The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, highlights the risk of consumers contracting foodborne illness through contaminated animal products, as well as the prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms that, when they lead to illness, can complicate disease. treatment, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School researchers. of Public Health, affirmed.
The study revealed that USDA certified organic products were 56% less likely to be contaminated with multidrug resistant bacteria compared to conventionally processed meats. The research was based on nationwide testing of meats from 2012 to 2017 as part of the US National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
The research team analyzed NARMS data from randomly sampled chicken breast, ground beef, ground turkey and pork to detect any contamination and contamination by multidrug resistant organisms. The analysis covers four types of bacteria: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Enterococcus, and Escherichia coli.
The study covered a total of 39,348 meat samples, of which 1,422 were found to be contaminated with at least one multidrug resistant organism. The contamination rate was 4 percent in the conventionally produced meat samples and just under 1 percent in the organically produced meat samples.
A long-standing concern about the use of antibiotics in livestock and livestock feeding is the increased prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
Globally, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are linked to around 700,000 deaths a year. This figure could rise to 10 million by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a report commissioned by the UK government.
The development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is closely related to the overuse of antibiotics, especially in livestock farming. For meat to be certified organic by the USDA, animals may never have been given antibiotics or hormones, and animal feed and feed, such as grass and hay, must be 100% organic.
“The presence of pathogenic bacteria is concerning in itself, considering the possible increased risk of contracting foodborne illness.”Said lead author Meghan Davis, an associate professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health and Environmental Engineering. “If the infections turn out to be resistant to multiple drugs, they can be more deadly and more expensive to treat.”
Lower risk mixed processing facilities
The analysis also suggested that the type of processing facility may influence the likelihood of contamination of the meat.
The meat processors were divided into three categories: exclusively organic, exclusively conventional, or those that handle both organic and conventional meats.
Looking at contamination rates in conventional meat, the researchers found that those processed in facilities that exclusively handled conventional meats were contaminated with bacteria a third of the time, while those processed in facilities that processed conventional and organic meats were contaminated a quarter of the cases. weather. The prevalence of multi-resistant bacteria was approximately the same in these two categories of meat processors.
“The required sanitization of equipment between organic and conventional meat processing batches may explain our findings of reduced bacterial contamination in products from facilities that process both types of meat.”Davis said.
The lead author of the article emphasized that the way animals are raised and processed has important implications for both human and animal health. “As a veterinarian, I recognize that we sometimes need to use antibiotics to treat sick animals, but taking advantage of opportunities to reduce antibiotic use could benefit everyone. Consumer choice and regulatory oversight are two strategies for doing this.”
Source
‘Contamination of retail meat samples with multidrug resistant organisms in relation to organic and conventional production and processing: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, 2012- 2017 ‘
Environmental health perspectives
DOI: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP7327
Authors: Gabriel K. Innes, Keeve E. Nachman, Alison G. Abraham, Joan A. Casey, Andrew N. Patton, Lance B. Price, Sara Y. Tartof, and Meghan F. Davis
.