Quantitative risk assessment for human Taenia saginata infection from consumption of Australian beef

A Systematic Review of Beef Meat Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Models

“…Adaptation of model to national context, impact of interventions [48] The objective of these studies was to assess:…”

“…− risks of illness and health burden associated with consumption of beef meat and preparations [16,21,22,24,25,[32][33][34][35][36]38,39,42,44]; − the effect of mitigation interventions [16,27,28,36,39,40,43,47,48]; − all or part of the farm-to-fork chain [18,20,24,[29][30][31]37]; − transmission pathways or contribution to the public health burden [17,26,43,46]; − impact of manufacturing and consumption practices [23]; − investigation on outbreaks [41].…”

“…in beef feces to be 9.12% (27 contaminated sample out of 296). Based on these original data and often for a specific country, other studies tried to model a mean country prevalence [34,48].…”

“…At the end of the processing chain, freezing/chilling are crucial steps [16,17,20,24,26,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]42,48] with the purpose to avoid pathogen growth within and on the carcasses in order to maintain meat safety. Indeed, from the initial stunning of animals to their evisceration, the muscle temperature remains around 35 • C. Most HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) plans consider this step as a microbial development control measure and tend to shift surface temperature below 4 • C within 24 h after animal death [91].…”

“…Some studies performed a hazard characterization to describe the outcomes of a consumer exposure to the pathogen [16,17,20,[22][23][24][25][26]29,30,[32][33][34][35][36][40][41][42]44,46,48]. A dose-response relationship is expressed as the probability of illness according to the ingested dose.…”