目的统计分析2019—2025年欧盟食品和饲料快速预警系统(rapid alert system for food and feed,RASFF)通报的中国食品安全数据,确定我国食品质量安全问题。方法依据2019—2025年欧盟RASFF通报的我国出口欧洲相关国家的食品安全风险数据...目的统计分析2019—2025年欧盟食品和饲料快速预警系统(rapid alert system for food and feed,RASFF)通报的中国食品安全数据,确定我国食品质量安全问题。方法依据2019—2025年欧盟RASFF通报的我国出口欧洲相关国家的食品安全风险数据,通过数据处理软件对这些数据进行多维度的对比分析,利用数据在产品类型、危险类别等不同维度中的分布特征、变化趋势和波动情况,深入分析目前我国出口欧洲相关国家的食品质量安全问题。结果2019—2025年RASFF系统对华的通报总数为1995例,其中食品1172例占比最高,食品接触材料744例次之,主要的通报类型是边境拒绝通报;荷兰、意大利、西班牙、德国、波兰是通报量排在前5的国家,蔬菜和水果通报数量自2020年起稳居首位且远超其他产品,农药残留是主要被通报项目;2023年禽肉和禽肉制品被通报次数出现大幅增长,原因是在鸡肉制品中检出氯酸盐。2024年掺假/欺诈和转基因食品问题较往年呈大幅增长,原因是食品标签标注信息与实际产品成分不符、转基因成分信息的缺失。真菌毒素黄曲霉毒素B1在高风险产品花生中超标问题依然要引起重视。近几年出口欧盟的食品包装材料问题突出,主要是尼龙和三聚氰胺塑料厨具中检出初级芳香胺迁移、有害元素和甲醛迁移超标。结论通过对比分析2019—2025年欧盟RASFF系统通报的我国食品风险数据,结合近年有关出口食品质量安全舆情,分析总结我国出口食品被通报总体变化趋势及暴露出的问题,为我国市场监管相关部门和相关生产企业提供参考。展开更多
The paper discusses how to approach the problem of the social mitigation of seismic risk, in order to reduce damage and grief consequent to earthquakes. An alert protocol, intended as a working hypothesis, is proposed...The paper discusses how to approach the problem of the social mitigation of seismic risk, in order to reduce damage and grief consequent to earthquakes. An alert protocol, intended as a working hypothesis, is proposed based on the experience gained from analysis of the behaviour and social response to the threat before and after the great disaster of the L’Aquila earthquake on 6th April 2009. Authors propose a protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake preparation and social concerns. In this sense, it works as an intensity scale and does not strictly relate to earthquake size (magnitude) or seismic hazard. The proposed alert protocol provides sensible measures for reducing vulnerability, which is the only factor that can be more or less efficiently controlled, based on structural and behavioural adjustments. Factors indicating the difficult relationship between politicians, scientific community and citizens are considered: 1) a serious gap between researchers and citizens;2) measures adopted by local administrators and the National Civil Protection Service not agreed by the population;3) misunderstanding originated from a lack of clarity of communication about scientific terminology;and 4) the lack of an alert procedure protocol. In the current situation, all these problems are crucial and contribute to the unpreparedness to face a seismic event, and thus greatly increase the risk. The adoption and implementation of an alert procedure protocol requires a preliminary assessment of the context and should be adapted to the local sensibility and culture. The application of a protocol may reduce the contrasts between preventive measures and individual responsibilities, making mitigation measures more feasible and socially acceptable. In this paper, risk evaluation is not strictly related to probabilistic or deterministic predictions. In fact, this is a result of a project that comes from the general analysis of risk and is not intended to give an alternative hazard estimate method. This paper proposes an alert protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake generating preparation and social concerns. Finally, there is a suggestion on how to gradually communicate the threat and get citizens involved in the risk mitigation process.展开更多
文摘目的统计分析2019—2025年欧盟食品和饲料快速预警系统(rapid alert system for food and feed,RASFF)通报的中国食品安全数据,确定我国食品质量安全问题。方法依据2019—2025年欧盟RASFF通报的我国出口欧洲相关国家的食品安全风险数据,通过数据处理软件对这些数据进行多维度的对比分析,利用数据在产品类型、危险类别等不同维度中的分布特征、变化趋势和波动情况,深入分析目前我国出口欧洲相关国家的食品质量安全问题。结果2019—2025年RASFF系统对华的通报总数为1995例,其中食品1172例占比最高,食品接触材料744例次之,主要的通报类型是边境拒绝通报;荷兰、意大利、西班牙、德国、波兰是通报量排在前5的国家,蔬菜和水果通报数量自2020年起稳居首位且远超其他产品,农药残留是主要被通报项目;2023年禽肉和禽肉制品被通报次数出现大幅增长,原因是在鸡肉制品中检出氯酸盐。2024年掺假/欺诈和转基因食品问题较往年呈大幅增长,原因是食品标签标注信息与实际产品成分不符、转基因成分信息的缺失。真菌毒素黄曲霉毒素B1在高风险产品花生中超标问题依然要引起重视。近几年出口欧盟的食品包装材料问题突出,主要是尼龙和三聚氰胺塑料厨具中检出初级芳香胺迁移、有害元素和甲醛迁移超标。结论通过对比分析2019—2025年欧盟RASFF系统通报的我国食品风险数据,结合近年有关出口食品质量安全舆情,分析总结我国出口食品被通报总体变化趋势及暴露出的问题,为我国市场监管相关部门和相关生产企业提供参考。
文摘The paper discusses how to approach the problem of the social mitigation of seismic risk, in order to reduce damage and grief consequent to earthquakes. An alert protocol, intended as a working hypothesis, is proposed based on the experience gained from analysis of the behaviour and social response to the threat before and after the great disaster of the L’Aquila earthquake on 6th April 2009. Authors propose a protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake preparation and social concerns. In this sense, it works as an intensity scale and does not strictly relate to earthquake size (magnitude) or seismic hazard. The proposed alert protocol provides sensible measures for reducing vulnerability, which is the only factor that can be more or less efficiently controlled, based on structural and behavioural adjustments. Factors indicating the difficult relationship between politicians, scientific community and citizens are considered: 1) a serious gap between researchers and citizens;2) measures adopted by local administrators and the National Civil Protection Service not agreed by the population;3) misunderstanding originated from a lack of clarity of communication about scientific terminology;and 4) the lack of an alert procedure protocol. In the current situation, all these problems are crucial and contribute to the unpreparedness to face a seismic event, and thus greatly increase the risk. The adoption and implementation of an alert procedure protocol requires a preliminary assessment of the context and should be adapted to the local sensibility and culture. The application of a protocol may reduce the contrasts between preventive measures and individual responsibilities, making mitigation measures more feasible and socially acceptable. In this paper, risk evaluation is not strictly related to probabilistic or deterministic predictions. In fact, this is a result of a project that comes from the general analysis of risk and is not intended to give an alternative hazard estimate method. This paper proposes an alert protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake generating preparation and social concerns. Finally, there is a suggestion on how to gradually communicate the threat and get citizens involved in the risk mitigation process.
