Food Safety and Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems

2006 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Foodborne Disease

scholarly journals Strengthening foodborne diseases surveillance in the WHO African region: An essential need for disease control and food safety assurance

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (52) ◽  
pp. 6336-6353
Author(s):  
P Mensah ◽  
◽  
L Mwamakamba ◽  
S Kariuki ◽  
MC Fonkoua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Foodborne Diseases ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
African Region ◽  
Chemical Contaminants ◽  
Use Of Resources

Several devastating outbreaks of foodborne diseases have been reported in the African region including acute aflatoxicosis in Kenya in 2004 and bromide poisoning in Angola in 2007. There are concerns about transmission of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria and pesticide residues in foods. The globalization of the food trade which could increase the spread of food contaminants internationally is an emerging issue. The new International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) cover events of international importance including contaminated food and outbreaks of foodborne disease. The IHR (2005) and other international as well as regional agreements require Member States to strengthen surveillance systems including surveillance for foodborne diseases. WHO has been supporting countries to strengthen foodborne disease surveillance since 2003. This paper reports on the work of WHO and partners in the area of foodborne disease surveillance, the challenges and opportunities and provides perspectives for the area of its work. The paper shows that laboratory-based surveillance is the preferred system for foodborne disease surveillance since it allows early detection of outbreak strains and identification of risk factors with laboratory services as the cornerstone. Foodborne disease surveillance has been included in the revised Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) Strategy and there are guidelines for use by countries. WHO in collaboration with partners, especially the Global Food Infections Network (GFN), has been supporting countries to strengthen national analytical capacity for foodborne disease surveillance and research. Training for countries to detect, control and prevent foodborne and other enteric infections from farm to table has been conducted. The training for microbiologists and epidemiologists from public health, veterinary and food sectors involved in isolation, identification and typing of Salmonella sp, Campylobacter sp., Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio sp. and Shigella from human and food samples have been carried out. Research into specific topics in microbiology and chemical contaminants has been conducted. Three institutions in Cameroun, Mali and Nigeria have been designated as centres of excellence for chemical contaminants. Despite these significant achievements, a number of challenges remain. Most food safety programmes and food safety systems remain fragmented resulting in duplication of efforts and inefficient use of resources; and most laboratories in the African Region are poorly resourced. In countries where facilities exist, there is underutilization and lack of synergy among laboratories. Countries should, therefore, conduct audits of existing laboratories to determine their strengths and weaknesses and strategize as appropriate. It is also imperative to continue to strengthen partnerships and forge new ones and increase resources for food safety, in general, and for foodborne disease surveillance, in particular, and continue capacity building, both human and institutional.

Surveillance of Foodborne Disease IV. Dissemination and Uses of Surveillance Data

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 715-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
EWEN C. D. TODD ◽  
JOHN J. GUZEWICH ◽  
FRANK L. BRYAN
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
Control Points ◽  
Surveillance Network ◽  
Critical Control Points

Comparisons of etiologic agents, vehicles, significant ingredients, place of mishandling, and method of food processing or preparation with specific contributory factors are particularly useful in identifying specific hazards, specifying operations that are candidates for designation as critical control points, and assessing risks. After foodborne disease surveillance data have been received, tabulated, and appropriately interpreted, summary information needs to be disseminated in a timely fashion to those who can use it for preventing foodborne diseases. This action should be taken at all levels of the surveillance network. Surveillance information is used to determine the need for food safety actions, which involves planning and implementing programs and assessing the effectiveness of the actions taken. Uses of the data include (a) developing new policies and procedures and revising priorities, (b) evaluating effectiveness of programs, (c) justifying food safety program budgets based on estimated costs offoodborne illness, (d) modifying regulations so that they relate to contemporary foodborne disease issues, (e) conducting hazard analyses and risk assessments and instituting programs oriented to hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP), (f) starting or improving a public information campaign and educating the public, (g) notifying and training food industry personnel, (h) training agency staff and public health students and professionals, and (i) identifying new problems and research needs from the data. Implementing these approaches will necessitate changes in traditional food safety activities. This four-part series of articles concludes with recommendations to be considered by local, state/provincial, national, and international agencies responsible for foodborne disease surveillance.

