: Bacteria in milk have the ability to adhere and aggregate on stainless steel surfaces, resulting in biofilm formation in milk storage tanks and milk process lines. Growth of biofilms in milk ...processing environments leads to increased opportunity for microbial contamination of the processed dairy products. These biofilms may contain spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms. Bacteria within biofilms are protected from sanitizers due to multispecies cooperation and the presence of extracellular polymeric substances, by which their survival and subsequent contamination of processed milk products is promoted. This paper reviews the most critical factors in biofilm formation, with special attention to pseudomonads, the predominant spoilage bacteria originating from raw milk. Biofilm interactions between pseudomonads and milk pathogens are also addressed, as emerging risks and future research perspectives, specifically related to the milk processing environment.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Antimicrobial resistance in the food chain: a review Verraes, Claire; Van Boxstael, Sigrid; Van Meervenne, Eva ...
International journal of environmental research and public health,
06/2013, Volume:
10, Issue:
7
Journal Article, Web Resource
Peer reviewed
Open access
Antimicrobial resistant zoonotic pathogens present on food constitute a direct risk to public health. Antimicrobial resistance genes in commensal or pathogenic strains form an indirect risk to public ...health, as they increase the gene pool from which pathogenic bacteria can pick up resistance traits. Food can be contaminated with antimicrobial resistant bacteria and/or antimicrobial resistance genes in several ways. A first way is the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria on food selected by the use of antibiotics during agricultural production. A second route is the possible presence of resistance genes in bacteria that are intentionally added during the processing of food (starter cultures, probiotics, bioconserving microorganisms and bacteriophages). A last way is through cross-contamination with antimicrobial resistant bacteria during food processing. Raw food products can be consumed without having undergone prior processing or preservation and therefore hold a substantial risk for transfer of antimicrobial resistance to humans, as the eventually present resistant bacteria are not killed. As a consequence, transfer of antimicrobial resistance genes between bacteria after ingestion by humans may occur. Under minimal processing or preservation treatment conditions, sublethally damaged or stressed cells can be maintained in the food, inducing antimicrobial resistance build-up and enhancing the risk of resistance transfer. Food processes that kill bacteria in food products, decrease the risk of transmission of antimicrobial resistance.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed an updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for food enzymes. This guidance describes the ...scientific data to be included in applications for the authorisation of food enzymes, as well as for the extension of use for existing authorisations, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and its implementing rules. Information to be provided in applications relates to source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme, toxicological data, allergenicity and dietary exposure estimation. Source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme are first considered only for enzymes of microbial origin and subsequently for those enzymes derived from plants and for enzymes from animal sources. Finally, the data requested for toxicology, allergenicity and dietary exposure applies to all food enzymes independent of the source. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of food enzymes and conclude whether or not they present a risk to human health under the proposed conditions of use.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6850/full
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a safety pre‐assessment within EFSA for microorganisms. Strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs) still require an assessment ...based on a specific data package, but QPS status facilitates fast track evaluation. QPS TUs are unambiguously defined biological agents assessed for the body of knowledge, their safety and their end use. Safety concerns are, where possible, to be confirmed at strain or product level, and reflected as ‘qualifications’. Qualifications need to be evaluated at strain level by the respective EFSA units. The lowest QPS TU is the species level for bacteria, yeasts and protists/algae, and the family for viruses. The QPS concept is also applicable to genetically modified microorganisms used for production purposes if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Based on the actual body of knowledge and/or an ambiguous taxonomic position, the following TUs were excluded from the QPS assessment: filamentous fungi, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and bacteriophages. The list of QPS‐recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore now becomes the valid list. For this update, reports on the safety of previously assessed microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and viruses (the latter only when used for plant protection purposes) were reviewed, following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. All TUs previously recommended for 2016 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well as their qualifications. The TUs related to the new notifications received since the 2016 QPS opinion was periodically evaluated for QPS status in the Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel, and the QPS list was also periodically updated. In total, 14 new TUs received a QPS status between 2017 and 2019: three yeasts, eight bacteria and three algae/protists.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
This assessment addresses a food enzyme preparation consisting of the immobilised intact but non‐viable cells of the genetically modified Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002 by CJ‐Tereos ...Sweeteners Europe SAS. The production strain produces the food enzyme d‐fructose 3‐epimerase (d‐psicose 3‐epimerase; EC 5.1.3.30). The food enzyme preparation is used in processing fructose to produce a speciality carbohydrate d‐allulose (synonym d‐psicose). Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of d‐allulose, dietary exposure was not calculated. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,796 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is low. The food enzyme preparation contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene, which is considered a hazard. However, under the specific intended conditions of use described by the applicant, and based on the evidence showing the removal of TOS during the production of d‐allulose and the absence of recombinant DNA in the d‐allulose, the Panel concluded that the identified hazard associated with the food enzyme d‐psicose 3‐epimerase produced with the genetically modified C. glutamicum strain FIS002 will not result in a risk.