 

 

   

 

v-.‘_.,.“ .- pry» . w. . .1- .u... . .._.. ..... ‘ .. ‘. _, . .-... V." .- 4 —
, . , , ‘ . . ‘ : ,
. . v . > v '
~ , . _ - . . '.
. . ' ' ‘ V I
V V _ , ~ ' ‘- ‘ . , V '
. . , ‘ - _ ‘ . » ' " h A V

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

MICHIGAN APPLE CIDER: PROCESSING PRACTICES.
HAZARD SURVEILLANCE, AND PERCEPTIONS

presented by
DONNA J. THEDE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Food Science and Human Nutrition

M). 50.0.41”;

Major Professor’s? Signature

7/30/01

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARY '
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DateDuopﬁS-ots

MICHIGAN APPLE CIDER: PROCESSING PRACTICES, HAZARD
SURVEILLANCE, AND PERCEPTIONS

By

Donna J. Thede

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

2004

ABSTRACT

MICHIGAN APPLE CIDER: PROCESSING PRACTICES, HAZARD
SURVEILLANCE, AND PERCEPTIONS

By
Donna J. Thede

Numerous foodbome illness outbreaks linked to consumption of j uice containing
microbial pathogens occurred in the US. in the 1990’s and increased public concern
about cider safety. Sources of several foodbome illness outbreaks were unpasteurized
apple juice and cider, which contained the pathogen E. coli 01572H7 because of poor
food safety practices in orchards and processing facilities. Therefore, the US. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) announced a comprehensive program to eliminate pathogen
contaminations of juice and in 2001 issued the juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HACCP) regulation, which require juice processors to implement HACCP into
their processing facilities. Processors who only sell juice directly to consumers are not
required to implement HACCP but they must include a warning statement about the risk
of pathogens on their juice containers.

The objectives of this study were to determine a) bacterial counts of cider and
manufacturing practices of Michigan cider processors between 1997 and 2002 and b)
perceptions of both Michigan cider processors and consumers regarding HACCP and
juice safety in 2002.

E. coli 0157:H7 was not detected in any of the cider samples tested during 1997-
2002 (n=5 82). A small percentage (5.8%) of cider samples contained generic E. coli,
indicating potential fecal contamination and the need to improve sanitation practices in

some mills. During 1997-2002, more processors took afﬁrmative steps to carefully

inspect and safely store apples and had upgraded processing facilities and equipment. In
2002, 26% of the processors producing over 4,000 gallons of cider per year had installed
thermal pasteurization (n=17) or ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation (n=7) equipment to
reduce the risk of pathogens, but microbial data also indicated that some processors either
did not operate the equipment properly or post-processing contamination occurred.
Michigan cider processors were divided regarding the juice HACCP regulation: 31%
agreed, 21% were neutral, and 48% opposed HACCP regulations. In contrast to
processors that favored HACCP, processors that disagreed with HACCP did not prepare
for HACCP. Those processors believed that HACCP was not necessary for cider safety
and did not improve consumer conﬁdence because they believed that their customers
trusted their cider mill and preferred the taste of untreated cider.

Michigan apple cider and juice consumers were concerned about food safety but
not knowledgeable about labeling or HACCP. Only 20% of those surveyed were aware
that HACCP is a food safety program. Our respondents based their apple cider or juice
purchase decisions ﬁrst on their perception of its taste and then safety. Consumers would
buy juice from grocery stores if they look for safety, whereas consumers would buy juice
from local farms or orchards if they look for freshness and 100% juice.

Future research should further evaluate the safety of Michigan cider and how to
overcome perceived constraints of processors to HACCP implementation. Additionally,
using focus groups and interviews to examine consumers’ perceptions and purchase

decision about apple cider and juice are warranted.

To my mom and dad who taught me perseverance and to realize great things happen
when you least expect them and Danny for his love, patience and understanding.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation was accomplished through the support and assistance of
many individuals. Foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Leslie Bourquin
and committee member, Dr. Toby Ten Eyck for providing advice and guidance. A
special thank you to my committee members, Dr. Al Booren and Dr. Uebersax for
their guidance on this research. I also thank Dr. Michael McBurney for being my
Kellogg sponsor and committee member. I am extremely appreciative to Dr. Dale
Romsos for providing editorial support and guidance to ﬁnish this dissertation. I am
most grateful and deeply appreciative to Dr. Gerd Bobe for his guidance, statistical
analyses, and the many hours he spent analyzing and discussing the data with me.

Special appreciation and gratitude is extended to Gerry Wojtala of the
Michigan Department of Agriculture and the inspectors who visited the cider mills
and collected samples. I also extend this appreciation to Bonnie Moon at the
Michigan State Laboratory and the microbiologists who analyzed the cider samples.

I also thank Dr. Donna Banks who provided the opportunity to achieve this
degree through a graduate program for Kellogg employees. A special thank you to
my Kellogg managers, Dr. Celeste Clark and Linda Pell, and the Kellogg cohort
group who provided constant encouragement.

At last, a special thank you to my parents for their love and encouragement,
my study buddies Winnie and Puglet, and most of all to my husband, Danny for his

outstanding patience and loving support.

This research study was supported by Kellogg Company and a portion of the
data were provided by the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Any opinions,
ﬁndings, conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the author
and do not necessarily reﬂect the views of Kellogg Company or the Michigan

Department of Agriculture.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION. . . ........................................................................................................ 1
A. Juice Food Safety Concerns and HACCP ...................................................... 1
B. Objective, Hypotheses and Speciﬁc Aims ..................................................... 5
CHAPTER 11.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 9
A. Juice F oodborne Illness Outbreaks and Bacterial Hazards ............................ 9
B. Juice Characteristics and Bacterial Survival .................................................. 12
C. Chemical and Physical Hazards in Juice ........................................................ 13
D. Juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) ....................... 14
E. Apple Production and Juice Processing ......................................................... 17
F. Interventions and Technologies to Reduce Bacterial Levels
in Apple Juice ................................................................................................ 22
G. Perceptions of Food Safety ............................................................................ 27
CHAPTER III.
MICHIGAN CIDER CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
AND INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 39
A. Abstract ................................................................................................................ 39
B. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 40
C. Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 43
D. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 45
E. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 50

vii

CHAPTER IV.
MICHIGAN CIDER PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS AND DECISIONS IN

RESPONSE TO JUICE HACCP REGULATION .......................................................... 64
A. Abstract ................................................................................................................ 64
B. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 65
C. Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 68
D. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 69
E. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER V.
APPLE CIDER AND JUICE FOOD SAFETY: A CONSUMER PERCEPTION
SURVEY .......................................................................................................................... 90
A. Abstract ................................................................................................................ 90
B. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 91
C. Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 93
D. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 93
E. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER VI.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................... 110
A. Summary .............................................................................................................. 110
B. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 113
C. Future Research .................................................................................................... 114
APPENDIX A: UCRIHS FORM ..................................................................................... 118
APPENDD( B: 1997 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY ..120
APPENDIX C: 1998 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY ..125
APPENDIX D: 1999 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY...128
APPENDIX E: 2000 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY ...130
APPENDIX F: 2001 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY ...132
APPENDIX G: 2002 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SURVEY...134
APPENDIX H: LETTER FOR PROCESSORS’ PRACTICES SURVEY ..................... 136
APPENDIX 1: CIDER PROCESSORS’ PRACTICES SURVEY ................................... 138
APPENDD( J: LETTER FOR PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS SURVEY .................. 146

viii

APPENDIX K: CIDER PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS SURVEY ............................ 148

APPENDIX L: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-RESPONDENTS ............................ 153
APPENDIX M: THANK YOU LETTER TO PARTCIPANTS ...................................... 155
APPENDIX N: CONSUMER E-MAIL SURVEY .......................................................... 157
APPENDD( 0: APPLE CIDER PROCESSING STEPS ................................................. 163
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 165

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. History of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) ................... 7

Table 2. Juice associated foodbome illness outbreaks in North America
(partial listing) .............................................................................................................. 36

Table 3. Effectiveness of interventions and technologies on pathogens
in apple juice ................................................................................................................ 37

Table 4. Apple inspection and storage practices of Michigan cider processors in

1997 and 2002 .............................................................................................................. 53
Table 5. Processing facilities and manufacturing practices in Michigan cider

mills in 1997 and 2002 ................................................................................................. 54
Table 6. Proportion of Michigan cider mills that used thermal pasteurization

or UV light irradiation between 1997 and 2002 .......................................................... 56
Table 7. Bacterial counts in Michigan apple cider 1997 to 2002 .................................... 57

Table 8. Correlations between bacterial concentrations in Michigan cider
1997-2002 .................................................................................................................... 58

Table 9. Bacterial populations in Michigan cider samples by year
between 1997 and 2002 ............................................................................................... 59

Table 10. Bacterial counts in Michigan cider from mills with different
production volumes ...................................................................................................... 60

Table 11. Bacterial populations in Michigan apple cider from mills using
thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation compared with mills using no
intervention technology ................................................................................................ 62

Table 12. Characteristics of cider mills and processors’ agreement with HACCP
implementation is necessary for cider safety (11 = 52) ................................................. 80

Table 13. Comparison of juice manufacture size deﬁnitions according to the US.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and according to the Michigan Department

of production volumes ................................................................................................. 82

Table 14. Processors’ perceptions of the need and effectiveness of the juice
HACCP regulation and rationalizations for these perceptions .................................... 83

Table 15. Processors’ perceptions of the juice HACCP regulation ................................ 84

Table 16. Responses of processors to the juice HACCP regulation ............................... 85

Table 17. Processors’ perceptions of visiting frequency of consumers to their cider

mill ............................................................................................................................... 86
Table 18. Processors’ perceptions of consumers’ response to the juice HACCP

regulation and rationalizations for these perceptions .................................................. 87
Table 19. Processors’ perceptions of consumers’ motivations to purchase cider ........... 88
Table 20. Cider qualities promoted by processors .......................................................... 89
Table 21. Demographic characteristics of Michigan e-mail respondents and the US.

Population .................................................................................................................... 102
Table 22. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ concerns about potential

hazards
refrigerated juice (n = 497) .......................................................................................... 104

Table 23. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ sources of food safety
information (11 = 497) ................................................................................................... 105

Table 24. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ knowledge of cider labeling
requirements (n = 497) ................................................................................................. 106

Table 25. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ knowledge of food safety
terms (n = 497) ............................................................................................................. 107

Table 26. Labeling statements likely to inﬂuence Michigan apple cider and juice
consumers’ purchase decisions (11 = 497) ........................................................................ 108

Table 27. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers preferred retailer to purchase
refrigerated apple cider or juice with following characteristics (11 = 497) ................... 109

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Number of active cider mills in Michigan stratiﬁed by production volume
of mill (1997-2002) ...................................................................................................... 52

Figure 2. Percentage of cider mills having adequate compliance with Current Good
Manufacturing Practices stratiﬁed by production volume of mill ............................... 55

Figure 3. Total aerobic plate counts of Michigan cider between 1997 and 2002
stratiﬁed by production volume of mill ....................................................................... 61

Figure 4. Total aerobic plate counts in Michigan apple cider using thermal

pasteurization or UV light irradiation compared with mills using no intervention
technology .................................................................................................................... 63

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CDC ................................................... US. Centers or Disease Control and Prevention

CFU .................................................... Colony Forming Unit

CFR .................................................... US. Code of Federal Regulations

CGMPs ............................................... Current Good Manufacturing Practices

CODEX .............................................. Codex Alimentarius Commission

CSA .................................................... Community Supported Agriculture

FDA .................................................... United States Food and Drug Administration

GAPS .................................................. Good Agricultural Practices

HACCP .............................................. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

HTST .................................................. High Temperature Short Time Thermal
Pasteurization

HUS .................................................... Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

MDA .................................................. Michigan Department of Agriculture

NACMCF ........................................... National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods

PEF ..................................................... Pulsed Electrical Field

SEM ................................................... Standard Error of Mean

SSOPs ................................................ Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures

U.S. .................................................... United States

USDA ................................................. United States Department of Agriculture

USGAO .............................................. United States General Accounting Office

UV light ............................................. Ultraviolet light irradiation

xiii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Juice Food Safety Concerns and HACCP

The United States (U .S.) is considered to have one of the safest food supplies in
the world. Research and opinion polls, however, continue to ﬁnd that consumers are
concerned about food safety. To address these concerns, the government agencies
responsible for food safety have investigated foodbome outbreaks to identify sources of
contamination and other factors that contribute to these illnesses. Additional laws and
regulations have been established for foods that the agencies believe present signiﬁcant
risk to consumers. Juice is a food of concern because there have been several well-
publicized foodbome illness outbreaks and the US. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) estimates there are between 16,000 to 48,000 cases of juice-related illnesses each
year in the US. (FDA, 2001).

The FDA recently promulgated a regulation requiring Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems be implemented by the juice industry.
Investigations into juice outbreaks and operating procedures in juice processing facilities
determined that the pathogens, Salmonella spp., E. coli 0157:H7 and Cryptosporidium
parvum, are the most resistant microorganisms of public health signiﬁcance found in
juice and considered to be the pertinent juice pathogens (FDA, 2001).

In January 2001, the FDA published the ﬁnal juice HACCP regulation with
compliance to occur in phases based on the size of the juice manufacturing business. In
January 2002, implementation of the FDA juice HACCP regulation was expected for the
largest juice manufacturers — those having more than 500 employees and not being

deﬁned as small or very small businesses. Small businesses were to comply no later than

January 2003 and were deﬁned as operations employing fewer than 500 employees and
not considered a very small operation. Very small juice manufacturers were required to
comply with the regulation in January 2004 and were deﬁned as those Operations that
have either total annual sales of less than $500,000, or have total annual sales greater than
$500,000 but their total food sales are less than $50,000 or are operations that employ
fewer than an average of 100 full-time equivalent employees and sell fewer than 100,000
units of juice in the US. (FDA, 2001). The juice HACCP regulation states that
signiﬁcant food safety hazards must be addressed at all points in fruit and vegetable
growing, harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of juice. The regulation also
established a performance standard, such that juice products subject to the regulation
must be treated in a manner that will achieve a 5-log reduction of the pertinent pathogens.
An exception was made to the juice HACCP regulation for juice processed and sold at
the same retail establishment and directly to consumers. These juice manufacturers were
exempted from implementing HACCP and a 5-log reduction step to reduce the risk of
pertinent pathogens but were required to have a speciﬁc warning label on juice packaging
informing consumers about the risk of pathogens in the juice (FDA, 2001).

The juice HACCP regulation provides a research opportunity to investigate
processors’ food safety practices and their perceptions of HACCP. HACCP is a well-
established food safety program, in the US. and internationally, and required in most
sectors of the US. food industry (Table 1). HACCP is a systematic approach to the
identiﬁcation, evaluation and control of chemical, physical and biological hazards in the
food supply. The objective of HACCP is to make the food safe and to be able to prove

that food was produced in a manner that ensures its safety.

In 1995, the FDA issued the ﬁrst legislation requiring HAACP implementation in
the seafood industry. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) closely
followed with issuance of a HACCP regulation better known as the “Mega-Reg” in 1996
for the meat and poultry industry (FDA, 2001; National Research Council, 1998;
Stevenson and Bernard, 1999; USDA, 1999).

A report from the US. General Accounting Ofﬁce (U SGAO) into HACCP
compliance found that in the seafood industry, two years after implementation of the
HACCP regulation, only 44% of processors were using HACCP (U SGAO, 2001). This
poor compliance was believed to stem from a lack of processor knowledge, disagreement
with the seafood legislation, and limited enforcement by FDA inspectors. Successful
implementation of HACCP depends upon processors’ consensus that it is beneﬁcial to
improving food safety of their products and agency inspectors ensuring that HACCP
systems are in place and effective (U SGAO, 2001).

Another research opportunity provided by the juice HACCP regulation is to
investigate consumers’ perception of food safety in regards to juice and HACCP.
Surveys of consumers’ perceptions reveal that concerns over food safety are increasing
(Bruhn and Schutz, 1999; Johnson and Grifﬁth, 1996; Unklesbay et al., 1998). At the
same time, perceptions and behaviors are not necessarily correlated. For example, Bruhn
and Schutz (1999) surveyed over 600 California residents, and found that while many
were aware of the cross-contamination risks associated with raw meat and fruits and
vegetables, they would often wash cutting boards and utensils with nothing more than
water. In addition, many relied on sensory perceptions to judge the safety of the food,

instead of safe handling practices. Johnson and Grifﬁth (1996) studied consumers’

perceptions toward seafood and pollution, and concluded that while consumers were
concerned with heavy metals in their seafood, there was not enough information for
consmners to make informed purchase decisions. Consumers involved in focus groups
about food safety of meat were not familiar with HACCP. After an explanation of
HACCP consumers were asked if a HACCP approval seal on the meat package would
increase their conﬁdence in the product and would they be willing to pay a higher price
for the meat if it carried the HACCP seal. Consumers indicated HACCP would increase
their conﬁdence in the product but believed this type of food safety program should
already be the standard operating procedure for meat processors. Therefore, they were
not willing to pay more for a HACCP approval seal (Ford et al., 1998).

This research study investigates Michigan cider processor food safety practices
from 1997 through 2002 and the bacterial populations of Michigan apple cider. We also
surveyed processors in 2002 on their perceptions of the juice HACCP regulation and
cider safety, and Michigan consumers who purchased apple cider and juice during 2002
about their perceptions of juice food safety. Apples, apple cider and juice are important
commodities to the state of Michigan. Michigan is one of the top four apple producing
states and one of the top three states in cider production with approximately 30 percent of
Michigan apples processed into cider each year (Michigan Apple Association, 2004;
Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003).

In this dissertation, the term cider describes unﬁltered apple juice. Cider mills
describe processing plants that process apples into unﬁltered juice and processors of these
plants are referred to as cider processors. In the literature review, the term juice refers to

fruit juice and apple juice is used when the research does not speciﬁc cider.

Objective, Hypotheses And Speciﬁc Aims

The objective of this research was to determine if bacterial hazards and
perceptions of cider by Michigan processors and consumers have changed due to
foooborne illness outbreaks associated with juice and the implementation of the FDA

juice HACCP regulation. My hypothesis is; H0: Because of the FDA juice regulation it

is hypothesized that:
a) From 1997 through 2002, bacterial counts in cider are inﬂuenced by cider mill size and
implementation of technologies to reduce bacterial load;
b) In 2002, practices and perceptions about HACCP differ among processors;
c) In 2002, consumers will be concerned about juice safety and these concerns will
inﬂuence purchase decisions about apple cider and juice.

The speciﬁc aims are:

0 To determine if the size of the cider mill, based on production volume, inﬂuenced
compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices and adoption of
intervention technology, such as thermal pasteurization and ultraviolet light
irradiation and bacterial populations from 1997 through 2002 in Michigan.

0 To determine cider mill processors perceptions about cider food safety and the
FDA Juice HACCP Regulation.

0 To determine Michigan apple cider and juice consurners’ perceptions about food
safety and apple cider or juice.

Data from Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) annual inspections of cider

mills from 1997 through 2002 and bacterial analyses of end-product cider samples were

used for this study. Microbial analysis included total aerobic plate count, total coliforrns,

generic E. coli, and E. coli 0157:H7. In August and September 2002, two surveys were
mailed to cider processors asking about their processing practices and perceptions of the
juice HACCP regulation. In October 2002, an e-mail survey was sent to Michigan
consumers who purchased apple cider and juice to inquire about their perceptions of food
safety and apple cider or juice. Dillman’s (2000) survey research methods were used to
design, write and implement the survey questions and data collection. Data were

analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), Cary, NC.

Table 1. History of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Organization Purpose Description Reference
1959 Pillsbury Space foods As a result of Stevenson and
Company, US NASA food safety Bernard, 1999
Army Natick requirements for
Laboratories and space foods served
NASA during manned
space ﬂights
1973 Pillsbury Company Canned and frozen Cooperative Stevenson and
foods project with FDA Bernard, 1999
to develop
inspections of food
processing
facilities
1973 Food and Drug Low-acid foods CFR 21, Part 113 FDA, 1973
Administration and acidiﬁed outlines initial
(FDA) canned foods principles of
regulations HACCP
1985 National Academy Food safety of Issued report to NAS, 1985
of Sciences (NAS) processed foods establish microbial
criteria of foods
and endorsement
of HACCP
1989 National Advisory Food safety Microbial criteria NACMCF, 1989
Committee on for food and food
Microbial Criteria ingredients and
for Foods seven steps of
(N ACMCF) HACCP
established
1993 Food and Drug Milk and milk Grade A FDA, 1993
Administration products Pasteurized Milk
(FDA) Ordinance (PMO)
requires dairy
processors to
follow PMO based
on HACCP
principles
1995 Food and Drug Seafood CFR 21, Part 123 FDA, 1995
Administration Procedures for the
(FDA) Safe & Sanitary
Processing and
Importing of Fish
and Fisheries
Products
1996 United States Meat and poultry CF R 9, Parts 416 USDA/F SIS, 1996
Department of & 417
Agriculture Pathogen
(USDA) reduction; HACCP

 

 

 

systems for Meat
and Poultry

 

 

 

Table l (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

1997 National Advisory Food safety HACCP Principles NACMCF, 1997
Committee on and Application
Microbial Criteria Guidelines
for Foods
(NACMCF)
1997 Codex Food safety of International CODEX General
Alimentarius processed foods adoption of Principles of Food
Committee on HACCP Hygiene, 1997
Food Hygiene
(CODEX)
2001 Food and Drug Juice CF R 21, Part 120 FDA, 2001
Administration HACCP;
(FDA) Procedures for the
Safe and Sanitary
Processing and
Importing of Juice;
Final Rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Juice Foodborne Illness Outbreaks and Bacterial Hazards

The FDA estimates there are between 16,000-48,000 juice-related illnesses per
year in the United States (FDA, 2001). The majority of these illnesses are believed to
results from the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in juice. Unpasteurized juices
are of greatest concern because of a signiﬁcant number of foodbome illness outbreaks
associated with consumption of these products (Table 2). These outbreaks generally have
resulted either from use of contaminated ﬁ'uit or improper sanitation during processing.
The quality of incoming fruit and appropriate methods to clean and sanitize fruit and
processing equipment are most critical when processing unpasteurized juice (Besser, et
al., 1993; FDA, 2001). The ability of some pathogens (e.g., E. coli 01 57:H7, Salmonella
spp. and Cryptosporidium parvum) to survive under the mildly acidic conditions of apple
and orange juice has further heightened concern about the safety of unpasteurized juice
products (FDA, 2001; Zhao et al., 1993).

The presence of pathogens in untreated juice was reported as early as 1923 when
Salmonella Typhimurium was traced to unpasteurized cider (Parish, 2000). Heightened
awareness about pathogens in fresh juice occurred in 1974 when the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report about an outbreak because of to
Salmonella Typhimurium in commercial unpasteurized apple juice. The presence of
Salmonella in the unpasteurized juice was believed to have resulted from the juice being
made from apples that had fallen to the ground where they were exposed to manure. The
contaminated apples were then processed under poor sanitation conditions (CDC, 1975).

In 1980, fresh unpasteurized apple juice was suspected to be the cause of several cases of

hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) in Canada after the victims drank the fresh juice;
however, because of a lack of samples the cause of the illnesses was not conﬁrmed
(Steele, et al., 1982; Parrish, 2000). In 1982, E. coli 0157:H7 was identiﬁed as a human
pathogen (Doyle, 1991). A conﬁrmed HUS outbreak in the United States in 1991 was
linked to consumption of fresh-pressed unpasteurized apple juice (FDA, 1998). E. coli
0157:H7 was found in the unpreserved refrigerated apple juice and the organism was
believed to have survived for over 20 days (Zhao, et al,. 1993). The juice was made from
apples that had dropped from trees and were not washed before processing. It was
concluded that fresh unpreserved apple juice could transmit E. coli 01572H7, and using
only tree-picked, washed and brushed apples would reduce the risk of transmission of E.
coli 0157:H7 into the ﬁnished juice (Besser et al., 1993). In 1996, two foodbome illness
outbreaks were traced back to the presence of E. coli 01 57:H7 in unpasteurized apple
juice. One incident involved several people becoming ill at a church function after
consuming unpasteurized cider (CDC, 1996; FDA, 1999) and the second was a multi-
state HUS outbreak in the western US. and Canada. The latter outbreak involved 70
people, of which 50 percent were children under ﬁve years of age, and caused the death
of one child (CDC, 1996). Again, these incidents were believed to have occurred due to
improper handling of the fruit and poor sanitation during processing (Parish, 1997).
Unpasteurized orange juice contaminated with Salmonella spp. has been
associated with several foodbome illness outbreaks. Testing of the contaminated orange
juice from the 1995 outbreak conﬁrmed the presence of three serotypes of Salmonella
(Hartford, Gaminara and Rubislaw) and a second outbreak in 1999 was attributed to

Salmonella Muenchen. In 2000, a third outbreak occurred and Salmonella Enteritidis

10

was found in the unpasteurized orange juice. These foodbome illness outbreaks all
resulted from poor sanitation practices, processing equipment not being properly cleaned
and the processing facility not adequately screened or secured to prevent the entrance of
insects and animals (Cook, etal., 1998; FDA 2001; Parrish, 1997, 1998, 2000).

Two foodbome illness outbreaks associated with apple juice and the presence of
Cryptosporidium parvum have occurred, one in 1996 and one in 2003 (Table 2). The
1996 outbreak was investigated since Cryptosporidium parvum, a protozoan parasite, is
commonly recognized as a waterborne parasite. Cryptosporidium oocysts are extremely
stable and can remain infectious for long periods of time in water and food. The
investigation found oocysts to be resistant to sanitizers used in wash water for apples, and
the CDC suggested that the apples might have been the source of the contamination
(CDC 1996; Ohio Department of Health, 2003).

The bacterial agents of most concern in acidic juice (pH 4.6 or less) include E.
coli 0157:H7, various Salmonella spp. and the protozoan parasite Cryptosporidium
parvum. Listeria monocytogenes is also considered a possible pertinent pathogen of
concern due to its ubiquitous nature. These pathogens can thrive on damaged ﬁ'uit. If
this fruit is used in juice production, the pathogens have the ability to resist sanitizers and
survive in acidic conditions.

It is believed that using damaged fruit along with inadequate processing controls
are the reasons for juice-associated foodbome illness outbreaks (FDA, 2004). Pathogens
contaminate ﬁ'uit through contact with feces, contaminated water or soil, insects or

equipment surfaces. Their presence in juice can be controlled through the appropriate use

11

Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) and a lethality step in processing (FDA,
2002; FDA 2004).
B. Juice Characteristics and Bacterial Survival

Although juice-associated foodbome illness outbreaks were reported as early as
1923 (Table 2), research and food safety concerns were not focused on bacteria surviving
and growing in juice. Fruit is high in moisture content, has a high percentage of
carbohydrate and a low pH, ranging from 2.9 to 5.0 depending on the fruit. Fruit is also
protected by a skin serving as a protective barrier that discourages microorganisms from
invading the inside of the fruit (Jay, 1996).

There are two types of microorganisms that can adhere to the surface of fruit. The
ﬁrst is a natural ﬂoral consisting of aerobic non-pathogenic bacteria, yeast and molds that
attach to the fruit surface. The second type of microorganisms found on fruit results from
external forces such as wind, soil, dust, rain, ﬂoods, insects, birds and rodents. These
microorganisms, which may include pathogens, can contaminate the fruit’s surface and
vary geographically and from orchard to orchard. When an injury occurs to the fruit’s
surface, microorganisms can penetrate to the interior and grow depending on the
temperature, presence of moisture and length of exposure (Doores, 1993; Jay, 1996).

The pH of the apple may also be a factor in supporting the presence of pathogens.
Fisher and Golden (1998) found Golden and Red Delicious apples tend to support the
growth of E. coli 0157:H7 due to their higher pH compared with other apple varieties.
Another study found that mold on the apple’s surface can cause damage and raise the
apple’s pH. If a pathogen, such as E. coli 01 57:H7, is present on a mold-damaged apple

it can enter the interior and grow due to the higher pH (Doores, 1993).

