M.A. Costa Dias et al.

/ Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

Contents
listsavailable
atSciVerse
ScienceDirec

Food Control
journalhomepage:
Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

On the implementation of good manufacturing practices in a small processing unity of mozzarella

cheese in Brazil
Maria Anglica Costa Diasa, Anderson S. SantAnab, Adriano G. Cruzc, Jos de Assis F. Fariac, Carlos Augusto
Fernandes de Oliveirad, Evandro Bonae,*
a

This study reports the implementation of GMPs in a mozzarella cheese processing plant. The mozzarella cheese manufacturing unit is located in the Southwestern region of the
state of Parana, Brazil, and processes 20,000 L of milk daily. The implementation of GMP took place with the creation of a multidisciplinary team and it was carried out in four steps:
diagnosis, report of the diagnosis and road map, corrective measures and follow-up of GMP implementation. The effectiveness of actions taken and GMP
Implementation was compared by the total percentages of non-conformities and conformities before and after
implementation of GMP. Microbiological indicators were also used to assess the implementation of GMP in the
mozzarella cheese processing facility. Results showed that the average percentage of conformity after the implementation
1. Introduction
t 66%, while before it was 32 % (p< 0.05). The populations of aerobic
of GMP was signifcant increased to
microorganisms and total coliforms in equipment were signifcantly reduced (p< 0.05) after the implementation of GMP,
as well as
the populations
Mozzarella is a cheese obtained by stretching
acidifed
curd of total coliforms in the hands of food handlers (p< 0.05). In conclusion, GMP implementation
changed
the
overall
of the cheese processing unity, as well as managers and food handlers behavior and
complemented or not by the addition of lactic acid bacteria. The curdorganization
is
knowledge on the quality and safety of products manufactured.

obtained after coagulation of milk by rennet and/or coagulant enzymes

.
(Anon, 1997b; Kindstedt, 2004). Mozzarella cheese presents up to 60%
of humidity, pH between 5.1 and 5.3 and maximum of 2% of salt (Anon,
1997b), which provides adequate conditions for the survival and growth
of pathogenic microorganisms that may pose risks to human health
(Amagliani, Giammarini, Omiccioli, Brandi, & Magnani, 2007; Buzi,
Pinto, Ramos, & Biondi, 2009; Teixeira, Fonseca, & Menezes, 2007). It
is known that the microbiological quality of milk and the procedures
adopted during milking and processing will affect cheese quality
(Carvalho, Viotto,
& Kuaye, 2007; Naldini, Viotto, & Kuaye, 2009; Silva et al., 2010;
Wolf, Perotti, Bernal, & Zalazar, 2010). Therefore, the application of any measures to ensure the quality of milk used for making mozzarella cheese as well as
hygienic conditions during its processing are mandatory to obtain safe and high quality cheeses.
The implementation of good manufacturing practices ( GMP ) during milking and dairy processing might avoid or reduce the contamination of dairy products by
biological, chemical and physical hazards (Codex, 2004). GMP encompasses a series of measures to be adopted by the food industries in order to guarantee the
safety and conformity of food products to specifc regulations (Anon, 1997a). Moreover, GMP is essential for the implementation of management systems such as
HACCP (Lockis et al., 2011 ; Papademas & Bintsis, 2010; Sarter, Sarter, & Gilabert, 2010).
General measures to be implemented by food industries to accomplish with GMP as described by Codex Alimentarius include: hygiene in the primary production,
hygienic design of equipmenand facilities, control of operations, maintenance and sanitation practices, personal hygiene, transportation, product information and
consumer awareness and training (Codex, 2003). Although the Codex Alimentarius (2003, 2004) and countries may establish general guidelines for hygienic
practices (Anon, 1997a), procedures and practices adopted routinely by each industry to address regulatory requirements might vary among them. Thus, the practices
of each processing plant to obtain high quality and safe foods must be documented in GMP manuals (Anon, 1997a). The existence of a manual describing how
GMPs are accomplished by each processing plant is of foremost importance to ensure their continuous evaluation and improvement by processing plants,
governments and partners (Senai, 2001).
The implementation of GMPs is a continuous process based on the management concepts of the PDCA cycle (plan, do, check and action). Considering the PDCA
cycle, the implementation of GMPs can be divided in four steps: initial diagnosis, elaboration of road map, addressing of non-conformities and re-evaluation of
corrective measures implemented. Initial diagnosis and re-evaluation of corrective measures implemented are usually carried out by auditing the processing facilities
using a check-list based on the legislation regulating the GMPs in the country. Road maps will be generated after auditing, while the implementation of corrective
measures requires the decision of resource priorities and efforts. The real benefts and effectiveness of the implementation of GMPs to food safety and quality are
assessed by the use of indicators. Several indicators can be used to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of GMPs such as, microbiological indicators,
preand post-implementation costs of GMPs, among others (AmoaAwua et al., 2007; Lockis et al., 2011; Martins & Germano, 2008; Santana et al., 2009).
Although several studies on the impacts of hygienic conditions and food safety knowledge of food handlers on the microbiological quality of foods have been
carried out (Capunzo et al., 2005; Jevsnik, Hlebec, & Raspor, 2009; Nieto-Montenegro, Brown, & LaBorde, 2008; Nunes et al., 2010; Seaman & Eves, 2010), to our
knowledge few studies reported GMPs implementation in small food processing facilities. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the implementation of
GMPs in a small processing plant of mozzarella cheese located in the state of Paran, Brazil.

