“Zero Residue” Concept—Implementation and Certification Challenges
2. “Zero Residue” Certification Procedure
- Certification request—which implies that primary agricultural producers interested in the program (or other interested organizations) provide basic identification data as well as information on the production (type of farm, crops, production volume, etc.) including the possession of other types of certificates for fruits and vegetables (e.g., GlobalGAP ).
- Verification of the producer’s plant protection plan—the producers applying for the certification must provide their plant-protection plans, i.e., their plans for pesticide and other plant-protection products usage, including type of plant-protection products, frequency of usage, estimated doses, etc.
- Verification of the producer’s self-control plan—the producers applying for the certification must provide their self-control plans which include all types of audits, sampling, and laboratory analysis planning. This control plan has two main objectives: (i) to confirm that in all planned stages, the results are reliable and within defined limits; and (ii) to aid in planning the assessment.
- Third party assessment of good agricultural practice in place, including onsite verification of implemented producer’s plant protection plan and self-control plan. The results of this assessment provide information about potential non-conformities that have an impact on the capability of the system to achieve intended requirements  outlined in “Zero residue“ specific requirements, and aid in making final decision about the outcome of the assessment.
- Sampling and laboratory analysis—products intended for certification shall be sampled and externally tested in line with EU regulations . Selection and collection of products from the field should provide adequate level of assurance of conformity in relation to “Zero residue“-specified requirements. Testing shall be performed by a qualified laboratory according to the guidelines outlined in SANTE .
- Declaration of conformity and appropriate use of the certification logo (“Zero residue” certificate, label and/or mark). Prior to ruling on the decision as to whether the company has or has not demonstrated fulfillment of “”Zero residue”-specified requirement, suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of all previous activities and gathered objective evidence should be considered .
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results and Discussion
5. Zero Residue Concept: Main Challenges and Practical Implication
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Goodson, W.H., III; Lowe, L.; Carpenter, D.O.; Gilbertson, M.; Manaf Ali, A.; Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi, A.; Lasfar, A.; Carnero, A.; Azqueta, A.; Amedei, A.; et al. Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: The challenge ahead. Carcinogenesis 2015, 36 (Suppl. 1), S254–S296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzati, V.; Briand, O.; Guillou, H.; Gamet-Payrastre, L. Effects of pesticide mixtures in human and animal models: An update of the recent literature. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 2016, 254, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacquet, F.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Jouan, J.; Le Cadre, E.; Litrico, I.; Malausa, T.; Reboud, X.; Huyghe, C. Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Kovačević, D.; Dolijanović, Ž. Impact of Climate Change on Crop Production in Serbia. In Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation; Luetz, J.M., Ayal, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 779–796. [Google Scholar]
- Kovats, R.S.; Valentini, R.; Bouwer, L.M.; Georgopoulou, E.; Jacob, D.; Martin, E.; Rounsevell, M.; Soussana, J.F. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Leal Filho, W.; Nagy, G.J.; Setti, A.F.F.; Sharifi, A.; Donkor, F.K.; Batista, K.; Djekic, I. Handling the impacts of climate change on soil biodiversity. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 869, 161671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC. REFIT—Making EU Law Simpler, Less Costly and Future Proof. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-less-costly-and-future-proof_en (accessed on 17 April 2023).
- EC. Delivering the European Green Deal. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_en (accessed on 17 April 2023).
- EC. Farm to Fork Strategy. In For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Proposal for the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products and Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115; Official Journal of The European Union, Ed.; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides; Official Journal of The European Union, Ed.; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market and Repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC; Official Journal of The European Union, Ed.; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA. The 2020 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA J. 2022, 20, e07215. [Google Scholar]
- SCS. Pesticide Free Certification Standard; SCS Global Services: Emeryville, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- BAC. Standard for the Certification of Agricultural and Agri-Food Vegetable Products with Zero Residue and Controlled Residued; Bioagricert: Casalecchio di Reno, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 Text with EEA relevance. In Official Journal of The European Union OJ L 340; O.J.O.T.E. Communities, Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; pp. 18–63. [Google Scholar]
- ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015; Conformity Assessment—Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Management Systems—Part 1: Requirements. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
- ISO/IEC 17000:2020; Conformity Assessment—Vocabulary and General Principles. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
