Non - Alcohol drink book

Boca T Purn Be Q a S © 2003 by CRC Press LEdited by ammy Foster and endu C. Vasavada verage uality nd afetyCRC PR ESS Raton London New York Washington, D.C. LC This book contains inform is quoted with permission efforts have been made to assume responsibility for Neither this book nor any or mechanical, including retrieval system, without All rights reserved. Auth internal use of speciÞc photocopied is paid direc USA. The fee code fo 0/03/$0.00+$1.50. The fe a photocopy license by th The consent of CRC Pres creating new works, or fo for such copying. Direct all inquiries to CR Trademark Notice: Prod used only for identiÞcatio Visit t Printed Libra Beverage quality p. c Includes bibl ISBN 0-5871 1. Beverages II. Vasavada, Pur TP511.B48 2003 663 ¢.6 ¢ 0685—dc TX110_book Page iv Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lation obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material , and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic photocopying, microÞlming, and recording, or by any information storage or prior permission in writing from the publisher. orization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $1.50 per page tly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 r users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-58716-011- e is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted e CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. s LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for r resale. SpeciÞc permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC C Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431. uct or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are n and explanation, without intent to infringe. he CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com ry of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data and safety / edited by Tammy Foster and Purnendu C. Vasavada. m. iographical references and index. 6-011-0 (alk. paper) —Quality control. 2. Beverage industry—Quality control. I. Foster, Tammy. nendu C. 21 2003046136 , 2003 9:21 AM© 2003 by CRC Press LLC No claim to original U.S. Government works International Standard Book Number 0-58716-011-0 Library of Congress Card Number 2003046136 in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Printed on acid-free paper LC Forewo As an industry prof gists (IFT) to be a workshop entitled E leagues presented o then, I see how thes and cutting-edge iss basics of plant sanit It goes into depth on by Richard Stier and and Drug Administ (HACCP) regulation the roles of genetica technologies, are pr mura, and Purnendu In order to stay nology, products, an your competitor will new food safety co explored. As much want to worry abou and interesting beve organizations will n tions. New beverag The role of innovati in the end drive cons process of continuo TX110_book Page v Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lrd essional, I have always found the Institute of Food Technolo- valuable educational resource. This book is a result of a merging Beverage Technology, in which many of my col- n a variety of topics. As I look back on what was “emerging” e issues have surfaced for beverage manufacturers. Both basic ues are addressed in this book. This publication covers the ation, as presented by Martha Hudak-Roos and Bruce Ferree. Good Agricultural Practices to ensure safe juice, as discussed Nancy Nagle. Donald Kautter, who helped develop the Food ration’s Juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point , speaks directly to the Þnal rule. Emerging issues, such as lly modiÞed organisms (GMOs), nutraceuticals, and alternative esented by Susan Harlander, Dennis Gordon, Kiyoko Kubo- Vasavada, respectively. competitive, manufacturers must forever improve their tech- d processes. It is not enough to maintain the status quo, or suddenly overtake you. Beyond competition, there are always ncerns in the beverage world and new technologies to be as consumers want a new and exciting beverage, they never t its safety. In the quest to satisfy consumers’ thirst for new rages, technology is key. Academia, industry, and scientiÞc eed to continue to work together to meet consumer expecta- e technology and the opportunity it presents are expanding. on will continue to drive the juice and beverage markets and umer loyalty. This publication is only one step in the ongoing us improvement. Linda Frelka Vice President Odwalla, Inc. Half Moon Bay, California 2003 9:21 AMLC Forewo Beverage Quality an at the Annual Meeti from the extensive kn expertise is based on industries. Their qua tion in sharing their the Institute of Food present the informat present it as oral ed dedicated to providi and its Professional year. Topics selected maximum interest b The beverage m economy. New tech sumers with the intro as a reference for re thanks all of the cont Vasavada, for their e TX110_book Page vii Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lrd d Safety is based on information presented in a program held ng of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). It is compiled owledge of a team of experienced food industry experts, whose many years of direct involvement with the food and beverage liÞcations are described elsewhere, but their collective dedica- knowledge with others in the industry has made it possible for Technologists’ Continuing Education Committee not only to ion provided for this book to readers everywhere, but also to ucational programs to IFT members and nonmembers. IFT is ng the latest technical information relating to food processing, Development Department coordinates this effort throughout the by IFT for presentation and publication are peer reviewed for y different segments of the food industry. arket continues to grow, despite recent setbacks in the world nology in processing and packaging continues to please con- duction of new beverage products. We hope this book will act searchers, processors, marketers, and consumers. IFT sincerely ributors, and especially the editors, Tammy