The performance of food safety management systems in the raspberries chain

Accepted Manuscript The performance of food safety management systems in the raspberries chain

Andreja Rajkovic, Nada Smigic, Ilija Djekic, Dragana Popovic, Nikola Tomic, Nada Krupezevic, Mieke Uyttendaele, Liesbeth Jacxsens PII:

S0956-7135(17)30245-1

DOI:

10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.04.048

Reference:

JFCO 5608

To appear in:

Food Control

Received Date:

18 February 2017

Revised Date:

26 April 2017

Accepted Date:

28 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Andreja Rajkovic, Nada Smigic, Ilija Djekic, Dragana Popovic, Nikola Tomic, Nada Krupezevic, Mieke Uyttendaele, Liesbeth Jacxsens, The performance of food safety management systems in the raspberries chain, Food Control (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont. 2017.04.048

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. 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.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:

-

Food Safety Management Systems in the raspberries chain diagnosed. All orchard farms operated at the moderate to high-risk context. Low food safety output was seen in non-GlobalGAP orchard farms. Moderate to advanced food safety output was seen in GlobalGAP orchard farms. Good performance of food safety in the cold stores.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Title: The performance of food safety management systems in the raspberries chain

2 3

Authors: Andreja Rajkovic1,2*, Nada Smigic1, Ilija Djekic1, Dragana Popovic1, Nikola Tomic1, Nada Krupezevic 1, Mieke Uyttendaele2, Jacxsens Liesbeth Jacxsens 2

4

Affiliation:

5 6

1Department

7 8 9

2Laboratory

of Food Safety and Quality Management, Faculty of Agriculture – University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Zemun-Belgrade, Serbia of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation, Department of Food Safety and Quality, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering – University of Ghent University, Coupure links, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

10 11

*Corresponding authors:

12

Prof. dr. Andreja Rajkovic,

13

E-mail: [email protected];

14

Phone: +3292649904; fax: +3292255510.

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

Abstract

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

The Food Safety Management System – Diagnostic Instrument (FSMS-DI) was used to determine context factors, core control and assurance activities, as well as food safety outputs for three Global G.A.P. certified and six Non Global G.A.P. certified orchard raspberries farms, and eight cold stores (all of them having certified FSMS systems, often in combination with BRC, IFS and/or FSSC 22000 standards). All e Examined orchard farms operate at moderate to highrisk context. High risk is mainly related mainly with to the microbiological and pesticides contamination of produced raspberries, the and open cultivation system, which can provoke additional contaminations (e.g. bird droppings). But However they differed in chain and organisational characteristics. In Non Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms were mainly characterised by low to basic performance of the FSMS combined with low food safety outputs was determined, while in Global G.A.P. orchard farms moderate performance of FSMS resulted in moderate to advanced food safety outputs. The following actor in the raspberries chain is cold stores, whose riskiness of the raw material is directly connected with the orchard farms final product. Cold store companies represent the subsequent link in the raspberries chain, with the raw material food safety risks directly connected with the orchard farms final product. This is related to the production process of frozen raspberries without any physical or chemical intervention step which might reduce the level of potentially present microorganisms or chemicals in raspberries. The core control and assurance activities in the FSMS present in the cold stores are mainly at medium to high level, resulting in medium to advance food safety outputs.

36

Keywords: Food safety management system, raspberries, cold stores, orchard farms

37

1. Introduction

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

The Serbian cultivated berry sector, especially raspberries and blackberries, has been a driving force in the national agricultural economic growth for the last three decades. More than 80,000 farms, 250 cold stores, and 100 processing factories are involved in the this sector (USAID, 2008). Republic of Serbia is one of the biggest producers and exporters of raspberries in the world with the annual production of over 60,000 tons (70310 tons in 2012, 68458 tons in 2013 and 61,715 tons in 2014). This fruit was grown on 11,996 ha, 12,024 ha and 11,040 ha, respectively (Serbia, 2016). The total production value in 2014 is estimated at 47 million EUR. The clear majority of cash flow comes from the export of frozen raspberries that was (73,253 tons in 2014). Only about 1 million EUR came from the trade of raspberries on the domestic market. Raspberries are grown on 70,000 farms, located mainly in West Serbia, which produces about accounts for nearly 55% of the total raspberry production; Central Serbia, where 35% of the total raspberry output is produced; and South-West Serbia that produces the remaining 10% (Leposavic, et al., 2013; Nikolic, Ivanovic, Milenkovic, Milivojevic, & Milutinovic, 2008). Over 90% of Serbian raspberries are the “Willamette” variety, followed by varieties “Meeker”, “Tulameen” and “Glen Ample” (Nikolic & Milivojevic, 2015). The family owned farms’ average size is 1ha (from 20 acres to 5 ha) (Buric, 2003; Nikolic & Milivojevic, 2015), which is easy to manage, since raspberry farming requires much manual labour (raspberries are almost exclusively manually picked). The Y yield varies from 5 – 20 t/ha depending on the agricultural practice in place, local climatic and weather conditions (Nikolic & Milivojevic, 2015). Statistical average for the period 2012-2014 was about 5.73 t/ha (Serbia, 2015).

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) of the European Commission shows currently 70 notifications (mainly alerts) involving raspberries of different origin, 17 of these indirectly or directly involving Serbia (RASFF, 2016). Out of 70 notifications, 39 were classified under as pathogenic microbial contamination, mainly norovirus, but also caliciviruses, Escherichia coli and Shigella spp. Reported outbreaks with raspberries involve also Cyclospora cayetanensis (Caceres, et al., 1998; Gibbs, et al., 2013; Herwaldt & Ackers, 1997),. h However the viral contamination remains the most prominent, causing the largest number of reported outbreaks (Bouwknegt, et al., 2015; Sarvikivi, et al., 2012; Verhaelen, et al., 2013). This in general corresponds to the opinion of 54 experts who considered bacterial as the most important food safety issue for fresh produce in general, followed by foodborne viruses, pesticide residues and mycotoxins (Van Boxstael, et al., 2013).

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Fresh produce may be contaminated pre-harvest due to irrigation with reclaimed wastewater, crop fertilization with sewage sludge or faecal pollution of the production areas in which food products are obtained (Chigor, et al., 2012; Forslund, et al., 2010) and even pesticides spraying (Stine, Song, Choi, & Gerba, 2011; Verhaelen, et al., 2013). During harvest, food may be contaminated by workers at the field, as was suspected in several outbreaks of Norwalk-like virus, and other enteric viruses from raspberries, leafy vegetables, etc. (Berger, et al., 2010; Cotterelle B., et al., 2005). Fresh produce may be also contaminated in the during postharvest phases, during including product handing, preparation and packaging (Lynch, Tauxe, & Hedberg, 2009; Richards, 2001). Due to the inherent difficulties in detection of viruses in raspberries, one cannot rely on sampling and end-product analysis for any effective control measures, therefore the key efforts must be placed on preventive pre-harvest and post-harvest measures in pre-harvest and post-harvest operations.

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

An effective Food Safety Management System (FSMS) has to be in place in order to control different hazards in the fruit / raspberry chain. It is the obligation for all food producers to have in place an effective system based on various good practices depending on their role in the food chain. Good agricultural practice is expected in primary production (orchards). Fruit processing (cold storage plants) has to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles, as outlined in Regulation (EC) 852/2004 and in Serbian Ordinance on hygiene for producers (Serbia, 2010c). It is important to note that these requirements are generic regardless of the type and size of company and therefore should be tailored into for the specific company and its business environment. Assessing the effectiveness of an implemented Management system effectiveness assessment (including control and assurance activities) enables discovering of problems which are related to implementation, as well as tracking down the bottlenecks and the possible ways for the improvements to the system at the specific company. Previously a A tool for the diagnosis of the effectiveness of food safety system was previously developed, in order to determine control activities and core assurance activities in a company’s food safety management system FSMS (Jacxsens, et al., 2010; Luning, Bango, Kussaga, Rovira, & Marcelis, 2008; Luning, et al., 2011; Luning, et al., 2009). It is of note that the system output, being the safety and hygiene of processed fruits or food products, is not only dependent on the system design and operation, but also on the context wherein it operates, as this influences the overall risk (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al., 2013). This tool enables one to identify the identification the riskiness of the company’s contextual situation in relation to its food safety performance. The diagnostic instrument has been applied in animal food processing companies, such as within dairy (Sampers, Toyofuku, Luning, Uyttendaele, & Jacxsens, 2012) and meat (Osés, et al., 2012; Sampers, et al., 2010) 3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

companies industry. Within the European FP7 project Veg-i-Trade, FSMS-DI has been tailored for the fresh produce sector, including primary production, processing and trade (Kirezieva, Jacxsens, Uyttendaele, Van Boekel, & Luning, 2013). It has been applied in the mushroom production in South Africa (Dzingirayi & Korsten, 2016), in the primary production of organic lettuce in Brazil (de Quadros Rodrigues, et al., 2014), in green bean farms in Kenya, and hot pepper farms in Uganda (Nanyunja, et al., 2015a) and fresh produce export processing companies in Kenya (Sawe, Onyango, & Njage, 2014).

