Section 2 Food Safety Systems

#### **Chapter 2**

## Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Priorities on Food Safety 2023

*Joseph Tendeukai Kunashe Ndondo*

#### **Abstract**

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) endorsed its strategic framework for the period 2022–2031 during the 42nd session of the FAO conference held on 18 June 2021. The new framework for the period 2022–2031 seeks to support the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development through the transformation of agri-food systems in line with the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The FAO strategic framework 2022–2031 was developed in the context of significant global and regional challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In developing the strategic framework, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) outlined Programme priority areas (PPAs) that describe how FAO's work on food safety will contribute to the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development in alignment with FAO's strategic framework 2022–2031. The strategic priorities are, in turn, organised into four strategic outcomes, which are interconnected and interdependent to achieve FAO's vision of '*safe food for all people at all time*s'.

**Keywords:** food safety, sustainable development goals (SDGs), food waste, food loss, food and agriculture organisation (FAO)

#### **1. Introduction**

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Framework 2022–2031 was endorsed on 18 June 2021 at the 42nd Session of FAO Conference [1]. The FAO conference is the supreme decision-making body that brings together all FAO members. Currently, FAO membership comprises 194 countries plus the European Union.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations that was formed in 1945 in Quebec City, Canada, when the first session of the then newly created United Nations established the FAO with the mandate of leading international efforts to defeat hunger. FAO's goal is to achieve food security for all and make sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active and healthy lives.

Since 2010, all of FAO's work has been guided by a strategic framework, which is usually prepared for a period of 10 to 15 years and is reviewed every 4 years [1]. The new framework for the period 2022–2031 seeks to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development including the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs),

#### **Figure 1.**

*Sustainable development goals (SDGs) [3].*

which are global objectives that succeeded the millennium development goals on 1 January 2016 (**Figure 1**) [2, 3].

Food safety is a critical prerequisite to ensure that all humans can enjoy a better life and better nutrition. Food safety is defined as 'the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use' [4]. Unsafe food potentially makes consumers ill and can substantially contribute to food loss and food waste. Unsafe food causes an estimated 600 million cases of food-borne diseases (FBDs) every year, as well as 420,000 annual deaths [5].

Securing food safety is essential in advancing health, livelihoods, trade, economic growth and overall prosperity. The FAO strategic framework 2022–2031 places food safety at the core and was developed in the context of major global and regional challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic. It was developed through an inclusive, transparent process involving extensive internal and external consultations, governing body meetings and informal consultations. The FAO strategic framework 2022-31 articulates FAO's vision of a sustainable and food-secure world for all, in the context of the Agenda 2030 for sustainable development.

#### **2. The four B's**

The FAO strategic framework 2022–2031 seeks to support the 2030 Agenda through the transformation of agri-food systems for the attainment of FAO's four aspirations namely: better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life. These four aspirations by FAO represent an organising principle for how FAO intends to contribute directly to the sustainable development goals. They reflect the interconnected economic, social and environmental dimensions of agri-food systems, and they also encourage a strategic and systems-oriented approach within all FAO's interventions (**Figure 2**) [6].

*Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Priorities on Food Safety 2023 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112132*

**Figure 2.** *The four betters [6].*

#### **2.1 The priorities and outcomes of the strategic framework**

In developing the strategic framework 2022–2031, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) outlined what is termed programme priority areas (PPAs), which were endorsed by the FAO Council in December 2022 [1]. These PPAs describe how FAO's work on food safety will contribute to the 2030 Agenda in alignment with FAO's strategic framework 2022–2031. FAO's food safety priorities lie in four main strategic areas which are:


In turn, the strategic priorities are organised into four strategic outcomes are equally necessary to achieve FAO's vision of delivering 'Safe food for all people at all times' (**Table 1**) [1].

*2.1.1 Strategic outcome 1: Intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder engagement in intersectoral coordination of food safety governance is reinforced at all levels*

The first strategic outcome of FAO's strategic framework 2022–2031 is aimed at the reinforcing intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder engagement in the governance of food safety. FAO aims to achieve this by providing tailored support to all FAO


#### **Table 1.**

*The four strategic outcomes of the strategic priorities for food safety.*

members and all other stakeholders. This support is characterised by guidance and technical support on various aspects of food safety, including normative, governance, science and policy matters. Aimed at realising this outcome, FAO in collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO) has worked to provide technical support and guidance in the form of food standards through the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius provide guidance to stakeholders, and members meant to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in food trade. FAO is also one of the three international standard setting organisations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement. It works on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) and commits itself to continue providing support and actively contributing to intergovernmental and multistakeholder engagement in intersectoral coordination of food safety governance.

#### *2.1.2 Strategic outcome 2: Sound scientific advice and evidence are provided as the foundation for food safety decision-making*

FAO in collaboration with WHO has been providing neutral and independent scientific advice as the basis for the international food safety standards, guidelines and codes of practice established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and for supporting the development of modern food control systems by national authorities [7]. This Scientific Advice programme for food safety has been the authoritative global point of reference for evidence-based scientific information on food safety. FAO and WHO remain committed to providing scientific advice related to food safety and nutrition in response to specific requests from member countries, from Codex Committees or occasionally from specific programmes within FAO and WHO, through different mechanisms [8]. Sound scientific advice is crucial in the setting of food standards such as those developed by the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex, commonly referred to as the "food code', contains internationally agreed standards, applicable throughout the food supply chain [9]. Its purpose is to protect health and facilitate trade. Through the work of the Codex Alimentarius, more than 300 standards, guidelines and codes of practice have been developed and regularly updated [10].

#### *2.1.3 Strategic outcome 3: National food control systems are further strengthened and are continuously improved*

Around the world, most countries have established what is known as national food control systems, which have the dual objective of protecting the health of consumers and

#### *Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Priorities on Food Safety 2023 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112132*

enabling fair practices in food trade. These control systems ensure that food available within a country is safe, wholesome and fit for human consumption, conforms to food safety and quality requirements and is honestly and accurately labelled as prescribed by the law of each respective country. They, in turn, protect the health and safety of consumers and help assure the safety and quality of foods being traded both nationally and internationally. It has, however, been observed that some countries have systems that are not strengthened due to a lack of stable and predictable funding to update the skills of their staff in the food control systems [11]. FA has recognised that more effort is needed to be made to build capacities to plan, monitor, evaluate and further strengthen food control programmes in a way that can create a continuous cycle of improvement. Through the strategic outcome 3, FAO intends to assist member countries to strengthen their national food control systems. It aims to achieve this outcome by providing technical support to FAO members to evaluate their national food control systems, identify needs and design integrated capacity development programmes; to support FAO members in developing and updating their food safety standards, legal frameworks and government policies, as well as operational level procedures and guidelines and to support FAO members and relevant stakeholders to embrace relevant technological developments, including digital technologies, in food control and food safety management [12].

#### *2.1.4 Strategic outcome 4: Public and private stakeholder collaboration is promoted to ensure food safety management and controls throughout agri-food systems*

The Food and Agriculture Organisation acknowledges that the only way to ensure food safety is if everyone involved in the whole food chain is aware of and actively works to maintain the safety of food. Both public organisations and private entities should collaborate to advance science, innovate food production and processing and advance effective operational food safety management. In addition, food safety must be achieved in a proactive way rather than in a reactive manner. It is crucial that food safety be managed in accordance with preventative principles, and thus be included in the design and implementation of overarching food-related programmes. The Food and Agriculture Organisation intends to help foster public and private stakeholder collaboration by supporting both governments and food chain actors in adopting gender-responsive and inclusive programmes of preventative food safety control and management. It also intends to support initiatives aiming to create training programmes and curricula that better reflect the complexity of food safety and the need for collaborations across disciplines and aims to provide the tools and resources for stakeholders to make informed choices and adopt food safety interventions that are specific to their countries' priorities, safety risks and their constituents' differentiated needs.

#### *2.1.5 How developing countries fit in FAO's framework*

Global International trade in food and agriculture more than doubled in value between 1995 and 2018 to US\$1.5 trillion on the back of technological improvements and lower trade barriers, which both helped to spur the growth of global value chains [13]. Over a third of exports now cross borders at least twice before reaching consumers [14]. This explosion in trade has widened supply and boosted opportunities to improve livelihoods. But it has also put a renewed focus on food safety standards as higher volumes of perishable goods move across borders. Food safety concerns look certain to become a growing international priority, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has further highlighted the connections between health, the environment and development. The harmonisation of food safety standards across borders, for example, or tracing the origins of food in a timely manner, is now much more demanding processes.

The African continent, for example, hosts the world's largest free trade area, called AfCFTA, which brings together the 55 countries of the African Union (AU) and eight (8) regional economic communities (RECs) [15]. As part of its mandate, the AfCFTA seeks to eliminate trade barriers and boost intra-Africa trade. It is of no surprise that much of this liberalised trade will be in food because of largely agricultural-based economies in most African countries [15]. This food needs to be safe as consumers will be more exposed to a mixture of imported and locally produced food, from an ever more diverse supply chain. Liberalisation of food trade across African countries can potentially present difficulties for national authorities in charge of food controls, who lack direct oversight of the production processes of foreign trading partners. Thus, the opening up and integration of diverse markets requires more cooperation to prevent food-related risks such as food-borne diseases (FBDs). Meeting requirements for paperless trade and certification may also be a challenge, especially in developing countries and blocs such as the AfCTA. Through its strategic priorities on food safety, FAO intends to support government authorities, international organisations and partners to promote fair trade practices, stimulate dialogue between importing and exporting countries and offer guidance on assessing food control mechanisms. FAO has already set the precedence in this, for example, through its ambitious project with six AfCTA members comprising Comoros, Eswatini, Kenya, Mauritius, Rwanda and Seychelles in assessing national food control systems [14]. Funded by the European Union, this project has already shown itself to be a uniquely valuable learning process for government authorities, academics, consumer organisations and the private sector and has helped to ensure that the food control systems in the six case countries have sufficient capacity in food control. Encouraging the strong participation of developing countries such as those in the AfCFTA is key in achieving the goals and aspirations set out by the FAO strategic framework 2022–2031 (**Figure 3**) [15].

The BRICS economic bloc is another example, where FAO's strategic framework 2023 is highly applicable. The BRICS countries comprise Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and represent the largest developing economies [13, 16]. Data shows that, as of the year 2020, the BRICS nations as a whole now contribute more towards Global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than the G7 industrialised nations (The G7 comprises of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Canada), in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). PPPs are the ratio of prices in national currencies of the same goods or services in different countries (**Figure 4**) [17, 18].

In addition, the BRICS countries produce more than a third of the global agricultural output and have a significant role and responsibility in ensuring the sustainability of the agriculture and food sector, global food security and nutrition [19]. By ways of deepening agricultural cooperation and promoting comprehensive development of rural areas, the member countries take actions for increased resilience of agriculture, rural areas and farmers. The BRICS also holds 42 percent of the world's population [20], and with that, the bloc is in a position to shape agricultural policies that would strengthen global food security and transform rural societies and livelihoods. FAO already has excellent working relations with all BRICS countries, and to strengthen this collaboration even further, the organisation stands ready to advise on the policies and technologies that can contribute to achieving the SDGs and make our generation the zero hunger generation.

*Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Priorities on Food Safety 2023 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112132*

**Figure 3.** *Quick facts about the African continental free trade area [15].*

**Figure 4.** *BRICS leaders during the 2019 G20 Osaka summit [17].*

### **3. Conclusion**

The world needs safer, more affordable and healthier diets for all produced in a sustainable manner along with the equitable improvement of economic outcomes and livelihoods. Emerging technologies and new food production systems, such

as cell-based food production, 3D-printed food, aquaponics and vertical urban agriculture, may hold some of the answers we seek. Likewise, the global adoption of foods that were previously unique to some parts of the world, such as seaweed, algae, jellyfish or edible insects, may contribute solutions. The FAO strategic framework underlies that to achieve global food safety, cooperation and collaboration is key. The strategic priorities stem from FAO's important achievements in food safety, including those undertaken within the 2014 FAO Food Safety Strategy, and made possible thanks to its collaboration with partners. The strategic priorities focus on building stronger and more coordinated global, national and regional food safety and quality governance. It is everyone's hope that FAO's Strategic Priorities for Food Safety 2022–2031 will leverage FAO's convening power to foster trust, collaboration and results that are in the spirit of the agri-food systems that members adhere to. It will require all hands on deck in order to deliver 'Safe food for all people at all times'. The framework will support the transformation of the agri-food systems to meet the challenge of making safe and diverse food accessible to a global population of 10 billion people, 70 percent of whom are expected to be living in cities by 2050 [6].

### **Acknowledgements**

Special acknowledgement goes to my dear family (Mom, Dominic, Theresa and Lawrence) and my colleague Mr. Herbert Kazonda for the mutual support rendered during this and other projects.

### **Author details**

Joseph Tendeukai Kunashe Ndondo Masvingo Polytechnic College, Masvingo, Zimbabwe

\*Address all correspondence to: kunashe@outlook.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Strategic Priorities on Food Safety 2023 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112132*

#### **References**

[1] Kurtyka M. FAO - News article: FAO conference endorses new strategic framework to drive Agri-food systems transformation. Food and agriculture organization. June 18, 2021. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Availabe from: https://www.fao. org/news/story/en/item/1412520/icode/

[2] FAO. Sustainable Development Goals. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2016. Retrieved April 14, 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/ sustainable-development-goals/en/

[3] United Nations. Sustainable development goals (SDGs) and disability — Division for inclusive social development (DISD). The United Nations. 2022. Retrieved April 14, 2023. Available from: https://social.desa. un.org/issues/disability/sustainabledevelopment-goals-sdgs-and-disability

[4] CAC. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. 2022. Retrieved April 14, 2023. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ fao-who-codexalimentarius/home/en

[5] WHO. WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases. World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. Retrieved April 18, 2023. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ handle/10665/199350/9789241565165\_ eng.pdf?sequence=1

[6] FAO. Report of the Conference of FAO. Thirty ninth Session 6-13 June 2015 [Report]. 2015. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/ MO153E/MO153E01.htm#Resolution4

[7] FAO. Scientific advice — Food safety and quality. Food and agriculture organization. 2023. Retrieved April

15, 2023. Available from: https://www. fao.org/food-safety/scientific-advice/ en/#:~:text=The%20provision%20of%20 scientific%20advice.standards%20 would%20not%20be%20possible

[8] FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Principles and guidelines for national food control systems. In: FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. International Food Standards. 2013 Retrieved April 14, 2023. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/

[9] Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). General Principles of Food Hygiene (CXC 1-1969) [Codex Alimentarius. International Food Standards]. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). 1969. Retrieved April 14, 2023. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ul24sp

[10] FAO. BRICS well placed to lead agricultural reforms to improve nutrition and rural livelihoods. Food and agriculture organization. 23 September 2016. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/asiapacific/ news/detail-events/en/c/435391/

[11] Aspell E. Core guiding principles of a food control system: Part 1. Agrilinks. June 21, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2023. Available from: https://agrilinks.org/ post/core-guiding-principles-foodcontrol-system-part-1

[12] FAO. Food control systems — Food safety and quality. Food and agriculture organization. 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023. Available from: https://www.fao. org/food-safety/food-control-systems/en/

[13] Raghavan S. Led by China, India, the 5 BRICS nations now contribute more to world GDP than industrialised G7. The Print. April 4, 2023. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https://theprint.in/

#### *Food Safety – New Insights*

economy/led-by-china-india-the-5-bricsnations-now-contribute-more-to-worldgdp-than-industrialised-g7/1490881/

[14] FAO. Safe food for everyone – FAO's work on food safety: Science, standards and good practices. Rome. 2023. DOI: 10.4060/cc4347en

[15] AfCFTA. About the AfCFTA. AfCFTA. 2023. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https://au-afcfta.org/about/

[16] O'Neill A. BRICS: GDP per country 2027. Stat. February 15, 2023. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https:// www.statista.com/statistics/254281/ gdp-of-the-bric-countries/

[17] Bond P. The BRICS spall, fall and (try to) reconstitute. CADTM. Retrieved April 15, 2023. July 11, 2022. Available from: https://www.cadtm.org/The-BRICS-spall-fall-and-try-to-reconstitute

[18] Chandrakanth M. How BRICS countries have overtaken the G7 in GDP based on PPPs. Times of India. April 9, 2023. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ economic-policy/how-brics-countrieshave-overtaken-the-g7-in-gdp-based-onppps/?source=app&frmapp=yes

[19] MEA. Ministry of External Affairs. BRICS INDIA 2021 Ministry of external affairs. 2021. Retrieved April 15, 2023. Available from: https://brics2021.gov.in/ agriculture

[20] FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization 2023. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Available from: https://www.fao. org/about/en/

#### **Chapter 3**

## Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies for Microbial Inactivation in Mozzarella Production

*Muhammed Nurye and Tesfemariam Berhe*

#### **Abstract**

The production of mozzarella cheese involves several steps that can lead to microbial contamination, which can pose a serious health risk to consumers. The use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) has become a standard practice in the food industry to ensure the safety of mozzarella cheese. This involves identifying potential hazards and establishing critical control points to prevent or eliminate them. Recent technologies such as high-pressure treatment, pulsed electric fields, microfiltration, cold plasma and ultraviolet light treatment have also been developed to improve the safety and quality of mozzarella cheese by inactivating microorganisms. High-pressure treatment uses water at high pressure, while cold plasma treatment uses ionized gas to inactivate microorganisms. Ultraviolet light treatment uses UV-C light to kill bacteria and viruses, while pulsed electric field treatment uses short pulses of high-voltage current to destroy bacteria. The combination of HACCP and these technologies has proven effective in ensuring the safety and quality of mozzarella cheese. This approach has been widely adopted by the food industry to minimize the risk of microbial contamination and improve food safety. However, further research is needed to optimize the use of these technologies and provide better inactivation of microorganisms while maintaining the quality of mozzarella cheese.

**Keywords:** CCP cheese, HACCP, hazard, microbial inactivation, mozzarella

#### **1. Introduction**

The application of food safety guidelines plays an important role in producing wholesome and good quality cheese products because food safety in the dairy industry is a technical discipline that describes how milk is acquired, processed, handled, stored, and marketed in a way that prevents foodborne illness [1]. Food safety and prevention of foodborne diseases are promoted through the implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system from dairy product

production to consumption [2]. It has been internationally recognized and accepted as an effective food safety management system [3], which has had a positive impact on minimizing economic losses and food poisoning outbreaks from all steps in the dairy production process via a systematic approach [2].

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has standardized the HACCP system [4] as a preventive approach that identifies, maintains, evaluates, controls, and monitors each production point that is crucial for food safety [5]. HACCP is governed by seven principles, including conducting a hazard analysis, identifying the process critical points, establishing critical limits, CCP monitoring requirements, corrective action verification, record-keeping procedures, and system documentation. The term "hazard" in the HACCP framework refers to substances or food-related conditions that affect consumer health. According to Suherman et al. [6] all physical, chemical, and biological hazards in the product might originate from raw milk, other raw materials, environmental contaminants, manufacturing equipment, and personnel. Therefore, implementing food safety standards like HACCP has been an effective and rational means of ensuring food safety and eliminating public health risks. It is appreciated as a worldwide systematic and defensive tactic to address biological, chemical, and physical hazards through deterrence and anticipation instead of end-product testing and inspection [1].

