Efficacy of two hygiene methods to reduce soil and microbial contamination on farmworker hands during harvest

The heterogeneous association between education and the adoption of safe food handling practices in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Foodborne disease is a great concern to low- and middle-income countries. To prevent illness and death, intervention strategies need to be implemented across the food safety system and should include promoting the adoption of safe food handling practices. The positive association between education and health has been well-established, and one possible mechanism is that education may improve health by encouraging individuals to adopt more appropriate protective practices. Decisions regarding adoption of these practices may also be influenced by the food safety risks individuals face, the trade-offs they make to maximize utility, or behavior biases which may be correlated with education. This study aims to estimate the heterogeneous association between education and the adoption of safe food handling practices among people facing different levels of food safety risk.

METHODS

Models were constructed based on the Grossman health model and risk as well as behavior bias theories. Multivariate logistic regression models were estimated to explore the heterogeneous associations using data from a community survey conducted in Ethiopia. Agricultural household status and livestock presence were used as proxies to represent varying risk levels. Average marginal effects were estimated to provide a more accessible interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Results showed that the association between education and certain safe food handling practices was positive among individuals in households assumed to face higher food safety risks, while the association was less pronounced (or even negative) for those facing lower levels of risk. We observed that secondary education attainment was associated with a 20 percentage points increase (p < 0.01) in the probability of washing hands compared to the reference group (illiterate) in agricultural households. However, for non-agricultural households, secondary education was associated with a 10 percentage points decrease (p < 0.05) in probability. Similar patterns were found for washing surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Education is associated with increased adoption of safe food handling practices among individuals facing higher food safety risks. This has important implications for developing targeted policies focused on individuals most susceptible to foodborne diseases. Future policies aimed at increasing the adoption of safe food handling practices should also integrate individuals' decision-making processes and behavior biases in the context of varying risk levels.

A worldwide review of illness outbreaks involving mixed salads/dressings and factors influencing product safety and shelf life

The trends toward healthy living, vegetarianism, and busy schedules have increased salad popularity. Salads are usually consumed raw without any thermal treatment, and therefore, without proper care they can become major vehicles for foodborne illness outbreaks. This review examines the microbial quality of 'dressed' salads which contain two or more vegetables/fruits and salad dressings. The possible sources of ingredient contamination, recorded illnesses/outbreaks, and overall microbial quality observed worldwide, besides the antimicrobial treatments available are discussed in detail. Noroviruses were most frequently implicated in outbreaks. Salad dressings usually play a positive role in influencing microbial quality. However, this depends on several factors like the type of contaminating microorganism, storage temperature, dressing pH and ingredients, plus the type of salad vegetable. Very limited literature exists on antimicrobial treatments that can be used successfully with salad dressings and 'dressed' salads. The challenge with antimicrobial treatments is to find ones sufficiently broad in spectrum, compatible with produce flavour which can be applied at competitive cost. It is evident that renewed emphasis on prevention of produce contamination at the producer, processor, wholesale and retail levels plus enhanced hygiene vigilance at foodservice will have a major impact on reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses from salads.

Scientific Evidence Supports the Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers as an Effective Alternative to Hand Washing in Retail Food and Food Service Settings When Heavy Soiling Is Not Present on Hands

ABSTRACT

Suboptimal food worker health and hygiene has been a common contributing factor in foodborne disease outbreaks for many years. Despite clear U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Model Food Code recommendations for hand washing and glove use, food worker compliance with hand washing recommendations has remained poor for >20 years. Food workers' compliance with recommended hand washing guidelines is adversely impacted by a number of barriers, including complaints of time pressure, inadequate number and/or location of hand washing sinks and hand washing supplies, lack of food knowledge and training regarding hand washing, the belief that wearing gloves obviates the need for hand washing, insufficient management commitment, and adverse skin effects caused by frequent hand washing. Although many of the issues related to poor hand washing practices in food service facilities are the same as those in health care settings, a new approach to health care hand hygiene was deemed necessary >15 years ago due to persistently low compliance rates among health care personnel. Evidence-based hand hygiene guidelines for health care settings were published by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002 and by the World Health Organization in 2009. Despite similar low hand washing compliance rates among retail food establishment workers, no changes in the Food Code guidelines for hand washing have been made since 2001. In direct contrast to health care settings, where frequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs) in lieu of hand washing has improved hand hygiene compliance rates and reduced infections, the Food Code continues to permit the use of ABHSs only after hands have been washed with soap and water. This article provides clear evidence to support modifying the FDA Model Food Code to allow the use of ABHSs as an acceptable alternative to hand washing in situations where heavy soiling is not present. Emphasis on the importance of hand washing when hands are heavily soiled and appropriate use of gloves is still indicated.

