Replication and enhanced analysis of the FDA-iRISK comparative risk assessment model: A computational case study in R software

Kshitij Shrestha, Rojeena Shrestha

Department of Food Technology and Quality Control, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal

Highlights

• FDA-iRISK model successfully replicated in R, validating its computational engine.

• R-based estimates closely aligned with original Salmonella DALY results.

• Contamination reduction and improved cooling lowered risk by 93% and 99.9%.

• Uncertainty analysis revealed 7-fold variation in Listeria risk estimates.

• Open-source R framework offers flexible, reproducible food safety assessment.

 Abstract

This study successfully replicated the FDA-iRISK comparative food safety risk assessment model described by Chen et al. (2013) within the R software environment, validating its core computational engine for case studies on Salmonella in peanut butter and Listeria monocytogenes in soft cheese and cantaloupe. Our R-based model, which leverages Monte Carlo simulation, produced results strongly aligned with the original publication; for instance, it estimated 63.05 annual Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) for Salmonella, compared to the published 63.5 in the original manuscript. The model quantified the profound effectiveness of interventions, demonstrating a 93% risk reduction from a 2-log decrease in initial contamination and a 99.9% reduction from improved refrigeration control. Furthermore, we extended the model's utility through enhanced visualizations and a dedicated uncertainty analysis. This analysis revealed a 7-fold variation in risk estimates for Listeria, providing deeper insights into risk variability, intervention impacts, and the critical influence of parameter uncertainty. The outcome of this work is a transparent and flexible platform for robust food safety decision-making.

The Article was published in the following Journal

Food Control

Volume 192, February 2027, 112513

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2026.112513

 

Full Article is available in the link below:

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1nZkY_LmCu-AVk

Proposed Regulatory Framework for Aloe Vera Beverages and Food Supplements

-Kshitij Shrestha, SFRO, DFTQC

Abstract

The safety of Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. preparations in food and beverages remains scientifically contentious due to hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HADs), including aloin A, aloin B, aloe-emodin, emodin, and chrysophanol. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in 2018 that HADs should be considered genotoxic and carcinogenic unless specific data to the contrary exist, and was unable to establish a tolerable daily intake (Younes et al., 2018). In November 2024, the General Court of the European Union annulled Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468, which had prohibited Aloe species preparations containing HADs (General Court of the European Union, 2024). Critically, however, the European Commission appealed this judgment in January 2025, and the case remains pending before the Court of Justice (European Commission, 2025). This manuscript provides a comprehensive technical analysis of the chemistry, toxicology, exposure assessment, and risk characterization for both Aloe vera juice products and food supplements. Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modeling-facilitated quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) has yielded predicted BMDL₁₀ values for aloe-emodin, enabling Margin of Exposure (MOE)-based risk characterization (Ren et al., 2024). Cancer risk estimates for non-decolorized whole-leaf extracts range from 7.4×10⁻⁴ (1 mg/kg-day) to 4.7×10⁻² (63.8 mg/kg-day) (Boudreau et al., 2013; National Toxicology Program, 2013). Purified preparations with HAD content below 10 ppm show no genotoxicity in validated test systems, with a NOAEL exceeding 1,845 mg/kg bw/day (Shao et al., 2013). A 2024 LC-MS/MS study of commercial Aloe vera beverages found considerable variability in aloin concentrations, yet the tested products did not show mutagenicity in the reported Ames experiments (Di Minno et al., 2024). We propose a risk-based regulatory framework incorporating product-specific HAD quantification, refined exposure assessment, and a tiered permissible limit system based on consumption patterns, while acknowledging that the European regulatory landscape remains in flux pending the outcome of the pending appeal.

Keywords: Aloe vera, hydroxyanthracene derivatives, genotoxicity, benchmark dose, margin of exposure, physiologically based kinetic modeling, risk assessment, food regulation

1. Introduction

Aloe vera (Aloe barbadensis Miller), a member of the Asphodelaceae family, has been utilized for centuries in traditional medicine systems and has gained considerable popularity in contemporary food supplements and beverages (Jangra et al., 2022). The global market for Aloe products in foods and cosmetics is currently valued at approximately US$ 1.6 billion, which is estimated to double by 2026 (Baldi et al., 2021). The plant is marketed for purported digestive health, immunomodulatory, and antioxidant benefits. However, the safety of oral consumption has been a persistent regulatory concern due to the presence of naturally occurring hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HADs), particularly aloin (a mixture of aloin A and B), aloe-emodin, emodin, and chrysophanol (Younes et al., 2018).

Shilajit in Energy Drinks: A Critical Review of Health Risks, Regulatory Challenges, and Safety Considerations

Abstract

Shilajit, a phyto-mineral resin traditionally used in Ayurvedic medicine, has recently gained commercial prominence as an ingredient in dietary supplements and energy drinks. Despite its historical use, the incorporation of Shilajit into products intended for regular consumption raises substantial public health concerns. This review critically examines the scientific evidence regarding Shilajit's safety profile, with particular emphasis on documented heavy metal contamination, adverse clinical events, the efficacy evidence gap, and the fragmented international regulatory landscape. Analytical studies have detected thallium concentrations up to 0.5 µg/g in commercial supplements—exceeding levels found in crude Shilajit—while other toxic metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury have been consistently identified (Kamgar et al., 2025). Regulatory actions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Philippine FDA, and Health Canada underscore persistent safety concerns regarding unapproved therapeutic claims, manufacturing violations, and unregistered products. The paucity of robust clinical evidence supporting purported energy-enhancing effects, combined with documented cases of adverse reactions including anaphylaxis, necessitates stringent quality control, standardized testing protocols, and regulatory harmonization. This review concludes that regular consumption of Shilajit-containing energy drinks cannot be recommended based on current evidence. Recommendations are provided for regulatory authorities to develop evidence-based frameworks ensuring consumer safety.

Keywords: Shilajit, thallium, heavy metals, dietary supplements, energy drinks, anaphylaxis

Risk assessment of Aflatoxin B1 from the consumption of different foods in South East Asia region (A case study based on Bangladesh food consumption data)

- Dr. Kshitij Shrestha, SFRO, DFTQC

Risk Assessment of Aflatoxins from JECFA

The report of sixty-eighth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) on Aflatoxins is given below. It discusses about the impact of different hypothetical limits for almonds, brazil nuts, hazelnuts, pistachios and dried figs.

EFSA Risk Assessment of Aflatoxins in food

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) has recently published the report on "Risk Assessment of Aflatoxins in Food". The abstract and summary of the report is given below: 

Abstract

EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of aflatoxins in food. The risk assessment was confined to aflatoxin B1 (AFB 1), AFB 2, AFG 1, AFG 2 and AFM 1. More than 200,000 analytical results on the occurrence of aflatoxins were used in the evaluation. Grains and grain‐based products made the largest contribution to the mean chronic dietary exposure to AFB 1 in all age classes, while ‘liquid milk’ and ‘fermented milk products’ were the main contributors to the AFM 1 mean exposure. Aflatoxins are genotoxic and AFB 1 can cause hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC s) in humans. The CONTAM Panel selected a benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL ) for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.4 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of HCC in male rats following AFB 1 exposure to be used in a margin of exposure (MOE ) approach. The calculation of a BMDL from the human data was not appropriate; instead, the cancer potencies estimated by the Joint FAO /WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in 2016 were used. For AFM 1, a potency factor of 0.1 relative to AFB 1 was used. For AFG 1, AFB 2 and AFG 2, the in vivo data are not sufficient to derive potency factors and equal potency to AFB 1 was assumed as in previous assessments. MOE values for AFB 1 exposure ranged from 5,000 to 29 and for AFM 1 from 100,000 to 508. The calculated MOE s are below 10,000 for AFB 1 and also for AFM 1 where some surveys, particularly for the younger age groups, have an MOE below 10,000. This raises a health concern. The estimated cancer risks in humans following exposure to AFB 1 and AFM 1 are in‐line with the conclusion drawn from the MOE s. The conclusions also apply to the combined exposure to all five aflatoxins.

