Skip to main content

Public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Background

Food safety in the food market is one of the key areas of focus in public health, because it affects people of every age, race, gender, and income level around the world. The local and international food marketing continues to have significant impacts on food safety and health of the public. Food supply chains now cross multiple national borders which increase the internationalization of health risks. This systematic review of literature was, therefore, conducted to identify common public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market.

Methods

All published and unpublished quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies were searched from electronic databases using a three step searching. Analytical framework was developed using the PICo (population, phenomena of interest, and context) method. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. The included full-text articles were qualitatively analyzed using emergent thematic analysis approach to identify key concepts and coded them into related non-mutually exclusive themes. We then synthesized each theme by comparing the discussion and conclusion of the included articles. Emergent themes were identified based on meticulous and systematic reading. Coding and interpreting the data were refined during analysis.

Results

The analysis of 81 full-text articles resulted in seven common public health risks related with food safety in the food market. Microbial contamination of foods, chemical contamination of foods, food adulteration, misuse of food additives, mislabeling, genetically modified foods (GM foods), and outdated foods or foods past their use-by dates were the identified food safety–related public health risks in the food market.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review identified common food safety–related public health risks in the food market. The results imply that the local and international food marketing continues to have significant impacts on health of the public. The food market increases internationalization of health risks as the food supply chains cross multiple national borders. Therefore, effective national risk-based food control systems are essential to protect the health and safety of the public. Countries need also assure the safety and quality of their foods entering international trade and ensure that imported foods conform to national requirements.

Background

Food safety is an important issue that affects all of the world’s people. Many countries throughout the world are increasingly interdependent on the availability of their food supply and on its safety. Hence, people all over the world increasingly value food safety; food production should be done safely to maximize public health gains and environmental benefits. Food safety deals with safeguarding the food supply chain from the introduction, growth, or survival of hazardous microbial and chemical agents [1, 2].

Unsafe food containing harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites, or chemical substances causes more than 200 diseases—ranging from diarrhea to cancers. An estimated 600 million in the world fall ill after eating contaminated food and 420,000 die every year, resulting in the loss of 33 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Children under 5 years of age carry 40% of the food borne disease burden, with 125,000 deaths every year. Diarrheal diseases are the most common illnesses resulting from the consumption of contaminated food, causing 550 million people to fall ill and 230,000 deaths every year [3].

Food safety is being challenged nowadays by the global dimensions of food supply chains [1, 4, 5]. Foods in the international market may be frauded as different parties such as manufacturers, co-packers, distributors, and others along the chain of distribution involve in the national or international trade [6,7,8]. Food safety in the food market is one of the key areas of focus in public health, because it affects people of every age, race, gender, and income level around the world. The local and international food marketing continues to have significant impacts on food safety and health of the public. Food supply chains now cross multiple national borders which increase the internationalization of health risks [9,10,11,12,13,14]. This systematic review of literature was, therefore, conducted to identify common public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market. This review provides evidence to improve food safety in the food market using risk-based food safety strategies. Healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers may use the results of this systematic literature review to protect the public from undue health effects due to consumption of foods with poor quality and safety.

Methods

Research question

What food safety–related public health risks are commonly found in the food market?

Analytical framework

We developed the components of the analytical framework using the PICo (population, phenomena of interest, and context) method. The population for this review was the public over the globe. The phenomenon of interest for this review was public health risks associated with food safety. The context was the food market (such as restaurants, food stores, supermarkets, shops, food processing plants, and street vending). The reviewers sat together to discuss and refine the framework.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

All published and unpublished quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies conducted on food safety–related health risks for the general public in the food market were included. Governmental and other organizational reports were also included. Articles published other than English language, citations with no abstracts and/or full texts, duplicate studies, and studies with poor quality were excluded.

Search strategy

We searched published articles/or reports from MEDLINE/ PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Access Medicine, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, WHO Library, FAO Libraries, and WTO Library. We also searched thesis and dissertations from Worldcat and ProQuest. We used a three step searching. In the first step, we conducted an initial limited search of MEDLINE and analyzed the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe articles. Secondly, we searched across all included databases using all identified keywords and index terms. Thirdly, references of all identified articles were searched to get additional studies. The search term we used in the initial searching is presented as follows.

((((("public health"[MeSH Terms] OR ("public"[All Fields] AND "health"[All Fields]) OR "public health"[All Fields]) AND ("risk"[MeSH Terms] OR "risk"[All Fields] OR "risks"[All Fields])) OR (("public health"[MeSH Terms] OR ("public"[All Fields] AND "health"[All Fields]) OR "public health"[All Fields]) AND hazards[All Fields])) OR (("public health"[MeSH Terms] OR ("public"[All Fields] AND "health"[All Fields]) OR "public health"[All Fields]) AND problems[All Fields])) AND ((("food safety"[MeSH Terms] OR ("food"[All Fields] AND "safety"[All Fields]) OR "food safety"[All Fields]) OR ("food quality"[MeSH Terms] OR ("food"[All Fields] AND "quality"[All Fields]) OR "food quality"[All Fields])) OR (("food"[MeSH Terms] OR "food"[All Fields]) AND ("hygiene"[MeSH Terms] OR "hygiene"[All Fields])))) AND (((("food"[MeSH Terms] OR "food"[All Fields]) AND market[All Fields]) OR (("food"[MeSH Terms] OR "food"[All Fields]) AND trade[All Fields])) OR (("food supply"[MeSH Terms] OR ("food"[All Fields] AND "supply"[All Fields]) OR "food supply"[All Fields]) AND chain[All Fields]))

Assessment of methodological quality

Search results from different electronic databases were exported to Endnote reference manager to remove duplication. Two independent reviewers (ZG and BA) screened out articles using titles and abstracts. The reviewers further investigated and assessed full-text articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The reviewers sat together to resolve disagreements during the review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 [15]. This method explains the detail of each criterion. The rating of each criterion was, therefore, done as per the detail explanations included in the method. Almost all of the included full-text articles fulfilled the criteria and all the included full-text articles were found to be better quality.

Data extraction

In order to minimize bias, we the reviewers independently extracted data from papers included in the review using JBI mixed methods data extraction form [16]. The data extraction form was piloted on randomly selected papers and modified accordingly. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by the two reviewers. Information like authors, year of publication, study areas, type of studies, and focus of the study or main messages were extracted.

Synthesis of findings

The included full-text articles were qualitatively analyzed using emergent thematic analysis approach to identify key concepts and coded them into related non-mutually exclusive themes. We then synthesized each theme by comparing the discussion and conclusion of the included articles. Emergent themes were identified based on meticulous and systematic reading. Coding and interpreting the data were refined during the analysis.

