ABSTRACT
Albert Einstein has been quoted "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". Innovations are necessary to meet future challenges regarding sustainability, animal welfare, slaughter hygiene, meat safety and quality, not at least for optimal balance between these dimensions. The red meat safety legislation texts from Europe, New Zealand, USA, and global guidelines, were analysed for normative formulations ("how it is or should be done") that may create non-intentional hurdles to innovation and new technology. Detailed descriptions of slaughtering techniques and meat processes may hinder innovative processing from being investigated and implemented. The identified problematic normative phrases typically either conserve conventional technologies or organisation of the work, prescribe solutions where no established method, objective criteria or limits exits, or put forward visions impossible to obtain. The Codex Alimentarius was found to have less normative formulations and more functional demands ("what to achieve") than the national and regional regulations. European, New Zealand's and US' legislation share many similarities and challenges, and they all reflect the prevailing processing methods. Consequences are briefly commented, and alternative objective functional demands suggested. Normative legislation texts provide familiar context easier to understand, but also make legislation voluminous. This review underlines the mutual dependency between risk-based legislation and conditional flexibility, and between functional demands and control activities targeted on measurable objective criteria. The legislation does not have to be either or. Objective normative phrases in legislation can function as a least common multiple if alternative methods are allowed on condition that they fulfil objective criteria. Context and practical advice should mainly come from textbooks, consultants, white papers and in Food Business Operator's own guidelines, among others.
