Risk Assessment for Foodborne Viruses

Bradshaw, Elizabeth A.; Jaykus, Lee‐Ann

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30723-7_17

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike bacteria, viruses will not grow on food once contaminated and pose little risk of spoilage. Because the most common viruses can be infectious at low doses, it is important to ensure as much as possible that they are removed or inactivated before consumption (Bradshaw and Jaykus, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same principles of QMRA apply for all pathogens, but there are important reasons to treat viruses as a separate category of hazard (FAO and WHO, 2008 ; CAC, 2012 ; EPA/USDA‐FSIS, 2012 ). Microbial risk assessment emerged as a separate discipline to chemical risk assessment by the mid‐1990s (Foegeding et al., 1994 ; Bradshaw and Jaykus, 2016 ; Nauta, 2021 ). Since 2008, the FAO and WHO have formally acknowledged viruses in food as a hazard category of importance (FAO and WHO, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since 2008, the FAO and WHO have formally acknowledged viruses in food as a hazard category of importance (FAO and WHO, 2008 ). Food safety measures for bacteria are insufficient in dealing with virus risk, due to some key difference in persistence and infectivity (FAO and WHO, 2008 ; Bradshaw and Jaykus, 2016 ). This can lead to diverging standards for virus food safety criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since then, however, most published risk assessments have been for bacterial hazards. Virus hazards do not require a new paradigm of risk, just some differences in detail, similar to the separation between chemical and microbial hazards (Havelaar and Rutjes, 2008 ; Bradshaw and Jaykus, 2016 ). Rather, the problem is a lack of data on certain key question, and the difficulty in obtaining this data by present detection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Risk assessment of enteric viruses along the food chain and in the population

Trząskowska

Hunt

Rodrı́guez-Lázaro

2022

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food‐borne microbial illness contributes up to one third of global disease burden. The largest category of food‐borne illness is gastroenteritis, the majority of which is caused by enteric viruses. Viruses like these are transmitted to food either by waste‐contaminated waters, or by handling and transfer during processing. An important tool for reducing or controlling food‐borne microbial risk is risk analysis. This framework has been adopted globally to manage risks associated with microbial contamination in food. Several hundred microbial risk assessments (MRAs) have been published by different national and international organisations, for different food‐hazard combinations. The use of MRAs in controlling and understanding virus risk has, to date, been limited, compared with the efforts made on bacterial pathogens. Given the large disease burden that viruses are responsible for, this disparity should be addressed. The main reasons for the relative lack of risk assessments are the difficulty in detecting and monitoring viruses compared with bacteria. This means less data on prevalence, concentration and inactivation, and allows viruses to remain silent contributors to global disease. There are also key conceptual differences between virus risk assessment and bacterial risk assessment. This project aimed to assess the current state of the art for food‐borne virus risk assessment, then to progress the field further by using the data available to produce risk rankings and risk assessments. This was done by a combination of literature reviewing and various risk assessment tools. The result was an assessment of the overall evidence base in the literature, a semi‐quantitative ranking comparison between the viruses and foods of most concern, and a survey of inactivation methods, leading to a quantitative ranking of the effectiveness of each in reducing and managing food‐borne virus risk.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Risk assessment of enteric viruses along the food chain and in the population

Trząskowska

Hunt

Rodrı́guez-Lázaro

2022

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, low concentrations of viruses can pose a human health risk as the infectious dose of many viruses is low (e.g. 1 to 10 virions) (1,2). Standard methods for the detection of enteric viruses in the environment are limited and many are not adaptable for all human viruses of concern or viral surrogates (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) methods are superior to acidification for secondary concentration of Adenovirus and MS2 in water

McLellan

Weir

Lee

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteric viruses are a leading cause of waterborne illness worldwide and surveillance studies lack standardization in method selection. The most common and cost-effective approach to concentrating viruses from water samples involves virus adsorption and elution (VIRADEL) procedures, followed by secondary concentration. There is a lack of consistency in how secondary concentration methods are practiced and some methods may have better recovery for particular groups of viruses. Secondary concentration methods typically involve precipitation and the most common methods employ organic flocculation (OF) by acidification at a pH of 3.5, or precipitation by polyethylene glycol (PEG) in combination with the addition of NaCl. In this study, the recovery of coliphage MS2 using the plaque assay and human adenovirus strain 41 (HAdV41) using cell-culture and qPCR assays were evaluated by OF and PEG secondary concentration of spiked samples of wastewater, surface water, and groundwater. The recovery of MS2 and HAdV41 by PEG precipitation was significantly higher than that by OF (p<0.0001) when viruses were detected by culture based methods and marginally better when HAdV41 was enumerated by qPCR (p<0.019). The recovery of HAdV41 by qPCR ranged from 75.3% to 94.4% (n=36). The mean recovery of MS2 by OF was 4.4% (0.9%-7.7%; n=14) and ranged from 57.1% to 87.9% (n=28) for the PEG methods. The poor recovery of MS2 by OF was attributed to inactivation or poor stability at acidic conditions as MS2 were not recovered in the supernatant following OF and centrifugation. The inconsistency and lack of justification for method selection in many studies calls for a systematic study to inform guidance and standardization with respect to the application of concentration methods for various water types and viral pathogens.IMPORTANCEMS2 should not be used as a process control for methods involving acidification and culture-based detection. The dense floc produced by the PEG method may have contributed to higher recoveries as the pellet was more compact and stable than the loose pellet formed by OF. Standard methods for the detection of enteric viruses and surrogates that involve acidification could be modified with PEG precipitation to uphold virus recovery and minimize inactivation.

show abstract

Transfer of viruses implicated in human disease through food

Bhilegaonkar

Kolhe²

2023

Present Knowledge in Food Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk Assessment for Foodborne Viruses

Cited by 4 publications

References 68 publications

Risk assessment of enteric viruses along the food chain and in the population

Risk assessment of enteric viruses along the food chain and in the population

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) methods are superior to acidification for secondary concentration of Adenovirus and MS2 in water

Transfer of viruses implicated in human disease through food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About