12

Concerns about pathogens surviving in juice were validated by research that
investigated the pH and cold tolerance of E. coli 01572H7. This pathogen can survive at
pH below 4.0 and at typical reﬁigeration temperatures of approximately 4.4°C (40°F)
(Riordan et al., 2001; Tauxe et al., 1997; Zhao et al., 1993)

This research study focuses on bacterial hazards in Michigan cider; however,
other hazards can occur in cider processing such as chemical and physical hazards.

C. Chemical and Physical Hazards in Juice

In addition to bacterial hazards, chemical and physical hazards are a concern in
juice. Chemical hazards can exist if sanitizers or other chemicals used to clean
equipment are not properly used. For example, residual cleaning or sanitizing solution
may contaminate the product if equipment or plumbing is not effectively rinsed following
cleaning and sanitizing procedures. An example of this occurred in 2002, when orange
juice was recalled due to the likely presence of equipment cleaning solution (FDA, 2002).
Another chemical hazard associated with juice is the mycotoxin patulin in apple juice.
Patulin is produced in rotting and moldy apples. Fallen and damaged apples are
susceptible to the growth of patulin-producing molds. Improper or extended storage of
apples (more than a few months) encourages patulin growth. High levels of patulin may
occur in juice, including pasteurized juice, because thermal processing does not
effectively destroy patulin. Exposure to high levels of patulin over time can be a health
hazard. The FDA has established an action level for patulin of 50 micrograms per
kilogram (FDA, 2001).

Undeclared food allergens in juice represent another chemical hazard that may

result from cross-contamination from shared processing equipment. Many large juice

13

manufacturers use the same equipment to process milk. If the equipment is inadequately
cleaned, any milk protein left on the equipment could contaminate the juice resulting in a
milk allergen concern. Other chemical hazards that should be considered in a HACCP
plan include pesticide residues from treated ﬁ'uit, possible lead contamination stemming
from the historical use of lead arsenate as an insecticide and tin if the fruit juice is
packaged into cans (FDA, 2004).

Physical hazards are generally classiﬁed as any potentially harmful extraneous
matter not normally found in food and capable of causing personal injury. Examples of
physical hazards that may occur in juice include glass fragments because of breakage if
juice is packaged in glass containers or metal that may arise from equipment during
processing. Each potential hazard needs to be evaluated based on the processing
operation and the likelihood of the hazard (FDA, 2004). Investigation in the chemical
and physical hazards in cider is not included in this research.

D. Juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)

In August 1997, the FDA published a notice of intent announcing a
comprehensive program to address foodbome illness and hazards associated with juice
products. The ﬁrst regulation, promulgated in 1998, required a warning statement on the
product label for juice products that were not processed using HACCP or a lethality step
that would achieve a cumulative 5-log reduction of the pertinent pathogens. The warning
statement reads; “WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and, therefore, may
contain harmful bacteria which can cause serious illness in children, the elderly, and
persons with weakened immune systems.” In addition, educational programs on juice

safety and HACCP were established for juice manufacturers.

14

In 1998, the FDA announced its intention to require juice processors to develop
and implement HACCP systems. A lengthy process whereby the agency sought public
comments and scientiﬁc advice ensued. During the comment period additional
consideration was given to four areas: 1) internalization and survival of pathogens in
produce used for juice, 2) application of the 5-log reduction standard, 3) current methods
used by juice processors to monitor the application of heat treatment to juice and 4)
certain economic matters related to the juice regulation. For the areas of internalization
and survival of pathogens, and application and measurement of the 5-log reduction
standard, the FDA sought the guidance of the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF). NACMCF members concurred that it is
theoretically possible for microorganisms to enter the interior of apparently sound, intact
fruit under certain processing conditions, such as when temperature differences occur
between the ﬁ'uit and the wash water. The committee concurred that the likelihood of
bacteria entering intact fruit via wash water in concentrations sufﬁcient to cause
foodbome illness was relatively low. However, once a pathogen is introduced into the
ﬁ'uit juice, it can survive the juice’s acidic pH (FDA 1999; FDA 2001).

NACMCF also provided the FDA with ﬁve basic consensus decisions related to
the application and measurement of a 5-log reduction standard for juice. The ﬁve
decisions stated that the 5-log reduction need not start with the extracted juice but may
begin with the exterior decontamination of fruit. However, processors should not begin
calculation of the cumulative S-log reduction until the fruit is cleaned and culled.
Secondly, a possible method to minimize potential microbial inﬁltration into the fruit

would be controlling the wash water temperatures, as well as excluding damaged fruit.

15

This was based on research concluding that microbes can penetrate into damaged fruit
when warm fruit is washed with cold water (Annous et al., 1995; Kenney et al., 2001).
Thirdly, the entire 5-log reduction must occur under one ﬁrm’s control and in one
processing facility. If processors transport fruit or juice to another facility for extraction,
blending or ﬁnal packaging, then a S-log reduction must be accomplished in the second
facility. F ourthly, bulk juice repacked at another facility must have a 5-log reduction
process at the ﬁnal packing facility. Lastly, as part of the HACCP veriﬁcation program,
ﬁrms must conduct microbial testing on the ﬁnal product if the 5-log reduction process
relies in part on fruit surface treatment. This testing would verify the 5-log reduction
process by testing for generic E. coli as a means to assess the control of the process and
utilize the appropriate bacteria sampling method, conducted as part of the HACCP plan.
Although generic E. coli is not a pathogen, its presence is an indicator of fecal
contamination that may indicate the presence of pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7,
Salmonella spp. and Cryptosporidium parvum. If the end-product tests positive for
generic E. coli then testing is to be conducted for speciﬁc pathogens of concern (FDA,
2001)

Based on the history of outbreaks from juice products, the Fresh Produce
Subcommittee of the NACMCF and several other organizations recommended to the
FDA that they move toward adopting mandatory HACCP for the juice industry to assist
in reducing microbiological risks associated with juice. In response to this and other
input, the FDA published the ﬁnal regulation - Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP); Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Juice;

Final Rule (21 CF R Part 120) in January 2001. Required compliance with the juice

l6

HACCP regulation was phased in over a three-year period with large, small and very
small processors having to implement HACCP systems in January 2002, 2003 and 2004
respectively. FDA did not accept all of the NACMCF’S recommendations and made the
following exceptions; 1) the juice HACCP regulation only applies to 100% juice
beverage products and 2) retail establishments or businesses that make and sell juice
directly to consumers and do not sell juice to other businesses are exempt from the juice
HACCP regulation, but must comply with F DA’s food labeling regulation that requires a
warning statement on packaged fruit and vegetable juice products that have not been
processed using a lethality step to reduce the risk of pathogens (FDA, 2001).
E. Apple Production and Juice Processing

The juice HACCP regulation applies to the processing of juice. It does not
directly apply to the growing, harvesting and transporting of fruits and vegetables that are
used to process juice. However, growers, transporters and juice processors are
encouraged to undertake some activities and functions that are not HACCP control
measures but serve as prerequisites for a HACCP plan. These activities and functions
include Good Agriculture Practices (GAPS), Current Good Manufacturing Practices
(CGMPS) and Sanitation Standard Operating Practices (SSOPs) from the orchard to
storage and distribution of the bottled juice. Juice processing research investigating
possible contamination venues from growing and harvesting to the ﬁnal product support
the use of GAPS and CGMPS to reduce the risk of pathogens contaminating juice. The
entire juice processing process needs to be evaluated since contamination can be

attributed to many factors throughout processing (Dingman, 1999).

17

Practices in the orchard such as the water used, presence of animals, harvesting of
dropped apples and timing of harvesting can increase the risk of coliforms, generic E. coli
and E. coli 0157:H7 being present on or in fruit. It is recommended that precautions be
taken in the orchard to prevent animals from contaminating the water for irrigation.
Processors also need to take safeguards to reduce the roaming of animals in the orchard
due to potential contamination from fecal droppings. In addition, uncomposted manure is
not to be used as a fertilizer since it is a source of E. coli and other pathogens. Workers
also need to practice good personal hygiene and sanitation while in the orchard and while
harvesting apples to prevent contamination of the apples, harvesting equipment and
storage containers (Castelnuovo and Ingham, 2001; FDA, 1998; FDA, 2004).

In a study to determine potential orchard reservoirs of E. coli 0157:H7, fourteen
apple orchards located throughout the United States were investigated in late September
1999. Irrigation water in three of the orchards tested positive for generic E. coli.
Orchards that allowed animals to roam had a higher incidence of generic E. coli and
coliforms on the fruit than those that had fences to prevent roaming animals. E. coli
0157:H7 was not detected in the soil of any of the orchards (Riordan et al., 2001). Ujlas
and Ingharn (2000) also determined that the proximity of the orchard to pastures where
animals roamed and the potential for water run-off from livestock operations also
increased the presence of E. coli and coliforms in the orchard soil.

Culling of the fruit to separate dropped, damaged or decayed fruit is particularly
important in juice processing since damaged fruit is more likely to carry pathogens.
Several studies investigating the presence of coliforms and generic E. coli on apples,

before processing, found dropped apples had the highest counts of total coliforms and

18

generic E. coli (Riordan et al., 2001; Dingrnan, 1999; Uljas and Ingham, 2000). In a
1991 study, all of the cider producers surveyed used dropped apples to make apple cider
(Besser et al. 1993). It is important to note that this study was conducted before the large
outbreaks of E. coli 0157:H7 associated with apple cider were widely recognized (Besser
et al., 1993). In more recent surveys, dropped apples continue to be used, but to a lesser
extent. Wright et al. (2000) found that 32 percent of apple cider producers surveyed used
dropped apples while Uljas and Ingharn (2000) found only 14 percent of producers
surveyed used dropped apples. In Michigan, based on state inspections, the use of
dropped apples to make juice was less than 10 percent in 2002 (Wojtala, 2003).

The timing and duration of apple storage may also inﬂuence the presence of
generic E. coli and E. coli 0157:H7. A Connecticut orchard study found that apples
harvested and later stored in the season (mid-October to mid-November) had a higher
incidence of E. coli and E. coli 0157:H7 than apples harvested and stored earlier in the
season (mid-September to early October). The higher incidence of E. coli in apples
harvested and stored later was believed to be due to the apples coming in contact with
more rodents and birds as the weather became colder. Storage containers also can be a
source of contamination and need to be kept ﬂee from debris, cleaned after each use and
then stored to prevent access to rodents, birds and wildlife. To reduce exposure to
animals and pathogens it is recommended that apples be stored covered in a cool area
(Dingman, 1999). Harvesting practices such as selecting undamaged tree-picked apples,
good personal hygiene of workers and proper storage are important to help prevent juice
contamination. However, research also has found that contamination cannot be directly

tracked to harvesting practices (Riordan et al., 2001).

19

CGMPS are required for personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment and
utensils, production and process controls and warehousing and distribution. CGMPS for
personnel include disease control, cleanliness, educational training and supervision. The
employee practices that can reduce the likelihood of pathogens include ensuring the
workers are free of illness and frequently wash their hands with soap. Additional good
employee practices to prevent contamination and foreign objects from entering juice
include wearing of clean outer garments, hairnets or caps, removal of j ewelry and other
objects that may fall into food, equipment or containers, and avoid eating or drinking in
the food processing area. In addition, employees are to be trained on proper food
handling and supervisors are responsible for ensuring employees are following good
personal hygiene practices (Stevenson and Bernard, 1999).

The juice processing building and facilities should be fully enclosed, have
sufﬁcient space for equipment, have hot and cold running water, have adequate storage
for chemicals away from processing equipment and food, and be adequately screened to
prevent the entry of animals or insects. Precautions need to be taken to ensure processing
areas are cleaned and sanitized frequently to protect against food contamination (FDA,
1998)

Processing CGMPS start with the washing and brushing of apples used for juice
production to reduce the risk of contamination. The wash water needs to be potable and
not re-circulated and brusher units should be cleaned and sanitized on a regular basis.
Wash water temperature is an important consideration. Research on wash water
temperatures and apples found that when the water is more than 10 °F cooler than the

fruit, bacteria are more likely to penetrate through wounds or the apple’s stem or calyx

20

(Kenney et al., 2002). Sanitizers such as chlorine, organic acids, and hydrogen peroxide
often are used to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination through wash water.
Sanitizers can result in a 2- to 3-log reduction of total bacterial populations on apple
surfaces. However, research also indicates that certain pathogens can become tolerant of
sanitizers (Kenney et al., 2001; Sapers et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2000).

Bacteria such as E. coli can easily bind to small puncture wounds on the apple
surfaces as well as onto the apple stems or the calyx end. If bacteria penetrate the apple
subsurfaces through wounds they may be protected from decontamination treatments.
Difficulty associated with removal of microorganisms from fruit surfaces reinforces the
need for additional measures to control pathogens in juice products (Annous et al., 2001;
Sapers et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2000).

Appropriate cleaning and sanitation of the hammer mill, press and press clothes
are critical to prevent cross-contamination. Equipment needs to thoroughly cleaned and
sanitized after each juice production run. To emphasize the need for proper sanitation of
this processing step, Annous et al. (2001) found that cross-contamination can occur at the
hammer mill and pressing stage due to protected bacteria in the apple subsurfaces being
released during apple crushing. Improper sanitation of the mill, press and press clothes
can allow pathogens to survive and infect additional batches of cider. After pressing the
apples, cider is placed in a holding tank. Tanks can be a source of contamination if not
covered and thoroughly cleaned and sanitized before use. Annous et al. (2001) did not

ﬁnd tanks to be a source of cross-contamination.

21

F. Interventions and Technologies to Reduce Bacterial Levels in Apple Juice

The juice HACCP regulation requires a 5-log pathogen reduction of the pertinent
pathogens of concern. The pathogens of concern are E. coli 0157:H7 and
Cryptosporidium parvum for apple cider and juice, and Salmonella spp. for citrus juices
(FDA, 2004). For citrus juices, pathogen reduction treatments can be applied to the
surface of the citrus fruit prior to extracting the juice. For other fruit and vegetable
juices, the 5-log pathogen reduction must occur aﬁer the juice has been extracted. The 5-
log reduction must occur in a single facility that also packages the juice for sale.
Exceptions to this portion of the HACCP regulation have been granted when high degree
Brix juice concentrates are used, or when the bulk transport and packaging of shelf-stable
single strength juice is transported in aseptic packaging.

The FDA has approved both thermal pasteurization and UV light irradiation as
one-step processes to control microorganisms (FDA, 2004). The juice HACCP
regulation allows for multiple processing steps to be used to achieve the 5-log reduction
of pertinent pathogens and research has investigated a variety of methods (Table 3).

Chemical preservatives are effective germicides since they are able to denature
bacterial enzymes resulting in cell death and thereby prolong shelf life of the product
(Jay, 1996). Sodium benzoate and potassitun sorbate are the most commonly used
preservatives in apple juice. Sodium benzoate in combination with potassium sorbate is
the most effective and these chemicals also tend to reduce the heat resistance of E. coli
0157:H7 (Zhao et al., 1993). Preservatives alone can achieve up to a 3-log reduction in
pathogens, but this reduction can take as long as twenty-one days (Kasper and Miller,

1994). When 50 milligrams of sulfur dioxide was added to a liter of cider, a 5-log

22

reduction of E. coli 0157:H7 was achieved after approximately 4.5 hours at ambient
temperatures. However sulfur dioxide alters the sensory characteristics of the cider and it
may not be acceptable to consumers (Worobo et al., 1998). Dimethyl dicarbonate is also
effective in achieving a 5-log reduction for E. coli 0157:H7, but it is not approved for use
in cider (Worobo et al., 1998). Researchers conclude that chemical preservatives need to
be used in combination with other treatments to achieve a 5-log reduction, and not be the
primary method to reduce bacterial load in cider (Miller and Kaspar, 1994; Worobo
1998)

A 5-log reduction of E. coli 0157:H7 in cider was achieved with the combined
use of copper ion water and sodium hypochlorite followed by sonication at 44 to 48 kHz
(Rogers and Ryser, 2004). Additional investigation is needed to assess implementation,
application, and feasibility of this process in actual production facilities and any effect on
the sensory attributes on the cider.

Fermentation of cider is an effective method to reduce E. coli 0157:H7 by more
than a 5-log reduction after 3 days. However, the fermented cider contains ethanol and is
no longer considered a juice (Semanchek and Golden, 1996).

Storing cider at -20°C, followed by thawing and refreezing cycles, achieved a 1-
log reduction of E. coli 0157:H7. Decreases in bacterial populations resulted after each
freeze-thaw cycle (Yamamoto, 2001). Sage and Ingham (1998) studied freeze-thaw
cycles and the injury of E. coli 0157:H7, and found inconsistency in the rates at which
cells are injured. The sensory characteristics of the resulting cider also may not be
acceptable. Freezing would need to be used in combination with another method to

achieve a 5-log reduction.

23

Ozone treatment technology involves pumping ozone into juice to destroy
bacteria. In a study using ozone to inactivate E. coli 0157:H7, it took 240 minutes at 4°C
to achieve a 5-log reduction. At higher concentrations of juice solids, the length of ozone
treatment had to be increased. In addition, sensory characteristics of the juice changed
and were not acceptable by taste testers in the study. The length of time to achieve the
required bacterial reduction and adverse effects on sensory characteristics may prevent
ozone treatment from being a feasible and cost-effective treatment for juice processing
(Williams, 2001).

Ultraﬁltration is another technology effective in reducing bacterial levels.
Ultraﬁltration is essentially a sieving or ﬁltering process using a membrane based on the
Size and shape of the compound. Flavor, color and nutrient characteristics are often
maintained. Ultraﬁltration of apple juice can achieve a 5-log reduction in aerobic plate
count, molds and yeasts. Because of the relatively large size of solids in apple cider,
multiple membranes are necessary to ﬁlter the juice and can result in variability in
reduction of bacterial populations. Additionally, ultraﬁltration technology may not be
cost or time effective in cider mills (Ortega-Rivas et al., 1998).

Buchanan et al. (1998) investigated the effectiveness of low-dose gamma
irradiation on reducing E. coli 0157:H7 in apple juice. Gamma irradiation was effective
at refrigerated temperatures, but juice having high solids contents required an increased
dose of irradiation and longer exposure times to achieve the 5-log reduction. Sensory
characteristics of the juice were also altered. Additional research is needed to further

validate appropriate procedures for the use of gamma irradiation with juice.

24

High-pressure treatment involves the application of extremely high hydrostatic
pressure in combination with time and temperature to reduce bacterial populations.
High-pressure treatment also maintains sensory characteristics of the cider. Hi gh-pressure
treatment in commercial settings has achieved a 5-log reduction of E. coli 0157:H7 in
juice when using pressures of 80,000 psi for 30 seconds (Balasubramaniam, 2000).
High-pressure technology using 80,000 psi for 60 seconds achieved a 3-log reduction in
Cryptosporidium parvum in inoculated apple and orange juice; however, the researchers
recommended additional validation testing since results varied due to juice solids (Sliﬂco
et al., 2000).

Pulsed electrical ﬁeld (PEF) treatment involves the application of rapidly varying
electric ﬁelds through a liquid medium. Research using an electrical ﬁeld strength of 80
kV/cm and frequency of 30 pulses at 42°C resulted in cell injury and death and
achievement of a 5-log reduction of E. coli 0157:H7 in inoculated apple cider (Iu et al.,
2001). Care needs to be taken when using PEF to control pathogens because results can
vary depending on the concentration of juice solids (Evrendilek et al., 2003; FDA, 2004).

UV light irradiation is a FDA approved treatment for the processing of juice.
Research at Cornell University validated that UV light treatment using the CiderSure
system consistently achieved a 5-log reduction of E. coli 0157:H7 in apple juice. Several
factors can inﬂuence the effectiveness of UV light treatment in reducing pathogen
numbers. These factors include exposure time, the amount of juice solids and the
presence of compounds such as benzoate that quench UV light (Duffy et al., 2000; FDA,
2004; Senkel et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2000; Worobo, 1998). Hanes et al. (2002)

assessed the potential of UV light to inactivate Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts that

25

were inoculated into apple cider. Effectiveness of UV light treatment against
Cryptosporidium parvum was assessed through a mouse feeding bioassay. Mice were
administered apple cider inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum before and after UV
treatment. The CiderSure system was utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of UV light to
inactivate the ooycts. Cider was inoculated at varying concentrations of Cryptosporidium
parvum oocysts with the highest being 10". Mice drinking the untreated contaminated
cider became ill or died. Mice given the UV treated cider, regardless of the pathogen
concentration, had no adverse reactions, indicating that UV light effectively inactivates
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (Hanes et al., 2002). Processors choosing to use UV
light cannot label their juice as pasteurized since this implies thermal pasteurization.
Labeling terms allowed with this lethality step include “treated with UV light to control
pathogens”, “treated with UV light to control harmful bacteria”, or “UV treated”. Juice
processed using UV light cannot be labeled as “fresh” (FDA, 2004).

High temperature, short time (HTST) thermal pasteurization involves using a
constant time and temperature and has consistently proven to be the most effective
method to achieve a S-log reduction of the pertinent pathogens in juice. One concern
with thermal processing is that an undesirable cooked ﬂavor can result either when the
cider iS heated at excessively high temperatures or for extended periods of times.
Temperature and time combinations to achieve a S-log reduction in E. coli 0157:H7
without noticeable effects on the sensory characteristics of cider were reported by
Splitstoessor et al. (1995). They determined that effective thermal pasteurization regimes
were 71.1°C (160°F) for 6 seconds for apple juice and 71.1°C (160°F) for 11 seconds for

cider containing >50% Red Delicious apples due to the higher pH (Splittstoesser et al.,

26

1995; Worobo, 1998). Mak et al. (2001) determined that 681°C (155°F) for 14 seconds
or 71.1°C (160°F) for 6 seconds was sufﬁcient to achieve a 5-log reduction of E. coli
0157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes. Sensory characteristics of the
juice were still acceptable to consumers (Mak et al., 2001). Although thermal
pasteurization is highly effective, the equipment is expensive and may not be feasible for
many small cider producers (Kozempel et al., 1998; McLellan and Splitstoesser, 1996;
Worobo, 2001).

The requirements of the juice HACCP regulation will impact the amount of time
and money juice processors spend in additional surveillance and record-keeping as well
as upgrades to their processing facilities and equipment (Kozempel et al., 1998, Worobo,
2001). Juice processors have been aware of the impending juice HACCP regulation since
1997. Investigation into how processors’ practices have changed in anticipation of the
juice HACCP regulation and their perceptions of HACCP can help determine if
additional measures are needed to ensure compliance with the new regulation.

The overall goal of HACCP is to provide safe food to the public. Consumers state
they are concerned about food safety and investigations into public perceptions of food
safety, where they receive food safety information and their food safety concerns may
also help determine how to educate both processors and consumers about juice safety.

G. Perceptions of Food Safety

Americans are faced with many decisions when choosing food and react to food
safety information based on personal experience, information received and perceived risk
(Sparks and Shepard, 1994). Prominent food safety issues, such as foodbome illness

outbreaks, continue to occur and receive attention from the media and consumers. A

27

popular opinion study found that two-thirds of Americans are concerned about food
safety (Roper, 2001). The International Food Information Council (1999) found that
public concern about foodbome risks often exceeds concerns for other health and safety
hazards, despite government assurances that the US. food supply is one of the safest in
the world.

Consumer’s reactions to food safety issues are inﬂuenced by their lifestyle,
demographics and information sources (Yeung and Morris, 2001). In a study
investigating personal food safety behaviors, it was found that belief in practicing
positive health behaviors, such as eating healthier or exercising, socio-demographic
factors and especially the presence of children in the household, are indicators as to
whether or not a person follows food safety recommendations and how they evaluate
personal risks (Schafer et al., 1993). Herrmann et al. (1997) studied reactions to food
safety issues and found households with young children tend to be the most reactive and
likely to make a change in their food behaviors due to a food safety issue.

A survey of consumers’ attitudes about food safety found over 50 percent were
concerned about food safety. Signiﬁcant differences among sex, race, education, age and
presence of children were found, with the greatest differences occurring with mothers of
younger children, older women and women with higher education levels (Herrmann et
al., 2000). Another study about food safety attitudes utilized focus groups and found
adults of all ages were concerned about food safety but they “did not lose sleep over food
safety”. Older adults indicated they believed food safety was a recent phenomenon

driven by the media (Roe et al., 2001).

28

Although consumers indicate they are concerned and knowledgeable about food
safety, many consumers do not necessarily make food purchases based on food safety or
practice food safety in the home. Of those actually following food safety
recommendations, females, older individuals and those preparing food for large
households were more likely to follow recommended food safety practices than men,
younger adults and those in smaller households (Meer and Misner, 2000).

Studies have also examined whether or not poor food safety practices stemmed
from a lack of knowledge. A survey on food safety knowledge found that 15 percent of
consumers surveyed felt they were very knowledgeable about food safety, 65 percent
considered themselves somewhat knowledgeable, 19 percent felt they were not very
knowledgeable and one percent not knowledgeable at all (Bruhn and Schutz, 1999).
Consumers often have a broad and moderate knowledge about food safety, and their
concerns differ depending on the consumers’ personal perspectives and needs (Roe et al.,
2001)

Consumers are exposed to information from the mass media, health professionals,
scientists, other credible individuals, and food labels. Although consumers vary in their
concern, knowledge and food preparation practices, they seem to use two common
information sources. Hermann et al. (2000), in a survey on nutrition and food safety
information sources, found over 75 percent of consumers surveyed rely on news stories
and food labels as their primary information sources. Another survey asking consumers
where they learned about food safety practices, identiﬁed the media as the top source

followed by family and friends (Meer and Misner, 2000).

29

In a food safety survey by Bruhn and Schutz (1999), in which consumers were
asked what information sources were the most credible, they selected university
scientists, health professionals, and science and consumer interest magazines; however,
these were also the least referred to sources.

Journalists, scientists and government agencies communicate food safety issues,
but during a food safety crisis consumers receive the most information from the media.
In an analysis of food safety news stories over twelve years, journalists reported on the
same story several times and in different publications creating clusters of information,
especially in a time of crisis. In addition, journalists emphasized elements of the issue
through colorful language to amplify the food safety risk (Ten Eyck, 2000). Haynes
(2000), in an editorial on the media and health scares, stated health and food issues are
often caused by journalists taking research ﬁndings out of context due to lack of
understanding the research. Stories are often reported as fact when they are largely based
on speculation. The reporting on food issues often results in consumers losing
conﬁdence in scientists and other authorities who have the most knowledge about food
safety (Grose, 1988).

Sandman (1997) in a discussion on food safety risk perceptions commented that
people often separate risks into two lists, those that kill you and those that alarm you.
These lists are very different and he believes it is the way in which risks are
communicated from the scientist to the journalist that has led to confusion and
misunderstandings about food safety. To help consumers decipher research ﬁndings
reported in the news and put more of a realistic focus on food safety issues, the

International Food Information Council (1998) stresses it is important for government

30

agencies, health professionals, university scientists and journalists to create a framework
in which risks from food and other concerns can be compared to help reduce food safety
scares in the media.

As consumers translate information from news stories to their personal risk
assessment, they may or may not use the information to make decisions about food. In an
investigation into the public perception of food scares in the United Kingdom, Fife-
Schaw and Rowe (1996) found that food choices tend to be personal and driven by a
range of factors not present in many public debates over food hazards. Most food choices
are habitual and decisions are made based on taste appeal, familiarity, nutritional proﬁle
and how the food made them feel after eating it. Eating is not considered to be
hazardous, except in the time of a food scare (Sparks and Shepard, 1994). Research on
the media and food safety issues concludes that severity, awareness, exposure and
personal relevance to a potential food hazard affect how consmners perceive food risks
and apply these risks to their attitude and behavior about food Gife-Schaw and Rowe,
1996; Sparks and Shepard, 1994).

