Sample size planning and the statistical significance of official controls by sampling


Submitted: 28 December 2022
Accepted: 27 June 2023
Published: 11 July 2023
Abstract Views: 496
PDF: 184
HTML: 8
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Acceptance sampling is important for food safety and is a relevant tool at production and official control levels, as it helps decision-making processes and verifies quality and food safety management. Generally, sampling plans are hypothesis tests of products that have been submitted for official appraisal and subsequent acceptance or rejection. The sample size is related to the set level of risk, the acceptable precision, and the tolerable misstatement size; therefore, sample size determination has a crucial role in setting up the accepted level of non-compliance and level of error. Using a simple predictive model based on combinatorics, this study showcases how sample size management can change the probability of rejecting good lots and/or accepting bad lots when the acceptance number is 0 (c=0). We showed that when c=0, a very high level of significance of the test corresponds to the high probability of rejecting a lot with an acceptable prevalence of defective items (type II error). We produced tables about the minimum sample size at different significance levels, which can be useful in the field. A paradigmatic example of the role of sample size in the acceptance-sampling plan is represented by the visual inspection for the detection of Anisakid larvae in fishery products. This study investigated this aspect and mainly referred to studies on the prevalence of larvae in farmed fish. We showed that, for lots ≥1000 items, the sample size is not strictly related to the lot size, but to draw a consistent control plan and reduce the variability in the clinical judgment, control authorities require a standardized approach. Because of this, the results on the prevalence of Anisakid larvae in farmed fish, if only based on sampling control plans, do not support a negligible risk statement, despite the claims reported in the EFSA opinion and several other studies.


Ángeles-Hernández JC, Gómez-de Anda FR, Reyes-Rodríguez NE , Vega-Sánchez V, García-Reyna PB, Campos-Montiel RG, Calderón-Apodaca NL, Salgado-Miranda C, Zepeda-Velázque AP, 2020. Genera and species of anisakidae family and their geographical distribution. Animals 10:2374.

Bao M, Pierce JG, Pascual S, Gonzales-Munoz S, Mattiucci S, Mladineo I, Cipriani P, Buselic I, Strachan NJC, 2017. Assessing the risk of an emerging zoonosis of worldwide concern: anisakiasis. Sci Rep 7:43699.

Cammilleri G, Costa A, Graci S, Buscemi MD, Collura R, Vella A, Pulvirenti A, Cicero A, Giangrosso G, Schembri P, ferrantelli V, 2018. Presence of anisakis pregreffii in farmed sea bass (dicentrarchus labrax) commercialized in Southern Italy: a first report. Vet Parasitol 259:13-6.

Crotta M, Ferrari N, Gultian J, 2016. Qualitative risk assessment of introduction of anisakid larvae in Atlantic salmon (salmo salar) farms and commercialization of products infected with viable nematodes. Food Control 69:275-84.

Dumicic K, Bahovec V, Kurnoga Zivadinovic N, 2006. Studying an OC curve of an acceptance sampling plan: a statistical quality control tool. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251897613_Studying_an_OC_Curve_of_an_Acceptance_Sampling_Plan_A_Statistical_Quality_Control_Tool.

EFSA, 2010. Scientific opinion on risk assessment of parasites in fishery product. EFSA J 8:1543.

European Commission, 2004. Regulation (EU) n. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin . In: Official Journal, L 139/55, 30/04/2004.

European Commission, 2005. Regulation (EU) n. 2074/2005 of the European Commission of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) no 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) no 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) no 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) no 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) no 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004. In: Official Journal, L 338/27, 22/12/2005.

European Commission, 2019. Regulation (EU) 2019/627 of the European Commission of 5 March 2019 laying down uniform practical arrangements for the performance of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulation (EC) no 2074/2005 as regards official controls) In: Official Journal, L 131/51, 17/05/2019.

FAO/WHO, 2004. General guidelines on sampling - CAC/GL 50-2004. Available from: https://www.fao.org/uploads/media/Codex_2004_sampling_CAC_GL_50.pdf.

Fioravanti ML, Gustinelli A, Rigos G, Buchman K, Caffara M, Pascual S, Pardo MA, 2021. Negligible risk of zoonotic anisakid nematodes in farmed fish from European mariculture, 2016-2018. Euro Surveill 26:1900717.

Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR, 2021. Noise: a flaw in human judgment. London, UK: William Collins. Available from:

Karami AM, Marnis H, Korbut R, Zuo S, Jaafar R, Duan Y, Mathiessen H, Al-Jubury A, Kania PW, Buchman K, 2022. Absence of zoonotic parasites in salmonid aquaculture in Denmark: causes and consequences. Aquaculture 549:737793.

Levsen A, Maage A, 2016. Absence of parasitic nematodes in farmed, harvest quality Atlantic salmon (salmo salar) in Norway – results from a large scale survey. Food Control 68:25-9.

López-Verdejo A, Born-Torrijos A, Montero-Cortijo E, Raga JA, Valmaseda-Angulo M. Montero FE, 2022. Infection process, viability and establishment of anisakis simplex s.l. L3 in farmed fish; a histological study in gilthead seabream. Vet Parasitol 311:109805.

Lunestad BT, 2003. Absence of nematodes in farmed Atlantic salmon (salmo salar) in Norway. J Food Prot 66:122-4.

Marty GD, 2008. Anisakid larva in the viscera of a farmed Atlantic salmon (salmo salar). Aquaculture 279:209-10.

Mattiucci S, Cipriani P, Levsen A, Paoletti M, Nascetti G, 2018. Molecular epidemiology of anisakis and anisakiasis: an ecological and evolutionary road map. Adv Parasitol 99:93-263.

Mercken E, Van Damme I, Serradell A, Gabriël S, 2020. Presence of anisakidae in commercial fish species imported in the Belgian food markets: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Food Microbiol 318:108456.

Mo TA, Gahr A, Hansen H, Hoel E, Oaland O, Poppe TT, 2014. Presence of anisakis simplex (Rudolphi, 1809 det Krabbe, 1878) and hysterothylacium aduncum (Rudolphi, 1802) (nematoda, anisakidae) in runts of farmed Atlantic salmon salmo salar l. J Fish Dis 37:135-40.

Robertson LJ, 2018. Parasites in food: from a neglected position to an emerging issue. Adv Food Nutr Res 86:71-113.

Skov J, Kania PW, Olsen MM, Hauberg Laundsen J, Buchman K, 2009. Nematode infection of maricultured and wild fishes in Danish waters: a comparative study. Aquaculture 298:24-8.

Unger P, Palm HW, 2016. Parasitation of sea trout (salmo trutta trutta l.) from the spawning ground and Germany coastal waters off Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Baltic Sea. Parasitol Res 115:165-74.

Wooten R, Yoon G-H, Bron GE, 2010. A survey of anisakid nematodes in Scottish wild Atlantic salmon. FSAS project S14008 final report. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/722-1-1224_S14008_ext2_final_Apr_10.pdf.

1.
Ciccarelli C, Semeraro AM, Leinoudi M, Di Trani V, Ciampana A, Ciccarelli E. Sample size planning and the statistical significance of official controls by sampling. Ital J Food Safety [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 11 [cited 2024 Apr. 28];12(3). Available from: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/ijfs/article/view/11119

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations