EFSA Supporting Publications - 2013 - EFSA S Food and Feed Crisis Preparedness Training 2012 Crisis Training Exercise

23978325, 2013, 1, Downloaded from https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-388 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [20/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Supporting Publications 2013:EN-388
EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT
EFSA’s food and feed crisis preparedness training:

2012 Crisis Training Exercise and four-year training strategy1
College Hill Ltd2 3
SUMMARY
College Hill proposed, in consultation with the Emerging Risks unit of EFSA (EMRISK), a four-year
food and feed safety crisis preparedness training strategy for EFSA based on an audit of previous training
exercises and responses to urgent advice requests (urgent requests), as well as by receiving feedback from
key EFSA personnel involved in past urgent requests and EFSA‟s Advisory Forum members.
The primary objective of the strategy was „Effective Collaboration‟. Secondary and tertiary training
objectives were „improved information management‟ and „improved internal organisation and dialogue‟.
The strategy will be delivered using the following methodologies. From 2012 to 2014, workshop-based
exercises will provide the opportunity for EFSA and its stakeholders to explore collaboration during the
key operational phases of Rapid Risk Assessment (RRA), Data Collection, and Urgent Response
Dialogue. These will provide multiple training opportunities in Effective Collaboration best practice and
Stakeholder liaison, as well as including concise desktop simulation scenarios encompassing a range of
different hazards. In 2015, there will be a full end-to-end training crisis simulation exercise.
The first training workshop under this strategy took place in October 2012, providing the opportunity for
EFSA staff and EFSA‟s stakeholder delegates (Member States, Pre-accession and EFTA countries,
European Commission) to explore collaboration primarily during RRA, and secondarily during Data
Collection.
The 2012 training event ran over one-and-a-half days and was designed to provide participants with
experience on methodology and data sources involved in responding to an urgent request in the fields of
hazard identification, hazard characterisation and exposure assessment, and on traceability.
The three learning objectives set for the 2012 were met; these were the understanding of (i) the extent,
availability and limitations of data available during RRA, (ii) how EFSA works with external
stakeholders to gather and share data during RRA, and (iii) EU-level data resources within EFSA.
Participants provided positive feedback for the 2012 training event noting that it was a valuable
opportunity to network with other participants and share best practice and challenges in RRA and
traceability, and to explore the differences between risk assessment and RRA. Participants also welcomed
the interactive nature of the workshops and the opportunities they afforded to express personal opinions in
the context of lively debates. Several participants noted the value of learning about the tools and data
developed by EFSA to speed up key stages of RRA, for example the EFSA comprehensive food
consumption database.
1
Question No. EFSA-Q-2011-01106
2
Victoria Cross, Andrew Vincent, Zoe March, Ian Ormrod
3
College Hill wishes to thank the many EFSA staff members who assisted in the creation of the strategy and delivery of the first
year‟s training exercise, and in particular the following members of EMRISK for their support and teamwork: Tobin Robinson,
Andrea Altieri, Tilemachos Goumperis and Simona Pecoraro.
Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to emrisk@efsa.europa.eu.

Suggested citation: College Hill Ltd; 2012 EFSA Crisis Training Exercise and four year training strategy 2013:EN-388. [55 pp.].
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications
© European Food Safety Authority, 2013

23978325, 2013, 1, Downloaded from https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-388 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [20/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Crisis preparedness multi-annual training strategy
Feedback also provided valuable indications of how the workshop format can be further improved for the
2013 training, for example by allowing more discussion in the plenary sessions and by inviting MSs to
present about their own real-life experiences as part of the plenary sessions.
Within the 2012 training theme, participants recommended the development of (i) a best practice road
map for RRA in the field of food/feed safety, and (ii) a consistent format for gathering and collating
traceability data in the EU.
© College Hill Ltd, 2012
KEY WORDS
Crisis preparedness, urgent request, urgent response, training strategy, simulation scenario
Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 2

DISCLAIMER The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out
exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a
tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues
addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Key words ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction and Objectives......................................................................................................... 7
2. Training Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7
3. Participants .................................................................................................................................. 7
4. Workshop Structure ..................................................................................................................... 8
5. Facilitators‟ Reports: Effective Collaboration Workshop (Day One) ....................................... 10
6. Facilitators‟ Reports: Training Workshop (Day Two) .............................................................. 14
7. Workshop Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 24
APPENDIX A—MULTI-ANNUAL TRAINING STRATEGY .......................................................................... 27
APPENDIX B—LIST OF EMRISK-SUPPLIED DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................... 44
APPENDIX C—LIST OF SENIOR EFSA STAFF INTERVIEWED BY COLLEGE HILL .................................... 45
APPENDIX D—QUESTIONS TO ADVISORY FORUM MEMBERS ................................................................ 46
APPENDIX E—RISK ASSESSMENT BEST PRACTICE ................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX F—MINUTES CRITIQUE AND TEMPLATE ............................................................................... 48
APPENDIX G—RRA SCENARIO SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX H—QUALITATIVE SUMMARY OF DELEGATE FEEDBACK....................................................... 51
APPENDIX I—QUESTIONS TO SELECTED MEMBERS OF EFSA ADVISORY FORUM ................................. 54
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 55

DISCLAIMER The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried
out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded
following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is
subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and
position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY PROVIDED BY EFSA

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the European Union‟s risk assessment authority
regarding food and feed safety. In close collaboration with national authorities, EFSA provides
independent scientific advice and communication concerning existing and emerging risks. EFSA was
legally established by the European Parliament and Council Regulation No 178/2002 following a
series of food scares.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, article 55 states that the European Commission shall draw up, in close
cooperation with EFSA and the Member States (MSs), a general plan for crisis management in the
field of food and feed safety. This plan4 will be activated when a situation arises which presents a risk
to consumers, animal or plant health which cannot be controlled by the normal existing mechanisms.
EFSA wishes to be fully prepared for a crisis, as defined above, and also to be in a position to be
proactive as a situation arises and before it can be determined to be a crisis. EFSA therefore needs to
be able to respond quickly and efficiently to inform the risk managers and the consumers in Europe on
a “hot issue” if possible before it develops into a crisis.
Hence, in addition to the legislative requirement, EFSA has drawn up its own in-house procedures to
complement the Commission Plan, for use within EFSA and to guide EFSA staff in a growing crisis
situation in the food and feed chain, where an Urgent Response is required5. EFSA‟s role in such a
situation is to provide scientific and technical support to risk managers and to communicate about its
findings.
EFSA has carried out seven table-top and command-post simulation exercises over the past seven
years in order to prepare for food and feed safety crises. Since 2007, EFSA has received nine requests
for urgent scientific advice on infectious, chemical and environmental food contaminants.6 7 8 9 10
To plan and practice how to respond to possible emergency situations EFSA has organised a number
of crisis preparedness exercises and activities in the past.11 12 To continue this effort, a multi-annual
crisis preparedness training programme building on the achieved level of preparedness should be
developed and executed. It should encompass one annual crisis simulation exercise involving EFSA
staff as well as EFSA stakeholders as appropriate.
The crisis preparedness training activities should be planned and organised with support of a
contractor in close collaboration with EFSA. Initially the contractor should carefully study EFSA‟s
mandate, EFSA‟s crisis handling procedures, reports and other documents of the EFSA crisis
preparedness training activities carried out to date, as well as consulting relevant EFSA staff and the
MSs in order to develop a multi-annual training package that truly addresses EFSA crisis preparedness
needs. After each contract year, the contractor should adapt the initial training package to reflect the
acquired level of preparedness and any changes in procedures.
In summary, in order to have a coherent training program, it is necessary to draft a multi-annual plan,
then carry out internal training using the updated procedures for responding to urgent issues, before
holding the next crisis exercise, in 2012. Following from this, exercises will be held once per year,
involving external institutions and MSs as appropriate.
4
Decision 2004/478/EC, OJ L 160, 30/04.2004
5
EFSA Procedures for responding to urgent advice needs. Available at
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/279e.htm
6
Statement of EFSA on risks for public health due to the presences of melamine in infant milk and other milk
products in China, 2008
7
EFSA statement on the contamination of sunflower oil with mineral oil exported from Ukraine, 2008
8
Urgent advice on the public health risk of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli in fresh vegetables, 2011
9
Annual report on EFSA‟s food and feed safety crisis preparedness 2009
10
Annual report on EFSA‟s food and feed safety crisis preparedness and response 2010
11
Report of the 2011 IV Crisis Simulation Exercise
12
Report of Crisis Simulation Exercise 3 November 30, 2009
The Emerging Risks Unit (EMRISK) is requested to support EFSA‟s crisis preparedness training
activities and has the overall responsibility to coordinate the planning and execution of the crisis
preparedness training activities.
Overall objectives of the framework contract:

The overall objectives of the contract resulting from the present procurement procedure are as follows:
Increase EFSA staff‟s knowledge and understanding of general crisis handling concepts and
specifically of EFSA‟s crisis handling procedures, assist in refining EFSA‟s crisis handling
procedures.
Specific objectives of the framework contract:

The specific objectives of the contract resulting from the present procurement procedure are as
follows:
To develop a multi-annual training programme to enhance EFSA‟s food and feed safety
crisis preparedness, to execute the multi-annual training programme.
Scope of the work, expected outcomes and deliverables

1. In consultation with EMRISK, identify EFSA‟s crisis preparedness training needs by studying
EFSA‟s mandate, EFSA‟s crisis handling procedures, reports and other documents of the EFSA
crisis preparedness training activities carried out to date, as well as gathering relevant
information on possible scenarios and roles from EFSA staff and the MSs. Lessons learned from
previous crisis exercises and Urgent Responses should be taken into account. There should be
an emphasis on further elaborating collaboration with other European and International
institutions as well as Member States.
2. Preparation of a proposal of a multi-annual training package, comprising one exercise, such as
lectures, workshops, case discussions and/or table-top exercises.
The proposal should include the educational technique to be used as well as the topic of the
training activity, e.g. information management during crises or communication during crises,
and an outline of the scenario/ case studies/ references to be used in the training activity.
The proposal should also include the involvement of external expertise and sharing best
practices with other agencies and institutions, including active participation of different
stakeholders of EFSA, such as the Commission, the Member States, and other EU or
international agencies (e.g. ECDC, WHO), journalists or the public where necessary for
achieving the training objective.
3. Adaptation of the proposal based on comments received from EFSA on Crisis Preparedness.
4. Draft the structure, schedule and rules for the crisis preparedness training activities (i.e. the
preparatory training and the exercise) and revise them based on recommendations of the EFSA.
5. Draft the observation and evaluation plans for the crisis preparedness training activities and
revise them based on the recommendations of the EFSA.
6. Draft all documents for the crisis preparedness training activities and revise them based on the
recommendations of the EFSA
7. Facilitate and coordinate the EFSA crisis preparedness training activities for EFSA staff. It is
foreseen one training per year at EFSA premises.
8. Prepare evaluation reports on the crisis preparedness training activities including
recommendations for adaptation of the multi-annual training package/ future crisis preparedness
training and for further developing EFSA‟s crisis handling procedures within one month after
the respective training activity.
Expected deliverables under specific contracts and indicative yearly timelines for the expected
deliverables
Item Date Due
1. Proposal of a multi-annual training package March 2012
2. A detailed proposal for the current year exercise April 2012
3. One training activity per year facilitated and coordinated by the October 2012
Contractor
4. An annual external report containing November 2012

Update of the multi-annual training package (if requested
by EFSA)
Assessment of the training activities
Recommendations for future crisis preparedness activities
Recommendations for EFSA procedures for responding to
urgent advice needs
Note: Points from 2 to 4 are repeated for 2013, 2014 and 2015.
This Report is addressing points one (see Appendix A) and four of the expected deliverables under the
2012 specific contract.
This contract was awarded by EFSA to College Hill Limited.