Consumers also rely on food labels as a reliable and important information
source. Herrman et al. (2000) found that survey participants who were most interested in
food safety were frequent readers of food labels. Consumers concerned about health and
food safety read the food label to check ingredients, food additives, preservatives and
allergens (Meer and Misner, 2000; Nayga et al., 1997). Food processors and
manufacturers have included messages concerning safety, preparation and storage on
labels for fresh meats and produce with the goal of increasing the foods’ perceived

quality. It is uncertain, however, if consumers actually use this information to prepare

31

and store food (Caswell and Moj duszka, 1996). When consumers were presented with
food safety information on food labels, they felt this information was helpful in making a
purchase decision but only if the statement was not too detailed and provided positive
information to help them make food choices (Roe etal., 2001). To determine if including
HACCP statements on meat packaging increased consumer conﬁdence about the food
and manufacturer, a series of focus groups were held with consumers. Those consumers
who participated believed the HACCP statement helped to build conﬁdence in the
product and manufacturer, but they were not in agreement as to whether or not it
warranted paying a higher price for the food. Many of the consumers indicated that they
believed food safety programs should be mandatory and common practice in
manufacturing and that they should not have to pay if a manufacturer followed HACCP
(Ford et al., 1998).

Bocker and Hanf (2000) examined what happens to brand names, manufacturers,
retailers and conﬁdence in products after a food safety issue. They found that if trust in a
product was established before a food scare, it is more easily regained. Therefore, if a
consumer has had many safe experiences with a product, believes it has high quality, and
trusts the manufacturer or distributor, the food scare will have little affect on long-term
purchases. This also is supported by a study conducted on brand name recognition
among college students. The students were presented with negative publicity on favorite
brands for a variety of products. Those that initially trusted the brands continued to do so
regardless of the bad news (Ahluwalia et al., 2000).

Trust in food labeling information, brand names and manufacturers affects both

the consumer and food processor. Over the course of the past four decades, agriculture

32

has evolved from the local farmer producing the local food to our current national and
international food distribution systems. The processors who tend to be the most affected
by consumer concerns are the smaller farmers and processors who serve a smaller
number of consumers. If a concern arises with products of a small producer, consumers
can easily ﬁnd another food source (Stevenson, 1998;Torjunsen et al., 2001). In addition,
small processors generally lack the methods or ﬁnancial means to fully test their products
as would be normal among larger manufacturers, putting smaller processors at Slightly
higher risk for food safety issues (Auld etal., 1994). Although the food system has
evolved, consumers still believe that locally produced food is fresher, safer and more
nutritious (Jolly et al., 1989; Torjunsen et al., 2001).

Consumers and food processors often share many of the same food safety
concerns including chemical contaminates, physical and microbial hazards (Auld et al.,
1994; FDA, 2001; Jussaume and Higgins, 1998; Roper, 2001; Torjusen et al., 2001).

Consumers across socio-economics levels associate the presence or absence of
chemicals they perceive as undesirable with the quality of the food. Concerns over
pesticides, preservatives, artiﬁcial colors and ﬂavors and other additives in food have
generated an interest in organic foods, food cooperatives and locally grown foods (Auld
et al., 1994; Jussaume and Higgins, 1998; Sloan, 1999; Wilkens and Hillers, 1994). In a
survey of consumers shopping at food cooperatives and seeking organic foods,
approximately 80 percent of those surveyed believed they were purchasing safer and
higher quality food at the cooperative since it was produced by local farmers who used
less pesticides and chemicals (Jolly et al., 1989). Other research supports this view that

consumers are seeking both organic and locally grown foods because of their perceived

33

higher quality, concern about pesticides and knowledge of who produced the food
(Goldman and Clancy, 1991; Jussaume and Higgins, 1998; Wilkens and Hillers, 1994).

Physical hazards include foreign material, such as glass or metal, and is generally
attributed to poor manufacturing standards. Although physical hazards are a concern,
they are typically not associated with illness due to good manufacturing practices, regular
inspections of facilities, legislation and product liability risks helping to minimize their
occurrence. In addition, when a physical hazard occurs it usually only impacts a small
number of consumers (Lewis, 1998; Stevenson, 1998).

Microbial contamination is the most common food safety concern and the
percentage of Americans who believe microbial organisms are serious sources of food
safety risk increased from 36 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in 1998 (Wong et al., 2000).
An opinion poll survey comparing food safety issues found that consumers are more
worried about harmful bacteria than chemicals or foreign material in their food (Roper,
2001)

Studies into processor perceptions about food safety has been limited and
comprised mainly of focus groups with smaller processors (Torjunsen et al., 2001;
Zepeda et al., 2003). Focus groups have found that although processors are concerned
about food safety risks in their products, they are just as concerned about staying in
business (Zepeda et al., 2003). In focus groups with both local processors and
consumers, trust between the two groups was the top reason for growing and purchasing
food (Torjunsen et al., 2001). Interviews and focus groups with small farmers found that
they believe trust of the consumer is often more important than adopting government

regulations because of its impact on their overall operating costs (Gilling et al., 2001). A

34

report from the US. General Accounting Office (2000) regarding compliance with
HACCP regulations in the seafood industry found only 44 percent of processors were
practicing HACCP two years after the mandated implementation date. Wright et al.
(2000) reported that small cider processors in Virginia were very concerned about the
possibility of being forced to implement HACCP due to implementation costs and many
stated that they would rather go out of business than to implement HACCP.

In summary, consumers are concerned about food safety and look to the media for
information. Consumers perceive microbial contamination as a primary food safety risk
and cause of foodbome outbreaks. Consumers tend to have conﬁdence in locally
produced food made by smaller processors. Smaller processors rely on trust of the
consumer and are concerned that regulations to improve food safety may be too costly
and ultimately put them out of business. These ﬁndings provide a research opportunity to

explore the perceptions of processors and consumers regarding juice and food safety.

35

Table 2. Juice associated foodbome illness outbreaks in North America (Partial Listing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unpasteurized Year Associated Location of # of Reference
Juice Pathogen Outbreak reported
illnesses
Apple juice 1923 Salmonella Not identiﬁed 23 Parish, 2000
Typhimurium
Orange juice 1944 Salmonella Ohio 18 Parish, 1997
Typhimurium
Apple juice 1974 Salmonella New Jersey 296 CDC, 1975
Typhimurium
Apple juice 1980 Unconﬁrmed Ontario, 14 Parish, 2000
E. coli 0157:H7 Canada
Apple juice 1991 E. coli 0157:H7 Massachusetts 23 FDA, 1991
Watermelon juice 1993 Salmonella spp. Florida 18 Parrish, 2000
Apple juice 1993 Cryptosporidium Maine 160 FDA, 1993
parvum
Oranﬂice 1995 Salmonella spp. Florida 62 Parrish, 1998
Apple juice 1996 E. coli 0157:H7 California, 70 CDC, 1996
Colorado,
Washington
and British
Columbia,
Canada
Apple juice 1996 E. coli 0157:H7 Connecticut 14 CDC, 1996
Apple juice 1996 Cryptosporidium New York 31 CDC, 1996
parvum
Apple juice 1996 E. coli 0157:H7 New York 1 CDC, 1996
Apple juice 1997 E. coli 0157:H7 Ontario, 9 Parrish, 2000
Canada
Orange juice 1999 Salmonella Florida 423 Parrish, 2000
Muenchen
Orange juice 2000 Salmonella Florida 88 Parrish, 2000
Enteritidis
Apple juice 2003 Cryptosporidium Ohio 10 Ohio Dept. of
parvum Health, 2003

 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration

36

 

Table 3. Effectiveness of interventions and technolrgies on patﬁgens in apple juice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnterventionfl‘eclrnology Pathogen used Conditions Achieved Reference
for juice bacterial
inoculation population
reduction
Sodium benzoate and E. coli 0157:H7 0.1% for 21 days 3-log reduction in Miller and
Potassium sorbate E. coli 0157:H7 Kasper, 1994
Copper ion, sodium E. coli 0157 :H7 Combination of S-log reduction in Rogers and
hypochlorite and copper ion and E. coli 0157:H7 Ryser, 2004
sonication sodium
hypochlorite in
[-120 followed by
sonication at 44
to 48 kHz
Fermentation E. coli 0157 :H7 3 days at 20°C 5-log reduction in Semanchek and
E. coli 0157:H7 Golden, 1996
Freezing E. coli 0157:H7 Froze juice to — l-log reduction in Yamarnoto,
20°C for 3 days E. coli 0157:H7 2001
Ozone E. coli 0157:H7 Ozone pumped 5-log reduction in Williams, 2001
into apple cider E. coli 0157:H7,
at 4°C for 240 results varied due
min. to juice solids
Ultraﬁltration Aerobic plate Membrane pore 5-log reduction Ortega-Rivas et
count, yeast, (50,000 daltons) achieved for total al., 1998
mold and aciduric and aerobic plate
bacteria transmembrane count, results
pressure varied due to
(155kPa) juice solids

 

Low-dose gamma

E. coli 0157:H7

Dose of 1.8kGy

5-log reduction in

Buchanan et al.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

irradiation E. coli 0157 :H7, 1998
results varied due
to juice solids
High pressure E. coli 0157:H7 30,00 psi 5-log reduction in Mermelstein,
E. coli 0157:H7, 1999
results varied due
to juice solids
High pressure Cryptosporidium 80,000 psi 3-log reduction in Sliﬂto et al.,
parvum oocysts Cryptosporidium 2000
parvum oocysts
Pulsed electric ﬁelds E. coli 0157:H7 Treated with 30 5-log reduction in In et al., 2001
pulses and E. coli 0157:H7,
80kV/cm at 42°C results varied due
to juice solids
Ultraviolet light radiation E. coli 0157 :H7 Quartz tubes 5-log reduction in Duffy et al.,
using CiderSure E. coli 0157:H7, 2000
UV pasteurizer results can varied
due to juice solids
Ultraviolet light radiation E. coli 0157:H7 CiderSure UV Mice fed cider Hanes, et al.,
pasteurizer treated with UV 2002

 

 

 

light and a 5-log
reduction in E.
coli 0157:H7 did
not become ill

 

 

37

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

 

 

Thermal pasteurization E. coli 0157:H7 <50% Red 5—log reduction in Splittstoesser et
(HT ST) Delicious juice E. coli 0157:H7 al., 1995
160°F for 6
seconds or >50%
Red Delicious
juice 160°F for
11 seconds
Thermal pasteurization E. coli 0157:H7, 681°C for 14 5-1og reduction of Mak et al., 2001
(HTST) Salmonella spp., seconds or all inoculated
Listeria 71 .1°C for 6 pathogens
monocytogenes seconds

 

 

 

 

 

38

 

CHAPTER III. MICHIGAN APPLE CIDER MILLS 1997-2002
CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES AND INTERVENTION
TECHNOLOGY
A. ABSTRACT

In response to a series of foodbome-illness outbreaks resulting from consumption
of unpasteurized juice contaminated with pathogens (Salmonella spp., E. coli 0157:H7
and Cryptosporidium parvum), the US. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2001),
promulgated the juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation.
This juice regulation requires juice manufacturers to implement a HACCP plan that
includes control measures that achieve a cumulative 5-log reduction of pathogens or
include a warning statement on juice containers about the risk of pathogens.

Apple cider is an important commodity to the state of Michigan. Michigan ranks
as one of the top three states in cider production with approximately 30 percent of
Michigan apples processed into cider each year (Michigan Apple Association, 2004;
Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003). To investigate possible food safety concerns,
Michigan cider mills were inspected annually from 1997 through 2002, and processors
were mailed a survey in 2002 to evaluate use of Current Good Manufacturing Practices
(CGMPS) and intervention technology (thermal pasteurization and ultraviolet (UV) light
irradiation). Cider end-product samples were analyzed for bacterial populations and the
pertinent pathogen E. coli 0157:H7.

Cider mills producing more than 20,000 gallons of cider per year were the ﬁrst to
implement CGMPS and utilize thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation. In general,
mills using intervention technology produced cider with lower bacterial counts.

However, bacterial levels in several samples were not as low as would be expected from

39

cider treated by pasteurization or UV light, suggesting that some processors either were
not properly using thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation equipment or the cider
was contaminated after being processed. E. coli 0157:H7 was not detected in any cider
samples obtained during 1997 to 2002.

B. INTRODUCTION

Reports of foodbome illness outbreaks associated with consumption of juice have
raised public concern regarding the safety of juice products (CDC, 1996; Parish, 1997).
The source of several these outbreaks was unpasteurized apple juice contaminated with
the pathogens E. coli 0157:H7 or Cryptosporidium parvum resulting from contamination
or unsanitary conditions during growing, harvesting or processing (FDA, 2001). This
pathogen contamination could have been prevented if processors had followed Good
Agriculture Practices (GAPS) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPS) and
used intervention technologies such as thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation
during the processing of juice (FDA, 2001; Parrish, 2000).

To address public concerns, the FDA published in 1998 a notice of intent to
require juice processing plants to implement HACCP (FDA, 2001). HACCP is an
approach designed to help manufacturers identify, evaluate, and control chemical,
physical, and biological hazards in the food supply. Following an extended public
comment period, the FDA published the juice HACCP ﬁnal rule in the Federal Register
in January 2001 (FDA, 2001). The ﬁnal juice HACCP regulation required compliance to
occur in phases based on the size of the juice manufacturing business. In January 2002,
implementation of the FDA juice HACCP regulation was expected for large juice

manufacturers (those operations having more than 500 employees). Small businesses

40

(those operations employing fewer than 500 employees and not considered a very small
operation) were to comply no later than January 2003. Lastly, very small juice
manufacturers (deﬁned as those operations that have either total annual sales of less than
$500,000; or have total annual sales greater than $500,000 but their total food sales are
less than $50,000; or are operations that employ fewer than an average of 100 full-time
equivalent employees and sell fewer than 100,000 units of juice in the US.) were
required to comply with the regulation in January 2004 (FDA, 2001). The juice HACCP
regulation requires a cumulative 5-log reduction of the pertinent pathogens of concern in
juice through the use of intervention technologies such as thermal pasteurization or UV
light irradiation. Juice processors who operate solely as retail establishments are exempt
from the HACCP requirement, but are required to include a warning statement about the
risk of pathogens on their juice containers. All juice processors, regardless of how they
sell juice, were advised to follow GAPS and CGMPS in their juice processing to reduce
risk of contamination.

The majority of the cider industry in the US. is comprised of very small juice
processors (<20,000 gallons per year) who sell their cider retail (U ljas and Ingham, 2000;
Cummins et al., 2002) and only operate during the cider season, typically the months of
September, October and November (Dingman, 1999; Wright et al., 2000; Cummins et al.,
2002). Surveys in Virginia and Iowa have found that very small cider processors are
Slow to adopt CGMPS and thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation (Cummins et al.,
2002; Wright et al., 2000).

Effective CGMPS can help minimize contamination of apple juice. Thermal

pasteurization or UV light irradiation has proven effective in decreasing bacterial levels

41

when apple juice is inoculated with pathogens (Senkel et al., 1999; Uljas and Ingham,
2000; Worobo et al., 1998). However, the effectiveness of CGMPS to prevent juice
contamination and thermal pasteurization to decrease bacterial levels in cider samples
produced at commercial cider mills was less than expected, suggesting ineffective
implementation of these controls (Cummins et al., 2002; Wright, 2000).

Michigan is one of the top four apple producing states in the US. and one of the
top three states in cider production, with approximately 30 percent of Michigan apples
processed into cider each year (Michigan Apple Association, 2004; Michigan
Agricultural Statistics, 2003). Michigan cider mills are similar to those in other states
with the majority of processors being small family businesses, producing less than 20,000
gallons of cider per year, and open only during the fall cider season.

To better understand the food safety risks in Michigan cider mills, between 1997
and 2002 the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) conducted annual inspections
of these operations. During these inspections, MDA personnel collected product samples
for bacterial analyses, determined compliance with GAPS and CGMPS, and if thermal
pasteurization or UV light irradiation was used to reduce the risk of pathogens. Since
most Michigan cider mills fall under the FDA’s deﬁnition of very small processors,
MDA segregated cider mills into three smaller sub-groups to determine if differences
existed based on cider production volume. As deﬁned by MDA, the three groups of
Michigan cider mills are small mills producing less than 4,000 gallons of cider per year,
medium-size mills producing 4,000 to 20,000 gallons of cider per year and large cider

mills producing more than 20,000 gallons of cider per year (Wojtala, 2003). The MDA

42

deﬁnitions of cider mill size are used in this study. The term cider is used to deﬁne
unﬁltered apple juice.

The objectives of this study were, based on data from the MDA inspections, to
determine a) if production volume had an effect on whether cider mills adopted GAPS,
CGMPS and thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation between 1997 and 2002, and
b) whether year, cider mill production volume, thermal pasteurization or UV light
irradiation inﬂuenced bacterial populations in cider.

C. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cider mill inspections: MDA personnel conducted annual cider mill inspections during
the months of September, October and November in 1997 through 2002. Important
elements of the inspection were to determine annual cider production volume (in gallons)
at the mill, compliance with GAPS and CGMPS, and if the mill had adopted thermal
pasteurization or UV light irradiation technology (Appendices B, C, D, E, F and G).
MDA classiﬁed cider mills into three groups based on annual cider production volume,
small mills (<4,000 gallons per year), medium size mills (4,000-20,000 gallons per year)
and large mills (>20,000 gallons per year; Wojtala; 2003).

Determination of GAPS and CGMPs: In 1997, MDA personnel completed a
questionnaire for each cider mill to determine the status of GAPS and CGMPS in each
operation (Appendix B). In September 2002, a questionnaire from Michigan State
University was mailed to Michigan cider processors to allow processors to self-report
their status of GAPS and CGMPS (Appendix I). Participants were informed that the
survey was voluntary, conﬁdential, and conducted for Michigan State University

(Appendix H). The study protocol was approved by Michigan State University

43

Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (Appendix A). The questionnaire
followed survey guidelines developed by Dillman (2000) and included pilot testing with
cider processors (n=5) for clarity. A second mailing to non-respondents was conducted
two weeks after sending the initial survey. Names and addresses for the questionnaire
were provided by MDA (n = 134) and represented cider mills that had received a state
food license between 1997 and 2002. Of the 134 surveys mailed, 30 were returned
because of inaccurate addresses or the mill was not operating in 2002. Of the remaining
104 processors, 54 completed and returned the survey representing a 52% return rate (54
out of 104).

Cider sampling and microbiological analyses: During the annual inspection, MDA
personnel purchased a sample of cider (0.5-1 gallon) that had been processed and bottled
within the last 14 days. Cider samples were kept refrigerated and analyzed within two

days alter purchase in the MDA State Laboratory (East Lansing, MI). Microbiological

analyses included presence and concentrations of E. coli 0157:H7 (Assurance® EIA
EHEC, BioControl Systems, Inc., Washington, WA; based on AOAC 996.10), generic E.
coli (ColiComplete®, BioControl Systems, Inc., Washington, WA; based on AOAC
992.30), total coliforms (ColiTrak®, BioControl Systems, Inc., Washington, WA; based
on AOAC 992.30) and total aerobic plate count (TPC; AOAC 966.23). The pH of each
cider sample was also determined using a pH meter.

Statistical analyses: For statistical analyses SAS Version 8 was used (SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC. USA 2001). The processor practices surveys for GAPS and CGMPS in
1997 and 2002 were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test in PROC FREQ. Incidence rates

of bacterial populations were analyzed statistically in PROC GENMOD. The ﬁxed

44

effects were use of control measures (untreated, thermal pasteurization, UV light
irradiation), mill production volume (<4,000, 4,000-20,000, and >20,000 gal/yr), and
cider production year (1997-2002). Groups were based on cider mill size (small, medium
and large). Signiﬁcant differences among groups were determined using a chi-square
test. Bacterial levels were statistically analyzed using PROC MIXED and the same ﬁxed
effects. A completely unrestricted variance-covariance matrix (for inspection year) was
used to account for repeated measures taken from samples at individual mills across time.

Group differences were estimated using a t-test. Signiﬁcance was declared at P S 0.05,

and tendency of significance was declared at P S 0.10. For bacterial data, least-square
means and standard errors of means (SEMS) are shown (Figure 2, Tables 9, 10 and 11).
D. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the ﬁrst reported study that compares the use of GAPS
and CGMPS of cider processors during implementation of the juice HACCP regulation.
The objective of the annual MDA cider mill inspections was to evaluate the safety of
Michigan cider. MDA inspectors evaluated compliance with GAPS and CGMPS
including inspection and storage of apples, sanitation and manufacturing practices and
upgrades to equipment and facilities. Inspection reports indicated whether or not the
cider mill was in compliance with CGMPS, and noted any violations found at the cider
mill. MDA inspectors also suggested possible improvements such as upgrades to the
facility or equipment and adoption of thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation to
enable cider processors to reduce the likelihood of pathogen contamination and to prepare

for the impending juice HACCP regulation (Wojtala, 2003).

45

Between 1997 and 2002 the number of Michigan cider mills declined by 40%,
from 157 mills in 1997 to 93 mills in 2002 (Figure l). The majority (81%) of Michigan
cider mills are seasonal businesses producing less than 20,000 gallons of cider per year
and sell cider directly to consumers. The decline in the number of Michigan cider mills
is consistent with surveys in other states which also found that the number of cider mills
producing less than 20,000 gallons of cider per year and operated seasonally by local
farmers had declined in recent years (Cummins et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2000).

The 1997 and 2002 surveys were compared for Similar questions and only the
answers to these common questions were analyzed. In some incidences processors did
not answer all of the questions in each survey. Therefore, only answers in which we had
data from the same processors in 1997 and 2002 were used.

Cider processors improved upon their apple inspection and storage practices from
1997 to 2002 (Table 4). A higher percentage (35% vs. 50%) of processors purchasing
apples kept records to document the source of apples (hand-picked versus dropped).
More processors reported storing apples in cold storage and inspecting apples for
cleanliness in 2002 when compared to 1997. Apple inspection and cold storage were
practices MDA personnel emphasized at the inspections. Processors were encouraged to
reduce the likelihood of bacterial hazards by only using wholesome and clean apples and
to protect apple integrity with cold storage (Wojtala, 2003). Research with cider
processors in other states found bacterial counts to be lower when apples were held in
cold storage and washed before processing (Cummins et al., 2002; Dingman, 1999).
Several questions were asked in 1997 and 2002 regarding use of dropped, damaged,

bruised and wonny apples. These questions could not be directly compared because of

46

inconsistencies. In 2002, only four processors (all of whom used thermal pasteurization)
stated they used apples with possible damage (unﬁrm, windfall, grounders or drops) and
this is legal per the juice HACCP regulation.

Improvements to reduce bacterial contamination in processing facilities in 2002
included more facilities that were adequately screened/sealed to prevent rodent/insect,
entry and fewer facilities allowing domestic animals in the processing area (Table 5). In
2002, more cider mills tested their water supply annually and had hot and cold running
water in all processing areas. Processors also increased the use of thermal pasteurization
and microbial testing in 2002 (Table 5). In the 2002 survey, in which processors self-
reported their improvements, they also noted upgrades to processing equipment such as
use of a wet brusher and more use of food grade plastic instead of wood in the processing
area. Those using press racks and cloths did more thorough cleaning and had dedicated a
washing machine to be used only for press cloths. These improvements in CGMPS
occurred in cider mills regardless of size and indicate that processors followed through on
recommendations made by MDA personnel.

When investigating differences in mill size and effective compliance with
CGMPS, the larger processors demonstrated the most rapid improvement in compliance
with CGMPS (Figure 2). This may be due to larger processors having more ﬁnancial
resources to upgrade their facility and equipment than smaller processors (Wojtala, 2003;
Wright et al., 2000). Overall, the compliance with CGMPS in Michigan improved (Table
5) from 1997 to 2002, and these improvements are consistent with surveys from Iowa

(Cummins et al., 2002), Virginia (Wright et al., 2000), and Wisconsin (U ljas and Ingham

47

2000) in which cider processors also took measures to improve CGMPS during this
timefrarne.

Cider mill size inﬂuenced the type of intervention technology used at the mill
(Table 6). Thermal pasteurization was the ﬁrst technology to be used to reduce the risk
of pathogens, and by 2002 50% of the large mills and 23% of the medium-sized mills
were using pasteurization. UV light irradiation was ﬁrst adopted in 1999 by a smaller
number of mills. By 2002, 8% of small mills (<4,000 gallons of cider per year) were
using UV light irradiation and none used thermal pasteurization (Table 6). The purchase
and installation of thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation equipment represents
large capital investment. Due to their low production volumes, smaller processors
generally cannot afford to incorporate these technologies (Kozempel et al., 1998;
Wojtala, 2003). Large mills often use thermal pasteurization, rather than UV light
irradiation, due to the ability to process larger volumes of cider in a shorter amount of
time, even though the equipment is expensive and requires substantial expertise to
operate.

Cider samples were collected between September and November of each year,
with 67% of the samples collected in mid- to late-October. Of the 582 samples collected
and analyzed between 1997 and 2002, none of the samples were conﬁrmed as positive for
the presence of E. coli 0157:H7. Over the six years, ﬁve samples from mills producing
untreated cider initially screened as positive for E. coli 0157:H7, but E. coli 0157:H7
was not conﬁrmed by enrichment culture in any of the samples. The pH ranged between
3.6 and 4.4 over the six years and no correlations were found with bacterial populations

and no difference were found between year, cider mill size or intervention technology.

48

Bacterial counts observed in this study were similar to those reported by
Cummins et al. (2002). Averaged across all years, generic E. coli, an indicator of fecal
contamination, was found in 34 (5.8%) samples with an average count of 93 CFU/ml and
least-square mean of 45 CFU/ml (Table 7). As previously reported in other cider mill
studies (Duffy et al., 2000; Cummins etal., 2002), generic E. coli counts were positively
correlated with total coliforms counts (Table 8).

Total coliforms, an indicator of general sanitary conditions, were found in 409
(70.3%) samples from 1997 to 2002 with an average count of 359 CFU/ml and a SEM of
22 CFU/ml (Table 7). The counts for total coliforms were positively correlated with total
aerobic plate counts (Table 8). Total aerobic plate counts were detected in all samples
with an average count of 112,501 CFU/ml and a SEM of 46,809 CFU/ml for all years
(Table 7).

Cider production year had only minor effects on bacterial populations (Table 9).
Total aerobic plate counts were signiﬁcantly higher in 2002 than 1997 and 2001 with the
other years being intermediate. A potential reason for the higher counts in 2002 was
because of weather conditions resulting in apples taking longer to mature and delaying
harvest (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003), both of which have been reported to
increase bacterial populations on apples (Riordan et al. 2001).

Annual production volume was associated signiﬁcantly with bacterial counts
(Table 10). The association between production volume and bacterial counts has not
been previously reported. Mills that produce over 20,000 gallons per year had lower
incidences of generic E. coli than small and medium-size mills and lower total aerobic

plate counts than medium-size mills (Table 10; Figure 3). This effect was independent

49

from the fact that a higher proportion of larger processors used thermal pasteurization or
UV light irradiation, as the statistical methods used to compare bacterial counts based on
mill size controlled for the use of these technologies. These results are partially
explained because larger facilities were more likely to adopt CGMPS, at an earlier time
(Figure 2).

Thermal pasteurization and UV light irradiation signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced bacterial
counts (Table 11). The use of thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation was
associated with lower incidence rates for generic E. coli and total coliforms and lower
total aerobic plate counts (Table 11). Cummins et al. (2002) and Senkel et al. (1999)
reported similar results for thermal pasteurization.

The presence of generic E. coli in one thermally pasteurized sample and the
decrease in total aerobic plate counts by only 90% suggested that some cider samples
might not be using pasteurization or UV light irradiation equipment properly, or that the
cider was contaminated after processing. Several thermally pasteurized and UV light
irradiated cider samples, had total aerobic plate counts above 4 log CF U/ml, which is
unexpectedly high for cider that has been processed using these control measures (Figure
4). Reasons for these high total aerobic plate counts, may be improperly installed or
operated equipment or post-processing contamination.

E. CONCLUSIONOur results demonstrate that using GAPS, CGMPS and thermal
pasteurization or UV light irradiation is associated with lower bacterial counts in apple
cider. However, overall bacterial populations in Michigan apple cider did not
signiﬁcantly decrease between 1997 and 2002. This may be due to processors not

consistently following GAPS, CGMPS or using intervention technology to effectively

50

reduce bacterial populations. Michigan cider processors may need further education and
guidance on their cider processing practices. In addition, to fully understand where
bacterial contamination may be occurring in cider processing, in-line sampling during
processing should be used to identify speciﬁc areas for improvement. Additional
investigation of cider practices and in-line sampling can help both educators and

processors learn how to improve cider processing and ensure safe cider in Michigan.

