Determining of Risk Ranking for Processed Foods in Korea

국내 주요 가공식품에 대한 위해순위 결정

  • Bahk, Gyung-Jin (Department of Food and Nutrition, Kunsan National University)
  • Published : 2009.09.30

Abstract

The risk ranking of food groups included the Korea Food Code is a potentially powerful means to prioritize food safety management strategies. Although the interest in risk ranking of food groups has been increasing worldwide, there was, until recently, no standard system in Korea for the risk ranking of food groups. This study was conducted to rank food groups using theoretically estimated comparative risk scores of 101 food groups included the Korea Food Code. These scores were estimated using the risk evaluation model, which focuses on 3 aspects, namely, exposure assessment, severity assessment, and consumption part. The results of this study revealed that the risk was the highest in the case of ready-to-eat (RTE) food items, followed by fish products and breads. Using this ranking system, we can identify the food with high risk scores and design risk management strategies targeted specifically at these items.

우리나라 식품공전상에 수록된 식품군 및 식품유형에 대한 위해순위(risk ranking) 결정은 식품안전관련 위생관리 우선순위 적용 등에 있어 중요한 수단으로 작용할 수 있다. 하지만 세계적인 관심의 증대에도 불구하고 아직까지 국내에서는 체계적으로 수행된 적이 없었다. 본 연구는 식품공전에 포함되어 있는 101개의 식품유형에 대하여 상대적인 위해 순위를 결정하였다. 상대위해도는 노출평가, 심각성평가 및 섭취량 추정부분으로 구성된 위해평가모델을 이용하였다. 추정결과, 즉석섭취식품(RTE)이 가장 높은 위해수준을 나타내었고, 다음이 어육가공품, 빵류 등의 순으로 나타났다. 이러한 식품공전상의 식품유형에 대한 과학적인 위해순위 결과는 식품안전에 있어 가장 많은 영향을 미치는 식품과 이들 식품에 대한 관리목표를 설정하는데 크게 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. NcNamara, P.E., Miller, G.Y., Liu, X., Barber, D.A.: A farmto pork stochastic simulation model of pork-borne Salmonellosis in humans: lessons for risk ranking, Agribusiness, 23, 157-172 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20115
  2. USEPA: Unfinished business: a comparative assessment of environmental problems. Washington DC, USEAP office of policy analysis, (1987)
  3. USEPA: Guidebook to comparing risks and setting envirpnmental priorities, Washington DC, USEAP office of policy analysis, (1993)
  4. Hoffman, S.A., Taylor, M.R.: Toward safer food - perspective on risk and priority setting, RFF Press book, Washington, D.C. USA. pp. 11-13 (2005)
  5. Ross, T., Sumner, J. : A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment tool, Int. J Food Microbiol. 77, 39-53 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00061-2
  6. 보건복지부: 보건복지부. (2007)
  7. 식품의약품안전청: 2007년 식품산업 주요통계-식품 및 식품첨가물 생산실적 보고. (2008)
  8. Zwietering, M.H.: Quantitative risk assessment is more complex always better? Simple is not stupid and complex is not always more correct,Int, J Food Microbiol., 134, 57-62 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.12.025
  9. Presi, P., Stark, K.D.C., Stephan, R., Breidenbach, E., Frey,J., Regula, G.: Risk scoring for setting priorities in a monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in meat and meat products, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 130,94-100 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.12.022