Next Article in Journal
Can Isotopologues Be Used as Biosignature Gases in Exoplanet Atmospheres?
Next Article in Special Issue
Common and Potential Emerging Foodborne Viruses: A Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Diversity of Culture Microorganisms from Portuguese Sweet Cherries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/life13122324
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Microbiological Safety and Hygiene of Raw and Thermally Treated Milk Cheeses Marketed in Central Italy between 2013 and 2020

by
Sara Primavilla
1,†,
Rossana Roila
2,*,†,
Elena Rocchegiani
1,
Giuliana Blasi
1,
Annalisa Petruzzelli
1,
Claudia Gabucci
1,
Donatella Ottaviani
1,
Stefania Di Lullo
1,
Raffaella Branciari
2,
David Ranucci
2 and
Andrea Valiani
1
1
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Umbria e delle Marche “Togo Rosati”, Via Salvemini 1, 06126 Perugia, Italy
2
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Life 2023, 13(12), 2324; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13122324
Submission received: 10 November 2023 / Revised: 29 November 2023 / Accepted: 9 December 2023 / Published: 11 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Microbiological Contamination)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A profile of the microbial safety and hygiene of cheese in central Italy was defined based on an analysis of 1373 cheeses sampled under the Italian National Control Plan for Food Safety spanning the years 2013 to 2020 and tested according to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 (as amended). A total of 97.4% of cheese samples were assessed as being satisfactory for food safety criteria and 80.5% for process hygiene criteria. Staphylococcal enterotoxin was found in 2/414 samples, while Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes were detected in 15 samples out of 373 and 437, respectively. Escherichia coli and coagulase-positive staphylococci counts were found unsatisfactory in 12/61 and 17/88 cheese samples, respectively. The impact of milking species, milk thermal treatment, and cheese hardness category was considered. A statistically significant association (p < 0.05) was found between milk thermal treatment and the prevalence of coagulase-positive staphylococci and Listeria monocytogenes and between hardness and unsatisfactory levels of Escherichia coli. The data depict a contained public health risk associated with these products and confirm, at the same time, the importance of strict compliance with good hygiene practices during milk and cheese production. These results can assist in bolstering risk analysis and providing insights for food safety decision making.

1. Introduction

Cheese represents the most diverse group of dairy products obtained, with a wide range of tastes, flavors, and forms throughout the world [1]. Although the primary objective of cheese making was to conserve the principal constituents of milk, cheese has evolved to become a largely appreciated food with elevated culinary qualities, as well as nutritional ones [2]. The high consumer acceptability of cheeses can be attributed to their pleasant sensorial characteristics, good nutritional properties, versatility of use, and the introduction of novel ingredients, packaging, and sale formats [3,4]. Cheeses are generally considered a safe food, although, unlike other products, they are biologically and biochemically dynamic and, consequently, characterized by an inherent instability [1]. The safety of cheese depends upon a variety of factors influencing the growth, survival, and inactivation of microorganisms, such as the microbiological quality of the raw milk, the rate and degree of acidification during production, and the water activity (aw) of the final product.
Although raw milk is often identified as the primary contributor to cheese contamination, it is not the sole source [5], and the ability of some pathogens to form biofilm and persist on food contact surfaces has been related to cross-contamination during and after production [6,7].
Several factors can influence cheese microbial safety and hygiene, such as the origin and microbial quality of milk, the adjustment of fat content, milk homogenization, pasteurization, starter cultures, coagulation, curd manipulation, hand stirring, salting, whey removal, milling, molding, and storage conditions [8]. For instance, a worker’s hands and cheese contact surfaces in processing plants have been identified as potential vehicles for some harmful microorganisms [9], such as Staphylococcus aureus [10,11] and Listeria monocytogenes [12]. Furthermore, once contamination has occurred, the intrinsic characteristics of cheese can potentially allow for microbial growth.
Consequently, numerous foodborne illnesses linked to cheese consumption have been reported over the years in many countries [13].
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that in 2020, 1.6% of foodborne outbreaks in the European Union were associated with cheeses, albeit data from previous years revealed even higher values, such as 7.8% in 2015 and 4.8% in 2016 [13].
One of the main concerns among food manufacturers, retailers, and researchers, as well as regulatory and official control agencies, is to ensure consumers safe cheeses.
In European countries, cheese production and sales are subjected to Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14], amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1441/2007 [15], and microbiological criteria, namely, food safety criteria and process hygiene criteria, vary according to the microorganism of concern.
The objective of this study is to compile findings from the Italian National Control Plan for Food Safety spanning the years 2013 to 2020 in order to create a comprehensive overview of the microbiological safety and hygiene status of cheese in central Italy in accordance with the microbiological criteria outlined in Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Description of Samples

Cheese samples were collected by veterinary inspectors in the Umbria and Marche regions (central Italy) between 2013 and 2020, in the context of the Italian National Control Plan for Food Safety. Finished products were sampled in dairy factories and retail stores. The cheeses were classified according to the type of milk used (ovine or bovine cheese), heat treatment (raw milk or pasteurized milk), and hardness category (fresh, soft/semisoft, and hard/semihard) [16]. Samples were aseptically collected using sterile instruments and sterile bags (Blender bag Plain, 400 mL, Sterile VWR®, Milano, Italy) and stored at refrigerated temperature (+4 °C) until analyzed, according to UNI EN ISO 7218:2013 [17]. Each sample included five subunits of at least 100 g, which were randomly collected from each lot of sampled cheese. The collected samples were stored at refrigerated temperature (+4 °C) and analyzed within 24 h.

