| Literature DB >> 33266478 |
Samer Kharroubi1, Nivin A Nasser2, Marwa Diab El-Harakeh1, Abdallah Alhaj Sulaiman1, Issmat I Kassem1,2.
Abstract
The challenges to food safety in Lebanon are numerous and have coalesced to pose a serious public health concern. This is evident in well-documented food poisoning outbreaks and adulteration cases. In response, the Lebanese government initiated an unprecedented food safety campaign (2015-2017) that aimed to test food samples that were randomly collected from foodservices and industries across the country. The data were made available publicly, but they were never analyzed to prioritize and determine high risk foods and most prevalent contaminants nationally or across governorates. To answer these questions, we performed an in-depth statistical analysis of the data, which included 11,625 individual food samples. Our analysis showed that water (55% of tested water samples), spices (49.3%), red meat (34.4%), poultry (30.9%) and dairy (28.3%) were the main foods associated with the highest rejection rates. The most common biological contaminants detected in rejected foods were sulfate-reducing bacteria (34.7%), Escherichia coli (32.1%), coliforms (19.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (12.8%), and Salmonella (11.6%). We conclude that Lebanon needs rigorous and sustainable programs to monitor the quality and safety of foods. Given the lack of resources, we recommend putting emphasis on extensive outreach programs that aim at enhancing food safety knowledge from farm to fork.Entities:
Keywords: E. coli; Lebanon; S. aureus; Salmonella; dairy; food safety; foodborne diseases; foodborne pathogens; meat; poultry
Year: 2020 PMID: 33266478 PMCID: PMC7700422 DOI: 10.3390/foods9111717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
The number of samples in each food category that were found to be microbially unacceptable or acceptable based on the reports of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) in Lebanon. Samples were rejected due to spoilage and/or because they were deemed to pose a food safety risk to consumers.
| Food Categories | Unacceptable | Acceptable | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (% a) | N (%) | N (%) | ||
| Red Meat | 1132 (34.4) | 2154 (65.5) | 3286 (100) | < 0.001 |
| Poultry Meat | 760 (30.9) | 1698 (69.1) | 2458 (100) | |
| Dairy | 530 (28.3) | 1343 (71.7) | 1873 (100) | |
| Bakery | 52 (11.2) | 413 (88.8) | 465 (100) | |
| Fish | 51 (20.8) | 194 (79.2) | 245 (100) | |
| Nuts | 40 (10.8) | 330 (89.2) | 370 (100) | |
| Desserts | 167 (22.9) | 561 (77.1) | 728 (100) | |
| Spices | 387 (49.3) | 398 (50.7) | 785 (100) | |
| Water | 94 (55.0) | 77 (45.0) | 171 (100) | |
| Other | 121 (9.7) | 1123 (90.3) | 1244 (100) | |
| Total | 3334 (28.7) | 8291 (71.3) | 11,625 (100) |
a Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of unacceptable/acceptable samples in each food category to the total number of samples in the same food category. b p-value was derived from Chi-square test that was conducted to evaluate the association between food categories and microbial acceptability of food samples (unacceptable vs. acceptable).
The distribution of total food samples that were found to be microbially unacceptable or acceptable by the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) across Lebanese governorates (administrative divisions of Lebanon).
| Governorate | Unacceptable | Acceptable | Significance of Differences between Governorates | Odds Ratio (95% CI); |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (% a) | N (%) | |||
| North | 1121 (31.7) | 2413 (68.3) | χ2 = 39.73, | 1.48 (1.13, 1.95); |
| Mount Lebanon | 901 (27.3) | 2403 (72.7) | 1.20 (0.91, 1.58) | |
| South | 767 (29.9) | 1799 (70.1) | 1.36 (1.03, 1.80); | |
| Bekaa | 473 (24.72) | 1446 (75.3) | 1.05 (0.79, 1.39) | |
| Beirut | 72 (23.8) | 230 (76.2) | 1.0 | |
| Total no. of samples (%) | 3334 (28.7) | 8291 (71.3) |
a Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of unacceptable/acceptable samples in each governorate to the total number of collected samples in the same governorate. b p-value was derived from Chi-square test that was conducted to compare differences in microbial acceptability of food samples (unacceptable vs. acceptable) by governorates in Lebanon. c The strength of association between the microbial acceptability of food and location of sampling (governorates) was explored using simple logistic regression, with microbial acceptability as the dependent variable. Odds ratios (OR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed and p-values were also derived to test significance of differences between Beirut and the other governorates.
Comparison of the number of microbially unacceptable samples in each food category across Lebanese governorates (administrative divisions of Lebanon).
| Governorate | Red Meat | Poultry Meat | Dairy | Bakery | Fish | Nuts | Desserts | Spices | Water | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North | 439 (39.2) | 290 (25.9) | 184 (16.4) | 4 (0.4) | 8 (0.7) | 14 (1.2) | 44 (3.9) | 88 (7.9) | 12 (1.1) | 38 (3.4) | 1121 |
| Mount Lebanon | 324 (36.0) | 231 (25.6) | 80 (8.9) | 8 (0.9) | 20 (2.2) | 12 (1.3) | 63 (7.0) | 98 (10.9) | 30 (3.3) | 35 (3.9) | 901 |
| South | 230 (30.0) | 144 (18.8) | 156 (20.3) | 31 (4.0) | 12 (1.6) | 8 (1.0) | 31 (4.0) | 108 (14.1) | 36 (4.7) | 11 (1.4) | 767 |
| Bekaa | 117 (24.7) | 88 (18.6) | 106 (22.4) | 8 (1.7) | 4 (0.8) | 6 (1.3) | 25 (5.3) | 85 (18.0) | 14 (3.0) | 20 (4.2) | 473 |
| Beirut | 22 (30.6) | 7 (9.7) | 4 (5.6) | 1 (1.4) | 7 (9.7) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (5.6) | 8 (11.1) | 2 (2.8) | 17 (23.6) | 72 |
Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of unacceptable samples for each food category to the total number of unacceptable samples in each region.
The distribution of microbial contaminants that resulted in the rejection of samples across food category based on the reports of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) in Lebanon.
| Food Categories | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microbial Contaminant | Red Meat | Poultry Meat | Dairy | Bakery | Fish | Nuts | Desserts | Spices | Water | Other | Total N (% b) for Each Contaminant | |
| Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) | 534 (46.2) | 391 (33.8) | 8 (0.7) | 5 (0.4) | 11 (0.95) | 11 (0.95) | 3 (0.3) | 159 (13.8) | 27 (2.3) | 7 (0.6) | 1156 (34.7) | < 0.001 |
|
| 592 (55.3) | 200 (18.7) | 211 (19.7) | 7 (0.7) | 8 (0.7) | 4 (0.4) | 17 (1.6) | 8 (0.7) | 10 (0.9) | 14 (1.3) | 1071 (32.1) | < 0.001 |
| Aerobic bacteria | 190 (26.3) | 168 (23.2) | 57 (7.9) | 26 (3.6) | 31 (4.3) | - | 58 (8.0) | 82 (11.3) | 69 (9.5) | 42 (5.8) | 723 (21.7) | < 0.001 |
| Coliforms | 26 (4.0) | 9 (1.4) | 253 (38.7) | 16 (2.4) | 1 (0.2) | 6 (0.9) | 115 (17.6) | 99 (15.1) | 71(10.9) | 58 (8.87) | 654 (19.6) | < 0.001 |
|
| 279 (65.2) | 43 (10.0) | 67 (15.7) | 3 (0.7) | 8 (1.9) | - | 18 (4.2) | 3 (0.7) | 1 (0.2) | 6 (1.4) | 428 (12.8) | < 0.001 |
| 126 (32.6) | 240 (62.0) | 6 (1.6) | - | 1 (0.3) | - | 5 (1.3) | 2 (0.5) | - | 7 (1.8) | 387 (11.6) | < 0.001 | |
| 7 (8.9) | 3 (3.8) | 5 (6.3) | - | 2 (2.5) | - | 4 (5.1) | 14 (17.7) | 39 (49.4) | 5 (6.3) | 79 (2.4) | < 0.001 | |
|
| 31 (52.5) | 13 (22.0) | 14 (23.7) | 1 (1.7) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 59 (1.8) | < 0.001 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 48 (100.0) | - | 48 (1.4) | < 0.001 |
|
| 4 (18.2) | 2 (9.1) | 1(4.5) | - | 1 (4.5) | - | 1(4.5) | 2(9.1) | 1(4.5) | 10 (45.5) | 22 (0.7) | < 0.001 |
| Yeast/fungi | 11 (2.6) | 8 (1.9) | 160 (37.1) | 24 (5.6) | 3 (0.7) | 17 (3.9) | 20 (4.6) | 151 (35.0) | - | 37 (8.6) | 431 (12.9) | < 0.001 |
| Aflatoxin | 1 (3.7) | - | - | - | - | 5 (18.5) | - | 20 (74.1) | - | 1 (3.7) | 27 (0.8) | < 0.001 |
a Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of samples rejected for each microbial contaminant within each food category to the total number of samples rejected for the same microbial contaminant b Total percentages were calculated by dividing the number of samples rejected for each microbial contaminant to the total number of rejected samples. c p-values were derived from Chi-square tests that were conducted to examine the associations between food categories and each type of microbial contaminant (Yes vs. No).