Results

The search process

The search strategy identified 2641 titles and abstracts (1890 from PubMed and 751 from other sources) as of 13 June 2019. We obtained 1992 title and abstracts after we removed duplicates. Following assessment by title and abstract, 705 articles were retrieved for more evaluation and 344 articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 81 articles were included for systematic literature review based on the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Study selection flow diagram

In this review, 81 of 1992 (4%) full-text articles matched the inclusion criteria. The overwhelming majority, 74 of 81 (91%) of the included full-text articles are research articles; 2 (3%) are short communications; 2 (3%) are regulatory papers, 1 (1%) is field inspection; 1 (1%) is research note; and the other 1 (1%) is thesis. Of the included full-text articles, 30 of 81 (37%) are conducted in Asia; 4 of 81 (5%) are conducted in multiple countries in the same region or across regions; and 1of 81 (1%) is not region specific (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure2

Regions where the included full-text articles conducted

All the included full-text articles are published between 1991 and 2018 (35 (43%) between 2011 and 2015; 16 (20%) between 2000 and 2005; 16 (20%) between 2006 and 2010; 12 (15%) between 2016 and 2018; and the rest 2(2%) before 2000).

Food safety–related public health risks identified from the search process

The analysis of 81 full-text articles resulted in seven common public health risks related with food safety in the food market. Microbial contamination of foods, chemical contamination of foods, food adulteration, misuse of food additives, mislabeling, GM foods, and foods past their use-by dates were the identified food safety–related health risks in the food market (Table 1).

Table 1 Common food safety–related public health risks identified from the search process

Table 2 shows food safety–related public health risks in the food market by country name (countries are categorized into developed and developing based on the United Nations (UN) 2019 list). Among 21 full-text articles included for microbial contamination of foods, 13 (62%) were from developing countries. This may suggest microbial contamination of foods in the food market is a common public health risk in developing countries than the developed. Eight (53%) of 15 articles retrieved for chemical contamination of foods in the food market were from developing countries. The vast majority, 8 of 9 (89%) full-text articles retrieved for food adulteration were from developing countries, which may indicate adulteration of foods is practiced more of in developing countries. Similarly, 8 of 11 (73%) of the full-text articles included for misuse of food additives were from developing countries, which may show misuse of food additives is a common problem in developing countries. For mislabeling, 14 of 17 (82%) and 8 of 17 (47%) of the full-text articles were from developed and developing countries respectively. Four out of six (67%) of full-text articles retrieved for foods past use-by dates were from developing countries. This may show selling of outdated foods is common in developing countries than the developed.

Table 2 Food safety–related public health risks in the food market by country name (countries are categorized into developed and developing based on the United Nations (UN) 2019 list)

Figure 3 shows comparison of food safety issues in developed and developing countries. A total of 37 and 50 articles were included in this review from developed and developing countries respectively. The comparison of food safety issues among developed countries suggests that mislabeling (38%), microbial contaminations (22%), and chemical contamination (19%) are the commonest food safety issues in the food market. Similarly, the comparison of food safety issues among developing countries suggests that microbial contaminations (26%), chemical contaminations (16%), food adulteration (16%), misuse of additives (16%), and mislabeling (16%) are the commonest food safety issues in the food market.

Fig. 3
figure3

Comparison of food safety issues in developed and developing countries

Microbial contamination of foods

In this review, 21 of 81 (26%) full-text articles reported the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in different food items in the food market. These studies identified different diseases causing bacteria mainly Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Shigella spp., Enterobacter spp., Proteus spp., Citrobacter spp. Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter spp., Listeria spp., Vibrio, Alklegens spp., Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas spp., Clostridium perfringens, Arcobacter spp., and Enterococcus spp. Moreover, different fungus such as Blastomyces, Fusarium spp., Mucor spp., Aspergillus niger, Fusarium avenaceum, Penicillium digitatum, Rhizopus stolonifer, Saccharomyces species, Fusarium solani, Aspergillus flavus, Saccharomyces dairensis, and Saccharomyces exiguus were identified from different food items from food stores or shops. The included studies also reported that some of the microorganisms are resistant to different antimicrobials (Table 3). The results also show that total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and different fungus were commonly reported in developing countries than developed countries. On the other hand, different Campylobacter species were reported in developed countries than developed countries.

Table 3 Summary of full-text articles which reported microbial contamination of foods as a public risk in food marketing

Chemical contamination of foods

Fifteen (19%) of the full-text articles included in this review reported that contamination of foods with hazardous chemicals is a major public health concern associated with the food market. Heavy metals (like cadmium, nickel, lead, copper, zinc, iron, mercury, and manganese), pesticide residuals (like dichlorvos, dimethoate, parathion-methyl, pirimiphos-methyl, and parathion), persistent organic pollutants (like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane metabolites, polychlorinated biphenyls, perfluorooctanoic acid, endosulfans, and aldrin), organic compounds (like patulin, chloroform, formalin, and urea), volatile organic compounds (like ethyl benzene, o-xylene, and benzene), hydrocarbons (like benzo[a]pyrene and toluene), and other chemical compounds (like calcium carbide and cyanide) are chemical contaminants identified by the full-text articles included in this review. In most cases, the concentration of chemicals exceeded the tolerable limit for consumable food items (Table 4).

Table 4 Summary of full-text articles which reported chemical contamination of foods as a public risk in food marketing

Food adulteration

In 9 (11%) of full-text articles included in this review, food adulteration has been discussed as a major public health risk associated with food safety issues in the food market. Most of the foodstuffs in the market are adulterated in varying degrees. Chemicals (like urea fertilizer, artificial color flavors, textile dye, formalin, chlorofluorocarbon; DDT powder, sodium bicarbonate, neutralizers, detergents, hydrogen peroxide, caustic soda, sodium chloride, boric acid, ammonium sulfate, sorbitol, metanil yellow, ultramarine blue, rhodamine B., maleic anhydride, copper chlorophyll, dimethyl/diethyl yellow, argemone oil, burnt mobil, and burnt oil); items which are not the genuine component of foods (like potato smash, cow’s fat and intestine in ghee, water in milk, sugar in honey, etc.); poor-quality products; and physical or inert agents (like saw dust and brick powder) are the commonest adulterants added to different food items (Table 5).

Table 5 Summary of full-text articles which reported food adulteration as a public risk in food marketing

Misuse of food additives

In this systematic review of literature, 11 of 81 (14%) full-text articles showed that misuse of food additives in the food market endangers public health. As reported in the included full-text articles, even though some food colorants and sweeteners are permitted to use such as sunset yellow FCF (SSYFCF), tartrazine, erythrosine, new coccine, ponceau, and saccharin (some may not be permitted based on countries food regulation), their concentration exceeded the prescribed limit. Moreover, use of non-permitted colorants and sweeteners such as rhodamine B, metanil yellow, orange II, malachite green, auramine, quinoline yellow, amaranth, carmoisine, Sudan dyes, and cyclamate (some may be permitted based on countries food regulation) is also commonly reported in the included studies (Table 6).

Table 6 Summary of full-text articles which reported misuse of food additives as a public risk in food marketing

Mislabeling

Mislabeling of food products has been mentioned as a major public health risk associated with food safety in the food market in 17 of 81 (21%) full-text articles included in this review. All of the 17 studies reported that significant proportion of food samples collected from supermarkets, food stores, shops, and restaurants were genetically identified as entirely different species from that identified on the product labels, and therefore were considered as mislabeled. The studies witnessed that seafood is the most commonly mislabeled food product (Table 7).

Table 7 Summary of full-text articles which reported mislabeling as a public risk in food marketing

Genetically modified foods

In this systematic review of literature, 4 of 81 (5%) of the included full-text articles discussed that GM foods are becoming an increasing public health risk. Hypertension, stroke, diabetes, obesity, lipoprotein metabolism disorder, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, end-stage renal disease, acute kidney failure, cancers of the thyroid/liver/bladder/pancreas/kidney, myeloid leukemia, diarrhea, vomiting, difficulty in breathing, respiratory problems, hormonal imbalances and susceptibility to infection or immunosuppression, allergenic or rashes, and chemical toxicity are health problems reported in the included full-text articles (Table 8).

Table 8 Summary of full-text articles which reported genetically modified foods as a public risk in food marketing

Foods past their use-by dates

Six (7%) of the included full-text articles revealed that outdated or foods past their use-by dates are being sold in food stores, shops, and restaurants which are contributing huge public health and environmental problems (Table 9).

Table 9 Summary of full-text articles which reported foods past their use-by dates as a public risk in food marketing

Discussion

This review identified that microbial contamination, chemical contamination, adulteration, misuse of food additives, mislabeling, genetically modified foods, and outdated foods are common public health risks related with food safety issues in the food market. In the food market, food can become contaminated in one country and cause health problems in another. These food safety issues cause exposure of consumers to biological, chemical, and physical hazards [91,92,93,94,95] so that endanger health of the public. The origin of food hazards can be described as a chain which commences on the source and continues with transportation, further processing steps, merchandising events and finally ends with the consumer [96,97,98,99,100]. Overall, this review suggested that food safety–related public health risks are more common in developing countries than developed countries. This can be justified that foods get easily contaminated with microbes due to the poor hygiene and sanitation in developing countries [101,102,103,104]. Moreover, hence the regulatory services are weak in developing countries, most food sellers may not comply with food hygiene and safety requirements or standards [105,106,107]. In developing countries, the legislation enforcement is still weak about administrating the concentration of harmful contaminants in the food [108, 109]. In addition, there is inadequate information and technology to detect fake and fraud products [110,111,112].

This review identified that microbial contamination of foods in the food market is commonly reported in many studies. Different bacterial species and funguses were the commonest diseases causing pathogens identified [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35, 113]. Failure to apply food safety strategies in every stage of the food supply chain, for example bad food handling practices, poor production process, poor agricultural practices, poor transportation system, poor marketing practices, and poor sanitation lead to microbial contamination of foods [114,115,116,117,118]. Moreover, fraud of foods such as adulteration, mislabeling, and selling of spoiled or expired foods are also causing microbial contamination [36, 119,120,121,122]. Microbial contamination of foods causes millions of diseases and thousands of deaths [123]. This review also shows that total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and different fungus were commonly reported in developing countries than developed countries. This might be due to the fact that fecal contamination of foods and the environment is common in developing countries due to poor sanitation condition [124,125,126]. Moreover, the temperature and air system of food storage areas are not well regulated in developing countries. This situation creates favorable condition for molds. On the other hand, different Campylobacter species were reported in developed countries. This might be due to the fact that advancement of molecular techniques to identify these microorganisms. Developing countries lack specialized cultivation techniques to culture these organisms [127]. The standard culture–based technique, which is a predominant detection method in developing countries, is not effective for Campylobacter species [128,129,130].

Contamination of foods with hazardous chemicals has been reported as a major public health concern associated with the food market in individual studies included in this review [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46, 48, 131,132,133]. The phases of food processing, packaging, transportation, and storage are significant contributors to food contamination [109]. Food contaminants include environmental contaminants, food processing contaminants, unapproved adulterants and food additives, and migrants from packaging materials. Environmental contaminants are impurities that are either introduced by human or occurring naturally in water, air, or soil. Food processing contaminants include those undesirable compounds, which are formed in the food during baking, roasting, canning, heating, fermentation, or hydrolysis. The direct food contact with packaging materials can lead to chemical contamination due to the migration of some harmful substances into foods. Use of unapproved or erroneous additives may result in food contamination [134,135,136,137,138]. Chemical contamination of foods is responsible millions of cases of poisoning with thousands of hospitalizations and deaths each year [139].

Nine of the full-text articles included in this review reported that food adulteration is a major public health risk associated with food safety issues in the food market. Chemicals, items which are not the genuine component of foods, poor-quality products, and physical or inert agents are the commonest adulterants added [47, 49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Food adulteration involves intentional or unintentional addition of useless, harmful, unnecessary chemical, physical, and biological agents to food which decreases the quality of food. It also includes removal of genuine components and processing foods in unhygienic way [119, 140]. However, removal of genuine components of food is not considered in this review. Food is adulterated to increase the quantity and make more profit, which is economically motivated adulteration [141,142,143]. Chemicals which are being used as adulterants have a wide range of serious effects on the health of consumers including cancer [119, 144,145,146,147].

In this systematic review of literature, 11 of the full-text articles reported that misuse of food additives in the food market endangers public health [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Food additive is any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself; not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food (whether or not it has nutritive value); and added intentionally to food for a technological purpose in the production process for the purpose of maintaining a food’s nutritional quality, for example by preventing the degradation of vitamins, essential amino acids, and unsaturated fats; extending the shelf life of a product, for example by preventing microbial growth; and maintaining and improving a product’s sensory properties, such as texture, consistency, taste, flavor, and color; Being able to provide products [148, 149]. Substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS) can be used as food additives [150, 151]; however, misuse of substances such as using more than the maximum allowable concentration; using non-permitted substances; and blending of permitted and non-permitted substances together causes health hazards [152, 153].

Mislabeling of food products has been mentioned as a major public health risk associated with food safety in the food market in 17 of the full-text articles included in this review [68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82, 154]. Mislabeling of food products includes false advertising, deliberately or accidentally leaving out ingredients, not listing potential health effects, and claiming a food contains ingredients that it does not for financial gain with the intent of deceiving the consumer regarding what is actually in the package [155]. These acts of fraud have increased overtime as different parties such as manufacturers, co-packers, distributors, and others along the chain of distribution involve in the national or international trade. Mislabeling leads to cross-contamination, poor food quality, degradation of nutrients, and even adverse effects on human health, serious financial, and legal consequences [69, 154].

In this systematic review, we identified that GM foods are becoming an increasing public health risk. The included full-text articles reported that a wide range of health consequences associated with consumption of GM foods [83,84,85,86]. Possible hazards of GM foods include the potential for pleiotropic and insertional effects (silencing of genes, changes in their level of expression or, potentially, the turning on of existing genes that were not previously being expressed), effects on animal and human health resulting from the increase of anti-nutrients, potential effects on human health resulting from the use of viral DNA in plants, possible transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to bacteria in gastrointestinal tract, and possible effects of GM foods on allergic responses [156,157,158,159,160,161]. However, the health effects of genetically modified foods are still debatable. Different lab-animal-based studies reported that there is no safety difference between GM and non-GM foods or the health concerns are not confirmed well [162,163,164,165]. Some others argue that despite the advances in food crop agriculture, the current world situation is still characterized by massive hunger and chronic malnutrition, representing a major public health problem. Biofortified GM crops have been considered an important and complementary strategy for delivering naturally fortified staple foods to malnourished populations [164].

This review revealed that foods past their use-by dates in the food market are major threats for consumers. This malpractice is more common in less developed countries and rural markets [36, 67, 87,88,89,90]. Growth of microorganisms in expired foods is very common. Most of these microorganisms are pathogenic and some microorganisms produce toxic substances as they develop [36, 121, 166,167,168,169].

Limitation of the review

We entirely relied on electronic databases to search relevant articles. We did not include articles available in hard copy. We believed we could get more relevant articles if we had access to hard prints.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review identified common food safety–related public health risks in the food market. The results imply that the local and international food marketing continues to have significant impacts on health of the public. The food market increases internationalization of health risks as the food supply chains cross multiple national borders. Therefore, effective national food control systems are essential to protect the health and safety of the public. Countries have to implement and enforce risk-based food control strategies. Countries need also assure the safety and quality of their foods entering international trade and ensure that imported foods conform to national requirements. Moreover, food producers and retail sectors have to respect the national food safety guideline and have to work to protect the safety of their customers Additional file 1.

List of full text articles included in the review

The full text articles included in this review are attached as a supplementary file (see supplementary file).

Availability of data and materials

All the extracted data are included in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

DALYs:

Disability adjusted life years

GM:

Genetically modified foods

GRAS:

Substances generally recognized as safe

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

MMAT:

Mixed methods appraisal tool

PICo:

Population, phenomena of interest, and context

References

  1. 1.

    Uyttendaele M, Franz E, Schlüter O. Food safety, a global challenge. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(1):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010067.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Radovanovic R. Food safety: the global problem as a challenge for future initiatives and activities. Advances in Food Protection: Springer; 2011. p. 27-48.

  3. 3.

    World Health Orgnization (WHO). Food safety fact sheet, 04 June 2019. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety. Accessed on 06 Aug 2019.

  4. 4.

    Hawkes C. Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Global Health. 2006;2(1):4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Athukorala PC, Jayasuriya S. Food safety issues, trade and WTO rules: a developing country perspective. World Econ. 2003;26(9):1395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Negri S. Food safety and global health: an international law perspective. Global Health Governance. 2009;3(1).

  7. 7.

    Kruse H. Food safety in an international perspective. J. Verbr. Lebensm. 2015;10:105–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-015-0948-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Spink J, Moyer DC. Defining the public health threat of food fraud. J Food Sc. 2011;76(9):R157–R63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Van Schothorst M. Microbiological risk assessment of foods in international trade. Safety Sci. 2002;40(1-4):359–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mathews KH Jr, Bernstein J, Buzby JC. International trade of meat/poultry products and food safety issues. Int Trade Food Safety. 2003;AER-828:48–73.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lang T. The new globalisation, food and health: is public health receiving its due emphasis? J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1998;52(9):538.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Aung MM, Chang YS. Traceability in a food supply chain: safety and quality perspectives. Food Control. 2014;39:172–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wu F. Global impacts of aflatoxin in maize: trade and human health. World Mycotoxin J. 2014;8(2):137–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bryden WL. Mycotoxins in the food chain: human health implications. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr. 2007;16(S1):95–101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada. Available at http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/. Accessed on 08 July 2019.

  16. 16.

    JBI mixed methods data extraction form following a convergent integrated approach. Available at https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Appendix+8.1+JBI+Mixed+Methods+Data+Extraction+Form+following+a+Convergent+Integrated+Approach. Accessed on 12 July 2019.

  17. 17.

    Rhodehamel EJ. Overview of Biological, Chemical, and Physical Hazards. In: Pierson MD, Corlett DA, editors. HACCP. Springer Link, Boston. 1992; pp 8-28.

  18. 18.

    Adeyanju GT, Ishola O. Salmonella and Escherichia coli contamination of poultry meat from a processing plant and retail markets in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Springerplus. 2014;3(1):139.

  19. 19.

    Giammanco GM, Pepe A, Aleo A, D’Agostino V, Milone S, Mammina C. Microbiological quality of Pecorino Siciliano “primosale” cheese on retail sale in the street markets of Palermo, Italy. 2011;34(2):New Microbiologica, 179–85.

  20. 20.