2.2. Sample Assessment

The analysis pattern of each sample was performed according to the Italian National Control Plan for Food Safety; therefore, not all samples were subjected to the same microbiological determinations.
Test results were assessed as being satisfactory or unsatisfactory using the assessment criteria outlined in Table 1, which are based on Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14], amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1441/2007 [15]. In particular, Table 1A shows the interpretation of the results for food safety criteria (Salmonella spp. L. monocytogenes and Staphylococcal enterotoxins), as described in Chapter 1 of the Regulation. Table 1B, instead, reports the interpretation of the results for process hygiene criteria (enumeration of Escherichia coli and coagulase-positive staphylococci), as shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.2 “Milk and dairy products” of the Regulation [14,15].

2.3. Microbiological Analysis

Microbiological tests were performed in UNI CEI EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018 [18] accredited food microbiology laboratories of “Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Umbria e delle Marche Togo Rosati”.
Qualitative analyses (Listeria monocytogenes—LMO, Salmonella spp.—SLM, and Staphylococcal enterotoxins—SEs) were performed through an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS® LMO, VIDAS® SLM, and VIDAS® SET2 tests, respectively—bioMérieux, Marcy-I’Etoile, France), following the instructions provided by the manufacturer. In brief, for LMO and SLM detection, a 10−1 homogenate of each sample was prepared by diluting 25 g of cheese in 225 mL of Half Fraser Broth (Microbiol s.r.l., Cagliari, Italy) and Buffered Peptone Water (Biolife s.r.l., Milan, Italy), respectively. Positive broth cultures were confirmed according to ISO 11290-1:2017 [19] for LMO and to ISO 6579-1:2017 [20] for SLM. LMO was confirmed using two different culture media, ALOA (Ottaviani Agosti Listeria agar) and Oxford agar, both purchased from Microbiol s.r.l., Cagliari, Italy. Blue-green colonies with an opaque halo on ALOA and brown colonies with black aesculin hydrolysis zones on Oxford agar were selected for further tests (API Listeria—bioMérieux, Marcy-I’Etoile, France). Regarding SLM, two different selective and differential media were used: xylose–lysine–deoxycholate agar (XLD—Microbiol s.r.l., Cagliari, Italy) and Salmonella chromogenic medium (Biolife Italiana s.r.l., Milan, Italy). Typical colonies (red with a black center on XLD agar and magenta on Salmonella chromogenic medium) were chosen to be confirmed through biochemical tests (API 32E strips—bioMérieux, Marcy-I’Etoile, France). SLM isolates were finally serotyped through a slide agglutination test, as described in the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme [21,22].
SE detection was performed according to ISO 19020:2017 [23]: 25 g of each cheese sample was homogenized with 40 mL of preheated (38 ± 2 °C) demineralized water. After 30 min at 18–25 °C, the pH of the homogenized samples was adjusted between 3.5 and 4.0 using 5 N HCl. The suspension was then centrifuged for 15 min at 3130× g at 4 °C. The supernatant was recovered, and the pH was adjusted between 7.4 and 7.6 using 1 N NaOH. The suspension was finally centrifuged for 15 min at 4 °C at 3130× g and placed in a dialysis sac that was immersed in 30% (w/v) polyethylene glycol (PEG; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 5 °C until the volume was reduced to 15–20 mL or less. The sac was then rinsed inside with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; pH, 7.3 ± 0.2; NaCl, 145 mM; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA—Na2HPO4, 10 mM; Chem-Lab NV, Zedelgem, Belgium), and 500 μL was loaded into Vidas® SET2 strips. The results of qualitative analyses were expressed as “presence” or “non-detection” of the pathogen/toxin in 25 g of sample.
Enumeration of LMO was performed as described in ISO 11290-2:2017 certification [24]: 10 g of each sample was properly homogenized with 90 mL of Buffered Peptone Water (Biolife Italiana s.r.l., Milan, Italy), serially 10-fold diluted and spread onto ALOA. Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h before counting typical LMO colonies (blue-green colonies surrounded by an opaque halo). A maximum of five or fewer suspect colonies from each plate were then confirmed using biochemical or molecular tests, as described in ISO 11290-2:2017 [24], and the final count was determined in proportion to the initial number.
Enumeration of Escherichia coli (EC) and coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS) was carried out utilizing a TEMPO® automated enumeration system (bioMérieux, Marcy-I’Etoile, France), starting from samples properly diluted in Buffered Peptone Water (Biolife Italiana s.r.l., Milan, Italy).
The results of quantitative analyses were expressed as colony-forming units/gram (CFU/g).