HIGHLIGHTS

Both Handwashing and an Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Intervention Reduce Soil and Microbial Contamination on Farmworker Hands during Harvest, but Produce Type Matters

Hand hygiene interventions are critical for reducing farmworker hand contamination and preventing the spread of produce-associated illness. Hand hygiene effectiveness may be produce-commodity specific, which could influence implementation strategies. This study's goal was to determine if produce commodity influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) interventions to reduce soil and bacteria on farmworker hands. Farmworkers (n = 326) harvested produce (cantaloupe, jalapeño, and tomato) for 30 to 90 minutes before engaging in handwashing, two-step ABHS (jalapeño and cantaloupe), or no hand hygiene. Hands were rinsed to measure amounts of soil (absorbance at 600 nm) and indicator bacteria (coliforms, Enterococcus sp., generic Escherichia coli, and Bacteroidales universal [AllBac] and human-specific [BFD] 16S rRNA gene markers). Without hand hygiene, bacterial concentrations (0.88 to 5.1 log₁₀ CFU/hand) on hands significantly differed by the produce commodity harvested. Moderate significant correlations (ρ = -0.41 to 0.56) between soil load and bacterial concentrations were observed. There were significant produce-commodity-specific differences in the ability of handwashing and two-step ABHS interventions to reduce soil (P < 0.0001), coliforms (P = 0.002), and Enterococcus sp. (P = 0.003), but not the Bacteroidales markers AllBac (P = 0.4) or BFD (P = 0.3). Contamination on hands of farmworkers who harvested cantaloupe was more difficult to remove. Overall, we found that a two-step ABHS intervention was similar to handwashing with soap and water at reducing bacteria on farmworker hands. In summary, produce commodity type should be considered when developing hand hygiene interventions on farms.IMPORTANCE This study demonstrated that the type of produce commodity handled influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or a two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) intervention to reduce soil and bacterial hand contamination. Handwashing with soap and water, as recommended by the FDA's Produce Safety Rule, when tested in three agricultural environments, does not always reduce bacterial loads. Consistent with past results, we found that the two-step ABHS method performed similarly to handwashing with soap and water but also does not always reduce bacterial loads in these contexts. Given the ease of use of the two-step ABHS method, which may increase compliance, the two-step ABHS method should be further evaluated and possibly considered for implementation in the agricultural environment. Taken together, these results provide important information on hand hygiene effectiveness in three agricultural contexts.

Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella deposited on gloves in a liquid state and subjected to drying conditions

Gloves are worn by workers harvesting ready-to-eat produce as a deterrent for contaminating the produce with enteric pathogens that may reside on their hands. As fields are not sterile environments, the probability for gloves to become contaminated still exists and therefore it is critical to understand the conditions that affect the survival of pathogens on gloves. Both Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella deposited on glove surfaces in a liquid state survived longer when the pathogen had been suspended in lettuce sap than when suspended in water. Despite this protection, pathogens deposited on clean single-use gloves were more likely to survive during drying than pathogens deposited on dirty gloves (a film of lettuce sap had been applied to the surface prior to pathogen application and soil had been ground into the gloves). Survival of both E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella was biphasic with the greatest losses occurring during the first hour of drying followed by much slower losses in the ensuing hours. Pathogens grown in rich media (tryptic soy broth) versus minimal media (M9) as well as those cultured on solid agar versus liquid broth were also more likely to be resistant to desiccation when deposited onto gloves. Although survival of E. coli O157:H7 on nitrile gloves was in general greater than it was on latex gloves, the relative survival of Salmonella on the two glove types was inconsistent. Due to these inconsistencies, no one glove type is considered better than another in reducing the risk for contamination with enteric pathogens. In addition, the extended survival of what are generally referred to as stress-resistant pathogens suggests that gloves either be changed frequently during the day or washed in a disinfectant to reduce the risk of glove contamination that could otherwise contaminate product handled with the contaminated gloves.

