Advanced Food and Nutritional Sciences

Short Key Title: Adv Food Nutri Sci
Start Year: 2016

Landrum MA1, NA Cox2, JL Wilson1, ME Berrang2, GR Gamble2, MA Harrison1, BD Fairchild1, WK Kim1, and A Hinton, Jr2
1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA; 2. The U.S. National Poultry Research Center, Athens, GA1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA; 2. The U.S. National Poultry Research Center, Athens, GA
Keywords: Campylobacter, CMS PoultrypHresh™, broiler, carcass rinse, immersion

Campylobacter is a major concern for poultry processors, as USDA performance standards have become stricter. This study evaluated CMS PoultrypHresh™, a low pH processing aid, and peracetic acid using consecutive and sequential dip treatments to reduce Campylobacter in thighs. Thighs (n=3/treatment group) were inoculated with a C. coli marker strain (108) and each dipped into bags containing 1 L of treatment 1 for 6 s. Thighs were allowed 5 s to drip, placed onto foil for 60 s, and dipped into treatment 2 for 6 s. After 5 s drip time, each was placed in a bag with 150 mL buffered peptone water and hand shaken for 60 s; controls same procedure, no treatment. Rinsates were serially diluted, plated onto Campy Cefex agar with 200 ppm gentamicin and incubated microaerobically for 48 h at 42°C. Procedures were replicated 5 times. Significant reductions compared to untreated using consecutive dips of PoultrypHresh™ and PAA were 98.2% and 99.3%, respectively. Treatments of PoultrypHresh™ then peracetic acid reduced Campylobacter 99.2% from untreated thighs. Peracetic acid then PoultrypHresh™ showed significant reductions compared to all other treatments (99.9% from untreated). Treating with this sequence may allow processors to meet the strict performance standards on Campylobacter in broiler parts.

Article Information

Identifiers and Pagination:
First Page:1
Last Page:7
Publisher Id: (2019 ). 4. 1-7
Article History:
Received:February 4, 2019
Accepted:June 3, 2019
Collection year:2019
First Published:June 17, 2019


            Campylobacter is the main cause of bacterial gastroenteritis in the world and researchers have shown it to be present in high levels in retail poultry. [1],[2] Of Campylobacter illnesses, 50 - 70% were caused by consumption of poultry or poultry products. [3],[4] Symptoms of Campylobacter include fever, abdominal pain and diarrhea within 2 - 5 days of ingesting contaminated product. [5],[6] Stricter performance standards have been implemented by the USDA, aimed at reducing incidence of Campylobacter in processing facilities. [7] FSIS estimated 46% of poultry facilities would not be able to meet new requirements; therefore, processors must give serious attention to finding efficient antimicrobial treatments to be used throughout the plant. It is mandatory Campylobacter prevalence remain below 7.7% on poultry parts (4 of 52 samples), allowing only a small margin of error. [7]

            A variety of antimicrobials have been evaluated for use on poultry at various points throughout processing procedures. It is essential chemicals be cost effective, reduce pathogen prevalence and not cause organoleptic damage to poultry carcasses or parts. [8] Antimicrobials vary in levels of efficacy, treatment concentration, contact time and application method. Chemical efficacy is affected by microbial load, composition of flora, organic material or possibly changed from residual effects of prior treatments. [9] Stopforth et al. [10] determined a single intervention could not significantly reduce pathogen presence on finished carcasses. Instead, a multi-hurdle approach is required at various intervention points throughout processing for increased pathogen reduction on poultry products. [10],[11] There was no previous research found evaluating consecutive, sequential treatments and how they affect pathogens. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a low acid antimicrobial, CMS PoultrypHreshä, and whether dipping carcasses in consecutive or sequential treatments along with peracetic acid (PAA) leads to further reductions in the prevalence of Campylobacter on poultry thighs. 