Surveillance of Foodborne Disease III. Summary and Presentation of Data on Vehicles and Contributory Factors; Their Value and Limitations

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK L. BRYAN ◽  
JOHN J. GUZEWICH ◽  
EWEN C. D. TODD
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
Contributory Factors ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Etiologic Agents ◽  
Processing Plants ◽  
Safety Programs ◽  
Specific Food

Foodborne disease outbreak data are collected, collated, interpreted and disseminated to improve food safety programs at all organizational levels. Part II of this series described the disease aspects of foodborne surveillance. This part (III) focuses on the food components, with collation of data to list vehicles, significant ingredients, the places where foods were mishandled, the methods of processing or preparation, and operations that contributed to outbreaks. Specific food items should be cited as vehicles, but they will have to be put into subgroups and categories for some tabular presentations. Significant ingredients are the items in combined (mixed) foods that are the likely sources of the etiologic agents. Places of mishandling include farms, dairies, aquatic and land environments where foods are harvested, processing plants, food service establishments, homes, and transportation. Multiple places may contribute to the mishandling in any outbreak. The method of processing include all sorts of processing operations. The method of preparation is classified into the following food service systems: raw unaltered foods, assembled/prepare serve, cook-serve, cook hold-hot, cook chill serve, cook chill reheat, and acidify serve. The contributory factors are situations or operations that allow contamination of foods and survival and/or proliferation of the etiologic agents in the foods. This data will provide direction for setting food safety program priorities, suggest places and operations at which regulations need to be established and enforced, and indicate educational and training needs. Definitions of the terms used in the tables are given, and the value and limitations of each set of data in the tables and in tables of related information commonly presented in foodborne disease surveillance summaries are reviewed. The data from the tables should be used to improve food safety programs, which is the subject of the next part of this series.

scholarly journals Estimating burden of foodborne diseases where public health impact is higher and data scarcer: a study in four African countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Desta
Keyword(s):  
International Development ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Diarrheal Disease ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Main Challenge

Abstract Low and middle-income countries, in particular from Africa, bear the highest burden of foodborne disease (FBD). However, because research and disease surveillance data from Africa are limited, previous burden estimates are subject to uncertainty. The main challenge to estimating burden of FBD in Africa is lack of data, where factors ranging from lack of capacity to lack of political commitment, and a focus on priority diseases, limit existing surveillance systems. To address this, we are working with Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Tanzania, to estimate the burden of, and strengthen surveillance systems for, FBD in Africa. We are conducting a population survey (to estimate incidence and distribution of diarrhea in the community), a systematic literature review (to estimate proportions of diarrheal disease caused by different agents), and an active review of available FBD reports (to estimate the extent of under-reporting in existing surveillance). Together, these findings will provide more accurate estimates of the burden of FBD for African countries. Lessons from this large-scale project can be extrapolated to other countries and regions where the burden is high but data are scarce. We highlight applying leadership attributes, including delegation of duties, setting milestones, regular meetings, transparency, and risk mitigation plans. The leading role of experts in this project helps to reduce hurdles. We have also adapted existing data collection tools for use across our diverse African study populations. We are engaging stakeholders who will use our research outputs, by involving them at all stages of the project. This integrated Knowledge Translation approach is translatable to other settings. These studies are part of FOCAL (Foodborne Disease Epidemiology, Surveillance, and Control in African LMIC), a multi-partner, multi-study project co-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Kingdom's Department for International Development.

Surveillance of Foodborne Disease I. Purposes and Types of Surveillance Systems and Networks

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN J. GUZEWICH ◽  
FRANK L. BRYAN ◽  
EWEN C. D. TODD
Keyword(s):  
Foodborne Pathogens ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Laboratory Findings