Removal of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis after Hand Washing with Antimicrobial and Nonantimicrobial Soap and Persistence of These Bacteria in Rinsates

Food handlers are important sources of contamination in the agricultural environment. This study was conducted (i) to evaluate the activity of antimicrobial soaps against Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis using a hand washing model with soiled hands and (ii) to determine the survival and persistence of these bacteria in rinsates. Sterilized agricultural soil from tomato and pepper farms was inoculated with E. coli or E. faecalis at 10³ or 10⁶ CFU/g. Decontaminated hands were placed in contact with contaminated soil for 2 min and were then washed with soaps with or without antimicrobial compounds (citric extracts, chloroxylenol, triclosan, or chlorhexidine gluconate). As the control, hands were washed with sterile distilled water. The levels of bacteria remaining on the hands and recovered from the rinsates were determined using a membrane filtration method and selective media. Antimicrobial soaps removed levels of E. coli similar to those removed by distilled water and nonantimicrobial soap on hands contaminated with E. coli at 10³ CFU/g. However, when hands were contaminated with E. coli at 10⁶ CFU/g, more E. coli was removed with the chlorhexidine gluconate soap. When hands were contaminated with E. faecalis at 10³ CFU/g, bacteria were removed more effectively with soaps containing chloroxylenol or chlorhexidine gluconate. When hands were contaminated with E. faecalis at 10⁶ CFU/g, all of the antimicrobial soaps were more effective for removing the bacteria than were distilled water and nonantimicrobial soap. E. coli grew in all of the hand washing rinsates except that containing triclosan, whereas E. faecalis from the 10⁶ CFU/g treatments grew in rinsates containing chlorhexidine gluconate and in the distilled water rinsates. Washing with antimicrobial soap was more effective for reducing bacteria on soiled hands than was washing with water or nonantimicrobial soap. However, persistence or growth of bacteria in these rinsates poses health risks.

Contamination of Fresh Produce by Microbial Indicators on Farms and in Packing Facilities: Elucidation of Environmental Routes

To improve food safety on farms, it is critical to quantify the impact of environmental microbial contamination sources on fresh produce. However, studies are hampered by difficulties achieving study designs with powered sample sizes to elucidate relationships between environmental and produce contamination. Our goal was to quantify, in the agricultural production environment, the relationship between microbial contamination on hands, soil, and water and contamination on fresh produce. In 11 farms and packing facilities in northern Mexico, we applied a matched study design: composite samples (n = 636, equivalent to 11,046 units) of produce rinses were matched to water, soil, and worker hand rinses during two growing seasons. Microbial indicators (coliforms, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., and somatic coliphage) were quantified from composite samples. Statistical measures of association and correlations were calculated through Spearman's correlation, linear regression, and logistic regression models. The concentrations of all microbial indicators were positively correlated between produce and hands (ρ range, 0.41 to 0.75; P < 0.01). When E. coli was present on hands, the handled produce was nine times more likely to contain E. coli (P < 0.05). Similarly, when coliphage was present on hands, the handled produce was eight times more likely to contain coliphage (P < 0.05). There were relatively low concentrations of indicators in soil and water samples, and a few sporadic significant associations were observed between contamination of soil and water and contamination of produce. This methodology provides a foundation for future field studies, and results highlight the need for interventions surrounding farmworker hygiene and sanitation to reduce microbial contamination of farmworkers' hands.IMPORTANCE This study of the relationships between microbes on produce and in the farm environment can be used to support the design of targeted interventions to prevent or reduce microbial contamination of fresh produce with associated reductions in foodborne illness.

Somatic Coliphage Profiles of Produce and Environmental Samples from Farms in Northern México

Somatic coliphages were quantified in 459 produce and environmental samples from 11 farms in Northern Mexico to compare amounts of somatic coliphages among different types of fresh produce and environmental samples across the production steps on farms. Rinsates from cantaloupe melons, jalapeño peppers, tomatoes, and the hands of workers, soil, and water were collected during 2011-2012 at four successive steps on each farm, from the field before harvest through the packing facility, and assayed by FastPhage MPN Quanti-tray method. Cantaloupe farm samples contained more coliphages than jalapeño or tomato (p range <0.01-0.03). Across production steps, jalapeños had higher coliphage percentages before harvest than during packing (p = 0.03), while tomatoes had higher coliphage concentrations at packing than all preceding production steps (p range <0.01-0.02). These findings support the use of targeted produce-specific interventions at multiple points in the process of growing and packing produce to reduce the risk of enteric virus contamination and improve food safety during fruit and vegetable production.

