Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:31:56.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative study of visual inspections and microbiological sampling in premises manufacturing and selling high-risk foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. M. Tebbutt  and
J. M. Southwell
G. M. Tebbutt
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, South Cleveland Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesbrough TS4 3TA
J. M. Southwell
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health, Darlington DL1 5SU
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The possible relationship between the results of a microbiological sampling programme and visual inspections carried out in local food-manufacturing premises was examined. Using five main parameters—overall appearance, personal hygiene, risk of contamination, temperature control, and training and education –a visual inspection rating score was established for each of the premises. A variety of high-risk processed foods, and specimens from hands, wiping cloths and environmental swabs were examined. The results from two study Periods indicated that there was an overall poor agreement between microbiological results and inspection ratings. On its own, neither sampling nor visual assessment reliably monitored the performance of the premises. A combined approach, using selective microbiological examination to support a system of standardized inspections, is suggested for monitoring food hygiene standards in premises selling high-risk foods

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 475 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

REFERENCES

1.Roberts, BF.Food hygiene – quantifying the risks. Environ Health 1980; 88: 243–6.Google Scholar
2.Mossel, DAA.Microbiology of foods. 3rd ed.Utrecht: University of Utrecht. 1982; 65–88.Google Scholar
3.Bassett, WH, Kurtz, JB, Moore, B.The hygienic significance of bacterial counts on sliced cooked meats. Environ Health 1978; 86: 100–3.Google Scholar
4.Wyatt, CJ, Guy, V.Relationships of microbial quality of retail meat samples and sanitary conditions. J Food Protection 1980; 43: 385–9.Google Scholar
5.Tebbutt, GM.An evaluation of various practices in shops selling raw and cooked meats. J. Hyg. 1986; 97: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Hobbs, BC, Roberts, D.Food poisoning and food hygiene. 5th ed.London: Edward Arnold. 1987: 167.Google Scholar
7.Barrell, RAE, Watkinson, JM.The bacteriology of cooked meats. Environ Health 1981; 89: 148–51.Google Scholar
8.Greenwood, MH, Coetzee, ECF, Ford, BM. et al. The microbiology of selected retail food products with an evaluation of viable counting methods. J Hyg 1984; 92:67–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Pinegar, JA, Cooke, EM.Escherichia coli in retail processed food. J Hyg 1985; 95: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Ayliffe, GAJ, Coates, D, Hoffman, PN.Chemical disinfection in hospitals. London: Public Health Laboratory Service. 1984; 31.Google Scholar
11.Gilbert, RJ.Cross-contamination by cooked-meat slicing machines and Cleaning cloths. J Hyg 1969; 67: 249–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Hobbs, BC, Roberts, D.Food poisoning and food hygiene. 5th ed.London: Edward Arnold. 1987; 140.Google Scholar