Risk assessment and risk management at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): A perspective on the monitoring of foods for chemical residues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) uses 'Ranked Risk Assessment' (RRA) to prioritize chemical hazards for inclusion in monitoring programmes or method development projects based on their relative risk. The relative risk is calculated for a chemical by scoring toxicity and exposure in the 'risk model scoring system' of the Risk Priority Compound List (RPCL). The relative ranking and the risk management options are maintained and updated in the RPCL. The ranking may be refined by the data generated by the sampling and testing programs. The two principal sampling and testing programmes are the National Chemical Residue Monitoring Program (NCRMP) and the Food Safety Action Plan (FSAP). The NCRMP sampling plans focus on the analysis of federally registered products (dairy, eggs, honey, meat and poultry, fresh and processed fruit and vegetable commodities, and maple syrup) for residues of veterinary drugs, pesticides, environmental contaminants, mycotoxins, and metals. The NCRMP is complemented by the Food Safety Action Plan (FSAP) targeted surveys. These surveys focus on emerging chemical hazards associated with specific foods or geographical regions for which applicable maximum residue limits (MRLs) are not set. The data from the NCRMP and FSAP also influence the risk management (follow-up) options. Follow-up actions vary according to the magnitude of the health risk, all with the objective of preventing any repeat occurrence to minimize consumer exposure to a product representing a potential risk to human health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".