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

Opinion Article - Journal of Food Microbiology (2023) Volume 7, Issue 6

Safety assessment of antimicrobial preservatives in food and beverage products

Gustavo Trine *

Department of Microbiology and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

*Corresponding Author:
Gustavo Trine
Department of Microbiology and Bioscience
Aalborg University
Aalborg, Denmark

Received: 24-Oct-2023, Manuscript No. AAMOR-23-120334; Editor assigned: 28-Oct-2023, PreQC No. AAMOR-23-120334 (PQ); Reviewed: 10-Nov-2023, QC No. AAMOR-23-120334; Revised: 15-Nov-2023, Manuscript No. AAMOR-23-120333 (R); Published: 22-Nov-2023, DOI:10.35841/ aafmy-7.6.180

Citation: Trine G. Safety assessment of antimicrobial preservatives in food and beverage products. J Food Microbiol. 2023;7(6):180

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Microbiology


Antimicrobial preservatives are essential components in many food and beverage products, playing a crucial role in preventing microbial spoilage and enhancing product shelf life. These preservatives inhibit or kill bacteria, yeasts, and molds, helping to maintain the quality and safety of the food supply. However, as with any food additive, the safety of antimicrobial preservatives is of paramount importance to protect consumer health, the regulatory framework surrounding their use, and the scientific methods employed to ensure their safety. The use of antimicrobial preservatives in food and beverage products is subject to rigorous safety evaluations and regulatory oversight in most countries. Regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), set guidelines and establish maximum permitted levels for these additives [1, 2].

Toxicological studies are conducted to assess the potential health risks associated with exposure to antimicrobial preservatives. These studies include acute and chronic toxicity tests, genotoxicity studies, and carcinogenicity assessments. Researchers use animal models to determine the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. The amount of each antimicrobial preservative present in food and beverage products is estimated through dietary exposure assessments. This assessment considers consumption patterns and usage levels to ensure that exposure to the preservative are within safe limits for all age groups and vulnerable populations. Some antimicrobial preservatives, such as sulphites and benzoates, have been associated with allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Allergenicity assessments aim to identify potential allergens and determine their sensitizing potential. Individuals with known allergies to specific preservatives are considered in risk evaluations [3, 4].

Based on the toxicological and dietary exposure assessments, risk characterization combines all available data to determine the safety of the antimicrobial preservative. The margin of safety is calculated by comparing the estimated exposure levels to the established ADI. A wide margin of safety provides confidence in the safety of the preservative's use. Sodium benzoate and benzoic acid are widely used to inhibit microbial growth in acidic foods and beverages. Extensive safety assessments have concluded that these preservatives are safe when used within regulatory limits. Sulphur dioxide and sulphite salts are used to preserve the color and inhibit the growth of bacteria in a range of food products. However, sulphites can trigger allergic reactions in individuals sensitive to them, and therefore, their use is strictly regulated, with clear labelling requirements [5, 6].

Potassium sorbate and sorbic acid are effective preservatives used in a variety of food and beverage products. Safety evaluations indicate that these preservatives are safe for consumption within recommended limits. Sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite are commonly used to preserve cured meats. These preservatives have raised some concerns due to their potential to form harmful compounds known as nitrosamines. As a result, their use in food products is closely monitored and regulated. The safety assessment of antimicrobial preservatives in food and beverage products is a comprehensive process that involves toxicological evaluations, dietary exposure assessments, and risk characterizations. Regulatory agencies worldwide set strict guidelines to ensure that these preservatives are used at safe levels and pose no harm to consumer health. Adherence to these regulations and ongoing research and monitoring help maintain the safety and quality of food and beverage products on the market [7, 8].

Consumers can be confident that the use of antimicrobial preservatives, when approved and regulated, contributes to the overall safety and extended shelf life of food and beverage products. As food science and technology continue to advance, the industry will continue to improve its understanding of preservative safety, ensuring that these additives remain an integral part of our global food supply chain. Balancing food safety, consumer acceptability, and sustainable practices will be essential in selecting preservative alternatives. By staying at the forefront of research and embracing technological advancements, the food industry can continue to enhance food safety while meeting the growing demand for natural and clean-label products. As we move forward, collaboration between researchers, regulatory authorities, and food manufacturers will be key to successfully implementing safe and effective preservative alternatives that benefit both consumers and the food industry [9, 10].


  1. Studahl A, Andersson Y. Risk factors for indigenous campylobacter infection: A Swedish case-control study. Epidemiol Infect. 2000;125(2):269-75.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Greig JD, Todd EC, Bartleson CA, et al. Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 1. Description of the problem, methods, and agents involved. J Food Prot. 2007;70(7):1752-61.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Nguyen AT, Tran BX, Le HT, et al. Customers’ knowledge, attitude, and practices towards food hygiene and safety standards of handlers in food facilities in Hanoi, Vietnam. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2101.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Zyoud SE, Shalabi J, Imran K, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices among parents regarding food poisoning: A cross-sectional study from Palestine. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):1-0.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Angelillo IF, Foresta MR, Scozzafava C, et al. Consumers and foodborne diseases: Knowledge, attitudes and reported behavior in one region of Italy. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001;64(1-2):161-6.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  11. Chatterjee A, Prinz A. Personalized recommendations for physical activity e-coaching ontorecomodel: Ontological modeling. JMIR Medi Inform. 2022;10(6):e33847.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  13. Nykänen P. Decision support systems from a health informatics perspective. Tamp Univer Press. 2000.
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  15. Boxwala AA, Peleg M, Tu S, et al. GLIF3: A representation format for sharable computer interpretable clinical practice guidelines. J Biom Inform. 2004;37(3):147-61.
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  17. Saripalle RK, Demurjian SA, Blechner M, et al. HOD2MLC: Hybrid ontology design and development model with lifecycle. Internati J Inform Techn Web Engine. 2015;10(2):16-42.
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  19. Trigo JD, Martínez I, Alesanco A, et al. An integrated healthcare information system for end to end standardized exchange and homogeneous management of digital ECG formats. Transa Inform Techno Biomed. 2012;16(4):518-29.
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App