# Presentation: 321913

## The Animal Feed Safety System:Ranking     Relative      Risks

- Barry Hooberman, MPH, Ph.D.
- AFSS Public Meeting
- Omaha, Nebraska
- April 5, 2005

## Overview

- What is the purpose of this talk?
- Why are we doing this?
- What is risk?
- What is risk assessment?
- What is risk ranking?
- How are we going to apply a risk ranking approach to the AFSS?

## The Purpose of the AFSS

- To develop and implement a comprehensive, risk-based, preventive animal feed safety system that minimizes, reduces or eliminates the risks to animal and human health that can arise from animal feed

## Why a Risk-Based Approach?

- Risk assessment is a logical process for collecting, organizing and analyzing information to inform a risk decision (*“science-based decision making”*).
- Risk assessment approach is also a forecasting process for the prevention of illnesses/adverse health risks.
- Eases the interactions between decision makers, stakeholders, and the public

## Slide 5

## Risk Assessment Poses Four Simple Questions:

- What can go wrong?
- Hazard Identification
- What are the consequences?
- Consequence Assessment
- How can it happen?
- Exposure Assessment
- What is the likelihood it would go wrong?
- Risk Estimation

## What is Risk?

- Risk is a function of hazard and exposure
- Risk = Hazard x Exposure

- Health Consequences
**Severity**
**(skin irritation/off-feed to death)**
**+**
**Potency**
**(amount to cause illness)**

- Routes
- (how are we exposed)
- +
- Likelihood
- (improbable to common)

## Risk Management Asks:

- What can be done?
- What options are available?
- What are risk trade-offs in terms of risks, benefits and costs?
- What are the impacts of current management decisions on future options?

## Risk Analysis Approach

- Define the Problem

- Traffic Health
-  Risk Assessment

- Report
-  Risk Assessment

- Risk Management
- Options

- Risk Management
- Decisions

## Implementing Risk Management

- I wonder if I can cross before
-  the light...

*The Risk analysis cycle repeats!*

## What is Risk Ranking?

- Risk *assessments* provide the “facts” for risk analysis.

- Risk

- Risk

- Risk

- Risk

- Risk

- Risk

- Risk

**Notes:**
How well does risk analysis do in a democratic society?  
There are lots of risks “out there” and limited resources with which to manage them.  There is simply no way to drive all risks to zero through resource allocation for risk management.  Given this caveat, is there some order to the risks we—as a society—manage our health risks? 
Well, the way it “works” in contemporary democracy is that risk assessors, as the truth seekers, objectively line up the risks from the worst to the insignificant. (If you believe that risk assessment is entirely objective, you may be interested in some dot-com shares I’ve been saving for you!)  For now, accept the argument, at least on relative terms.

## Risk Ranking

- The risk *management* decisions about which risks to manage first are _value_-laden decisions.

***Worst risks *********

***Management order *********

**Notes:**
The worst-to-best cases of risk are handed over to the risk managers for decision making about which ones to attend to first, particularly in terms of resource allocations.   
This is where the objective process gets tilted on its head:  as a society, we have decided that subjectivity in terms of values, perceptions and our willingness to part with money, all can factor in to rearranging the objective ranking of risks.  The logical extreme to this re-arrangement is evident in the full-blown precautionary principle:  one doesn’t need any objective evidence of a risk to warrant mitigating the risk through hazard control.

## Risk Ranking

- !CAUTION!
- AFSS risk ranking system does not estimate individual risks!
- The ranked risks are **relative** risks
- !CAUTION!

## Risk Assessment – Four Steps

- Step 1:  What can go wrong?
- Hazard Identification
- What are the consequences?
- Consequence Assessment
- How can it happen?
- Exposure Assessment
- What is the likelihood it would go wrong?
- Risk Estimation

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 1

- Hazard Identification
- Categorize - Chemical, biological and physical hazards
- Group within categories
- Hazards with similar characteristics
**Guiding Principle – Simplify**

## Identifying Feed Hazards

_**CATEGORIES**_
_*Unintentional*_
- Physical
_**Microbiological**_
- Chemical
_*Intentional*_
- Physical
- Microbiological
- Chemical

_**GROUPS **_
- Bacteria
- Viruses
- Fungi
- Rickettsia
- Mycoplasma
- Others

- ~175 hazardous agents identified

## Identifying Feed Hazards (2)

_**GROUPS**_
_**Bacteria**_
- Viruses
- Fungi
- Rickettsia
- Mycoplasma
- Others

_**HAZARDS**_
*Salmonella*
*E. coli 0157:H7*
*C. botulinum*
*Others*

## Risk Assessment - Four Steps

- What can go wrong?
- Hazard Identification
- Step 2:  What are the consequences?
- Consequence Assessment
- How can it happen?
- Exposure Assessment
- What is the likelihood it would go wrong?
- Risk Estimation