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

Based on the hypothesis that Global G.A.P. certification ensures a better FSMS performance in orchard farms producing raspberries, and due to the restricted set of requirements, the risk-based approach and the annual third party audits, the first objective of this study was to get an insight and to compare the status of FSMS in three Global G.A.P. certified and six Non Global G.A.P. certified farms in Serbia using FSMS-DI. In addition, a better FSMS performance is expected in downstream actor in the raspberries chain, i.e. the cold stores. Therefore, we aimed the aim was to determine FSMS performance in eight cold stores (all of them having certified HACCP systems, often in combination with BRC, IFS and/or FSSC 22000 standards), in view of their contextual situation and food safety output.

120

2. Material and methods

121

2.1. Profile of participants

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

A total number of 17 food business operators were included in the study, comprising consisting of nine orchard farms growing raspberries (coded F1 to F9) and eight cold stores (coded CS1 to CS8) doing purchasing, freezing, packing and distributing berries. All orchard farms and cold stores were located in Central and West Serbia, corresponding to the area with about 90% of raspberry plots in Serbia. The data used in this study were collected in orchard farms and cold stores, after obtaining the permission of the owners to investigate and observe the practices regarding food safety management system in their businesses. The data related to the practices regarding food safety management systems were collected in orchard farms and cold stores with the permission of the business operators.

131 132 133

The breakdown of food businesses that participated in this survey is presented in Table 1. All orchard farms (F1 to F9) involved in this study were the suppliers of three cold stores (CS1 to CS3). The other five cold stores (CS4 to CS8) have purchased raspberries from other farms.

134

2.2. Food safety system diagnosis

135 136 137 138

The Food Safety Management System – Diagnostic Instrument (FSMS-DI) was developed for each actor in the fresh produce chain within the European project Veg-i-Trade. FSMS-DI used for orchard farms consisted of 66 questions (Kirezieva, Jacxsens, et al., 2013; Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al., 2013), while FSMS-DI used in cold stores consisted of 71 questions.

139 140 141 142 143 144 145

The data were obtained during face-to-face interviews with owners of the orchard farms or responsible QA (quality assurance) person staff of the cold stores using the structured questionnaire. For each question/indicator, the interviewees had a possibility to grade a level that is the most representative for their business. Additional statements and explanations were provided for each question in the questionnaire to allow an easier selection of the most representative situation. Each interview lasted about 2-3 hours and was followed by an on-site visit to confirm the initial assessment.

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

2.2.1. Diagnosis of riskiness in context First part of FSMS-DI represents the context diagnosis with a set of indicators to assess the risk level of the context factors (being product, process, organizational and chain environment characteristics). For each indicator, three situational descriptors are given which representing low (situation 1), moderate (situation 2) and high (situation 3) risk. Regarding product and process characteristics, low, moderate, and high risk situations correspond to low, moderate and high probability of microbial or chemical contamination, growth or survival of pathogens and undesired microorganisms respectively. For organizational characteristics, different situations are related to supportive, constrained, and lack of administrative conditions for decision making process. For the chain characteristics, low, moderate and high risk situations stand for low, restricted and high dependence and reliability on other supply chain actors, respectively (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al., 2013). 2.2.2. Diagnosis of performance of control and assurance activities

159 160 161 162 163 164

For each control and assurance activities, present in the FSMS, indicators are included to measure the performance of the FSMS. There are four situational descriptions which stand for low (situation 1), basic (situation 2), average (situation 3), and advanced (situation 4) level of a particular activity in control or assurance. For control or assurance activity, situation 1 corresponds to the situation which is not conducted or applied, or there is no available information (score 0).

165 166 167 168 169 170 171

For control activities, situation 2 stands for the usage of own experience and general knowledge, standard equipment with unknown capability, ad-hoc analysis, instability and regular unexpected problems, and activities which are not written in procedures (score 1). Situation 3 is related to the usage of expert, specific knowledge, guidelines designed for specific sector, best practices and standardized methods with occasional known issues and problems (score 2). Situation 4 is related to the usage of very specific information and scientific knowledge, critical analysis, systematic methodology and procedures (score 3).

172 173 174 175 176

Assurance activities were ranked as follows: situation 2 is typified by problem-driven circumstances, only checked, and rarely reported (score 1), while situation 3 stands for active translation of stakeholders requirements, additional analysis and regular documentation and reporting, with the expert support (score 2). Situation 4 corresponds to pro-active translation of requirements, actual observations and testing (score 3) (Kirezieva, Jacxsens, et al., 2013).

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

2.2.3. Diagnosis of food safety output The output of the activities is measured using performance indicators related to sampling, internal evaluation as internal auditing, non conformity assessment, number and type of reported food safety problem (e.g. complaints) and evaluation of FSMS by external parties. Four situations are related to no information (situation 1), poor (situation 2), moderate (situation 3), and good food safety output (situation 4). Poor output is associated with ad-hoc sampling, minimal criteria used for FSMS evaluation, and existence of different food safety problems or remarks during inspections and audits. Moderate output corresponds to regular sampling, several criteria used for evaluation, and restricted food safety problems, mainly due to one (restricted) type of problem. Good output represents systematic evaluation of the FSMS using specific, tailored criteria without food safety problems or important remarks during inspections and audits (Jacxsens, et al., 2010; Kirezieva, Jacxsens, et al., 2013).

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

189

2.3. Data analysis

190 191 192 193 194

Data processing was performed using Microsoft Office Excel. The scores for context riskiness ranged from 1 (low risk) to 3 (high risk), while FSMS activity performance and food safety output scores ranged from 1 (not applied or done) to 4 (advanced for FSMS activities and good for food safety output). Mode values were calculated as the most frequent score for a given indicator over the different producers and cold store companies.

195

3. Results and discussion

196

3.1. Orchard farms

197

3.1.1. Context factors

198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215

The riskiness of product, process, organizational and chain environmental characteristics in nine orchard farms are presented in Table 2 (context of FSMS). As all farms involved in this study are producing the same type of product, following the same practices and cultivation system, the indicators for product and process characteristics scored similarly for all farms, reflecting moderate to high risk context. Risk related to microbiological and chemical contamination of initial (planting) material was moderate (CP1, CP2, CP3, score 2), while risk related to the final product was high (CP4, CP5, score 3). During cultivation from buds there is a possibility of fungi development, and although raspberries are rarely associated with mycotoxin contamination, patulin presence has been reported at levels of 746 g/kg (Drusch & Ragab, 2003) and low levels of alternariol were found in raspberry juices (Lau, et al., 2003). Therefore, all nine orchard farms scored 2 for mycotoxin production, indicating moderate risk (CP3, Table 2). Additionally, final fruits are susceptible to microbial contamination, due to its complex surface characteristics, porosity and lack of protective surface coating (Lynch, et al., 2009), but also to pesticide contamination as no additional step will remove undesirable pesticides residues, putting higher demands on core control activities in the raspberries chain. The issues pertinent to pesticides residues should not be underestimated in the raspberry production chain. Among 128 samples that were analysed in their study, 66 (51.6%) were found to detect various pesticide residues (Lozowicka, Kaczynski, Jankowska, Rutkowska, & Hrynko, 2012).

216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

All orchard farms were open cultivation system (CP6, score 3) and therefore more difficult to control and more susceptible to microbial contamination due to their direct contact with the soil and environment. There is a risk posed by livestock, wild animals (Suslow, et al., 2003), and birds (Langholz & Jay-Russell, 2013). In line with geographical position of Serbia, climatic conditions are favourable for growing raspberries, with cool winter, long growing season, where when temperatures slowly warm up in spring, and moderate summer (Djurkovic 2012). Nevertheless, these conditions occasionally may favour pathogen survival and growth, which may be introduced or maintained for prolonged period of time in the production environment (Guber, Shelton, Pachepsky, Sadeghi, & Sikora, 2006; Parker, McIntyre, & Noble, 2010) and therefore all orchard farms scored 2 for climate conditions (CP7).

226 227 228 229 230

Only two orchard farms were applying an irrigation process by utilizing using potable water, while other farms were using used water only to prepare solution for agri-technical measures (e.g. pesticides solution, fertilization, etc.). Only one farm (Non Global G.A.P.) used water from uncontrolled source, which presents a high food safety risk for the food safety (CP8, score 3). Pre-harvest application of microbial contaminated solutions onto fresh produce could be an

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

231 232 233 234

important additional source of microbial contamination (Guan, Blank, & Holley, 2005; Ng, Fleet, & Heard, 2005). Jacxsens et al. (2017) demonstrated the potential effect on Norovirus exposure by application of contaminated surface water used for preparing pesticide solution dilution on Norovirus exposure on raspberries y fields.

235 236 237 238

Risks related to organizational and chain environmental characteristics are presented in Table 2. Eight out of nine orchard farms lacked competent personnel directly involved in food safety issues (CO9, score 3). They hired workers with no competence criteria and do not even provide basic food safety training.

239 240 241 242

Orchard farms that had implemented and certified Global G.A.P., had ve smaller risks related to organizational riskiness, such as management commitment and policy in respect to food safety. In all Global G.A.P. certified farms, this was prepared by produce / retail organization (CO12, score 2), and was not observed in Non Global G.A.P. certified farms (CO12, score 3).

243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

The requirements from stakeholders (CC16) are mainly related to Global G.A.P. standard, and three out of nine farms are were certified (F1, F2, F4), as a producer group certified with cold stores (CS1 and CS2). On the other side, there is was no influence of orchard farms on the producers of pesticides and / or fertilizers (CC17, score 3). The farms are were not able to make a clear specification and put requirements on the producers of pesticides and / or fertilizers, mainly due to the lack of competence. The system is still immature and needs more time, developments and investments, before these chain environmental characteristics become of smaller risk for the food safety of raspberries.

251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260

There is was high risk in eight out of nine farms regarding the logistic conditions (transport vehicles and storage facilities, CC19, score 3). Transport is was performed by tractors or tiller trailers, without temperature control. Only farm F4 is was using closed transportation vehicle, but without any control of temperature, humidity, gas, etc. It is however important to note the distance between the farm and the cold store. Farms F1, F2 and F3 are almost at the vicinity to cold stores, making it easier to deliver raspberries shortly after the harvest. Opposed to this option, distance between orchard farms F7, F8 and F9 and cold store CS3 is quite long (>10km). These farms are non-reachable by public roads, making it difficult to control. The transfer of raspberries to the cold store soon after the harvest minimizes the opportunity for post harvest contamination.

261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269

Overall, for all farms context risks were mostly moderate to high risk, which leaves putting a great pressure on control and assurance activities in the FSMS in order to achieve a good and stable food safety output. Major differences in context riskiness between Global G.A.P. and Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms were seen in organizational characteristics. In particular, Global G.A.P. certified farms had have lower risk for indicators such as “variability of workforce” (CO10), “management commitment” (CO11) and “formalization” (CO14). The effect of certification on the organization and chain riskiness was also previously demonstrated by previous work across Europe and in the comparison between Kenya (with Global G.A.P. certified farms) and Uganda (no certified farms) (Nanyunja, et al., 2015a).

270 271 272 273

3.1.2. Core control activities Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of scores and mode values for indicators representing status of design and actual operation of control measures. In Non Global G.A.P. farms, a lack of application (score 1) of core control indicators was determined, especially in monitoring and

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

274 275 276 277 278

operation of control activities (Table 3), while basic (activity implemented based upon own knowledge) to average level (activity implemented based on generic, sector generated information) of application was seen in Global G.A.P. farms, But still not yet towards the level of tailored to the its own situation, as could be expected from Global G.A.P. certified organisations.

279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291

Although all farms are using crates for collecting raspberries (PM24, score 1), there is was a difference in the application of sanitation requirements. Non Global G.A.P. farms operated at low level (PM27, score 1), while Global G.A.P. certified farms operated at basic level (PM27, score 2). This is mainly related to activities performed at cold stores, not at the farm. On one side, CS1 and CS2 dedicated time and place for cleaning the crates, supplying farms with clean creates. Additionally, orchard farms F1, F2 and F3 were are obliged to use one layer of foil at the bottom of the crates, before collecting fresh harvested raspberries. These foils were are delivered by cold store CS1 itself, without leaving this to the farmers’ good will of the farmers. On the other side, Non Global G.A.P. farms often used dirty, soiled and unclean crates. Although all orchard farms were are legally obliged to follow basic hygienic requirements for the equipment and facilities that come in contact with the fresh berries (Serbia, 2010c), they rather rely on the support of cold stores, and they were are convinced that crates’ hygiene was is not their responsibilities.

292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306

One important control activity that needs special attention is personal hygiene (PM28). Although all farms were are applying standard requirements regarding clothing and personal hygiene, only workers at orchard farms F4 were are using gloves during harvesting, while others use harvested with bear hands during harvesting. Some farms have possessed movable toilets and hand washing stations; others some of them were are located close to house and used house toilets, while only few farms do not have toilet facilities y or hand washing stations at all, not allowing workers to wash hands before start picking berries (Park, et al., 2013). Poor personal hygiene of workers is a well-known risk factor for the microbial contamination of fresh produce, while during growing in the fields, or during harvesting, post-harvest handling and processing, and distribution (Li, Keuckelaere, & Uyttendaele, 2015). Surely in the control of Norovirus contamination and further exposure assessment towards consumers, personal hygiene was identified as a major risk factor (Jacxsens, et al., 2017). The results of Park et al. (2013) indicated that spinach contamination was significantly reduced when workers used hand-washing stations or when the farm provided portable toilets for workers and trained the workers in how to use them.

307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318

Organic fertilizer, mainly manure, is was used within all investigated farms (PM32), as farmers often have their own cow/sheep production and therefore solid manure and slurries, as a waste product. The benefits of using animal manure are mainly related to the addition of plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) and organic matter (Gagliardi & Karns, 2000). However, animal manures frequently contain enteric pathogens and the usage of untreated and / or improperly treated manure on the field may lead to the entrance of pathogens into the food chain and to the contamination of soil, fresh produce, surface, ground water and drinking water. Appropriate composting, preparation and application at the field is needed to prevent raspberries contamination of raspberries (Nicholson, Groves, & Chambers, 2005). Non Global G.A.P. farms were are handling manure based on the previous experience and applied y it without any clear instructions and recommendations (PM32, score 1). On contrary, Global G.A.P. farms were are using recommendation and advices given by cold stores (CS1 and CS2) regarding time lap

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

319 320

between the manure application and raspberries harvest, and also regarding the minimum time of manure storage and ripening before its application in the orchard field (PM32 score 2).

321 322 323 324 325 326 327

The analysis of pesticides application showed s that Global G.A.P. farms operated at higher level (PM33, score 3) compared to Non Global G.A.P. farms (PM33, score 2). It is of note that this was is once more related to the activities that arose from cold stores. Each season, cold stores (CS1 and CS2) have prepared pesticides program with the list of recommended pesticides, maximum permitted amount and the time for its application, based on the expert knowledge and instructions derived from pesticides suppliers. They also delivered recommended pesticides to orchard farms, to avoid possibilities of using replacement substances.

328 329 330 331

All orchard farms that have Global G.A.P. certification have been already obliged to perform external analysis of pesticides present on their products according to pre-defined sampling plan, and therefore they operated at moderate and advanced level (MS41 and MS42, score 3 or 4), compare to Non Global G.A.P. certified farms (MS41 and MS42, score 1).

332

3.1.3. Core assessment activities in performance of FSMS

333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341

Assurance activities of orchard farms showed some differences (Table 4). Assurance activities They are aiming at providing evidence that the control activities in place are well in function and supported. The observed variability within the organisations was is mainly related to the fact that some orchard farms have had implemented the Global G.A.P. requirements from the Global G.A.P. standard (F1, F2, F4), while others have had not (F2, F5-F9). Global G.A.P. is includes d several assurance requirements as including internal self-assessment, documentation, among others. As expected, Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms operated at low level for all elements of assurance activities (score 1, Table 4), as they are were neither mandatory by the legislation (EC, 2004; Serbia, 2010c), nor by product specifications set by retailers (Luning, et al., 2009).

342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352

Certification against Global G.A.P. has been obliged as a licence-to-trade by retailers of three orchard farms involved in this study, and consequently results indicated that they performed some assurance activities at basic or average level (score 2 or 3, Table 4), such as “translation of stakeholder requirements into own FSMS requirements” (SR56), “documentation” (SU63) and “record keeping” (SU64). Results showed that even for Global G.A.P. certified farms, validation and verification activities were conducted at low level (score 1, Table 4) and have to be improved. Certification requirements are were often perceived as a burden to trade, because setting requirement on a FSMS demands from producers the higher level of development assurance activities. This was obvious from the study of Nanyunja et al. (2015a, 2015b), when comparing the situation of Kenyan certified farmers compared to non certified farmers in Uganda.

353

3.1.4. Food safety output

354 355 356 357 358 359 360

The distribution of scores for the system output indicators are presented in Table 5. All external and internal management indicators were at low level for Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms (EM65-69, IM70-74, score 1). This further indicates that these farms have not been externally evaluated by either competent authority or third party audits (EM65, score 1). They lacked the registration of customer complaints of any kind (microbiological, chemical or visual) and do not have any no insight or knowledge with the quality and safety of the product they produce and deliver.

361

On the other side, Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms operated at moderate to high levels for 9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375

most of the external FSMS output indicators (EM65-69, score 3 or 4). The external food safety audits in Global G.A.P. orchard farms have been carried out through by an accredited certification body (EM65, score 3). It is important to emphasize, that these certified farms had only minor remarks on specific or various aspects of FSMS (EM66, score 4). Although no microbiological or chemical complains have been noted (EM67 and EM68, score 4), various quality complains occurred in F1 and F2 (EM69, score 2), which might indicate some problems in the functioning of the FSMS. Introduction of a customer complaint log and their further analysis, may give the company information and the direction for the improvements of FSMS. All three Global G.A.P. orchard farms performed sampling of their final products, only upon request (IM70 and IM72, score 2). The interpretation of both microbiological and chemical results is was done using both legal criteria, requirements and specifications set by major stakeholders and customers (IM71 and IM73, score 2 and 3). Taking samples and registering non-conformities may allow orchard farms to judge the performance of their FSMS and to make upgrading.

376 377 378 379

Differences observed in food safety output between Global G.A.P. and Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms in Serbia, have been also determined between certified green beans farms in Kenya and non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda (Nanyunja, et al., 2015a) and between certified and non-certified mushroom farms in South Africa (Dzingirayi & Korsten, 2016).

380 381

3.2. Cold stores 3.2.1. Context factors

382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398

The riskiness of product, process, organizational and chain environmental characteristics in eight cold stores are presented in Table 2. The production process of frozen raspberries consists of selection, freezing and packaging of raspberries, without any physical or chemical intervention step which might reduce the level of potentially present microorganisms or chemicals in raspberries. The microbiological (bacterial and viral) and / or chemical (pesticides residues) contamination of raspberries (Van Boxstael, et al., 2013), that occurs at farms remains in the cold stores. It is of note that companies are were aware of this problem and were already advised by their consultants / certification bodies to introduce incoming control as a “control” or even “critical control point”, without any (control) mechanism to decrease the risk. Consequently, all cold stores operated at high risk microbial contamination for initial materials and final products (CP1, CP3, score 3). Two processors (CS1 and CS2) operated at a moderate risk with respect to pesticide contamination in both for raw material and final product (CP2, CP5, score 2), as they sourced their initial raw materials from Global G.A.P. certified orchards (F1, F2, F3 and F4), in which requirements related to proper application of only approved pesticide have to be fulfilled (Sawe, et al., 2014). In addition, these cold stores directly delivered recommended pesticides to orchard farms, to avoid usage ing of found-in-pharmacy pesticides. The other six cold stores (CS3-CS8) have scored high risk related to pesticides residues (CP2, CP5, score 3).

399 400 401 402 403 404 405

Raspberries are very fragile fruits and therefore post harvest decontamination treatments, not affecting the texture and nature of the produce, are not available. Even a simple washing step, often applied in the production of other fresh produce (e.g. leafy green vegetables), is not appropriate to be used suitable for the raspberries production, due to tissue damage that occur. Several studies have shown that freezing and frozen storage are actually unable to completely remove or inactivate enteric viruses (Baert, Debevere, & Uyttendaele, 2009; Butot, Putallaz, & Sánchez, 2008), which are reported to be a major food safety threats for frozen raspberries (Li, et

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

406 407 408 409

al., 2015). As a consequence, all eight cold stores operated at high risk for the production system (CP6, score 3). There is was a low risk in all companies regarding climate conditions (CP7, score 1). Due to the processing technology ical reasons, the production of frozen raspberries has to be performed in well controlled and acclimatized conditions, that do not favour microbial growth.

410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418

Seven examined companies cold stores used only potable water in their food production process, and therefore they operated at low risk (CP8, score 1). One company operated at moderate risk (CP8, score 2), as they are using in due to parallel usage of potable and surface water, without statistically underpinned sampling plan for testing surface water. Although there is was no direct contact between the food product raspberries and potentially contaminated water, workers are were still using water for hand washing, cleaning equipment and other contact surfaces. Several studies have indicated that the usage of inadequate quality water quality can be the cause of food safety issues in the fresh produce chain (Gil, Selma, López-Gálvez, & Allende, 2009; Hedberg, et al., 1999; Holvoet, Jacxsens, Sampers, & Uyttendaele, 2012).

419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434

Regarding the organizational characteristics, some differences have been noticed among companies. All of them have had restricted number of people dedicated to food safety and quality issues, and none of the companies had specialists, food microbiologists or food safety experts. This is probably due to the size of the companies (being mostly medium size companies) and expertise in this field, that is mainly obtained from the relevant institutions. Although the companies have had a relative consistent workforce composition (CO10, scores 1 and 2), the absence of adequate operator capability created s a high risk context situation, as the limited number of available workers have had specific knowledge and experience in the area of food safety (CO11, score 3). In order to obtain consistent food safety practices during food production, the adequate education, training and ability to implement obtained knowledge is needed (Djekic, et al., 2014; Jevšnik, Hlebec, & Raspor, 2008; Ko, 2010). Nevertheless, the companies have had relative consistent workforce composition, which allowed s companies to have in-house trainings and routine performance of food safety procedures. Other organizational characteristics, such as “management commitment” (CO12), “employee involvement” (CO13) and “formalization” (CO14) were at low-moderate risk (scores 1 and 2), and represent places for further improvements.

435 436 437 438

It is important to note that the level of information system is was low in most companies (CO14, scores 2 and 3) and consequently no proper food safety decision making process within food safety issues can could be performed (McMeekin, et al., 2006). Additional requirements have to be set for the verification activities.

439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450

The riskiness in chain environment characteristics differs among eight cold stores, since they have created different relations with the suppliers of raw material / fresh raspberries and with the purchasers of frozen raspberries. Regarding suppliers requirements, two companies (CS1 and CS2) have had an influence on the suppliers’ FSMS, and they organized and helped local raspberries suppliers of raspberries to implement and certify Global G.A.P. at their farms (CC17, score, 1). Good communication between cold stores and orchard farms (as major suppliers) allowed s better understanding and problem solving situations, putting less demand on the control and core assurance activities in FSMS. Nevertheless, other companies are operated mostly at moderate (CC17, score 2) to high risk (CC17, score 3), indicating minor influence of company on the suppliers’ performance, which may result in more unpredictable safety levels of fresh raspberries, which and puts higher demands on their FSMS such as strict incoming and supplier control. 11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461

Further in the raspberries food chain, a After the cold store, is retail is the next actor in raspberries food chain. It is important to determine what is the relation between cold stores and next partner in the chain, and how this relation influences FSMS of cold stores. Three companies operated at high risk (CC16, score 3), as their major stakeholders created different and strict quality assurance requirements on company’s FSMS. This is mainly related to the fact that they exported frozen berries to big retailers and different countries (EU countries, USA, Japan), where different food safety legislation is in force. Other companies do have had either generally recognized quality assurance requirements (CC16, score 1) or additional requirements common to all stakeholders (such as ISO, SQF, BRS) (CC16, score 2). Strict and various requirements that are put placed on FSMS by stakeholders also put higher demands on FSMS requiring advanced control and assurance activities.

462 463 464 465

As the major final product is frozen berries, the logistic facilities used to transport final products to the next actor in the chain are nonnegotiable, and they need strict control of environmental conditions. For this indicator, five companies operated at low risk (CC19, score 1), while three companies operated at moderate risk level (CC19, score 2).