2.4. Criteria for the Interpretation of Microbiology Results

Microbiological results were interpreted using Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 (as amended) [14,15]. As summarized in Table 1A,B, this Regulation defines limits for SE, SLM, LMO, and CPS. However, it does not provide criteria for EC in unpasteurized milk cheese, even though it sets limits for this organism in cheese made from pasteurized milk.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive and statistical analyses of the data were performed using R free software version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Relative proportions were compared using the Chi-squared and Fisher–Yates test to determine if there were associations between the assessment status of the samples (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory) and sample variables (i.e., milking species, thermal treatment, hardness cheese category, and year of sampling). For the purpose of this analysis, p-values < 0.05 were deemed to be statistically significant.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows a comprehensive profile of microbial characteristics of cheese sampled in central Italy from 2013 to 2020 in the context of the Italian National Control Plan for Food Safety. When interpreted according to the criteria shown in Table 1, 1312 determinations (95.6%) were considered to be microbiologically satisfactory, whereas 61 (4.4%) were unsatisfactory. In detail, concerning the food safety criteria, the cheese samples interpreted as unsatisfactory and potentially harmful were found positive, in order, for Salmonella spp. (4%; 15/373), followed by L. monocytogenes (3.4%; 15/437) and Staphylococcal enterotoxins (0.5%; 2/414). Pertaining to the process hygiene criteria, 29/149 samples (19.5%) were reported as unsatisfactory with a slightly higher prevalence of EC levels (19.7%; 12/61) than CPS (19.3%; 17/88). Although the presence of pathogenic bacteria or toxins has been reported, the overall results reveal a satisfactory microbiological hygiene and safety profile of the cheese samples collected in central Italy. In terms of unsatisfactory samples, the herein reported values are lower than those registered in England for the years 2013–2020 (12%), albeit the latter considered only unpasteurized milk cheese [2]. Furthermore, another English study revealed that results from routine monitoring were unsatisfactory for 21% of samples, considering cheeses from different species [25]. Ganz and colleagues refer to an overall value of samples assessed as being of unsatisfactory microbiological safety of 2.2% for different cheeses sampled in Canada during 2012–2017 [26], which is lower but still comparable to the value herein reported.
Statistical analysis performed with the Chi-square test indicated no significant relationship between the year of sampling and the frequency of unsatisfactory samples in individual years (p ≥ 0.05); therefore, this variable has not been considered in this study. Any differences attributable to the considered milking species, the application of heat treatments in milk, and the cheese hardness category were taken into account and further discussed.

3.1. Food Safety Criteria

3.1.1. Listeria monocytogenes

L. monocytogenes, a well-known foodborne pathogen, has the potential to cause serious and life-threatening conditions, especially for the immunocompromised, such as septicemia, meningitis, stillbirths, and abortion [27]. L. monocytogenes is widespread in the environment, and it is able to enter food processing plants, particularly dairy ones, where it can easily establish itself and strongly persist thanks to its ability to form biofilms and manifest decreased susceptibility to disinfectants and the environment [28].
According to the data depicted in the present study, L. monocytogenes was detected in bovine and ovine milk cheeses with similar prevalences of 3.88% and 3.25%, respectively (Table 2), indicating that milk-producing species seems to be irrelevant for the presence of this pathogen in cheese (p > 0.05).
Different results were highlighted in relation to milk thermal treatment, revealing that raw milk cheeses show a lower prevalence of contamination compared to pasteurized milk cheeses (Table 3). This result may seem unlikely since pasteurized milk is generally recognized as safer than raw milk [25]; however, this outcome is in line with the literature data reporting that even though pasteurization inactivates L.monocytogenes in raw milk, pasteurized milk cheeses are still a major source of L. monocytogenes infection [29,30].
This is primarily due to insufficient pasteurization or post-pasteurization cross-contamination that can occur in almost any phase of the production and distribution chain in relation to its ability to persist in dairy production environments [29,31]. Some authors [32] have also reported that post-processing handling and operations constitute a major concern for L. monocytogenes contamination; for instance, cheese cutting or slicing could represent a critical point for this microorganism being transferred to the paste, where it can easily grow and, in some cases, exceed the limit imposed by food safety criteria of Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14].
Furthermore, it has been reported that natural raw milk microbiota may be able to prevent the growth of contaminating foodborne pathogens during cheese making, defining raw milk cheeses as a rather microbiologically safe food. For instance, extremely low or zero percentages of raw milk cheeses contaminated with L. monocytogenes have been reported in the literature [8,33,34].
Albeit the prevalence values related to the hardness category seem to suggest a higher involvement of harder cheese (Table 4), these values are not significant (p > 0.05). The reported prevalence of L. monocytogenes in fresh cheeses from different countries is quite variable, ranging from 0.0% to 38%, even if the majority are below 10% [8,35,36]. For ripened cheese, the values registered in different countries range from 0.0% to 5.5% [37], which is in line with the results shown in this study. It has been reported in the literature that L. monocytogenes presence in milk and dairy products can be significantly influenced by geographical area and seasons [38]; however, these two aspects are not considered in the present study.

3.1.2. Salmonella spp.

All Salmonella strains are gastroenteritis-inducing pathogens, and despite the implementation of integrated and harmonized control programs, this pathogen still represents a significant cause of foodborne outbreaks in Europe [39].
Various Salmonella serotypes have been involved in cheese-borne outbreaks [40]. For instance, a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in Dublin associated with raw cow milk cheese consumption was investigated in France in 2015–2016 [41], and strong evidence of an outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis caused by the consumption of contaminated raw sheep milk cheese was more recently deepened in central Italy [42].
As reported above, the mean prevalence of this pathogen in sampled cheeses during the time frame considered was 4.00%, which is primarily attributable to ovine milk cheeses, indicating, as shown in Table 2, that the related prevalence of this pathogen was higher than bovine milk cheese, albeit with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). Concerning milk thermal treatment and hardness categories, the data reported in Table 3 and Table 4 suggest (p > 0.05) the major involvement of raw milk cheeses, as the entire amount of positive samples belonged to this latter category, and of fresh or soft and semisoft cheese, as in these two cases, the prevalence is double the hard and semihard cheeses. These results are partially in agreement with the data available in the literature. Elafify et al. reported prevalence values of 16.7% for Kariesh cheese (a ewe milk soft fresh cheese) from retailed dairies in Egypt [43]. A meta-analysis of data from different countries revealed that the pooled frequency of detection of Salmonella in sheep milk cheese was 1.4%, which is higher than in our study [44]. Another work from Costanzo and colleagues revealed a 0% prevalence of contamination with Salmonella in both ovine and bovine raw milk cheese from southern Italy [36]. Spanish authors highlight the importance of the presence of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella species in food samples, although the prevalence they registered in pasteurized milk cheese was 0% (0/289) [45].

