Welcome.

This is Version 2 of "Risk Ranger", software developed at the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence, to assist understanding of the process of microbial food safety risk assessment.

The software has been peer-reviewed and has been published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology (Ross, T. and Sumner, J.L. (2002). A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment tool. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 77:39-53) which fully describes the logic behind the system as well as its limitations.This version has been modified from the original described in the above publication by reducing the “weight” given to “Moderate”, “Mild” and “Minor” hazard severity classifications (Question 1) by a factor of 10. This preserves the risk rank scaling (0 - 100) and its original interpretation but better reflects the severity of fatal disease compared to non-life threatening hazards. Question 3 has also been slightly modified to enable better discrimination of serving frequency.

The software is useful for teaching the principles of risk assessment in relation to food safety, and highlighting factors contributing to food safety risk. It has also been used in ranking the risk of various product/pathogen combinations.As with any such software the outputs are only as reliable as the data entered, and users are urged to remain aware of the intended uses and limitations of the program. Please note that the Risk Ranger spreadsheet is not protected and changes may have been made, either deliberately or inadvertently. If you are uncertain of the integrity of the copy of the spreadsheet you are currently using, a new copy may be downloaded from www.foodsafetycentre.com.au

Welcome.

This is Version 2 of "Risk Ranger", software developed at the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence, to assist understanding of the process of microbial food safety risk assessment.

The software has been peer-reviewed and has been published in the International Journal of Food (Ross, T. and Sumner, J.L. (2002). A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment

International Journal of Food Microbiology, 77:39-53) which fully describes the logic behind the system

This version has been modified from the original described in the above publication by reducing the “weight” given to “Moderate”, “Mild” and “Minor” hazard severity classifications (Question 1) by a factor of 10. This preserves the risk rank scaling (0 - 100) and its original interpretation but better reflects the severity of fatal disease compared to non-life threatening hazards. Question 3 has also been slightly modified to enable better discrimination of serving frequency.

The software is useful for teaching the principles of risk assessment in relation to food safety, and highlighting factors contributing to food safety risk. It has also been used in ranking the risk of various

As with any such software the outputs are only as reliable as the data entered, and users are urged to remain aware of the intended uses and limitations of the program. Please note that the Risk Ranger spreadsheet is not protected and changes may have been made, either deliberately or inadvertently. If you are uncertain of the integrity of the copy of the spreadsheet you are currently using, a new copy may be downloaded from

Welcome.

This is Version 2 of "Risk Ranger", software developed at the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence, to

The software has been peer-reviewed and has been published in the International Journal of Food (Ross, T. and Sumner, J.L. (2002). A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment

which fully describes the logic behind the system

This version has been modified from the original described in the above publication by reducing the “weight” given to “Moderate”, “Mild” and “Minor” hazard severity classifications (Question 1) by a factor of 10. This preserves the risk rank scaling (0 - 100) and its original interpretation but better reflects the severity of fatal disease compared to non-life threatening hazards. Question 3 has also been slightly

The software is useful for teaching the principles of risk assessment in relation to food safety, and highlighting factors contributing to food safety risk. It has also been used in ranking the risk of various

As with any such software the outputs are only as reliable as the data entered, and users are urged to remain aware of the intended uses and limitations of the program. Please note that the Risk Ranger spreadsheet is not protected and changes may have been made, either deliberately or inadvertently. If you are uncertain of the integrity of the copy of the spreadsheet you are currently using, a new copy may be downloaded from

The ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ value is a simplified measure of relative risk. Because of the magnitude of differences in risk under situations and scenarios of interest a logarithmic scale is used and, for convenience, a scale between 0 and 100 was chosen.We set the upper limit of the scale (100) as the worst imaginable scenario, i.e. where every member of the population eats a meal that contains a lethal dose of the hazard every day.

To set the lower end of the scale we arbitrarily chose a probability of mild food-borne illness of less than or equal to one case per 10 billion people (greater than current global population) per 100 years as a negligible risk. The ‘risk’ in this situation is 2.75 x10-18 times that of the scenario to which the upper end of the scale corresponds.

Thus, the chosen range extends over 17.56 orders of magnitude and, as a result, an increment of six ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ units, corresponds approximately to a factor of 10 difference in the absolute risk estimate.

The ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ value is a simplified measure of relative risk. Because of the magnitude of differences in risk under situations and scenarios of interest a logarithmic scale is used and, for convenience, a scale between 0 and

We set the upper limit of the scale (100) as the worst imaginable scenario, i.e. where every member of the population eats a meal that contains a lethal dose of

To set the lower end of the scale we arbitrarily chose a probability of mild food-borne illness of less than or equal to one case per 10 billion people (greater than current global population) per 100 years as a negligible risk. The ‘risk’ in this situation is 2.75 x10-18 times that of the scenario to which the upper end of the

Thus, the chosen range extends over 17.56 orders of magnitude and, as a result, an increment of six ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ units, corresponds approximately to a factor of 10 difference in the absolute risk estimate.

A. SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY

1 Hazard Severity

6

2 How susceptible is the population of interest ?

7

B. PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD

3 Frequency of Consumption

10

4 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product8

5 Size of Consuming Population

Population considered:

9

If "OTHER" enter "number of days between a 100g serving"

19,500,000

If "OTHER" please specify:

6,500,000

Hazard Severity 0.001 0.00

How susceptble is… 1Frequency of contamination 0.1

Effect of Process 1.00E-03Effect of Meal Preparation 1.00E-03

Potential for Recontamination 0.01Effect of P/Process Control 1

Increase req. for a toxic dose 0.1ion frequency of consumers 0.142465753424658

lation Consuming the Product 2.50E-01

Size of Total Population 1.95E+07

ion of population considered) 1

C. PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE

10

0.0000%

Effect of Processing 11

1.00E-03

9.00%

Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value between 0 (none) and 100 (all)

If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase

Is there potential for recontamination after processing ?

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value between 0 (none) and 100 (all)

How effective is the post-processing control system?

P morbid dose (general response) 0.000001

Total exposures to food per day 6.95E+05

P morbidity (normal) 0.69452055

P exposure/day 0.03561644

253.5

C. PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE

1E+02

Effect of preparation before eating

1.00E-03

RISK ESTIMATES

1.42E-07

2.54E+02

What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer?

If "other", what is the increase (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an infectious dose ?

If "other", enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase

probability of illness per day per consumer of interest

(Pinf x Pexp)

total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest

2.54E+02

40

3.56E-11

0.000001

total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest

RISK RANKING ( 0 to 100)

3.56E-11

"COMPARATIVE RISK" in population of interest

3.56E-11"COMPARATIVE RISK" in population of interest

1. Hazard Severity

SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims 1

MODERATE hazard - requires medical interventio 0.01

MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical atten 0.001

MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical att 0.00013 0.001

2. How susceptible is the consumer ?GENERAL - all members of the population 1

SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged 5VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic et 30EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc. 200

1 1

3. Frequency of ContaminationRare (1 in a 1000) 0.001Infrequent (1 per cent) 0.01

Sometimes (10 per cent) 0.1Common (50 per cent) 0.5All (100 per cent) 1OTHER 0.0000500%

3 1.00E-01

4a. Effect of ProcessThe process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards 0

The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards 0.01

The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards 0.5The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards 1The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards 10

The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards 1000OTHER 1.00E-03

7 0.001

4b. Effect of Preparation for MealMeal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards 0Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards 0.01Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards 0.5Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards 1OTHER 1.00E-03

5 1.00E-03

5. Is there potential for recontamination ?NO 0.00YES - minor (1% frequency) 0.01YES - major (50% frequency) 0.50OTHER 0.09

2 0.01

6. How effective is the post-processing control system?WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no in 1CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase 3NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increa 10GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) 1000NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 1

5 1

WORST CASE 0

none 1

slight (10 fold increase) 0.1

moderate (100-fold increase) 0.01

significant (10,000-fold increase) 0.0001OTHER 1E-02

2 0.1

8. Frequency of Consumptiondaily 365weekly 52 600000monthly 12a few times per year 3

OTHER 36.52 52

9. Proportion of Consuming Populationall (100%) 1most (75%) 0.75some (25%) 0.25very few (5%) 0.05

3 0.25

10. Size of Consuming PopulationAustralia 19500000ACT 321000

New South Wales 6595000 19500000Northern Territory 198000Queensland 3595000South Australia 1547000

Tasmania 491000Victoria 4847000 6500000Western Australia 1905000OTHER 6,500,000

1 19500000

Size of Affected Populationbased on Question 2 selection 1

7. How much increase is required to reach an infectious or toxic dose?

From ABS 1998 stats, scaled up to 2000 estimates of total population. Probably introduces some error, e.g. in Tas,

where popn is declining.

From ABS 1998 stats, scaled up to 2000 estimates of total population. Probably introduces some error, e.g. in Tas,

where popn is declining.