Welcome.

This is Version 2 of "Risk Ranger", software develop

assist understanding of the process of microbial foo

The software has been peer-reviewed and has

Microbiology (Ross, T. and Sumner, J.L. (2002). A
tool. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 77
as well as its limitations.
This version has been modified from the origina
“weight” given to “Moderate”, “Mild” and “Minor”
10. This preserves the risk rank scaling (0 - 100
severity of fatal disease compared to non-life thr
modified to enable better discrimination of serving f
The software is useful for teaching the principle
highlighting factors contributing to food safety ris
product/pathogen combinations.
As with any such software the outputs are only a
remain aware of the intended uses and limitatio
spreadsheet is not protected and changes may hav
are uncertain of the integrity of the copy of the s
downloaded from www.foodsafetycentre.com.au
tware developed at the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellenc
microbial food safety risk assessment.

ed and has been published in the International Journal of

L. (2002). A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assess
crobiology, 77:39-53) which fully describes the logic behind the sy

m the original described in the above publication by reducing

and “Minor” hazard severity classifications (Question 1) by a fact
aling (0 - 100) and its original interpretation but better reflect
o non-life threatening hazards. Question 3 has also been sli
on of serving frequency.
the principles of risk assessment in relation to food safety,
ood safety risk. It has also been used in ranking the risk of va

ts are only as reliable as the data entered, and users are urge
and limitations of the program. Please note that the Risk Ra
nges may have been made, either deliberately or inadvertently. I
copy of the spreadsheet you are currently using, a new copy ma
re.com.au
ty Centre of Excellence, to

national Journal of Food

od safety risk assessment
e logic behind the system

ication by reducing the

(Question 1) by a factor of
on but better reflects the
3 has also been slightly

tion to food safety, and

anking the risk of various

, and users are urged to

ote that the Risk Ranger
y or inadvertently. If you
using, a new copy may be
The ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ value is a simplified measure o
Because of the magnitude of differences in risk und
interest a logarithmic scale is used and, for conveni
100 was chosen.
We set the upper limit of the scale (100) as the wor
where every member of the population eats a meal
the hazard every day.
To set the lower end of the scale we arbitrarily chos
borne illness of less than or equal to one case per 1
current global population) per 100 years as a neglig
situation is 2.75 x10-18 times that of the scenario t
scale corresponds.

Thus, the chosen range extends over 17.56 orders o

an increment of six ‘‘Risk Ranking’’ units, correspon
of 10 difference in the absolute risk estimate.
plified measure of relative risk.
rences in risk under situations and scenarios of
d and, for convenience, a scale between 0 and

(100) as the worst imaginable scenario, i.e.

ation eats a meal that contains a lethal dose of

we arbitrarily chose a probability of mild food-

to one case per 10 billion people (greater than
years as a negligible risk. The ‘risk’ in this
of the scenario to which the upper end of the

ver 17.56 orders of magnitude and, as a result,

’’ units, corresponds approximately to a factor
k estimate.
 A. SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY
6

1 Hazard Severity

SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims

MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases
MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention
MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention

2 How susceptible is the population of interest ?

GENERAL - all members of the population

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

B. PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD

3 Frequency of Consumption

daily
weekly
monthly
a few times per year
OTHER

If "OTHER" enter "number of

days between a 100g serving" 10
8
4 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product

all (100%)
most (75%)
some (25%)
very few (5%)

5 Size of Consuming Population

Australia
ACT
New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
 Australia 9
ACT
New South Wales Population considered:
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
19,500,000
Victoria
Western Australia
OTHER
If "OTHER" please specify:

6,500,000

Hazard Severity 0 0.00

How susceptble is… 1

Frequency of contamination 1.00E-001
Effect of Process 1.00E-03
Effect of Meal Preparation 1.00E-03
Potential for Recontamination 0.01
Effect of P/Process Control 1
Increase req. for a toxic dose 0.1
Consumption frequency of consumers 0.14
of Population Consuming the Product 2.50E-01
Size of Total Population 1.95E+07
11(fraction of population considered) 1
 C. PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE
Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product 10
per Serving