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

2. Material and methods

2.1. Characteristics of the cheese processing plant
The mozzarella cheese processing unity is located in the Southwestern region of the state of Parana e Brazil. The unity processes 20,000 L of milk daily, which is
exclusively used for the manufacturing of mozzarella. This cheese manufacturing plant is a small scale factory with about 15 employers.
2.2. Implementation of GMPs in the mozzarella cheese processing plant
A multidisciplinary team composed by technical supervisor, quality inspector, production manager and administrative staff was formed. The implementation of
GMP was carried out in four steps as follows:
2.2.1. Diagnosis
This step aimed to provide information on the current hygienic and manufacturing practices adopted in the factory before the implementation of GMP. The
diagnosis (internal audit) was carried out by an in situ inspection of the factory using a check-list based on Regulation n368/97 of the Brazilian Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (Anon, 1997a; 1997b). The check-list (supplementary material) was divided into fve sections: i) reception of raw materials,
ii) building and facilities, iii) equipment and tools, iv) personal hygiene and v) documentation and records.
For each item of check-list assessed, a status of conformity (whentherequisitewas fullyadhered), non-conformity ( whenthe requisite was partially
adhered or not adhered) or not applicable was assigned. The percentage of conformities and non-conformities per section audited was calculated. Any further
observations regarding the section assessed in the check-list were also recorded at this step. The output of the diagnosis was a report containing the results of the
factorys status regarding the implementation of the GMP.

2.2.2. Preparation of the report of the diagnosis and road map

The diagnosis report was frst presented and discussed with of each sector responsible, and then, it was presented to the owners and general manager by the
multidisciplinary team. The objectives were to get a full support of managers regarding the implementation of GMP and to establish the list of priorities to be
implemented under the supervision of the multidisciplinary team (road map). For establishing priorities of implementation, cost-beneft ( immediate investments
needed and the feedback to food safety) were considered. Then, the list of non-conformities and priorities were discussed with all the involved sectors in the
mozzarella cheese processing before corrective measures were implemented.
2.2.3. Implementation of corrective measures
The collaborators within the multidisciplinary team were requested to monitor, ensure and motivate food handlers to accomplish with the implementation of
GMP. The implementation of corrective measures stated in the road map was done gradually based on immediate investments required and the feedback to food
safety.
For a successful implementation of GMP, food handlers were trained towards the importance of GMP by attending short courses and lectures. The technical
responsible and quality control team promoted periodically trainings (personal hygiene, sanitization methods, preparation and handling of sanitizers and quality
control) for all food handlers. All the trainings were registered and all the information such as names of food handlers, date and total time of training were
recorded for future auditing.
During the implementation step, whenever non-conformities were addressed, the manual of GMP was updated to represent the current practices of the
mozzarella cheese facility regarding hygienic practices. The manual of GMP was structured based on instructions for food handlers, good manufacturing practices
( GMP ) and sanitation standard operating procedures ( SSOP ).
2.2.4. Follow-up on GMP implementation
Monitoring of all items depicted in the check-list used in the study, and particularly, of those previously assigned as nonconform was carried out by the
quality control team during and after their corrections. The nature of non-conformities, date and time observed as this stage was registered. The effectiveness of
actions taken and implementation of GMP was compared by the total percentages of non-conformities and conformities before the diagnosis and after
implementation of GMP. In addition, microbiological indicators were used to assess the implementation of GMP in the mozzarella cheese processing facility
before and after implementation of GMP. Microbiological analysis (total plate count and total coliforms) were carried out in the surface of equipment and hands
of food handlers through the swab method using Plate count agar (PCA) and Violet-Red bile Agar (VRBA), respectively, according to Kornacki and Johnson
(2001) and Morton (2001). Samples were collected from six equipment and hands of four food handlers. All analyzes were carried out in duplicate.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Results were tabulated using Microsoft Excel 7.0 for Windows version 2000 to calculate the percentage of conformities and nonconformities. Data on the
percentages of non-conformities in the diagnosis and after the implementation of the GMPs were evaluated through the nonparametric c2 (chi-square). For the
statistical assessment, data on microbiological indicators were checked for signifcant statistical (P 0.05) differences through Analysis of Variance and Tukeys
test using Assistat version 7.5 free software (Campina Grande, Brazil) (Silva & Azevedo, 2002). A probability level below 5% was considered signifcant.

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

3. Results and discussion

A total of 108 items were evaluated before and after the implementation of GMP based on the basic requirements established by Codex Alimentarius and
Brazilian legislation (Anon,1997a; Codex, 2003). The initial diagnosis of the small processing plant of mozzarella cheese for implementation of GMP indicated
an average of 32% of conformity with the legislation requirements. Among the fve sections assessed (Table 1), building and facilities, equipment and tools
and documentation and records depicted the highest percentages of non-conformity before the implementation of GMP. In addition, 60% of non-conformities
were found for the section personal hygiene. A list of some non-conformities and further corrective measures taken to improve the level of the processing plant
regarding the implementation of GMP is shown in Table 2. It is noticed that before the implementation of GMP in the processing unity, several items that may
pose great risks to food safety were found. For example, the presence of insects, broken tiles and lack of grout in several tiles were observed. Insects are wellknown vectors of several microorganisms as several foodborne pathogens have been isolated from these animals ( De Jess, Olsen, Bryce, & Whiting, 2004; Olsen
& Hammack, 2000; Vriesekoop & Shaw, 2010). Broken tiles and lack of grout may serve as site for the attachment of foodborne pathogens since they may
diffcult washing and sanitizing procedures. Therefore, this condition may be adequate for the establishment of foodborne pathogens in the environment of cheese
processing, which may lead to persistence of microorganisms and contamination of foods produced ( Chiarini, Tyler, Farber, Pagotto, & Destro, 2009; Dass, AbuGhannam, Antony-Babu, & Cummins, 2010; Jensen et al., 2008; Oliver, Jayarao, & Almeida, 2005). This is of particular concern since cheeses have been
constantly associated with foodborne diseases caused by Listeria monocytogenes (Callon, Picque, Corrieu, & Montel, 2011; Jakobsen, Heggeb, Sunde, &
Skjervheim, 2011; Schvartzman et al., 2011), a pathogen that is well-known for its ability to persist in the environment of processing and to survive and/or grow
in cheeses (Blatter, Giezendanner, Stephan, & Zweifel, 2010; Carpentier & Cerf, 2011; Ortiz et al., 2010). The concerns with potential establishment of L.
monocytogenes in the cheese processing plant are increased due to the accumulation of whey in the foors, lack of adequate cleaning procedures and sanitization,
lack of acclimatized environment leading to accumulation of drip in the walls and roof of the processing plant (Table 2). L. monocytogenes has been found to
prevail in environments with high humidity and accumulation of drip (Carpentier & Cerf, 2011). Therefore, the availability and use of effcient and validated
cleaning procedures is capital for obtaining foods with high quality and safe for consumption. Due to the type of product processed and raw material used, cheese
processing unities should use both alkaline and acid detergents, followed by the application of the sanitizer of choice to inactivate foodborne pathogens and
reduce the microbial load of indicator and spoilage microorganisms (Bava et al., 2011 ; Salustiano et al., 2010). This is explained by the fact that failures in
sanitization of facilities and/or equipment have been shown to cause foodborne disease outbreaks (Roels et al., 1997).
Other important practices that may negatively impact food safety are related to the absence of washbasin in processing area and records of water quality
control (Table 2). It is known that water may be the vehicle of several foodborne pathogens (Hanning, Nutt, & Ricke, 2009; Karagiannis et al., 2010; Levantesi et al.,
2011) and a well-designed sanitization program can be ruined due to water of low microbiological quality, leading to recontamination of equipment and facilities.
Furthermore, the presence of washbasin in the processing area is of primary importance to ensure adequate hygienic practices of food handlers since failures in
hygienic procedures have been associated as the cause of foodborne disease outbreaks (Greig, Todd, Bartleson, & Michaels, 2007; Todd, Michaels, Smith, Greig, &
Bartleson, 2010). Although for the corrections of non-conformities previously described, medium to high investments were required by the processing plant
managers, several other items simply required changes of behavior or were costless (Table 2). The establishment of procedures for adequate hand washing, removal
of out of use equipment, creation of specifc places for storing chemicals used for sanitization could be more easily addressed.
Moreover, the small processing unity of mozzarella cheese did not have SSOP, records of their monitoring, worksheets describing the inspection of raw materials
received for processing, while the GMP manual, compulsory according to Brazilian legislation was incomplete and out of date, not representing the practice ( Table
2). Documentation and records is one of the most important sections of GMP implementation, because it provides information for buyers and governmental audits on
the daily adoption of hygienic practices to ensure food safety. SSOP are written and objective instructions, specifc for each food processing establishment,
describing the procedures for performing daily operations in the production, storage and transportation of foods (Anon, 2003; Lockis

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

Table 1
Percentages of conformities and non-conformities found in the mozzarella cheese processing plant before and after implementation of GHP.
Sections

Conformity
(%)
Diagnostic

Reception of raw materials

Building and facilities
Equipment, utensils and tools
Personal hygiene
Documentation and records
Average

43a
31a
17a
40a
31a
32a

Final audit
64b
58b
67b
93 b
47b
66b

Different superscript letters in the same line indicate statistically differences regarding the percentage of conformities (p < 0.05) between diagnostic and fnal audit
according to c2 test. et al., 2011). SSOPs must be implemented, monitored, assessed and any detected non-conformities should be corrected, with all the records kept
in fles for verifcation upon request (Anon, 2003). SSOPs are considered basis for the implementation of HACCP and have been implemented also in other types of
food business (Lockis et al., 2011). Due to the specifcities of activities of each type of raw materials and products processed, specifc SSOPs have been mandatory
for dairy processing plants in Brazil, which include: water quality, hygiene of surfaces contacting foods, prevention to cross-contamination, food handlers hygiene,
protection of foods against contamination and adulteration, identifcation and storage areas for chemical substances and toxic agents, employees health, pest control
and records (Anon, 2003).
In Table 3, an example of the road map prepared for addressing each non-conformity found during initial diagnosis is shown. The

Table 2
Non-conformities found in the cheese processing plant after the initial diagnosis, and the corrective measures performed.
1. Building and installations
Requirements
Non-conformity
1.1 External area

1.2 Internal area

1.3 Sanitary installations

and cloakrooms

1.4 Cleaning and sanitation

of the installations
and equipments

1.5 Ventilation and

acclimatization

1.6 Toilets in the production

area
2. Water supply
2.1 Potability
of the water

Free of unsanitary areas, of objects foreign to the

environment, of vectors and other animals in the
yard, of accumulated rubbish nearby, of stagnant
water and others.

Floors, walls and roof in good state of

conservation (free of cracks, defects and holes)
and adequate state of cleanliness. Free of
objects foreign to the environment.

- Presence of unused
equipment, insects and
domestic animals.

3.1 Equipment

Arranged for easy access and adequate sanitation.

Existence of records proving that the equipment was

submitted to preventive maintenance.

Carry out the pest control program

correctly by contracting a specialized
frm.
Renovate industrial area;
Arrange discharge of whey through
appropriate tubing;
Arrange somewhere to adequately store
the materials.

Unused materials in
ambient.
Recycled paper towels
Procedure for washing of
the hands.

Change the supplier of the towels;

Fix a notice describing the correct
procedure for washing of the hands.

Lack of procedures.
No-one responsible.

Prepare the written procedures.

Train someone responsible for these
operations.

Inadequate storage
place;
Identifcation of the
products and degree of
risk.
- Absence of acclimatized
sectors, inadequate
ventilation in production
area.
Absence of toilets in production
sectors.
Non-conformities
No reports of analyses
carried out;

Renovate the storage place;

Identify the products and include the
degree of risk.

No record of chlorination or
pH control.
- Absence of cleaning procedures
and records.
Non-conformities

Inadequate cleaning;
Absence of cleaning procedures.
- Absence of maintenance
programs.

Requirements
Use of uniform only inside the factory.

5 Production
fow
5.1 Raw material and
consumables

Requirements

Non-conformities
- Use of uniform in the external
areas.
Non-conformities

Existence of control spreadsheets for reception

of the raw material, consumables and
packaging.
Requirements

- Absence of spreadsheets for

inspection of the products
received.
Non-conformities

6.1 Manual of Good

Manufacturing
Practices ( GMP ).
6.2 Documentation

4. Handlers
4.1 Cloakroom

6. Quality control program

Close the localities where animals

enter;

Accumulation of whey in
production area.

3. Equipment, furniture
and utensils

Existence of a written routine and records of

cleaning procedures.
Requirements

Removal of unused equipment and

storage in appropriate place;

Sanitization products identifed and stored in

an appropriate place.

Should have basins with automatic taps and a

non-manual paper collector.
Requirements
Potability proven by laboratory reports
(twice a year), pH control and chlorination

Cracked foors lacking

sealing cement, holes in
the walls.

Corrective measures performed

Provide toilet paper, neutral liquid soap,

non-recycled paper towels and a notice
describing the correct procedure for
washing of the hands.
Written procedures and routines. Existence
of someone responsible for the cleaning
operations.

Ventilation and air circulation capable of

guaranteeing an environment free of vapor
and suspended particles.

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

- Install exhaustion equipment.

- Install toilets in production sector.

Corrective actions
Send samples to laboratory;
Prepare spreadsheets to record the
chlorination and pH records.
- Prepare procedures and records.

Corrective actions

Clean correctly;
Elaborate cleaning procedures.
- Elaborate maintenance programs and
spreadsheets to prove it.

Corrective actions
- Only use uniform inside the factory.
Corrective actions
- Elaborate spreadsheets for product
inspection.
Corrective actions

Existence of GMP describing the factory

procedures.

- Incomplete manual.

- Implement and make the necessary

changes.

Existence of SSOP procedures.

- No written procedures.

- Prepare the SSOP procedures.

implementation of GMP led to signifcant changes in the daily routine of the cheese processing plant because of either behavioral changes due to trainings or infrastructural changes. For instance, the water used for sanitizing equipment and facilities was ensured to have the minimal amount of chlorine established by the
legislation by the acquisition of automatic dosing equipment. The multidisciplinary team established a periodical checking (each 6 months) of the microbiological
quality of water used in mozzarella

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

cheese plant, as requested by Brazilian legislation (Anon, 1997a). Furthermore, items previously considered critical for food safety, such as the lack of grouts in
tiles and lack of sanitization program were addressed at the beginning of the implementation of GMP in the cheese processing plant (Table 2). Sanitization of
equipment and facilities is now performed twice a day, based on the SSOP policy, recorded and registered by workers. Automatic doors were also installed to
avoid contact of food handlers and potential cross-contamination, as well as, small ori fces have been closed to avoid access of pests. All out of use materials
Table 3
Example of road-map prepared for each non-conformity detected after the initial diagnosis.
N.C.
What
Where
Why
Internal area
Cracked foors
lacking sealing
cement, holes in
the walls.
External area
Bait-holders and traps
Whey deposit with
no lid

How

Who

When

Renovation

Production area

Avoid accumulation
of dirt and facilitate
cleaning

Buy the material for

the renovation

The company; the

builder contacted
to do the work

Immediat
e

Arrange traps

Factory yard

Buy bait-holders

Quality control

Arrange the lid

Factory yard

To control pests
and vectors
To avoid the presence
of pests and a bad
smell

Buy the lid

Industrial manager

Immediat
e
Immediat
e

found in the internal and external areas of processing plant (Table 2) have been removed and proper destination has been given. Further measures implemented
included: i) qualifcation of suppliers of chemicals used for sanitization; ii) improvements in the storing room of chemicals for sanitization; iii) control through
worksheets of every raw material or products received in the processing plant; iv) establishment of procedures on the behavior of visitors to avoid crosscontamination of foods,
v) quality control of raw milk received for processing; vi) registration of temperature history at cold storage; vii) assessment of the microbiological and
physicalchemical quality of mozzarella cheeses once a month; viii) guidance and notifcations to milk farmers regarding hygienic handling of the raw material
and ix) recruitment of pest control company to assess the occurrence and establish adequate and effective measures to avoid the presence of pest in internal and
external areas of cheese processing unity. Altogether, the implementation of these measures resulted in high investments by the managers (values not disclosed)
compared to educational changes.
It has been observed that the main hurdles for the implementation of GMP in the cheese processing plant were related to the diffculties to change the hygienic
practices of food handlers and the lack of compromise by some of them to fulfll the forms and worksheets for documentation and record. In order to address
these issues, continuous trainings and several meetings were carried out to show the food handlers the importance of their collaboration for the success of GMP
implementation. Moreover, food handlers were also warned in the meetings that refuse to accomplish with hygienic practices could result in advertences leading
to cuts of small percentages in their salaries. It has been observed that all the structural changes performed in the cheese processing plant were only possible once
the food handlers were fully compromised with GMP implementation. This was because most of the non-conformities detected in the initial diagnosis were linked
to either non-knowledge of hygienic manipulation of foods or badly hygienic behavior. Strategies used to get the compromise of food handlers regarding GMP
included: i) training in GMP (personal hygiene, handling of chemical for sanitization) and ii) preparation of posters highlighting hygienic practices during
cheese making, hand washing, use of restrooms and hygiene of uniforms. While the frst action was used to ensure the compromise and motivation of food
handlers regarding GMP, posters served to keep food handlers warned on their correct behavior while working in the cheese processing plant. In addition, the
motivation of food handlers, the understanding of managers and their agreement with the multidisciplinary team on the importance of addressing the nonconformities for the quality and safety of cheese processed were driving factors for successful implementation of GMP in the cheese plant.
Signifcant increase in the percentages of conformities between the initial diagnosis and fnal audit was obtained for all the fve sections of GMP check-list used
(p < 0.05) (Table 1). The largest increase in percentages of conformities between the initial diagnosis and fnal audit were obtained for the sections of equipment
and tools and personal hygiene (p < 0.05). The average percentage of conformity after the implementation of GMP was signifcantly increased to 66%, proving
the success of the measures taken. The implementation of GMP in the cheese processing unity to reach such level of conformity was completed within 6 months. It is
important to stress that the time lapse for completing the implementation of GMP until the level of conformities reported in this study is dependent upon owners
commitment with the program, availability of resources, awareness of food handlers, among other factors. Therefore, as the GMP in an industry needs a constant
update, the time needed for other small scale industries to reach the same % of conformity cannot be easily predicted and it will be the result of how the issues
previously mentioned are managed.
The success of implementation of GMP in the cheese processing plant can be reinforced by the indicators used that effectively show a link between the
improvements in hygienic practices and potential strengthen of food safety. It can be seen in Table 4 that the populations of aerobic microorganisms and total
coliforms in equipment were signifcantly reduced (p < 0.05) after the implementation of GMP. Additionally, the populations of total coliforms in the hands of food
handlers were also signifcantly reduced after the implementation of GMP (p < 0.05). These results highlight that modifcations performed were adequate in
improving the hygienic practices adopted in the cheese processing plant, which will surely result in safer and better quality mozzarella cheeses.
In order to comply with Brazilian legislation (Anon,1997a), once each non-conformity was addressed and implemented, the manual of GMP was also updated.
All changes performed were recorded for further assessment on the progress of GMP implementation in the processing plant as well as training of food handlers
hired for working in cheese processing.

Table 4
Populations of aerobic plate counts and total coliforms in equipment and hands of

M.A. Costa Dias et al. / Food Control 24 (2012) 199e205

food handlersbeforeand after implementation

of GHP.
Sources

2
Aerobicplate count( CFU/cm
)

Diagnosis
Equipment
4.06
Handsof food e
handlers

1.34a

Final auditing
1.38 0.17b
e

2
Total coliforms( CFU/cm
)

Diagnosis
4.51 1.94a
5.81 1.48a

Final auditing
1.35 0.15b
1.22 0.07b

Different superscriptlowercaselettersin the same line indicate statisticaldiffer

ences (p < 0.05) for aerobic plate counts and/or total coliforms between diagnostic and fnal auditing according to Tukeys test.

4. Conclusions
In conclusion, the implementation of GMP changed the overall organization of the cheese processing unity, as well as managers and food handlers behavior and
knowledge on the quality and safety of products manufactured. With the implementation of GMP and its continuous update and improvement, the cheese processing
plant will gain competitiveness due to the better quality of the products. In addition to the decrease of non-conformities, the work carried out has shown changes in
the behavior of food handlers and managers regarding the hygienic manipulation of foods, awareness by food handlers on their importance to the process,
improvements in the environment of work and quality of the fnal products. The approach reported in this study has been shown to effectively contribute with the
improvement in the quality and safety of cheese based on the Codex Alimentarius and Brazilian legislation recommendations. A similar approach can be used for
other cheese processing unities and food manufacturers, however, taking into account their specifcities and limitations to address any nonconformities.