Foster and Purnendu xpertise and effort. Dean D. Duxbury Director of Professional Development Institute of Food Technologists Chicago, Illinois , 2003 9:21 AMLC Preface The fruit juice, soft recent years. While interest, new, innova blends, energy drink and beverages conta generated much exci foods, estimated to b food expenditure in (33 to 73%) of vario in the U.S. in 2000 beverage market gen $12 billion by 2007 nectars, juice blends, and $105 million, re In recognition o industry, the Institut course, Beverage Te tinuing Education Pr was designed to offe opments relating to p an update on regulat Point (HACCP) regu to fruit juice. From d CEC) and industry c the industry and regu beverages would be presentations at the the details of recent Rather, it is designe juice and beverage i The book opens sector followed by (GMOs) in beverag applications in beve processing of organi The processing a 4, 9, and 10, and clea 8. The microbiologic tance of microorgan TX110_book Page ix Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Ldrink, and beverage industry has experienced rapid growth in traditional drinks and beverages have maintained consumer tive, value-added products, including exotic juice and beverage s, sports drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, bottled water, ining nutraceuticals, botanicals, and herbal ingredients have tement in the beverage sector. The global market for functional e over $35 billion, is expected to reach 5% of the total world the near future. Beverages constituted a signiÞcant proportion us health-promoting new products or product lines introduced . According to a recent industry report, the U.S. functional erated revenues of $4.7 billion in 2000 and is predicted to exceed . Another industry report indicated that refrigerated juices, cocktail drinks, and refrigerated teas generated over $3.5 billion spectively, in sales in 2002. f the signiÞcance of the juice and beverage sector in the food e of Food Technologists (IFT) developed and offered a short chnologies and Regulatory Outlook, as a part of the IFT Con- ogram prior to the IFT annual meeting in 2001. The short course r information on the latest beverage industry trends and devel- roducts, processing, and packaging technologies and to provide ory issues such as federal Hazard Analysis and Critical Control lations and Codex Alimentarius Commission activities related iscussions with the IFT Continuing Education Committee (IFT- olleagues, it was felt that a publication providing discussion of latory trends as well as the quality and safety of fruit juice and useful. This book contains chapters based on many of the short course. It is not intended as a comprehensive review of research on the topic of fruit juice and beverage technology. d to provide an applied, “practitioner’s” viewpoint on the fruit ndustry from “grove to glass.” with a chapter on minimizing contamination in the production a discussion of the role of genetically modiÞed organisms e production. The role of nutraceuticals and functional food , 2003 9:21 AMrage production is discussed in Chapter 3. The production and c fruit, juice, and beverages are detailed in Chapter 9. nd packaging of juices and beverages are discussed in Chapters ning and sanitation of beverage plants are discussed in Chapter al aspects of fruit juices and beverages, particularly the impor- isms in spoilage and safety of fruit juice, are discussed in LC Chapters 4 and 5. T concern in fruit juic outbreaks, consumer products during the a major threat to th safety concerns, the to minimize microbi and vegetables, requ implementation of t designed to ensure provide detailed dis juice and beverage i The IFT short c fruit juice and veget U.S. delegation to th Juices. We would ha with the fruit juice and vegetable juice s by the Codex Ad-Ho Detailed reports of r Internet at the U.S. C We are grateful Frelka, vice presiden fessional developme thank Dean Duxbury Finally, we would li their patience and va tors, who are specia intentions and efforts it will be a useful so TX110_book Page x Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lraditionally, pathogenic organisms were not a major cause for es and fruit beverages. However, reports of foodborne illness illness, and recalls associated with fruit, fruit juice, and juice past decade have led to a recognition of emerging pathogens as e safety of fruit juice and beverages. In the wake of the food U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance al food safety hazards in fresh and minimally processed fruits ired a warning label on any unpasteurized juices, and mandated he Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system safety of fruit juice and juice products. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 cussions of the design and implementation of HACCP in the ndustry. ourse featured a presentation on the Codex activity regarding able juice standards by the FDA representative serving on the e Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Fruit and Vegetable ve liked to include a chapter on the Codex activities dealing and vegetable juice standards. However, the Codex fruit juice tandards have not been Þnalized and are being currently debated c Intergovernmental Task Force on Fruit and Vegetable Juices. ecent meetings of the ad-hoc commission are available on the odex Web site. to all the contributors for providing manuscripts and to Linda t, Odwalla, Inc., and Dean Duxbury, the IFT director of pro- nt, for writing Forewords for this book. We would also like to and the IFT-CEC staff for their encouragement and support. ke to thank Eleanor Riemer and Erika Dery of CRC Press for luable assistance in the production of this book. The contribu- lists well known in their Þelds, and the editors have the best in producing the book and hope that, despite any shortcomings, urce of information for professionals in food industry. Tammy Foster Purnendu C. Vasavada 2003 9:21 AMLC About t Tammy Foster is fo Florida. She has he assurance and is curr for Tropicana worldw design, reviewing