Improving nutrition and immunity with dry chain and integrated pest management food technologies in LMICs

Comparison of Aflatoxin B1 contamination in different categories of food products

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is a toxin produced by mold (Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus) in the food products. It is one of the most potent carcinogen. Based on WHO/FAO data, the distribution of Aflatoxin B1 in different category of food products is shown in the figure below. 

The major categories of food products likely to have AFB1 contamination are: (1) Nuts and Oilseeds; (2) Herbs, spices and condiments; and (3) Cereals and cereal-based products.

1. Nuts and Oilseeds: AFB1 is generally found to be contaminated in hazelnut, pistachio nut, almond and peanut. The probability distribution of concentration of  AFB1  (mcg/kg) in these nuts are shown in the figure below. 

Nepal Burden of Disease 2017

I have just found the "Nepal Burden of Disease 2017" study report. One of the graph presented in the report is shown below. The graph shows that "low whole grains", "low fruits", "low nuts and seed" each contributes around 5% of the total death. What's your opinion on the report?

The Executive Summary from the report is as follows:

"The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is a systematic effort to quantify the comparative magnitude of health loss due to diseases, injuries, and risk factors by age, sex, and geographies for specific points in time. It provides a comprehensive picture of total health loss due to diseases, injuries, and death. IHME has recently produced GBD 2017 estimates, which highlight Nepal’s health performance in terms of mortality, morbidity, and overall disease burden. These have been extracted to produce this Nepal Burden of Disease (NBoD) Study 2017 Report.

The GBD, and thus the NBoD (Nepal Burden of Disease) Study 2017, measures overall mortality, causes of mortality, causes of morbidity, and risk factors. Overall mortality is expressed in the form of number of deaths due to diseases and injuries and their rates per 100,000 populations. Causes of mortality are captured through years of life lost (YLLs), which give years of life lost due to premature death from a disease or injury. Years lived with disability (YLDs) measure causes of morbidity; they are used to indicate the number of years lived with disability due to a nonfatal disease or injury. YLLs and YLDs together give the overall burden of disease or injury. It is expressed in the form of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Results described in the NBoD 2017 report reveal that females are expected to live longer (73.3 years) than males (68.7 years). Life expectancy increased from 59 to 73 years for females, and 58 to 69 years for males, between 1990 and 2017. However, not all these additional years gained will be healthy ones. Females are expected to live 62 years of healthy life, while males will live 60 years of healthy life. This discrepancy between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy is due to years of healthy life lost as a result of ill health and disability.

A total of 182,751 deaths are estimated in Nepal for the year 2017. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of death – two thirds (66%) of deaths are due to NCDs, with an additional 9% due to injuries. The remaining 25% are due to communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases. Ischemic heart disease (16.4% of total deaths), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (9.8% of total deaths), diarrheal diseases (5.6% of total deaths), lower respiratory infections (5.1% of total deaths), and intracerebral hemorrhage (3.8% of total deaths), were the top five causes of death in 2017. The rise of NCDs is partly due to the changing age structure and lifestyle changes such as increasing sedentary behavior, tobacco use, changes in eating habits, and harmful use of alcohol. Similarly, out of the total (5,850,044) YLLs due to premature death (people dying earlier than their potential life expectancy), 49% are due to NCDs, 39% due to CMNN diseases and the remaining 12% due to injuries. The top five causes (all ages both sexes) of YLLs are ischemic heart disease (11.3% of total YLLs), lower respiratory infections (7.9% of total YLLs), neonatal encephalopathy (5.7% of total YLLs), COPD (5.5% of total YLLs), and diarrheal diseases (4.5% of total YLLs). The leading causes of morbidity (YLDs) are low back pain, migraine, COPD, and other musculoskeletal disorders. Approximately 59% of disease burden (including premature death and disability -DALYs) in 2017 is due to NCDs, 31% due to CMNN diseases, and 10% due to injuries. Ischemic heart disease (7.6% of DALYs), COPD (5.4% of DALYs), and lower respiratory infections (5.2% of DALYs) are the top three disease conditions causing most of the disease burden in 2017. The findings further reveal that short gestation for birth weight (7.5% of total DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (6.7% of total DALYs), smoking (6.5% of total DALYs), high blood glucose level (5.5% of total DALYs), and low birth weight for gestation (4.7% of total DALYs) are the top five risk factors driving death and disability in Nepal. From the results presented in the NBoD 2017 report, NCDs are increasingly becoming a major public health issue. Notably, ischemic heart disease and COPD are top causes contributing significantly to the burden of disease (BoD). Maternal and child health outcomes are improving but should not be neglected as there is still much progress to be made. Notable risk factors are metabolic risk factors, ambient and household air pollution, and finally, behavioural risk factors such as smoking. The national BoD profile in 2017 looks vastly different from 1990, or even 2007: these changes must be reviewed and addressed, and Nepal’s health policy priorities, strategies, and resource allocations must adapt accordingly."

