Development of a Checklist for Assessing Good Hygiene Practices of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables Using Focus Group Interviews

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a checklist for good hygiene practices (GHP) for raw material of vegetable origin using the focus groups (FGs) approach (n = 4). The final checklist for commercialization of horticultural products totaled 28 questions divided into six blocks, namely: water supply; hygiene, health, and training; waste control; control of pests; packaging and traceability; and hygiene of facilities and equipment. The FG methodology was efficient to elaborate a participatory and objective checklist, based on minimum hygiene requirements, serving as a tool for diagnosis, planning, and training in GHP of fresh vegetables, besides contributing to raise awareness of the consumers' food safety. The FG methodology provided useful information to establish the final checklist for GHP, with easy application, according to the previous participants' perception and experience.

Introduction

Managers of Brazilian supply centers and producer associations have been concerned with the quality of fruits and vegetables, pressured by consumers, media, and government agencies (Mazzoni, 2014), due their importance in the diet. Family farmers are mainly responsible for supplying horticultural products, being part of the structure of supply centers (Abracen, 2014).

Good hygiene practices (GHP) of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables are normally evaluated using a checklist, which taken in account established concepts about food safety of this product category (Cruz et al., 2006a, b; Nunes et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2013). However, the development of a checklist is a complex process, given the lack of information and the social and economic reality of different establishments (Alpuche-Navarrete et al., 2011) and sometimes does not take into account the different participant's perception about the risks involved in the routine activities.

Focus group (FG) is a qualitative technique defined as a carefully planned interview aimed at obtaining individual opinions about a particular area of interest (Kueger and Casey, 2010), being a popular data collection technique that relies on group interaction to elicit personal and emotional responses toward a product or a concept (Jervis and Drake, 2014). FGs have been used in sensory studies (Jervis et al., 2014) as well as to evaluate consumer perceptions regarding food safety (Mata et al., 2010; Tiozzo et al., 2017). However, the use of FG for the development of a checklist covering GHP of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables has not been reported. In this sense, this study aimed to develop a GHP checklist of the handling of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables produced by family farms and commercialized in a supply center in the State of Rio de Janeiro (CEASA-RJ), using the FG approach.

Materials and Methods

Definition of FG

Four FGs (n = 4) were performed with a total of 28 participants. Participants in each group had similar professional profiles, as follows: postgraduate students in food science and technology (GF1, n = 10), supply center (CEASA) staff (GF2, n = 6), Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company) researchers (GF3, n = 6), or health surveillance staff (GF4, n = 6), aged 25–60 years, with similar gender distribution, which allowed a homogeneous session, favoring the discussion. All of the groups are involved in the different stages, with the products in this study being the postgraduate students representing ordinary consumers. Table 1 shows the composition of the different FGs of this study. Four sessions of ∼2 h were conducted, according to the recommendations of Casey and Krueger (1994). At the beginning of each session, the moderator, the first author of this study, informed the purpose of the methodology, its role, and the purpose of the study (Table 2).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Focus Group Interviews

Focus group	Members	Characteristics
GF 1	Postgraduate students in food science and technology	10 participants (8 females, 2 males, 25–30 years of age)
GF 2	CEASA-RJ Technicians	Six participants (two females, four males, 30–50 years of age)
GF 3	Embrapa researchers (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company)	Six participants (one female, five males, 40–60 years of age)
GF 4	Sanitary Surveillance Technicians	Six participants (three females, three males, 35–60 years of age)

CEASA-RJ, supply center in the State of Rio de Janeiro.

Table 2.

Interview Guide with Themes Covered by the Moderator in the Focus Group Discussion

Interview guide for focal group sessions
Introduction
Welcome and presentations
Theme and Explanation of the objectives of the study
Identification of participants
Methodology employed
Explanation of study confidentiality
Themes
1. In your opinion, what are the main problems related to quality assurance and the adequacy of hygienic–sanitary conditions in the fruits and vegetables marketing at CEASA? (Identify problems/Identify causes/Suggest solutions)
2. What are the advantages of following Good Hygiene Practices in the family farming sector of horticultural products at CEASA?
3. Report the issues related to the Water Supply that you consider essential or only recommended for Good Hygiene Practices at CEASA, according to the list. Justify your classification and indicate any item that has not been contemplated.
4. Report the issues related to the hygiene, health, and training of staff.
5. Report the issues related to Waste Control.
6. Report the issues for controlling pests.
7. Report the issues related to packing and traceability of marketed foods.
8. Report the issues related to cleaning of the facilities and equipment.

General questions were used to provoke discussion among participants, followed by other issues, including marketing practices, basic requirements, and critical hygiene requirements. At the end of each session, participants were asked to judge the individual issues as fundamental or recommended tasks. The specific issues were taken from the subitems of the preliminary checklist for GHP (presented on next item) to facilitate individual assessment. The questions were grouped into six issues: water supply; hygiene, health, and training; waste control; control of pests; packaging and traceability; and cleaning of facilities and equipment, with a total of 28 subitems.

Checklist

The preliminary checklist was developed based on the legislation in force, supporting the creation of the questionnaire used in the FG sessions (Brasil Resolution no. 216 of the 15th of September, 2004). The issues of the preliminary checklist were carefully selected by food professionals, based on existing lists in the legislation. These issues were classified as fundamental or recommended. The fundamental issues were those considered critical to prevent contamination, as there was no subsequent procedure to eliminate the hazard at safe levels. On the other hand, the recommended issues were those complementary to the checklist for GHP, with continuous improvement of hygiene practices in marketing, according to principles of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed considering the context of the question and specificity of the responses, and no statistical analysis was performed due to the qualitative nature of the study (Jervis and Drake, 2014). The impressions and opinions reported during the sessions were recorded and later analyzed to obtain the final checklist for GHP in a qualitative and participatory manner.

Results and Discussion

The FG discussions had been concentrated on several factors, including the cleanliness and degraded structure of the sector of horticultural products, excess and improper handling of waste, the presence of pests, lack of cleaning and identification of packaging, staff training, and management responsibility and difficulties.

The participants pointed out the main problems according to their perceptions. Table 3 summarized the issues addressed by each group about the main problems related to quality assurance and adequacy of hygienic–sanitary conditions in the family agriculture sector at CEASA-RJ.

Table 3.

