Ranking of undesired substances in food by priority for monitoring using toxicological criteria (literature review)

A risk-based approach to the monitoring of undesired substances in food products assumes the number of tests conducted for a given contaminant to be proportional to its potential health hazard and to the frequency of detections above the maximum level. One variant of the risk-oriented approach involves the use of dedicated algorithms whose core element is the ranking of individual compounds or groups of substances by their priority for inclusion in monitoring. This ranking is performed by assigning scores based on the criteria mentioned above, as well as additional criteria, followed by calculating and comparing overall scores. The details of national monitoring systems are generally not publicly disclosed, and therefore only a few such algorithms are described in open access.

The article presents a comparative analysis of the algorithms developed by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Abbott Nutrition (USA), the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM), the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain of Belgium (AFSCA), as well as the algorithm developed by the Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality.

The reviewed algorithms cover residues of veterinary medicinal products and contaminants (both individual substances and contaminant groups) in raw materials, finished products, and food ingredients. Some algorithms assign scores based on a general “health hazard” criterion, while others rely on specific values such as the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and other health-based guidance values (HBGVs). Certain schemes additionally incorporate criteria related to population exposure to contaminants through food.

The main advantage of these algorithms lies in providing a clear scientific rationale for monitoring plans, whereas their drawbacks include the subjectivity of scoring and, in some cases, methodological complexity requiring the consideration of large volumes of data. The degree to which such algorithms have been practically implemented remains unknown; however, this approach undoubtedly serves the primary goal of national monitoring – protecting public health.

Contribution:
Makarov D.A. – search and analysis if the literature, writing of the manuscript, composing of the Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality algorithm. The author is responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: November 26, 2025 / Accepted: December 2, 2025 / Published: February 10, 2026

1. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 883 "On the organization and conduct of monitoring of quality, food safety and public health"; 2024. (in Russian)

2. Federal Law No. 29-FZ "On the Quality and Safety of Food Products"; 2000. (in Russian)

3. Donchenko L.V., Nadykta V.D. Food Product Safety [Bezopasnost’ pishchevoi produktsii]. Moscow: Yurait; 2025. (in Russian)

4. Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2010; L15: 1–72.

5. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2023; L119: 103.

6. Decision of the Commission of the Customs Union No. 880 of 9 December 2011 "On adoption of the Technical Regulation of the Customs Union “On food safety” (TR TS 021/2011 “Technical regulation of the Customs Union. On food safety”)]"; 2024. (in Russian)

7. SanPiN 1.2.3685–21. Hygienic standards and requirements for ensuring safety and/or harmlessness to humans of environmental factors; 2021. (in Russian)

8. Makarov D.A., Balagula T.V., Lavrukhina O.I., Shirkin L.A. Risk-based approach in food safety monitoring: algorithms for chemical pollutants ranking. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Ekologiya i bezopasnost’ zhiznedeyatel’nosti. 2022; 30(3): 393–406. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2310-2022-30-3-393-406 https://elibrary.ru/udpnhm (in Russian)

9. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2017; L95: 1–142.

10. Hanlon P., Hlywka J.J., Scimeca J.A. A risk-based strategy for controlling chemical contaminants as relevant hazards in food ingredients. Food Protection Trends. 2015; 35(2): 89–100.

11. Danaher M., Shanahan C., Butler A.M., Evans R., O’Sullivan D., Glynn D., et al. Risk-based approach to developing a national residue sampling plan for testing under European Union regulation for veterinary medicinal products and coccidiostat feed additives in domestic animal production. Food Addit. Contam. Part A. Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2016; 33(7): 1155–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2016.1190236

12. Hannon J., Le Jeune J., O’Reilly E., Cummins E., O’Keeffe M., Flynn A., et al. Risk Ranking Model for Chemical Contaminants in Food. Dublin: Food Safety Authority of Ireland; 2019.

13. United States National Residue Program – 2011 Scheduled Sampling Plans. Washington, DC: USDA FSIS; 2011: 18–45.

14. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Multicriteria-based Ranking Model for Risk Management of Animal Drug Residues in Milk and Milk Products. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2015.

15. Mathisen G.H., Alexander J., Fæste C.K., Husøy T., Knutsen H.K., Ørnsrud R., et al. A ranking method of chemical substances in foods for prioritisation of monitoring, based on health risk and knowledge gaps. Food Res. Int. 2020; 137: 109499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109499

16. Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. Risk-Based Controls & the MANCP: Approach of the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. Brussels: Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain; 2011. Available at: https://favv-afsca.be/sites/default/files/mancp/20111122_Risk_based_controls_BE_EN.pdf

17. Maudoux J.P., Saegerman C., Rettigner C., Houins G., Van Huffel X., Berkvens D. Food safety surveillance through a risk based control programme: approach employed by the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. Vet. Q. 2006; 28(4): 140–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2006.9695220

18. Makarov D.A., Prasolova O.V. Special algorithm for planning of the risk based monitoring in food of animal origin. Voprosy normativno-pravovogo regulirovaniya v veterinarii. 2020; (3): 175–8. https://elibrary.ru/fkhlmp (in Russian)

19. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (poultry). EFSA J. 2012; 10(6): 2741. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2741

20. Order of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being No. 16 "On implementation of guidelines “Classification of food products on the market by risk of harm to health and property losses of consumers"; 2016. (in Russian)

21. USDA. Residue Sampling Plan: Fiscal Year 2020 Blue Book. Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/node/1982