Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
Review of the Methodology Proposed by the Food Safety and Inspection Service for Risk-Based Surveillance of In-Commerce Activities: A Letter Report APPENDIX D Comparison of Rankings Proposed by the Committee with the FSIS15 Ranking of Risk Considerations16 15 Based on Donald Anderson (FSIS) Public Health “Risk Based” In-Commerce Surveillance, presented to the Committee, November 6, 2008. 16 Differences are identified by shading. 17 “Gather info” recognizes that surveillance by other authorities varies by state and region. Partnering with federal, state, and local jurisdictions to understand the level of surveillance activity, including existence or establishment of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) within each region should be done to determine ranking specific to the region under surveillance by the CID inspector. 18 Pet food facilities, which are under FDA jurisdiction, are Low. Meat products destine for other animal use (e.g. mink farms, zoos, animal parks) may not have other surveillance. 19 Consumer Susceptibility for child care, primary schools, nursing homes, and hospital institutions is High; other institutions are ranked a medium