Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626728›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Meat Safety in Northern Tanzania: Inspectors' and Slaughter Workers' Risk Perceptions and Management.

Linda Waldman, Tabitha A Hrynick, Jackie Benschop, Sarah Cleaveland, John A Crump, Margaret A Davis, Boniface Mariki, Blandina T Mmbaga, Niwael Mtui-Malamsha, Gerard Prinsen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Meat Safety in Tanzania's Value Chain: Experiences, Explanations and Expectations in Butcheries and Eateries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Linda WaldmanInstitute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Tabitha A HrynickInstitute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Jackie BenschopmEpiLab, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Sarah CleavelandInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
John A CrumpCentre for International Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Margaret A DavisPaul G. Allen School for Global Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.
Boniface MarikiTanzania Chamber of Commerce, Moshi, Tanzania.
Blandina T MmbagaKilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Tumaini University, Moshi, Tanzania.
Niwael Mtui-MalamshaMinistry of Livestock and Fisheries, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Gerard PrinsenSchool of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Joanne SharpSchool of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Emmanuel S SwaiMinistry of Livestock and Fisheries, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Kate M ThomasCentre for International Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Ruth N ZadoksInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L018926/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Through a social scientific lens, this paper considers the risk perceptions and "risk-based decision-making" of two key groups in a northern Tanzanian context: (1) frontline government meat inspectors and health officers charged with ensuring that red meat sold commercially is safe for people to consume, and (2) the workers who slaughter and process cattle and red meat prior to its sale in rural butcheries. In contrast to techno-scientific understandings of disease risk and "rational" approaches to its management, this paper foregrounds the role of social, economic and institutional context in shaping the perceptions and practices around meat safety of these actors whose daily, close proximity to meat means they play a significant role in mitigating potential meat-borne disease. We show how limited resources, and a combination of scientific and local knowledge and norms result in "situated expertise" and particular forms of risk perception and practice which both enhance and compromise meat safety in different ways. Actors' shared concerns with what is visible, ensures that visibly unsafe or abnormal meat is excluded from sale, and that infrastructure and meat is kept "clean" and free of certain visible contaminants such as soil or, on occasion, feces. While such contaminants serve as a good proxy for pathogen presence, meat inspectors and especially slaughter workers were much less aware of or concerned with invisible pathogens that may compromise meat safety. The role of process and meat handling did not figure very strongly in their concerns. Microorganisms such as

Indexed as

Campylobacterfoodborne diseasemeat safetyrisk perceptionSalmonellaslaughterTanzania

Identifiers

PMID32626728
PMCPMC7314929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.