The current approach of the U.S. go

The current approach of the U.S. government (illness prevention) to Lm in raw milk soft cheese is rather simple in that the management strategy is rather routine, the appropriate instruments for risk reduction are rather “traditional,” and there is no need for stakeholder participation or revision of current legislation. However, a more thorough analysis using the IRGC framework illustrates that looks can be deceiving. This review of risk governance of Lm in raw milk soft cheese shows that there is much uncertainty as well as ambiguity with the status quo. First, an analysis of the risk assessments reveals that a fair amount of uncertainty exists in risk assessment models. One particular issue of scientific debate is the establishment of an appropriate Lm tolerance level. What initially appears to be simple (tolerance defined as absence of Listeria in 25 g), actually becomes rather complicated (tolerance defined as

Results (Indonesian) 1:

The current approach of the U.S. government (illness prevention) to Lm in raw milk soft cheese is rather simple in that the management strategy is rather routine, the appropriate instruments for risk reduction are rather “traditional,” and there is no need for stakeholder participation or revision of current legislation. However, a more thorough analysis using the IRGC framework illustrates that looks can be deceiving. This review of risk governance of Lm in raw milk soft cheese shows that there is much uncertainty as well as ambiguity with the status quo. First, an analysis of the risk assessments reveals that a fair amount of uncertainty exists in risk assessment models. One particular issue of scientific debate is the establishment of an appropriate Lm tolerance level. What initially appears to be simple (tolerance defined as absence of Listeria in 25 g), actually becomes rather complicated (tolerance defined as <1 cfu in 25 g at manufacture or as <100 cfu/g at consumption). Similarly, other debates surround the dose response and the amount of cheese that needs to be eaten to contract listeriosis. In hindsight, risk assessments on cheese tend to have a relatively high level of uncertainty in their models. Second, while the current legislation suggests that raw milk soft cheese cannot be produced safely, it appears that other countries have achieved a similar level of food safety with less restrictive regulations. Third, debates surrounding values are ambiguous. The two frames—illness prevention and consumer sovereignty— identified in this research represent different values. For example, illness prevention focuses on consumer protection whereas consumer sovereignty focuses on consumer choice.

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Pendekatan saat ini pemerintah AS (pencegahan penyakit) untuk Lm di susu mentah keju lembut agak sederhana dalam bahwa strategi manajemen agak rutin, instrumen yang tepat untuk pengurangan risiko agak "tradisional," dan tidak ada kebutuhan untuk partisipasi pemangku kepentingan atau revisi undang-undang saat. Namun, analisis yang lebih menyeluruh dengan menggunakan kerangka IRGC menggambarkan bahwa penampilan dapat menipu. Ulasan ini pemerintahan risiko Lm di susu mentah keju lembut menunjukkan bahwa ada banyak ketidakpastian serta ambiguitas dengan status quo. Pertama, analisis penilaian risiko mengungkapkan bahwa cukup banyak ketidakpastian ada dalam model penilaian risiko. Salah satu isu tertentu debat ilmiah adalah pembentukan tingkat toleransi Lm tepat. Apa yang awalnya tampaknya sederhana (toleransi didefinisikan sebagai tidak adanya Listeria di 25 g), benar-benar menjadi agak rumit (toleransi didefinisikan sebagai <1 cfu di 25 g pada pembuatan atau sebagai <100 cfu / g pada konsumsi). Demikian pula, perdebatan lainnya mengelilingi respon dosis dan jumlah keju yang perlu dimakan untuk kontrak listeriosis. Di belakang, penilaian risiko pada keju cenderung memiliki tingkat yang relatif tinggi ketidakpastian dalam model mereka. Kedua, sementara undang-undang saat ini menunjukkan bahwa susu mentah keju lembut tidak dapat diproduksi dengan aman, tampak bahwa negara-negara lain telah mencapai tingkat yang sama keamanan pangan dengan peraturan lebih longgar. Ketiga, perdebatan seputar nilai-nilai yang ambigu. Pencegahan dua frame-penyakit dan konsumen sovereignty- diidentifikasi dalam penelitian ini mewakili nilai-nilai yang berbeda. Misalnya, pencegahan penyakit berfokus pada perlindungan konsumen sedangkan kedaulatan konsumen berfokus pada pilihan konsumen.