‘‘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

RASFF 2010 (1)

RASFF 2010 (2)

Table 2 – RASFF notifications on food poisoning in 2012 (Latvia)

Alert notification 2012 – notification country Latvia (n=27)

Alert notification 2012 – responding country Latvia (n=31)

RASSF report 2012

RASSF report 2012

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

Risk communication & risk management framework