Materials and Methods

Bacterial Marker Strain

            Cox et al. [12] developed a marker strain of Campylobacter resistant to the antibiotic gentamicin, Campylobacter coli (CCGR), which was used in this study. Campy Cefex agar (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) plates were prepared using 200 ppm gentamicin (CCGen) to eliminate the growth of wild type Campylobacter that may be naturally present on poultry thighs. Initial cultures were streaked from storage in an -80°C freezer, maintained in Bolton’s broth with 15% glycerol and no supplements. Cultures were streaked onto CCGen agar and incubated in sealed bags under microaerobic (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) conditions at 42°C for 48 h. A sterile swab was used to remove colonies and mix them into a 9 mL tube of Bolton’s broth, placed in sealed bags and incubated microaerobically for 24 h at 42°C. Tubes were evaluated for colorimeter analysis by a Spectronic 200E (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Madison, WI) and approximately a 108 cfu/mL CCGR inoculum was prepared. Inocula were confirmed using serial dilutions, plated on CCGen and incubated for 48 h at 42°C.

Treatment Procedures

            Skin-on poultry thighs were purchased from a local grocery (n=18) and divided into the six treatment groups. A 6.5 cm2 section of skin was inoculated on each thigh by spreading 0.1 mL of 108 CCGR marker strain. Each thigh was inoculated individually and given a 5 min attachment period before treatment. Thighs were individually dipped into Ziploc bags containing either 1 liter of water, PAA (600 ppm), or PoultrypHresh (pH 1.5) for 6 s. Thighs were removed and placed on tin foil squares for 60 s. Each thigh was then dipped into the second dip treatment for 6 s, drained 5 s, placed into individual sealable bags with 150 mL buffered peptone water (BPW), and hand shaken and massaged for 60 s. Thighs were removed, and rinses placed on ice for approximately 15 min before diluting. Three thighs served as controls in each replication and were inoculated as described, remained untreated and placed directly into rinse bags with BPW after the attachment period. The entire experiment was replicated 5 times.

Plating and Incubation

            Rinsates were serially diluted and a plate spreader used to disperse onto CCGen agar plates in duplicate. Plates were incubated at 42°C for 48 h. Characteristic colonies were counted, and cfu/mL log transformed.

Statistical Analysis

            The study was constructed of five replicates of skin-on thighs using 18 individual thighs (N=18; n=3). Each replicate consisted of 3 of each untreated, consecutive water dips, consecutive PoultrypHresh™ (pH 1.5) dips, consecutive PAA (600 ppm) dips, PoultrypHresh™ followed by PAA dip, and PAA followed by PoultrypHresh™ dip. Duplicate counts were averaged, and numbers were transformed by log10. Data was analyzed using Statistica software (Statistica, 2013). A General Linear Model was conducted to determine whether sequential dips were statistically different (P < 0.05). Means were separated with a Tukey Multiple Comparison test; statistical significance was assigned at P = 0.05.


Consecutive water dips were used to determine rinsing effect of water alone. A 0.8 log10 cfu/mL Campylobacter reduction was observed, although contamination remained high at 4.9 log10 cfu/mL (Table 1). Treating with consecutive PoultrypHreshä dips significantly (P = 0.05) reduced Campylobacter from 5.64 log10 cfu/mL untreated and 4.87 log10 cfu/mL water dipped to 3.90 log10 cfu/mL (Table 1). This equates to a reduction of 98.2% from untreated and 89.3% from water dipped thighs (Table 1). Dipping with consecutive PAA dips showed slightly higher reductions; reducing Campylobacter 99.3% (2.1 log10 cfu/mL) from untreated and 95.7% (1.4 log10 cfu/mL) from water dipped samples (Table 1).

