A common approach for ranking of microbiological and chemical hazards in foods based on risk assessment - useful but is it possible?. Issue 20 (12th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lindqvist, R.; Langerholc, T.; Ranta, J.; Hirvonen, T.; Sand, S.
• Is Part Of: Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. Volume 60:Issue 20(2020)
• Page Start: 3461
• Page End: 3474
• Publication Date: 2020-11-12
• Subjects: Risk ranking -- food safety -- chemical hazards -- microbiological hazards -- DALY -- risk prioritization; Food industry and trade -- Periodicals; Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition -- Periodicals; Food -- Periodicals; Diet -- Periodicals; Review Literature -- Periodicals; Nutrition; Food; Diet; Review Literature; 664
• DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1693957
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-8398

Abstract

Abstract: This article compares and contrasts microbial and chemical risk assessment methodologies in order to evaluate the potential for a common framework for ranking of risk of chemical and microbiological hazards, and developments needed for such a framework. An overview of microbial (MRA) and chemical (CRA) risk assessment is presented and important differences are highlighted. Two microbiological and two chemical hazard-food combinations were ranked based on both a margin of exposure and a risk assessment approach. The comparisons illustrated that it is possible to rank chemical and microbiological hazard-food combinations with traditional approaches from each domain and indicated that the rank order but not the absolute measures is similar using either approach. Including severity in the assessment using DALY reduced differences between hazards and affected the outcome more than which approach was used. Ranking frameworks should include assessment of uncertainty as an integral part of the ranking, and be based on assessment of risk, not safety, and expressed in a common health metric such as disease burden. Necessary simplifications to address data gaps can involve the use of default scenarios. Challenges include comparisons of case-based vs. non-case-based health-endpoints, e.g. biomarker concentration, and integration of the severity of health effects into ranking.