3.1.3. Staphylococcal Enterotoxins

The ingestion of Staphylococcal enterotoxins can cause food poisoning outbreaks, with common symptoms being vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain, which appear after a short incubation period (2–6 h). Just a few micrograms of Staphylococcal enterotoxins are sufficient to cause food poisoning in vulnerable adults, while nanograms are enough in children [46].
Staphylococcal enterotoxins produced by Staphylococcus aureus are, on a global scale, one of the most common causative agents of food poisoning [13]; indeed, it has also been reported that in 2015, over half of the foodborne outbreaks associated with bacterial toxins (n = 434) were caused by Staphylococcal enterotoxins [47]. In the literature, several outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning due to the consumption of cheese have been reported [48,49,50].
As previously mentioned, in the present study, the overall mean prevalence of SEs in cheese was 0.5% (2/414), indicating a low concern for public health related to the presence of this toxic contaminant, as higher values have been registered in the literature. For instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2017 reported that approximately 1.2% of cheeses and dairy products, analyzed in the context of national monitoring and surveillance plans of reporting member states, tested positive for staphylococcal enterotoxin [51]. Other studies from Turkey reported values of 2.3% and 3.8% for Staphylococcal enterotoxin-positive samples of ewe cheese and dairy dessert, respectively [52].
Among the 414 determinations for Staphylococcal enterotoxins, only 2 were found positive, referring to the samples of cheese from raw ovine milk, of which one was fresh and one was soft and semisoft. Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show no significant differences (p > 0.05) among milk-producing species, milk thermal treatment, or hardness category, respectively, and due to the low prevalence values, scarce discussion can be conducted. Several methods can limit the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and its enterotoxin production during cheesemaking, such as the use of starter cultures, high salt concentration, low storage temperature, and extreme pH [53].

3.2. Process Hygiene Criteria

3.2.1. Escherichia coli count

Coliforms are not inherent microflora of raw milk; thus, their presence in cheese can be indicative of milk fecal contamination stemming from the environment, udder, and milking equipment during and after the milking process [54]. Additionally, it is noteworthy that ruminants serve as a reservoir for E. coli, and defecation during the milking procedure is recognized as a pivotal event with the potential for milk contamination. Therefore, the rigorous maintenance of robust milking and hygiene protocols is imperative in mitigating these risks of microbial contamination [55]. For more than a century, the dairy sector has monitored sanitation failures and post-processing contamination using these hygiene indicators, and nowadays, many industrialized and developing nations throughout the world have set microbial indicator thresholds for assessing the hygienic quality of cheeses [56]. Consistent with EU Regulation 2073/2005, in this study, E. coli was considered as an indicator of the level of process hygiene [14]. Of 61 determinations in cheese samples, 12 were above the regulatory limit, with an overall prevalence of 19.67% (95%).
Concerning the milk-producing species, the prevalence of unsatisfactory samples was equivalent, with 21% for bovine and 16% for ovine (Table 2). Previous results from the literature have reported lower values for E. coli contamination in southern Italy, at 7.6% and 3.7% for ovine and bovine milk cheeses, respectively [36].
Concerning the results related to milk thermal treatment, it is important to highlight that national sampling plans are defined on the basis of the regulatory framework that stipulates that the enumeration of E. coli shall only be conducted on samples of heat-treated milk cheese. Therefore, no data are available on raw milk cheeses; therefore, a comparison with pasteurized samples is unfeasible.
According to the hardness of cheese, the prevalence of non-compliant samples was lower for fresh cheese compared to those of ripened cheeses (p < 0.05), although the value for hard and semihard cheese aligns with both previous categories.

3.2.2. Coagulase-Positive Staphylococci

Staphylococcal food poisoning is one of the most frequent foodborne illnesses in humans worldwide and is associated with contaminated foods of animal origin, such as milk and dairy products and other protein-rich foods of animal origin [57,58].
Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus, the representative species of coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS), frequently colonizes the ductus papillaris of the mammary glands in milk-producing animals, which can lead to the recurrent occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis. This causes the frequent use of antibiotics in the dairy sector and explains the presence of this microorganism in milk [2]. Furthermore, the environment, including human handling, can serve as a significant source of contamination; consequently, it is highly advisable to enhance hygiene practices during production [34]. Many studies in the literature have shown that 15% to 80% of the CPS isolated from various food matrices are able to produce thermo-stable and pepsin-resistant enterotoxins, especially when the bacterial load exceeds 105 CFU/g [36,59], justifying the relevance of this process hygiene criterion strongly related to food safety.
The overall data, interpreted according to the criteria shown in Table 1, show that 17 samples out of 88 (19.3%) were unsatisfactory, which is similar to what was previously reported by other authors [60].
Our results for the two milk-producing species considered suggest a higher prevalence in ovine samples (Table 2), although without statistical significance (p > 0.05).
Furthermore, the data reported in Table 3 demonstrate that raw milk cheese has a higher prevalence of CPS compared to pasteurized milk cheese (p < 0.05). The widespread occurrence of CPS in raw milk cheese is a widely recognized fact [61], and our results align with those of other authors who reported a higher prevalence in this matrix [62]. From these results, it can be inferred that during the production of cheese, the pasteurization of milk is an effective control measure to reduce the exposure of consumers to this class of potentially harmful microorganisms and their toxins [63]. Although hard and semihard cheese showed a 0% prevalence (Table 4), these data were not significantly lower than those of fresh or soft and semisoft cheese (15% and 25%, respectively), failing to statistically prove that harder cheese paste is associated with lower CPS prevalence.