- ISO 22000:2018; Food Safety Management Systems—Requirements for any Organization in the Food Chain. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- BRC. BRC Global Standard for Food Safety, Issue 8; BRC Trading Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- GlobalGAP. Integrated Farm Assurance, Version 6; GLOBALG.A.P.—FoodPLUS GmbH: Cologne, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC. In Official Journal of The European Union OJ L 187; O.J.O.T.E. Communities, Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- SANTE. Analytical Quality Control and Method Validation Procedures for Pesticide Residues Analysis in Food and Feed. In Document No. SANTE/11312/2021; EU Reference Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, N.; Huang, H.-Z.; Li, Y.; He, L.; Jin, T. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 1162–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEC 60812:2006; Analysis Techniques for System Reliability—Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Commission Electrotechnique Internationale: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- IEC 60812:2016; Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA and FMECA). Commission Electrotechnique Internationale: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- Djekic, I.; Pojić, M.; Tonda, A.; Putnik, P.; Bursać Kovačević, D.; Režek-Jambrak, A.; Tomasevic, I. Scientific Challenges in Performing Life-Cycle Assessment in the Food Supply Chain. Foods 2019, 8, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Papadopoulos, Y.; Walker, M.; Parker, D.; Rüde, E.; Hamann, R.; Uhlig, A.; Grätz, U.; Lien, R. Engineering failure analysis and design optimisation with HiP-HOPS. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 590–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascia, A.; Cirafici, A.M.; Bongiovanni, A.; Colotti, G.; Lacerra, G.; Di Carlo, M.; Digilio, F.A.; Liguori, G.L.; Lanati, A.; Kisslinger, A. A failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)-based approach for risk assessment of scientific processes in non-regulated research laboratories. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 2020, 25, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Savelides, S.C. Application of failure mode and effect analysis and cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a chocolate-producing industry: A case study of tentative GMO detection at pilot plant scale. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 42, 1265–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Tomic, N.; Smigic, N.; Udovicki, B.; Hofland, G.; Rajkovic, A. Hygienic design of a unit for supercritical fluid drying—Case study. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2155–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleksic, B.; Djekic, I.; Miocinovic, J.; Miloradovic, Z.; Memisi, N.; Smigic, N. The application of Failure Mode Effects Analysis in the long supply chain—A case study of ultra filtrated milk cheese. Food Control 2022, 138, 109057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heiko, A. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1525–1536. [Google Scholar]
- Government of the Republic of Serbia (Ed.) Plant Protection Products Law; Government of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2019.
- Djekic, I.; Režek Jambrak, A.; Djugum, J.; Rajkovic, A. How the food industry experiences and perceives food fraud. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2018, 10, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charlebois, S.; Schwab, A.; Henn, R.; Huck, C.W. Food fraud: An exploratory study for measuring consumer perception towards mislabeled food products and influence on self-authentication intentions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montgomery, D.C. Introduction to Statistical Process Control, 6th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- CAC. CAC/GL 50-2004 General Guidelines for Sampling; World Health Organisation & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Hargin, K.D.; Shears, G.J. Regulatory control and monitoring of heavy metals and trace elements in foods. In Persistent Organic Pollutants and Toxic Metals in Foods; Rose, M., Fernandes, A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2013; pp. 20–46. [Google Scholar]
- GFSI. GFSI recognized certification programme owners. In Explore Certification Programmes—Version 2020; Global Food Safety Inititatice & The Consumer Goods Forum: Levallois-Perret, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- ISO/IEC 17025:2017; General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Government of the Republic of Serbia (Ed.) Regulation on Maximal Allowed Values of Residues from Plant Protection Products for Food and Feed; Government of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2022.
- Escriche, I.; Juan-Borrás, M.; Visquert, M.; Valiente, J.M. An overview of the challenges when analysing pollen for monofloral honey classification. Food Control 2023, 143, 109305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomašević, I.; Šmigić, N.; Rajković, A.; Dekić, I.; Tomić, N.; Radovanović, R. Serbian meat industry: A survey on prerequisite programmes. In Proceedings of the International Conference “Biological Food Safety & Quality”, Belgrade, Serbia, 4–5 October 2012; pp. 165–167. [Google Scholar]
- Herath, D.; Henson, S. Barriers to HACCP implementation: Evidence from the food processing sector in Ontario, Canada. Agribusiness 2010, 26, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasevic, I.; Smigic, N.; Djekic, I.; Zaric, V.; Tomic, N.; Miocinovic, J.; Rajkovic, A. Evaluation of food safety management systems in Serbian dairy industry. Mljekarstvo 2016, 66, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
