Application of Food Safety Management Systems (ISO 22000/HACCP) in the Turkish Poultry Industry: A Comparison Based on Enterprise Size

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the extent of food safety management systems (ISO 22000/HACCP) implementation in the Turkish poultry industry. A survey was conducted with 25 major poultry meat producers, which account for close to 90% of national production, and a comparison was made between the procedures of small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and large firms (LFs). The survey revealed that there is a high level of application of ISO 22000 (72%), which is seen to aid the export market. LFs were shown to adopt more stringent schemes and make better use of governmental support services than SMEs. LFs were also more aware of, and able to deal with, risks from a greater range of contaminants.

Full text

Research Note
Application of Food Safety Management Systems
(ISO 22000/HACCP) in the Turkish Poultry Industry: A Comparison
Based on Enterprise Size
M. SAMIL KO
¨K*
Abant I
˙zzet Baysal University, Department of Food Engineering, 14280 Bolu, Turkey
MS 09-102: Received 2 March 2009/Accepted 12 June 2009
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to determine the extent of food safety management systems (ISO 22000/HACCP)
implementation in the Turkish poultry industry. A survey was conducted with 25 major poultry meat producers, which account
for close to 90%of national production, and a comparison was made between the procedures of small-to-medium enterprises
(SMEs) and large firms (LFs). The survey revealed that there is a high level of application of ISO 22000 (72%), which is seen to
aid the export market. LFs were shown to adopt more stringent schemes and make better use of governmental support services
than SMEs. LFs were also more aware of, and able to deal with, risks from a greater range of contaminants.
In today’s global economy, agribusinesses compete not
only in their capacity to lower production costs but also in
their ability to offer safer and higher-quality products.
Regulations aimed at increasing food safety standards,
which were first established in developed countries, have
rapidly spread into developing countries (12, 15, 32).
Poultry meat is one of the main products involved in
foodborne infections because of its susceptibility to
infection by pathogens as well as physical and chemical
contamination (6, 19). The hazard analysis and critical
control point (HACCP) system, developed by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, has long been internationally
accepted as the system of choice for food safety manage-
ment (23). It is a preventative approach to food safety based
on the principles of identifying critical control points
(CCPs) and establishing procedures at each CCP to monitor
and maintain food safety (4). However, it is not the HACCP
system itself that makes food safe, but its correct application
(17, 18). HACCP is most effective when used with other
control systems. Total quality management programs and
standard operating procedures should be used along with
HACCP to improve product safety, product quality, and
plant productivity (19). In 2005, a new standard for food
safety management systems (FSMS), the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 22000:2005, was
introduced with the intention of bridging the gap between
ISO 9001:2000 and HACCP. The ISO 22000 series
integrates the principles of the HACCP system with
prerequisite programs, such as good manufacturing practic-
es (GMP) and good hygiene practices (GHP), thus ensuring
that there are no weak links in the food supply chain. The
standard can be applied with or without independent
certification of conformity. The benefits for the users are
many, including improved communication between trade
partners, better use of resources, and more effective hazard
analysis. For stakeholders it provides a greater confidence in
the organization and a reference for the whole food chain (9).
Although it has been internationally accepted and increas-
ingly used, there is not as yet any legislative obligation within
Europe to use it and it is applied on a voluntary basis with the
initiative coming from the food industry.
The poultry industry in Turkey is of major economic
importance in terms of both domestic and export markets,
although it has suffered from recent food safety scares (3).
The annual turnover of the sector is currently worth over
US$3 billion. In the first 4 months of 2009, total poultry
meat exports of 8,000 tons (US$10 million) have been
reported (2).
The majority of production in the Turkish broiler sector
comes from integrated enterprises, which control all the
stages from breeding through marketing of the final product.
