Tracing Fruits and Vegetables from Farm to Fork: Questions of Novelty and Efficiency

TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK: QUESTIONS OF NOVELTY AND EFFICIENCY

6

Aly Farag El Sheikha Department of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Jiangxi Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Fungal Resources, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, China Department of Food Science and Technology, Minufiya Government, Minufiya University, Al Minufiya, Egypt

6.1  Traceability: A Challenge of Global Levels Foodborne disease outbreaks and incidents, including those arising from natural, accidental, and deliberate contamination of food, have been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as major global public health threats of the 21st century. The WHO estimates that foodborne diseases cause 600 million illnesses each year and 420,000 associated deaths (World Health Organization (WHO), 2015). The global burden of foodborne illness caused by bacteria, viruses, parasitic microorganisms, pesticides, contaminants (including toxins), and other food safety problems is unknown but thought to be considerable. In light of global food safety concerns, the WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety, endorsed in January 2002 by the WHO Executive Board, outlined a preventive approach to food safety, with increased surveillance and more rapid response to foodborne outbreaks and contamination incidents (World Bank, 2017). Fruits and vegetables can be sources of serious pathogens, and if not detected early they will prove hazardous to public health. The most significant evidence of this is the hepatitis A outbreak among 30 people in April 2002 in New Zealand. The cause of the infection was wild berry contaminated with the virus that grew at the Waikato farm (http://www. logicode.ro/downloads/Traceability_whitepaper_Datamax.pdf ). It is known that food safety is an integral part of food quality, hence the importance of traceability techniques that can ensure food safety Production and Management of Beverages. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815260-7.00006-7 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

179

180  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

has increased recently (El Sheikha, 2015a). Traceability issues have human, economic, and political costs. These costs are exacerbated by unsafe agricultural practices involving the use of manure, chemical fertilizer, pesticide, and use of contaminated water for washing fresh fruits and vegetables, in addition to the progressive influence of time, temperature, microorganisms, threat of bioterrorism, and the presence of foreign objects (e.g., glass, metal, stones, insects, rodents, etc.) on globally traded products such as fresh produce, that is, fruits and vegetables (World Bank, 2017).

6.2  World Scenario of Fruit and Vegetable Sector Fruit crops are a major part of agricultural production. The statistics show the world fruit production in 2014 was 35 million metric ton (MT) which was higher by 12.66% than in 2010. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, Statistics Division (FAOSTAT, 2016a), countries with a significant production amount include India, Viet Nam, China, Iran, and Indonesia (Table  6.1). Global export value of fresh fruits was over $ 68.17 billion in 2009, and grew rapidly to reach $ 97.02 billion in 2013 (ReportBuyer, 2014). The global fresh vegetable production in 2014 was 290 MT which was higher by 10.08% than in 2010. Table 6.2 identifies the leading producers of fresh vegetables. China is the world's largest producer of vegetables and produced 44.9% of the global vegetables in 2014 followed

Table 6.1  The Top Producers of Fresh Fruits Statistics Country

Production (MT)a

India Viet Nam Islamic Republic of Iran China Myanmar Nigeria Indonesia Papua New Guinea Nepal Colombia

9872 2849 2843 2511 1322 1256 1253 1043 965 685

a MTs, Million metric tons. Reproduced with permission Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical (FAOSTAT), 2016. FAOSTAT-data-crops-visualized-fruits, fresh nes. Latest update: November 2016. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize. Accessed 29 January 2018.

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   181

Table 6.2  Leading Producers of Fresh Vegetables Statistics Country

Production (MT)a

China India Viet Nam Nigeria Philippines Myanmar Nepal Republic of Korea Islamic Republic of Iran Brazil

162,513 36,838 15,461 6682 4947 3475 3421 3261 3249 2927

a MTs, Million metric tons. Reproduced with permission from Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical (FAOSTAT), 2016. FAOSTAT-data-crops-visualizedfruits, fresh nes. Latest update: November 2016. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize. Accessed 29 January 2018.

by India, Viet Nam, Nigeria, and Philippines, respectively (FAOSTAT, 2016b). In 2013, the global export value of vegetables increased by 13.3% (compared to 7.0% average growth rate from 2009 to 2013) to reach $ 62.8 billion (ReportBuyer, 2014).

6.3  Nutritional and Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and vegetables are classified as highly nutritious and healthy foods due to their richness in carbohydrates, fibers, vitamins [e.g., vitamin C (ascorbic acid), carotenoids, and vitamin B complex] and minerals (but relatively low in sodium). Furthermore, fruits and vegetables are relatively low in calories and fat (exceptions: avocado and olives), and also have no cholesterol. The high content of ascorbic acid in fruits and vegetable plays a pivot role in enhancing the bioavailability of iron in the diet. Because of all these characteristics, fruits and vegetables have a great importance in a healthy diet (Bokhari, 2017; Vicente et al., 2009). Generally, the components of fruits and vegetables that have been linked to health outcomes are often placed in different categories: (1) protective such as plant sterols, carotenoids, and flavonoids;

182  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

(2) adverse such as enzyme inhibitors, saponins, and goitrogens. In addition, dietary fibers have been linked to lower incidence of chronic diseases, especially cancer and cardiovascular events. Moreover, phenolic compounds are listed as both the protective and adverse compounds (Slavin and Lloyd, 2012). Many countries have used various strategies to classify fruits and vegetables into different categories, although there are many similarities between the dietary recommendations. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS), 2010) are listed as follows: • Vegetables categories: dark green vegetables (broccoli, spinach, romaine, collard, turnip, and mustard greens); red and orange vegetables (tomatoes, red peppers, carrots, sweet potatoes, winter squash, and pumpkin); beans and peas (kidney beans, lentils, and chickpeas); starchy vegetables (potatoes, maize); and other vegetables (green beans, onions). • Fruits categories: (oranges, apples, bananas, grapes, melons, berries, and raisins).

6.3.1  Is It Important to Eat Fruits? The earliest definition of a fruit was “any plant used as food” (Smith et al., 1995). Therefore, fruit as a food include a diverse group of plant foods that vary greatly in content of nutrients which are summarized in the following snapshots (El Sheikha, 2012; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2015): • Fruits are rich in many important nutrients such as vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, and folic acid. • Vitamin C is essential for growth, keeps teeth and gums healthy, and helps in iron absorption and repair of all body tissues. • Potassium helps to maintain the blood pressure in the healthy level. • Fiber-containing foods such as fruits help to reduce blood cholesterol levels, provide a feeling of fullness with fewer calories, and may lower risk of heart disease. • Folic acid helps the body form red blood cells. It is, therefore, an important food component for all age groups, especially sensitive groups such as children, adolescents, pregnant women, and the elderly. • Naturally, most of the fruits are low in sodium, fat, and calories.

6.3.2  Health Benefits of Fruits Water is the major component in the fruits but the content of protein and fat is low. The presence of these proteins is concentrated in the seeds of fruits. These proteins are characterized by their resistance

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   183

to digestion in the small intestine and also to bacterial degradation in the large intestine (Slavin and Lloyd, 2012). Furthermore, fruits are rich sources of vitamins, minerals, and dietary fibers and are therefore highly recommended for eating. Fruits are seasonal foodstuffs; they are available as fresh for a limited period of time. Thus, many fruits are consumed as processed, frozen, canned, or dried (El Sheikha, 2012; Slavin and Lloyd, 2012).

6.3.3  Nutritionally, What Is the Importance of Vegetables? The earliest definition of a vegetable was a “plant, as opposed to an animal or inanimate object” (Smith et al., 1995). Based on this definition, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2016) detailed the nutrients benefits of vegetables as follows: • As fruits, vegetables are also important sources of many nutrients such as vitamins (e.g., vitamins A and C), minerals, and dietary fibers. • Vitamin A is essential to keep both eyes and skin healthy and is also one of the main defense lines against any infection. • Naturally, the most of vegetables are low in fat and then calories.

