Foodborne Diseases and Food Goods Microbiological Risk Rankings in Environments with Limited Data

Waltner Taylor^*
*Correspondence: Waltner Taylor, Department of Analytical Chemistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain, Email:

Introduction

Perilous food is a significant supporter of the worldwide weight of foodborne illness. In 2010, the World Wellbeing Association (WHO) assessed that 31 foodborne organic perils (28 microbial microorganisms and 3 synthetic substances) were answerable for 600 million instances of foodborne ailment and 33 million years of sound life lost universally. Due to the large number of pathogen-food product combinations that can cause foodborne illnesses, it is necessary to prioritize the combinations that are most likely to pose the greatest risk for foodborne health for the purposes of surveillance and control. In order to transparently and based on the best available evidence assess risk and prioritize hazards, various frameworks have been proposed and are widely used. Using qualitative descriptors like "Low," "Moderate," or "High" to describe, in non-numerical terms, the degree of belief regarding the occurrence of relevant events (such as whether a pathogen present in food survives a processing step) and the final risk estimate, the risk posed by various pathogen-product combinations can be estimated quantitatively using deterministic or probabilistic microbial risk assessment models. Foodborne risk estimation also makes use of so-called semi-quantitative approaches, in which a scoring system is used to establish a logical and explicit hierarchy among the non-numerical descriptions of probability, impact, and severity. When data are insufficient for quantitative assessments and expert knowledge is deemed suitable to allow differentiation between risk categories, qualitative risk assessment frameworks are the usual choice [1].

Description

Data availability is one of the primary considerations when selecting a specific approach. The literature contains a number of examples of qualitative or semi-quantitative risk ranking of foodborne pathogens and food products. The ranking of meat-borne pathogens in intensive pork production, the ranking of chemical hazards (antibiotics) in food, and the ranking of particular hazardfood combinations are all examples. France has recently proposed a risk ranking framework for emerging dietary practices' food safety risks. A suitable framework for dealing with limited data availability is qualitative risk assessment because it involves a reasoned, cited, and logical discussion of the available evidence regarding a risk. In the context of food safety, existing frameworks, on the other hand, rely on assigning qualitative probabilities to the frequency of the pathogen in the food or its source based on the evidence or expert opinion that is currently available. We argue that there are often insufficient data on the frequency of pathogens in food in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for qualitative probabilities to be assigned. Prioritization tools that do not rely on prior data or knowledge of the frequency of the pathogen's presentation are urgently needed because foodborne illnesses are most prevalent in LMICs, where such food survey data tend to be particularly scarce or absent [2].

In the absence of data on pathogen frequency in food products, we propose a framework for systematically and transparently assessing foodborne risk in the food or its source (such as an animal). The method is based on the known characteristics of the pathogen, the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of food products, their processing steps, and cultural practices that are known to facilitate or prevent pathogen survival or growth. It also takes into account the different socioeconomic and regulatory environments in which the various Food Business Operators (FBOs) operate. In situations where strategic resource allocation is most needed, a qualitative assessment that is independent of pathogen frequency estimates may permit systematic prioritization. In situations where estimates of pathogen frequency are only available from inadequate studies or from uninformed opinions and are, as a result, highly speculative, this approach will eliminate the need to rely on them [3].

Considering that populations that consume a wide variety of products face a greater challenge when it comes to risk prioritization in the absence of pathogen frequency data; As an example, the dairy industry in Andhra Pradesh (India) is used. Dairy products are widely consumed in India, the world's largest dairy producer, and they play an important role in Indian culture and diets. The unregulated (i.e. informal) food retail industry is deeply ingrained in India's economic life and provides a livelihood and source of income for many families. The state of Andhra Pradesh is the fourth largest milk producer [4].

The majority of the milk produced in AP is consumed within the home, with the remainder being sold through a variety of channels involving a variety of actors operating, like in many other LMICs, under a variety of legal and informal arrangements. A stakeholder workshop was held with the actors or their representatives at each stage of the dairy supply chain in order to comprehend the dairy supply chain in AP and the quantity of milk flowing through the various routes along the value chain. The workshop's goals were as follows: i) Create a map of the dairy industry's supply chains in AP; ii) Identify the key players involved in each stage of the chain, as well as any agencies or regulations that might have an impact on their actions; and iii) Collect data on important consumer habits. The goal of the cluster analysis that is described in section was to group products according to a set of variables into relatively homogeneous groups. However, due to the possibility of remaining differences between the products in each cluster; from the aftereffects of the bunch investigation the last gamble positioning was settled assessing the sanitation effect of the highlights deciding dissimilarities among the items inside each gathering [5].

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the outlined profiles of the FBOs, the anticipated increase in the risk of contamination and/or conditions favorable to the growth of bacteria in food as a result of noncompliance with food safety standards by the various FBOs was taken into account. The assumption that if the same product is manufactured or resold by different FBOs (i.e. FBO1, FBO2, and FBO3), the higher risk of consumer exposure to microbiological hazards is posed by products purchased from FBO1, followed by FBO2 and then FBO3 was used to integrate the risk of microbiological contamination arising from noncompliance with food safety regulation and hygienic standards for each product.

References

1. Refaya, Ahmed Kabir, Gunapati Bhargavi, Noelin Chinnu Mathew and Ananthi Rajendran, et al. "A review on bovine tuberculosis in India." TB 122 (2020): 101923.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Tomasevic, Igor, Sasa Novakovic, Bartosz Solowiej and Nevijo Zdolec, et al. "Consumers' perceptions, attitudes and perceived quality of game meat in ten European countries." Meat Sci 142 (2018): 5-13.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Hernandez-Jover, Marta, Fiona Culley, Jane Heller and Michael P. Ward et al. "Semi-quantitative food safety risk profile of the Australian red meat industry." Int J Food Microbiol 353 (2021): 109294.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Losoi, Pauli S, Ville P. Santala and Suvi M. Santala. "Enhanced population control in a synthetic bacterial consortium by interconnected carbon cross-feeding." ACS Synth Biol 8 (2019): 2642-2650.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Blasche, Sonja, Yongkyu Kim, Ruben AT Mars and Daniel Machado, et al. "Metabolic cooperation and spatiotemporal niche partitioning in a kefir microbial community." Nature Microbiol 6 (2021): 196-208.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at