There is a total of 89 integrated broiler firms in Turkey, but
over 90%of the total production is accounted for by the top
20 firms. The top five firms have a market share of 47%,
which is beneficial in terms of food quality, safety, and price
for the consumer (31). These developments have increased
poultry meat consumption per head of population and at a
national level by making it more affordable and available
(1).
The poultry sector in Turkey has significantly improved
its systems of documentation and controls of stock. All
poultry farms, hatcheries, slaughterhouses, and feed mill
plants are subject to official annual inspections from the
* Author for correspondence. Tel: z90 538 567 10 06; Fax: z90 0374
253 45 58; E-mail: kok_s@ibu.edu.tr.
2221
Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 72, No. 10, 2009, Pages 2221–2225
Copyright G, International Association for Food Protection
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/72/10/2221/1682159/0362-028x-72_10_2221.pdf by guest on 06 January 2023

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) (1).In
September 2003, the technical mission from the European
Union (EU) completed an inspection at six slaughterhouses
in Turkey approving the establishments as suitable for
export (8).
In this research, major poultry meat–producing firms in
Turkey were surveyed to assess their use of HACCP and
ISO 22000. The results of the survey were analyzed in terms
of small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), i.e., employ-
ing fewer than 250 staff, and large firms (LFs) with 250 or
more staff, as defined by the EU. The practices of the five
biggest employers (BEs) have also been analyzed as a
separate category
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey was conducted with 25 poultry companies from
February 2007 to June 2007. The companies were based in Ankara,
I
˙zmir, Bolu, I
˙stanbul, I
˙zmit, Balıkesir, Sakarya, Us¸ak, Manisa,
Bilecik, Eskis¸ehir, and C¸ ankırı provinces of Turkey. Some
companies were visited by personnel trained in HACCP and
prerequisite programs, who conducted face-to-face interviews and
administered the questionnaire. Others were completed by
responsible staff on site and returned by post. Business managers
were asked about their company details, food safety details, food
safety management systems, and updating and training schedules.
Part I included questions related to food businesses (number of
employees, education level of directors, and capacity of production
units). Part II included 11 items related to implementation of the
food safety system, training programs, and assessment of major
risks to food safety. In addition to general information, the
questionnaires asked about aspects related to the costs, benefits,
and difficulties of implementing HACCP and ISO 22000. All
statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Office Excel
for Windows (version 97-2003).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The demographic details of the firms surveyed are
summarized in Table 1. All of the organizations surveyed
contained at least one director educated to university level
with a degree in food engineering as required by Turkish
law. LFs accounted for 76%of the firms surveyed;
however, they made up 94%of the employment and 96%
of production capacity, whereas the SMEs made up 24%of
the firms surveyed and accounted for only 6%of
employment and 4%of production capacity. The BEs
accounted for 59%of the employment and 38%of the
production capacity. This highlights the move that has
occurred in Turkey from small producers to large-scale
integrated ones (3).
The major characteristics of the companies’ implemen-
tation of FSMS are presented in Table 2. All of the 25
poultry companies surveyed had implemented some form of
FSMS. The vast majority use ISO 22000 (72%), with about
one-third (28%) operating exclusively on HACCP, showing
a very high level of voluntary scheme compliance within
this industry. ISO 22000 provides businesses with the
opportunity to benefit from both the food safety aspects of
HACCP and the additional benefits of the management
responsibilities, which ensures the commitment from
management to make the FSMS effective (20). This is a
strategy adopted by the LFs, which show 100%adherence
to using ISO 22000, whereas the SMEs have a lower level
of application (67%). Variation in FSMS application can be
used by enforcement officials to distinguish between high-
and low-risk establishments and focus inspection efforts
accordingly (10). When asked to compare ISO 22000 with
HACCP in terms of perceived advantages, the respondents
who implemented only HACCP indicated that they required
more knowledge of ISO 22000.
