Meat inspection (MI) is essential to verify compliance with legal requirements related to human and animal health and animal welfare protections. Judgement criteria applied during MI, resulting in condemnation data of importance, among other things, for livestock producers and for benchmarking reasons. However, although the Meat Inspection Regulation sets out judgement criteria, most are generic, favouring flexibility, but also subjectivity. To address the degree of variation on total condemnation (TC) criteria applied during post-mortem inspection (PMI) of finishing pigs, an online survey was prepared aiming to collect this information from several European countries. The focus was on TC criteria regarding the following PMI findings: abscesses, arthritis, cachexia, erysipelas, icterus, Mycobacterium-like lesions, osteomyelitis, peritonitis, pleuritis and pneumonia. From September to November 2020, a total of 44 completed questionnaires were obtained from 26 European countries. The results showed a substantial variation in the TC criteria in place in the participating countries. One of the main reasons for the variability seen in the respondents' reported answers was related to the indicators used to define a generalised condition related to the 10 PMI findings addressed, making harmonisation a challenge and avoiding to draw conclusions when comparing condemnation causes between abattoirs. This implies that it would make sense to look into how a generalised condition can be identified/described and how it should be judged. The results should be used as inspiration towards possible harmonisation, improving decision-making, and permitting comparative analysis between different reports to allow trend analyses and benchmarking.

The purposes of meat inspection have been formulated for more than 100 years as (a) protecting health of consumers, (b) maintain the reputation of the meats in home and export markets, and (c) detecting communicable diseases of animals before they have spread beyond easy control. Today, one would add to protect animal welfare, clarify that protecting consumer health includes both chemical and biological hazards, and add food fraud to the issues of reputation. To transform the scientific knowledge into modern meat safety assurance systems (MSAS), the risk managers need to understand the social capital in the meat value chain to align the behaviors of farmers, food business operators and competent authorities with technical knowledge. The meat value chain could be perceived as a commons – a material or immaterial property held jointly by the members of a community, whom may govern access to and use of the property through social structures, traditions, and/or formal rules i.e. social capital. The social capital and food safety culture amongst farmers and food business operators is a key driver for successful meat safety while information asymmetry increases risks for a tragedy of commons scenario. Ostrom's core design principles for stable commons could inform the design of MSASs. Tools for reducing the information asymmetry and building trust and social capital between all stakeholders within the meat value chain include the food safety culture, food chain information, use of health epidemiological indicators, sensors and block chains, industry/private standards, and the applying system approach from farm to fork.