Suchergebnisse

Microbiological Risk Assessment (MRA) has emerged as a comprehensive and systematic approach for addressing the risk of pathogens in specific foods and/or processes. At government level, MRA is increasingly recognised as a structured and objective approach to understand the level of risk in a given food/pathogen scenario. Tools developed so far support qualitative and quantitative assessments of the risk that a food pathogen poses to a particular population. Risk can be expressed as absolute numbers or as relative (ranked) risks. The food industry is beginning to appreciate that the tools for MRA can increase the understanding of microbiological risks in foods. It is timely to inform food safety professionals about the availability and utility of MRA tools. Therefore, the focus of this report is to aid the food safety manager by providing a concise summary of the tools available for the MRA of food. Among the tools evaluated will be techniques to include expert judgement in MRAs, to characterise dose-response relationships, to model growth, survival and death of micro-organisms, to model the food chain or specific processes in it, and to integrate data from the various MRA stages. The information generated through conducting a risk assessment, such as a risk estimate, ranking of risks, identification of key controlling or risk-generating factors, or highlighting of data gaps,can assist governments in their role of setting national policies, criteria or providing public health advice, and also assist industry in their ambition to design innovative yet safe foods for consumers.

A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrP(S) (c)), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrP(S) (c), of at least 6 log(10) should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log(10) reduction in detectable PrP(S) (c), by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrP(S) (c) from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log(10) reduction in PrP(S) (c). Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP.

EFSA received an application from the Dutch Competent Authority, under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, for the evaluation of an alternative method for treatment of Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP). It consists of the hydrolysis of the material to short‐carbon chains, resulting in medium‐chain fatty acids that may contain up to 1% hydrolysed protein, for use in animal feed. A physical process, with ultrafiltration followed by nanofiltration to remove hazards, is also used. Process efficacy has been evaluated based on the ability of the membrane barriers to retain potential biological hazards present. Small viruses passing the ultrafiltration membrane will be retained at the nanofiltration step, which represents a Critical Control Point (CCP) in the process. This step requires the Applicant to validate and provide certification for the specific use of the nanofiltration membranes used. Continuous monitoring and membrane integrity tests should be included as control measures in the HACCP plan. The ultrafiltration and nanofiltration techniques are able to remove particles of the size of virus, bacteria and parasites from liquids. If used under controlled and appropriate conditions, the processing methods proposed should reduce the risk in the end product to a degree which is at least equivalent to that achieved with the processing standards laid down in the Regulation for Category 3 material. The possible presence of small bacterial toxins produced during the fermentation steps cannot be avoided by the nanofiltration step and this hazard should be controlled by a CCP elsewhere in the process. The limitations specified in the current legislation and any future modifications in relation to the end use of the product also apply to this alternative process, and no hydrolysed protein of ruminant origin (except ruminant hides and skins) can be included in feed for farmed animals or for aquaculture.

A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrPSc), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrPSc, of at least 6 log10 should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log10 reduction in detectable PrPSc, by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrPSc from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log10 reduction in PrPSc. Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion