Modification of Different Foods

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

nutrition screening tool for use in elderly South Africans. Public Health

[32] Russell L, Taylor J, Brewitt J, Ireland M, Reynolds T. Development and validation of the Burton score: A tool for nutritional assessment. Journal of Tissue Viability. 1998;**8**(4):16-22

[34] Patterson AJ, Young AF, Powers JR, Brown WJ, Byles JE. Relationships between nutrition screening checklists and the health and well-being of older Australian women. Public Health Nutrition. 2002;**5**(1):65-71

[35] Isaksson U, Santamäki-Fischer R, Nygren B, Lundman B, Åström S. Supporting the very old when

completing a questionnaire: Risking bias or gaining valid results? Research on

[36] Walters SJ, Munro JF, Brazier JE. Using the SF-36 with older adults: A cross-sectional communitybased survey. Age and Ageing.

Aging. 2007;**29**(6):576-589

2001;**30**(4):337-343

Nutrition. 2005;**8**(5):468-479

[33] Bouillanne O, Morineau G, Dupont C, Coulombel I, Vincent J-P, Nicolis I, et al. Geriatric nutritional risk index: A new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

2005;**82**(4):777-783

**158**

**161**

**Chapter 10**

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

A Case Study

*Aleksandra Badora, Karolina Bawolska,* 

*Jolanta Kozłowska-Strawska and Jolanta Domańska*

Food Additives in Food Products:

Socioeconomic progress, diseases, and the constantly changing pace of life and lifestyles of consumers worldwide require food to be improved and tailored to meet the needs of purchasers. The produced food is functional, convenient, and enriched. This is achieved, i.e. with food additives. Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive on human health. All food additives, and their application and dosage, are subject to strict regulations. The purpose of this work was to investigate which food additives

are the most common in our everyday diet and how they affect our health.

The history of food additives goes back to ancient times. As great civilisations developed, populations grew and so did the demand for food. In ancient Egypt, where the climate was not conducive to food storage, especially due to the heat, people started looking for ways to extend the usability life of products. Common practices included the addition of salt, drying in the sun, curing/corning, meat and fish smoking, pickling, and burning sulphur during vegetable preservation. The earliest preservatives included sulphur dioxide (E220), acetic acid (E260), and sodium nitrite (E250), while turmeric (E100) and carmine (E120) were among the first colours. Food preservation was also of immense importance during numerous armed conflicts. Both during the Napoleonic wars in Europe and during the American Civil War, seafarers and soldiers needed food. Limited access to fresh food at the front motivated the armed forces to transport their food with them. This is when cans were introduced for food preservation purposes. In the subsequent centuries, ammonium bicarbonate (E503ii), also known as salt of hartshorn, used as a rising agent for baked goods, and sodium hydroxide solution (E524), used in

The nineteenth century saw considerable advancements in the fields of chemistry, biology, and medicine. A name that needs to be mentioned here is Louis Pasteur, a French scientist, who studied microbiology, among other things. He was the first to prove that microorganisms were responsible for food spoilage. At the same time, new chemical compounds were discovered that were able to inhibit the growth of microbes. Some substances, such as picric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and their salts, often had disastrous consequences when added to food. Insufficient

**Keywords:** food additives, preservatives, sweeteners, colours

the production of salty sticks, rose to prominence [1, 2].

#### **Chapter 10**

## Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study

*Aleksandra Badora, Karolina Bawolska, Jolanta Kozłowska-Strawska and Jolanta Domańska*

#### **Abstract**

Socioeconomic progress, diseases, and the constantly changing pace of life and lifestyles of consumers worldwide require food to be improved and tailored to meet the needs of purchasers. The produced food is functional, convenient, and enriched. This is achieved, i.e. with food additives. Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive on human health. All food additives, and their application and dosage, are subject to strict regulations. The purpose of this work was to investigate which food additives are the most common in our everyday diet and how they affect our health.

**Keywords:** food additives, preservatives, sweeteners, colours

#### **1. Introduction**

The history of food additives goes back to ancient times. As great civilisations developed, populations grew and so did the demand for food. In ancient Egypt, where the climate was not conducive to food storage, especially due to the heat, people started looking for ways to extend the usability life of products. Common practices included the addition of salt, drying in the sun, curing/corning, meat and fish smoking, pickling, and burning sulphur during vegetable preservation. The earliest preservatives included sulphur dioxide (E220), acetic acid (E260), and sodium nitrite (E250), while turmeric (E100) and carmine (E120) were among the first colours. Food preservation was also of immense importance during numerous armed conflicts. Both during the Napoleonic wars in Europe and during the American Civil War, seafarers and soldiers needed food. Limited access to fresh food at the front motivated the armed forces to transport their food with them. This is when cans were introduced for food preservation purposes. In the subsequent centuries, ammonium bicarbonate (E503ii), also known as salt of hartshorn, used as a rising agent for baked goods, and sodium hydroxide solution (E524), used in the production of salty sticks, rose to prominence [1, 2].

The nineteenth century saw considerable advancements in the fields of chemistry, biology, and medicine. A name that needs to be mentioned here is Louis Pasteur, a French scientist, who studied microbiology, among other things. He was the first to prove that microorganisms were responsible for food spoilage. At the same time, new chemical compounds were discovered that were able to inhibit the growth of microbes. Some substances, such as picric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and their salts, often had disastrous consequences when added to food. Insufficient

knowledge of toxicology resulted in consumer poisonings and even deaths [1, 3]. At that time, food preservation was the number one priority, which was achieved, for instance, by using salicylic acid, formic acid (E236), benzoic acid (E210), boric acid (E284), propionic acid (E280), sorbic acid (E200) and its potassium salt (E202), and esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid. Later, food concerns also focused on improving the organoleptic properties of their products and started to enhance food with colours, flavours, and sweeteners, without first researching their effects on human health. For example, such practices involved the use of synthetic colours used in fabric dyeing. This desire to make money on beautiful-looking products led to adulterating food with copper and iron salts, which have a negative impact on the human body. It was as late as in 1907 that the United States studied 90 of the synthetic colours used at that time for food dyeing and found only 7 to be acceptable for further use. Detailed studies and strict regulations on the use of food additives were created almost a century later [1, 4].

Globally, food safety is ensured by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In 1962, these organisations established a special agenda—the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission has prepared and updated the Codex Alimentarius, which is not a legal Act per se, but provides a reference for standards on raw materials and food products, acceptable contamination levels, hygienic processing, research methods, and food additives for almost all countries worldwide [5]. In the European Union, the body responsible for improving human health protection and food safety risk mitigation, as well as for taking care of purchaser interests, is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It is a scientific agency established in 2002 pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002. European legislation is based on the Codex Alimentarius but conducts its own complementary research. Therefore, the list of food additives permitted by the European Union is different from the American one [5].

The primary legal Act governing food in Poland is the Food and Nutrition Safety Act of 25 August 2006 (as amended). It specifies the requirements applicable to food and nutrition, concerning product labelling, hygienic conditions throughout the production process, and product replacement rules, as well as requirements concerning the use of food additives. The key document that pertains specifically to food additives is the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. The EU-approved list of food additives is presented in the Commission Regulation (EU) of 11 November 2011 [4, 5]*.*

A **food additive** (additional substance) is any substance that is not a food in itself or an ingredient in food, but when added to a product for processing purposes, it becomes part of the food [5]. The following are not considered to be food additives: ingredients in food or chemicals to be used in other products, i.e. in particular sweeteners, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, and oligosaccharides; substances with flavouring, dyeing, and sapid properties (such as dried fruit); glazing and coating substances, which are not intended to be consumed; and chewing gum bases, dextrin, modified starch, ammonium chloride, edible gelatine, milk protein and gluten, blood plasma, casein, and inulin. The law forbids the use of food additives in unprocessed food, honey, non-emulsified oils and fats of an animal or vegetable origin, butter, milk, fermented milk products (unflavoured, with living bacteria cultures), natural mineral and spring water, unflavoured leaf tea, coffee, sugar, dry pasta, and unflavoured buttermilk [5]. Any marketed additive must comply with the requirements of the European Food Safety Authority, i.e. it has to be technologically justified. It must not put consumers' life or health at risk; its use should not mislead the purchaser; its acceptable daily intake (ADI), or *quantum satis*, the smallest amount which is needed to achieve a specific processing objective

**163**

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

1.Colours—E100–E199

substances—E400–E499

5.Other substances—E500 and above

for the substance, must be calculable; and, last but not least, such an additive must not adulterate the product it is to be added to. Producers are also required to include

EU legislation has approved approximately 330 food additives for use. The primary objectives behind the use of additives are to extend the shelf life and freshness of products, prevent product quality impairment, make the product more attractive to customers, achieve the desired texture, ensure specific product functionality, facilitate production processes, reduce production costs, and enrich the nutritional value of products. In order to harmonise, effectively identify any additives, and ensure smooth exchange of goods, each food additive has its own, standardised, code. This code is consistent with the International Numbering System (INS) and comprises the letter "E" and three or four digits. There are several food additive classifications. One is based on the regulation and differentiates between colours (approx. 40), sweeteners (approx. 16), and other additives (approx. 277) [8, 9]. **Additional substances** can also be categorised on the basis of code numbers:

information on any food additives on product labelling [6, 7].

2.Preservatives and acidity regulators—E200–E299

4.Stabilising, thickening, emulsifying, coating, and bulking

Food additives can also be divided into four major groups, based on their processing purpose. These are substances that prevent food spoilage, those which improve sensory features, firming additives and excipients. The most numerous group among additives that slow down food spoilage are **preservatives**. These are either natural or synthetic chemical compounds added to food to restrict as much as possible the biological processes that take place in the product, e.g. the development of microflora and pathogenic microbes, and the effects of enzymes that affect food freshness and quality. In food products, preservatives change the permeability of cytoplasmic membranes or cell walls, damage the genetic system, and deactivate some enzymes. Food is preserved using antiseptics or antibiotics. The former are synthetically produced simple compounds that often have natural correlates, and they make up no more than 0.2% of the product. Antibiotics, or substances produced by microorganisms, are used in very small, yet effective, doses. The effectiveness of preservatives depends primarily on their effect on a specific type of microorganism, which is why it is vital to select the appropriate preservative based on the microbes found in the product (bacteria, mould, or yeast). Other factors that determine the effectiveness of preservatives include the pH value (a low pH is desirable), temperature, the addition of other substances, and the chemical composition of the product. Preservatives constitute an alternative to physical and biological product freshness stabilisation methods, such as drying, pickling, sterilising, freezing, cooling, and thickening. Consumer objections concerning the widespread use of chemical preservatives and their effects on human health have motivated producers to develop new food preservation procedures. These include radiation, packaging, and storing products in a modified atmosphere, using aseptic technology. Products that are most commonly preserved include ready-made dishes and sauces, meat and fish products, fizzy drinks, and ready-made deserts [9, 10].

3.Antioxidants and synergists—E300–E399

#### *Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

created almost a century later [1, 4].

European Union is different from the American one [5].

knowledge of toxicology resulted in consumer poisonings and even deaths [1, 3]. At that time, food preservation was the number one priority, which was achieved, for instance, by using salicylic acid, formic acid (E236), benzoic acid (E210), boric acid (E284), propionic acid (E280), sorbic acid (E200) and its potassium salt (E202), and esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid. Later, food concerns also focused on improving the organoleptic properties of their products and started to enhance food with colours, flavours, and sweeteners, without first researching their effects on human health. For example, such practices involved the use of synthetic colours used in fabric dyeing. This desire to make money on beautiful-looking products led to adulterating food with copper and iron salts, which have a negative impact on the human body. It was as late as in 1907 that the United States studied 90 of the synthetic colours used at that time for food dyeing and found only 7 to be acceptable for further use. Detailed studies and strict regulations on the use of food additives were

Globally, food safety is ensured by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In 1962, these organisations established a special agenda—the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission has prepared and updated the Codex Alimentarius, which is not a legal Act per se, but provides a reference for standards on raw materials and food products, acceptable contamination levels, hygienic processing, research methods, and food additives for almost all countries worldwide [5]. In the European Union, the body responsible for improving human health protection and food safety risk mitigation, as well as for taking care of purchaser interests, is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It is a scientific agency established in 2002 pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002. European legislation is based on the Codex Alimentarius but conducts its own complementary research. Therefore, the list of food additives permitted by the

The primary legal Act governing food in Poland is the Food and Nutrition Safety

Act of 25 August 2006 (as amended). It specifies the requirements applicable to food and nutrition, concerning product labelling, hygienic conditions throughout the production process, and product replacement rules, as well as requirements concerning the use of food additives. The key document that pertains specifically to food additives is the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. The EU-approved list of food additives is presented in the Commission Regulation (EU) of 11 November 2011 [4, 5]*.*

A **food additive** (additional substance) is any substance that is not a food in itself or an ingredient in food, but when added to a product for processing purposes, it becomes part of the food [5]. The following are not considered to be food additives: ingredients in food or chemicals to be used in other products, i.e. in particular sweeteners, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, and oligosaccharides; substances with flavouring, dyeing, and sapid properties (such as dried fruit); glazing and coating substances, which are not intended to be consumed; and chewing gum bases, dextrin, modified starch, ammonium chloride, edible gelatine, milk protein and gluten, blood plasma, casein, and inulin. The law forbids the use of food additives in unprocessed food, honey, non-emulsified oils and fats of an animal or vegetable origin, butter, milk, fermented milk products (unflavoured, with living bacteria cultures), natural mineral and spring water, unflavoured leaf tea, coffee, sugar, dry pasta, and unflavoured buttermilk [5]. Any marketed additive must comply with the requirements of the European Food Safety Authority, i.e. it has to be technologically justified. It must not put consumers' life or health at risk; its use should not mislead the purchaser; its acceptable daily intake (ADI), or *quantum satis*, the smallest amount which is needed to achieve a specific processing objective

**162**

for the substance, must be calculable; and, last but not least, such an additive must not adulterate the product it is to be added to. Producers are also required to include information on any food additives on product labelling [6, 7].

EU legislation has approved approximately 330 food additives for use. The primary objectives behind the use of additives are to extend the shelf life and freshness of products, prevent product quality impairment, make the product more attractive to customers, achieve the desired texture, ensure specific product functionality, facilitate production processes, reduce production costs, and enrich the nutritional value of products. In order to harmonise, effectively identify any additives, and ensure smooth exchange of goods, each food additive has its own, standardised, code. This code is consistent with the International Numbering System (INS) and comprises the letter "E" and three or four digits. There are several food additive classifications. One is based on the regulation and differentiates between colours (approx. 40), sweeteners (approx. 16), and other additives (approx. 277) [8, 9].

**Additional substances** can also be categorised on the basis of code numbers:


Food additives can also be divided into four major groups, based on their processing purpose. These are substances that prevent food spoilage, those which improve sensory features, firming additives and excipients. The most numerous group among additives that slow down food spoilage are **preservatives**. These are either natural or synthetic chemical compounds added to food to restrict as much as possible the biological processes that take place in the product, e.g. the development of microflora and pathogenic microbes, and the effects of enzymes that affect food freshness and quality. In food products, preservatives change the permeability of cytoplasmic membranes or cell walls, damage the genetic system, and deactivate some enzymes. Food is preserved using antiseptics or antibiotics. The former are synthetically produced simple compounds that often have natural correlates, and they make up no more than 0.2% of the product. Antibiotics, or substances produced by microorganisms, are used in very small, yet effective, doses. The effectiveness of preservatives depends primarily on their effect on a specific type of microorganism, which is why it is vital to select the appropriate preservative based on the microbes found in the product (bacteria, mould, or yeast). Other factors that determine the effectiveness of preservatives include the pH value (a low pH is desirable), temperature, the addition of other substances, and the chemical composition of the product. Preservatives constitute an alternative to physical and biological product freshness stabilisation methods, such as drying, pickling, sterilising, freezing, cooling, and thickening. Consumer objections concerning the widespread use of chemical preservatives and their effects on human health have motivated producers to develop new food preservation procedures. These include radiation, packaging, and storing products in a modified atmosphere, using aseptic technology. Products that are most commonly preserved include ready-made dishes and sauces, meat and fish products, fizzy drinks, and ready-made deserts [9, 10].

Other substances used as preservatives are **acids** and **acidity regulators**. These substances lower the pH level and slow down the growth of enzymes, which hampers the development of microbes. They are used mainly in the production of marinades. For a specific acid or acidity regulator to fulfil its role as a preservative, it needs to be added in highly concentrated form, but acetic acid, for instance, can irritate mucous membranes when its concentration exceeds 3%. Acids and acidity regulators are also used to enhance flavour (usually in fruit or vegetable products, or beverages, to bring out their sour taste) or to facilitate gelatinisation and frothing during food processing [11, 12].

Not only microorganisms but also oxygen is responsible for food spoilage. Products such as oils, fats, and dry goods (flour, semolina) oxidise when they come into contact with atmospheric oxygen. Fat oxidisation (rancidification) occurs in oils, lard, flour, and milk powder. The browning of fruit, vegetables, and meat, on the other hand, is the result of non-fat substance oxidisation. These oxidisation processes can be slowed down or eliminated completely using **antioxidants**. There are natural and synthetic antioxidants and synergists. Synthetic antioxidants are primarily esters (BHA, BHT, propyl gallate). These are used to stabilise fats used to fry, e.g. crisps and chips. The most common natural antioxidants are tocopherols, i.e. vitamin E. Other antioxidants include phenolic compounds, such as flavonoids and phenolic acids. Synthetic antioxidants are more potent and resistant to processing. Synergists are substances that support and extend the functioning of antioxidants. They can form complexes with heavy metal ions, which retard the oxidisation process. The most frequently used synergists are EDTA, citric acid, and ascorbic acid. Antioxidants do not pose a risk to human health. In fact, they can be beneficial. Antioxidants prevent unfavourable interactions between free radicals and tissue and slow down ageing processes and the development of some diseases [12, 13].

In order to extend the freshness of consumer goods, products are also packaged in a modified atmosphere. As part of this process, the oxygen content inside the packaging is reduced and replaced with other **gases**, such as nitrogen, argon, helium, and hydrogen. Furthermore, products in the form of aerosol sprays, such as whipped cream, have nitrous oxide, butane, or propane added to them. All these gases are also food additives with their own E codes [5, 11].

The organoleptic properties of consumer goods are very important to consumers. Visual appeal is considered to be as important as taste or smell. This is where **food colours** come into play. These are used to add colour to transparent products (e.g. some beverages), intensify or bring out product colour (beverages, sweets), preserve or reproduce colours that have faded as a result of processing, ensure that all product batches have a specific colour, and provide the products that are diluted after purchase with strong colour. In order to add colour to a product, manufacturers use natural, nature-identical, synthetic, and inorganic colours. Natural colours are produced from edible plant parts (fruits, flowers, roots, leaves) and from animal raw materials, such as blood, chitinous exoskeletons of insects, and muscle tissue. New technologies have also made it possible to obtain colours from algae, fungi, and mould. Natural colouring substances include carotenoids that provide a spectrum of yellow and orange colours (carrot, citrus fruit skin), flavonoids that give products blue and navy-blue colours (grapes, currants, chokeberry, elder), betalains that give products a red colour (beetroot, capsicum), and chlorophyll that lends green colours (salad, parsley), as well as riboflavin (vitamin B2), curcumin, and caramel. Natural colours are desirable for consumers, as they do not show any negative effects on health. However, a significant drawback to using natural colours is that they are very sensitive to environmental factors, such as pH, ambient temperature, oxygen content, or sun exposure, which is why they are not durable when it comes to processing and storage. Moreover, the cost of obtaining such colouring

**165**

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

made desserts, and refreshing beverages [8, 10].

much stronger flavours than natural ones [6–7, 13].

substances is rather high. The list of additives contains 17 natural colours, and their market share in 2012 was approx. 31% and was subject to an upward trend [6, 8]. Synthetic food colours are very competitive compared to natural ones. They offer a wide spectrum of colours, including those that are not available in nature, provide strong colouring, and are resistant to environmental factors, so they do not fade during processing. Furthermore, they are not expensive to produce, which contributes to low end-product prices. Synthetic colours can be divided into organic and inorganic, with organic constituting the considerable majority in terms of food colouring. In the past, chemical colours were made of coal, while now crude oil is used for this purpose. EU law approves 15 synthetic colours, including the so-called Southampton colours. A study conducted in 2007 in the United Kingdom (in Southampton, hence the name) showed the particularly negative effects of six colours on children's health [10]. Specifically, tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), azorubine (E122), cochineal red (E124), and Allura red AC (E129) were found to cause hyperactivity. As a result, since 2010, manufacturers which add at least one of their products have been required to provide label information about their negative effects on concentration and brain functioning in children. Acceptable daily doses of these colours have also been reassessed and updated. Moreover, research conducted on lab animals has shown that the long-term use of synthetic colours, and especially the three that account for 90% of the use of all synthetic colours (Allura red, tartrazine, and sunset yellow), can cause cancer, allergies, and chromosome mutations. Products that are most often synthetically coloured include candy, wine gums, ready-

During consumption, one can experience product taste, smell, and consistency. These three sensations are referred to as palatability and are caused by **flavours**. Taste is experienced by taste buds located in the tongue. Adult individuals have approximately 10,000 such receptors. There are four primary tastes, namely, salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. There is also an additional type, referred to as *umami*, which is Japanese for "savoury, meaty". This taste experience is provided by monosodium glutamate. Smell is experienced through volatile compounds that go directly through the nasal or oral cavity and throat to smell receptors. Taste and smell provide a ready source of information on whether the product is fresh, whether it has specific characteristics, and whether it has been adulterated. Flavours are mixtures of many compounds, in which the specific characteristic smell is produced by a single compound or several indispensable compounds. These are added to enhance the taste or smell of the product or to give something the flavour or aroma that has been lost during product processing [6, 7, 11]. There are natural, nature-identical, and synthetic flavours. Natural flavours are obtained from parts of fruits and vegetables, spices, and their flavouring compounds, such as lactones (found in fruits and nuts), terpenes (in essential oils, found in almost every plant), and carbonyl compounds (fermented dairy products). Nature-identical flavours are compounds originally found in a given raw material that can be recreated in the lab. Synthetic flavours are compounds that have been chemically created and produced and do not have their equivalent in nature. Similarly to natural colours, natural flavours are easily degraded during processing, and their extraction is costly, which is why the food industry generally uses synthetic substances to provide products with specific taste and odour. Moreover, synthetic compounds are capable of giving products

A separate group that enhances the sensory properties of food are **sweeteners**.

Formerly, in order to make products sweet, manufacturers used sucrose, commonly known just as sugar, obtained from sugar beet or sugarcane. Now large-scale methods are commonly used, such as chemical production and the extraction of intensively sweetening substances, known as sweeteners, from specific plants.

#### *Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

during food processing [11, 12].

Other substances used as preservatives are **acids** and **acidity regulators**. These

substances lower the pH level and slow down the growth of enzymes, which hampers the development of microbes. They are used mainly in the production of marinades. For a specific acid or acidity regulator to fulfil its role as a preservative, it needs to be added in highly concentrated form, but acetic acid, for instance, can irritate mucous membranes when its concentration exceeds 3%. Acids and acidity regulators are also used to enhance flavour (usually in fruit or vegetable products, or beverages, to bring out their sour taste) or to facilitate gelatinisation and frothing

Not only microorganisms but also oxygen is responsible for food spoilage. Products such as oils, fats, and dry goods (flour, semolina) oxidise when they come into contact with atmospheric oxygen. Fat oxidisation (rancidification) occurs in oils, lard, flour, and milk powder. The browning of fruit, vegetables, and meat, on the other hand, is the result of non-fat substance oxidisation. These oxidisation processes can be slowed down or eliminated completely using **antioxidants**. There are natural and synthetic antioxidants and synergists. Synthetic antioxidants are primarily esters (BHA, BHT, propyl gallate). These are used to stabilise fats used to fry, e.g. crisps and chips. The most common natural antioxidants are tocopherols, i.e. vitamin E. Other antioxidants include phenolic compounds, such as flavonoids and phenolic acids. Synthetic antioxidants are more potent and resistant to processing. Synergists are substances that support and extend the functioning of antioxidants. They can form complexes with heavy metal ions, which retard the oxidisation process. The most frequently used synergists are EDTA, citric acid, and ascorbic acid. Antioxidants do not pose a risk to human health. In fact, they can be beneficial. Antioxidants prevent unfavourable interactions between free radicals and tissue and

slow down ageing processes and the development of some diseases [12, 13]. In order to extend the freshness of consumer goods, products are also packaged in a modified atmosphere. As part of this process, the oxygen content inside the packaging is reduced and replaced with other **gases**, such as nitrogen, argon, helium, and hydrogen. Furthermore, products in the form of aerosol sprays, such as whipped cream, have nitrous oxide, butane, or propane added to them. All these

The organoleptic properties of consumer goods are very important to consumers. Visual appeal is considered to be as important as taste or smell. This is where **food colours** come into play. These are used to add colour to transparent products (e.g. some beverages), intensify or bring out product colour (beverages, sweets), preserve or reproduce colours that have faded as a result of processing, ensure that all product batches have a specific colour, and provide the products that are diluted after purchase with strong colour. In order to add colour to a product, manufacturers use natural, nature-identical, synthetic, and inorganic colours. Natural colours are produced from edible plant parts (fruits, flowers, roots, leaves) and from animal raw materials, such as blood, chitinous exoskeletons of insects, and muscle tissue. New technologies have also made it possible to obtain colours from algae, fungi, and mould. Natural colouring substances include carotenoids that provide a spectrum of yellow and orange colours (carrot, citrus fruit skin), flavonoids that give products blue and navy-blue colours (grapes, currants, chokeberry, elder), betalains that give products a red colour (beetroot, capsicum), and chlorophyll that lends green colours (salad, parsley), as well as riboflavin (vitamin B2), curcumin, and caramel. Natural colours are desirable for consumers, as they do not show any negative effects on health. However, a significant drawback to using natural colours is that they are very sensitive to environmental factors, such as pH, ambient temperature, oxygen content, or sun exposure, which is why they are not durable when it comes to processing and storage. Moreover, the cost of obtaining such colouring

gases are also food additives with their own E codes [5, 11].

**164**

substances is rather high. The list of additives contains 17 natural colours, and their market share in 2012 was approx. 31% and was subject to an upward trend [6, 8].

Synthetic food colours are very competitive compared to natural ones. They offer a wide spectrum of colours, including those that are not available in nature, provide strong colouring, and are resistant to environmental factors, so they do not fade during processing. Furthermore, they are not expensive to produce, which contributes to low end-product prices. Synthetic colours can be divided into organic and inorganic, with organic constituting the considerable majority in terms of food colouring. In the past, chemical colours were made of coal, while now crude oil is used for this purpose. EU law approves 15 synthetic colours, including the so-called Southampton colours. A study conducted in 2007 in the United Kingdom (in Southampton, hence the name) showed the particularly negative effects of six colours on children's health [10]. Specifically, tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), azorubine (E122), cochineal red (E124), and Allura red AC (E129) were found to cause hyperactivity. As a result, since 2010, manufacturers which add at least one of their products have been required to provide label information about their negative effects on concentration and brain functioning in children. Acceptable daily doses of these colours have also been reassessed and updated. Moreover, research conducted on lab animals has shown that the long-term use of synthetic colours, and especially the three that account for 90% of the use of all synthetic colours (Allura red, tartrazine, and sunset yellow), can cause cancer, allergies, and chromosome mutations. Products that are most often synthetically coloured include candy, wine gums, readymade desserts, and refreshing beverages [8, 10].

During consumption, one can experience product taste, smell, and consistency. These three sensations are referred to as palatability and are caused by **flavours**. Taste is experienced by taste buds located in the tongue. Adult individuals have approximately 10,000 such receptors. There are four primary tastes, namely, salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. There is also an additional type, referred to as *umami*, which is Japanese for "savoury, meaty". This taste experience is provided by monosodium glutamate. Smell is experienced through volatile compounds that go directly through the nasal or oral cavity and throat to smell receptors. Taste and smell provide a ready source of information on whether the product is fresh, whether it has specific characteristics, and whether it has been adulterated. Flavours are mixtures of many compounds, in which the specific characteristic smell is produced by a single compound or several indispensable compounds. These are added to enhance the taste or smell of the product or to give something the flavour or aroma that has been lost during product processing [6, 7, 11]. There are natural, nature-identical, and synthetic flavours. Natural flavours are obtained from parts of fruits and vegetables, spices, and their flavouring compounds, such as lactones (found in fruits and nuts), terpenes (in essential oils, found in almost every plant), and carbonyl compounds (fermented dairy products). Nature-identical flavours are compounds originally found in a given raw material that can be recreated in the lab. Synthetic flavours are compounds that have been chemically created and produced and do not have their equivalent in nature. Similarly to natural colours, natural flavours are easily degraded during processing, and their extraction is costly, which is why the food industry generally uses synthetic substances to provide products with specific taste and odour. Moreover, synthetic compounds are capable of giving products much stronger flavours than natural ones [6–7, 13].

A separate group that enhances the sensory properties of food are **sweeteners**. Formerly, in order to make products sweet, manufacturers used sucrose, commonly known just as sugar, obtained from sugar beet or sugarcane. Now large-scale methods are commonly used, such as chemical production and the extraction of intensively sweetening substances, known as sweeteners, from specific plants.

What is characteristic about such substances is that they are much more potent as sweeteners compared to sucrose, and, at the same time, their calorific value is close to zero. Natural sweeteners include glucose-fructose syrup (or syrup based on one of those sugars), thaumatin, neohesperidin DC, stevia, and xylitol. Synthetic sweeteners include acesulfame K, aspartame (and the salts of these two compounds), sucralose, cyclamates, saccharin, and neotame. Sweeteners are used in the production of beverages, juices, dairy products, spirits, sweets, marmalade, and chewing gum [14, 15]. In contrast to sucrose, the majority of synthetic sweeteners do not increase blood sugar level and do not cause tooth decay. These substances are attractive for producers because the cost of their production is low, and even small amounts of such compounds are able to ensure the desired sweetness of the product, so these are economical to use. In addition, most sweetener additives remain functional during processing, although some compounds are not resistant to high temperatures. A study conducted in 2010 on lab animals raises some concerns when it comes to sweetener safety in relation to human health [20]. Its findings showed that regular consumption of sweeteners in large quantities caused obesity and neoplasms in animals. Sweetener additives in consumer goods have been considered safe for humans [10]. Each such additive has a specific ADI value and amount (in milligrammes) that can be added to 1 kg (or 1 dm3 ) of product [13–15].

The additives that are vital in terms of processing are **firming additives**. They create or stabilise the desirable product structure and consistency. Firming agents include gelling, thickening, emulsifying, bulking, binding, and rising agents, humectants, and modified starches. The highest status among these substances is enjoyed by hydrocolloids. **Hydrocolloids**, known as gums, are polysaccharides of plant, animal, or microbiological origin. There are natural (guar gum, agar, curdlan), chemically and physically modified (modified starches), and synthetic gums. With their macromolecular structure, they are able to bind water, improve solution viscosity, and create gels and spongiform masses. Hydrocolloids are used as gelling (e.g. in the production of jelly, desserts, pudding, and fruit-flavoured starch jelly), thickening (ready-made sauces, vegetable products), water-binding (powdered products to be consumed with water, frozen food), and emulsifying agents (to create oil-in-water-type emulsions). They also act as emulsion stabilisers. Hydrocolloids are considered safe for human health, although some of them can cause allergies. Consumed in large quantities, they can have laxative effects [12].

What is also important in creating product structure are **emulsifiers** and the emulsification method. Emulsifiers are compounds which facilitate emulsification. There are water-in-oil (margarine) and oil-in-water (mayonnaise) type of emulsions. Emulsifiers position themselves at the interface between two different phases to stabilise the emulsion. There are natural emulgents, with lecithin as the most common, and synthetic emulgents (glycerol and its esters) [1]. Product consistency and texture are also adjusted using **modified starches**. Such starches are usually obtained from potatoes or corn (also genetically modified one) with chemically altered composition. Similarly to hydrocolloids, such substances can bind water and produce gels and are also resistant to high temperatures [11, 12]. Modified starches are added to ready-made sauces and dishes (such as frozen pizza), frozen goods, bread, and desserts (also powdered) to thicken and maintain product consistency after thermal processing. In order to enhance starch properties, phosphates are often added during starch modification. The human body needs phosphorus, but its excess can negatively affect the bones, kidneys, and the circulatory system [7, 11, 12].

Nowadays, consumer goods are widely available, and consumers are provided with a broad range of products to choose from. The continuously growing number of world population (approximately 7 billion in 2011) has made supply on the food market exceed demand. This situation is characteristic of countries with a high GDP.

**167**

**Table 1.**

*The most common food additives and ingredients.*

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

**2. Materials and methods**

eastern Poland.

Food producers examine consumer behaviour patterns to see what encourages them to make a purchase, and also the purchase itself and its consequences, and then analyse these processes to launch a new product or a substitute for an already existing one. To sum up, the market has provided more food products than consumers are able to purchase, which results in unimaginable food wastage. Each year, approximately 100 million tonnes of food goes to waste in Europe. This quantity

The methodology of this study was based on the information contained on the labels. The chemical composition of the investigated food products was presented. Interview with the store's seller concerned the popularity and frequency of sales listed in the product tables. It should be noted that the examined store is representative when it comes to this type of stores in the majority of small towns in south-

This study was based on data on the most frequently chosen consumer goods in a store in a small town in Poland. The town is located in a commune that has 5300 residents. Data were obtained by monitoring the sales over the course of 12 months. These products are presented in **Tables 2–6** and classified into the following categories: (i) meat and fish; (ii) beverages; (iii) condiments; (iv) ready-made sauces, soups, and dishes; and (v) sweets and desserts. The main classification criterion was segregation into primary food groups. The chemical composition of each product, as listed on the packaging, was included in a table and then assessed against the presence of any food additives. Sixteen most common additives were selected in all the investigated products; only chemical compounds that were found in at least four food products were taken into consideration. The most common food additives were

**Name Symbol Number of products**

Citric acid E330 15 Monosodium glutamate E621 10 Guar gum E412 8 Sodium nitrite E250 7 Disodium 5′-ribonucleotides E635 6 Sodium erythorbate E316 5 Glucose-fructose syrup Not considered an additive 5 Soy lecithin Not considered an additive 5 Maltodextrin Not considered an additive 5 Triphosphates E451 4 Xanthan gum E415 4 Carrageenan E407 4 Tocopherols E306 4 Glucose syrup Not considered an additive 4 Sodium benzoate E211 4 Ammonia caramel E150c 4

does not include agricultural and food waste or fish discards [13]*.*

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

milligrammes) that can be added to 1 kg (or 1 dm3

What is characteristic about such substances is that they are much more potent as sweeteners compared to sucrose, and, at the same time, their calorific value is close to zero. Natural sweeteners include glucose-fructose syrup (or syrup based on one of those sugars), thaumatin, neohesperidin DC, stevia, and xylitol. Synthetic sweeteners include acesulfame K, aspartame (and the salts of these two compounds), sucralose, cyclamates, saccharin, and neotame. Sweeteners are used in the production of beverages, juices, dairy products, spirits, sweets, marmalade, and chewing gum [14, 15]. In contrast to sucrose, the majority of synthetic sweeteners do not increase blood sugar level and do not cause tooth decay. These substances are attractive for producers because the cost of their production is low, and even small amounts of such compounds are able to ensure the desired sweetness of the product, so these are economical to use. In addition, most sweetener additives remain functional during processing, although some compounds are not resistant to high temperatures. A study conducted in 2010 on lab animals raises some concerns when it comes to sweetener safety in relation to human health [20]. Its findings showed that regular consumption of sweeteners in large quantities caused obesity and neoplasms in animals. Sweetener additives in consumer goods have been considered safe for humans [10]. Each such additive has a specific ADI value and amount (in

The additives that are vital in terms of processing are **firming additives**. They create or stabilise the desirable product structure and consistency. Firming agents include gelling, thickening, emulsifying, bulking, binding, and rising agents, humectants, and modified starches. The highest status among these substances is enjoyed by hydrocolloids. **Hydrocolloids**, known as gums, are polysaccharides of plant, animal, or microbiological origin. There are natural (guar gum, agar, curdlan), chemically and physically modified (modified starches), and synthetic gums. With their macromolecular structure, they are able to bind water, improve solution viscosity, and create gels and spongiform masses. Hydrocolloids are used as gelling (e.g. in the production of jelly, desserts, pudding, and fruit-flavoured starch jelly), thickening (ready-made sauces, vegetable products), water-binding (powdered products to be consumed with water, frozen food), and emulsifying agents (to create oil-in-water-type emulsions). They also act as emulsion stabilisers. Hydrocolloids are considered safe for human health, although some of them can cause allergies. Consumed in large quantities, they can have laxative effects [12]. What is also important in creating product structure are **emulsifiers** and the emulsification method. Emulsifiers are compounds which facilitate emulsification. There are water-in-oil (margarine) and oil-in-water (mayonnaise) type of emulsions. Emulsifiers position themselves at the interface between two different phases to stabilise the emulsion. There are natural emulgents, with lecithin as the most common, and synthetic emulgents (glycerol and its esters) [1]. Product consistency and texture are also adjusted using **modified starches**. Such starches are usually obtained from potatoes or corn (also genetically modified one) with chemically altered composition. Similarly to hydrocolloids, such substances can bind water and produce gels and are also resistant to high temperatures [11, 12]. Modified starches are added to ready-made sauces and dishes (such as frozen pizza), frozen goods, bread, and desserts (also powdered) to thicken and maintain product consistency after thermal processing. In order to enhance starch properties, phosphates are often added during starch modification. The human body needs phosphorus, but its excess can negatively affect the bones, kidneys, and the circulatory system [7, 11, 12]. Nowadays, consumer goods are widely available, and consumers are provided with a broad range of products to choose from. The continuously growing number of world population (approximately 7 billion in 2011) has made supply on the food market exceed demand. This situation is characteristic of countries with a high GDP.

) of product [13–15].

**166**

Food producers examine consumer behaviour patterns to see what encourages them to make a purchase, and also the purchase itself and its consequences, and then analyse these processes to launch a new product or a substitute for an already existing one. To sum up, the market has provided more food products than consumers are able to purchase, which results in unimaginable food wastage. Each year, approximately 100 million tonnes of food goes to waste in Europe. This quantity does not include agricultural and food waste or fish discards [13]*.*

#### **2. Materials and methods**

The methodology of this study was based on the information contained on the labels. The chemical composition of the investigated food products was presented. Interview with the store's seller concerned the popularity and frequency of sales listed in the product tables. It should be noted that the examined store is representative when it comes to this type of stores in the majority of small towns in southeastern Poland.

This study was based on data on the most frequently chosen consumer goods in a store in a small town in Poland. The town is located in a commune that has 5300 residents. Data were obtained by monitoring the sales over the course of 12 months. These products are presented in **Tables 2–6** and classified into the following categories: (i) meat and fish; (ii) beverages; (iii) condiments; (iv) ready-made sauces, soups, and dishes; and (v) sweets and desserts. The main classification criterion was segregation into primary food groups. The chemical composition of each product, as listed on the packaging, was included in a table and then assessed against the presence of any food additives. Sixteen most common additives were selected in all the investigated products; only chemical compounds that were found in at least four food products were taken into consideration. The most common food additives were


#### **Table 1.**

*The most common food additives and ingredients.*

highlighted in Holt in the "product composition" column and presented in **Table 1**, together with their E codes. Then, based on the literature, the study described the most common additional substances.

#### **3. Results and discussion**

**Table 1** shows 16 of the most popular substances found in food. The majority of these substances are food additives; four other substances are not considered in the European Union as food additives. The additives that are the most frequently found in the food products examined in this study are citric acid (E330), monosodium glutamate (E621), and guar gum (E412). In Ref. [16] it is reported that the most popular preservatives found in food are the mixture of sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate, or potassium sorbate (E202) and sodium benzoate (E211) used separately, and also ulphur dioxide (E220). Data presented in **Table 1** shows that, compared to citric acid, another preservative, sodium benzoate, is used rarer. No potassium sorbate was found in any of the products examined in this study. In Ref. [13] it can be concluded that the most commonly used preservatives and antioxidants are sorbic acid and its salts (E200-203), benzoic acid and its salts (E210-213), sulfur dioxide (E220), sodium nitrite (E250), lactic acid (E270), citric acid (E330) and tocopherols (E306). The majority of the additives listed in Ref. [13] can be found in **Table 1**.

**Table 2** shows 10 meat and fish products and their composition, as specified on the label. Each of the investigated items contained at least 1 of the 16 most common food additives (**Table 1**). As much as 50% of meat and fish products contained four or more of such additives. The highest number of additives (seven) was found in "Z doliny Karol" mortadella. "Masarnia u Józefa" crispy ham and "Lipsko" Śląska sausage contained six different food additives. Seventy percent of the examined products had had sodium nitrite (E250) added. This means that this preservative is frequently added to meat products, as confirmed in Ref. [9]. Other widespread preservatives mentioned in Ref. [9] include lactic acid (E270), sodium benzoate (E211), sorbic acid (E200), and sulphur dioxide (E220). In Ref. [9] it also mentions other additives frequently added to meat and fish products; these include carrageenan, gum arabic, and xanthan gum. In this study, 50% of the examined items contain one or two gums, and carrageenan is present in only three in ten products. A study in Ref. [17] demonstrates that fish products are the second leading food (after edible fats) in terms of preservative content.

**Table 3** shows ten non-alcoholic beverages, six of which contain at least one common food additive (**Table 1**). Foreign substances that are most frequently found in this food group are citric acid (E330), sodium benzoate (E211), and glucosefructose syrup. A study in Refs. [18–19] shows that the most popular sweeteners in non-alcoholic beverages are glucose, fructose, and glucose-fructose syrups. As shown on product label, 100% juice by brands such as "Hortex" and "Tymbark", as well as "Cisowianka" and "Kubuś" mineral waters, is additive free. Pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, no food additives may be used in mineral and spring bottled water. The beverage to contain the largest number of additive substances was white orangeade by "Hellena".

**Table 4** shows 12 food items, such as ketchup, mustard, herbs and spices, and tomato concentrates, together with their composition. Only four products in this group contain a food additive, of which three are preserved using citric acid (E330). In this group of products, the products to contain the most common additive substances were the ketchup and the Kucharek seasoning by "Prymat". Pursuant to

**169**

**Table 2.**

the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, tomato products (such as concentrates) must not contain food colours. They may, however, contain other additives. The ketchup has no colours, but contains

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

**nitrite**

Szynka krucha (ham) Masarnia u

Kiełbasa śląska (sausage) Lipsko

Mortadela doliny (mortadella) Karol

Mięso mielone wieprzowe (ground pork) Adrian

Parówki (frankfurters) Indykpol

**nitrite**

Józefa

**Product Ingredients Product Ingredients**

Pasztet podlaski (pâté) 155 g Drosed

Łuków przysmak kanapkowy (tinned meat) 300 g

Agrovit duże porcje konserwa tyrolska (tinned meat) 400 g

Euro Fish szprot w sosie pomidorowym (sprat in tomato sauce) 170 g

Graal Flet z makreli w sosie pomidorowym (mackerel fillet in tomato sauce)

170 g

Water, mechanically separated chicken meat, rapeseed oil, chicken liver and skin, cream of wheat, salt, soy protein, potato starch, dried vegetables, spices, powdered milk, (milk) whey, sugar, **maltodextrin**, plant protein hydrolysate, yeast extract

Pork meat 30%, water, beef meat 18%, pig fat, soy protein, salt, beef fat, **triphosphates**, spices, pork gelatine, flavouring, **sodium nitrite**, tinned high-yield luncheon

Water, mechanically separated chicken meat 23%, pork raw materials 23%, modified (corn) starch, wheat fibre, pea fibre, salt, **carrageenan**, processed Eucheuma seaweed, spices, spice extracts, **monosodium glutamate, sodium erythorbate, sodium** 

meat

**nitrite**

Fish—sprat without heads—tomato sauce, water, tomato concentrate, sugar, rapeseed oil, salt, modified starch, dried onion, **guar gum, xanthan gum**, spice extracts, acetic acid

Mackerel fillets 60%, tomato sauce, water, tomato concentrate, sugar, rapeseed oil, modified starch, spirit vinegar, salt, powdered tomatoes, dried onion, spice extract, spices, **guar gum, xanthan gum**, pepper extract, **maltodextrin**

Pork ham, salt, pork protein, **carrageenan**, potassium acetate, potassium lactate, smoke flavouring, **monosodium glutamate**, diphosphates, **triphosphates**, flavourings, **sodium erythorbate**, **tocopherols**, **sodium** 

Pork 60%, pig fat 17%, water, mechanically deboned chicken meat, fibre, pork skin emulsion, potato starch, milk proteins, **triphosphates**, tara gum, **xanthan gum**, sodium erythorbate, aluminium ammonium sulphate, salt, glucose, flavourings, carmine, spice extracts, **maltodextrin**, **monosodium glutamate**, soy protein, **sodium nitrite**

Water, pork 20%, mechanically separated chicken meat 15%, pig fat, pork connective tissue, cream of wheat, acetylated starch, polyphosphates, **triphosphates**, diphosphates, sodium citrate, calcium lactate, sodium lactate, salt, soy protein concentrate, pork protein, wheat fibre, spices (including mustard seeds, corn, and legumes), spice extracts, yeast extract, flavourings, **glucose syrup**, glucose, vinegar, **sodium erythorbate**, ascorbic acid, **guar gum, disodium 5′-ribonucleotides, monosodium glutamate**, **sodium nitrite**

Pork meat 65%, pig fat 34%, salt, **xanthan gum, carrageenan**, konjac, starch, **sodium** 

Chicken meat 25.9%, mechanically separated turkey meat 17%, mechanically separated chicken meat 17.3%, water, poultry fat, pork, corn flour, chicken skins, pig fat, pork skins, potato starch, soy protein, salt, spices, spice extracts, flavourings**, monosodium glutamate**, acetylated distarch adipate, **guar gum**, potassium acetate, potassium lactate, diphosphates, ascorbic acid, **sodium** 

**erythorbate, sodium nitrite**

*Food additives and ingredients in the studied meat and fish products.*

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

most common additional substances.

**3. Results and discussion**

found in **Table 1**.

(after edible fats) in terms of preservative content.

highlighted in Holt in the "product composition" column and presented in **Table 1**, together with their E codes. Then, based on the literature, the study described the

**Table 1** shows 16 of the most popular substances found in food. The majority of these substances are food additives; four other substances are not considered in the European Union as food additives. The additives that are the most frequently found in the food products examined in this study are citric acid (E330), monosodium glutamate (E621), and guar gum (E412). In Ref. [16] it is reported that the most popular preservatives found in food are the mixture of sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate, or potassium sorbate (E202) and sodium benzoate (E211) used separately, and also ulphur dioxide (E220). Data presented in **Table 1** shows that, compared to citric acid, another preservative, sodium benzoate, is used rarer. No potassium sorbate was found in any of the products examined in this study. In Ref. [13] it can be concluded that the most commonly used preservatives and antioxidants are sorbic acid and its salts (E200-203), benzoic acid and its salts (E210-213), sulfur dioxide (E220), sodium nitrite (E250), lactic acid (E270), citric acid (E330) and tocopherols (E306). The majority of the additives listed in Ref. [13] can be

**Table 2** shows 10 meat and fish products and their composition, as specified on the label. Each of the investigated items contained at least 1 of the 16 most common food additives (**Table 1**). As much as 50% of meat and fish products contained four or more of such additives. The highest number of additives (seven) was found in "Z doliny Karol" mortadella. "Masarnia u Józefa" crispy ham and "Lipsko" Śląska sausage contained six different food additives. Seventy percent of the examined products had had sodium nitrite (E250) added. This means that this preservative is frequently added to meat products, as confirmed in Ref. [9]. Other widespread preservatives mentioned in Ref. [9] include lactic acid (E270), sodium benzoate (E211), sorbic acid (E200), and sulphur dioxide (E220). In Ref. [9] it also mentions other additives frequently added to meat and fish products; these include carrageenan, gum arabic, and xanthan gum. In this study, 50% of the examined items contain one or two gums, and carrageenan is present in only three in ten products. A study in Ref. [17] demonstrates that fish products are the second leading food

**Table 3** shows ten non-alcoholic beverages, six of which contain at least one common food additive (**Table 1**). Foreign substances that are most frequently found in this food group are citric acid (E330), sodium benzoate (E211), and glucosefructose syrup. A study in Refs. [18–19] shows that the most popular sweeteners in non-alcoholic beverages are glucose, fructose, and glucose-fructose syrups. As shown on product label, 100% juice by brands such as "Hortex" and "Tymbark", as well as "Cisowianka" and "Kubuś" mineral waters, is additive free. Pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, no food additives may be used in mineral and spring bottled water. The beverage to contain the largest number of additive substances was white orangeade

**Table 4** shows 12 food items, such as ketchup, mustard, herbs and spices, and tomato concentrates, together with their composition. Only four products in this group contain a food additive, of which three are preserved using citric acid (E330). In this group of products, the products to contain the most common additive substances were the ketchup and the Kucharek seasoning by "Prymat". Pursuant to

**168**

by "Hellena".


#### **Table 2.**

*Food additives and ingredients in the studied meat and fish products.*

the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, tomato products (such as concentrates) must not contain food colours. They may, however, contain other additives. The ketchup has no colours, but contains

#### *Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*


#### **Table 3.**

*Food ingredients in the studied non-alcoholic beverages.*

other food additives. Studies in Ref. [17] demonstrate that mayonnaises and mustards are the fourth most often preserved product group, with ready-made concentrates ranking seventh. One of the two mustards examined in this paper contained a preservative, and two of the presented tomato concentrates had not had any food additives added to them.

**Table 5** shows 12 products categorised into ready-made dishes, soups and sauces, and their chemical composition. Each of these products contains at least one common additive. Citric acid (E330) was added to nearly 67% of the products in this category. Only five in twelve items (including four instant soups and stock cubes) contain the three most popular food additive substances (**Table 1**). A study in Ref. [13] shows that the most common additives in ready-made dishes are citric acid (E330), sunset yellow (E110), guar gum (E412), disodium guanylate (E627), disodium inosinate (E631), and monosodium glutamate (E621).

**171**

liver [13, 15].

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

Koncentrat pomidorowy (tomato concentrate) Aro

Ketchup łagodny (mild ketchup) 470 g

Musztarda Parczew kremska (Krems mustard) 180 g

Zioła prowansalskie (Herbes de Provence)

Przyprawa Tzatziki (tzatziki seasoning)

*Food ingredients in the studied condiments.*

Prymat

Prymat

**Table 4.**

190 g

**Product Ingredients Product Ingredients**

30% tomato concentrate Koncentrat

37% tomato concentrate, water, sugar, vinegar, modified starch, salt, **citric acid, sodium benzoate**, thyme, oregano, savoury, sage, coriander, flavouring

Water, mustard seeds, vinegar, sugar, salt, spices

Basil, marjoram, rosemary, savoury, sage, thyme, oregano, mint

Garlic, salt, sugar, onion, **citric acid**, onion extract, dill extract, dill leaves, pepper extract, black pepper

pomidorowy (tomato concentrate)

Ketchup Pudliszki łgodny (mild ketchup) 480 g

Musztarda Roleski stołowa (table mustard)

Przyprawa do kurczaka (chicken seasoning) Goleo

Kucharek Prymat

250 g

30% tomato concentrate

Tomatoes, sugar, vinegar, salt, modified starch, natural

Water, mustard seeds, sugar, spirit vinegar, salt, spices, turmeric extract, **citric acid**, natural

Salt, garlic, white mustard seeds, sweet pepper, carrot, coriander, fenugreek, caraway, chilli, turmeric, cinnamon

Salt, died vegetables, **monosodium** 

**5′-ribonucleotides**, sugar, starch, black pepper, riboflavin

**glutamate, disodium** 

flavouring

flavouring

Pudliszki

additives (**Table 1**). Glucose-fructose or glucose syrups were found in six of the examined items. A study in Ref. [19] shows that sweets often include the so-called Southampton colours, such as quinoline yellow and tartrazine. However, the study reports that the amounts of these substances added to sweets are much lower than

**Citric acid (E330)** is a natural compound found in citrus fruits. It is also the by-product of digestive processes in the human body. However, on the industrial scale, the substance is produced using the *Aspergillus niger* mould. Citric acid is used in food as an acidity regulator, preservative, and flavour enhancer. Outside the food industry, the acid is added to cleaning agents and acts as a decalcifying agent. Citric acid in food is a safe additive and is added to food on the *quantum satis* basis; nevertheless its widespread use constitutes a risk. This substance is found in many food products, such as beverages, juices, lemonades, sweets, ice creams, canned goods, and even bread, so customers consume it in large quantities everyday [20]. When consumed frequently in excess, citric acid can lead to enamel degradation and teeth deterioration. This additive also supports the absorption of heavy metals, which, in turn, might lead to brain impairment. It can also affect the kidneys and

**Monosodium glutamate (E621)** is the most widespread flavour enhancer. It is even considered to be one of the five basic tastes (*umami*). Glutamic acid and its (magnesium, potassium, and calcium) salts lend a meaty flavour to products. The substance was first extracted from algae by a Japanese scientist, but now it is generally produced by biotechnological means using microorganisms that can be genetically modified [6]. Another commonly used flavour enhancer is chemically produced **disodium 5′-ribonucleotides (E635)**. These additives can be found in ready-made dishes, sauces, meat and fish products, instant soups, crisps, and cakes. These flavour enhancers are the not inert in relation to the neurological system [16].

the maximum values allowed by the applicable law.

**Table 6** shows 10 food items classified as sweets and desserts. As many as nine products in this group contained at least one of the most common food


*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

#### **Table 4.**

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

Natural mineral water, unsaturated with carbon dioxide, moderately mineralised

100% apple juice from concentrated

Juices from concentrated apple juice 60% and orange juice 22%, carrot juice from concentrated juice 12%, purées from banana 3%, peach, guava, papaya, juices from concentrated pineapple juice 2%, mango juice 0.5%, passion fruit juice 0.1%, lychee juice 0.05%, cactus fig juice, kiwi fruit juice and lime juice, vitamins A, C, E, B6, and B12, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, biotin, folic acid, pantothenic acid

apple juice

Volcano 2 L cola Spring water, carbon dioxide, sulphite

**sodium benzoate**

*Food ingredients in the studied non-alcoholic beverages.*

ammonia caramel, phosphoric acid, **citric acid**, sodium citrates, flavourings (including caffeine), gum arabic, aspartame, saccharin, **sodium benzoate**, potassium sorbate

Sugar, water, **glucose-fructose syrup,** carbon dioxide, **citric acid,** flavouring,

**Product Ingredients Product Ingredients**

Woda mineralna niegazowana (non-carbonated mineral water) Kubuś water 0.5 L

Tymbark 2 L jabłko-pomarańcza (apple-orange)

Volcano 2 L pomarańcza (orange)

Kubuś marchew, jabłko, pomarańcza, sok (carrot, apple, and orange juice) 330 mL

Water, cane sugar, apple juice from concentrated apple juice, lemon juice from concentrated lemon juice,

**sulphite ammonia caramel**, phosphoric acid, natural flavourings, including

Water, orange juice from concentrated juice 19%, **glucose-fructose syrup**, sugar, peach juice from concentrated juice 1%, lemon concentrate, flavourings, ascorbic acid, carotenes

Spring water, carbon dioxide, orange juice 0.3% from concentrated orange juice, **citric acid**, gum arabic, glycerol and plant resin esters, flavouring, cyclamates, saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame K, **sodium benzoate**, potassium sorbate, ascorbic acid, carotenes, beta-apo-8′-carotenal

Purées and juices (59%), water, **glucose-fructose syrup, citric acid,** vitamin C,

flavouring

flavouring

Coca cola 1.5 L Water, sugar, carbon dioxide,

caffeine

other food additives. Studies in Ref. [17] demonstrate that mayonnaises and mustards are the fourth most often preserved product group, with ready-made concentrates ranking seventh. One of the two mustards examined in this paper contained a preservative, and two of the presented tomato concentrates had not had any food

**Table 5** shows 12 products categorised into ready-made dishes, soups and sauces, and their chemical composition. Each of these products contains at least one common additive. Citric acid (E330) was added to nearly 67% of the products in this category. Only five in twelve items (including four instant soups and stock cubes) contain the three most popular food additive substances (**Table 1**). A study in Ref. [13] shows that the most common additives in ready-made dishes are citric acid (E330), sunset yellow (E110), guar gum (E412), disodium guanylate (E627),

**Table 6** shows 10 food items classified as sweets and desserts. As many as nine products in this group contained at least one of the most common food

disodium inosinate (E631), and monosodium glutamate (E621).

**170**

additives added to them.

Woda mineralna gazowana (carbonated mineral water) Cisownianka 1.5 L

Sok jabłko (apple juice) 100% 1 L Hortex

multiwitamina (multivitamin juice) 100% 1 L Tymbark

Hellena 1.25 L oranżada biała (white orangeade)

**Table 3.**

Sok

*Food ingredients in the studied condiments.*

additives (**Table 1**). Glucose-fructose or glucose syrups were found in six of the examined items. A study in Ref. [19] shows that sweets often include the so-called Southampton colours, such as quinoline yellow and tartrazine. However, the study reports that the amounts of these substances added to sweets are much lower than the maximum values allowed by the applicable law.

**Citric acid (E330)** is a natural compound found in citrus fruits. It is also the by-product of digestive processes in the human body. However, on the industrial scale, the substance is produced using the *Aspergillus niger* mould. Citric acid is used in food as an acidity regulator, preservative, and flavour enhancer. Outside the food industry, the acid is added to cleaning agents and acts as a decalcifying agent. Citric acid in food is a safe additive and is added to food on the *quantum satis* basis; nevertheless its widespread use constitutes a risk. This substance is found in many food products, such as beverages, juices, lemonades, sweets, ice creams, canned goods, and even bread, so customers consume it in large quantities everyday [20]. When consumed frequently in excess, citric acid can lead to enamel degradation and teeth deterioration. This additive also supports the absorption of heavy metals, which, in turn, might lead to brain impairment. It can also affect the kidneys and liver [13, 15].

**Monosodium glutamate (E621)** is the most widespread flavour enhancer. It is even considered to be one of the five basic tastes (*umami*). Glutamic acid and its (magnesium, potassium, and calcium) salts lend a meaty flavour to products. The substance was first extracted from algae by a Japanese scientist, but now it is generally produced by biotechnological means using microorganisms that can be genetically modified [6]. Another commonly used flavour enhancer is chemically produced **disodium 5′-ribonucleotides (E635)**. These additives can be found in ready-made dishes, sauces, meat and fish products, instant soups, crisps, and cakes. These flavour enhancers are the not inert in relation to the neurological system [16].


#### **Table 5.**

*Food ingredients and additives in the studied ready-made dishes, soups, and sauces.*

This can affect brain cells and lead to headaches, heart palpitations, excessive sweating, listlessness, nausea, and skin lesions. Such anomalies, which could have been caused by the excessive consumption of products rich in glutamates, are referred to

**173**

**Table 6.**

Baton Milky way (candy bar)

Nestlé Corn Flakes 600 g

Lays zielona cebulka (crisps) 150 g

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

natural vanilla, flavourings

7 days Wheat flour, cocoa filling 25% [(sugar,

partially hydrogenated plant fats, water, low-fat powdered cocoa 7%, skimmed powdered milk, ethyl alcohol, emulsifier (lactic acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids), vanilla flavouring, gelling agent (sodium alginate), preservative (potassium sorbate 0.1%)], margarine [partially hydrogenated plant fats, water, salt, emulsifier (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids), acidity regulator, flavouring, preservative (potassium sorbate 0.1%)], sugar, stabiliser (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids), **glucose-fructose syrup**, yeast, skimmed powdered milk, salt, vanilla flavouring, preservative (calcium propionate 0.1%), soy flour, emulsifier (**soy lecithin**)

Sugar, **glucose syrup**, skimmed powdered milk, cocoa fat, palm fat, cocoa mass, milk fat, lactose, powdered (milk) whey, barley malt extract, salt, emulsifier (**soy lecithin**), powdered egg white, hydrolysed milk protein, natural vanilla extract

Corn grits, sugar, salt, glucose, brown sugar, invert sugar syrup, cane sugar molasses, sodium phosphates, niacin, pantothenic acid,

Potatoes, palm oil, sunflower oil, flavouring, powdered onion, powdered milk whey, powdered milk lactose, sugar, powdered milk, **monosodium glutamate**, **disodium 5′-ribonucleotides**, flavourings, powdered milk cheese, **citric acid**, malic acid, annatto, pepper extract, powdered garlic,

riboflavin, vitamin B6, folic acid

**maltodextrin**, salt

*Food additives and ingredients in the studied sweets.*

Skimmed reconstituted milk, sugar, cocoa oil, **glucose syrup**, skimmed powdered milk, mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, locust bean flour, **guar gum**, powdered cream,

Lód Top milker (ice cream) Koral

**Product Ingredients Product Ingredients**

Baton 3bit (candy bar)

Lód rożek truskawkowy (ice cream cone) Koral

Mlekołaki Lubella muszelki (cereal) 250 g

Nestlé Frutina 250 g

Star chips paprika (crisps) 170 g Sugar, biscuit 14% [wheat flour, sugar, plant fat, powdered whey, **glucosefructose syrup**, whole powdered milk, salt, rising agents (sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate), acidity regulator (**citric acid**), skimmed powdered milk (13. 5% in filling), plant fat, cocoa fat, cocoa paste, powdered whey, plant oil, milk fat, emulsifiers (**soy lecithin**, polyglycerol polyricinoleate), flavourings, salt. Cocoa mass in chocolate—minimum 30%

Skimmed reconstituted milk, cornet 14% [wheat flour, sugar, palm fat, potato starch, emulsifier (**soy lecithin**, wheat fibre, salt), colour (sulphite ammonia caramel], sugar, coconut oil, strawberry sauce 7% [strawberries 42%, sugar, **glucose syrup**, water, thickening agent (hydroxypropyl distarch glycerol), acidity regulator (**citric acid**, flavouring], coating for cornet waterproofing [sugar, coconut and palm fats, reduced-fat powdered cocoa (10–12%), emulsifier (**soy lecithin**)], water, **glucose syrup**, strawberry purée 1%, emulsifier (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids), stabilisers (**Guar gum**, cellulose gum, **carrageenan**, locust bean flour), acidity regulator (**citric acid)**, colours (betanin, annatto, flavourings)

Wholemeal wheat, wheat, and corn flours, sugar, glucose, reduced-fat cocoa, cocoa, barley malt extract, milk chocolate, palm fat, salt, **soy lecithin**, flavourings, vitamin C, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin B, riboflavin, thiamine, folic acid, vitamin B12, calcium, iron

Wheat flakes (wholemeal wheat, sugar, wheat bran, barley malt extract, invert sugar syrup, salt, cane sugar molasses, **glucose syrup**, sodium phosphates, **tocopherols**), raisins, cut dried apples, sodium metabisulphite, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6, riboflavin, folic acid, calcium, iron

Potatoes, palm fat, flavourings, wheat breadcrumbs, glucose, sugar, **monosodium glutamate**, pepper extract, **citric acid**, salt

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

Salt, palm fat, partially hydrogenated, starch, **monosodium glutamate, disodium 5′-ribonucleotides**, rapeseed oil, dried vegetables, sugar, flavourings, chicken fat, turmeric, **citric acid**, dried chicken meat

Noodles (92.1%), wheat flour, plant fat, tapioca, modified starch, acetylated starch, sugar, stabilisers (pentasodium triphosphate, **guar gum**, rising substances: sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, turmeric), flavouring additives (7.9%) (refined palm oil, salt, sugar), flavour enhancers (**monosodium glutamate**, disodium guanylate, disodium inosinate, dried vegetables (carrot, green onion, coriander), powdered curry (flavour additive content 6%), turmeric, aniseed, clove, coriander seed, cinnamon, pepper, garlic, chilli, lemongrass, flavouring), colour (beta-carotene, antioxidant **tocopherols)**

Dried vegetables, modified starch, sugar, salt, spices, flavourings, sunflower oil, **citric acid**, spices, beetroot juice concentrate,

Corn starch, wheat flour, powdered cream, palm oil, sunflower oil, **maltodextrin**, dried mushroom, salt, flavourings, lactose, yeast extract, sugar, dried fried onion, dried onion, milk proteins, spices, wheat protein hydrolysate, **ammonia caramel**, bolete

Corn starch, skimmed powdered milk, wheat flour, powdered cream, dried champignons, yeast extracts, salt, potato starch, dried vegetables, flavourings, sunflower oil, wheat protein hydrolysate, parsley, black pepper,

Water, beef rumen 305, wheat flour, carrot, parsley, celeriac, tomato concentrate, onion, salt, pork gelatine, sugar, soy protein hydrolysate, dried vegetables, yeast extract, spices, **disodium 5′-ribonucleotides, ammonia caramel**, flavourings, partially hydrogenated palm and rapeseed fats

*Food ingredients and additives in the studied ready-made dishes, soups, and sauces.*

**Product Ingredients Product Ingredients**

Rosół drobiowy Winiary (chicken soup)

Amino zupa błyskawiczna gulaszowa (instant goulash soup)

Sos Winiary pieczeniowy ciemny (dark roasting sauce)

Zupa Winiary barszcz biały (white borscht)

Łowicz sos boloński (Bolognese sauce) 350 g

Pomysł na soczystą karkówkę z ziemniakami (pork shoulder with potatoes seasoning) Winiary

Salt, **monosodium glutamate, disodium 5′-ribonucleotides**, starch, fully hydrogenated palm fat, flavourings, sugar, chicken fat, spices, dried vegetables, **citric acid**, dried chicken meat

Noodles (85%), wheat flour, palm fat, modified starch, salt, rapeseed oil, **tocopherols**, fatty acid and ascorbic acid esters; flavouring mix: salt, starch, paprika, **monosodium glutamate**, disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate, tomato concentrate, onion, flavourings, palm fat, Cayenne pepper, garlic, caraway, hydrolysed plant protein, dried pork, parsley, **ammonia caramel**

Potato starch, modified starch, salt, dried vegetables, flavourings, sugar, yeast extracts, fully hydrogenated palm fat, palm oil, rice flour, **ammonia caramel**, wheat protein hydrolysate, spices,

Wheat flour, skimmed powdered milk, salt, potato starch, sugar, smoked pig fat, citric acid, dried vegetables, yeast extract, herbs, spices,

Tomatoes, water, vegetables, **glucose-fructose syrup**, apple purée, modified corn starch, salt, sugar, **guar gum, citric acid**, rapeseed oil, spices, herbs, flavourings, ground dried parsley, garlic and paprika, leek and carrot

Wheat flour, vegetables, salt, modified starch, yeast extract, herbs, **maltodextrin**, plant oil, spices, flavourings, wheat protein hydrolysate, **citric acid**

**citric acid**

smoke flavour

extracts

60 g

This can affect brain cells and lead to headaches, heart palpitations, excessive sweating, listlessness, nausea, and skin lesions. Such anomalies, which could have been caused by the excessive consumption of products rich in glutamates, are referred to

**172**

**Table 5.**

Rosół drobiowy kucharek (chicken soup) 60 g

Vifon kurczak Carry (curry chicken)

Sos Winiary Italia boloński (Bolognese sauce)

Sos Winiary borowikowy (bolete sauce)

Zupa Winiary jak u mamy pieczarkowa (champignon soup)

Danie gotowe Flaczki (ready-made tripe) Pamapol

olive oil

extract

**citric acid**


**Table 6.**

*Food additives and ingredients in the studied sweets.*

as the Chinese restaurant syndrome [20]. Flavour enhancers can also serve a positive function by increasing appetite in the sick or the elderly [20]. Other additional substances commonly found in foodstuffs are polysaccharides:

**Guar gum (E412)** and **xanthan gum (E415)**. These are referred to as hydrocolloids, i.e. substances that bind water, are easily soluble in both cold and warm water, and improve mixture viscosity. Guar gum is a polysaccharide obtained from guar, a leguminous plant grown in India and Pakistan [14]. Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide of microbiological origin. On the industrial scale, it is obtained as a result of *Xanthomonas campestris* bacteria fermenting the sugar contained in corn (often genetically modified). Both these additives are approved for use in all food products as thickening, firming, and stabilising agents, on the *quantum satis* basis*.* Guar gum and xanthan gum can be found mainly in bread, cakes, ready-made sauces and dishes, and powdered food, where they ensure the appropriate consistency. Moreover, they prevent the crystallisation of water in ice cream and frozen food and the separation of fluids in dairy products and juices. The human body is not capable of digesting, breaking down, or absorbing these gums. These substances swell in the intestines, which can cause flatulence and stomach ache. In addition, guar gum can cause allergies [13–15]*.*

A commonly found preservative is **sodium nitrite (E250)**. It is a salty and white or yellowish crystalline powder, obtained by the chemical processing of nitric acid or some lyes and gases [9]*.* This additive is generally used in the meat industry to inhibit botulinum toxin and *Staphylococcus aureus* bacteria, slow down fat rancidification, maintain the pink red colour of meat, and provide meat with a specific flavour. It does not, however, prevent the growth of yeast or mould. Sodium nitrite is toxic, oxidising, and dangerous to the environment, so it must not be added to food in its pure form. This additive is used in very small doses (0.5–0.6%) in the form of a mixture with domestic salt [9] in amounts up to 150 mL per L or mg kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . When consumed in large quantities, nitrites can cause cyanosis, whose symptoms include blue coloration of the skin, lips, and mucous membranes. During digestion, nitrites are transformed into carcinogenic nitrosamines. Moreover, they are particularly dangerous for children, since they stop erythrocytes from binding oxygen, which can lead to death by suffocation [11].

A common ingredient in food is **maltodextrin**, which in the European Union is not considered as a food additive, but as an ingredient. Therefore, within the community, maltodextrin has no E code, while in Sweden it is considered an additive and identified as E1400 [18]. Maltodextrin is a disaccharide obtained from corn starch, but it is not sweet in taste. Nevertheless, it provides greater sweetness than normal sugar or grape sugar (the glycaemic index of maltodextrin is 120, that of normal sugar is 70, and that of grape sugar is 100). It is used as a thickening agent, stabiliser, bulking agent, and even as a fat substitute in low-calorie products. It is added to products for athletes and children, to instant soups, sweets, and meat products [10]. Maltodextrin does not affect the natural product taste or flavour, while it provides human body with carbohydrates and energy. Due to the fact that glucose particles in maltodextrin are broken down only in the intestines, it can also support metabolism. A negative aspect of its use is tooth decay [10, 18]*.*

What frequently occurs in consumer goods is **glucose-fructose syrup**. Similarly to maltodextrin, it is not considered to be a food additive, but, due to its widespread application, it is important to mention it here. Glucose-fructose syrup, also known as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), replaces traditional sugar in many products, such as beverages, sweets, jams, fruit products, and liqueurs, and in the United States and Canada is the dominant sweetener [19]. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose, which are joined with alpha-1,4-glycosidic bond, and HFCS contains free fructose and free glucose in specific proportions. The name

**175**

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

noninvasive in the human body [12–13].

[5–6, 11, 13].

of this substance depends on the proportion of its ingredients. When the syrup contains more fructose, it is referred to as fructose-glucose syrup [12]. It is obtained

Another frequently added substance is **sodium erythorbate (E316)**. This synthetic compound is used as an antioxidant and stabiliser in meat and fish products and is useful for ham and sausage pickling [13]. It has similar properties to ascorbic acid, but it is not effective as vitamin C. Sodium erythorbate is considered to be

The most widespread natural emulsifier is **soy lecithin**. Etymologically, the word "lecithin" can be traced back to *lekythos*, Greek for egg yolk, but this compound is actually found in any plant or animal cell. Lecithin is produced from eggs, sunflower and rapeseed oils, and soybeans [11–13]. This additive is identified as E322 and is used for the production of mayonnaise, ice creams, margarine, readymade desserts, sauces, and instant soups. Products with added lecithin dissolve in water more easily. EU law does not impose any limits on the use of E322. Only in

**Triphosphates (E451)**, as well as diphosphates and polyphosphates, are used as preservatives, flavour enhancers, stabilisers, and rising and water-binding agents. Triphosphates are produced chemically and have a broad application. They are added to sauces, meats and meat products, desserts, bread, pâtés, fish products, ice creams, and non-alcoholic beverages [21]. The human body needs phosphorus in specific amounts, but the widespread use of phosphoric acids and phosphates in food makes people likely to consume this element in excess. When consumed regularly, increased doses of phosphates can lead to osteoporosis or contribute to kidney dysfunction and affect the circulatory system [13, 21]. A popular hydrocolloid found in food is **carrageenan (E407)**. This substance is extracted from *Eucheuma*, a tribe of red algae. Carrageenan is highly soluble in water and is used as a bulking agent in dietary products, and it is also added to beverages, ice creams, sauces, marmalades, and powdered milk [6, 7]. Carrageenan can be used on the *quantum satis* basis*.* Usually, it is combined with other hydrocolloids. This additive is not digestible by the human body. There are certain objections concerning the consumption of carrageenan, e.g. it can cause intestinal cancer and stomach ulcers [11–13]*.* **Tocopherols (E306)** are commonly known as vitamin E, insoluble in water and soluble in fats. It is used as a preservative, stabiliser, and potent antioxidant in such products as oils, margarines, desserts, meat products, and alcoholic beverages. Tocopherols are produced synthetically or obtained from plant oils, but natural

products for children, lecithin content must not exceed 1 g per L.

vitamin E is twice as easily absorbed by the human body [21].

Common preservatives include benzoic acid and its salts, of which the most frequently used is **sodium benzoate (E211)**. Negligible amounts of these substances are naturally found in berries, mushrooms, and fermented milk-based drinks. On

mainly from corn starch as a result of acid or enzymatic hydrolysis. Glucosefructose syrup is much sweeter and cheaper than traditional sugar, it does not crystallise, and it has a liquid form, which makes it functional during processing. Nevertheless, there are some disturbing aspects of using this substance. During the consumption of products with glucose-fructose syrup, the body receives unnatural amounts of fructose, which is broken down in the liver in a manner similar to alcohol. Therefore, its excessive amounts can cause fatty liver and overburden this organ. This has even been named "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease"*.* In addition, heavy consumption of monosaccharides has been found to contribute to obesity, which, in turn, can cause high blood pressure and diabetes. Fructose affects the lipid metabolism and disrupts the perception of hunger and satiety. Labels do not provide the exact HFCS content, but it is estimated that the consumption of a single product with this substance satisfies the acceptable daily monosaccharide intake

#### *Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

substances commonly found in foodstuffs are polysaccharides:

can cause allergies [13–15]*.*

which can lead to death by suffocation [11].

as the Chinese restaurant syndrome [20]. Flavour enhancers can also serve a positive function by increasing appetite in the sick or the elderly [20]. Other additional

**Guar gum (E412)** and **xanthan gum (E415)**. These are referred to as hydrocolloids, i.e. substances that bind water, are easily soluble in both cold and warm water, and improve mixture viscosity. Guar gum is a polysaccharide obtained from guar, a leguminous plant grown in India and Pakistan [14]. Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide of microbiological origin. On the industrial scale, it is obtained as a result of *Xanthomonas campestris* bacteria fermenting the sugar contained in corn (often genetically modified). Both these additives are approved for use in all food products as thickening, firming, and stabilising agents, on the *quantum satis* basis*.* Guar gum and xanthan gum can be found mainly in bread, cakes, ready-made sauces and dishes, and powdered food, where they ensure the appropriate consistency. Moreover, they prevent the crystallisation of water in ice cream and frozen food and the separation of fluids in dairy products and juices. The human body is not capable of digesting, breaking down, or absorbing these gums. These substances swell in the intestines, which can cause flatulence and stomach ache. In addition, guar gum

A commonly found preservative is **sodium nitrite (E250)**. It is a salty and white or yellowish crystalline powder, obtained by the chemical processing of nitric acid or some lyes and gases [9]*.* This additive is generally used in the meat industry to inhibit botulinum toxin and *Staphylococcus aureus* bacteria, slow down fat rancidification, maintain the pink red colour of meat, and provide meat with a specific flavour. It does not, however, prevent the growth of yeast or mould. Sodium nitrite is toxic, oxidising, and dangerous to the environment, so it must not be added to food in its pure form. This additive is used in very small doses (0.5–0.6%) in the form of a mixture with domestic salt [9] in amounts up to 150 mL per L or mg kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

When consumed in large quantities, nitrites can cause cyanosis, whose symptoms include blue coloration of the skin, lips, and mucous membranes. During digestion, nitrites are transformed into carcinogenic nitrosamines. Moreover, they are particularly dangerous for children, since they stop erythrocytes from binding oxygen,

A common ingredient in food is **maltodextrin**, which in the European Union is not considered as a food additive, but as an ingredient. Therefore, within the community, maltodextrin has no E code, while in Sweden it is considered an additive and identified as E1400 [18]. Maltodextrin is a disaccharide obtained from corn starch, but it is not sweet in taste. Nevertheless, it provides greater sweetness than normal sugar or grape sugar (the glycaemic index of maltodextrin is 120, that of normal sugar is 70, and that of grape sugar is 100). It is used as a thickening agent, stabiliser, bulking agent, and even as a fat substitute in low-calorie products. It is added to products for athletes and children, to instant soups, sweets, and meat products [10]. Maltodextrin does not affect the natural product taste or flavour, while it provides human body with carbohydrates and energy. Due to the fact that glucose particles in maltodextrin are broken down only in the intestines, it can also

What frequently occurs in consumer goods is **glucose-fructose syrup**. Similarly to maltodextrin, it is not considered to be a food additive, but, due to its widespread application, it is important to mention it here. Glucose-fructose syrup, also known as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), replaces traditional sugar in many products, such as beverages, sweets, jams, fruit products, and liqueurs, and in the United States and Canada is the dominant sweetener [19]. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose, which are joined with alpha-1,4-glycosidic bond, and HFCS contains free fructose and free glucose in specific proportions. The name

support metabolism. A negative aspect of its use is tooth decay [10, 18]*.*

.

**174**

of this substance depends on the proportion of its ingredients. When the syrup contains more fructose, it is referred to as fructose-glucose syrup [12]. It is obtained mainly from corn starch as a result of acid or enzymatic hydrolysis. Glucosefructose syrup is much sweeter and cheaper than traditional sugar, it does not crystallise, and it has a liquid form, which makes it functional during processing. Nevertheless, there are some disturbing aspects of using this substance. During the consumption of products with glucose-fructose syrup, the body receives unnatural amounts of fructose, which is broken down in the liver in a manner similar to alcohol. Therefore, its excessive amounts can cause fatty liver and overburden this organ. This has even been named "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease"*.* In addition, heavy consumption of monosaccharides has been found to contribute to obesity, which, in turn, can cause high blood pressure and diabetes. Fructose affects the lipid metabolism and disrupts the perception of hunger and satiety. Labels do not provide the exact HFCS content, but it is estimated that the consumption of a single product with this substance satisfies the acceptable daily monosaccharide intake [5–6, 11, 13].

Another frequently added substance is **sodium erythorbate (E316)**. This synthetic compound is used as an antioxidant and stabiliser in meat and fish products and is useful for ham and sausage pickling [13]. It has similar properties to ascorbic acid, but it is not effective as vitamin C. Sodium erythorbate is considered to be noninvasive in the human body [12–13].

The most widespread natural emulsifier is **soy lecithin**. Etymologically, the word "lecithin" can be traced back to *lekythos*, Greek for egg yolk, but this compound is actually found in any plant or animal cell. Lecithin is produced from eggs, sunflower and rapeseed oils, and soybeans [11–13]. This additive is identified as E322 and is used for the production of mayonnaise, ice creams, margarine, readymade desserts, sauces, and instant soups. Products with added lecithin dissolve in water more easily. EU law does not impose any limits on the use of E322. Only in products for children, lecithin content must not exceed 1 g per L.

**Triphosphates (E451)**, as well as diphosphates and polyphosphates, are used as preservatives, flavour enhancers, stabilisers, and rising and water-binding agents. Triphosphates are produced chemically and have a broad application. They are added to sauces, meats and meat products, desserts, bread, pâtés, fish products, ice creams, and non-alcoholic beverages [21]. The human body needs phosphorus in specific amounts, but the widespread use of phosphoric acids and phosphates in food makes people likely to consume this element in excess. When consumed regularly, increased doses of phosphates can lead to osteoporosis or contribute to kidney dysfunction and affect the circulatory system [13, 21]. A popular hydrocolloid found in food is **carrageenan (E407)**. This substance is extracted from *Eucheuma*, a tribe of red algae. Carrageenan is highly soluble in water and is used as a bulking agent in dietary products, and it is also added to beverages, ice creams, sauces, marmalades, and powdered milk [6, 7]. Carrageenan can be used on the *quantum satis* basis*.* Usually, it is combined with other hydrocolloids. This additive is not digestible by the human body. There are certain objections concerning the consumption of carrageenan, e.g. it can cause intestinal cancer and stomach ulcers [11–13]*.*

**Tocopherols (E306)** are commonly known as vitamin E, insoluble in water and soluble in fats. It is used as a preservative, stabiliser, and potent antioxidant in such products as oils, margarines, desserts, meat products, and alcoholic beverages. Tocopherols are produced synthetically or obtained from plant oils, but natural vitamin E is twice as easily absorbed by the human body [21].

Common preservatives include benzoic acid and its salts, of which the most frequently used is **sodium benzoate (E211)**. Negligible amounts of these substances are naturally found in berries, mushrooms, and fermented milk-based drinks. On

an industrial scale, it is produced synthetically from toluene obtained from crude oil [3, 12]*.* What is characteristic of sodium benzoate is that it slows down the growth of mould and yeast, but does not prevent the growth of bacteria, which is why it is often used with other preservatives, such as sulphur dioxide (E220). It is commonly used in products with acidic pH, such as marinades, fruit juices, and products with mayonnaise, such as vegetable salads. Sodium benzoate can cause allergies [6, 13]*.* Our own study (see "Results and discussion") showed that **ammonia caramel (E150c)** and sulphite ammonia caramel (E150d) are fairly common colours. It adds brown to black colours to products. Under natural conditions, this substance is created when sugar is heated. As a food additive, it is produced chemically using ammonia, as well as phosphates, sulphates, and sulphites (sulphite ammonia caramel is produced) [19]. This substance is approved for use under EU law [5]; however, there are studies that have confirmed that it negatively affects human health. It has been proven that this colour can cause hyperactivity and liver, thyroid, and lung neoplasms and also impair immunity. Ammonia caramel is used to dye non-alcoholic beverages, such as cola and marmalades [10, 11]*.*

The external aspect that is most crucial for buyers when it comes to food selection is its freshness. Buyers assess the best before date against the possibility of consuming the food quickly or storing it for future use. Another determinant is the value of the item. Any consumer will pay attention to the price of the product they buy. Another factor is the product ingredients specified on the packaging. Buyers have been observed to have developed a habit of reading labels before buying anything. Some customers also pay attention to the country of origin or brand [22]. Men and women who are determined to stay fit will also consider nutritional value. The factors that are not considered that are relevant include net product weight, information about any genetically modified raw material content, and notices about any implemented quality management systems. Moreover, consumers are likely to be affected by marketing devices, such as advertisements or special offers, used by producers. A temporary reduction in price, or the opportunity to buy two items for the price of one, encourages customers to make a purchase [3, 4]. What is also vital is whether the food is functional. Many people live at a fast pace, work a lot, or get stuck in traffic jams, and the lack of free time pushes them to buy ready-made dishes to be heated up at home or food that can be prepared in an instant [4, 13, 22].

Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the everyday human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive to human health. Products which must not contain foreign substances do not contain food additives. The explorations undertaken by this and other studies confirm the widespread use of the investigated additives, except for citric acid, which is less popular an additive than sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate. This study shows that when adopting a healthy lifestyle, consumers can choose from a range of food and pharmaceutical products that either contain a limited amount of unconventional substances or do not contain such substances at all.

**177**

**Author details**

and Jolanta Domańska

Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland

provided the original work is properly cited.

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, The University of Life

Aleksandra Badora\*, Karolina Bawolska, Jolanta Kozłowska-Strawska

\*Address all correspondence to: aleksandra.badora@up.lublin.pl

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

to dye non-alcoholic beverages, such as cola and marmalades [10, 11]*.*

The external aspect that is most crucial for buyers when it comes to food selection is its freshness. Buyers assess the best before date against the possibility of consuming the food quickly or storing it for future use. Another determinant is the value of the item. Any consumer will pay attention to the price of the product they buy. Another factor is the product ingredients specified on the packaging. Buyers have been observed to have developed a habit of reading labels before buying anything. Some customers also pay attention to the country of origin or brand [22]. Men and women who are determined to stay fit will also consider nutritional value. The factors that are not considered that are relevant include net product weight, information about any genetically modified raw material content, and notices about any implemented quality management systems. Moreover, consumers are likely to be affected by marketing devices, such as advertisements or special offers, used by producers. A temporary reduction in price, or the opportunity to buy two items for the price of one, encourages customers to make a purchase [3, 4]. What is also vital is whether the food is functional. Many people live at a fast pace, work a lot, or get stuck in traffic jams, and the lack of free time pushes them to buy ready-made dishes to be heated up at home or food that can be prepared in an instant [4, 13, 22]. Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the everyday human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive to human health. Products which must not contain foreign substances do not contain food additives. The explorations undertaken by this and other studies confirm the widespread use of the investigated additives, except for citric acid, which is less popular an additive than sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate. This study shows that when adopting a healthy lifestyle, consumers can choose from a range of food and pharmaceutical products that either contain a limited amount of unconventional substances or do not contain

an industrial scale, it is produced synthetically from toluene obtained from crude oil [3, 12]*.* What is characteristic of sodium benzoate is that it slows down the growth of mould and yeast, but does not prevent the growth of bacteria, which is why it is often used with other preservatives, such as sulphur dioxide (E220). It is commonly used in products with acidic pH, such as marinades, fruit juices, and products with mayonnaise, such as vegetable salads. Sodium benzoate can cause allergies [6, 13]*.* Our own study (see "Results and discussion") showed that **ammonia caramel (E150c)** and sulphite ammonia caramel (E150d) are fairly common colours. It adds brown to black colours to products. Under natural conditions, this substance is created when sugar is heated. As a food additive, it is produced chemically using ammonia, as well as phosphates, sulphates, and sulphites (sulphite ammonia caramel is produced) [19]. This substance is approved for use under EU law [5]; however, there are studies that have confirmed that it negatively affects human health. It has been proven that this colour can cause hyperactivity and liver, thyroid, and lung neoplasms and also impair immunity. Ammonia caramel is used

**176**

such substances at all.

### **Author details**

Aleksandra Badora\*, Karolina Bawolska, Jolanta Kozłowska-Strawska and Jolanta Domańska Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, The University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland

\*Address all correspondence to: aleksandra.badora@up.lublin.pl

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Toussaint-Samat MA. History of Food. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. ISBN: 978 1-405-18119-8

[2] Couture L. The history of canned food. Johnson and Wales University School of Arts and Science. Academic Symposium of Underground Scholarship; 2010

[3] Gram L, Ravn L, Rasch M, Bruhn JB, Christensen AB, Givskov M. Food spoilage—Interactions between food spoilage bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002;**78**(1-2): 79-97. PMID: 12222639

[4] Publikacja Komisji Europejskiej. Zrozumieć politykę UE— Bezpieczeństwo Żywności (Understanding EU policy—Food Safety). Urząd Publikacji Unii Europejskiej; 2014 (in Polish)

[5] Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) z dnia 16 grudnia 2008 r. w sprawie dodatków do żywności [The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008 on food additives]. Dz. Urz. L 354 (in Polish)

[6] Sharma S. Food preservatives and their harmful effects. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015;**4**(5):1-2. ISSN 2250-3153

[7] Abdulmumeen HA. Food: Its preservatives, additives and applications. International Journal of Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. 2012;**1**:36-45. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1623.5208

[8] Kobylewski S, Jacobson MF. Food Dyes, A Rainbow of Risks. Washington: Centre for Science in the Public Interest; 2010. Available from: https://cspinet. org/resource/food-dyes-rainbow-risks

[9] Uchman W. Substancje dodatkowe w przetwórstwie mięsa [Additives in Meat Processing]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Poznaniu; 2008 (in Polish)

[10] McCam D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grinshaw K, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behavior in 3-years-old and 8/9-years-old children in the community, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007;**370**:1560-1567. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3

[11] Belitz H. Food Chemistry. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelbeg; 2009. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69934-7

[12] Wüstenberg T. General overview of food hydrocolloids in cellulose and cellulose derivatives in the food industry. Fundamentals and Applications. 2014;**16**:986-994. DOI: 10.1002/9783527682935.ch01

[13] Report of European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citric acid when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator). EFSA Journal. 2015;**13**(2):4010. Available from: www. efsa.europa.eu/efsajourna

[14] Tripathy S, Das MK. Guar gum: Present status and applications. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Innovation. 2013;**7**(2):24-28. DOI: 10.7897/2277-4572.02447

[15] Sengar GI, Sharma HK. Food caramels: A review. Journal on Food Science and Technology. 2014;**51**(9): 1686-1696. DOI: 10.1007/ s13197-012-0633-z

[16] Husarova V, Ostatnikowa D. Monosodium glutamate toxic effects and their implications for human intake. JMED Research. 2013:**2013**:1-12. DOI: 10.5171/2013.608765

**179**

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

2013;**3**(45):917-922 (in Polish). Available from: https://docplayer.pl/13226410- Ocena-wystepowania-konserwantoww-zywnosci-na-rynku-warszawskim.

[18] Chronakis J. On the molecular characteristics, compositional

[19] Jacobson MF. Carcinogenicity

colorings. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2011;**18**(3):254-259. DOI: 10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000034

[20] Gahalawat S, Singh M, Farswan A. Chinese restaurant syndrome by MSG: A Myth or Reality. Guru Dron. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2014;**2**(2):38-41. Available from: http://www.sbspgi.edu.in/downloads/

[21] Zielińska A, Nowak I. Tokoferole i tokotrienole jako witamina E [Tocopherols and tocotrienols as

[22] Rudawska E, Perenc J. Tendencje zachowań konsumenckich na regionalnym rynku [Consumer behaviour trends on the regional market]. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego; 2010 (in Polish). ISSN 1640-6818

vitamin E]. Chemik. 2014;**7**(68):585-591

terms-and-conditions

SSR\_NAAC.pdf

(in Polish)

and regulation of caramel

properties and structural—Functional mechanism of maltodextrins. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010;**38**(7):599-637. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

html

[17] Ratusz K, Maszewska M. Ocena występowania konserwantów w żywności na rynku warszawskim [The Assessment of Preservative Occurrence in Food in Warsaw]. Bromatologia i Chemia Toksykologiczna.

*Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85723*

[17] Ratusz K, Maszewska M. Ocena występowania konserwantów w żywności na rynku warszawskim [The Assessment of Preservative Occurrence in Food in Warsaw]. Bromatologia i Chemia Toksykologiczna. 2013;**3**(45):917-922 (in Polish). Available from: https://docplayer.pl/13226410- Ocena-wystepowania-konserwantoww-zywnosci-na-rynku-warszawskim. html

[18] Chronakis J. On the molecular characteristics, compositional properties and structural—Functional mechanism of maltodextrins. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010;**38**(7):599-637. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

[19] Jacobson MF. Carcinogenicity and regulation of caramel colorings. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2011;**18**(3):254-259. DOI: 10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000034

[20] Gahalawat S, Singh M, Farswan A. Chinese restaurant syndrome by MSG: A Myth or Reality. Guru Dron. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2014;**2**(2):38-41. Available from: http://www.sbspgi.edu.in/downloads/ SSR\_NAAC.pdf

[21] Zielińska A, Nowak I. Tokoferole i tokotrienole jako witamina E [Tocopherols and tocotrienols as vitamin E]. Chemik. 2014;**7**(68):585-591 (in Polish)

[22] Rudawska E, Perenc J. Tendencje zachowań konsumenckich na regionalnym rynku [Consumer behaviour trends on the regional market]. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego; 2010 (in Polish). ISSN 1640-6818

**178**

2250-3153

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

[9] Uchman W. Substancje dodatkowe w przetwórstwie mięsa [Additives in Meat Processing]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Poznaniu; 2008 (in Polish)

[10] McCam D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grinshaw K, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behavior in 3-years-old and 8/9-years-old children

in the community, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007;**370**:1560-1567. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3

[11] Belitz H. Food Chemistry. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelbeg; 2009. DOI:

[12] Wüstenberg T. General overview of food hydrocolloids in cellulose and cellulose derivatives in the food industry. Fundamentals and Applications. 2014;**16**:986-994. DOI:

[13] Report of European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citric acid when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator). EFSA Journal. 2015;**13**(2):4010. Available from: www.

[14] Tripathy S, Das MK. Guar gum: Present status and applications. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Innovation. 2013;**7**(2):24-28. DOI:

[15] Sengar GI, Sharma HK. Food caramels: A review. Journal on Food Science and Technology. 2014;**51**(9):

[16] Husarova V, Ostatnikowa D. Monosodium glutamate toxic effects and their implications for human intake. JMED Research. 2013:**2013**:1-12. DOI:

10.1007/978-3-540-69934-7

10.1002/9783527682935.ch01

efsa.europa.eu/efsajourna

10.7897/2277-4572.02447

1686-1696. DOI: 10.1007/ s13197-012-0633-z

10.5171/2013.608765

**References**

1-405-18119-8

Scholarship; 2010

79-97. PMID: 12222639

Zrozumieć politykę UE— Bezpieczeństwo Żywności

[1] Toussaint-Samat MA. History of Food. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. ISBN: 978

[2] Couture L. The history of canned food. Johnson and Wales University School of Arts and Science. Academic

[3] Gram L, Ravn L, Rasch M, Bruhn JB, Christensen AB, Givskov M. Food spoilage—Interactions between food spoilage bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002;**78**(1-2):

[4] Publikacja Komisji Europejskiej.

(Understanding EU policy—Food Safety). Urząd Publikacji Unii Europejskiej; 2014 (in Polish)

[5] Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) z dnia 16 grudnia 2008 r. w sprawie dodatków do żywności [The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008 on food additives]. Dz. Urz. L 354 (in Polish)

[6] Sharma S. Food preservatives and their harmful effects. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015;**4**(5):1-2. ISSN

[8] Kobylewski S, Jacobson MF. Food Dyes, A Rainbow of Risks. Washington: Centre for Science in the Public Interest; 2010. Available from: https://cspinet. org/resource/food-dyes-rainbow-risks

[7] Abdulmumeen HA. Food: Its preservatives, additives and applications. International Journal of Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. 2012;**1**:36-45. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1623.5208

Symposium of Underground

**181**

**Chapter 11**

Products

*and Lucia Pareja*

situational diagnosis report.

**1. Introduction**

milk contamination, milk spoilage

**Abstract**

Microbial Contamination in Milk

Consumers of Raw Milk and Dairy

*Valente Velázquez-Ordoñez, Benjamín Valladares-Carranza,* 

*Esvieta Tenorio-Borroto, Martín Talavera-Rojas,* 

**Keywords:** cow milk production, food safety, food-borne disease,

*Jorge Antonio Varela-Guerrero, Jorge Acosta-Dibarrat,* 

*Florencia Puigvert, Lucia Grille, Álvaro González Revello* 

The dairy products industry is going toward safe milk and its products in the food market. Milk quality and food safety concern in the consumers' health and nutrition in public health surveillance prevent food-borne diseases, food poisoning, and zoonosis risk by raw milk and fresh dairy products. The aim of this work is focused on milk microbial contamination and its impacts on milk production and dairy industry with their implications in milk product quality, food-borne diseases from raw milk, and unpasteurized milk by food-borne pathogen microbial contamination and milk and dairy product spoilage. The microbial milk contamination source comes from herd hygiene and health status, mastitis prevalence, production environment, and milking parlor and milk conserving practices in dairy farm. Moreover, these facts are implicated in milk quality and milk spoilage and unsafe dairy products. The milk production system and the dairy plant operations keep track in pasteurized milk and fresh dairy products reviewing the traceability in field

The objective of the dairy industry is to maintain productivity and competitiveness in a growing milk commerce, which is demanding a large volume of milk and a wide range of dairy products in the food market and the preferences of the final food consumer with remarkable differences according to patterns of consumer behavior by demographic categories, culture, and socioeconomic variations in the human population in the food market [1, 2]. The consumers prefer a safe and healthy milk product selection, with a great variety and availability

Quality and Health Risk of the

#### **Chapter 11**

## Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk and Dairy Products

*Valente Velázquez-Ordoñez, Benjamín Valladares-Carranza, Esvieta Tenorio-Borroto, Martín Talavera-Rojas, Jorge Antonio Varela-Guerrero, Jorge Acosta-Dibarrat, Florencia Puigvert, Lucia Grille, Álvaro González Revello and Lucia Pareja*

#### **Abstract**

The dairy products industry is going toward safe milk and its products in the food market. Milk quality and food safety concern in the consumers' health and nutrition in public health surveillance prevent food-borne diseases, food poisoning, and zoonosis risk by raw milk and fresh dairy products. The aim of this work is focused on milk microbial contamination and its impacts on milk production and dairy industry with their implications in milk product quality, food-borne diseases from raw milk, and unpasteurized milk by food-borne pathogen microbial contamination and milk and dairy product spoilage. The microbial milk contamination source comes from herd hygiene and health status, mastitis prevalence, production environment, and milking parlor and milk conserving practices in dairy farm. Moreover, these facts are implicated in milk quality and milk spoilage and unsafe dairy products. The milk production system and the dairy plant operations keep track in pasteurized milk and fresh dairy products reviewing the traceability in field situational diagnosis report.

**Keywords:** cow milk production, food safety, food-borne disease, milk contamination, milk spoilage

#### **1. Introduction**

The objective of the dairy industry is to maintain productivity and competitiveness in a growing milk commerce, which is demanding a large volume of milk and a wide range of dairy products in the food market and the preferences of the final food consumer with remarkable differences according to patterns of consumer behavior by demographic categories, culture, and socioeconomic variations in the human population in the food market [1, 2]. The consumers prefer a safe and healthy milk product selection, with a great variety and availability

in the market. This fact affects the health and nutrition consumer's information about the milk products made with raw milk [3, 4]. Milk is also an important source of bacterial infection for human health, when milk is consumed without pasteurization [5–7]. Milk is a basic food in the human diet with great value as a nutritious healthy food; in the first years of human life, milk and dairy products are an important nutritional fact in the diet of the adult population [8]. According to the sustainable production system, their main priorities are contributing to the regional social and economic development, land resource preservation, and animal welfare quality in dairy cattle husbandry maintaining a productive healthy cow herd to produce high milk quality [9]. The global responsibilities of the milk industry and big dairy farm and small holder producers are offering high-quality milk and safe dairy products in the commerce preventing food-borne diseases to spread in the population [10, 11].

#### **2. The source of milk contamination**

The milk market requires and offers safe and high-quality products, preventing a contamination source by good hygiene practices to reduce a possible exposure of food-borne pathogens and chemical milk residues. The mammary gland participates in the excretion of numerous xenobiotic substances from veterinary drug milk residues and contaminants originated from milk and other chemical residues to environmental pollutants on the grasslands, animal feedstuffs, and the field crops [12]. The presence of residual concentrations of milk contaminants and pathogens is an indicator of milk quality in cow dairy farms. In evaluating the raw milk bulk tank at the dairy farms, quick information about udder health status, environmental pathogens, milk chemical residues, and antibiotics is obtained [13–16]. The relationship among dairy cow production and milk safety and dairy product quality is considered in different subjects: raw and pasteurized milk contamination and microbial aspects of the quality of milk and dairy products, cow husbandry in animal welfare influence, feeding conditions, and herd hygiene practices and milk composition. Also the environmental pollutants, and chemicals from agriculture, pesticides residues, drug veterinary residues and management in dairy production. Those relationships that exist in milk production are auditable and selectively regulated to prevent milk contaminants. The contaminants agents are tracking and monitored at milk parlor, in refrigerated milk tank and the milk bulk tank on platform by the application of proper sampling methods required in the Control Analytical Methods for milk quality in Dairy Industry Management assurance the food safety [17]. Are affecting milk production and dairy products related to food safety and milk quality [18]. In the phenomenon of the climatic change, the zoonosis and food-borne diseases are priorities in the public health programs in many countries, ones of the surveillance task is the diseases transmitted by raw milk, and unpasteurized fresh dairy products [19, 20]. The aflatoxin M1 contamination levels in milk appear to be a serious health hazard derivate from hepatotoxic and carcinogen effects of aflatoxin M1, which show a high risk on milk food safety. The milk contamination risk is established through the forages, corn and concentrated feeds; those are contaminated by aflatoxin B1 (AFB1). There is an aim to watch over the limit exposure to aflatoxins in dairy by imposing regulatory limits [21]. The presence of biotics from grazing cows and conserved pastures and feeding grains, like aflatoxins AFB1 and AFM2, has been usually monitored in milk [22]. In dairy production, an important practice is oriented to reduce environment fungal contamination and the proper conserving methods of silages, forages, and grains for animal feed [23]. The controlled grazing land is a relevant characteristic of the milk

**183**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

produced at grazing, was its richness in beta-carotene, lutein, vitamin E and sesquiterpenes among winter seasonal period monitored farms. These conditions should have a great influence on the physicochemical milk profile of raw milk bulk tank at dairy farm, in comparison with the milk of the producers with herds fed with diets rich in concentrate, corn silage, and pasture [24]. The silage is a significant source of contamination of raw milk with spores compared with grass and maize silage. Preventive management of outgrowth of aerobic spores in silage by the application of acid lactic bacteria or chemical additives can improve the silage fermentation; it will contribute to reduce the total spore load of raw milk for dairy process [25]. The microbial contamination of milk could be produced from sources of bacteria and fungi are identified in grassland and other feedstuffs. The health herd status will be implicated in specific zoonosis produced by animal carriers of *Salmonella* spp., *Mycobacterium bovis*, *Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis*, and Brucellosis and *Escherichia coli* 0157H7 are focused by sanitary conditions and the health risk [26, 27]. The health level status is an important issue in milk production; the maintenance of herd hygiene, disease control programs, and preventive management is oriented to reduce the prevalence of contagious diseases in dairy cattle [28]. The others sources of milk contamination may be present in the herd management, poor hygiene milk practices, mastitis, infectious pathogens in infected cows and the presence of environmental pathogens by poor animal hygiene [7]. The good hygiene practices in the herd cow is an important fact for to reduce contamination from production environment, feces, slurry, soil and mud those are microbial sources for the udder contamination. The poor hygiene practices could occurs microbial milk contamination, pathogens dissemination, and udder contamination may be occurred at milking time between cows, hands of milkier man and milk machine from others [29]. The microbial analysis of raw milk are influenced by microorganisms present in the teat canal and the surface of teat skin [30]. The bad hygiene practices and poor cleanness procedure equipment, the surrounding air in the milk parlor, as well as other environmental factors including housing conditions, water supply, and during feeding have an important effect on the milk contamination [31, 32]. Other microbial contamination of milk possibility may occur during the long milk storage, under low insufficient temperature [33]. Usually contaminated environments are a potential source of food-borne pathogens and spoilage bacteria present in raw milk bulk tank in the dairy farm, which are affecting the milk quality and emerging public health risk [34–36]. The cow herd should be monitored for preventing possible food-borne pathogens and food intoxications, which is a preventive strategy for health risks and to diminish the poor dairy product quality. The variation of the milk components of bulk milk among herds, could give an approach of the grassland interaction among the dairy cows, the environmental pollutants, and the environment health status have a potential public health risk [37]. In dairy farms the milk tank study is widely used for monitoring the herd udder health status as an indicator of quality for milk producers used by the dairy industry [38]. Through a microbiological study, it is possible to know the possible bacterial contamination source for modifying hygiene practices and to recall critical bacterial contamination in milk traceability for preventing the milk spoilage on the quality of the pasteurized milk and dairy products, affecting the consumer's acceptability. When milk food-borne disease outbreaks occur in the human population, there are other many reasons to trace back and investigate; fresh cheeses are elaborated with non-pasteurized milk or elaborated without proper hygiene conditions using pasteurized and unpasteurized milk [3, 28, 39]. Outbreaks of milk food-borne diseases (**Table 1**) have been associated with diseases due to infected foods and contaminated dairy products after pasteurization [40]. Another consideration of food-borne pathogens in raw milk into dairy food processing plants can persist in

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

#### *Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

produced at grazing, was its richness in beta-carotene, lutein, vitamin E and sesquiterpenes among winter seasonal period monitored farms. These conditions should have a great influence on the physicochemical milk profile of raw milk bulk tank at dairy farm, in comparison with the milk of the producers with herds fed with diets rich in concentrate, corn silage, and pasture [24]. The silage is a significant source of contamination of raw milk with spores compared with grass and maize silage. Preventive management of outgrowth of aerobic spores in silage by the application of acid lactic bacteria or chemical additives can improve the silage fermentation; it will contribute to reduce the total spore load of raw milk for dairy process [25]. The microbial contamination of milk could be produced from sources of bacteria and fungi are identified in grassland and other feedstuffs. The health herd status will be implicated in specific zoonosis produced by animal carriers of *Salmonella* spp., *Mycobacterium bovis*, *Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis*, and Brucellosis and *Escherichia coli* 0157H7 are focused by sanitary conditions and the health risk [26, 27]. The health level status is an important issue in milk production; the maintenance of herd hygiene, disease control programs, and preventive management is oriented to reduce the prevalence of contagious diseases in dairy cattle [28]. The others sources of milk contamination may be present in the herd management, poor hygiene milk practices, mastitis, infectious pathogens in infected cows and the presence of environmental pathogens by poor animal hygiene [7]. The good hygiene practices in the herd cow is an important fact for to reduce contamination from production environment, feces, slurry, soil and mud those are microbial sources for the udder contamination. The poor hygiene practices could occurs microbial milk contamination, pathogens dissemination, and udder contamination may be occurred at milking time between cows, hands of milkier man and milk machine from others [29]. The microbial analysis of raw milk are influenced by microorganisms present in the teat canal and the surface of teat skin [30]. The bad hygiene practices and poor cleanness procedure equipment, the surrounding air in the milk parlor, as well as other environmental factors including housing conditions, water supply, and during feeding have an important effect on the milk contamination [31, 32]. Other microbial contamination of milk possibility may occur during the long milk storage, under low insufficient temperature [33]. Usually contaminated environments are a potential source of food-borne pathogens and spoilage bacteria present in raw milk bulk tank in the dairy farm, which are affecting the milk quality and emerging public health risk [34–36]. The cow herd should be monitored for preventing possible food-borne pathogens and food intoxications, which is a preventive strategy for health risks and to diminish the poor dairy product quality. The variation of the milk components of bulk milk among herds, could give an approach of the grassland interaction among the dairy cows, the environmental pollutants, and the environment health status have a potential public health risk [37]. In dairy farms the milk tank study is widely used for monitoring the herd udder health status as an indicator of quality for milk producers used by the dairy industry [38]. Through a microbiological study, it is possible to know the possible bacterial contamination source for modifying hygiene practices and to recall critical bacterial contamination in milk traceability for preventing the milk spoilage on the quality of the pasteurized milk and dairy products, affecting the consumer's acceptability. When milk food-borne disease outbreaks occur in the human population, there are other many reasons to trace back and investigate; fresh cheeses are elaborated with non-pasteurized milk or elaborated without proper hygiene conditions using pasteurized and unpasteurized milk [3, 28, 39]. Outbreaks of milk food-borne diseases (**Table 1**) have been associated with diseases due to infected foods and contaminated dairy products after pasteurization [40]. Another consideration of food-borne pathogens in raw milk into dairy food processing plants can persist in

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

spread in the population [10, 11].

**2. The source of milk contamination**

in the market. This fact affects the health and nutrition consumer's information about the milk products made with raw milk [3, 4]. Milk is also an important source of bacterial infection for human health, when milk is consumed without pasteurization [5–7]. Milk is a basic food in the human diet with great value as a nutritious healthy food; in the first years of human life, milk and dairy products are an important nutritional fact in the diet of the adult population [8]. According to the sustainable production system, their main priorities are contributing to the regional social and economic development, land resource preservation, and animal welfare quality in dairy cattle husbandry maintaining a productive healthy cow herd to produce high milk quality [9]. The global responsibilities of the milk industry and big dairy farm and small holder producers are offering high-quality milk and safe dairy products in the commerce preventing food-borne diseases to

The milk market requires and offers safe and high-quality products, preventing a contamination source by good hygiene practices to reduce a possible exposure of food-borne pathogens and chemical milk residues. The mammary gland participates in the excretion of numerous xenobiotic substances from veterinary drug milk residues and contaminants originated from milk and other chemical residues to environmental pollutants on the grasslands, animal feedstuffs, and the field crops [12]. The presence of residual concentrations of milk contaminants and pathogens is an indicator of milk quality in cow dairy farms. In evaluating the raw milk bulk tank at the dairy farms, quick information about udder health status, environmental pathogens, milk chemical residues, and antibiotics is obtained [13–16]. The relationship among dairy cow production and milk safety and dairy product quality is considered in different subjects: raw and pasteurized milk contamination and microbial aspects of the quality of milk and dairy products, cow husbandry in animal welfare influence, feeding conditions, and herd hygiene practices and milk composition. Also the environmental pollutants, and chemicals from agriculture, pesticides residues, drug veterinary residues and management in dairy production. Those relationships that exist in milk production are auditable and selectively regulated to prevent milk contaminants. The contaminants agents are tracking and monitored at milk parlor, in refrigerated milk tank and the milk bulk tank on platform by the application of proper sampling methods required in the Control Analytical Methods for milk quality in Dairy Industry Management assurance the food safety [17]. Are affecting milk production and dairy products related to food safety and milk quality [18]. In the phenomenon of the climatic change, the zoonosis and food-borne diseases are priorities in the public health programs in many countries, ones of the surveillance task is the diseases transmitted by raw milk, and unpasteurized fresh dairy products [19, 20]. The aflatoxin M1 contamination levels in milk appear to be a serious health hazard derivate from hepatotoxic and carcinogen effects of aflatoxin M1, which show a high risk on milk food safety. The milk contamination risk is established through the forages, corn and concentrated feeds; those are contaminated by aflatoxin B1 (AFB1). There is an aim to watch over the limit exposure to aflatoxins in dairy by imposing regulatory limits [21]. The presence of biotics from grazing cows and conserved pastures and feeding grains, like aflatoxins AFB1 and AFM2, has been usually monitored in milk [22]. In dairy production, an important practice is oriented to reduce environment fungal contamination and the proper conserving methods of silages, forages, and grains for animal feed [23]. The controlled grazing land is a relevant characteristic of the milk

**182**


#### **Table 1.**

*Food-borne pathogens and food poisoning in milk production source.*

biofilms, with subsequent contamination of processed milk products. Inadequate milk pasteurization allows survival of food-borne pathogens in milk and dairy products [41, 42]. The health educational program for the human population should be oriented to reduce the risk of exposure for food borne diseases by the information in the end of the food chain, by adequate handling of milk and dairy products at home for prevention of the risk of food-borne diseases thought the consumption of non-pasteurized raw milk and dairy products prepared with unsafe hygiene practices in dairy food process [42–44].

#### **3. Udder health and the milk quality**

The infectious bovine mastitis in milk production is considered a disease with high economic impact reducing milk yield and the industrial dairy process and food safety. *S. aureus* and *Streptococcus agalactiae* are the most prevalent contagious pathogens in bovine mastitis from dairy herds around the world. The intramammary infection in dairy cows is relationship with infections by contagious pathogens and environmental pathogens as coliforms bacteria and *Streptococcus uberis* mostly are occurring in the dry period and the lactation in clinical cases regularly [45]. In the dairy herd with low prevalence of subclinical mastitis, the milk losses could be estimated between 3 and 5 % of the milk yield production, comparing to a herd average within milk somatic cell counts about 200,000 cells/mL [46]. The change in milk yield and composition depends of the severity and duration of the mammary gland infection and somatic cells counts. In an uninfected mammary gland that contains <100,000 somatic cells/ mL, >200,000/mL, somatic cells counts suggest an incipient mammary gland inflammatory response [47, 48]. The bovine mastitis in dairy herds affects milk composition and somatic cells counts, serum protein, and proteolytic enzymes. Other undesirable milk mastitis conditions are bacterial toxins and abnormal proteins derived from inflammatory tissular response, which influence milk flavor and taste as well as milk product stability in the dairy process [46]. A wide variety of environmental pathogen exposure routes have been documented during the last decade; at present new pathogens and transmission routes are emerging. The main food-borne disease outbreaks comes from notified from the consumption of milk food products. The accidental

**185**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

ingestion of fresh dairy products contaminated with *E. coli* and other food-borne pathogens were originated from the soil or water provokes mainly enteric diseases. The knowledge regarding to biotic and abiotic factors involved in the survival or enhance of the agents, and their potential dissemination in the environment, and exposure routes of the main food borne pathogens, are considered now in the investigation of the public health risks from dairy farms [49]. In the prevention and control strategies applied to mastitis in dairy herds, can be included in the program by a situational diagnosis previous provide information about of herd somatic cell counts, microbial agents and mastitis in different clinical stages. This wide study is done to provide strategic information of herd hygiene status, milking hygiene practices, and milk machines' regular maintenance for proper functioning. The monitoring of somatic cell counts from the milk tank, and the lactating dairy cows, and dry cow period. To bring information about of the mammary gland health status in the surveillance program [50–52]. Antibiotic milk residues, are commonly associated with mastitis treatment in lactating cows; non observe the legal restriction and milk discard period in medicated cows; in those cases are expected more mastitis incidence of the cows, with lower milk somatic cells counts herd-year SCC, with mean values of >500,000 somatic cells/mL, are indicating an increases of mastitis cases in the cow population during the lactation period. It will have potential detection of antibiotic residues in the tank milk; these situations illustrate the importance of the maintenance of udder health and milk hygiene practices and cow selection genetic programs [45, 53]. Pre- and post-milking disinfectant routines help to reduce dramatically the infection, while udder hygiene in the milking routine directly dismisses mastitis cow pathogen transmission [50]. The prudent antibiotic use in cow herd medication schemes will help efficacy in clinical mastitis cases and dry cow infections. In contrast an increase in the incidence of mastitis in lactating cows will increase the potential risk for antibiotic residues of milk and antibiotic bacterial resistance in herd [54]. The development of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens from dairy herds, is considered an emerging public health risk as many countries derived from dairy herds and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens [55]. *S. aureus* resistant strains (ORSA/MRSA), which are subject of surveillance programs of bacterial antibiotic resistance in human health [56, 57]. The use of antibiotics in animal food is incriminated as to be partly responsible for emergence of antibioticresistant bacteria with an importance in human medicine. The methicillin-resistant *S. aureus* (MRSA) strain was identified in animal companion and small dairy herds. The MRSA in humans is wildly studied in nosocomial infections and home care patients [58, 59]. The regulations of antibiotic and veterinary drug administration surveillance in animal food should be observed by agriculture department authorities [60]. The bacterial growth inhibitor test is to be performed by different conventional methods, such as the agar diffusion test with *Bacillus stearothermophilus* variety *calidolactis*, sensitive to β-lactamic antibiotics. The test is less effective in the detection of spiramycin, sulfonamide, or chloramphenicol milk residues. When the test of inhibitors of bacterial growth is testing with *Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium*, *Bacillus* cereus, and *Micrococcus luteus*, the sensitivity of the test for

antibiotic macrolides and sulfonamides will increase slightly [61].

