Publications

@article{https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.e181111,

title = {Livestock Health and Food Chain Risk Assessment},

author = {Juan M Martínez and Catherine McCarthy and Rachel A Taylor},

url = {https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.e181111},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.e181111},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {EFSA Journal},

volume = {18},

number = {S1},

pages = {e181111},

abstract = {Abstract The EUropean FOod Risk Assessment (EU-FORA) Fellowship work programme ‘Livestock Health and Food Chain Risk Assessment’, funded by EFSA was proposed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), UK. A scientist with a PhD in Food Science was selected to work within the Biomathematics and Risk Research group, under the guidance of a senior risk assessor. The programme consisted of four different modules that covered a wide range of aspects related to risk assessment (RA). The aims, activities and conclusions obtained during the year are described in this article. The learning-by-doing approach in RA allowed the fellow to discover a broad pool of methodologies, tools and applications while developing his own knowledge in RA, as well as gaining scientific network for future collaborations in the field.},

keywords = {food chain, livestock health, risk assessment, risk ranking},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170912,

title = {Livestock, food chain and public health risk assessment},

author = {Irina Smeu and Rachel A Taylor},

url = {https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170912},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170912},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {EFSA Journal},

volume = {17},

number = {S2},

pages = {e170912},

abstract = {Abstract The EUropean FOod Risk Assessment (EU-FORA) Fellowship work programme ‘Livestock, food chain and public health risk assessment’, founded by EFSA was proposed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), United Kingdom (UK). A scientist working in the field of food safety was selected to work within the Department of Epidemiological Sciences, under the guidance of an experienced risk assessor. The programme was structured in four different modules that covered a wide range of aspects related to risk assessment (RA). Taken together, all modules ensured a broad overview of the various methodologies, tools and applications of RA. Thus, the learning-by-doing working programme in RA allowed the fellow to develop her knowledge in RA, to diversify her competencies and to extend her scientific network for future collaborations in the field of RA.},

keywords = {food chain, livestock health, risk assessment, risk ranking},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.e160813,

title = {Risk ranking of chemical and microbiological hazards in food},

author = {T Langerholc and R Lindqvist and S Sand},

url = {https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.e160813},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.e160813},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {EFSA Journal},

volume = {16},

number = {S1},

pages = {e160813},

abstract = {Abstract Risk ranking is a versatile tool used to prioritise activities performed by public health regulatory bodies. It also allows efficient communication between all stakeholders in the process of risk analysis. However, risk ranking methods are still not optimal. Because of the different approaches employed in the risk assessment of microbiological agents and chemicals, it is difficult to rank them together using the same metrics. In our work, we first discuss differences and commonalities between chemical and microbiological risk assessment to provide a starting point for consideration of a common risk ranking platform. In the second part, we perform risk ranking of contaminants and regulated chemicals using the recently developed Risk Thermometer tool. In this approach, chemicals are not ranked solely on the basis of the margin of exposure between a reference value and the exposure, but also by considering the severity of the critical health effects used. The results show that ranking using both methods provides different results from the use of either method alone. Overall, specific chemical groups (i.e. heavy metals, pesticides, etc.) do not generally rank higher or lower, but individual compounds are scattered in the rankings from low to high. Risk ranking methods demand further development to gain wide acceptability and recognition.},

keywords = {chemical hazards, microbiological hazards, risk ranking, risk thermometer},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}