Clasificación dos montes pola súa titularidade

As noted in the introduction, the Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework has been developed by a multidisciplinary research group. The members of the group as well as their primary discipline areas and affiliations are listed below:

Sven Anders Agricultural Economics University of Alberta

Julie Caswell Agricultural Economics University of Massachusetts – Amherst John Cranfield Agricultural Economics University of Guelph

Valerie Davidson Food Science/Engineering University of Guelph Carlos Daza Donoso Food Science/Engineering University of Guelph

Jeff Farber Food Microbiology Health Canada

Aamir Fazil Risk Assessment Public Health Agency of Canada

Spencer Henson Agricultural Economics University of Guelph

Shannon Majowicz Epidemiology Public Health Agency of Canada

Juliana Ruzante Veterinary Medicine University of Maryland Claudia Schmidt Agricultural Economics University of Guelph

In addition, we have consulted widely to address specific data areas (e.g., food attribution and market information) and to gather expert knowledge needed for health outcome and economic models. Not surprisingly there have been challenges as well as rewards. In keeping with the overall theme of “Food Engineering at the Interfaces” we have included a short reflection on our experiences in multidisci- plinary research.

Food safety efforts at the interface of risk management and risk assessment clearly must rely on science- and systems-based analyses. Many disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, microbiology, food science, economics, food engineering) bring important but specialized knowledge to this interface. It is our observa- tion that language is one of the first challenges in a multidisciplinary group. Each discipline has its own unique vocabulary and terms, but it is the deeper use of language – the way we develop our ideas, frame research questions, and present analysis – that is probably more challenging. Key to success is the willingness of the experts to communicate and explain their knowledge at an appropriate level as well as the willingness of “outsiders” to admit any incomplete understanding and to ask questions. In other words, everyone must reach a point of humility and this is not necessarily easy for researchers in any discipline.

Another challenge is the range of methods required in this research. Food engineers are trained in quantitative analysis and predictive modeling but are less familiar with qualitative methods and survey tools. These are important techniques in areas related to consumer behavior as well as in some data gathering. Some information cannot be obtained by direct observation and must be developed by soliciting experts’ opinions. Food engineers need to recognize the need for addi- tional research tools and to value the contributions of all research methods equally. Adjectives like “hard” and “soft” should be avoided when discussing methods and results, because they are often used erroneously to convey perceptions that certain methods lack scientific rigor.

Finally, we were fortunate that there was a funding opportunity through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), a national funding agency for science and engineering research in Canada, which established food safety as a priority area in the Strategic Grants Program. The NSERC funding was critical in moving the framework from a conceptual stage to the concrete mea- sures and six case studies presented here. The funding was a unique opportunity to bring this multidisciplinary research group together. Several components of the work (e.g., economics, consumer behavior) fall under the jurisdiction of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and there are very few programs to support research at the interface of two research councils.

Multidisciplinary research is an excellent training experience for graduate stu- dents. A number of graduate students in engineering are currently involved in developing different aspects of the framework (knowledge base, multi-criteria decision, analysis tools). Their knowledge and skills are important contributions to the framework; they are also learning new areas of public health, risk manage- ment, and operations research.

7.5

Concluding Statements

The Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework addresses the need to base risk management decisions on scientific analysis across a comprehensive set of criteria, and to communicate such decisions among varied stakeholders in a clear and transparent way. It is not intended to replace risk managers but to provide context and tools for strategic planning of research needs and interventions that reduce risk. The Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework has been developed and implemented by a multidisciplinary group that includes food engineers. Systems analysis, modeling, and quantitative methods are necessary components of risk analysis, but they are not sufficient on their own. Food engineers must work collaboratively with scientists (e.g., economists, epidemiologists, microbiologists, risk analysts) as well as decision-makers (e.g., risk managers, policy makers) to develop effective strategies for setting food-safety priorities. The present frame- work is an excellent example of the potential to develop a more comprehensive solution by working together rather than in isolated disciplines.