The critical control point is important in preventing, eliminating, or reducing a food safety hazard to an acceptable level. CCPs must be determined based on potential hazards that are reasonably likely to cause illness or injury if not controlled. The FDA stated that identifying CCPs in a complete, accurate, and timely manner is essential for controlling food safety hazards [7]. According to reports in the literature, the researcher's use decision tree was used to identify CCP in cheese production [1, 8]. The most significant CCPs identified in mozzarella cheese manufacturing are Milk reception, pasteurization temperature, salt and rennet addition, coagulation, and cheese cutting [2, 8, 9]. While most countries develop regulations to ensure food safety through a preventive approach, such as HACCP principles, Codex, and ISO standards, the requirements' fulfillment depends on many factors. Hazard identification and CCPs are the most crucial steps that need careful analysis and knowledge in HACCP implementation. HACCP plans to use Hazard Analysis to ensure product safety during and after processing to improve shelf life and make products safe for consumption [1]. The CCPs decision tree plays an important role in identifying the CCPs in each step of mozzarella cheese processing. Once the CCPs have been identified, they are monitored for critical limits and their frequency determined, and corrective actions can be taken if any critical limits fail. Temperature control checks, pH monitoring, microbial testing of the end product, and equipment calibration are required when a CCP fails because of improperly functioning equipment.

Moreover, effective microbial inactivation is essential in milk processing to eliminate harmful microorganisms and maintain product safety. Traditional thermal methods, such as pasteurization, have been widely used for microbial control in the dairy industry. However, there has been a growing interest in nonthermal processing techniques due to their potential to achieve microbial inactivation while minimizing the impact on milk quality attributes. Pulsed electric fields (PEF), high-pressure processing (HPP), and nonthermal plasma (NTP) technologies are among the notable nonthermal processing methods being explored for microbial control in milk. These techniques utilize electrical discharges, high pressures, or plasma to inactivate microorganisms while preserving the nutritional and sensory qualities of milk. However, challenges remain in optimizing these technologies for large-scale industrial

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

applications. Therefore, the implementation of HACCP and utilization of nonthermal processing methods have a significant impact on the production of excellent-quality products that are wholesome and suitable for human consumption by preventing contamination and using microbial inactivation. This chapter aims to review recent findings on CCPs in mozzarella cheese processing plants and microbial activation using nonthermal processing.

#### **2. Literature review**

#### **2.1 HACCP**

HACCPs are management systems that analyze, control and prevent biological, chemical, and physical hazards in everything from raw material production, procurement, and handling to final product manufacturing, distribution, and consumption [7]. According to the HACCP framework, the term "hazard" refers to any food agent or condition that has the potential to cause adverse health effects. Hazard analysis is the appraisal of the degree of severity of a hazard and its likelihood of occurrence. It is necessary to assess the survival and proliferation of potentially harmful bacteria, as well as the factors that lead to the existence or persistence of food. Therefore, this technique can be applied to a production line to determine the critical control points that can be measured and corrected [10]. In spite of this, HACCP has been shown to have greater effectiveness when used in conjunction with a quality management system and standard operating procedures, such as Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and good hygiene practices (GHPs). In order to direct and control an organization's food safety, the ISO introduced the Food Safety Management System (FSMS). This system has interrelated elements and was introduced to help organizations establish policies and objectives [11]. A wide variety of HACCP-based systems, including ISO 22000, BS PAS 220:2008, and other auditable commercial standards, have been used in the dairy industry for the implementation of cheese of many types [12–15].

Moreover, HACCP has been widely comprehended and adopted on a global scale as a trade promotion tool for effectively implementing the food safety management system, where countries face high levels of competition as well. The implementation of the HACCP plan in the global food market strengthens companies' positions and improves their competitiveness [16]. This method identifies potential contaminants, evaluates the steps that must be taken to maintain food quality, and then develops a systematic approach to preventing food contamination. However, the effectiveness of the approach to preventing contamination depends on how it is implemented and applied [17]. The literature on food safety claims that a complex blend of managerial, organizational, and technical skills is required for the development, installation, monitoring, and verification of the HACCP system [18]. These significant flaws must also be present in medium-sized and small dairy businesses, while there are several factors that hinder its effectiveness, such as technical staff training, poor physical conditions, and the cost of implementing HACCP [19]. The HACCP system was implemented on the 12 steps given by the Codex Alimentarius Commission mentioned below.

1.**Establish a HACCP team:** The initial phase in implementing HACCP in the milk processing facility was to put together a team that has the knowledge and experience necessary to build a HACCP plan. The interdisciplinary team that was formed included employees from the production/sanitation, quality assurance,

microbiology, engineering, and inspection departments; all of this expertise was internal to the plant. HACCP teams that are highly effective have clearly defined roles and ensure proper representation of the team in order to achieve success.


*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

8.**Establish a critical limit for each CCP**: In this step, a critical limit was defined and given for each CCP discovered. The parameters that were used to determine if a process was generating safe goods were referred to as critical limits. A number of parameters, including temperature, time, product measurements, water activity (ah), humidity level, etc., had critical limitations defined. The product's safety will be confirmed if these criteria are kept within acceptable limits. To decrease microbiological contamination and prevent foodborne illness, numerous nations have created various quality and safety standards. The tolerable microbial load in mozzarella cheese is summered in **Table 1**.


#### **Table 1.**

*Microbiological requirements for mozzarella cheese.*


#### **2.2 Implementation of HACCP in mozzarella cheese processing plant**

The successful implementation of a HACCP plan is facilitated by the commitment of top management. Establishing a strategy that outlines the person in control of designing, implementing, and maintaining the HACCP system is the next action. The HACCP coordinator and team are initially chosen and trained as needed. The team is then in charge of creating the initial plan and coordinating its execution. HACCP plans for specific products can be developed by product teams. After the HACCP plan is completed, operator procedures, forms, and procedures for monitoring and corrective action are developed. Implementing the HACCP system entails continuing to use the monitoring, record-keeping, corrective action procedures, and other activities outlined in the HACCP plan [20]. Peristeropoulou et al. [2] claim that a HACCP system must take into account raw materials, ingredients, food manufacturing practices, the role of manufacturing processes in controlling hazards, the likely end use of the product, the categories of consumers of concern, and epidemiological evidence regarding food safety during the identification, evaluation, and subsequent operation stages.

In the manufacturing of mozzarella cheese proper understanding of potential hazards and its preventive strategies, processing steps, and identifying primary ingredients has a significant impact on designing and implementing HACCP. According to Suherman et al., [6], milk, rennet, starter culture, and salt are the primary ingredients for cheese processing. The processing steps include milk reception, pasteurization and cooling, rennet addition and coagulation, cutting and whey draining, cooking and stretching, dry salting, molding, brining, packaging, and storage. Then the identification of the CCPs will be the next step for implementing the HACCP plan.

#### **2.3 The hazard analysis and critical control point framework for mozzarella cheese manufacture**

#### *2.3.1 Hazard identification*

Identification of potential hazards and their sources have a significant role in describing the full process of risk assessment, which includes three important steps: (1) identify hazards and risk factors that have the potential to cause harm (hazard identification), (2) analyze and evaluate the risk associated with that hazard (risk analysis, and risk evaluation) and (3), determine appropriate ways to eliminate the

#### *Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

hazard, or control the risk when the hazard cannot be eliminated (risk control) [21]. Hazard identification is helpful in identifying potential microbiological, chemical, and physical hazards that may occur during each step of processing mozzarella cheese [22]. Microbiological hazards are pathogens or harmful bacteria introduced during production, *E.coli,* and *Staphylococcus aureus*, are harmful bacterial in the raw milk, and *Salmonella* could contaminate the end product. These microbiological hazards may be originated from a different source [21]. Microbial potential hazards include pathogenic bacteria such as *Listeria monocytogenes, verotoxigenic E. coli, S. aureus*, and *Salmonella* from raw materials and *Salmonella, Cl. perfringens, Cl. botulinum, B. cereus,* and *L. monocytogenes* from ingredients. Besides, mycotoxins and bacterial toxins such as *staphylococcal enterotoxin* are found in certain raw milk and ingredients. Additional hazards associated with flavoring foods such as spices, herbs, ham, fruit, mushrooms, etc., pathogens that may be transferred from staff, re-contaminating molds, and pathogenic bacteria from the processing and packaging environment are also considered biological hazards [6, 23].

Chemical contaminants include plant toxins and chemicals added during processing and other chemicals originating from the raw materials [21]. Chemical hazards in the cheese manufacturing industry include pesticide residues, environmental contaminants in raw materials and ingredients (e.g., products high in fat, dioxins, and dioxin-like PCBs, heavy metals), contaminants from processing activities (coolants, lubricants, sanitizers), carryover additives (with numerical ADIs specified) from raw materials and ingredients, and contaminants from food contact materials, including coatings, waxes, and soft plastics like ripening films [1, 23]. Physical contamination is foreign material that could come from incorrect personal handling or bad environmental conditions. The hazards originated from the raw material and the processing steps [21]. Physical hazards include glass, bone or insect debris, metal fragments, hard plastic, etc.; the glass may come from unsecured windows, lamps, bulbs, neon tubes, thermometers, laboratory glass, spy holes on the tanks, insectkilling tubes, or other glass equipment; the insect debris may come from raw materials, ingredients, and packaging material; the metal may come from improperly built or maintained machines or equipment; the stones may come from damaged floors or walls; the wood from pallets or wooden equipment; and the plastic from buckets, boxes, and brushes are among the potential physical hazards in cheese manufacturing industries [1, 23]. The potential hazard, source, and preventive measures in the processing line are summarized in the **Table 2**.

#### *2.3.2 Critical control points (CCPs) in mozzarella cheese*

According to evidence in the literature, different researchers identify different CCPs in cheese manufacturing plants depending on the type of product produced, the sophistication of the manufacturing plant, the ingredients added during production, and the legislation of the country and international standards. For instance, Peristeropoulou et al. [2] established four CCPs in the storage of raw milk during its stay in self-cooler tanks in the factory, pasteurization of raw milk, heating of whey with stirring and Transport and distribution to consumers for the mizithra cheese production, whereas milk reception, dry salting, and brine salting also considered as CCP areas by other authors. Critical points are controlled through a monitoring system of planned measurements and observations for early detection of any deviations from the critical limits of CCPs and to ensure each CCP is always under control [8].


#### **Table 2.**

*Hazard analysis in mozzarella cheese processing steps.*

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

HACCP implementation requires the completion of a special form in order to create monitoring files in all CCPs, including:

Processing stage


Generally, documentation plays a significant role in verifying that HACCP controls are being adhered to and maintained in accordance with their objectives. The CCPs in mozzarella cheese manufacturing plants are summarized in **Table 3** [1, 2, 6, 9, 22–24].

