Despite the growing demand for green banana (GB) products, there is no review study regarding their potential health benefits. We aimed to compare the health benefits among different GB products by a systematic review. We researched six electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) from inception to March 2019. We found 1009 articles in these databases. After duplicate removal, we screened 732 articles’ titles and abstracts, and selected 18 potentially relevant studies for full-text reading. We added five records from the reference list of the fully-read articles and seven suggested by the expert. Twelve articles were excluded. In the end, 18 studies were considered for this systematic review. Ten studies were conducted with green banana flour and eight with the green banana pulp/biomass. Most of the GB health benefits studied were related to the gastrointestinal symptoms/diseases, followed by the glycemic/insulin metabolism, weight control, and renal and liver complications associated to diabetes. Only one study did not confirm the health benefit proposed. It is necessary to standardize the GB dose/effect to different age groups and different health effects considering the GB variety and ripeness level. Further studies are necessary to present better detailing of GB product and their health effects considering all the raw-material characteristics.

This study aimed to (i) compare the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices (KAP) and observed food safety practices of food truck (FT) food handlers, (ii) evaluate the microbiological quality of food and water samples collected from these vehicles, and (iii) establish a score classification for the KAP instrument according to the food contamination probability assessment. This study was conducted in three stages with 40 food truck food handlers conveniently sampled in the Federal District, Brazil, through structured interviews, application of an observational checklist for the assessment of handlers’ practices and the collection of food and water samples for determination of microbiological quality. FTs that are likely to exhibit food contamination and are at a high risk of foodborne diseases if at least one of the following situations occur: (1) if a food handler scores ≤6 in the knowledge section; (2) if a food handler scores ≤5 in the attitudes section; or (3) if a food handler scores ≤6 in the self-reported practices section. On the other hand, FTs in which handlers score higher than the cutoff points in all the sections are unlikely to exhibit food contamination and are at a low risk of foodborne diseases. The findings of this study are the first step to understand food handlers’ point of view and the initial diagnosis to guide educational strategies in the FT sector.

Conditions associated to the consumption of gluten have emerged as a major health care concern and the treatment consists on a lifelong gluten-free diet. Providing safe food for these individuals includes adapting to safety procedures within the food chain and preventing gluten cross-contamination in gluten-free food. However, a gluten cross-contamination prevention protocol or check-list has not yet been validated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform the content validation and semantic evaluation of a check-list elaborated for the prevention of gluten cross-contamination in food services. The preliminary version of the check-list was elaborated based on the Brazilian resolution for food safety Collegiate Board Resolution 216 (RDC 216) and Collegiate Board Resolution 275 (RDC 275), the standard 22000 from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 22000) and the Canadian Celiac Association Gluten-Free Certification Program documents. Seven experts with experience in the area participated in the check-list validation and semantic evaluation. The criteria used for the approval of the items, as to their importance for the prevention of gluten cross-contamination and clarity of the wording, was the achievement of a minimal of 80% of agreement between the experts (W-values ≥ 0.8). Moreover, items should have a mean ≥4 in the evaluation of importance (Likert scale from 1 to 5) and clarity (Likert scale from 0 to 5) in order to be maintained in the instrument. The final version of the check-list was composed of 84 items, divided into 12 sections. After being redesigned and re-evaluated, the items were considered important and comprehensive by the experts (both with W-values ≥ 0.89). The check-list developed was validated with respect to content and approved in the semantic evaluation.

No abstract

No abstract