Categories Elicited and Examples That Emerged from the Focus Group Discussions

Issues	Elicited categories	Some examples
General questions	Cleanliness and adequacy of the environment and structure of the sector.	“they sell without guidance, they need to be aware that investing in GHP will lead to less loss and more sales and the use of clean packaging is economically viable and environmentally correct” (GF1).
	Lack of training and staff profile.	“lack of staff and management to guide GHP”. As reported by a participant: “the market is governed by supply and demand, clean packaging does not influence price since the product has the same classification” (GF2).
	Inefficient waste generation and management.	“the producer sells for the same price regardless of whether it is a wooden or plastic box provided that it is the same product; there is a resistance of the producer, who sells without the quality requirements required by the legislation, the packaging could be all plastic and clean” (GF2).
	Presence of pests.	“there is no need to discuss an adequate installation project” and “a treatment should be given for foods with the same agro-industry logic, establishing an orderly flow to avoid contamination” (GF3);
	Conservation criteria for food.	“it makes little sense to reduce the waste if much loss occurs in the field since Embrapa studies indicate a 40% losses” (GF3).
	Lack of identified packaging.	“there is a need to establish conservation parameters, procedures, and responsibilities to solve problems, as well as to know the causes and propose possible solutions” (GF3).
	Identification of food origin.	“who will demand and enforce the determinations and make the adjustments? Who is interested in making the changes and maintaining them?” (GF3).
	Lack of training of staff, lack of definition of responsibilities.	“there are no conservation parameters for very perishable foods, which are handled unobtrusively at very high temperatures under the summer sun” (GF3).
	Lack of management and people for controlling and monitoring.	“we know nothing about the origin of food in the event of an outbreak” (GF4).
		“precarious hygiene conditions are associated with lack of training and education”, “the structure of the building is degraded and needs to be adapted” and “there are difficulties in the sector management” (GF4).
Water supply	Protected reservoirs and water facilities.	“it makes little sense to store drinking water in a tank that is not sanitized since a dirty tank can contaminate water in the course of time by the consumption of residual chlorine” (GF1).
	Sanitized water reservoir, with registration of the operation.	“CEASA water supply is carried out by CEDAE and there are two reservoirs, one high and one half-buried, both capable of storing large volumes of water” (GF2).
	Water analysis for potability verification.	“water is also used to wash the floor, surfaces, and equipment that come in contact with food” and “there is a habit of watering vegetables to keep them fresher” (GF3).
		“in wholesale units of inner cities, water comes from alternative sources rather than a supply company” (GF4).
Hygiene, health, and training of workers in the pavilion	Supervision of health status, performance and registration of periodic examinations.	“If it is visible that the individual is sick, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent he is sick and if illness really prevents him from working” (GF1).
	Removal in case of injuries or diseases that contaminate marketed foods.	“If someone gets sick, if he can, he'll work anyway” and “when someone goes wrong they call the ambulance because there is no doctor or health post at CEASA.” (GF2).
	Correct hand washing after using toilets or touching contaminated surfaces and deteriorated food.	“this could be treated initially as recommended” (GF4).
	Avoiding habits and attitudes that could contaminate food.	“In case of a hand injury, there is the possibility of using personal protective equipment (PPE)” (GF4).
	Use of clean uniforms compatible with activities.	“we should prevent the increase of the microbial load in the commercialization stage because there is no guarantee that the hygiene will be enough to totally eliminate biological hazards in the later stages” (GF4).
	Existence of periodic training program in Good Hygiene Practices (GHP).	“everyone is manipulating money and food at the same time”, and “the problem is exposure because they sweep while the products are exposed, there is dust and several contaminants” (GF2).
		“there are street vendors who sell food and people eat and throw the remains on the ground” (GF2).
		“it makes little sense to have good structural conditions if there is no good conduct” (GF1).
		“habits are the result of values linked to the emotions and the experience of people” (GF4).
		“if attitude or habit can contaminate food, the subitem should be regarded as fundamental”; “certain conditions should not exist as the habit of smoking, as it is prohibited by specific legislation” (GF4).
		“rules tend to be obeyed if there are minimum organization standards” (GF3 and GF4).
		“the most visible items that influence consumers perception and confidence in the act of purchase should be worked out immediately” (GF3).
		“non-visible aspects, as training and periodic examinations that often only happen on paper, are endogenous and involve time and culture changes” (GF3).
		“basic changes should take place so that training is motivating, creating a more favorable environment for applying knowledge” (GF3).
		“the environment and structure should lead to correct postures in GHP in the marketing area” (GF3).
		“We have frustrated experiences in some training attempts so the qualification of the producer should happen in the production sites” (GF2).
		“a training structure has to be created” (GF2).
		“there could be a video as a sensitization strategy” (GF2).
		“GHP should be a condition for on-the-spot trade and be rooted in people's mindsets so that changes can actually take place” (GF2).
		“There should be a setup structure and planning to carry out these training” (GF2).
		“The trained person must be informed and aware of the reasons and importance of the changes, the norms, understand the reasons for doing GHP” (GF2).
		“if the culture is changed, everyone will follow the new attitudes, it is not enough to just make a list and give the producer to read” (GF2).
		“the CEASA team also needs training in GHP” (GF2).
		“as a training strategy, quick lessons lasting around 10 min can be offered, emphasizing key GHP items, as it happens in a horticultural market” (GF4).
		“the administrator shall establish minimum conditions for the individual to remain in the horticultural sector through a relationship that can compensate for the training given to him” (GF3).
Waste control	Separate garbage, protected and isolated from the marketing area.	“In practice, packaging mixes with organic waste, without further separation” (GF3).
	Frequent, adequate sanitation of collectors and dumps.	“there is no incentive to dispose of wooden boxes which are non-washable and provide considerable losses for contaminating food” (GF3).
	Appropriate garbage collectors and insufficient numbers.	“individuals that transport food dispose the packaging waste together with spoiled food directly on the floor near the exhibition area” (GF3).
	Appropriate dumpsters, with manual noncontact covers.	“the collection should be done every 2 or 3 h to avoid bad smell, attraction of insects and animals, and not to allow the presence of refuse collectors” (GF2).
	Existence of a Solid Waste Management Program.	“there is no washing procedure for sanitizing collectors and dumps, the garbage is exposed; there should be people responsible for collecting garbage, taking it to the hopper, which is not the case” (GF2).
		“According to the culture of the market, if there are dumpsters with lid, people will throw garbage around or over it, as already observed with existing collectors” (GF2).
		“cleanliness is known by the hygienic condition of the garbage can” (GF4).
		“CEASA cannot do anything in terms of waste management, it cannot make a composting plant, it needs a minimum infrastructure to manage the large volume of waste; this problem needs a solution, but it is a government solution, it runs away from our control” (GF4).
		“if the checklist is transformed into a standard, and if those in charge of waste management at CEASA-RJ know that the waste will be subjected to inspection, they can begin to take action and seek solutions” (GF4).
		“If someone in the management realized that garbage can be a source of profit, the problem would certainly be a solution” (GF4).
Pest control	Physical barriers that prevent access to pests.	“The presence of dogs and cats is consented by the employees, with the aggravating circumstance that the collection of wandering animals is not carried out by the responsible sectors” (GF2).
	Integrated pest control.	“There are no physical barriers that prevent the entry of animals. In addition, the product display platform is at ground level” (GF3).
	Educational campaigns and intensification of inspection actions.	“The containers are opened and exposed overnight, which allows the attack of pests and vectors during the period under these conditions. There is no appropriate storage space for products that are not sold on the same day” (GF3).
	Periodic and permanent control (use of baits, physical barriers, etc.).	“The birds find shelter in the roof of the pavilion where they remain and make nests. The waste is thrown over the area of commercialization, exposing one more risk to the food and people that circulate and remain in the facilities” (GF3).
	Training, changing habits, and supervision.	“There is a vicious circle in this marketing system. In the first place, injuries occur that remove the biological protection barrier of the fruits and allow their microbiological contamination. Then comes the losses that substantially increase the waste and finally, the presence of these residues will attract animals and pests whose control will be very difficult to perform under these conditions” (GF3).
Packaging and traceability of marketed food	Integral, clean, and noninjurious packaging.	“The use of first use boxes or the single use of returnable plastic boxes with a bank of boxes for hygiene would be the most appropriate procedure” (GF2).
	First-time nonreturnable packaging.	“The bank of boxes should be improved, and the use of sanitized returnable boxes should be gradually required for certain crops as observed in some plants of the country” (GF2).
	Sanitized returnable plastic packaging.	“Otherwise the market will not evolve according to modern quality concepts” (GF2).
	Stored in a protected, clean place, free of animals.	“the bank of boxes is fundamental, but it will not occur in the short term, work must begin in the field, starting with changing the mentality of producers who still resist the changes” (GF2).
	Packaging that helps to identify the origin of food.	“It would be a good strategy to sensitize the producers and transporters of the distribution chain to create a concept of minimum handling, and use of a standard packaging that preserves the product in better marketing conditions” (GF3).
Hygiene of plant and equipment	Free areas, accumulated garbage, puddles, and foreign objects.	“If some fruit arrives deteriorated, it is not possible to carry out an immediate cleaning, because the collection is carried out at the end of the commercialization; to allow the exit of the vehicles, the residues are placed on the floor without cleaning” (GF2).
	Drains and gratings leak and prevent the entry of vectors.	“the facilities do not allow immediate washing, and there is no efficient sloping pipe to drain the washing water, in addition to the traffic of vehicles in the place” (GF3).
	Water supply installations with sewage connections preserved.
	Frequent and adequate hygiene of facilities and equipment in contact with food.
	Sinks in the marketing area with liquid soap and disposable towels;
	Adequate sanitized toilets, with liquid soap and disposable towels.