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Food safety criteria for Listeria monocytogenes in ready‐to‐eat (RTE) foods have been applied from 2006 onwards (Commission Regulation (EC) 2073/2005). Still, human invasive listeriosis was reported ...to increase over the period 2009–2013 in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Time series analysis for the 2008–2015 period in the EU/EEA indicated an increasing trend of the monthly notified incidence rate of confirmed human invasive listeriosis of the over 75 age groups and female age group between 25 and 44 years old (probably related to pregnancies). A conceptual model was used to identify factors in the food chain as potential drivers for L. monocytogenes contamination of RTE foods and listeriosis. Factors were related to the host (i. population size of the elderly and/or susceptible people; ii. underlying condition rate), the food (iii. L. monocytogenes prevalence in RTE food at retail; iv. L. monocytogenes concentration in RTE food at retail; v. storage conditions after retail; vi. consumption), the national surveillance systems (vii. improved surveillance), and/or the bacterium (viii. virulence). Factors considered likely to be responsible for the increasing trend in cases are the increased population size of the elderly and susceptible population except for the 25–44 female age group. For the increased incidence rates and cases, the likely factor is the increased proportion of susceptible persons in the age groups over 45 years old for both genders. Quantitative modelling suggests that more than 90% of invasive listeriosis is caused by ingestion of RTE food containing > 2,000 colony forming units (CFU)/g, and that one‐third of cases are due to growth in the consumer phase. Awareness should be increased among stakeholders, especially in relation to susceptible risk groups. Innovative methodologies including whole genome sequencing (WGS) for strain identification and monitoring of trends are recommended.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1352/full
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The provisional molecular approach, proposed by EFSA in 2013, for the pathogenicity assessment of Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli (STEC) has been reviewed. Analysis of the confirmed reported ...human STEC infections in the EU/EEA (2012–2017) demonstrated that isolates positive for any of the reported Shiga toxin (Stx) subtypes (and encoding stx gene subtypes) may be associated with severe illness (defined as bloody diarrhoea (BD), haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) and/or hospitalisation). Although strains positive for stx2a gene showed the highest rates, strains with all other stx subtypes, or combinations thereof, were also associated with at least one human case with a severe clinical outcome. Serogroup cannot be used as a predictor of clinical outcome and the presence of the intimin gene (eae) is not essential for severe illness. These findings are supported by the published literature, a review of which suggested there was no single or combination of virulence markers associated exclusively with severe illness. Based on available evidence, it was concluded that all STEC strains are pathogenic in humans, capable of causing at least diarrhoea and that all STEC subtypes may be associated with severe illness. Source attribution analysis, based on ‘strong evidence’ outbreak data in the EU/EEA (2012–2017), suggests that ‘bovine meat and products thereof’, ‘milk and dairy products’, ‘tap water including well water’ and ‘vegetables, fruit and products thereof’ are the main sources of STEC infections in the EU/EEA, but a ranking between these categories cannot be made as the data are insufficient. Other food commodities are also potentially associated with STEC infections but rank lower. Data gaps are identified, and are primarily caused by the lack of harmonisation in sampling strategies, sampling methods, detection and characterisation methods, data collation and reporting within the EU.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The role of food‐producing environments in the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in EU plant‐based food production, terrestrial animals (poultry, cattle and pigs) and aquaculture ...was assessed. Among the various sources and transmission routes identified, fertilisers of faecal origin, irrigation and surface water for plant‐based food and water for aquaculture were considered of major importance. For terrestrial animal production, potential sources consist of feed, humans, water, air/dust, soil, wildlife, rodents, arthropods and equipment. Among those, evidence was found for introduction with feed and humans, for the other sources, the importance could not be assessed. Several ARB of highest priority for public health, such as carbapenem or extended‐spectrum cephalosporin and/or fluoroquinolone‐resistant Enterobacterales (including Salmonella enterica), fluoroquinolone‐resistant Campylobacter spp., methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and glycopeptide‐resistant Enterococcus faecium and E. faecalis were identified. Among highest priority ARGs blaCTX‐M, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaOXA‐48-like, blaOXA‐23, mcr, armA, vanA, cfr and optrA were reported. These highest priority bacteria and genes were identified in different sources, at primary and post‐harvest level, particularly faeces/manure, soil and water. For all sectors, reducing the occurrence of faecal microbial contamination of fertilisers, water, feed and the production environment and minimising persistence/recycling of ARB within animal production facilities is a priority. Proper implementation of good hygiene practices, biosecurity and food safety management systems is very important. Potential AMR‐specific interventions are in the early stages of development. Many data gaps relating to sources and relevance of transmission routes, diversity of ARB and ARGs, effectiveness of mitigation measures were identified. Representative epidemiological and attribution studies on AMR and its effective control in food production environments at EU level, linked to One Health and environmental initiatives, are urgently required.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a generic safety evaluation for biological agents to support EFSA's Scientific Panels. The taxonomic identity, body of knowledge, safety ...concerns and antimicrobial resistance are assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are where possible to be confirmed at strain or product level, reflected by ‘qualifications’. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs and their qualifications. The list of microorganisms notified to EFSA was updated with 54 biological agents, received between April and September 2019; 23 already had QPS status, 14 were excluded from the QPS exercise (7 filamentous fungi, 6 Escherichia coli, Sphingomonas paucimobilis which was already evaluated). Seventeen, corresponding to 16 TUs, were evaluated for possible QPS status, fourteen of these for the first time, and Protaminobacter rubrum, evaluated previously, was excluded because it is not a valid species. Eight TUs are recommended for QPS status. Lactobacillus parafarraginis and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii are recommended to be included in the QPS list. Parageobacillus thermoglucosidasius and Paenibacillus illinoisensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’ and absence of toxigenic potential. Bacillus velezensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualifications; the absence of toxigenic potential and the absence of aminoglycoside production, including the genes encoding this. Cupriavidus necator, Aurantiochytrium limacinum and Tetraselmis chuii can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification; for production purposes only. Pantoea ananatis is not recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge in relation to its pathogenicity potential for plants. Corynebacterium stationis, Hamamotoa singularis, Rhodococcus aetherivorans and Rhodococcus ruber cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge. Kodamaea ohmeri cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