#### **2.4 Nonthermal milk microbial in activation and preservation techniques**

The conventional method of microbial elimination and inactivation process cause major change in some nutritional components and physical and chemical properties of the food products, which leads to the development of detrimental flavor, loss of vitamins, and volatile flavor compounds [25]. Consumers also want foods that have undergone minimal processing with clear labels and goods made without the use of heat, which led to the invention and introduction of nonthermal processing methods to the food industry. The nonthermal processing is a revolutionary processing approach that is used not only in the milk processing industry but also in other food products. These processes eliminate microbes or other biological organisms without raising the temperature significantly and preventing a sequence of undesirable reactions in foods. Due to their capacity to produce safe, wholesome foods with a longer shelf life that are fresh and nutritious, nonthermal processing technologies can be utilized as a replacement for thermal processing. High-pressure processing (HPP), nonthermal plasma (cold plasma), ultrasonic, pulsed electric field (PEF), ultraviolet irradiation, and membrane microfiltration techniques are some common nonthermal procedures that are used in milk processing [26].

#### *2.4.1 High-pressure processing (HPP)*

HPP is a nonthermal technique of inactivating microbes and enzymes in food products using high pressure. HPP is a nonthermal technique for inactivating microbes and enzymes in food products using high pressure. It is an ideal substitute for conventional heat processing because it has no effect on the nutritional or sensory qualities of food. Sousa et al. [27] conducted an experiment to evaluate the impact of HPP on human milk and found that only ionic and hydrophobic interaction of macromolecules (proteins) was disrupted without denaturation of biologically active proteins. The microbial inactivation has been revealed with very little to no effect on the



*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*


**Table 3.**

*HACCP for mozzarella cheese processing plant.* small molecules of milk components (vitamins, taste, and amino acids), color, and other nutritional components. However, microbial inactivation is irreversible due to changes in membrane protein and other factors under greater pressure in microbial cellular membranes.

Moreover, HPP brought about some important modifications, such as denaturation, coagulation, and protein aggregation, which can influence the final product yield. Several researchers have successfully used HPP to increase the shelf life of milk [28] and milk products, including cheddar cheese [29], gorgonzola cheese [30], and queso fresco cheese [31]. In recent years, HPP has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for changing milk's functional properties and pressure-induced molecular changes and successfully applied in the sector [32].

A majority of research studies on milk processed using HPP were focused on determining whether harmful and spoilage microorganisms had been eliminated. Due to the resistance of spores to high pressure, the process at 400–600 MPa was comparable to heat pasteurization (72.8°C, 15 s) [33, 34]. By contrast, sterilized milk could not be compared to 400–600 MPa processing. While no research was conducted on the effect of HPP on mozzarella cheese, the experiment conducted on Turkish white cheese by treating with high pressure from 50 to 600 MPa for 5 or 10 min at 25°C found reductions in *L*. *monocytogenes*, total aerobic *mesophilic* bacteria, molds and yeasts, *Lactococcus* spp., and *Lactobacillus* spp. [35]. The process had no effect on pH and water activity of the cheese. Another study conducted on goat's milk cheese manufactured from raw milk processed at 450 MPa for 10 minutes or at 500 MPa for 5 minutes showed that the counts of *L. monocytogenes* were reduced by more than 5.6 log cfu g<sup>1</sup> without significantly altering the organoleptic properties of the final product.

The HPP process at 400 to 600 MPa for 7 minutes has been shown to eliminate *mesophilic* and aerobic bacteria, *Enterobacteriaceae*, lactic acid bacteria, and *Listeria spp*. and have no effect on the cheese's texture [36]. However, trained panelists and customers failed to notice the differences between the control and pressure-treated samples. According to Lopez-Pedemonte et al. [37], ultrahigh-pressure homogenization (UHPH) and high-pressure homogenization (HHP) are effective methods for inactivating *S. aureus* CECT 976 in milk used for cheese production. A primary and secondary homogenization stage using the UHPH was conducted at 300 and 30 MPa, respectively, and was then followed by an HHP treatment at 400 MPa/ 10 min/20°C. They discovered that cheese contained *S. aureus* at a starting load of 8.5 log10 CFU/g in control. Following UHPH and HHP treatment of the milk, the cheese showed full inactivation of S. aureus and its enterotoxin after 15 days of ripening.

A study on Gorgonzola cheese rind by pressure treatment between 400 to 700 MPa for 1 to 15 min at 30°C inactivated seven hemolytic strains belonging to serotype 1/2a of *L. monocytogenes*.

In addition, De Lamo-Castellvi et al. [38] revealed that all viable cells of *E. coli* O59: H21 and O157:H7 were eliminated in washed-curd cheese after being treated at 500 MPa. Besides, pressures of 300 and 400 MPa applied to cheese at a pH of around 4.8 completely inactivate both *S. Enteritidis* CECT 4300 and *S. Typhimurium* CECT 443 [39].

In general, milk and its products retain significant flavor, color, and nutrients after being pressure-treated. However, a strategic combination of HPP with other thermal and nonthermal treatments may be considered in order to prevent the recovery of injured cells during storage (**Table 4**).


#### **Table 4.**

*Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on the inactivation of some pathogenic bacteria in cheese.*

#### *2.4.2 Microfiltration (MF)*

Microfiltration is a type of membrane filtration that uses an open membrane structure and is operated at low pressure on the filter material [26]; it uses porous membranes with typical pore sizes of between 0.1 and 10 m. MF membranes can retain particles, cells, and large macromolecules (e.g., polymers). The dairy industry uses MF membranes for a variety of purposes, including the removal of bacteria [43, 44], whey defatting [45], and the production of concentrates enriched in casein micelles [44]. It extends the milk storage lifespan by decreasing the microbial load and eliminating spores, while preserving organoleptic quality. The low cost and fouling of cellulose acetate membranes make them very popular. Membrane separation was first used to separate milk components in the late 1960s and is now routinely used in whey and cheese processing.

MF can be used to reduce the microbial load in liquid milk and increase its shelf life without any changes in its composition and sensory qualities [46]. Using modified membrane structures, the microbial load can be reduced significantly without affecting milk composition [47]. García and Rodríguez [48] developed a process for extending the shelf life (ESL) of milk by 33 days using a combination of microfiltration and thermal treatment. There was a minimal change in the main composition of ESL milk compared to that of raw untreated milk. Low-fat milk is preferred for microfiltration processing, although slight changes in protein, calcium, and lactose levels were observed after the treatment [47].

Several studies have been conducted to verify the efficiency of microfiltration in microbial and spore removal [49–54]. However, García and Rodríguez [48] claimed that the exclusive utilization of MF is not granite for the removal of spores and some

#### *Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

pathogenic bacteria because of the survival nature of some bacteria, which multiply during the ripening and storage periods. Bacteria are maintained and concentrated in the retentate if the milk quality is poor and membrane pore sizes of 0.1 μm are not used in the separation of milk proteins. In contrast, Skrzypek and Burger [55] revealed that ceramic-membrane-based microfiltration is risk-free and nonintrusive.

According to France et al. [56] the dairy sector frequently filters at temperatures where microorganisms can flourish, which, combined with high TMP, a lack of mechanical cleaning, and constant feed flow, makes membranes vulnerable to biofilm formation. The temperature at which filtration is performed is an important consideration for processors because it influences microbial growth and diversity. High temperatures (45–55°C) provide optimal conditions for the growth of *thermophilic* bacteria that can produce heat-stable proteases and lipases. These bacteria can affect the quality of dairy products, produce acid on growth, and reduce pH [57, 58]. The growth of microorganisms and formation of biofilms can be more rapid at high temperatures than at low temperatures. As reported by Chamberland et al. [59], skimmed milk processing at 15°C led to a much slower occurrence of biofilms on UF membranes than at 50°C. *Psychrophiles* and *psychrotrophic* bacterial genera can grow at low temperatures, but their optimal growth temperature is–20-30°C. The authors revealed that the number of 16S rRNA gene copies on the membrane increased from 3.21 0.12 to 8.83 1.58 log10 gene copies per cm<sup>2</sup> after 15 hours of processing, indicating that bacterial growth was much higher at 50°C. A study conducted by Rodríguez-González et al. [60], using a cross-flow MF of 1.4μm pore size, reported a reduction of 2.1-log in mesophilic microorganisms in skim milk. Another study by Maubois [61] also revealed that the vegetative cells of skim milk showed a reduction of >3.5-log after MF processing at 55°C in 1.4μm pore size. The MF-treated milk was free from somatic cells, and the spore reduction was >4.5-log.

Conversely, psychrophiles and psychrotrophic bacterial species, such as *Pseudomonas*, *Psychrobacter*, and *Corynebacterium*, can be developed during milk filtration at low temperatures (15°C). Schiffer and Kulozik [62] examined microbial growth under feed-and-bleed filtration of skim milk at temperatures of 10, 14, 16, 20°C, and 55°C and a sudden drop in pH, associated with microbial activity, forced them to stop filtration at 55°C after 10 h. In cold MF, multiplication is minimal because most psychrotrophic bacteria prefer temperatures in the range of 20 to 30°C. Higher temperatures (15–20°C) facilitate the growth of mesophilic bacteria and are close to the optimal metabolic activity of psychrotrophic bacteria; therefore, microbial filtration during dairy processing is generally avoided. However, the bacterial communities responsible for increasing microbial counts at 16°C and 20°C were not determined, making it unclear whether mesophilic bacteria significantly contributed to microbial counts at the upper end of the cold MF range.

Moreover, the effectiveness of MF in eliminating microbes, spores, and somatic cells from skim milk at cold temperatures was examined by several scholars and found a positive result [62–65]. According to an experiment conducted by Fritsch and Moraru [64] the entire vegetative cells and spores were eliminated after MF processing, while the skimmed milk initially had a count of 5.25 and 2.15-log CFU/mL of vegetative bacteria and spores, respectively, following the application of MF treatment (pore size of 1.4 μm at 6°C) and somatic cell count was reduced to 3.0-log. Gosch et al. [65] conducted an experiment to examine the impact of pore size on the elimination of microorganisms and discovered that a membrane with a pore size of 0.8 μm was more effective than a membrane with a pore size of 1.4 μm in terms of >3.5 log decrease in the count and > 5.4-log reduction in the total viable count.

