Journal of Food Microbiology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Neurotology - Journal of Food Microbiology (2023) Volume 7, Issue 5

Comparing the prevalence of disease caused by foodborne microbiological pathogens while accounting for ambiguity.

Eric Powell *

Department of Dairy Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings

*Corresponding Author:
Eric Powell
Department of Dairy Science
South Dakota State University
Brookings
E-mail: powell@eric.edu

Received:24-Aug-2023, Manuscript No. AAFMY -23-112903; Editor assigned:28-Aug-2023, PreQC No. AAFMY -23-112903 (PQ); Reviewed:11-Sep-2023, QC No. AAFMY -23-112902; Revised:16-Sep-2023, Manuscript No. AAFMY -23-112903 (R); Published:22-Sep-2023, DOI:10.35841/ / aafmy-7.5.163

Citation: Powell E. Comparing the prevalence of disease caused by foodborne microbiological pathogens while accounting for ambiguity. J Food Microbiol. 2023;7(5):163

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Microbiology

Introduction

Outbreaks of foodborne illness are a common and urgent public health issue that have an impact on people and communities all over the world. These outbreaks, which are defined by the frequent occurrence of illnesses brought on by eating tainted food, present serious difficulties for the food sector and public health authorities. They can have detrimental effects on one's health, cause financial losses, and decrease customer confidence in the security of the food supply system [1].

Food or drinks contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms like bacteria, viruses, or parasites are the main cause of foodborne infections, also known as food poisoning. Additionally, certain bacteria's toxin production can result in foodborne diseases. These infections can have a variety of effects, from minor gastrointestinal discomfort to serious and perhaps life-threatening conditions. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, pain in the abdomen, fever, and, occasionally, dehydration are common symptoms [2].

A significant global public health hazard, foodborne diseases afflict millions of individuals each year. The ingestion of tainted foods or drinks carrying hazardous germs is the main cause of many disorders. For public health professionals, academics, and policymakers, it is critical to comprehend and compare the prevalence of diseases brought on by foodborne microbiological pathogens. Due to the inherent ambiguities in data gathering, reporting, and surveillance systems, this endeavor is not without its difficulties [3].

Underreporting is one of the main issues when determining the prevalence of foodborne infections. Unreported or incorrectly diagnosed cases of foodborne illness frequently occur, leaving an inadequate picture of the true disease burden. People with minor symptoms might not go to the doctor, and even if they do, doctors may not always link the disease to a particular foodborne pathogen. For testing and diagnosing foodborne infections, various areas and nations may use different techniques and standards. Direct comparisons can be difficult because of this unpredictability, which might cause disparities in reported cases [4].

It can be challenging to recognize and follow up on cases of people who have contracted foodborne infections because some of them may not have any symptoms at all or just have minor ones. Prevalence estimations are further complicated by the ability of asymptomatic carriers to unintentionally disseminate the disease to others. The symptoms of foodborne infections can appear hours to days after exposure. Due to the delay, it may be difficult to identify the precise source of contamination, which could result in incorrect classification or delayed reporting of cases [5].

Conclusion

It is difficult to compare the frequency of illness brought on by different types of foodborne microbiological pathogens, which is made more difficult by the inherent ambiguities in data collection and reporting. Even so, ongoing initiatives to standardize surveillance, investigate outbreaks, and carry out epidemiological research are expanding our knowledge of the range of foodborne illnesses. These initiatives are essential for spotting trends, new diseases, and efficient preventive measures.

References

  1. Franz E, van Bruggen AH. Ecology of E. coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enterica in the primary vegetable production chain. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2008;34(3-4):143-61.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Taylor TL, Volkening JD, DeJesus E, et al. Rapid, multiplexed, whole genome and plasmid sequencing of foodborne pathogens using long-read nanopore technology. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):16350.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Flaxman SM, Sherman PW. Morning sickness: A mechanism for protecting mother and embryo. Q Rev Biol. 2000;75(2):113-48.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Chiodini RJ, Dowd SE, Chamberlin WM, et al. Microbial population differentials between mucosal and submucosal intestinal tissues in advanced Crohn's disease of the ileum. PloS. 2015;10(7):e0134382.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Panisello PJ, Rooney R, Quantick PC, et al. Application of foodborne disease outbreak data in the development and maintenance of HACCP systems. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;59(3):221-34.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App