Detailed Report is shown below:

WHO International Health Regulations Capacity Assessment

PDF Document "WHO BENCHMARKS for International Health Regulations (IHR) Capacities".

Please note that the chapter 5 of this document is specifically related to "Food Safety". Other chapters such as Antimicrobial resistance, Zoonotic disease, WASH, Public health etc are also directly or indirectly linked with food safety.  It shows the importance of food safety in the health sector. Food Safety is a shared responsibility. Government of Nepal and Ministry of Health and Population has got attention on the "National Food Control System" of Nepal. Let's hope that we can use this opportunity (or may be challenge?) for the betterment of all the Food Safety Professionals.

Does anybody have the evaluation report based on this benchmark? Where do we stand in this benchmark? It could be interesting to read and discuss further.

WHO SEARO Framework for action on Food Safety

The South-East Asia is home to one quarter of the world’s population. According to WHO statistics, “the burden of foodborne diseases in the region is the second highest among all WHO regions, accounting for 150 million illnesses, 175 000 deaths, and 12 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2010”. The comparison of global burden of foodborne disease by enteric hazards on different WHO regions is shown in figure.

 (WHO, 2015)

To fight with such challenges, WHO South-East Asia Regional Office has recently published a framework for action on food safety for this region. The framework has identified 7 important components of national food control system. The following strategic actions have been proposed under different components as described below:

"Component 1: Policy and legal framework

Strategic actions:
1. Develop, review and regularly update food safety policies, legislations and standards to include all requirements of a risk-based food control system, to address current emerging
issues, and to harmonize food legislations across various competent authorities in line with international requirements such as Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Trade Organization the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Sanitary and Phytosanitary (WTO SPS) agreement and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) measures, where applicable.
2. Disseminate food safety policies, regulations and standards through various means, including online tools such as official websites.

Component 2: Control management

Strategic actions:
Facilitate cross-sectoral coordination, integration of food control services and synergy in actions at the national and sub-national levels to achieve common food safety goals.

Component 3: Risk-based food inspection

Strategic actions:
1. Develop and implement risk-based inspection across the food chain.
2. Allocate adequate resources for inspection including appropriate inspection tools and sampling plans.
3. Establish a monitoring programme for specific contaminants and residues.
4. Develop guidance documents and tools for food business operators (FBOs) to develop food safety management systems such as good hygienic practices (GHP), good manufacturing practices (GMP), hazards analysis and critical control points (HACCP), traceability, recall, labelling, and food fraud vulnerability assessment and mitigation plan, and encourage them to conduct self-audit programmes.

Component 4: Data and information to support evidence-based control measures

Strategic actions:
1. Establish a national integrated data management system (data collection, central database, quality monitoring), conduct structured and timely data analysis for risk assessment, set standards, prioritize and participate in regional and international data sharing, e.g. Codex, global environment monitoring system (GEMS-food database).
2. Encourage utilization of information for evidence-based policy advocacy and decision making.
3. Collect and share data on FBD outbreaks through national disease surveillance systems (EBS and IBS).
4. Develop platforms for collaboration with academicians and researchers in conducting scientific studies to support risk assessment on food safety, conduct specific research to test hypotheses generated from FBD surveillance, and provide and sustain continued education for professional development of food safety officials.