The surveillance of food-borne disease in primary purpose in the herd is to characterize potential pathogens which are recovered from animal, milk tank, milk pipelines, and milking equipment, including the man milkers and the production environments. The monitoring programs have been designed to determine the milk

**4. Food-borne pathogens from milk**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

#### *Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

ingestion of fresh dairy products contaminated with *E. coli* and other food-borne pathogens were originated from the soil or water provokes mainly enteric diseases. The knowledge regarding to biotic and abiotic factors involved in the survival or enhance of the agents, and their potential dissemination in the environment, and exposure routes of the main food borne pathogens, are considered now in the investigation of the public health risks from dairy farms [49]. In the prevention and control strategies applied to mastitis in dairy herds, can be included in the program by a situational diagnosis previous provide information about of herd somatic cell counts, microbial agents and mastitis in different clinical stages. This wide study is done to provide strategic information of herd hygiene status, milking hygiene practices, and milk machines' regular maintenance for proper functioning. The monitoring of somatic cell counts from the milk tank, and the lactating dairy cows, and dry cow period. To bring information about of the mammary gland health status in the surveillance program [50–52]. Antibiotic milk residues, are commonly associated with mastitis treatment in lactating cows; non observe the legal restriction and milk discard period in medicated cows; in those cases are expected more mastitis incidence of the cows, with lower milk somatic cells counts herd-year SCC, with mean values of >500,000 somatic cells/mL, are indicating an increases of mastitis cases in the cow population during the lactation period. It will have potential detection of antibiotic residues in the tank milk; these situations illustrate the importance of the maintenance of udder health and milk hygiene practices and cow selection genetic programs [45, 53]. Pre- and post-milking disinfectant routines help to reduce dramatically the infection, while udder hygiene in the milking routine directly dismisses mastitis cow pathogen transmission [50]. The prudent antibiotic use in cow herd medication schemes will help efficacy in clinical mastitis cases and dry cow infections. In contrast an increase in the incidence of mastitis in lactating cows will increase the potential risk for antibiotic residues of milk and antibiotic bacterial resistance in herd [54]. The development of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens from dairy herds, is considered an emerging public health risk as many countries derived from dairy herds and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens [55]. *S. aureus* resistant strains (ORSA/MRSA), which are subject of surveillance programs of bacterial antibiotic resistance in human health [56, 57]. The use of antibiotics in animal food is incriminated as to be partly responsible for emergence of antibioticresistant bacteria with an importance in human medicine. The methicillin-resistant *S. aureus* (MRSA) strain was identified in animal companion and small dairy herds. The MRSA in humans is wildly studied in nosocomial infections and home care patients [58, 59]. The regulations of antibiotic and veterinary drug administration surveillance in animal food should be observed by agriculture department authorities [60]. The bacterial growth inhibitor test is to be performed by different conventional methods, such as the agar diffusion test with *Bacillus stearothermophilus* variety *calidolactis*, sensitive to β-lactamic antibiotics. The test is less effective in the detection of spiramycin, sulfonamide, or chloramphenicol milk residues. When the test of inhibitors of bacterial growth is testing with *Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium*, *Bacillus* cereus, and *Micrococcus luteus*, the sensitivity of the test for antibiotic macrolides and sulfonamides will increase slightly [61].

#### **4. Food-borne pathogens from milk**

The surveillance of food-borne disease in primary purpose in the herd is to characterize potential pathogens which are recovered from animal, milk tank, milk pipelines, and milking equipment, including the man milkers and the production environments. The monitoring programs have been designed to determine the milk

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

**Cow herd health** 

*Mycobacterium bovis Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis Brucella* ssp. *S. aureus* MRSA-LA *Salmonella typhimurium* phage type 561 (STM DT7)

**Production environment**

*Listeria monocytogenes Salmonella ssp. E. coli O 157:H7 E. coli* (*STEC*) *E. coli* (*EHEC*) *Yersinia enterocolitica Enterobacter sakazakii Campylobacter jejuni Enterococcus faecalis Citrobacter freundii Bacillus cereus*

*Cryptosporidium parvum Coxiella burnetii\* Toxoplasma gondii\**

**Production land water source**

Hepatitis A virus\* *Leptospira* spp.\*

*Bacillus subtilis*

*Pseudomonas aeruginosa +*

*Clostridium disporicum Aspergillus* spp. Aflatoxin M1 Mycotoxin B1

*+ Bacillus licheniformis +*

*+*

**status**

*Food-borne pathogens and food poisoning in milk production source.*

**Mammary gland health status**

*Streptococcus agalactiae Streptococcus* spp. *Streptococcus pyogenes Streptococcus zooepidemicus* (B-hemolytic *Streptococcus* Lancefield C group) *Corynebacterium ulcerans*

*S. aureus*

*\*Occasionally*

**Table 1.**

**+***Involved in enteric diseases*

biofilms, with subsequent contamination of processed milk products. Inadequate milk pasteurization allows survival of food-borne pathogens in milk and dairy products [41, 42]. The health educational program for the human population should be oriented to reduce the risk of exposure for food borne diseases by the information in the end of the food chain, by adequate handling of milk and dairy products at home for prevention of the risk of food-borne diseases thought the consumption of non-pasteurized raw milk and dairy products prepared with unsafe hygiene

*+*

The infectious bovine mastitis in milk production is considered a disease with high economic impact reducing milk yield and the industrial dairy process and food safety. *S. aureus* and *Streptococcus agalactiae* are the most prevalent contagious pathogens in bovine mastitis from dairy herds around the world. The intramammary infection in dairy cows is relationship with infections by contagious pathogens and environmental pathogens as coliforms bacteria and *Streptococcus uberis* mostly are occurring in the dry period and the lactation in clinical cases regularly [45]. In the dairy herd with low prevalence of subclinical mastitis, the milk losses could be estimated between 3 and 5 % of the milk yield production, comparing to a herd average within milk somatic cell counts about 200,000 cells/mL [46]. The change in milk yield and composition depends of the severity and duration of the mammary gland infection and somatic cells counts. In an uninfected mammary gland that contains <100,000 somatic cells/ mL, >200,000/mL, somatic cells counts suggest an incipient mammary gland inflammatory response [47, 48]. The bovine mastitis in dairy herds affects milk composition and somatic cells counts, serum protein, and proteolytic enzymes. Other undesirable milk mastitis conditions are bacterial toxins and abnormal proteins derived from inflammatory tissular response, which influence milk flavor and taste as well as milk product stability in the dairy process [46]. A wide variety of environmental pathogen exposure routes have been documented during the last decade; at present new pathogens and transmission routes are emerging. The main food-borne disease outbreaks comes from notified from the consumption of milk food products. The accidental

practices in dairy food process [42–44].

**3. Udder health and the milk quality**

**184**

production process' critical points, the health herd level, and control of animal risk for food-borne pathogens; a survey is oriented to cut the chain of disease and exposure routes to humans preventing milk and dairy product contamination [62, 63]. The surveillance of food-borne diseases usually is difficult to research an area for population monitoring. An outbreak survey of human gastrointestinal disease could be an epidemiological indicator of food-borne disease, which may be originated from drinking unpasteurized milk; *Salmonella* species can be found in ice cream and fresh cheeses as well as *Brucella melitensis* in non-pasteurized milk and homemade dairy products mostly goat cheese [42, 64]. The main zoonotic pathogens identified in raw milk were *Brucella* ssp., mainly *Brucella melitensis*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Salmonella* ssp., *Mycobacterium bovis*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, *Streptococcus pyogenes*, and *Streptococcus agalactiae,* and *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 and *Enterobacter sakazakii* are recently reported [5, 65]. New emerging pathogens causing milk food-borne diseases are considered: hepatitis A virus, *Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis*, *Streptococcus zooepidemicus* (B-hemolytic *Streptococcus* Lancefield C group), *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Citrobacter freundii*, *Corynebacterium ulcerans*, and *Cryptosporidium parvum* [66]. The food-borne pathogens predominantly have been involved in human disease and have originated often in many food animals as well as animal in active carrier states such as in *Salmonella* species, *E. coli* O157:H7, *Campylobacter* species, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, *Listeria* species, *Aeromonas hydrophila*, *Leptospira interrogans*, and *Mycobacterium* species. In contrast, *Coxiella burnetii*, *Cryptosporidium parvum*, and *Toxoplasma gondii* may be infrequent [67]. The Campylobacter infections are expected seasonally as many cases are reported to public health services [4]. Food-borne outbreaks are incriminated occurring with contaminated fresh milk and dairy products provoking acute infections and food intoxications, occurring in family's at small villages, in declared official cases confirmed with consumption of homemade fresh dairy products elaborated with non-pasteurized milk [66, 68]. The outbreaks of food-borne disease could occur after milk pasteurization and manipulating dairy products. Outbreak cases were investigated and tested by laboratory microbial probe tests for rapid detection of microbial contamination and toxins produced by *Salmonella* species, *Listeria* species, and *S. aureus* enterotoxins [39, 67]. The enzyme-linked assays for microbial and toxins and the DNA probe test are very useful for screening food samples before processing and traceability in food conserving microbial testing [49, 68]. The dairy cattle are also known reservoirs for *Salmonella* species; the animal carrier is often asymptomatic and difficult to identify because *Salmonella* prevalence is fluctuating in the seasonal period from fecal samples, tank milk, filters milk, and water. Other areas in the farm were also positives in samples from production environments like high-animal-traffic areas [34]. The dairy cow farms suspected to *Salmonella typhimurium* phage type 561 (STM DT7 international typing scheme), are strongly investigated in environment and microbiological carrier cows prompt agent detection, for triggering control measures and herd hygiene for to cut off contamination level in dairy products [69]. The *Klebsiella* species, *Enterobacter* ssp., and *Salmonella* ssp. might be present in raw milk depending of hygienic practices in the herd [1]. *Yersinia enterocolitica* O: 8 outbreaks resulted from post-pasteurization contamination. In other cases no deficiencies in pasteurization procedures or equipment were detected. *Y. enterocolitica* O: 8 were isolated from raw-milk sample and a fecal sample, and from a fecal sample and is a such as milk bottles rinsing with untreated water prior to filling milk [70]. *E. coli* infection may occur among small residents of a community, closely related to a possible common source of infection. The epidemiologic evidence of the *E.coli* infection is evidence are supported from raw milk is the cause of infections by the number of ill persons that drank raw milk. The O157:H7 is

**187**

with age [77].

**5. Raw and pasteurized milk microbial contamination**

In human population raw milk and dairy products are often tangled up in food-borne disease outbreaks; occasionally pasteurized milk may be contaminated and lead to bacteria spoilage of milk and dairy product storage during the dairy processing with a potential health risk for the consumers [5]. The microbiological quality of dairy products reflects good hygienic practices during the dairy milking

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

isolated from raw milk samples and environmental samples [71]. The *E. coli's* ability to persist in cattle production environments contributes to the contamination and recontamination cycle of dairy cattle as well as human infection. *Escherichia coli* (STEC) are the most important emergent food-borne pathogens. Shiga toxinproducing STEC are common as colonizers in the intestine of healthy cattle and easily spread into the environment by fecal shedding by the surface application of farm effluent on soil. The bacteria can be transmitted to humans through food, such as ground beef inadequately cooked or unpasteurized milk. The prevalence of Shiga-like toxin produced by *E. coli* (STEC) in raw milk cheeses, including soft, hard, unripened, and blue mold cheeses, was mainly related to effective control strategies and must be considered on cattle farms in order to limit entry of STEC strains into the production environment [72]. The prevalence of Shiga-like toxin produced by *E. coli* (STEC) in raw milk cheeses was mainly related to serotypes O6, O174, O175, O176, O109, O76, and O162 and in minor frequency O22 serogroup [44]. Enterohemorrhagic *E. coli* (EHEC), EHEC O26: H-, has emerged as a significant cause of hemolytic-uremic syndrome in human (HUS). The source of the vehicle of contamination with EHEC O26 is not often identified; fecal samples were taken from cows of the farm that produced the incriminating milk. *E. coli* O26 infection illustrates the hazards associated with the consumption of raw milk [73, 74]. *Brucella* spp. is identified in ewes' milk cheese as an important human infection source, and it has been an important public health risk. The isolation of *Brucella* species on raw milk, goats' cheese, and ewes' cheese has been reported; *B. melitensis* was isolated from cheese samples [63]. *Bacillus* spp. contamination of raw milk from the environment of production might be originated from different sources, air, milking equipment, feed, soil, and feces, and grass differences in feeding and housing strategies of cows may influence the microbial quality of milk. *Bacillus licheniformis*, *Bacillus pumilus*, *Bacillus circulans* and *Bacillus. subtilis* and strain types of the species belonging to the *Bacillus cereus* group. Higher numbers of thermotolerant sporulated organisms in milk were found from conventional dairy farms compared to organic farms [75]. Contamination of milk by bacterial spores occurred during grazing season, the spore content of milk by *Bacillus cereus* psychotropic, affects post-pasteurized milk by spore total number; this was attributed to the nipple teat contamination with soil due by low evaporation of soil water and dirty farm access this was attributed to the nipple contamination with wet soil, due by low evaporation of soil water and farm access dirty [76]. The assurance of microbial quality in dairy product, requires monitoring and identifying bacteria associated with food safety concerns in raw milk and traditional cheeses in local industry, semi hard cheese could preserve microbial contamination for a few months; *Staphylococcus sciuri*, *Staphylococcus epidermidis*, *Staphylococcus saprophyticus*, *Staphylococcus aureus* was not detected in old cheese. *Staphylococcus agnetis*, *S. chromogenes*, *S. devriesei*, *Staphylococcus equorum*, *S. haemolyticus*, *Staphylococcus lentus*, *S. sciuri*, *Staphylococcus vitulinus* and *S. xylosus.* The probability of finding *S. chromogenes* and *S. agnetis* on the teat and inguinal region increased

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

isolated from raw milk samples and environmental samples [71]. The *E. coli's* ability to persist in cattle production environments contributes to the contamination and recontamination cycle of dairy cattle as well as human infection. *Escherichia coli* (STEC) are the most important emergent food-borne pathogens. Shiga toxinproducing STEC are common as colonizers in the intestine of healthy cattle and easily spread into the environment by fecal shedding by the surface application of farm effluent on soil. The bacteria can be transmitted to humans through food, such as ground beef inadequately cooked or unpasteurized milk. The prevalence of Shiga-like toxin produced by *E. coli* (STEC) in raw milk cheeses, including soft, hard, unripened, and blue mold cheeses, was mainly related to effective control strategies and must be considered on cattle farms in order to limit entry of STEC strains into the production environment [72]. The prevalence of Shiga-like toxin produced by *E. coli* (STEC) in raw milk cheeses was mainly related to serotypes O6, O174, O175, O176, O109, O76, and O162 and in minor frequency O22 serogroup [44]. Enterohemorrhagic *E. coli* (EHEC), EHEC O26: H-, has emerged as a significant cause of hemolytic-uremic syndrome in human (HUS). The source of the vehicle of contamination with EHEC O26 is not often identified; fecal samples were taken from cows of the farm that produced the incriminating milk. *E. coli* O26 infection illustrates the hazards associated with the consumption of raw milk [73, 74]. *Brucella* spp. is identified in ewes' milk cheese as an important human infection source, and it has been an important public health risk. The isolation of *Brucella* species on raw milk, goats' cheese, and ewes' cheese has been reported; *B. melitensis* was isolated from cheese samples [63]. *Bacillus* spp. contamination of raw milk from the environment of production might be originated from different sources, air, milking equipment, feed, soil, and feces, and grass differences in feeding and housing strategies of cows may influence the microbial quality of milk. *Bacillus licheniformis*, *Bacillus pumilus*, *Bacillus circulans* and *Bacillus. subtilis* and strain types of the species belonging to the *Bacillus cereus* group. Higher numbers of thermotolerant sporulated organisms in milk were found from conventional dairy farms compared to organic farms [75]. Contamination of milk by bacterial spores occurred during grazing season, the spore content of milk by *Bacillus cereus* psychotropic, affects post-pasteurized milk by spore total number; this was attributed to the nipple teat contamination with soil due by low evaporation of soil water and dirty farm access this was attributed to the nipple contamination with wet soil, due by low evaporation of soil water and farm access dirty [76]. The assurance of microbial quality in dairy product, requires monitoring and identifying bacteria associated with food safety concerns in raw milk and traditional cheeses in local industry, semi hard cheese could preserve microbial contamination for a few months; *Staphylococcus sciuri*, *Staphylococcus epidermidis*, *Staphylococcus saprophyticus*, *Staphylococcus aureus* was not detected in old cheese. *Staphylococcus agnetis*, *S. chromogenes*, *S. devriesei*, *Staphylococcus equorum*, *S. haemolyticus*, *Staphylococcus lentus*, *S. sciuri*, *Staphylococcus vitulinus* and *S. xylosus.* The probability of finding *S. chromogenes* and *S. agnetis* on the teat and inguinal region increased with age [77].

#### **5. Raw and pasteurized milk microbial contamination**

In human population raw milk and dairy products are often tangled up in food-borne disease outbreaks; occasionally pasteurized milk may be contaminated and lead to bacteria spoilage of milk and dairy product storage during the dairy processing with a potential health risk for the consumers [5]. The microbiological quality of dairy products reflects good hygienic practices during the dairy milking

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

production process' critical points, the health herd level, and control of animal risk for food-borne pathogens; a survey is oriented to cut the chain of disease and exposure routes to humans preventing milk and dairy product contamination [62, 63]. The surveillance of food-borne diseases usually is difficult to research an area for population monitoring. An outbreak survey of human gastrointestinal disease could be an epidemiological indicator of food-borne disease, which may be originated from drinking unpasteurized milk; *Salmonella* species can be found in ice cream and fresh cheeses as well as *Brucella melitensis* in non-pasteurized milk and homemade dairy products mostly goat cheese [42, 64]. The main zoonotic pathogens identified in raw milk were *Brucella* ssp., mainly *Brucella melitensis*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Salmonella* ssp., *Mycobacterium bovis*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*,

*Streptococcus pyogenes*, and *Streptococcus agalactiae,* and *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 and *Enterobacter sakazakii* are recently reported [5, 65]. New emerging pathogens causing milk food-borne diseases are considered: hepatitis A virus, *Mycobacterium* 

conserving microbial testing [49, 68]. The dairy cattle are also known reservoirs for *Salmonella* species; the animal carrier is often asymptomatic and difficult to identify because *Salmonella* prevalence is fluctuating in the seasonal period from fecal samples, tank milk, filters milk, and water. Other areas in the farm were also positives in samples from production environments like high-animal-traffic areas [34]. The dairy cow farms suspected to *Salmonella typhimurium* phage type 561 (STM DT7 international typing scheme), are strongly investigated in environment and microbiological carrier cows prompt agent detection, for triggering control measures and herd hygiene for to cut off contamination level in dairy products [69]. The *Klebsiella* species, *Enterobacter* ssp., and *Salmonella* ssp. might be present in raw milk depending of hygienic practices in the herd [1]. *Yersinia enterocolitica* O: 8 outbreaks resulted from post-pasteurization contamination. In other cases no deficiencies in pasteurization procedures or equipment were detected. *Y. enterocolitica* O: 8 were isolated from raw-milk sample and a fecal sample, and from a fecal sample and is a such as milk bottles rinsing with untreated water prior to filling milk [70]. *E. coli* infection may occur among small residents of a community, closely related to a possible common source of infection. The epidemiologic

evidence of the *E.coli* infection is evidence are supported from raw milk is the cause of infections by the number of ill persons that drank raw milk. The O157:H7 is

*avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis*, *Streptococcus zooepidemicus* (B-hemolytic *Streptococcus* Lancefield C group), *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Citrobacter freundii*, *Corynebacterium ulcerans*, and *Cryptosporidium parvum* [66]. The food-borne pathogens predominantly have been involved in human disease and have originated often in many food animals as well as animal in active carrier states such as in *Salmonella* species, *E. coli* O157:H7, *Campylobacter* species, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, *Listeria* species, *Aeromonas hydrophila*, *Leptospira interrogans*, and *Mycobacterium* species. In contrast, *Coxiella burnetii*, *Cryptosporidium parvum*, and *Toxoplasma gondii* may be infrequent [67]. The Campylobacter infections are expected seasonally as many cases are reported to public health services [4]. Food-borne outbreaks are incriminated occurring with contaminated fresh milk and dairy products provoking acute infections and food intoxications, occurring in family's at small villages, in declared official cases confirmed with consumption of homemade fresh dairy products elaborated with non-pasteurized milk [66, 68]. The outbreaks of food-borne disease could occur after milk pasteurization and manipulating dairy products. Outbreak cases were investigated and tested by laboratory microbial probe tests for rapid detection of microbial contamination and toxins produced by *Salmonella* species, *Listeria* species, and *S. aureus* enterotoxins [39, 67]. The enzyme-linked assays for microbial and toxins and the DNA probe test are very useful for screening food samples before processing and traceability in food

**186**

process; raw milk contamination may occur in diseased or infected cows with environmental bacteria [1]. In raw milk samples collected from the milk-producing areas tested for *L. monocytogenes* and *Salmonella* spp., the presence and enumeration of mesophilic aerobes and total coliforms is an indicator of *E. coli* contamination and poor microbiological quality of dairy products and causes interference with the native microbiota and other important pathogens [52]. The bacteria acid lactic species (BAL) identified mainly as *Lactococcus lactis* subsp. *lactis* and *Enterococcus faecium* were considered as antagonistic bacteria for the enteric pathogens [36]. The microbial contamination, affects fresh dairy products quality raw milk elaborated. This condition might constitute a potential risk in milk food-borne diseases and public health and dairy food quality [77]. The presence of highly heat-resistant spores of *Bacillus sporothermodurans* in ultrahigh temperature or sterilized milk has emerged as an important item in the dairy industry. The predominant bacterial species isolated at the dairy farm comes from the water, feedstuffs, and milking equipment, in this aspect Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pallidus acts as entry points for highly heat-resistant spores into the raw milk and the contamination risk level aerobic spore-forming bacteria that could lead to spoilage of milk and dairy products [30]. The milk products are contaminated by *Pseudomonas* spp. in the systems processing milk; it has direct effects on the product shelf life in the dairy industrial plants. The spoilage of milk components has produced by *Pseudomonas* fluorescens, and *Pseudomonas putida* in raw and pasteurized milk provoked by different enzyme systems of the bacteria comes from of protease, lecithinase, and lipase activities. The bacterial contamination source was a derivate from production herd environment and the hygienic farm measures [78, 79]. The hygiene in the production environment in the dairy farm is a very important fact to prevent food-borne diseases and food quality [18]. The incidence of food-borne infections in human population is increasing in the recent years. Oftenlly the expose was occurred in private homes and food markets, were prevail the microbial risk contamination in the cases related to the prepared food dairy products, raw milk consumption and eggs, from others food products [80]. Bovine colostrum in human food is considered an excellent source of bioactive proteins, to improve gastrointestinal health and enhance body condition. The consumers are demanding safe and high-quality milk products. There is no influence of herd size and localization in the bacteriological colostrum quality. In milk quality, the animal hygiene and herd health status is considered a goal to warranty the milk as free of *Salmonella* ssp., *S. aureus*, coagulase negative staphylococci, *Streptococcus agalactiae* and streptococci non-agalactiae and coliforms and non-coliforms [36]. In the milk industry, spore-forming bacteria can survive food-processing thermal treatments particularly *Bacillus* and *Clostridium* species to determine the shelf life of a variety of heat-treated milk products, mainly if the level of post-process contamination is low. The management approach of the food production chain, based on raw materials, ingredients and environmental sources, influences the quality of the final product. The strategy on the farm to reduce contamination by foodborne pathogens is to establish hygienic practices on the farm in various components of the milk production chain. Contamination by *Clostridium tyrobutyricum* was consistently found in milk related to farm administration rather than food contamination. Because rottenly *Clostridium disporicum*, identified as an important member of clostridia populations transferred to milk, as a bacteria present in soil, forage, grass silage, maize silage, dry hay. These clostridia may contribute to raw milk contamination by the environmental bacteria as present in soil, forage, grass silage, maize silage, and dry hay [81, 82]. Other virulence factors identified in isolation were assayed: biofilm formation and adhesion to mammalian cells and antibiotic resistance. The genes encoding for virulence factors were present in

**189**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

*Enterococcus faecalis* more than in *Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium*. The enterococci were also implicated in vancomycin-resistant strains and the severe multiresistant human nosocomial infection. The recovery of bacteriocinogenic *Enterococcus faecium* isolated with no virulence traits suggests a potential use for biotechnological applications in food animal production [83]. The fecal contamination of the milking equipment is also responsible for the raw milk contamination. Lactobacilli were identified in cows' teats, raw milk, the milking machine, and the milking parlor on one farm. The lactobacilli present in the feces were predominantly *Lactobacillus mucosae* and *Lactobacillus brevis*. The majority of enterococcal isolates from cow feces were identified as *Aerococcus viridans* [36]. *Bacillus cereus* spores are implicated in the herd with environmental microbial contamination; a large number of spores were present in free stalls and bedding material, especially with sawdust beds. A positive relationship was observed between raw milk and the number of spores determined in the feed and feces [84]. *Bacillus licheniformis* and *Bacillus cereus* contamination was present in raw milk, pasteurized milk, and yogurt during dairy processing of dairy milk products as well as other different strains in raw milk and yogurt. The evidence of dairy environmental contamination was attributed to *Bacillus* strains during the technological processing of milk [85]. The enterotoxigenic *Bacillus cereus* and their enterotoxins could be detected in milk products from retail shops. *Bacillus cereus* was isolated from milk products. Enterotoxigenic *B. cereus* hemolytic was identified from milk and milk products and *B. cereus* non-hemolytic enterotoxins just like in milk [86]. The evaluation of the hygienic quality of raw milk is meant to be possible based on the presence of fecal contamination evaluated in raw milk indicated by the coliforms bacteria, and Bifidobacteria species (*Bifidobacterium pseudolongum* subsp. *globosum*), identified isolates compared with bifidobacteria isolated from dung of the cows and the contaminated raw milk samples. The raw milk samples harbored *Bifidobacterium* 

**6. Microbiological quality of milk and dairy products: spoilage bacteria**

Milk and dairy product quality is the consequence of all activities developed during the production process, from the farms to the transformation in the dairy industry [88, 89]. Cow's milk contains the nutritional requirements necessary for the growth of the calf, since it is a source rich in lipids, proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, which added to its high activity of water (aw) and makes it an excellent matrix for the growth of a large number of spoilage microorganisms (**Table 2**) and pathogens for humans [90, 91]. Not so long ago, it was believed that the milk contained in the mammary gland was sterile and that the microorganisms isolated had their origin from external contamination. Nevertheless, this idea has been questioned due to the development of more sensitive molecular methods which suggests that there is colonization of a wide variety of microorganisms in the

The microbial composition of milk is influenced by several different parameters such as, in the case of raw milk, the microorganisms present in the teat canal, on the surface of teat skin, in the surrounding air, and in feed as well as other environmental factors including housing conditions, the quality of the water supply, and equipment hygiene [93–95]. Moreover, the insufficient cold capacity and long storage times can also increase the bacterial count owing to the bacterial growth during milk storage [96]. Therefore, it is not always easy to determine the cause of a high bacterial count in raw milk; there are several parameters that can give an insight of

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

*pseudolongum* subsp. *globosum* [87].

healthy mammary gland [92].

the source of contamination [97].

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

*Enterococcus faecalis* more than in *Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium*. The enterococci were also implicated in vancomycin-resistant strains and the severe multiresistant human nosocomial infection. The recovery of bacteriocinogenic *Enterococcus faecium* isolated with no virulence traits suggests a potential use for biotechnological applications in food animal production [83]. The fecal contamination of the milking equipment is also responsible for the raw milk contamination. Lactobacilli were identified in cows' teats, raw milk, the milking machine, and the milking parlor on one farm. The lactobacilli present in the feces were predominantly *Lactobacillus mucosae* and *Lactobacillus brevis*. The majority of enterococcal isolates from cow feces were identified as *Aerococcus viridans* [36]. *Bacillus cereus* spores are implicated in the herd with environmental microbial contamination; a large number of spores were present in free stalls and bedding material, especially with sawdust beds. A positive relationship was observed between raw milk and the number of spores determined in the feed and feces [84]. *Bacillus licheniformis* and *Bacillus cereus* contamination was present in raw milk, pasteurized milk, and yogurt during dairy processing of dairy milk products as well as other different strains in raw milk and yogurt. The evidence of dairy environmental contamination was attributed to *Bacillus* strains during the technological processing of milk [85]. The enterotoxigenic *Bacillus cereus* and their enterotoxins could be detected in milk products from retail shops. *Bacillus cereus* was isolated from milk products. Enterotoxigenic *B. cereus* hemolytic was identified from milk and milk products and *B. cereus* non-hemolytic enterotoxins just like in milk [86]. The evaluation of the hygienic quality of raw milk is meant to be possible based on the presence of fecal contamination evaluated in raw milk indicated by the coliforms bacteria, and Bifidobacteria species (*Bifidobacterium pseudolongum* subsp. *globosum*), identified isolates compared with bifidobacteria isolated from dung of the cows and the contaminated raw milk samples. The raw milk samples harbored *Bifidobacterium pseudolongum* subsp. *globosum* [87].

#### **6. Microbiological quality of milk and dairy products: spoilage bacteria**

Milk and dairy product quality is the consequence of all activities developed during the production process, from the farms to the transformation in the dairy industry [88, 89]. Cow's milk contains the nutritional requirements necessary for the growth of the calf, since it is a source rich in lipids, proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, which added to its high activity of water (aw) and makes it an excellent matrix for the growth of a large number of spoilage microorganisms (**Table 2**) and pathogens for humans [90, 91]. Not so long ago, it was believed that the milk contained in the mammary gland was sterile and that the microorganisms isolated had their origin from external contamination. Nevertheless, this idea has been questioned due to the development of more sensitive molecular methods which suggests that there is colonization of a wide variety of microorganisms in the healthy mammary gland [92].