Conversely, two MF treatments reduced the total viable count of skim milk to >2.3 log CFU/mL. When compared to a ceramic membrane with 1.4 mm pores, MFs with 0.14 mm and 0.2 mm pore diameters showed a similar drop in bacterial cell density in their permeate.

Sterilox membranes (Pall-Exekia Company) are much more effective because of their narrower pore distribution sizes and can reduce the microbial load by 5–6-log and 3–4-log CFU/mL, respectively, with 0.8 and 1.4 mm microfiltration filters. Elwell and Barbano [63] used ceramic membranes with 1.4 m pore sizes to investigate the quality and storage stability of skim milk after MF. They discovered a 3.79-log reduction in the bacterial count and reported that the spore count decreased from an initial count of 2-log CFU/mL in raw milk to an undetectable level.

Another investigation found that filtering skim milk at 50°C via a membrane with a pore size of 1.4 μm resulted in >3.5-log reductions in the bacterial count and retention of all somatic cells. Comparing the results with 0.5 μm membrane processing, the bacterial reduction was increased to 2–3-log when a smaller pore-size membrane was used [66]. After filtering skim milk with a 1.4-μm membrane. Trouvé et al. [67] observed a > 4.5-log reduction in spore-forming bacteria. Furthermore, Brans et al. [68] investigated the use of 0.5 μm micro-sieves, an advanced membrane filtering device. The narrow pore size distribution of this membrane is able to work at low trans-membrane pressure and has achieved a 6.6-log reduction in the amount of *Bacillus subtilis* inoculated in SMUF.

#### *2.4.3 Pulsed electric fields (PEF)*

Pulsed electric fields is nonthermal processing technique that includes passing brief bursts of a strong electric field through fluid or semi-fluid meals. This breaks the microbial cell membrane, leading to cell rupture and, ultimately microbial cell death [69]. Milk is a suitable product that can receive PEF treatment because it is a fluid food. According to Bendicho et al. [70], milk that had PEF treatment underwent fewer unfavorable alterations and had a lower bacterial burden. According to research by Sharma et al. [71], the effects of PEF treatment were found to rise as the treatment temperature rose. According to Sharma et al. [71], PEF-treated milk has microbiological stability comparable to thermally treated pasteurized milk but without any thermally caused damage.

The main purpose of PEF processing milk samples is to examine the impact of PEF on various bacteria that are probably present in milk. One of the earlier investigations used PEF with 36.7 kV cm<sup>1</sup> and 40pulses for 25 minutes to inactivate Salmonella Dublin in homogenized milk. The desired microbe was totally destroyed inactive under these circumstances in samples kept at 7 to 9 °C for eight days; nevertheless, a 3-log reduction was achieved in *E. coli* cells under the same circumstances [72]. Untreated milk had an increase in the population of native milk microflora to 107 cfu ml<sup>1</sup> , whereas PEF treatment reduced the bacterial load to about 4102 cfu ml<sup>1</sup> [73]. Skim milk (SM) and whole milk (WM) were subjected to PEF processing (30.76 to 53.84 kV cm<sup>1</sup> electric field intensity and 12, 24, and 30 pulse numbers), along with light heating (20, 30, and 40oC), which resulted in minor alterations in the physicochemical parameters of both milks after processing. After PEF processing, mesophilic bacteria grew more slowly in both SM and WM than they did in psychrophilic bacteria, reaching up to 6 and 7 log cfu ml<sup>1</sup> growths after 25 days of storage at 4oC, respectively [74].

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

Despite the fact that the majority of studies have concentrated on PEF processing of milk, a small number of studies have also looked into PEF's potential applications in the dairy industry. For instance, *Lactobacillus brevis*, *Streptococcus thermophilus*, *Lactobacillus delbrueckii* subsp. *bulgaricus*, and *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* counts were reduced by approximately 2 log cfu g<sup>1</sup> when yogurt was processed using PEF [73]. There were no appreciable variations in L, a, and b values, oBrix, pH, or a few selected sensory qualities between the control and treated samples after PEF and heat processing (at 60°C for 30 s). In comparison to the control samples held at 4 or 22°C, the microbial counts of the samples treated with heat (at 60°C) and PEF were reduced [75].

PEF-treated dairy products show strong customer acceptability and sensory characteristics that are comparable to those of heat-treated products [76, 77]. The flavor profile of cheddar cheese created from PEF-treated milk was superior to that of cheese samples made from milk pasteurized at 63°C for 30 minutes. The values of the cheese's hardness and springiness increased while those of the other textural characteristics, such as adhesiveness and cohesiveness, remained unchanged [78].

The amount of proteolysis in cheese curds made from milk that had undergone PEF treatment (2 s pulse width, 2 Hz pulse frequency, and up to 120 pulses) was higher than that of cheese curds created from pasteurized milk but lower than that of cheese curds made from raw milk. The rennet coagulation time of milk treated with PEF was recently reported to have increased by 10% [79]. The potential of PEF treatment on the inactivation rate of selected pathogens in milk and milk products is summarized in **Table 5**.


**Table 5.**

*Effect of PEF treatment on the inactivation rate of selected pathogens in milk and milk products.*

#### *2.4.4 Ultraviolet light (UV)*

The wavelength of the ultraviolet (UV) radiation employed for food processing ranges from 100 to 400 nm. Raw milk absorbs UV light at a rate of 290 cm<sup>1</sup> at a wavelength of 253.7 nm. Milk is photosensitive; hence, UV light radiation usually has a detrimental effect on it [86]. However, Krishnamurthy et al. [87] revealed that pulsed UV radiation has the capacity to completely inactivate *Staphylococcus aureus*, a milk pathogen. Moreover, ultraviolet (UV) light has shown promise as a nonthermal method for microbial inactivation in various food products, including dairy items. Recent studies have explored the antimicrobial effects of UV-A light on processed cheese, demonstrating its potential as a surface decontamination method. According to Altic et al. [88], milk flowing through a UV chamber caused *Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis* cell clumps to break apart. The synthesis of vitamin D may be aided by short-wavelength UV radiation. Matak et al. identified some alterations in sensory perception and dietary habits.

When UV light treatment is utilized for pasteurization, milk turbidity is a significant difficulty. Turbidity in milk reduces microbial inactivation because it allows less UV radiation to penetrate. Milk becomes turbid when suspended and colloidal materials are present in high concentrations, which results in milk's opaqueness. Two methods have been employed in contemporary UV reactors to boost the UV light penetration into milk based on fluid flow, opening the door for the employment of this technology in the dairy and food industries for pasteurization. The first method uses the laminar flow of milk or fluid to create an extremely thin film over a UVirradiated surface, allowing light to pass through the milk. The second method uses turbulent milk flow to reduce the necessary route length and increase UV light penetration in milk [89]. It does this by placing all liquid components in close proximity to UV-exposed surfaces. The studies on the impact of UV processing on the quality of whole milk found no significant changes in the milk's viscosity, color, pH, soluble solid contents, or viscosity. When pasteurized whole milk was exposed to UV light with a dose of 10 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> for 12 to 235 minutes, the pH range of the milk treated with UV light was 6.66 to 6.70, the viscosity was typically 2.00 0.01 (m Pa s), the color change E\* was in the range of 0–0.5, and the contents of soluble solids were 12.78 0.10 (% g/g) [90].

The primary goal of UV light processing of milk and other dairy products is the elimination of harmful and spoilage bacteria. According to Krishnamurthy et al. [87], the effectiveness of pulsed UV light at 5, 8, or 11 cm from a UV light strobe with a 20, 30, or 40ml min<sup>1</sup> flow rate up to three times via recirculation for continuous flow milk treatment resulted in a 0.55 to 7.26 log cfu ml<sup>1</sup> reduction in *S. aureus* counts. Raw cow's milk was processed in a continuous flow coiled tube ultraviolet reactor for 17 seconds at a cumulative dose of 16.822 mJ cm-2, which reduced the total microbial count by 2.3 log cfu ml<sup>1</sup> but had no discernible effect on the odor compounds in the treated, untreated, or control samples. Milk samples treated with UV caused a detectable change in odor, but no significant difference in malondialdehyde or other reactivity was detected after treatment or during storage between untreated and UVtreated milk samples. Moreover, Bandla et al. [91] revealed that UV-treated milk had higher lipid oxidation products than fresh or untreated raw milk samples.

Recently Hales and Bastarrachea conducted a research to determine the antimicrobial mechanism and microbial inactivation kinetics of UV-A light on processed cheese inoculated with *Escherichia coli* K12 and *Listeria innocua*. The results revealed that an exposure of approximately 70 minutes of UV-A light was required to achieve

#### *Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

an 6 log reduction in *E. coli* K12, while *L. innocua* L2 required around 130 minutes of exposure. The UV-A light exposure also led to increased oxidative stress and membrane damage in both bacteria. Furthermore, infrared spectroscopy indicated no significant changes in the surface chemistry of processed cheese after UV-A exposure, except for a decrease in moisture content and an increase in lipid concentration. The study concluded that UV-A light could be a suitable alternative for surface decontamination of dairy products, including processed cheese [92].

In general ultraviolet (UV) light has emerged as a nonthermal method for microbial inactivation in various food products, and recent studies have investigated its effectiveness on processed cheese. UV light shows promise as a nonthermal method for microbial inactivation in dairy products. However, its effectiveness can vary depending on the target microorganism and specific product characteristics. Further research and optimization of UV treatment parameters are necessary to fully harness its potential for preserving dairy products' quality and safety.

#### *2.4.5 Cold plasma*

Plasma (quasi-neutral gas) technology (PT) is one of the most recent technologies with numerous uses in the food sector. It is defined as the fourth stage of matter, which is electrically charged or ionized but does not have a fixed shape or volume [93, 94]. It is an entirely or partially ionized state made up of neutrally charged molecules and atoms, free radicals, negatively and positively charged ions, intermediate highly reactive species, and negatively and positively charged ions [95].