    Zhao C, Ge B, De Villena J, Sudler R, Yeh E, Zhao S, et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli, and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef from the Greater Washington, DC, area. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67(12):5431–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cárdenas C, Molina K, Heredia N, García S. Evaluation of microbial contamination of tomatoes and peppers at retail markets in Monterrey, Mexico. J Food Protect. 2013;76(8):1475–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Filiousis G, Johansson A, Frey J, Perreten V. Prevalence, genetic diversity and antimicrobial susceptibility of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from open-air food markets in Greece. Food Control. 2009;20(3):314–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pérez-Rodríguez F, Castro R, Posada-Izquierdo G, Valero A, Carrasco E, García-Gimeno R, et al. Evaluation of hygiene practices and microbiological quality of cooked meat products during slicing and handling at retail. Meat Science. 2010;86(2):479–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yagoub SO. Isolation of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp. from raw fish sold in fish market in Khartoum state. Afr J Bacteriol Res. 2009;1(7):085–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kumari S, Sarkar PK. Prevalence and characterization of Bacillus cereus group from various marketed dairy products in India. Dairy Sci Technol. 2014;94(5):483–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Domınguez C, Gomez I, Zumalacarregui J. Prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter in retail chicken meat in Spain. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002;72(1-2):165–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Vantarakis A, Affifi M, Kokkinos P, Tsibouxi M, Papapetropoulou M. Occurrence of microorganisms of public health and spoilage significance in fruit juices sold in retail markets in Greece. Anaerobe. 2011;17(6):288–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Heredia N, Garcia S, Rojas G, Salazar L. Microbiological condition of ground meat retailed in Monterrey, Mexico. Journal of food protection. 2001;64(8):1249–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Elson R, Burgess F, Little C, Mitchell R. Services LACooR, Agency tHP. Microbiological examination of ready-to-eat cold sliced meats and pâté from catering and retail premises in the UK. J Appl Microb. 2004;96(3):499–509.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hosseini A. The prevalence of bacterial contamination of table eggs from retails markets by Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni and Escherichia coli in Shahrekord, Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2011;4(4):249.

  31. 31.

    Banerjee M, Sarkar PK. Microbiological quality of some retail spices in India. Food Res Int. 2003;36(5):469–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vindigni SM, Srijan A, Wongstitwilairoong B, Marcus R, Meek J, Riley PL, et al. Prevalence of foodborne microorganisms in retail foods in Thailand. Foodborne Pathogens Disease. 2007;4(2):208–15.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Simforian E, Nonga H, Ndabikunze B. Assessment of microbiological quality of raw fruit juice vended in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Food Control. 2015;57:302–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Mailafia S, God’spower Richard Okoh HO, Olabode K, Osanupin R. Isolation and identification of fungi associated with spoilt fruits vended in Gwagwalada market, Abuja, Nigeria. Veterinary world. 2017;10(4):393.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hunter PR, Hornby H, Campbell CK, Browne KF. Isolation of food spoilage yeasts from salads purchased from delicatessens. British Food J. 1994;96(3):23–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Islam M. Study on bacteriological quality of street-vended and expired food items collected from different areas in Dhaka City. Bangladesh: East West University; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bai Y, Zhou L, Wang J. Organophosphorus pesticide residues in market foods in Shaanxi area, China. Food Chem. 2006;98(2):240–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Othman ZAA. Lead contamination in selected foods from Riyadh City market and estimation of the daily intake. Molecules. 2010;15(10):7482–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zaied C, Abid S, Hlel W, Bacha H. Occurrence of patulin in apple-based-foods largely consumed in Tunisia. Food Control. 2013;31(2):263–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Schecter A, Colacino J, Haffner D, Patel K, Opel M, Päpke O, et al. Perfluorinated compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and organochlorine pesticide contamination in composite food samples from Dallas, Texas, USA. Environmental health perspectives. 2010;118(6):796–802.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Onianwa P, Adeyemo A, Idowu O, Ogabiela E. Copper and zinc contents of Nigerian foods and estimates of the adult dietary intakes. Food Chem. 2001;72(1):89–95.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Vinci RM, Jacxsens L, De Meulenaer B, Deconink E, Matsiko E, Lachat C, et al. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in foods from the Belgian market and dietary exposure assessment. Food Control. 2015;52:1–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Tittlemier SA, Forsyth D, Breakell K, Verigin V, Ryan JJ, Hayward S. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in retail fish and shellfish samples purchased from Canadian markets. J Agricult Food Chem. 2004;52(25):7740–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Radwan MA, Salama AK. Market basket survey for some heavy metals in Egyptian fruits and vegetables. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006;44(8):1273–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ali MH, Al-Qahtani KM. Assessment of some heavy metals in vegetables, cereals and fruits in Saudi Arabian markets. Egypt J Aquatic Res. 2012;38(1):31–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Moret S, Purcaro G, Conte LS. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) levels in propolis and propolis-based dietary supplements from the Italian market. Food Chem. 2010;122(1):333–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ali ANMA. Food safety and public health issues in Bangladesh: a regulatory concern. Eur Food Feed Law Rev. 2013:31–40.

  48. 48.

    Hossain MM, Heinonen V, Islam KZ. Consumption of foods and foodstuffs processed with hazardous chemicals: a case study of Bangladesh. Int J Consum Stud. 2008;32(6):588–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Nasreen S, Ahmed T. Food adulteration and consumer awareness in Dhaka City, 1995-2011. Journal of health, population, and nutrition. 2014;32(3):452.

  50. 50.

    Chanda T, Debnath G, Hossain M, Islam M, Begum M. Adulteration of raw milk in the rural areas of Barisal district of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J Anim Science. 2012;41(2):112–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Singuluri H, Sukumaran M. Milk adulteration in Hyderabad, India-a comparative study on the levels of different adulterants present in milk. J Chromatogr Sep Techn. 2014;5(1):1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Barham GS, Khaskheli M, Soomro AH, Nizamani ZA. Extent of extraneous water and detection of various adulterants in market milk at Mirpurkhas, Pakistan. J Agri Vet Sci. 2014;7(3):83–9.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Waghray K, Gulla S, Thyagarajan P, Vinod G. Adulteration pattern in different food products sold in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad-India. Journal of Dairying Foods & Home Sciences. 2011;30(2).

  54. 54.

    Peng G-J, Chang M-H, Fang M, Liao C-D, Tsai C-F, Tseng S-H, et al. Incidents of major food adulteration in Taiwan between 2011 and 2015. Food Control. 2017;72:145–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Woldemariam HW, Abera BD. The extent of adulteration of selected foods at Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Int J Interdisciplin Res. 2014;1(6):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Assefa A, Teka F, Guta M, Melaku D, Naser E, Tesfaye B, et al. Laboratory investigation of epidemic dropsy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2013:21–32.

  57. 57.