Component 5: Data and information to support evidence-based control measures

Strategic actions:
1. Establish or have access to adequate laboratory services, including reference laboratories and satellite/mobile laboratory units equipped with reliable rapid test kits for on-thespot testing.
2. Develop and implement a laboratory network at the national and sub-national levels, collaborate with regional reference laboratories to improve efficiency and cost– effectiveness.
3. Develop and implement a sample management system.
4. Ensure that internal and external quality control/assurance systems (proficiency testing) for food testing are in place, including accreditation, where necessary.

Component 6: Preparedness and response to food safety emergencies

Strategic actions:
1. Develop, update and test cross-sectoral preparedness and response plans for food safety emergencies in line with the One Health approach and integrated with the NAPHS.
2. Use the INFOSAN community website/network to communicate on food safety incidents or emergencies and participate in identification/traceability/recall of implicated products.
3. Build or strengthen capacity to conduct investigation on FBD outbreaks and food safety events using the One Health approach.

Component 7: Food safety communications and education

Strategic actions:
1. Develop education and capacity-building programmes on food safety for professionals through various means, including online training.
2. Establish guidance documents for FBOs to manage food safety risks in line with national requirements.
3. Identify training needs and provide assistance/encouragement to FBOs to deliver continuous education and communication on food safety for all personnel involved in the food chain.
4. Provide food safety awareness and training for food handlers/street food vendors/ small-medium enterprises (SMEs) to improve hygiene and food safety practices.
5. Develop and implement consumer awareness programmes promoting food hygiene practices, food labelling, healthy diets, food allergy prevention, including the “Five keys for safer food” through various means such as online communication channels
(e.g. official websites and social media) as per country context and needs of the target population.
6. Review and update available food safety information regularly.
7. Design and provide tailored and specific food safety information targeting vulnerable populations (infants, pregnant and lactating mothers, the elderly and immunocompromised).
8. Develop appropriate mechanisms to monitor public concerns and social media information on food safety and response.
9. Develop media and FBO sensitization programmes on food safety.
10. Encourage incorporation of food safety-related lessons and activities in school. "

The strategic actions proposed by WHO could be a good reference for upgrading the food control system of Nepal. Moreover, government of Nepal has recently approved “national food safety policy 2076”. However, the level of advocacy of the document is almost absent. I had difficulty finding the correct document last week. It was very strange but a bitter truth. We were confused even in the name of the document. It shows the level of importance that we have given to it. It was difficult finding the document even in the website of DFTQC. Thankfully, it was available in the website of SPS enquiry point. It shows the level of importance we have given to the national food safety policy. Does it mean that the document was prepared only as a showpiece and not for implementation? If it was not necessary, why did we use so much resources and effort to formulate it?

There was a time when we used to blame “lack of food safety policy” for all our weakness and incapability. We don’t have that excuse anymore. This document now exists, but probably sleeping inside our showcase or drawer. I would like to request all the food safety professionals to read it once, because it is our bible/geeta (whatever you like to say). We should wake this document up and implement it, if we really want to upgrade the food control system of Nepal.

Hope, our seniors have something to say about it. Waiting for your feedback.

Click here to read National food safety policy 2076.

References:

Framework for Action on Food Safety in the WHO South-East Asia Region. New Delhi: World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: foodborne disease burden epidemiology reference group 2007-2015

National Food Safety Policy 2076

Please find the "National Food Safety Policy, 2076" .

Microbial Risk Assessment: Salmonella in Chicken

This is a reconstruction of paper from Oscar 2004. He used @Risk software to carry out the risk assessment. I am reconstructing his paper using R- software taking the same model input values. So for details, please refer to the paper of Oscar 2004. The following are the important model parameters described in that paper.

