Salmonella in Pork Cuttings in Supermarkets and Butcherss Shops in Denmark in 2002 and 2006 T.B. Hansen, B.B.

Christensen, and S.Aabo Zoonoses and Public Health November 2010 Hypothesis: The prevalence of Salmonella contamination at retail would be influenced by the choice of supplier by retailers. (article) Hygiene levels and ability to avoid cross-contamination and prevent growth of the organism, in the meat processing chain after slaughter were the most likely responsible factors. (summary) Objectives: To test the hypothesis by conducting a retail survey, which identified suppliers of fresh pork cuttings for retail butchers shops and supermarkets. To determine the prevalence and concentration of Salmonella in pork cuttings. Significance: Impact of Salmonella prevalence from the sources on consumer safety. Risk assessment of Salmonella in pork as well as input to the public food control system. JOURNAL CRITIQUE Introduction Anonymous reference cited 4 times

Did not mention why 2002 and 2006 data were usedpublic health data/cases of salmonellosis? Did not mention why pork cuttings, or why pork is the target sample What is the standard in Denmark regarding micro analyses Denmark-25M pigs/yeardomestic 95% from DMA & 5% from DSL Denmark: 5-8% of meat have salmonella o Danish salmonella control programme aims at reducing the consumer risk from Danish fresh pork Compared the prevalence of salmonella in carcasses from NFA data: o 2002: (37,000) total: 1.7%, large: 1.8%, med:1.1%, small: 0.6% o 2006: (28,000) total: 0.9%, l: 1.0%, m&s: 0.9%

S&m40-60% of fresh pork at retail Materials & Methods Sample Collection o Number of sample in both years is not equal/uniform o Why in regional food control centre? Not actual places? o 2002: butcher=1025, sm=3473 o 2006: butcher: 259, sm=628 o One store=one sample=three cutting (shoulder, middle, hind) o Sx= 200g fresh pork cuts o Transpo : 5 +-2 C o Storage: 2 +-1C 24h
Questionnaire o Which part of the carcass the cutting originated from o Type of retailer o Country of origin- WHY? o Authorization number:supplier & approval for export & domestic Micro analyses o 50gprep ISO 6579:2002 with convenient modifications (not specified)

50g + 200ml buffered pep waterhomo for 2mins (stomacher)

100mlquanti detexn of salmo if + in quail test 100ml+125ml BPWquali 37C; 16-24h

0.1ml culture + Modified Semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium(MSRV) 41-42; 1824h Edge of swarming zoneXLD 37C 18-24h o 2 colonies for verification For a random subset of salmonella + samples, serotype was established according to Kaufmann and White scheme o Molec methods? Salmonella+: analysed semi-quanti to determine the concn (how?what equip/method?) o Aliquots: 10,1,0.1,0.01ml

10ml aliq +15ml BPW.

Serotyping??? No procedure Data Analysis o Diff to disclose custumer segmentation & supply volumes they ID retail supply patterns on the basis of questionnaire info from retailers o Prevalence of + sx from 25g sx o Likelihood ratio test: diff in prev b/n types of cutting, types of retailer & types of supplier o Fischers test: less than five observations o Signi: P<0.05; 95% CL Results

Salmonella prevalence o Table 1: 2002: total=1.2%, b=1.8%, sm=1.0% 2006: total=4.2%, b=8.1%, sm=2.6% Table 2:

Regardless of type of retailer & year of exp: shoulder part is highest Why there are unknown values? Origin? Serotyping: 33% of isolates o 2002: total=12, 11 from diff stores 7 S. typhimurium, 3 S. Ohio, 1 S.infantis, 1 S. orion How did they ID not mentioned? Proper naming of sp. 2006: total= 18; not clear data

9 s.typhymurium, 8 S.idikan, 1 unnamed Able to ID strains of typhi but how?

Figure 1: o 2002 data only: concn of salmonella in fresh pork cuttings

Retail supply routes

52 + samples: 39 has 0.04-0.4 Salmonella per gram, 7 has 0.4-4 per g, 5 4-40/g, 1 40/g Should be CFU/g

Supplier: 2002=4372 (97%), 2006=825 (93%); Figureb2 1. Slaughterhouses w/o authorization for cutting (delivering half carcasses)=9% 2. Slaughterhouses authorized for both slaughter and cutting=57% 3. Specialized cutting plants=32% 4. Minor wholesailers=2% 2006 (significant change P<0.001):no values given o 2.3 fold decreasein #1 o 2.8 fold increasein #4 Table 3:distribution of the retail samples of fresh pork cuttings in butchers shops & supermarkets in Denmark in 2002 and in 2006 accdg to retail supplier o 2002:

Butcher s & m: 76% SM: 12% Majority of samples from large: 83% Signi (P<0.001) s &m slaughterhouses

o 2006:

o
o

Butcher s & m: 74% SM: 9% Majority of samples from large: 76% Signi in s &m (P< 0.001) Imported: 8 total (0.2%) not analyzed Why there are 0 values?

Discussion 2006: 4.2% 0f 887 2002: 1.2% of 4498 Compared in Washington DC (3.3% 0f 209), Italy (4.9% of 3182), Ireland (2.6%) o Impt of retail pork as apotential vehicle for consumer exposure to Salmonella S.typhimurium predominant in retail pork cuttings o Similar in Ireland & Belgium o EU community report: S.typhimurium dominated in pigs/pork & cases in human Porkmeat from butcher>SM o Same: Miranda et al o Diff: Prendergast et al: no signi; high entero, high salmonella in pork samples o Both authors: High Entero in butchers>SM o Ghafir & Prendergast: Entero as indicator o High entero counts, poor hygiene Occurrence of Salmonella in pork at retail would depend signi on the category of the meat supplier was not supported by the study Majority in butcher s&m (less prevalence) Majority in sm large o Diff in salmonella occurence did not correlate

Low prevalencesafety concern multiply to hazardous levels (optimum)

Salmonella concn: same with other studies; poor hygiene perfornmance in butcher than in smnot only in Denmark

Forepart: hanging the carcass with the head down concn of contaminated fluid at the forepart (reference none) Conclusion 2006>2002 o Data: increase could be simply be a peak in year-over-year variation o Will study again on 2010

Both increase in butcher and smworsening hygiene levels post slaughter becomes the most probable explanation

RECOMMENDATIONS? none