A Comparative Analysis of Risk-Based Food Safety Inspection Methods Across EU Countries and Canada

IF 3.4 2区 农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Yuanxiao Ze, E. D. van Asselt, M. Focker, H. J. van der Fels-Klerx
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of Risk-Based Food Safety Inspection Methods Across EU Countries and Canada","authors":"Yuanxiao Ze,&nbsp;E. D. van Asselt,&nbsp;M. Focker,&nbsp;H. J. van der Fels-Klerx","doi":"10.1111/1750-3841.70592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the expansion of global trade and the emergence of new food products, food safety risks have increased, making foodborne illnesses a significant global public health issue. In this context, and given the limited regulatory resources, risk-based food safety inspections of food business operators are essential for controlling foodborne disease outbreaks and ensuring food safety. However, the absence of transparency in risk-based inspection methods limits cross-country learning and hinders the enhancement of food safety control. This study analyzed risk-based inspection methods employed in nine EU countries and Canada, combining expert interviews and document analysis. By identifying risk factors, risk categorization processes, and common challenges, our findings provide practical insights for developing and refining future risk-based methods. Our analysis reveals that inherent and compliance-related factors often serve as fundamental factors. However, mitigating factors and subjective factors, such as food safety culture, remain underutilized in practice. Two dominant risk categorization and inspection frequency assignment processes are summarized: a two-layer grouping process and a single-layer scoring process. The latter offers greater flexibility, enabling the integration of a broader range of risk factors. Through critically evaluating existing methods, this study offers actionable insights to improve risk-based inspection methods, fostering future harmonization and reducing food safety risks globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":193,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Science","volume":"90 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12481647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.70592","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the expansion of global trade and the emergence of new food products, food safety risks have increased, making foodborne illnesses a significant global public health issue. In this context, and given the limited regulatory resources, risk-based food safety inspections of food business operators are essential for controlling foodborne disease outbreaks and ensuring food safety. However, the absence of transparency in risk-based inspection methods limits cross-country learning and hinders the enhancement of food safety control. This study analyzed risk-based inspection methods employed in nine EU countries and Canada, combining expert interviews and document analysis. By identifying risk factors, risk categorization processes, and common challenges, our findings provide practical insights for developing and refining future risk-based methods. Our analysis reveals that inherent and compliance-related factors often serve as fundamental factors. However, mitigating factors and subjective factors, such as food safety culture, remain underutilized in practice. Two dominant risk categorization and inspection frequency assignment processes are summarized: a two-layer grouping process and a single-layer scoring process. The latter offers greater flexibility, enabling the integration of a broader range of risk factors. Through critically evaluating existing methods, this study offers actionable insights to improve risk-based inspection methods, fostering future harmonization and reducing food safety risks globally.

Abstract Image

欧盟国家与加拿大基于风险的食品安全检验方法比较分析。
随着全球贸易的扩大和新食品的出现,食品安全风险增加,使食源性疾病成为一个重大的全球公共卫生问题。在这种情况下,鉴于监管资源有限,对食品经营者进行基于风险的食品安全检查对于控制食源性疾病暴发和确保食品安全至关重要。然而,基于风险的检查方法缺乏透明度限制了跨国学习,并阻碍了食品安全控制的加强。本研究结合专家访谈和文献分析,分析了9个欧盟国家和加拿大采用的基于风险的检查方法。通过识别风险因素、风险分类过程和共同挑战,我们的发现为开发和改进未来基于风险的方法提供了实用的见解。我们的分析表明,固有因素和合规相关因素往往是基本因素。然而,减轻因素和主观因素,如食品安全文化,在实践中仍未得到充分利用。总结了两种主要的风险分类和检查频率分配过程:两层分组过程和单层评分过程。后者提供了更大的灵活性,能够整合更广泛的风险因素。通过批判性地评估现有方法,本研究提供了可操作的见解,以改进基于风险的检查方法,促进未来的协调和降低全球食品安全风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Food Science
Journal of Food Science 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
412
审稿时长
3.1 months
期刊介绍: The goal of the Journal of Food Science is to offer scientists, researchers, and other food professionals the opportunity to share knowledge of scientific advancements in the myriad disciplines affecting their work, through a respected peer-reviewed publication. The Journal of Food Science serves as an international forum for vital research and developments in food science. The range of topics covered in the journal include: -Concise Reviews and Hypotheses in Food Science -New Horizons in Food Research -Integrated Food Science -Food Chemistry -Food Engineering, Materials Science, and Nanotechnology -Food Microbiology and Safety -Sensory and Consumer Sciences -Health, Nutrition, and Food -Toxicology and Chemical Food Safety The Journal of Food Science publishes peer-reviewed articles that cover all aspects of food science, including safety and nutrition. Reviews should be 15 to 50 typewritten pages (including tables, figures, and references), should provide in-depth coverage of a narrowly defined topic, and should embody careful evaluation (weaknesses, strengths, explanation of discrepancies in results among similar studies) of all pertinent studies, so that insightful interpretations and conclusions can be presented. Hypothesis papers are especially appropriate in pioneering areas of research or important areas that are afflicted by scientific controversy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信