            Dipping in PoultrypHreshä followed by PAA demonstrated findings similar to consecutive PAA dips. Interestingly, thighs dipped in PAA followed by PoultrypHreshä, showed reductions significantly (P = 0.05) greater than any other dipping combination. Campylobacter was reduced 99.9% (> 3 log10 cfu/mL reduction) from untreated thighs and 99.6% (2.4 log10 cfu/mL reduction) from water treated (Table 1). This pattern was observed in all 5 replications of the study; therefore, the order of chemicals used in dipping sequences was significantly (P = 0.05) correlated to Campylobacter reductions. 


Results can be compared to a study by Landrum et al. (2018) evaluating PoultrypHresh™ on broiler thighs, where Campylobacter reductions were higher compared to untreated from this study, 2.2 log10 cfu/mL and1.7 log10 cfu/mL, respectively. Comparing the water dipped thighs to untreated, the research by Landrum et al. (2018) demonstrated a 1.4 log10 cfu/mL reduction, whereas this study a 1.0 log10 cfu/mL. Differences between the two studies were the dip time, (25 s compared to two 6 s dips) and air agitation, not used in this study. Shorter dip times of 6 s were chosen for this research as a more practical time of exposure in a modern processing facility. The higher dip times used by Landrum et al. (2018) exhibited better results, seemingly due to the longer exposure time, although the effects of air agitation could have also assisted in higher reductions. The improved microbial reductions using air agitation have been shown in previous research. [14] Therefore, air agitation is a concept that may require more research to heighten reductions of microbial contamination.

PAA is a low pH organic peroxide mixture of acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide currently being used throughout the United States in multiple processing facilities. [8],[15],[16] The mode of action for PAA is a disruption to the cell membrane permeability, altering protein synthesis, leading to bacterial death. [17] PAA reduced the presence of Campylobacter slightly more than consecutive PoultrypHreshä dips, although differences were not significant. Findings by Bauermeister et al. [8] showed a 1.5 log10 cfu/mL Campylobacter reduction using an extremely low concentration of only 200 ppm PAA. As PAA is approved for use throughout processing at concentrations up to 2000 ppm, reductions could be even greater with increased acid levels. [18] Bauermeister [19] used 200 ppm PAA, only demonstrating a 1.5 log10 cfu/mL reduction; therefore, other factors could be associated to its efficacy. King et al. [20] determined that the effects of PAA may vary and greatly depend on bacteria level and how they are attached to the surface. Nagel et al. [21] evaluated higher levels of PAA at 400 and 1000 ppm and reduced Campylobacter levels by more than 2.0 log10 cfu/mL.

Scientists have determined a multi-hurdle approach is necessary for adequate pathogen reduction, which uses multiple intervention points throughout processing procedures such as the inside-outside bird washer, brush washer, cabinet washer, or dip tank before and/or after chilling. [22] Using this approach, the facility does not rely only on a single step intervention, but instead incorporates many applications for reducing foodborne pathogen prevalence prior to entering secondary processing [10],[23],[24] No research was found, however, demonstrating the usefulness of consecutive, sequential chemical hurdles for pathogen reduction. This study demonstrates the possibility that consecutive application of chemicals in a specific sequential order may reduce Campylobacter prevalence.

Table 1. Average Log10 cfu/mL of Campylobacter coli recovered by replicate from sequentially dip treated thighs with no treatment, water-water, PpH-PpH, PAA-PAA, PpH-PAA, or PAA-PpH (mean ± standard error).


Average Log10 cfu/mL

Reduction compared to Untreated (%)

Reduction compared to Water (%)

1st Dip

2nd Dip



5.64a ± 0.04





4.87b ± 0.05





3.90c ± 0.06





3.50d ± 0.08





3.53d ± 0.08





2.52e ± 0.09



1 PpH = CMS PoultrypHresh™ 2 PAA = peracetic acid



Findings from this study demonstrated PoultrypHreshä and PAA could reduce the prevalence of Campylobacter on poultry parts when used separately. However, when evaluated sequentially, PAA followed by PoultrypHreshä can significantly reduce pathogen presence. Such findings may be extremely beneficial and lead to better intervention strategies in future antimicrobial applications.



