Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Via del Florio 2, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Bologna, Italy.
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Via del Florio 2, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Bologna, Italy.
Int J Food Microbiol. 2014 Aug 1;184:2-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.01.013. Epub 2014 Jan 31.
In 2002, the Regulation (EC) 178 of the European Parliament and of the Council states that, in order to achieve the general objective of a high level of protection of human health and life, food law shall be based on risk analysis. However, the Commission Regulation No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs requires that food business operators ensure that foodstuffs comply with the relevant microbiological criteria. Such criteria define the acceptability of a product, a batch of foodstuffs or a process, based on the absence, presence or number of micro-organisms, and/or on the quantity of their toxins/metabolites, per unit(s) of mass, volume, area or batch. The same Regulation describes a food safety criterion as a mean to define the acceptability of a product or a batch of foodstuff applicable to products placed on the market; moreover, it states a process hygiene criterion as a mean indicating the acceptable functioning of the production process. Both food safety criteria and process hygiene criteria are not based on risk analysis. On the contrary, the metrics formulated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2004, named Food Safety Objective (FSO) and Performance Objective (PO), are risk-based and fit the indications of Regulation 178/2002. The main aims of this review are to illustrate the key differences between microbiological criteria and the risk-based metrics defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to explore the opportunity and also the possibility to implement future European Regulations including PO and FSO as supporting parameters to microbiological criteria. This review clarifies also the implications of defining an appropriate level of human protection, how to establish FSO and PO and how to implement them in practice linked to each other through quantitative risk assessment models. The contents of this review should clarify the context for application of the results collected during the EU funded project named BASELINE (www.baselineeurope.eu) as described in the papers of this special issue. Such results show how to derive POs for specific food/biological hazard combinations selected among fish, egg, dairy, meat and plant products.
2002 年,欧洲议会和理事会的第 178 号法规指出,为实现人类健康和生命的高水平保护这一总体目标,食品安全法应基于风险分析。然而,欧盟委员会第 2073/2005 号法规关于食品微生物标准要求食品经营者确保食品符合相关微生物标准。这些标准基于微生物的不存在、存在或数量,以及/或其毒素/代谢物的数量,通过单位(质量、体积、面积或批次)来定义产品、一批食品或一个过程的可接受性。同一法规将食品安全标准描述为定义适用于投放市场的产品或一批食品的可接受性的手段;此外,它还将过程卫生标准描述为表示生产过程可接受运行的手段。食品安全标准和过程卫生标准都不是基于风险分析。相反,食品法典委员会 2004 年制定的食品安全目标 (FSO) 和绩效目标 (PO) 是基于风险的,符合第 178/2002 号法规的指示。本次审查的主要目的是说明微生物标准与食品法典委员会定义的基于风险的指标之间的关键差异,并探讨实施包括 PO 和 FSO 在内的未来欧洲法规的机会和可能性,将其作为微生物标准的支持参数。本次审查还阐明了确定适当的人类保护水平、如何确定 FSO 和 PO 以及如何将其通过定量风险评估模型在实践中相互关联的含义。本文回顾的内容应阐明在名为“基线”(www.baselineeurope.eu)的欧盟资助项目中收集的结果的应用背景,正如本期特刊中的论文所述。这些结果展示了如何针对从鱼类、蛋类、乳制品、肉类和植物产品中选择的特定食品/生物危害组合得出 PO。