Microbial Indicator Profiling of Fresh Produce and Environmental Samples from Farms and Packing Facilities in Northern Mexico

To compare microbiological indicator and pathogen contamination among different types of fresh produce and environmental samples along the production chain, 636 samples of produce (rinsates from cantaloupe melons, jalapeño peppers, and tomatoes) and environmental samples (rinsates from hands of workers, soil, and water) were collected at four successive steps in the production process (from the field before harvest through the packing facility) on 11 farms in northern Mexico during 2011 and 2012. Samples were assayed for enteric pathogens (Escherichia coli O157:H7, other Shiga toxigenic E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes) and microbial indicators (coliforms, other E. coli strains, and Enterococcus spp.). Salmonella was the only pathogen detected; it was found in one preharvest jalapeño sample (detection limits: 0.0033 CFU/ml in produce and hand samples, 0.0013 CFU/ml in water, and 0.04 CFU/g in soil). Microbial indicator profiles for produce, worker hands, and soil from jalapeño and tomato farms were similar, but cantaloupe farm samples had higher indicator levels (P < 0.05 for all comparisons) on fruit (6.5, 2.8, and 7.2 log CFU per fruit) and hands (6.6, 3.1, and 7.1 log CFU per hand) for coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococcus, respectively, and lower E. coli levels in soil (<1 CFU/g). In water from tomato farms, E. coli indicators were significantly more prevalent (70 to 89% of samples were positive; P = 0.01 to 0.02), and geometric mean levels were higher (0.3 to 0.6 log CFU/100 ml) than those in cantaloupe farm water (32 to 38% of samples were positive, geometric mean <1 CFU/100 ml). Microbial indicators were present during all production steps, but prevalence and levels were generally highest at the final on-farm production step (the packing facility) (P < 0.03 for significant comparisons). The finding that microbial contamination on produce farms is influenced by produce type and production step can inform the design of effective approaches to mitigate microbial contamination.

Ability of Hand Hygiene Interventions Using Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers and Soap To Reduce Microbial Load on Farmworker Hands Soiled during Harvest

Effective hand hygiene is essential to prevent the spread of pathogens on produce farms and reduce foodborne illness. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act Proposed Rule for Produce Safety recommends the use of soap and running water for hand hygiene of produce handlers. The use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) may be an effective alternative hygiene intervention where access to water is limited. There are no published data on the efficacy of either soap or ABHS-based interventions to reduce microbial contamination in agricultural settings. The goal of this study was to assess the ability of two soap-based (traditional or pumice) and two ABHS-based (label-use or two-step) hygiene interventions to reduce microbes (coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus spp.) and soil (absorbance of hand rinsate at 600 nm [A600]) on farmworker hands after harvesting produce, compared with the results for a no-hand-hygiene control. With no hand hygiene, farmworker hands were soiled (median A600, 0.48) and had high concentrations of coliforms (geometric mean, 3.4 log CFU per hand) and Enterococcus spp. (geometric mean, 5.3 log CFU per hand) after 1 to 2 h of harvesting tomatoes. Differences in microbial loads in comparison to the loads in the control group varied by indicator organism and hygiene intervention (0 to 2.3 log CFU per hand). All interventions yielded lower concentrations of Enterococcus spp. and E. coli (P < 0.05), but not of coliforms, than were found in the control group. The two-step ABHS intervention led to significantly lower concentrations of coliforms and Enterococcus spp. than the pumice soap and label-use ABHS interventions (P < 0.05) and was the only intervention to yield significantly fewer samples with E. coli than were found in the control group (P < 0.05). All interventions removed soil from hands (P < 0.05), soap-based interventions more so than ABHS-based interventions (P < 0.05). ABHS-based interventions were equally as effective as hand washing with soap at reducing indicator organisms on farmworker hands. Based on these results, ABHS is an efficacious hand hygiene solution for produce handlers, even on soiled hands.