Poland's IJHARS finds irregularities at 46.8% of inspected poultry producers and retailers

Poland's Agricultural and Food Quality Inspection (IJHARS) found irregularities at 66 of the 141 poultry producers and retail outlets it audited, or 46.8% of the companies checked, with laboratory parameters and labelling accounting for the bulk of the findings. The Polish agricultural portal agronews.com.pl reported that sanctions provided for under food law have already been applied.

Nearly half of audited operators flagged

IJHARS monitors the poultry meat market on a regular basis. In this round inspectors covered both processing plants and retail outlets, examining the appearance and quality of the meat, physicochemical parameters, the accuracy of labelling and whether poultry cuts matched anatomical requirements.

Sensory quality was the one area that passed without objections. According to agronews.com.pl, inspectors recorded no problems with appearance, smell or other organoleptic characteristics in the batches examined. The failures were concentrated instead in laboratory testing and in the information presented to buyers.

Water-to-protein ratio drove laboratory failures

On physicochemical parameters, IJHARS rejected 52 of the 94 batches tested — 55.3%. The dominant issue was exceedance of the permitted water-to-protein ratio, known as W/RP, a parameter that limits how much water poultry cuts may carry relative to their protein content.

The inspectorate stressed that breaching the indicator does not automatically mean water was deliberately added, because an elevated reading can also reflect the natural, physiological characteristics of the meat. Additional analyses were therefore carried out, and they found no undeclared substances that would confirm intentional adulteration through added water.

Labelling errors on names, origin and dates

Labelling irregularities were identified in 49 batches, or 18.4% of the products checked. Inspectors found incomplete or incorrect product names, country-of-origin information that was missing or presented in the wrong way, absent origin flags, and no indication of whether the meat was fresh, frozen or deep-frozen. Some products also carried incorrect data identifying the producer.

Marketing claims were questioned as well. Phrases such as “bez fosforanów” (no phosphates) and “bez glutaminianów” (no glutamates) can suggest a product has special properties even though comparable characteristics may apply to other items in the same category. Inspectors further objected to the way shelf-life dates were presented: instead of a clear day, month and year, some packs carried codes such as “06/03/L2”.

What the inspectorate expects on the label

IJHARS said correct naming matters because the name has to tell the buyer exactly what is on sale, including the poultry species, the part of the carcass and how it is presented. Its requirements include:

• species and cut spelled out — “podudzie z kurczaka” (chicken drumstick) rather than “podudzie drobiowe” (poultry drumstick), and “filet z piersi kurczaka” (chicken breast fillet) rather than “filet z kurczaka” (chicken fillet);
• a clear statement of whether the meat is fresh, frozen or deep-frozen;
• no shorthand such as “b/k” for boneless or “b/s” for skinless, because consumer information must be clear and understandable;
• origin information for both pre-packed and loose meat, allowing the buyer to check where the animal was reared and where it was slaughtered; for unpackaged meat it must appear on a notice placed directly next to the product;
• the flag of the country of origin at the point of sale, with flags for every country listed if more than one is indicated — the “Produkt Polski” mark being the exception, as it can replace both the origin statement and the flag graphic.

The results leave the sector's compliance burden where it is least visible to shoppers: not in the look or smell of the product, but in laboratory conformity and in the accuracy of the information printed on the pack.