All firms conform to expected standards of disinfection
and traceability, and all have their own quality department
to control the day-to-day FSMS. In addition to this, regular
input by MARA is utilized by 60%of firms, with the
remainder using accredited companies. The five BEs all opt
for ministry involvement, whereas only 33%of the SMEs
use their services, the majority using independent accredited
companies. The application of ISO 22000 has been widely
promoted, especially as a tool to aid exports, but it is clear
that the quality of ISO application will depend on the
organization involved in its setup and monitoring. It can be
hard, with the proliferation of new schemes, to find
competent auditors (33).
Almost one-half of the firms update their Food Safety
Handbook every 6 months, with the same number doing so
annually. Only one company conducts a more frequent
monthly update. It is clear that the LFs conduct more
frequent updates, with 63%doing so biannually or more
often compared with only 17%of the SMEs. The BEs again
show best practice with 80%opting for biannual updates.
The majority of SMEs (83%) have annual updates
compared with a lesser percentage (37%) for the LFs. This
confirms findings of other researchers indicating that
smaller firms need more incentives and have difficulty in
allocating resources to apply food safety systems (28, 34).
Staff training is also conducted internally and in
partnership with accredited companies by all firms, with a
smaller percentage (36%) also involving MARA and
universities. Again the involvement of the government
institutions is differentiated by size, with 80%of the BEs,
42%of the LFs, and only 17%of the SMEs making use of
the expertise offered by the government and universities. In
TABLE 1. Demographic details of firms surveyed
Characteristic
All firms LFs SMEs BEs
n%n%n%n%
No. of firms surveyed 25 100 19 76 6 24 5 20
No. of employees 15,870 100 14,985 94 885 6 9,350 59
Capacity (units/h) 134,950 100 129,000 96 5,950 4 51,000 38
2222 KO
¨K J. Food Prot., Vol. 72, No. 10
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/72/10/2221/1682159/0362-028x-72_10_2221.pdf by guest on 06 January 2023

Spain a study of HACCP implementation in food companies
showed that meetings with inspectors and visits to their
establishments did the most to facilitate HACCP develop-
ment and application (22). A founder of the HACCP
system, in a recent review of existing practices, recommends
that food safety professionals in the food industry,
academia, and regulatory agencies must collaborate with
other concerned stakeholders to improve this situation by
creating effective science-based food safety rules and
policies (26).
The frequency of staff training is varied, with only 24%
conducting training every 3 months or more and the
majority limiting training to biannual (32%) or annual
(44%) courses. This is a potential weakness in the effective
maintenance of FSMS. Complete and routine implementa-
tion of HACCP will happen only when there is adequate,
complete, and routine education and training of manage-
ment and employees in understanding the meaning and
function of HACCP, proper and continuous application of
its principles, and importance of control of foodborne
hazards (25). The BEs are more likely to conduct training at
least biannually (80%) with fewer of the LFs (54%) and
even fewer of the SMEs doing so. The majority of SMEs
(67%) operate with annual training, indicative of the greater
financial burden that FSMS constitute for them and their
inability to maintain more frequent training programs (28).
Although this alone is not indicative of the quality of staff
training, it does increase the risk of staff being insufficiently
trained.
In response to questions about aspects related to costs
and benefits of the FSMS in operation, all the firms gave
positive replies confirming that the cost of application is
justified by the benefits. The main costs for SMEs were
identified as being in the initial setup (67%), whereas
implementation is the major cost factor for 52%of LFs and
100%of BEs. Firms that operated with ISO 22000 also
found difficulties in the initial setup, especially as it is a new
system and it is extremely difficult to find literature in
Turkish and certified consultants to aid in setting up. Those
applying ISO 22000 find it more comprehensive, but its
main strength is in export compliance. The cost of applying
food safety management schemes can be a deterrent;
however, there is a clear advantage to those firms that
apply HACCP in both the domestic and international
markets (15). In contrast to Henson et al. (13) but in
agreement with Maldonado et al. (15), the SMEs found ISO
22000 to be more beneficial for microbial safety than for
customer assurance.
