Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


The drafting groups presented overviews of the hazard identification, exposure assessment and hazard characterization components of the risk assessments on Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens and Vibrio spp. in seafood to the expert consultation. A summary of this and the discussions of the expert consultation are given in sections five and six of this report.

The expert consultation acknowledged and expressed its appreciation for the body of work that had been carried out by the drafting groups and the quality of the material presented.

The consultation formed two working groups addressing Campylobacter and Vibrio respectively. The composition of the two working groups is outlined in the tables below.

Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens

Independent experts

Expert members of the drafting groups

Louis Anthony Cox, United States

Bjarke Bak Christensen, Denmark

Marja-Liisa Hänninen, Finland

Aamir Fazil, Canada

Tom Humphrey, United Kingdom

Emma Hartnett, United Kingdom

Servé Notermans, The Netherlands

Anna Lammerding, Canada

Susana María de los Milagros Jiménez, Argentina

Greg Paoli, Canada

Paul Mead, United States

Hanne Rosenquist, Denmark

George Nasinyama, Uganda

Henrik Wegener, Denmark

Vibrio spp. in seafood

Independent experts

Expert members of the drafting groups

Awa Kane Aïdara, Senegal

Angelo DePaola, United States

Dorothy-Jean McCoubrey, New Zealand

I. Karunasagar, India

Ron Lee, United Kingdom

Ken Osaka, Japan

Tom McMeekin, Australia

John Sumner, Australia

Noel Murray, New Zealand

Mark Walderhaug, United States

Mitsuaki Nishibuchi, Japan

Mark Tamplin, United States

Paul Brett Vanderlinde, Australia

Shigeki Yamamoto, Japan

The expert consultation discussed the approaches taken by the two expert drafting groups to respond to the risk management questions posed by the 33rd session of the CCFH and found that the approaches in general were sound. It was recognized that there are inherent challenges and problems relating to developing "globally applicable risk assessments" based on national risk assessments, or, in the absence of national risk assessments, from relevant data available in different countries. Also, the expert consultation realized that the current FAO/WHO microbiological risk assessment work could not reach the level of detail achievable in national microbiological risk assessment work. This was due to the need for it to be widely applicable but also due to the limited resources available to the sponsoring organizations.

The expert consultation recognized that the availability of suitable data for microbiological risk assessment was a critical issue. For example, it identified data in relation to food consumption patterns and food handling practices in different countries as a very important issue for the development of internationally applicable risk assessment tools. In relation to data availability the expert consultation noted that the FAO/WHO "Calls for data" were attempting to address this. However, it felt that the current process had limitations and was unlikely to reach the attention of all relevant data contributors due to language barriers and the fact that their distribution was almost exclusively by electronic means. It was considered that this process could be improved by addressing the language and distribution issues and also by providing potential contributors with detailed guidelines for data collection and a template for data submission.

The expert consultation recommended that dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers should be enhanced to provide timely feedback on model creation and documentation and to better serve the needs of the risk managers. The consultation suggested that presentations by a representative member of the expert drafting groups at the CCFH would be a productive means of increasing understanding of the potential uses and limitations of microbiological risk assessment among risk managers and enabling the CCFH to better identify their risk assessment needs.

The consultation noted that currently the risk assessment work that had been carried out on both Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens and Vibrio spp. in seafood was weighted towards the situation in developed countries, primarily due to differences in data availability in developing and developed countries. However, due to the international nature of this work the expert consultation recommended that both expert drafting groups attempt to further include the situation in developing countries in the draft risk assessments.


The expert consultation found that the approach taken and the assumptions made in the draft Campylobacter risk assessment were acceptable. However, it was noted that there were a large number of uncertainties relating to important areas in the farm-to fork model, primarily due to lack of data to develop and validate the models.

The expert consultation acknowledged that in the current draft of the Campylobacter farm-to-table model the various components were not yet fully integrated, and needed further development before estimates of the risk to public health and the efficacy of interventions to reduce Campylobacter could be generated. Although, this was felt to be a limitation in reviewing the model, the expert consultation recognized the capacity of the farm-to-table model to identify gaps in data and felt that it could be used to stimulate relevant research on Campylobacter. Furthermore, when finalized and further validated the expert consultation was of the opinion that it would constitute an important contribution to the management of risks to public health posed by Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens.

The expert consultation identified several areas in which it recommended the expert drafting group should focus particular attention in completing the risk assessment. These included the introduction of Campylobacter in poultry flocks, the application of specific interventions in poultry processing plants and the preparation of meals outside the home. Furthermore, it recommended that FAO and WHO identify means of validating the model when completed.

The expert consultation noted that risk management questions posed by the CCFH in relation to Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens were identical to those formulated for Salmonella spp. in broiler chickens. However, due to the significant differences between these two pathogens the consultation felt that the preparation of a risk profile prior to the formulation of the risk management questions could have focused these questions to better address the particularities of Campylobacter.


The expert consultation accepted the logic of using an available model (that of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in United States oysters) as the basis for the development of globally applicable models for the same organism in oysters and other seafood products, and for its extension to other Vibrio spp.. It was stressed that appropriate data from a number of countries needed to be included in order to achieve this.

The expert consultation noted that appropriate data were needed in order to include differences in seafood consumption and preparation patterns, aquaculture and harvesting practices as well as biological effects introduced by different species of shellfish, crustacea and fish in the model. These were in addition to the more readily identifiable variables of water and air temperature, water salinity, prevalence and number of pathogenic vibrios in the environment and the proportion of strains presumed to be pathogenic.

It was noted that only example mitigations had been included in the model for V. parahaemolyticus in oysters in order to demonstrate the way in which these could be incorporated. There was a need for the risk managers to identify the various mitigations that should be included. It might not be necessary to have comprehensive models in order to identify the relative effects of different intervention strategies.

The expert consultation recognized the considerable resources needed for completion of the four separate Vibrio risk assessments identified to date and the difficulty of completing all of these to a satisfactory standard in the identified timeframe. There was a need to review the work involved and resources available and for the CCFH to identify which of the assessments were of greatest importance.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page