‘‘Risk assessment activities from viewpoint of risk managers of Food and Veterinary service Republic of Latvia’’
Food and Veterinary Service Republic of Latvia, Head of Food Distribution Surveillance Division
Dr.sc.ing. Tatjana Marcenkova
Regional seminar on ,,Regional cooperation in food safety risk assessment and risk communication’’ Riga, 10-11 December 2013
Aimed at the reduction, elimination or avoidance of a risk to health, the three interconnected components of risk analysis — risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication — provide a systematic methodology for the determination of effective, proportionate and targeted measures or other actions to protect health.
EU Food Law
• ‘risk’ means a function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the severity of that effect, consequential to a hazard;
• ‘risk analysis’ means a process consisting of three interconnected components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication;
• ‘risk assessment’ means a scientifically based process consisting of four steps: hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation;
• ‘risk management’ means the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk assessment and other legitimate factors, and, if need be, selecting appropriate prevention and control options;
• ‘risk communication’ means the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process as regards hazards and risks, risk-related factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, feed and food businesses, the academic community and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions;
• ‘hazard’ means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food or feed with the potential to cause an adverse health effect;
Risk analysis terminology (Regulation 178/2002)
Risk analysis framework
Source: Food safety risk analysis. A guide for national food safety authorities. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 87, WHO, Rome 2006
Risk analysis circle
Risk Management
A. Risk Evaluation
• Risk perception• Value judgement• Precautionary principle• Benefits/costs• Other technical factors
C. Implementation of management decision
1. Assessment of effectiveness of measures taken
2. Review risk management and /or assessment as necessary
D. Monitoring and review
B. Risk management option assessment
A brief description of the situationProduct or commodity involvedThe values expected to be placed at risk,(e.g. human health, economic concerns)
Potential consequencesConsumer perception of the risksThe distribution of risks and benefits
Value judgements and policychoices for the risk assessment process
• Hazard identification• Hazard characterisation• Exposure assessment• Risk characterisation
1. Identification of a food safety problem2. Establishment of a risk profile3. Ranking of the hazard for risk
assessment and risk management priority4. Establishment of risk assessment policy
for conduct of risk assessment5. Commitment of resources6. Commissioning of risk assessment7. Consideration of risk assessment result
1. Identification of available management options2. Selection of preferred management option, including
consideration of an appropriate safety standard3. Final management decision
Regulatory or other control measures
Risk Assessment
Risk Communication
Stages of risk analysis in FVS of Latvia
Risk assessmentFOOD SURVEILLANCE DEPARTMENT
VETERINARY SURVEILLANCE DEPARTMENT
BIOR
Risk management
• monitoring programs - sampling• inspections, controls, PBD db•surveillance data analysis• RASFF•participation in FBD investigation
• scientific collaboration/cooperation• collaboration with EFSA
Risk communication
FVS REGIONAL STRUCTURE UNITS & BIP’s
BORDER CONTROL DEPARTMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT AND EPIDEMIOLOGY DIVISIONEFSA CONTACT POINT
Hazard identification
Hazards duringprocessing/handling steps
Hazards from raw materials, food
components
Microbiological
Foreighn bodies
Chemical
Radioactive
• The main problems identified 2011-2012
Food safety monitoring programs
2011 2012Total samples positive Total samples positive
Dioxins in products 7 0 10 2 (fish)
Benzopirene 30 1 (fish) 32 5 (3 meat products+2 fish products)
Heavy metals 44 3 (honey) 158 71 (meat 21+ subproducts 50)
Listeria monocytogenes in animal origin products
53 0 121 2 (fish)
Salmonella spp. in animal origin products
929 22 (poultry meat, meat, eggs)
643 24 (meat preparations, swabs from pig carcases)
FCM 28 2 (formaldehyde, aromatic amines)
35 5 (total migration+ formaldehyde)
Regular analysis of basic indicators:• amount of inspected establishments &
amount of inspections;• the frequently registered groups of non-
compliances• administrative sanctions (closure, withdrawal,
punishments etc.)
Surveillance data analysis
Confirmed complaints in FVS CO:• 2012 – 39.8% (279 from 701 registered);• 2011 – 31.9% (209 from 655);• 2010 – 31.9% (201 from 629); • 2009 – 36.7% (223 from 608); • 2008 – 33.9% complaints (171 from 503).
Consumer complaints 2011-2012
Most frequently registered causes of consumer complaints 2012
Inadequate temperature and quality
Uncorrect shelf-life of products, ex-piration of validity
Dirty, unhygienic situation
Disease/poisoning
Pests, insects
Inadequate personal hygiene
Forein bodies
Incorrect labelling
Unhealthy food
Other reasons
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
604
276
151
25
11
82
112
14
100
39
130
99
22
35
29
25
40
Catering Trade
• Different approaches were used to communicate with external stakeholders about the nature and effects of the specific food safety risks faced.
• These included public meetings and calls for scientific data and information before the risk assessment was commissioned, public meetings to seek feedback from interested groups (including the scientific community) and peer review an initial draft risk assessment, and complementary activities to enhance knowledge among consumers and health care providers about the prevention of listeriosis.
Risk communication