General questions

The four discussion groups pointed out a lack of cleanliness and adequacy of the facilities. According to the participants, this deficiency leads to food exposure, allowing the access of pests. In addition, precarious hygiene conditions were associated with lack of training and education of producers. Some participants have discussed the importance of establishing parameters for conservation and problem resolution, including a high volume of residues, improper handling and exposure of food to inadequate temperatures, lack of identification of a product's origin, and lack of professionals for inspection.

The participants belonging to the groups GF1, GF2, and GF3 believed cleaning of packages may be an economically viable and environmentally friendly issue. However, GF2 reported a resistance on the part of the producer, who uses packaging without the minimum quality standards required by the legislation.

Almost all FG considered the training program as an important task, due to the lack of information about the adequate procedures. The discussions pointed out that training can start with a re-registration of the merchants in the sector, being a prerequisite for food suppliers of government programs and school meals. Thus, the training program can start after application of the diagnostic checklist, which will subsidize the content and the form of training of the individuals involved. Training plays a key role in programs aimed to improve the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables (FAO, 2007; Cusato et al., 2013). Inadequate food handling is one of the main causes of food-borne outbreaks in Brazil and other countries, such as New Zealand and the United States, and training of food handlers is one of the most effective strategies for prevention of foodborne diseases, which is mandatory in Brazil and other countries (Rossi et al., 2017).

Specific questions

Water supply

The conservation and protection of water reservoirs and facilities were considered equally important for all FGs. Participants reported that it is essential to keep pipelines and reservoirs protected from vectors and contaminants since the water quality is ensured by the public supply network. Failures in the sewage system and infiltration may occur, leading to contamination of the products.

Concerning the hygiene of water reservoirs, the participants of GF2 and GF4 agreed to be extremely important, as a dirty reservoir can contaminate water over time by consuming residual chlorine. They also reported the importance of the periodic analysis to attest water potability in the reservoirs, as defined by the legislation.

The participants of GF2, formed by CEASA-RJ technicians, stated that cleaning the reservoirs implies their emptying and consequently suspension of water supply to the whole unit, which operates without interruption. Thus, the cleaning procedures need to be planned, without affecting food marketing. In addition, a participant of GF2 reported that water is used to wash floors, surfaces, and equipment that come in contact with food, as well as to moisten vegetables and keep them fresher.

According to GF3, pipelines and reservoirs should be protected from intrusion of pests and contaminants. Once the water quality is guaranteed by the water supply company, the facilities should be protected; otherwise, the sanitation of the reservoirs is ineffective. The construction of a system for the use of rainwater was suggested as an effective alternative for sustainable water consumption.

The discussions showed that water monitoring is considered important not only because of the environment impact, but also due to its use for human consumption and food preparation in restaurants and snack bars that operate within the supply center. As reported by Faour-Klingbeil et al. (2016), water is recognized as one of the most important vectors of human enteric pathogens in vegetables.

According to the FGs, an order of priority should be established for water control. First, an assessment of the conservation status of pipes and reservoirs should be performed to check for cracks, seepage, and protection against contaminants or invasions. In the case of lack of water potability, a specific analysis should be carried out after the observation of the conservation status of the pipes and reservoirs. Finally, a viable planning for cleaning and sanitizing of reservoirs should be provided to avoid impact on daily business activities.

Hygiene, health, and training

Regarding the health status of the workers in the sector of horticultural products, CEASA-RJ technicians (GF2) reported some difficulties in controlling the health status of the team and ascertaining previous diseases due to the high turnover; “there is no doctor in the supply center, thus an ambulance is called when someone is not feeling well”, said a participant. According to their reports, from the point of view of the food manipulators, the human figure poses no potential risk to food, which is observed in food services and industries; “for them, the manipulator does not play an important role because of the obligation to sanitize raw food before consumption”. The other participants emphasized the importance of preventing the increase in microbial load in the marketing stage since there is no guarantee that sanitation will totally eliminate the biological hazards in the later stages.

This information provides evidence that food safety knowledge and attitudes among food handlers are generally poor. The consumption, especially raw, of vegetables and fruits that have not been accurately sanitized can become unsafe to health and lead to foodborne illness (Faour-Klingbeil et al., 2016). It becomes even more serious if we consider that consumers often do not know how to perform the most basic hygiene practices properly, such as washing fruits and vegetables (Moreb et al., 2017) or underestimate their chances of becoming sick from homemade food and do not follow many recommended safe food handling practices (Young et al., 2017). In this context, training program involving this topic should be carried out in all handlers and managers of the food establishments as a potential approach to improve risk perceptions and their food safety knowledge.

According to the group GF2, manipulators have inappropriate habits and attitudes as they manipulate money and smoke along with food handling. Thus, training should be mandatory at the time of registration as a prerequisite for marketing. In addition, the sector should have an appropriate place for the training sessions, emphasizing GHP based on the actual experience of the horticultural products sector. According to GF3, the issues that most affect the consumers' perception and confidence in the purchase intention should be investigated immediately. The other issues, which are not perceptible, such as training and periodic examinations, involve more time and cultural changes. In addition, for changes to occur, people's routine should consider GHP, and the instructions should be focused on the importance of adopting new procedures.

Supervision of the team involved in the marketing tasks was considered as a strategy to detect and prevent health problems, including informal work activities. Training should be ongoing for changing habits and pointing out attitudes that should be cultivated throughout the food marketing process. In addition, the use of uniform was not considered a requirement with a direct impact on food quality. However, the uniform enhances individual posture and personal hygiene conditions. The criteria for wearing the uniform should be clear, with the participation of those involved to achieve the desired effect.

Waste management

All participants understood that waste control at CEASA and its sectors are a priority, once it has a direct impact on the GHP and the environment, as it contributes to the unhealthy conditions and proliferation of pests. In this context, the main issues include placing the garbage away from the marketing area and separated by differentiated collectors; use of sanitized resistant collectors, in sufficient number and capacity; and waste collection frequency according to the volume generated, without extravasations and with correct destination.

