Search

Risk‐based monitoring programs are increasingly applied for cost‐effective monitoring of food safety. Such programs ideally consist of three steps: risk‐ranking, risk‐based inspections, and cost‐effective monitoring. Various methods have been described to perform the first step of risk‐based monitoring. However, once the risk‐ranking has been completed, identifying the hazard‐food combinations to monitor, the frequency of inspection needs to be established based on a prioritization of food business operators (FBOs). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of methods available for risk‐based inspections. Literature shows that FBO's food safety compliance can be assessed based on company size, historical monitoring data, and socio‐economic factors influencing compliance behavior. Non‐compliance can either be intentional or unintentional. The latter can be assessed by evaluating the food safety culture of a company. Various models—ranging from qualitative (e.g., focus groups) to quantitative (e.g., scoring)—can be used for this purpose. These models usually include an evaluation of the organizational structure (e.g., management control, communication, commitment), the technical food safety environment (e.g., hygienic design, zoning), and employee characteristics (e.g., knowledge, risk awareness). Intentional non‐compliance can be assessed using food fraud vulnerability tools. These tools incorporate factors influencing the likelihood of food fraud at the company, that is, opportunity, motivation, and (lack of) control measures. The literature indicates that either self‐assessment tools or risk matrices are applied. There is no global consensus on the methods to apply for risk‐based inspections. Depending on time and budget available as well as preferred output, one of the presented methods may be applied for prioritizing FBOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]