Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 17 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
17
Dung lượng
528,1 KB
Nội dung
NHĨM – 53TP1 Nguyễn Thế Bình Nguyễn Hồng Phong Mai Thanh Tuấn Nguyễn Thị Thảo Nguyễn Thị Hồng Hoạch Phạm Thị Mỹ Tuyên Nguyễn Hoàng Trung Phạm Thị Diễm Hương NT Trần Thái Thị Hồng Uyên ĐÁNH GIÁ ĐỊNH TÍNH Nước mắm – Histamine - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) Đậu phộng – Aflatoxin B1 - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) Thịt heo – Clenbuterol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) Rượu gạo – Methanol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) Mì ăn liền - Chất béo Transfat – Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) Gạo – Mọt gạo – Trung Quốc (1,357 tỉ người) Cá ngừ đông lạnh – Histamine - Nhật Bản (128,02 triệu người) Cá basa đông lạnh - MG (Malachite Green) – Canada (35,16 triệu người) Thanh Long - Dư lượng thuốc trừ sâu ( bavistin) – New Zealand (4,471 triệu người) 10 Tiêu - Cát, sạn – Brazil (200,4 triệu người) LIỆT KÊ 10 SẢN PHẨM THỰC PHẨM QUAN TRỌNG NHẤT CỦA VIỆT NAM 1.Các sản phẩm tiêu thụ Việt Nam - Nước mắm - Lạc (đậu phộng) - Thịt heo - Rượu - Mì ăn liền Các sản phẩm xuất - Gạo - Cá ngừ đông lạnh - Cá basa phi lê đông lạnh - Thanh long - Hồ tiêu Lập bảng cơng cụ định tính cho 10 sản phẩm A THEO NHÓM 1.Nước mắm - Histamine - Sinh viên ĐHNT Sản phẩm Mối nguy Nước mắm Histamine Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Nhẹ Khơng có khả Không Xếp loại Thấp Không ảnh hưởng Không Không Lạc (đậu phộng) - Aflatoxin B1 - Sinh viên ĐHNT Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Đậu phộng ( Lạc) Aflatoxin B1 (AF B1) Rất nguy kịch Có khả Có Không thể loại bỏ, tồn dạng bào tử Khơng Có Cao Thịt heo - Clenbuterol - Sinh viên ĐHNT Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Thịt heo Chất tạo nạc-Clenbuterol Vừa Có khả Khơng Khơng ảnh hưởng Khơng Có Trung bình Rượu - Methanol - Sinh viên ĐHNT Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Rượu Methanol Rất nguy kịch Có khả Khơng Ảnh hưởng q trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Sinh trình chế biến cố ý đưa vào sản phẩm Khơng Có Cao Mì ăn liền - Chất béo Transfat – Sinh viên ĐHNT Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Mì ăn liền Chất béo Transfat Vừa Có khả Có Có ảnh hưởng Khơng Có Thấp Gạo - Mọt gạo – Trung Quốc Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Gạo xuất Mọt gạo Nhẹ Hiếm có khả Khơng Có Có Khơng Thấp Cá ngừ đơng lạnh - Histamine - Nhật Bản Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Cá ngừ đông lạnh Histamine (HFP) Nhẹ Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Có khả Có Khơng Khơng Có Thấp Cá basa đơng lạnh - MG (Malachite Green) – Canada Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Cá ba sa phi lê đông lạnh MG (Malachite Green) Vừa Không xảy Khơng Khơng Khơng Có Thấp Thanh long - Dư lượng thuốc trừ sâu ( bavistin) – New Zealand Sản phẩm Mối nguy Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Thanh long Dư lượng thuốc trừ sâu ( bavistin) Vừa Hiếm có khả Khơng Không Không Không Thấp 10 Hồ tiêu - Cát, sạn – Brazil Sản phẩm Mối nguy Hồ tiêu (thô) Cát, sạn Tính nghiêm trọng Khả xảy Mức gia tăng cần thiết để đạt liều gây bệnh cho người Ảnh hưởng trình chế biến Khâu nấu nướng người tiêu dùng Các liên kết dịch tễ Xếp loại Nhẹ Rất có khả Khơng Có Khơng Khơng Trung bình NHĨM – 53TP1 Nguyễn Thế Bình Nguyễn Hồng Phong Mai Thanh Tuấn Nguyễn Thị Thảo Nguyễn Thị Hồng Hoạch Phạm Thị Mỹ Tuyên Nguyễn Hoàng Trung Phạm Thị Diễm Hương NT Trần Thái Thị Hồng Uyên ĐÁNH GIÁ BÁN ĐỊNH LƯỢNG 11.Nước mắm – Histamine - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) 12.Đậu phộng – Aflatoxin B1 - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) 13.Thịt heo – Clenbuterol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) 14.Rượu gạo – Methanol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) 15.Mì ăn liền - Chất béo Transfat – Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) 16.Gạo – Mọt gạo – Trung Quốc (1,357 tỉ người) 17.Cá ngừ đông lạnh – Histamine - Nhật Bản (128,02 triệu người) 18.Cá basa đông lạnh - MG (Malachite Green) – Canada (35,16 triệu người) 19.Thanh Long - Dư lượng thuốc trừ sâu ( bavistin) – New Zealand (4,471 triệu người) 20 Tiêu - Cát, sạn – Brazil (200,4 triệu người) Nước mắm – Histamine - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 10,761 If "OTHER" please specify: 1.00E+00 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 0.00E+00 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 83 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) Đậu phộng – Aflatoxin B1 - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 10,761 If "OTHER" please specify: 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 3.29E-02 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 0.00E+00 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 92 Thịt heo – Clenbuterol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 10,761 If "OTHER" please specify: 