Stratification of violations of sanitary-epidemiological requirements as an instrument for developing the risk-based model for control activities (on the example of food providers)

UDC: 
614.3
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2026.3.01.eng
Authors: 

I.V. May1, N.V. Nikiforova1, V.G. Kostarev2, N.V. Zaitseva1

Organization: 

1Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, 82 Monastyrskaya St., Perm, 614045, Russian Federation
1Federal Service for Surveillance over Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing, Perm Regional Office, 50 Kuibysheva St., Perm, 614016, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

The development concept of public risk-based control includes assessment of violations of mandatory requirements considering severity of outcomes, that is, establishing how ‘critical’ these violations are as regards protected values.

The aim of this study was to propose and test the procedure for stratifying (differentiating) violations of mandatory sanitary-epidemiological requirements per risks of human health harm on the example of food providers.

We analyzed the results of 103 control activities conducted at food providers in one region and four epidemiological investigations of infection outbreaks in 2025. The analysis focused on results of laboratory tests of food products conducted in inspections (64 reports) and was aimed at checking their conformity with hygienic requirements. We identified probable outcomes for consumers’ health considering the results of epidemiological investigations as well.

An algorithm is proposed for stratification of violations. It includes determining likelihood of violation of some specific requirements based on analyzing the inspection records, likelihood of unsafe food products in turnover due to failure to comply with requirements to activities performed by a food provider and severity of health outcomes caused by these unsafe food products for consumers of food provider services.

Additionally, we assessed the relationship between violations of requirements to activities and occurrence of unsafe foods in turnover per the relative risk (RR) criterion.

Violations were stratified considering established risk levels. RR values for consumers (RR > 1, CI > 1.0) were taken as an additional criterion. Another additional criterion was the absolute risk of violations of requirements to food product safety in case requirements to food provider activities were violated (RFe).

Overall, 33 items of mandatory requirements were found to be violated according to the inspection results. Seven out of them were assigned into the ‘high risk’ category including violations associated with counter flows of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods (RR = 3.3; CI: 1.1–10.4); insects or other pests found inside food providers’ premises (RR = 5.1; CI: 1.8–14); non-conformity with safe procedures for doing the dishes (RR = 7.0; CI: 3.8–12.8) etc.

Our suggestion is to differentiate ‘high-risk, ‘alerting’, and ‘low-risk’ violations. Comparison of ‘high-risk’ violations in restaurants/cafes and fast food outlets showed that ‘high-risk’ violations were different for different types of food providers.
The study is limited by the research object, which includes the results obtained by inspections at objects under surveillance only in one region and only over one year.

Marking violations of mandatory requirements, which are the most closely connected to failure to conform to safety of finished food products per the health risk criterion, as critical ones seems a convenient and available instrument for developing public risk-based control.

Stratification of sanitary-epidemiological requirements involving identification of violations with the most critical outcomes for protected values can be interesting and significant for surveillance authorities as an instrument for making control activities more targeted and effective given a limited amount of time assigned for an inspection. Identification of critical violations for economic entities is important for optimizing prevention programs, mitigating risks of violations, and improving the image of socially responsible businesses.