TABLE 2. Characteristics of food safety management systems (FSMS) in major Turkish poultry meat producers
a
Characteristic
All firms LFs SMEs BEs
n%n%n%n%
FSMS
HACCP only 7 28 5 26 2 33 0 0
ISO 22000 18 72 14 74 4 67 5 100
Control of FSMS
Internal zAC 10 40 6 32 4 67 0 0
Internal zMARA 15 60 13 68 2 33 5 100
Frequency of updating of food safety handbook
Monthly 1 4 1 5 0 0 0 0
Biannually (every 6 mo) 12 48 11 58 1 17 4 80
Annually 12 48 7 37 5 83 1 20
Responsibility of staff training
Internal zAC 16 64 11 58 5 83 1 20
Internal zAC zMARA zuniversities 9 36 8 42 1 17 4 80
Frequency of staff training
Monthly 3 12 2 11 1 17 0 0
Quarterly (every 3 mo) 3 12 2 11 1 17 2 40
Biannually (every 6 mo) 8 32 8 42 0 0 2 40
Annually 11 44 7 37 4 67 1 20
Main costs of FSMS*
Setup 6 24 2 11 4 67
Training 9 36 7 37 2 33
Implementation 10 40 10 52 5 100
Benefits of ISO 22000
Customer reassurance 4 16 2 11 2 33
Microbial safety 10 40 6 32 4 67
Export compliance 11 44 11 58 5 100
a
n, number of companies total n~25; AC, accredited companies.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 72, No. 10 FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE TURKISH POULTRY INDUSTRY 2223
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/72/10/2221/1682159/0362-028x-72_10_2221.pdf by guest on 06 January 2023

The survey asked for the companies’ own assessment
of the greatest risks to food safety from a limited list,
categorized under physical, chemical, and biological risks
(Table 3). Metal was regarded as the greatest physical risk
factor by 47%of the LFs and 67%of SMEs. Interestingly,
16%of LFs and 33%of SMEs felt there were no potential
physical risks. This could be interpreted as meaning that
either they are confident in their processing systems or there
is a lack of monitoring. It is recognized that larger firms
generally have better food safety systems in place (11).
Other physical risks identified by LFs were hair (21%),
plastics (11%), and freeze burns (5%). No firms identified
glass as a risk. All firms identified potential chemical
contaminants, with by far the majority (92%) choosing
chemical residues, including disinfectants and ammonia, as
the greatest risk, the remainder selecting antibiotics. In both
physical and chemical risk categories, the LFs identified a
greater range of contaminants than the SMEs, suggesting
that they have a greater awareness of, and capability to
detect, contaminants. Investment in new equipment and
microbiological tests of products were found to account for
most of the implementation and operational costs (15). All
firms (100%) selected Salmonella as the greatest biological
risk. The adoption of the HACCP system can lead to a
reduction of hazards but cannot eliminate all hazards,
because existing technology is not yet capable of achieving
this desirable objective (16, 29). The absence of an effective
stage of killing microorganisms (e.g., pasteurization or
cooking) during slaughter means that poultry meat may
contain pathogenic microorganisms (5, 6, 14, 24, 27).
However, greater automation of the processes has been
shown to reduce the risk of contamination (30).
The use of FSMS for the meat and poultry industry
must begin at the farm because certain safety concerns
cannot be controlled without the longitudinally integrated
safety assurance as incorporated in the EU general food law
(7). In this respect the integrated firms, which control the
processes from hatching all the way through sales, have a
significant advantage in terms of increased communication
and control between stages of production (3).
With respect to Turkish poultry meat production, this
survey shows that ISO 22000 and HACCP are widely
implemented and high levels of food safety have been
achieved. However, there is a difference in application in
terms of development, control, and training between LFs
and SMEs. Success in implementing and maintaining a
HACCP program depends on how its four basic pillars
(commitment, education and training, availability of re-
sources, and external pressure) are prioritized and organized
in a company (21).
