Back to listing

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:15:42 -0400
Reply-To: PSA Forum
Sender: PSA Forum
From: Don Schaffner
Subject: Re: Paper 1.c. Response to Response by Dr Wachsmuth
Comments: To: PSA Forum
In-Reply-To: <500752877A5A1440BA50AB3292372F9DC6844B@whqkaki01.who.int> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Response to Dr. Wachsmuth's comments of October 17, 2003 9:02 AM

As so many have said before, I agree with much of what Dr. Wachsmuth has said and will confine my comments to any differences or nuances between what she has written and what I believe.

Dr. Wachsmuth gives the source of her use of the term "technology forcing" as the first FAO/WHO expert consultation on risk analysis (1995).

I'd like to suggest that a different term be used, at least in terms of what is needed today. A web search shows the term is heavily used with respect to the automobile industry and clean air regulations. And the way in which its used in different.

Dr. Wachsmuth also relates that the 1995 experts used this term to describe the need for more and higher quality technical information for many assessments. I'm not sure if you asked today's microbial risk assessors you'd get the same answer. Many of us have come to the realization that more and more complex and details QMRA's are not always the answer. And I'm not sure "higher quality" data is needed, but instead (1) different data, (2) better ways of combining existing data (3) ways to search and find existing data, etc. and (4) appropriate data in developed vs. developing countries. I've covered some of these comments in paper 3c.

Dr. Wachsmuth agrees with Dr. Groth that risk ranking would require enormous effort and should not be undertaken lightly. I also agree, but wish to point out that risk ranking offers one advantage when compared to full-blown risk assessment. Here I'm thinking specifically of the FDA Listeria risk-ranking of ready to eat foods. One key advantage of risk ranking is that any errors are likely to be applied to all the risks, so getting exactly the right answer isn't as important. Risk ranking can be a useful "screening" step before moving on to more in-depth risk assessments.

As an aside, I was part of the team that worked on the FAO/WHO document on Risk Characterization in Elsinor, Denmark (Feb 2003). That document is nearing final draft stage, but has not been peer reviewed. Still, it might be helpful to make that document available to any interested e-forum authors prior to our meeting in January 2004. It has some good ideas on microbial risk ranking.

Don Schaffner, Ph.D. http://foodsci.rutgers.edu/schaffner Food Risk Analysis Initiative Schaffner@aesop.rutgers.edu
65 Dudley Rd - Rutgers University FAX: (732) 932-6776 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520 Voice: (732) 932-9611x214