Contract title: Food and feed crisis preparedness training.
Contract number: CT/EFSA/EMRISK/2011/04

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This Report has been prepared by College Hill following the delivery of its 2012 one-and-a-half day
training workshop under contract number CT/EFSA/EMRISK/2011/04.
It contains feedback received during the workshop from delegates about the strategy; details of the
workshop conducted on 3rd & 4th of October 2012; a summary of workshop findings and delegate
feedback from the workshop; and collaboration opportunities arising.
The full four year training strategy is contained within Appendix A.
1.1 2012 Training Theme and Objectives

The theme of the 2012 training module was “Effective Collaboration in Rapid Risk Assessment
(RRA)”—with the primary focus on RRA and a secondary focus on Data Collection.
The specific learning objectives for the 2012 training were to establish a consensus understanding of:
How EFSA works with external stakeholders to gather and share data during RRA.
The extent, availability—and limitations—of data available during RRA (e.g. needing to
manage uncertainty within a short period of time).
EU-level data resources within EFSA.
2. TRAINING METHODOLOGY
In order to support the objectives of the four year training strategy, a workshop format was selected.
The workshops were developed to facilitate the following outcomes:
Sharing information and best practice.
Exploring roles and responsibilities.
Developing new ways of collaborating.
Consolidating the adoption of new tools and procedures that can enhance collaboration during
Urgent Requests.
The workshops were structured to combine:
Whole-group plenary sessions for training briefing and sharing of key learning.
Working-group break-out sessions for discussion, evaluation and hands-on training.
3. PARTICIPANTS
There were 42 participants in the 2012 exercise, comprised as follows.
3.1 European Countries (27)

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
France

Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
3.2 European Commission (2)

DG SANCO; Unit G4; Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
DG SANCO; Unit E5; Enforcement
3.3 EFSA staff (13)

EMRISK (4)
FIP (1)
SCOM (1)
DCM (2)
CONTAM (1)
BIOHAZ (1)
SAS (1)
FEED (1)
AFSCO (1)
Participants were assigned to one of four working groups in advance, based on their answers to a short
pre-course questionnaire (see Appendix I). Selections were made principally to ensure an effective
balance of experience, knowledge and interest in elements of the RRA Experience and traceability on
day two of the workshop.
One College Hill facilitator was assigned to each working group, together with a selection of EFSA
staff (according to interest and experience). For each working group activity, College Hill worked with
EFSA‟s EMRISK unit to develop supporting documents.
4. WORKSHOP STRUCTURE
Activities are summarised below as follows:
• Section 4.1: Effective Collaboration Workshop
• Section 4.2: Training Workshop
• Section 4.3: RRA Experience

All working group sessions were driven by specific questions and learning objectives, provided within
PowerPoint documents stored on EFSA‟s Sciencenet document management system.
Group participants were elected per session to capture proceedings in the PowerPoint document and
then present back findings to the main group during the plenary sessions that followed.
Outcomes are summarised as Facilitators‟ Reports below, as follows:
• Section 5: Facilitators‟ Reports: Effective Collaboration Workshop (day one)
• Section 6: Training Workshop and RRA Experience (day two)
The training event ran over one-and-a-half days according to the following agenda:
Effective Collaboration Workshop (Afternoon, 3 October 2012)

Plenary introduction
Training Briefing: EFSA‟s approach to RRA
Working Groups‟ activity 1: methodologies and data sources for RRA during urgent requests
Plenary summary
Working Groups‟ activity 2: experience of collaboration during RRA
Plenary summary
Training Workshop (Full day, 4 October 2012)

Working Groups‟ activity 3: stakeholder and information flow mapping
Plenary summary
Training briefing: RRA experience
RRA Experience Phase 1
RRA Experience Phase 2
Plenary conclusions
This was designed to provide external participants with „hands-on‟ experience of undertaking a RRA
during an Urgent Request, using the EFSA methodology, while also appreciating the importance of
Effective Collaboration.
The focus was on understanding the processes involved in responding to an urgent request, rather than
specifically role-playing them in a simulation exercise.
The intention was that participants would gain a deeper understanding of how their „day job‟ skills
could be utilised at an EU level, and under significant time pressure.
During the RRA experience, the four working groups undertook the following activities: two working
groups worked on Hazard Identification and Hazard Characterisation; and the other two on Exposure
Assessment and Traceability.
In Phase 1, two groups undertook Hazard Identification while two groups undertook Exposure
Assessment.
In Phase 2, two groups undertook Hazard Characterisation while two groups undertook
Traceability.
4.1 RRA experience scenario

The RRA scenario was based on a fictitious crisis situation arising from a pan-European food
chemical contamination hazard, with a potentially significant human health impact (lectins in
undercooked red kidney beans). For details see Appendix G.
5. FACILITATORS’ REPORTS: EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION WORKSHOP

(DAY ONE)
5.1 WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY ONE: METHODOLOGIES AND DATA SOURCES FOR RRA
DURING URGENT REQUESTS
5.1.1 Training approach

This activity focused on the difference between standard Risk Assessment approaches and
the RRA procedure that is followed when a request for urgent advice is received.
It was based on the methodologies and data sources that enable RRA to take place.
Each group was provided with one of four different fictitious scenarios that could potentially
affect the safety of food or feed within the EU, as follows:
a) Potential contamination of the food/feed chain, due to unusual weather conditions; the
hazard was a mixture of contaminants where precise content is unknown.
b) Contaminated overseas primary ingredient that is not imported, used to make finished
products that are imported.
c) Carcinogenic contaminant in feed with potential to affect food chain.
d) Bio-accumulative contaminant with unclear concentration in edible oil that is
potentially present in many different products.
Groups had access to the internet to be able to search for more information if needed.
Each group was asked to answer the following questions:
a) What would be the standard Risk Assessment approach in this case?
b) How would risk assessment methodology need to change to perform instead a RRA?
c) What behaviours/methodologies would be required for effective collaboration during
RRA in this scenario?
Answers were compiled into a provided PowerPoint template, and then presented by
individual group representatives during a plenary session.
5.1.2 Training outcome

All groups reached a consensus on the difference between standard Risk Assessment
processes and RRA.
It was recognised that prompt communication among EFSA, MSs and other stakeholders is
critical to access the expertise and available data required for RRA.
During RRA there are higher uncertainties, however, the robustness of the risk assessment
should not be compromised; these must be clearly identified and communicated, particularly
as part of EFSA‟s and other risk assessment bodies‟ final scientific statement.
How EFSA works with external stakeholders to gather and share data during RRA
The EFSA process for gathering/sharing data during RRA was discussed and broadly agreed
to include: receive urgent request; clarify urgent request and publish (pre-notification); set
realistic timeframe for producing scientific statement; assemble EFSA crisis team; mobilise
experts and data; inform/engage stakeholders (e.g. MSs through the Advisory Forum, Focal
Points, Networks and other European agencies) for collection and exchange of information;
produce scientific statement; communicate statement to stakeholders.

Groups agreed that the „worst case scenario‟ approach to risk assessment would be used
during RRA.
Working group members would welcome clarification on:
o The desired role of MSs in RRA to avoid the risk of duplicated efforts; and
o Opportunities to agree a hierarchy of responsibility in setting strategy and managing
delivery of „external‟ communications (e.g. to media, consumers) during Urgent
Requests and Scientific Statements—over and above each individual stakeholder‟s
responsibility to communicate with its own specific publics.
The extent, availability and limitations of data available during RRA (e.g. needing to manage
uncertainty within a short period of time)
As for any risk assessment, RRA relies on available information, with RRA being
particularly vulnerable, since the compressed timeframe means there is no opportunity to
generate new data. The short timeframe also limits opportunities to search for data—e.g.
reference laboratories in each MS are likely to need to go out to industry to collect the data
EFSA requires, which can be a lengthy process.
Good food consumption data, which covers as many food categories as possible, is very
important, but often difficult to obtain.
The compressed timeframe requires the acceptance of greater uncertainties. Therefore,
critical exposure scenarios, based on measurement data and/or models, are vital, as is the
clear description of the uncertainties.
EU-level data resources within EFSA

EFSA Comprehensive Food Consumption Database.
Existing Scientific Panels, the Scientific Committee, as well as the Advisory Forum and
Focal Points, provide an opportunity to collect and exchange information with the scientific
community and MS data experts— vital for RRA.
Existing EFSA opinions e.g. for reference doses and exposure assessments.
Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

The following are deemed very important for effective RRA:
Standardising mechanisms to obtain data from the various stakeholders.
Standardising a checklist for initial risk management actions in order to achieve a more
consistent methodology across the EU.
Communicating RRA progress and data requirements through Advisory Forum and Focal
Points.
Identifying methodologies and tools that can help to avoid duplication of efforts.
Ensuring that the RRA is not operated by EFSA in isolation and that dialogue is maintained
with all stakeholders to avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort.

5.2 WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY TWO: EXPERIENCE OF COLLABORATION DURING RRA
5.2.1 Training approach:

This activity was based on the experience of scientific collaboration across the EU, during
the 2011 outbreaks of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Germany and
France.
Using an independent executive summary regarding the various stages of the incident,
working groups aimed to consolidate or improve their understanding of how effective
collaboration played a crucial role in the EU-wide response to this crisis.
On the basis of shared discussions and insights, the groups agreed brief answers to questions
related to the collaboration between EFSA, MSs, scientific institutions and other external
stakeholders during the three phases of the incident:
a) What were the principal collaboration challenges experienced in each stage of the
RRA process (in terms of methodology and/or liaison)?
b) What techniques and tools aided data sharing?
c) Were there any gaps in data—and if so, how were they filled?
d) What were the most useful data sources?
e) Were there any new challenges or requirements not previously experienced during
previous requests for urgent assistance?

