Browse > Article

Determining of Risk Ranking for Processed Foods in Korea  

Bahk, Gyung-Jin (Department of Food and Nutrition, Kunsan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety / v.24, no.3, 2009 , pp. 200-203 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
food safety; risk assessment; risk rank; risk management;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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)   DOI   ScienceOn
2 식품의약품안전청: 2007년 식품산업 주요통계-식품 및 식품첨가물 생산실적 보고. (2008)
3 Ross, T., Sumner, J. : A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment tool, Int. J Food Microbiol. 77, 39-53 (2002)   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
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 보건복지부: 보건복지부. (2007)
6 USEPA: Unfinished business: a comparative assessment of environmental problems. Washington DC, USEAP office of policy analysis, (1987)
7 USEPA: Guidebook to comparing risks and setting envirpnmental priorities, Washington DC, USEAP office of policy analysis, (1993)
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)   DOI   ScienceOn
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)   DOI   ScienceOn