1.       Harrison WA, Griffith CJ, Tennant D, Peters AC. Incidence of Campylobacter and Salmonella isolated from retail chicken and associated packaging in South Wales. Lett Appl Microbiol 2001; 33:450-454.

2.       Moore JE, Wilson TS, Wareing DR, Humphrey TJ, Murphy PG. Prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in ready-to-eat foods and raw poultry in Northern Ireland. J Food Prot 2002; 65:1326-1328.

3.       Allos B. Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends. Clin Infectious Dis 2001; 32(8):1201-1206.

4.       Humphrey T, O'Brien S, Madsen M. Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: a food production perspective. Int J Food Microbiol 2007; 117:237-257.

5.       Robinson DA. Infective dose of Campylobacter jejuni in milk. Br. Med. J. 1981; 282:1584.

6.       Black RE, Levine MM, Clements ML, Hughs TP, Blaser MJ. Experimental Campylobacter jejuni infection in humans. J Infect Dis 1988; 157:472-479.

7.       Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Pathogen Reduction - Salmonella and Campylobacter Performance Standards Verification Testing. United States Department of Agriculture. [Online] 2015. [cited 2018}. Available at: connect/b0790997-2e74-48bf-9799-85814bac9ceb/28_IM_PR_Sal_Campy.pdf?MOD=AJPE RES IM_PR_Sal_Campy.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

8.       Bauermeister LJ., Bowers JW, Townsend JC, McKee SR. Validating the efficacy of peracetic acid mixture as an antimicrobial in poultry chillers. J Food Prot 2008; 71:1119-1122.

9.       Gill CO, Badoni M. Effects of peroxyacetic acid, acidified sodium chlorite

or lactic acid solutions on the microflora of chilled beef carcasses. Int J Food Microbiol 2004; 91:43-50. 

10.   Stopforth JD, O’Connor R, Lopes M, Kottapalli B, Hill WE, Samadpour M. Validation of individual and multiple-sequential interventions for reduction of microbial populations during processing of poultry carcasses and parts. J Food Prot 2007; 70:1393-1401.

11.   Bacon RT, Belk KE, Sofos JN, Clayton RP, Reagan JO, Smith GC. Microbial populations on animal hides and beef carcasses at different stages of slaughter in plants employing multiple-sequential interventions for decontamination. J Food Prot 2000; 63:1080-1086.

12.   Cox NA, Richardson LJ, Berrang ME, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Buhr RJ. Campylobacter coli naturally resistant to elevated levels of gentamicin as a marker strain in poultry research. J Food Prot 2009; 72:1288-1292.

13.   Landrum MA, Cox NA, Cosby DE, Berrang ME, Hinton A Jr., Mize SC, Jackson JS. Reduction of Campylobacter on chicken livers using a low acid processing aid. Adv Food Nutr Sci 2018; 3:1-6.

14.   Bennett P. 2008. Compliance guidelines for controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry. 2nd ed. [Online] 2008 [cited 2018]. Available at: connect/1d562776-ebfb4ea5-a19b-e994776a02c6/Compliance_Guideline_Controlling_ Salmonella_Poultry.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

15.   USDA-FSIS. Sanitation performance standards compliance guide. Title 9. Code of

Federal Regulations 416. [Online] 2016 [cited 2018]. Available at: wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/compliance-guides-index/sanitation-performance-standards/sanitation-compliance-guide

16.   [16] Sukted N, Tuitemwong P, Tuitemwong K, Poonlapdecha W, Erickson LE. Inactivation of Campylobacter during immersion chilling of chicken carcasses. J Food Eng 2017; 202:25-33.

17.   [17] Oyarzabal OA. Reduction of Campylobacter spp. by commercial antimicrobials applied during the processing of broiler chickens: a review from the United States perspective. J Food Prot 2005; 68(8):1752-1760.

18.   [18] FSIS Directive. Safe and suitable ingredients used in the production of meat,

poultry, and egg products. FSIS Directive 7120.1 Rev. 46.  [Online] 2018 [cited 2018]. Available at: 7120.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

19.   Bauermeister LJ. Evaluation of poultry meat safety and quality using peracetic

acid in poultry chillers. Dissertation Auburn University. [Online] 2015 [cited 2018]. Available at: 12.12 .2015.pdf;sequence=2

20.   King DA, Lucia LM, Castillo A, Acuff GR, Harris KB, Savell. JW. Evaluation of peracetic acid as a post-chilling intervention for control of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium on beef carcass surfaces. Meat Sci 2005; 69:401-407.

21.   Nagel GM, Bauermeister LJ, Bratcher CL, Singh M, McKee SR. Salmonella and Campylobacter reduction and quality characteristics of poultry carcasses treated with various antimicrobials in a post-chill immersion tank. Int J Food Prot 2013; 165:281-286.

22.   Smith J, Corkran S, McKee SR, Bilgili SF, Singh M. Evaluation of post-chill applications of antimicrobials against Campylobacter jejuni on poultry carcasses. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015; 24:451-456.

23.   Zweifel C, Stephan R. Microbial Decontamination in the Food Industry: Microbial Decontamination of Poultry Carcasses. Woodhead Publishing. 2012; 60-95.

24. Sofos JN, Flick G, Nychas G, O’Bryan CA, Ricke SC, Crandall PG. Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. ASM Press. 2013; 111-167. 


Identification and handling of the food spoilage, food illness and food borne pathogens is a potential risk. That is continuously challenging the food experts, businesses owners and authorities. Subsequently, the manufacturing, supplying and distribution of finished food products become a crucial task and need constant check at every step.

Thus, the standard laboratory testing may potentially assure the safety and efficacy of semi-manufactured foods, edible ingredients, and finished products. Particularly, it helps to equip the industry with most current methods and high-level IT developed cutting edge technology. That simultaneously protects the manufacturer and consumers by complying with food safety standards. [2] Hence, the food and health expert are constantly working to review and update the blueprints of food microbiology testing. That is important to meet the requirement of the indigenous food and health standards. Whereas, the nutrition and composition analysis also offer the retailers, importers and manufacturers to understand and tackle the raised concerns. That may include the testing of nutrients, vitamins and other constituents of all range of food product destined for human consumption i.e. additives, excipients, preservatives, color, flavor etc.

Thus, our local government official always encourages the local Canadian businesses to adopt the current art of technology, conduct accurate and timely examination of food. The food and nutrition tests should be performed under ISO/IEC 17025 accredited institutions under accredited and rigorous quality management system.

International networking

The international networking of experts is another factor that helps to improve the test procedures, scientific laboratory protocols and food testing programs. [8] The Canadian food and health experts encourage the global and/or local networking. That keeps them update about the current problems, trends, risk and information. So, they can understand and handle the national and international challenges to improve their protocols, technology and outdated equipment. Such entrusted and autonomous collaboration may confer the health and safety of local consumers. That also minimizes the risk of non-compliance, losing reputation, health threats, and possible lawsuits.

Heterotrophic phosphorylation to produce biomolecules

The heterotrophic micro-organisms use the organic material produced by other living organisms. They have ability to produce the biomolecules and structural components by making ATP through phosphorylation competency process. So, the laboratory testing should cover a wide range of investigation. The identification of these pathogen and utilitarian nourishment are fundamental components of food microbiology. Therefore, we may need to incorporate the testing of contaminant, sustenance and composition. That should also be reviewed, certified and accredited by specialists. Additionally, the adapted testing of food product to determine its fitness is major prerequisite to certify the realness. The specialized arrangements, administrative reviews and appropriate audits help to assure the advanced quality of food and nutrition.