Rare (1 in a 1000)
Infrequent (1 per cent)
Sometimes (10 per cent)
Common (50 per cent)
All (100 per cent)
OTHER

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value

between 0 (none) and 100 (all) 0.0000%

Effect of Processing 11
The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards
The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards
The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards
The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards
The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards
The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards
OTHER

If "OTHER" enter a value that

indicates the extent of risk increase 1.00E-03

Is there potential for recontamination after

processing ?
NO
YES - minor (1% frequency)
YES - major (50% frequency)
OTHER

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value

between 0 (none) and 100 (all) 9.00%
How effective is the post-processing control
system?
WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens)
CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase)
NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase)
GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase)
NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change

P morbid dose (general response) 0

Total exposures to food per day 6.95E+05

P morbidity (normal) 0.69

P exposure/day 0.04

253.5
OD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE
What increase in the post-procssing
contamination level would cause infection or
intoxication to the average consumer?

none
slight (10 fold increase)
moderate (100-fold increase)
significant (10,000-fold increase)
OTHER

If "other", what is the increase (multiplic-

ative) needed to reach an infectious dose ? 1.E+02

Effect of preparation before eating

Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards
Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards
Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards
Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards
OTHER

If "other", enter a value that indicates the

extent of risk increase 1.00E-03

RISK ESTIMATES

probability of illness per day per

consumer of interest 1.42E-07
(Pinf x Pexp)
total predicted illnesses/annum in
population of interest 2.54E+02

RISK RANKING
40
( 0 to 100)

3.56E-11

0
"COMPARATIVE RISK"
in population of
interest 3.56E-11
"COMPARATIVE RISK" in
population of interest 3.56E-11
1. Hazard Severity
SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims 1
MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases
0.01
MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 0
MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention 0
3 0
2. How susceptible is the consumer ?
GENERAL - all members of the population 1
SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged 5
VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc 30
EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc. 200
1 1

3. Frequency of Contamination
Rare (1 in a 1000) 0
Infrequent (1 per cent) 0.01
Sometimes (10 per cent) 0.1
Common (50 per cent) 0.5
All (100 per cent) 1
OTHER 0.0000500%
3 1.00E-01
4a. Effect of Process
The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards 0

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

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

The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards 1000

OTHER 1.00E-03
7 1.00E-003

4b. Effect of Preparation for Meal

Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards 0
Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards 0.01
Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards 0.5
Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards 1
OTHER 1.00E-03
5 1.00E-03

5. Is there potential for recontamination ?

NO 0.00
YES - minor (1% frequency) 0.01
YES - major (50% frequency) 0.50
OTHER 0.09
2 0.01

6. How effective is the post-processing control system?

WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens)1
CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) 3
NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) 10
GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) 1000
NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 1
5 1

WORST CASE 0
7. How much increase is required to
reach an infectious or toxic dose?
none 1
slight (10 fold increase) 0.1
moderate (100-fold increase) 0.01
significant (10,000-fold increase) 0
OTHER 1.E-02
2 0.1

8. Frequency of Consumption
daily 365
weekly 52 600000
monthly 12
a few times per year 3
OTHER 36.5
2 52

9. Proportion of Consuming Population

all (100%) 1
most (75%) 0.75
some (25%) 0.25
very few (5%) 0.05
3 0.25

From ABS 1998 stats, scaled up to 2000 estimates

population. Probably introduces some error, e.g. i
where popn is declining.
10. Size of Consuming Population
Australia 19500000
ACT 321000

New South Wales 6595000 19500000

Northern Territory 198000
Queensland 3595000
South Australia 1547000
Tasmania 491000
Victoria 4847000 6500000
Western Australia 1905000
OTHER 6,500,000
1 19500000

Size of Affected Population

based on Question 2 selection 1
ats, scaled up to 2000 estimates of total
ably introduces some error, e.g. in Tas,
here popn is declining.