A novel genomic island (LGI1) was discovered in Listeria monocytogenes isolates responsible for the deadliest listeriosis outbreak in Canada, in 2008. To investigate the functional role of LGI1, the outbreak strain 08-5578 was exposed to food chain-relevant stresses, and the expression of 16 LGI1 genes was measured. LGI1 genes with putative efflux ( L. monocytogenes emrE [ emrE _Lm ]), regulatory ( lmo1851 ), and adhesion ( sel1 ) functions were deleted, and the mutants were exposed to acid (HCl), cold (4°C), salt (10 to 20% NaCl), and quaternary ammonium-based sanitizers (QACs). Deletion of lmo1851 had no effect on the L. monocytogenes stress response, and deletion of sel1 did not influence Caco-2 and HeLa cell adherence/invasion, whereas deletion of emrE resulted in increased susceptibility to QACs ( P < 0.05) but had no effect on the MICs of gentamicin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, tetracycline, acriflavine, and triclosan. In the presence of the QAC benzalkonium chloride (BAC; 5 μg/ml), 14/16 LGI1 genes were induced, and lmo1861 (putative repressor gene) was constitutively expressed at 4°C, 37°C, and 52°C and in the presence of UV exposure (0 to 30 min). Following 1 h of exposure to BAC (10 μg/ml), upregulation of emrE (49.6-fold), lmo1851 (2.3-fold), lmo1861 (82.4-fold), and sigB (4.1-fold) occurred. Reserpine visibly suppressed the growth of the Δ emrE _Lm strain, indicating that QAC tolerance is due at least partially to efflux activity. These data suggest that a minimal function of LGI1 is to increase the tolerance of L. monocytogenes to QACs via emrE _Lm . Since QACs are commonly used in the food industry, there is a concern that L. monocytogenes strains possessing emrE will have an increased ability to survive this stress and thus to persist in food processing environments.

The development of antibiotic resistance is a serious public health crisis, reducing our ability to effectively combat infectious bacterial diseases. The parallel study of reduced susceptibility to sanitizers is growing, particularly for environmental foodborne pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes . As regulations demand a seek‐and‐destroy approach for L. monocytogenes , understanding sanitizer efficacy and its uses are critical for the food industry. Studies have reported the ability of L. monocytogenes to survive in sanitizer concentrations 10–1000 times lower than the manufacturer‐recommended concentration (MRC). Notably, data show that at MRC and when applied according to the label instructions, sanitizers remain largely effective. Studies also report that variables such as the presence of organic material, application time/temperature, and bacterial attachment to surfaces can impact sanitizer effectiveness. Due to the lack of standardization in the methodology and definitions of sanitizer resistance, tolerance, and susceptibility, different messages are conveyed in different studies. In this review, we examine the diversity of definitions, terminology, and methodologies used in studies examining L. monocytogenes resistance and susceptibility to antimicrobials. Research available to date fails to demonstrate “resistance” of L. monocytogenes to recommended sanitizer treatments as prescribed by the label. As such, sanitizer tolerance would be a more accurate description of L. monocytogenes response to low sanitizer concentrations (i.e., sub‐MRC). Conservative use of word “resistance” will reduce confusion and allow for concise messaging as sanitizer research findings are communicated to industry and regulators.

The effective elimination of Listeria monocytogenes through cleaning and sanitation is of great importance to the food processing industry. Specifically in fresh produce operations, the lack of a kill step requires effective cleaning and sanitation to mitigate the risk of cross-contamination from the environment. As facilities rely on sanitizers to control L. monocytogenes, reports of the development of tolerance to sanitizers and other antimicrobials through cross-resistance is of particular concern. We investigated the potential for six L. monocytogenes isolates from fresh produce handling and processing facilities and packinghouses to develop cross-resistance between a commercial sanitizer and antibiotics. Experimental adaptation of isolates belonging to hypervirulent clonal complexes (CC2, CC4, and CC6) to a commercial quaternary ammonium compound sanitizer (cQAC) resulted in elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (2–3 ppm) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (3–4 ppm). Susceptibility to cQAC was restored for all adapted (qAD) isolates in the presence of reserpine, a known efflux pump inhibitor. Reduced sensitivity to 7/17 tested antibiotics (chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, kanamycin, novobiocin, penicillin, and streptomycin) was observed in all tested isolates. qAD isolates remained susceptible to antibiotics commonly used in the treatment of listeriosis (i.e., ampicillin and gentamicin). The whole genome sequencing of qAD strains, followed by comparative genomic analysis, revealed several mutations in fepR, the regulator for FepA fluoroquinolone efflux pump. The results suggest that mutations in fepR play a role in the reduction in antibiotic susceptibility following low level adaptation to cQAC. Further investigation into the cross-resistance mechanisms and pressures leading to the development of this phenomenon among L. monocytogenes isolates recovered from different sources is needed to better understand the likelihood of cross-resistance development in food chain isolates and the implications for the food industry.

In British Columbia (BC), Canada, food processing facilities licensed under provincial authority are not required to sample for Listeria monocytogenes in food products or processing environments. In 2009, we conducted a survey of dairy, fish, and meat facilities under BC authority to estimate the prevalence of Listeria spp. and L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat (RTE) foods and production environments. From August to October, 250 RTE food samples and 258 swabs from the food processing environments of 43 facilities were collected. Standard culture methods were applied to both food samples and swabs. Of swabs collected from all 258 environmental surfaces, 15% were positive for Listeria spp. Significantly (P, 0.001) more fish facilities than dairy and meat facilities had food contact surfaces contaminated with Listeria spp. L. monocytogenes was found in RTE foods from fish facilities alone (5 of 12); in all five of the fish facilities with contaminated product, one or more environmental swabs were also positive for L. monocytogenes. The results suggest that while control of L. monocytogenes in BC-inspected dairy and meat facilities is effective in limiting food contamination, there is a need for provincial inspectors to initiate improved monitoring and management of contamination by L. monocytogenes in RTE fish processing facilities.