1. What We Heard and Next Steps

2. The people who made this possible Wes Long Audrey Ichida Sharon Thompson Mary Bender Steve Schaub Sherri Dennis Wendy Fineblum Judy Quigley Mary Grimley Dennis Lang Tanya Roberts Peg Coleman Ann Courtney Angelo Turturro Richard Whiting

3. The people who made this possible

4. Plenary Session Must increase the size of our toolbox Enhance interactions with economists who perform Cost-Benefit analyses Need more standardization on how test- based data is disseminated Need methodological research Improve linkage with epidemiology Potential applications to new types of problems (e.g., food security, food sufficiency)

5. Current and Future Dimensions in Microbiological Risk Assessment Part I Genomics will be increasingly valuable and will be useful in informing RA MRA will need to consider the vast diversity that exists in both the pathogen and the host Genomic methods may help surveillance in complex communities and can help identify new or emerging threats

6. Interface Between Risk Assessors and Risk Managers Respect is critical, no more “us and them” Functional and physical separation between RM and RA must be balanced Ongoing interaction provides for more informed decision making Managers must articulate goals and questions, and learn about risk assessment Risk assessors must enhance communication skills

7. Resources for Risk Assessors Risk assessors have substantial “bioinformatics” challenges A number of unique data sources available Epidemiological data (e.g. Japan) Com-Base FAOSTAT NHANES and CSFII Need for easy access

8. Modeling (Modelling?) Intervention Strategies for Pathogen Control Simple models for microbial growth, death and survival may not be “good enough”? We have a wealth of knowledge that could be used for risk assessments Need to be able to translate risk assessments into parameters and procedures used in food industry if going to improve public health

9. Current and Future Dimensions in Microbiological Risk Assessment Part II Can a standard approach be developed that will cover all microbial types and human subpopulations? Are current protocols for predicting risk sufficient for decision making? How much flexibility is needed?

10. Modeling Challenges Ascertaining the relevance of data sets is very difficult but very important Need to differentiate variation and uncertainty separate, both technically and for effective communication Great progress is modeling things that just a few years ago were thought too complex (e.g., cross-contamination)

11. Viruses Minimum information on diversity of viral isolates - genetically highly diverse Methodological limitations Modeling of viral penetration and infection is not biologically based

12. Modeling Susceptible Populations Epidemiologic, animal, and in vitro studies can be integrated to provide a biological basis for risk Strategic research directed to specific biological phenomena; not just data but mechanisms also

13. Overall Themes Microbial risk assessment is in its infancy It appears to be a very smart baby

14. Overall Themes Effective communication and interaction critical Keep focus on the goal, i.e., sound risk- based food safety decisions Need to embrace a wider range of disciplines and approaches Balance complexity vs. usefulness (i.e., parsimony) Openness of participants was outstanding

15. Next Steps JIFSAN Food Safety Risk Assessment Clearinghouse is a resource for communication that is available to help

16. Next Steps Publication of the proceedings Manuscripts due to Audrey Ichida by August 30 th

17. Next Steps 2 nd International Conference 2 nd International Conference Would it be worthwhile? How could we improve it? Where should we hold it?

18. Thank you for participating and have a safe trip home Thank you for participating and have a safe trip home