252
Appendices – Round Table Summaries
exposed or potentially HAV contaminated growing area. No post-harvest treatment
should prevail over a strict growing area classification program and contamination
management measures.
A few more thoughts were expressed with regards to future discussions on
guidelines and risk assessment:
• There should be more collaboration between WHO water experts and FAO
mollusc experts in order to develop a better guidance document. We must not
forget the waters studied by one group are the medium for growing the molluscs
followed by other group.
• Virus risk assessment might take seasonal/water temperature variations into
account where those conditions exist.
• Market surveys might be included among possible risk management tools. It has
been pointed out that the comparison of surveys’ results between countries or
even regions would be problematic due to the compounding effect of varying
natural contamination levels, local consumption patterns, seasonal conditions and
many other factors.
In reference to risk assessment, it has been reported that the molluscan shellfish
industry members lack a clear understanding of the meaning/ uses of/ differences
between risk assessment and risk management. In consequence, they do not realise
how those may affect their businesses. As a result, the industry might attempt to
influence regulators that may introduce new control measures, request additional
information (to satisfy consumer response), or directly question the measures
put in place to guarantee safety. It has been suggested to put emphasis on risk
communication.
Although risk management appears theoretical to many, some stakeholders have
already turned viral risk perception to their advantage by making it part of their
marketing tools. Some mollusc dealers use pathogen and virus testing (even though
rapid commercial virus testing methods are not readily available) as one criterion
to select providers and advertise “safety tested” products. Similarly, environmental
lobbies may expose sewage treatment plants for using inefficient methods and
subsequent contamination of growing areas with viruses.
Risk Assessment for Enteric Viruses
Chair: Gary P. Richards, USDA, United States
Panel members: William Burkhardt, Angelo DePaola, Rachael Hartnell, and
William Ross
This roundtable was held after a session where the following four presentations
related to risk assessment of noroviruses were presented:
Ross – Risk Calculation Framework
Burkhardt – US Perspective – Viral Risk
Appendices – Round Table Summaries
exposed or potentially HAV contaminated growing area. No post-harvest treatment
should prevail over a strict growing area classification program and contamination
management measures.
A few more thoughts were expressed with regards to future discussions on
guidelines and risk assessment:
• There should be more collaboration between WHO water experts and FAO
mollusc experts in order to develop a better guidance document. We must not
forget the waters studied by one group are the medium for growing the molluscs
followed by other group.
• Virus risk assessment might take seasonal/water temperature variations into
account where those conditions exist.
• Market surveys might be included among possible risk management tools. It has
been pointed out that the comparison of surveys’ results between countries or
even regions would be problematic due to the compounding effect of varying
natural contamination levels, local consumption patterns, seasonal conditions and
many other factors.
In reference to risk assessment, it has been reported that the molluscan shellfish
industry members lack a clear understanding of the meaning/ uses of/ differences
between risk assessment and risk management. In consequence, they do not realise
how those may affect their businesses. As a result, the industry might attempt to
influence regulators that may introduce new control measures, request additional
information (to satisfy consumer response), or directly question the measures
put in place to guarantee safety. It has been suggested to put emphasis on risk
communication.
Although risk management appears theoretical to many, some stakeholders have
already turned viral risk perception to their advantage by making it part of their
marketing tools. Some mollusc dealers use pathogen and virus testing (even though
rapid commercial virus testing methods are not readily available) as one criterion
to select providers and advertise “safety tested” products. Similarly, environmental
lobbies may expose sewage treatment plants for using inefficient methods and
subsequent contamination of growing areas with viruses.
Risk Assessment for Enteric Viruses
Chair: Gary P. Richards, USDA, United States
Panel members: William Burkhardt, Angelo DePaola, Rachael Hartnell, and
William Ross
This roundtable was held after a session where the following four presentations
related to risk assessment of noroviruses were presented:
Ross – Risk Calculation Framework
Burkhardt – US Perspective – Viral Risk