Public health risks represented by
certain composite products
containing food of animal origin
Pietro Stella - Unit on Biological Hazards
SCoFCAH – 19 February 2013
EFSA Scientific Opinion
• Mandate from European Commission in March 2011
• Scientific Opinion adopted by the BIOHAZ Panel in April 2012
Composite products
“a foodstuff intended for human consumption that contains both
processed products of animal origin and products of plant origin and
includes those where the processing of primary product is an integral
part of the production of the final product” (Decision 2007/275/EC)
Background of the mandate
•
Currently imports of composite products into the EU are subject to
rules relating to:
•
•
Public health
•
Animal health
•
•
•
Decision 2007/275/EC: Veterinary
checks at BIPs are foreseen for
composite products when they
contain:
•
processed meat product
•
≥50% other processed animal
product
•
…
Derogation for a specific list of
products (see next slide)
Regulation 853/2004: Processed
products of animal origin used to
prepare composite products must be
produced in a EU approved plant and
controlled at BIPs
Regulation 1162/2009:
Derogation until 31/12/2013
Commission needs
to develop
harmonised riskbased public health
rules
Terms of reference (ToRs)
1. Recommend/identify physico-chemical parameters for composite
products containing no meat and/or less than 50% of products of
animal origin, that could be relevant for the growth/survival of
pathogenic microorganisms of public health importance, taking
into account the importance of other factors such as processing
conditions, transport and/or storage conditions, and therefore
assisting the risk manager on deciding to carry out risk based
controls.
Terms of reference (ToRs)
2. Identify and profile the microbiological hazards for public
health related to import of certain composite products containing
no meat and/or less than 50% of products of animal origin. In the
first instance the following list of products should be assessed:
•
•
•
•
•
Biscuits
Bread
Cakes
Chocolate
Confectionery
including
sweets)
• Unfilled
gelatine
capsules
• Food
supplements
• Olives stuffed
with fish
• Pasta and
noodles
• Meat extracts
and meat
concentrates
• Soup stocks
and flavorings
Composite products
Approach taken
Identify physico-chemical
parameters:
•
Hazards in composite products
•
Risk factors related to
composite products
•
Review of food predictive
microbiology modelling tools
•
Definition of parameters
having impact on survival and
growth of microorganisms in
composite products
Identify and profile
microbiological hazards:
•
Review information on
hazards in certain composite
products
(list in the mandate)
•
Development of a tool to
rank/categorise risks from
those hazards in those
composite products
Biological hazards
(in composite products)
•
Hazards from animal, human and environmental reservoir:
• carried by the ingredients
• contaminating the food during its preparation
In practice, all the microbial hazards commonly transmitted by foods
•
Categorisation of hazards with respect to their need to growth in
food to cause illness: categories of hazards with similar behaviour
→ useful to identify physico-chemical parameters
→ useful later to rank/categorise risks in composite products
Biological hazards
(in composite products)
Factors impacting on risk
(in composite products)
•
Review of factors influencing survival and growth
• Intrinsic factors (aw, pH, Eh)
• Processing factors (heating, chemical decontamination, irradiation)
• Extrinsic or environmental factors (temperature, humidity of storage)
• Implicit factors (developing microflora)
•
Examples provided in the Opinion
Factors impacting on risk
(in composite products)
•
Predictive microbiology: using mathematical equations to summarise
information on microbial responses in foods under different
conditions and provide estimations
General conclusions on ToR 1
(physico-chemical parameters)
•
From conclusions of the Opinion:
General conclusions on ToR 1
(physico-chemical parameters)
•
From conclusions of the Opinion:
Ranking hazard/composite product
combinations
Providing to the risk manager a tool to perform risk-based controls:
Ranking risks from composite products through 2 approaches:
1. Based on characteristics of hazards/foods/processing
2. Based on past data
Raw
material
Processing
Distribution
storage
Forward
approach
Preparation
Consumption
RISK
Foodborne
illness
Backward
approach
“Forward approach”
 Data needed:
•
Hazard-related data: pathogenicity, spores, toxins, survival and
growth…
•
Food-related data: pH, aw…
•
Processing-related data: pasteurisation, freezing, cooking…
 Methods:
•
EFSA WG developed decision trees
for each of the 3 hazard categories
“Forward approach”
1. Illness may occur without growth of hazards in the food
Low = inactivation or prevention
hazardous level
Moderate = hazard may be
present, consider e.g. crosscontamination other foods,
type of cooking
Qualified Presumption of Risk = if
present, pathogen has the
potential to cause disease.
Further information needed,
including info from “backward
approach”
“Forward approach”
2. Growth of hazards in the food is
usually required to cause illness
“Forward approach”
3. Growth of hazards in the food
is required for production of toxins
or toxic metabolites that cause illness
“Forward approach”
•
Ranking through a table
“Forward approach”
•
Overall results
“Backward approach”
 (Past) data needed:
• Prevalence data
• Outbreak data
• RASFF alerts
• Reports in scientific literature
“Backward approach”
•
EU foodborne outbreak data (2004-2009)
“Backward approach”
•
Prevalence (2004-2009), RASFF (2001-2011), scientific papers
“Backward approach”
 (Past) data needed:
• Prevalence data
• Outbreak data
• RASFF alerts
• Reports in scientific literature
 Methods:
• Listing and discussing evidence available
• Expert opinion:
• Experts provided criteria and
scores to establish the relevance
of each combination for each
source of data
• Calculation of scores based
on those criteria
• Calculation of average scores
• Establishment of thresholds to define level of importance of
combinations
“Backward approach”
•
Overall results
General conclusions on ToR 2
(ranking of composite products)
•
From conclusions of the Opinion on “forward approach”:
General conclusions on ToR 2
(ranking of composite products)
•
From conclusions of the Opinion on “backward approach”:
•
In addition:
Integration of the two approaches
“Forward”
(based on hazard, food, processing)
“Backward”
(based on past data)
Main advantages
Main drawbacks
Takes into account diversity
of composite products
Needs good knowledge of
products and conditions
Uses past occurrence/outbreak data
Limitations in data available
and representativeness
Subjective criteria
Specificity of composite products
•
The two approaches are complementary, to be applied in parallel
•
Forward approach should prevail over the results of the backward
approach, because it is based on the food characteristics and can
take into account the diversity of the composite products and
possible future changes
•
Trees indicate a low risk  due to the intrinsic composition or
processing of the food, independently of past information available
•
Trees indicate a risk for a given hazard/product  this risk can then
be further qualified with the past data available
Thank you for your attention!
 Acknowledgments:
•
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel
•
EFSA WG on composite products: Christophe Nguyen-The (chair),
Olivier Cerf, Kostas Koutsoumanis, John Sofos, Antonio Valero,
Marcel Zwietering
 Contacts in EFSA:
• biohaz@efsa.europa.eu
• pietro.stella@efsa.europa.eu
• http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/contact/askefsa.htm