1. ‘‘Risk assessment activities from
viewpoint of risk managers of Food and
Veterinary service Republic of Latvia’’
Food and Veterinary Service Republic of Latvia,
Head of Food Distribution Surveillance Division
Dr.sc.ing. Tatjana Marcenkova
Regional seminar on ,,Regional cooperation in food safety risk assessment and risk
communication’’ Riga, 10-11 December 2013

2. Aimed at the reduction, elimination or avoidance of a
risk to health, the three interconnected components
of risk analysis — risk assessment, risk management,
and risk communication — provide a systematic
methodology for the determination of effective,
proportionate and targeted measures or other
actions to protect health.
EU Food Law

3. • ‘risk’ means a function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the
severity of that effect, consequential to a hazard;
• ‘risk analysis’ means a process consisting of three interconnected components:
risk assessment, risk management and risk communication;
• ‘risk assessment’ means a scientifically based process consisting of four steps:
hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk
characterisation;
• ‘risk management’ means the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing
policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk
assessment and other legitimate factors, and, if need be, selecting appropriate
prevention and control options;
• ‘risk communication’ means the interactive exchange of information and opinions
throughout the risk analysis process as regards hazards and risks, risk-related
factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, feed
and food businesses, the academic community and other interested parties,
including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk
management decisions;
• ‘hazard’ means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food or
feed with the potential to cause an adverse health effect;
Risk analysis terminology
(Regulation 178/2002)

4. Risk analysis framework
Source: Food safety risk analysis. A guide for national food safety

5. Risk analysis circle

7. Stages of risk analysis in
FVS of Latvia
Risk assessment
FOOD SURVEILLANCE
DEPARTMENT
VETERINARY SURVEILLANCE
DEPARTMENT
BIOR
Risk management
• monitoring programs - sampling
• inspections, controls, PBD db
•surveillance data analysis
• RASFF
•participation in FBD investigation
• scientific
collaboration/cooperation
• collaboration with EFSA
Risk communication
FVS REGIONAL STRUCTURE
UNITS & BIP’s
BORDER CONTROL
DEPARTMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT AND
EPIDEMIOLOGY DIVISION
EFSA CONTACT POINT

8. RASFF 2010 (1)

9. RASFF 2010 (2)

10. Table 2 – RASFF notifications on food
poisoning in 2012 (Latvia)

11. Alert notification 2012 –
notification country Latvia (n=27)

12. Alert notification 2012 –
responding country Latvia (n=31)

13. RASSF report 2012

14. RASSF report 2012

15. Hazard identification
Hazards during
processing/handling steps
Hazards from raw
materials, food
components
Microbiological
Foreighn bodies
Chemical
Radioactive

16. • The main problems identified 2011-2012
Food safety monitoring programs
2011 2012
Total samples positive Total samples positive
Dioxins in products 7 0 10 2 (fish)
Benzopirene 30 1 (fish) 32 5 (3 meat products+2
fish products)
Heavy metals 44 3 (honey) 158 71 (meat 21+
subproducts 50)
Listeria
monocytogenes in
animal origin
products
53 0 121 2 (fish)
Salmonella spp. in
animal origin
products
929 22 (poultry meat,
meat, eggs)
643 24 (meat
preparations, swabs
from pig carcases)
FCM 28 2 (formaldehyde,
aromatic amines)
35 5 (total migration+
formaldehyde)

17. Regular analysis of basic indicators:
• amount of inspected establishments &
amount of inspections;
• the frequently registered groups of non-
compliances
• administrative sanctions (closure, withdrawal,
punishments etc.)
Surveillance data analysis

18. Confirmed complaints in FVS CO:
• 2012 – 39.8% (279 from 701 registered);
• 2011 – 31.9% (209 from 655);
• 2010 – 31.9% (201 from 629);
• 2009 – 36.7% (223 from 608);
• 2008 – 33.9% complaints (171 from 503).
Consumer complaints 2011-2012

19. Most frequently registered causes
of consumer complaints 2012
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Inadequate temperature and…
Uncorrect shelf-life of products,…
Dirty, unhygienic situation
Disease/poisoning
Pests, insects
Inadequate personal hygiene
Forein bodies
Incorrect labelling
Unhealthy food
Other reasons
604
276
151
25
11
82
112
14
100
39
130
99
22
35
29
25
40
Catering Trade

20. • Different approaches were used to communicate with external
stakeholders about the nature and effects of the specific food safety risks
faced.
• These included public meetings and calls for scientific data and
information before the risk assessment was commissioned, public
meetings to seek feedback from interested groups (including the scientific
community) and peer review an initial draft risk assessment, and
complementary activities to enhance knowledge among consumers and
health care providers about the prevention of listeriosis.
Risk communication

21. Risk communication & risk management framework