51

Mills (n)

80-

60-

40-

20-

Cl Small (<4,000 gal/yr)
Medium (4,000-20,000 gal/yr)

I Large (>20,000 gal/yr)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2002

 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Figure 1. Number of active cider mills in Michigan stratiﬁed by
production volume of mill (1997-2002)

TABLE 4. Apple inspection and storage practices of Michigan cider processors
in 1997 and 2002

 

 

 

Year
Apple stomie and handling n=* 1997 2002
% answering “yes”

If apples purchased, are records kept to document the 40 35 50

source of supply of apples (e.g., hand-picked versus

dropped)
Apples stored in cold storage 52 63a 90°
Apples inspected for cleanliness 54 3 58 100°
Apples inspected for wholesomeness 53 92 100
Apples washed before processing 54 91 98

 

 

a,b Numbers with a different superscript within a row differ at P S 0.05
*Mills with data in 1997 and 2002 totaled 54, however the number of responses varies between questions
because answers were not provided for each mill for both years.

53

TABLE 5. Processing facilities and manufacturing practices in Michigan cider
mills in 1997 and 2002

 

 

Year
Processlﬂ facilities and manufacturipg practices n=* 1997 2002
% answering “yes”
Processing operations in a separate enclosed room or 54 91 94
facility
Processing facility adequately screened/sealed to 52 67° 93°
prevent
rodent/insect entry
Domestic animals allowed in your processing facility 54 9a 0°
Processing water tested annually 54 313' 100°
Hot and cold water under pressure provided in all 54 3 3° 96°
processing areas
Toilet facility completely enclosed and conveniently 50 92 98
located
Toilet facility equipped with hot and cold running water 51 718 92°
Employees wear gloves 53 60 75
Employees wear clean outer garments 53 96 100
Chemicals, equipment, supplies, and utensils not used 54 96 94
for
cider processing stored in an area separate from
processing area
Wet brusher used 53 79 87
Rice hulls or other pressing aids used in processing 54 13 13
Press racks, cloths, and food contact equipment stored 42 93 100
off the ﬂoor in well-ventilated area when not in use
Press racks and cloths sanitized daily after operations 42 100 100
Dedicated washing machine for press cloths 41 73‘1 95°
Pressed apple pomace removed nightly from processing 54 100 96
Area
Preservatives used 54 19 15
Thermal pasteurization used 54 2° 9°
Ultraviolet light (UV) irradiation used 54 0 4
Only new containers and caps used to package cider 54 98 100
Conduct microbial testing on end-product 53 3° 2 5°

 

 

 

a,b Numbers with a different superscript within a row differ at P S 0.05
‘Mills with data in 1997 and 2002 totaled 54, however the number of responses varies between questions
because answers were not provided for each mill for both years.

54

100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 ~
20 r

Mills (%)

 

‘31

[J Small (< 4,000 gal/yr)

Medium (4,000-20,000 gal/yr)

I Large (> 20,000 gal/yr)

 

1997 1998

 

 

 

 

 

1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Figure 2. Percentage of cider mills having adequate compliance with Current Good
Manufacturing Practices stratiﬁed by production volume of mill

55

TABLE 6. Proportion of Michigan cider mills that used thermal pasteurization or UV

light irradiation between 1997 and 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Untreated Thermal pasteurization UV light irradiation
Year Small“ Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
1997 100% 100% 92% 0 0 8% 0 0 0
(n=72) (n=59) (n=26) (n=26)
1998 100% 100% 85% 0 0 15% 0 0 0
(n=52) (n=48) (n=26) (n=26)
1999 98% 82% 52% 2% 11% 48% 0 7% 0
(nﬁ6) (n=45) (n=2 1) (n=46) (n=45) (n=2 1) (n=45)
2000 97% 78% 19% 3% 20% 69% 0 2% 12%
(n=34) (n=40) (n=16) (n=34) (n=40) (n=16) (n=40) (n=16)
2001 97% 72% 39% 0 19% 44% 3% 8% 17%
(n=3 7) (n=47) (n= 1 8) (n=47) (n=1 8) (n=3 7) (n=47) (n= 1 8)
2002 92% 67% 31% 0 23% 50% 8% 10% 19%
(n=3 8) (n=39) (n=16) (n=39) (n=16) (n=3 8) E39) (n=16)

 

‘Small, medium, and large mills produced <4,000, 4,000-20,000, and >20,000 gal/yr, respectively

56

 

TABLE 7. Bacterial counts in Michigan cider samples

 

 

 

 

Bacterial test Overall
Generic E. coli: (n = 582)
Test positive (%) 5.8 i 1.0
Average count (log CFU/ml) 1.19 i 0.12
Range (log CFU/ml) 0-3.0
Total coliforms: (n = 582)
Test positive (%) 70.3 i 1.9
Average count (log CFU/ml) 1.94 i 0.04
Range (log CFU/ml) 0-3.0
Total aerobic plate count: (n = 546)
Average count (log CFU/ml) 3.84 i 0.05
Range (loﬂU/ml) 1-7.4

 

n = the total number of samples from 1997-2002. Some mills were

sampled each year and other mills were sampled less frequently

57

 

TABLE 8. Correlations between bacterial concentrations in Michigan cider 1997-2002

 

 

Generic Total coliforms Total aerobic plate pH
E. Coli count
Generic E. coli 0.20 (<.0001)* 0.06 (0.19) -0.04 (0.31)
n=582 n=545 n=520
Total coliforms 0.53 (<.0001) 0.16 (.0003)
n = 545 n = 520
Total aerobic plate 0.07 (0.13)
count n = 519

 

pH

 

 

‘Probabilities in parenthesis
n = number of observations

58

TABLE 9. Bacterial populations in Michigan cider samples by year between 1997 and
2002

 

Year

 

Bacterial 1997 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002
analysis (‘1 = 147) (n = 126) (n = 111) (n = 62) (n = 66) (n = 69)

 

Generic E. coli:
Test positive (%) 7.53:2.2 5.63:2.0 0.93:0.9 9.7:h3.8 9.1:h3.6 4.33:2.5
Average count 1.73io.45° 1.081050” 1.10i0.83ab 1.44:1:051ab 0.70m44" 1.12:0.60”
(10g CFU/ml)

Range o-3.o 0-1.6 0-1.o 0-2.4 0-0.6 0-1.2
(log CFU/ml)

Total coliforms:
Test positive (%) 72.1i3.7 77.8:t3.7 66.1:t4.5 66.1161 71.2i5.6 62315.9
Average count 1.64:1:0.l7 l.76:t0. 17 1.76i0. 17 1.62ztO.19 1.72:1:0. 17 1.66i0.18
(log CPU/ml)
Range 0-3.0 0-3.0 0-3.0 0-3.0 0-3.0 0-3.0
(log CFU/ml)

Total aerobic
plate count:
Averagecount 32310.13b 3.38t0.13ab 3330.133" 3.32io.19°° 31610.14” 3.56i0.l3a
(log CFU/ml)

Range 1.0-6.2 1.0-7.4 1.0-5.9 1.7-5.8 1.0-5.8 1.5-6.6
(log CPU/ml)

 

 

 

 

a,b Numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05

59

TABLE 10. Bacterial counts in Michigan cider from mills with different production

 

 

 

volumes
Production volumﬂggl/year)
Bacterial test Small Medium Large
(< 4,000) (4,000-20,000) (> 20,000)
Generic E. coli: (11 = 237) (n = 237) (n = 108)
Test positive (%) 7.2 a 1.71’ 6.8 :1: 1.6a 0.9 :1: 0.9
Average count (log CFU/ml) 1.10 i 0.45 1.05 :1: 0.38 1.43i0.79
Range (log CFU/ml) 03.0 0-3 .0 02.0
Total coliforms: (n = 237) (n = 237) (n = 108)
Test positive (%) 76.4 a 2.8 70.9 a 3.0 55.6 a. 4.8
Average count (log CFU/ml) 1.68 d: 0.16 1.71 i 0.16 1.70 d: 0.18
Range (10g CFU/ml) 0-3.0 0-3.0 03.0
Total aerobic plate count: (n = 222) (n = 222) (n = 102)
Average count (log CPU/ml) 3.36 a 0.13 3.54 3 0.12“I 3.08 a: 0.14b
Range (log CFU/ml) 1-6.2 1-7.4 1-5.8

 

 

 

 

a,b Numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05

n = the total number of samples from mill size from 1997-2002. Some mills were sampled each year and

other mills were sampled less frequently.

60

Cl Small (<4,000 gal/yr)
I Medium (4,000-20,000 gal/yr)
4 _ . I Large (>20,000 gal/yr)

    

Total aerobic plate count
(log CFU/ml)

l"
UII—IUINUI

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Figure 3. Total aerobic plate counts of Michigan cider between 1997 and 2002 stratiﬁed
by production volume of mill
*No signiﬁcant difference found within or between years

61

TABLE 11. Bacterial populations in Michigan apple cider from mills using thermal
pasteurization or UV light irradiation compared with mills using no intervention

 

 

 

 

technology
Intervention technolgy

Bacterial test Untreated Thermal pasteurization UV light irradiation

Generic E. coli: (11 = 504) (n = 59) (n = 19)
Test positive (%) 6.5 a 1.1’l 1.7 :1: 1.7" ob
Average count (log CPU/ml) 1.20 :1: 0.27 mesons -
Range (log CF U/ml) 03.0 00.56 0

Total coliforms: (n = 504) (11 = 59) (n = 19)
Test positive (%) 75.8 :1: 1.9a 35.6 :1: 6.3" 31.6 a 11.0"
Average count (log CPU/ml) 1.92 a 0.07 1.69 a: 0.21 1.47 a: 0.37
Range (log CPU/ml) 0-3.0 0-3.0 0-3.0

Total aerobic plate count: (11 = 476) (n = 52) (n = 18)
Test positive (%) 100% 100% 100%
Average count (log CPU/ml) 3.94 a 0.07a 2.97 i 0.16" 3.08 :1: 0.25b
Range 098 CFU/ml) 1-7.4 l-5.8 1-4.6

 

 

a,b Numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05
n = the total number of samples from 1997-2002. Some mills were sampled each year and other mills were

sampled less frequently.

62

 

30 - D Untreated

 
     

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ 25 - IThermal pasteurization
E I UV-light irradiation
g 20 e
in \ .—
E 15 . § F _
a s
E 10 . S e
8 V \ §
a s \ 9.
E s - s S \
a \ S S
m § § §
0 y t R E §

 

 

1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 >6
Total aerobic plate count (log CFU/mL)

Figure 4. Total aerobic plate counts in Michigan apple cider from mills using thermal
pasteurization or UV light irradiation compared with mills using no intervention
technology

63

CHAPTER IV. MICHIGAN CIDER PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS AND

DECISIONS IN RESPONSE TO JUICE HACCP REGULATION

A. ABSTRACT
The juice industry has experienced a number of foodbome illness outbreaks
because juice contained microbial pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp.
and Cryptosporidium parvum. To reduce consumer risk, the US. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
regulation for the juice industry in 2001. Compliance with the regulation began in 2002
and required many juice manufacturers to change processing methods and spend
additional time and money to bring their equipment and employees up-to-date. It has
been predicted that small juice processors will be the ones most impacted by the juice
HACCP regulation. The apple cider industry offers an interesting case to test this
prediction because this industry is comprised of many small processors who manufacture
cider only seasonally. To gain insight into processors’ perceptions of the juice HACCP
regulation, two mail surveys were sent to Michigan cider processors in August and
September 2002 to evaluate their perceptions about the juice HACCP regulation, and
their expectations concerning its effectiveness. Processors also were asked if the HACCP
regulation would result in unnecessary expense and regulatory oversight, and if it would
improve consumer conﬁdence in cider safety.
Cider processors were divided in their perceptions of the juice HACCP regulation.

Processors who did not perceive the need for the juice HACCP regulation (48%)
indicated that the regulation would be ineffective in decreasing foodbome illness linked

to juice consumption, result in unnecessary expense and governmental oversight, and not

64

improve consumer conﬁdence in cider. Processors in favor of HACCP implementation
(31%) had taken measures to improve the safety of their cider, but only a few (10%) had
a HACCP plan in place at the time of the survey. Many processors were not motivated to
comply with the juice HACCP regulation, because processors selling directly to
consumers are not required to implement HACCP as long as they include a warning
statement about pathogens on their juice container. Adoption of HACCP by juice
processors may be slow, as has been the case in other food industries also subject to
HACCP regulations.
B. INTRODUCTION

The FDA has estimated that 16,000-48,000 foodbome illnesses occur annually in
the US. from consumption of juice containing pathogens (FDA, 2001). Since 1996,
several juice-associated foodbome illness outbreaks have occurred that have been linked
to the presence of the pathogens E. coli 0157:H7 and Cryptosporidium parvum in
unpasteurized apple juice. One of these outbreaks was linked to consumption of
unpasteurized apple juice produced by a large juice manufacturer, Odwalla, who
distributed the juice to several western US. states and British Columbia in Canada (CDC,
1996; FDA, 2001). This outbreak received extensive media coverage because over 100
people became seriously ill and the death of a child in the US. In 1998, the FDA
promulgated a regulation in which a warning label would be required on juice packages
when the juice was not treated with a lethality step to achieve a 5-log reduction of
pathogens (E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Cryptosporidium parvum). The
required statement reads: “WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and,

therefore, may contain harmful bacteria which can cause serious illness in children, the

65

elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems.” In 2001 the FDA issued the ﬁnal
juice HACCP regulation, requiring large, small, and very small juice manufacturers, as
deﬁned by the regulation, to implement HACCP beginning in January of 2002, 2003, and
2004, respectively. An exemption to the ﬁnal juice HACCP regulation was made for
juice manufacturers selling their juice only in their own retail outlet and directly to
consumers. However, retail juice not treated to achieve a 5-log reduction of pathogens
must continue to include the warning label on juice packaging (FDA, 2001).

HACCP is required in other sectors of the US. food industry and is accepted as a
food safety standard throughout the world by the Codex Alimentarius Commission
(Stevenson and Bernard, 1999). In the US, HACCP requirements were ﬁrst mandatory
for seafood plants no later than December 1997. This was followed by the imposition of
HACCP requirements for meat and poultry processing plants no later than December
2000. An investigation by the US. General Accounting Ofﬁce (U SGAO) into HACCP
implementation in the seafood industry, two years after the HACCP regulation was in
effect, found only 44% of processors were using HACCP. This poor compliance was
believed to stem from a lack of processor knowledge, disagreement by industry with the
seafood HACCP regulation, and limited enforcement by FDA inspectors (U SGAO,
2001). Successful adoption of HACCP depends upon processors’ consensus that it is
beneﬁcial to improving food safety of their products, and regulatory agencies ensuring
that HACCP systems are in place and effective (Gilling et al., 2001).

Approximately 98% of apple juice sold in the US. is pasteurized (Apple Products
Research and Education Council, 2004) and is primarily manufactured by large juice

processing facilities that already use a lethality step to reduce the risk of pathogens.

66

These large processors can more readily adopt a HACCP plan because their available
resources and presence of controls for pathogens in juice. The remaining 2% of apple
juice is unpasteurized and unﬁltered, and more commonly referred to as apple cider.
Apple cider is primarily made by small cider processors who have a cider mill located on
their farm or orchard. Generally, these cider processors only make small amounts of
cider for a few months each year. This cider is then sold through the processors’ own
retail operations or, until recently, wholesale to other retail establishments. Small
processors may not be able to afford the cost and time associated with HACCP
implementation. Previous research has indicated that cider processors in New York,
Iowa, Wisconsin and Virginia were concerned about implementing HACCP, especially
because of additional equipment costs and the adverse effect pasteurization may have on
the sensory attributes of cider (Cummins, 2002; Uljas and Ingham, 2000; Worobo, 2001;
Wright et al., 2000). Therefore, small cider processors who have sold cider wholesale
may choose to sell their cider directly to consumers and continue to use the FDA-
mandated warning statement on their juice containers to avoid HACCP implementation
(Cummins, 2002; Wojtala, 2003; Worobo, 2001). When surveying cider processors in
Virginia, Wright et al. (2000) reported that small cider processors would seriously
consider ceasing operation rather than incurring the cost to implement HACCP. Another
trend found with processors in several states was that there has been a decline since 1996
in the number of cider mills (Cummins, et al., 2002; Dingrnan, 1999; Uljas and Ingham,
2000; Wright et al., 2000) and we found this to be true in Michigan as well (Figure 1;
Chapter III). This decline could be because of a number of reasons, including increased

regulations with few perceived beneﬁts by cider processors.

67

The objective of this study was to determine perceptions of Michigan cider
processors towards the juice HACCP regulation and steps they have taken to comply with
the regulation. Michigan is one of the top four apple producing states and apples have
the highest production among fruit in Michigan (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003).
Michigan also ranks as one of the top three states in cider production, with approximately
30 percent of Michigan apples processed into cider each year (Michigan Apple
Association, 2004; Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003). Apples and cider are
important commodities to Michigan agriculture. The implementation of a new regulatory
system is likely to have consequences within this domain, bringing both beneﬁts and
costs to processors, regulators, and consumers. We were interested in the attitudes and
perceptions of one of these groups — processors — to gauge the likelihood that HACCP
would be implemented across the state, and what lingering concerns, if any, would
continue to plague the industry.

C. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two surveys with letters were mailed in August and September 2002 to assess
Michigan apple cider processors’ practices and perceptions about the juice HACCP
regulation (Appendices H, I, J and K) informing participants that the mail survey was
voluntary, conﬁdential, and conducted for Michigan State University. The study protocol
was approved by Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (Appendix A). The questionnaires were pilot tested with cider processors (n=5)
for clarity. Processors’ names and addresses were provided by the Michigan Department
of Agriculture (MDA) from their list of cider mills having a current food processing

license (11 = 118).

68

A multiple mailing procedure was used to enhance return rates (Dillman, 2000).
Participants who returned completed surveys were sent a thank you note (Appendix M).
To enhance return rates, non-respondents were mailed both surveys again in late
September (Appendix L). Of the remaining 118 processors, 52 completed and returned
both surveys. Survey responses were analyzed using SAS Version 8 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC. USA. 2001) and descriptive statistics were generated. Processors were
categorized based upon the question “HACCP implementation is necessary to ensure the
safety of cider.” Three groups were deﬁned: 1) processors agreeing with the need for
HACCP (31%), 2) processors neutral to the need for HACCP (21%) and 3) processors
disagreeing with the need for HACCP (48%) and responses of groups were compared
using a t-test.

D. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There is considerable research regarding food risk assessment by consumers and
how it inﬂuences their purchasing decisions (Schafer et al., 1993; Sparks and Shepherd,
1994; Hansen et al., 2003; Zepeda et al., 2003). In comparison, there has been relatively
little research of food risk assessment by food processors and how it inﬂuences their
processing decisions. Of the research that has been conducted on food processors, the
smaller food processing businesses tend to be somewhat adversarial to HACCP and slow
to comply with HACCP regulations (Gilling et al., 2001; USGAO, 2001). Based on this
background, we were interested in how the Michigan cider industry perceived and
responded to the juice HACCP regulation. Similar to other US. states, most Michigan
cider mills have few employees, often are family-owned and operated, are open only

during the fall season and are very small juice manufacturers as deﬁned by FDA (Tables

69

12 and 13). These cider mills are representative of small cider processors throughout the
US. based on demographic information provided in other studies (Cummins, et al., 2002;
Dingman, 1999; Uljas and Ingham 2000; Wright et al., 2000).

Need for and effectiveness of HA CCP

Michigan cider processors are divided in their perceptions about whether or not
there is a need for and the effectiveness of the juice HACCP regulation. Of the
processors completing the survey, 31% indicated they either strongly agreed or agreed
with the need for HACCP, 21% were neutral and 48% either strongly disagreed or
disagreed with HACCP (Table 14). The processors perceiving a need for HACCP
pointed out that HACCP is effective in ensuring cider safety and public health (Table 15).
Comments from these processors included; “Pasteurization is the only way to go,”
“Pasteurization is essential for safety” and “Our mill takes extraordinary safety
precautions to make sure our cider is healthy.”

Processors opposing HACCP perceived no need for this program nor did they
consider it to be effective in reducing foodbome illness in juice (Table 15) because they
related their perceptions to the fact that Michigan cider has not been implicated in a
foodbome illness outbreak. They pointed out that the risk of becoming ill from untreated
cider is small in Michigan because their mills were inspected annually by state inspectors,
they followed current good manufacturing practices (CGMPS), and only used wholesome
apples to make cider. These processors supported their perceptions with comments such
as “Michigan juice has been a safe product from the beginning”, “Our cider was
processed under the most sanitary conditions”, and “We have passed every one of our

state inspections.” Processors opposed to HACCP requirements also tended to make

70

defensive statements and place blame for juice outbreaks on processors who they
considered less conscientious than themselves with comments such as; “the biggest
problem was not small producers, it was caused by a completely unsafe practice and a
large processor,” and “most of the cider is made by small producers producing a safe
product.” These processors also were more likely to market their cider as
“unpasteurized,” “no preservatives,” and “made with Michigan apples.” Several
processors commented that the selling point for their cider was its great taste because
their cider was not treated to alter the natural characteristics of the juice.

Processors opposed to HACCP were also skeptical of processors who favored
HACCP and the effectiveness of the programs these supportive processors had in place
with comments such as “There are processors with written plans, but some do not operate
within the guidelines.” “The regulations do not eliminate the unsanitary processor.”
Processors not seeing the need for or effectiveness of HACCP appear to base their beliefs
and decisions on personal experience and local situations. Previous research has found
this viewpoint to be somewhat common because people often do not see the relevance or
need to take precautions towards a food safety issue until it personally affects them
(Sparks and Shepard, 1994; Zepeda et al, 2003).

Expense and oversight of HA CCP

When Michigan processors were asked if the juice HACCP regulation would
result in unnecessary expense, 70% of all processors agreed (Table 14). The overall
concern about the expense to implement HACCP may be justiﬁed with estimated
implementation costs ranging between $24,700-36,700 in the ﬁrst year and estimates of

up to $10,600 for subsequent years for small seasonal cider processors (FDA, 2001). The

71

costs for the ﬁrst year of implementation equaled the annual sales of 75% of all cider
processors (Table 12).

Sixty-percent of all processors agreed that HACCP would result in unnecessary
oversight (Table 14). Concerns about unnecessary oversight were primarily directed
toward the government with statements such as; “The state government interferes in our
business,” “I tell my the customers some oversight is good but too much just kills the
little operations and they have fewer options,” “Isn’t it too bad government has to stick
its nose in everywhere?” “This may be our last year because we will not jump through all
the hoops,” and “The regulations are killing me for a product I make little money On.”
These statements suggest that processors may feel victimized by the government’s juice
regulations because they perceive themselves as already using good judgment in their
juice-making, they have been inspected annually by state food inspectors, and there have
been no foodbome illness outbreaks linked to Michigan cider at this time.

Fifty percent of processors agreeing with HACCP stated they believed HACCP
would not affect proﬁts and 17% thought it could even increase proﬁts. These processors
had already taken the most initiative towards complying with the juice HACCP
regulation, with 80% of them stating they had spent over $5,000 in the last ﬁve years to
upgrade their equipment and facility (Table 16).

Of the processors opposing HACCP, 65% felt the program would decrease their
proﬁts and most (60%) had spent less than $2,500 in the last ﬁve years to upgrade or
purchase equipment to prepare for the juice HACCP regulation (Table 16). Many of
these processors feared that the juice HACCP regulation would run them out of business.

Comments like “my customers feel bad that so many of us are being forced out of the

72

cider business” and “we are losing our industry to foreign juice concentrate used by big
processors” illustrate their pessimistic views towards HACCP. Some processors appear
to already have the mind-set that it is just a matter of time before they lose their cider
business so it is unnecessary to spend time and money to implement HACCP.
Training, Inspectors and the Media

Of the processors surveyed, 43 percent agreed that HACCP training was easily
accessible and convenient and 35 percent indicated that it was not easily accessible or
convenient (Table 15). When asked if they had an adversarial relationship with their
inspector, over half of the processors disagreed with this statement and considered
inspectors to be knowledgeable about HACCP (Table 15). This positive view of
inspectors may be surprising, because the food inspector is a government employee and
their role is to enforce the juice HACCP regulation. In personal interviews with
processors many viewed inspectors as a source of guidance rather than as a policing
official and were proud that they had passed annual inspections, though the feeling of a
mutually beneﬁcial relationship was not shared by all. It is puzzling that so many
processors, who take pride in their juice, view the HACCP regulation as unnecessary
government oversight when a primary goal of HACCP is for the processor to take
ownership of food safety and to reduce the risk of hazards, rather than depending on
annual government inspections to identify potential problems.

Processors also made accusations about the media with statements such as “the
media is to blame for making it look like all cider has a problem” or “the media usually
gets the story wrong and blows small things into large ones” and “small processors

always take the heat.” Such statements indicate that processors may feel the government

73

has been inﬂuenced by the media becausee legislation for the juice industry has begun
only after the widely publicized 1996 outbreaks. Processors may not be accepting of
HACCP because they believe that the government should be more concerned with larger
producers because the 1996 Odwalla juice outbreak was from a large juice manufacturer
that distributed to many states and Canada (CDC, 1996). If this is their belief, it is
unsubstantiated because juice outbreaks have been reported as early as 1923, and several
outbreaks have occurred since the 1996 outbreaks. Previous to the Odwalla outbreak in
1996, outbreaks tended to be localized and juice was made by relatively small juice
processors. The media featured the Odwalla outbreak and the government investigated it
further because it was so widespread and a child died from consuming contaminated juice
(Parrish, 1997; Parrish, 2000; FDA, 2001).

Processors’ views about unnecessary expense and oversight, the government, and
the media are again supported by research regarding how relevant and personal a food
safety situation is perceived. Cider processors perceive themselves as already producing
a safe product, as trustworthy, and that a foodbome illness outbreak is unlikely to happen
to them. Therefore, they view the additional expense and oversight of the juice
regulation as unnecessary. This belief is common when people are not willing to accept
that they are just as vulnerable as anyone else to food safety and health risks and have not
the will power to prevent an unfortunate Situation (Schafer et al., 1993).

Consumer conﬁdence and HACCP

Because the majority of the cider processors sell directly to consumers, we

wanted to learn how they perceived their customers and HACCP. Processors overall

perceived that their consumers ranged from adults with children under ﬁve years of age

74

to adults over 65 years of age. Signiﬁcant differences were found among processor
groups for adults without children and adults over 65 years of age (Table 17). Processors
agreeing with HACCP differed signiﬁcantly from other processors regarding their
perceptions of their consumers and were more likely to believe that HACCP would
increase consumer conﬁdence (Table 18). Half of all processors, however, did not
perceive HACCP as making consumers more conﬁdent in buying cider from their mill
(Table 18). This view is most likely because only 4% of the processors believe
consumers have a good understanding of HACCP, 48% indicate consumers were aware
of HACCP but not certain what it meant, and the remaining 48% perceive consumers as
not at all aware of HACCP and did not care (Table 18). This ﬁnding is consistent with
focus groups regarding HACCP awareness in the meat industry in which only a small
percentage of consumers had heard about HACCP and understood it even less (Ford et
aL,1998)

When processors were asked why consumers purchased their cider, they listed
trust, taste, and a fun fall activity that supports tradition as most important (Table 19).
“Trust cider mill” was the most common reason processors perceived that consumers
purchased their cider (88%; Table 19). Although the majority of mills (77%) do not use
pasteurization or other means to destroy microbial pathogens, processors were convinced
that consumers trusted their mill because of the stringent sanitary conditions applied from
apple harvesting to cider bottling. This consumer trust may be based on years of buying
cider at their mill as indicated by the following comments about the FDA warning label
“Consmners did not understand, why now! They have been drinking cider all their life”

and “Most older folks say they’ve been drinking unpasteurized cider their whole life and

75

it hasn’t killed them yet.” Consumers’ trust is not considered to be the same as healthy or
safe, which only 65% and 52% of processors, respectively, mentioned as reasons that
consumers purchased cider (Table 19).

