Cited by 136Listeria monocytogenes in Food SafetySalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFood Safety and Hygiene

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigation of Listeria , Salmonella , and Toxigenic Escherichia coli in Various Pet Foods

Open access

Abstract

The Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN), in collaboration with the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) and its Microbiology Cooperative Agreement Program (MCAP) laboratories, conducted a study to evaluate the prevalence of selected microbial organisms in various types of pet foods. The goal of this blinded study was to help the Center for Veterinary Medicine prioritize potential future pet food-testing efforts. The study also increased the FERN laboratories' screening capabilities for foodborne pathogens in animal feed matrices, since such pathogens may also be a significant health risk to consumers who come into contact with pet foods. Six U.S. Food and Drug Administration FERN MCAP laboratories analyzed approximately 1056 samples over 2 years. Laboratories tested for Salmonella, Listeria, Escherichia coli O157:H7 enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and Shiga toxin-producing strains of E. coli (STEC). Dry and semimoist dog and cat foods purchased from local stores were tested during Phase 1. Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2. Of the 480 dry and semimoist samples, only 2 tested positive: 1 for Salmonella and 1 for Listeria greyii. However, of the 576 samples analyzed during Phase 2, 66 samples were positive for Listeria (32 of those were Listeria monocytogenes) and 15 samples positive for Salmonella. These pathogens were isolated from raw foods and jerky-type treats,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/fpd.2014.1748

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 20 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Andrews WH, , Jacobson A, , Hammack T. Salmonella. In: Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 2007.
  2. AOAC. AOAC Official Method 2004.03 Salmonella in foods. In: Official Methods of Analysis, AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD. Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International, 2007.
  3. CDC. Notes from the field: Human Salmonella infantis infections linked to dry dog food—United States and Canada, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2012; 61:436.
  4. CDC. Table 13 FoodNet—Number of Deaths and Case Fatality Ratio 2012. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013.
  5. Chahed A, , China B, , Daube G. Escherichia coli producers of Shiga toxins in toxic food-borne infections. Ann Med Vet, 2007; 151:215–246.
  6. [USDA-FSIS] U.S. Department of Agriculture—Food Safety and Inspection Service. Detection, isolation and identification of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from meat products: MLG 5.04. In: Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook. Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2008a.
  7. USDA-FSIS. FSIS Procedure for the Use of Escherichi coli O157:H7 Screening Tests: MLG 5A.01: Archived 10/1/2010. In: Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook. Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2008b.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–136 of 136

Metadata

Authors
Nemser, S. M., Doran, T., Grabenstein, M., McConnell, T., McGrath, T., Pamboukian, R., Smith, A. C., Achen, M., Danzeisen, G., Kim, S., Liu, Y., Robeson, S., Rosario, G., McWilliams Wilson, K., & Reimschuessel, R.
Affiliations
  • Center for Veterinary Medicine (US)
  • Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Abbott Nutrition (United States) (US)
  • Eurofins (United States) (US)
  • Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (US)
  • Washington State Department of Agriculture (US)
  • Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (US)
  • North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (US)
  • Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Corresponding author
Nemser, Sarah M.
Venue
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
Published
2014-09
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
706-709
ISSN
  • 1535-3141 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-7125
OpenAlex
W1964530361
Cited by
136
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Foodborne Pathogens and Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Minnesota Department of Agriculture
  • Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
Keywords
pet food, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, raw pet food, food safety, pathogen prevalence, consumer health risk
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Escherichia coli, Food Microbiology, Humans, Listeria, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, United States, Colony Count, Microbial, Escherichia coli O157, Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli, Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli, Pets

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review