Animal agriculture exposures among Minnesota residents with zoonotic enteric infections, 2012-2016
Prospective, population-based surveillance to systematically ascertain exposures to food production animals or their environments among Minnesota residents with sporadic, domestically acquired, laboratory-confirmed enteric zoonotic pathogen infections was conducted from 2012 through 2016. Twenty-thr...
Saved in:
Published in: | Epidemiology and infection Vol. 148; p. e55 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
England
Cambridge University Press
01-01-2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Prospective, population-based surveillance to systematically ascertain exposures to food production animals or their environments among Minnesota residents with sporadic, domestically acquired, laboratory-confirmed enteric zoonotic pathogen infections was conducted from 2012 through 2016. Twenty-three percent (n = 1708) of the 7560 enteric disease cases in the study reported an animal agriculture exposure in their incubation period, including 60% (344/571) of Cryptosporidium parvum cases, 28% (934/3391) of Campylobacter cases, 22% (85/383) of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157 cases, 16% (83/521) of non-O157 STEC cases, 10% (253/2575) of non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica cases and 8% (9/119) of Yersinia enterocolitica cases. Living and/or working on a farm accounted for 61% of cases with an agricultural exposure, followed by visiting a private farm (29% of cases) and visiting a public animal agriculture venue (10% of cases). Cattle were the most common animal type in agricultural exposures, reported by 72% of cases. The estimated cumulative incidence of zoonotic enteric infections for people who live and/or work on farms with food production animals in Minnesota during 2012-2016 was 147 per 10 000 population, vs. 18.5 per 10 000 for other Minnesotans. The burden of enteric zoonoses among people with animal agriculture exposures appears to be far greater than previously appreciated. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0950-2688 1469-4409 |
DOI: | 10.1017/S0950268819002309 |