No abstract

Campylobacteriosis is the most commonly notified illness in New Zealand. Whilst the importance of commercial poultry in campylobacteriosis is well established, little is known about the possible role of chickens kept at home as a direct animal/faecal contact or consumption exposure pathway. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and genetic diversity of Campylobacter spp. in domestic backyard chicken flocks in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. Poultry faecal samples were collected from 35 domestic 'backyard' poultry flocks from urban and rural properties around the Canterbury Region of New Zealand. A total of 291 samples were collected and tested for the presence of thermotolerant Campylobacter spp. and positive isolates were analysed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using both SmaI and KpnI enzymes. There was a high prevalence of Campylobacter spp. with 86% of flocks testing positive. Campylobacter jejuni alone, Campylobacter coli alone and both C. jejuni and C. coli were detected in 20 (57%), 2 (6%) and 8 (23%) of the flocks respectively. SmaI/KpnI PFGE analysis identified 50 different genotypes across the 35 flocks. Genotype diversity richness was highest on the lifestyle block and farm properties with 43 different genotypes isolated, whilst urban properties displayed the least richness with 12 genotypes isolated. Rural flocks tended to have more different genotypes in a given flock than urban flocks. Comparison of the genotypes with the PulseNet Aotearoa Campylobacter database showed that 28 of the genotypes had previously been isolated from human cases of campylobacteriosis. Many of these were also indistinguishable from Campylobacter spp. previously isolated from retail chicken. Therefore, contact with backyard poultry or their faecal material is a potential additional infection pathway outside of exposure to the established pathways associated with the consumption of Campylobacter-contaminated commercial meat or foods cross-contaminated from contaminated poultry.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Using PCR–denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, we examined 49 fecal samples from healthy volunteers and 128 diarrhea specimens to assess the distribution of Epsilonproteobacteria that might be routinely overlooked. Our results suggest that certain taxa that are not routinely examined for could account for a proportion of diarrhea of previously unknown etiology.

The impact of caffeine from energy drinks occurs against a background exposure from naturally occurring caffeine (coffee, tea, cocoa and foods containing these ingredients) and caffeinated beverages (kola-type soft drinks). Background caffeine exposure, excluding energy drinks, was assessed for six New Zealand population groups aged 15 years and over (n = 4503) by combining concentration data for 53 caffeine-containing foods with consumption information from the 2008/09 New Zealand Adult Nutrition Survey (ANS). Caffeine exposure for those who consumed energy drinks (n = 138) was similarly assessed, with inclusion of energy drinks. Forty-seven energy drink products were identified on the New Zealand market in 2010. Product volumes ranged from 30 to 600 ml per unit, resulting in exposures of 10-300 mg caffeine per retail unit consumed. A small percentage, 3.1%, of New Zealanders reported consuming energy drinks, with most energy drink consumers (110/138) drinking one serving per 24 h. The maximum number of energy drinks consumed per 24 h was 14 (total caffeine of 390 mg). A high degree of brand loyalty was evident. Since only a minor proportion of New Zealanders reported consuming energy drinks, a greater number of New Zealanders exceeded a potentially adverse effect level (AEL) of 3 mg kg(-1) bw day(-1) for caffeine from caffeine-containing foods than from energy drinks. Energy drink consumption is not a risk at a population level because of the low prevalence of consumption. At an individual level, however, teenagers, adults (20-64 years) and females (16-44 years) were more likely to exceed the AEL by consuming energy drinks in combination with caffeine-containing foods.