only a single copy that says “original” considering that printed copies without affixed stamps and signatures of the official body are not considered issued by any means.

4. Additional security locks in the certification system are being gradually implemented and future improvements shall include controls of printed copies with auditable records. However, the exact implementation date cannot be set at this time.