Microbiological Risk Assessment – Guidelines for food

doi:10.4060/cb5006en

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 206 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This two-phase approach is in line with best practice in primary research and systematic review methodology (Higgins et al, 2022), but also with a growing number of initiatives that started to promote and implement the use of protocols in contexts similar to EFSA's (WHO, 2014;Woodruff and Sutton, 2014;OHAT-NTP, 2019;National Academies of Sciences, 2021;WHO, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Compared with qualitative approaches, they are more consistent and rigorous for assessing and comparing risks and risk management strategies and help avoid some of the ambiguities that a qualitative risk assessment may produce. They do not require the same amount of data as quantitative approaches, which means they can be applied to risks and strategies where precise data are missing (FAO and WHO, 2021).…”

Section: Synthesising and Integrating Evidence Within And Across (Sub...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments

More,

Bampidis,

Benford

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and subquestions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; andnot covered in this guidancegenerating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone 'template' for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Synthesising and Integrating Evidence Within And Across (Sub...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments

More,

Bampidis,

Benford

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the food industry, the biological and chemical risks are the most feared because of the damage which they can cause to human health; the following sections of this paper address the topic of microbiological risk. For this purpose, the Codex Alimentarius Commission published a set of guidelines (CXG 30-1999) [ 14 ], while the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and WHO (World Health Organization) released “Microbiological risk assessment: guidance for food” (MRA 36) [ 10 ], which updates and brings together in a single volume three previous guidance documents (MRA 3, MRA 7, and MRA 17) (MRA; Microbiological Risk Assessment) [ 15 ].…”

Section: Risk Analysis In the Food Industrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MRA is divided into four phases, and each phase can be summarized by a set of a few questions. In the following paragraphs, all MRA steps [ 15 ] are briefly summarized, as shown in Figure 2 .…”

Section: Risk Assessment For Microbiological Issues In the Food Industrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiological Risk Assessment in Foods: Background and Tools, with a Focus on Risk Ranger

Bevilacqua

Santis

Sollazzo

et al. 2023

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment is an important phase of the food production path; it is strictly related to the processing chain as a necessary step for safe foods. This paper represents a contribution to understanding what is and how risk assessment could be conducted; it aims to provide some information on the structure of risk assessment, the tools for its identification and measurement and the importance of risk assessment for correct communication. In this context, after a focus on the background and on some commonly used tools (Risk Ranger, FDA-iRisk, decision tree, among others), the paper describes how to perform risk assessment through three case studies: lettuce (for Listeria monocytogenes), chicken salad (for Escherichia coli), and fresh egg pasta (for Staphylococcus aureus) in the first step, and then a comparison of risk for chicken salad contaminated by different pathogens (E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella sp.). As a final step, a critical evaluation of Risk Ranger was carried out, pointing out its pros and cons.

show abstract