The working groups identified various areas characterising the particularity of this incident:
intense media scrutiny, complex traceability responsibility, political sensitivities, EFSA
employee secondment in a MS.
EFSA was heavily reliant on MSs and EC data. Important elements regarding data flow
include availability, accuracy, cooperation/confidentiality, timeliness, different formats,
readily available sources and language barriers.
EFSA‟s role expanded as the incident unfolded, from the challenge of pathogen
identification, to the need to contribute in a task force, and become involved in a traceability
exercise. This also generated exceptional collaboration requirements between all involved
parties.
The MSs found it helpful to have expert EFSA staff seconded to work with them through the
incident.
EFSA coordinated communications among MSs including regular telephone conferences,
which the working group members found to be particularly useful.
This prolonged incident extended EFSA‟s mandate, for the first time, beyond its official
capacity as risk assessor into the realm of traceability.
Obtaining quick and accurate information, and keeping it up to date, was difficult—data was
incomplete at the outset.
Legal limitations/confidentiality restricted certain MS data from being shared with EFSA.
There was a lack of communication of negative epidemiological results from MSs—only
positive results were communicated or nothing at all.

Communicating uncertainty to the media is a real challenge. The prolonged data vacuum and
perceived lack of clarity over media relations responsibility (EC, EFSA or MSs) increased
intensity of media interest and misreporting.

RASFF notifications from EC.
Epidemiological data from ECDC and MSs.
Traceability data from industry within MSs.
EFSA Comprehensive Food Consumption Database.
EFSA‟s 300 scientists can contribute valuable expertise within a taskforce delegated to assist
a specific MS.

Technology can sometimes be a barrier to effective collaboration, e.g. poor audio visual
quality of video conferencing. It is also important to have a strong chairperson to manage the
efficient exchange of information during teleconference briefings.
A „real-time‟ information sharing platform on the status of the incident and the
epidemiological investigation would have been useful to avoid waiting, in some cases, until
the teleconferences to hear what has already been communicated by the media.
EFSA staff secondments add expertise and resources to MS task forces and are of particular
benefit to smaller MSs.
During an incident such as the 2011 E.coli contamination, there is pressure on MSs national
risk assessors to provide guidance quickly, without necessarily waiting for a broader-based
EU risk assessment such as EFSA can provide. Would it be possible for RASFF and EFSA
to help facilitate a direct dialogue between national risk assessors?
The news media communicates much more quickly than risk assessors and public health
bodies during a crisis—there should be stronger methodologies to manage this.
There should be processes to ensure that MSs and non-MSs remain equally well informed.

6. FACILITATORS’ REPORTS: TRAINING WORKSHOP

(DAY TWO)
6.1 WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY THREE: STAKEHOLDER AND INFORMATION FLOW
MAPPING

This activity examined relationships between the various organisations (stakeholders) with
whom EFSA typically liaises during requests for Urgent Responses, and the information
flows between them.
Based on an informal „map‟ of EFSA‟s principal external stakeholders (prepared by College
Hill), participants were encouraged to discuss how information flows between stakeholders
might affect effective collaboration—and suggest ways to improve or enhance information
flows.
In addition to critiquing the stakeholder map, the groups were asked to answer the following
questions:
a) What are the principal lines of information flow between EFSA and external
stakeholders in the various stages of RRA?
b) Where are there potential blockages in information flow and how could these be
removed?
Answers were compiled into a PowerPoint template, and then presented by individual group
representatives during a plenary session.

The working groups agreed that information flow between EFSA and its stakeholders during
RRA cannot be represented vertically—communications are conducted in parallel.
When scientific information is required in an operational situation, official and formal lines
of communication can be too slow. Therefore, direct communication may be required
between the people who have most rapid access to information
The information flow for urgent requests can be categorised as such:
Request to EFSA mainly from EC; other possible sources: European Parliament, MSs or
self-tasking).
EFSA communicates with scientific community, members of EFSA expert database, its
scientific Panels, Scientific Committee, national scientific organisations and industry
(dependent on nature of risk).
EFSA communicates with NGOs (including consumers and media), with a lot of
collaboration with EC.
Focal Points communicate with national organisations.
The information flow can vary according to the question being asked, its source and the
willingness of the party to collaborate.

Industry is sometimes reluctant to communicate, particularly pre-crisis.
MS political and legal limitations can impede effective information flow.
Inaccurate media interpretation can interfere with information flow between EFSA and MSs.
Different time zones and languages can create a practical hindrance to information flow.
EFSA‟s key contact points (Advisory Forum, Focal Points etc.) may be located in different
institutions within MSs, posing an information coordination challenge.
EFSA‟s preferred format for data is not always compatible with the source format—
reformatting can be time consuming.

Advisory Forum and Focal Point contacts; establish Networks.

Greater transparency about how data is going to be used and providing regular updates will
build trust between EFSA and its stakeholders.
Investment in new technology could help to overcome barriers to effective
communications/information flow.
In an operational situation there are needs for direct communication between actors who
have the most rapid access to information. Sometimes the communication channels must be
improvised and flexible, but it is important to have a clear guiding question to keep the
communication process manageable.
Overall, it is important to keep improving bilateral activity between MSs.

6.2 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION13

The groups were provided with a variety of scenario „input‟ documents including:
Simulated RASFF alerts, Epidemic Intelligence Information System (EPIS) notifications and
other official EC documents.
Ingredients of the affected product.
Supporting public health scientific literature.
Using these documents, provided in different stages of the activity, the groups were instructed
to utilise a RRA approach and collaborate effectively as a team to:
a) Identify the agent causing the illness described in the scenario input documents
b) Reflect on the following Learning Objectives and present their observations backed
with evidence from the activity:
i. To keep an open mind during hazard identification.
ii. To keep challenging the direction in which the data seems to be leading.
iii. To keep asking: “Are things really as they seem? Have I missed anything?”
iv. That collaboration and creativity are vital in extracting the required insights from
diverse data sets, when there is no ready-made information or analysis available.
Answers were compiled into a PowerPoint template, then presented by individual group
representatives during plenary a session.

The working groups maintained an open mind throughout the hazard identification process,
taking a methodical approach to data analysis and avoiding jumping to conclusions.
A systematic cross-examination of the symptoms against potential hazards was used to
eliminate unlikely causes—both microbiological and chemical.
The importance of a multidisciplinary team was noted, with both groups benefitting from
experts in hazard identification and food toxicology.
Both working groups role-played the position of EFSA in conducting hazard identification,
stating when they would contact which external stakeholders to request or share information.
When the exercise came to an end and the agent causing the contamination was identified,
the working groups were keen to continue discussing next steps.
The groups worked well to use the available data and literature, and deal with uncertainties,
to conduct the hazard identification process.
Expert knowledge was crucial for interpreting the available information. For example, the
range of time of onset of symptoms for the norovirus was inaccurate in the Bad Bug Book
(provided literature) and was corrected by expert knowledge in one of the groups.
13
During Phase 1 of the Rapid Response Experience, two groups worked on Hazard Characterisation and two groups worked
on Exposure Assessment.
It was noted that hazard identification at EFSA is usually very quick, as determined in the
EC communication, and in most cases it is unusual to be able to pull together a team to
discuss it.

Not applicable to this activity.

The multidisciplinary and multicultural nature of the participants was beneficial to how
effectively the working groups collaborated
Participants felt encouraged to express their ideas, hypotheses and questions in a
collaborative manner, ultimately reaching the correct diagnosis.

6.3 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 1: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT14

Simulated RASFF alerts and other official EC documents
Ingredients of the affected product
Supporting public health literature and scientific articles
Presentation of EFSA‟s Comprehensive Food Consumption Database
The groups worked on exposure assessment, based on the assumption that hazard identification
and characterization had been performed already.
Using these documents, the group was instructed to utilise a RRA approach and collaborate
effectively as a team to:
a) Establish the likely concentration of lectins in kidney beans according to the extent/nature
of inadequate processing.
b) Establish consumption data of multi-ingredient salads/red kidney beans, by making use of
the best sources that can be identified for this data.
c) Undertake exposure assessment for special groups
d) Establish the likelihood of consuming two foods (consumption habits) with high lectin
content at a certain period of time that could lead to acute intoxication
e) Determine whether available data would be likely to support an accurate estimation of
exposure to the hazardous products
f) Reflect on the following Learning Objectives and present their observations backed with
evidence from the activity:
i. Understanding the data sources that are available and should be used for Exposure
Assessment during RRA.
ii. The value of sharing experience from similar cases that group members have
handled previously.
iii. Understanding the unique data sources that EFSA has established, e.g. the
consumption database.
Answers were compiled into a provided PowerPoint template, and then presented by individual
group representatives during a plenary session.

The working groups reached a consensus that when there is limited data available during a
crisis situation, assumptions need to be made. These assumptions can then be changed as
more data becomes available if necessary.
The worst case scenario would be created by:
Establishing an acute toxic dose.
Focusing on the highest-consuming groups, e.g. vegetarians in this case.
Assuming excessive consumption by single individuals.
14
During Phase 1 of the Rapid Response Experience, two groups worked on Hazard Characterisation and two groups worked
on Exposure Assessment.
It was also noted that worst case scenarios should be established for the EU as a whole, as
well as per MS, remembering that implications can change rapidly as traceability data is
confirmed.
In this instance, the toxicant was naturally occurring (rather than a contaminant), and its
level would be reduced during heat processing.
EFSA plays a role in interrogating EU consumption data (and its own databases) and
providing guidance on establishing an acute dose where there is no clearly established dose
in scientific literature.
EFSA‟s comprehensive food consumption database provides information on: acute and
chronic exposure and different consumption patterns (for different countries and age groups).
The working groups noted that the information provided during this exercise was generally
more than would normally be available in a crisis situation. Typically cases of illness are not
already established when the request for assessment is received.
It is important to be able to access data from previous similar incidents, e.g. what
assumptions were made and how the uncertainties were dealt with.
When presented with multiple data sets, it is important (but difficult) to know which data to
use.

The EFSA Comprehensive Food Consumption Database provides a unique and valuable
evidence base to help establish patterns of consumption in specific countries, but the data
may not be specific to the incident and, therefore, interpretation will be required. For
example in the scenario of this exercise, experts had to choose whether to use data for
“beans” or for “red kidney beans”; there were more data for the former (more studies in
more MSs) and less for the latter, which were directly related to the scenario.
Some MSs have their own consumption databases and it would be useful to be able to access
and share this additional information.

