Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37569132›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Food Risk Analysis: Towards a Better Understanding of "Hazard" and "Risk" in EU Food Legislation.

Ana-Andreea Cioca, Livija Tušar, Tomaž Langerholc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ana-Andreea CiocaDepartment of Microbiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-1152-4569
Livija TušarDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular and Structural Biology, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova Cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-0423-3963
Tomaž LangerholcDepartment of Microbiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-6053-6304

Funding

European Food Safety Authority GP/EFSA/ENCO/2020/04 -GA1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For risk communication, it is important to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk". Definitions can be found in Codex Alimentarius and the European Union (EU) General Food Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a recurrent issue in the area of food safety, despite awareness-raising messages sent by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other interested entities. A quick screening of the EU's food regulations revealed several inconsistencies. Hence, it was considered necessary to further investigate if regulations could act as a source for this problem. A software tool was developed to support the detection and listing of inconsistent translations of "hazard" and "risk" in certain EU food regulations. Subsequently, native-speaking experts working in food safety from each EU country were asked to provide their individual scientific opinion on the prepared list. All data were statistically analysed after applying numerical scores (1-5) describing different levels of consistency. Results showed that the most common problem was the interchange of "hazard" with "risk" and vice versa. This lack of consistency can create confusion that can further translate into misjudgments at food risk assessment and communication levels.

Indexed as

food regulationfood safetyhazardriskrisk analysisrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID37569132
PMCPMC10418315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.