Acknowledgments The financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to carry out this work is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Batz MB, Hoffmann S, Krupnick AJ, Morris JG, Sherman DM, Taylor MR, Tick JS (2004) Identifying the most significant microbiological food-born hazards to public health: a new risk ranking model. Food Safety Research Consortium Discussion Paper Series No. 1. Avail- able at:http://www.thefsrc.org/Discussion%20Papers/FRSC-DP-01.pdf(accessed January 30, 2009)

Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manage Sci 31(6):647–656

Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: The PRO- METHEE Method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2008) Maple Leaf settles class action listeriosis lawsuits for $27 M. Available at:www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/18/listeriosis-settlement.html?ref¼ rss(accessed January 29, 2009)

Caswell JA (2005) Opportunities for Risk Reduction: An Economist’s Perspective. In: Hoffmann SA, Taylor MR (eds) Toward Safer Food Perspectives on Risk and Priority Setting. RFF Press, Washington, DC, p 276

Cole M, Rodriguez A (2008) Emerging Challenges in Food Safety and the Role of Food Engineers, Plenary Lecture at 10th International Congress on Engineering and Food, Vin˜a del Mar, Chile, April 20–24

Davidson VJ, Ruzante J, Fazil A, Caswell J, Cranfield J, Henson S (2008) Multifactorial risk prioritization framework for food-borne pathogens. 10th International Congress on Engineer- ing and Food, Vin˜a del Mar, Chile, April 20–24

Daza Donoso CA (2008) Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to the prioritization of microbial hazards in food systems. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Guelph

Daza Donoso CA, Davidson VJ, Ruzante JM, Fazil A (2008) Prioritization of microbial risks in foods using multi-criteria decision analysis tools, Canadian Society of Chemical Engineering Conference, October 19–22, Ottawa, Ontario

European Commission (2002) Risk assessment of foodborne bacterial pathogens: quantitative methodology relevant for human exposure assessment. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General Directorate C – Scientific Opinions, C1 – Follow-Up and Dissemination of Scientific Opinions, Preliminary Report. Available at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ ssc/out252_en.pdf(accessed January 30, 2009)

Fife-Schaw CR, Rowe G (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal 16(4):487–500

Fischoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization (2002) Principles and guidelines for incorporating microbiological risk assessment in the development of food safety standards and related texts. Kiel, Germany. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO consultation, March 18-xx Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4302e/y4302e00. HTM(accessed January 31, 2009)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Microbial hazards in fresh fruits and vegetables (pre-publication version). Available at:http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/files/ffv_2007_Final.pdf(accessed January 30, 2009)

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22:98–124 Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1998a) Methodological approaches to assessing

risk perceptions associated with food-related hazards. Risk Anal 18:95–102

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998b) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1(3):221–235

Frewer LJ, Shepherd R, Sparks P (1994) Biotechnology and food production: knowledge and perceived risk. Br Food J 96:26–32

Henson S, Caswell J, Cranfield J, Fazil A, Davidson VJ, Anders S, Schmidt C (2007) A multi- factorial risk prioritization framework for food-borne pathogens. Available at: Social Science Research Network:http://ssrn.com/abstract¼ 989768

Laboratoire d’analyse et mode´lisation pour l’aide a` de´cision (LAMSADE) (1994) ELECTRE III/ IV Software, Universite´ Paris-Dauphine, PARIS CEDEX 16, France

Murray CJL (1994) Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ 72(3):429–445

Murray CJL, Acharya AK (1997) Understanding DALYs. J Health Econ 16:703–730

New Zealand Food Safety Authority (2008) Food safety in New Zealand: application of a risk management framework. Available at:http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/about-us/risk-management- framework/page-03.htm(accessed January 30, 2009)

Roy B (1978) ELECTRE III: Un algorithme de classements fonde´ sur une repre´sentation floue des pre´fe´rences en pre´sence de crite`res multiples. Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes de Recherche Ope´rationnelle 20(1):3–24

Ruzante JM, Davidson VJ, Fazil A, Cranfield JAL, Henson SJ, Caswell JA, Anders SM, Schmidt C, Farber J (2009) A Multifactorial risk prioritization framework for foodborne pathogens, accepted risk analysis, July. doi:10.1111/j.1539–6924.2009.01278.x

University of Guelph (2008) Consumers changed habits following listeriosis outbreak, Study finds, December 03 news release. Available at: http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2008/12/post_157. html(accessed November 18, 2009)

Western Farm Press (2008) Fresh tomato industry shaken by FDA salmonella links, seeks answers. Available at:http://westernfarmpress.com/vegetables/fresh-tomato-0821/

Development of Eco-efficiency Indicators