Relationships Between Animal Health Monitoring and the Risk Assessment Process

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica

Volumn , Issue SUPPL. 94, 2001, Pages 71-77

  Stark K D C ^a   Salman, M D ^b  

^a Danske Slagterier   (Denmark)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal health; Data quality; Disease monitoring; Disease surveillance; Risk assessment; Survey design

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMAL DISEASES; ANIMALS; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0042838316     PISSN: 0044605X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anonymous: DANMAP 97 - Consumption of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food and humans in Denmark. Danish Zoonosis Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
2. Anonymous: World animal health. Office International des Epizooties, Paris, 1999a.
3. th Edition. Office International des Epizooties, Paris, 1999b, http://www.oie.int.
4. Anonymous: Summary of the 1998 animal health monitoring and surveillance work conference. USDA:APHIS:VS 1999c.
5. Anonymous: Council resolution of 8 June 1999 on antibiotic resistance 'A strategy against the microbial threat' (1999/C 195/01). Offic. J. Europ. Comm. 13.7.1999d, C195, 1-3
6. Ahl AS, Scree PS, Gipson PS, McDowell RM, Miller L, McElvaine MD: Standardization of nomenclature for animal health risk analysis. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 1993, 12, 1045-1053.
7. Audigé L, Beckett S: A quantitative assessment of the validity of animal-health surveys using stochastic modelling. Prev. Vet. Med. 1999, 38, 259-276.
8. Blaha T: Epidemiology and quality assurance application to food safety. Prev. Vet. Med. 1999, 39, 81-92.
9. Cameron AR, Baldock FC: A new probability formula for surveys to substantiate freedom from disease. Prev. Vet.Med. 1998a, 34, 1-17.
10. Cameron AR, Baldock FC: Two-stage sampling in surveys to substantiate freedom from disease. Prev. Vet.Med. 1998b, 34, 19-30.
11. Covello VT, Merkhofer MW: Risk Assessment Methods - Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks. Plenum Press. New York, 1993.
12. nd FAO E-Conference on Veterinary Services 1998. http://www. fao.org/ag/aga/agah/Vets-1-2/Contents/ Default.htm.
13. Christensen J: Epidemiological concepts regarding disease monitoring and surveillance. Acta vet. Scand. (submitted).
14. Dargatz DS, Hill GW: Analysis of survey data. Prev. Vet. Med. 1996, 28, 225-237.
15. Donald AW, Gardner IA, Wiggins AD: Cut-off points for aggregate herd testing in the presence of disease clustering and correlation of test errors. Prev. Vet. Med. 1994, 19, 167-87.
16. Dufour B: Technical and economic evaluation method for use in improving infectious animal disease surveillance networks. Vet. Res. 1999, 30, 27-37.
17. Guzewich JJ, Bryan FL, Todd ECD: Surveillance of foodborne disease: I. purposes and types of surveillance systems and networks. J. Food Prot. 1997, 60, 555-566
18. Hathaway SC: Risk analysis and meat hygiene. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 1993, 12, 1265-1290.
19. Hogue AT, White PL, Heminover JA: Pathogen reduction and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems for meat and poultry. Vet.Clin.North Am. Food Anim.Pract. 1998, 14, 151-164.
20. Hueston WD: Assessment of national systems for the surveillance and monitoring of animal health. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1993, 12, 1187-96.
21. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ: On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal. 1981, 1, 11-27.
22. Mayes T: Risk analysis in HACCP: burden or benefit? Food Control 1998, 9, 171-175.
23. Mundt KA, Tritschler, JP, Dell LD: Validity of epidemiological data in risk assessment applications. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 1998, 4, 675-683.
24. rd Int. Symp. Epid. Contr. Salm. Pork, Washington, 1999, 367-369.
25. Nielsen B, Wegener HC: Public health and pork and pork products: regional perspectives of Denmark. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1997, 16, 513-24.
26. Roseman JM: What can be done to ensure the usefulness of epidemiologic data for risk assessment purposes? Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 1998, 4, 737-746.
27. Sanson RL, Thornton RN: A modelling approach to the quantification of the benefits of a national surveillance programme. Prev. Vet. Med. 1997. 30, 37-47.
28. Salmon M, Ruppaner R: Risk management and decision analysis in animal health. Proc. Ann. Conf. Soc. Vet. Epid. Prev. Med., Bristol 1999, 1-6.
29. Thacker SB, Gregg MB: Implementing the concepts of William Farr: the contributions of Alexander D. Langmuir to public health surveillance and communications. Americ. J. Epidemiol. 1996, 144 (Suppl), 23-8.
30. nd FAO E-Conference on Veterinary Services 1998, http:// www.fao.org/ag/aga/agah/Vets-1-2/Contents/Default.htm.
31. Wooldridge M: Risk analysis, risk assessment, animal health and the decision-making process. State Vet. J. 1996, 12, 4-6.
32. Younes M, Sonich-Mullin, C: Reducing imprecision in risk assessment - A plea for focused science. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 1998, 4, 259-262.