ReviewJournal of food science2021
Methods to perform risk-based inspections of food companies.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Analysis of Risk-Based Food Safety Inspection Methods Across EU Countries and Canada.Journal of food science · 2025Article
- Food Safety Governance and Guardianship: The Role of the Private Sector in Addressing the EU Ethylene Oxide Incident.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Methods to perform risk-based inspections of food companies.Journal of food science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.