Keywords: 
risk-based control (surveillance), mandatory requirements, relative risk, critical violations, food providers, safety, food products
May I.V., Nikiforova N.V., Kostarev V.G., Zaitseva N.V. Stratification of violations of sanitary-epidemiological require-ments as an instrument for developing the risk-based model for control activities (on the example of food providers). Health Risk Analysis, 2026, no. 3, pp. 4–16. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2026.3.01.eng
References: 
  1. Chaplinsky A.V., Plaksin S.M. Risk Management in the State Control in Russia. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsi-pal'nogo upravleniya, 2016, no. 2, pp. 7–29 (in Russian).
  2. Kiryanov D.A., Kamaltdinov M.R., Tsinker M.Yu., Chigvintsev V.М., Babina S.V. The algorithms for drawing up annual plans of inspections performed by Rospotrebnadzor’s regional organizations within the framework of risk-based model. Health Risk Analysis, 2022, no. 2, pp. 17–27. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2022.2.02.eng
  3. Titor S.E. Alternative forms of control in the field of education and their use in a risk-oriented model. Vestnik ekonomicheskoi bezopasnosti, 2021, no. 5, pp. 230–236. DOI: 10.24412/2414-3995-2021-5-230-236 (in Russian).
  4. Kirichenko I.A. Directions for improving the risk-based approach in managing national projects. Ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost', 2022, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1451–1464. DOI: 10.18334/ecsec.5.4.115024 (in Russian).
  5. Say A.R., Maer O.M., Emelina V.A. Development of a system of risk indicators. Nadzornaya deyatel'nost' i sudebna-ya ekspertiza v sisteme bezopasnosti, 2025, no. 3, pp. 13–18. DOI: 10.61260/2304-0130-2025-3-13-18 (in Russian).
  6. Zaitseva N.V., Zemlyanova M.A., Koldibekova J.V. The potential for increasing the reliability of hygienic assessments based on a comparative analysis of risk and harm to health under the influence of environmental factors. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2024, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 396–406. DOI: 10.47470/0016-9900-2024-103-5-396-406 (in Russian).
  7. Mayorov V.I. Transformation of the mandatory requirements in the field of road safety under control and supervision reform. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo, 2020, no. 4 (43), pp. 147–155. DOI: 10.17308/vsu.proc.law.2020.4/3163 (in Russian).
  8. Alimpeev D.R. On the Legal Significance of Entries in State Registers of Control and Supervisory Activities. Adminis-trative and municipal law, 2026, no. 1, pp. 35–56. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2026.1.75956
  9. Shur P.Z., Redko S.V., Lir D.N., Fokin V.A., Tsinker M.Yu. Assessment of risk of health from violations of mandatory sanitary and epidemiological requirements in the provision of medical services based on the results of the control and supervision activities of the Federal Service for Supervision in Protection of the Rights of Consumer and Man Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor). Zdravookhranenie Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2024, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 472–479. DOI: 10.47470/0044-197X-2024-68-6-472-479 (in Russian).
  10. Kozubskaya V.I., Mazhaeva T.V., Sinitsyna S.V., Sheluntsova N.G., Panov V.G. Regulatory Noncompliance Posing Threat of Retailing Nonconforming Food Products. ZNiSO, 2022, no. 9, pp. 49–58. DOI: 10.35627/2219-5238/2022-30-9-49-58 (in Russian).
  11. Sinitsyna S.V., Kozubskaya V.I., Mazhaeva T.V., Sheluntsova N.G. Assessment of the relevance of requirements of the current sanitary legislation for food retailing. ZNiSO, 2020, no. 9, pp. 32–37. DOI: 10.35627/2219-5238/2020-330-9-32-37 (in Russian).
  12. Adamov D.S., Zenkova I.F., Shchegoleva N.O., Semenova O.S. Performance of unscheduled inspections when risk indicators of violation of mandatory requirements are identified. Aktual'nye voprosy pozharnoi bezopasnosti, 2023, no. 4 (18), pp. 64–67. DOI: 10.37657/vniipo.avpb.2023.78.47.006 (in Russian).
  13. Orekhov D.A., Vinokhodova M.V., Aliev A.A., Pomerantsev D.A., Zakhodnova D.V., Shershneva I.I. Risk indicators in the implementation of state veterinary control (supervision). Voprosy normativno-pravovogo regulirovaniya v veterinarii, 2021, no. 2, pp. 19–24. DOI: 10.17238/issn2072-6023.2021.2.19 (in Russian).
  14. Reynolds J. Review of Food Safety Violations: Urban School Food service. Food Protection Trends, 2022, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 439–448. DOI: 10.4315/FPT-22-008
  15. Phillips M.L., Elledge B.L., Basara H.G., Lynch R.A., Boatright D.T. Recurrent Critical Violations of the Food Code in Retail Food Service Establishments. J. Environ. Health, 2006, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 24–30.
  16. Menachemi N., Yeager V.A., Taylor D.M., Braden B., McClure L.A., Ouimet C. Characteristics of Restaurants Asso-ciated with Critical Food Safety Violations. Food Protection Trends, 2012, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 22–29.
  17. Lunden J., Kosola M., Kiuru J., Kaskela J., Inkinen T. Disclosed restaurant inspection results on food safety show re-gional and local differences in Finland. Food Control, 2021, vol. 119, pp. 107462. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107462
  18. Rotich D.J. Food Safety Risk Factors in Selected Outside Catering Enterprises in Nairobi, Kenya. Kabarak Journal of Research and Innovation, 2017, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 102–117. DOI: 10.58216/kjri.v5i1.50
  19. Moritz E.D., Ebrahim-Zadeh S.D., Wittry B., Holst M.M., Daise B., Zern A., Taylor T., Kramer A., Brown L.G. Foodborne illness outbreaks at retail Food establishments – National Environmental Assessment Reporting System, 25 state and local health departments, 2017–2019. MMWR Surveill. Summ., 2023, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7206a1
  20. Lee J.-E., Nelson D.C., Almanza B.A. Health inspection reports as predictors of specific training needs. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2012, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 522–528. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.010
  21. Ock M., Park B., Park H., Oh I.-H., Yoon S.-J., Cho B., Jo M.-W. Disability Weights Measurement for 289 Causes of Disease Considering Disease Severity in Korea. J. Korean Med. Sci., 2019, vol. 34, suppl. 1, pp. e60. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e60
  22. Dolan P., Olsen J.A., Menzel P., Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when elicit-ing preferences in health. Health Econ., 2003, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 545–551. DOI: 10.1002/hec.760
Received: 
28.07.2026
Approved: 
05.09.2026
Accepted for publication: 
28.09.2026

You are here

Home