Taste was the second reason processors felt consumers purchased their cider.
Processors opposing HACCP believed that their customers are concerned about the effect
pasteurization has on the ﬂavor and taste of cider. Processors supported this belief by
writing comments in the survey about 'what they had heard from their customers,
“Pasteurized cider doesn’t taste as good,” “I’m not concerned with safety, I want the
good untreated stuff,” and “If it is pasteurized, I don’t want it.” These processors further
supported their views by writing additional notes on the survey that included “Most of
our customers want unpasteurized cider,” “they want natural cider — not pasteurization,”
“not concerned as long as it is not pasteurized,” and “I have far greater number of
customers who comment that they buy our cider because it is unpasteurized.” This
demonstrates why 80% of processors opposing HACCP use the attribute “unpasteurized”
to promote their cider (Table 20). Consumer research indicates that the majority of
consumers are not able to distinguish pasteurized and unpasteurized cider by taste and
even if they can distinguish by taste, consmners will adjust over time to the taste of
treated cider (Yulianti, 2003).

Processors opposing HACCP are not oblivious to the fact that they have lost
customers because of concerns about the health risk of unpasteurized cider. Processors
reported that because of consumers’ personal situations, such as families with young

children, the elderly and people with poor health, they have heard comments such as

76

“Unpasteurized cider can possibly have a negative effect on young children and very old
adults.”

Processors selling unpasteurized cider are required to include a warning statement
on their product containers so we wanted to learn what processors had heard from
consumers about the warning. In the opinion of processors, only a minority of consumers
(21%) noticed the warning label for untreated apple cider (Table 18). Processors
commented that they were asked “Is there a problem, why the label?” and “Does this
mean your cider is the same as it always has been?” Processors also indicated that they
often had to explain why the warning was on the juice container and then reported
hearing comments such as; “It is necessary?” “That’s a bunch of nonsense,” “It is
ridiculous,” and “Another idiotic government idea.” One processor commented, “After
they get done laughing at the government’s reasoning the inevitable comparison to
cigarettes follows.” The cider processors’ comments about the FDA warning statement
suggests that some Michigan cider processors believe the warning label is not necessary
and further justiﬁes their decision to disagree with the need for HACCP.

Another top reason consumers buy cider is likely because they want to support
small cider processors so they can purchase locally grown fruits and fruit products and
enjoy a fun fall activity (69%) that supports tradition (67%; Table 19). The cider
qualities promoted by our surveyed processors included no preservatives, fresh,
unpasteurized, delicious or great tasting, and 100% juice (Table 20) indicating they are
promoting some of the attributes of interest to consumers. Survey research regarding

produce and organic foods has found that many consumers also believe locally grown

77

and processed food is fresher, safer and more nutritious (Bruhn and Schutz, 1999;
Torjunsen et al., 2001).
E. CONCLUSION

Cider processors participating in this study were divided in their perceptions of
the juice HACCP regulation and in particular how they perceive the need for and
effectiveness of HACCP to decrease foodbome illnesses. Processors who agreed with
HACCP thought this program would not affect their proﬁt and that consumers were more
concerned about the safety of cider. Although a higher percentage of these processors
had taken measures to comply with the juice HACCP regulation by installing equipment
that would reduce the risk of pathogens, few had followed through to develop a HACCP
plan by September 2002. Processors that disagree with HACCP thought the program
would decrease their proﬁts and that consumers were more concerned about the taste of
cider and rejected pasteurized cider because of the perceived detrimental effect on taste.

A major reason for disagreement with HACCP was wariness of the government
and the decision to mandate HACCP. The regulation was viewed as the government’s
way of interfering with and not being realistic about the juice industry, especially small
cider processors. However, a majority of the processors were positive about food
inspectors, considered them knowledgeable, and took pride in passing annual inspections
conducted by the regulatory agencies.

Differences in perceptions of consumer purchase decisions were aligned with the
processors’ views toward HACCP. This has led to differences in marketing strategies
(safety versus taste) because processors viewed consumers as either wanting treated and

safe cider or untreated, tasty and natural cider.

78

When processors were asked what motivates consumers to purchase their cider,
“trust the cider mill” was at the top of the list for all processors. However, many
Michigan cider processors do not perceive the need to take additional measures to further
ensure this trust by implementing HACCP. Cider processors may not be realistic about
food safety risks and losing the trust of consruners. Studies have shown that small
processors tend to be the most affected by consumer concerns in the time of a crisis
because consumers can easily ﬁnd another food source (Stevenson, 1998; Torj unsen et
al., 2001).

Based on the ﬁndings of this study, it appears that the juice industry may be
heading in the same direction as other food industries, such as the seafood industry, in
which processors were slow to adopt HACCP. This may be because cider processors that
are resistant to change believe they cannot afford HACCP and are uncertain about how to
implement this food safety program. These reasons have overshadowed processors’

perception that trust is why consumers purchase their cider.

79

Table 12. Characteristics of cider mills and processors’ agreement with HACCP

 

 

 

 

 

 

implementation is necessary for cider safety in = 52)
HACCP implementation necessary for
cider safety+
Characteristics Overall Strongly Neutral Strongly
agree or (n=11) disagree or
agree disagree
(n=16) (n=25)
Response (%) Number responding (n)
FDA classification of business:
Very small 92 14 10 24
Small 4 1 1 0
Large 4 1 0 1
Annual production (gallons):
<2,000 27 5 2 7
2,000-3,999 31 3 2 10
4,000-19,999 21 3 3 5
20,000-99,999 13 2 3 2
>100,000 8 2 1 1
Total annual sales of mill (S):
<5,000 33 5 4 8
5,000-9,999 15 1 0 6
10,000-49,999 27 5 3 6
50,000-99,999 12 1 1 4
>100,000 13 3 3 1
Type of elder sales:
Retail only 83 10 9 17
Wholesale only 8 2 2 2
Wholesale and retail 9 3 0 6
Employees working at mill:
<5 79 10 8 23
5-10 6 3 0 0
11-20 2 0 0 1
21-50 7 2 1 1
>50 6 1 2 0
Years mill in operation:
< 1 2 l 0 0
1-5 4 0 1 1
6-10 19 2 2 7
11-20 19 2 2 5
>20 56 8 6 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

Table 12 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

HACCP implementation necessary for cider
safety+
Characteristics Overall Strongly Neutral Strongly
agree or (n=11) disagree or
agree disagree (n=25)
(n=16)
Response (%) Number responding (11)
Years worked at mill:
< l 2 1 0 0
1-5 8 0 l 3
6-10 23 2 2 8
11-20 17 3 2 4
>20 50 7 6 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* FDA classiﬁcation of businesses (juice manufacturers/cider mills) based on size:

Very small businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CF R 120) are those operations that have either total annual sales of
less than $500,000, or have total annual sales greater than $500,000 but their total food sales are less than
$50,000, or are operations that employ fewer than an average of 100 full-time equivalent employees and
sell fewer than 100,000 units of juice in the United States.

Small businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CFR 120) are those operations employing fewer than 500 persons.
Large businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CFR 120) are all businesses not deﬁned as “small businesses” or “very
small businesses” (FDA, 2001).

+Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=1 1) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

81

Table 13. Comparison of juice manufacture size deﬁnitions according to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and according to the Michigan Department of
Agriculture (MDA) (n = 52)

 

 

 

 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration*
Michigan Department Very Small Small Large
of Agriculture+
Small 26 0 0
Medium 15 0 0
nge 7 2 2

 

 

 

 

 

“ FDA classiﬁcation of businesses (juice manufacturers/cider mills) based on size:

Very small businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CF R 120) are those operations that have either total annual sales of
less than $500,000, or have total annual sales greater than $500,000 but their total food sales are less than
$50,000, or are operations that employ fewer than an average of 100 full-time equivalent employees and
sell fewer than 100,000 units of juice in the United States.

Small businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CFR 120) are those operations employing fewer than 500 persons.
Large businesses (as deﬁned in 21 CF R 120) are all businesses not deﬁned as “small businesses” or “very
small businesses” (FDA, 2001).

+Small, medium, and large mills produced <4,000, 4,000-20,000, and >20,000 gal/yr, respectively

82

Table 14. Processors’ perceptions of the need and effectiveness of the juice HACCP
regulation and rationalizations for these perceptions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responses (%)

Perception Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

agree disaﬂ
HACCP implementation necessary to ensure cider 8 23 21 33 15
safety
HACCP reduces incidence of foodbome illness’ 10 25 33 20 12
linked to juice consumption
HACCP regulation results in unnecessary expense 27 43 14 16 0
Juice HACCP regulation results in unnecessary 23 37 21 17 2
oversight
HACCP training is easily accessible and convenient 2 41 22 27 8
Inspectors who visit my plant have adversarial 8 18 23 35 16
relationship towards me
Inspectors who visit my plant are knowledgeable 11 45 31 9 4
about HACCP

 

 

 

 

 

83

Table 15. Processors’ perceptions of the juice HACCP regulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I HACCP implementation necessary
for cider safety‘”

Perception % Agree Neutral Disagree

Overall (n=16) (n=] 1) (n=25)
Regponses (%)

HACCP reduces incidence of foodbome

illness’ linked to juice consumption c b a

Strongly agree and agree 35 88 9 12
Neutral 33 12 91 21
‘ Strongly disagee and disagree 32 0 0 67
HACCP regulation results in unnecessary

expense 3 a b
‘ Strongly agree and agree 70 44 64 92
Neutral 14 12 27 8

Strongly disagee and disagree 16 44 9 0
Juice HACCP regulation results in

unnecessary oversight d de e

Strongly agree and agree 60 44 40 82
Neutral 21 12 60 9

Strongly disaglee and disagree 19 44 0 9

HACCP training is easily accessible and

convenient a ab b
‘ Strongly agree and agree 43 64 46 29
Neutral 22 14 27 25

Strongly disagee and disagree 35 22 27 46
Inspectors who visit my plant have

adversarial relationship towards me

Strongly agree and age 26 27 30 25
Neutral 23 7 4O 25

Strongly disaggee and disagge 51 66 30 50

Inspectors who visit my plant are

knowledgeable about HACCP b a b
‘ Strongly agree and agree 56 60 20 70
Neutral 31 27 50 25

Strongly disggree and disagree 13 13 30 5

 

 

 

 

 

a,b,c numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05.

d,e numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.10.

"‘ Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=] 1) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

84

Table 16. Responses of processors to the juice HACCP regulation

 

HACCP implementation necessary
for cider safety*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responses % Agree Neutral Disagree
Overall (n=16) (n=] 1) (n=25)

Decisions: Responses (%)

Equipment costs in anticipation of HACCP in

the last 5 years (in S): a b b

<1000 35 13 45

LOGO-2,500 12 7 9 l6

2,501-5,000 14 0 46 40

>5,000 39 80 0 0

Changes made in how cider is sold due to

HACCP:

No change 39 33 50 39

Sell more retail 19 22 0 23

Sell only retail 42 45 50 38

Anticipated changes in proﬁts due to

HACCP? c d d

Decrease 57 33 64 65

No change 37 50 36 31

Increase 6 17 0 4

 

 

 

 

Yes responses (tt/g

 

Steps toward HACCP implementation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intend to process cider according to Juice 62 75° 32° 44°
HACCP regulation

Attended cider school or HACCP training 62 33° 7o°° 43°
Implemented SSOPS 44 69° 40°° 32°
Implemented 5-log reduction step 23 44° 13°15 12°
Implemented HACCP plan 10 15° 10° 3°
Perceptions:

What motivates you to make cider?

Believe cider is a safe product 75 75 82 72
Supplement income 67 56 73 72
Family tradition and business 62 69 73 52
Enjoy customers who purchase cider 52 63 55 44
Enjoy process'mg cider 40 44 36 40
Another way to use extra apples 38 31 55 36
Fun to make 17 19 18 16

 

a,b numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05.

c,d numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.10.

° Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=11) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

85

 

Table 17. Processors’ perceptions of visiting frequency of consumers to their cider mill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HACCP implementation necessary
for cider safety“r
Perceptions % Agree Neutral Disagree
Overall (n=16) (n=] 1) (n=25)
Responses (%)
Adults with children < gyears
Very often 45 50 60 38
Often 48 43 40 52
Not often 7 7 0 10
Not at all 0 0 0 0
Adults with school-age children 5-9 years
Very often 61 64 67 57
Often 34 25 33 38
Not often 5 7 0 5
Not at all 0 0 0 0
Adults with schoolgge children >9 years
Very often 55 50 67 54
Often 38 36 33 41
Not often 7 l4 0 5
Not at all 0 0 0 0
Adults without children a b c
Very often 74 57 100 74
Often 22 29 0 26
Not often 2 7 0 0
Not at all 2 7 0 0
Adults >65 years c a b
Very often 66 39 100 70
Often 27 38 0 30
Not often 7 23 0 0
Not at all 0 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a,b,c numbers with different superscripts within an age category differ at P S 0.05.

° Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=11) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

86

Table 18. Processors’ perceptions of consumers’ response to the juice HACCP
regulation and rationalizations for these perceptions ,

 

 

HACCP implementation necessary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for cider safety“
Perceptions % I Agree Neutral Disagree
Overall (n=16) (n=1 1) (n=25)
Responses (%)
HACCP will make consumers more conﬁdent
in buying cider from mill a b b
Aggee strongly or agree 16 43 0 8
Neutral 33 29 70 21
Disagree strongly or disagree 51 28 30 71
Consumers awareness of Juice HACCP
ﬁgulation
Yes, and have good understanding 4 0 10 4
Yes, but not sure what it means 48 57 40 46
Not aware at all 25 36 40 12
No, and don’t care 23 7 10 38
How often consumer notice FDA warning
label (if needed)
Never 12 0 12 14
Seldom 67 100 50 67
Often 12 0 13 14
Very often 9 0 25 5
How often do your feel your customers
purchase cider?
Only for special occasions 2 0 0 4
Throughout the year 22 25 20 21
2-3 times a month in the fall 35 58 30 25
Once a week in the fall 41 17 50 50

 

a,b,c numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05.
" Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=11) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

87

 

Table 19. Processors’ perceptions of consumers’ motivations to purchase cider

 

 

I HACCP implementation necessary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for cider safety*

Perceptions % Agree Neutral Disagree

Overall 7 (n=16) (n=11) (n=25)

Yes res nses (%)

What motivates consumers to purchase cider?
Trust your cider mill 88 88 82 92
Great taste 85 8 l 91 84
Fun fall actm 69 75 55 72
Tradition 67 31° 45° 6851’
Healthy moduct 65 75 64 60
100% juice 54 44 55 60
Feel it is safe 52 69 36 48

 

 

 

 

 

a,b numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.10.
“ Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=1 1) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

88

 

Table 20. Cider qualities promoted by processors

 

 

HACCP implementation necessary
for cider safety*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceptions % Agree Neutral Disagree
Overall (n=16) (n=1 1) (n=25)
Responses (%
Do you promote your cider as having these
qualities?
No preservatives 79 69 82 84
Fresh 75 69 82 76
Unpasteurized 63 33° 54°° 30°
Delicious or great tasting 63 75 55 60
100% juice 54 45 60 45
Healthy 42 69° 27° 32°
Made with Michigan apples 38 27 36 62
Safe 31 56° 27°° 16°
Passed food safety inspections 25 44° 0° 24°
Pasteurized 23 44° 1 3°° 12°
Contains preservatives to maintain freshness 13 13 27 8
Organic or natural 6 13 9 0

 

a,b,c numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.05.
d,e numbers with different superscripts within a row differ at P S 0.10.

" Processors were divided into three groups based on their agreement with the question “HACCP
implementation is necessary to ensure the safety of cider.” The number of processors listed were those that
either strongly agree or agree with HACCP (n=16), processors neutral to HACCP (n=1 1) and processors
either strongly disagree or disagree with HACCP (n=25).

89

 

CHAPTER V. APPLE CIDER AND JUICE FOOD SAFETY: A CONSUMER
PERCEPTION SURVEY
A. ABSTRACT

In the 1990’s a series of foodbome-illness outbreaks raised public health concerns
about unpasteurized juice containing pathogens. In response, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) implemented the juice Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) regulation, in which juice manufacturers must process juice in a way that
includes a lethality step, such as pasteurization, to reduce the presence of pathogens and
subsequent health risks. An exception to the juice HACCP regulation was made for
processors selling juice directly to consumers, such as from a farm or orchard, in which
they do not need to process juice using HACCP. If a processor wishes to sell juice
directly to the public without using a lethality step, s/he must include a warning statement
on the juice container to inform consumers about health risks associated with drinking the
juice.

Several juice related foodbome illness outbreaks have been caused by microbial
pathogens present in unpasteurized apple juice. Consumers may have become aware of
apple juice-associated outbreaks through the media or noticed the warning label on juice
containers. However, there has been little research conducted on how consumers
perceive the safety of juice and in particular the safety of apple cider or juice.

This chapter focuses on the food safety perceptions of Michigan consumers who
drink apple cider and juice. An e-mail survey was sent in October 2002 to 497 Michigan
consumers who drink apple cider and juice. Our objective was to learn their food safety

concerns about apple cider and juice, food safety information sources, knowledge about

90

juice safety and factors that inﬂuence their apple cider and juice purchase decisions.
Surveyed consumers expressed concern about the possible presence of bacterial,
chemical, and physical hazards in apple cider and juice. However, they were not able to
distinguish statements required on the juice label and had limited knowledge about
HACCP. Only 20% of consumers understood that HACCP is a food safety program.
Apple cider and juice purchase decisions by consumers were inﬂuenced ﬁrst by taste,
then safety. Consumers vary in where they purchase apple cider and juice and considered
grocery stores as having the safest juice and farms as having the freshest but not
necessarily the safest juice.
B. INTRODUCTION

The FDA estimates that annually in the U.S. 16,000-48,000 people become ill
from drinking juice that contains microbial pathogens (FDA, 2001). To decrease the
incidence of foodbome illnesses associated with juice products in 1998, the FDA
promulgated a regulation that required the statement “WARNING: This product has not
been pasteurized and, therefore, may contain harmful bacteria which can cause serious
illness in children, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems” be placed
on the labels of juice products that had not been treated with a processing technology,
such as pasteurization or UV light irradiation, that ensures a 5-log reduction of pertinent
pathogens of concern (Salmonella spp., E. coli 0157:H7, and Cryptosporidium parvum).
In 2001, the ﬁnal juice HACCP regulation was promulgated. This juice HACCP
regulation required juice manufacturers to implement a HACCP plan which includes a
lethality step that results in a 5-log reduction of the pertinent pathogens. The regulation

was phased in based on juice manufacturer size starting in January 2002 with full

91

compliance no later than January 2004 (FDA, 2001). An exemption to the juice HACCP
regulation was made for manufacturers that sell juice directly to consumers in that they
were not required to implement HACCP or the lethality step. However, if they choose
this option, the warning statement must be on juice packages (FDA, 2001).

During the 1990’s, consumers’ food safety concerns increased in regards to the
presence of harmful bacteria, chemicals, and foreign material in food. Although
consumers express concern about food safety, many tend to have limited knowledge
about food safety and do not follow food safety recommendations (Bruhn, 1997; Bruhn
and Schutz, 1999; Herrmann et al., 2000; Roper, 2001). Consumers often base food
purchase decisions on their personal traditions and beliefs about the food (Davidson et
al., 2003; Robinson and Smith, 2003; Spinks and Bose, 2002). Generally, the food
attributes that continue to be of importance to consumers are taste, food safety and health
beneﬁts of the food (Ford et al., 1998; Goldman and Clancy, 1992; Jolly etal., 1989;
McEachem and McClean, 2002).

Because foodbome illness outbreaks associated with apple juice have been a
concern, we wanted to learn about the food safety perceptions of Michigan consumers in
regards to apple cider and juice. Apples, apple cider and juice are important commodities
to Michigan agriculture and food safety concerns about these products could have a
negative impact on this industry. Michigan ranks as one of top four apple producing
states and one of the top three states in cider production with approximately 30 percent of
Michigan apples processed into apple cider or juice (Michigan Apple Association, 2004;
Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003). The objective of this study was to evaluate

Michigan consumers’ concerns about the safety of refrigerated apple cider and juice, their

92

knowledge about food safety terminology and juice labeling requirements, and whether
or not food safety concerns inﬂuence their apple cider and juice purchase decisions.
C. MATERIALS AND METHODS

In October 2002, an email survey was sent to 1,000 Michigan primary household
shoppers over 18 years of age. Participants were informed that the e-mail survey was
voluntary, conﬁdential, and conducted for Michigan State University. The study protocol
was approved by Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (Appendix A). The survey was pilot tested (n=125). A market research
company, (Market Facts Inc., Chicago, IL) provided the consumer e-mail list and sent the
survey to Michigan consumers. The survey followed Dillman’s (2000) survey methods
for mail and e-mail surveys (Appendix N). More than 85% of the surveyed consumers
returned the e-mail questionnaires (n=851). Market Facts Inc., also provided additional
demographic data they had on ﬁle for the consumers participating in the survey. Data
were analyzed using SAS and descriptive statistics were generated. For statistical
analyses, surveys from consumers that purchased and/or drank apple cider, juice or both
within the last year (n=497) were used.
D. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Because food safety continues to be a primary concern of consumers
(International Food Information Council, 1999; Roper, 2003), we were interested in how
Michigan apple cider and juice consumers perceive the risk of foodbome illnesses from
refrigerated juices. To assess consumer concerns, we used an e-mail survey, which has
the advantage of a very high return rate (85% in this study). A disadvantage of e—mail

surveys is that they tend to represent consumers who are Caucasian and have higher

93

education and income levels when compared to U.S. census data (Bauman and Airey,
2001). We found this to be true when demographics of our survey respondents were
compared to U.S. census data for adults over the age of 18 years (Table 21).

Food safety concerns

Food safety concerns have been investigated in a number of food safety surveys
and consumers continue to be concerned with bacteria, pesticides, mold, foreign material,
processing chemicals, insects and allergens in their food (Bruhn, 1997; Bruhn and
Schutz, 1999; Meer and Misner; 2000; Li-Cohen and Bruhn, 2002; Roper, 2001, 2003).
Our Michigan apple cider and juice consumers had the same food safety concerns as
consumers in these other food safety studies (Table 22).

Consumers may not put food safety concerns into perspective relative to other
safety risks. The International Food Information Council (1999) reported that food safety
concerns often exceed concerns about other health and safety issues such as cigarette
smoking or wearing a seat belt. Consumer surveys on food safety also have found that
although consumers indicate they are concerned about food safety, their knowledge about
these concerns is often limited and they do not necessarily follow through with actions to
prevent food safety risks (Sparks and Shepard, 1994; Meer and Misner; 2000; Li-Cohen
and Bruhn, 2002). Consumers’ food safety concerns need serious consideration by
educators and manufacturers in order to help consumers make more informed food
choices and be conﬁdent about our food supply.

Information sources and knowledge
Consumers become aware and knowledgeable about food safety concerns through

a variety of resources. The primary sources of food safety information for over 50% of

94

our respondents were national and local television programs and local newspaper reports
(Table 23). Bruhn and Schutz (1999) reported that even though consumers use the media
as their main food safety resource they do not necessarily perceive this as the most
reliable. Physicians and health professionals are considered to be the most reliable source
but are not used very often (Bruhn and Schutz, 1999). Our respondents referred to
physicians 22% and other health professionals 10% of the time (Table 23). Family
members were sources of food safety information for 37% of our respondents (Table 23).
Relatives are often perceived as the most believable and trustworthy information source
for food safety, but the advice is often based on personal experience (Herrmann et al.,
2000)

A Signiﬁcant proportion of respondents are using the intemet as a source of food
safety information. For food safety information, 28% of those surveyed indicated using
national websites and 14% use local Sites (Table 23). Public opinion polls ﬁnd the
intemet is being used by more consumers and is considered by consumers to be a reliable
and important communication tool (Roper, 2004). Of the food safety resources, the
media is still the most accessible information source and increases consumers’ awareness
of health and food safety risks. However, the media also can contribute to creating
consumer conﬁrsion about these risks. The confusion leads consumers to believe that no
matter what they decide about food there is more than likely a health or food safety risk
(Hansen etal., 2003; Roe et al., 2001). A possible reason for confusion is the approach
many media reports take to over-emphasize one aspect of a food safety concern and not
necessarily provide objective views or information from all the groups involved (Hansen

et al., 2003; Sandman, 1987; Ten Eyck, 2002).

95

Consumers perceive themselves as knowledgeable about food issues, regulations
and safety, but they cannot differentiate between food label requirements and marketing
information on packaging (N ayga et al., 1998). Food purchases are often based on
familiarity with the product, convenience, packaging and sales information that interests
the shopper rather than on nutrition or food safety (Herrmann, 2000; Kristal et al., 1998).
Our respondents support this ﬁnding since their answers about juice labeling
requirements (Table 24) implied that they chose statements based on familiarity or what
they wanted on a label versus what is required. Consumers cannot be expected to be food
labeling experts, but this ﬁnding and other research indicates that food labeling may not
be serving its intended purpose to educate consumers and provide information to make
healthy food purchases (Herrmann, 2000; Kristal et al., 1998).

Lack of knowledge about industry food safety programs was evident as only 20%
of our respondents were aware that HACCP was a food safety program (Table 25), which
was similar to results reported previously by Ford et al. (1998). Similarly, Bruhn and
Schutz (1999) and Herrmann et al. (2000) reported that consumers have only a limited
knowledge of food safety terms. Potential reasons for consumers’ limited knowledge
about HACCP could be that HACCP is an abbreviation and an extensive media campaign
by food safety experts has not taken place since the primary focus of HACCP education
has been for food manufacturers about this program rather than consumers. Ford et al.
(1998) demonstrated that once consumers were educated about HACCP they believed
that having a statement about HACCP would improve conﬁdence in the product and

manufacturer.

96

Michigan apple cider and juice consumers were familiar with the food safety term
pasteurization (70%) and that this process decreases the risk of pathogens (Table 25).
Knowledge about pasteurization may be due to the food industry having used this term
for many years. With regards to apple cider and juice, pasteurized and not pasteurized
were perceived not only as an indicator of food safety but also for taste. Pasteurized was
perceived by 13% of surveyed consumers as having more of a cooked taste and not
pasteurized was perceived by 20% of consumers as having more of a fresh taste (Table
25). A reason for the differences in taste perception may be that in some instances
pasteurization involves the use of high temperatures for relatively long time periods and
causes changes in the taste of juice products. Pasteurization regimes necessary for
pathogen control in refrigerated juice products can use moderate heat for relatively short
time periods (e.g., 71.1°C (160°F) for 6 seconds) with little or no adverse affect on taste.
Today many consumers do not notice taste differences between pasteurized and non-
pasteurized cider (Boylston et al., 2003).

Our respondents’ food safety information sources and knowledge are consistent
with consumers participating in other food safety surveys (Bruhn and Schutz, 1999; Ford
et al., 1998; Li-Cohen and Bruhn, 2002; Meet and Misner; 2000). An opportunity exists
to improve communications about the safety of apple cider and juice through the media
and labeling.

Purchase decisions

When asked what would most likely inﬂuence their decision to purchase apple

cider or juice, respondents were most interested in the apple cider or juice taste attributes

followed by safety attributes (Table 26). Surveyed consumers were provided with

97

several statements that may appear on the juice container. Among these statements
“100% juice” (94%) and “ﬂesh” (87%; Table 26) were rated the highest. Research
continues to ﬁnd that taste prevails when consumers make purchase decisions regardless
of their concerns about food (Ford et al., 1998; Goldman and Clancy, 1992; Jolly et al.,
1989; McEachem and McClean, 2002). The terms “100% juice” and “ﬂesh” also have
implications in how consumers perceive the ingredients and processing. Jolly et al.
(1989) and Goldman and Clancy (1992) reported that when “ﬂesh” is used to describe a
food, purchase decisions are inﬂuenced since the food is perceived as being recently
made, consists of whole or natural ingredients, is less likely to contain bacteria or
contaminants and has a better ﬂavor. When our respondents were asked where they
would purchase “ﬂesh” or “100% juice” the most likely locations were farms, orchards
and farmer’s markets (Table 27).