a (HACCP) plans are quality within all ma of Quality, the Instit ation for Food Prote Continuing Educatio from South Dakota S Purnendu C. Vasav sin–River Falls and Wisconsin (UW) Ex food science and te conferences, worksh in microbiology, foo TQM (Total Quality the U.K., Ireland, M Chile, Brazil, Hunga River Falls Internat Food Microbiology coauthor of more tha book chapters, and a American Academy Mityas Laboratorian Association, the Edu and Environmental S from the Wisconsin Chairman’s Award f International Associa of the IFT Continuin in microbiology in I western Louisiana in from the University TX110_book Page xi Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lhe Editors od safety manager for Tropicana Products, Inc., in Bradenton, ld various positions in food microbiology, safety, and quality ently responsible for standardizing sanitation programs/systems ide, reviewing new equipment and new processes for sanitary nd ensuring that Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point in compliance with federal regulations, and monitoring water nufacturing facilities. She is a member of the American Society ute of Food Technologists (IFT), and the International Associ- ction (IAFP) and has served as a member and chair of the IFT n Committee. Ms. Foster received a B.S. degree in microbiology tate University. ada is professor of food science at the University of Wiscon- food safety and microbiology specialist with the University of tension. He has developed and taught undergraduate courses in chnology and has been an invited participant in international ops, and symposia dealing with rapid methods and automation d safety and microbiology, food quality assurance, HACCP and Management), and food science education in the U.S., Canada, exico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Argentina, ry, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. He has organized the UW ional Food Microbiology Symposium and Rapid Methods in Workshop for the past 22 years. Dr. Vasavada is author or n 70 publications, including technical abstracts, research papers, rticles in professional and trade publications. A fellow of the of Microbiology, Dr. Vasavada is the recipient of the Joseph of the Year Award (1987) from the Wisconsin Laboratory cator award from the International Association of Milk, Food, anitarians (IAMFES; 1997), the Sanitarian of the Year award Association of Milk and Food Sanitarians (1998), and the rom Minnesota IFT (1998). He is a member of IFT and the tion for Food Protection and has served as a member and chair g Education Committee. He received B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees , 2003 9:21 AMndia, an M.S. in microbiology from the University of South- Lafayette, and a Ph.D. in food science and dairy manufacturing of Georgia in Athens. LC Contrib Paul L. Dawson Clemson University Clemson, South Car Bruce Ferree Technical Food Info Spectrum, Inc. Lodi, California Tammy Foster Tropicana Products, Bradenton, Florida Dennis T. Gordon North Dakota State Fargo, North Dakota Susan Harlander BIOrational Consult New Brighton, Minn Martha Hudak-Roo Technical Food Info Spectrum, Inc League City, Texas TX110_book Page xiii Tuesday, May © 2003 by CRC Press Lutors olina rmation Inc. University ants, Inc. esota s rmation Donald A. Kautter, Jr. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Washington, D.C. Todd Konietzko Schwan’s Sales Enterprises Marshall, Minnesota Kiyoko Kubomura Kubomura Food Advisory Consultants Tokyo, Japan Nancy E. Nagle Nagle Resources Pleasanton, California Richard F. Stier Consulting Food Scientists Sonoma, California Susan Ten Eyck California CertiÞed Organic Farmers Santa Cruz, California Purnendu C. Vasavada University of Wisconsin River Falls, Wisconsin 6, 2003 9:21 AMLC Conten Chapter 1 Ensurin Agricu Richard F. Stier and Chapter 2 The Ro in Beve Susan Harlander Chapter 3 Bevera Dennis T. Gordon an Chapter 4 Alterna of Spo Purnendu C. Vasava Chapter 5 Microb Purnendu C. Vasava Chapter 6 U.S. Fo Juice H Donald A. Kautter, J Chapter 7 HACC An Ap Todd Konietzko Chapter 8 Essenti Martha Hudak-Roos Chapter 9 Juice P Susan Ten Eyck TX110_book Page 1 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lts g Safety in Juices and Juice Products: Good ltural Practices Nancy E. Nagle le of Genetically ModiÞed Organisms (GMOs) rage Production ges as Delivery Systems for Nutraceuticals d Kiyoko Kubomura tive Processing Technologies for the Control ilage Bacteria in Fruit Juices and Beverages da iology of Fruit Juice and Beverages da od and Drug Administration: ACCP — The Final Rule r. P: plied Approach al Elements of Sanitation in the Beverage Industry 2003 9:21 AM and Bruce Ferree rocessing — The Organic Alternative LC Chapter 10 Active Paul L. Dawson TX110_book Page 2 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press LPackaging for Beverages 2003 9:21 AMLC 1 En an Ag Rich CONTENTS Introduction Evolution of GAP Microbiological an CertiÞcation The Proactive App Summary References The emphasis on f Analysis and Critic the world. Adopt regulatory agencie ucts. In the United cessing industry. C lines for internatio of Food Hygiene. on Food Hygiene, the Committee. A incredible when o change may take d HACCP is a sy foods, so this leav we say “uncovered processor identiÞe to eliminate, reduc TX110_book Page 1 Tuesday, May 6, 2003 9:21 AM © 2003 by CRC Press Ldoption of the ne understands ecades. stem that was dsuring Safety in Juices d Juice Products: Good ricultural Practices ard F. Stier and Nancy E. Nagle s d Chemical Safety roach Is Good Business INTRODUCTION ood safety has led to the adoption of the HACCP (Hazard al Control Points) system by food processors throughout ion has been both voluntary and mandatory, as food s have moved to mandate the system for different prod- States, HACCP has been mandated for the juice pro- odex Alimentarius, the body aimed at developing guide- nal trade, has also adopted HACCP as part of its Code In fact, if you talk to delegates to the Codex Committee you will learn that HACCP literally “sailed” through system took only a few years, which is that Codex is an organization in which eveloped to ensure the safety of processed es a great deal of the food supply “uncovered.” Why do ”? We say it because HACCP is a system in which a food s potential hazards and builds “controls” into the process e, or control each hazard. With fresh produce, this is not LC realistic, as it is l hazards. Processes change fresh produ this, representative remedy this deÞcie tural Practices or G the fresh produce i programs to reduc ensure safety. Rec dardization (ISO) in the process of de and Good Agricult What is interes are now mandating under GAPs. This processed. These c GAPs will help to customers, busines Good Agricultural United States, the W Produce Associati active in their effo ensure that growe The Guide to Mini Vegetables , 2 releas October 26, 1998, are addressed in o following a simila “best practices” fo word here is “glo demand fresh foo developed nations at the foodstuffs t also demand that t and wholesome. T world market is th Practices. As an e fresh green beans Along these same TX110_book Page 2 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Literally impossible to eliminate or control all potential designed to destroy or control most pathogens would cts so that they would no longer be fresh. Understanding s from industry, government, and academia took steps to ncy. They developed what are now called Good Agricul- APs. The GAPs are a logical extension of HACCP into ndustry. They utilize HACCP principles and prerequisite e the potential for product contamination and thereby ent activities at the International Organization for Stan- further underscore the importance of food safety. ISO is veloping food safety standards that address both HACCP ural Practices.1 ting is that many food processors who are buying produce that the materials be purchased from growers who operate applies even when the fresh products are being further ompanies operate under the theory that the application of ensure the safety of their products, and thus protect their s, and reputation. EVOLUTION OF GAPS Practices continue to evolve throughout the world. In the estern Growers Association, the International Fresh Cut on, the government, and industry have been and remain rts to develop training tools and other documentation to rs produce foods that are free from foodborne hazards. mize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and ed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on addresses microbiological food safety. Chemical hazards ther documents. In Europe, industry and government are r path. The EUREGAP certiÞcation protocols3 deÞne r global production of horticultural products. The key bal.” As denizens of First World nations continue to ds year round, they must turn more and more to less to supply these products. But the demands do not stop hemselves. These same people (and their governments) 2003 9:21 AMhe produce that crosses international boundaries be safe he key to ensuring the safety of produce that enters the e development and implementation of Good Agricultural xample, if a grower in Central Africa wished to market into Europe, that grower would need to adopt GAPs. lines, it would not be unreasonable for buyers of juice LC concentrates or pu fruit to adopt Goo to be pasteurized p The GAP proto to a high degree o guidelines that hav called “common s sense practices hav may also be applie used as ingredients Third World. Ther be unfair barriers t afßuent nations. Th will help producers but also to protect t to look at Nicaragu has hurt a whole n these nations is no Cultural, regulator buyers for juice p concentrates or pu help them upgrade Recent efforts i of GAPs can help able to meet the q Federation of Vege Quality and Food S (farmers, contracto ing recordkeeping or ISO 9000. The C was created to mo Belgian Food Safe MICRO Microbiological fo of Good Agricultur reveals that an incr with fresh produce involving radish sp products have also Unprocessed juice TX110_book Page 3 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lrees to mandate that their vendors ask their suppliers of d Agricultural Practices, even if the products are going rior to sale. cols are science-based systems and are designed to ensure f conÞdence that produce is safe. As one reads over the e been developed, it is easy to see that what people once ense” also characterizes these guidelines. The common- e simply been codiÞed. Adoption of these practices, which d to fruits and vegetables destined for processing or those , is seen as a burden in many producing countries in the e are many in these nations who also perceive GAPs to o trade that have been “foisted” upon them by the more is perception is way off the mark. The adoption of GAPs in developing countries not only to build their businesses hose businesses once they are established. One only needs a and its raspberries to see how failure to adopt procedures ation. But the development of food safety programs in t something that will be accomplished quickly or easily. y, and educational constraints can hinder such growth.4 If rocessors are going to look “far and wide” for unique rees, they should also be willing to work with vendors to programs from “farm to fork.” n Belgium provide an excellent example of how adoption build and maintain businesses. To ensure that the nation is uality and safety demands of its customers, the Belgian table Trading and Processing Companies has established a afety System.5 This system addresses the whole food chain rs, traders, processors, and distributors) and integrates exist- programs that have been implemented as part of HACCP entrum voor Kwaliteitscontrole (CKC), a nonproÞt center, nitor the system. The CKC seeks accreditation from the ty Agency and EUREGAP accepted in the future. BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL SAFETY od safety was the driving force behind the development 2003 9:21 AMal Practices in the United States. A review of past literature easing number of foodborne outbreaks has been associated in recent years. In some of these, such as the tragic event routs in Sasaki, Japan, deaths occurred. Juices and juice been implicated in food poisoning outbreaks (Table 1.1).7 s have been the source in almost every instance. A similar LC review of the litera implementation of market fresh juices to mandate that the example, the guid cider or apple juice is one such practic Ensuring micro destined for the fre a company-wide c hazards, either. In may be an even g concentrates or pu on a product may a product being de ing nation. For ex whose main missio tiÞcate from this st places a burden on does little to ensu implementation, an than by what amou at the Codex Coor The delegates init guidelines to ensur Randall from the F ßoor and explained HACCP as the be TABLE Foodb Prod Apple c Apple c Apple c Apple c Orange Apple j Source: course s TX110_book Page 4 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lture in 5 or 10 years should help document whether the GAPs has made a difference. Since some processors still , it would make sense that these processors make an effort ir suppliers of fresh fruits or vegetables adopt GAPs. For eline that says apples used in the manufacture of fresh be harvested from the tree and not picked off the ground e. biological safety of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether sh market or for further processing, is a task that requires ommitment, but one cannot ignore potential chemical fact, potential chemical contamination from pesticides reater concern when buying produce or processed juice rees from Third World nations. The amount of pesticide not be enough to cause illness, but it can surely result in nied entry to an importing country or exit from an export- ample, many nations have established export authorities n is to test products destined for export. Without a cer- ate-run laboratory, the product cannot move forward. This growers, and, as has been emphasized time and again, re food safety. Safety is best ensured by development, d adherence to a well-designed control program, rather nts to random sampling. This mentality was underscored 1.1 orne Illnesses Attributed to Juice Products uct Year Microorganism ider 1922 Salmonella typhimurium ider 1975 S. typhimurium ider 1982 Escherichia coli O157:H7 ider 1991 E. coli O157:H7 juice 1995 S. hartford uice 1996 E. coli O157:H7 From Stier, R.F., GMPs and HACCP for Beverages, short ponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists, 1998. 2003 9:21 AMdinating Committee Meeting in Cairo in January 2001. iated a movement to develop sampling procedures and e food safety. After a rather lengthy discussion, Dr. Alan ood and Agriculture Association in Rome took over the that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has adopted st tool for ensuring food safety and that testing was not LC the way to go. The the world when it safety employing H As noted earlie The United Fresh F has been working Vegetables. 6 This d is published. The designing question safety as well. The if food safety issue and vegetables.” T answers. It has be packer better under It is very similar to The principal diffe that must be follo issues will be addr The human el Growers can provi worker education p line is that the larg lower ends of the e the work as simply consequences of th not only address ba work and life. For food safety and hy in Egypt. They fou help them keep the to developing food Europeans place a do. ISO, HACCP, side of the Atlantic ers, distributors, an and to sell their pr EUREGAP protoc practices. They do achieved, however the goals. TX110_book Page 5 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press L bottom line is that there are inherent biases throughout comes to a systematic and proactive approach to food ACCP or Good Agricultural Practices. r, there is a “push” the world over to ensure food safety. ruit and Vegetable Association has a working group that on a Food Safety Questionnaire for Fresh Fruits and ocument should be complete by the time that this book questionnaire uses the FDA’s “Guide” as the basis for s but incorporates questions that emphasize chemical stated objective of the questionnaire is to “assess how or s are addressed in the production and distribution of fruits he document emphasizes that there are no right or wrong en designed to be user friendly and help the grower or stand potential risks and where more work may be needed. the EUREGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.3 rence is that EUREGAP Protocols are mandatory rules wed if an operation wishes to be certiÞed. CertiÞcation essed at greater length later. ement is, perhaps, the most difÞcult of all to control. de proper facilities, conduct what they feel are adequate rograms, and pay their workers a fair wage, but the bottom e majority of Þeld and packing house workers are at the conomic and education spectrums. All too often, they see a job and are not aware of (or may not care about) the eir actions. This is why worker education programs must sic hygiene issues, but also be relevant to the employees’ example, consultants have been successful in teaching giene to the predominantly female agricultural workforce nd that the women were eager to learn methods that would ir own families safe. This is deÞnitely an issue with regard safety programs in developing nations.4 CERTIFICATION greater emphasis on certiÞcation than North Americans and GAP certiÞcation are much more prominent on that 2003 9:21 AM. The EUREGAP protocols are the guidelines that grow- d packing houses must meet if they wish to be certiÞed oducts into certain markets or to established buyers. The ols include both required and encouraged (recommended) not specify exactly how the requirements are to be . The producer therefore has a certain leeway in meeting LC EUREGAP is around the world. United States is re Systems (SCS) of California. Both of packers in Californ programs to enhan CertiÞcation h made the effort to the requirements o opment of program programs need to b chemical use and s and treatments; w mental issues. The satisfaction. On th they certify must av Practices and their HACCP, are a syst goes from a qualit dence, the program pened with ISO 90 incorporated custo THE PRO In certain areas, ce CertiÞcation is als their commitment certiÞcate then bec previously out of r Adoption of G persons involved i that the foods you do all in your pow are acknowledged consequences in th of the more high-pr meat products and nies were implica companies failed to much greater. The TX110_book Page 6 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press Lin the process of evaluating certifying agencies from The vast majority of these are European Þrms, but the presented by companies such as ScientiÞc CertiÞcation Oakland, California and Primus Labs of Santa Maria, these operations have actively worked with growers and ia and Mexico and have assisted in the development of ce the safety of produce. as its pros and cons. Obviously, any company that has be certiÞed has a certain amount of discipline. It has met f the certifying agency, which for GAPs includes devel- s and documentation of those activities. Areas where e in place include site history; fertilizer usage; irrigation; torage; crop protection; harvesting; postharvest handling aste; worker health, safety, and education; and environ- ultimate goal is consumer health and therefore, customer e other hand, certifying agencies and the companies that oid falling into the trap of thinking that Good Agricultural maintenance are exercises in recordkeeping. GAPs, like em to ensure the production of safe foods. If the program y/safety system to one where the documents take prece- will be compromised. This is precisely what has hap- 00, and it is one of the reasons that ISO 9000 2000 has mer satisfaction into the new programs. ACTIVE APPROACH IS GOOD BUSINESS rtiÞcation will be mandatory for people to do business. o a means whereby growers or packers can demonstrate to the production and distribution of safe foods. The omes a marketing tool that allows them to enter markets each. ood Agricultural Practices has another beneÞt that all n the food business need to understand. The law requires distribute be safe and wholesome. It is good business to er to achieve this goal. Failure to adopt and follow what as “best practices” can have signiÞcant adverse economic 2003 9:21 AMe event that a food safety problem occurs. Look at two oÞle outbreaks over the past few years: Sara Lee’s cooked Odwalla’s juice. Products manufactured by both compa- ted in outbreaks of foodborne illness, and because the follow best practices (due diligence), their penalties were potential costs of failing to “do it right” can be high. LC Good Agricultural of fresh fruits and produce destined enhanced safety, m processing are aski of Good Agricultu since there are stil REFERENCES 1. Surak, J., per 2. U.S. Departm tration, Guid and Vegetabl 3. EUREGAP P 4. Stier, R.F., A mentation in 5. U.S. Departm tary/Food Sa Producers Ch 29, 2001. 6. United Fresh Fresh Fruits 7. Stier, R.F., G Institute of F TX110_book Page 7 Tuesday, May 6, © 2003 by CRC Press LSUMMARY Practices (GAPs) are a means to help ensure the safety vegetables. Traditionally, they are usually applied to for the fresh market, but because of the emphasis on ore and more buyers of fruits and vegetables for further ng that the raw materials be produced using the principles ral Practices. This is especially true in the juice industry, l many “fresh” juices on the market. sonal communication, 2002. ent of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Adminis- e to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits es, October 26, 1998. rotocol for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, 2001. hmed, M.S., and Weinstein, H., Constraints to HACCP imple- developing nations, Food Safety Magazine, 8(2), 36–40, 2002. ent of Agriculture, Belgium/Luxembourg Sanitary/Phytosani- fety Quality and Traceability Concerns Spread to Vegetable ain, Foreign Agricultural Services GAIN Report #BE1025, June Fruit and Vegetable Association, Food Safety Questionnaire for and Vegetables, 3rd draft, 2001. MPs and HACCP for Beverages, short course sponsored by the ood Technologists, 1998. 2003 9:21 AMLC 2 Th M (G Pr Susa CONTENTS History of Genetic Regulation of Gen Identity Preservati Detection o DifÞculties The Future of Gen In the relatively s genetically modiÞe Þrst products of pl tolerance and inse Food and Drug A crops such as cor crops “substantiall labeling is require commodities with an issue for multin for and consumer a This chapter will systems for comm maximum efÞcien systems for GM in ods. The growing TX110_book Page 9 Tuesday, May 6, 2003 9:21 AM © 2003 by CRC Press Lno segregation ational beverag cceptance of G focus on the ch odity ingrediene Role of Genetically odified Organisms MOs) in Beverage oduction n Harlander ModiÞcation of Food Plants and Animals etically ModiÞed Crops on and the International Market f Genetically ModiÞed Ingredients with Product Labeling etically ModiÞed Foods hort time since their commercial introduction in 1996, d (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted in the U.S. The ant biotechnology involve input traits, such as herbicide ct resistance. Of the 51 products reviewed by the U.S. dministration (FDA), the vast majority are commodity n, soybeans, and canola. Because FDA considers these y equivalent” to their traditional counterparts, no special d for GM crops in the U.S., and they are managed as or identity preservation (IP). This creates e manufacturers since labeling guidelines M crops differ in other parts of the world. allenges associated with establishing IP ts through a food supply chain geared for cy and least cost. It will also address current testing gredients, including both protein- and DNA-based meth- need for accurate, speciÞc, reliable, standardized, and LC validated testing m levels for GM ing discussed. Finally, relevance to the be HIS People have been g of years since the breeding and selec embryo rescue, an the genetic makeup and sorting of thou hybrid seed corn c blance to teosinte, t ing genetic engine genes in a much m that occurring as improved through formal food or env marketplace, wher extensive food and Genetically mo U.S. in 1996 and h that 24% of the co the U.S. in 2001 w resistant (Bt) corn, corn, rice, sugar b and potato. Advant yields and reduced reduced contamina mycotoxin implica humans. Advantag trol, reduced crop signiÞcant reductio are the most rapid REGULAT GM crops are regu work developed i TX110_book Page 10 Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lethods to ensure compliance with established threshold redients as well as global labeling guidelines will be examples of next-generation biotechnology products of verage industry will be provided. TORY OF GENETIC MODIFICATION OF FOOD PLANTS AND ANIMALS enetically modifying the food supply during the thousands domestication of plants and animals began. Classical tion, as well as techniques such as radiation breeding, d transposon mutagenesis, create signiÞcant changes in of plants and animals due to the random recombination sands of genes. As a result of intervention by people, the urrently grown throughout the world bears little resem- he original ancestor of corn. The newer techniques involv- ering, on the other hand, allow for the transfer of a few ore precise, controllable, and predictable manner than a result of conventional breeding. Interestingly, plants conventional genetic modiÞcation methods undergo no ironmental safety evaluation prior to introduction into the eas genetically engineered crops are required to undergo environmental safety testing before their introduction. diÞed crops were Þrst commercially introduced in the ave been rapidly adopted by farmers. It has been estimated rn and almost 70% of the soybeans and cotton grown in ere GM varieties. Examples of GM crops include insect- cotton, potato, and tomato; herbicide-tolerant soybeans, eet, ßax, and canola; and virus-resistant squash, papaya, ages of insect- and virus-resistant crops include improved use of pesticides. An additional beneÞt of Bt corn is tion by fumonisin-producing fungi. Fumonisin is a potent ted in esophageal cancer and neural tube birth defects in es of herbicide-tolerant crops include improved weed con- injury, reduction in foreign matter, reduced fuel use, and n in soil erosion. It is for these reasons that GM crops , 2003 9:21 AMly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. ION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS lated in the United States through a coordinated frame- n 1992 and administered by three agencies: the U.S. LC Department of Ag (EPA), and the FD must be completed food safety evalua ber that food is not toxicants present i kaloids in broccol of risk, our food c system is “reasona tion. Acceptance o safe as or safer tha ment of safety is a The scientiÞc b equivalence.” Regu counterparts. A w equivalency, levels in addition to a nu crop is essentially is considered subst the U.S. Over 400 and there has not safety issue associ Since GM crop they have been ma way through comm used in processed processed foods c GM soy or corn. E beverages include fructose corn syrup been used to produ ents used in bevera bovine somatotrop A In the past, it was identity preserve g eral countries have dients derived from in these countries, TX110_book Page 11 Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency A. Rigorous food and environmental safety assessments before GM crops can be commercialized. An effective tion system minimizes risk, but it is important to remem- inherently safe. There are numerous examples of natural n various foods (e.g., solanine in potatoes and glycoal- i). If we were to eliminate all foods that posed any kind hoices would be very limited. The goal of a food safety ble certainty of no harm” at normal levels of consump- f a new food product occurs when it is shown to be as n its conventional counterpart; therefore, the Þnal assess- lways comparative. asis of the evaluation process is the concept of “substantial latory agencies compare GM crops to their conventional ide range of comparisons is made including nutritional of natural toxicants, and the potential for allergenicity, mber of agronomic and environmental factors. If the GM identical to its conventional counterpart in all aspects, it antially equivalent, and no special labeling is required in million acres of GM crops have been grown worldwide, been a single documented adverse health effect or food ated with consumption of these products. s are substantially equivalent and no labeling is required, naged as commodities in the U.S. and have made their odity distribution channels into thousands of ingredients foods. It has been estimated that greater than 70% of all ontain one or more ingredients potentially derived from xamples of soy- and corn-derived ingredients found in cornstarch, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, dextrose, high- , soybean oil, and lecithin. Genetic engineering has also ce vitamins and ßavors, and many milk-derived ingredi- ges have been derived from cows treated with recombinant in. IDENTITY PRESERVATION , 2003 9:21 AMND THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET not necessary for the food supply chain to segregate and rain destined for ingredient manufacture. However, sev- adopted labeling guidelines for foods containing ingre- GM crops. Because GM foods are perceived negatively food manufacturers try to avoid GM ingredients in order LC to avoid labeling culture has not yet of IP grains. Wh conventional coun segregation, qualit crops at any stage could potentially r the food and beve D ETECTION OF G EN To authenticate lab analytical methods nately, standardize ingredients on the of GM material. T assays (ELISAs), w the genes inserted aration and are sen used on unprocess and other food pro detection of the gen ampliÞed using po amount of DNA to preparation, the pr method is very sens The current me limitations. Authen laboratory has dev negative rates are u are reported