The microbial composition of milk is influenced by several different parameters such as, in the case of raw milk, the microorganisms present in the teat canal, on the surface of teat skin, in the surrounding air, and in feed as well as other environmental factors including housing conditions, the quality of the water supply, and equipment hygiene [93–95]. Moreover, the insufficient cold capacity and long storage times can also increase the bacterial count owing to the bacterial growth during milk storage [96]. Therefore, it is not always easy to determine the cause of a high bacterial count in raw milk; there are several parameters that can give an insight of the source of contamination [97].

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

process; raw milk contamination may occur in diseased or infected cows with environmental bacteria [1]. In raw milk samples collected from the milk-producing areas tested for *L. monocytogenes* and *Salmonella* spp., the presence and enumeration of mesophilic aerobes and total coliforms is an indicator of *E. coli* contamination and poor microbiological quality of dairy products and causes interference with the native microbiota and other important pathogens [52]. The bacteria acid lactic species (BAL) identified mainly as *Lactococcus lactis* subsp. *lactis* and *Enterococcus faecium* were considered as antagonistic bacteria for the enteric pathogens [36]. The microbial contamination, affects fresh dairy products quality raw milk elaborated. This condition might constitute a potential risk in milk food-borne diseases and public health and dairy food quality [77]. The presence of highly heat-resistant spores of *Bacillus sporothermodurans* in ultrahigh temperature or sterilized milk has emerged as an important item in the dairy industry. The predominant bacterial species isolated at the dairy farm comes from the water, feedstuffs, and milking equipment, in this aspect Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pallidus acts as entry points for highly heat-resistant spores into the raw milk and the contamination risk level aerobic spore-forming bacteria that could lead to spoilage of milk and dairy products [30]. The milk products are contaminated by *Pseudomonas* spp. in the systems processing milk; it has direct effects on the product shelf life in the dairy industrial plants. The spoilage of milk components has produced by *Pseudomonas* fluorescens, and *Pseudomonas putida* in raw and pasteurized milk provoked by different enzyme systems of the bacteria comes from of protease, lecithinase, and lipase activities. The bacterial contamination source was a derivate from production herd environment and the hygienic farm measures [78, 79]. The hygiene in the production environment in the dairy farm is a very important fact to prevent food-borne diseases and food quality [18]. The incidence of food-borne infections in human population is increasing in the recent years. Oftenlly the expose was occurred in private homes and food markets, were prevail the microbial risk contamination in the cases related to the prepared food dairy products, raw milk consumption and eggs, from others food products [80]. Bovine colostrum in human food is considered an excellent source of bioactive proteins, to improve gastrointestinal health and enhance body condition. The consumers are demanding safe and high-quality milk products. There is no influence of herd size and localization in the bacteriological colostrum quality. In milk quality, the animal hygiene and herd health status is considered a goal to warranty the milk as free of *Salmonella* ssp., *S. aureus*, coagulase negative staphylococci, *Streptococcus agalactiae* and streptococci non-agalactiae and coliforms and non-coliforms [36]. In the milk industry, spore-forming bacteria can survive food-processing thermal treatments particularly *Bacillus* and *Clostridium* species to determine the shelf life of a variety of heat-treated milk products, mainly if the level of post-process contamination is low. The management approach of the food production chain, based on raw materials, ingredients and environmental sources, influences the quality of the final product. The strategy on the farm to reduce contamination by foodborne pathogens is to establish hygienic practices on the farm in various components of the milk production chain. Contamination by *Clostridium tyrobutyricum* was consistently found in milk related to farm administration rather than food contamination. Because rottenly *Clostridium disporicum*, identified as an important member of clostridia populations transferred to milk, as a bacteria present in soil, forage, grass silage, maize silage, dry hay. These clostridia may contribute to raw milk contamination by the environmental bacteria as present in soil, forage, grass silage, maize silage, and dry hay [81, 82]. Other virulence factors identified in isolation were assayed: biofilm formation and adhesion to mammalian cells and antibiotic resistance. The genes encoding for virulence factors were present in

**188**


**191**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

High concentration of lipases and proteinases in milk

High concentration of free fatty acids (C4-C6; C110-C12) **microorganism**

Psychrotrophic *Pseudomonas* spp. *Bacillus* spp. *Pseudomonas fragi P. fluorescens*

**Reference**

[141, 142]

**Kind of defect Cause Related** 

(cream)

*Principal causes and defects in milk and dairy products caused by spoilage microorganisms.*

Bulk milk analysis is used by dairy industry, veterinarians, and milk producers as an indicator of quality [98]. Through a microbiological profile, it is possible to prevent and modify the possible contamination points. For this reason, the bacterial count of bulk milk is a useful tool for monitoring the environment hygiene, translating high values as negative effects on the quality of the pasteurized milk and milk products, reducing the shelf life and its sensory characteristics [99]. Regarding these indicators, the standard plate count (SPC) in milk represents those bacteria that grow between 30 and 35°C under aerobic conditions and is conformed mainly by bacteria coming from teat skin, feces, milker's hands, equipment, soil, water, etc. [100]. Their importance is given by the fact that they reflect not only the hygienic quality of the raw milk but also the way in which the product was handled. The higher values of SPC indicate raw milk not suitable for consumption, poor handling practices in its elaboration, and an increased risk of the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Additionally, this parameter reflects the efficiency of cleaning procedures and storage temperatures as well as the hygiene of the udders during milking [100]. With regard to dairy products, this parameter acquires remarkable importance particularly in the elaboration of cheeses, recommending low counts in order to minimize the alteration of the composition of the milk and the final yield obtained [101]. According to the regulations of the European Union, the dairy farms remittent to processing plants of

these products must have bacterial counts below 100,000 cfu/mL [102].

In relation to the factors of variation in SPC, there are several studies supporting that the seasonal effect is of great significance in the production of quality milk in terms of hygiene [103]. A work in raw milk from Canada [104] determined that high bacterial counts in summer and spring are related to higher room temperatures that favor the rapid bacterial multiplication. The whole routine of milking, from the presealed and post-sealed to the implementation and maintenance of practices of cleaning and disinfection of dairy equipment, has a great influence in the improvement of milk quality, although for counts below 50,000 cfu/mL, the major factor is hygiene [105]. On the other hand, the rapid cooling of milk and the maintenance of its coldness for prolonged periods stimulate the growth of psychrotrophic bacteria, modifying the native microbiota in favor of Gram-negative ones in approximately more than 90% of the total population [99, 106]. *Psychrotrophic* microorganisms are defined as mesophilic microorganisms which are adapted to grow at refrigeration temperature (7°C or lower), although their optimum temperature of multiplication is higher. They can be widely distributed in the environment: soil, water, and being part of the normal microbiota of animals and man [107]. Numerous psychrotrophic microorganisms have been isolated from raw milk: *Pseudomonas* (*Ps*.), *Enterobacter*, *Flavobacterium*, *Klebsiella*, *Aeromonas*, *Acinetobacter*, *Alcaligenes*, and *Achromobacter* have been reported as the most representative genera [108], while the most frequently isolated species are *Ps. fluorescens*, *Ps. fragi*, *Ps. aeruginosa*, and *Ps. putrefaciens* [109]. In terms of quality, psychotropic bacteria have become a problem of special importance for the dairy industry,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

Creams and butter Reduced shelf life Rancidity and off-flavor Fruity, bitterness, soapy

**Table 2.**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*


#### **Table 2.**

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

**Kind of defect Cause Related** 

Shorter shelf life Proteolytic and lipolytic

Activity of phospholipases and proteinases and fat destabilization

High concentration of free fatty acids due to activity of thermostable lipases; protein hydrolysis due to activity of heat stabile proteinases

Proteolytic and lipolytic

Milk spoiling Biofilm formation Consortium of species [135]

Bacterial proteinases and lipases and increase of free

Activity of lipases and proteinases remain in curd that ongoing hydrological changes during ripening; cause spoilage of milk and dairy product.

Higher concentration of free amino acids (bacterial proteinases) which stimulates starter culture which growth. Longer coagulation time: higher concentration of free fatty acids (bacterial lipases) which inhibits starter culture

Lipases: free fatty acids

Bitterness and off-flavors [130]

Gelation Thermoresistant proteinases Psychrotrophic bacteria

activities

activities

fatty acid

growth

increase

Pasteurized, sterilized, and UHT milk Precipitation when milk added to hot beverage (bitty cream)

Undesirable flavor: unclean, fruity, bitter, rancid, yeasty

Increase of free fatty acids and casein hydrolyses, destabilizing the casein micelles (acid coagulation of milk)

Shorter shelf life, rancidity, and

Destabilization of the natural plasmin system of milk. Affect the quality of cheese, flavor and texture development, and reduce

Change coagulation time and quality of curd (fragile and less

Undesirables flavor: rancid taste in

the yield of the curd

hard cheeses (ripening)

Fermented milks

unclean, and fruity

Changes of texture and flavor: more firm gel and higher viscosity, more pronounced syneresis

Lipolytic changes (free fatty acid): atypical flavor as bitter, rancid,

Powder milk

bitterness

Cheese

compact)

**microorganism**

(Gram-negative and Gram-positive): *Pseudomonas* spp.

*Bacillus cereus* spp.

 cfu mL<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )

*Pseudomonas fragi P. fluorescens*

 cfu mL<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )

*Bacillus* spp. [133]; [134];

*Bacillus* spp. [111]

Psychrotrophic spp.

 cfu mL<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )

(>103

*Bacillus* spp. (≥106

 cfu mL<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )

Psychrotrophic [139]

(106 –108

(106

*Bacillus* spp. [130]

**Reference**

[131, 132]

[130, 133]

[130]

[120]

[114, 136, 137]

[133, 138]

[140]

**190**

*Principal causes and defects in milk and dairy products caused by spoilage microorganisms.*

Bulk milk analysis is used by dairy industry, veterinarians, and milk producers as an indicator of quality [98]. Through a microbiological profile, it is possible to prevent and modify the possible contamination points. For this reason, the bacterial count of bulk milk is a useful tool for monitoring the environment hygiene, translating high values as negative effects on the quality of the pasteurized milk and milk products, reducing the shelf life and its sensory characteristics [99]. Regarding these indicators, the standard plate count (SPC) in milk represents those bacteria that grow between 30 and 35°C under aerobic conditions and is conformed mainly by bacteria coming from teat skin, feces, milker's hands, equipment, soil, water, etc. [100]. Their importance is given by the fact that they reflect not only the hygienic quality of the raw milk but also the way in which the product was handled. The higher values of SPC indicate raw milk not suitable for consumption, poor handling practices in its elaboration, and an increased risk of the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Additionally, this parameter reflects the efficiency of cleaning procedures and storage temperatures as well as the hygiene of the udders during milking [100]. With regard to dairy products, this parameter acquires remarkable importance particularly in the elaboration of cheeses, recommending low counts in order to minimize the alteration of the composition of the milk and the final yield obtained [101]. According to the regulations of the European Union, the dairy farms remittent to processing plants of these products must have bacterial counts below 100,000 cfu/mL [102].

In relation to the factors of variation in SPC, there are several studies supporting that the seasonal effect is of great significance in the production of quality milk in terms of hygiene [103]. A work in raw milk from Canada [104] determined that high bacterial counts in summer and spring are related to higher room temperatures that favor the rapid bacterial multiplication. The whole routine of milking, from the presealed and post-sealed to the implementation and maintenance of practices of cleaning and disinfection of dairy equipment, has a great influence in the improvement of milk quality, although for counts below 50,000 cfu/mL, the major factor is hygiene [105].

On the other hand, the rapid cooling of milk and the maintenance of its coldness for prolonged periods stimulate the growth of psychrotrophic bacteria, modifying the native microbiota in favor of Gram-negative ones in approximately more than 90% of the total population [99, 106]. *Psychrotrophic* microorganisms are defined as mesophilic microorganisms which are adapted to grow at refrigeration temperature (7°C or lower), although their optimum temperature of multiplication is higher. They can be widely distributed in the environment: soil, water, and being part of the normal microbiota of animals and man [107]. Numerous psychrotrophic microorganisms have been isolated from raw milk: *Pseudomonas* (*Ps*.), *Enterobacter*, *Flavobacterium*, *Klebsiella*, *Aeromonas*, *Acinetobacter*, *Alcaligenes*, and *Achromobacter* have been reported as the most representative genera [108], while the most frequently isolated species are *Ps. fluorescens*, *Ps. fragi*, *Ps. aeruginosa*, and *Ps. putrefaciens* [109]. In terms of quality, psychotropic bacteria have become a problem of special importance for the dairy industry, being recognized as one of the main agents causing deterioration ending in significant economic losses for the sector [110]. In general, psychrotrophs are capable of producing extracellular or intracellular enzymes (proteases, lipases, and phospholipases), many of which are heat-resistant, which means that they are capable of maintaining their activity after heat treatment (pasteurization or more severe treatment) and also generating big adverse changes in the quality of dairy products [111]. This deterioration in milk quality translates as changes in flavor, undesirable coagulation of proteins, and an increase in the concentration of free fatty acids and amino acids [110].

With regard to other aspects of quality, such as the suitability of milk for the production of dairy products, psychrotrophs have a significant negative effect on yields and in the reduction of their shelf life [112]. When coming from the environment, psychrotrophs are also considered indicators of the hygienic quality of milk [108]. In some countries its count is used as a complement to the bacterial count to determine the quality of the milk and is of special interest when the milk will be subjected to certain technological processes. For example, the regulatory limits for hygienic quality in the Czech Republic are set at ≤100,000 cfu/mL of bacterial count and ≤50,000 cfu/mL of psychrotrophs [113]. Furthermore, in the case where milk is used in technological processes, the requirements increase using the limits set by the EU of <30,000 cfu/mL for bacterial counts and <5000 cfu/mL for psychrotrophs [102]. In Scotland, an average of 130.000 cfu/mL psychrotrophs in silos of dairy industries from which 70.2% were *Pseudomonas* was found [114].

In terms of food safety, the pasteurizing milk was established as a necessary step for the consumption of fluid milk and other dairy products [115, 116]. In spite of that, this procedure applied in dairy industries for the elimination of pathogenic microorganisms does not completely inactivate all microorganisms, even in the most severe thermal treatments. For instance, some bacteria like thermoduric bacteria resist milk pasteurization. Also, the spores highly resistant to heat can survive the ultrahigh temperature (UHT) process and even to the processes of spray-drying persisting in pasteurized powders [116, 117]. For these reasons, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA declared the thermoduric, thermophilic, psychrotrophic, and spore-forming bacteria as the microorganisms with the highest risk of spoilage in dairy products [118]. The thermoduric count is used as an indicator of sanitization of equipment in the industry and establishments [99], being the ideal ranges those between 100 and 200 cfu/mL [119]. Of this group, *Bacillus cereus* is the most commonly found in milk and dairy products [120], and their spores are characterized by having the ability to survive the thermal processing used in the industry [121]. In addition, some species can multiply at refrigeration temperatures, which is why it is also considered a psychotropic microorganism [122]. *Bacillus* spp. produces extracellular proteases and lipases and phospholipases (lecithinase) resistant to thermal treatments, comparable with the enzymes produced by *Pseudomonas* [123]. The combination of these characteristics in a microbial species indicates a great deteriorating potential [124]. Raw milk contamination by spores of *B. cereus* has been reported as the main cause of the presence of these groups of microorganisms in processed milks [125]. The spores of thermoduric microorganisms can be found in processed products, such as pasteurized milk and stored cream, decreasing their shelf life [91, 126]. To ensure the shelf life of the pasteurized milk, it is necessary to comply with a maximum spore limit of *B. cereus* of 3 log spores/mL [127]. In dehydrated products, they have a main importance because these products are more prone to thermoduric deterioration because of having a long useful life [116].

Therefore, psychrotrophs and thermodurics are of great importance in the quality of the milk that will be industrialized, mainly due to its effects on the composition. The lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes that they produce cause deterioration during the storage of milk and dairy products [107]. Moreover, studies suggest

**193**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

that these proteases found in raw milk are produced by psychrotrophic bacteria, especially of the genus *Pseudomonas* [128]. In this regard, a study conducted in fresh milk observed a production of extracellular proteases of psychrotrophs, which cause an increase in plasmin activity, hydrolyzing casein and decreasing its levels

of cheeses or other dairy products [129]. In the case of thermodurics, it has been reported that *B. cereus* can also release proteases that degrade casein by damaging the milk. The κ-casein is the protein fraction which is more affected by hydrolysis; after 7 days of storage at 20°C, all κ-casein is converted to para-κ-casein, while β-casein is reduced by 70%. Furthermore, as part of the deterioration caused by this microorganism in milk, it has been observed that it releases peptides of low molecu-

In summary, milk and milk products provide favorable conditions for the growth of various microorganisms. These include groups capable of growing at refrigeration temperatures, withstanding heat treatments and producing heat-resistant enzymes, which are responsible for the deterioration and reduction of the shelf life of milk and by-products. The effectiveness in the control of these microorganisms is a critical challenge for the dairy industry, and its relevance has been discussed in this chapter.

The paper remarks the importance among the milk production and food safety, closely related in the assurance of the milk quality and the prevention of milk spoilage. The dairy industry management programs as for food safety, the milk quality and the dairy products. Preventing the microbial and chemical contamination. The food-borne diseases in public health programs are a priority in the surveillance of milk food-borne diseases by the monitoring of food-borne pathogens and the microbial contamination in milk products. Actually dairy farms are compromised to reduce the milk contamination source from udder and the dairy cow herd health status and the production environment, by hygiene practices in the cow herd management and good milk conserving in the raw milk bulk tank. The food hygiene protocols are fundament for to reduce the microbial contamination of the raw milk and pasteurized milk, regarding the health risk by the microbial pathogens in the food borne diseases and bacterial spoilage, source of deteriorating dairy products and milk. The microbial quality of foods is required for the traceability in dairy products industry. Consumers education programs and practices of good handling of foods, could be reduce the exposure to food borne pathogens and the consumption of unsafe food products. The traceability of milk and dairy products, from the production-distribution chain food and the consumption is a good policy for to the

We appreciate the selfless and participatory collaboration of the authors in the

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the participation and

cfu/mL); this increase in plasmin activity could affect the quality

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

lar weight causing undesirable flavors [120].

assurance the quality and to reduce the public health risks.

preparation and communication of the book chapter.

collaboration in the elaboration of this work and its divulgation.

(count above 107

**7. Conclusions**

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

that these proteases found in raw milk are produced by psychrotrophic bacteria, especially of the genus *Pseudomonas* [128]. In this regard, a study conducted in fresh milk observed a production of extracellular proteases of psychrotrophs, which cause an increase in plasmin activity, hydrolyzing casein and decreasing its levels (count above 107 cfu/mL); this increase in plasmin activity could affect the quality of cheeses or other dairy products [129]. In the case of thermodurics, it has been reported that *B. cereus* can also release proteases that degrade casein by damaging the milk. The κ-casein is the protein fraction which is more affected by hydrolysis; after 7 days of storage at 20°C, all κ-casein is converted to para-κ-casein, while β-casein is reduced by 70%. Furthermore, as part of the deterioration caused by this microorganism in milk, it has been observed that it releases peptides of low molecular weight causing undesirable flavors [120].

In summary, milk and milk products provide favorable conditions for the growth of various microorganisms. These include groups capable of growing at refrigeration temperatures, withstanding heat treatments and producing heat-resistant enzymes, which are responsible for the deterioration and reduction of the shelf life of milk and by-products. The effectiveness in the control of these microorganisms is a critical challenge for the dairy industry, and its relevance has been discussed in this chapter.

#### **7. Conclusions**

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

being recognized as one of the main agents causing deterioration ending in significant economic losses for the sector [110]. In general, psychrotrophs are capable of producing extracellular or intracellular enzymes (proteases, lipases, and phospholipases), many of which are heat-resistant, which means that they are capable of maintaining their activity after heat treatment (pasteurization or more severe treatment) and also generating big adverse changes in the quality of dairy products [111]. This deterioration in milk quality translates as changes in flavor, undesirable coagulation of proteins,

With regard to other aspects of quality, such as the suitability of milk for the production of dairy products, psychrotrophs have a significant negative effect on yields and in the reduction of their shelf life [112]. When coming from the environment, psychrotrophs are also considered indicators of the hygienic quality of milk [108]. In some countries its count is used as a complement to the bacterial count to determine the quality of the milk and is of special interest when the milk will be subjected to certain technological processes. For example, the regulatory limits for hygienic quality in the Czech Republic are set at ≤100,000 cfu/mL of bacterial count and ≤50,000 cfu/mL of psychrotrophs [113]. Furthermore, in the case where milk is used in technological processes, the requirements increase using the limits set by the EU of <30,000 cfu/mL for bacterial counts and <5000 cfu/mL for psychrotrophs [102]. In Scotland, an average of 130.000 cfu/mL psychrotrophs in silos of dairy industries from which 70.2% were *Pseudomonas* was found [114].

In terms of food safety, the pasteurizing milk was established as a necessary step for the consumption of fluid milk and other dairy products [115, 116]. In spite of that, this procedure applied in dairy industries for the elimination of pathogenic microorganisms does not completely inactivate all microorganisms, even in the most severe thermal treatments. For instance, some bacteria like thermoduric bacteria resist milk pasteurization. Also, the spores highly resistant to heat can survive the ultrahigh temperature (UHT) process and even to the processes of spray-drying persisting in pasteurized powders [116, 117]. For these reasons, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA declared the thermoduric, thermophilic, psychrotrophic, and spore-forming bacteria as the microorganisms with the highest risk of spoilage in dairy products [118]. The thermoduric count is used as an indicator of sanitization of equipment in the industry and establishments [99], being the ideal ranges those between 100 and 200 cfu/mL [119]. Of this group, *Bacillus cereus* is the most commonly found in milk and dairy products [120], and their spores are characterized by having the ability to survive the thermal processing used in the industry [121]. In addition, some species can multiply at refrigeration temperatures, which is why it is also considered a psychotropic microorganism [122]. *Bacillus* spp. produces extracellular proteases and lipases and phospholipases (lecithinase) resistant to thermal treatments, comparable with the enzymes produced by *Pseudomonas* [123]. The combination of these characteristics in a microbial species indicates a great deteriorating potential [124]. Raw milk contamination by spores of *B. cereus* has been reported as the main cause of the presence of these groups of microorganisms in processed milks [125]. The spores of thermoduric microorganisms can be found in processed products, such as pasteurized milk and stored cream, decreasing their shelf life [91, 126]. To ensure the shelf life of the pasteurized milk, it is necessary to comply with a maximum spore limit of *B. cereus* of 3 log spores/mL [127]. In dehydrated products, they have a main importance because these products are more prone to thermoduric deterioration because of having a long useful life [116].

Therefore, psychrotrophs and thermodurics are of great importance in the quality of the milk that will be industrialized, mainly due to its effects on the composition. The lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes that they produce cause deterioration during the storage of milk and dairy products [107]. Moreover, studies suggest

and an increase in the concentration of free fatty acids and amino acids [110].

**192**

The paper remarks the importance among the milk production and food safety, closely related in the assurance of the milk quality and the prevention of milk spoilage. The dairy industry management programs as for food safety, the milk quality and the dairy products. Preventing the microbial and chemical contamination. The food-borne diseases in public health programs are a priority in the surveillance of milk food-borne diseases by the monitoring of food-borne pathogens and the microbial contamination in milk products. Actually dairy farms are compromised to reduce the milk contamination source from udder and the dairy cow herd health status and the production environment, by hygiene practices in the cow herd management and good milk conserving in the raw milk bulk tank. The food hygiene protocols are fundament for to reduce the microbial contamination of the raw milk and pasteurized milk, regarding the health risk by the microbial pathogens in the food borne diseases and bacterial spoilage, source of deteriorating dairy products and milk. The microbial quality of foods is required for the traceability in dairy products industry. Consumers education programs and practices of good handling of foods, could be reduce the exposure to food borne pathogens and the consumption of unsafe food products. The traceability of milk and dairy products, from the production-distribution chain food and the consumption is a good policy for to the assurance the quality and to reduce the public health risks.

#### **Acknowledgements**

We appreciate the selfless and participatory collaboration of the authors in the preparation and communication of the book chapter.

#### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the participation and collaboration in the elaboration of this work and its divulgation.

### **Author details**

Valente Velázquez-Ordoñez1 \*, Benjamín Valladares-Carranza1 , Esvieta Tenorio-Borroto1 , Martín Talavera-Rojas1 , Jorge Antonio Varela-Guerrero1 , Jorge Acosta-Dibarrat1 , Florencia Puigvert3 , Lucia Grille3 , Álvaro González Revello2 and Lucia Pareja4

1 Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Salud Animal, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (CIESA-FMVZ-UAEM), Toluca, Mexico

2 Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Leche, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay

3 Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Leche, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la Republica, CENUR-Litoral Norte, Paysandú, Uruguay

4 Facultad de Química, Universidad de la Republica, Estación Experimental Dr. Mario A. Cassinoni, Paysandú, Uruguay

\*Address all correspondence to: vvo@uaemex.mx

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**195**

p. 111

Press; 2007

fpd.2009.0302

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

in Human Nutrition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107864-8 (PDF). Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/

[9] FAO y FIL. Guía de buenas prácticas en explotaciones lecheras. Roma, Italia: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) y Federación Internacional de la Leche (FIL). Directrices FAO: Producción y Sanidad Animal No. 8; 2012. ISBN 978-92-5-306957-6

[10] Msalya G. Contamination levels and identification of bacteria in milk sampled from three regions of Tanzania: Evidence from literature and laboratory analyses. Hindawi Veterinary Medicine International. 2017; Article ID 9096149, 10 p. DOI:

10.1155/2017/9096149

2011. pp. 334-357

2000;**44**(5):360-363

[11] In: Velázquez-Ordoñez V,

Castañeda-Vázquez H, Wolter W, Švarc Gajic J, Bedolla-Cedeño C, Guerra-Liera JE, editors. Producción y Calidad de la Leche. México, DF: Editorial Juan Pablos Editor; 2015. ISBN 978-607-711-310-2

[12] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Valladares-Carranza B, Gutiérrez-Castillo del CA, Talavera-Rojas M, Pescador-salas N, Valdés-ramos R. Milk production and safety food. In: Svarc-Gajic, editor. Nutritional Insigthts and Food Safety. New York, NY: Nova-Publishers, Inc.;

[13] Simsek O, Gültekin R, Oksüz O, Kurultay S. The effect of environmental

[14] Bean NH, Goulding Joy S, Lao C, Angulo FJ. Surveillance for foodbornedisease outbreaks in the United States, 1988-1992. MMWR. 1996;**45**(SS-5):1-66

pollution on the heavy metal content of raw milk. Die Nahrung.

i3396e/i3396e.pdf

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[1] Kongo JM, Gomes AP, Malcata FX. Monitoring and identification of bacteria associated with safety concerns in the manufacture of São Jorge, a Portuguese traditional cheese from raw cow's milk. Journal of Food Protection.

[2] Patilk SR, Cates SA, Morales R. Consumer food safety knowledge, practices, and demographic differences: Findings from a metaanalysis. Journal of Food Protection.

[3] Johnson EA. Microbiological safety of cheese made from heat-treated milk. I. Executive summary, introduction and history. Journal of Food Protection.

[4] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Nam HM, Almeida RA, Headrick SJ, Oliver SP. Detection of sorbitol-negative and sorbitol-positive Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, and *Salmonella* spp. in dairy farm environmental samples. Foodborne Pathogoly Disease. 2004;**1**(2):97-104. DOI: 10.1089/153531404772914446

[5] Frank JF. Milk and dairy products. In: Doyle PM, Beuchant LR, Monteville

[6] Entis P. Food Safety: Old Habits New Perspectives. Washington, DC: ASM

[7] Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;**6**(7):793-806. DOI: 10.1089/

[8] FAO. In: Muehlhoff E, Bennett A, McMahon D. Milk and Dairy Products

TJ, editors. Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2001.

**References**

2008;**71**(5):986-992

2005;**68**(9):1884-1994

1990;**53**:441

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

#### **References**

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*, Benjamín Valladares-Carranza1

, Lucia Grille3

, Martín Talavera-Rojas1

1 Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Centro de Investigación y

2 Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Leche, Facultad de Veterinaria,

3 Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Leche, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la Republica, CENUR-Litoral Norte, Paysandú, Uruguay

4 Facultad de Química, Universidad de la Republica, Estación Experimental

Estudios Avanzados en Salud Animal, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

, Florencia Puigvert3

,

, Jorge Antonio Varela-Guerrero1

, Álvaro González Revello2

,

**194**

**Author details**

and Lucia Pareja4

Valente Velázquez-Ordoñez1

(CIESA-FMVZ-UAEM), Toluca, Mexico

Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay

Esvieta Tenorio-Borroto1

Jorge Acosta-Dibarrat1

provided the original work is properly cited.

