Table 4 Scores and calculated mean attributed to the indicators of food safety management system

I. Context factors (overall) ^a

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

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

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

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

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 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