4. Conclusions

Poor sanitation and a lack of hygienic practices during milk handling and processing, as well as animal health issues, can be considered potential sources for the microbial contamination of raw milk and, potentially, cheese. Although pasteurization effectively eliminates most unwanted microorganisms present in raw milk, the potential for foodborne illnesses also remains a concern for heat-treated milk cheeses, which is due to faulty processing or post-processing contamination caused by the establishment and persistence of foodborne pathogens in dairy processing facilities.
Although few incompliant samples have been registered, overall, the microbiological analyses performed on different cheese types in central Italy during 2013–2020 and depicted in the present study show satisfactory levels of microbiological safety and hygiene of these products. No remarkable differences in the prevalence of unsatisfactory samples have been highlighted considering the milk-producing species. The milk heat treatment seems to affect the microbiological characteristics of cheese in different ways, as this is related to the higher prevalence of L. monocytogenes and the lower counts of CPS. Concerning the hardness of cheese paste, the results highlight its effect in decreasing E. coli count.
The reported prevalence of pathogenic microorganisms in raw and pasteurized milk cheese is contained. Nevertheless, the various outbreaks registered around the world, which can be attributed to the presence of these bacteria in cheeses, indicate the importance of control measures to be adopted in every step of cheese production and commercialization according to the European laws in force and following the National Control Plans.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.P. and R.R.; methodology, E.R. and A.V.; validation, E.R., G.B., A.P., D.O. and A.V.; formal analysis, S.P., C.G. and S.D.L.; investigation, G.B., A.P. and D.O.; resources, E.R. and A.V.; data curation, R.R., R.B. and D.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P. and R.R.; writing—review and editing, S.P. and R.R.; visualization, S.P., R.R., R.B. and D.R.; supervision, E.R. and A.V.; project administration, A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the technicians of the Food Microbiology Laboratories of Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Umbria e delle Marche “Togo Rosati” for their considerable support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fox, P.F.; McSweeney, P.L.; Cogan, T.M.; Guinee, T.P. (Eds.) Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology; General aspects; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  2. Willis, C.; McLauchlin, J.; Aird, H.; Jørgensen, F.; Lai, S.; Sadler-Reeves, L. Assessment of the Microbiological Quality and Safety of Unpasteurized Milk Cheese for Sale in England between 2019 and 2020. J. Food Prot. 2022, 85, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tilocca, B.; Costanzo, N.; Morittu, V.M.; Spina, A.A.; Soggiu, A.; Britti, D.; Roncada, P.; Piras, C. Milk microbiota: Characterization methods and role in cheese production. J. Proteom. 2020, 210, 103534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Miller, G.D. Handbook of Dairy Foods and Nutrition, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-ofDairy-Foods-and-Nutrition/Miller-Jarvis-McBean/p/book/9780367389710 (accessed on 6 June 2023).
  5. André, M.C.D.; Campos, M.R.H.; Borges, L.J.; Kipnis, A.; Pimenta, F.C.; Serafini, A.B. Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from food handlers, raw bovine milk and Minas Frescal cheese by antibiogram and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis following SmaI digestion. Food Control 2008, 19, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kousta, M.; Mataragas, M.; Skandamis, P.; Drosinos, E.H. Prevalence and sources of cheese contamination with pathogens at farm and processing levels. Food Control 2010, 21, 805–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schön, K.; Schornsteiner, E.; Dzieciol, M.; Wagner, M.; Müller, M.; Schmitz-Esser, S. Microbial communities in dairy processing environment floor-drains are dominated by product-associated bacteria and yeasts. Food Control 2016, 70, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ryser, E.T. Incidence and behavior of Listeria monocytogenes in cheese and other fermented dairy products. In Listeria, Listeriosis and Food Safety, 3rd ed.; Ryser, E.T., Marth, E.H., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 405–502. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lupattelli, A.; Primavilla, S.; Roila, R.; Felici, A.; Tinaro, M. Microbiological Safety and Quality of Meals and Work Surfaces in Collective Catering Systems in Central Italy: A Five-Year Monitoring Study. Biology 2022, 12, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carrascosa, C.; Millán, R.; Saavedra, P.; Jaber, J.R.; Raposo, A.; Sanjuán, E. Identification of the risk factors associated with cheese production to implement the hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) system on cheese farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 2606–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, S.H.I.; Camargo, C.H.; Gonçalves, J.L.; Cruz, A.G.; Sartori, B.T.; Machado, M.B.; Oliveira, C.A.F.D. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates in milk and the milking environment from small-scale dairy farms of São Paulo, Brazil, using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 7377–7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dzieciol, M.; Schornsteiner, E.; Muhterem-Uyar, M.; Stessl, B.; Wagner, M.; Schmitz-Esser, S. Bacterial diversity of floor drain biofilms and drain waters in a Listeria monocytogenes contaminated food processing environment. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 223, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 6406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Commission Regulation (EC). No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005. Available online: https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Reg2073_2005(1).pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  15. Commission Regulation (EC). No. 1441/2007 of 5 December 2007 Amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:322:0012:0029:EN:PDF (accessed on 5 September 2023).