This is the first part of a four-part series on foodborne disease surveillance. Although these articles are primarily built on expertise gained within North America, the substance is of value to any community or country wishing to initiate or improve its surveillance system. Foodborne disease surveillance is necessary for preventing further spread of foodborne disease and includes identifying and controlling outbreaks at the time they are occurring; gathering data on incidence of these diseases and prevalence of their etiologic agents, vehicles, and reservoirs; identifying factors that led to the outbreaks; providing a data bank for HACCP systems and risk assessments; estimating health and economic impacts of foodborne diseases; and providing information upon which to base rational food safety program goals and priorities. Reports of outbreaks by local health agencies to regional and, then, national agencies responsible for disease surveillance, laboratory isolations of certain foodborne pathogens from human beings, sentinel community studies, and hazard surveillance are the types of foodborne disease surveillance activities that are used to varying extents in Canada and the U.S. In recent years, some national surveillance reports have been collated internationally in Europe and Latin America. Surveillance at local, state/provincial, national, and international levels must be coordinated for effective and rapid transfer of data. Computer software can assist investigation and management of the information submitted through surveillance networks. Information summarized on individual reports usually includes (a) location of the event, (b) clinical data, (c) epidemiologic data, (d) laboratory findings, and (e) results of on-site investigations. Each outbreak report should be subjected to critical review before classifying it into the various categories of surveillance data. Such a review would also be useful when comparing surveillance data from different places and intervals. Highlights of individual reports are tabulated as line listings that are the direct sources of surveillance data, which are the subject of the second and third parts of this series.

scholarly journals Evaluation of REDCap to Supplement Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mugdha Golwakar ◽  
Kailey Lewis ◽  
Marcy McMillan ◽  
Katie Garman ◽  
John Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Surveillance System ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
Foodborne Disease ◽  
Routine Surveillance ◽  
Data Elements ◽  
Successes And Challenges

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the use of a supplementary data management application to meet surveillance demands for foodborne disease in Tennessee and to highlight successes, challenges, and opportunities identified through this process.IntroductionThe Tennessee Department of Health (TDH) Foodborne Disease Program conducts routine surveillance for foodborne illnesses and enteric disease outbreaks and participates in statewide enhanced surveillance as part of the Foodborne Disease Center for Outbreak Response Enhancement (FoodCORE) and the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). TDH uses the CDC NEDSS Base System (NBS) application for routine disease surveillance. However, NBS serves multiple disease programs within TDH and modifications to the system for the rapidly changing data demands, grant requirements, and outbreak needs of the foodborne program, may not be a priority for the system as a whole. In 2014, the TDH Foodborne Disease Program began using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) application as a solution to changing surveillance needs. FoodCORE, FoodNet, and routine surveillance data elements are entered into REDCap to supplement NBS, depending on program specific needs and system capability.MethodsREDCap was queried for FoodCORE, FoodNet, and routine surveillance projects. Projects were categorized by surveillance activity type. Epidemiologists provided qualitative feedback on successes and challenges in using REDCap to supplement NBS, which were then categorized into attributes according to existing frameworks for evaluating public health surveillance systems.1, 2ResultsAs of August 2018, the TDH Foodborne program housed 45 individual REDCap databases dedicated to surveillance. Four primary database categories were identified: routine case-based surveillance (8), enhanced/active surveillance (6), aggregate outbreak/cluster surveillance tracking (6), and outbreak-specific databases (25). The REDCap application programming interface (API) and an open database connection to NBS within SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC) were used to create unilateral data flow from NBS to REDCap, where possible. Successes and challenges in using REDCap fell into six main surveillance system attributes: Flexibility, Ease of Data Management, Stability, Simplicity, Efficiency, and Acceptability. Successes included the high level of control over data and databases offered by REDCap, the flexibility to rapidly implement program-specific changes, and the accessibility and reliability of REDCap as a de facto back-up of NBS data. Challenges included lack of interoperability between REDCap databases and with NBS, leading to dual data entry, overuse of REDCap resulting in unnecessarily complex and decentralized data storage (Figure 1), and increased personnel time on data management and extraction for metrics and reports.ConclusionsUsing REDCap in Tennessee to supplement an existing disease surveillance application increased flexibility and functionality of the foodborne disease surveillance system, but also added complexity and time involved in data management. The Nationally Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System Modernization Initiative (NMI) is developing a standardized message mapping guide (MMG) in collaboration with states and CDC, which incorporates FoodNet data elements and would transition data collection tools in NBS for foodborne diseases to a more portable and flexible format. Implementation of this MMG could minimize case-based data entry into REDCap. Tools that offer increased interoperability between NBS and REDCap and between REDCap databases could also improve the efficiency of using complementary applications for rapidly changing foodborne disease surveillance needs.References1. German RR, Lee LM, Horan JM, Milstein RL, Pertowski CA, Waller MN. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(Rr-13):1–35.2. Calba C, Goutard FL, Hoinville L, et al. Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:448. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document