After taste, 79% of surveyed consumers chose “passed food inspection” as
inﬂuencing purchases (Table 26). The strong conﬁdence in food safety inspections may
be due to consumers being more familiar with food inspections because they have been
conducted since the turn of the century (Juska etal., 2003). Ford et al. (1998) also
reported that passing food safety inspection is a strong incentive for consumers to buy
meat products. Caswell and Mojduszka (1996) and Roe et al. (2001) reported that
consumers react more to food safety information on food labels if the information is
positive. Our respondents supported this ﬁnding in that 45% were less likely to purchase
juice bearing the FDA warning statement about the risk of pathogens (Table 26). When
our consumers were asked where they prefer to buy “safe” juice almost half (48%)

selected grocery stores (Table 27). Our surveyed consumers may be choosing the

98

grocery store as a safe place to purchase juice due to faith that retailers have strong food
safety standards, convenience and a wider selection of products including shelf-stable
juice.

Our respondents were familiar with pasteurization and 60% of those surveyed
indicated this term would inﬂuence their apple cider and juice purchase (Table 26) since
they know it deceases one of their food safety concemS-the presence of pathogens (Table
25).

Apple cider and juice perceived as “organic or natural’” would be a purchase
incentive for over 50% of our respondents (Table 26), and this may be due to consumers’
impression that “organic” implies less chemical use and processing. This also points out
that there is potentially a growing market for organically produced apple cider and juice
in Michigan. Organic and natural food is considered to be more environmental ﬂiendly
and associated with the absence of pesticides and other chemicals (McEachem and
McClean, 2002). Research over the last 15 years indicates there is an increasing demand
for organic and natural foods because consumers perceive the food to be healthier, safer
and less processed. This same research also notes that consumers are seeking and
purchasing organic and natural food from local food c00peratives and community-
supported agriculture groups (CSA). The cooperatives and CSAs are supplied with ﬂesh
produce and products ﬂom local farms and orchards (Goldman and Clancy, 1992; Jolly et
al., 1989; Jussaume and Higgins, 1998; Torjunsen et al., 2001). More consumers are
seeking out locally grown and processed food due to familiarity, tradition and trust in the
food as well as wanting to support local farmers (Booker and Hanf 2000; Guptill and

Wilkins, 2002). When we asked our respondents what retailers they perceived as

99

offering organic and natural juice, 34% chose health food stores versus 21% identifying
local farms or orchards, while 21% stated there was no difference in retailers (Table 27).

Almost half (48%) of Michigan cider consumers associated the local farm or
orchard with “not pasteurized” juice (Table 27). Unpasteurized juice is required to have
the warning label about pathogens and 45% of surveyed consumers indicated this
statement would negatively impact their juice purchase (Table 26). Based on consumer
research (Roper, 2003), a market exists for organic and natural foods ﬂom local farms but
our respondents did not necessarily view Michigan farm or orchards as the safest place to
purchase apple cider or juice.

When making a purchase decision about apple cider and juice, our respondents
ﬁrst consider taste then safety. Including familiar terms such as “passed food
inspections” on juice containers may improve consumer conﬁdence. Our respondents
also considered pasteurized juice to be safer since they know this processing method
reduces the risk of pathogens.

An interesting ﬁnding ﬂom this survey is how Michigan apple cider and juice
consumers are viewing Michigan farms and orchards as a place to purchase apple cider
and juice. Consumers view local farms as having the ﬂeshest juice, a top reason for
purchase, and as a source of organic and natural food, but do not perceive Michigan cider
processors as offering the safest product. Michigan apple cider processors need to take
into consideration what Michigan apple cider and juice drinkers are looking for on the
label and communicate that their product is 100% juice, has a great taste, is processed

locally and is safe. Processors using HACCP need to emphasize these characteristics

100

since the juice HACCP regulation does not allow for the term “ﬂesh” to be used on
pasteurized or UV light treated juice (FDA, 2001).
E. CONCLUSION

Our respondents had similar food safety concerns, resources and knowledge as
consumers surveyed in other food safety studies (Bruhn and Schutz, 1999; Li-Cohen and
Bruhn, 2002; Meer and Misner; 2000). Taste was the priority of all of our respondents
when making an apple cider and juice purchase and the attributes “ﬂesh” and “100%
juice” on the label were most likely to inﬂuence their purchase decision.

Safety also inﬂuenced purchase decisions. The majority of respondents were
familiar with pasteurization but only 20% of our respondents were aware that HACCP is
a food safety program. Two groups of consumers emerged ﬂom this study, consumers
who want safe pasteurized apple cider and juice and selected the grocery store as most
likely to have safe product, and consumers who want organic and less processed apple
cider and juice but indicated the health food store as the retailer most likely to offer
product with these attributes. An opportunity exists for Michigan apple cider processors
implementing HACCP to reach both consumer groups. They need to communicate to
apple cider and juice consumers that they make great tasting cider that is 100% juice
ﬂom locally grown apples and it is safe because of the food safety program (HACCP)

used to process their cider.

101

Table 21. Demographic characteristics of Michigan e-mail respondents
and the U.S. population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic % of respondents % of U.S. population
characteristics (n=497) @000 census)
Gender
Female 56 51
Male 35 49
Prefer not to answer 9 -
Ethnicity
Aﬂican American 3 12
Asian American 1 2
Caucasian 92 72
Hispanic/Latino l 13
Other 3 1
Age Group (years)
0-18 - 27
18-25 6 7
26-35 18 14
36-45 22 16
46-55 26 14
56-65 18 9
> 66 10 13
Education level
Someﬂgh school 2 20
High school graduate 20 29
Some college or technical 40 27
school
College graduate 26 16
‘ Postcollege graduate 12 8
Household income level in
2002
<$15,000 9 16
$15,000-$24,999 10 13
$25,000-$39,999 17 18
$40,000-$59,999 21 19
> $60,000 43 33
Population (in millions)
where live
<05 19 21
05-2 18 11
>2 45 68
Marital status
Married 65 52
Siﬂle 35 48

 

102

Table 21 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic % of respondents % of U.S. Population
characteristics (n=497) (2000 census)
Members in household

One 19 26
Two 38 33
Three 17 15
Four 17 14
> Five 9 11
Age in years of child(ren)

in household

<6 12 21
6-17 27 37
None under 18 69 52

 

 

 

 

 

103

Table 22. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ concerns about
tential hazards in reﬂigerated juice (n = 497)

 

Level of concern (1 -5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condition Very (2) (3) (4) Not at all
(1) (5)
(%)
Pesticides 67 17 10 3 3
Bacteria 67 15 1 1 4 3
Mold 68 12 10 5 5
Foreign material 69 10 6 7 8
(glass, wood, metal)
Processing 56 23 14 4 3
chemicals
Insects 64 14 9 7 6
Allergens 50 19 16 7 8
Artiﬁcial 37 27 27 4 5
Egredients
Preservatives 3 l 26 3 1 7 5

 

104

 

Table 23. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ sources
of food safety information (11 = 497)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source % of respondents
National television programs or news broadcast 67
Local television programs or news broadcast 60
Local newspaper articles 52
National newspaper or magazine articles 45
Family or ﬂiends 37
Intemet-national websites 28
Local radio broadcasts 23
Physician 22
National radio broadcasts 20
Intemet-local websites 14
Other health professional 10
Other (not speciﬁed) 7

 

105

Table 24. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ knowledge
of juice labeling requirements (11 = 497)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Label statement % of respondents
Keep reﬂigerated 95
Contains preservatives to maintain ﬂeshness 91
Pasteurized 89
Contains 100% juice 86
Not pasteurized 79
No preservatives 79
Has passed a food inspection test 73
Eganic or Natural 68
Has not been treated to reduce pathogens 61
Fresh 52
Safe 50
Delicious or ggeat tasting 18

 

 

 

106

Table 25. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers’ knowledge of food safety
terms (11 = 497)

 

 

Term % of respondents
HACCP: (could select only one)

Manufacturer has a food safety program in place 20
Manufacturer uses certiﬁed Grade A ﬂuit to make juice 6
Manufacturer is a member of an independent organization 2
Manufacturer won an award <0.5
Don’t know 72
Pasteurized: (could select only one)

Juice is organic and natural 2
Juice will have more of a cooked taste 13
Juice will have more of a ﬂesh taste 6
Juice has less risk of pathogens 70
Juice may have more risk of pathogens 2
Don’t know 10
Not Pasteurized: (could select only one)

Juice is organic and natural 21
Juice will have more of a cooked taste 1
Juice will have more of a ﬂesh taste 20
Juice has less risk of pathogens 2
Juice may have more risk of pathogens 63
Don’t lmow l 1

 

 

 

 

107

Table 26. Labeling statements likely to inﬂuence Michigan apple cider and juice
consumers’ purchase decisions (n = 497)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of purchase likelihood (1-5)
Statement Much more More Neither Less Much less
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(%)
100% Juice 69 25 6 <05 0
Fresh 55 32 23 <05 0
Passed food inspection 46 33 19 l 1
Ngreservatives 36 33 28 2 1
Safe 37 29 31 2 1
Delicious ogreat tasﬁg 37 26 35 1 1
Keep refrigerated 36 22 41 1 <0.5
Pasteurized 3 1 29 36 2 2
_Ogganic or natural 28 28 39 3 2
Contains preservatives to 7 15 48 22 8
maintain freshness
Not pasteurized 6 10 45 22 17
Warning statement that 5 8 42 24 21
juice not treated to reduce
pathogens

 

 

 

 

 

108

Table 27. Michigan apple cider and juice consumers preferred retailer to purchase
refrigerated apple cider or juice with the following characteristics (11 = 497)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Local Farmer’s Health Grocery Mass No
Farm or market food store merchandiser difference
Orchard store
% of respondents
Fresh 47 11 2 21 2 17
No preservatives 33 8 19 17 2 21
Safe 4 2 10 48 4 32
Delicious or 29 9 3 27 3 29
_great taste '
Organic or 21 6 34 17 1 21
natural
Not pasteurized 45 13 7 12 2 21

 

 

 

109

CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary:

In the late 1990’s the public became concerned about the safety of juice after a
series of foodbome illnesses attributed to consumption of unpasteurized juice
contaminated with pathogens. The pertinent pathogens most successful at surviving and
growing in juice and likely to result in a foodbome illness include Salmonella spp., E.
coli 0157:H7 and Cryptosporidium parvum. Apple juice and cider were the sources of
the pathogen, E. coli 0157:H7, in several of the juice-associated foodbome illnesses
(FDA, 2001).

In 1997, the FDA published a notice of intent announcing a comprehensive
program to address foodbome illness related to juice and ultimately improve the safety of
juice. The notice of intent proposed three areas, 1) a juice HACCP regulation, 2) a
warning label on juice products not treated to achieve a 5-log reduction of pertinent
pathogens and 3) juice safety and HACCP education programs for processors (FDA,
1997). In 1998, the FDA published the ﬁnal regulation for labeling of juice and extended
the comment period for the juice HACCP regulation. After a review of juice research
and comments ﬂom both processors and the NACMCF, the FDA published the juice
HACCP ﬁnal regulation in January 2001, and required HACCP implementation in
January 2002, 2003, and 2004 for large, small, and very small juice manufacturers,
respectively. Juice processors selling juice directly to consumers were allowed a “retail
exemption” in which they are not required to implement HACCP but must include a

warning label about the risk of pathogens on the juice containers (FDA, 2001).

110

The safety of cider is of special interest to the State of Michigan since it is one of
top four apple producing states and one of the top three states in cider production with
approximately 30 percent of Michigan apples processed into cider each year (Michigan
Apple Association, 2004; Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2003).

From 1997 through 2002, the MDA conducted annual cider mill inspections and
collected samples of retail cider for bacterial analyses. The inspections took place during
the traditional cider season, September through November. Important elements of the
inspections included evaluation of agricultural and manufacturing practices, whether
cider was sold wholesale or retail and the annual cider production volume at the mill. The
MDA state laboratory conducted bacterial analyses of the cider which included tests for
the presence of E. coli 0157:H7, generic E. coli, total coliforms, total aerobic plate
counts and pH.

To investigate changes processors had made in agricultural and manufacturing
practices and their perceptions about the juice HACCP regulation two mail surveys were
sent to processors in September 2002. In October 2002, an e-mail questionnaire was sent
to Michigan juice consumers to evaluate their concerns regarding the safety of
refrigerated apple juice and cider, knowledge about food safety and food safety concerns
that might inﬂuence purchase decisions.

Improvements were found in both agricultural and manufacturing practices at
cider mills between 1997 and 2002. The improvements included better record keeping of
purchased apples and more processors inspecting apples for cleanliness and
wholesomeness and storing apples in cold storage. Facilities improvements included

adequately screening the facility to prevent entry of animals, improved water systems,

111

use of intervention technology to destroy microbial pathogens and more mills conducting
microbial analyses of ﬁnished product. Cider mills producing more than 20,000 gallons
of cider per year were the ﬁrst to use CGMPS and had lower bacterial counts in their
cider.

Two-thirds of cider mills producing more than 20,000 gallons of cider per year
implemented thermal pasteruization or UV light irradiation to achieve a 5-log reduction
in microbial pathogens. Generally, mills using either thermal pasteurization or UV light
irradiation had lower bacterial counts in ﬁnal products. However, some cider samples
labeled as either pasteurized or UV light treated had higher bacterial levels than would be
expected for cider treated with these processes. This indicates that some processors were
not properly using thermal pasteurization or UV light irradiation equipment, or that the
cider was contaminated after processing.

E. coli 0157:H7 was not detected in any of the cider samples tested during 1997
to 2002. However, 5.8% of all samples contained generic E. coli, indicating potential
fecal contamination. The presence of generic E. coli is a concern since it indicates that
processors need to be more diligent in preventing bacterial contamination during apple
harvesting, storage, handling and processing.

The processor perception survey revealed that 48% of processors did not perceive
the juice HACCP regulation as necessary for cider safety and indicated it would result in
unnecessary expense and governmental oversight. These processors also believed the
juice regulation would not decrease the risk of foodbome illness in juice or improve
consumer conﬁdence. Reasons not to implement HACCP included additional expense to

upgrade the manufacturing facility and equipment, and the time needed to develop a

112

HACCP plan for a seasonal business. These processors also stated that customers trusted
their cider mill and preferred untreated cider due to the taste. Processors who believed
that HACCP was necessary for cider safety had taken measures to improve their
processing facilities and practices. Processors, regardless of their view on the need for
HACCP, had favorable attitudes towards regulatory personnel inspecting their facilities.

Michigan consumers who purchase apple cider or juice had similar food safety
resources, knowledge and concerns as consruners in other food safety studies. Among
factors inﬂuencing their decisions to purchase cider or juice, taste was considered most
important, followed by safety. Although consumers expressed food safety concerns they
were not necessarily knowledgeable about juice labeling requirements or food safety
programs such as HACCP. Most consumers could not distinguish between marketing
terms and juice labeling requirements and only 20% of the consumers were aware that
HACCP is a food safety program. When asked about factors inﬂuencing where they
would purchase apple cider and juice, respondents selected the grocery store as having
the safest juice, health food stores as most likely to offer organic and natural juice, and
the farm or orchard as having ﬂeshest or 100% juice.

Conclusions:

This study has provided insights into the manufacturing practices at Michigan
cider mills and the perceptions of both cider processors and consumers. From this study
it is concluded that:

0 Further education about food safety and HACCP is needed for cider processors
not perceiving the need for HACCP and electing the “retail exemption” of the

juice HACCP regulation. Processors who do not use intervention technology or

113

implement HACCP are putting themselves at risk for a juice-associated foodbome
illness outbreak. A single outbreak of foodbome illness associated with Michigan
apple cider would have a negative impact on the entire Michigan cider industry.

9 Cider mills using thermal pasteurization and UV light equipment may still be at
risk of producing unsafe cider due to equipment not operating properly as we
found higher than expected bacterial counts in end-product samples ﬂom some
cider mills using these intervention technologies.

0 Michigan cider processors implementing HACCP and selling cider directly to
consumers have a marketing opportunity to promote their cider as locally made,
great tasting and safe. These attributes inﬂuenced our surveyed consumers’
purchase decisions about apple cider and juice, but they currently view the
grocery store and health food stores as more likely to have product with these
attributes rather than a local farm or orchard.

Future Research:

Many opportunities exist for future research and include:
0 Investigation into the operating procedures of thermal pasteurization and
UV light irradiation equipment in Michigan cider mills to determine if
equipment is operating properly to achieve a 5-log reduction of microbial
pathogens. Several pasteurized and UV light irradiated end-product cider
samples had higher than expected bacterial counts in this study.
However, these observations were based on single samples collected each

year and additional sampling is needed to substantiate this ﬁnding.

114

Experimental research onsite at cider mills to investigate processing steps
ﬂom harvesting to bottling that may introduce microbial hazards into
cider. Although improvements were made in CGMPS ﬂom 1997 to 2002,
the data was collected by state personnel in 1997 and self-reported by
processors in 2002. Inspectors and processors may have different
interpretations of processing practices. Researchers who actually visit
cider mills, assess manufacturing processes and conduct in-line sampling
for microbial analyses may detect risks not found in this study and
suggest areas for improvement.

Investigation into the real and perceived constraints of HACCP
implementation through focus groups and interviews with cider
processors may determine how HACCP implementation can be successful
in the juice industry. The processor perception survey in this study
provided several insights into the views of cider processors. Research
using focus groups and interviews allows for probing into processors’
decision-making and provides a better opportunity to determine ways to
assist processors in overcoming negative perceptions about HACCP.

Additional consumer research including sensory testing, focus groups
and interviews is needed. Sensory research comparing pasteurized, UV
light treated and untreated cider produced in Michigan will determine if
consumers notice a difference in taste. Consumer research using focus

groups or interviews can further investigate the concerns and needs of

115

Michigan apple cider and juice consumers and provide insight into their
purchase decisions and views about Michigan cider mills.
This study has provided important insights into the Michigan cider industry that
can be used to construct both experimental and observational research to help ensure the

safety of Michigan cider and improve consumer conﬁdence.

116

APPENDICES

117

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS FORM

118

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

July 30. 2004

TO: Toby TEN EYCK
316 Berkey Hall
MSU

RE: IRBff 01-589 CATEGORY: 2-G EXPEDITED

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: August 18, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: July 18, 2004

TITLE' APPLE JUICE AND HACCP: HAZARD SURVEILLANCE. TRAINING. AND
' PERCEPTIONS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL.

Letter reprinted to reﬂect the addition of the secondary investigator (Donna Thede).

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and
referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
omcg or subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.
RESEARCH , , ,
ETHICS AND If we can be of further assrstance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or v1a email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu.
STANDARDS

Jniverslty Committee on Sincerely,
Research Involvlno

Human Subjects ,
Michigan State University W
202 OIdS Hall

East Lansing, MI ,
48824 Peter Vasrlenko, Ph.D.

517/355_2180 UCRIHS Chair

FAX: 517/432-4503

l1: www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

 

PV: jm

cc: Donna Thede
9750 Huntington Rd.
Battle Creek, MI 49017

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, l I. 9

pmannnnrtnnitv instill Itinn

APPENDIX B

1997 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

120

“_239 (6.797) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

LANSING. MI 48909

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

581210 No. . SPECIAL REPORT Date Time
stablrshmcnt T) pc
Person or Frnn Name Inspector
Street Address City Zip Code County
APPLE CIDER INSPECTION 1997
Date of Operation: Starting: Ending:
Years in Operation: Gallons Produced Per Week
A. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
YES NO

 

Are processing operations in a separate enclosed room or building?

 

Are processing area walls and ceilings impervious and ﬂoors made of
concrete or an impervious surface that is easily cleaned?

 

Is the processing facility adequately screened/sealed to prevent
insect/rodent entry?

 

Are toilet facilities completely enclosed and conveniently located?

 

Are toilet facilities equipped with hot and cold running water, soap, single
use disposable paper toweling with an “employee hand wash” notice?

 

ls lighting adequate, and are lights properly shielded in processing and
exposed food areas?

 

ls ground free of improperly stored equipment, spray materials, litter,
waste, uncut weeds, grasses and other pest harborage?

 

ls wash/waste water properly disposed of?
Municipal sewage?_ Septic tanks? Describe other:

 

Are equipment, utensils, chemicals, and supplies not used for cider
processing stored in an area separate from the processing area?

 

Are food contact surfaces constructed of food grade materials which are
safe, durable, corrosion-resistant, non-absorbent, and easily cleaned and
sanitized?

List detergents used:

 

List sanitizers used:

 

Are racks, cloths, and food equipment stored properly off the ﬂoor and in a
well-ventilated area when not is use?

 

Is hot/cold running water under pressure provided in all processing areas
and in a sufﬁcient volume?
Capacity of hot water heater:

 

Has well water been recently tested and found acceptable?
Date of test:
Date that processing began:

 

 

Are lines/tubing properly installed, made of food grade materials. and
protected from abrasion or breakage?

 

 

 

Are lines composed of material other than copper or copper alloy?
Indicate material:

 

 

 

121

 

 

16. Are lines/tubing, clamps, couplings, and ﬁttings dismantled, cleaned and
sanitized after each production day, prior to start up, and after an extended
interruption?

 

17. Are all raw ingredients and packaging materials protected when pesticides
are applied?

List pesticides used in processing area:

 

18. Are food contact surfaces cleaned and sanitized after
insecticide/rodenticide application, and before commencement of any food-
processing gperation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments:
- . B. EMPLOYEES

19. ' Is dire person. assrgnedthe responsrbrhty for the sanrtatron of the facility?
Name: I Title:

20. Are employees in processing areas wearing clean outer garments and
maintaining personal hygiene?

21. Are employees washing hands before starting work, after every absence, and
when they become soiled?

22. Are employees wearing effective hair restraints?

23. Are gloves used, are they designed for food handling operations?

24. Are tobacco products prohibited ﬂom use in food processing, storage or
packaging areas?

25. Are gloves replaced or hands washed when employees move ﬂom a non-food
contact area or cleaning operation to a food contact area?

Comments:

3 c. RECEIVING

R1. If apples are purchased, are records maintained to tracevarious lots?
Purchased ﬂom (source):

R2. Are apples adequately stored and ﬂee ﬂom insect and rodent activity?

26. Are incoming apple containers inspected and found ﬂee of ﬁlth?

R3. Are apples kept in cold storage prior to use?

27. Is receiving area ﬂee of animals?

28. Is there veriﬁcation that the apples used did not come ﬂom orchards fertilized
with human or animal waste?

Comments:

 

P: INSPEQTIQN , .. ..

 

n-qwu-nu.‘ , .,,1. .‘_. ,, .rqr‘ (u.l§b..|x| ¢ “'\‘AIL 'V

 

29. ' nan4.61....angaaecadbananangaa‘baaagé' 3'

 

 

 

30. Are worrny, decayed, damaged or rotten apples discarded?

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. E.- ,WA$H_IN9.&.BRUSHING . -

4 . . ,
......¢..v My”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. Are apples effectively washed by a wet brusher prior to crushing?
What type of brusher is used? Make: Model:
Length of brush bristle:
Length of brushing segment:
When was the brusher installed? New or used:
How is brusher cleaned/sanitized?
Method: Frequency:
32. Are apples ﬂee of visible ﬁlth and debris after cleaning?
R4. ls used are detergents and sanitizers applied to apples according to
manufacturer’s or label directions?
What detergents are used:
What sanitizer is used:
What concentration is used?
Test strip reading today:
Comments:
F. CRUSHING & PRESSING
33. Are crushing and pressing equipment cleaned and sanitized at the end of
production and prior to start-up?
34. Is equipment dismantled on a regiﬁr basis, cleaned and sanitized?
35. Are press cloths designed for food processipgand replaced when necessary?
36. Are press cloths stored off the ﬂoor or in a clean container between runs?
37. Are all cloths washed, rinsed, sanitized and dried after each production day?
38. If a washirg machine is used, is it solely dedicated for washingpress cloths?
39. Are press racks made of food-grade plastic or hardwood, smooth and easy to
clean and ﬂee of excessive cracks and crevices?
40. Is all pressed pomace properly removed, and not left overnight in processing
area?
R5. Is a method in place to ensure proper and safe addition of additives?
Yes: No:
R6. Is a pressing aid used?
List:
Comments:

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vnr‘ﬁ.

_ .GaAFTERPRBSSTNG

"L: Rf .

 

'41.

Is cider bottle in new, clean containers?

 

R7.

Are unused containers and caps stored in original packaging, inverted and oﬁ‘
the ﬂoor?

 

42.

Are the containers labeled with the following information?

Product Identity?

Ingredients (if additives are used?)

Sell by date? If no, describe methods of sale in comment section below.
Name and address of manufacturer, packer or distributor?

Net Quantity?

Keep refrigerated statement?

 

R8.

Is microbiological testing performed on processed cider?
Yes: No:

 

 

Frequency of testing:
Method:
Organisms:

 

 

 

R9.

What other types of activities are done on the premise?
Hayrides, pony rides, petting zoo, other food/non-food processing etc?

 

How close are the live stock and penned animals to the processing
building/apple sttﬂge areas?

 

R10.

Is custom pressing done? Yes: No:

 

Is equipment broken down, cleaned, and sanitized between each
customer?

How are custom pressed apples inspected?
By whom?

 

 

Rll.

Are any containers reﬁlled?
Indicate circumstances:

 

R12.

 

Does operator check the strength of the sanitizer used?
Method:

 

 

 

 

Comments:

 

 

Copy Received By (signature) Division

 

Inspector
(signature)

 

124

 

APPENDIX C

1998 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

125

1998 APPLE CIDER INSPECTION SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Establishment ID Number: Date:

Firm Name: Inspector: County#:
Street Address: City: Zip code:
>

Please indicate whether the following items are in compliance with GMP’s for
Michigan Apple Cider. -
o If NOT in compliance, please describe in the COMMENTS section.

A. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM MEETS DOES NOT ITEM MEETS DOES NOT
GMP MEET GMP MEET
GMP GMP
Separate Food contact
processirg area surfaces
Processing area Cider equipment
screened/sealed materials (tubing
etc.)
Floors Clean-up water
Walls Cider equipment
storage
Ceilings Packaging
material storage
Restroom location Well water
testing
Handwash station Lights
Equipment storage Surrounding
(non-cider) outside area
B. EMPLOYEES C. RECEIVING
ITEM MEETS DOES NOT ITEM MEETS DOES NOT
GMP MEET GMP MEET
GMP GMP
Garments/hygiene Apple containers
Handwashing Apple storage
Hair restraints Receiving area
Personal
items/smolgL

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

D. PROCESSING

E. LABELING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

equipment and
tubing
cleaning/sanitizing

 

Use of
preservative

 

 

 

 

ITEM MEETS DOES NOT ITEM MEETS DOES NOT
GMP MEET GMP MEET
GMP GMP
Apples inspected Standard
label
requirements
Apples cleaned
Pressing

 

F. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

 

ITEM

YES NO

 

processing?

Are dropped apples used in

 

Does processing include a 5-
log reduction step?

 

ls FDA warning

label/placard present?

 

 

done on-site?

Is there custom pressing

 

 

 

 

G. MISCELLANEOUS

Cost mill incurred for meeting the GMPs for 1998 season: $
List major items:

Estimate number of months operating this year:

Estimate number of gallons produced per week:

 

 

 

H. COMMENTS-Please describe any non-compliance areas.

127

 

APPENDIX D

1999 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

128

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AG-O3l
LANSING, MI 48909
Estab. No. SPECI A I REPORT Date Time
(in accordance with PA. 380, Public Acts 1995 as amended)
Person or Firm Name Inspector
Street Address City Zip Code County
1999 Apple Cider Survey
1. Expected 1999 production: gallons
Is the mill operating or planning to operate this season?
2. Yes No
If no, why?
What are the short term and long term plans for this mill?
3. Is the mill in substantial compliance with GMPs? Yes No
4. Describe any changes made to facility/process/equipment this season:
What processing interventions are used:
5.
|:] HTST pasteurizer
B UV light unit
[:3 Other (describe)
List the manufacturer, brand, model speciﬁcations, etc.:
Percentage of total cider production treated by these interventions:
6. Percentage of product sold: Wholesale Retail
7. Does the mill custom press cider? Yes No
8. Is the FDA warning label present on containers? Yes No
Elsewhere?