The larger firms show a better practice with more
application of voluntary schemes and more frequent training
and updating of records. They also make better use of the
support facilities provided by universities and regulatory
agencies. This suggests that more effort should be made on
the part of the government institutions to engage with SMEs
in helping them improve standards within the industry as a
whole and increase the levels of exports.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Mrs. Zehra Kadas¸, Abant Food Ltd., Bolu, and Mr.
Erkan Gu¨ nes¸, MARA, Department of Quality Control, Bolu, Turkey, for
administering the survey. Special thanks to Mrs. Sara Ann Wigglesworth
for proofreading and editing, and finally thanks to Karl Ropkins for
scientific editing.
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 2006. Preparation of sector analysis reports for certain
agricultural products. Turkey: final report, poultry meat sector. Agri-
Livestock Consultants Ltd. and WDC. Available at: http://www.
tarim.gov.tr/Files/Files/e_kutuphane/3PoultryMeatFinalReport.doc.
Accessed15July2008.
2. Besd-Bir. 2008. Beyaz Et Sanayicileri ve Damızlıkc¸ ılar Birlig˘i.
Available at: http://www.besd-bir.org. Accessed 9 June 2009.
3. C¸ aki, S. S. 2007. The place and situation of poultry industry in the
Turkish economy. Ege Acad. Rev. 7:153–189.
4. Codex Alimentarius Commission. 1996. 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. Codex Alimentarius
Commission, Rome.
5. Donos, A. G. 1975. Slaughter hygiene–process-hygiene meat control,
p. 18–31. In Sanitary inspection of poultry-meat and hygiene
disposal. University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
6. Escudero-Gilete, M. L., M. L. Gonzalez-Miret, R. Moreno Temprano,
and F. J. Heredia. 2007. Application of multivariate concentric
method system for the location of Listeria monocytogenes in a poultry
slaughterhouse. Food Control 18:69–75.
7. European Union. 2002. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 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. Off. J. Eur. Communities L 31:1–24.
8. European Union. 2007. Screening report on Turkey’s readiness
for accession, chap. 12. Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary
policy. Report of the European Union Enlargement Committee.
Available at: ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/
nov/turkey_progress_reports_en.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2009.
9. Færgemand, J., and D. Jespersen. 2004. ISO 22000—To ensure
integrity of food supply chain. ISO Manage. Syst. September-
TABLE 3. Self-assessment of potential food safety risk factors in
major Turkish poultry meat producers
a
Risk factor
All firms LFs SMEs BEs
n%n%n%n%
Physical
Metal 13 52 9 47 4 67 2 40
Carcass freezing
burn 1 4 1 5
Hair 4 16 4 21 1 20
Plastic materials 2 8 2 11 1 20
None 5 20 3 16 2 33 1 20
Chemical
Disinfectants 4 16 2 11 2 33 1 20
Residue 18 72 14 73 4 67 4 80
NH
3
1415
Antibiotics 2 8 2 11
Biological
Bacteria
(Salmonella) 25 100 19 100 6 100 5 100
a
n, number of companies total n~25.
2224 KO
¨K J. Food Prot., Vol. 72, No. 10
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/72/10/2221/1682159/0362-028x-72_10_2221.pdf by guest on 06 January 2023

October:21–24. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/tool_5-04.pdf.
Accessed 21 October 2008.
10. Garcia Martinez, M., A. Fearne, J. A. Caswell, and S. Henson. 2007.
Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance:
opportunities for public-private partnerships. Food Policy 32:299–
314.
11. Gomez, M. I., M. P. Cabal, and J. A. Torres. 2002. Private initiatives
on food safety: the case of the Colombian poultry industry. Food
Control 13:83–86.
12. Henson, S., and R. Loader. 1999. Impact of sanitary and
phytosanitary standards on developing countries and the role of the
SPS agreement. Agribusiness 15:355–369.