  16. Pecorelli, I.; Branciari, R.; Roila, R.; Ranucci, D.; Bibi, R.; van Asselt, M.; Valiani, A. Evaluation of Aflatoxin M1 enrichment factor in different cow milk cheese hardness category. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2020, 9, 8419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. ISO 7218:2013; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—General Requirements and Guidance for Microbiological Examinations. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  18. ISO 17025:2018; General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  19. ISO 11290-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes and of Listeria spp.—Part 1: Detection Method. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  20. ISO 6579-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 1: Detection of Salmonella spp. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  21. ISO/TR 6579-3:2014; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 3: Guidelines for serotyping of Salmonella spp. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  22. Ranucci, D.; Roila, R.; Onofri, A.; Cambiotti, F.; Primavilla, S.; Miraglia, D.; Andoni, E.; Di Cerbo, A.; Branciari, R. Improving hunted wild boar carcass hygiene: Roles of different factors involved in the harvest phase. Foods 2021, 10, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. ISO 19020:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Immunoenzymatic Detection of Staphylococcal Enterotoxins in Foodstuffs. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  24. ISO 11290-2:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes and of Listeria spp. Part 2: Enumeration Method. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  25. McLauchlin, J.; Aird, H.; Elliott, A.; Forester, E.; Jørgensen, F.; Willis, C. Microbiological Quality of Raw Drinking Milk and Unpasteurised Dairy Products: Results from England 2013–2019. Epidemiol. Infect. 2020, 148, e135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ganz, K.; Yamamoto, E.; Hardie, K.; Hum, C.; Hussein, H.; Locas, A.; Steele, M. Microbial safety of cheese in Canada. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 321, 108521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Allerberger, F.; Wagner, M. Listeriosis: A resurgent foodborne infection. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ferreira, V.; Wiedmann, M.; Teixeira, P.; Stasiewicz, M.J. Listeria monocytogenes persistence in food-associated environments: Epidemiology, strain characteristics, and implications for public health. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 150–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sauders, B.D.; D’Amico, D.J. Listeria monocytogenes cross-contamination of cheese: Risk throughout the food supply chain. Epidemiol. Infect. 2016, 144, 2693–2697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koch, J.; Dworak, R.; Prager, R.; Becker, B.; Brockmann, S.; Wicke, A.; Wichmann-Schauer, H.; Hof, H.; Stark, K. Large listeriosis outbreak linked to cheese made from pasteurized milk, Germany, 2006–2007. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 1581–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Melero, B.; Stessl, B.; Manso, B.; Wagner, M.; Esteban-Carbonero, O.J.; Hernandez, M.; Rodriguez-Lazaro, D. Listeria monocytogenes colonization in a newly established dairy processing facility. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 289, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bernini, V.; Dalzini, E.; Lazzi, C.; Bottari, B.; Gatti, M.; Neviani, E. Cutting procedures might be responsible for Listeria monocytogenes contamination of foods: The case of Gorgonzola cheese. Food Control 2016, 61, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Masoud, W.; Vogensen, F.K.; Lillevang, S.; Abu Al-Soud, W.; Sørensen, S.J.; Jakobsen, M. The fate of indigenous microbiota, starter cultures, Escherichia coli, Listeria innocua and Staphylococcus aureus in Danish raw milk and cheeses determined by pyrosequencing and quantitative real time (qRT)- PCR. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, e192–e202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Little, C.L.; Rhoades, J.R.; Sagoo, S.K.; Harris, J.; Greenwood, M.; Mithani, V. Microbiological quality of retail cheeses made from raw, thermized or pasteurized milk in the UK. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, e304–e312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lianou, A.; Samelis, J. Addition to thermized milk of Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris M104, a wild, novel nisin a-producing strain, replaces the natural antilisterial activity of the autochthonous raw milk microbiota reduced by thermization. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, e1289–e1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Costanzo, N.; Ceniti, C.; Santoro, A.; Clausi, M.T.; Casalinuovo, F. Foodborne pathogen assessment in raw milk cheeses. Int. J. Food Sci. 2020, 2020, 3616713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gérard, A.; El-Hajjaji, S.; Niyonzima, E.; Daube, G.; Sindic, M. Prevalence and survival of Listeria monocytogenes in various types of cheese—A review. Int. J. Dairy Tech. 2018, 71, 825–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dalzini, E.; Bernini, V.; Bertasi, B.; Daminelli, P.; Losio, M.N.; Varisco, G. Survey of prevalence and seasonal variability of Listeria monocytogenes in raw cow milk from Northern Italy. Food Control 2016, 60, 466–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pinedo, L.C.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Franz, E.; Hald, T.; Pires, S.M. Sources and trends of human salmonellosis in Europe, 2015–2019: An analysis of outbreak data. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 379, 109850. [Google Scholar]
