Assessment of the Effectiveness of Pre-harvest Meat Safety Interventions to Control Foodborne Pathogens in Broilers: a Systematic Review

Joana Pessoa, Maria Rodrigues da Costa, Truls Nesbakken, Diana Meemken, RIBMINS Cost Action

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose of Review
Ensuring broilers’ meat safety is a priority to policy makers, producers, and consumers. This systematic review aims to update the recent knowledge on pre-harvest interventions to control main foodborne pathogens in broilers and to assess their effectiveness.

Recent Findings
A total of 815 studies were retrieved from PubMed® and Web of Science for 13 pathogens. In total, 51 studies regarding Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., VTEC, ESBL-AmpC Escherichia coli, and Clostridium perfringens were included in this review.

Summary
Research mostly focused on Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. Biosecurity and management interventions had mixed outcomes, while the effectiveness of feed additives, though intensively researched, remains controversial. Research on other pathogens (i.e. ESBL-AmpC E. coli/Salmonella, and Toxoplasma gondii) was scarce, with publications focusing on epidemiology and/or on source-attribution studies. This is also true regarding research on Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, and Staphylococcus aureus as these are frequently controlled by post-harvest interventions. Overall, studies on recent developments of novel pathogen-specific immunisation strategies are lacking.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages10
JournalCurrent Clinical Microbiology Reports
Early online date14 Feb 2021
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 14 Feb 2021

Keywords

  • Campylobacter
  • Farm practices
  • Poultry
  • Salmonella
  • Zoonoses

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Assessment of the Effectiveness of Pre-harvest Meat Safety Interventions to Control Foodborne Pathogens in Broilers: a Systematic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this