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 2,690 1.42E-01 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 1.05E+05 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 83 Rượu gạo –Methanol - Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 10,761 If "OTHER" please specify: 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 8,071 3.29E-02 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 2.42E+04 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 88 Mì ăn liền - Chất béo Transfat – Sinh viên ĐHNT (10761 người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 10,761 If "OTHER" please specify: 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 1.42E-01 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 0.00E+00 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 84 Gạo – Mọt gạo – Trung Quốc (1,357 tỉ người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Khả sản phẩm ăn sống bị nhiễm độc 10 Mức tăng đủ để gây bệnh? Mức độ nghiêm trọng mối nguy Mức mẫn cảm nhóm người nghiên cứu If "OTHER" enter a percentage If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 (all) 0.0001% (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Tác động việc nấu nướng thức ăn Tác động trình chế biến B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD Tần suất sử dụng If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase If "OTHER" enter If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 the extent of risk increase 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g 10 Khả tái nhiễm sau chế biến Tỷ lệ người ăn sản phẩm RISK ESTIMATES If "OTHER" enter a percentage Số người ăn sản phẩm value between (none) and 100 Population considered: If "OTHER" please specify: 339,250,000 0.0001 0.00 P morbid dose (general response) 0.00E+00 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 0.00E+00 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 0.00% (all) Hiệu biện pháp kiểm soát sau chế biến? 1,357,000,000 Hazard Severity probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) Cá ngừ đông lạnh – Histamine - Nhật Bản (128,02 triệu người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 128,020,000 If "OTHER" please specify: 96,015,000 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 3.29E-02 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 2.88E+08 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 71 Cá basa đông lạnh - MG (Malachite Green) – Canada (35,16 triệu người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number of days between a 100g Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 35,160,000 If "OTHER" please specify: 26,370,000 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 1.42E-01 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 3.43E+08 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 80 Thanh Long - Dư lượng thuốc trừ sâu ( bavistin) – New Zealand (4,471 triệu người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase of days between a 100g Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 4,471,000 If "OTHER" please specify: 3,353,250 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 9.86E-06 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 3.02E+03 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 57 10 Tiêu - Cát, sạn – Brazil (200,4 triệu người) A SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY C PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 10 What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer? Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER How susceptible is the population of interest ? If "OTHER" enter a percentage GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc If "other", what is the increase value between (none) and 100 If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase of days between a 100g Is there potential for recontamination after processing ? 1.00E-03 RISK ESTIMATES NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) OTHER very few (5%) probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp ) If "OTHER" enter a percentage Size of Consuming Population Western Australia OTHER the extent of risk increase 10 all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria If "other", enter a value that indicates 1.00E-03 "number Proportion of Population Consuming the Product Australia ACT New South Wales Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER OTHER daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER If "OTHER" enter The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards Frequency of Consumption 1.E+02 infectious dose ? 11 Effect of preparation before eating Effect of Processing B PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an 0.0001% value between (none) and 100 Population considered: 200,400,000 If "OTHER" please specify: 50,100,000 9.00% (all) How effective is the post-processing control system? WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 3.00E-05 total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest 4.11E+05 RISK RANKING ( to 100) 56