Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:32:56.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of food retail premises by means of visual inspection and microbiological quality of food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. C. Powell  and
R. W. Attwell
S. C. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD
R. W. Attwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD
*
*Dr R. W. Attwell.
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 relationship between visual inspection ratings given to ten food retail premises and the microbiological quality of food samples was examined. Viable counts of bacteria and of Staphylococcus aureus were determined for cooked meat samples from each of the premises. There was no correlation between potential risk of foodborne infection, as assessed by total inspection rating, and bacteriological counts in food (P < 0·05). Neither was there a consistent relationship between scores given to any component of the total rating and the bacteriological quality of food.

The effectiveness of the current UK inspection scheme in assessing risk of foodborne infection is questioned. Inclusion of appropriately weighted criteria such as food temperature abuse is suggested to improve the scheme.

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 114 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 143 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

REFERENCES

1. EEC 89/397. Official Control of Foodstuffs.Google Scholar
2.Food Safety Act 1990, Code of Practice No. 9: Food Hygiene Inspections. London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
3.Tebbutt, GM, Southwell, JM. Comparative study of visual inspections and microbiological sampling in premises manufacturing and selling high-risk foods. Epidemiol Infect 1989, 103: 475–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Wyatt, CJ, Guy, V. Relationship of microbial quality of retail meat samples and sanitary conditions. J Food Protect 1980; 43: 385–9.Google Scholar
5.Bassett, WH, Kurtz, JB, Moore, B. The hygienic significance of bacterial counts on sliced cooked meats. Environ Health 1978; 86: 100–3.Google Scholar
6.Tebbutt, GM, Midwood, CA. Rapid and traditional methods of assessing cleaning standards in food premises. Environ Health 1990; 98: 235–7.Google Scholar
7.Gilbert, RJ. Provisional microbiological guidelines for some ready-to-eat foods sampled at point of sale: notes for PHLS examiners. PHLS Microbiology Digest 1992; 9: 98–9.Google Scholar
8.Roberts, D. Factors contributing to outbreaks of foodborne infection and intoxication in England and Wales 1970–1982. Proc 2nd World Congress Foodborne Infections and Intoxications 1986; 1: 157–9.Google Scholar
9.Johnston, M, Arthur, J, Campbell, I. Foodhandling practices of Dunedin caterers: a cause for concern. New Zealand Med J 1992; 105: 289–91.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Sutherland, JP, Bayliss, AJ, Roberts, TA. Predictive modelling of growth of Staphylococcus aureus: the effects of temperature, pH and sodium chloride. International J Food Microbiol 1994; 21: 217–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed