Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:11:10.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A large salmonellosis outbreak associated with a frequently penalized restaurant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. P. Luby ,
J. L. Jones  and
J. M. Horan
S. P. Luby*
Affiliation:
Division of Field Epidemiology, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA
J. L. Jones
Affiliation:
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC
J. M. Horan
Affiliation:
Division of Field Epidemiology, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA
*
*Stephen Luby. Malaria Branch. MS F12. Centers for Disease Control. Atlanta. GA 30333.
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.

Between January and June 1990, Restaurant A in Greenville, South Carolina repeatedly failed local health department inspection and was repeatedly sanctioned. In September 1990, two persons, hospitalized with salmonellosis after attending a convention catered by Restaurant A, contacted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. We inspected Restaurant A, interviewed food handlers, and surveyed by telephone persons from every sixth business attending the convention. Of 398 persons interviewed, 135 (34%) reported gastroenteritis. Nine had culture-confirmed salmonella infection. People who ate turkey were 4.6 times more likely to become ill than those who did not eat turkey (95% confidence interval 2.0, 10.6). We estimate that of 2430 attendees, 824 became ill. Sanitarians judged Restaurant A's kitchen too small to prepare over 500 meals safely. The cooked turkey was unrefrigerated for several hours, incompletely rewarmed, and rinsed with water to reduce its offensive odour prior to serving. Stronger sanctions may be needed against restaurants that repeatedly fail local health department inspection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 110 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 31 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control. Foodborne disease outbreaks. 5-year summary. 1983–1987. In CDC Surveillance Summaries. 03 1990. MMWR 1990: 39 (No. SS-1): 15–57.Google Scholar
2.Dean, AD. Dean, JA. Burton, JH. et al. Epi Info [computer program]. Version 5.01. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control, 1990.Google Scholar
3.Greenland, S. Robins, J. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985; 41: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.McGee, DL. Logress [computer program]. Version 2.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control. 1987.Google Scholar
5.CDC. Annual summary 1989 Salmonella surveillance. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control: 1989. table 1. p. 53.Google Scholar
6.CDC. Annual summary 1989 Salmonella surveillance. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control: 1989. table 7. p. 59.Google Scholar
7.Benenson, AS. editor. Control of communicable diseases in man. Washington DC: American Public Health Association. 1990: 383–4.Google Scholar
8.Irwin, K. Ballard, J. Grendon, J. et al. Results of routine restaurant inspections can predict outbreaks of foodborne illness: the Seattle-King County experience. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 586–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Food and Drug Administration. Food Protection Unicode. Washington DC: Food and Drug Administration, 1990.Google Scholar