to foo matrix has a dram protocols will need is not required in t as GM technology about the GM stat to validate and stan for herbicide-toler D IFFICULTIES WITH P Despite these chall as GMO -free or TX110_book Page 12 Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Ltheir products. Unfortunately, the infrastructure of agri- evolved to the stage where it can deliver large quantities en available, IP grains are more expensive than their terparts due to the added labor and costs associated with y control, and testing. Comingling of GM with non-GM in the food ingredient chain from seed to Þnal product esult in mislabeled products and signiÞcant liability for rage industries. ETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS el claims, food processors need standardized and validated for detecting the presence of GM ingredients. Unfortu- d methods do not currently exist for most of the GM market today. Two types of tests are used for the detection he Þrst method involves enzyme-linked immunosorbent hich are based on the detection of proteins coded for by into GM crops. These tests require minimal sample prep- sitive, accurate, rapid, and inexpensive. They can only be ed samples, however, as proteins are denatured by heat cessing methods. The second method is based on direct e(s) (DNA) inserted into GM crops. The DNA is typically lymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology to increase the detectable levels. PCR methods require extensive sample ocedure is lengthy, and per sample costs are high. The itive and can be used to detect DNA in processed samples. thods for detecting GM material in foods have numerous ticated reference standards are not available, and every eloped its own testing protocols. False positive and false nacceptably high. No standardization of how the results d and beverage companies has been developed. The food atic impact on extractability of DNA and protein, and to be developed to take this into account. Since labeling he U.S., detection methods have not developed as rapidly . This deÞciency will cause signiÞcant issues as disputes us of foods arise. Several efforts are currently underway , 2003 9:21 AMdardize GM testing methods, but to date, only one ELISA ant soybeans has been validated and standardized. RODUCT LABELING enges, some companies are overtly labeling their products non-GM. They procure ingredients from suppliers who LC certify that non-GM recent report in the labeled as non-GM fore, even under be non-GM label is tr Most U.S. food production. In gen the safety of GM the U.S., availabil dients are more ex ingredients, adven been perfected, as food industry wou for non-GM ingre required. In additio ing, labeling, and of GM and non-G exists in the adequ substantiate label inaccurate. Consum overly concerned a have been monito consumers feel ab nology remains ve in the U.S.; howeve periods of intense groups report perio of biotechnology i that education is a food and beverage will deliver compe THE FUT The next generatio tangible consumer allergens, natural soybeans, rice, an life of fresh fruits improve the nutriti the saturation level acids that are mor TX110_book Page 13 Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press L varieties have been used for ingredient manufacture. A Wall Street Journal (April 2001) stated that of 20 products , 16 contained measurable quantities of GM DNA. There- st-case scenarios, it is very difÞcult to guarantee that the uthful. companies are not avoiding GM ingredients for domestic eral, the U.S. food processing industry has conÞdence in foods. Because GM crops have been readily adopted in ity of non-GM crops has been limited, and these ingre- pensive. Even when efforts are made to procure non-GM titious contamination is an issue, and IP systems have not was illustrated with the StarLinkTM incident in 2001. The ld need to be able to accurately forecast its supply needs dients so farmers could be instructed on the quantities n, the food industry lacks the separate storage, process- transportation capabilities required to ensure separation M raw materials and Þnal products. Little conÞdence acy of current GM sampling and testing methodology to claims, and substantial liability exists if label claims are ers of processed foods in the U.S. do not appear to be bout the presence of GM ingredients. Food manufacturers ring their 800 numbers for an indication of how their out GM foods. To date, the number of calls on biotech- ry small (0.1 to 0.2%) for most major food companies r, awareness remains relatively low. Calls increase during media coverage, and companies targeted by activist dic increases in numbers of calls. If a brief explanation s provided, acceptance increases signiÞcantly, indicating n important factor in consumer acceptance. Finally, the industries hope that the next generation of GM products lling consumer beneÞts. URE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS n of GM foods will focus on “output traits” that provide -relevant beneÞts. Biotechnology can be used to remove , 2003 9:21 AMtoxicants, and antinutrients from foods such as peanuts, d wheat. Taste, texture, aroma, ripening time, and shelf and vegetables can be improved. It will be possible to onal quality of foods. Examples include modiÞcation of of oils to produce products high in monounsaturated fatty e stable, resist oxidation, do not require hydrogenation, LC and reduce choles acids. It is possible and to insert the c into oil seeds. Biot and D and folate; vegetables, fruits, various plants of prevention, e.g., ly ing cancer risk, lu tion, etc. The adva will identify addit impact on human food and beverage TX110_book Page 14 Tuesday, May 6 © 2003 by CRC Press Lterol levels when consumed in place of saturated fatty to increase the content of vitamin E, a natural antioxidant, apability of producing plant-based omega-3 fatty acids echnology can be used to elevate levels of vitamins A, C, increase antioxidants; and enhance iron bioavailability in and grains. It is also possible to increase the levels in phy