Packaging, which is responsible for large amounts of waste, should be recycled in the case of more frequent waste collection. Thus, effective strategies for handling, conservation, classification, and standardization of packaging can reduce waste, bringing benefits to producers. For some participants, waste control is more critical because it is related to people's habits. The group GF2 reported that individuals transporting and receiving food have disposed waste and spoiled food near the exhibition and marketing areas, and the waste collection should be within 2–3 h to avoid unpleasant odors, insects, and refuse collectors.

According to the FGs, large volumes of solid waste are generated by the supply centers. Thus, controlling the reception, destination, and segregation of organic waste and packaging is required, through the adoption of strict criteria in the reception of the goods, with the supervision of qualified personnel. Waste collection and cleaning of facilities should be performed according to standardized protocols. The groups suggested the creation of sectors to facilitate cleaning operations and to acquire compactors and biodigesters for organic packaging and waste, respectively. Concomitantly, farmers, permission holders, transporters, and shippers should be aware of reducing the waste volume and correct destination. Therefore, structural changes throughout the supply center as far as waste control were considered essential and urgent.

Pest control

This issue was also considered of great importance for GHP, and the subitem “actions against the presence of pests” was scored as 100% fundamental for all groups. The participants of GF2 reported that the presence of dogs and cats is facilitated by the permission holders, along with the lack of cooperation by the competent authorities responsible for the removal of animals. They emphasized the lack of a physical barrier to avoid animals from gaining access, besides the need for an adequate space for food storage to avoid exposure to pests. They reported the existence of pigeons that shelter in the beams of the roof, without an effective control of the population of these animals.

One of the participants of GF3 stated that the occurrence of injuries allows the contamination of plant pulps, leading to losses and consequent increase in waste, attracting pests, thus forming a vicious circle. Therefore, integrated and continuous actions in conjunction with the solid waste management plan can be effective for controlling of pests.

Packaging and traceability

The CEASA-RJ technicians (GF2) reported a lack of control of packaging and traceability of marketed foods. The packaging has no regular identification and hygiene and should be replaced by nonreusable containers or returnable plastic boxes, with a bank of boxes for hygiene. According to one participant, it is necessary to deploy the bank of boxes and gradually require the use of returnable sanitized boxes. However, the lack of staff and interest of the management team are still obstacles to be overcome due to economic pressures and marketing using nonreturnable packaging. They reported that there is no incentive to dispose of wooden containers, which leads to considerable losses due to contamination. The change involves the awareness and knowledge about the economic advantages of the appropriate packaging, with possible gains due to better product conservation.

The EMBRAPA technicians (GF3) revealed that customers and consumers' demands usually motivate market changes. They cited as examples the supermarket chains that buy directly from their suppliers and require returnable sanitized plastic boxes for the purchase of horticultural products. Thus, a concept of minimum handling and standardized packaging for products' preservation may be a good strategy for reducing injuries and losses.

The packaging conditions in the marketing of fresh vegetables have been defined in legislation, which has established integrity and size in accordance with the hygienic–sanitary standards and minimum labeling information (MAPA, 2002). In addition, there is another standard used for defining the checklist, which establishes the minimum requirements and testing methods for receiving, sanitizing, and distributing plastic returnable boxes.

FGs have argued that packaging is very important for perishable products such as horticultural products, being attractive at the time of purchase, adding value to food and protecting against contamination. Appropriate packaging and rules for products' traceability should be required for all horticultural products throughout the internal market. Thus, proper packaging and storage of the raw material, as well as the availability of suitable suppliers, hygiene of the handlers and proper management of the waste are issues that deserve attention. In this context, local regulations are required to protect consumers, and ongoing supplier training can help address the lack of quality and safety of foods of plant origin (Baser et al., 2017).

Hygiene of plant and equipment

This section was considered of great relevance, especially for groups GR3 and GR4. Participants of group GF2 were asked about the hygiene of the facilities and equipment, and pointed out that the layout of the sector should be changed to facilitate cleaning of the facilities, as there is no efficient sloping pipe to drain the washing water. According to GF2, an immediate cleaning is not possible when fruits arrive deteriorated in the sector because the collection of the residues is carried out at the end of the commercialization. Sinks with liquid soap and disposable towels should be installed in the marketing area, since there is no lavatory in the sector, without sink and soap in some places.

In addition, according to the participants of GF3 and GF4, several factors are required to minimize contamination, including adequate cleaning and sanitation, easily cleaned surfaces, preventing the access of pests, and adequate structures for temperature and humidity control.

Final checklist for GHP

The checklist for GHP was finalized through the selection of the responses obtained in the FG sessions, based on individuals' experiences. It is worth noting that the list is in accordance with the recommendations of the Recommended International Code of Practices: General Principles of Food Hygiene (Codex Alimentarius, 2006). The final checklist for commercialization of horticultural products totaled 28 questions divided into six blocks (Table 4), namely: water supply; hygiene, health, and training; waste control; control of pests; packaging and traceability; and hygiene of facilities and equipment, respectively, each presenting 3, 6, 5, 3, 5, and 6 issues, respectively. Of the 28 issues under discussion, 21 (75%) were considered as fundamental and 7 (25%) as recommendable in the case of use of the checklist.

Table 4.

Final Format of the Checklist for Good Hygienic Practices Developed Using the Focus Group Sessions

1. Water supply
1.1	Well-preserved and protected reservoirs and water facilities	F
1.2	Reservoirs are sanitized periodically with registration of the operation	F
1.3	Analysis to verify the water potability	F
2. Hygiene, health, and training of workers
2.1	Supervision of health status, performance, and registration of periodic examinations	R
2.2	Removal of activities in cases of injury or illness that may contaminate food	R
2.3	Correct hand washing after using the toilet or touching contaminated surfaces or deteriorated food	F
2.4	Avoid habits and attitudes that can contaminate food, such as sneezing, spitting, coughing, smoking, blowing nose, etc.	F
2.5	Use of clean uniforms compatible with the activities	R
2.6	Existence of periodic training program in GHP	F
3. Waste control
3.1	Segregated and protected waste, stored in a place isolated from the food marketing area	F
3.2	Proper sanitation of dumps and collectors	F
3.3	Collectors and dumps adequate and sufficient to contain waste	F
3.4	Heavy-duty, fixed and capped trash cans in toilets and strategic locations allowing temporary garbage disposal	R
3.5	Existence and compliance with the Solid Waste Management Plan	F
4. Control of pests
4.1	Absence of animals on the premises	F
4.2	Absence of traces of vectors and pests in facilities and equipment	R
4.3	Existence of effective, integrated, and continuous actions that prevent access, permanence, attraction, shelter, or proliferation of pests	F
5. Packaging and traceability
5.1	The packages are clean, undamaged, and prevent injury to food	F
5.2	Use of first use nonreturnable packaging	R
5.3	Use of properly sanitized returnable packaging	R
5.4	Packaging stored in a clean, protected, and vector-free place	F
5.5	Use of packaging that identifies the food origin	F
6. Hygiene of facilities and equipment
6.1	Internal and external area free from residues, dewatering, and foreign objects	F
6.2	Installations with drains, gratings, and drains that allow flow and prevent the entry of vectors	F
6.3	Installations supplied with running water with well-connected sewage connections	F
6.4	Facilities and equipment in conditions that allow adequate hygiene of surfaces in contact with food	F
6.5	Sinks in the commercial area provided with antiseptic liquid soap and hygienic system for hand drying	F
6.6	Clean toilets provided with toiletries and hygienic system for hand drying	F

F, fundamental; R, recommended.

However, it is worth mentioning that several factors can interfere with the effectiveness of the application of the checklist for GHP, such as awareness and willingness of the management team, existence of training structure, consumer and market demands, organization and changes in the production chain, and routine control by health agencies. These factors can affect the validation of the checklist and the implementation of the corrective measures for the sector.

In addition, the economic issues that also affect the motivations of the productive sectors should be considered for the success and applicability of the checklist for GHP. Although some issues can be addressed through awareness, education, and motivation, others depend on broader structural changes and interventions in the earlier stages of the distribution chain.

Additional studies for validation of GHP using the checklist proposed in this study should be carried out in other supply centers throughout Brazil.

Conclusion

The FG methodology provided useful information to establish the final checklist for GHP, with effortless application, according to the participants' perception and experience, being able to develop a checklist for raw material of vegetable origin considering the participants'perception and knowledge, which presented similar to the current Brazilian legistation.

The authorities should prioritize measures in GHP for marketing of fresh-cut vegetables and fruits in supply centers, which take into account the sanitary legislation and the participant's opinion about the different product categories. The findings of the study reinforce the importance of GHP as one of the prerequisite programs needed to be implemented to support a food safety management system.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

A.S.S. thanks the financial support of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (Grant #302763/2014-7) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES) Grant #33003017027P1. All authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of CAPES and CNPq.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Abracen. Associação Brasileira das Centrais Atacadistas. Brasília, DF: Guia de Boas Práticas para os entrepostos atacadistas das CEASAS afiliadas. 35 p, 2014.

Alpuche-Navarrete

, Rodriguez-Rivera

, Herrera-Rodríguez

. Manejo poscosecha de los productos alimenticios de origen vegetal en los mercados públicos de Mérida, Yucatán México. Rev Iberoam Tecnol Postcos, 2011; 12:1–7.

Baser

, Ture

, Abubakirova

, Sanlier

, Cil

. Structural modeling of the relationship among food safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior of hotel staff in Turkey. Food Control, 2017; 73:438–444.

Brasil Resolution no. 216 of the 15th of September 2004. Establishes the technical regulation of good manufacturing practices to food services. Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, 2004.

Casey

, Krueger

. Focus group interviewing. In: MacFIE

HJH

, Thomson

DMH

(Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. Glasgow, United Kingdom: Blackie Academic and Professional, 1994.

Codex Alimentarius. Higiene dos Alimentos - Textos Básicos. 2006. Available at: http://anvisa.gov.br/divulga/public/alimentos/codex_alimentarius.pdf, accessed September 21, 2015 .

Cruz

, Cenci

, Maia

MCA

. Good agricultural practices in a Brazilian produce plant. Food Control, 2006a;17:781–788.

Cruz

, Cenci

, Maia

MCA

. Requirements for HACCP system implementation in a minimally processed plant. Food Sci Technol (Campinas), 2006b;26:104–109.

Cusato

, Garneiro

, Corassin

, Sant'Ana

, Cruz

, Faria

JAF

, Oliveira

CAF

. Food safety systems in a small dairy factory: Implementation, major challenges, and assessment of systems' performances. Foodborne Pathog Dis, 2013; 10:7–12.

10.

FAO. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Aplicación de programas para el mejoramiento de la calidad e inocuidade em la cadena de suministro de frutas y hortalizas: Benefícios y desventajas. Roma: Estudios de casos de América Latina, 2007.

11.

Faour-Klingbeil

, Murtada

, Kuri

, Todd

. Understanding the routes of contamination of ready-to-eat vegetables in the Middle East. Food Control, 2016; 62:125–133.

12.

Jervis

, Drake

. The use of qualitative research methods in quantitative methods: A review. J Sens Stud, 2014; 29:234–247.

13.

Jervis

, Jervis

, Guthri

, Drake

. Determining children's perceptions, opinions, and attitudes for sliced sandwich bread. J Sens Stud, 2014; 25:351–361.

14.

Krueger

and Casey

. Focus groups, 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010.

15.

MAPA. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa n. 09 de 20 de novembro de 2002. Dispõe sobre as embalagens destinadas ao acondicionamento de produtos hortícolas in natura . Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, 2002.

16.

Mata

GMSC

, de Oliveira Pinto

, Martino

HSD

, Pinheiro-Sant'Ana

. A experiência extensionista na implementação de boas práticas em restaurante comercial: Um projeto piloto. Rev Ciência em Extensão, 2010; 6:83–98.

17.

Mazzoni

. Influência da Central de Embalagens do Centro de Abastecimento de Pernambuco (CEASA-PE) na comercialização de frutas e legumes. Dissertação (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração e Desenvolvimento Rural). Recife, Brazil: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, 67 p, 2014.

18.

Moreb

, Priyadarshini

, Jaiswal

. Knowledge of food safety and food handling practices amongst food handlers in the Republic of Ireland. Food Control, 2017; 80:341–349.

19.

Nunes

, Cruz

, Faria

JAF

, Sant'Ana

, Silva

, Moura

MRL

. A survey on the sanitary condition of commercial foods of plant origin sold in Brazil. Food Control, 2010; 21:50–54.

20.

Pereira

, Rodrigues

, Ramalhosa

. Influence of working conditions and practices on fresh-cut lettuce salads quality. Food Control, 2013; 33:406–412.

21.

Rossi

MDSC

, Stedefeldt

, da Cunha

, de Rosso

. Food safety knowledge, optimistic bias and risk perception among food handlers in institutional food services. Food Control, 2017; 73:681–688.

22.

Tiozzo

, Mari

, Ruzza

, Crovato

, Ravarotto

. Consumers' perceptions of food risks: A snapshot of the Italian Triveneto area. Appetite, 2017; 11:105–115.

23.

Young

, Reimer

, Greig

, Turgeon

, Meldrum

, Waddell

. Psychosocial and health-status determinants of safe food handling among consumers: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Food Control, 2017; 78:401–411.