4.5 Article

An assessment of the microbiological quality of lightly cooked food (including sous-vide) at the point of consumption in England

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 145, Issue 7, Pages 1500-1509

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268817000048

Keywords

Catering; food safety; lightly cooked food; liver; microbiological quality; poultry products; sous-vide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This observational study aims to investigate the microbiological quality of commercially prepared lightly cooked foods with a major component of food of animal origin and collected as would be served to a consumer. A total of 356 samples were collected from catering (92%), retail (7%) or producers (1%) and all were independent of known incidents of foodborne illness. Using standard methods, all samples were tested for: the presence of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. and enumerated for levels of, Bacillus spp. including B. cereus, Clostridium perfringens, Listeria spp. including L. monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriacea and aerobic colony count (ACC). Results were interpreted as unsatisfactory, borderline or satisfactory according to the Health Protection Agency guidelines for assessing the microbiological safety of ready-to-eat foods placed on the market. Amongst all samples, 70% were classified as satisfactory, 18% were borderline and 12% were of unsatisfactory microbiological quality. Amongst the unsatisfactory samples, six (2%) were potentially injurious to health due to the presence of: Salmonella spp. (one duck breast); Campylobacter spp. (two duck breast and one chicken liver pate); L. monocytogenes at 43 x 10(3) cfu (colony-forming units)/g (one duck confit with foie gras ballotin) and C. perfringens at 25 x 10(5) cfu/g (one chicken liver pate). The remaining unsatisfactory samples were due to high levels of indicator E. coli, Enterobacteriaceae or ACC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available