IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Food-Borne Pathogens


  • Spencer J. Henson

    () (Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada)

  • Julie Caswell

    () (Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA)

  • John A. L. Cranfield

    () (Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada)

  • Aamir Frazil

    () (Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario Canada)

  • Valerie J. Davidson

    () (School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada)

  • Sven M. Anders

    () (Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton Canada)

  • Claudia Schmidt

    () (Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada)


To lower the incidence of human food-borne disease, experts and stakeholders have urged the development of a science- and risk-based management system in which food-borne hazards are analyzed and prioritized. A literature review shows that most approaches to risk prioritization developed to date are based on measures of health outcomes and do not systematically account for other factors that may be important to decision making. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework developed here considers four factors that may be important to risk managers: public health, consumer risk perceptions and acceptance, market-level impacts, and social sensitivity. The framework is based on the systematic organization and analysis of data on these multiple factors. The basic building block of the information structure is a three-dimensional cube based on pathogen-food-factor relationships. Each cell of the cube has an information card associated with it and data from the cube can be aggregated along different dimensions. The framework is operationalized in three stages, with each stage adding another dimension to decision-making capacity. The first stage is the information cards themselves that provide systematic information that is not pre-processed or aggregated across factors. The second stage maps the information on the various information cards into cobweb diagrams that create a graphical profile of, for example, a food-pathogen combination with respect to each of the four risk prioritization factors. The third stage is formal multi-criteria decision analysis in which decision makers place explicit values on different criteria in order to develop risk priorities. The process outlined above produces a ‘List A’ of priority food-pathogen combinations according to some aggregate of the four risk prioritization factors. This list is further vetted to produce ‘List B’, which brings in feasibility analysis by ranking those combinations where practical actions that have a significant impact are feasible. Food-pathogen combinations where not enough is known to identify any or few feasible interventions are included in ‘List C’. ‘List C’ highlights areas with significant uncertainty where further research may be needed to enhance the precision of the risk prioritization process. The separation of feasibility and uncertainty issues through the use of ‘Lists A, B, and C’ allows risk managers to focus separately on distinct dimensions of the overall prioritization. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework provides a flexible instrument that compares and contrasts risks along four dimensions. Use of the framework is an iterative process. It can be used to establish priorities across pathogens for a particular food, across foods for a particular pathogen and/or across specific food-pathogen combinations. This report provides a comprehensive conceptual paper that forms the basis for a wider process of consultation and for case studies applying the framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer J. Henson & Julie Caswell & John A. L. Cranfield & Aamir Frazil & Valerie J. Davidson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt, 2007. "A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Food-Borne Pathogens," Working Papers 2007-8, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:dre:wpaper:2007-8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    2. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    3. Caswell, Julie A. & Sparling, David, 2004. "Risk Management in the Integrated NAFTA Market: Lessons from the Case of BSE," 2004 NAAMIC Workshop I: North American Agrifood Market Integration: Current Situation and Perspectives 163850, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    4. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    5. Raju, Komaragiri Srinivasa & Pillai, C. R. S., 1999. "Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 479-488, February.
    6. Briggs, Th. & Kunsch, P. L. & Mareschal, B., 1990. "Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-10, January.
    7. J. Gower, 1975. "Generalized procrustes analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 33-51, March.
    8. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    10. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    11. Krupnick, Alan & Taylor, Michael & Batz, Michael & Hoffmann, Sandra & Tick, Jody & Morris, Glenn & Sherman, Diane, 2004. "Identifying the Most Significant Microbiological Foodborne Hazards to Public Health: A New Risk Ranking Model," Discussion Papers dp-frsc-dp-01, Resources For the Future.
    12. Arnesen, Trude & Kapiriri, Lydia, 2004. "Can the value choices in DALYs influence global priority-setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 137-149, November.
    13. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    14. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.
    15. Chris Fife-Schaw & Gene Rowe, 2000. "Research Note: Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 167-179.
    16. Lynn J Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Understanding public attitudes to technology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 221-235, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    2. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    3. Galli, Francesca & Carbone, Anna & Caswell, Julie A. & Sorrentino, Alessandro, 2011. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Assessing PDOs/PGIs: An Italian Pilot Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Caswell, Julie A., 2008. "Expanding the Focus of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Food Safety: A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Approach," Working Paper Series 42131, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    5. Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario, 2008. "Measuring the Impacts of Food Safety Regulations: A Methodological Review," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43864, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Sven Anders & Claudia Schmidt, 2011. "The international quest for an integrated approach to microbial food-borne risk prioritization: where do we stand?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 215-239, February.
    7. Steven Duret & Hong‐Minh Hoang & Evelyne Derens‐Bertheau & Anthony Delahaye & Onrawee Laguerre & Laurent Guillier, 2019. "Combining Quantitative Risk Assessment of Human Health, Food Waste, and Energy Consumption: The Next Step in the Development of the Food Cold Chain?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 906-925, April.
    8. Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario, 2008. "Impact Evaluation of Food Safety Regulations: A Review of Quantitative Methods," 110th Seminar, February 18-22, 2008, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 49887, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    risk analysis; risk prioritization; food-borne pathogens; benefits and costs;

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q00 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - General
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dre:wpaper:2007-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Eileen Keegan). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.