    Dixit S, Purshottam S, Khanna S, Das M. Usage pattern of synthetic food colours in different states of India and exposure assessment through commodities preferentially consumed by children. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2011;28(8):996–1005.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Tripathi M, Khanna SK, Das M. Surveillance on use of synthetic colours in eatables vis a vis Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of India. Food Control. 2007;18(3):211–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Stevens LJ, Burgess JR, Stochelski MA, Kuczek T. Amounts of artificial food colors in commonly consumed beverages and potential behavioral implications for consumption in children. Clin Pediatr. 2014;53(2):133–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Rao P, Bhat R, Sudershan R, Krishna T, Naidu N. Exposure assessment to synthetic food colours of a selected population in Hyderabad, India. Food Addit Contam. 2004;21(5):415–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Ashfaq N, Masud T. Surveillance on artifical colours in different ready to eat foods. Pakistan J Nutr. 2002;5:223–5.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Jonnalagadda PR, Rao P, Bhat RV, Nadamuni NA. Type, extent and use of colours in ready-to-eat (RTE) foods prepared in the non-industrial sector–a case study from Hyderabad, India. Int J Food Sci Technology. 2004;39(2):125–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Tsai C-F, Kuo C-H, Shih DY-C. Determination of 20 synthetic dyes in chili powders and syrup-preserved fruits by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. J Food Drug Anal. 2015;23(3):453–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Moradi-Khatoonabadi Z, Amirpour M, AkbariAzam M. Synthetic food colours in saffron solutions, saffron rice and saffron chicken from restaurants in Tehran, Iran. Food Additives Contaminants: Part B. 2015;8(1):12–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Saleem N, Umar ZN. Survey on the use of synthetic food colors in food samples procured from different educational institutes of Karachi City. J Trop Life Sci. 2013;3(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Petigara Harp B, Miranda-Bermudez E, Barrows JN. Determination of seven certified color additives in food products using liquid chromatography. J Agricul Food Chem. 2013;61(15):3726–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Sood M. The supervision of government on implementation of import of processed food products in effort of legal protection for consumers. JL Pol’y & Globalization. 2014;25:72.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Miller DD, Mariani S. Smoke, mirrors, and mislabeled cod: poor transparency in the European seafood industry. Front Ecol Environ. 2010;8(10):517–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Jacquet JL, Pauly D. Trade secrets: renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Marine Policy. 2008;32(3):309–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Chin TC, Adibah A, Hariz ZD, Azizah MS. Detection of mislabelled seafood products in Malaysia by DNA barcoding: improving transparency in food market. Food Control. 2016;64:247–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Nagalakshmi K, Annam P-K, Venkateshwarlu G, Pathakota G-B, Lakra WS. Mislabeling in Indian seafood: an investigation using DNA barcoding. Food Control. 2016;59:196–200.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Galal-Khallaf A, Ardura A, Mohammed-Geba K, Borrell YJ, Garcia-Vazquez E. DNA barcoding reveals a high level of mislabeling in Egyptian fish fillets. Food Control. 2014;46:441–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Cawthorn D-M, Steinman HA, Witthuhn RC. DNA barcoding reveals a high incidence of fish species misrepresentation and substitution on the South African market. Food Res Int. 2012;46(1):30–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Di Pinto A, Bottaro M, Bonerba E, Bozzo G, Ceci E, Marchetti P, et al. Occurrence of mislabeling in meat products using DNA-based assay. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(4):2479–84.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Carvalho DC, Palhares RM, Drummond MG, Gadanho M. Food metagenomics: next generation sequencing identifies species mixtures and mislabeling within highly processed cod products. Food Control. 2017;80:183–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Garcia-Vazquez E, Perez J, Martinez JL, Pardinas AF, Lopez B, Karaiskou N, et al. High level of mislabeling in Spanish and Greek hake markets suggests the fraudulent introduction of African species. J Agric Food Chemistry. 2010;59(2):475–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Staffen CF, Staffen MD, Becker ML, Löfgren SE, Muniz YCN, de Freitas RHA, et al. DNA barcoding reveals the mislabeling of fish in a popular tourist destination in Brazil. PeerJ. 2017;5:e4006.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Muñoz-Colmenero M, Juanes F, Dopico E, Martinez JL, Garcia-Vazquez E. Economy matters: a study of mislabeling in salmon products from two regions, Alaska and Canada (Northwest of America) and Asturias (Northwest of Spain). Fisheries Res. 2017;195:180–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Muñoz-Colmenero M, Blanco O, Arias V, Martinez JL, Garcia-Vazquez E. DNA authentication of fish products reveals mislabeling associated with seafood processing. Fisheries. 2016;41(3):128–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Bosko SA, Foley DM, Hellberg RS. Species substitution and country of origin mislabeling of catfish products on the US commercial market. Aquaculture. 2018;495:715–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Christiansen H, Fournier N, Hellemans B, Volckaert FA. Seafood substitution and mislabeling in Brussels' restaurants and canteens. Food Control. 2018;85:66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Galal-Khallaf A, Ardura A, Borrell YJ, Garcia-Vazquez E. PCR-based assessment of shellfish traceability and sustainability in international Mediterranean seafood markets. Food Chemistry. 2016;202:302–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Swanson NL, Leu A, Abrahamson J, Wallet B. Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. J Organ Syst. 2014;9(2):6–37.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Pattron DD. A survey of genetically modified foods consumed, health implications and recommendations for public health food safety in Trinidad. Internet J Food Safety. 2005;7:4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Bakshi A. Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B. 2003;6(3):211–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011;31(4):528–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Anyanwu RC, Jukes DJ. Food systems and food control in Nigeria. Food Policy. 1991;16(2):112–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Burnett K, Skinner K, LeBlanc J. From Food Mail to Nutrition North Canada: reconsidering federal food subsidy programs for northern Ontario. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation. 2015;2(1):141–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Freedman DA, Bell BA. Access to healthful foods among an urban food insecure population: perceptions versus reality. J Urban Health. 2009;86(6):825–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Kunyanga C, Imungi JK, Okoth MW. Diversity and characteristics of supplementary foods sold and consumed by vulnerable groups in Kenya. J Applied Biosci. 2011;45:3019–31.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Rhodehamel E.J. Overview of biological, chemical, and physical hazards. In: Pierson M.D., Corlett D.A. (eds) HACCP. Springer, Boston, MA, 1992. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8818-0_3