Some members of the group were very familiar with conducting exposure assessments, while
others were not familiar with the process. However, the experts in this field provided
excellent explanations of the processes involved and there was a very good exchange of
knowledge amongst the participants.
It was recognised by the groups that this stage of a RRA is very reliant on expert knowledge.
More effective collaboration between European experts (including EFSA) can help clarify
which is the best data to use—and how best to interpret it.

6.4 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 2: HAZARD CHARACTERISATION15

Simulated RASFF alerts and other official EC documents.
Ingredients of the affected product.
Supporting public health literature and scientific articles.
Using these documents, the groups were instructed to utilise a RRA approach and collaborate
effectively as a team to:
a) Establish the adverse health effects associated with the consumption of the food product.
b) Establish the toxicological profile of lectins (mode of action).
c) Compile a list of foods containing lectins in comparable high amounts to (undercooked) red
kidney beans.
d) Decide, on the basis of toxicological data, whether:
i. Specific groups should be considered e.g. pregnant women, children or other age
groups, men/women.
ii. Biological functions are affected e.g. reproduction or development.
e) On the basis of toxicology data, explore if it is possible to establish a dose for acute
intoxication (e.g. x mg/kg b.w.) or a qualitative dose-response assessment (answer is: 4-5
raw red kidney beans).
f) Explore what effective collaboration is required during hazard characterisation.
g) Reflect on the following Learning Objectives and present their observations backed with
evidence from the activity:
i. Access to data: where to get it from; what to do if data are not available;
collaboration and creativity are vital.
ii. The value of sharing experience from similar cases that group members have
handled previously.

The groups dealt well the uncertainties they faced, e.g. descriptions of the adverse health
effects found in the literature matched those reported in the scenario cases, but could be
compatible with other hazards (e.g. microbial toxins).
There was robust discussion to establish toxicological properties from a large selection of
literature and how they would be used to inform the hazard characterisation process.
There was also good discussion around dealing with the many uncertainties arising from the
data, e.g. no established toxic dose for humans and no clear understanding of how the
contaminated ingredient would behave as part of a recipe compared to how it would behave
in isolation.
As part of the hazard characterisation process, the following information was collated:
The adverse health effects of the hazard were outlined.
15
During Phase 2 of the Rapid Response Experience, the two groups which had worked previously on Hazard Identification
undertook Hazard Characterisation, while the other two groups which had worked previously on Exposure Assessment
undertook Traceability.
The absence of documented chronic effects was noted.

The mechanism and pathway of toxicity were considered.
A list of foods containing the natural toxicant was prepared.
Epidemiological data regarding the toxicant was available from the FDA Bad Bug Book.
A dose for acute intoxication was prepared using data from the available scientific literature.
Data collection, discussion and identification of key end-points.
Interaction with MS contact points or other relevant institutions.
Identifying, and facilitating dialogue between, experts in different institutions/MSs who
review and provide advice on specific hazard characterisation activities.
In case that there are no data or gross data, a qualitative approach is required.
No previous risk assessment was available for the hazard of the scenario. In this case, similar
substances could help in extrapolation of toxicological end-points.
The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) could be used if no clear toxic dosage
information available.
Dose-response modelling is important in this phase.
Useful information was available (e.g. FDA Bad Bug Book) during the exercise, but lacked
proper corroboration of facts needed for validity.

EFSA is able to provide expertise in toxicology, dose response modelling and nutrition.

As with previous exercises, some delegates were very familiar with hazard characterisation
and dealing with toxicological data and some were not. The experts in this field shared their
experiences of the processes involved in hazard characterisation.
Effective collaboration was required to gain and share:
Access to scientific databases and papers.
Knowledge on practical issues (e.g. industrial manufacturing process, consumption patterns).
The expertise and experience of a multidisciplinary team.
The importance of contacting colleagues in national institutes, MSs and EFSA to share
experience was emphasised.
6.5 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 2: TRACEABILITY16

This activity differed from the other activities since it was less an exercise and more a strategic
discussion around the importance of tracing processes. Traceability is not a part of the RRA
16
During Phase 2 of the Rapid Response Experience, the two groups which had worked previously on Hazard Identification
undertook Hazard Characterisation, while the other two groups which had worked previously on Exposure Assessment
undertook Traceability.
process, but its importance was clearly highlighted during the E.coli outbreaks in 2011. Groups
undertook:
A structured learning and critiquing session, based on EFSA‟s evidence and experience
gained during the 2011 E.coli incident.
An examination of how best practice would need to be adapted to handle the challenge of the
exercise scenario involving kidney beans.
The two groups were provided with a variety of scenario „input‟ documents including:
Simulated RASFF alerts and other official EC documents.
Simulated ingredients list, traceability briefing and supply chain flowchart of the affected
product.
Presentation of EFSA‟s role in developing trace-forward/trace-back tools during the 2011
E.coli incident.
Example of EFSA-developed spreadsheet17 used during the 2011 E.coli incident to gather
and collate data collected at MS level.
Supporting public health literature and scientific articles.
Using these documents, the group was instructed to collaborate effectively as a team to:
a) Understand how the traceability aspects of the 2011 E.coli outbreak were approached.
b) Decide whether the trace forward/trace back spreadsheet that was developed and used
during the E.coli incident could be used in the future.
c) Establish the challenges in applying best practice traceability methodologies consistently at
an EU level.
d) Establish what effective collaboration is required during traceability.
e) Reflect on the following Learning Objective:
i. The value of sharing experience from similar cases that group members have
handled previously.

Tracing back and forward activities are challenging, particularly for loose/bulk products—
although the move to greater digital product information means it is getting easier.
The more ingredients in a product, the more complicated the traceability requirement, unless
the contaminated ingredient is known.
Traceability data is „owned‟ by food business operators and their supply chains, which
means that it is often in different standards and in different formats, as well as being more
difficult to obtain.
Some companies can easily provide traceability information within few hours, but the format
varies.
17
See Appendix A of the Technical Report of EFSA “Tracing seeds, in particular fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum)
seeds, in relation to the Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O104:H4 2011 Outbreaks in Germany and France”.
(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/176e.pdf).
Whilst it would be very difficult to enforce and could involve a lot of duplicated data
inputting, as a lot of organisations do not have electronic records, the working groups could
understand the logic for a consistent format for traceability data in the EU.
MSs are often collecting data from businesses with disorganised or inaccurate information.
There can be issues with businesses that are not covered by food regulations, such as seeds in
the agricultural supply chain.
Brokers of commodity products that enter the supply chain but never physically handle the
product make „one step forward, one step back‟ traceability difficult.
Third-party countries could stop the traceability beyond the EU; INFOSAN could be
involved but an answer is not guaranteed.
Some products are easier than others to trace, e.g. one delegate mentioned that spices can
have more than 400 companies involved for one batch, while products with a short shelf-life
are easier to trace.
Internet-based companies can be very difficult to control or in some cases even difficult to
locate. Instances of companies not providing traceability data have led to specific e-retail
aggregator websites being approached to close them down.
Traceability systems cost money and therefore small companies do not always see the cost
benefit.
Tracing animal feed is more complex; in this case, sampling in farms and feed production
establishments is needed.

The EFSA-developed spreadsheet used during the 2011 E.coli incident was agreed to be
useful in that case but quite difficult to populate for the MSs for the reasons described above.

Risk assessors are seldom asked to participate in the track and trace activity. As such, some
participants felt this activity was not really relevant to their job.
However, some participants were very familiar with traceability, which led to an interesting
discussion and lots of collaborative learning (from each other).

7. WORKSHOP EVALUATION
This section: (i) evaluates the success of the workshop format per se, based on responses from
participants to a post-training questionnaire; (ii) summarises the workshop‟s Training Outcomes; (iii)
evaluates whether the workshop‟s Learning Objectives have been achieved.
7.1 Success of the workshop format

The workshop training format employed during 2012 represented a new approach for EFSA. Previous
years‟ exercises have employed the classic „command-post‟ style of training, utilising a detailed
incident scenario and participants sited in many different locations. The rationale for the workshop-
based approach arose from the specific Learning and Strategic objectives proposed by College Hill in
the four-year strategy focused on Effective Collaboration.
In order to judge the success of the training and the value it delivered, College Hill provided a short
workshop evaluation form to all participants (apart from the four delegates from EFSA‟s EMRISK
unit) during the final plenary session.
The evaluation form contained ten open questions providing the opportunity to give qualitative
feedback. In addition, questions one to five also included the opportunity to provide a quantitative
response (score out of 10 where 0 = fully negative opinion and 10 = fully positive opinion).
25 forms in total were completed, representing 66% of the training cohort who completed the
evaluation.
The quantitative and qualitative feedback from participants (Section 7 and Appendix H) demonstrated
that the workshop format was successful in delivering Training Outcomes 1 and 2 and Learning
Objectives 1, 2 and 3.
Qualitative responses
Overall, there were many positive opinions noting how the 2012 training event had provided a
valuable opportunity to network with other participants and share best practice and challenges in RRA.
There was a wide range of abilities among the participants and thus for some it was useful to explore
the differences between RA and RRA. Participants also welcomed the interactive nature of the
workshops and the opportunities they afforded to express personal opinions in the context of lively
debates. Several participants noted the value of learning about the tools and data developed by EFSA
to speed up key stages of RRA, for example exposure assessment tools and consumption databases.
For more details see Appendix H.
Quantitative scores
Scores from questions one to five are summarised in Figure 1 overleaf. This plots the average score
per question against the question narrative. The number of responses per question is shown at the end
of each narrative.

10.0
9.0
8.0
Average score out of 10
7.0
6.0
5.0
8.56 8.33 8.81
4.0 7.94 7.90
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
What was your Was your interest How helpful did you How useful did you Was the Rapid Risk
general view of the kept at a high level? find the main plenary find the smaller Assessment
workshop? - 16 - 15 session? - 16 working group experience of benefit
sessions? - 16 to you? - 10
Question and number of responses
Figure 1: Workshop evaluation form answers
Considerations for future training exercises based on 2012 evaluation feedback

1. Reduce the intensity of the workshop agenda by either having fewer activities or extending the
workshop to two days.
2. Simplify the working group activities, by handing out less detailed information and giving
fewer questions for the delegates to answer on the PowerPoint slides.
3. More effectively manage the plenary discussions by more tightly controlling the working
group feedback and then facilitating a structured whole group discussion.
4. Build in time for more practical demonstrations of the tools and databases in use at EFSA.
5. Consider inviting MSs to present about their own real-life experiences as part of the plenary
sessions.
6. Give more consideration to how the MSs might take the training back to people in their own
institutions.
7. Consider developing a best practice „road map‟ for RRA—collaboration, hazard identification,
hazard characterisation, exposure with a list of questions and tools/checklists for each.

