English Cymraeg
The risk to vulnerable consumers from Listeria monocytogenes in ready to eat smoked fish

Risk from Listeria monocytogenes in ready to eat smoked fish: Appendices

Appendix 1 for the risk to vulnerable consumers from Listeria monocytogenes in ready to eat smoked fish report.

Diweddarwyd ddiwethaf: 5 April 2024
Gweld yr holl ddiweddariadau
Gweld as PDF
Diweddarwyd ddiwethaf: 5 April 2024
Gweld yr holl ddiweddariadau
Gweld as PDF

Appendix 1

Table A1.1 - Data used to provide the variables used for the ComBase modelling included in section 4.2.1.3

Product Packaging NaCI (%) Shelf life (days) aw pH Notes Reference
Cold smoked salmon Vacuum packed >3.5* 16 - - UK major multiplier Peck et al, 2006
Cold smoked salmon Vacuum packed or modified atmospheric packed 3 7 - 42* - - International (range) Peck et al, 2006
Cold smoked salmon side Vacuum packed 2.2 >14* - - UK sold on eBay Peck et al, 2006
Dry cured, cold smoked salmon Vacuum packed - - 0.931 6.07 raw material sourced from Norway (frozen before manufacture) Kang et al, 2012
Hand-salted smoked organic Atlantic salmon - - 15 0.97 6 Ireland sample collected immediately post manufacture Eicher et al, 2020
Norwegian smoked salmon (high concentration of sodium lactate) - - 16 0.95 6 Norway: sample collected immediately post manufacture Eicher et al, 2020
Norwegian smoked salmon (low concentration of sodium lactate) - - 16 0.96 6 Norway: sample collected immediately post manufacture Eicher et al, 2020
Smoked salmon - 2.16 - 0.883 5.91 Bulgaria: at retail Zhelyazkov and Stratev, 2018
Smoked salmon (brand a) - 3.37 - 0.95 6.3 Spain: at retail Fuentes et al, 2010
Smoked salmon (brand b) - 2.97 - 0.961 6.28 Spain: at retail Fuentes et al, 2010
Wet cured, cold smoked salmon Vacuum packed - - 0.962 6.14 Raw material sourced from Norway (frozen before manufacture) Kang et al, 2012
Median - 2.97 16a 0.9555a 6.04a - -

Figure A1.1: The results of modelling all four conditions, C1/L1 final concentration of L. monocytogenes was 3.03 log CFU/g; C1/L10 final concentration of L. monocytogenes was 4.02 log CFU/g; C2/L1 final concentration of L. monocytogenes was 3.47 log CFU/g; and C2/L10 final concentration of L. monocytogenes was 4.46 log CFU/g.

Details explained in the text.

Appendix 2

This risk characterisation section of this risk assessment followed guidelines produced by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF, 2020), where the frequency of occurrence and the severity of detriment are considered separately. The tables demonstrating the different levels of risk and uncertainty considered when concluding the risk characterisation are included below.

Table A2.1- A qualitative scale for the frequency of occurrence of foodborne risks.

Frequency category Interpretation
Negligible So rare that it does not merit to be considered
Very Low Very rare but cannot be excluded
Low Rare but does occur
Medium Occurs regularly
High Occurs very often
Very High Events occur almost certainly

Table A2.2 - A qualitative scale for the severity of detriment of foodborne risks.

Severity category Interpretation
Negligible No effects, or so mild they do not merit to be considered.
Low Mild illness: not usually life-threatening, usually no sequelae, normally of short duration, symptoms are self-limiting (for example transient diarrhoea) 
Medium Moderate illness: incapacitating but not usually life- 
threatening, sequelae rare, moderate duration (for example diarrhoea requiring hospitalisation) 
High Severe illness: causing life-threatening or substantial sequelae or illness of long duration (for example chronic hepatitis) 

Table A2.3 - A qualitative scale for the level of uncertainty in food risk assessment.

Uncertainty category Interpretation
Low There are solid and complete data available; strong evidence is provided in multiple references; authors report similar conclusions 
Medium There are some but no complete data available; evidence is  provided in small number of references; authors report conclusions that vary from one another 
High There are scarce or no data; evidence is not provided in references but rather in unpublished reports or based on observations, or personal communication; authors report conclusions that vary considerably between them.

 

Yn ôl i’r brig
Yn ôl i’r brig