- Marian, L.; Chrysochou, P.; Krystallis, A.; Thøgersen, J. The role of price as a product attribute in the organic food context: An exploration based on actual purchase data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 37, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Gao, Z.; Heng, Y. Explore Chinese consumers’ safety perception of agricultural products using a non-price choice experiment. Food Control 2022, 140, 109121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kansou, K.; Laurier, W.; Charalambides, M.N.; Della-Valle, G.; Djekic, I.; Feyissa, A.H.; Marra, F.; Thomopoulos, R.; Bredeweg, B. Food modelling strategies and approaches for knowledge transfer. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 120, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, A. Knowledge management system architecture: A bridge between KM consultants and technologists. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2004, 24, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brentrup, F.; Küsters, J.; Kuhlmann, H.; Lammel, J. Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Tomasevic, I.; Radovanovic, R. Quality and food safety issues revealed in certified food companies in three Western Balkans countries. Food Control 2011, 22, 1736–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Dragojlovic, S.; Miloradovic, Z.; Miljkovic-Zivanovic, S.; Savic, M.; Kekic, V. Improving the confectionery industry supply chain through second party audits. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 1041–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, D.A.; Erdozain, S.; Dodd, C.; Costa, R.; Morley, K.; Chapman, B.J. Audits and inspections are never enough: A critique to enhance food safety. Food Control 2013, 30, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castka, P.; Prajogo, D.; Sohal, A.; Yeung, A.C.L. Understanding firms׳ selection of their ISO 9000 third-party certifiers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 162, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzelepis, D.; Tsekouras, K.; Skuras, D.; Dimara, E. The effects of ISO 9001 on firms’ productive efficiency. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 1146–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landers, J.N.; de Freitas, P.L.; de Oliveira, M.C.; da Silva Neto, S.P.; Ralisch, R.; Kueneman, E.A. Next Steps for Conservation Agriculture. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Monitoring Data on Pesticide Residues in Food: Results on Organic versus Conventionally Produced Food; EFSA—European Foos Safety Authority, Ed.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Çakmakçı, S.; Çakmakçı, R. Quality and Nutritional Parameters of Food in Agri-Food Production Systems. Foods 2023, 12, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleiffer, M.; Speiser, B. Presence of pesticides in the environment, transition into organic food, and implications for quality assurance along the European organic food chain—A review. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 313, 120116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAO. FAO and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Health Organization: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 2016, 87, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Bala, A.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Jambrak, A.R. Role of the Food Supply Chain Stakeholders in Achieving UN SDGs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|2||Minor||Challenge(s) associated with Good Agricultural Practice documentation|
|3||Low||Challenge(s) associated with laboratory sampling|
|4||Major||Challenge(s) associated with laboratory results|
|5||Severe||Challenge(s) associated with the product|
|1||Very unlikely||Minimal probability of occurrence of challenge(s) as a result of force majeure|
|2||Unlikely||Occurrence of challenge(s) only as a result of misuse of plant protection products|
|3||Possible||Occurrence of challenge(s) only as a result of misuse of documentation|
|4||High probability||Occurrence of challenge(s) only for certain type of products|
|5||Certain||Occurrence of challenge(s) for the entire product portfolio|
|1||Very high||Challenge(s) associated with implementation is easily detected|
|2||High||Challenge(s) associated with implementation is detected during consulting phase|
|3||Low||Challenge(s) associated with implementation is detected during self-control phase and/or testing|
|4||Remote||Challenge(s) associated with implementation is detected during certification phase|
|5||Never||No possibility of identifying challenge(s) associated with implementing the concept|
|No||Stage||Challenge||What Might Occur?||Potential Failure Effect?||Severity (S)||Occurrence (O)||Detection (D)||Risk|
|1||Implementation||Knowledge of consultants||Inadequate documentation||Food safety system not implemented||2||5||2||20|
|2||Implementation||Knowledge of consultants||Inadequate knowledge within the company||Food safety system not implemented||2||5||4||40|
|3||Implementation||Inadequate plant protection plan||Use of unregistered plant protection products||Plant protection product registered for different type of product||5||4||4||80|
|4||Implementation||Inadequate plant protection plan||Misuse of plant protection product(s)||Increase risk of exceeding zero limits||4||2||3||24|
|5||Implementation||Inadequate plant protection plan||Change of plant protection plan due to climate impact||Increase risk of exceeding zero limits||5||2||3||30|
|6||Implementation||Inadequate self-control plan||Inadequate sampling plan||Misleading laboratory results||5||4||4||80|
|7||Implementation||Exceeded “zero” limits||Laboratory results reveal exceeded limit||Breakdown of the food safety system||5||2||3||30|
|8||Implementation||Costs and Return of Investment||Yield decrease||Financial bankruptcy||5||5||2||40|
|9||Implementation||Costs and Return of Investment||Difficulty in increasing price of harvested products||Cash-flow difficulties||5||5||2||40|
|10||Implementation||Laboratory accreditation scope||Laboratory method not validated for specific analysis||Inadequate laboratory results||5||4||4||80|
|11||Certification||Competence of auditors||Inadequate calibration of third-party auditors||Third party verifier lacks integrity||2||5||5||50|
|12||Certification||Undeveloped scheme||Third party verifier has undeveloped/unaccredited scheme||Lack of trust from different stakeholders||5||5||2||50|
|13||Certification||Awareness of consumers||Consumers unaware of the concept and what “Zero residue” means||Inadequate promotion||5||4||1||20|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Djekic, I.; Smigic, N.; Udovicki, B.; Tomic, N. “Zero Residue” Concept—Implementation and Certification Challenges. Standards 2023, 3, 177-186. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards3020014
Djekic I, Smigic N, Udovicki B, Tomic N. “Zero Residue” Concept—Implementation and Certification Challenges. Standards. 2023; 3(2):177-186. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards3020014Chicago/Turabian Style
Djekic, Ilija, Nada Smigic, Bozidar Udovicki, and Nikola Tomic. 2023. "“Zero Residue” Concept—Implementation and Certification Challenges" Standards 3, no. 2: 177-186. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards3020014