Expert opinion as 'validation' of risk assessment applied to calf welfare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recently, a Risk Assessment methodology was applied to animal welfare issues in a report of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on intensively housed calves.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Because this is a new and potentially influential approach to derive conclusions on animal welfare issues, a so-called semantic-modelling type 'validation' study was conducted by asking expert scientists, who had been involved or quoted in the report, to give welfare scores for housing systems and for welfare hazards.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Kendall's coefficient of concordance among experts (n = 24) was highly significant (P < 0.001), but low (0.29 and 0.18 for housing systems and hazards respectively). Overall correlations with EFSA scores were significant only for experts with a veterinary or mixed (veterinary and applied ethological) background. Significant differences in welfare scores were found between housing systems, between hazards, and between experts with different backgrounds. For example, veterinarians gave higher overall welfare scores for housing systems than ethologists did, probably reflecting a difference in their perception of animal welfare.</p> <p>Systems with the lowest scores were veal calves kept individually in so-called "baby boxes" (veal crates) or in small groups, and feedlots. A suckler herd on pasture was rated as the best for calf welfare. The main hazards were related to underfeeding, inadequate colostrum intake, poor stockperson education, insufficient space, inadequate roughage, iron deficiency, inadequate ventilation, poor floor conditions and no bedding. Points for improvement of the Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare include linking information, reporting uncertainty and transparency about underlying values.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study provides novel information on expert opinion in relation to calf welfare and shows that Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare can benefit from a semantic modelling approach.</p

The emergence of international food safety standards and guidelines: understanding the current landscape through a historical approach

Following the Second World War, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) teamed up to construct an International Codex Alimentarius (or 'food code') which emerged in 1963. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) was charged with the task of developing microbial hygiene standards, although it found itself embroiled in debate with the WHO over the nature these standards should take. The WHO was increasingly relying upon the input of biometricians and especially the International Commission on Microbial Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) which had developed statistical sampling plans for determining the microbial counts in the final end products. The CCFH, however, was initially more focused on a qualitative approach which looked at the entire food production system and developed codes of practice as well as more descriptive end-product specifications which the WHO argued were 'not scientifically correct'. Drawing upon historical archival material (correspondence and reports) from the WHO and FAO, this article examines this debate over microbial hygiene standards and suggests that there are many lessons from history which could shed light upon current debates and efforts in international food safety management systems and approaches

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2016‐134)

Maize MON 87427 ×MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the five‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved

Influence of psychological factors in food risk assessment - A review

Background: Typically, food-related risk assessments are carried out within a four step, technical framework, as detailed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (World Health Organization/ Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2015). However, the technical framework presumes a level of ‘objective risk’ and does not take into account that risk is complex and psychologically constructed, something which is rarely acknowledged within risk analysis as a whole. It is well documented that people's perceptions of risk are based on more than merely probability of occurrence, but reflect other non-technical psychological factors (e.g., risk origin, severity, controllability, familiarity). Moreover, the basis of these risk perceptions is largely similar for experts and non-experts. Scope and approach: In this review, we consider each stage of the risk assessment process from a psychological perspective, reviewing research on non-technical factors which could affect assessments of risk and subsequent risk management decisions, with a particular focus on food safety. Key Findings and Conclusions: We identify 12 factors from the psychological literature which could potentially influence how risks are assessed and characterised. Drawing on insights from this research, we propose a number of recommendations to standardise approaches in risk assessment. Acknowledging and working with the subjectivity of risk is key to ensuring the efficacy of the wider risk analysis process

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (bovine animals).

A risk ranking process identified Salmonella spp. and pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) as current high-priority biological hazards for meat inspection of bovine animals. As these hazards are not detected by traditional meat inspection, a meat safety assurance system for the farm-to-chilled carcass continuum using a risk-based approach was proposed. Key elements of the system are risk-categorisation of slaughter animals for high-priority biological hazards based on improved food chain information, as well as risk-categorisation of slaughterhouses according to their capability to control those hazards. Omission of palpation and incision during post-mortem inspection for animals subjected to routine slaughter may decrease spreading and cross-contamination with the high-priority biological hazards. For chemical hazards, dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls were ranked as being of high potential concern; all other substances were ranked as of medium or lower concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account the completeness and quality of the food chain information supplied and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated to include new hazards. Control programmes across the food chain, national residue control programmes, feed control and monitoring of environmental contaminants should be better integrated. Meat inspection is a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. Omission of palpation and incision would reduce detection effectiveness for bovine tuberculosis and would have a negative impact on the overall surveillance system especially in officially tuberculosis free countries. The detection effectiveness for bovine cysticercosis, already low with the current meat inspection system, would result in a further decrease, if palpation and incision are removed. Extended use of food chain information could compensate for some, but not all, the information on animal health and welfare lost if only visual post-mortem inspection is applied