The most appealing characteristics of PT are its low-temperature properties and increased efficacy in microbial inactivation [96]. The fundamental idea behind PT is a straightforward physical one: by feeding the gas with extra energy through an electrical discharge, the gas is transformed into an energy-rich plasma state, the fourth state of matter. The application of PT enhances the product's quality and maintains its safety from pathogenic and spoilage-causing bacteria without compromising its functional, sensory, or nutritional profile [97]. Furthermore, it is crucial to remember that PT only causes changes to the food's surface because plasma-reactive species lack penetrating power [98]. PT is frequently used in the food industry for enzyme inactivation, wastewater treatment, food packaging modification, hazardous elimination, and food decontamination [99].

Despite its widespread use in the medical, chemical, and polymer industries, cold plasma has yet to be tested in the dairy industry, and little research has been conducted. A study was conducted on whole, semi-skimmed, and skimmed milk stored at 4°C for 42 days by applying plasma at 20 kV to determine its potential for reducing *E. coli*, *S. Typhimurium*, and *S. aureus* inactivation rates and found a reduction of 3.63 log cfu, 2..00 log cfu ml<sup>1</sup> , and 2.62 log cfu ml<sup>1</sup> for *E. coli*, *S. Typhimurium*, and *S. aureus*, respectively. Neither the pH nor the color of the milk samples changed significantly. It was found that no viable cells were detected in whole milk samples after a one-week examination and that the samples remained stable after being stored for more than six weeks.

The rate of microbial reduction increased with increased input power and plasma exposure time, as evidenced by the inactivation of *L. monocytogenes* inoculated into sliced cheese by atmospheric pressure plasma (APP), which is capable of operating at atmospheric pressure in air with 75, 100, 125, and 150 W input powers and 60, 90, and 120 s plasma exposure times. After 120 s of APP treatments at 75, 100, and 125 W, the viable cells of *L. monocytogenes* in sliced cheese were reduced by 1.70, 2.78, and 5.82 log


#### **Table 6.**

*Effect of plasma technology on different microbes in milk.*

cfu g<sup>1</sup> , respectively. When employing APP (with 75, 100, 125, and 150 W), the exposure times needed to inactivate 90% of the cheese's microbial population were 71.43, 62.50, 19.65, and 17.27 s, respectively. When sliced cheese was treated with 125 and 150 W of APP, no viable cells were detected [100]. **Table 6** provides an overview of how plasma technology influences certain milk bacteria.

#### **2.5 Cost effectiveness of non-thermal technologies**

The cost-effectiveness of high-pressure processing, pulsed electric field, microfiltration, cold plasma, and ultraviolet light treatment in dairy industries depends on several factors. The initial cost of equipment, maintenance costs, and the cost of energy and materials are important considerations. However, these technologies are generally considered cost-effective because they improve the safety and quality of dairy products, reduce waste, and extend shelf life. According to a recent article, although the initial investment in non-thermal processing equipment is higher, it can result in long-term cost savings by reducing energy consumption and extending product shelf life, thereby reducing waste and production costs [102]. In addition, researchers reported that non-thermal treatments are energy efficient [103] and have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional thermal processing, which is in line with the sustainability goals of the dairy industry [103, 104].

Although the study is somewhat older, Campus [105] reports that capital and operating costs of HPP plants will continue to decline in line with demand for the plants. For example, the average processing cost (depending on processing conditions) of HPP is US\$0.05–0.5 per liter or kilogram of various foods, which is lower than the cost of thermal processing. HPP technology is suitable and can be used costeffectively for high-value products [106]. Jermann et al. [107] found that HPP is the second most widely used non-thermal technology in the world after microwave treatment. Microfiltration is the most widely used non-thermal processing, and its cost is even lower than that of UHT. According to Skrzypek and Burger [55], the installation of a microfiltration with a capacity of 25,000 l/h with a cream heater costs about €600,000, while a UHT ESL installation for the same capacity costs about €1,000,000, which have a significant effect on wide application of this technique in the dairy industry.

On the other hand, the cost of PEF is higher than that of the conventional method, which must be compensated by a high-priced product [108]. PEF can effectively accelerate the drying process in the food industry compared to conventional drying

#### *Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

with elevated heat by precisely controlling the process temperature, which leads to a reduction in energy costs and gas consumption [109]. Therefore, upscaling of PEF systems for dairy applications remains a challenge and should be a topic of future studies. The same is true for HPP, cold plasma, and ultrasound [110, 111].

In general, non-thermal processing in the dairy industry is not only effective in maintaining product quality and safety by removing or inactivating microorganisms, but can also be cost-effective in the long term, making it a valuable option for dairy producers. Therefore, research and development of these non-thermal processes for food processing should focus on cost-effectiveness, food safety, especially spore inactivation, and customer appeal.

#### **3. Conclusion**

In recent years, the demand for dairy products has increased dramatically, especially mozzarella cheese, due to the popularity of pizza. Despite this, these products are also known to have the potential to pose a threat to consumers due to several sources of contamination, including equipment, personnel, additives, packaging materials used during the production process, and nonconforming conditions. The integrated implementation of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles and nonthermal processing for microbial inactivation in Mozzarella cheese manufacturing is critical for guaranteeing food safety and quality. In the HACCP system, hazards and risks are identified and assessed as well as the appropriate controls are implemented at specific points within the production line in order to eliminate or reduce these hazards from occurring during the manufacture, storage, and distribution of food. Once the identification of potential hazards, the critical limit monitoring procedures, and frequency are established, corrective actions can be taken if the CCP fails. This includes temperature control checks, pH maintenance, microbial testing of the end product, and equipment calibration when a failure occurs due to improper equipment operation. The application of HACCP in the mozzarella cheesemaking industry proved beneficial and profitable because the industry was able to reduce raw material (milk) and final product (cheese) losses while also increasing consumer confidence by producing safe cheese of improved and consistent quality.

In addition to the HACCP system, the incorporation of nonthermal processing procedures is beneficial for eliminating microorganisms during the production of mozzarella cheese. Nonthermal processing methods, such as high-pressure processing, pulsed electric fields, and ultraviolet light treatment, can be an alternative to traditional thermal processes such as pasteurization. These methods can successfully inactivate pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms but have little influence on product quality. These processing methods can be used at specific, important control points specified by the HACCP system, providing an additional layer of microbiological control and maintaining the safety of mozzarella cheese. Therefore, implementing HACCP procedures and nonthermal processing techniques for the production of mozzarella cheese plays an important role in maintaining the quality of the cheese as well as extending its shelf life.

*Food Safety – New Insights*

#### **Author details**

Muhammed Nurye<sup>1</sup> \* and Tesfemariam Berhe<sup>2</sup>

1 Department of Food Science, College of Agriculture, Oda Bultum University, Chiro, Ethiopia

2 Ethiopian Biotechnology Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

\*Address all correspondence to: muhammednuriye86@gmail.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

#### **References**

[1] Jan T, Yadav KC, Borude S. Study of HACCP implementation in Milk processing Plant at Khyber Agro Pvt. Ltd in Jammu & Kashmir. Journal of Food Processing Technology. 2016;**7**:610

[2] Peristeropoulou M, Fragkaki AG, Printzos N, Laina I. Implementation of the Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) system to a dairy industry: Evaluation of benefits and barriers. Journal of Food Nutrition and Dietetics. 2015;**1**(1):1-5. DOI: 10.19104/ jfnd.2015.102

[3] International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Bridging the Regulatory Gap for Small-Scale Milk Traders. Nairobi, Kenya: Smallholder Dairy Project (SDP); 2005

[4] Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system and guidelines for its application. Report of the 29th session of the Codex Committee on food hygiene, Alinorm. 97/13A, Appendix II. Rome: Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1996. 1996

[5] Mortimore S, Wallace C. HACCP – A Practical Approach. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 2013

[6] Suherman S, Janitra AA, Budhiary KNS, Pratiwi WZ, Idris FA. Review on hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) in the dairy product: Cheese. IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering. 2021;**1053**:012081

[7] FDA. HACCP Principles & Application Guidelines. 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/hazardanalysis-critical-control-point-haccp/ haccp- principles-application-guidelines

[8] El-Hofi M, El-Tanboly ES, Ismail A. Implementation of the hazard analysis

critical control point (HACCP) system to UF white cheese production line. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria. 2010;**9**(3):331-342

[9] KS (KENYA STANDARD) 2193. Mozzarella Cheese Specification. Kenya; 2018

[10] Ropkins K, Beck AJ. Evaluation of worldwide approaches to the use of HACCP to control food safety. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2000; **11**(1):10-21

[11] Kok MS. Application of food safety management systems (ISO 22000/ HACCP) in the Turkish poultry industry: A comparison based on enterprise size. Journal of Food Protection. 2009;**72**(10): 2221-2225

[12] Papademas P, Bintsis T. Food safety management systems (FSMS) in the dairy industry: A review. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 2010;**63** (4):489-503. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471- 0307.2010.00620.x

[13] Arvanitoyannis IS, Mavropoulos AA. Implementation of the hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) system to Kasseri/Kefalotiri and Anevato cheese production lines. Food Control. 2000; **11**(1):31-40

[14] Evrensel SS, Temelli S, Anar S. Detection of critical control points in white cheese production in small dairy plants. Turkish Journal of Veterinary of Animal Science. 2003;**27**:29-35

[15] Mauropoulos AA, Arvanitoyannis IS. Implementation of hazard analysis critical control point to Feta and Manouri cheese production lines. Food Control. 1999;**10**(3):213-219. DOI: 10.1016/S0956-7135(99)00021-3

[16] Fielding L, Ellis L, Clayton D, Peters A. An evaluation of process specific information resources, aimed at hazard analysis, in small and medium enterprises in food manufacturing. Food Control. 2011;**22**:1171-1177

[17] Sampers I, Toyofuku H, Luning PA, Uyttendaele M, Jacxsens L. Semiquantitative study to evaluate the performance of a HACCP-based food safety management system in Japanese milk processing plants. Food Control. 2012;**23**(1):227-233. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodcont.2011.07.018

[18] EC. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. 2002 [Accessed November 11, 2022]

[19] Karaman AD, Cobanoglu F, Tunalioglu R, Ova G. Barriers and benefits of the implementation of food safety management systems among the Turkish dairy industry: A case study. Food Control. 2012;**25**:732-739

[20] FAO. Gateway to Dairy Production and Products. Milk Processing; 2022. Available from: https:// www.fao.org/dairy-productionproducts/processing/en/

[21] Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety (CCOHS). OSH Answers Fact Sheets. 2018. Available from: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ hsprograms/hazard\_identification.h tml#:~:text=Hazard%20identification% 20is%20part%20of,cause%20harm%20 (hazard%20ide ntification

[22] Zhao M. The Design of HACCP Plan for a Small-Scale Cheese Plant.