  40. Choi, K.H.; Lee, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.; Yoon, Y. Cheese microbial risk assessments—A review. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ung, A.; Baidjoe, A.Y.; Van Cauteren, D.; Fawal, N.; Fabre, L.; Guerrisi, C.; Le Hello, S. Disentangling a complex nationwide Salmonella Dublin outbreak associated with raw-milk cheese consumption, France, 2015 to 2016. Eurosurveillance 2019, 24, 1700703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Napoleoni, M.; Villa, L.; Barco, L.; Busani, L.; Cibin, V.; Lucarelli, C.; Tiengo, A.; Dionisi, A.M.; Conti, F.; Da Silva Nunes, F.R.; et al. A strong evidence outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis in central Italy linked to the consumption of contaminated raw sheep milk cheese. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Elafify, M.; Darwish, W.S.; El-Toukhy, M.; Badawy, B.M.; Mohamed, R.E.; Shata, R.R. Prevalence of multidrug resistant Salmonella spp. in dairy products with the evaluation of the inhibitory effects of ascorbic acid, pomegranate peel extract, and D-tryptophan against Salmonella growth in cheese. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 364, 109534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Guillier, L.; Thébault, A.; Fravalo, P.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Jourdan-da Silva, N.; David, J.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Risk factors for sporadic salmonellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb. Risk Anal. 2021, 17, 100138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Doménech, E.; Jimenez-Belenguer, A.; Amoros, J.A.; Ferrus, M.A.; Escriche, I. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella strains isolated in ready-to-eat foods in Eastern Spain. Food Control 2015, 47, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abril, A.G.; Villa, T.G.; Barros-Velázquez, J.; Cañas, B.; Sánchez-Pérez, A.; Calo-Mata, P.; Carrera, M. Staphylococcus aureus exotoxins and their detection in the dairy industry and mastitis. Toxins 2020, 12, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. EFSA. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2015. EFSA J. 2016, 14, 4634. [Google Scholar]
  48. Johler, S.; Weder, D.; Bridy, C.; Huguenin, M.C.; Robert, L.; Hummerjohann, J.; Stephan, R. Outbreak of staphylococcal food poisoning among children and staff at a Swiss boarding school due to soft cheese made from raw milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2944–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johler, S.; Macori, G.; Bellio, A.; Acutis, P.L.; Gallina, S.; Decastelli, L. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolated along the raw milk cheese production process in artisan dairies in Italy. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 2915–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Filipello, V.; Bonometti, E.; Campagnani, M.; Bertoletti, I.; Romano, A.; Zuccon, F.; Finazzi, G. Investigation and follow-up of a staphylococcal food poisoning outbreak linked to the consumption of traditional hand-crafted alm cheese. Pathogens 2020, 9, 1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. EFSA. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J. 2018, 16, 5500. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ertas, N.; Gonulalan, Z.; Yildirim, Y.; Kum, E. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins in sheep cheese and dairy desserts by multiplex PCR technique. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 142, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Osaili, T.M.; AbuNaser, R.A.; Olaimat, A.N.; Ayyash, M.; Al-Holy, M.A.; Holley, R.A. Factors affecting the viability of Staphylococcus aureus and production of enterotoxin during processing and storage of white-brined cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 6869–6881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hayes, M.C.; Boor, K. Raw milk and fluid milk products. In Applied Dairy Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Marth, E.H., Steele, J.L., Eds.; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  55. Trmčić, A.; Chauhan, K.; Kent, D.J.; Ralyea, R.D.; Martin, N.H.; Boor, K.J.; Wiedmann, M.A.R.T.I.N. Coliform detection in cheese is associated with specific cheese characteristics, but no association was found with pathogen detection. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6105–6120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Boor, K.J.; Wiedmann, M.; Murphy, S.; Alcaine, S. A 100-year review: Microbiology and safety of milk handling. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 9933–9951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tasci, F.; Sahindokuyucu, F.; Ozturk, D. Detection of Staphylococcus species and staphylococcal enterotoxins by ELISA in ice cream and cheese consumed in Burdur Province. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 937–942. [Google Scholar]
  58. Janštová Jr, B.; Necidová, L.; Janštová, B.; Vorlová, L. Staphylococcus aureus growth and enterotoxin production in different types of milk. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2012, 60, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alves, V.F.; Nino-Arias, F.C.; Pitondo-Silva, A.; de Araújo Frazilio, D.; de Oliveira Gonçalves, L.; Toubas, L.C.; De Martinis, E.C.P. Molecular characterisation of Staphylococcus aureus from some artisanal Brazilian dairies. Int. Dairy J. 2018, 85, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Praça, J.; Furtado, R.; Coelho, A.; Correia, C.B.; Borges, V.; Gomes, J.P.; Batista, R. Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli and Coagulase Positive Staphylococci in Cured Raw Milk Cheese from Alentejo Region, Portugal. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rosengren, Å.; Fabricius, A.; Guss, B.; Sylvén, S.; Lindqvist, R. Occurrence of foodborne pathogens and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus in cheese produced on farm-dairies. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 144, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cremonesi, P.; Perez, G.; Pisoni, G.; Moroni, P.; Morandi, S.; Luzzana, M.; Castiglioni, B. Detection of enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus isolates in raw milk cheese. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gonzales-Barron, U.; Gonçalves-Tenório, A.; Rodrigues, V.; Cadavez, V. Foodborne pathogens in raw milk and cheese of sheep and goat origin: A meta-analysis approach. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 18, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 13 02324 g001
Figure 1. Graphical representation of microbiological results from testing of raw and thermally treated milk cheeses. * Satisfactory categorization includes acceptable samples; CPS—coagulase-positive staphylococci.
Figure 1. Graphical representation of microbiological results from testing of raw and thermally treated milk cheeses. * Satisfactory categorization includes acceptable samples; CPS—coagulase-positive staphylococci.