 

 

129

 

APPENDIX E

2000 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

130

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-0 /99
LANSING, MI 48909
Estab. No. SPEC] AI REPORT Date Time
(In accordance with PA. 380, Public Acts 1995 as amended)
Person or Firm Name Inspector
Street Address City Zip Code County
Subject
2000 Apple Cider Survey
Expected 2000 production:
I.
Is the mill operating or planning to operate this season?
2. Yes No
",0, why? :1 I:
What are the short term and long term plans for this mill?
3. ls the mill in substantial compliance with GMPs? D Yes [:| No I: Marginal
4. Describe any changes made to facility/process/equipment this season:
What processing interventions are used:
5.
E] HTST pasteurizer
D UV light unit
[:3 Other (describe)
D None
List the manufacturer, brand, model speciﬁcations, etc.:
6. Percentage of product sold: Wholesale Retail
7.
Does the mill custom press cider? Yes No
8. Is the FDA warning label present on containers? Yes No
Elsewhere? Yes No
9. Additional remarks on accompanying Special Report? Yes No
Copy Received By (signature) Division Inspector (signature)
Phone

 

 

 

131

 

APPENDIX F

2001 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

132

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AG-03l
LANSING, MI 48909
5.... N°~ SPECIAL REPORT Date Time
(In accordance with PA. 380, Public Acts 1995 as amended)
Person or F inn Name Inspector
Street Address City Zip Code County
Subject
2001 Apple Cider Survey
Expected 2001 production:
I.
Is the mill operating or planning to operate this season?
2. I: Yes D No
If no, why?
What are the short term and long term plans for this mill?
3. Is the mill in substantial compliance with GMPs? [:I Yes D No [:1 Marginal
4. Check one. Is this firm:
E] A wholesale processor (disregard custom pressing for a moment)?
E A Retail Establishment (all cider pressed is sold by owner on site or at farmers market)?
5. Does the mill custom press cider? Yes No
What processing interventions are used:
6.
[:l HTST pasteurizer
D UV light unit
[3 Other (describe)
[3 None
List the manufacturer, brand, model speciﬁcations, etc.:
7. Percentage of product sold: Wholesale Retail
8.
Does the mill custom press cider? Yes No
9. Is the FDA warning label present on containers? Yes No
Elsewhere? Yes No
10. Additional remarks on accompanying Special Report? Yes No
Copy Received By (signature) Division Inspector (signature)
Phone

 

 

 

133

 

APPENDIX G

2002 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CIDER PROCESSOR
SURVEY

134

AG-03l (Rang/99) MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANSING, MI 48909
Estab. No- SPECIAL REPORT Date Time
(In accordance with PA. 380, Public Acts 1995 as amended)
Person or Firm Name Inspector
Street Address City Zip Code County
Subject
2002 Apple Cider Survey
1. Expected 2002 production: gallons.
Is the mill operating or planning to operate this season?
2. D Yes D No
If no, why?
What are the short term and long term plans for this mill?
3. Is the mill in substantial compliance with GMPs? I: Yes D No C] Marginal
4. Check one. Is this ﬁrm:
D A wholesale processor (disregard custom pressing for a moment)?
D A Retail Establishment (all cider pressed is sold by owner on site or at farmers market)?
5. Does the mill custom press cider? Yes No
What processing interventions are used on the juice?
6.
I: HTST pasteurizer
[3 UV light unit
C] Other (describe)
Percentage of total cider production treated by these interventions:
7. Percentage of product sold: Wholesale Retail
8. Does the ﬁrm have C] written SSOPs [:l written HACCP plan
B started to work on them S no action taken on them
Does the operator plan to move toward a HACCP system in the near future?
9.
1:] Yes 1:] No
If no, what are the main obstacles (time, cost, don’t see a need, lack of knowledge, etc.)
10. Is the FDA warning label present on containers? Yes No
Copy Received By (signature) Division Inspector (signature)
Phone

 

 

 

135

 

APPENDIX H

LETTER FOR PROCESSORS’ PRACTICES SURVEY

136

August 19, 2002

Dear Cider Processor:

Enclosed is part one of a two-part survey being conducted as part of a research project in the Food Science
and Sociology Departments at Michigan State University. We would like for you to participate in both
surveys. The ﬁrst survey asks about your processing practices and changes you have made due to the new
juice regulations and HACCP. The second survey asks about your perceptions of the new juice regulations,
HACCP and your retail customers. The second survey will be mailed to you within the next few days.

Please be assured that your participation in this research will be kept conﬁdential. At the end of each
survey we ask for personal information only for the purposes to send you a copy of the results if you would
like to receive them.

The intention of this research is to learn ﬂom you how the new juice rule will affect your business and
customers. The results will be shared with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and other interested
groups in the hopes that they might be able to use the information to determine ways to help cider
processors overcome any concerns due to the new juice rule. Again, your personal information will be kept
conﬁdential.

Once you complete both surveys, they will be analyzed and you will receive a report comparing your
responses to those of other cider processors completing both surveys. Please use the enclosed stamped
envelope to return your survey no later than September 9, 2002.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact one of the following individuals. Thank you for
participating in this study.

Dr. Leslie D. Bourquin Dr. Toby A. Ten Eyck

Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of Sociology

& National Food Safety and Toxicology Center 316 Berkey Hall and
Michigan State University National Food Safety and Toxicology Center
139A G. M. Trout Bldg. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 East Lansing, MI 48824-1111
Phone: 517-355-8474 Ext. 112 Phone: 517-353-0874

Fax: 517-353-8963 Fax: 517-432-2856
bourquil@msu.edu toby.teneyck@ssc.msu.edu
Donna Thede

9750 Huntington Road

Battle Creek, MI 49017

Phone: 269-961-2827
Fax: 269-961-2827
thededon@msu.edu

If you have questions about your rights or role as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Ashmir

Kumar, Chair for Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-255-2180. If you have any questions about
this survey please contact the researcher, Donna Thede, at 269-961-2827.

137

APPENDIX I

CIDER PROCESSORS’ PRACTICES SURVEY

138

Whether or not you are operating this season, please complete the questionnaire based on your previous
experience and to the best of your knowledge. Please check the appropriate column with your response
and comment whenever you would like to include additional information.

 

Question Yes No Not Comments:
applicable

 

Is your mill operating or
planning to operate this
season? (If no or not
sure, please state why)

 

Do you grow apples for
your cider?

 

Do you buy apples for
your cider?

 

Is manure used as a
fertilizer in your orchard
(including composted
manure)?

 

Do domestic or wild
animals graze in the
orchard?

 

Does pesticide use
conform with
regulations, including
licensed applicator?

 

If irrigation is used, is

the water source:
-Untested well
water?

 

If irrigation is used, is

the water source:
-Tested well water?
If yes, what is
tested for and
ﬂequency?

 

If irrigation is used, is

the water source:
-Surface water
(pond, stream)?

 

If irrigation is used, is
the water source:
-Other (describg)?

 

Are apples inspected for
cleanliness?

 

Are apples inspected for
wholesomeness?

 

Are unfu'm, windfall,
grounders or
unwholesome apples
discarded?

 

Are drop apples used to
make unpasteurized
cider?

 

 

Are drop apples used to
make pasteurized cider?

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

 

Are badly bruised
apples discarded?

 

Are rotten apples
discarded?

 

Are apples with worm
damaggliscarded?

 

Are apples stored in
cold storage? For how

[013?

 

Are apples stored at
room temperature? For
how loniy?

 

Are written contract
speciﬁcations used for
suppliers (eg., use of
drops, sorting and
washing, pesticide
application)?

 

Are records kept to
document the source of
supply of apples (eg.,
hand picked vs. drops)

 

Are records kept

documenting the

varieties of apples used?

If yes, please state the

relative proportions of

apple varieties used in
our cider.

 

Is well water used in the
processing facility?

 

Is municipal water used
in the processing
facility?

 

Is processing water
tested at least annually?

 

Is there hot and cold
water under pressure
provided in all
processing areas?

 

 

Are processing
operations in a separate
enclosed room or
buildgg?

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

Is the processing facility
adequately
screened/sealed to
prevent insects/rodent

entry?

 

Are domestic animals
allowed in your
processing facility?

(dogs, cats)

 

Are press cloths used?

 

Is there a washing
machine in which only
press cloths are washed?

 

Are press racks made of
foodﬂde plastic?

 

Are press racks made of
hardwood?

 

Are press racks and
cloths washed daily
after operations?

 

Are press racks and
cloths sanitized daily
after operations?

 

Are racks, cloths and
food contact equipment
stored properly off the
ﬂoor in a well-ventilated
area when not in use?

 

Are equipment, utensils,
chemicals and supplies
not used for cider
processing stored in an
area separate ﬂom the
processirgarea?

 

Are apples washed
before processing?

 

Is a wet brusher used?

 

Are detergents used? If
yes, what detergents?

 

Are apples sanitized
prior to processing? If
yes, what sanitizer?

 

Are preservatives used?
If yes, list them and
concentrations used.

 

Are rice hulls or other
pressing aids used in
processing? If yes,
specify press aids used.

 

Is pressed pomace
removed and not left
overnight in processing
area?

 

 

 

 

 

141

 

 

 

Are only new containers
and caps used to
@ckage cider?

 

If reﬁlling is allowed,
are consumer containers
checked for cleanliness
before ﬁlling container?

 

Do you custom press
cider for other people?

 

Do you include FDA
warning statements on
containers of cider?

 

Is microbiological
testing other than the
MDA sampling
conducted on cider?

 

Are toilet facilities
completely enclosed and
conveniently located?

 

Are toilet facilities
equipped with hot and
cold running water with
soap and disposable
paper towels with an
“employee hand wash”
notice?

 

Do employees wear
_gloves?

 

Do employees wear
hairnets?

 

Do employees wear
clean outer garments?

 

Does your mill have
written SSOPS?

 

Does your mill have
written GMPs?

 

Does your mill have a
written HACCP plan in
place?

 

Does your mill
pasteurize or use other
technologies to achieve
a 5-log reduction of
pathogens in cider? If
yes, state type of
pasteurizer or other
technology (cg. UV).

 

Have any equipment
upgrades been made in
the last ﬁve years in
anticipation of the new
FDA Juice Rule and
HACCP. If yes, specify

41129316-

 

 

 

 

 

142

 

 

Please circle your response to the following questions:
During the last ﬁve years, approximately how much has been spent in preparation to have HACCP
implemented into your cider mill?

A. $0-$ l ,000

B. $1,001-$2,500

C. $2,501-$5,000

D. Over $5,000

How do you typically sell your cider? (circle all that apply)

A. Retail sales at your mill and direct to the consumer
B. At a farmer’s market with your mill’s name on label
C. To a retail store with your mill’s name on the label
D. Through custom pressing to a wholesale customer
E. To a distributor/wholesaler who sells the product under another name.
Due to the new Juice Rule and HACCP have you made any of the following changes in how cider is sold?

Sell more retail product

Sell less retail product

Sell only retail product

Sell only wholesale product

Sell less wholesale product

Sell more wholesale product

Made no changes in how cider is sold

greener

How do you feel the new Juice Rule will affect your cider mill’s proﬁt?
A. Increase proﬁt
B. Decrease proﬁt
C. No change

Are any of the following included on your cider container label? (circle all that apply)
Ingredients

Nutrition Facts

Brand name

Keep reﬂigerated

Size or weight of container and cider
Product descriptions

Date code or ﬂeshness date

Pasteurized

Unpasteurized with FDA warning statement
Fresh

Organic

100% juice

Made in Michigan

Other

Zgrﬁrcmpwmpow?

Do you have any of the following activities at your mill? (circle all that apply)
Hayrides

Pony rides

Sell food, donuts, baked goods

Petting zoo

Other

91.0.05”?

What is your role at the cider mill:
A. Owner
B. Employed by owner, please specify your
title
How many employees are working at the cider mill?

143

Less than ﬁve
5-10

1 1-20

21-50

51-100

Greater than 100

WWPQW?

What is the total annual sales of cider at the mill?
$500,000 or greater

$499,999 to $200,000

$199,999 to $100,000

$99,999 to $50,000

$49,999-$10,000

$9,999-$5,000

Less than $5,000

emmpOEP

Approximately how many gallons of cider are produced annually at the cider mill?
1,000,000 or more

999,999 to 500,000

499,999 to 100,000

99,999-20,000

19,999-4,000

3,999-2,000

1,999-1 ,000

Less than 1,000

zermpowr

How long has the cider mill been in operation?
Less than 1 year

1 — 5 years

6 — 10 years

1 l — 20 years

More than 20 years

meow?

How long have you owned or worked at the cider mill?
A. Less than 1 year

B. l—Syears
C. 6- 10 years
D. 11 —20 years

B. More than 20 years

According to the deﬁnitions outlined in the Juice HACCP Final Rule (21 CFR Part 120), what is the size of
your ﬁrm? The size of the business is determined by the magnitude of the corporate operation, not of the
business unit (i.e. the overall size of the company, not the juice processing portion of the company).

A. Large

B. Small (Small businesses employ fewer than 500 persons)

C. Very Small (Very small businesses must meet one of the following three criteria: annual sales of less
than $500,000, total annual sales greater than $500,000 but total food sales less than $50,000, or
operations that employ fewer than an average of 100 full-time equivalent employees and sell fewer
than 100,000 gallons of juice in the United States)

D. Don’t know

We would like to send you a copy of the results. If you would like to receive the results please provide the
following information. Again, your individual information will be kept conﬁdential.
Name:

 

1M

Cider mill name:

 

Street Address:

 

City, State and Zip Code:

 

County:

 

Thank you for completing this survey. Please mail the survey in the enclosed stamped envelope.

145

APPENDIX J

LETTER FOR PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

146

August 20, 2002

Dear Cider Processor:

Enclosed is part two of the two-part survey being conducted as part of a research project in the Food
Science and Sociology Departments at Michigan State University. This second survey asks about your
perceptions of the new juice regulations, HACCP and your retail customers. This survey will help us
understand your thoughts and there are no right or wrong answers.

Please be assured that your participation in this research will be kept conﬁdential. At the end of the survey
we ask for personal information only for the purposes to send you a copy of the results if you would like to
receive them.

As explained in the ﬁrst letter, the intention of this research is to learn ﬂom you how the new juice rule will
affect your business and customers. The results will be shared with the Michigan Department of
Agriculture and other interested groups in the hopes that they might be able to use the information to
determine ways to help cider processors overcome any concerns due to the new juice rule. Again, your
personal information will be kept conﬁdential.

Once you complete both surveys, they will be analyzed and you will receive a report comparing your
responses to those of other cider processors completing both surveys. Please use the enclosed stamped
envelope to return your survey no later than September 10, 2002.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact one of the following individuals. Thank you for
participating in this study.

Dr. Leslie D. Bourquin Dr. Toby A. Ten Eyck

Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of Sociology

& National Food Safety and Toxicology Center 316 Berkey Hall and
Michigan State University National Food Safety and Toxicology Center
139A G. M. Trout Bldg. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 East Lansing, MI 48824-1111
Phone: 517-355-8474 Ext. 112 Phone: 517-353-0874

Fax: 517-353-8963 Fax: 517-432-2856
bourquil@msu.edu toby.teneyck@ssc.msu.edu
Donna Thede

9750 Huntington Road

Battle Creek, MI 49017
Phone: 269-961-2827
Fax: 269-961-2827
thededon@msu.edu

If you have questions about your rights or role as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Ashmir
Kumar, Chair for Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-255-2180. If you have any questions about

this survey please contact the researcher, Donna Thede, at 269-961-2827.

147

APPENDIX K

CIDER PROCESSORS’ PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

148

This set of questions is about the new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Juice Rule and
implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. Specify the extent that
you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please check the appropriate column with your

response.

 

Agree
strongly

Agree

Neither agree
Nor disagree

Disagree

Disagree
strongly

Don’t
Know

 

HACCP implementation is
necessary to ensure the safety
of cider.

 

HACCP implementation will
reduce the incidence of
foodbome illness linked to
consumption of juice products.

 

The juice HACCP regulation
will result in unnecessary
oversiglito the juice industry.

 

The juice HACCP regulation
will result in unnecessary
expense to the price industry.

 

Regulatory personnel /
inspectors who visit my plant
are knowledgeable about
HACCP.

 

Regulatory personnel /
inspectors who visit my plant
have an adversarial relationship
with myself or emplqyees.

 

HACCP training has been
easily accessible and at
convenient times for myself or
employees.

 

 

HACCP will make consumers
more conﬁdent in buying cider
ﬂom my mill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please circle your response or write comments to the following questions:
How often do you hear ﬂom consumers who have concerns about your product?

At least once a week

Several times a year
Once in awhile
Never

Don’t know

meOW?

Couple of times a month

When you do hear ﬂom consumers, what are the top three things they are concerned with?

 

 

 

Do you think consumers are aware of regulatory processes within the juice processing industry?

A. Yes, and they have a good understanding of what is going on.

B. They know about it, but are not sure what it means.

C. They don’t know anything about it.

149

 

D. They don’t know, and they don’t care.

E. Don’t know
Would you use a safe food manufacturing system such as HACCP as a marketing tool?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Maybe.
D. Don’t know

How much marketing research do you conduct?

The company has a regular marketing research program (do marketing research at least once a
Year)

The company does marketing research when we change our product.

The company does marketing research when a new product is being developed.

Marketing research is done on an irregular basis.

No marketing research is done.

Don’t know.

never >

What do you think motivates consumers to purchase cider? (circle all that apply)

rzpnwpowr

Fun to drink

Fun fall activity
Tradition

Feel it is safe

Great taste

Trust your cider mill
100% juice

Healthy product
Other

What motivates you as the elder mill processor to make cider? (circle all that apply)

FF’WP‘POF’?

Fun to make

Family tradition and business
Believe cider is a safe product
Another way to use extra apples
Enjoy consumers who purchase cider
Supplement income

Enjoy processing cider

Other

Do you promote or advertise your cider as having any of the following qualities? (circle all that apply)

A. No preservatives

B. Contains preservatives to maintain ﬂeshness
C. Pasteurized

D. Unpasteurized

E. Passed food safety inspections
F. Safe

G. Healthy

H. Fresh

1. Delicious or great tasting

J. Organic or Natural

K. 100% juice

L. Made with Michigan apples
M. Other

 

150

If you could educate consumers on three things that have to do with the juice processing industry, what
would they be?

 

 

 

The following questions will help us understand who purchases cider. Please check the appropriate
column with your response.

 

How often is cider Very Often Often Not Often Not at all Not sure
purchased by:

 

Families with
children under
ﬁve years of age?

 

Families with
school-age
children ﬁve to
nine years of ag?

 

Families with
school-age
children over nine
years of’pge?

 

Adults without
children?

 

 

Adults 65 years or
older?

 

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you feel your retail customers purchase your product?
Once a week in the fall

Two to three times a month in the fall

Throughout the year

Only for special occasions

Not sure

91.0.05”?

If you have a FDA warning label on your apple cider containers how oﬁen do customers notice this label?
Very often

Often

Not very often

Not at all

Not applicable

91.5.05”?

If you have a FDA warning label on your apple cider containers, what have customers said about the
warning?

 

 

 

Do you intent to process your cider according to the FDA HACCP regulation?
Yes

No

Don’t Know

151

Please explain:

 

 

We would like to send you a copy of the results. If you would like to receive the results please provide the
following information. Again, your individual information will be kept conﬁdential.

Name:

 

Cider mill name:

 

Street Address:

 

City, State and Zip Code:

 

County:

 

Thank you for completing this survey. Please mail the survey in the enclosed stamped envelope.

152

APPENDIX L

FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-RESPONDING CIDER PROCESSORS

153

September 27, 2002

Dear Cider Processor:

Enclosed are two surveys for a research project in the Food Science and Sociology Departments at
Michigan State University. Our records show that we sent these surveys to you in late August but we have
not received a response ﬂom you. We apologize if you are receiving this letter in error and if this is the
case please disregard this reminder.

If you have not had the opportunity to respond to these surveys, we hope that you will ﬁnd a few moments
to complete the surveys for us. Your opinions and comments are important to us so we can gain a full
understanding of the practices and perceptions of Michigan cider processors.

Please be assured that your participation in this research will be kept conﬁdential. At the end of the survey
we ask for personal information only for the purposes to send you a copy of the results if you would like to
receive them.

The intention of this research is to learn ﬂom you how the new juice rule will affect your business and
customers. The results will be shared with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and other interested
groups in the hopes that they might be able to use the information to determine ways to help cider
processors overcome any concerns due to the new juice rule. Again, your personal information will be kept
conﬁdential.

Once you complete both surveys, they will be analyzed and you will receive a report comparing your
responses to those of other cider processors completing both surveys. Please use the enclosed stamped
envelope to return the surveys no later than October 11, 2002.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact one of the following individuals. Thank you for
participating in this study.

Dr. Leslie D. Bourquin Dr. Toby A. Ten Eyck

Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of Sociology

& National Food Safety and Toxicology Center 316 Berkey Hall and
Michigan State University National Food Safety and Toxicology Center
139A G. M. Trout Bldg. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 East Lansing, MI 48824-1111
Phone: 517-355-8474 Ext. 112 Phone: 517-353-0874

Fax: 517-353-8963 Fax: 517-432-2856
bourquil@msu.edu toby.teneyck@ssc.msu.edu
Donna Thede

9750 Huntington Road

Battle Creek, MI 49017

Phone: 269-96 1 -2 827
Fax: 269-961-9033
thededon@msu.edu

If you have questions about your rights or role as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Ashmir

Kumar, Chair for Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-255-2180. If you have any questions about
this survey please contact the researcher, Donna Thede, at 269-961-2827.

154

APPENDIX M

THANK YOU LETTER TO PARTCIPAN TS

155

September 17, 2002
Dear Processors:

Thank you for completing the surveys we recently sent to you. We greatly appreciate the time you took to
complete and mail the survey back to us.

We are still waiting for additional surveys to be returned so we can compute the results and share them with
you. The results promised to you will arrive closer to the beginning of 2003.

Once again, thank you for helping us with this research.

Dr. Leslie D. Bourquin Dr. Toby A. Ten Eyck

Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of Sociology

& National Food Safety and Toxicology Center 316 Berkey Hall and
Michigan State University National Food Safety and Toxicology Center
139A G. M. Trout Bldg. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 East Lansing, MI 48824-1111
Phone: 517-355-8474 Ext. 112 Phone: 517-353-0874

Fax: 517-353-8963 Fax: 517-432-2856

bourqui l @msu.edu toby.teneyck@ssc.msu.edu
Donna Thede

9750 Huntington Road

Battle Creek, MI 49017
Phone: 269-961-2827
Fax: 269-961-2827
thededon@msu.edu

If you have questions about your rights or role as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Ashmir

Kumar, Chair for Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-255-2180. If you have any questions about
this survey please contact the researcher, Donna Thede, at 269-961-2827.

156

APPENDIX N

CONSUMER E-MAIL SURVEY

157

Introduction: This Internet survey is part of a Michigan State University Food Science Department
research project on reﬂigerated apple juice and cider. You have been sent this survey since you are an
adult 18 years or older and living in the state of Michigan. This is a voluntary research project and you are
not obligated to participate. If you would like to have your email address removed ﬂom future mailings
please reply to this message.

If you have questions about your rights or role as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Ashmir
Kumar, Chair for Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-255-2180. If you have any questions about
this survey please contact the researcher, Donna Thede, at thededon@msu.edu

If you would like to participate in this survey, please ﬁll out the questions to the best of your knowledge.
We appreciate your time in helping us with this research project.

For the following questions, please answer only for reﬂigerated ready to drink ﬂuit juices - those kept in
the reﬂigerated section of your grocer or other retailer. Do not include ﬂuit juices or ﬂuit juice concentrate
that requires mixing with water that are kept in the un-reﬂigerated or ﬂozen sections of your grocer or
other retailer.

1. What is your age? (Select one)

Under 18 years [TERMINATE]
18-25 years

26-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56-65 years

66 or older

Prefer not to answer

2. Please indicate which of the following reﬂigerated ready to drink ﬂuit juices you or members of your
household drank and/or purchased in the past 12 months. (Select all that apply)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member of household drank Member of household
in past 12 months purchased in Est 12 months
Reﬂigerated apple juice Cl Cl
Reﬂigrated apple cider Cl Cl
Reﬂigerated cranberry juice or juice
cocktail D D
Reﬂigerated grape juice Cl Cl
Refrigerated grapeﬂuit juice Cl Cl
Refrigerated orange juice Cl C]
Refrigerated mixed berryjuice Cl Cl
Reﬂigerated fruit juice blends Cl C]
Other reﬁgerated ﬂuit juice Cl 0
None — nobody in household drank any
reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice in past 12 months TERMINATE
D
None — nobody in household purchased
any reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice in past 12
months [SKIP TO Q. 6] D

 

158

3. Who in the household is primarily responsible for which brand of refrigerated ﬂuit juice

is purchased?

 

 

 

 

 

I am Cl
Other female, age 18 or older Cl
Other male, age 18 or older Cl

 

 

4. In the past 12 months, have you or a household member purchased reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice or cider that
was made by a local farm or orchard? (Select one)

Yes
No
Don’t know

5. If a reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice label contained any of the following wording on the package, how would this
inﬂuence your likelihood of purchasing the juice?

statement.)

(Please select the appropriate answer for each

 

Much more
likely to
purchase

Somewhat
more likely
ttmurchase

Neither more
nor less likely
to purchase

Somewhat less
likely to
purchase

Much less
likely to
purchase

 

Organic or natural

 

No preservatives

 

Contains preservatives
to maintain ﬂeshness

 

Safe

 

Pasteurized

 

Not pasteurized

 

Keep pasteurized

 

Delicious or great
tasting

 

Fresh

 

100% juice

 

Warning statement that
juice not treated to
reduce pathogens

 

 

Passed food safety
inspections

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Please select the type of retailer that you feel sells the best reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice with the following
characteristics: (Select one for each statement)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass No
Merchandiser Community difference
(Wal-Mart, K or Local between
Grocery Mart, Target, Health Farmer’s Local Farm stores or
store etc.) Food Store Market or Orchard locations
Safest juice
Organic or natural
juice
Juice with no
preservatives
Juice that is not
pasteurized
Best tast'm juice
Freshest juice

 

159

 

 

7. Which of the following do you think the government requires manufacturers of reﬂigerated
ﬂuit juice to put on labels? (Select one for each statement.)

Thggovemment requires manufacturers to tell if a refrigerated ﬂuit juice. ..

 

Mee Disagree

 

ls organic or natural

 

Has no preservatives

 

Contains preservatives to
maintain ﬂeshness

 

Is safe

 

Is pasteurized

 

Is not pasteurized

 

Should be kept
reﬂigerated

 

Is delicious or great tasting

 

Is ﬂesh

 

Contains 100% juice

 

Has not been treated to
reduce pathogens

 

 

Has passed a food safety
inspection

 

 

 

 

8. How concerned are you about the following in reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice? Please rate each statement on
how concerned you are where a “5” represents the “Very Concerned” and a “1” represents “Not at all
concerned”. You may choose any number ﬂom l to 5 to rate your level of concern. (Please select one for
each statement.)

 

Very Concerned Neither Not Not at all
concerned (4) (3) concerned concerned

(52 (2) (1)

 

Allergens

 

Artiﬁcial ingredients

 

Bacteria

 

Foreign material (glass,
wood, metal)

 

Insects

 

Mold

 

Pesticides

 

Preservatives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Processing chemicals

 

9. Suppose a juice manufacturer promotes their reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice as processed using HACCP. Which
one of the following statements best describes what this would mean to you? (Select one.)

Manufacturer uses certiﬁed Grade A ﬂuit to make juice
Manufacturer has a food safety program in place
Manufacturer is a member of an independent organization
Manufacturer won an award

Don’t know

160

10. If a reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice label included the statement “pasteurized”, what would this mean to you?
(Select all that apply.)

Juice is organic and natural

Juice will have more of a cooked taste
Juice will have more of a ﬂesh taste
Juice has less risk of pathogens

Juice may have more risk of pathogens
Don’t know

11. If a reﬂigerated ﬂuit juice label included the statement “not pasteurized”, what would this mean to you?
(Select all that apply.)

Juice is organic and natural

Juice will have more of a cooked taste
Juice will have more of a ﬂesh taste
Juice has less risk of pathogens

Juice may have more risk of pathogens
Don’t know

12. Where do you get your information about food safety? (Select all that apply)

National television programs or news broadcasts (CNN, 60 Minutes, Food Channel, etc.)
National radio broadcast (National Public Radio, etc.)

