Comparative Exposure Assessment of ESBL-Producing Escherichia coli through Meat Consumption

Abstract

The presence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and plasmidic AmpC (pAmpC) producing Escherichia coli (EEC) in food animals, especially broilers, has become a major public health concern. The aim of the present study was to quantify the EEC exposure of humans in The Netherlands through the consumption of meat from different food animals. Calculations were done with a simplified Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment (QMRA) model. The model took the effect of pre-retail processing, storage at the consumers home and preparation in the kitchen (cross-contamination and heating) on EEC numbers on/in the raw meat products into account. The contribution of beef products (78%) to the total EEC exposure of the Dutch population through the consumption of meat was much higher than for chicken (18%), pork (4.5%), veal (0.1%) and lamb (0%). After slaughter, chicken meat accounted for 97% of total EEC load on meat, but chicken meat experienced a relatively large effect of heating during food preparation. Exposure via consumption of filet americain (a minced beef product consumed raw) was predicted to be highest (61% of total EEC exposure), followed by chicken fillet (13%). It was estimated that only 18% of EEC exposure occurred via cross-contamination during preparation in the kitchen, which was the only route by which EEC survived for surface-contaminated products. Sensitivity analysis showed that model output is not sensitive for most parameters. However, EEC concentration on meat other than chicken meat was an important data gap. In conclusion, the model assessed that consumption of beef products led to a higher exposure to EEC than chicken products, although the prevalence of EEC on raw chicken meat was much higher than on beef. The (relative) risk of this exposure for public health is yet unknown given the lack of a modelling framework and of exposure studies for other potential transmission routes.

Probabilistic model for the estimation of the consumer exposure to methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus due to cross‐contamination and recontamination

“…(Chapman, Otten, Fazil, Ernst, & Smith, 2016). However, in relation to resistant bacteria just one model describing the cross-contamination of ESBL/AmpC E. coli in meat can be found in the literature (Evers et al, 2017). So far, there are no models describing the cross-contamination and recontamination events during food preparation for MRSA.…”

A Systematic Review of Beef Meat Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Models

“…The Netherlands All Exposure assessment from meat of different animals [19] Burger Canada/North America All Process assessment [20] France <16 years Evaluation of illness risk following outbreak [21,22] All Impact of cooking preferences on illness risk [23] North America All Food-chain assessment; health burden assessment [24] All Evaluation of illness risk from Australian beef [25] Scotland All…”

“…The first step of QMRA consists of the identification and selection of hazards to be assessed. As revealed through collected papers, a majority of studies (21/33) dealt with Escherichia coli -mostly Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), but also wild types with antibiotic resistance [19] -contaminations followed by Salmonella spp. (7/33).…”

“…This step may involve a high risk of microbial transfer from meat to vegetables and vice versa [19,24,35,38,46] from improperly cleaned hands or from meat to meat if the same cutting media is shared [19]. As an example, Evers et al [19] considered microbial transfers from meat to vegetables, cutting board, and washed hands. On the other hand, Kosmider [17] stated for its assessment that consumer infection may occur only through consumption of primary contaminated meat instead of secondary contamination.…”

“…Tuominen et al [40] consider that heating at 70 • C totally inactivates Salmonella spp. Several authors' [16,19,34,42] main choice for modelling this inactivation is to consider a heating treatment evenly applied on all the product and so also on all the bacteria population.…”