466 467 468 469 470

The high level of riskiness was given to characteristics such as “Inspections of food safety authorities” (CC20), as the unsystematic and unspecific inspection was unsystematic and unspecific, without adequate follow-up activates and no feedback information was ever given to the companies, as well as “specificity of external control” (CC22), due to the lack of specific product or production system external support.

471

3.2.2. Core control activities

472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488

The scores and frequencies for core control activities in eight companies are presented in Table 3. All processors placed personnel hygiene requirements at a moderate (PM28, score 3) or advanced level (PM28, score 4). This means that they have placed high requirements for all food handlers on clothing, personal care and health, specific training and hygiene instructions. Other preventive control measures such as “hygienic design of equipment and storage facilities” (PM24), proper usage of cleaning agents within “sanitation programs” (PM27), are were mainly at the moderate or advanced level (score 3 or 4) in examined food businesses. This was mainly connected with the hygiene regulation, which puts strict demands on good manufacturing practices and control activities (Serbia, 2010c). Preventive measures influence food safety by reducing the chances on (cross) contamination or microbial growth. A full-step and tailored sanitation program with appropriate cleaning agents, prevents contamination, and five out of eight companies indicated the usage of complete sanitation program with cleaning agents advised by suppliers (PM27, score 3), and only two companies showed advanced level of sanitation program which verified effectiveness proved on-site (PM27, score 4). This is of great importance, having in mind the fact that disinfection and cleaning may not be always effective, and persistent pathogens may occur after the sanitation procedures take place in the production area (Thévenot, et al., 2006).

489 490 491

There is was low application (score 1) of two preventive indicators, one for “packaging equipment” (PM30), due to the lack of packaging machine and manual manipulation during packaging, and the other for total absence of “supplier control” in one cold store (PM31).

492 493 494

All companies assigned low level control activities to either full or partial post-harvest processing (IM36-37, score 1), as they are were not used in cold stores within the production of frozen berries (Richards, 2001). Partial intervention is used to reduce pathogen load on fresh 12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

495 496 497 498

produce, and this includes washing, disinfection, removal of outer layers, etc. On the other side full intervention processes include heat treatment processes such as blanching, pasteurization, sterilization and drying (Kirezieva, et al., 2015). Nevertheless, neither full nor partial intervention was applied for raspberries, due to their fragile nature.

499 500 501 502 503 504 505

All companies have had an implemented HACCP, as it became a mandatory legal requirement since 2009 (Serbia, 2009). Therefore all of them performed hazard identification, risk assessment and allocation of critical control points / control points based on hygiene codes and this was performed by external experts / consultants. The companies were not aware of the existence and information about actual pathogen behaviour, that can be predicted by using the challenge studies, predictive models, etc. (Augustin, et al., 2011; CAC, 2008; Stringer, 2005; Uyttendaele, et al., 2004).

506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523

The tolerances of product / process parameters and standard design derived from general hygiene codes (MS40, score 3). Additionally, analytical test methods for both pesticides residues and pathogens are were internationally validated methods (ISO methods) performed in the external laboratories, and therefore all companies scored 4 (MS41 and MS42). The reason for this is recent harmonization of legal rules with EU legislation (Serbia, 2010a, 2010b), and requirements for the usage of internationally validated methods (e.g. ISO methods) instead of methods earlier published in national Ordinances (Yugoslavia, 1980). Although detailed sampling plan for microbiological analysis is available within the current legal document (Serbia, 2010a), the companies varied in scoring factor “Sampling plan for microbial assessment” (MS44). Five companies scored 3, indicating the usage of acknowledged guidelines information for sampling plans, most probably given within the Ordinance (Serbia, 2010a). However, two companies scored 2 and one scored 1 for this indicator, signifying that sampling plans used in these companies were based solely on in-house knowledge and previous experience or were completely omitted and ad-hoc samples were sent to laboratory for the analysis. At the same time, all companies outsourced the laboratory for analysis of samples, no matter how they were sampled. At the moment of performing the interviews, no legal documents were published regarding sampling procedures and instructions for food sampling in regard respect to pesticides residues and therefore only four companies were using common sampling plans for the sector.

524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532

The existence of accurate and understandable procedures at the right place allows a better direction of peoples’ decision-making behaviour in control activities and all companies scored 3 or 4, being at high or advanced level (OC47). Along with the existence, compliance of procedures is was also at high level (OC48), probably due to simple steps in the production. Although, the procedures are were in place and HACCP system is was implemented, two companies lack information about hygienic performance of their equipment (OC49, score 1). Nevertheless, five companies indicated that the hygienic performance of their equipment and facilities is was stable, according to the results of regular hygienic performance tests (OC49, score 4).

533 534 535 536 537

Due to specific production of raspberries and requirements for strict temperature control, influencing both microbial and quality stability of products, most companies operated at high / advanced level for the cooling/storage capacity (OC50, score 3 and 4). Environmental and product conditions (temperature, humidity) are were automatically monitored and results are were analyzed on a regular basis.

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

538

3.2.3. Core assurance activities

539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554

The core assurance activities in examined cold stores are were mainly at medium or high level of activities (Table 4). The results for assurance activities, such as “transfer of stakeholder requirements into own FSMS” varied y from low to advanced level (SR56). The reason for this variability is most probably the nature of businesses, whether the final product is distributed on export market (EU, USA or Japan) or mainly on local market. Mostly, the companies which cooperate and export their products are were required to implement different QA guidelines and standards such as HACCP, BRC, FSSC 22000 prior of signing a contract. This further means that assurance activities such as validation and verification of implemented control measures are were mandatory elements. Nevertheless, some of the companies are were working for local market or distributors whose requirements are were not strict in sense of food safety, but more focused on quality parameters. The translation of stakeholders requirements is very important when designing and implementing an effective FSMS. This process accounts for comparison of current control and assurance activities to the (new) stakeholder requirements, and as a result a new specific system requirements may be determined (new sampling plans to asses pathogens or pesticides, more accurate equipment, etc.) (Luning, et al., 2009). Additionally, all information obtained from feedback may serve to update and modify FSMS.

555 556 557 558 559 560 561

Validation of preventive measures and monitoring system is mainly based on historical data and available knowledge or regulatory documents (such as specific hygiene codes), and usually performed by own company’s people or in some cases by external experts (CAC, 2008). A more scientific evidence-based, systematic, and independent validation would improve both the preventive and monitoring activities. Verification of employees’ performance in cold stores is was based on either checking the presence and availability of needed procedures and records or on analyzing procedures (both content and presence) and records.

562 563 564 565 566

It is obvious from obtained results that these assurance activities could be improved as validation, verification, sampling plans are important to assure food safety of the final product. Nevertheless c Companies usually found find great their implementation difficult and timeconsuming. difficulties to implement them and they also found these activities being timeconsuming.

567

3.2.4. Food safety output

568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576

As already mentioned, several cold stores are were mainly export oriented, working with different customers all over the world, and therefore they were often audited from several different parties (second and third party audits). Two companies are were always audited by one accredited party, and in one company audit of FSMS was never performed (Table 5). In most audited companies (six out of eight), no major nonconformities and / or only minor remarks on specific or various aspects of the FSMS were raised given. Additionally, companies indicated that complains are were mainly related to the quality characteristics, more often than microbiological or chemical issues. This further indicated a good performance of food safety in cold stores involved in this study.

577

4. Conclusion

578 579

Due to fragile nature of raspberries, only minimal processing is was undertaken post-harvest, such as freezing, packing, labelling and distribution. As there is was no processing step that will

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594

eliminate / reduce food safety hazards (microbiological or chemical) to an acceptable level, it is important to adequately address these hazards pre-harvest and during harvesting (Manning & Mei Soon, 2013). Therefore the implementation of a private, risk based standard at the primary production level, such as Global G.A.P. might serve as a solid foundation to deal with major recognized hazards at primary production, but also in the for downstream actors in the raspberries chain, such as processing companies and retail. Although there is was a high risk for product and process characteristics in all farms involved in this study, for organizational characteristics smaller context risk was determined for Global G.A.P. certified farms. As expected certified farms performed higher level of control activities compared to Non Global G.A.P. farms, as most of control activities are were actually requirements for Global G.A.P. Consequently, food safety output for Global G.A.P. farms was at higher level compared to Non Global G.A.P. farms. The obtained results are were related not only to the activities at the farms, but also to the support and help from cold stores. Our results indicated better food safety output in cold stores compared to orchard farms, as they operated at higher level of core control and assurance activities.

595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604

This highlights several places for food safety improvements along the raspberries chain. At the primary production level, increase of awareness of risks originating at the farm level are is of ultimate importance. Creating a “food safety culture” including enhancing risk awareness, communication, leadership, resources and commitment has been recently identified to be of utmost importance, even in small scale organisations (e.g. (De Boeck, Jacxsens, Bollaerts, Uyttendaele, & Vlerick (2016)) In addition, improvements can be connected with water control, pesticides program, hygiene requirements, storage facilities. At the level of processing (cold stores), the hygienic design and equipment, as well as the storage capacity should be tested for the specific company and their own conditions. In addition, validation and verification of control activities could be improved, as currently they are at moderate or basic level.

605

Acknowledgments

606 607 608 609

This research was conducted within the framework of the European Union Framework Programme 7 Veg-i-Trade project “Impact of Climate Change and Globalization on Safety of Fresh Produce Governing a Supply Chain of Uncompromised Food Sovereignty” (www.veg-itrade.org, Grant Agreement No. 244994).

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655

Augustin, J.-C., Bergis, H., Midelet-Bourdin, G., Cornu, M., Couvert, O., Denis, C., Huchet, V., Lemonnier, S., Pinon, A., Vialette, M., Zuliani, V., & Stahl, V. (2011). Design of challenge testing experiments to assess the variability of Listeria monocytogenes growth in foods. Food Microbiology, 28(4), 746-754. Baert, L., Debevere, J., & Uyttendaele, M. (2009). The efficacy of preservation methods to inactivate foodborne viruses. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 131(2–3), 83-94. Berger, C. N., Sodha, S. V., Shaw, R. K., Griffin, P. M., Pink, D., Hand, P., & Frankel, G. (2010). Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of human pathogens. Environmental Microbiology, 12(9), 2385-2397. Bouwknegt, M., Verhaelen, K., Rzeżutka, A., Kozyra, I., Maunula, L., von Bonsdorff, C.-H., Vantarakis, A., Kokkinos, P., Petrovic, T., Lazic, S., Pavlik, I., Vasickova, P., Willems, K. A., Havelaar, A. H., Rutjes, S. A., & de Roda Husman, A. M. (2015). Quantitative farm-to-fork risk assessment model for norovirus and hepatitis A virus in European leafy green vegetable and berry fruit supply chains. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 198, 5058. Buric, T. (2003). Foreign Agricultural Service/USDA, GAIN Report, Global Agriculture Information Network, Yugoslavia Fresh Deciduous Fruit, Raspberries Annual, Voluntary Report. Butot, S., Putallaz, T., & Sánchez, G. (2008). Effects of sanitation, freezing and frozen storage on enteric viruses in berries and herbs. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 126(1–2), 30-35. CAC. (2008). Guidelines for the validation of food safety control measures. CAC/GL 69-2008. Caceres, V. M., Ball, R. T., Somerfeldt, S. A., Mackey, R. L., Nichols, S. E., MacKenzie, W. R., & Herwaldt, B. L. (1998). A foodborne outbreak of cyclosporiasis caused by imported raspberries. Journal of Family Practice, 47(3), 231-235. Chigor, V. N., Umoh, V. J., Okuofu, C. A., Ameh, J. B., Igbinosa, E. O., & Okoh, A. I. (2012). Water quality assessment: surface water sources used for drinking and irrigation in Zaria, Nigeria are a public health hazard. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(5), 3389-3400. Cotterelle B., Drougard C., Rolland J., Becamel M., Boudon M., Pinede S., Traoré O., Balay K., Pothier P., & E.., E. (2005). Outbreak of norovirus infection associated with the consumption of frozen raspberries, France, March 2005. Eurosurveillance, 10(17), 2690. De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., Uyttendaele, M., & Vlerick, P. (2016). Interplay between food safety climate, food safety management system and microbiological hygiene in farm butcheries and affiliated butcher shops. Food Control, 65, 78-91. de Quadros Rodrigues, R., Loiko, M. R., Minéia Daniel de Paula, C., Hessel, C. T., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Bender, R. J., & Tondo, E. C. (2014). Microbiological contamination linked to implementation of good agricultural practices in the production of organic lettuce in Southern Brazil. Food Control, 42, 152-164. Djekic, I., Smigic, N., Kalogianni, E. P., Rocha, A., Zamioudi, L., & Pacheco, R. (2014). Food hygiene practices in different food establishments. Food Control, 39, 34-40. Drusch, S., & Ragab, W. (2003). Mycotoxins in fruits, fruit juices, and dried fruits. Journal of Food Protection, 66(8), 1514-1527. Dzingirayi, G., & Korsten, L. (2016). Assessment of Primary Production of Horticultural Safety Management Systems of Mushroom Farms in South Africa. Journal of Food Protection, 79(7), 1188-1196. EC. (2004). Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs In. Forslund, A., Ensink, J., Battilani, A., Kljujev, I., Gola, S., Raicevic, V., Jovanovic, Z., Stikic, R., Sandei, L., & Fletcher, T. (2010). Faecal contamination and hygiene aspect associated with the use of treated wastewater and canal water for irrigation of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Agricultural Water Management, 98(3), 440-450. Gagliardi, J. V., & Karns, J. S. (2000). Leaching of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in diverse soils under various agricultural management practices. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(3), 877-883. Gibbs, R., Nanyonjo, R., Pingault, N., Combs, B., Mazzucchelli, T., Armstrong, P., Tarling, G., & Dowse, G.

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701

(2013). An outbreak of Cyclospora infection on a cruise ship. Epidemiology and Infection, 141(3), 508-516. Gil, M. I., Selma, M. V., López-Gálvez, F., & Allende, A. (2009). Fresh-cut product sanitation and wash water disinfection: Problems and solutions. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 134(1–2), 37-45. Guan, T. T. Y., Blank, G., & Holley, R. A. (2005). Survival of pathogenic bacteria in pesticide solutions and on treated tomato plants. Journal of Food Protection, 68(2), 296-304. Guber, A., Shelton, D., Pachepsky, Y., Sadeghi, A., & Sikora, L. (2006). Rainfall-induced release of fecal coliforms and other manure constituents: comparison and modeling. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(12), 75317539. Hedberg, C., Angulo, F., White, K., Langkop, C., Schell, W., Stobierski, M., Schuchat, A., Besser, J., Dietrich, S., & Helsel, L. (1999). Outbreaks of salmonellosis associated with eating uncooked tomatoes: implications for public health. Epidemiology and Infection, 122(03), 385-393. Herwaldt, B. L., & Ackers, M.-L. (1997). An outbreak in 1996 of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(22), 1548-1556. Holvoet, K., Jacxsens, L., Sampers, I., & Uyttendaele, M. (2012). Insight into the prevalence and distribution of microbial contamination to evaluate water management in the fresh produce processing industry. Journal of Food Protection, 75(4), 671-681. Jacxsens, L., Stals, A., De Keuckelaere, A., Deliens, B., Rajkovic, A., & Uyttendaele, M. (2017). Quantitative farmto-fork human norovirus exposure assessment of individually quick frozen raspberries and raspberry puree. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 242, 87-97. Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Devlieghere, F., Rovira, J., Gomez, S. O., & Luning, P. (2010). Food safety performance indicators to benchmark food safety output of food safety management systems. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 141, S180-S187. Jevšnik, M., Hlebec, V., & Raspor, P. (2008). Food safety knowledge and practices among food handlers in Slovenia. Food Control, 19(12), 1107-1118. Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Luning, P. A. (2013). Assessment of Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Research International, 52(1), 230-242. Kirezieva, K., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Allende, A., Johannessen, G. S., Tondo, E. C., Rajkovic, A., Uyttendaele, M., & van Boekel, M. A. (2015). Factors affecting the status of food safety management systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Control, 52, 85-97. Kirezieva, K., Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Uyttendaele, M., & Luning, P. A. (2013). Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 32(2), 108-127. Ko, W.-H. (2010). Evaluating food safety perceptions and practices for agricultural food handler. Food Control, 21(4), 450-455. Langholz, J. A., & Jay-Russell, M. T. (2013). Potential role of wildlife in pathogenic contamination of fresh produce. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 7(1), 140-157. Lau, B. P. Y., Scott, P. M., Lewis, D. A., Kanhere, S. R., Cléroux, C., & Roscoe, V. A. (2003). Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry of the Alternaria mycotoxins alternariol and alternariol monomethyl ether in fruit juices and beverages. Journal of Chromatography A, 998(1–2), 119-131. Leposavic, A., Jankovi, M., Đurovi, D., Veljkovi, B., Keserovi, Z., Popovi, B., & Mitrovi, O. (2013). Fruit quality of red raspberry cultivars and selections grown in Western Serbia. Horticultural Science, 40(4), 154-161. Li, D., Keuckelaere, A., & Uyttendaele, M. (2015). Fate of foodborne viruses in the “Farm to Fork” chain of fresh produce. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(6), 755-770. Lozowicka, B., Kaczynski, P., Jankowska, M., Rutkowska, E., & Hrynko, I. (2012). Pesticide residues in raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) and dietary risk assessment. Food Additives & Contaminants Part B-Surveillance, 5(3), 165-171.

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747

Luning, P. A., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., & Marcelis, W. J. (2008). Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(10), 522-534. Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Uyttendaele, M., & Jacxsens, L. (2011). A tool to diagnose context riskiness in view of food safety activities and microbiological safety output. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22, S67-S79. Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., & Jacxsens, L. (2009). Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in a company specific food safety management system. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20(6–7), 300-312. Lynch, M. F., Tauxe, R. V., & Hedberg, C. W. (2009). The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology & Infection, 137(3), 307-315. Manning, L., & Mei Soon, J. (2013). GAP framework for fresh produce supply. British Food Journal, 115(6), 796820. McMeekin, T. A., Baranyi, J., Bowman, J., Dalgaard, P., Kirk, M., Ross, T., Schmid, S., & Zwietering, M. H. (2006). Information systems in food safety management. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 112(3), 181194. Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A. N., Uyttendaele, M., & Luning, P. A. (2015a). Assessing the status of food safety management systems for fresh produce production in East Africa: evidence from certified green bean farms in Kenya and noncertified hot pepper farms in Uganda. Journal of Food Protection, 78(6), 1081-1089. Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A. N., Uyttendaele, M., & Luning, P. A. (2015b). Shift In performance of food safety management systems in supply chains: case of green bean chain in Kenya versus hot pepper chain in Uganda. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Ng, P. J., Fleet, G. H., & Heard, G. M. (2005). Pesticides as a source of microbial contamination of salad vegetables. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 101(2), 237-250. Nicholson, F. A., Groves, S. J., & Chambers, B. J. (2005). Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresource Technology, 96(2), 135-143. Nikolic, M., Ivanovic, M., Milenkovic, S., Milivojevic, J., & Milutinovic, M. (2008). State and prospects of raspberry production in Serbia. Acta horticulturae, 777, 243-250. Nikolic, M., & Milivojevic, J. (2015). Jagodaste voćke - tehnologija gajenja (in Serbian) (Second edition ed.). Belgrade, Serbia: Univerzitet u Beogradu - Poljoprivredni fakultet. Osés, S. M., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Santillana, S., Jaime, I., & Rovira, J. (2012). Food safety management system performance in the lamb chain. Food Control, 25(2), 493-500. Park, S., Navratil, S., Gregory, A., Bauer, A., Srinath, I., Jun, M., Szonyi, B., Nightingale, K., Anciso, J., & Ivanek, R. (2013). Generic Escherichia coli contamination of spinach at the preharvest level: The role of farm management and environmental factors. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(14), 4347-4358. Parker, J., McIntyre, D., & Noble, R. (2010). Characterizing fecal contamination in stormwater runoff in coastal North Carolina, USA. Water research, 44(14), 4186-4194. RASFF. (2016). Rapid alert system for food and feed - portal. Richards, G. (2001). Enteric virus contamination of foods through industrial practices: a primer on intervention strategies. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 27(2), 117-125. Sampers, I., Jacxsens, L., Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Dumoulin, A., & Uyttendaele, M. (2010). Performance of food safety management systems in poultry meat preparation processing plants in relation to Campylobacter spp. contamination. Journal of Food Protection, 73(8), 1447-1457. Sampers, I., Toyofuku, H., Luning, P. A., Uyttendaele, M., & Jacxsens, L. (2012). Semi-quantitative study to evaluate the performance of a HACCP-based food safety management system in Japanese milk processing plants. Food Control, 23(1), 227-233.

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788

Sarvikivi, E., Roivainen, M., Maunula, L., Niskanen, T., Korhonen, T., Lappalainen, M., & Kuusi, M. (2012). Multiple norovirus outbreaks linked to imported frozen raspberries. Epidemiology and Infection, 140(2), 260-267. Sawe, C. T., Onyango, C. M., & Njage, P. M. K. (2014). Current food safety management systems in fresh produce exporting industry are associated with lower performance due to context riskiness: Case study. Food Control, 40, 335-343. Serbia. (2009). Food Safety Law, Official Gazette of RS, No. 41/09. In. Serbia. (2010a). Ordinance on general and specific food hygiene requirements at any stage of production, processing and trade. Official Gazzette RS, No. 72/10. In. Serbia. (2010b). Ordinance on maximum permitted levels of residues of pesticides in food and feed and feed and feed for which the maximum allowable amount of residues of plant protection products. Official Gazzette RS, 25/10, 28/11 and 20/13. In. Serbia. (2010c). Ordinance on the general conditions of food hygiene. Official Gazette RS, No 73/10. In. Serbia. (2015). Statistical yearbook of the Republic of Serbia. In. Belgrade, Serbia: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (in Serbian). Serbia. (2016). Statistical yearbook of the Republic of Serbia. In. Belgrade, Serbia: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (in Serbian). Stine, S. W., Song, I., Choi, C. Y., & Gerba, C. P. (2011). Application of pesticide sprays to fresh produce: a risk assessment for hepatitis A and Salmonella. Food and environmental virology, 3(2), 86-91. Stringer, M. (2005). Summary report: Food safety objectives—role in microbiological food safety management. Food Control, 16(9), 775-794. Suslow, T. V., Oria, M. P., Beuchat, L. R., Garrett, E. H., Parish, M. E., Harris, L. J., Farber, J. N., & Busta, F. F. (2003). Production practices as risk factors in microbial food safety of fresh and fresh-cut produce. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2, 38-77. Thévenot, D., Delignette-Muller, M. L., Christieans, S., Leroy, S., Kodjo, A., & Vernozy-Rozand, C. (2006). Serological and molecular ecology of Listeria monocytogenes isolates collected from 13 French pork meat salting– curing plants and their products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 112(2), 153-161. USAID. (2008). Cultivated berry value chain assessment - USAID agribusiness project - Serbia. Uyttendaele, M., Rajkovic, A., Benos, G., François, K., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (2004). Evaluation of a challenge testing protocol to assess the stability of ready-to-eat cooked meat products against growth of Listeria monocytogenes. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 90(2), 219-236. Van Boxstael, S., Habib, I., Jacxsens, L., De Vocht, M., Baert, L., Van De Perre, E., Rajkovic, A., Lopez-Galvez, F., Sampers, I., Spanoghe, P., De Meulenaer, B., & Uyttendaele, M. (2013). Food safety issues in fresh produce: Bacterial pathogens, viruses and pesticide residues indicated as major concerns by stakeholders in the fresh produce chain. Food Control, 32(1), 190-197. Verhaelen, K., Bouwknegt, M., Carratalà, A., Lodder-Verschoor, F., Diez-Valcarce, M., Rodríguez-Lázaro, D., de Roda Husman, A. M., & Rutjes, S. A. (2013). Virus transfer proportions between gloved fingertips, soft berries, and lettuce, and associated health risks. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 166(3), 419-425. Yugoslavia. (1980). Ordinance on the methods of performing microbiological analyzes and super analyzes of food. Official Gazzette of SFRY, No. 25/80. In.

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

2

Table 1. The relations between characteristics of orchard farms and cold stores involved in the study. Orchard farms

Implemented and certified standard

Number of employees

F1

Global G.A.P.

1-49

F2

Global G.A.P.

1-49

F3

None

1-49

F4

Global G.A.P.

50-249

F5

None

1-49

F6

None

1-49

F7

None

1-49

F8

None

1-49

F9

None

1-49

Size of farm

Ownership

35ars (one parcel) 15ars (one parcel) 40ars (fragmented)

Independent producer Independent producer Independent producer In cooperative with CHS2 Independent producer Independent producer Independent producer Independent producer Independent producer

3ha (one parcel) 1ha (fragmented) 1,5ha (one parcel) 1ha (fragmented) 2ha (fragmented) 45ars (one parcel)

Supplier

Cold store

→ →

CS1

<0.5 km

Number of employees

HACCP IFS BRC

50-249

HACCP ISO 9001 BRC

50-249

HACCP ISO 9001 BRC

50-249

<0.5 km CS2

3 km

→

4km

→

3km

→

Implemented and certified standard

<0.5 km

→ →

Distance between farm and cold store

CS3

> 10km

→

> 10km

→

> 10km

HACCP ISO 9001 CS4 BRC IFS CS5 HACCP HACCP CS6 BRC HACCP ISO 9001 CS7 BRC FSSC 22000 CS8 HACCP *HACCP – Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, BRC – British Retail Consortium, IFS – International Food Standard,

50-249 50-249 50-249 50-249 10-49

3 4

Table 2. The distribution of the individual scores for the context factors in Non Global G.A.P. (n=6), Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms (n=3) and cold stores (n=8). (Score 1, 2, and 3 represent respectively low, moderate and high-risk context). Orchard farms Orchard farms (Non Global G.A.P.) (Global G.A.P.) Mode*** 1 2 3 1 2 3 PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS CP1: Risk of initial materials – microbiological 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 CP2: Risk of initial materials – pesticide 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 CP3: Risk of initial product – mycotoxins 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 CP4: Risk of final product – microbiological 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CP5: Risk of final product – pesticides 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS CP6: Production system* 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CP7: Climate conditions 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 CP8: Water supply 1 4 1 2 2 1 0 ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CO9: Technological staff** 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 CO10:Variability of workforce 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 CO11: Operator competence 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CO12: Management commitment 0 0 6 3 0 3 0 CO13: Employee involvement 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CO14: Formalization 0 0 6 3 0 3 0 CO15: Information system 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CHAIN CHARACTERISTICS CC16: Requirements of stakeholders 0 5 1 2 0 3 0 CC17: Supplier relationships 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CC18: Food safety information exchange 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CC19: Conditions of the logistic facilities 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 CC20: Inspections of food safety authorities 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 CC21: Variability of suppliers for raw materials 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 CC22: Specificity of external support 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 CC23: Specificity food safety legal framework 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 *for orchard farms, production system is cultivation system, while for cold stores production system is (full / partial) intervention step **staff having specific knowledge in food safety ***mode represents the most frequent number answer among farms respondents for given indicator INDICATORS

5 6 7

Mode***

Cold stores

Mode***

1

2

3

2 2 2 3 3

0 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 0 1

8 6 8 8 7

3 3 3 3 3

3 2 1

0 8 7

0 0 1

8 0 0

3 1 1

3 1 3 2 3 2 3

0 2 0 4 0 4 1

5 6 1 4 5 4 4

3 0 7 0 3 0 3

2 2 3 2 2 2 2

2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

1 2 0 5 0 0 0 1

4 5 1 3 5 4 0 6

3 1 7 0 3 4 8 1

2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2

8 9

Table 3. The distribution of the individual scores to compare core control activities for Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms (n=6), Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms (n=3) and cold stores (n=8). (Score 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent low, basic, average and advanced level). Orchard farms Orchard farms (Non Global G.A.P.) (Global G.A.P.) Mode* 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 PREVENTIVE MEASURES DESIGN PM24: Hygienic design of equipment and facilities 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 PM25: Maintenance and calibration program 0 6 0 0 2 0 3 0 PM26: Storage facilities 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 PM27: Sanitation program(s) 5 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 PM28: Personal hygiene requirements 0 6 0 0 2 0 3 0 PM29: Incoming material control 6 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 PM30: Packaging equipment 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 PM31: Supplier control 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 PM32: Organic fertilization at the farm 5 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 PM33: Pesticide program 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 3 PM34: Water control 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 PM35: Irrigation method 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 INTERVENTION METHOD DESIGN IM36: Full physical intervention IM37: Partial physical intervention 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 IM38: Chemical intervention strategies MONITORING SYSTEM DESIGN MS39: Analysis of CCP/CPs MS40: Standards and tolerances design MS41: Analytical methods to assess pathogens 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 MS42: Analytical methods to assess pesticides 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 MS43: Measuring equipment to monitor process/ product status MS44: Sampling plan for microbial assessment 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 MS46: Sampling plan for pesticide assessment 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 MS46: Corrective actions 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 OPERATION OF CONTROL ACTIVITIES OC47: Actual availability of procedures 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 OC48: Actual compliance to procedures 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 OC49: Actual hygienic performance of equipment and facilities 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 OC50: Actual storage/cooling capacity 5 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 OC51: Actual process capability of full intervention processes OC52: Actual process capability of partial physical intervention 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 OC53: Actual process capability of packaging 6 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 OC54: Actual performance of measuring equipment OC55: Actual performance of analytical equipment 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Mode*

INDICATORS

10

*

mode represents the most frequent number answer among farms respondents for given indicator

4

Cold stores

Mode*

1

2

3

4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -

3 0 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 -

5 3 7 5 4 4 2 3 8 -

0 5 1 2 4 2 1 3 0 -

3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 -

0 -

1 -

8 8 8

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1

8 8 0 0 6 5 4 3

0 0 8 8 1 0 0 2

3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3 3 1 1 1 1 3

0 0 2 0 8 8 1 0 0

1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

5 5 1 4 0 0 3 6 0

2 2 5 3 0 0 2 2 8

3 3 4 3 1 1 3 3 4

11 12

Table 4. The distribution of the individual scores to compare assurance activities for Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms (n=6), Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms (n=3) and cold stores (n=8). (Score 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent low, basic, average and advanced level). INDICATORS

SR56: Translation of stakeholder requirements into own management requirements SR57: The systematic use of feedback information to modify management system

13

Orchard farms Orchard farms (Non Global G.A.P.) (Global G.A.P.) Mode* 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 SETTING OF SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Mode* 4

Cold stores

Mode*

1

2

3

4

6

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

2

2

3

1

3

6

0

0

0

1

2

1

0

0

1

2

2

4

0

3

VA58: Validation of preventive measures VA59: Validation of intervention processes VA60: Validation of monitoring systems

6 6 -

0 0 -

0 0 -

3 3 -

0 0 -

0 0 -

0 0 -

1 1 -

0 1 0

3 7 5

5 0 3

0 0 0

3 2 2

VE61: Verification of people related performance VE62: Verification of equipment and methods related performance

6

0

VALIDATION 0 1 0 1 VERIFICATION 0 0 1

3

0

0

0

1

1

3

4

0

3

6

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

0

5

3

0

2

SU63: Documentation SU64: Record keeping system

6 3

0 3

0 0

0 0

0 2

3 1

0 0

3 2

0 0

2 1

6 7

0 0

3 3

*

0

1

SUPPORT 0 1 0 2

mode represents the most frequent number answer among farms respondents for given indicator

14 15

Table 5. The distribution of the individual scores to compare food safety performance Non Global G.A.P. orchard farms (n = 6), Global G.A.P. certified orchard farms (n=3) and cold stores (n=8). (Score 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent low, poor, moderate and good food safety performance). INDICATORS EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS EM65: FSMS evaluation EM66: Seriousness of remarks EM67: Hygiene related and microbiological food safety complaints EM68: Chemical safety complaints EM69: (Visual) quality complaints INTERNAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS IM70: Product sampling to confirm microbiological performance IM71:Judgment criteria are used to interpret microbiological results IM72:Product sampling to confirm use of pesticides IM73:Judgment criteria are used to interpret pesticide testing results IM74:Non conformities

16

*

Orchard farms (Non Global G.A.P.) 1 2 3 4

Mode*

Orchard farms (Global G.A.P.) 1 2 3

4

6 6

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

3 0

0 3

6

0

0

6 5

0 1

0 0

0

1

0

0

0

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 2

0 0

6

0

0

0

1

0

3

6

0

0

0

1

0

6

0

0

0

1

6

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

Cold stores

Mode*

1

2

3

4

3 4

1 1

0 0

2 1

5 6

4 4

3

4

0

0

2

6

4

3 1

4 2

0 0

0 2

0 3

8 3

4 3

0

0

2

0

1

4

3

3

1

2

0

3

0

1

6

1

3

0

3

0

0

2

0

1

7

0

3

1

0

1

2

0

3

0

1

6

1

3

1

0

0

2

1

3

0

0

2

6

4

mode represents the most frequent number answer among farms respondents for given indicator

5

Mode*