13. Henson, S. J., G. Holt, and J. Northern. 1999. Cost and benefits of
implementing HACCP in the UK dairy processing sector. Food
Control 10:99–106.
14. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods. 1988. Microorganisms in food 4: applications of the hazard
analysis critical control point (HACCP) system to ensure microbio-
logical safety and quality. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
15. Maldonado, E. S., S. J. Henson, J. A. Caswell, L. A. Leos, P. A.
Martinez, G. Aranda, and J. A. Cadena. 2005. Cost-benefit analysis
of HACCP implementation in the Mexican meat industry. Food
Control 16:375–381.
16. Mead, G. C. 2000. Prospects for ‘competitive exclusion’ treatment to
control salmonellas and other foodborne pathogens in poultry. Vet. J.
159:111–123.
17. Mortimore, S. 2000. An example of some procedures used to assess
HACCP systems within the food manufacturing industry. Food
Control 11:403–413.
18. Motarjemi, Y., and F. Kaferstein. 1999. Food safety, HACCP and the
increase in food borne diseases: a paradox? Food Control 10:325–333.
19. Northcutt, J. K., and S. M. Russell. 2003. General guidelines for im-
plementation of HACCP in a poultry processing plant. Bulletin 1155.
University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Athens.
20. Panisello, P. J., and P. C. Quantick. 2001. Technical barriers to hazard
analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food Control 12:165–173.
21. Panisello, P. J., P. C. Quantick, and M. J. Knowles. 1999. Towards
the implementation of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey. Food
Control 10:87–98.
22. Ramı
´rez Vela, A., and J. Martı
´n Ferna´ndez. 2003. Barriers for the
developing and implementation of HACCP plans: results from a
Spanish regional survey. Food Control 14:333–337.
23. Ropkins, K., and A. J. Beck. 2000. Evaluation of worldwide
approaches to the use of HACCP to control food safety. Trends Food
Sci. Technol. 11:10–21.
24. Simonsen, B., F. L. Bryan, J. H. B. Christian, T. A. Roberts, R. B.
Tompkin, and J. H. Silliker. 1987. Prevention and control of food-
borne salmonellosis through application of hazard analysis critical
control point (HACCP). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 4:227–247.
25. Sofos, J. N. 2008. Challenges to meat safety in the 21st century. Meat
Sci. 78:3–13.
26. Sperber, W. H. 2005. HACCP and transparency. Food Control 16:
505–509.
27. Surak, J. G. 2002. The certified quality auditor’s HACCP handbook.
American Society for Quality, Milwaukee, WI.
28. Taylor, E., and K. Kane. 2005. Reducing the burden of HACCP on
SMEs. Food Control 16:833–839.
29. Tompkin, R. B. 1994. HACCP in the meat and poultry industry. Food
Control 5:153–161.
30. Tsola, E., E. H. Drosinos, and A. Zoiopoulos. 2008. Impact of poultry
slaughter house modernisation and updating of food safety
management systems on the microbiological quality and safety of
products. Food Control 19:423–431.
31. Turhan, S., B. C. O
¨zbag, and B. C¸ etin. 2006. Analysis of the broiler
sector: the case of price competition. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 49:431–437.
32. Unnevehr, L. J. 2000. Food safety issues and fresh food product
exports from less developed countries. Agric. Econ. 3:231–240.
33. Vandendriessche, F. 2008. Meat products in the past, today and in the
future. Meat Sci. 78:104–113.
34. Violaris, Y., O. Bridges, and J. Bridges. 2008. Small businesses—big
risks: current status and future direction of HACCP in Cyprus. Food
Control 19:439–448.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 72, No. 10 FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE TURKISH POULTRY INDUSTRY 2225
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/72/10/2221/1682159/0362-028x-72_10_2221.pdf by guest on 06 January 2023