CONCLUSIONS
In 2012, EFSA initiated a workshop approach to crisis training that was based on a new four-year
training strategy developed College Hill in consultation with the EMRISK unit of EFSA. The
workshop approach was different to previous years‟ exercises, which had employed the classic
command-post style utilising a detailed incident scenario and participants sited in many different
locations.
The crisis training exercise provided the opportunity for EFSA staff and EFSA‟s stakeholder delegates
(Member States, Pre-accession and EFTA countries, European Commission) to explore collaboration
primarily during RRA (in the fields of hazard identification, hazard characterisation and exposure
assessment) and on traceability, and secondarily during data collection.
The three learning objectives set for the 2012 were met, namely the understanding of (i) the extent,
availability and limitations of data available during RRA, (ii) how EFSA works with external
stakeholders to gather and share data during RRA, and (iii) EU-level data resources within EFSA.
Overall, participants provided positive feedback for the 2012 training event, as well as indications for
further improvement of the 2013 crisis training format.
Within this year‟s training theme, participants recommended the development of (i) a best practice
road map for RRA in the field of food/feed safety, and (ii) a consistent format for gathering and
collating traceability data in the EU.

APPENDIX A—MULTI-ANNUAL TRAINING STRATEGY

College Hill Limited18
SUMMARY
To develop the four year strategy, an audit of EFSA‟s Urgent Response handling and previous training
exercises was first conducted. This involved: (i) review of relevant EFSA documents e.g. strategy &
policy documents, procedures, annual reports, responses to urgent requests, statements, scientific
opinions, technical reports etc.; (ii) face-to-face interviews with key EFSA personnel involved in
Urgent Requests for Scientific Advice; (iii) questionnaire to external Advisory Forum members; (iv)
eview of existing risk assessment best practice; (v) review of relevant meeting minutes.
This research led to the development of three objectives to be addressed in the strategy. In order of
priority these are: (i) further improve collaboration between EFSA and Member States, to develop
better understanding of the need for, and benefits from, efficient scientific data and information
sharing; (ii) improve information management, to enhance best practice in mutual recording and
sharing of information; (iii) further improve internal organisation and dialogue, to consolidate use of
the procedures and emphasise communications processes that support and enhance the delivery of
Urgent Responses.
The resulting training programme is based on a framework of the three key operational phases during
an Urgent Request: (i) Rapid Risk Assessment (RRA); (ii) Data Collection; (iii) Urgent Response
Dialogue.
Four distinct scenarios (focused on Urgent Requests) will be used in each of the four years of the
training programme. Each scenario will include a high level of technical, scientific and statistical data
in order to provide suitable levels of challenge and interest.
© College Hill, 2012
KEY WORDS
Crisis preparedness, urgent request, urgent response, training strategy, simulation scenario
18
Andrew Vincent, Victoria Cross.
INTRODUCTION
The multi-annual training strategy is the first deliverable under Framework Service Contract
CT/EFSA/EMRISK/2011/04 „Food and feed crisis preparedness training‟. This document outlines the
findings of an audit undertaken by College Hill into EFSA‟s Urgent Response handling and previous
training exercises and then details the consultancy‟s four year strategic recommendations of prioritised
training themes. The initial draft included outline proposals for training, which are developed now into
a practical framework (as used in the 2012 exercise) to serve as the template for training in 2013 and
2014.
Following sign-off by EFSA a more detailed proposal of the 2012 training exercise was developed.
This revised strategy document now incorporates those details for reference going forward.
Context
This contract is set in the context of the EFSA Strategic Plan 2009-201319. In particular the following
stated Strategic Areas:
Number 4: “Position EFSA at the forefront of risk assessment methodologies and
practices in Europe and internationally”
“Using a cooperative approach with all actors in Europe and beyond, it will promote new
and harmonised risk assessment methodologies…”
“To build capacity it will organise training and build on its existing scientific events to foster
greater understanding of risk assessment practices”
“EFSA will rigorously review the quality of its outputs building on the systems devised in
2007/2008 and consider other initiatives in this respect, continuously looking to improve its
processes and methodologies”
Number 5: “Reinforce confidence and trust in EFSA and the EU food safety system
through effective risk communication and dialogue with partners and stakeholders”
“…EFSA will promote the dissemination of meaningful, relevant and coherent messages
on its work and fulfil its mandate in communicating on risks in the food chain, both in
„peace-time‟ and during a crisis”
“EFSA will continue to build on its transparency and openness and will seek to develop
further initiatives to bridge the gap between science and perception, to increase the
understanding of the science underpinning risk management”
Number 6: “Assure the responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness of EFSA”
“It will ensure its processes are efficient and streamlined and will look to enhance its
planning, prioritisation, monitoring and reporting systems to ensure sound management and
guarantee cost effectiveness”
The contract also supports three of the five key strategic priorities outlined in the EFSA
Communications Strategy20:
Independence: Augment proactive communications on the independence of EFSA‟s risk
assessment advice.
Visibility and outreach: Enhance outreach, in the EU and beyond, by increasing awareness
and recognition of EFSA and its role and work as risk assessor.
Dialogue: Enhance dialogue with stakeholders and increase audience interactivity.
19
Strategic Plan of the European Food Safety Authority for 2009-2013, adopted on 18 December 2008
20
EFSA‟s Communications Strategy: 2010--2013 perspective, adopted on 16 December 2010
Summary of stakeholders
As stated in the EFSA Communications Strategy, the primary targets and recipients of EFSA‟s
scientific advice are those who commission work from the Authority—the European Commission,
European Parliament and Member States. These are the priority audiences for delivery of this contract.
The main Member State interactions during Urgent Responses are with EFSA‟s Focal Points (on a
day-to-day scientific level) and EFSA‟s Advisory Forum (from a more senior, political perspective).
Other key EFSA stakeholders to be considered during the training exercises include:
National food safety authorities
Stakeholders with a specific interest in the food chain (NGOs, consumer organisations,
industry)
European Agencies e.g. ECDC, ECHA, EMA, and international organisations e.g. WHO,
FAO
Stakeholders from scientific and academic communities—in some cases members of an
EFSA Scientific Panel
Other audiences with a particular interest in food, food safety and nutritional issues (e.g.
health professional groups)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Having understood the wider context for EFSA‟s training needs, it was necessary to gain a more
detailed understanding of specific operational aspects relating to EFSA‟s previous crisis preparedness
training exercises and live Urgent Requests for Scientific Advice.
College Hill developed its understanding from the following sources:
Review of relevant documents supplied by EMRISK (see Appendix B)
Face-to-face interviews with key EFSA personnel involved in Urgent Requests for Scientific
Advice, (the list of interviewees, proposed by EMRISK, is provided in Appendix C)
A questionnaire dispatched to various external Advisory Forum members by EMRISK
(questions are listed in Appendix D)
A short review of existing risk assessment best practice provided by the College Hill‟s food
technical partner Campden BRI, which assisted in the preparation and delivery of the 2012
exercise (see Appendix E)
A review and short critique of existing AMT/OT minutes, documents based on examples
supplied by EMRISK, plus a proposed new structure that could be used to create a common
„minutes‟ framework for use in all Urgent Response incidents (see Appendix F).
RESULTS
1. Lessons learnt from previous exercises and Urgent Responses

The various reports supplied by EMRISK provided a valuable insight into both the methodology
of, and key learnings from, previous exercises and the live handling of Urgent Requests. The
key themes for action that arose from those documents were:
Stating a clear agenda at beginning of each meeting, taking minutes and summarising actions
at the end
Improving information management and record keeping
Strengthening the co-ordination of internal and external information capture and exchange
Developing effective unified log for all decisions, actions taken and contacts made
Enhancing the recording and auditing process by strengthening procedures and clearly
stating what is required
Establishing clear „rules of engagement‟ on video and telephone conferences, including
speaking/listening/muting protocols to maximise audibility, and communicating beforehand
what the language arrangements will be
Developing crisis frameworks with external stakeholders
Clearly communicating the declaration of an incident internally including individuals
involved and, importantly, declaring when an incident has finished
Clarifying utilisation of legal counsel
Best practices in the use of a crisis room
2. Internal feedback
The interviews held were invaluable in gaining a deep understanding of both the culture and
organisational processes within EFSA, which contribute to the efficient handling of Urgent
Requests for Scientific Advice. In summary, the main themes emanating from the interviews
with relevance to this contract were the need for:
Improved collaboration with the Member States
Improved information management
Improved internal organisation and dialogue
Further comments were also made regarding minor amendments to the „EFSA procedures for
responding to urgent advice needs‟ including more clarity on decision-making processes. A
procedures update is now available online21, which was taken into account in preparing for the
2012 exercise.
3. External feedback
In formulating this strategy, it was important to give Advisory Forum members the opportunity
to provide their feedback about previous Urgent Responses and training exercises. They were
each sent a short questionnaire (see Appendix D). At the time of writing two responses had been
received (from Germany and Portugal).
In summary, the main themes emanating from the questionnaires received back were the need
for:
Clearly defined communication channels / improved dialogue
Providing precise information on the role of Member State players to ensure that the
expected data is received
Training that focuses on the co-operation between EFSA and the risk assessing institutions in
the Member States
4. Key objectives to address based on research findings

After considering all of the evidence emerging from the research findings, College Hill has
developed three objectives to be addressed in EFSA‟s four-year training strategy. In order of
priority these are:
Primary: Further improve collaboration between EFSA and Member States, to develop
better understanding of the need for, and benefits from, efficient scientific data and
information sharing.
21
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/279e.htm
Secondary: Improve information management, to enhance best practice in mutual recording

and sharing of information.
Tertiary: Further improve internal organisation and dialogue, to consolidate use of the
procedures and emphasise communications processes that support and enhance the delivery
of Urgent Responses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Four-year training strategy

Under an umbrella strategic theme of „Effective Collaboration‟, the training strategy will
address the above objectives:
Consistently across the duration of the four-year training programme
In several different ways and at different operational levels (for example in sharing best
practice and exchanging insights, drawing upon specific recent „real world‟ experience, role-
playing within training scenarios etc.)
Using training themes that reflect the hierarchy of the objectives
Involving internal (EFSA) and external (Member States, pre-accession countries, European
Agencies, international organisations and the European Commission) participants
The training programme is based on a framework of the three key operational phases during an
Urgent Request:
RRA
Data Collection
Urgent Response Dialogue
The proposed training programme reflects the fact that RRA and Data Collection phases often
run in parallel.
2. Training programme outline

Four distinct scenarios, focused on Urgent Requests, will be used in each of the four years of the
training programme (see Figure A below).
Each scenario will include a high level of technical, scientific and statistical data in order to
provide suitable levels of challenge and interest (to provide this, College Hill will enlist the
support of the UK-based food technical institute, Campden BRI). For authenticity, scenario
planning will take into account the characteristics of previous Urgent Responses provided by
EFSA, and/or the characteristics of similar incidents from other jurisdictions (e.g. North
America, Japan).
In 2012, the scenario was based on a fictitious crisis situation arising from a pan-European food
chemical contamination hazard, with a potentially significant human health impact i.e. lectins in
undercooked red kidney beans. Scenarios for subsequent years‟ modules will be determined in
conjunction with EFSA closer to the time of delivering the training.

