Discussed are the outlines of a risk assessment‐based system of meat safety assurance to replace the current meat inspection. An example of a system that uses the Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP)‐principles in the entire production chain from stable to table is also given. Continuous evaluation of risks is the main driving force of the new system. Only then the system has the means to remain flexible and provide for the data necessary to convince trade partners that the products they buy are safe. A monitoring system that keeps track of the important health hazards in the entire chain from stable to table is therefore necessary. This includes monitoring of cases of disease in the human population caused by the hazardous agents of concern. Coordination of the monitoring and control and processing of the information is done by an independent body. Furthermore, the system demands a production from stable to table that is based on the ideas of Integrated Quality Control (IQC), HACCP, and certification of production processes and quality control procedures. Clear legislation provides for criteria about acceptable or unacceptable health risks for the consumer and determines at what moments which risks should be controlled by the producers. Simultaneously, the legislation has to be flexible enough to be able to adapt quickly to any changes in risks, or in the way risks should be controlled. In the new system current meat inspection can easily be carried out by employees of the slaughter houses and is no longer a direct responsibility of the authorities. The authorities only demand certain safety levels and verify whether producers stick to these. Producers remain fully responsible for the safety and quality of their products, and fully liable in case of any damage to the consumers’ health. However, it is to be expected that some EU Member‐States miss the organizational and agricultural basis for a successful application of the new system. Consequences are that two parallel flows of meat and meat products may come to existence. One flow will exist of meat produced according to the new, and with respect to safety assurance, superior system. The other flow will consist of meat produced and inspected in the traditional way. However, this meat will contain all the flaws that required a revision of the system in the first place. This, and the fact that EU policy ordains that part‐taking in an alternative meat inspection system should be voluntary, may very well result in a very slow start‐up of the new system. One of the easiest solutions, however, would be to implement a decontamination step in the slaughtering process, provided that this is accompanied by strict codes of hygienic practices and good manufacturing practices. Not only would this lead to safer meat, but also result in the two separate flows of meat becoming one flow again as well as an easier to organize livestock production according to HACCP‐principles.