Microbiological risk assessment

Microbiological risk assessment is defined by the CODEX Alimentarius Commission as 'a scientifically based process consisting of the following steps: (i) hazard identification; (ii) hazard characterisation; (iii) exposure assessment; and (iv) risk characterisation'. It is one of the components of microbiological risk analysis, which has the overall objective to minimise food-borne risks to consumers. It is a complex discipline that continues to evolve and challenges and new opportunities were discussed during the breakout session 'Microbiological risk assessment' held at the EFSA 2nd Scientific Conference 'Shaping the Future of Food Safety, Together' (Milan, Italy, 14–16 October 2015). Discussions focussed on the estimation of the global burden of food-borne disease, the prioritisation of microbiological risks taking into account uncertainty, the challenges in risk assessment when dealing with viruses, the contribution of typing methods to risk assessment and approaches to deal with uncertainty in risk assessment in emergency situations. It was concluded that the results of the global burden of food-borne disease study provide, for the first time, a comprehensive comparison of risks due to different hazards and this will be an important input to food safety strategies at the global, regional and national levels. Risk ranking methodologies are an important tool for priority setting. It is important to consider the underestimation (e.g. due to bias in reporting). Typing methods for microbial hazards inevitably impact on risk assessment and can have an important influence on the accuracy of source attribution studies. Due to their high genetic diversity and the limitations of current diagnostic methods, it is still challenging to obtain robust evidence for food-borne outbreaks caused by viruses and more research is needed on the use of whole genome sequencing in this area. The lessons learnt from the recent enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) outbreak in Germany include the need for more effective and timely connections within and between institutions as responses unfold

Evaluation of the application for a new alternative processing method for animal by-products of Category 3 material (ChainCraft B.V.)

EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture