|
I. Context factors (overall)
a
| | | | |
|
Product and process characteristics
|
|
Risk of raw materials microbial
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Seedlings and manure purchased from commercial suppliers without any Good Agricultural Practice implemented. Irrigation water without any treatment. Seedlings in direct contact with soil.
|
|
Risk of final product microbial
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
The lettuces crops growing in direct contact with soil and without covering.
|
|
Production system
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Open cultivation field and contact with soil.
|
|
Climate conditions
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
The farms were located in subtropical areas, with uncontrolled climate conditions.
|
|
Water supply
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
All producers used water from ponds, without treatment.
|
|
Mean product and process
|
3,00
|
3,00
|
3,00
| |
|
Organization and chain
|
|
Presence of technological staff
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
Farm 1 had technical support provided by government department (of the city). Farm 2 and 3 had no technical support.
|
|
Variability in workforce composition
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Farm 2 had a high turnover of employees and temporary operators were commonly used. Farm 1 and 3 had low turnover, with occasonaly temporary operators.
|
|
Sufficiency of operator competences
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Operators with no training in food safety control, only practice experience in the field.
|
|
Extent of management commitment
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
All three farms had no written food safety policy and no official quality team.
|
|
Degree of employee involvement
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
There was no safety control sistems implemented in the farms.
|
|
Level of formalization
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
No meetings sistem implemented for instructions communication exist in all producers.
|
|
Sufficiency supporting information systems
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
None of the producers had standard information system for food safety control decisions.
|
|
Severity of stakeholders Requirements of
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Steakholders did not ask for any QA requirements.
|
|
Extent of power in supplier relationships
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
All farms required from their manure suppliers to compost the manure as a prerequisit for purchase.
|
|
Food safety information exchange
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
No sistematic exchange of information on food safety issues were done with the suppliers of the three producers.
|
|
Logistic facilities
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Transport of the final products to the distributer done by trucks in protected conditions (covered) but room temperature.
|
|
Inspections of food safety authorities
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Never a inspection were done in the three farms.
|
|
Supply source of initial materials
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Only local suppliers of major initial materials
|
|
Mean organisation and chain
|
2,46
|
2,69
|
2,54
| |
|
II. Control activities design
b
|
|
Hygienic design of equipment and facilities
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
None specific hygienic design required for equipement and facilities among the producers.
|
|
Maintenance and calibration program
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No manteinance and calibration program apllied in any of the producers.
|
|
Storage facilities
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Storage was made in ambient conditions in all farms.
|
|
Sanitation program(s)
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The producers had no specific sanitation program implemented.
|
|
Personal hygiene requirements
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
No specific hygiene instructions were followed by the operators but washing facilities and toillets were available next to the field in all farms.
|
|
Incoming material control
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Incoming material control was done by visual inspections based on historical experience in all farms.
|
|
Packaging equipment
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Use of non specific plastic boxes to pack the lettuce.
|
|
Supplier control
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
The farms had no specific pre requisites for supplier selection.
|
|
Organic fertilizer program
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Pre composted manure purchased from local suppliers in all producers.
|
|
Water control
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
There was no water control in all farms.
|
|
Irrigation method
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
All producers used sprinkler as the irrigation method.
|
|
Partial physical intervention
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
General partial physical intervention applied by washing the lettuce and external leaves removed
|
|
Analytical methods to assess pathogens
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The presence of pathogens were never analyzed by any of the producers.
|
|
Sampling plan for microbial assessment
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The producers had no sampling plan implemented.
|
|
Corrective actions
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The farms had no corrective actions described.
|
|
Mean control activities design
|
1,53
|
1,53
|
1,53
| |
|
III. Control activities operation
b
|
|
Actual availability of procedures
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The procedures were not documented in all the three farms.
|
|
The actual of compliance to procedures
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
The operators executed tasks according to their own experience and ad-hoc basis.
|
|
Actual hygienic performance of equipment and facilities
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The hygienic design is not considered to be important for food safety.
|
|
Actual storage/cooling capacity
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The farms had no cooling storage facility available.
|
|
Actual process capability of partial physical intervention
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
The partial physical intervention were done without standard parameters and no control charts.
|
|
Actual process capability of packaging
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Packaging were done without regular parameters and based on the lettuce size.
|
|
Actual performance of analytical equipment
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No analytical analyses were done in all farms.
|
|
Mean control Activities operation
|
1,43
|
1,43
|
1,43
| |
|
IV. Assurance activities
b
|
|
Translation of stakeholder requirements into own HSMS requirements
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Stakeholder requirements were not present in all three farms.
|
|
The systematic use of feedback information to modify HSMS
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The farms had no HSMS implemented.
|
|
Validation of preventive measures
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The producers had no preventive measures implemented and validated.
|
|
Validation of intervention processes
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Intervention processes have never been validated and were done based on their own knowledge.
|
|
Verification of people related performance
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The producers had no documented procedures described, so no verification was done.
|
|
Verification of equipment and methods related performance
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No procedures of verification for equipment and methods were preformed in all producers.
|
|
Documentation system
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Documentation were not available in all the farms.
|
|
Record keeping system
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
no record keeping system were present in all three farms.
|
|
Mean assurance activities
|
1,00
|
1,00
|
1,00
| |
|
Food safety management system Output
c
|
|
Food safety Management System evaluation
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No inspection or audit of the Food Safety Management System were done in all produceres.
|
|
Seriousness of remarks of remarks
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Audits on HSMS were never performed.
|
|
Hygiene related and microbiological food safety
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No records of hygine related and microbiological food safety complains were available in the farms.
|
|
Chemical safety complaints of customers
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Chemical complains records were not avalilable in the producers.
|
|
Typify the visual quality complaints
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
No records about quality complaints were available in the farms.
|
|
Product sampling microbiological performance
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The microbiological performance is not known once no microbiological analyses were done on regular basis.
|
|
Judgment criteria microbiological
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Microbiological analyses were not performed in the farms.
|
|
Non conformities
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
The performance of the HSMS was not possible once no coformities registration were available
|
|
Mean food safety output
|
1,00
|
1,00
|
1,00
| |