Food Safety Modernization Act

The food borne diseases are potential threat for the people in United State. That makes approximately 48 million people sick, 128,000 hospitalizations along with 3,000 deaths each year. The information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention significantly alert public health professionals and posed considerable challenge. So, the FDA worked to shift the focus from responding to these diseased to their prevention by transforming the national food safety system. [7] Congress enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to cope with the spectacular changes in food industry all over the world. FSMA may help to control the consequences of the foodborne illness. Moreover, we may successfully handle the public health problem and economic threat of the food system. FDA has finalized seven major rules to enforce FSMA. The rules elaborate the necessary actions that must be taken to prevent the contamination.

Thus, FSMA has provided more comprehensive elaboration to execute the activities against each inconsistency with respect to violation in manufacturing and processing of the food. [1] That played key role to rationalize the methods used to develop, collect and handled the food. They are persistently embracing and incorporating new rules, plans and guidelines to improve and maintain the quality of food and health.

Professional bodies of food and nutrition

There are multiple professional organizations working to certify and acknowledge the quality of food products. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) established by the international trade association, the Consumer Goods Forum under Belgian law in May 2000. The GFSI is working to maintain a scheme to benchmark food safety standards.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) was established in 1992 in UK by food retail. BRC has published the standards for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and On-Pack recycling standards for the food industries.

Additionally, the International Featured Standard (IFS) is a GFSI recognized standard for certifying the safety and quality of food products and processes. Whereas, the Secure Quality Nourishment (SQF) is a food security administration certification conspire. That was established to handle the challenges posed by food industry. The recommendations of the food security administration are examined and certified by a 3rd party. That guarantees the customer to believe the quality of food and drinks. The Food Safety System Certification (FSSC 22000) gives a system for viable supervision of food organizations. FSSC 22000 is recognized by the GFSI and is based on existing ISO Benchmarks.

Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), collectively abbreviated as EUREPGAP was established in 1997. That was then became Global Good Agriculture Practice (GLOBALG.A.P.) in September 2007. Thus, the British retailers work in collaboration with supermarkets to know the requirements of consumers regarding health, safety, environment by using this platform. Thus, they develop an independent certification system for Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.). They facilitated to the manufacturers to comply with regulations, rationalize water usage and develop more sustainable methods. So, GLOBALG.A.P. is the leading farm assurance program that collect the expectations of consumers and receive the demands of regulatory authorities to establish the standard Good Agricultural Practice for the rapidly expanding member countries (total =135).

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is another dedicated agency of the United Nations. That is working hard in collaboration of the leading international groups to defeat hunger. They have deployed their services, programs and schemes in developing and developed part of the world. FAO is a nondiscriminatory organization, that particular remained unbiased when all nations meet and negotiate to design and debate the policy, programs and services. Moreover, the FAO is a good source of current knowledge and updated information about food, agriculture, health, safety and environment. [6] They help the developing countries in transition, modernization and improvement of their technologies. They work for all to make advancement in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, good nutrition and food security. In August 2018, FAO was having 197 member states, including the European Union, Niue (island nation in the South Pacific Ocean), The Cook Islands (nation in the South Pacific, links to New Zealand), the Faroe Islands (self-governing archipelago, part of the Kingdom of Denmark) and Tokelau (a remote group of atolls in the South Pacific Ocean, territories are divided between Hawaii and New Zealand).

Food Contaminant Testing

Examination of the food contamination can potentially help to assure the food quality. We can also maximize the compliance with regulatory standards of health, safety and environmental. However, the testing of raw material, semi manufacturing and final food products cam reduce the possibility of non-compliance. Moreover, we should simplify the current complications of local, national and worldwide regulations. That will help to satisfy the regulatory bodies and obtain the permissible quantities of restricted food ingredients. Additionally, the appropriate identification of food borne diseases and detections of associated chemicals, organisms and/ or physical hazard can help to minimize the food contamination. The examination of food contamination covers a wide range of ingredients including Genetically modified organisms (GMO), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, allergens, mycotoxins, radioactivity contamination, pesticide and/ or veterinary drug residues.

