Linking microbial contamination to food spoilage and food waste: the role of smart packaging, spoilage risk assessments, and date labeling.

Shraddha Karanth, Shuyi Feng, Debasmita Patra, Abani K Pradhan
Author Information
  1. Shraddha Karanth: Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.
  2. Shuyi Feng: Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.
  3. Debasmita Patra: University of Maryland Extension, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College Park, MD, United States.
  4. Abani K Pradhan: Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

Abstract

Ensuring a safe and adequate food supply is a cornerstone of human health and food security. However, a significant portion of the food produced for human consumption is wasted annually on a global scale. Reducing harvest and postharvest food waste, waste during food processing, as well as food waste at the consumer level, have been key objectives of improving and maintaining sustainability. These issues can range from damage during processing, handling, and transport, to the use of inappropriate or outdated systems, and storage and packaging-related issues. Microbial growth and (cross)contamination during harvest, processing, and packaging, which causes spoilage and safety issues in both fresh and packaged foods, is an overarching issue contributing to food waste. Microbial causes of food spoilage are typically bacterial or fungal in nature and can impact fresh, processed, and packaged foods. Moreover, spoilage can be influenced by the intrinsic factors of the food (water activity, pH), initial load of the microorganism and its interaction with the surrounding microflora, and external factors such as temperature abuse and food acidity, among others. Considering this multifaceted nature of the food system and the factors driving microbial spoilage, there is an immediate need for the use of novel approaches to predict and potentially prevent the occurrence of such spoilage to minimize food waste at the harvest, post-harvest, processing, and consumer levels. Quantitative microbial spoilage risk assessment (QMSRA) is a predictive framework that analyzes information on microbial behavior under the various conditions encountered within the food ecosystem, while employing a probabilistic approach to account for uncertainty and variability. Widespread adoption of the QMSRA approach could help in predicting and preventing the occurrence of spoilage along the food chain. Alternatively, the use of advanced packaging technologies would serve as a direct prevention strategy, potentially minimizing (cross)contamination and assuring the safe handling of foods, in order to reduce food waste at the post-harvest and retail stages. Finally, increasing transparency and consumer knowledge regarding food date labels, which typically are indicators of food quality rather than food safety, could also contribute to reduced food waste at the consumer level. The objective of this review is to highlight the impact of microbial spoilage and (cross)contamination events on food loss and waste. The review also discusses some novel methods to mitigate food spoilage and food loss and waste, and ensure the quality and safety of our food supply.