Menomonie, WI, United States: The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout; 2003

[23] Assifonte Hygiene Guide (AHG). European Guide for the hygienic manufacture of Processed Cheese. 2018

[24] Olofsson I. Guidelines for food safety control of artisan cheese-making. TemaNord. 2010;**2010**:596

[25] Nabi BG, Mukhtar K, Arshad RN, Radicetti E, Tedeschi P, Shahbaz MU, et al. High-pressure processing for sustainable food supply. Sustainability. 2021;**13**(24):13908

[26] Nurye Gebeyehu M. Recent advances and application of biotechnology in the dairy processing industry: A review. In: Manzoor S, Muhammad Abubakar M, editors. Intensive Animal Farming - A Cost-Effective Tactic. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2023. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.105859

[27] Sousa SG, Delgadillo I, Saraiva JA. Human milk composition and preservation: Evaluation of highpressure processing as a nonthermal pasteurization technology. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2016;**56**(6):1043-1060

[28] Sierra I, Vidal Valverde C, Lopez Fandino R. Effect of high pressure on the vitamin B1 and B6 content of milk. Milchwissenschaft. 2000a;**55**(7):365-367

[29] Kheadr EE, Vachon JF, Paquin P, Fliss I. Effect of dynamic high pressure on microbiological, rheological and microstructural quality of Cheddar cheese. International Dairy Journal. 2002a;**12**(5):435-446

[30] Carminati D, Gatti M, Bonvini B, Neviani E, Mucchetti G. High-pressure processing of Gorgonzola cheese:

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

Influence on Listeria monocytogenes inactivation and on sensory characteristics. Journal of Food Protection. 2004a;**67**(8):1671-1675

[31] Tomasula PM, Renye JA, Van Hekken DL, Tunick MH, Kwoczak R, Toht M, et al. Effect of high-pressure processing on reduction of Listeria monocytogenes in packaged Queso Fresco. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014a; **97**(3):1281-1295

[32] Cadesky L, Walkling-Ribeiro M, Kriner KT, Karwe MV, Moraru CI. Structural changes induced by highpressure processing in micellar casein and milk protein concentrates. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(9):7055-7070

[33] Buffa M, Guamis B, Royo C, Trujillo AJ. Microbiological changes throughout ripening of goat cheese made from raw, pasteurized and high-pressure-treated milk. Food Microbiology. 2001;**18**(1):45-51

[34] Buffa M, Trujillo AJ, Royo C, Guamis B. Changes in chemical and microbiological characteristics of goat cheese made from raw, pasteurized or high-pressure-treated milk. International Journal of High Pressure Research. 2000;**19**(1–6):27-32

[35] Evrendilek GA, Koca N, Harper JW, Balasubramaniam VM. High-pressure processing of Turkish white cheese for microbial inactivation. Journal of Food Protection. 2008;**71**(1):102-108

[36] Delgado FJ, Delgado J, González-Crespo J, Cava R, Ramírez R. Highpressure processing of a raw milk cheese improved its food safety maintaining the sensory quality. Food Science and Technology International. 2013;**19**(6): 493-501

[37] López-Pedemonte T, Brin~ez WJ, Roig-Sagues AX, Guamis B. Fate of

Staphylococcus aureus in cheese treated by ultrahigh pressure homogenization and high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;**89**(12):4536-4544

[38] De Lamo-Castellví S, Capellas M, Roig-Sagues AX, López-Pedemonte T, Hernández-Herrero MM, Guamis B. Fate of Escherichia coli strains inoculated in model cheese elaborated with or without starter and treated by high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Food Protection. 2006;**69**(12):2856-2864

[39] De Lamo-Castellví S, Roig-Sagués AX, López-Pedemonte T, Hernández-Herrero MM, Guamis B, Capellas M. Response of two Salmonella enterica strains inoculated in model cheese treated with high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**(1): 99-109

[40] Ding Y, Sang WG, Jin Z, Harper JW. High pressure treatment of Swiss cheese slurries (I): Inactivation of selected microorganisms after treatment and during accelerated ripening. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A. 2001; **2**:204-208

[41] Fonberg-Broczek M, Windyga B, Szczawiński J, Szczawińska M, Pietrzak D, Prestamo G. High pressure processing for food safety. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2005;**52**(3):721-724

[42] Capellas M, Mor-Mur M, Gervilla R, Yuste J, Guamis B. Effect of high pressure combined with mild heat or nisin on inoculated bacteria and mesophiles of goat's milk fresh cheese. Food Microbiology. 2000;**17**(6):633-641

[43] Walkling-Ribeiro M, Rodríguez-González O, Jayaram S, Griffiths MW. Microbial inactivation and shelf life comparison of 'cold' hurdle processing with pulsed electric fields and microfiltration, and conventional

thermal pasteurisation in skim milk. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;**144**(3):379-386

[44] Khanal SN, Anand S, Muthukumarappan K. Evaluation of high-intensity ultrasonication for the inactivation of endospores of 3 Bacillus species in nonfat milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;**97**(10):5952-5963

[45] Goudédranche H, Fauquant J, Maubois JL. Fractionation of globular milk fat by membrane microfiltration. Le Lait. 2000;**80**(1):93-98

[46] Pafylias I, Cheryan M, Mehaia MA, Saglam N. Microfiltration of milk with ceramic membranes. Food Research International. 1996;**29**(2):141-146

[47] Hoffmann W, Kiesner C, Clawin‐ Rädecker IN, Martin D, Einhoff K, Lorenzen PC, et al. Processing of extended shelf life milk using microfiltration. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 2006;**59**(4):229-235

[48] García LF, Rodríguez FR. Combination of microfiltration and heat treatment for ESL milk production: Impact on shelf life. Journal of Food Engineering. 2014;**128**:1-9

[49] Belna M, Ndiaye A, Taillandier F, Agabriel L, Marie AL, Gésan-Guiziou G. Formulating multiobjective optimization of 0.1 μm microfiltration of skim milk. Food and Bioproducts Processing. 2020; **124**:244-257

[50] Barukčić I, Božanić R, Kulozik U. Effect of pore size and process temperature on flux, microbial reduction and fouling mechanisms during sweet whey cross-flow microfiltration by ceramic membranes. International Dairy Journal. 2014;**39**(1):8-15

[51] Banerjee S, Shrivastava SL. Recent trends in milk processing-A short

review. Approaches in Poultry, Dairy & Veterinary Sciences. 2017;**2**(1):108-110

[52] Griep ER, Cheng Y, Moraru CI. Efficient removal of spores from skim milk using cold microfiltration: Spore size and surface property considerations. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**(11): 9703-9713

[53] Marx M, Bernauer S, Kulozik U. Manufacturing of reverse osmosis whey concentrates with extended shelf life and high protein nativity. International Dairy Journal. 2018;**86**:57-64

[54] Wang D, Fritsch J, Moraru CI. Shelf life and quality of skim milk processed by cold microfiltration with a 1.4-μm pore size membrane, with or without heat treatment. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;**102**(10):8798-8806

[55] Skrzypek M, Burger M. Isoflux® ceramic membranes—Practical experiences in dairy industry. Desalination. 2010;**250**(3):1095-1100

[56] France TC, Kelly AL, Crowley SV, O'Mahony JA. Cold microfiltration as an enabler of sustainable dairy protein ingredient innovation. Foods (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;**10**(9):2091. DOI: 10.3390/foods10092091

[57] Burgess SA, Lindsay D, Flint SH. Thermophilic bacilli and their importance in dairy processing. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2010;**144**(2):215-225

[58] Seale B, Bremer P, Flint S, Brooks J, Palmer J. Overview of the problems resulting from biofilm contamination in the dairy industry. Biofilms in the Dairy Industry. 2015;**2015**:49-64

[59] Chamberland J, Messier T, Dugat-Bony E, Lessard MH, Labrie S, Doyen A, et al. Influence of feed temperature to

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

biofouling of ultrafiltration membrane during skim milk processing. International Dairy Journal. 2019; **93**:99-105

[60] Rodríguez-González O, Walkling-Ribeiro M, Jayaram S, Griffiths MW. Factors affecting the inactivation of the natural microbiota of milk processed by pulsed electric fields and cross-flow microfiltration. Journal of Dairy Research. 2011;**78**(3):270-278

[61] Maubois JL. Membrane microfiltration: A tool for a new approach in dairy technology. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology. 2002;**57**(2):92

[62] Schiffer S, Kulozik U. Effect of temperature-dependent bacterial growth during milk protein fractionation by means of 0.1 μm microfiltration on the length of possible production cycle times. Membranes. 2020;**10**(11):326

[63] Elwell MW, Barbano DM. Use of microfiltration to improve fluid milk quality. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006; **89**:E20-E30. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(06)72361-X

[64] Fritsch JA, Moraru CI. Development and optimization of a carbon dioxideaided cold microfiltration process for the physical removal of microorganisms and somatic cells from skim milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 2008;**91**(10):3744-3760

[65] Gosch T, Apprich S, Kneifel W, Novalin S. A combination of microfiltration and high pressure treatment for the elimination of bacteria in bovine colostrum. International Dairy Journal. 2014;**34**(1):41-46