Life 13 02324 g001
Table 1. Microbiological assessment criteria used to assess the microbiological safety (A) and quality (B) of cheese analyzed under the National Microbiological Monitoring Program and Targeted Survey Program.
Table 1. Microbiological assessment criteria used to assess the microbiological safety (A) and quality (B) of cheese analyzed under the National Microbiological Monitoring Program and Targeted Survey Program.
A
Food Safety CriteriaCheese CategoryResults Interpretation
SatisfactoryUnsatisfactory
L. monocytogenesCheeses able to support the growth of L. monocytogenes *Not detected in 25 g of each of the 5 sample unitsPresence in 25 g in any of the 5 sample units
Cheeses unable to support the growth of L. monocytogenes *<100 cfu/g in each of the 5 sample units>100 cfu/g in any of the 5 sample units
Salmonella spp.Cheeses made from raw milk or milk that has undergone a lower heat treatment than pasteurisationNot detected in 25 g of each of the 5 sample unitsPresence in 25 g in any of the 5 sample units
Staphylococcal enterotoxinsCheeses from raw milk, cheeses made from milk that has undergone a lower heat treatment than pasteurisation and ripened cheeses made from milk or whey that has undergone pasteurisation or a stronger heat treatment and unripened soft cheeses (fresh cheeses) made from milk or whey that has undergone pasteurisation or a stronger heat treatmentNot detected in 25 g of each of the 5 sample unitsPresence in 25 g in any of the 5 sample units
B
Process Hygiene CriteriaCheese CategorySampling PlanLimits
(cfu/g)		Results Interpretation
ncmMSatisfactoryAcceptableUnsatisfactory
E. coliCheeses made from milk or whey that has undergone heat treatment521001000All the values observed are ≤mA maximum of c/n values are between m and M, and the rest of the values observed are ≤mOne or more of the values observed are >M or more than c/n values are between m and M
CPSCheeses made from raw milk52104105
Cheeses made from milk that has undergone a lower heat treatment than pasteurisation and ripened cheeses made from milk or whey that has undergone pasteurisation or a stronger heat treatment521001000
Unripened soft cheeses (fresh cheeses) made from milk or whey that has undergone pasteurisation or a stronger heat treatment5210100
n—number of units comprising the sample; c—number of sample units giving values between m and M; m—limit value within which the result is acceptable; M—limit value above which the result is not acceptable; CPS—coagulase-positive staphylococci. * The criteria for determining whether or not a product supports the growth of L. monocytogenes are described in Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14], amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1441/2007 (Chapter 1—Note 8) [15].
Table 2. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to the milking species.
Table 2. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to the milking species.
Bovine Milk CheeseOvine Milk Cheese
Tot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence95% CITot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence95% CI
Staphylococcal enterotoxin11600 29820.670.16–1.18
L. monocytogenes12953.880.95–7.81308103.251.53–5.97
Salmonella spp.8511.230.00–2.95288144.862.97–6.75
E. coli count42921.4311.49–31.3719315.797.88–23.70
CPS3139.683.90–15.46571424.5615.41–33.71
95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Table 3. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to milk thermal treatment.
Table 3. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to milk thermal treatment.
Raw Milk CheesePasteurized Milk Cheese
Tot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence95% CITot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence95% CI
Staphylococcal enterotoxin31620.630.14–2.1399000
L. monocytogenes29062.07 a0.88–4.3714785.44 b2.34–10.56
Salmonella spp.303154.952.89–7.9470000
E. coli count----611219.6711.29–29.53
CPS551527.27 b15.89–39.643326.06 a0.75–19.99
Different letters in the same row (a,b) indicate differences between prevalence values (p < 0.05); 95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Table 4. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to cheese hardness category.
Table 4. Unsatisfactory cheese samples tested under the National Control Plan for Food Safety according to cheese hardness category.
Fresh CheeseSoft and Semisoft CheeseHard and Semihard Cheese
Tot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence (95% CI)Tot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence (95% CI)Tot.UnsatisfactoryPrevalence (95% CI)
Staphylococcal enterotoxin11010.91 (0.02–4.80)16910.59 (0.01–3.32)13500
L. monocytogenes10810.93 (0.02–4.94)18284.40 (1.90–8.47)14764.08 (1.49–8.73)
Salmonella spp.10265.88 (2.13–12.42)14364.20 (1.70–9.10)12832.34 (0.48–6.74)
E. coli count2214.54 a (0.11–22.63)18633.33 b (14.95–58.19)21523.81 ab (9.28–44.46)
CPS20315.00 (3.19–36.19)561425.00 (14.52–37.39)1200
Different letters in the same row (a,b) indicate differences between prevalence values (p < 0.05); 95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Primavilla, S.; Roila, R.; Rocchegiani, E.; Blasi, G.; Petruzzelli, A.; Gabucci, C.; Ottaviani, D.; Di Lullo, S.; Branciari, R.; Ranucci, D.; et al. Assessment of the Microbiological Safety and Hygiene of Raw and Thermally Treated Milk Cheeses Marketed in Central Italy between 2013 and 2020. Life 2023, 13, 2324. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13122324

AMA Style

Primavilla S, Roila R, Rocchegiani E, Blasi G, Petruzzelli A, Gabucci C, Ottaviani D, Di Lullo S, Branciari R, Ranucci D, et al. Assessment of the Microbiological Safety and Hygiene of Raw and Thermally Treated Milk Cheeses Marketed in Central Italy between 2013 and 2020. Life. 2023; 13(12):2324. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13122324

Chicago/Turabian Style

Primavilla, Sara, Rossana Roila, Elena Rocchegiani, Giuliana Blasi, Annalisa Petruzzelli, Claudia Gabucci, Donatella Ottaviani, Stefania Di Lullo, Raffaella Branciari, David Ranucci, and et al. 2023. "Assessment of the Microbiological Safety and Hygiene of Raw and Thermally Treated Milk Cheeses Marketed in Central Italy between 2013 and 2020" Life 13, no. 12: 2324. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13122324

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop