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.
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.
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. |
Revision log
Published: 5 April 2023
Last updated: 5 April 2024