[66] Saboyainsta LV, Maubois JL. Current developments of microfiltration technology in the dairy industry. Le Lait. 2000;**80**(6):541-553. DOI: 10.1051/lait: 2000144

[67] Trouvé E, Maubois JL, Piot M, Madec MN, Fauquant J, Rouault A, et al. Retention of different microbial species during milk purification by tangential flow microfiltration. Milk. 1991;**71**(1): 1-3

[68] Brans G, Schroën C, Van der Sman R, Boom R. Membrane fractionation of milk: State of the art and challenges. Journal of Membrane Science. 2004;**243**(1-2):263-272. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2004.06.029

[69] Abinaya V, Banerjee S, Palati M. Experimental validation on effects of pulsed electric field treatment on the sensory quality of vegetable juices. Journal of Food Technology and Preservation. 2017;**1**(1):56-60

[70] Bendicho S, Barbosa CGV, Martı́n O. Milk processing by high intensity pulsed electric fields. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2002;**13**(6):195-204

[71] Sharma P, Bremer P, Oey I, Everett DW. Bacterial inactivation in whole milk using pulsed electric field processing. International Dairy Journal. 2014;**35**(1): 49-56

[72] Dunn JE. Pulsed light and pulsed electric field for foods and eggs. Poultry Science. 1996;**75**:1133-1136

[73] Dunn JE, Pearlman JS. Methods and Apparatus for Extending the Shelf Life of Fluid Food Products. Patent No. US 4695472. USA; 1987

[74] Bermúdez‐Aguirre D, Fernández S, Esquivel H, Dunne PC, Barbosa‐Cánovas GV. Milk processed by pulsed electric fields: Evaluation of microbial quality, physicochemical characteristics, and selected nutrients at different storage conditions. Journal of Food Science. 2011;**76**(5):S289-S299

[75] Evrendilek GA, Yeom HW, Jin ZT, Zhang QH. Safety and quality evaluation of a yogurt‐based drink processed by a pilot plant PEF system. Journal of Food Process Engineering. 2004;**27**(3):197-212

[76] Sobrino-Lopez A, Viedma-Martínez P, Abriouel H, Valdivia E, Gálvez A, Martin-Belloso O. The effect of adding antimicrobial peptides to milk inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus and processed by high-intensity pulsedelectric field. Journal of Dairy Science. 2009;**92**(6):2514-2523

[77] Sampedro F, Rodrigo M, Martinez A, Rodrigo D, Barbosa-Cánovas GV. Quality and safety aspects of PEF application in milk and milk products. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2005;**45**(1):25-47

[78] Sepulveda-Ahumada DR, Ortega-Rivas E, Barbosa-Cánovas GV. Quality aspects of cheddar cheese obtained with milk pasteurized by pulsed electric fields. Food and Bioproducts Processing. 2000;**78**(2):65-71

[79] Garcia‐Amezquita LE, Primo‐Mora ÁR, Guerrero‐Beltran JA, Barbosa‐ Cánovas GU, Sepulveda DR. Rennetability of cheese‐making milk processed by nonthermal technologies. Journal of Food Process Engineering. Apr 2013;**36**(2):247-253

[80] Guerrero-Beltrán JÁ, Sepulveda DR, Góngora-Nieto MM, Swanson B, Barbosa-Cánovas GV. Milk thermization by pulsed electric fields (PEF) and electrically induced heat. Journal of Food Engineering. 2010;**100**(1):56-60

[81] Calderón-Miranda ML, Barbosa-Cánovas GV, Swanson BG. Inactivation of Listeria innocua in skim milk by pulsed electric fields and nisin. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 1999;**51**(1):19-30

[82] Shin JK, Jung KJ, Pyun YR, Chung MS. Application of pulsed electric fields with square wave pulse to milk inoculated with E. coli, P. fluorescens, and B. stearothermophil us. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2007;**16**(6): 1082-1084

[83] Michalac S, Alvarez VT, Ji T, Zhang QH. Inactivation of selected microorganisms and properties of pulsed electric field processed milk. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2003; **27**(2):137-151

[84] Craven HM, Swiergon P, Ng S, Midgely J, Versteeg C, Coventry MJ, et al. Evaluation of pulsed electric field and minimal heat treatments for inactivation of pseudomonads and enhancement of milk shelf-life. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2008;**9**(2): 211-216

[85] Dave A, Walkling-Ribeiro M, Rodríguez-González O, Griffiths MW, Corredig M. Effect of PEF and UV and their combination on selected microorganisms and physicochemical properties in whey. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;**95**:168

[86] Koutchma T. Advances in ultraviolet light technology for non-thermal processing of liquid foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2009;**2**(2): 138-155

[87] Krishnamurthy K, Demirci A, Irudayaraj JM. Inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus in milk using flow‐through pulsed UV‐light treatment system. Journal of Food Science. 2007; **72**(7):M233-M239

[88] Altic LC, Rowe MT, Grant IR. UV light inactivation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in milk as assessed by FASTPlaque TB phage assay

*Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Recent Technologies… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112981*

and culture. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2007;**73**(11):3728-3733

[89] Datta N, Harimurugan P, Palombo EA. Ultraviolet and pulsed light technologies in dairy processing. In: Datta N, Tomasula P, editors. Emerging Dairy Processing Technologies: Opportunities for the Dairy Industry. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2015. pp. 181-204

[90] Orlowska M, Koutchma T, Grapperhaus M, Gallagher J, Schaefer R, Defelice C. Continuous and pulsed ultraviolet light for nonthermal treatment of liquid foods. Part 1: Effects on quality of fructose solution, apple juice, and milk. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2013:1580-1592. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-012-0779-8

[91] Bandla S, Choudhary R, Watson DG, Haddock J. Impact of UV-C processing of raw cow milk treated in a continuous flow coiled tube ultraviolet reactor. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2012;**14**(2):86-93

[92] Hales BR, Bastarrachea LJ. Microbial inactivation on a processed cheese surface by UV-A light. ACS Food Science & Technology. 2021;**1**(3):347-353. Available from: https:// builddairy.com/research/published/ microbial-inactivation-on-a-processedcheese-surfaceby-uv-a-light

[93] Mishra R, Bhatia S, Pal R, Visen A, Trivedi H. Cold plasma: Emerging as the new standard in food safety. Research Inventy: International Journal of Engineering and Science. 2016;**6**(2): 15-20

[94] Patra F, Patel A, Shah N, Shukla DA. Application of Cold Plasma Technology in Milk and Dairy Products-Current Status and Future Prospective, National Symposium on "Non-Thermal

Technologies for Improvement of Safety Quality of Foods" at College of Food Processing Technology and Bioenergy. Anand, Gujarat, India: AAU; 2017

[95] Sarangapani C, Devi Y, Thirundas R, Annapure US, Deshmukh RR. Effect of low-pressure plasma on physicochemical properties of parboiled rice. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2015;**63**(1):452-460. DOI: 10.1016/j. lwt.2015.03.026

[96] Guo J, Huang K, Wang J. Bactericidal effect of various nonthermal plasma agents and the influence of experimental conditions in microbial inactivation: A review. Food Control. 2015;**50**:482-490. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodcont.2014.09.037

[97] Mir SA, Shah MA, Mir MM. Understanding the role of plasma technology in food industry. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2016;**9**:734-750. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-016-1699-9

[98] Fernández A, Thompson A. The inactivation of Salmonella by cold atmospheric plasma treatment. Food Research International. 2012;**45**(2): 678-684. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011. 04.009

[99] Pankaj SK, Wan Z, Keener KM. Effects of cold plasma on food quality: A review. Foods. 2018;**7**(1):4. DOI: 10.3390/foods7010004

[100] Song HP, Kim B, Choe JH, Jung S, Moon SY, Choe W, et al. Evaluation of atmospheric pressure plasma to improve the safety of sliced cheese and ham inoculated by 3-strain cocktail Listeria monocytogenes. Food Microbiology. 2009;**26**(4):432-436

[101] Ruan R, Metzger L, Chen P, Deng S. Non-Thermal Plasma Pasteurization of

Milk Using Plasma Technology (Phase II). Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center; 2007. pp. 227-231

[102] Dakshayani R, Abimanyou A. Outlook of non-thermal processing in the dairy sector. Food Marketing Technology. 2023. Available from: https://fmtmagazine.in/outlook-of-nonthermal-processing-in-the-dairy-sector/

[103] Neoκleous I, Tarapata J, Papademas P. Non-thermal processing technologies for dairy products: Their effect on safety and quality characteristics. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2022;**6**:856199

[104] Ribeiro NG, Xavier-Santos D, Campelo PH, Guimarães JT, Pimentel TC, Duarte MC, et al. Dairy foods and novel thermal and non-thermal processing: A bibliometric analysis. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2022;**76**:102934

[105] Campus M. High pressure processing of meat, meat products and seafood. Food Engineering Reviews. 2010;**2**(4):256-273

[106] Bermúdez-Aguirre D, Barbosa-Cánovas GV. An update on high hydrostatic pressure, from the laboratory to industrial applications. Food Engineering Reviews. 2011;**3**:44-61

[107] Jermann C, Koutchma T, Margas E, Leadley C, Ros-Polski V. Mapping trends in novel and emerging food processing technologies around the world. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2015;**31**:14-27

[108] Soltanzadeh M, Peighambardoust SH, Gullon P, Hesari J, Gullón B, Alirezalu K, et al. Quality aspects and safety of pulsed electric field (PEF) processing on dairy products: A comprehensive review. Food Reviews International. 2022;**38**(sup1):96-117

[109] Pereira RN, Vicente AA. Environmental impact of novel thermal and non-thermal technologies in food processing. Food Research International. 2010;**43**(7):1936-1943. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodres.2009.09.013

[110] Coutinho NM, Silveira MR, Rocha RS, Moraes J, Ferreira MV, Pimentel TC, et al. Cold plasma processing of milk and dairy products. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2018;**74**:56-68

[111] Chakka AK, Sriraksha MS, Ravishankar CN. Sustainability of emerging green non-thermal technologies in the food industry with food safety perspective: A review. Lwt. 2021;**151**:112140

Section 3