Overall training theme
Stakeholder Interaction
Training Module 1 Training Module 2 Training Module 3
(2012) (2013) (2014)
Effective Effective Effective
Collaboration in RRA Collaboration in Data Collaboration in
(comprising 70% RRA and Collection Urgent Response
30% Data Collection) (comprising 30% RRA and Dialogue
70% Data Collection)
Training Module 4 (2015)

End-to-end exercise encompassing all three aspects above
Figure A: Schematic Representation of four-year training plan
3. Training programme format (2012-2014)

Each of the first three Training Modules will comprise four elements scheduled over two days.
Draft agendas are provided from page 35 onwards. The 2015 Training Module will be a full-day
simulation exercise.
3.1 Pre-training EFSA Internal Briefing (Prior to workshop)

To help EFSA training delegates consolidate their understanding of the training objectives
and solve any technical/procedural problems, to make best possible use of the Effective
Collaboration Workshop and exercise in the company of external participants.
3.2 Effective Collaboration Workshop (Day One, afternoon)

To introduce the role of EFSA to external participants, outline the training agenda and to
discuss key learning from preceding year‟s Urgent Responses. This will serve as a highly
interactive and positive „sharing‟ session between EFSA staff, Member States, European
Agencies and the European Commission. During this workshop delegates will work in small
facilitated groups of ideally no more than 10 people.
3.3 Training Workshop (Day Two, morning)

To emphasise the importance of mapping stakeholders and understanding information
flow. During this workshop delegates will work in small facilitated groups of ideally no
more than 10 people.

3.4 Incident Experience (Day Two, late morning and afternoon)

A desktop training exercise to provide participants with the experience of collaborating
during the RRA, Data Collection and Dialogue phases of a request for Urgent Response.
4 Benefits of the proposed four-year training strategy

Our proposed training strategy will:
Unite internal EFSA personnel, and external stakeholders (including but not limited to MSs)
in a training environment where they will share information and best practice, explore roles
and responsibilities, and develop new ways of collaborating.
Utilise an overall strategic theme and per-session tactical themes that will support the
objective of improving collaboration while also showcasing the unique work that EFSA
undertakes. For example delegates will get the opportunity to see „how it works‟ through the
experience of participating in an Urgent Response from the perspective of an EFSA
„insider‟, as opposed to their usual day-to-day role.
Demonstrate that EFSA is ensuring its internal stakeholders consolidate and improve best
practice in a targeted way.
Consolidate the adoption of new tools and procedures that can enhance collaboration among
EFSA, MSs and EC during requests for Urgent Response.

PROPOSED TRAINING AGENDAS
2012: TRAINING MODULE 1: COLLABORATING FOR SUCCESS IN RRA

1. Pre-training EFSA Internal Briefing (prior to workshop)
College Hill trainers/EFSA brief the multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics,
themed around Effective Collaboration.
Trainers brief the agenda and delegate list for the Training Workshops and Exercise.
2. Effective Collaboration Workshop (Day One, afternoon)

Trainers present the new multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics. focused on
Effective Collaboration, to external delegates.
Trainers introduce this session‟s theme of collaboration during RRA (and Data Collection)
as the first pillar of Effective Collaboration.
Trainers clarify that the focus of this session will be weighted 70% towards RRA and 30%
towards Data Collection—to reflect the fact that, during a „real‟ Urgent Request, these two
phases often run in parallel due to time pressure, according to the quantity/quality of data
available.
EFSA presents:
o a recap of its mandate
o how (and why) it adapts standard Risk Assessment into RRA to meet the needs of
urgent requests for advice
o the importance of timely sharing and access to data and expertise
o examples of internal and external data sources
Trainers utilise best-practice case studies to guide a discussion towards a consensus on how
Effective Collaboration takes place, with prompts to include:
o what would be the standard Risk Assessment approach in each case?
o how would risk assessment methodology change in a RRA?
o what behaviours/methodologies would be required for effective collaboration during
the RRA?
Delegates work in small facilitated groups to have a short open discussion about individual
experience of „Effective Collaboration‟ during preceding year‟s interactions among EFSA,
MSs and EC (2011 E.coli incident).
Plenary sessions to discuss key learnings.
3. Training Workshop (Day Two, morning)

Plenary opening summarising principal learnings from Day One.
Introduction to Day Two.
Delegates work in small facilitated groups to identify principal lines of information flow
with other scientific institutions, using a pre-prepared stakeholder map encompassing all
involved parties (EFSA, MS, EC etc). This will include:
o types and sources of information

o modelling the typical information flows between specific stakeholders during an

Urgent Request
o identifying key roles of stakeholders responsible for maintaining information flows
o discussing challenges and bottlenecks experienced in maintaining information flows
o brainstorming ways of improving information flows
Trainers lead group to agree a consensus on key aspects of maintaining information flow
during an Urgent Request, and how these aspects support best practice in collaboration.
Prompts to include:
o what are the principal lines of information flow between EFSA and external
o where are the potential blockages in information flow—and how could these be
removed?
Trainers facilitate a plenary session to present findings.
4. RRA Experience (Day Two, late morning and afternoon)

This is a two-phase desktop simulation, allowing delegates to experience the challenges of
RRA following an Urgent Request, which:
o is designed to provide external participants with a „hands-on‟ experience of
undertaking a RRA during an Urgent Request, using the EFSA methodology, while
also appreciating the importance of effective collaboration
o focuses on understanding the processes involved in responding to an urgent request,
rather than specifically role-playing them in a simulation exercise
o gives participants a deeper understanding of how their „day job‟ skills can be utilised
at an EU level, and under significant time pressure
All participants are assigned to Working Groups based on their experience and expertise, to
ensure each group has the best possible spread of experience and expertise in the various
disciplines that will be challenged.
The four groups are:
o Hazard Identification
o Exposure Assessment
o Hazard Characterisation
o Traceability
EFSA participants in each group have the opportunity to demonstrate competence and
capability alongside external counterparts.
Groups work in two phases, before and after lunch, organised as follows:
o Phase 1: Hazard Identification and Exposure Assessment
o Phase 2: Hazard Characterisation and Traceability
 The traceability element is a discussion of strategy rather than a „live‟
exercise.
Each group is guided by a College Hill facilitator and will work in parallel through the day.
Facilitators encourage each group to discuss unfamiliar or problematic areas.
Where necessary, facilitators instruct groups to indicate what they would do next, or who
they would brief to carry out specific actions (instead of actually doing these things).
Relevant starting points are provided for each group in each phase, based on the master
scenario.
Key Learnings are presented in a PowerPoint file to a plenary session, where each Working
Group summarises details and examples of what they have learned, under the provided
headings.
Facilitators observe both general performance and specific aspects of each group‟s training
activity.
General performance criteria are as follows:
o utilisation and consideration of data type, data sources and data exchange (based on
the stakeholder mapping exercise conducted earlier)
o use of available EFSA materials, e.g. scientific opinions, traceability spreadsheets etc
o effectiveness of risk communications
o effectiveness of collaboration in achieving desired outcomes.
5. Wrap-up (Day Two, afternoon)

Each Working Group elects a spokesperson to present its answers in the plenary summary.
Facilitators play back their initial observations of progress made towards the 2012
Effective Collaboration objectives.
Senior EFSA colleague gives closing remarks.

2013: TRAINING MODULE 2: IMPROVING COLLABORATION DURING DATA COLLECTION

College Hill trainers/EFSA brief the multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics, with
the theme of Effective Collaboration.
Trainers review and recap on any new tools or recommended procedures that have been
implemented in response to the previous year‟s exercise report.

Trainers recap on:
o multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics, focused on Effective Collaboration,
for external delegates
o last year‟s training and outcomes
Trainers introduce this session‟s theme of collaboration during Data Collection (and RRA)
as the second pillar of Effective Collaboration, following on from the previous year‟s
exercise.
Trainers clarify that the focus of this session will be weighted 70% towards Data Collection
and 30% towards RRA—to reflect the fact that, during a „real‟ Urgent Request, these two
phases often run in parallel due to time pressure, according to the quantity/quality of data
available.
EFSA presents:
o how (and why) EFSA adapts Data Collection during a RRA to meet the needs of
urgent requests for advice
o examples of internal and external data sources
o what would be the standard Risk Assessment approach in each case?
o how would risk assessment methodology change in a RRA?
o what behaviours/methodologies would be required for effective collaboration on Data
Collection during the RRA?
MSs and EC (case study tbc).


Urgent Request
Prompts to include:
removed?
4. Data Collection Experience (Day Two, late morning and afternoon)

data collection following an Urgent Request, which:
undertaking data collection during an Urgent Request, using the EFSA methodology,
while also appreciating the importance of effective collaboration
scenario.
headings.

activity.


2014: TRAINING MODULE 3: URGENT RESPONSE DIALOGUE

College Hill trainers/EFSA brief the multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics, with
the theme of Effective Collaboration.
Trainers review and recap on any new tools or recommended procedures that have been
implemented in response to the previous year‟s exercise report.

Trainers recap on:
o multi-year training objective, strategy and tactics, focused on Effective Collaboration,
for external delegates
o last year‟s training and outcomes
Trainers introduce this session‟s theme of collaboration during Urgent Response Dialogue as
the third pillar of Effective Collaboration, following on from the previous year‟s exercise.
EFSA presents:
o how (and why) EFSA adapts Urgent Response Dialogue during a RRA to meet the
needs of urgent requests for advice
o what would be the communication approach during a standard Risk Assessment in
each case?
o how would Urgent Response Dialogue change in a RRA?
o what behaviours/methodologies would be required for effective collaboration during
the Urgent Response Dialogue?
MSs and EC (case study tbc).

Urgent Request

Prompts to include:
removed?
4. Urgent Response Dialogue Experience (Day Two, late morning and afternoon)
RRA following an Urgent Request, which:
undertaking a RRA during an Urgent Request, using the EFSA methodology, while
also appreciating the importance of Effective Collaboration
scenario.
headings.
activity.




