Stewart Postharvest Review

An international journal for reviews in postharvest biology and technology

HACCP implementation in the production of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables

Mara S Tapia, Vicente M Gmez-Lpez and Cristina Olaizola

Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologa de Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela

Abstract
Purpose of the review: This review focuses on the complex task of the final implementation of HACCP by fresh-cut processors. In
the face of recent episodes involving safety of produce and fresh-cut products, HACCP has been highly demanded for this industry by
regulators, politicians, consumers and the market.
Findings: The incidence of illnesses caused by foodborne pathogens associated with produce and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables has
increased. A great amount of research continues to be done on interventions and on a hurdle approach to prevent contamination by
microbial and other hazards. In the literature the importance of the prerequisite programs: GAPs, GMPs and SSOPs, as part of any
quality and safety integrated system wherein HACCP may be the last step, is continuously stressed.
Limitations/implications: The adoption of integrated safety systems by the fresh-cut industry is very important. Apart from GMPs
(mandatory), specific legislation and guidance for these products is necessary (microbiological criteria, guides for GAPs, SSOPs,
HACCP). This may be a problem since the market exerts a lot of pressure on produce and fresh-cut processors, and the system may act
functionally as a trade barrier for small and medium size businesses and for developing countries. Implementation of HACCP system
should occur in later stages.
Directions for future research: The dynamic of the fresh-cut market and the severe safety requirements imposed especially by consumers, will lead and it is already observed in recent literature, to reflections and analysis on food safety management systems and
safety strategies using new approaches and philosophies.
Keywords: Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP); fresh-cut; produce; Good Manufacturing Practices; Good Agricultural
Practices; Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures

Abbreviations
Critical Control Point
CCP
Current Good Manufacturing Practice
CGMP
Good Agricultural Practice
GAP
EurepGAP Euro Retailer Produce Working Group-Good
Agriculture Practices
Good Manufacturing Practice
GMP
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
HACCP
Modified Atmosphere Packaging
MAP
Raw Agricultural Commodity
RAC
Ready-to-eat
RTE
Sanitation
Standard Operating Procedure
SSOP
Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli
VTEC

2009 Stewart Postharvest Solutions (UK) Ltd.

Online ISSN:1945-9656
www.stewartpostharvest.com

*Correspondence to: Mara Soledad Tapia, Instituto de

Ciencia y Tecnologa de Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias,
Universidad Central de Venezuela, Calle Suapure frente al
ramal N 2, Colinas de Bello Monte, Caracas, Venezuela.
Tel: +58 212 7534403; Fax: +58 212 7533871;
Email: maria.tapia@ciens.ucv.ve
Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6
Published online 01 August 2009
doi: 10.2212/spr.2009.4.6

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

Introduction
The fresh-cut produce industry is facing severe scrutiny from
regulatory agencies and consumers to improve food safety.
Each time any fruit or vegetable is implicated in a foodborne
illness outbreak, all produce commodity sectors suffer from
loss of consumer confidence in the industry. In the USA, the
outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in September 2006
that was traced back to commercially-bagged spinach [1],
and the multi-state outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul in 2008,
which implicated jalapeo and serrano peppers as major vehicles, with tomatoes as a possible vehicle early in the outbreak [2] represented severe blows for consumers and the
industry.
Assuring safety is essential to accessing the market, and
global recognition of standardised protocols to eliminate risk
at every step from farm to fork has translated into food
safety policy for many countries [3*]. Although the Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system is not yet
mandatory and not currently required by law for the processing of fresh-cut produce, the industry itself has been encouraging their fresh-cut processors to voluntarily implement
HACCP programs in their facilities, as well as to demand
safe practices by partners throughout the supply chain. Many
segments of the fresh-cut produce industry have adopted
HACCP principles [46].
In produce operations, however, HACCP systems have limited application since specific critical limits cannot be established and monitored to ensure that the hazard is reduced to
acceptable levels. Instead, Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs) voluntary , Good Manufacturing Practices
(GMPs), mandatory , and Sanitation Standard Operating
Procedures (SSOPs) voluntary , provide the primary levels
of risk management [710*, 11] for operations in the field
that will directly impact the fresh-cut processing plant. In the
present review an attempt will be made to revisit those aspects.
Food safety issues facing the fresh produce and fresh-cut
industry
Fruits and vegetables play an increasingly important role in
todays diets. Epidemiological studies indicate that the regular consumption of adequate amounts could help prevent major chronic diseases [12]. The scientific communities, and
governmental and multidisciplinary publicity campaigns
around the world, recommend consumption of at least 400 g
of fruit and vegetable (five servings per day) [13]. The food
industry has responded to this with fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. As the public has become more health conscious, consumption of fresh produce and fresh-cut products have increased, and fruits and vegetables have also become increasingly important vehicles in foodborne disease statistics [14
16]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
[17] concluded that leafy green vegetables (lettuce, spinach,
cabbages, chicory, watercress and leafy fresh herbs like ci-

lantro, basil and parsley) present the greatest concern in

terms of microbiological hazards associated with fresh produce, with berries, green onions, melons, sprouted seeds and
tomatoes being of the second of highest concern. Carrots,
cucumbers, almonds, baby corn, sesame seeds, onions and
garlic, mango, paw paw, celery and mamey, even if having
been implicated in cases or outbreaks of foodborne illness,
the public health impact was considered to be low.
Studies have demonstrated that human pathogens can survive
in contaminated fields [18, 19], and reach edible parts of
plants [20]. Preharvest damage enhances microbial survival
in plants [21, 22]. Spreading of pathogens may have several
patterns, from using contaminated manure or irrigation water
in fields to more complicated patterns such as those involving
nematodes [23] or ruminants [24] as reservoirs. Once there,
they can also survive and grow [25]. Prolonged stay of micro-organisms onto vegetable surfaces allows their attachment and biofilm formation [26], which makes them more
resistant to decontamination [27, 28]. It has also been proved
that human pathogens can be internalised into plants, survive
and proliferate there [29], and migrate to edible parts of the
plant [30]. Very comprehensive reviews about this problem
have been written by Beuchat [31], Tyler and Triplett [21],
and Aruscavage et al. [32]. Since many decontamination
techniques act only on surfaces, internalised micro-organisms
get protected from disinfection. Moreover, harvesting techniques [34] can contaminate produce.
Fresh-cut produce: A challenge for safety
The minimal processing industry unlike most other processors have the difficult task of ensuring product safety without
having a true kill step in processing operations [3540].
GAPs, GMPs and HACCP systems are among the primary
methods for controlling pathogens in fresh produce and in the
fresh-cut industry [6, 41, 42**44*]. Secondary interventions
to prevent vegetables from becoming contaminated with
pathogens (eg, Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes,
Vero cytotoxin-producing E. coli, Campylobacter spp., protozoa and virus), during production rely on control measures
taken during pre- and postharvest in a hurdle approach.
Fresh-cut hurdles include purchasing produce from certified
growerpackers, implementing plant sanitation programmes,
using physical removal, chemical decontamination and antimicrobial agents in the wash water, using modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) techniques and consistent refrigeration management [44*49].
As discussed by the United States FDA [44*], raw agricultural commodities (RACs) are considered as any food in its
raw or natural state. They are not subject to the Current
Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMPs) requirements for
foods (21 CFR Part 110) [50] that establish food safety practices applicable to processors who manufacture, process,
pack or hold processed food. Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are not RACs because they are no longer in raw or
natural state and have become processed food. The United
2

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

States Food and Drug Administration considers that the recommendations in the Guide to Minimize Microbial Food
Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables [44*]
complement the CGMPs by suggesting more specific food
safety practices for processors of fresh-cut produce.
On the other side, in Europe, Commission Regulation (EC)
2073/2005 [41] on the microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, effective for all European Union (EU) states since
January 1st, 2006 [40], includes fresh produce, in particular
sprouted seeds, and unpasteurised fruit and vegetable juices
among the food categories where verotoxigenic E. coli
(VTEC) represents a hazard to public health. Microbiological guidelines aim at reducing the faecal contamination
along the food chain which can contribute to a reduction in
public health risks, including VTEC. While as for ready-toeat foods (RTE) that are able to support growth of L. monocytogenes, in which pre-cut fruits and vegetables (RTE) are
included, the Regulation requires the absence of the pathogen (in 25 g) before the food has left the immediate control
of the food business operator, who has produced it, but
permits for up to 100 cfu/g for products placed on the market during their shelf-life. As for Salmonella, pre-cut fruits
and vegetables the Regulation demands the absence of the
pathogen (in 25 g) in products placed on the market during
their shelf-life.
The incidence, survival and competitive growth of pathogens on fresh vegetables and on fresh-cut produce are well
documented. E. coli O157:H7 has been implicated in consumption of celery, herbs, spinach and white radish sprouts,
Salmonella species with consumption of sprouts, cabbage,
lettuce, salad greens, tomatoes, cantaloupe, mamey, apple
juice and orange juice; shigellosis has been associated with
lettuce, scallions and parsley; cholera with strawberries;
parasitic diseases with raspberries, basil and apple cider;
hepatitis A virus with lettuce, raspberries and frozen strawberries; and Norwalk/Norwalk-like virus with melon, salad
and celery [35, 51**, 52]. This situation calls for increased
efforts from the food industry in developing effective methods for controlling pathogens in these products. When fresh
produce is washed, cut and sliced, the natural defence
mechanisms on the plant material are removed. The high
level of handling increases the potential for product to be
contaminated by micro-organisms in the ambient making it
imperative that the best process control techniques are utilised to promote safety, maintaining food safety standards
with preventive programs [38].
Decontamination by physical or chemical methods has been
widely used in the food industry to try to inactivate human
pathogens present in fruits and vegetables [53] and to increase produce shelf-life by decreasing spoilage microflora
[54]. For a long time the food industry relied on chlorine
dips as a simple and cheap method to pursue these goals.
Researchers have realised, however, that chlorine has limited antimicrobial efficacy when used in vivo [55], and for-

mation of chlorine by-products from the reaction between

chlorine and organic matter has raised many concerns [56].
A wide range of alternative decontamination methods have
been studied for chlorine substitution, however, once more
have shown limited efficacy for pathogen inactivation [57
59].
The fresh-cut industry cannot exclusively rely on decontamination as well as on other control measures to reduce
hazards in facilities for fresh-cut products. The fresh-cut
produce industry is being demanded to implement HACCP
and promote a farm-to-fork approach. As discussed very
well by Sperber [42**], food safety has to be understood as
HACCP plus prerequisite programs that focus on effective
interventions and critical control points (CCPs) to protect
the public health, eliminating possible false expectations that
HACCP alone can provide food safety assurance.

HACCP: The final stage of an integrated food safety

program
The fundamentals and principles of HACCP have been discussed elsewhere [5962]. The success of HACCP preventing identified hazards has led to regulators, politicians, and
consumers calling for it in a farm to fork approach. However, it is at the processing step where effective controls are
available to eliminate significant hazards. The lack of definitive CCPs that could eliminate or control identified hazards
like presence of pathogens in the field and the cultural habits
of the consumers cannot be considered in the plan [7, 42,
63**65]. Many current HACCP plans put more emphasis
on sound, well-conceived prerequisite programs and have
fewer CCPs than they did historically [5, 10*, 63].
HACCP can only be effective in a fresh-cut facility if prerequisite programs are in place and functioning properly.
HACCP functions as the final stage of an integrated food
safety program that begins with the prerequisite programs:
GAPs, GMPs and SSOPs. While not a formal part of
HACCP, prerequisite programmes must be developed and
implemented in a food processing operation before attempting to put a HACCP plan in place. They are defined as procedures including GMPs that address operational conditions,
providing the foundation of HACCP or practices and conditions needed prior to and needed during the implementation
of HACCP and which are essential for food safety [61].
Mortimer and Harris [66], and Wallace and Williams [67**]
revise thoroughly the concept of prerequisite programs and
their usefulness to the HACCP approach. Varsakas and Arvanitoyannis [68**] recommend that fresh-cut processors
develop written prerequisite programmes for raw material
receipt and storage; wash water quality; equipment maintenance; production controls for grading, washing, cutting,
drying and packaging; temperature and microbiological controls; chemical control; sanitary control for the facility,
equipment and employees; product coding and traceability;
recall procedure control; and finished product storage and
3

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

distribution control. da Cruz et al., [69**] do an excellent job

in revising exhaustively, the importance of GMP, SSOPs and
HACCP, which must be accompanied with GAPs in order to
implement a quality assurance system for the products. Most
agricultural hazards cannot, and should not, be prevented
through HACCP. Instead, the use of GAPs has been identified by the United States FDA and the produce industry as a
more appropriate way to address these hazards [10*, 70].

Good Agricultural Practices

As shown by epidemiological data, the greatest risk to human
health derived from consumption of uncooked produce
comes from pathogenic micro-organisms which get to fruits
and vegetables from an enormous variety of sources of contamination (untreated sewage or irrigation water, manure, soil
micro-organisms, harvesting equipment, transport containers,
processing equipment, human handling) [38, 71, 72]. An excellent chapter on production practices that have the potential
to contaminate produce items with pathogens at harvest and
postharvest, and in turn, can be considered as risk factors in
microbial food safety of fresh and fresh-cut produce, is presented by Suslow et al. [73**]. As expressed by the authors,
the specific influence and interactions among the production
environments and crop management practices are not sufficiently understood to provide detailed guidance to growers
and shippers and develop an encompassing assignment of
microbial risk to commodities or to crop management practices.
In the USA, the acronym GAPSs refers to the Guide to
Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables published by the United States Food and
Drug Administration [10*], which has become a model for
focusing on the key areas of presumptive risk potential for
fruit and vegetable production and handling. The guide identifies eight principles of food safety in the area of growing,
harvesting and transporting fresh produce and suggests that
growers use the general recommendations to develop the
most appropriate good agricultural and management practices
in those areas over which they have control in their operations to prevent or minimise microbial food safety hazards. In
Europe, GAP guidance is provided by the normative document for certification, EurepGAP Fruit and Vegetables,
developed by EurepGAP (Euro retailer produce working
group-Good Agriculture Practices) Fruit and Vegetables.
New versions (V3.0-Mar07) of the normative documents for
fruit and vegetables have been approved [74]. EurepGAP
Fruit and Vegetables varies from the USAs guidelines by
including consideration for issues such as wildlife and habitat
protection, genetically modified organisms, and integrated
crop management [75].
GAP systems can provide products of higher microbial safety
that facilitate the implementation of HACCP procedures in
establishments offering minimally processed vegetables [76].
EurepGAP for instance, is becoming an obligatory standard
as most European retailers require it as evidence of good ag-

ricultural practices. Producers of fruits and vegetables have

learned that without certification most retailers will not buy
their products. Kokkinakis et al. [77] monitored certain microbial-flora markers in order to check the efficiency of the
Greek protocol AGRO 2-1 & 2-2 GAP system in agricultural
farms to check microbial food quality of tomatoes and peppers grown in greenhouses, and to evaluate whether overall
greenhouses-management under AGRO 2-1 & 2-2, could
establish actual farming and handling conditions that are in
compliance to basic EurepGAP requirements. Also, increasingly, exporters to Europe need to comply with the production standards determined by the EurepGAP certification
scheme [75]. Even if these are only guidelines, importers are
requiring from suppliers in developing countries, compliance
with safety issues. This could be the first stage of potential
changes in the operational standards for developing countries
despite the fact that the cost of compliance to EurepGAP is
acting as a trade barrier with many developing countries,
where smallholders have no capacity to meet the EurepGAP
requirements [78].
Other Prerequisites for HACCP: Good manufacturing
practices (GMP) and Sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOP)
The concepts of GMP and SSOP are considered as support
programmes that provide foundations for HACCP in an overall food safety management program. They connect all factors that assure quality, safety and effectiveness of food, according to its specification and purpose [67**, 79]. GMPs are
listed in Title 21, Part 110 of the Code of Federal Regulations
for plant areas like building and facilities, equipment and
utensils, employee practices, pest control, production and
process controls and warehousing practices [50]. Its success
depends on managerial support, specialisation and motivation
of personnel, provision of resources and divulging of the programme [69]. GMPs are not designed to control specific hazards; do not provide methods for monitoring hazards and do
not require specific recordkeeping procedures; are not used to
establish deviation limits and do not describe corrective action requirements [68]. SSOPs are detailed, step-by-step instructions for cleaning any given equipment, line, room, department or plant [80] to maintain the utensils free of pathogenic micro-organisms and minimise the amounts of spoilage
microflora, with the goal of preventing contamination of food
when in contact with these utensils and installations [69].
Standard Operating Procedures are written references used to
describe a specific sequence of events necessary to perform a
task and are considered the heart of any prerequisite programme [67**, 80, 81] Varsakas and Arvanitoyannis [68**]
revise thoroughly the prerequisites and HACCP concepts and
use a preliminary Hazard Analysis to analyse and predict the
occurring failure modes in a food chain system associated
with a processing plant of RTE vegetables (mixed salads)
concluding that the prerequisite programmes are the main
difference between the two systems and the incorporation of
the prerequisites in the ISO22000 made the system more
flexible as a smaller number of CCPs was introduced.
4

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

Programme, Codes Committee on Food Hygiene. Food Hygiene, Supplement to Volume JR1997. Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods. CAC/GL 211997. Secretariat
of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1997.

Other approaches
There are other approaches to help ensure safety [8, 82]. As
stated by Bertolini et al., [83], Castilho-Gorayeb et al. [84],
although HACCP is quite a structured program, it generally
depends on some subjective analysis when determining the
CCPs. Risk analysis becomes a powerful tool here since subjectiveness can be reduced since it deals with the probability
of occurrence (risk) of a specific hazard. Basset and McClure
[85] used a qualitative risk assessment approach for the hazards and risks associated with fresh fruit that could be
adapted to consider fresh vegetables. HACCP, GAPs and
GMPs are recommended for assuring the safety of fresh produce, but the authors consider that applying a risk assessment
approach prior to them, can provide manufacturers with some
insight into effective management options.

Conclusions
This review concluded that more than ever, the fresh-cut industry requires building safety and confidence in order to
face the challenges posed by the nature of produce and the
conditions associated with growing, harvesting, handling and
transporting of fruits and vegetables that go to fresh-cut operations in which no lethal treatments are applied. The freshcut produce industry is being demanded to implement
HACCP and promote a farm-to-fork orientation. However,
processors should consider that HACCP for the fresh-cut
industry must be constructed around an integrated approach
in which HACCP is the last stage of a quality assurance system. Discussion continues over the issue of mixing safety and
quality aspects and the use of safety tools different from
HACCP.

References
Papers of interest have been highlighted as:
*Marginal importance
**Essential reading
1

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). 2006: Nationwide E. Coli

O157:H7 Outbreak: Questions & Answers [http://www.healthfinder.gov/
docs/doc10845.htm].
Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Saintpaul Infections Associated with
Multiple Raw Produce Items United States. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report August 29, 2008: 57(34); 929934 [http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5734a1.htm#fig1]
Wright AC, Danyluk MD and Otwell WS. Pathogens in raw foods: what
the salad bar can learn from the raw bar. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2009: 20:16.

Chilled Food Association (CFA). Microbiological Guidance for Produce

Suppliers to Chilled Food Manufacturers, 2nd Edition. Chilled Food
Association Ltd, London; 2007.

10

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) U.S. Department of Agriculture

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 1998. Guide
to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables [http://www.foodsafety.gov/~acrobat/prodguid.pdf].

* Important guidance for growers and processors.

11

12

13

World Health Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (WHO/FAO). Fruit and vegetables for health: Report of a
Joint FAO/WHO Workshop, 13 September, 2004, Kobe, Japan. WHO
Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2004 pp. 44.

14

Sivapalasingam S, Friedman CR, Cohen L and Tauxe RV. Freshproduce: A growing cause of outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United
States, 1973 through 1997. Journal of Food Protection 2004: 67(10):
23422353.

15

Gerner-Smidt P and Whichard Jean M. Foodborne disease trends and

reports. Foodborne pathogens and disease 2007: 4(1):1-4.

16

Elviss NC, Little CL, Hucklesby L, Sagoo S, Surman-Lee S, de Pinna E,

and Threlfall EJ. Microbiological study of fresh herbs from retail premises uncovers an international outbreak of salmonellosis. International
Journal of Food Microbiology 2009: Article in Press Corrected Proof.
[doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.01.015].
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World
Health Organization (WHO). Microbiological Risk Assessment Series:
Microbiological hazards in fresh fruit and vegetables. 2008 [http://
www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/MRA_FruitVeges.pdf].

17

18

Avery LM, Hill P, Killham K and Jones DL. Escherichia coli survival
following the surface and sub-surface application of human pathogen
contaminated organic waste to soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2004:
36: 21012103.

19

Nicholson FA, Groves SJ and Chamber BJ. Pathogen survival during

livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresource
Technology 2005: 96: 135143.

20

Islam M, Doyle MP, Phatak SC, Millner P and Jiang X. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on carrots and onions grown in fields
treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water. Food
Microbiology 2005: 22: 6370.
Tyler HL and Triplett EW. Plants as a habitat for beneficial and/or human
pathogenic bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 2008: 46: 5373.

21

* This paper presents an interesting approach for fresh-cut products

4
5

United Fresh Produce Association. HACCP requirements are under

Regulation [http://www.unitedfresh.org].
Brackett RE. Microbiological consequences of minimally processed
fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food Quality 1987: 10: 195206.

European Commission (EC). Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of
foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union 2004: L139: 154

Tamplin ML. Produce food safety and interventions to reduce risk In:
14th Australian HACCP Conference, 30 July03 August 2007, Gold
Coast [http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1654/].

Codex Alimentarious Commission. Joint FAQ/WHO Food Standards

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Environmental and Social Standards, Certification and Labelling for Cash
Crops. In: Dankers C., & Liu P. Technical Paper 2. FAO Commodities
and Trade. Rome: Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy;
2003 pp. 1120.
World Health Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (WHO/FAO). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of
Chronic Diseases. WHO Technical Report Series 916. Report of a Joint
WHO/FAO Expert Consultation; 2003 pp. 148.

22

Barker-Reid F, Harapas D, Engleitner S, Kreidl S, Holmes R and Faggian

R. Persistance of Escherichia coli on injured iceberg lettuce in the field,
overhead irrigated with contaminated water. Journal of Food Protection
2009: 72: 458464.

23

Kenney SJ, Anderson GL, Williams PL, Millner PD and Beuchat LR.
Migration of Caenorhabditis elegans to manure and manure compost and
potential for transport of Salmonella newport to fruits and vegetables.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 2006: 106: 6168.
Looper ML, Edrington TS, Callaway TR and Rosenkrans CF Jr. Fate of
Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella from contaminated manure
slurry applied to soil surrounding tall fescue. Letters in Applied Microbiology 2009: 48: 513516.

24

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

25

26

McEvoy JL, Luo Y, Conway W, Zhou B and Feng H. Potential of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to grow on field-cored lettuce as impacted by
postharvest storage time and temperature. International Journal of Food
Microbiology 2009: 128: 506509.
Morris CE, Monier JM and Jacques MA. Methods for observing microbial biofilms directly on leaf surfaces and recovering them for isolation of
culturable microorganisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
1997: 63: 15701576.

27

LeChevallier MW, Cawthon CD and Lee RG. Inactivation of biofilm

bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1988: 54: 2492
2499.

28

Peta ME, Lindsay D, Brzel VS and von Holy A. Susceptibility of food

spoilage Bacillus species to chlorine dioxide and other sanitizers. South
African Journal of Science 2003: 99: 375380.

29

Guo X, van Iersel MW, Chen J, Brackett RE and Beuchat LR. Evidence
of association of Samonellae with tomato plants grown hydroponically in
inoculated nutrient solution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
2002: 68: 36393643.
Solomon EB, Yaron S and Matthews KR. Transmission of Escherichia
coli O157:H7 from contaminated manure and irrigation water to lettuce
plant tissue and its subsequent internalization. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2002: 68: 397400.
Beuchat LR. Vectors and conditions for preharvest contamination of
fruits and vegetables with pathogens capable of causing enteric diseases.
British Food Journal 2006: 108: 3853.

30

31

trol 2007: 18: 665671.

44

* Important guidance for the fresh-cut industry to reduce microbial hazards

45 Gorris LGM and Tauscher B. Quality and safety aspects of novel minimal processing technologies. In: Processing Foods: Quality optimization
and Process Assessment. Edited by: F.A.R. Oliveira & J.C. Oliveira
(editors). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999 pp. 325339.
46

Knight C and Stanley R. HACCP in Agriculture and Horticulture,

CCFRA Guideline. No. 10, 2nd Edition. Chipping Campden UK: Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association Group; 2000.

47

Parish ME, Beuchat LR, Suslow TV, Harris LJ, Garrett EH, Farber JN
and Busta FF. Methods to reduce/eliminate pathogens from fresh and
fresh-cut produce. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety 2 (Supplement) 2003: 161173.

48

Codex Alimentarius. Code of hygienic practice for fresh fruits and vegetables. CAC/RCP 53-2003 [www.codexalimentarius.net/ download/
standards/10200/cxp_053e.pdf].

49

Chilled Food Association (CFA). Microbiological Guidance for Produce

Suppliers to Chilled Food Manufacturers, 2nd Edition. London: Chilled
Food Association Ltd; 2007.

50

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21: Food and Drugs. Part
110-Current Good Manufacturing Practice. In: Manufacturing, Packing,
Or Holding Human Food 2009: e-CFR Data is current as of April 29,
2009. [www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/cfr110.html].

51

Beuchat LR. Ecological factors influencing survival and growth of human pathogens on raw fruits and vegetables. Microbes and Infection
2002; 4: 413423.

** This is an excellent review about the problems of preharvest contamination.

32

33

Aruscavage D, Lee K, Miller SA and LeJeune JT. Interactions affecting

the proliferation and control of human pathogens on edible plants. Journal of Food Science 2006: 71: R8999.
Aruscavage D, Miller SA, Lewis ML, Lee K and LeJeune JT. Survival
and dissemination of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on physically and biologically damaged lettuce plants. Journal of Food Protection 2008: 71:
23842388.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) U.S. Department of Agriculture

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) 2008: Guidance
for industry. Guide to minimize microbial food safety hazards of freshcut fruits and vegetables [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/prodgui4.html].

**This is an excellent review which provides a comprehensive summary of

literature on factors influencing survival and growth of human pathogens on
raw fruits and vegetables

34

Taormina PJ Beuchat LR, Erickson MC, Ma L, Zhang G, Doyle MP.

Transfer of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to iceberg lettuce via simulated
field coring. Journal of Food Protection 2009: 72: 465472.

52

Buck JW, Walcott RR and Beuchat LR. Recent trends in microbiological

safety of fruits and vegetables. Plant Health Progress 2003: [doi:10.1094/
PHP-2003-0121-01-RV].

35

Bean NH, Goulding JS, Daniels MT and Angelo FJ. Surveillance for
foodborne disease outbreaks-United States, 19881992. Journal of Food
Protection 1997: 60: 12651286.

53

Beuchat LR. Surface Decontamination of Fruits and Vegetables Eaten

Raw: A Review. World Health Organization, Food Safety Unit; 1998. Pp.
149.

36

Burnett SL and Beuchat LR. Human pathogens associated with raw

produce and unpasteurized juices, and difficulties in decontamination.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 2001: 27: 104
110.
Beuchat LR. Difficulties on eliminating human pathogenic microorganisms on raw fruit and vegetables. Acta Horticulturae 2004: 642: 151160.

54

Gmez-Lpez VM, Ragaert P, Debevere J and Devlieghere F. Pulsed

light for food decontamination: a review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology 2007:18: 464473.

55

Adams MR, Hartley, AD and Cox LJ. Factors affecting the efficacy of
washing procedures used in the production of prepared salads. Food
Microbiology 1989: 6: 6977.

38

James J. Overview of microbial hazards in fresh fruit and vegetables

operations. In: James, J. (Ed.), Microbial Hazard Identification in Fresh
Fruit and Vegetables.. Edited by James, J. (editor). U.K. John Wiley &
Sons Inc; 2006 pp. 136.

56

Beltrn D, Selma MV, Tudela JA and Gil MI. Effect of different sanitizers on microbial and sensory quality of fresh-cut potato strips stored
under modified atmosphere or vacuum packaging. Postharvest Biology
and Technology 2005: 37: 3746.

39

Lynch M, Painter J, Woodruff R and Braden C. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaksUnited States, 19982002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2006: 55: 1 42.

57

40

Hurst W. HACCP: A process control approach for fruit and vegetable

safety. In: Microbiology of Fruits and Vegetables. Edited by Sapers GM,
Gorny JR and Yousef AE. (editors). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor
and Francis Group; 2006 pp. 339364.
European Commission (EC). Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15
November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union 2005: L338: 126.
Sperber WH. HACCP does not work from Farm to Table. Food Control
2005: 16: 511514

Gmez-Lpez VM, Ragaert P, Debevere J and Devlieghere F. Decontamination methods to prolong the shelf-life of minimally processed vegetables, state-of-the-art. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
2008: 48: 487495.
Gmez-Lpez VM, Rajkovic A, Ragaert P, Smigic N and Devlieghere F.
Chlorine dioxide for minimally processed produce preservation: a review.
Trends in Food Science & Technology 2009: 20: 1726.
Huang YR, Hung YC, Hsu SY, Huang YW and Hwang DF. Application
of electrolyzed water in the food industry. Food Control 2008: 19: 329
345.
International Fresh-Cut Produce Association. Food safety guidelines for
the fresh-cut produce industry; 1999 pp125.

37

41

42

**This is an excellent review on HACCP on the effective use of HACCP in all

steps of the supply chain.
43

Cormier RJ, Mallet M, Chiasson S, Magnsson H and Valdimarsson HG.

Effectiveness and performance of HACCP-based programs. Food Con-

58

59

60
61

Codex Alimentarius. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

(HACCP) System and Guidelines for its Application. Basic Texts Food
Hygiene. The Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene Series title: Codex Alimentarius- Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Pro6

Tapia et al. / Stewart Postharvest Review 2009, 4:6

gramme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2001.
62

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria For Foods

(NACMCF). Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Principles and
Application Guidelines. U. S. Food and Drug AdministratioN. U. S.
Department of Agriculture 1997 [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/
nacmcfp.html].

bial Food Safety of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce. Chapter II. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2003: Vol. 2
(Supplement): 38 77.
** Excellent revision on production practices that influence the risk of contamination and exposure to the consumer by human pathogens.
74

EurepGAP [http://www.eurepgap.org/fruit/Languages/English/
documents.html]

Zagory D. HACCP programs aren't always right for the produce industry.
The Packer 1999: August 16.
**This article covers an important discussion of the role of HACCP in the
produce industry

75

Giovannucci D and Satin M. Food Quality Issues: Understanding

HACCP and Other Quality Management Techniques. The World Bank,
1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433. (presented in:
web.worldbank.org). 2006 pp. 122.

64

76

Kokkinakis E and Fragkiadakis GA. HACCP Effect on microbiological

quality of minimally processed vegetables: a survey in six mass-catering
establishments. International Journal of Food Science and Technology
2007: 42: 1823.

77

Kokkinakis E, Georgios Boskou G, Georgios A, Fragkiadakis GA, Kokkinaki A and Lapidakis N. Microbiological quality of tomatoes and peppers produced under the good agricultural practices protocol AGRO 2-1
& 2-2 in Crete, Greece. Food Control 2007: 18: 15381546.
Aloui O and Kenny L. The cost of compliance with SPS standards for
Moroccan exports: a case study. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW Washington,
DC 20433. (presented in: web.worldbank.org); 2005 pp. 140.

63

65

66
67

Panisello P J and Quantick PC. Technical barriers to Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Point (HACCP). Food Control 2001: 12: 165173.
Bertolini M, Rizzi A and Bevilacqua M. An alternative approach to
HACCP system implementation. Journal of Food Engineering 2007: 79:
13221328.
Mortimer SE and Wallace CA. HACCP: A practical approach. 2nd Edition. Gaithersburg, U.S.A.: Aspen Publishers; 1998 pp.403.
Wallace C and Williams T. Pre-requisites; a Help or a hindrance to
HACCP? Food Control 2001: 12: 235240.

78

**Excellent paper on the prerequisite programs and the benefits of being used
along with HACCP.
68 Varzakas TH and Arvanitoyannis IS. Application of ISO 22000 and
comparison to HACCP for processing of ready to eat vegetables: Part I.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2008: 43: 1729
174.

79
80

** Excellent review on the use of Hazard Analysis was to analyse and predict
the occurring failure modes in ready to eat vegetables processing plant in conjunction with ISO22000

81

69

da Cruz AG, Cencib SA and Maia MCA. Quality assurance requirements

in produce processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2006: 17:
406411.

** This review contains very good information on the main factors responsible
for the elaboration of a quality assurance system for produce plants: GAPs,
GMP, SSOPs and HACCP
70

World Health Organization (WHO). Strategies for implementing HACCP

principles in small and/or less developed business. Report of a WHO
consultation. (WHO/SDE/PHE/FOS/99.7). Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization; 1999.

71

Beuchat LR and Ryu JH. Produce handling and processing practices.

Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997: 3: 459465.
Rediers H, Claes M, Kinnerk R, Peeters L and Willems KA. Hand hygiene in the food industry: resolving an enigma? Food Protection Trends
2008: 28: 568584.
Suslow TV, Oria MP, Beuchat LR, Garrett EH, Parish ME, Harris LJ,
Farber JN and Busta FF. Production Practices as Risk Factors in Micro-

72

73

Raspor P. Total food chain safety: how good practices can contribute?
Trends in Food Science & Technology 2008: 19: 405412.
Scheffler R. Maximizing sanitation efforts in food processing: the importance of conveyor hygiene. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2009:
20: S40S43.
Harris K and Blackwell J. Guidelines for Developing Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Environmental SamplingTesting Recommendations (ESTRs) for Ready-toeat (RTE) Products. Elizabethtown, PA: American Association of Meat
Processors; 1999.

82

Tapia MS, Martnez A and Daz R.V. Tools for safety control of minimally processed fruit and vegetables. HACCP, risk assessment, predictive microbiology and challenge tests. In: Minimal Processing of Fruit
and Vegetables. Fundamental Aspects and Application. Edited by: Alzamora SM, Tapia MS and Lpez-Malo A. (editors). Gaithersburg,
U.S.A.: Aspen Publishers; 2000 pp. 7895.

83

Bertolini M, Rizzi A and Bevilacqua M. An alternative approach to

HACCP system implementation. Journal of Food Engineering 2007: 79:
13221328.

84

Castilho-Gorayeb T C, Casciatori FP, Del Bianchi VL and Thomo JC.

HACCP plan proposal for a typical Brazilian peanut processing company. Food Control 2009: 20: 671676.

85

Bassett J and McClure P. A risk assessment approach for fresh fruits.

Journal of Applied Microbiology 2008: 104: 925943.

2009 Published by Stewart Postharvest Solutions (UK) Ltd.

All rights reserved. www.stewartpostharvest.com
7