Salmonellosis is caused bySalmonellaspp. and is the third leading cause of death among food-transmitted diseases. This pathogen is commonly disseminated in domestic and wild animals, and the infection’s symptoms are characterized by acute fever, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. The animals are the primary source of salmonellae, and animal-based foods are the main transmission route to humans. Therefore, data collected from these sources could contribute to future global interventions for effective control and surveillance ofSalmonellaalong the food chain. In light of this, the importance of our research is in identifying the prevalence ofSalmonellaserovars in four animal-based food matrices (pork, poultry, beef, and seafood) and to evaluate the importance that each matrix has as the primary source of this pathogen to humans.

Conventional methods of food preservation have demonstrated several disadvantages and limitations in the efficiency of the microbial load reduction and maintain food quality. Hence, non-thermal preservation technologies (NTPT) and alternative chemical compounds (ACC) have been considered a high promissory replacer to decontamination, increasing the shelf life and promoting low levels of physicochemical, nutritional and sensorial alterations of meat and fish products. The combination of these methods can be a potential alternative to the food industry. This review deals with the most critical aspects of the mechanisms of action under microbial, physicochemical, nutritional and sensorial parameters and the efficiency of the different NTPT (ultrasound, high pressure processing, gamma irradiation and UV-C radiation) and ACC (peracetic acid, bacteriocins, nanoparticles and essential oils) applied in meat and fish products. The NTPT and ACC present a high capacity of microorganisms inactivation, ensuring low alterations level in the matrix and high reduction of environmental impact. However, the application conditions of the different methods as exposition time, energy intensity and concentration thresholds of chemical compounds need to be specifically established and continuously improved for each matrix type to reduce to the maximum the physicochemical, nutritional and sensorial changes. In addition, the combination of the methods (hurdle concept) may be an alternative to enhance the matrix decontamination. In this way, undesirable changes in meat and fish products can be further reduced without a decrease in the efficiency of the decontamination.

Despite evidence of health benefits from kefir administration, a systematic review with meta‐analysis on bioactive compounds associated with these benefits is still absent in the literature. Kefir is fermented milk resulting from the metabolism of a complex microbiota in symbiosis. Recent researches have investigated the bioactive compounds responsible for the preventive and therapeutic effects attributed to kefir. However, differences in functional potential between industrial and artisanal kefir are still controversial. Firstly, we identified differences in the microbial composition among both types of kefir. Available evidence concerning the action of different bioactive compounds from kefir on health, both from in vitro and in vivo studies, was subsequently summarized to draw a primary conclusion of the dose and the intervention time for effect, the producer microorganisms, the precursor in the milk, and the action mechanism. Meta‐analysis was performed to investigate the statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between intervention and control and between both types of kefir for each health effect studied. In summary, the bioactive compounds more commonly reported were exopolysaccharides, including kefiran, bioactive peptides, and organic acids, especially lactic acid. Kefir bioactive compounds presented antimicrobial, anticancer, and immune‐modulatory activities corroborated by the meta‐analysis. However, clinical evidence is urgently needed to strengthen the practical applicability of these bioactive compounds. The mechanisms of their action were diverse, indicating that they can act by different signaling pathways. Still, industrial and artisanal kefir may differ regarding functional potential—OR of 8.56 (95% CI: 2.27–32.21, P ≤ .001)—according to the observed health effect, which can be associated with differences in the microbial composition between both types of kefir.