Fresh rainbow trout fillets are very perishable food products. Therefore, they cannot be stored at refrigeration temperatures for a long period of time. High pressure processing (HPP) can improve the quality of the fillets through microbial load control. As a result of this, the shelf-life of the product is extended. However, some physicochemical changes can appear. The aim of this study was to assess the degree of protein denaturation in rainbow trout fillets treated with various levels of high pressure. The results showed that protein denaturation is definitely higher for the fillets treated with higher pressure levels, in the range of 400 MPa/3 min – 600 MPa/6 min and lower for the fillets treated with lower pressure levels, in the range of 100 MPa/3 min – 200 MPa/6 min. The use of lower pressure levels is beneficial to the structural quality preservation of the fillets, but less effective concerning the microbial inactivation. Maintaining a good structural and nutritional quality of the product is not very useful in this case, because it cannot be combined with other great advantages offered by the HPP tools, namely microbial control and spoilage decline. Therefore, further studies should focus on readjusting (e. g. minimizing) the holding time and other possible parameters, without lowering the high levels of pressure.

For risk communication, it is important to understand the difference between “hazard” and “risk”. Definitions can be found in Codex Alimentarius and the European Union (EU) General Food Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a recurrent issue in the area of food safety, despite awareness-raising messages sent by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other interested entities. A quick screening of the EU’s food regulations revealed several inconsistencies. Hence, it was considered necessary to further investigate if regulations could act as a source for this problem. A software tool was developed to support the detection and listing of inconsistent translations of “hazard” and “risk” in certain EU food regulations. Subsequently, native-speaking experts working in food safety from each EU country were asked to provide their individual scientific opinion on the prepared list. All data were statistically analysed after applying numerical scores (1–5) describing different levels of consistency. Results showed that the most common problem was the interchange of “hazard” with “risk” and vice versa. This lack of consistency can create confusion that can further translate into misjudgments at food risk assessment and communication levels.

Food risk assessment plays an important role in protecting public health worldwide. Stakeholders involved in food risk assessment, such as national authorities, agencies, non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), industry and consumers, need to properly understand the terminology of food risk assessment effectively. In this respect, the first part of the EU‐FORA work programme (WP1) aimed to provide insights into the actual translation of two essential terms used in food risk assessment. ‘Hazard’ and ‘risk’ were first identified and compared between the English version of various food regulations and their equivalents in the national legislation of EU Member States. The comparison and critical evaluation revealed several inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could lead to misinterpretations, followed by errors in conducting risk assessments or communicating risks. We recommend that consistency is restored and maintained so that the message is properly communicated. The second part of the work programme (WP2) was focused on a specific area within chemical risk assessment (CRA). In this context, special attention was given to the impact of the food matrix on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of heavy metals and metalloids. After collection and careful selection of data from scientific journals, a database with information on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and arsenic (As) in different food matrices was created for future statistical analyses related to dietary exposure.

For risk communication, it is important to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk". Definitions can be found in Codex Alimentarius and the European Union (EU) General Food Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a recurrent issue in the area of food safety, despite awareness-raising messages sent by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other interested entities. A quick screening of EU’s food regulations revealed several inconsistencies. Hence, it was considered necessary to further investigate if regulations could act as a source for this problem. A software tool was developed to support the detection and listing of inconsistent translations of “hazard” and “risk” in certain EU food regulations. Subsequently, native-speaking experts working in food safety, from each EU country, were asked to provide their individual scientific opinion on the prepared list. All data was statistically analyzed after applying numerical scores (1-5) describing different levels of consistency. Results showed that the most common problem was the interchange of “hazard” with “risk” and vice versa. This lack of consistency can create confusion that can further translate into misjudgments at food risk assessment and communication level.

The replacement of conventional sample preparation techniques with newer techniques which are automated, faster and more eco-friendly, is nowadays desired in every analytical laboratory. One of the techniques with the attributes mentioned above is the Accelerated Solvent Extraction. In order to evaluate how successful this method is for the extraction of fat and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) from dried fish meat samples, we have tested two series of diverse fish using Dionex™ 350 ASE provided by Thermo Scientific™ (Germany). For a more interesting approach, we added to our investigation 7 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), 3 thricholorobenzenes, 2 tetrachlorobenzenes, 1 pentachlorobenzenes and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). The study focused on comparing the recoveries of these analytes from different fish samples, after replacing the conventional reference method of the laboratory with ASE. The ASE parameters tested were previously used for the extraction of fat and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) from fish samples: temperature: 120 ° C; static time: 5 min; number of cycles: 3; flushing volume: 25%; rinse with nitrogen: 90 s; solvent: cyclohexane/ethyl acetate (ratio 1:1). The ASE method provided similar and in some cases better results when compared to the standard reference method, more rapidly, eco-friendly and safer. Any high or low recoveries of the analytes taken into study are attributed to random or systematic errors during the Clean-up step of the extracts and the quantification with Gas Chromatography coupled with Tandem Mass-Spectrometry (GC MS/MS).

Fish meat consumption has gained a lot of popularity in Europe in the last years. It is considered to be a great alternative for red meat because it provides large amounts of Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D. These components lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, reduce the risk of autoimmune diseases, are essential for growth and development, can contribute to mood elevation and can prevent cognitive decline, and eye disease. Unfortunately the benefits can sometimes be accompanied by a risk associated with chemical and microbiological contaminants. The aim of this paper is to review some recently published studies concerning the groups of chemical compounds and bacteria found in fish meat, which can have negative effects on human health. In order to raise awareness, aspects related to dangerous persistent organic pollutants and zoonotic bacteria are described. The frequency of encountering them is discussed, the ways in which they can reach the human body are specified and a critical comparison of their consequences is performed.