Assessing the difference in contamination of retail meat with multidrug-resistant bacteria using for-consumer package label claims that indicate on-farm antibiotic use practices- United States, 2016-2019.

IF 4.1 3区 医学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
G Sean Stapleton, Gabriel K Innes, Keeve E Nachman, Joan A Casey, Andrew N Patton, Lance B Price, Sara Y Tartof, Meghan F Davis
{"title":"Assessing the difference in contamination of retail meat with multidrug-resistant bacteria using for-consumer package label claims that indicate on-farm antibiotic use practices- United States, 2016-2019.","authors":"G Sean Stapleton, Gabriel K Innes, Keeve E Nachman, Joan A Casey, Andrew N Patton, Lance B Price, Sara Y Tartof, Meghan F Davis","doi":"10.1038/s41370-024-00649-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antibiotic use in food-producing animals can select for antibiotic resistance in bacteria that can be transmitted to people through contamination of food products during meat processing. Contamination resulting in foodborne illness contributes to adverse health outcomes. Some livestock producers have implemented antibiotic use reduction strategies marketed to consumers on regulated retail meat packaging labels (\"label claims\").</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We investigated whether retail meat label claims were associated with isolation of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs, resistant to ≥3 classes of antibiotics) from U.S. meat samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilized retail meat data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) collected during 2016-2019 for bacterial contamination of chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare the prevalence of MDRO contamination among meat samples with any antibiotic restriction label claims versus those without such claims (i.e., conventionally produced).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In NARMS, 62,338 meat samples were evaluated for bacterial growth from 2016-2019. Of these, 24,446 (39%) samples had label claims that indicated antibiotic use was restricted during animal production. MDROs were isolated from 2252 (4%) meat samples, of which 71% (n = 1591) were conventionally produced, and 29% (n = 661) had antibiotic restriction label claims. Compared with conventional samples, meat with antibiotic restriction label claims had a statistically lower prevalence of MDROs (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.73). This relationship was consistent for the outcome of any bacterial growth.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>This repeated cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative retail meat surveillance database in the United States supports that retail meats labeled with antibiotic restriction claims were less likely to be contaminated with MDROs compared with retail meat without such claims during 2016-2019. These findings indicate the potential for the public to become exposed to bacterial pathogens via retail meat and emphasizes a possibility that consumers could reduce their exposure to environmental reservoirs of foodborne pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics.</p>","PeriodicalId":15684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-024-00649-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antibiotic use in food-producing animals can select for antibiotic resistance in bacteria that can be transmitted to people through contamination of food products during meat processing. Contamination resulting in foodborne illness contributes to adverse health outcomes. Some livestock producers have implemented antibiotic use reduction strategies marketed to consumers on regulated retail meat packaging labels ("label claims").

Objective: We investigated whether retail meat label claims were associated with isolation of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs, resistant to ≥3 classes of antibiotics) from U.S. meat samples.

Methods: We utilized retail meat data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) collected during 2016-2019 for bacterial contamination of chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare the prevalence of MDRO contamination among meat samples with any antibiotic restriction label claims versus those without such claims (i.e., conventionally produced).

Results: In NARMS, 62,338 meat samples were evaluated for bacterial growth from 2016-2019. Of these, 24,446 (39%) samples had label claims that indicated antibiotic use was restricted during animal production. MDROs were isolated from 2252 (4%) meat samples, of which 71% (n = 1591) were conventionally produced, and 29% (n = 661) had antibiotic restriction label claims. Compared with conventional samples, meat with antibiotic restriction label claims had a statistically lower prevalence of MDROs (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.73). This relationship was consistent for the outcome of any bacterial growth.

Impact: This repeated cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative retail meat surveillance database in the United States supports that retail meats labeled with antibiotic restriction claims were less likely to be contaminated with MDROs compared with retail meat without such claims during 2016-2019. These findings indicate the potential for the public to become exposed to bacterial pathogens via retail meat and emphasizes a possibility that consumers could reduce their exposure to environmental reservoirs of foodborne pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics.

Abstract Image

评估 2016-2019 年美国使用标明农场抗生素使用方法的消费者包装标签声明零售肉类耐多药细菌污染的差异。
背景:食用动物使用抗生素会使细菌产生抗药性,而抗药性可通过肉类加工过程中对食品的污染传染给人类。污染导致的食源性疾病会对健康造成不良影响。一些畜牧业生产商已经实施了减少抗生素使用的策略,并在受监管的零售肉类包装标签("标签声明")上向消费者进行宣传:我们调查了零售肉类标签声明是否与美国肉类样本中分离出的耐多药生物(MDROs,对≥3类抗生素具有耐药性)有关:我们利用美国食品和药物管理局国家抗菌药耐药性监测系统(NARMS)在 2016-2019 年期间收集的零售肉类数据,检测鸡胸肉、碎火鸡肉、碎牛肉和猪排的细菌污染情况。我们使用改进的泊松回归模型,比较了有任何抗生素限制标签声明的肉类样品与没有此类声明的肉类样品(即常规生产的肉类样品)中MDRO污染的流行率:在 NARMS 系统中,2016-2019 年共对 62,338 份肉类样品进行了细菌生长评估。其中,24446 份(39%)样品的标签声称在动物生产过程中限制使用抗生素。从 2252 份(4%)肉类样品中分离出了 MDROs,其中 71%(n = 1591)为常规生产,29%(n = 661)有抗生素限制标签声明。与常规样本相比,有抗生素限制标签声明的肉类在统计学上具有较低的 MDROs 感染率(调整感染率比:0.66;95% CI:0.61, 0.73)。这种关系在任何细菌生长结果中都是一致的:这项对美国具有全国代表性的零售肉类监测数据库进行的重复横截面分析表明,在 2016-2019 年期间,标有抗生素限制声明的零售肉类与未标有此类声明的零售肉类相比,受 MDRO 污染的可能性较小。这些发现表明,公众有可能通过零售肉类接触到细菌病原体,并强调消费者有可能减少接触对抗生素产生耐药性的食源性病原体的环境库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
93
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (JESEE) aims to be the premier and authoritative source of information on advances in exposure science for professionals in a wide range of environmental and public health disciplines. JESEE publishes original peer-reviewed research presenting significant advances in exposure science and exposure analysis, including development and application of the latest technologies for measuring exposures, and innovative computational approaches for translating novel data streams to characterize and predict exposures. The types of papers published in the research section of JESEE are original research articles, translation studies, and correspondence. Reported results should further understanding of the relationship between environmental exposure and human health, describe evaluated novel exposure science tools, or demonstrate potential of exposure science to enable decisions and actions that promote and protect human health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信