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 2

- Health Consequences
- Two factors:
- Likelihood of the illness
- If you are exposed to the hazardous agent, how likely is it that you will become ill?
- May be referred to as the potency of the hazardous agent (e.g., the amount of hazard required to cause the illness/adverse effect)
- Severity of the illness
- If you become ill, how severe is the illness? (e.g., death v. vomiting v. skin irritation)

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 2

- Health Consequences Score
- Likelihood and Severity combined

- High

- Medium

- Low

- Likelihood

**High**

**Medium**

- Low

- Severity

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 2

- Health Consequences Score
- What It May Look Like Numerically

- High

- Medium

- Low

- Likelihood

**High**

**Medium**

- Low

- Severity

**4**

**2**

**1**

**3**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**5**

**5**

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 2

- Health Consequences Score
- Scores developed for both animals and humans
- Scores for chemical agents may be based on existing health standards (RfDs, ADIs, etc.)
- Scores for physical agents likely to be higher for animals than humans
- Scores for biological agents a more difficult challenge

## Risk Assessment - Four Steps

- What can go wrong?
- Hazard Identification
- What are the consequences?
- Consequence Assessment
- Step 3:  How can it happen?
- Exposure Assessment
- What is the likelihood it would go wrong?
- Risk Estimation

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 3

- Exposure
- Identify source of each hazard entering the feed process.
- Feed ingredients will be linked to each hazard they may contain, resulting in a set of _Ingredient:Hazard_ pairs for each ingredient, such as _Corn:Aflatoxin_ and _Clay:Dioxin_.
- Initial level of a hazard in a feed ingredient or feed will depend on:
- Environmental conditions
- Human activities
- Source and type of contaminant
- Source and type of feed ingredient

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 3

- Initial Exposure Score
- For each pair, a quantitative or semi-quantitative Exposure Score will be calculated or estimated.  (Exposure is the amount of the hazard in the feed ingredient.)
- Score based on:
- Measured data (when available)
- Salmonella contamination data
- Expert opinion

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 3

- Manufacturing Process(es) Modifying Factors
- Feed manufacturing process(es) will either increase, decrease or not affect the level of a particular hazard in the ingredient and feed
- Manufacturing processes include transportation, storage, steps in feed manufacturing, and on-farm processes

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 3

- Final Exposure Score
- Initial Exposure Score will be modified based on manufacturing processes used in the production of the specific feed ingredient.
- For example, a process may involve sufficient heat to eliminate the possible exposure to a bacterial hazard.

## Risk Assessment - Four Steps

- What can go wrong?
- Hazard Identification
- What are the consequences?
- Consequence Assessment
- How can it happen?
- Exposure Assessment
- Step 4:  What is the likelihood it would go wrong?
- Risk Estimation

## Risk Ranking MethodStep 4

- Relative Risk Score
- For each _Ingredient:Hazard_ pair, the _Consequence Score_ will be multiplied by the _Exposure Score_ to yield a _Relative Risk Score_.
- For example, the Consequence Scores and Exposure Scores may range from 1 - 5, resulting in a range of Relative Risk Scores from 1 – 25.

## How Will Ranked Risks  Be Used?

- Decide how risks from contaminants can best be prevented or controlled:
- Do limits for higher-risk contaminants need to be identified?  If yes, which contaminants?
- Do analytical methods for higher-risk contaminants need to be developed?
- What process changes can feed manufacturers  make to reduce risks from contaminants?
- What surveillance/sampling programs are needed to ensure compliance with contaminant limits?

## Summary of Risk Ranking Method

- Hazard Identification
- Categories, groups, similar characteristics
- Consequence Assessment
- Consequence score (severity + likelihood)
- Exposure Assessment
- Initial Exposure score modified by manufacturing processes
- Risk Ranking
- Consequence score x Exposure score

## Limitations

- Approach
- “Top-down” – Start with observed health effects and work down to potential causes (or start with final feeds and work down to potential causes)
- Benefits – focuses on endpoint of concern
- Problems – little data on health effects (or little data on potential hazards in final feeds); difficult to use as preventive tool
- “Bottom-up” -  Start with sources of hazards and work up to estimate risks to health
- Benefits – addresses the complexity of the system; permits isolation of specific problems; it allows a preventive approach
- Problems - requires risk assessments for each hazard

**Notes:**
Chelated minerals in dioxin that came from baghouse dust used as the source of  minerals premix for animal feed.

## Limitations

- Risk-Ranking Method
- A semi-quantitative method pushes most assignments into the middle of the range
- Does not distinguish between intermediate risks
- Acute vs. mild chronic (severed finger vs. long-term health effect)
- High exposure/low consequence vs.low exposure/high consequence

## Limitations

- DATA!
- Primarily an issue in exposure
- Limited measured data for many hazards
- Strong reliance on expert opinion (not that there is anything wrong with that!)