Food Safety and Quality

The rigorous food testing may guarantee the quality, security, and supportability of the food products. [4] That may also help to achieve the confidence of customers and reduce the potential risks. Moreover, the appropriate inspection, certification, specialized review, training the staff and risk assessment improve the safety and productivity for the retail outlets. [5] Whereas, poor administration, dishonor of the commitments, lack of confidence, non-compliance with complex legislations, inappropriate shipping, dispersion of food nourishment fixings, and nonguaranteed quality and security of supply chains are key factor to damage any food business. So, the routine checks of operations, mystery shopping and continuous learning of staff and workers can potentially assure the compliance of health and safety significantly at desired benchmarks.

Modern and Innovative Food Technologies

The modern innovations a technology is potentially helping the food industry to develop, formulate and produce the food items. The most current and sophisticated techniques has made it possible to use the manpower, resources and equipment more effective. That also empowers to select distinctive highlights to convert compliance data into user friendly significant information. Moreover, the finding, analysis and screening of information also help to make some difference in businesses. You may also able to receive the real-time information to control the hazard, identify the problems and assure the compliance.

Additionally, a single test can distinguish the all species of food by utilizing DNA sequencing. That is also an effective tool for food investigation and assessment. We can recognize and handle the pathogens, allergens and potential contaminants to assure the safety and quality of food items


The examination, identification and handling of the food spoilage and food borne pathogens have posed potential challenge to the scientists. The manufacturing, supplying and distribution is now become more crucial work and need constant monitoring all the time. Thus, the food and health expert are constantly working to review the food testing procedures. That should comply with the indigenous food and health standards and assure the safety. Moreover, Canadian food and health professionals encourage the global and/or local networking. That keeps them update about the current problems, trends, risk and information. Additionally, the government official always encourages the local Canadian businesses to adopt the current food art and processing technology. The food and nutrition tests should be performed under ISO/IEC 17025 accredited institutions under accredited and rigorous quality management system.



1.             Bornhorst GM, Gouseti O, Wickham MS, Bakalis S. Engineering Digestion: Multiscale Processes of Food Digestion. J Food Sci. 2016 Mar;81(3):R534-43. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13216. Epub 2016 Jan 22. Review. PubMed PMID: 26799793.

2.             Chapman B, Gunter C. Local Food Systems Food Safety Concerns. Microbiol Spectr. 2018 Apr;6(2). doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0020-2017. Review. PubMed PMID: 29651980.

3.             Wangsness K, Salfinger Y, Randolph R, Shea S, Larson K. Creating Best Practices for the Submission of Actionable Food and Feed Testing Data Generated in State and Local Laboratories. J AOAC Int. 2017 Jul 1;100(4):1123-1125. doi: 10.5740/jaoacint.16-0427. PubMed PMID: 28720178.

4.             ELBadawy NE, Abdel-Latif RS. Food Specific IgE as A Biomarker of Oral Immunotherapy Efficacy in Comparison to Double Blind Food Challenge Test. Egypt J Immunol. 2017 Jun;24(2):109-125. PubMed PMID: 29528585.

5.             Funk M, Hillmann H, Derra R, Leist U. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2018 Feb;35(2):305-315. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2017.1400185. Epub 2017 Nov 14. PMID: 29095130

6.             Lytle LA, Sokol RL. Measures of the food environment: A systematic review of the field, 2007-2015. Health Place. 2017 Mar; 44:18-34. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.12.007. Epub 2017 Jan 27. Review. PubMed PMID: 28135633.

7.             Martín-Fernández B, Manzanares-Palenzuela CL, Sánchez-Paniagua López M, de-Los-Santos-Álvarez N, López-Ruiz B. Electrochemical genosensors in food safety assessment. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Sep 2;57(13):2758-2774. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2015.1067597. Review. PubMed PMID: 26565945.

