4.4 Review

Recent (2011-2017) foodborne outbreak cases in the Republic of Korea compared to the United States: a review

Journal

FOOD SCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 185-194

Publisher

KOREAN SOCIETY FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-KOSFOST
DOI: 10.1007/s10068-020-00864-x

Keywords

Foodborne outbreak; Republic of Korea; United States; Hazard analysis; Outbreak place

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared foodborne disease outbreaks in South Korea and the United States during 2011-2017, finding differences in outbreak frequency, affected population, and primary causative agents. The results suggest that detection and control strategies for foodborne pathogens should be tailored to the specific microbiological profiles of each country.
This study analyzes and compares foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the Republic of Korea (KR) and the United States (US) during 2011-2017. The foodborne outbreaks data in the KR and the US were collected from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and from the Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks United States, respectively. The average number of outbreaks and illness population were higher in the US than in the KR, but the KR's illness ratio considering population size was 2.4 times higher than that of the US. When the sites of outbreaks compared, the number of illness was the highest at schools in the KR whereas outbreaks at restaurants were more frequent in the US. In the KR, bacterial infections were the primary cause of outbreaks while bacterial and viral infections accounted for the largest share of outbreaks in the US. Specifically, pathogenic E. coli presented a significant risk in the KR whereas Salmonella was the most prevalent in the US. These results indicate that the main microbiological targets for detection and control in the KR should differ from the US, which should be considered for developing food safety related policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available