2015: TRAINING MODULE 4: COMPLETE URGENT REQUEST SIMULATION EXERCISE

The final training module is intended to consolidate all of the topics covered in the previous three
years‟ training modules. As an end-to-end simulation exercise, it will enable participants to practice
best-practice collaboration throughout an Urgent Request.
Details and duration of the simulation will be agreed after the conclusion of Training Module 3 in
2014. It might be considered beneficial to hold a „refresher‟ briefing on the day prior to the incident, to
ensure all participants were fully aware of the resources available to them, and reminded how to use
them most effectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The multi-annual training strategy has been developed and revised over a number of months to ensure
that EFSA‟s training approach keeps step with best practice, and is properly aligned to the
organisation‟s current Strategic Plan and Communications Strategy (summarised on pages 32 and 33
of this report).
The activities proposed will ensure that EFSA further improves its existing good dialogue with all key
external organisations and stakeholders.
The report from the 2014 exercise, taken in conjunction with the reports from the 2012-2014 training
workshops (as detailed above) will provide good evidence of EFSA taking decisive and clear steps to
maintain and improve Effective Collaboration with Member States, especially during requests for
Urgent Response.

APPENDIX B—LIST OF EMRISK-SUPPLIED DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1. EFSA Mandate
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January
2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the
European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety
2. Strategy/policy documents
EFSA‟s Communications Strategy: 2010—2013 perspective
Supporting document for EFSA‟s Draft Communications Strategy 2010-2013
Technical Report of EFSA on Scientific Cooperation between EFSA and Member States:
Taking Stock and Looking Ahead (EFSA-Q-2011-00036)
Strategic Plan of The European Food Safety Authority for 2009-2013
3. Procedures
EFSA Procedures for responding to urgent advice needs (EFSA-Q-2010-01235)
4. Reports
Annual report on EFSA‟s food and feed safety crisis preparedness 2009 (EFSA-Q-2010-
01234)
(EFSA-Q-2010-01236)
(EFSA-Q-2010-01236)
Report of Crisis Simulation Exercise 3 November 30, 2009 (CRISMART)
5. E. coli O104:H4 Urgent Request

Operational Team Meeting 27 June 2011, 10.00-11.00 Meeting Report
Advice Management Team Meeting 27 June 2011, 9.00-10.00 Meeting Report
Operational Team Meeting 29 June 2011, 9.30-11.00 Meeting Report
Advice Management Team Meeting 30 June 2011, 18.30-19.30 Meeting Report
6. Volcanic ash Urgent Request

Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Operational Team Held on the 20/04/2010 (17.30-19.00)
7. EU food/feed crisis management

Commission Decision 2004/478/EC of 29 April 2004 concerning the adoption of a general
plan for food/feed crisis management
8. Statements/scientific opinions/technical reports

Scientific Opinion on the risk posed by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and
other pathogenic bacteria in seeds and sprouted seeds (EFSA-Q-2011-00877)
Statement of EFSA on the risks for public health due to the presence of dioxins in pork from
Ireland (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-777)

APPENDIX C—LIST OF SENIOR EFSA STAFF INTERVIEWED BY COLLEGE HILL

College Hill conducted „fact-finding‟ interviews with various senior EFSA staff in Parma on 20 March
2012. The objective of these interviews was to improve our understanding of the various EFSA
stakeholders, how EFSA deals with Urgent Responses, and to get a feel for any issues of concern that
could be addressed in EFSA‟s Crisis Preparedness training strategy over the next four years.
Interviews were facilitated by officers within EMRISK. The individuals interviewed were:
Djien Liem, Head of Unit, Scientific Committee Unit
Didier Verloo, Head of Unit, Scientific Assessment Support Unit
Alberto Spagnolli, Head of Unit, Executive Office Unit
Laura Smillie, Acting Head of Unit, Editorial and Media Relations Unit
Claudia Heppner, Acting Director, Risk Assessment & Scientific Assistance Directorate
Roy Kirby, Quality manager, Executive Office Unit
Gisèle Gizzi, Team Leader, Planning & Monitoring Team of the Science Strategy and
Coordination Directorate
Stef Bronzwaer, Head of Unit, Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit
Tobin Robinson, Head of Unit, Emerging Risks Unit

APPENDIX D—QUESTIONS TO ADVISORY FORUM MEMBERS

It was considered important to solicit the opinions of Advisory Forum (AF) members as part of the
fact-finding exercise undertaken by College Hill. Accordingly, AF members were invited to complete
a short questionnaire sent to them via email by AFSCO. The questions were as follows:
1. To what extent have you been successfully involved in previous Urgent Responses or training
exercises?
2. With whom do you interact, principally, during Urgent Responses?
3. What, in your opinion, are the strengths and weakness in EFSA existing practises?
4. What aspects have worked well, and not so well, in previous exercises/Urgent Responses?
5. In your view, what have been the key lessons learned from previous exercises and Urgent
Responses?
6. What specific actions would you like to see addressed / incorporated into the four-year EFSA
training strategy?

APPENDIX E—RISK ASSESSMENT BEST PRACTICE

The Codex Alimentarius serves as a reference work for many important issues within the food
industry, such as standards, codes of practice and guidelines. Within the Codex Alimentarius
Commission Procedural Manual22, Section IV (from p.109) provides valuable guidance in the area of
Risk Analysis.
Clause 5 confirms that risk analysis “should follow a structured approach comprising the
three distinct but closely linked components of risk analysis (risk assessment, risk
management and risk communication)… each component being integral to the overall risk
analysis.”
Clause 6 confirms that “the three components of risk analysis should be documented fully
and systematically in a transparent manner. While respecting legitimate concerns to preserve
confidentiality, documentation should be accessible to all interested parties.”
Clause 7 indicates that “effective communication and consultation with all interested parties
should be ensured throughout the risk analysis.”
Clause 9 establishes that “there should be a functional separation of risk assessment and risk
management, in order to ensure the scientific integrity of the risk assessment, to avoid
confusion over the functions to be performed by risk assessors and risk managers and to
reduce any conflict of interest. However, it is recognised that risk analysis is an iterative
process, and interaction between risk managers and risk assessors is essential for practical
application.”
Clause 19 reminds that “…assessment and should incorporate the four steps of the risk
assessment, i.e. hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk
characterization.”
Clause 23 specifies that “Constraints, uncertainties and assumptions having an impact on the
risk assessment should be explicitly considered at each step in the risk assessment and
documented in a transparent manner….”
22
www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1400e/i1400e01.pdf
APPENDIX F—MINUTES CRITIQUE AND TEMPLATE

Minutes of meetings are a vital tool used by EFSA when responding to an Urgent Request. They serve
a dual purpose: (i) recording actions and decisions within a team such as the AMT or OT; and (ii)
enabling different teams to track each others‟ progress and activity.
As part of the research undertaken to compile this four-year training strategy proposal, College Hill
reviewed examples of both AMT and OT minutes drawn up during two recent Urgent Requests:
Volcanic ash (April 2010) and E. coli O104:H4 (June 2011).
1. Critique
1.1 These minutes clearly indicate the need for EFSA‟s AMT and OT to capture multiple technical
details, analyses and activities under significant time pressures. They are clearly designed to be
working documents and will be familiar to members of the incident teams. Key points we noted:
1.2.1 The structure of the documents was not always consistent from year to year and from
team to team. For example:
Volcanic Ash minutes Acronyms
OT, 20/04/2010, 1730-1900 Decisions
Abbreviations Creation of the OT
Participants Any other business
Procedure Action points/responsibilities/deadlines
Assessment OT, 29/06/11, 0930-1100
Sources of information Participants
Communication issues Meeting Report
Next meetings Training
Action points/responsibilities/deadlines Status of the art of data collection
Mandate
E. coli O104:H4 minutes
AMT, 27/06/2011, 0900-1000 Finalisation of the report
Members of AMT Action points

AMT, 30/06/11, 1830-1930
Acronyms
Members of AMT
Introduction
Acronyms
Decisions & Actions
Decisions & Actions
Practical Aspects/Logistics
OT, 27/06/2011, 1000-1100 Practical Aspects/Logistics
Members of OT Actions
1.2.2 Material that is neither decision nor action is sometimes included under Decisions and
Actions headlines
1.2.3 AMT minutes sometimes highlight specific actions in body text by using a cross-reference;
OT minutes do not.
2. Observations
2.1 AMT and OT documents are working documents for use by large and diverse teams working
under pressure/time constrains. The most important objectives for the minutes are to record:
Overall team composition and those present at specific meetings.

The role of the participants e.g. chair and minute taker.

Key decisions taken
Actions required, by whom, by when
Essential background information (e.g. acronyms, updates, URLs)
2.2 There should be a specific, common format for all minutes. This would provide two benefits:
make it easier for both more and less experienced minute-takers to capture the essential
details in a coherent and comprehensible manner
make it easier for all internal stakeholders to find specific kinds of information within
minutes
2.3 It could be valuable to add some lightweight „project management‟ methodology within the
minutes.
Action points could be presented in the form of a „status report‟ table, broken down into
sections (see the proposed template overleaf).
This table could be updated during each meeting as required to reflect evolving incident
circumstances. It would then be easier to view „at a glance‟ all of the updates relating to
specific topics—and to see which actions were taken and completed by whom, and when.
2.4 If a common minutes structure can be established, a common agenda structure could be a
logical further evolution.
3. Proposed template
3.1 Summary of key decisions taken at this meeting—to be updated by minute-takers.
This could be cross-referenced to elements in the table below
3.2 Status report:
Meeting and Current status Actions By whom Deadline Completed
Item Number required [Y/N]
1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 XX Date
status updates action
1.1.2 1.1.2 YY Date
1.2 1.2.1 1.2.1 XX Date
1.2.2 1.2.2 YY Date
2.1 2.1.1 2.1.1 ZZ Date
2.2 2.2.1 2.2.1 AA Date
2.3 2.3.1 2.3.1 BB Date
3.3 New essential information relating to the Urgent Request

