# Using Risk–Benefit Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process to Decide on the Implementation of Rapid Salmonella Detection Methods in Large Poultry Industries

## TL;DR

This paper uses risk-benefit analysis and the analytical hierarchy process to evaluate rapid Salmonella detection methods in large poultry industries.

## Contribution

The study combines RBA and AHP to provide a structured decision-making framework for adopting or changing rapid Salmonella detection methods.

## Key findings

- Rapid assays are recommended for large poultry companies due to high benefits despite varying costs.
- Changing one rapid method for another offers minimal benefit as existing methods are similar.
- Key criteria for method selection include supply capacity, technical support, and time to results.

## Abstract

Tools based on multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can be used in decision‐making processes related to food safety issues (FSI). We used risk–benefit analysis (RBA) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to answer the following questions: What are the benefits and risks of using rapid Salmonella assays in large‐scale poultry industries? What are the benefits and risks of changing one implemented rapid method by another? In the RBA, we described the FSI, ranked Salmonella risk, and analyzed the benefits and costs of assays by considering seven criteria: supply capacity, international validation, cost of equipment, ease to perform, technical support, cost per sample, and time to obtain results. AHP, a mathematical framework based on pairwise comparisons, was used to confirm RBA findings. As a result, the RBA recommended the use of rapid assays in large poultry companies because they provide high benefits at low to high costs. However, the RBA was unable to identify the benefits of changing one implemented method by another because well‐known methods present similar characteristics, and the decision should be based on the best business proposals. The AHP analysis confirmed that faster assays bring higher benefits and could be companies’ choice, even costing more, but they have to attend to the main characteristics of well‐known assays, including equipment on loan. The main criteria for choosing rapid methods were prioritized as supply capacity, technical support, time to obtain results, and international validations. RBA and AHP reached equal conclusions; however, RBA was simpler to apply, whereas AHP enabled quantitative analysis.