Model design

The following 5 nodes were considered during model development.

Node 1- Retail

"The incidence of Salmonella contamination of whole chickens ranged from 0% to 100% with a median value of 30%. The MPN of Salmonella on contaminated whole chickens is low, often below 10 MPN, whereas the maximum MPN per chicken ranges from >300 to >1100. A minimum value of 1 MPN (by definition, the minimum level of contamination that is possible), a median value of 10 MPN, and a maximum value of 450 MPN per chicken were used to define the input settings for the PERT distribution for the extent of Salmonella contamination of ready-to-cook whole chickens at retail."

Microbial Risk Assessment: Salmonella in Peanut butter: graphs

Have you already read the first part titled:

Microbial Risk Assessment: A case study of salmonella in peanut butter

If you have not read that part, first you should read that part before looking at these graphs. This is graphical output of that microbial risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation.

Microbial Risk Assessment: Salmonella in Peanut butter

Do you know the case of salmonella outbreak from peanut butter in America?

Background:

In 2008/2009, 9 people died and at least 714 people (half of them children) fell ill, all from food poisoning after eating products containing salmonella contaminated peanuts. It triggered the most extensive food recall in US involving 46 states, more than 360 companies, and more than 3,900 different products manufactured using Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) ingredients. In September 2015, Stewart Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for his role in the nationwide outbreak.( for details check Wikipedia)

Microbial Risk Assessment

Let’s carry out microbial risk assessment of salmonella from peanut butter. The assumption of this case study is taken from the paper of Chen 2013.

The salmonella is not very common in peanut. Based on the historical data, the initial prevalence of salmonella in peanut during manufacturing is estimated to be 5.5 x 10^-6 (i.e. 55 units out of 10⁷ units could be contaminated with salmonella).

COVID-19 & Food Safety Guidance

There is now an urgent requirement for the industry to ensure compliance with measures to protect food workers from contracting COVID-19, to prevent exposure to or transmission of the virus, and to strengthen food hygiene and sanitation practices.

The following WHO guideline is to highlight these additional measures so that the integrity of the food chain is maintained, and that adequate and safe food supplies are available for consumers.

Download Food Safety Guideline for Food Business

Food Industry Guideline for Reducing Workforce Impacts related to COVID-19

Food businesses are encouraged to consider what contingencies can be put in place to reduce workforce impacts caused by COVID-19. The following resource can assist food businesses:

Guideline for Reducing Workforce Impacts related to COVID-19

Food safety issues related to wildlife have not been taken seriously from SARS to COVID-19

Guangyue Weim, Xidian University, 266 Xinglong Section of Xifeng Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710126, China

Abstract

17 years after the outbreak of SARS, the 2019-nCoV broke out in December 2019. It’s an unprecedented huge challenge and disaster for people all over the world. According to Web of Science database, The author found that 95,724 virology papers have been published in the past 17 years, 68,632 of which are supported by fund (71.7%). Meanwhile, 50,567 papers related to food safety have been published in the past 17 years, 28,165 of which are supported by fund (55.7%%). It seems that people’s safety and global stability are greatly guaranteed. However, whether SARS or 2019-nCoV, scientists were targeting wildlife, the author found that only 515 studies on food safety related to wildlife have been published worldwide in the past 17 years. After SARS, the whole world did not pay enough attention to food safety related to wildlife. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109605

Food Safety and COVID-19

Coronaviruses are generally thought to be spread from person-to-person through respiratory droplets. Currently there is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with food. Before preparing or eating food, it is important to always wash your hands with soap and water for 20 seconds for general food safety. Throughout the day, wash your hands after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing, or going to the bathroom.

It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.

In general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from food products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient, refrigerated, or frozen temperatures.

You should always handle and prepare food safely, including keeping raw meat separate from other foods, refrigerating perishable foods, and cooking meat to the right temperature to kill harmful germs. See CDC’s Food Safety site for more information. 

https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/newsletter/food-safety-and-Coronavirus.html