3.4 Acronyms, stakeholders, links to key files or URLs etc

APPENDIX G—RRA SCENARIO SUMMARY

Disclaimer: This exercise scenario was entirely fictitious and was intended for training and exercise
purposes only.
A supplier of red kidney beans, based in Ukraine, supplies fresh red kidney beans to a number of EU-
based producers of mixed prepared salads. This supplier is irrelevant to the simulation exercise as no
other EU manufacturers are affected.
The red kidney beans are delivered to a small Hungarian manufacturer which buys all ingredients for
preparing fresh mixed salads.
The Hungarian manufacturer produces and packages a number of pre-packaged salad products; the red
kidney beans are only used in one product a “mixed bean salad”. Fresh batches of this mixed bean
salad are prepared and packaged once per day during the week.
The plant works 5 days a week, with cleaning each weekend and a routine maintenance operation on
the first weekend of each month.
In standard operations, the red kidney beans are soaked in water overnight in a volume of water three
times greater than the volume of beans. The soaked beans are then boiled in fresh water for 60
minutes, cooled and then placed in a chiller at 0ºC until used in the salads. A single batch of boiled red
kidney beans is sufficient for one day‟s production of the mixed bean salad. A fresh batch of
“processed” red kidney beans is used during each day‟s production of the mixed bean salad.
On the weekend of 1st and 2nd September, there is a power cut during the weekend maintenance
period which causes the cooker to malfunction. The beans are soaked overnight on 2nd September,
ready for boiling on Monday 3rd September and use in the salads. Because of the cooker malfunction,
the red kidney beans are not boiled. The cooker malfunction is not noticed by the operator; although
the incorrect temperature during the boiling process is recorded, it is not noticed by the operator.
On Monday 3rd September, five batches of the mixed bean salad are assembled using the incorrectly
processed red kidney beans. They are packaged and despatched during the first week of September.
Each of the mixed bean salad packs is 500g (PET package). Each pack contains 15-20 red kidney
beans.
It is four weeks before the cooker malfunction is noticed, and during this time 20 batches of mixed
bean salads have been assembled using incorrectly processed red kidney beans.,
The prepared mixed bean salad is produced and packaged as an own-label product for a major
European supermarket with branches in 10 EU countries.
The red kidney beans are also mixed with identical ingredients to those prepared for the supermarket
chain, and packaged for distribution to two wholesalers in Hungary and Austria. The wholesalers
supply the mixed bean salads to local stores and farm shops in these two countries. The mixed bean
salads are packaged with a generic “mixed bean salad” label. In Austria, the wholesaler combines the
mixed bean salad with two other pre-prepared salad packs (coleslaw and potato salad) and sells this as
a “Salad Pack” with a batch code unique to the wholesaler.
It takes 4 days from production/packaging to going on direct sale in the supermarket/wholesalers (3
days from despatch from the Hungarian manufacturer).
The first problem batches are on sale on supermarkets and wholesalers by 7th September.

APPENDIX H—QUALITATIVE SUMMARY OF DELEGATE FEEDBACK
Q1: What was your general view of the workshop?

All the comments given were positive and included:
“The exchanges with the other participants were very interesting”
“A good opportunity to show MSs some of the procedures and resources used in RRA”
“Very good quality; suitable for a variety of backgrounds and level of expertise”
Q2: Was your interest kept at a high level?

Positive comments included:
“Yes, due to the interactive and realistic nature of exercises and activities”
“It was well thought out and varied”
Other observations were:
“Perhaps a bit too intensive timetable for peacetime”
“Yes, with a few drops of attention during some plenary presentations”
“Yes, except some parts of the working group activities on the first day”
Q3: How helpful did you find the main plenary sessions?
“Very helpful for briefing and extremely good for receiving overview/conclusions from
other groups”
“Interesting to see similarities and additional ideas from other groups”
“They were very helpful and they gave an excellent general overview”
Other observations/suggestions were:
“Maybe it would be useful for more discussion - but there was not enough time”
“Helpful, but the presentations of the working groups were too long”
“I expected more discussion in the plenary sessions. Working group was permitted to
discuss, but it would have been good to have a discussion between working groups.”
Q4: How useful did you find the smaller working group sessions?
“The smaller working group sessions were more informal and therefore it was possible to
express individual opinion”
“Useful for hands-on sharing experiences with people with different experiences and
backgrounds”
“Some members said very little - could have been a language issue.”
“In my work group, because of very long discussions on a specific issue, we couldn't answer
whole questions asked in timeline.”
“Some of the exercises were too simple (too much information) and questions were too
detailed.”

Q5: Was the RRA experience of benefit to you?

“Yes, especially the exposure assessment tool and data sources, such as the comprehensive
food consumption database.”
“I got information on traceability.”
“Yes! It solved some of my dilemmas.”
“Not really - it was a little artificial and too many members could not contribute due to lack
of experience. Training discussion was better.”
“Not so much since I am involved in risk management but still it is interesting to know how
I can be perfect.”
Q6: Please indicate the main benefits you received from the training workshop:
“Exchange of experiences of different experts.”
“The knowledge about differences between RA and RRA.”
“Networking with other people from other MS and EFSA, with similar tasks and
collaboration.”
“Information and ideas of how to organise this training on a national level.”
“High level intention for future collaboration.”
“Learned about the food supply chain and how to get info from it/gained confidence to
handle a true crisis.”
“Assessment processes and assessment tools are similar to the processes and tools that I
use.”
One delegate felt that the benefits were more for EFSA than himself:
“Few for me but hopefully some good info for EFSA. Don't think the aim was to train us.”
Q7: Did you feel there was anything missing?

Several of the delegates simply answered no to this question. Those that did make suggestions
are summarised in the comments below:
“Maybe demonstration of tools, databases in use at EFSA.”
“I would have liked to explore the risk communication aspects to the consumers following
an RRA”
“Yes: mechanisms to deal with many internal procedures to make things happen.”
“If it is a training for people with few experiences, one needs more examples/history.”
“The perspective of national risk assessments in crisis situations versus EU level RA (EFSA,
ECDC etc.) was not worked out (parallel effects).”
Q8: Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the workshop?
“RRA is a very complex issue, some facets are more often less interesting”
“Encourage MS to present more in the plenary sessions (if that was an objective)”
“Thank you - it was very useful but it will not be easy to transport the input to other people
and institutions in MS which I would like to do”

“Excellent congratulations. I would like to have a set of road maps for RRA - collaboration,
hazard ID, hazard characterisation, exposure (list of questions and tools for each).”
“The kind of involvement of MS participants could be made more clear in advance.”
Q9: Did you have any comments regarding the four-year training strategy?
There were no significant comments recorded against this question.
Q10: Did you have any comments regarding the overall strategic theme of ‘effective
collaboration’?
There were no significant comments recorded against this question.

APPENDIX I—QUESTIONS TO SELECTED MEMBERS OF EFSA ADVISORY FORUM

On 2 April 2012, the EFSA Advisory Forum Secretariat sent six questions to members of Advisory
Forum who had been involved in previous Urgent Responses. The objective of this survey was to gain
external feedback on past EFSA Urgent Responses and crisis training needs, and to take into account
the experience and advice of these Advisory Forum members in the planning of the new multi-year
training strategy.
1. To what extent have you been successfully involved in previous Urgent Responses or training
exercises?
2. With whom do you interact, principally, during Urgent Responses?
3. What, in your opinion, are the strengths and weakness in EFSA existing practises?
4. What aspects have worked well, and not so well, in previous exercises/Urgent Responses?
5. In your view, what have been the key lessons learned from previous exercises and Urgent
Responses?
6. What specific actions would you like to see addressed / incorporated into the four-year EFSA
training strategy?

ABBREVIATIONS
AFSCO EFSA‟s Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit
AMT EFSA‟s Advice Management Team (invoked as the senior decision-making forum
in a Response Level 2 incident according to the EFSA „EFSA procedures for
responding to urgent advice needs‟)
BIOHAZ EFSA‟s Biological Hazards Unit
CH College Hill
CONTAM EFSA‟s Contaminants Unit
DCM EFSA‟s Dietary & Chemical Monitoring Unit
DG-SANCO European Commission‟s Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (Santé &
Consommateurs)
EC European Commission
ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention & Control
ECHA European Chemicals Agency
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EMA European Medicines Agency
EMRISK EFSA‟s Emerging Risks Unit
EPIS Epidemic Intelligence Information System
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDA US Food & Drugs Administration
FEED EFSA‟s Feed Unit
FIP EFSA‟s Food Ingredients & Packaging Unit
INFOSAN International Food Safety Authorities Network—joint WHO/ FAO initiative)
MS Member States
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OT EFSA‟s Operation Team (invoked as the core team for the production of EFSA
urgent advice in a Response Level 2 incident according to the „EFSA procedures
for responding to urgent advice needs‟)
RA Risk Assessment
RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (EC/DG-SANCO tool to exchange
information about measures taken responding to serious food/feed risks)
RRA Rapid Risk Assessment
SAS EFSA‟s Scientific Assessment Support Unit
SCOM EFSA‟s Scientific Committee Unit
STEC Shiga-like toxin-producing E. coli bacterium (as implicated in the outbreak
affecting Germany and France in 2011)
TTC Threshold of Toxicological Concern
WHO World Health Organisation


EFSA Supporting Publications - 2013 - EFSA S Food and Feed Crisis Preparedness Training 2012 Crisis Training Exercise

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFSA Supporting Publications - 2013 - EFSA S Food and Feed Crisis Preparedness Training 2012 Crisis Training Exercise

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23978325, 2013, 1, Downloaded from https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-388 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [20/12/2022].

EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT

EFSA’s food and feed crisis preparedness training:

Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to emrisk@efsa.europa.eu.

© European Food Safety Authority, 2013

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 2

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 3

BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY PROVIDED BY EFSA

Overall objectives of the framework contract:

Specific objectives of the framework contract:

Scope of the work, expected outcomes and deliverables

Item Date Due

1. Proposal of a multi-annual training package March 2012

2. A detailed proposal for the current year exercise April 2012

4. An annual external report containing November 2012

This contract was awarded by EFSA to College Hill Limited.

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 6

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 2012 Training Theme and Objectives

3.1 European Countries (27)

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 7

3.2 European Commission (2)

3.3 EFSA staff (13)

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 8

Effective Collaboration Workshop (Afternoon, 3 October 2012)

Training Workshop (Full day, 4 October 2012)

4.1 RRA experience scenario

5. FACILITATORS’ REPORTS: EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION WORKSHOP

5.1.1 Training approach

5.1.2 Training outcome

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 10

EU-level data resources within EFSA

Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 11

5.2 WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY TWO: EXPERIENCE OF COLLABORATION DURING RRA

5.2.1 Training approach:

5.2.2 Training outcome

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 12

EU-level data resources within EFSA

Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 13

6. FACILITATORS’ REPORTS: TRAINING WORKSHOP

6.1.1 Training approach

6.1.2 Training outcome

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 14

EU-level data resources within EFSA

Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 15

6.2 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION13

6.2.1 Training approach

6.2.2 Training outcome

EU-level data resources within EFSA

Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 17

6.3 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 1: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT14

6.3.1 Training approach

6.3.2 Training outcome

EU-level data resources within EFSA

Overall ‘effective collaboration’ comments

Supporting publications 2013:EN-388 19

6.4 RAPID RESPONSE EXPERIENCE PHASE 2: HAZARD CHARACTERISATION15

6.4.1 Training approach

6.4.2 Training outcome