Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34796503›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science2021

Methods to perform risk-based inspections of food companies.

E D van Asselt, Y Hoffmans, E F Hoek-van den Hil, H J van der Fels-Klerx

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

E D van AsseltWageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), part of Wageningen University & Research, Team Agrochains, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4653-4123
Y HoffmansWageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), part of Wageningen University & Research, Team Agrochains, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
E F Hoek-van den HilWageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), part of Wageningen University & Research, Team Agrochains, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
H J van der Fels-KlerxWageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), part of Wageningen University & Research, Team Agrochains, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7801-394X

Funding

Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality KB 37-002-012-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk-based monitoring programs are increasingly applied for cost-effective monitoring of food safety. Such programs ideally consist of three steps: risk-ranking, risk-based inspections, and cost-effective monitoring. Various methods have been described to perform the first step of risk-based monitoring. However, once the risk-ranking has been completed, identifying the hazard-food combinations to monitor, the frequency of inspection needs to be established based on a prioritization of food business operators (FBOs). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of methods available for risk-based inspections. Literature shows that FBO's food safety compliance can be assessed based on company size, historical monitoring data, and socio-economic factors influencing compliance behavior. Non-compliance can either be intentional or unintentional. The latter can be assessed by evaluating the food safety culture of a company. Various models-ranging from qualitative (e.g., focus groups) to quantitative (e.g., scoring)-can be used for this purpose. These models usually include an evaluation of the organizational structure (e.g., management control, communication, commitment), the technical food safety environment (e.g., hygienic design, zoning), and employee characteristics (e.g., knowledge, risk awareness). Intentional non-compliance can be assessed using food fraud vulnerability tools. These tools incorporate factors influencing the likelihood of food fraud at the company, that is, opportunity, motivation, and (lack of) control measures. The literature indicates that either self-assessment tools or risk matrices are applied. There is no global consensus on the methods to apply for risk-based inspections. Depending on time and budget available as well as preferred output, one of the presented methods may be applied for prioritizing FBOs.

Indexed as

FoodFood SafetyFocus GroupsFraudcompliancefood fraudfood safetyprioritization

Identifiers

PMID34796503
PMCPMC9298826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.