8.             Stewart I, McLeod C. The laboratory mouse in routine food safety testing for marine algal biotoxins and harmful algal bloom toxin research: past, present and future. J AOAC Int. 2014 Mar-Apr;97(2):356-72.  PubMed PMID: 24830147.



© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits
Editor in Chief
Prof. Dr. Asli UÇAR (PhD)
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey


Prof. Dr. Asli UÇAR was awarded the PhD degree in Nutrition Sciences in 2006. She has excellent knowledge of food infection, hygiene of catering, attitudes of women towards food safety and Turkish perception of organic foods. Her major research area is food safety, nutrition science, food questionnaire and food hygiene. Prof. Asli UÇAR has recently completed three projects entitled Investigation of Effect of Some of Group B Vitamins and Vitamin D on Depression Level, Evaluation of Nutritional Status and Eating Habits of Children with Autism and Investigation of Effect Exposure to Steviol Glycoside on Oxidative Damage Index Parameters, Paraxonase Enzyme and Some Genetic Parameters in Balb/c Mice. Moreover, she partially contributed to compile the book (ISBN 978-953-51-2277-7) entitled Food Safety, Problems and Solutions - Significance, Prevention and Control of Food Related Diseases and wrote book chapter (ISBN 978-953-307-764-2) entitled Organic Food and Agriculture - New Trends and Developments in the Social Sciences. 

Journal Highlights
Key title: Advanced Food and Nutrition Sciences 
Abbreviation: Adv Food & Nutr Sci
Frequency: Annual

Current Volume: 2 (2017)
Next volume: 3 (2018)
Back volumes: 1-2
Starting year: 2016
Nature: Online
Submission: Online
Language: English


Subject & Scope

  • Advanced Food Processing Technologies
  • Amino acid Supplements
  • Animal & Plant Nutrition
  • Bodybuilding Nutrition
  • Celery Nutrition
  • Childhood Obesity
  • Clinical Sports Nutrition
  • Creatine Sports Nutrition
  • Dates Nutrition
  • Diabetes Nutrition
  • Dietary Intake
  • Eating Disorders
  • Fatigue Disorders
  • Fermentation Technology
  • Fitness Nutrition
  • Food Addiction
  • Food Allergy Studies
  • Food Biotechnology Studies
  • Food Biotechnology and Nutrition
  • Food Chemical Engineering
  • Food Fortification
  • Food Intolerance
  • Food Nanotechnology
  • Food Process Engineering
  • Food Processing
  • Food Production
  • Food Safety regulations
  • Food Science
  • Food Security/ Safety
  • Food Technology
  • Food Toxicology
  • Gym Suppliments
  • Health Nutrition
  • Herbal Supplements
  • Human Nutrition
  • Iodine Deficiency Disorders
  • Malnourishment
  • Malnutrition
  • Mass Spectrometry in Food Technology
  • Molecular Nutrition
  • Natural Suppliments
  • Nutrient Deficiencies
  • Nutrigenomics
  • Nutrition Cancer
  • Nutrition Economics
  • Nutrition Sport Fitness
  • Nutrition and Diabetes
  • Nutrition and Food Sciences
  • Nutrition in Developing Countries
  • Nutritional Epidemiology
  • Nutritional Values
  • Nutritionist Communications
  • Oatmeal Nutrition
  • Obesity Prevention
  • Obesity and Weightloss
  • Potato Nutrition
  • Protein Diet
  • Protein Suppliments
  • Public Health Nutrition
  • Sonic Nutrition
  • Sports Nutrition
  • Sports Nutrition Suppliments
  • Vitamin B12 Deficiency
  • Vitamin Supplement

Consortium Publisher is an online publisher that enjoys global presence with International Journals

Follow Us

©2009 - 2019 Consortium Publisher Canada

Contact Info

6252 Lisgar Dr Mississauga Ontario L5N7V2 Canada
+1 (647) 526-0885