IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0162635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation and Implementation of Improvement Actions in Butcher Shops

Author

Listed:
  • Gerardo A Leotta
  • Victoria Brusa
  • Lucía Galli
  • Cristian Adriani
  • Luciano Linares
  • Analía Etcheverría
  • Marcelo Sanz
  • Adriana Sucari
  • Pilar Peral García
  • Marcelo Signorini

Abstract

Foodborne pathogens can cause acute and chronic diseases and produce a wide range of symptoms. Since the consumption of ground beef is a risk factor for infections with some bacterial pathogens, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of butcher shops, implemented improvement actions for both butcher shops and consumers, and verified the impact of those actions implemented. A comprehensive evaluation was made and risk was quantified on a 1–100 scale as high-risk (1–40), moderate-risk (41–70) or low-risk (71–100). A total of 172 raw ground beef and 672 environmental samples were collected from 86 butcher shops during the evaluation (2010–2011) and verification (2013) stages of the study. Ground beef samples were analyzed for mesophilic aerobic organisms, Escherichia coli and coagulase-positive Staphylococcus aureus enumeration. Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and Listeria monocytogenes were detected and isolated from all samples. Risk quantification resulted in 43 (50.0%) high-risk, 34 (39.5%) moderate-risk, and nine (10.5%) low-risk butcher shops. Training sessions for 498 handlers and 4,506 consumers were held. Re-evaluation by risk quantification and microbiological analyses resulted in 19 (22.1%) high-risk, 42 (48.8%) moderate-risk and 25 (29.1%) low-risk butcher shops. The count of indicator microorganisms decreased with respect to the 2010–2011 period. After the implementation of improvement actions, the presence of L. monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7 and stx genes in ground beef decreased. Salmonella spp. was isolated from 10 (11.6%) ground beef samples, without detecting statistically significant differences between both study periods (evaluation and verification). The percentage of pathogens in environmental samples was reduced in the verification period (Salmonella spp., 1.5%; L. monocytogenes, 10.7%; E. coli O157:H7, 0.6%; non-O157 STEC, 6.8%). Risk quantification was useful to identify those relevant facts in butcher shops. The reduction of contamination in ground beef and the environment was possible after training handlers based on the problems identified in their own butcher shops. Our results confirm the feasibility of implementing a comprehensive risk management program in butcher shops, and the importance of information campaigns targeting consumers. Further collaborative efforts would be necessary to improve foodstuffs safety at retail level and at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerardo A Leotta & Victoria Brusa & Lucía Galli & Cristian Adriani & Luciano Linares & Analía Etcheverría & Marcelo Sanz & Adriana Sucari & Pilar Peral García & Marcelo Signorini, 2016. "Comprehensive Evaluation and Implementation of Improvement Actions in Butcher Shops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162635
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162635
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162635&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0162635?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.