Jovana Kovacevic

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.