본 연구에서는 기존에 수행된 식품 중금속 모니터링 데이터를 이용하여 위해평가 및 모니터링을 수행할 때 요구되는 표본 수를 추정하고자 하였다. 중금속 3종 (카드뮴, 납 및 수은)과 17개의 식품을 대상으로 2,400개의 모니터링 데이터를 선정하여 연구에 활용하였다. 기존의 연구에서 수행된 모니터링 데이터의 표준편차와 오차범위 및 신뢰구간 값(95, 99% CI)을 활용하여 표본 수 추정공식에 따라 계산하였다. 표본 수 추정 공식에 따라 표본 크기를 추정한 결과, 95% 신뢰구간에서 카드뮴의 경우 계산된 표본의 크기는 최소 8개에서 최대 90개, 납의 경우 최소 7개에서 최대 1,062개, 수은의 경우 최소 11개에서 최대 238개로 각각 추정되었다. 식품 중 중금속 데이터의 표준편차와 오차범위가 표본 수를 추정하는데 가장 큰 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서는 모니터링 데이터의 특성을 반영하여 표본 크기를 추정하고자 하였으며, 이는 향후 위해평가 및 모니터링 수행 계획을 수립하기 위한 표본 수를 결정하는 기초연구로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

In this study, we configured a system which ranks hazardous chemicals to determine their management priorities based on experts' opinions and the existing CRS (chemical ranking and scoring). Aggregate exposure of food, health functional food, oriental/herbal medicine and cosmetics have been taken into account to determine management priority. In this study, 25 hazardous chemicals were selected, such as cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic, etc. These 25 materials were ranked according to their 1) risk (exposure or hazard) indexes, 2) exposure source-based weight, and 3) public interests, which were also formed based on the existing priority ranking system. Cadmium was scored the highest (178.5) and bisphenol A the lowest (56.8). Ten materials -- cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, tar, acrylamide, benzopyrene, aluminium, benzene, and PAHs -- scored higher than 100. Eight materials -- aflatoxin, manganese, phthalate, chromium, nitrate/nitrite, ethylcarbamate, formaldehyde, and copper -- recorded scores in the range from 70 to 100. Also evaluated as potential risks were 7 materials; sulfur dioxide, ochratoxin, dioxins, PCBs, fumonisin, methyl mercury, and bisphenol A, and these materials were scored above 50. Then we compared risk index and correlation coefficient of total scores to confirm the validity of the total scores; we analyzed correlation coefficient of parameter and indicator. We discovered that the total score and weight, which has incorporated public interests, were high and statistically significant. In conclusion, the result of this study contributes to strengthening risk assessment and risk management of hazardous chemicals.

Persistent accidents related to food safety and expanded international trades have urged the world to be aware of the gravity of the accidents. Accordingly many countries have tried to come up with various laws, regulations, measures, support networks and educational programs for the agenda, particularly focusing on harmonizing food safety technologies among nations and fostering professionals. Also, APEC newly organized Food Safety Cooperation Forum (FSCF) in 2007 to exert multi-dimensional efforts to improve food safety for Asia Pacific nations. Up to now, 35 activities have been promoted since 2007 and additional 20 activities are waiting for their turns for action on the list of APEC project agenda. FSCF has the objective that it helps the stakeholders in food supply chain develop their own competence in that area, thus increase international trade among nations and maintain the globe healthy by applying the highest standards and best practices for the management of food safety ranging from production to consumption. To achieve this strategic objective, APEC subsequently formed Partnership Training Institute Network (PTIN) to build up the multilateral networks of specialists from governmental agencies engaging in food safety management, industries, academia and international organizations in Asia-Pacific region. This attempt made it possible for the world to exchange their scientific and technological information concerning food safety and strengthen related education and training. Today, international cooperation is essential for food safety management. Therefore, we need to participate actively in the activities of APEC FSCF to contribute to improving food safety technologies for the member countries of APEC. We also need to connect the domestic support programs with theirs.