Keywords

References

  1. Meat Sci. 2016 Dec;122:16-24 [PMID: 27468139]
  2. Food Microbiol. 2012 May;30(1):164-72 [PMID: 22265297]
  3. Int J Food Microbiol. 1992 Jan-Feb;15(1-2):61-75 [PMID: 1622760]
  4. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016 Nov 21;237:98-108 [PMID: 27552347]
  5. Poult Sci. 1995 Dec;74(12):2041-7 [PMID: 8825595]
  6. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019 Sep;18(5):1622-1635 [PMID: 33336914]
  7. J Food Prot. 2011 Jun;74(6):986-9 [PMID: 21669077]
  8. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Nov;100(11):8814-8825 [PMID: 28918151]
  9. J Dairy Sci. 2019 Jul;102(7):5979-6000 [PMID: 31128867]
  10. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Mar 15;81(2):105-11 [PMID: 12457584]
  11. J Dairy Sci. 2015 Nov;98(11):7460-72 [PMID: 26298753]
  12. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011 Aug;61(Pt 8):1962-1967 [PMID: 20817843]
  13. Food Microbiol. 2010 Sep;27(6):698-709 [PMID: 20630312]
  14. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2005;31(1):33-44 [PMID: 15839403]
  15. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2014 May 05;372(2017):20130304 [PMID: 24797133]
  16. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020 Nov 16;333:108781 [PMID: 32711130]
  17. Meat Sci. 2015 Feb;100:283-90 [PMID: 25460138]
  18. Food Chem. 2022 Mar 30;373(Pt B):131448 [PMID: 34731806]
  19. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(6):1048-1061 [PMID: 30633547]
  20. Plant Dis. 1999 Nov;83(11):1051-1054 [PMID: 30841275]
  21. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996 Nov;33(1):1-18 [PMID: 8913806]
  22. Microorganisms. 2019 Mar 23;7(3): [PMID: 30909614]
  23. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014 Feb 3;171:119-28 [PMID: 24334097]
  24. J Food Prot. 2006 Jul;69(7):1623-9 [PMID: 16865896]
  25. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011 Nov 1;150(2-3):81-94 [PMID: 21868118]
  26. J Food Prot. 2008 Feb;71(2):356-64 [PMID: 18326187]
  27. J Dairy Sci. 2015 Dec;98(12):8368-74 [PMID: 26433412]
  28. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015 Nov 20;213:124-9 [PMID: 26032815]
  29. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2014 May 05;372(2017):20130303 [PMID: 24797132]
  30. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007 Jan 25;113(2):154-63 [PMID: 17169455]
  31. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6689-97 [PMID: 16269698]
  32. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015 Oct 15;211:57-65 [PMID: 26173200]
  33. Foods. 2020 Dec 23;10(1): [PMID: 33374572]
  34. Food Microbiol. 2009 Apr;26(2):228-31 [PMID: 19171267]
  35. Waste Manag. 2017 Mar;61:461-472 [PMID: 28038904]
  36. Foods. 2022 Sep 29;11(19): [PMID: 36230100]
  37. J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jan;101(1):861-870 [PMID: 29103726]
  38. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2014 May 05;372(2017):20130302 [PMID: 24797131]
  39. Polymers (Basel). 2021 Oct 22;13(21): [PMID: 34771203]
  40. Front Microbiol. 2020 Oct 15;11:582778 [PMID: 33178163]
  41. Poult Sci. 2008 Aug;87(8):1678-81 [PMID: 18648066]
  42. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 03;17(5): [PMID: 32138334]
  43. Meat Sci. 2014 Sep;98(1):71-80 [PMID: 24875594]
  44. Int J Food Microbiol. 2017 Jan 2;240:75-84 [PMID: 27325576]
  45. Food Microbiol. 2017 Aug;65:264-273 [PMID: 28400012]
  46. J Food Prot. 1996 Jan;59(1):59-61 [PMID: 31158955]
  47. J Agric Food Chem. 2006 May 17;54(10):3604-11 [PMID: 19127732]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0foodspoilagewastemicrobialcontaminationprocessingconsumercrosspackagingharvestissuescanusesafetyfoodsfactorsriskdatesafesupplyhumanlevelhandlingMicrobialcausesfreshpackagedtypicallynatureimpactnovelpotentiallyoccurrencepost-harvestassessmentQMSRAapproachqualityalsoreviewlosssmartlabelingEnsuringadequatecornerstonehealthsecurityHoweversignificantportionproducedconsumptionwastedannuallyglobalscaleReducingpostharvestwellkeyobjectivesimprovingmaintainingsustainabilityrangedamagetransportinappropriateoutdatedsystemsstoragepackaging-relatedgrowthoverarchingissuecontributingbacterialfungalprocessedMoreoverinfluencedintrinsicwateractivitypHinitialloadmicroorganisminteractionsurroundingmicrofloraexternaltemperatureabuseacidityamongothersConsideringmultifacetedsystemdrivingimmediateneedapproachespredictpreventminimizelevelsQuantitativepredictiveframeworkanalyzesinformationbehaviorvariousconditionsencounteredwithinecosystememployingprobabilisticaccountuncertaintyvariabilityWidespreadadoptionhelppredictingpreventingalongchainAlternativelyadvancedtechnologiesservedirectpreventionstrategyminimizingassuringorderreduceretailstagesFinallyincreasingtransparencyknowledgeregardinglabelsindicatorsrathercontributereducedobjectivehighlighteventsdiscussesmethodsmitigateensureLinkingwaste:roleassessmentsquantitativetechnology

Similar Articles

Cited By