6.3.4  Health Benefits of Vegetables Several studies have pointed to the health benefits of vegetables and their results have led to the following conclusions: • Legumes are higher in protein content than other vegetables. Thus, the wide use of these vegetables was much later in evolution (Liener, 1989; Slavin and Lloyd, 2012). • Regarding the leaves and stems, they are widely consumed. The protein contents in the leaves and stem parts are higher than in fruits but both parts contain low amounts of sugar (Liener, 1989). • As for the roots and tubers, they are considered as starchy vegetables, hence these vegetables are important sources of energy (Slavin and Lloyd, 2012).

6.4  Importance of Traceability Rising in Fruits and Vegetables: Why? The production of fruits and vegetables in regard to the global agrifood system is one of its main pillars that should avoid any scandals. In response to consumers' growing demand for safe and high-­quality foods, it has become the first priority for them. Consumers have

184  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

r­ecently become increasingly concerned about many serious food-­ related accidents in which thousands of consumers have been exposed to disease and death, which have, of course, adversely affected economy and other aspects. This prompted legislators to develop stricter regulations to ensure safety in agri-food production (ftp://ftp. fao.org/upload/Agrippa/599_en.doc). Precautionary measures must be taken and the fruit and vegetable industry should be brought under control in case proven by strong evidence that it is a source of foodborne outbreaks. History has shown whenever a commodity is implicated in a foodborne outbreak, not only does the processor or farmers suffer, but the entire industry suffers (Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN)/Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Manual, 2010). The global fruit and vegetable processing industry has experienced consistent demand from 2010 to 2015, as economies of every size continue to consume the processed products of fruits and vegetable and consumer spending increases have led to recovery from global recession. Consequently, industry operators have increased their output to meet this growth in global demand. As a result, IBISWorld (2015) expects the global fruit and vegetable processing industry to grow at an annualized rate of 1.3% over the 5 years to 2015. In 2015, industry revenue was forecasted to grow 0.4% to $ 271.3 billion.

6.4.1  Fruit and Vegetable Safety Much of the research in the past has indicated that most foodborne human pathogens were transmitted by animal-based foods. However, it has recently been shown that both vegetables and fruit have been the source of many outbreaks of disease. Through the journey of food, that is, vegetables and fruit produce until reach the consumer (farmto-table) passes through several important stations, which are exposed to the risk of microbial contamination which include (Mritunjay and Kumar, 2015): • washing with pond and river water; • handling by workers infected with pathogen(s); • storage in contaminated places. Among the most common microbial pathogens species that contaminate vegetables and fruits are Salmonella sp., Campylobacter sp., Shigella sp., and Listeria monocytogenes, these pathogenic bacteria are transmitted through the use of contaminated water or sewage (Kumar, 2012; Oranusi and Olorunfemi, 2011). Additionally, the use of contaminated irrigation water or manure causes contamination of leafy vegetables (e.g., spinach and lettuce) by Escherichia coli O157: H7. Foodborne pathogenic bacteria have caused many cases of disease and death to humans annually, resulting in human suffering and huge

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   185

Table 6.3  Incidence of Bacterial Pathogens in Raw Vegetables and Fruits Vegetable/Fruit

Bacterial Pathogens

References

Cabbage

Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes

Leafy vegetables (e.g., lettuce, spinach)

Campylobacter jejuni, Coliform, Generic E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp., Shigella sonnei Generic E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp.

De Oliveira et al. (2011); Sant'Ana et al. (2012) De Oliveira et al. (2011); Kumar (2012); Sant'Ana et al. (2012); Denis et al. (2016)

Leafy herbs (e.g., coriander, parsley, cilantro, basil, dill, mint, etc.) Onion Radish Tomato Cantaloupes Watermelon Fruit salad

Generic E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp. Salmonella sp. E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp., Staphylococcus aureus Generic E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp. Coliform, Salmonella sp. Bacillus sp., E. coli, Micrococcus sp., Staphylococcus aureus

Kumar (2012); Denis et al. (2016)

Kumar (2012); Denis et al. (2016) Kumar (2012) Kumar (2012); Ogundipe et al. (2012) Denis et al. (2016) Oranusi and Olorunfemi (2011) Oranusi and Olorunfemi (2011)

economic losses. In the United States, the fresh produce, that is, fruits and vegetables cause 20 million illnesses costing $38.6 billion every year (Olaimat and Holley, 2012). Moreover, the United States spends about $1 billion a year on Enterohemorrhagic E. coli infections. The incidence of bacterial pathogens in raw fruits and vegetables are summarized in Table 6.3.

6.4.2  Traceability Is Cornerstone of the Safety Strategy for Fruits and Vegetables As mentioned above, the importance of traceability has increased recently because of its active role in providing safety and thus quality to foods (El Sheikha, 2015b). The Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) guidelines outlined the resonating factors that can impact produce safety. Chief among these factors are the following (Pabrua and Williams Jr., 2004):

186  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

• land history and surrounding properties, • water quality, • manure and biosolids, • worker hygiene, • field sanitation, • proper pest prevention and control measures, • packaging, • cooling, • transportation, and • traceability. These factors are considered as guidelines which were the impetus behind a great revolution in the produce industry that would both frustrate and prod operations to reach new heights in product safety. In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the traceability of food products. This was mainly due to the food safety crises that have occurred in the last several years. Such crises have led to the increasingly common implementation of food safety management systems (FSMSs) and quality management systems (QMSs) in the food chain (Dzwolak, 2016). Therefore, the principal objective of the traceability is to expose the curtain with the utmost transparency and clarity about the product's history starting from raw materials through all stages of manufacturing and the product in its final form until retailers and then consumers (El Sheikha, 2015a). Fig.  6.1 illustrates the relationship between food safety and traceability and how they could help ensure the benefits for all those involved in the whole food system (producers, traders, consumers, and authorities).

6.5  Traceability of Fruits and Vegetables: Journey From Farm to Fork Traceability is a business process that enables trading partners to follow fruits and vegetables as they move from the field through to retail store or food service operator. Each traceability partner must be able to identify the direct source (supplier: farm) and direct recipient (customer: fork) of product. Consumer protection is the first priority and major role of the traceability through using the efficient traceability system that could identify rapidly and precisely the implicated product. The importance of using efficient tracing system is embodied in the ability to withdraw the implicated product from the supply chain (Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA), 2014; GS1, 2015).

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   187

Fig. 6.1  Interaction benefits between food safety and food traceability. Reproduced from El Sheikha, A.F., Xu, J., 2017. Traceability as a key of seafood safety: reassessment and possible applications. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 25, 158–170, with permission of Taylor & Francis.

6.5.1  Traceability System: It Will Be Efficient…. When? Food industry has addressed the management of food hygiene, safety, and quality through the introduction of HACCP, ISO9001, etc. The frequent food crises (e.g., BSE) and false labeling issues over the past decades have caused the loss of consumer confidence in the food industry. This prompted a growing number of consumers to demand food supplies where each stage of production, processing, distribution of a food item (e.g., fruits, vegetables) could be documented and tracked. Therefore, constructing an efficient system for a reliable food traceability became an urgent need (Food Marketing Research and Information Center (FMRIC), 2008). Generally, the food traceability system is the system that enables to follow the movement of any food product by documentation of each point of food from the producer to consumer. The main targets of food traceability system are as follows (FMRIC, 2008): • assist efficiently in the recall of the food product(s) in question(s), • assist in the investigation of the cause, • contribute to increasing reliability on the information of the label, and • enable consumers to purchase food with a sense of safety.

188  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

Standards, regulations, and laws have highlighted a broad conception of the definitions and systems of food traceability which permit producers to evaluate any traceability system through specific criteria (World Bank, 2017): 1. The breadth: denotes the amount of information a traceability system captures. 2. The depth: refers to how far backward or forward the system tracks an item. 3. The precision: shows the degree to which the system can pinpoint food characteristics and movement. As a business-to-business communication tool, the software is considered one of the major interesting traceability tools to the retailers. Tracking software can then be incorporated into information systems, where consumers can get all the information about the product. Tracing systems can be characterized as being more efficient when (El Sheikha, 2015a; El Sheikha and Montet, 2016): • be able to recall the product; • be able to save costs. Additional benefits of an efficient traceability system provide feedback on product quality to the supply chain and improve consumer confidence (Fig. 6.2).

6.5.2  International Regulations Traceability is a “record keeping system designed to track the flow of product or product attributes through the production process or supply chain” (Fonsah, 2006; Golan et al., 2004). All concerned bodies with food safety in the fresh produce industry including globalization of world trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), etc. have set up the traceability regulations on the radar screen as one of the efficient solutions to overcome their problems (Charlebois et al., 2014).

6.5.2.1  Regulations in the United States The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates fresh produce imports in the United States including vegetables and fruits through phytosanitary certificates, importation rules, and inspections (Johnson, 2016). Under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 7CFR 319.56-4 Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables section entitled approval of certain fruits and vegetables for importation: the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation as well as the applicable requirements for their importation such as phytosanitary measures and other technical requirements as possible barriers restricting imports of the same goods from other countries (CFR, 2017).

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   189

Improved quality control Improved food quality

Traceability systems increase the standard of product management and quality control work by a system of records that can be accessed on demand. Having access to this information means that a product can be easily checked to confirm that it adheres to various quality scheme criteria

If an accident related to food safety occurs, traceability systems help trace the cause quickly and easily. The systems help collect and remove a problem food product correctly and promptly.

Minimise product loss Business efficiency Traceability systems help increase the efficiency of product management and quality control work by managing products by ID numbers and by storing and offering information about the origins and characters of products. Ultimately it strives to achieve the harmonisation of all operations in the system.

Information store New legislation stresses that all traceability systems must give easy access to vital points of recorded data. The primary function of a traceability system is to have the ability to locate products not reaching their specifications.

Efficient traceability system

Being able to reduce the possibility of mass product recalls in the event of products not reaching their specifications could save a producer from being forced to withdraw perhaps a whole year’s stock. Effective traceability systems enable the zeroing in of the product batch and tracing it along both directions of the food chain.

Transparency Traceability systems have to work across the full supply chain and be easy to use by companies operating the system and those requiring access to the data.

Fig. 6.2  Attributes of the efficient traceability system. Reproduced from El Sheikha, A.F., Montet, D., 2012. The determination of geographical origin of foodstuffs by using innovative biological bar-code. J. Life Sci. 6, 1334–1342. doi:10.17265/1934-7391/2012.12.004, with permission of Taylor & Francis.

As one of the largest economic capital systems in the world, the United States seeks to apply its economic policy by paying for economic incentives, not government regulation. This has been applied to food tracking systems, which has effectively contributed to: Ensuring food safety through better control of quality control.— Food marketing supported by a more credible characterization (especially the characteristics that are difficult for consumers to detect, such as whether a food was produced through genetic engineering). Thus, achieving these goals reflects many benefits including low-cost distribution systems, reduced recall expenses, expanded sales of high-value products, and larger net revenues for the firm. The optimal investment for these benefits is the widespread development of food tracing systems coupled with the expansion of their application across the food supply chain in the United States (Golan et al., 2004). Referring to the industry of fresh produce, including vegetables and fruits, the development of traceability systems faces challenges

190  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

related to the characteristics of the product, for example, variation in the perishability and quality, necessitate the identification of quality attributes early in the supply chain, either in the field or packinghouse. This has led to the achievement of the objectives of the traceability mentioned above (Golan et al., 2004).

6.5.2.2  Regulations in Canada CanadaGAPs is the Canadian horticultural council’s on-farm food safety program. The components of this program involve certification system for the safe production and national food safety standards, packing and storage of fresh vegetables and fruits. It is an approved certification scheme benchmarked to Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) standards. CanadaGAP-certified companies have the benefit of using a “made-in-Canada” program to meet the food safety requirements of the international marketplace. This initiative is a good example of how Canadian producers are strategically linking their efforts in food safety and traceability to global programs in order to ensure domestic safety and access to international markets (Howard et  al., 2012). In 2014, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 2014 has also inserted changes to the Canadian grade standards for vegetables and fruits (fresh and processed) for potential amendments to current regulations. Currently, Chapter  285 of Consolidated Regulations of Canada (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 2017) mentions the regulations of fresh vegetables and fruit respecting the grading, packing, and marking.

6.5.2.3  Regulations in European Union The quality standards for fresh vegetables and fruits is needed to ensure that produce offered to the consumer is accurately labeled, is of acceptable quality, and the unsatisfactory produce is kept off-­ market (El Sheikha, 2010). A retailer can only sell produce subject to a market standard under European Commission (1996, Regulation No. EC/2200/1996) if it conforms with the specified standards, which require as a minimum that: • produce of all classes should be sound, clean, and free of foreign smell or taste; • each package should be clearly labeled with the correct information. The minimum export requirement for fresh vegetables and fruits is a phytosanitary certificate if the crop is listed in the phytosanitary directive (European Commission, 2000, 2000/29/EC) and basic information on geo-origin, supplier information, and product identity for vertical traceability requirements (European Commission, 2002, EC/178/2002). Producers of organic products must meet the requirements laid down in the organic regulation (European Commission,

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   191

1991, EC/2092/1991). Regulation 1829/2003 (European Commission, 2003) establishes labeling regulations for genetically modified (GM) food products. The foods (including fruits and vegetables) produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or containing ingredients produced from GMOs must be labeled even if they no longer contain detectable traces of GMOs. The allowable adventitious presence level for European Union (EU) approved varieties of GMOs is set at 0.9%. Above this level, all products must be labeled. The exporter may be asked by the buyer in the EU to supply more detailed information and records on primary production and postharvest handling to satisfy the more detailed requirements specified under EC/852/2004 (European Commission, 2004) and EC/2073/2005 (European Commission, 2005) for ensuring food safety of products of nonanimal origin. The general marketing standard introduces a definition of “sound, fair, and of marketable quality” for these products and requires them to bear the full name of their country of origin. Fruits and vegetables not covered by a specific standard must meet the general standard. Regulation EC/1221/2008 (European Commission, 2008) provides a general marketing standard for all fresh fruits and vegetables ­except for the following 10 types of fruits and vegetables for which a specific marketing standard remains in place: apples, citrus fruit, ­kiwifruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, strawberries, pears, table grapes, tomatoes, and sweet peppers. It should be noted that the rules of this regulation were modified by Commission Regulation (EU) No. 543/2011 (European Commission, 2011) and also the countries whose checks on conformity have been approved under this new regulation.

6.5.3  Traceability Technologies: What Is the Best? Several batches of fruits and vegetables from different origins or various cultivars could be mixed for economic reasons and for profitability. It is therefore difficult to verify geographical origin with a precise analytical tool. The traceability methods available and applied to date are only through the labeling and administrative documents, and of course that did not achieve the goal of the tracing process for all components of the food system (consumers, producers, authorities). For that, it is increasingly important to find high-precision and rapid technology to determine geographical origin (El Sheikha, 2018a; El Sheikha and Hu, 2018a,b). Simply, to classify the tracking technologies that can be used for foods is to divide them into package markers or automated technologies [e.g., barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID)] and product markers or analytical technologies (e.g., physicochemical techniques, biological techniques).

192  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

6.5.3.1  Automated Technologies Automated identification technology is one of two ways that could be used to achieve the target of traceability, which leads one back to the food origin. Automated technologies, like RFID and two-­dimensional (2D) barcode, which allow faster data acquisition, recording and reading processes than the traditional means, and provide up-to-date information in each product stage. Furthermore, these technologies allow the possibility to record large amounts of data for each specific product and interconnect all the data in a database (Šenk et al., 2013). Both barcode technology and RFID have been shown as important tools in fruit and vegetable traceability. Barcodes Barcodes were first used in supermarkets on June 26, 1974. In the following 30 years, the Uniform Code Council (www.uc-council.org), which oversees their use, has stated that barcodes have saved $1 trillion dollars worldwide in checkout and more importantly inventory control costs. Printers and readers for the standard one-dimensional (1D) linear barcode, which carries 12 numbers, can be purchased for well under $100 each (Nightingale, 2004). The 2D barcode printers and readers are somewhat more expensive, but 2D codes can carry far more information, about 2000 alphanumeric characters in a 2-in × 2-in space. However, the ready availability of 1D and 2D equipment makes these codes easy to counterfeit. The 2D barcodes (QR codes) are being used on a limited basis by retailers in the United States. Consumers can use their smartphones to see the exact journey of their produce from the field to the supermarket (Šenk et al., 2013). RFID Technology Many appealing opportunities were provided by using RFID technology to improve the management of information flow within the supply chain and security in the agri-food sector. Recently, many countries have introduced traceability laws which ensure food safety as one of the most urgent priorities for citizens. Hence, these laws will achieve their objectives only through the implementation of the tracking technologies offered (e.g., RFID) (Costa et al., 2013). With the implementation of RFID technology on fresh fruits and vegetables producers can use products traceability to efficiently withdraw their traded good in cases of sanitary crises (Costa et al., 2013). For fruit, RFID traceability can be performed in the field as well as in plants where calibration, washing, selection, and storage take place by tracking assets, for example, bins used to transport fruit lots (Dabbene et al., 2016). Sensors that are able to monitor fruit quality can be e­ mbedded in RFID readers to assess the conservation stage of fruit (e.g., apples),

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   193

directly linking this information to a traceability platform via RFID tags (Vergara et al., 2007). Yang and Wang (2012) introduced the basic working principle and technical characteristics of the RFID technology, suggesting that the vegetable quality traceability could be established by this system. Then, they analyzed the current application obstacles bringing out several measurements. Furthermore, one of the advantages of using this technology is its ability to determine the efficiency of the precooling operations and low-temperature abuse tracking during transportation and refrigerated storage. Limitations of Automated Technologies Although an established and affordable technology, barcodes suffer from the problem of having low storage capacity, short read range, durability, and the fact that they cannot be reprogrammed (Costa et al., 2013; Probst et al., 2015). Unlike a barcode, with RFID, it is possible to read a large number of RFID tags through the packaging or the product itself, almost instantaneously. The data capacity of the RFID tags enables it to carry more information than the barcode. The RFID tags are reusable, less susceptible to damage, and can be read through a variety of substances, such as ice, snow, paint, fog, crusted grime, and other visually and environmentally challenging conditions, where barcodes would be useless. In regard to labor required, for barcodes technology, a person is required to scan each barcode manually but in RFID technology the scanning is done by readers and does not require labor (Costa et al., 2013; Probst et al., 2015). Table 6.4 represents the advantages and drawbacks of barcode and RFID technologies used for agri-food supply chain traceability.

6.5.3.2  Analytical Technologies Appropriate analytical methods are essential for verifying claims in the systems of traceability, especially if a dispute or a court case is involved with regard to food safety incidents (Borit and Olsen, 2016). The available tools for tracing fruits and vegetables are relatively few compared with those for other foodstuffs. These methods can be categorized into two: (1) physicochemical techniques, that is, for analyzing stable isotopes, anthocyanidin concentrations, and multielement compositions (Åkerström et al., 2010; Benabdelkamel et al., 2012; El Sheikha et al., 2018; Feudo et al., 2010; Gonzalvez et al., 2009; MatosReyes et  al., 2013; Suzuki and Nakashita, 2010; Suzuki et  al., 2012, 2013); (2) biological approaches, that is, for analyzing DNA polymorphisms that have shown promise as being effective for several types of fruits and vegetables (Espiñeira and Santaclara, 2016; Han et  al., 2012; Marieschi et al., 2016; Sardaro et al., 2013; Serradilla et al., 2013). Below, we briefly describe these techniques.

194  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

Table 6.4  Advantages and Drawbacks of Automated Technologies Used for Agri-food Traceability Technology

Advantages

Drawbacks

Barcode

− Affordable − Easy to use − Mature and proven technology − Established quality standards − Reliable and accurate

RFID

− − − −

− − − − − − − − − − −

− − − − − −

Non-line-of-sight scanning Simultaneous automatic reading Labor reduction Enhanced visibility and forecasting Item level tracking Traceable warrantees Reliable and accurate Information rich Enhance security Robust and durable

Optical line-of-sight scanning Limited visibility Labor intensive Susceptible to environmental damage Prone to human error Limited memory Highly expensive Not easy to use Immature technology Data overlapping can occur Lack of ratified standards

From Costa, C., Antonucci, F., Pallottino, F., Aguzzi, J., Sarriá, D., Menesatti, P., 2013. A review on agri-food supply chain traceability by means of RFID technology. Food Bioprocess Technol. 6, 353–366; Probst, L., Frideres, L., Pedersen, B., Luxembourg, P., 2015. Traceability across the value chain: advanced tracking systems. Case study 40, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Directorate J “Industrial Property, Innovation & Standards”, Unit J.3 “Innovation Policy for Growth”, European Union, February 2015. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13393/attachments/2/translations/en/renditions/native (Accessed 29 January 2018).

Physicochemical Techniques Particularly, isotopic analysis has become useful in addressing authenticity problems. Generally, the content of isotopic compositions in plant materials reflects the source of these plants (e.g., CO2, H2O, NH4, and NO2) and their assimilation processes as well as the growth environment. On this basis, isotopic compositions have been used to investigate the traceability of foods including fruits and vegetables (El Sheikha et  al., 2018; Longobardi et  al., 2015). Suzuki et  al. (2010) determined the δ13C and δ18O values in apples from Japan and China to discriminate their geographical origin. By the same scenario, the carbon and oxygen bulk material isotope ratios were used to differentiate the origins of bamboo shoots and eddoe (Suzuki and Nakashita, 2010). Multielement analysis has also become an important tool for determining the provenance of foods (Gonzalvez et  al., 2009). Using

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   195

i­ nductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis, the multielement concentrations were used to build a chemometric model which is able to predict the protected geographical indication of clementines from Spain, Tunisia, and Algeria (Benabdelkamel et al., 2012). Matos-Reyes et al. (2013) reported that the mineral profile made a clear discrimination between cherry fruit samples from different areas of Spain. Regarding the vegetables, Feudo et al. (2010) concluded that the alkaline trace elements, that is, Lithium (Li) and Rubidium (Rb), were the most variables in the distinction of tomatoes geographic origin. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis showed that anthocyanidin concentrations in Vaccinium myrtillus fruits (bilberries) varied significantly with latitude and with the geographical origin (Åkerström et al., 2010). Biological Approaches The most applications of molecular techniques used for fruits and vegetables cover both the detection and identification of species, as well as the differentiation of varieties (Espiñeira and Santaclara, 2016). A reflection of this is the work of Han et al. (2012), who detected ingredients from seven fruits including apple, pear, peach, grape, strawberry, mandarin, and orange by means of DNA methodologies. Recently, Marieschi et  al. (2016) achieved the same target by using other method based on sequence characterized amplified regions (SCARs) to develop specific markers for the authentication of pomegranate fruits (Punica granatum L.). Sardaro et al. (2013) applied the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and microsatellite approaches to differentiate the varieties of vegetables, that is, tomatoes. In addition, real-time PCR method has been developed by Serradilla et  al. (2013) for the authentication of the sweet cherry, marketed under the registry of the protected designations of origin (PDO). Limitations of Current Analytical Approaches While the above analytical methods offer excellent capabilities in characterizing the chemical composition of fruits and vegetables, physicochemical techniques require heavy, costly equipment and the construction and maintenance of database (Meile, 2014). As long as species identification is concerned by DNA markers, they may suffer on some occasions from complications emerging from intraspecific differences, seasonal and climate, geographical and growing variability, different harvest time, processing, or storage conditions and length (Faria et al., 2013; Han et al., 2012). Moreover, there is a multitude of fruit and vegetable varieties. These varieties are not specific to a particular geographical area since one variety can be cultivated in different districts located in different countries (El Sheikha, 2010). The deficiencies in the above methods for fruits and vegetables tracking coupled with the importance of consumer awareness mean

196  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

that there is a critical unmet need to identify a traceability technique that can record the history of fruits and vegetables from field to table. Table  6.5 illustrates in critical vision, the analytical technologies used for fruits and vegetables traceability.

Table 6.5  Advantages and Limitations of Analytical Technologies Used for Fruits and Vegetables Traceability Analytical approach

Advantages

Limitations

Elemental analysis

− Rapid analysis − High sensitivity

HPLCa

− Rapid and sensitive − Tolerable cost

− Need for trained operators − Current high cost − Difficult to apply to products with mixed ingredients − Labor intensive − Cannot provide quantitative data − Often require statistical analysis

Physicochemical techniques

Biological techniques Microsatellites

− High specificity − High reproducibility − Highly informative

SNPsb

− Highly informative − Adaptable method

SCARsc

− − − −

Real-time PCR

a

Quick and easy to use High specificity High reproducibility Highly stable DNA biomarkers − Highly sensitive and can be used with degraded sample − Robust, reproducible and efficient

− − − − − − − −

Large consumables requirement Moderate throughput Limited targets Technically challenging Moderate throughput Relatively expensive Technically challenging Need for sequence data to design the PCR primers

− Expensive and needs expertise

HPLC: High-performance liquid chromatography. SNPs; Single nucleotide polymorphisms. SCARs: Sequence characterized amplified regions. Reproduced from El Sheikha, A.F., Xu, J., 2018. Molecular techniques and foodstuffs: innovative fingerprints, then what? In: El Sheikha, A.F., Levin, R.E., Xu, J. (Eds.), Molecular Techniques in Food Biology: Safety, Biotechnology, Authenticity & Traceability, first ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 423–434, with permission of John Wiley and Sons. b c

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   197

Is it possible to Use Microbial Compositions for Tracing Fruits and Vegetables? The detecting fraudulent labeling and protecting food products, that is, traceability is currently regulatory concern which could be reduced via a certificate of origin. But the documentary systems are difficult to implement in developing countries, as well as the tracking of products during manufacture. Thence, the idea of using biological analysis “microbial flora” comes to determine the geographical origins of food products (El Sheikha, 2011). The need for an accurate and rapid analytical technique to trace the geographical origin of vegetables and fruits has become urgent, especially in the face of growing doubt and fraud. Microbial communities are always present in the environment and can provide indicators of food status and the conditions in which the food was in (El Sheikha and Xu, 2018). Regarding fruits and vegetables, the microbial flora reflects the microbial conditions of origin where they are harvested (El Sheikha, 2015b). The skin of fresh foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables) is not free of microorganisms, where the presence of these microbes depends on external factors present in the environment surrounding foods, including soil ecology, fungi, insects, etc. and also those resulting from human activities (El Sheikha and Menozzi, 2018; Meile, 2016; Sodeko et al., 1987). Many studies have shown that there is a link between the geographical origin of fruits and vegetables and the structure of its microbial communities. This was performed using a molecular biology technique based on the analysis of DNA fragments of the microbial flora on the fruits and vegetables using ribosomal coding regions (16S, 26S, 28S rDNA). Indeed, the DGGE profile of the microbial community for each food may be considered as a biological barcode (El Sheikha and Montet, 2012; El Sheikha et  al., 2009; Le Nguyen et al., 2008). PCR-DGGE is an ingrained molecular approach in the environmental microbiology that permits to decode the microbial environment in terms of its behavior and complexity (El Sheikha, 2015a, 2017, 2018b; Ercolini, 2004; Ly, 2007; Muyzer et al., 1993). As a traceable tool, PCR-DGGE could provide a strong linkage between the ­microbial communities of fruits and vegetables (e.g., bacterial and fungal flora) and its geographical origins (El Sheikha et al., 2011, 2012; Le Nguyen et al., 2008). For example, El Sheikha et al. (2012) concluded that the analysis of yeast flora by PCR-DGGE could be applied to discriminate the geographical locations of Physalis fruits samples (Physalis ixocarpa Brot., Physalis peruviana L., Physalis pruinosa L.). The multivariate analysis is used to analyze the DGGE fingerprints that could provide a unique biological barcode for each country (Figs. 6.3 and 6.4).

198  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

Fig. 6.3  PCR-DGGE band patterns of 26S rDNA of different varieties of Physalis from four countries: Colombia, Egypt, Uganda, and Madagascar. Colo: Colombia; Egy: Egypt; Uga: Uganda; Mad: Madagascar. (1, 2) Two different locations. Reproduced from El Sheikha, A.F., Durand, N., Sarter, S., Okullo, J.B.L., Montet, D., 2012. Study of the microbial discrimination of fruits by PCR-DGGE: application to the determination of the geographical origin of Physalis fruits from Colombia, Egypt, Uganda and Madagascar. Food Control 24, 57–63, with permission of Elsevier.

A recent work has shown that yeast communities were specific of the farming type allowing organic nectarines to be discriminated from conventional ones by using DGGE approach (Figs. 6.5 and 6.6; Bigot et  al., 2015). This kind of study opens the way to search for biological markers which can be used for fraud detection and authentication control (biosensors). All these studies reported that the DGGE profiles of the microbial communities associated with various fruits and vegetables provide reliable signatures as biological markers from different locations, with each fruit and vegetable from each location. Also, this technique

5 4 Egy 2

3 2 Fact. 2 : 23.32%

Egy 1

Mad 1

1

Mad 1

0 –1

Colo 1

–2

uga 2 Colo 2

uga 1

–3 –4 –5 –5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fact. 1 : 57.74%

Fig. 6.4  Factorial variance analysis of 26S rDNA band patterns of different varieties of Physalis from four countries: Colombia, Egypt, Uganda, and Madagascar. Colo: Colombia; Egy: Egypt; Uga: Uganda; Mad: Madagascar. (1, 2) Two different locations. Reproduced from El Sheikha, A.F., Durand, N., Sarter, S., Okullo, J.B.L., Montet, D., 2012. Study of the microbial discrimination of fruits by PCR-DGGE: application to the determination of the geographical origin of Physalis fruits from Colombia, Egypt, Uganda and Madagascar. Food Control 24, 57–63, with permission of Elsevier.

Nectarines

Peaches

Platters

Platters Organic 1

2 3 4

Sustainable 1

2 3 4

Conventional 1

2 3 4

Conventional 1

2 3 4

ORchard

Sustainable 1

2 3 4

Organic 1

2 3 4 1

Organic 2 3 4

Fig. 6.5  PCR-DGGE band profiles of yeast 26S rDNA of nectarines and peaches samples of three different farming types: organic, sustainable, and conventional. Reproduced from Bigot, C., Meile, J.-C., Kapitan, A., Montet, D., 2015. Discriminating organic and conventional foods by analysis of their microbial ecology: an application on fruits. Food Control 48, 123–129, with permission of Elsevier.

6

2

Projection des ind. sur le plan factorial (1 x 2) Observations avec la somme des cosinus carrés > = 0.00

4

5 4

Organic Fact. 2 : 14.58%

Fact. 2 : 25.72%

1

PNB3

0

PNB4 PND3 PND2 PND4 PND1

PNT1 PNT2 PNT3

–1

–3

–2

–1

0

1

Fact. 1 : 57.96%

2

3

Sustainable (platter)

PJC4 PJC2 PJC3

PPD3 PPD4 PPD1 PPD2

PPT4

0

PPB1 PPB1

PJC1

–1

PPB2

PPT3 PPT2

–2

4

5

Active

–5 –6

(platter)

Conventional (platter)

–4

–5

–4

–3

–2

PPB3

Organic

PPT1

–3

Sustainable

Conventional –4

(orchard)

1

2

–3 –5

Organic

2

PNB2

3

–2

Projection des ind. sur le plan factorial (1 x 2) Observations avec la somme des cosinus carrés > = 0.00

3 PNB1

200  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

1

–1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Active

Fact. 1 : 52.72%

Fig. 6.6  Factorial variance analysis of yeast (26S rDNA) DGGE profiles of nectarines (1) and peaches (2) samples of three different farming types. Reproduced from Bigot, C., Meile, J.-C., Kapitan, A., Montet, D., 2015. Discriminating organic and conventional foods by analysis of their microbial ecology: an application on fruits. Food Control 48, 123–129, with permission of Elsevier.

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   201

Table 6.6  Strengths and Weaknesses of PCR-DGGE as Approach of Fruits and Vegetables Traceability PCR-DGGE

Strengths

Weaknesses

− Very sensitive methods (differences of one base can be detected on fragments of several hundred base pairs) for the study of complex mixtures of species − Large number of samples can be analyzed simultaneously − Reliable, reproducible, and rapid − Estimating the qualitative and semiquantitative diversity

− Optimization of migration on polyacrylamide gel required for any new gene used − Difficult to compare a large number of these gels − One band can represent more than one species (co-migration) − The amplified sequences should not exceed 500 bp

From El Sheikha, A.F., Montet, D., 2016. How to determine the geographical origin of seafood? Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56, 306–317.

shows a stable profile among different seasons (reproducible). This technique is quicker (less than 24 h) than all the classical microbial methods. Additionally, it is possible to avoid detailed analysis of microorganisms, either by biochemistry- or molecular-based techniques (i.e., sequencing). Based on the evidence so far, we believe that the PCR-DGGE approach can be used as a reliable, rapid, efficient, and new a­ nalytical tool for tracing fruits and vegetables and provide a unique biological barcode for each of them. To evaluate the possibility of scaling up the analysis of PCR-DGGE approach for the benefit of fruit and vegetable traceability requirements, strengths and weaknesses have to be analyzed (see Table 6.6).

6.6  Conclusions and Future Perpectives The increased demand for reliable food in the interest of better health and nutrition has greatly influenced the whole food system (consumers, producers, and authorities). Fruits and vegetables play an important role in a healthy, balanced diet. They contain vitamins, minerals, fibers, sugars, and as well as other minor nutrients. The types and amounts of available fruits and vegetables have expanded globally, and consumers can now obtain products from all over the world. However, in recent years, consumers have experienced numerous negative incidents such as unsafe levels

202  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

of residual pesticide in exported fruits and vegetables, which has prompted greater awareness of geographical origin. To reduce the frequency of mislabeling incidents, a valid traceability system to ensure the safety and high quality of fruits and vegetables is highly demanded. Therefore, progress in the development of molecular methodologies is continuous, favoring their application throughout the entire fruits and vegetables chain, from farm to fork. Many tracking methodologies, that is, automated and analytical, are now available for fruits and vegetables, but regardless of the approach, critical questions still need to be answered before their use. These include questions on sensitivity, accuracy, robustness, frequency of testing, and cost. It is often impossible to retrace with certainty the origins of food products coming from developing countries when they arrive on the markets of developed ones. While the documentation system based on barcodes works well in developed countries, it is difficult to implement in developing countries. From this emerged the idea of identifying the precise origin of foods including fruits and vegetables by analyzing their production environment thanks to the microorganisms present on their surface. Methods which use the analysis of microbial flora (e.g., bacteria, yeasts, and molds) are based on the principle that the environment has an effect on the microbial ecology of fruits and vegetables. The microorganisms can indeed differ by their quantity, especially by their species and characteristics. The variation in these parameters can be used to discriminate the territory of fruits and vegetables. Among the diversity of methods, PCR-DGGE has shown to be efficient at the level of linkage between the microbial communities of foods including fruits and vegetables (e.g., bacterial, yeast, and fungal flora) and its geographical origins. The genetic profile of the various species of microorganisms present in the fruits and vegetables is considered as biological markers. Thus, the idea is to build a “biological barcode” characterizing the microbial communities of fruits and vegetables. The identification of the origin will thus be carried out by visualizing the diversity of the microbial communities present in the product. Until now, the universal methods for determining the geographic origins of fruits and vegetables do not exist. There are only indirect methods which often have to be coupled to increase their accuracy. The methods which allow analyzing the microbe-environment interactions of fruits and vegetables are very promising and have to be continuously studied by more research teams in the world. But the challenge for these technologies is the creation of a data bank, which is the cornerstone of implementing these techniques. Recent technological advance such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) has dramatically increased comprehensive description of the microbial content in a given sample by generating up to 109 sequences reads per run (i.e., analysis).

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   203

References Åkerström, A., Jaakola, L., Bång, U., Jäderlund, A., 2010. Effects of latitude-related factors and geographical origin on anthocyanidin concentrations in fruits of Vaccinium myrtillus L. (bilberries). J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 11939–11945. Benabdelkamel, H., Donna, L.D., Mazzotti, F., Naccarato, A., Sindona, G., Antonio Tagarelli, A., Taverna, D., 2012. Authenticity of PGI “Clementine of Calabria” by multielement fingerprint. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60, 3717–3726. Bigot, C., Meile, J.-C., Kapitan, A., Montet, D., 2015. Discriminating organic and conventional foods by analysis of their microbial ecology: an application on fruits. Food Control 48, 123–129. Bokhari, S.A., 2017. Fruits & vegetables are the actual fast foods. Adv. Obes. Weight Manag. Contr. l6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15406/aowmc.2017.06.00156. Borit, M., Olsen, P., 2016. Analysis of gaps and inconsistencies in the seafood traceability standards and norms. FAO fisheries and aquaculture circular No. 1123, pp. 1–27, Rome, Italy. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5944e.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 2014. A new regulatory framework for federal food inspection: overview of proposed regulations, July 11, 2014. Available from: www.inspection.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-aboutcfia-sujetacia/STAGING/text-texte/cfia_ acco_fed_food_inspection_1405108921303_eng.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA), 2014. Produce traceability. Available from: http://www.cpma.ca/en/industryresources/produce-traceability. aspx. [(Accessed 5 May 2014)]. Charlebois, S., Sterling, B., Haratifar, S., Naing, S.K., 2014. Comparison of global food traceability regulations and requirements. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13, 1104– 1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12101. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 2017. Chapter III—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Part  319—Foreign Quarantine Notices, Subpart - Fruits and Vegetables, Section  319.56-4—Approval of certain fruits and vegetables for importation, January 1, 2017. Available from: https://www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017-title7-vol5/pdf/CFR-2017-title7-vol5-sec319-56-4. pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Costa, C., Antonucci, F., Pallottino, F., Aguzzi, J., Sarriá, D., Menesatti, P., 2013. A review on agri-food supply chain traceability by means of RFID technology. Food Bioprocess Technol. 6, 353–366. Dabbene, F., Gay, P., Tortia, C., 2016. Radio-frequency identification usage in food traceability. In: Espiñeira, M., Santaclara, F.J. (Eds.), Advances in Food Traceability Techniques and Technologies: Improving Quality Throughout the Food Chain. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 67–90. De Oliveira, M.A., de Souza, V.M., Bergamini, A.M.M., de Martinis, E.C.P., 2011. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat minimally processed vegetables consumed in Brazil. Food Control 22, 1400–1403. Denis, N., Zhang, H., Leroux, A., Trudel, R., Bietlot, H., 2016. Prevalence and trends of bacterial contamination in fresh fruits and vegetables sold at retail in Canada. Food Control 67, 225–234. Dzwolak, W., 2016. Practical aspects of traceability in small food businesses with implemented food safety management systems. J. Food Saf. 36, 203–213. El Sheikha, A.F., 2010. Determination of geographical origin of Shea tree and Physalis fruits by using the genetic fingerprints of the microbial community by PCR/DGGE. Analysis of biological properties of some fruit extracts. PhD thesis, University of Montpellier 2. El Sheikha, A.F., 2011. Détermination de l’origine géographique des fruits: Exemples du Karité et du Physalis par l’utilisation d’empreintes génétiques sur la communauté microbienne par PCR/DGGE. Éditions Universitaire Européennes, GmbH & Co.KG, Sarrebruck.

204  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

El Sheikha, A.F., 2012. Biochemical and Microbiological Evaluation of Packed Fruit Products: Examples of Fruit Juices and Leathers. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, AV Akademikerverlag GmbH & Co.KG, Saarbrücken. El Sheikha, A.F., 2015a. Food safety issues in Saudi Arabia. Nutr. Food Technol. 1, 1–4. doi: 10.16966/nftoa.103. El Sheikha, A.F., 2015b. New strategies for tracing foodstuffs: biological barcodes utilising PCR-DGGE. Adv. Food Technol. Nutr. Sci. Open J. 1, S1–S7. doi: 10.17140/ AFTNSOJ-SE-1-101. El Sheikha, A.F., 2017. Medicinal plants: ethno-uses to biotechnology era. In: Malik, S. (Ed.), Biotechnology and Production of Anti-Cancer Compounds. Springer International Publishing AG. Part of Springer Nature, Cham, pp. 1–38. El Sheikha, A.F., 2018a. How to determine the geographical origin of foods by molecular techniques? In: El Sheikha, A.F., Levin, R.E., Xu, J. (Eds.), Molecular Techniques in Food Biology: Safety, Biotechnology, Authenticity & Traceability. first ed.. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 3–26. El Sheikha, A.F., 2018b. Molecular detection of mycotoxigenic fungi in foods: the case for using PCR-DGGE. Food Biotechnol., in press. El Sheikha, A.F., Hu, D.M., 2018a. How to trace the geographic origin of mushrooms? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.06.008. El Sheikha, A.F., Hu, D.M., 2018b. Molecular Techniques reveal more secrets of fermented foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1506906. in press. El Sheikha, A.F., Menozzi, P., 2018. Potential geo-tracing tool for migrant insects by using 16S rDNA fingerprinting of bacterial communities by PCR-DGGE. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. (In press). El Sheikha, A.F., Montet, D., 2012. The determination of geographical origin of foodstuffs by using innovative biological bar-code. J. Life Sci. 6, 1334–1342. doi: 10.17265/1934-7391/2012.12.004. El Sheikha, A.F., Montet, D., 2016. How to determine the geographical origin of seafood? Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56, 306–317. El Sheikha, A.F., Xu, J., 2018. Molecular techniques and foodstuffs: innovative fingerprints, then what? In: El Sheikha, A.F., Levin, R.E., Xu, J. (Eds.), Molecular Techniques in Food Biology: Safety, Biotechnology, Authenticity & Traceability, first ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 423–434. El Sheikha, A.F., Condur, A., Métayer, I., Le Nguyen, D.D., Loiseau, G., Montet, D., 2009. Determination of fruit origin by using 26S rDNA fingerprinting of yeast communities by PCR–DGGE: preliminary application to Physalis fruits from Egypt. Yeast 26, 567–573. El Sheikha, A.F., Bouvet, J.-M., Montet, D., 2011. Biological barcode for the determination of geographical origin of fruits by using 28S rDNA fingerprinting of fungal communities by PCR-DGGE: an application to Shea tree fruits. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 3, 40–47. El Sheikha, A.F., Durand, N., Sarter, S., Okullo, J.B.L., Montet, D., 2012. Study of the microbial discrimination of fruits by PCR-DGGE: application to the determination of the geographical origin of Physalis fruits from Colombia, Egypt, Uganda and Madagascar. Food Control 24, 57–63. El Sheikha, A.F., Levin, R.E., Xu, J. (Eds.), 2018. Molecular Techniques in Food Biology: Safety, Biotechnology, Authenticity & Traceability, first ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Ercolini, D., 2004. PCR-DGGE fingerprinting: novel strategies for detection of microbes in food. J. Microbiol. Methods 56, 297–314. Espiñeira, M., Santaclara, F.J., 2016. The use of molecular biology techniques in food traceability. In: Espiñeira, M., Santaclara, F.J. (Eds.), Advances in Food Traceability Techniques and Technologies: Improving Quality Throughout the Food Chain. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 91–118. European Commission, 1991. Council Regulation EEC/2092/1991 of 24th June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   205

agricultural products and foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 198, 1–95, 22.7.1991. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991R2092:EN:HTML (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 1996. Council Regulation EC/2200/1996 of 28th October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 297, 1–38, 21.11.1996. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996R2200&from=GA (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2000. Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8th May 2000 on p ­ rotective measures against the introduction into the community of organisms ­harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 169, 1–112, 10.7.2000. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:169:0001:0112:EN:PDF (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2002. Regulation EC/178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28th January 2002 laying down the principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 31, 1–24, 1.2.2002. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:031:0001:0024:en:PDF (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Off. J. Eur. Union L 268, 1–23, 18.10.2003. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:268:0001:0023:EN:PDF (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2004. Corrigendum to Regulation EC/852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29th April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union L 226, 3–21, 25.6.2004. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0001:0054:en:PDF (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2005. Commission Regulation EC/2073/2005 of 15th November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union L 338, 1–26, 22.12.2005. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:L:2005:338:0001:0026:EN:PDF (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1221/2008 of 5 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector as regards marketing standards. Off. J. Eur. Union L 336, 1–80, 13.12.2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1221&from=EN. (Accessed 29 January 2018). European Commission, 2011. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. Off. J. Eur. Union L 157, 1–163, 15.6.2011. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0543&from=en (Accessed 29 January 2018). Faria, M.A., Magalhães, A., Nunes, M.E., Oliveira, M.B.P.P., 2013. High resolution melting of trnL amplicons in fruit juices authentication. Food Control 33, 136–141. Feudo, G.L., Naccarato, A., Sindona, G., Tagarelli, A., 2010. Investigating the origin of tomatoes and triple concentrated tomato pastes through multielement determination by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and statistical analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 3801–3807. Fonsah, E.G., 2006. Traceability: formulation and implementation of an economic efficient system in the fruit and vegetable industry. Choices 21, 243–248.

206  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical (FAOSTAT), 2016a. FAOSTAT-data-cropsvisualized-fruits, fresh nes. Latest update: November 2016. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (Accessed 29 January 2018). Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical (FAOSTAT), 2016b. FAOSTAT-data-cropsvisualized-vegetables, freshnes. Latest update: November 2016, Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (Accessed 29 January 2018). Food Marketing Research and Information Center (FMRIC), 2008. Handbook for Introduction of Food Traceability Systems: Guidelines for Food Traceability. Second print (March 2008), pp. 1–67, Tokyo, Japan. Available from: http://www. maff.go.jp/j/syouan/seisaku/trace/attach/pdf/index-67.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., Price, G., 2004. Traceability in the U.S. food supply: economic theory and industry studies. United States Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report (AER) No. 830, pp. 1–46, Washington, DC. Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn. edu/bitstream/33939/1/ae040830.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Gonzalvez, A., Armenta, S., de la Guardia, M., 2009. Trace-element composition and stable-isotope for discrimination of foods with protected designation of origin. Trends Anal. Chem. 28, 1295–1311. GS1, 2015. Traceability for fresh fruits and vegetables implementation guide. Release 1.1, Ratified, September 2015, pp. 1–86. Available from: http://www.gs1.ee/doc/ download/GS1_Global_Traceability_Implementation_Fresh_Fruit_Veg.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Han, J., Wu, Y., Huang, W., Wang, B., Sun, C., Ge, Y., Chen, Y., 2012. PCR and DHPLC methods used to detect juice ingredient from 7 fruits. Food Control 25, 696–703. Howard, A., Edge, J., Grant, M., 2012. Stronger links: traceability and the Canadian food supply chain. Centre for Food in Canada (CFIC), Report November 2012. Available from: http://www.produceinventory.com/files/newsroom/ FoodTraceability-11-2012.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). IBISWorld, 2015. Global fruit & vegetables processing. IBISWorld Industry Report C1112-GL, September 2015. Available from: http://www.brain-info.com/phoenix/admin/download?fileId=YbKAUpffBnmg&dp=GvUApKfKKUAU (Accessed 29 January 2018). Johnson, R., 2016. The U.S. trade situation for fruit and vegetable products. Congressional Research Service RL34468, December 1, 2016. Available from: https://fas.org/sgp/ crs/misc/RL34468.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN)/ Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Manual, 2010. Improving the safety and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables: a training manual for trainers. Available from: jifsan.umd.edu/docs/ gaps/en/GAPs_Manual_(Compiled).pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Kumar, V., 2012. Incidence of Salmonella sp. and Listeria monocytogenes in some salad vegetables which are eaten raw: a study of Dhanbad city. India. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. 2, 2277–2685. Le Nguyen, D.D., Gemroti, E., Loiseau, G., Montet, D., 2008. Determination of citrus fruit origin by using 16S rDNA fingerprinting of bacterial communities by PCR- DGGE: an application on clementine from Morocco and Spain. Fruits 63, 3–9. Liener, I.E. (Ed.), 1989. Toxic Constituents of Plant Foods. Academic Press, New York. Longobardi, F., Sacco, D., Casiello, G., Ventrella, A., Sacco, A., 2015. Characterization of the geographical and varietal origin of wheat and bread by means of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) methods and chemometrics: A review. Agric. Sci. 6, 126–136. Ly, F.D., 2007. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (dgge): An overview. Sci. Creative Quart. Available from: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/denaturing-gradient-gel-electrophoresis-dgge-an-overview/. [(Accessed29 January 2018)].

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   207

Marieschi, M., Torelli, A., Beghé, D., Bruni, R., 2016. Authentication of Punica granatum L.: Development of SCAR markers for the detection of 10 fruits potentially used in economically motivated adulteration. Food Chem. 202, 438–444. Matos-Reyes, M.N., Simonot, J., López-Salazar, O., Cervera, M.L., de la Guardia, M., 2013. Authentication of Alicante’s mountain cherries protected designation of origin by their mineral profile. Food Chem. 141, 2191–2197. Meile, J.-C., 2014. In: Tracing the origin of food using microbial ecology approaches. XIII workshop MRAMA in Barcelona, Spain (rapid microbiology), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain, November 25–28. Meile, J.-C., 2016. Food traceability: how microbial ecology can help. J. Food Process. Technol. 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.C1.044. Mritunjay, S.K., Kumar, V., 2015. Fresh farm produce as a source of pathogens: a review. Res. J. Environ. Toxicol 9, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjet.2015.59.70. Muyzer, G., De Waal, E.C., Uitterlinden, A.G., 1993. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain ­reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59, 695–700. Nightingale, S.D., 2004. New technologies for food traceability: package and product markers. Food Saf. Mag. State-of-Art-Operat. August/September 2004. Available from: https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/augustseptember-2004/new-technologies-for-food-traceability-package-and-product-markers/?EMID. [(Accessed29 January 2018)]. Ogundipe, F.O., Bamidele, F.A., Adebayo-Oyetoro, A.O., Ogundipe, O.O., Tajudeen, O.K., 2012. Incidence of bacteria with potental public health implications in raw Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato) sold in Lagos State, Nigeria. Nigerian Food J. 30, 106–113. Olaimat, A.N., Holley, R.A., 2012. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: a review. Food Microbial. 32, 1–19. Oranusi, S., Olorunfemi, O.J., 2011. Microbiological safety evaluation of street vended ready-to-eat fruits sold in Ota, Ogun state, Nigeria. Int. J. Res. Biol. Sci. 1, 27–32. Pabrua, F.F., Williams Jr., J., 2004. Challenges, progress and solutions in produce safety. Food Safety Mag. 9, 49–52. Available from: https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/ magazine-archive1/december-2003january-2004/challenges-progress-and-solutions-in-produce-safety/. [(Accessed29 January 2018)]. Probst, L., Frideres, L., Pedersen, B., Luxembourg, P., 2015. In: Traceability across the value chain: advanced tracking systems. Case study 40, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Directorate J “Industrial Property, Innovation & Standards”, Unit J.3 “Innovation Policy for Growth”, European Union, February. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/ documents/13393/attachments/2/translations/en/renditions/native. (Accessed January 29, 2018). ReportBuyer, 2014. Global Horticulture (2014-2018)—Pink and Healthy. Available from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-horticulture-2014--2018--pink-and-healthy-271781701.html. [(Accessed29 January 2018)]. Sant’Ana, A.S., Igarashi, M.C., Landgraf, M., Destro, M.T., Franco, B.D., 2012. Prevalence, populations and pheno- and genotypic characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from ready-to-eat vegetables marketed in Sao Paulo. Brazil. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 155, 1–9. Sardaro, M.L.S., Marmiroli, M., Maestri, E., Marmiroli, N., 2013. Genetic characterization of Italian tomato varieties and their traceability in tomato food products. Food Sci. Nutr. 1, 54–62. Šenk I., Ostojić G., Tarjan L., Stankovski S. and Lazarević M., In: Camarinha-Matos L.M., Tomic S. and Paula Graça P., (Eds.), 2013. Food product traceability by using automated identification technologies, TechnologicalInnovation for the Internet of Things, Book series (IFIPAICT, volume 394). 4th IFIP WG 5.5/SOCOLNET Doctoral

208  Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK

Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, DoCEIS 2013, Costa de Caparica,Portugal, April 15–17, 2013, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 155–163. Serradilla, M.J., Hernández, A., Ruiz-Moyano, S., Benito, M.J., López-Corrales, M., Córdoba, M.G., 2013. Authentication of ‘Cereza del Jerte’ cherry cultivars using real time PCR. Food Control 30, 679–685. Slavin, J.L., Lloyd, B., 2012. Health benefits of fruits and vegetables. Adv. Nutr. 3, 506– 516. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002154. Smith, S.A., Campbell, D.R., Elmer, P.J., Martini, M.C., Slavin, J.L., Potter, J.D., 1995. The university of Minnesota cancer prevention research unit vegetable and fruit classification scheme (United States). Cancer Causes Control 6, 292–302. Sodeko, O.O., Izuagbe, Y.S., Ukhun, M.E., 1987. Effect of different preservative treatment on the microbial population of Nigerian orange juice. Microbios 51, 133–143. Suzuki, Y., Nakashita, R., 2010. Approach to food authenticity problems by using multi-element stable isotope ratio analysis. Kagaku to Seibutsu 4, 121 (in Japanese). Suzuki, Y., Akamatsu, F., Nakashita, R., Korenaga, T., 2010. A Novel method to discriminate between plant- and petroleum-derived plastics by stable carbon isotope analysis. Chem. Lett. 39, 998–999. Suzuki, Y., Nakashita, R., Kobe, R., Kitai, A., Tomiyama, S., 2012. Tracing the geographical origin of Japanese (Aomori Prefecture) and Chinese apples using stable carbon and oxygen isotope analyses. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi 59, 69–75 (in Japanese). Suzuki, Y., Akamatsu, F., Nakashita, R., Korenaga, T., 2013. Characterization of Japanese polished rice by stable hydrogen isotope analysis of total fatty acids for tracing regional origin. Anal. Sci. 29, 143–146. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2015. Why is it important to eat fruit? ChooseMyPlate.gov (https://www.choosemyplate.gov/fruits-nutrients-health, 29 January 2018) Website. Washington DC., latest update: January 12, 2015. Available from: https://www.choosemyplate.gov/fruits-nutrients-health (Accessed 29 January 2018). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2016. Why is it important to eat vegetables? ChooseMyPlate.gov Website. Washington, DC. Latest update: January 12, 2016. Available from: https://www.choosemyplate.gov/vegetables-nutrients-health (Accessed 29 January 2018). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS), 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th ed., Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2010. Available from: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018). Vergara, E., Llobet, J., Ramírez, L., Ivanov, P., Fonseca, L., Zampolli, S., Scorzoni, A., Becker, T., Marco, S., Wöllenstein, J., 2007. An RFID reader with onboard sensing capability for monitoring fruit quality. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 127, 143–149. Vicente, A.R., Manganaris, G.A., Sozzi, G.O., Crisosto, C.H., 2009. Nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables. In: Florkowski, W.J., Shewfelt, R.L., Brueckner, B., Prussia, S.E. (Eds.), Postharvest Handling: A Systems Approach, second ed. Academic Press, Inc., New York, pp. 58–106. World Bank (Ed.), 2017. ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions, Updated ed. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi. org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1002-2. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015. WHO’s First Ever Global Estimates of Foodborne Diseases Find Children Under 5 Account for Almost One Third of Deaths. WHO Media Centre, Geneva, viewed 12 June 2016. Available from: http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/foodborne-diseaseestimates/en/ (Accessed 1 November 2017).

Chapter 6  TRACING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM FARM TO FORK   209

Yang, F., Wang, T., 2012. In: The Application of Radio Frequency Identification Technology in Vegetable Quality Traceability System. Yantai, China: International Conference on Systems and Informatics (ICSAI 2012). 19–20.

Further Reading Consolidated Regulations of Canada (CRC), 2017. Fresh fruit and vegetable regulations. Canada Agricultural Products Act, C.R.C., c. 285, Regulations are current to 201710-13 and last amended on 2011-09-30. Available from: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ PDF/C.R.C.,_c._285.pdf (Accessed 29 January 2018).