Dr. Mario A. Cassinoni, Paysandú, Uruguay

\*Address all correspondence to: vvo@uaemex.mx

[1] Kongo JM, Gomes AP, Malcata FX. Monitoring and identification of bacteria associated with safety concerns in the manufacture of São Jorge, a Portuguese traditional cheese from raw cow's milk. Journal of Food Protection. 2008;**71**(5):986-992

[2] Patilk SR, Cates SA, Morales R. Consumer food safety knowledge, practices, and demographic differences: Findings from a metaanalysis. Journal of Food Protection. 2005;**68**(9):1884-1994

[3] Johnson EA. Microbiological safety of cheese made from heat-treated milk. I. Executive summary, introduction and history. Journal of Food Protection. 1990;**53**:441

[4] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Nam HM, Almeida RA, Headrick SJ, Oliver SP. Detection of sorbitol-negative and sorbitol-positive Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, and *Salmonella* spp. in dairy farm environmental samples. Foodborne Pathogoly Disease. 2004;**1**(2):97-104. DOI: 10.1089/153531404772914446

[5] Frank JF. Milk and dairy products. In: Doyle PM, Beuchant LR, Monteville TJ, editors. Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2001. p. 111

[6] Entis P. Food Safety: Old Habits New Perspectives. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2007

[7] Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;**6**(7):793-806. DOI: 10.1089/ fpd.2009.0302

[8] FAO. In: Muehlhoff E, Bennett A, McMahon D. Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107864-8 (PDF). Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ i3396e/i3396e.pdf

[9] FAO y FIL. Guía de buenas prácticas en explotaciones lecheras. Roma, Italia: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) y Federación Internacional de la Leche (FIL). Directrices FAO: Producción y Sanidad Animal No. 8; 2012. ISBN 978-92-5-306957-6

[10] Msalya G. Contamination levels and identification of bacteria in milk sampled from three regions of Tanzania: Evidence from literature and laboratory analyses. Hindawi Veterinary Medicine International. 2017; Article ID 9096149, 10 p. DOI: 10.1155/2017/9096149

[11] In: Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Castañeda-Vázquez H, Wolter W, Švarc Gajic J, Bedolla-Cedeño C, Guerra-Liera JE, editors. Producción y Calidad de la Leche. México, DF: Editorial Juan Pablos Editor; 2015. ISBN 978-607-711-310-2

[12] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Valladares-Carranza B, Gutiérrez-Castillo del CA, Talavera-Rojas M, Pescador-salas N, Valdés-ramos R. Milk production and safety food. In: Svarc-Gajic, editor. Nutritional Insigthts and Food Safety. New York, NY: Nova-Publishers, Inc.; 2011. pp. 334-357

[13] Simsek O, Gültekin R, Oksüz O, Kurultay S. The effect of environmental pollution on the heavy metal content of raw milk. Die Nahrung. 2000;**44**(5):360-363

[14] Bean NH, Goulding Joy S, Lao C, Angulo FJ. Surveillance for foodbornedisease outbreaks in the United States, 1988-1992. MMWR. 1996;**45**(SS-5):1-66 [15] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Ivey SJ, Gillespie BE, Almeida RA, Draughon FA, et al. Molecular characterization of Salmonella spp. isolated from bulk tank milk and cull dairy cow fecal samples. Journal of Food Protection. 2002;**65**:1100-1105

[16] CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animals; Approved Standard. 3rd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Institute (CLSI). Document M31-A3; 2008. p. 99

[17] Bauman CA, Barkema HW, Dubuc J, Keefe GP, Kelton DF. Canadian National Dairy Study: Herd-level milk quality. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**(3):2679-2691. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-13336

[18] Callaway TR, Oliver SP. On-farm strategies to reduce foodborne pathogen contamination. Foodborne Pathogenesis Disease. 2009;**6**(7):753. DOI: 10.1089/ fpd.2009.9996

[19] FAO. Climate Change: Implications for Food Safety. Roma, Italia: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO); 2008. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/files/HLC1\_ Climate\_Change\_and\_Food\_Safety.pdf [Consultado 24 de diciembre de 2018]

[20] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Valladares-Carranza B, Castañeda-Vázquez H, Gutiérrez-Castillo A d C, Alonso-Fresan MU. Efecto del cambio climático en la producción de leche y riesgos a la salud pública asociados a las enfermedades transmitidas por alimentos. In: Loredo P, Castellanos Editores S, editors. Crisis alimentaria y la salud en México. Mexico, DF, SA de CV; 2016. pp. 309-330. ISBN 968-5573-42-3

[21] Roussi V, Govaris A, Varagouli A, Botsoglou NA. Occurrence of aflatoxin M(1) in raw and market

milk commercialized in Greece. Food Additives and Contaminants. 2002;**19**(9):863-868

[22] Tajik H, Rohani SM, Moradi M. Detection of aflatoxin M1 in raw and commercial pasteurized milk in Urmia, Iran. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2007;**10**(22):4103-4107

[23] Sugiyama K, Hiraoka HV, Sugita-Konishi Y. Aflatoxin M1 contamination in raw bulk tank milk and the presence of aflatoxin B1 in corn supplied to dairy cattle in Japan. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2008;**49**(5):352-355

[24] Agabriel C, Cornu A, Journal C, Sibra C, Grolier P, Martin B. Tanker milk variability according to farm feeding practices: Vitamins A and E, carotenoids, color, and terpenoids. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**(10):4884-4896. DOI: 10.3358/ shokueishi.49.352

[25] Te Giffel MC, Wagendorp A, Herrewegh A, Driehuis F. Bacterial spores in silage and raw milk. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;**81**(1-4):625-630

[26] OIE. Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres. Paris, Francia: Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE); 2006. ISBN 92-9044-679-X

[27] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Ivey SJ, Gillespie BE, Almeida RA, Oliver SP. Prevalence and molecular characterization of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in bulk tank milk and fecal samples from cull dairy cows: A 12-month survey of dairy farms in East Tennessee. Journal of Food Protection. 2002;**65**:752-759

[28] Nauta MJ. Modular process risk model (MPRM). In: Schaffner WD, editor. A Structured Approach to Food Chain Exposure Assessment: Microbial

**197**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

[35] Viljoen BC. The interaction between yeasts and bacteria in dairy environments. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2001;**69**(1-2):37-44

International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007;**114**(2):243-251. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00570-0

P, Thunthaisong N. Regional monitoring of lead and cadmium contamination in a tropical grazing land site, Thailand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[38] Velthuis AG, van Asseldonk MA. Process audits versus product quality monitoring of bulk milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;**94**(1):235-249.

[39] Srinivasan V, Sawant AA, Gillespie BE, Headrick SJ, Ceasaris L, Oliver SP. Prevalence of enterotoxin and toxic shock syndrome toxin genes in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from milk of cows with mastitis. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2006;**3**(3): 274-283. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2006.3.274

[40] Straley BA, Donaldson SC, Hedge NV, Sawant AA, Srinivasan V, Oliver SP, et al. Public health significance of antimicrobial-resistant gram-negative

[41] Jørgensen HJ, Mørk T, Rørvik LM. The occurrence of *Staphylococcus aureus* on a farm with smallscale production of raw milk cheese. Journal of Dairy Science. 2005;**88**(11):3810-3817. DOI: 10.3168/

bacteria in raw bulk tank milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2006;**3**(3):222-223. DOI: 10.1089/

jds.S0022-0302(05)73066-6

fpd.2006.3.222

DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3528

2003;**85**(2):157-173

[36] Kagkli DM, Vancanneyt M, Hill C, Vandamme P, Cogan TM. Enterococcus and Lactobacillus contamination of raw milk in a farm dairy environment.

[37] Parkpian P, Leong ST, Laortanakul

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

Risk Analysis of Foods. Washington,

[30] Adkins PRF, Dufour S, Spain JN, Calcutt MJ, Reilly TJ, Stewart GC, et al. Cross-sectional study to identify staphylococcal species isolated from teat and inguinal skin of different-aged dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**(4):3213-3225. DOI: 10.3168/

[31] Fox LK, Norell RJ. *Staphylococcus aureus* colonization of teat skin as affected by postmilking teat treatment when exposed to cold and windy conditions. Journal of Dairy Science. 1994;**77**(8):2281-2288. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

DC: ASM Press; 2008. p. 99

JCM.02239-16

jds.2017-13974

S0022-0302(94)77171-X

fpd.2008.0048

jds.2015-10179

2008;**71**(10):1967-1973

[32] Pangloli P, Dje Y, Ahmed O, Doane CA, Oliver SP, Draughon FA. Seasonal incidence and molecular characterization of Salmonella from dairy cows, calves, and farm environment. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2008;**5**(1):87-96. DOI: 10.1089/

[33] Lin H, Shavezipur M, Yousef A, Maleky F. Prediction of growth of *Pseudomonas fluorescens* in milk during storage under fluctuating temperature. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**(3):1822-1830. DOI: 10.3168/

[34] Van Kessel JS, Karns JS, Wolfgang DR, Hovingh E, Jayarao BM, Van Tassell CP, et al. Environmental sampling to predict fecal prevalence of Salmonella in an intensively monitored dairy herd. Journal of Food Protection.

[29] Gillespie BE, Headrick SI, Boonyayatra S, Oliver SP. Prevalence and persistence of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species in three dairy research herds. Veterinary Microbiology. 2009;**134**(1-2):65-72. DOI: 10.1128/

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

Risk Analysis of Foods. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2008. p. 99

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

milk commercialized in Greece. Food Additives and Contaminants.

[22] Tajik H, Rohani SM, Moradi M. Detection of aflatoxin M1 in raw and commercial pasteurized milk in Urmia, Iran. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences.

[23] Sugiyama K, Hiraoka HV, Sugita-Konishi Y. Aflatoxin M1 contamination in raw bulk tank milk and the presence of aflatoxin B1 in corn supplied to dairy cattle in Japan. Shokuhin Eiseigaku

[24] Agabriel C, Cornu A, Journal C,

[25] Te Giffel MC, Wagendorp A, Herrewegh A, Driehuis F. Bacterial spores in silage and raw milk. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;**81**(1-4):625-630

[26] OIE. Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres. Paris, Francia: Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE); 2006. ISBN

[27] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Ivey SJ, Gillespie BE, Almeida RA, Oliver SP. Prevalence and molecular characterization of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in bulk tank milk and fecal samples from cull dairy cows: A 12-month survey of dairy farms in East Tennessee. Journal of Food Protection.

[28] Nauta MJ. Modular process risk model (MPRM). In: Schaffner WD, editor. A Structured Approach to Food Chain Exposure Assessment: Microbial

2002;**19**(9):863-868

2007;**10**(22):4103-4107

Zasshi. 2008;**49**(5):352-355

Sibra C, Grolier P, Martin B. Tanker milk variability according to farm feeding practices: Vitamins A and E, carotenoids, color, and terpenoids. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**(10):4884-4896. DOI: 10.3358/

shokueishi.49.352

92-9044-679-X

2002;**65**:752-759

[15] Murinda SE, Nguyen LT, Ivey SJ, Gillespie BE, Almeida RA, Draughon FA, et al. Molecular characterization of Salmonella spp. isolated from bulk tank milk and cull dairy cow fecal samples. Journal of Food Protection.

[16] CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animals; Approved Standard. 3rd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Institute (CLSI). Document M31-A3;

[17] Bauman CA, Barkema HW, Dubuc J, Keefe GP, Kelton DF. Canadian National Dairy Study: Herd-level milk quality. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**(3):2679-2691. DOI: 10.3168/

[18] Callaway TR, Oliver SP. On-farm strategies to reduce foodborne pathogen contamination. Foodborne Pathogenesis Disease. 2009;**6**(7):753. DOI: 10.1089/

[19] FAO. Climate Change: Implications

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO); 2008. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/files/HLC1\_ Climate\_Change\_and\_Food\_Safety.pdf [Consultado 24 de diciembre de 2018]

[20] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Valladares-Carranza B, Castañeda-Vázquez H, Gutiérrez-Castillo A d C, Alonso-Fresan MU. Efecto del cambio climático en la producción de leche y riesgos a la salud pública asociados a las enfermedades transmitidas por alimentos. In: Loredo P, Castellanos Editores S, editors. Crisis alimentaria y la salud en México.

Mexico, DF, SA de CV; 2016. pp. 309-330. ISBN 968-5573-42-3

[21] Roussi V, Govaris A, Varagouli A, Botsoglou NA. Occurrence of aflatoxin M(1) in raw and market

for Food Safety. Roma, Italia:

2002;**65**:1100-1105

2008. p. 99

jds.2017-13336

fpd.2009.9996

**196**

[29] Gillespie BE, Headrick SI, Boonyayatra S, Oliver SP. Prevalence and persistence of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species in three dairy research herds. Veterinary Microbiology. 2009;**134**(1-2):65-72. DOI: 10.1128/ JCM.02239-16

[30] Adkins PRF, Dufour S, Spain JN, Calcutt MJ, Reilly TJ, Stewart GC, et al. Cross-sectional study to identify staphylococcal species isolated from teat and inguinal skin of different-aged dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**(4):3213-3225. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-13974

[31] Fox LK, Norell RJ. *Staphylococcus aureus* colonization of teat skin as affected by postmilking teat treatment when exposed to cold and windy conditions. Journal of Dairy Science. 1994;**77**(8):2281-2288. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(94)77171-X

[32] Pangloli P, Dje Y, Ahmed O, Doane CA, Oliver SP, Draughon FA. Seasonal incidence and molecular characterization of Salmonella from dairy cows, calves, and farm environment. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2008;**5**(1):87-96. DOI: 10.1089/ fpd.2008.0048

[33] Lin H, Shavezipur M, Yousef A, Maleky F. Prediction of growth of *Pseudomonas fluorescens* in milk during storage under fluctuating temperature. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**(3):1822-1830. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2015-10179

[34] Van Kessel JS, Karns JS, Wolfgang DR, Hovingh E, Jayarao BM, Van Tassell CP, et al. Environmental sampling to predict fecal prevalence of Salmonella in an intensively monitored dairy herd. Journal of Food Protection. 2008;**71**(10):1967-1973

[35] Viljoen BC. The interaction between yeasts and bacteria in dairy environments. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2001;**69**(1-2):37-44

[36] Kagkli DM, Vancanneyt M, Hill C, Vandamme P, Cogan TM. Enterococcus and Lactobacillus contamination of raw milk in a farm dairy environment. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007;**114**(2):243-251. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00570-0

[37] Parkpian P, Leong ST, Laortanakul P, Thunthaisong N. Regional monitoring of lead and cadmium contamination in a tropical grazing land site, Thailand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2003;**85**(2):157-173

[38] Velthuis AG, van Asseldonk MA. Process audits versus product quality monitoring of bulk milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;**94**(1):235-249. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3528

[39] Srinivasan V, Sawant AA, Gillespie BE, Headrick SJ, Ceasaris L, Oliver SP. Prevalence of enterotoxin and toxic shock syndrome toxin genes in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from milk of cows with mastitis. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2006;**3**(3): 274-283. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2006.3.274

[40] Straley BA, Donaldson SC, Hedge NV, Sawant AA, Srinivasan V, Oliver SP, et al. Public health significance of antimicrobial-resistant gram-negative bacteria in raw bulk tank milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2006;**3**(3):222-223. DOI: 10.1089/ fpd.2006.3.222

[41] Jørgensen HJ, Mørk T, Rørvik LM. The occurrence of *Staphylococcus aureus* on a farm with smallscale production of raw milk cheese. Journal of Dairy Science. 2005;**88**(11):3810-3817. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.S0022-0302(05)73066-6

[42] Cremonesi P, Perez G, Pisoni G, Moroni P, Morandi S, Luzzana M, et al. Detection of enterotoxigenic *Staphylococcus aureus* isolates in from raw milk cheeses in France. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2005;**41**(3):235-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2005.01756.x

[43] Tsegmed U, Normanno G, Pringle M, Krovacek K. Occurrence of enterotoxic *Staphylococcus aureus* in raw milk from yaks and cattle in Mongolia. Journal of Food Protection. 2007;**70**(7):1726-1729

[44] Vernozy-Rozand C, Montet MP, Berardin M, Bavai C, Beutin L. Isolation and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli* strains from raw milk cheeses in France. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2005;**41**(3):235-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2005.01756.x

[45] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Vázquez CHJC, Pescador SN, Saltijeral OJ. Niveles de células somáticas en leche y resistencia a la mastitis. Producción Animal. 2005;**207**:15-23

[46] Oliver SP, Calvinho LF. Influence of inflammation on mammary gland metabolism and milk composition. Journal of Animal Science. 1995;**73**:18-33

[47] Damm M, Holm C, Blaabjerg M, Bro MN, Schwarz D. Differential somatic cell count—A novel method for routine mastitis screening in the frame of Dairy Herd Improvement testing programs. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(6):4926-4940. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2016-12409

[48] Frössling J, Ohlson A, Hallén-Sandgren C. Incidence and duration of increased somatic cell count in Swedish dairy cows and associations with milking system type. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(9):7368-7378. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12333

[49] Srinivasan V, Gillespie BE, Lewis MJ, Nguyen LT, Headrick SI, Schukken YH, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns of *Escherichia coli* isolated from dairy cows with mastitis. Veterinary Microbiology. 2007;**124**(3-4):319-328. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetmic.2007.04.040

[50] Oliver SP, Lewis MJ, Gillespie BE, Ivey SJ, Coleman LH, Almeida RA, et al. Evaluation of a postmilking teat disinfectant containing a phenolic combination for the prevention of mastitis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Food Protection. 1999;**62**(11):1354-1357

[51] Rea MC, Cogan TM, Tobin S. Incidence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk in Ireland. The Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 1992;**73**(4):331-336

[52] Nero LA, de Mattos MR, Barros M d A, Ortolani MB, Beloti V, Franco BD. Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. in raw milk produced in Brazil: Occurrence and interference of indigenous microbiota in their isolation and development. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2008;**55**(6):299-305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01130.x

[53] Ruegg PL, Tabone TJ. The relationship between antibiotic residue violations and somatic cell counts in Wisconsin dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science. 2000;**83**:2805-2809. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75178-2

[54] Tan X, Jiang YW, Huang YJ, Hu SH. Persistence of gentamicin residues in milk after the intramammary treatment of lactating cows for mastitis. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. 2009;**10**(4):280-284. DOI: 10.1631/jzus. B0820198

[55] Chao G, Zhou X, Jiao X, Quian X, Xu L. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of food borne pathogens isolated from food products in China.

**199**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

Washington, DC: National Academic

[61] Bruhn JC, Ginn RE, Messer JW, Mikolajcik EM. Detection of antibiotic residues in milk and dairy products. In: Richarson GM, editor. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1985.

[62] Oliver SP, Mitchell BA. Prevalence

[63] Kasimoğlu A. Determination of Brucella ssp in raw milk and turkish white cheese in Kirikkale. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift.

[64] Hoob BC, Roberts D. Food Poisoning and Food Hygiene. 6th ed. London, UK: Edward Arnolds

[66] Skovgaard N. New trends in emerging pathogens. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007;**120**(3):217-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[67] Doyle MP, Beuchant L, Monteville TJ. Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC:

[68] Rohrbach BW, Draughon FA, Davidson PM, Oliver SP. Prevalence of *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, and Salmonella in bulk tank milk: Risk factors and risk of human

[65] Lal M, Kaur H, Gupta LK, Sood NK. Isolation of Yersinia enterocolitica from raw milk and pork in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology.

Publishers Limited; 1990

2005;**48**(2):286-287

ijfoodmicro.2007.07.046

ASM Press; 2001

of mastitis pathogens in herds participating in a mastitis control program. Journal of Dairy Science. 1984;**67**:2436-2440. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

S0022-0302(84)81592-1

2002;**109**(7):324-326

Press; 1999. p. 63

pp. 265-287

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[56] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Lagunas BS, Gutiérrez GB, Talavera RM, Alonso FU, Saltijeral OJ. *Staphylococcus aureus* methicillin resistant strain(MRSA) mínimum inhibitory enrofloxacin concentration in *Staphylococcus aureus* isolations obtained from cows with subclinical mastitis in family dairy farms. In: Krynsky A, Wrzesien R, editors. Proceedings XIIth International Congress ISAH 2005. Warsaw, Poland: International Society for Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Animal Science, Agricultural University; 2005.

[57] Trakulsonboon S, Danchaivijitr S, Rongrun-Granugruang Y, Dhiraputra C, Susaegrant W, Ito T, et al. First report of methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin in Thailand. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2001;**32**(2):591-595. DOI: 10.1128/

[58] Cercenado E, Ruiz de Gopegui E. Community-acquired methicillinresistant *Staphylococcus aureus*. Enfermedades Infecciosas y

Microbiología Clínica. 2008;**13**:19-13

[59] López-Vázquez M, Martínez-Castañeda JS, Talavera-Rojas M, Valdez-Alarcón JJ, Velázquez-Ordóñez V. Detection of mecA, mecI and mecR1 genes in methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* strains of bovine origin isolated from Family Dairy Farms, Mexico. Archivos de Medicina

Veterinaria. 2015;**47**:245-249

[60] Committee on drug use in food animals, Panel of animal health, Food safety, and Public Health, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. In: National Academy of Sciences, editor. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks.

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2007;**5**(3):277-284. DOI: 10.1089/

fpd.2007.0088

pp. 338-341

JCM.39.2.591-595.2001

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2007;**5**(3):277-284. DOI: 10.1089/ fpd.2007.0088

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

[49] Srinivasan V, Gillespie BE, Lewis MJ, Nguyen LT, Headrick SI, Schukken YH, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns of *Escherichia coli* isolated from dairy cows with mastitis. Veterinary Microbiology. 2007;**124**(3-4):319-328. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[50] Oliver SP, Lewis MJ, Gillespie BE, Ivey SJ, Coleman LH, Almeida RA, et al. Evaluation of a postmilking teat disinfectant containing a phenolic combination for the prevention of mastitis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Food Protection.

vetmic.2007.04.040

1999;**62**(11):1354-1357

[51] Rea MC, Cogan TM, Tobin S. Incidence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk in Ireland. The Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 1992;**73**(4):331-336

[52] Nero LA, de Mattos MR,

[53] Ruegg PL, Tabone TJ. The

B0820198

relationship between antibiotic residue violations and somatic cell counts in Wisconsin dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science. 2000;**83**:2805-2809. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75178-2

[54] Tan X, Jiang YW, Huang YJ, Hu SH. Persistence of gentamicin residues in milk after the intramammary treatment of lactating cows for mastitis. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. 2009;**10**(4):280-284. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.

[55] Chao G, Zhou X, Jiao X, Quian X, Xu L. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of food borne pathogens isolated from food products in China.

Barros M d A, Ortolani MB, Beloti V, Franco BD. Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. in raw milk produced in Brazil: Occurrence and interference of indigenous microbiota in their isolation and development. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2008;**55**(6):299-305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01130.x

[42] Cremonesi P, Perez G, Pisoni G, Moroni P, Morandi S, Luzzana M, et al. Detection of enterotoxigenic *Staphylococcus aureus* isolates in from raw milk cheeses in France. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2005;**41**(3):235-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2005.01756.x

[43] Tsegmed U, Normanno G, Pringle M, Krovacek K. Occurrence of enterotoxic *Staphylococcus aureus* in raw milk from yaks and cattle in Mongolia. Journal of Food Protection.

[44] Vernozy-Rozand C, Montet MP, Berardin M, Bavai C, Beutin L. Isolation and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli* strains from raw milk cheeses in France. Letters in Applied

Microbiology. 2005;**41**(3):235-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2005.01756.x

[45] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Vázquez CHJC, Pescador SN, Saltijeral OJ. Niveles de células somáticas en leche y resistencia a la mastitis. Producción

[46] Oliver SP, Calvinho LF. Influence of inflammation on mammary gland metabolism and milk composition.

[47] Damm M, Holm C, Blaabjerg M, Bro MN, Schwarz D. Differential somatic cell count—A novel method for routine mastitis screening in the frame of Dairy Herd Improvement testing programs. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(6):4926-4940. DOI: 10.3168/

[48] Frössling J, Ohlson A, Hallén-Sandgren C. Incidence and duration of increased somatic cell count in Swedish dairy cows and associations with milking system type. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(9):7368-7378. DOI:

Animal. 2005;**207**:15-23

Journal of Animal Science.

1995;**73**:18-33

jds.2016-12409

10.3168/jds.2016-12333

2007;**70**(7):1726-1729

**198**

[56] Velázquez-Ordoñez V, Lagunas BS, Gutiérrez GB, Talavera RM, Alonso FU, Saltijeral OJ. *Staphylococcus aureus* methicillin resistant strain(MRSA) mínimum inhibitory enrofloxacin concentration in *Staphylococcus aureus* isolations obtained from cows with subclinical mastitis in family dairy farms. In: Krynsky A, Wrzesien R, editors. Proceedings XIIth International Congress ISAH 2005. Warsaw, Poland: International Society for Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Animal Science, Agricultural University; 2005. pp. 338-341

[57] Trakulsonboon S, Danchaivijitr S, Rongrun-Granugruang Y, Dhiraputra C, Susaegrant W, Ito T, et al. First report of methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin in Thailand. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2001;**32**(2):591-595. DOI: 10.1128/ JCM.39.2.591-595.2001

[58] Cercenado E, Ruiz de Gopegui E. Community-acquired methicillinresistant *Staphylococcus aureus*. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. 2008;**13**:19-13

[59] López-Vázquez M, Martínez-Castañeda JS, Talavera-Rojas M, Valdez-Alarcón JJ, Velázquez-Ordóñez V. Detection of mecA, mecI and mecR1 genes in methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* strains of bovine origin isolated from Family Dairy Farms, Mexico. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria. 2015;**47**:245-249

[60] Committee on drug use in food animals, Panel of animal health, Food safety, and Public Health, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. In: National Academy of Sciences, editor. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks.

Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 1999. p. 63

[61] Bruhn JC, Ginn RE, Messer JW, Mikolajcik EM. Detection of antibiotic residues in milk and dairy products. In: Richarson GM, editor. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1985. pp. 265-287

[62] Oliver SP, Mitchell BA. Prevalence of mastitis pathogens in herds participating in a mastitis control program. Journal of Dairy Science. 1984;**67**:2436-2440. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(84)81592-1

[63] Kasimoğlu A. Determination of Brucella ssp in raw milk and turkish white cheese in Kirikkale. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift. 2002;**109**(7):324-326

[64] Hoob BC, Roberts D. Food Poisoning and Food Hygiene. 6th ed. London, UK: Edward Arnolds Publishers Limited; 1990

[65] Lal M, Kaur H, Gupta LK, Sood NK. Isolation of Yersinia enterocolitica from raw milk and pork in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology. 2005;**48**(2):286-287

[66] Skovgaard N. New trends in emerging pathogens. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007;**120**(3):217-224. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijfoodmicro.2007.07.046

[67] Doyle MP, Beuchant L, Monteville TJ. Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2001

[68] Rohrbach BW, Draughon FA, Davidson PM, Oliver SP. Prevalence of *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, and Salmonella in bulk tank milk: Risk factors and risk of human

exposure. Journal of Food Protection. 1992;**55**:93-97

[69] Dewey-Mattia D, Manikonda K, Hall AJ, Wise ME, Crowe SJ. Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks in the United States, 2009-2015. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. 2018;**67**(10):1-11. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6710a1

[70] Van Duynhoven YT, Isken LD, Borgen K, Besselse M, Soethoudt K, Haitsma O, et al. A prolonged outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infection related to an uncommon vehicle: Hard cheese made from raw milk. Epidemiology and Infection. 2009;**19**:1-10

[71] Ackers ML, Schoenfeld S, Markman J, Smith MG, Nicholson MA, De Witt W, et al. An outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica O:8 infections associated with pasteurized milk. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2000;**181**(5): 1834-1837. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2006.3.274

[72] Denny J, Bhat M, Eckmann K. Outbreak of *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 associated with raw milk consumption in the Pacific Northwest. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2008;**5**(3): 321-328. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2007.0072

[73] Fremaux B, Prigent-Combaret C, Vernozy-Rozand C. Long-term survival of Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli* in cattle effluents and environment: An updated review. Veterinary Microbiology. 2008;**132**(1-2):1-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.05.015

[74] Paneto BR, Schocken-Iturrino RP, Macedo C, Santo E, Marin JM. Occurrence of toxigenic *Escherichia coli* in raw milk cheese in Brazil. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 2007;**59**(2):508-512

[75] Allerberger F, Friedrich AW, Grif K, Dierich MP, Dornbusch HJ, Mache CJ, et al. Hemolytic-uremic syndrome associated with enterohemorrhagic *Escherichia coli* O26:H infection and consumption of unpasteurized cow's milk. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2003;**7**(1):42-45

[76] Coorevits A, De Jonghe V, Vandroemme J, Reekmans R, Heyrman J, Messens W, et al. Comparative analysis of the diversity of aerobic spore-forming bacteria in raw milk from organic and conventional dairy farms. Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 2008;**31**(2):126-140. DOI: 10.1016/j. syapm.2008.03.002

[77] Christiansson A, Bertilsson J, Svensson B. Bacillus cereus spores in raw milk: Factors affecting the contamination of milk during the grazing period. Journal of Dairy Science. 1999;**82**(2):305-314. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75237-9

[78] Scheldeman P, Pil A, Herman L, De Vos P, Heyndrickx M. Incidence and diversity of potentially highly heat-resistant spores isolated at dairy farms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;**71**(3):1480-1494. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.3.1480-1494.2005

[79] Dogan B, Boor KJ. Genetic diversity and spoilage potentials among Pseudomonas spp. isolated from fluid milk products and dairy processing plants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;**69**(1):130-138. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.1.130-138.2003

[80] Guan RF, Liu DH, Ye XQ, Yang K. Use of fluorometry for determination of skim milk powder adulteration in fresh milk. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. 2005;**6**(11):1101-1106. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.69.1.130-138.2003

[81] Baumann A, Sadkowska-Todys M. Foodborne infections and intoxications in Poland in 2006. Przegla̧d Epidemiologiczny. 2008;**62**(2):275-286

**201**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

08.002

[89] Vilar MJ, Rodríguez-Otero JL, Sanjuán ML, Diéguez FJ, Varela M, Yus E. Implementation of HACCP to control the influence of milking equipment and cooling tank on the milk quality. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2012;**23**:4-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.

