Table 1.

Identification of priority emerging issues

Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats
Identification of priority emerging issues
Issue‐based search Capacity to identify issues related to the re‐emergence of known risks and new contexts/areas Strong network capacity with broad expertise and good contacts with scientific networks	Limited capacity for carrying out exploratory scans (i.e. open searches). Limited use of system (food supply chain)‐based approaches. No framework in place for using big data in the ERI process. Bias due to poor representation of certain stakeholder groups (e.g. citizen science) Lack of use of social sciences analytical approaches, such as the use of indicators derived from economic and behavioural sources Lack of close collaboration between the various institutions responsible for food and feed safety Media monitoring and other automatic text mining tools are often not specific or not sensitive enough (i.e. more effective when hazard driven)	A system‐based approach for ERI taking into account actors’ behaviours; resilience thinking and different time horizons (i.e. short‐, medium‐ and long term) Develop protocols for scanning information sources Improve the identification of drivers and trends by understanding different signals, e.g. weak signals, issues at different time frames Improve the horizon scanning capacity through collaboration with wider audiences than the EFSA ER Networks (whole staff, panels, SC and through higher levels of international cooperation) Improve the use of Big data for emerging issues identification Improve the text and data mining capacity by strengthening a world‐wide cooperation with Agencies and Institutions already active in this sector Explore the potential of citizen science capacity for ERI	Increasing complexity of food/feed supply chains There is uncertainty inherent in emerging issues/risks, which reduced the level of confidence in outcomes, impacts, and associated probabilities Engaging with complex food systems, severe data gaps, and great uncertainties may take (risk) experts outside their comfort zone
Prioritisation of emerging issues
Defined set of criteria Iterative process with various stakeholders	Prioritisation is based on expert knowledge which is sensitive to bias The high level of uncertainty makes probability estimates for the various criteria difficult No responsibility/accountability for the prioritisation and follow‐up is defined The prioritisation is based on objective risk criteria but ignores human perceptions and or acceptance of risk Lack of regulatory compliance is a characterisation criteria which may lead to the exclusion of relevant drivers and trends	Develop a characterisation process for emerging issues using existing frameworks (e.g. DPSRI) Characterisation helps frame issues in such a way that the data source of the potential threat can be more objectively examined and selected Possible levels for each criteria can be defined along with criteria weights and a transparent scoring systems adopted for prioritisation purposes and MCDA tools developed Develop a prioritised list of issues as an initial output from ERI as a mean to raise awareness of EFSA target audience, especially with regard to pre‐emptive responses Issue characterisation offers a rationale for focussing on those issues presenting an emerging food and feed safety risk Effective priority setting in multilateral, international cooperation	Not identifying the big issues No transparency regarding how the evaluation criteria are applied throughout the ERI procedure, resulting in a loss of trust in the ERI procedure Insufficient criteria to prioritise issues ‘prevent assessors and managers from preparing for future risk challenges Lack of support by its stakeholders for EFSA ERI Unjustified scare caused by issues identified (overestimation of risks)