National newspaper or magazine articles (USA Today, Prevention, etc.)
lntemet — national websites

Internet — local websites

Local television programs or news broadcasts

Local radio broadcasts

Local newspaper articles

Family or ﬂiends

Physician

Other health professional

The last few questions are for statistical purposes only. We need this information to compare your opinions
with the other households.

13. What is your gender? (Select one)

Female
Male
Prefer not to answer

14. Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic group: (Select one)

Asian

American Indian or Alaskan native

Black or Aﬂican American

Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian or Other Paciﬁc Islander
White or Caucasian

Other

Prefer not to answer

 

161

15. What is highest level of education you have attained? (Select one)

Less than high school graduate
High school graduate

Some college or technical school
College graduate

Post graduate

Prefer not to answer

This concludes the survey. Thank you for helping us with this research.

162

APPENDIX 0

APPLE CIDER PROCESSING STEPS

163

Apple Cider Processing Steps

 

Procure

I

 

Storage

I

Wash

I

Inspection I

 

 

 

 

I

Grind

 

 

 

Hydraulic Press

I

Filter

 

 

 

 

I ,
Holding Tank J
\n

S-log Reduction Step I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bottling I

I

Reﬂigerated Storage I

 

 

 

164

REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, R., R.E. Burnkrant and H. Rao Unnava. 2000. Consumer response to negative
publicity: the moderating role of commitment. J. Mark Res. 37: 203-214.

Altekruse, S.F., D.A. Street, S.B. Fein and AS. Levy. 1995. Consumer knowledge of
foodbome microbial hazards and food-handling practices. J. Food Prot 59:287-
294.

Annous, B.A., G.M. Sapers, A.M. Mattrazzo and DE. Riordan. 2001. Efﬁcacy of
washing with a commercial ﬂatbed brush washer, using conventional and
experimental washing agents in reducing populations of Escherichia coli on
artiﬁcially inoculated apples. J. Food Prot. 64:159-163.

Apple Products Research and Education Council. 2004. www.appleproducts.org.

Association of Ofﬁcial Analytical Chemists. 1984. Ofﬁcial Methods of Analysis, 14‘h ed.
Arlington, VA; AOAC International.

Auld, G.W., P.A. Kendall and H. Chipman. 1994. Consumer and producer perceptions
and concerns regarding pesticide use. Food Technol. 1:100-109.

Balasubramaniam, V. M. 2000. High pressure processing of foods. Food Saf. Watch.
Autumn. 2-3.

Bauman, S. and J. Airey. 2001. Effective use of the internet for survey research. Wirthlin
Worldwide. 4: 1-3.

Besser, R.E., S.M. Lett, J. Todd and MP. Doyle. 1993. An outbreak of diarrhea and

hemolytic uremic syndrome ﬂom Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in ﬂesh-pressed
apple cider. JAMA 269:2217-2220.

Bocker, A., and CH. Hanf. 2000. Conﬁdence lost and-partially-regained: consumer
response to food scares. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 43:471-485.

Boylston, T.D., H. Wang, C.A. Reitrneier, and BA. Glatz. 2003. Effects of processing
treatment and sorbate addition on the ﬂavor characteristics of apple cider. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 51: 1924-1931.

Brewer, M.S., G.K. Sprouls, and C. Russon. 1994. Consumer attitudes toward food safety
issues. J. Food Saf. 14:63-76.

Bruhn, C.M., 1997. Consumer concerns: motivating to action. Emer. Infect. Diseases.
3:511-515.

Bruhn, CM. and HG. Schutz. 1999. Consumer food safety knowledge and

165

practices. J. Food Saf. 19:73-78.

Bruhn, C.M., J .C. Bruhn, A. Cotter, C. Garrett, M. Klenk, C. Powell, G. Stanford, Y.
Steinbring, and E. West. 2002. Consumer attitudes toward use of probiotic
cultures. J. Food Sci. 67: 1969-1972.

Buchanan, R.L., S.D. Edelson, K. Snipes, and G. Boyd. 1998. Inactivation of Eschericha
coli 0157:H7 in apple juice by irradiation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64:4533-
4535.

Buchanan, R.L., S.G. Edelson, R.L. Miller and G.L. Sapers. 1999. Contamination of
Intact Apples After Immersion in an Aqueous Environment containing -
Escherichia coli 0157:H7. J. Food Prot. 62:444-450.

Castelnuovo, R., and S. Ingham. 2001. Reducing food safety risks in apples. Board of
Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

Caswell, J .A., and EM. Mojduszka.l996. Using information labeling to inﬂuence the
market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78:1248-1253.

Centers for Disease Control. 1975. Epidemiologic notes and reports: Salmonella
typhimurium outbreak traced to a commercial apple cider. Morb. Mortal. Wkly.
Rep. 24:87-88.

Centers for Disease Control. 1996. Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections
associated with drinking unpasteurized commercial apple juice-British Columbia,
California, Colorado and Washington. October 1996. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.
45:975.

Centers for Disease Control. 1996. Outbreaks of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection and
Cryptosporidiosis associated with drinking unpasteurized apple cider-Connecticut
and New York. October 1996. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 45:4-8.

Codex. 1997. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HAACP) System and
Guidelines for Its Application. Alinorrn 97/ 13A. Codex Alimentarius Committee
on Food Hygiene, Rome.

Cook, K.A., T.E. Dobbs, W.G. Hlady, and J.G.Wells. 1998. Outbreak of Salmonella
sertotype Hartford infections associated with unpasteurized orange juice. J AMA
280:1504-1509.

Cummins, A., C. Reitmeier, L. Wilson, and B. Glatz. 2002. A survey of apple cider
production practices and microbial loads in cider in the state of Iowa. Dairy Food
Environ. Sanit 22:745-751.

Davison, A., M.J.A. Schroder, and J .A. Bower. 2003. The importance of origin as a

166

quality attribute for beef: results ﬂom a Scottish consumer survey. Int. J.
Consumer. Studies 27:91-98.

Deng, M.Q., and DO. Cliver. 2001. In activation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in
cider by ﬂash pasteurization. J. Food Prot. 64:523-527.

Dillman, DA. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: Total Design Method. New York, New
York, John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Dingrnan, D.W. 1999. Prevalence of Eschericha coli in apple cider manufactured in
Connecticut. J. Food Prot 62:567-573.

Doores, S. 1993. The microbiology of apples and apple products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci.
Nutr. 19:133-149.

Doyle, MP. 1991. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and its signiﬁcance in foods. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 12:289-302.

Duffy, 8., J. Churey, R.W. Worobo, and D.W. Schaffner. 2000. Analysis and modeling of
the variability associated with UV inactivation of Escherichia coli in apple cider.
J. Food Prot. 11:1587-1590.

Duffy, 8., and D.W. Schafﬂrer. 2001. Modeling the survival of Escherichia coli 0157:H7
in apple cider using probability distribution functions for quantitative risk
assessment. J. Food Prot. 64:599-605.

Evrendilek, G.A., and Q.H. Zhang. 2003. Effects of pH, temperature and pre-pulsed
electric ﬁeld treatment on pulsed electric ﬁeld and heat inactivation of
Escherichia coli 0157:H7. J. Food Prot 66:755-759.

Fife-Schaw, C., and G. Rowe. 1996. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a
psychometric study. Risk Anal. 16:487-499.

Fisher, T.L., and DA. Golden. 1998. Fate of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in ground apples
used in cider production. J. Food Prot 61 : 1372-1374.

Ford, L.T., K.P. Penner, and O. Grunewald. 1998. Consumer perceptions of HACCP and
the price of meat. Dairy Food Environ. Sanit. 18:73 5-741.

Gilling, S.J., E.A. Taylor, K. Kane, and J .Z. Taylor. 2001. Successful hazard analysis
critical control point implementation in the United Kingdom: understanding the
barriers through the use of a behavioral adherence model. J. Food Prot. 64:710-
715.

Goldman, B.J. and KL. Clancy. 1992. A survey of organic produce purchases and related
attitudes of food cooperative shoppers. Am. J. of Altem. Agric. 6:89-96.

167

Goverd, K.A., F.W. Beech, R.P. Hobbs and R. Shannon. 1979. The occurrence and
survival of coliforms and salmonellas in apple juice and cider. J. Appl. Bacteriol.
46:521-530.

Grose, D. 1988. Public Perceptions of Food Safety. J. R. Soc. Health 4:138-141.

Guptill, A., and J. Wilkens. 2002. Buying into the food system: trends in food retailing in
the US and implications for local foods. Agric. Human Values. 19:38-51.

Hanes, D.E., R.W. Worobo, P.A. Orlandi, D.H. Burr, M.D. Miliotis, M.G. ROI, J .W. Bier,
J .W. Arrowood, M.J. Churey, J .J . Jackson, and G. J. Washington. 2002. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 68:4168-4172.

Hansen, J ., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandoe. 2003. Beyond the
knowledge deﬁcit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks.
Appetite 41:111-121.

Harp, J .A., R. Fayer, B.A. Pesch, and G. J. Jackson. 1996. Effect of pasteurization on
infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water and milk. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 62:2866-2868.

Haynes, S. 2000. Health scares: unfair on the public and on health professionals. Prof.
Care Mother Child. 10:30-31.

Herrmann, R.O., R.H. Warland, and A. Stemgold. 1997. Who reacts to food safety
scares?: examining the alar crisis. Agribus. 13:511-520.

Hemnann, R.O., R.H. Warland and A. Stemgold. 2000. Nutrition Concerns and food-
safety concerns occur independently among adults. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 100:947-
950.

Ingham, S. C. Personal e-mail communication, June 2, 2003.

International Food Information Council. 1998. Sensible talk about food safety. Food
Insights. Jul/Aug: 1-4.

International Food Information Council. 1999. Worth the risk-putting activities in
perspective. Food Insights. Nov/Dec: 1-5.

In, J., S.M. Gauri, and M.W. Grifﬁths. 2001. Reduction in levels of Escherichia coli
0157:H7 in apple cider by pulsed electric ﬁelds. J. Food Prot 64:964-969.

Jay, IL. 1996. Modern Food Microbiology. Fifth Edition, Chapman & Hall, New York,
NY.

Johnson, J .C., and DC. Griffith. 1996. Pollution, food safety, and the distribution of

168

knowledge. Human Ecology 24:87-108.
Jolly, D.A., H.G. Schutz, K.V. Diaz-Knauf, and J. Johal. 1989. Organic foods: consumer
attitudes and use. Food Technol. 11:60-66.

Juska, A., L. Gouveia, J. Gabriel, and KP. Stanley. 2003. Manufacturing bacteriological
contamination outbreaks in industrialized meat production systems: The case of
E.coli 0157:H7. Agric. Human Values 20:3-19.

Jussaume, R.A., and L. Higgins. 1998. Attitudes towards food safety and the environment:
a comparison of consumers in Japan and the U.S. Rural Sociol. 63:394-411.

Kaspar, LG, and CW. Miller. 1994. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 acid tolerance and
survival in apple cider. J. Food Prot. 57:460-464.

Kenney, S.J., S.L. Burnett, and LR. Beuchat. 2001. Location of Escherichia coli
0157:H7 on and in apples as affected by bruising, washing and rubbing. J. Food
Prot. 64:1328-1333.

Kristal, A.R., L. Levy, R.E., Patterson, S.S. Li, and E. White. 1998. Trends in food label
use associated with new nutrition labeling. J. Public Health 8: 1212-121 5.

Krosnick J .A., and LC. Chang. 2001. A comparison of the random digit dialing
telephone survey methodology with internet survey methodology as implemented

by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. Ohio State University.

Kozempel, M., A. Mcaloon, and W. Yee. 1998. The cost of pasteurizing apple cider.
Food Technol 52:50-52.

Lang, M.M., S.C. Ingham, and B.H. Ingham. 1999. Verifying apple cider plant sanitation
and hazard analysis critical control point programs: choice of indicator bacteria
and testing methods. J. Food Prot 62:887-893.

Li-Cohen, A.E., and CM. Bruhn. 2002. Safety of consumer handling of ﬂesh produce
from the time of purchase to the plate: a comprehensive consumer survey. J. Food
Prot. 65:1287-1296.

Mak, P.P., B.H. Ingham, and SC. Ingham. 2001. Validation of apple cider pasteurization
treatments against Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Salmonella and Listeria
monocytogenes. J. Food Prot. 64: 1679-1689.

Mazzota, AS. 2001. Thermal Inactivation of Stationary-Phase and Acid-Adapted
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes in ﬂuit juices.
J. Food Prot. 64:315-320.

McCandless, L. 1997. New York cider industry learns to make safe cider. Great Lakes
Fruit Growers News 521-3.

169

McEachem, M.G., and P. McClean. 2002. Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes:
are they ethical? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 26:85-92.

McLellan, M.R., and DP. Splittstoesser. 1996. Reducing risk of E. coli in apple cider.
Food Technol. 59:174.

Meer, R. and S. Misner. 2000. Food safety knowledge and behavior of expanded food
and nutrition education program participants in Arizona. J. Food Prot. 63: 1725-
1731.

Mermelstein, NH. 1999. High-pressure pasteurization of juice. Food Technol. 53:86-90.

Michigan Agricultural Statistics. 2001-2002. Michigan Department of Agriculture 2003
Annual Report.

Michigan Apple Association website 2004. http://www.michiganapples.com

Michigan Apple Cider Advisory Committee. 1998. Good manufacturing practices for
Michigan apple cider.

Michigan Rotational Survey, Fruit Inventory 2001-2002. 2003. Michigan Department of
Agriculture and Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service.

Millard, P.S., K.F. Gensheimer, and DC. Addiss. 1994. An outbreak of
Cryptosporidiosis ﬂom ﬂesh-pressed apple cider. JAMA. 272: 1593-1596.

Miller, LG, and CW. Kaspar. 1994. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 acid tolerance and
survival in apple cider. J. Food Prot. 57:460-464.

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. 1992. Hazard
analysis and critical control point system. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 16:1-23.

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. 1997. The
principles of risk assessment for illness caused by foodbome biological agents.
Adopted. April 4, 1997.

National Academy of Sciences. 1985. An evaluation of the role of microbiological
criteria for foods and food ingredients. National Academy Press, Washington
DC.

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. 1994. The role of
regulatory agencies and industry in HACCP. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 21:187-195.

National Research Council. 1998. Ensuring safe food from production to consumption.
Washington D. C., National Academy Press.

170

Nayga, R.M., D. Lipinski, Jr., and S. Nitin. 1998. Consumers' use of nutritional labels
while food shopping and at home. J. Consum. Aff. 32:106-120.

Nguyen, C., and F. Carlin. 1994. The microbiology of minimally processed ﬂesh ﬂuits
and vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. and Nutr. 34:371-404.

Ohio Department of Health. 2003. Sunny Slope cider recalled due to possible
contamination with Cryptosporidium parvum. News Release October 29, 2003.

Ortega-Rivas, E., E. Zarate-Rodriguez, and G. Barbosa-Canovas. 1998. Apple juice
pasteurization using ultraﬁltration and pulsed electric ﬁelds. Trans. Int. Chem
Eng. 76:193-198.

Parish, ME, 1997. Public health and nonpasteurized ﬂuit juices. Crit. Rev. Microbiol.
23: 1 09-1 1 9.

Parish, ME, 1998. Coliforms, Escherichia coli and Salmonella serovars associated with
a citrus-processing facility implicated in a salmonellosis outbreak. J. Food Prot.
61 :280-284.

Parish ME, 2000. Relevancy of Salmonella and pathogenic E. coli to ﬂuit juices.
Flussiges Obst International Fruit Juice Union Workshop. Cologne, Germany.
www.1al.uﬂ.edu.

Ranagarajan, A., R.A. Bihn, R.B. Gravani, D.L. Scott, and MP. Pritts. 1999. Food Safety
Begins On The Farm. A Grower’s Guide. Cornell Good Agricultural Practices
and United States Food and Drug Administration.

Rimal, A., S.M. Fletcher, K.H. McWatters, S.K., Misra, and D. Deodhar. 2001.
Perception of food safety and changes in food consumption habits: a consumer
analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 25:43-52.

Riordan, D.C., G.M. Sapers, T.R. Hankinson, M. MaGee, A.M. Mattrazzo, and BA.
Annous. 2001. A study of U.S. orchards to identify potential sources of
Escherichia coli 0157:H7. J. Food Prot. 64:1320-1327.

Robinson, R., and C. Smith. 2003. Associations between self-reported health conscious
consumerism, body-mass index, and attitudes about sustainably produced foods.
Agric. Human Values 20: 177-187.

Roering, A.M., J .B. Luchansky, A.M., Ihnot, S.E. Ansay, C.W., Kaspar, and SC.
Ingham. 1999. Comparative survival of Salmonella typhimurium DT 104, Listeria
monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in preservative-ﬂee apple cider
and simulated gastric ﬂuid. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 46:263-269.

Roe, B., M.F. Teisl, A.S. Levy, K. Boyle, M.L. Messonnier, T.L. Riggs, M.J. Herrmann,

171

and FM. Newman. 2001. Consumers’ assessment of the food safety problem for
meals prepare at home and reactions to food safety labeling. J. Food Prod. Mark.
6:9-27.

Rogers, S.L. and E. T. Ryser. 2004. Reduction of microbial pathogens during apple cider
production using sodium hypochlorite, copper ion and sonication. Food Prot
67:767-771.

Roper Starch Worldwide 2001. Roper Reports 01-1:50-57.

Roper Starch Worldwide 2003. Roper Reports 03-52257-263.

Roper Starch Worldwide 2004. Roper Reports 04-1 :31-38.

Rowan, N.J., S.J. MacGregor and J .G. Anderson. 1999. Pulsed-light inactivation of food-
related microorganisms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65: 13 12-13 14.

Sage, J .R., and SC. Ingham. 1998. Evaluating Survival of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in
ﬂozen and thawed apple cider: potential use of a hydrophobic grid membrane
ﬁlter-sd-39 agar method. J. Food Prot 61 :490-494.

Sandman, P. 1987. Risk communication: facing public outrage. EPA J. 11:21-22.

Sapers, G.M., R.L., Miller, and A.M. Mattrazzo. Effectiveness of sanitizing agents in
inactivating Escherichia coli in golden delicious apples. Food Technol. 64:734-
737.

SAS Release 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. USA. 2001.

Schafer, R.B., E. Schafer, G.L. Bultena, and ED. Hoiberg. 1993. Food safety: an
application of the health belief model. J. Nutr. Educ. 25:17-24.

Semanchek, J .J ., and D.A. Golden. 1998. Inﬂuence of grth temperature on inactivation
and injury of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 by heat, acid and ﬂeezing. J. Food Prot.
61 :395-401.

Semanchek, J .J ., and D.A. Golden. 1996. Survival of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 during
fermentation of apple cider. J. Food Prot. 12: 1256-1259.

Senkel, I.A., R.A. Henderson, B. Jolbitado, and J. Meng. 1999. Use of Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point and Alternative Treatments in the Production of Apple
Cider. J. Food Prot. 67:778-785.

Sliﬂto, T.R., E. Rraghubeer and J .B. Rose. 2000. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on
Cryptosporidium parvum infectivity. J. Food Prot. 63:1262-1267.

172

Shiferaw, B., S. Yang, P. Cieslak, D. Vugia, R. Marcus, J. Koehler, V. Deneen, F.
Angulo, and The Food-Net Working Group. 2000. Prevalence of high-risk food
consumption and food-handling practices among adults: a multistate survey,
1996-1997. J. Food Prot. 63:1538-1543.

Silk, T.M., E.T. Ryser, and CW. Donnelly. 1997. Comparison of methods for
determining coliforrn and Escherichia coli levels in apple cider. J. Food Prot.
60:1302-1305.

Sloan, EA. 1998. Organics: grown by the book. Food Technol. 52: 32.

Sparks P., and R. Shepherd. 1994. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated
with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Anal.
1 5 :799-806.

Spinks, A., and S. Bose. 2002. Factors affecting households’ seafood purchasing
decisions in Auckland, New Zealand: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Consumer
Studies 26:62-70.

Splittstoesser, D.F., M.R. McClellan, and J .J . Churey. 1995. Heat resistance of
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in apple juice. J. Food Prot. 59:226-229.

Steele, B.T., N. Murphy, G.S. Arbus, and GP. Rance. 1982. An outbreak of hemolytic
uremic syndrome associated with ingestion of ﬂesh apple juice. J. Pediatr.
101:963-965.

Stevenson, G.W. 1998. Agrifood systems for competent, ordinary people. Agric. Human
Values 15:199-207.

Stevenson, KB, and D.T. Bernard. 1999. HACCP A systematic approach to food safety.
Third Edition. Washington, DC, The Food Processors Institute.

Swanson, K.M.J., S.B. Leasor, and L. Downing. 1985. Aciduric and heat resistant
microorganisms in apple juice and cider processing operations. J. Food Sci.
50:336-339.

Tauxe, R., H. Kruse, C. Hedberg, M. Potter, J. Madden and K. Wachsmuth. 1997.
Microbial hazards and emerging issues associated with produce a preliminary
report to the national advisory committee on microbiological criteria of foods. J.
Food Prot. 60: 1400-1408.

Ten Eyck, TA. 2000. Foodborne outbreaks in ethnic foods: exit, voice and loyalty. J.
Stud. Food Soc. 4:3-8.

Ten Eyck, TA. 2000. The marginalization of food safety issues: an interpretative
approach to mass media coverage. J. Appl. Commun. 84:29-47.

173

Ten Eyck, T. A. 2002. Food irradiation in the news: the cultural clash of a post harvest
technology. Agric. Human Values 19:53-61.

Torjusen, H., G. Lieblein, M. Wandal, and C. Francis. 2001. Food system orientation and
quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark
County, Norway. Food Qual. Pref. 12:207-216.

Ulijas, HE, and SC. Ingham. 1999. Combinations of intervention treatments resulting in
5-log10 unit reductions in numbers of Echerichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella

typhimurium DT104 organisms in apple cider. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
65:1924-1929.

Ulijas, HE, and SC. Ingham. 2000. Survey of apple growing, harvesting, and cider
manufacturing practices in Wisconsin: implications for safety. J. Food Saf. 20:85-
100.

Ulijas, H.E., D.W. Schaff'ner, S. Duffy, L. Zhao, and SC. Ingham. 2001. Modeling of
combined processing steps for reducing Escherichia coli 0157:H7 populations in
apple cider. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:133-141.

United States Apple Association. 2004. Consumer Information-Core Facts.
http://www.usapple.org.

United States Census Bureau. 2004. U.S. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov.

United States Department of Agriculture and Food Safety and Inspection Services. 1996.
Pathogen reduction: Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems;
ﬁnal rule. 9 CFR Parts 416 and 417. Fed. Regist. 61 :3 8868-38989.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. FDA proposes new rules
to increase safety of ﬂuit and vegetable juices. HHS News Release. April 21,

1998.

United States Department of General Accounting Office. 2001. Food safety. Federal
oversight of seafood does not sufficiently protect consumers. GAO-01-204.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1993. Food safety survey. U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington,
DC.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1995. 21 CFR Parts 123 and 124.
Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Procedures and Importing of Fish and
Fishery Products. Fed. Regist. 60:65095-65202.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1997. Fruit and Vegetable Juice Beverages:
Notice of Intent to Develop a HACCP program, Interim Warning Statement and

174

Educational Program. Fed. Regist. 62:45593-45596.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1998. Food safety survey. U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington,
DC.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1998. Guidance to the industry: guide to
minimize microbial food safety hazards for ﬂesh ﬂuits and vegetables. U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Washington, DC.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1998. 21 CFR Parts 101, 110 and 120.
Food Labeling: warning and notice statement: labeling of juice products; ﬁnal
rule. Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP); procedures for the safe

and sanitary processing and importing of juice; extension of comment period;
proposed rule. Fed. Regist. 63:37030-37056.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1999. 21 CFR Parts 110. Good
Manufacturing Practices Fed. Regist. 63:206-215.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1999. Report of 1997 inspections of fresh,
unpasteurized apple cider manufacturers; summary of results. January 1999.
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ciderrpt.html.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 1999. Apple cider food safety control
workshop. July 1 5-16, 1999. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/cidw-toc.htrnl.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 2000. Patulin in apple juice, apple juice
concentrates and apple juice products. June 2000.
http:vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ciderrpt.html.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 2001. 21 CFR Part 120. Hazard analysis
and critical control point (HACCP); procedures for the safe and sanitary
processing and importing of juice; ﬁnal rule. Fed. Regist. 66:6138-6202.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 2002. Grade “A” pasteurized milk
ordinance 2001 revision. May 2002.

United States Food and Drug Administration. 2002. Tropicana products, inc. recalls
128oz. pure premium calcium orange juice sold to Sam’s clubs. February 2002.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Washington, DC.

United States Food and Drug Administration, 2004. Guidance for industry; juice

HACCP hazards and controls guidance. First edition. March 2004.
http://www.cfsan.fda. gov/~dms/ j uicgul 0.html.

175

University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. 2004. urbanaext.uiuc.edu/apples.

Unklesbay, N.J. Sneed, and T. Ramses. 1998. College students’ attitudes, practices and
knowledge of food safety. J. Food Prot. 61:1175-1180.

Wilkins, J .L., and V.N. Hillers. 1994. Inﬂuences on pesticide residue and environmental
concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and non-
members in Washington state. J. Nutr. Educ. 26: 26-33.

Williams, KC. 2001. Effect of ozone treatment temperature, and antimicrobials on
inactivation of Escherichia Coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella spp. in apple cider and
orange juice. Dissertation.

Wong, 8., D. Street, S. Delgado, and K. Klontz. 2000. Recalls of foods and cosmetics due
to microbial contamination reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. J.
Food Prot. 63: 1113-1116.

Wojtala, G. 2003. Personal communication. Michigan Department of Agriculture,
Lansing, MI.

Worobo, R.W. Making cider the safest it can be and new technologies to make cider safer
presentations, Great Lakes Expo, Dec. 5, 2001 Grand Rapids, MI.

Worobo, R.W. Personal communication at Great Lakes Expo, Dec. 5, 2001. Grand
Rapids, MI.

Worobo, R. W. Personal e-mail communication, June 2, 2003.

Worobo, R.W., J .J . Churey, and O. Padilla-Zakour. 1998. Apple cider: treatment options
to comply with new regulations. J. Food Drug Off. 62:19-26.

Wright, J .R., 8.8. Sumner, C.R. Hackney, M.D. Pierson, and B.W. Zoecklein. 2000.

Reduction of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 on apples using wash and chemical
sanitizer treatments. Dairy Food Environ. Sanit. 20:120-126.

Wright, J. R., S. S. Sumner, C. R. Hackney, M. D. Pierson, and B. W. Zoecklein. 2000. A
Survey of Virginia Apple Cider Producers' Practices. Dairy Food Environ. Sanit.
20: 190-195.

Yamamoto, S.A., and L.J. Harris. 2001. The effects of ﬂeezing and thawing on the
survival of Eschericha coli 0157:H7 in apple juice. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 67:89-
96.

Yeung, R. M., and J. Morris. 2001. Food safety risk consumers’ perception and purchase
behaviour. Br. Food J. 103:170-186.

176

Yulianti, F. Flavor characteristics of irradiated apple cider. M.S. thesis; Iowa State
University, Ames, IA.

Zepeda, L., R. Douthitt, and S.Y. You. 2003. Consumer risk perception toward
agricultural biotechnology, self-protection, and food demand: the case of milk in
the United States. Risk Anal. 23: 973-984.

Zhang, Q., Q. Bin-Lin, B. Gustavo, V. Barbosa-Canovas, and B. Swanson. 1995.
Inactivation of E. coli for food pasteurization by high-strength pulsed electric
ﬁelds. J. Food Process Preserv. 19:103-118.

Zhao, T., M.P. Doyle and R. E. Besser. 1993. Fate of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
0157:H7 in apple cider with and without preservatives. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
59:2526-2530.

Zufall, C. and K. Wackerbauer. 1999. The biological impact of ﬂash pasteurization over a
wide temperature interval. J. Inst. Brew. 106:163-168.

177

   

lll‘llllllIll"

. _ y.