[90] Haug A, Hostmark A, Harstad O. Bovine milk in human nutrition—A review. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2007;**6**:25. DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-6-25

[91] Hill B, Smythe B, Lindsay D, Shepherd J. Microbiology of raw milk in New Zealand. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2012;**157**:305-308. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.031

[92] Addis MF, Tanca A, Uzzau S, Oikonomou G, Bicalho RC, Moroni P. The bovine milk microbiota: Insights and perspectives from-omics studies. Molecular BioSystems. 2016;**12**: 2359-2372. DOI: 10.1039/C6MB00217J

[93] Verdier-Metz I, Michel V, Delbès C, Montel MC. Do milking practices influence the bacterial diversity of raw milk? Food Microbiology. 2009;**26**: 305-310. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2008.12.005

[94] Vacheyrou M, Normand AC, Guyot P, Cassagne C, Piarroux R, Bouton Y. Cultivable microbial communities in raw cow milk and potential transfers from stables of sixteen French farms. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;**146**:253-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.02.033

[95] Braem G, De Vliegher S, Verbist B, Heyndrickx M, Leroy F, De Vuyst L. Culture-independent exploration of the teat apex microbiota of dairy cows reveals a wide bacterial species diversity. Veterinary Microbiology. 2012;**157**: 383-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.

[96] Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR, Jayarao BM. Risk factors for

12.031

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[82] Julien MC, Dion P, Lafrenière C, Antoun H, Drouin P. Sources of clostridia in raw milk on farms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2008;**74**(20):6348-6357. DOI: 10.1128/

[83] Gomes BC, Esteves CT, Palazzo IC, Darini AL, Felis GE, Sechi LA, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Enterococcus spp. isolated from Brazilian foods. Food Microbiology. 2008;**25**(5):668-675. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[84] Magnusson M, Christiansson A, Svensson B. Bacillus cereus spores during housing of dairy cows: Factors affecting contamination of raw milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**(6):2745-2754. DOI: 10.3168/

AEM.00913-08

fm.2008.03.008

jds.2006-754

[85] Banykó J, Vyletelová M. Determining the source of *Bacillus cereus* and *Bacillus licheniformis* isolated from raw milk, pasteurized milk and yoghurt. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2009;**48**(3):318-323. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02526.x

2005;**82**(6):280-284

[88] Joint FAO/WHO Codex

Alimentarius Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Animal Food Production. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization; 2008. 192 p

[86] Ombui JN, Nduhiu JG. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic *Bacillus cereus* and its enterotoxins in milk and milk products in and around Nairobi. East African Medical Journal.

[87] Beerens H, Hass Brac de la Perriere B, Gavini F. Evaluation of the hygienic quality of raw milk based on the presence of bifidobacteria: The cow as a source of faecal contamination. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2000;**54**(3):163-169

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[82] Julien MC, Dion P, Lafrenière C, Antoun H, Drouin P. Sources of clostridia in raw milk on farms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2008;**74**(20):6348-6357. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.00913-08

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

associated with enterohemorrhagic *Escherichia coli* O26:H infection and consumption of unpasteurized cow's milk. International Journal of Infectious

Diseases. 2003;**7**(1):42-45

syapm.2008.03.002

[76] Coorevits A, De Jonghe V,

[77] Christiansson A, Bertilsson J, Svensson B. Bacillus cereus spores in raw milk: Factors affecting the contamination of milk during the grazing period. Journal of Dairy Science. 1999;**82**(2):305-314. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75237-9

[78] Scheldeman P, Pil A, Herman L, De Vos P, Heyndrickx M. Incidence and diversity of potentially highly heat-resistant spores isolated at dairy farms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;**71**(3):1480-1494. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.3.1480-1494.2005

[79] Dogan B, Boor KJ. Genetic

10.1128/AEM.69.1.130-138.2003

[80] Guan RF, Liu DH, Ye XQ, Yang K. Use of fluorometry for determination of skim milk powder adulteration in fresh milk. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. 2005;**6**(11):1101-1106. DOI: 10.1128/

AEM.69.1.130-138.2003

2008;**62**(2):275-286

[81] Baumann A, Sadkowska-Todys M. Foodborne infections and intoxications in Poland in 2006. Przegla̧d Epidemiologiczny.

diversity and spoilage potentials among Pseudomonas spp. isolated from fluid milk products and dairy processing plants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;**69**(1):130-138. DOI:

Vandroemme J, Reekmans R, Heyrman J, Messens W, et al. Comparative analysis of the diversity of aerobic spore-forming bacteria in raw milk from organic and conventional dairy farms. Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 2008;**31**(2):126-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.

exposure. Journal of Food Protection.

[69] Dewey-Mattia D, Manikonda K,

[70] Van Duynhoven YT, Isken LD, Borgen K, Besselse M, Soethoudt K, Haitsma O, et al. A prolonged outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infection related to an uncommon vehicle: Hard cheese made from raw milk. Epidemiology and Infection.

[71] Ackers ML, Schoenfeld S, Markman J, Smith MG, Nicholson MA, De Witt W, et al. An outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica O:8 infections associated with pasteurized milk. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2000;**181**(5): 1834-1837. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2006.3.274

[72] Denny J, Bhat M, Eckmann K. Outbreak of *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 associated with raw milk consumption in the Pacific Northwest. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2008;**5**(3): 321-328. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2007.0072

[73] Fremaux B, Prigent-Combaret C, Vernozy-Rozand C. Long-term survival of Shiga toxin-producing *Escherichia coli* in cattle effluents and environment:

Microbiology. 2008;**132**(1-2):1-18. DOI:

[74] Paneto BR, Schocken-Iturrino RP,

Occurrence of toxigenic *Escherichia coli* in raw milk cheese in Brazil. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 2007;**59**(2):508-512

[75] Allerberger F, Friedrich AW, Grif K, Dierich MP, Dornbusch HJ, Mache CJ, et al. Hemolytic-uremic syndrome

An updated review. Veterinary

10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.05.015

Macedo C, Santo E, Marin JM.

Hall AJ, Wise ME, Crowe SJ. Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks in the United States, 2009-2015. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. 2018;**67**(10):1-11. DOI:

10.15585/mmwr.ss6710a1

1992;**55**:93-97

2009;**19**:1-10

**200**

[83] Gomes BC, Esteves CT, Palazzo IC, Darini AL, Felis GE, Sechi LA, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Enterococcus spp. isolated from Brazilian foods. Food Microbiology. 2008;**25**(5):668-675. DOI: 10.1016/j. fm.2008.03.008

[84] Magnusson M, Christiansson A, Svensson B. Bacillus cereus spores during housing of dairy cows: Factors affecting contamination of raw milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**(6):2745-2754. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2006-754

[85] Banykó J, Vyletelová M. Determining the source of *Bacillus cereus* and *Bacillus licheniformis* isolated from raw milk, pasteurized milk and yoghurt. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2009;**48**(3):318-323. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02526.x

[86] Ombui JN, Nduhiu JG. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic *Bacillus cereus* and its enterotoxins in milk and milk products in and around Nairobi. East African Medical Journal. 2005;**82**(6):280-284

[87] Beerens H, Hass Brac de la Perriere B, Gavini F. Evaluation of the hygienic quality of raw milk based on the presence of bifidobacteria: The cow as a source of faecal contamination. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2000;**54**(3):163-169

[88] Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Animal Food Production. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization; 2008. 192 p

[89] Vilar MJ, Rodríguez-Otero JL, Sanjuán ML, Diéguez FJ, Varela M, Yus E. Implementation of HACCP to control the influence of milking equipment and cooling tank on the milk quality. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2012;**23**:4-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2011. 08.002

[90] Haug A, Hostmark A, Harstad O. Bovine milk in human nutrition—A review. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2007;**6**:25. DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-6-25

[91] Hill B, Smythe B, Lindsay D, Shepherd J. Microbiology of raw milk in New Zealand. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2012;**157**:305-308. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.031

[92] Addis MF, Tanca A, Uzzau S, Oikonomou G, Bicalho RC, Moroni P. The bovine milk microbiota: Insights and perspectives from-omics studies. Molecular BioSystems. 2016;**12**: 2359-2372. DOI: 10.1039/C6MB00217J

[93] Verdier-Metz I, Michel V, Delbès C, Montel MC. Do milking practices influence the bacterial diversity of raw milk? Food Microbiology. 2009;**26**: 305-310. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2008.12.005

[94] Vacheyrou M, Normand AC, Guyot P, Cassagne C, Piarroux R, Bouton Y. Cultivable microbial communities in raw cow milk and potential transfers from stables of sixteen French farms. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;**146**:253-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.02.033

[95] Braem G, De Vliegher S, Verbist B, Heyndrickx M, Leroy F, De Vuyst L. Culture-independent exploration of the teat apex microbiota of dairy cows reveals a wide bacterial species diversity. Veterinary Microbiology. 2012;**157**: 383-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011. 12.031

[96] Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR, Jayarao BM. Risk factors for bacteriological quality of bulk tank milk in Prince Edward Island dairy herds. Part 1: Overall risk factors. Journal of Dairy Science. 2009;**92**:2634-2643. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1812

[97] Murphy SC, Boor KJ. Troubleshooting sources and causes of high bacteria counts in raw milk. Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation. 2000;**20**:606-611

[98] Gillespie BE, Lewis MJ, Boonyayatra S, Maxwell ML, Saxton A, Oliver SP, et al. Short communication: Evaluation of bulk tank milk microbiological quality of nine dairy farms in Tennessee. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;**95**: 4275-4279. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4881

[99] Barbano DM, Ma Y, Santos MV. Influence of raw milk quality on fluid milk shelf life. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;**89**:E15-E19. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(06)72360-8

[100] American Public Health Association (APHA), Downes FP, Ito K. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2001. 676 p

[101] Innocente N, Biasutti M. Automatic milking systems in the Protected Designation of Origin Montasio cheese production chain: Effects on milk and cheese quality. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013;**96**:740-751. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2012-5512

[102] European Union. Regulation (EC) N° 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin [Internet]. 2004. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139: 0055:0205:EN:PDFPDF [Accessed: 2018-12-15]

[103] Cziszter L, Acatinc S, Neciu FC, Ionel R, Ilie DE, Costin LI, et al.

The influence of season on the cow milk quantity, quality and hygiene. Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies. 2012;**45**:305-312

[104] Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR, Wichtel JJ, Stryhn H, Dingwell RT. The association between bulk tank milk analysis for raw milk quality and on-farm management practices. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2010;**95**:32-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.03.007

[105] Zucali M, Bava L, Tamburini A, Brasca M, Vanoni L, Sandrucci A. Effects of season, milking routine and cow cleanliness on bacterial and somatic cell counts of bulk tank milk. Journal of Dairy Research. 2011;**78**:436-441. DOI: 10.1017/ S0022029911000598

[106] Martins ML, Pinto CLO, Rocha RB, de Araújo EF, Vanetti MCD. Genetic diversity of Gram-negative, proteolytic, psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from refrigerated raw milk. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006;**111**:144-148. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijfoodmicro.2006.06.020

[107] Jay JM. Microbiología Moderna de los Alimentos. 5th ed. Acribia: Zaragoza; 2009. 788 p

[108] Hayes MC, Ralyea RD, Murphy SC, Carey NR, Scarlett JM, Boor KJ. Identification and characterization of elevated microbial counts in bulk tank raw milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2001;**84**:292-298. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(01)74479-7

[109] Signorini M, Sequeira G, Bonazza J, Dalla Santina R, Otero J, Rosmini M. Variación estacional en los principales indicadores de higiene de leche cruda de un tambo de la cuenca central. FAVE Sección Ciencias Veterinarias. 2003;**2**:97-110. DOI: 10.14409/favecv.v2i2.1391

**203**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

[119] Jayarao BM, Pillai SR, Sawant AA, Wolfgang DR, Hegde NV. Guidelines for monitoring bulk tank milk somatic cell and bacterial counts. Journal of Dairy Science. 2004;**87**:3561-3573. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73493-1

[120] Janštová B, Dračková M, Vorlová L. Effect of Bacillus cereus enzymes on the milk quality following ultra high temperature processing. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 2006;**75**:601-609. DOI:

10.2754/avb200675040601

[121] Cronin UP, Wilkinson MG. Bacillus cereus endospores exhibit a heterogeneous response to heat treatment and low-temperature storage. Food Microbiology. 2008;**25**:235-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2007.11.004

[122] Zhou G, Zheng D, Dou L, Cai Q, Yuan Z. Occurrence of psychrotolerant *Bacillus cereus* group strains in ice creams. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2010;**137**:143-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.005

[123] Meer RR, Baker J, Bodyfelt FW, Griffiths MW. Psychrotrophic Bacillus spp. in fluid milk products:

Protection. 1991;**54**:969-979. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-54.12.969

psychrotrophic, spore forming bacteria from raw milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 1999;**52**:59-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.1999.tb02072.x

[126] Griffiths M. *Bacillus cereus* in liquid milk and other milk products. Bulletin

[124] Matta H, Punj V. Isolation and identification of lipolytic,

[125] Svensson B, Eneroth ÅSA, Brendehaug J, Molin G, Christiansson A. Involvement of a pasteurizer in the contamination of milk by *Bacillus cereus* in a commercial dairy plant. Journal of Dairy Research. 2000;**67**:455-460. DOI: 10.1017/

S0022029900004313

A review. Journal of Food

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[110] Samarzija D, Zamberlin S, Pogacic T. Psychrotrophic bacteria and milk and dairy products quality. Mljekarstvo.

[111] Chen L, Daniel RM, Coolbear T. Detection and impact of protease and lipase activities in milk and milk powders. International Dairy Journal. 2003;**13**:255-275. DOI: 10.1016/ S0958-6946(02)00171-1

[112] Cousin MA. Presence and activity of psychrotrophic microorganisms in milk and dairy products: A review. Journal of Food Protection. 1982;**45**:

[113] Cempírková R. Psychrotrophic vs. total bacterial counts in bulk milk samples. Veterinarni Medicina-Praha.

Psychrotrophic bacteria Pseudomonas spp. In: John WF, editor. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2011. pp. 379-383

[115] Gleeson D, O'Connell A, Jordan K. Review of potential sources and control of thermoduric bacteria in bulktank milk. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research. 2013;**52**:217-227

[116] Buehner KP, Anand S, Djira GD, Garcia A. Prevalence of thermoduric bacteria and spores on 10 Midwest dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;**97**:6777-6784. DOI: 10.3168/

[117] Thomas A, Prasad V. Thermoduric

International Journal of Science and

bacteria in milk—A review.

Research. 2012;**3**:2438-2442

[118] Hull R, Toyne S, Haynes I, Lehmann F. Thermoduric bacteria: A re-emerging problem in cheesemaking. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology.

172-207. DOI: 10.4315/0362-

[114] Mcphee J, Griffiths M.

028X-45.2.172

2002;**47**:227-233

jds.2014-8342

1992;**47**:91-95

2012;**62**:77-95

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[110] Samarzija D, Zamberlin S, Pogacic T. Psychrotrophic bacteria and milk and dairy products quality. Mljekarstvo. 2012;**62**:77-95

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

The influence of season on the cow milk quantity, quality and hygiene. Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies. 2012;**45**:305-312

[104] Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR, Wichtel JJ, Stryhn H, Dingwell RT. The association between bulk tank milk analysis for raw milk quality and on-farm management practices. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2010;**95**:32-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.03.007

[105] Zucali M, Bava L, Tamburini A, Brasca M, Vanoni L, Sandrucci A. Effects of season, milking routine and cow cleanliness on bacterial and somatic cell counts of bulk tank milk. Journal of Dairy Research. 2011;**78**:436-441. DOI: 10.1017/

[106] Martins ML, Pinto CLO, Rocha RB, de Araújo EF, Vanetti MCD. Genetic diversity of Gram-negative, proteolytic, psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from refrigerated raw milk. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006;**111**:144-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[107] Jay JM. Microbiología Moderna de los Alimentos. 5th ed. Acribia: Zaragoza;

[108] Hayes MC, Ralyea RD, Murphy SC,

Carey NR, Scarlett JM, Boor KJ. Identification and characterization of elevated microbial counts in bulk tank raw milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2001;**84**:292-298. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

S0022-0302(01)74479-7

10.14409/favecv.v2i2.1391

[109] Signorini M, Sequeira G, Bonazza J, Dalla Santina R, Otero J, Rosmini M. Variación estacional en los principales indicadores de higiene de leche cruda de un tambo de la cuenca central. FAVE Sección Ciencias Veterinarias. 2003;**2**:97-110. DOI:

S0022029911000598

ijfoodmicro.2006.06.020

2009. 788 p

bacteriological quality of bulk tank milk in Prince Edward Island dairy herds. Part 1: Overall risk factors. Journal of Dairy Science. 2009;**92**:2634-2643. DOI:

[97] Murphy SC, Boor KJ. Troubleshooting sources and causes of high bacteria counts in raw milk. Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation.

[98] Gillespie BE, Lewis MJ, Boonyayatra S, Maxwell ML, Saxton A, Oliver SP, et al. Short communication: Evaluation of bulk tank milk microbiological quality of nine dairy farms in Tennessee. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;**95**: 4275-4279. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4881

[99] Barbano DM, Ma Y, Santos MV. Influence of raw milk quality on fluid milk shelf life. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;**89**:E15-E19. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

S0022-0302(06)72360-8

[100] American Public Health

Association (APHA), Downes FP, Ito K. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2001. 676 p

[101] Innocente N, Biasutti M. Automatic

milking systems in the Protected Designation of Origin Montasio cheese production chain: Effects on milk and cheese quality. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013;**96**:740-751. DOI: 10.3168/

[102] European Union. Regulation (EC) N° 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin [Internet]. 2004. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139: 0055:0205:EN:PDFPDF [Accessed:

[103] Cziszter L, Acatinc S, Neciu FC, Ionel R, Ilie DE, Costin LI, et al.

jds.2012-5512

2018-12-15]

10.3168/jds.2008-1812

2000;**20**:606-611

**202**

[111] Chen L, Daniel RM, Coolbear T. Detection and impact of protease and lipase activities in milk and milk powders. International Dairy Journal. 2003;**13**:255-275. DOI: 10.1016/ S0958-6946(02)00171-1

[112] Cousin MA. Presence and activity of psychrotrophic microorganisms in milk and dairy products: A review. Journal of Food Protection. 1982;**45**: 172-207. DOI: 10.4315/0362- 028X-45.2.172

[113] Cempírková R. Psychrotrophic vs. total bacterial counts in bulk milk samples. Veterinarni Medicina-Praha. 2002;**47**:227-233

[114] Mcphee J, Griffiths M. Psychrotrophic bacteria Pseudomonas spp. In: John WF, editor. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2011. pp. 379-383

[115] Gleeson D, O'Connell A, Jordan K. Review of potential sources and control of thermoduric bacteria in bulktank milk. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research. 2013;**52**:217-227

[116] Buehner KP, Anand S, Djira GD, Garcia A. Prevalence of thermoduric bacteria and spores on 10 Midwest dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;**97**:6777-6784. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2014-8342

[117] Thomas A, Prasad V. Thermoduric bacteria in milk—A review. International Journal of Science and Research. 2012;**3**:2438-2442

[118] Hull R, Toyne S, Haynes I, Lehmann F. Thermoduric bacteria: A re-emerging problem in cheesemaking. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology. 1992;**47**:91-95

[119] Jayarao BM, Pillai SR, Sawant AA, Wolfgang DR, Hegde NV. Guidelines for monitoring bulk tank milk somatic cell and bacterial counts. Journal of Dairy Science. 2004;**87**:3561-3573. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73493-1

[120] Janštová B, Dračková M, Vorlová L. Effect of Bacillus cereus enzymes on the milk quality following ultra high temperature processing. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 2006;**75**:601-609. DOI: 10.2754/avb200675040601

[121] Cronin UP, Wilkinson MG. Bacillus cereus endospores exhibit a heterogeneous response to heat treatment and low-temperature storage. Food Microbiology. 2008;**25**:235-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2007.11.004

[122] Zhou G, Zheng D, Dou L, Cai Q, Yuan Z. Occurrence of psychrotolerant *Bacillus cereus* group strains in ice creams. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2010;**137**:143-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.005

[123] Meer RR, Baker J, Bodyfelt FW, Griffiths MW. Psychrotrophic Bacillus spp. in fluid milk products: A review. Journal of Food Protection. 1991;**54**:969-979. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-54.12.969

[124] Matta H, Punj V. Isolation and identification of lipolytic, psychrotrophic, spore forming bacteria from raw milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 1999;**52**:59-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.1999.tb02072.x

[125] Svensson B, Eneroth ÅSA, Brendehaug J, Molin G, Christiansson A. Involvement of a pasteurizer in the contamination of milk by *Bacillus cereus* in a commercial dairy plant. Journal of Dairy Research. 2000;**67**:455-460. DOI: 10.1017/ S0022029900004313

[126] Griffiths M. *Bacillus cereus* in liquid milk and other milk products. Bulletin

of International Dairy Federation. 1992;**275**:36-39

[127] Walstra P. Ciencia de la leche y tecnología de los productos lácteos. Zaragoza: Acribia; 2001. 730 p

[128] Gebrte-Egziabher A, Humbert E, Blankenagel G. Hydrolysis of milk proteins by microbial enzymes. Journal of Food Protection. 1980;**43**:709-712. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-43.9.709

[129] Fajardo-Lira C, Oria M, Hayes KD, Nielsen SS. Effect of psychrotrophic bacteria and of an isolated protease from *Pseudomonas fluorescens* M3/6 on the plasmin system of fresh milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2000;**83**:2190-2199. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(00)75102-2

[130] Samaržija D, Zamberlin Š, Pogačić T. Psychrotrophic bacteria and milk and dairy products quality. Mljekarstvo. 2001;**62**:77-95. DOI: 10.1016/ S0924-2244(97)01006-6

[131] Datta N, Deeth HC. Diagnosing the cause of proteolysis in UHT milk. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2003;**36**:173-182. DOI: 10.1016/ S0023-6438(02)00214-1

[132] Nörnberg MFBL, Friedrich RSC, Weiss RDN, Tondo EC, Brandelli A. Proteolytic activity among psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from refrigerated raw milk. International Journals Dairy Technology. 2010;**63**:41-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2009.00542.x

[133] Rukure G, Bester BH. Survival and growth of bacillus cereus during gouda cheese manufacturing. Food Control. 2001;**12**:31-36. DOI: 10.1016/ S0956-7135(00)00016-5

[134] Janštová B, Lukášová J, Dračková M, Vorlová L. Influence of Bacillus spp. enzymes on ultra high temperaturetreated milk proteins. Acta Veterinaria

Brno. 2004;**73**:393-400. DOI: 10.2754/ avb200473030393

[135] Perin LM, Moraes PM, Nero LA. Interference of storage temperatures in the development of mesophilic, psychrotrophic, lipolytic and proteolytic microbiota of milk R. Semina: Ciências Agrárias. 2012;**33**:333-342. DOI: 10.1590/1808-1657000102013

[136] Cousin MA, Marth EH. Changes in milk proteins caused by psychrotrophic bacteria. Milkwissenschaft. 1977;**32**(377):341. Available from: https://eurekamag.com/ research/000/310/000310950.php

[137] Mankai M, Boulares M, Moussa OB, Karoui R, Hassouna M. The effect of refrigerated storage of raw milk on the physicochemical and microbiological quality of Tunisian semihard gouda-type cheese during ripening. International Journals Dairy Technology. 2012;**65**:250-259. DOI: 10.1017/S0022029900032957

[138] Corsetti A, Rossi J, Gobbetti M. Interactions between yeasts and bacteria in the smear surface-ripened cheeses. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2001;**69**:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00567-0

[139] Gassem MA, Frank JF. Physical properties of yogurt made from milk treated with proteolytic enzymes. Journal of Dairy Science. 1991;**74**:1503-1511. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(91)78310-0

[140] Sørhaug T, Stepaniak L. Psychrotrophs and their enzymes in milk and dairy products: Quality aspects. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 1997;**8**:35-41. DOI: 10.1016/ S0924-2244(97)01006-6

[141] Stead D. Microbial lipases: Their characteristic, role in food spoilage and industrial uses. Journal of Dairy

**205**

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

[142] JD MP, Griffiths MW. In: Roginski

Research. 1986;**53**:481-505. DOI: 10.1017/S0022029900025103

H, Fuquay WJ, Fox FP, editors. Pseudomonas spp. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. Vol. 4. Academic Press;

2002. pp. 2340-2350

*Microbial Contamination in Milk Quality and Health Risk of the Consumers of Raw Milk… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86182*

Research. 1986;**53**:481-505. DOI: 10.1017/S0022029900025103

*Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time*

Brno. 2004;**73**:393-400. DOI: 10.2754/

[135] Perin LM, Moraes PM, Nero LA. Interference of storage temperatures in the development of mesophilic, psychrotrophic, lipolytic and proteolytic microbiota of milk R. Semina: Ciências Agrárias. 2012;**33**:333-342. DOI: 10.1590/1808-1657000102013

[136] Cousin MA, Marth EH. Changes in milk proteins caused by psychrotrophic bacteria.

Milkwissenschaft. 1977;**32**(377):341. Available from: https://eurekamag.com/ research/000/310/000310950.php

[137] Mankai M, Boulares M, Moussa OB, Karoui R, Hassouna M. The effect of refrigerated storage of raw milk on the physicochemical and microbiological quality of Tunisian semihard gouda-type cheese during ripening. International Journals Dairy Technology. 2012;**65**:250-259. DOI: 10.1017/S0022029900032957

[138] Corsetti A, Rossi J, Gobbetti M. Interactions between yeasts and bacteria in the smear surface-ripened cheeses. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2001;**69**:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00567-0

[139] Gassem MA, Frank JF. Physical properties of yogurt made from milk treated with proteolytic enzymes. Journal of Dairy Science. 1991;**74**:1503-1511. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

S0022-0302(91)78310-0

S0924-2244(97)01006-6

[141] Stead D. Microbial lipases: Their characteristic, role in food spoilage and industrial uses. Journal of Dairy

[140] Sørhaug T, Stepaniak L. Psychrotrophs and their enzymes in milk and dairy products: Quality aspects. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 1997;**8**:35-41. DOI: 10.1016/

avb200473030393

of International Dairy Federation.

[127] Walstra P. Ciencia de la leche y tecnología de los productos lácteos. Zaragoza: Acribia; 2001. 730 p

[128] Gebrte-Egziabher A, Humbert E, Blankenagel G. Hydrolysis of milk proteins by microbial enzymes. Journal of Food Protection. 1980;**43**:709-712. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-43.9.709

[129] Fajardo-Lira C, Oria M, Hayes KD, Nielsen SS. Effect of psychrotrophic bacteria and of an isolated protease from *Pseudomonas fluorescens* M3/6 on the plasmin system of fresh milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2000;**83**:2190-2199. DOI: 10.3168/jds.

[130] Samaržija D, Zamberlin Š, Pogačić T. Psychrotrophic bacteria and milk and dairy products quality. Mljekarstvo. 2001;**62**:77-95. DOI: 10.1016/ S0924-2244(97)01006-6

[131] Datta N, Deeth HC. Diagnosing the cause of proteolysis in UHT milk. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2003;**36**:173-182. DOI: 10.1016/ S0023-6438(02)00214-1

[132] Nörnberg MFBL, Friedrich RSC, Weiss RDN, Tondo EC, Brandelli A. Proteolytic activity among psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from refrigerated raw milk. International Journals Dairy Technology. 2010;**63**:41-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2009.00542.x

[133] Rukure G, Bester BH. Survival and growth of bacillus cereus during gouda cheese manufacturing. Food Control. 2001;**12**:31-36. DOI: 10.1016/

[134] Janštová B, Lukášová J, Dračková M, Vorlová L. Influence of Bacillus spp. enzymes on ultra high temperaturetreated milk proteins. Acta Veterinaria

S0956-7135(00)00016-5

S0022-0302(00)75102-2

1992;**275**:36-39

**204**

[142] JD MP, Griffiths MW. In: Roginski H, Fuquay WJ, Fox FP, editors. Pseudomonas spp. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. Vol. 4. Academic Press; 2002. pp. 2340-2350

**207**

Section 6

Food Safety Detection

Section 6
