ArticleItalian journal of food safety2020
Evaluation of the marketing methods and handling of live shellfish (American lobsters) for the purpose of sale as food: First evaluations in Piedmont, Italy.
Article in Italian journal of food safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some species of crustaceans pose problems during marketing, being sold alive. Food Business Operators (FBO) have the need to adopt specific measures based on opinions and guidelines of national and international associations. This investigation was aimed at evaluating the practices in use in the marketing of live crustaceans in Piedmont. Twenty-three plants were analyzed using checklists and through physical and chemical measurements of the water in the holding tanks. The situation appears uneven in the application of Good Handling Practices (GHP), management of animals and knowledge of FBO. Only 48% of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plans had a dedicated section. Immobilization of the claws was the option identified to control aggressiveness. Dead animals are mainly identified as Category 3 instead of other hygienically safe options. Only 1/3 of interviewed can indicate the slaughtering methods recognized as most suitable for these animals. The aquariums show a good state of maintenance and most of evaluated parameters complaint to GHP except for nitrites (35%). In conclusion, the situation reflects the different levels of knowledge of the FBOs. Therefore the veterinarian of the public health service can propose itself as a reference point for specific training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.