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Aruoma OI. The impact of food regulation on the food supply chain. Toxicology. 2006;221(1):119–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Horchner PM, Brett D, Gormley B, Jenson I, Pointon AM. HACCP-based approach to the derivation of an on-farm food safety program for the Australian red meat industry. Food Control. 2006;17(7):497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Sun Y-M, Ockerman H. A review of the needs and current applications of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system in foodservice areas. Food Control. 2005;16(4):325–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Kleter G, Prandini A, Filippi L, Marvin H. Identification of potentially emerging food safety issues by analysis of reports published by the European Community’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) during a four-year period. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47(5):932–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Ahl A, Buntain B. Risk and the food safety chain: animal health, public health and the environment. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties. 1997;16(2):322–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Scheule B, Sneed J. From farm to fork: critical control points for food safety. J Nutr Recipe Menu Dev. 2001;3(2):3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Bagumire A, Todd EC, Nasinyama GW, Muyanja C, Rumbeiha WK, Harris C, et al. Potential sources of food hazards in emerging commercial aquaculture industry in sub-Saharan Africa: a case study for Uganda. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2009;44(9):1677–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal. 2003;23(6):1117–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Albert I, Grenier E, Denis JB, Rousseau J. Quantitative risk assessment from farm to fork and beyond: a global Bayesian approach concerning food-borne diseases. Risk Anal. 2008;28(2):557–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Khairuzzaman M, Chowdhury FM, Zaman S, Al Mamun A, Bari M. Food safety challenges towards safe, healthy, and nutritious street foods in Bangladesh. Int J Food Sci. 2014;2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    BALUKA SA, MILLER R, KANEENE JB. Hygiene practices and food contamination in managed food service facilities in Uganda. African J Food Sci. 2015;9(1):31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Dharod JM, Paciello S, Bermúdez-Millán A, Venkitanarayanan K, Damio G, Pérez-Escamilla R. Bacterial contamination of hands increases risk of cross-contamination among low-income Puerto Rican meal preparers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009;41(6):389–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Paudyal N, Anihouvi V, Hounhouigan J, Matsheka MI, Sekwati-Monang B, Amoa-Awua W, et al. Prevalence of foodborne pathogens in food from selected African countries–a meta-analysis. IntJ Food Microbiol. 2017;249:35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Henson S, Jaffee S. Food safety standards and trade: enhancing competitiveness and avoiding exclusion of developing countries. Eur J Dev Res. 2006;18(4):593–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Henson S, Jaffee S. Understanding developing country strategic responses to the enhancement of food safety standards. World Econ. 2008;31(4):548–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Grace D. Food safety in low and middle income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(9):10490–507.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Villanueva CM, Kogevinas M, Cordier S, Templeton MR, Vermeulen R, Nuckols JR, et al. Assessing exposure and health consequences of chemicals in drinking water: current state of knowledge and research needs. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(3):213–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Rather IA, Koh WY, Paek WK, Lim J. The sources of chemical contaminants in food and their health implications. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:830.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Lawal B. Overview of the socioeconomic implications and management of product faking and adulteration. Greener J Bus Manag Stud. 2013;3(3):119–31.

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Ayza A, Belete E. Food adulteration: its challenges and impacts. Food Sci Qual Manag. 2015;41:50–6.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Salih MAM, Yang S. Common milk adulteration in developing countries cases study in China and Sudan: a review. J Adv Dairy Res. 2017;5:192.

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Nel S, Lues J, Buys E, Venter P. Bacterial populations associated with meat from the deboning room of a high throughput red meat abattoir. Meat science. 2004;66(3):667–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Podolak R, Enache E, Stone W, Black DG, Elliott PH. Sources and risk factors for contamination, survival, persistence, and heat resistance of Salmonella in low-moisture foods. J Food Protect. 2010;73(10):1919–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Nicolas B, Razack BA, Yollande I, Aly S, Tidiane OCA, Philippe NA, et al. Street-vended foods improvement: contamination mechanisms and application of food safety objective strategy: critical review. Pakistan J Nutri. 2007;6(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Legnani P, Leoni E, Berveglieri M, Mirolo G, Alvaro N. Hygienic control of mass catering establishments, microbiological monitoring of food and equipment. Food Control. 2004;15(3):205–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Sousa CPd. The impact of food manufacturing practices on food borne diseases. Brazilian Arch Biol Technology. 2008;51(4):615-623.

  118. 118.

    Carrasco E, Morales-Rueda A, García-Gimeno RM. Cross-contamination and recontamination by Salmonella in foods: a review. Food Res Int. 2012;45(2):545–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Bansal S, Singh A, Mangal M, Mangal AK, Kumar S. Food adulteration: Sources, health risks, and detection methods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(6):1174–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Lyhs U, Korkeala H, Björkroth J. Identification of lactic acid bacteria from spoiled, vacuum-packaged ‘gravad’rainbow trout using ribotyping. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002;72(1-2):147–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Rossi F, Gaio E, Torriani S. Staphylococcus aureus and Zygosaccharomyces bailii as primary microbial contaminants of a spoiled herbal food supplement and evaluation of their survival during shelf life. Food Microbiol. 2010;27(3):356–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Lyhs U, Björkroth JK. Lactobacillus sakei/curvatus is the prevailing lactic acid bacterium group in spoiled maatjes herring. Food Microbiol. 2008;25(3):529–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Hoffmann S, Scallan E. Epidemiology, cost, and risk analysis of foodborne disease. Foodborne Diseases, 3rd ediciton: Elsevier; 2017. p. 31-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385007-2.00002-4.

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    De Bon H, Parrot L, Moustier P. Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agronomy Sustain Dev. 2010;30(1):21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Abdulkadir A, Dossa L, Lompo D-P, Abdu N, Van Keulen H. Characterization of urban and peri-urban agroecosystems in three West African cities. Int J Agric Sustain. 2012;10(4):289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Atidégla SC, Huat J, Agbossou EK, Saint-Macary H, Glèlè KR. Vegetable contamination by the fecal bacteria of poultry manure: case study of gardening sites in southern Benin. Int J Food Sci. 2016;2016.

  127. 127.

