IJCA - Volume 3 - Flipbook - Page 11
2024 | Volume 3, Issue 1
requirements are met before approving accreditation
scopes, following standards like ISO/IEC 17025.
Analogous to providing inadequate LOQs, the absence
of accreditation within a testing scope can indicate
poor recovery, lack of repeatability, or high uncertainty
in the results. Although it may be unavoidable in
some cases to perform tests outside of accreditation,
the general recommendation (for when decisions
impacting consumer safety will be made) is to
seek testing that has been vetted by a conformity
assessment body. Notably, scopes of accreditation
can be granted in 昀氀exible or 昀椀xed modalities under
ISO/IEC 17025, and it is important to ensure that the
analyte-method-matrix combination of interest falls
within the scope of accreditation. Otherwise, nondetect results may be meaningless or misleading.
The ‘Holistic Sample Value’ Framework
We propose a simple framework to aid in
assigning value to an analytical sample. Although
not a formulaic or quantitative approach, it has
demonstrated utility in case-by-case applications
and can serve as a basic building block to prevent
common critical errors.
STEP 1: De昀椀ne cost and risk for each stakeholder
In industry, the 昀椀nancial costs associated with food
safety testing are usually calculated on a per-lot or
per-unit basis. However, the true cost of foodborne
illness is likely much higher. Currently, there are no
consensus global estimates for the economic cost
of foodborne illness, but a few governmental and
regional approximations exist (for example, 77.7
billion USD in 2011 for the US; 171 million EUR in 2016
for the Netherlands [3]).
It is impractical to assume that all goods being traded
can or will be tested, as resources for this are limited
and testing costs impact both product margins and
product pricing. Still, in the event of a food safety
crisis, growers, packers, shippers, processors,
distributors, and grocery retailers incur both tangible
and intangible costs. Regulators may block regional
exports or imports; loss of consumer con昀椀dence
may threaten long-lasting decreases in sales; brand
damage may destroy reputations built over decades.
For these reasons, we propose considering the costs
for all stakeholders (including the consumer) both
of testing and of not testing. All risks bear costs even
if they are unrealized. For the consumer for whom
foodborne listeriosis becomes fatal, the cost is both
tangible and manifest. Similarly, the costs are
9
quanti昀椀able for the company that suffers a recall, or
the responsible staff members who face criminal and
civil litigation for introducing contaminated food into
commerce.
STEP 2: Assign value
In contrast to de昀椀ning the cost, assigning value to
food safety testing activities should give weight to
the sum of all possible scenarios and likelihoods.
The most ethical and often least expensive option
is to avoid a food safety crisis when possible. This
is precisely because the value of prevention often
exceeds the cost of testing. The true value of a
sample is not represented only by the cost of testing,
nor the commercial value of unrecoverable product
lost to destructive analyses, but rather is the sum
total of all important utility gained by the activity of
testing that sample.
If a sample is taken properly (in a representative
fashion), manipulated appropriately (to maintain
traceability, representativity and prevent
contamination), and tested according to a relevant
scope—with 昀椀tting LOQs—that meets standards of
accreditation; if such a sample is then reported on
time, without errors, and interpreted competently and
in context, then such a sample holds value. To the
contrary, its value is questionable.
STEP 3: Consider available resources
Usually, it is not possible to fully eliminate a risk, and
attempts at mitigation can fall short of achieving
their desired outcomes. When not all risks can be
controlled, actors in the supply chain should take
cautious, sensible, and strategic approaches based
on careful risk assessments.
Using this framework to evaluate ‘holistic sample
value’ requires balancing needs and resources.
Any of the common failures can leave both traders
and consumers in precarious positions, and so it
is often better to leverage well-chosen, properly
executed sampling activities over arbitrary testing
of questionable quality. It is worth considering
what will be done with the sample results, how
this information is to be used, and which tradeoffs
make sense considering speci昀椀c risks. While this
may seem obvious in theory, balancing available
resources is not always straightforward in practice.
For this reason, we propose a general framework
rather than a calculation. Considering “holistic
sample value” creates a proper frame of reference
for decision-making, placing focus on core relevant
questions: what are we controlling or verifying with