    Man SM. The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8(12):669–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Li L, Mendis N, Trigui H, Oliver JD, Faucher SP. The importance of the viable but non-culturable state in human bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:258.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Fakruddin M, Mannan KS, Andrews S. Viable but nonculturable bacteria: food safety and public health perspective. ISRN Microbiol. 2013;2013:703813.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Ayrapetyan M, Oliver JD. The viable but non-culturable state and its relevance in food safety. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2016;8:127–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Onianwa P, Lawal J, Ogunkeye A, Orejimi B. Cadmium and nickel composition of Nigerian foods. J Food Comp Analys. 2000;13(6):961–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Vinci RM, Jacxsens L, Van Loco J, Matsiko E, Lachat C, de Schaetzen T, et al. Assessment of human exposure to benzene through foods from the Belgian market. Chemosphere. 2012;88(8):1001–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    JY NIE, LX KUANG, ZX LI, WH XU, Cheng W, QS CHEN, et al. Assessing the concentration and potential health risk of heavy metals in China’s main deciduous fruits. J Integr Agric. 2016;15(7):1645–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Schrenk D. Chemical food contaminants. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004;47(9):841–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Thompson LA, Darwish WS. Environmental chemical contaminants in food: review of a global problem. J Toxicol. 2019;2019:2345283.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Palmer S, Bakshi KS. Chemical contaminants in food. Principles and practice of environmental medicine Chapter 3: Springer; 1992. p. 43-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2447-6_3.

    Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Cao P, Yang D, Zhu J, Liu Z, Jiang D, Xu H. Estimated assessment of cumulative dietary exposure to organophosphorus residues from tea infusion in China. Environ Health Prev Med. 2018;23(1):7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Minatoya M, Itoh S, Yamazaki K, Araki A, Miyashita C, Tamura N, et al. Prenatal exposure to bisphenol A and phthalates and behavioral problems in children at preschool age: the Hokkaido Study on Environment and Children’s Health. Environ Health Prev Med. 2018;23(1):43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Mody RK, Griffin PM. Foodborne disease. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases 9th edition, 2 volume set: Elsevier; 2015. p. 1283-96. e3. eBook ISBN: 9780323550277

  140. 140.

    Rajakumar G, Manimegalai D. FPGA implementation of dip based adulteration identification in food samples. Int J Comput Appl. 2011:0975–8887.

  141. 141.

    Zhang W, Xue J. Economically motivated food fraud and adulteration in China: an analysis based on 1553 media reports. Food control. 2016;67:192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Ravichandran S. Food adulteration has taken away the joy of life. Int J MediPharm Res. 2015;1(3):150–4.

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Everstine K, Spink J, Kennedy S. Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) of food: common characteristics of EMA incidents. J Food Protect. 2013;76(4):723–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Afzal A, Mahmood M, Hussain I, Akhtar M. Adulteration and microbiological quality of milk (a review). Pakistan J Nutr. 2011;10(12):1195–202.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    McGwin G Jr, Lienert J, Kennedy JI Jr. Formaldehyde exposure and asthma in children: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;118(3):313–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Baumgartner M, Flöck M, Winter P, et al. Evaluation of flow injection analysis for determination of urea in sheep’s and cow’s milk. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica. 2002;50(3):263–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    See A, Abu BS, Fatimah AB, Nor AY, Ahmed SA, Heng L. Risk and health effect of boric acid. Am J Appl Sci. 2010;7(5):620–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Pressman P, Clemens R, Hayes W, Reddy C. Food additive safety: a review of toxicologic and regulatory issues. Toxicol Res Appl. 2017;1:2397847317723572.

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Codex general standard for the labelling of food additives when sold as such. CODEX STAN 107-198. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/y2770e/y2770e03.htm. Accessed on 6 Aug 2019.

  150. 150.

    Jay JM, Loessner MJ, Golden DA. Modern food microbiology: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008. Available at https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387231808. Accessed on 10 August 2019.

  151. 151.

    Neltner TG, Kulkarni NR, Alger HM, Maffini MV, Bongard ED, Fortin ND, et al. Navigating the US food additive regulatory program. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2011;10(6):342–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Johnson PE. Health aspects of food additives. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1966;56(6):948–51.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Jain A, Mathur P. Evaluating hazards posed by additives in food-a review of studies adopting a risk assessment approach. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci J. 2015;3(3):243–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Armani A, Guardone L, La Castellana R, Gianfaldoni D, Guidi A, Castigliego L. DNA barcoding reveals commercial and health issues in ethnic seafood sold on the Italian market. Food Control. 2015;55:206–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Markoff P and Leinberger K. Food mislabeling is more common than you think. Available at https://www.consumerlawchicago.com/blog/food-mislabeling-is-more-common-than-you-think.html. Accessed on 08 Aug 2019.

  156. 156.

    Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(2):164–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Conner AJ, Jacobs JM. Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 1999;443(1-2):223–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Bakke-McKellep A, Koppang E, Gunnes G, Sanden M, Hemre GI, Landsverk T, et al. Histological, digestive, metabolic, hormonal and some immune factor responses in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fed genetically modified soybeans. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2007;30(2):65–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Paparini A, Romano-Spica V. Public health issues related with the consumption of food obtained from genetically modified organisms. Biotechnology annual review. 2004;10:85–122.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Halford NG, Shewry PR. Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public concerns. Br Med Bull. 2000;56(1):62–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment: Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 2003;33(1):19–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Hashimoto W, Momma K, Yoon H-J, Ozawa S, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, et al. Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding studies in rats. Bioscience Biotechnology biochemistry. 1999;63(11):1942–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Bernstein JA, Bernstein IL, Bucchini L, Goldman LR, Hamilton RG, Lehrer S, et al. Clinical and laboratory investigation of allergy to genetically modified foods. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(8):1114–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Acosta O, Chaparro A. Genetically modified food crops and public health. Acta Biologica Colombiana. 2008;13(3):3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Pryme IF, Lembcke R. In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed—with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition Health. 2003;17(1):1–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Omura Y, Price R, Olcott H. Histamine—forming bacteria isolated from spoiled skipjack tuna and jack mackerel. J Food Sci. 1978;43(6):1779–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Gram L, Ravn L, Rasch M, Bruhn JB, Christensen AB, Givskov M. Food spoilage—interactions between food spoilage bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002;78(1-2):79–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    André S, Zuber F, Remize F. Thermophilic spore-forming bacteria isolated from spoiled canned food and their heat resistance. Results of a French ten-year survey. Int J Food Microbiol. 2013;165(2):134–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    De Carvalho A, Costa E, Mantovani H, Vanetti M. Effect of bovicin HC5 on growth and spore germination of Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis isolated from spoiled mango pulp. Journal of applied microbiology. 2007;102(4):1000–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank The Ohio State University Health Science Library for helping him to access different electronic databases.

Funding

The author of this review did not receive funds from any funding institution.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zemichael Gizaw.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for systematic reviews.

Consent for publication

This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data.

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

List of full text articles included in the review.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gizaw, Z. Public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market: a systematic literature review. Environ Health Prev Med 24, 68 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-019-0825-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public health risks
  • Public health hazards
  • Public health problems
  • Food safety
  • Food quality
  • Food hygiene
  • Food marketing