See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274645739

Food industry practices affecting pest management

Article in Stewart Postharvest Review · March 2015

DOI: 10.2212/spr.2015.1.2

CITATIONS READS

39 11,553

2 authors:

Pasquale Trematerra F. Fleurat Lessard

Università degli Studi del Molise French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE)
181 PUBLICATIONS 2,453 CITATIONS 217 PUBLICATIONS 1,747 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mainstreaming Biofarming System in Ethiopian and Ugandan Higher Education Institutions View project

Integrated pest management implementation in food industry plants and quality managers training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by F. Fleurat Lessard on 01 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2
www.stewartpostharvest.com
ISSN: 1745-9656

Food industry practices affecting pest management

Pasquale Trematerra1* and Francis Fleurat-Lessard2
1
Department Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
2
INRA Research Unit 1264, Mycology and Food Safety, INRA Bordeaux-Aquitaine Research Centre, Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France

Purpose of review: This review highlights the most common practices in the dry food industry that may affect pest manage-
ment programs. It also focuses on critical practices that may interfere with good integrated pest management (IPM) practices in
food industry facilities and buildings.
Findings: Manufacturers of dry food products have a real challenge to exclude pests everywhere along the food chain because
of the very complex and different environments of food industry buildings. Current practices that influence pest presence and
development in food industry facilities have been identified in the stages of food plant construction, food ingredient reception
and storage, processing or conditioning of finished food, and marketing. The preventive pest control measures in the food in-
dustry may be ineffective because of a non-observance of simple rules of good manufacturing practice (GMP), such as perma-
nent control and monitoring of critical points or unsafe practices favourable to pest entry and infestation in food plants. The
underutilization of methods for rapid assessment of pest presence and movement within food industry facilities, as well as the
inability to rely on pest monitoring data for the economic damage threshold (EDT), are also underlined.
Directions for future research: Practical tools for processing data from pest monitoring systems should improve pest pres-
ence detection and alert. More realistic EDTs need to be proposed with direct links to decision-making support. More practical
predictive models are also required for predicting the long-term efficacy and resilience of corrective control methods in food
processing buildings, which should render the implementation of complex IPM programs easier.

Keywords: pests; food industry; manufacturing practices; food processing; IPM program

Abbreviations location and surrounding landscape, etc. This makes it extremely

EDT Economic Damage Threshold complex and difficult to generalize about pest infestation risks
EU European Union because the pest situation of a particular food industry facility has
FDA USA Food and Drug Administration
very specific characteristics for a given location. Pest manage-
ment in food facilities is a prerequisite for achieving the food
GMP Good Manufacturing Practices
safety and hygiene levels required by global quality assurance
IPM Integrated Pest Managment
systems (HACCP). Recent regulations, namely the EU Food Hy-
IR Infra-red Radiation
giene regulation package and the USA Food Safety Modernization
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
Act of the FDA, are aimed at enforcing the application of HACCP
IMM Indian Meal Moth
to all food chains and in all plants, distribution centres, grocers
UV Ultra-violet Light
and retail stores. This paper analyses practices, specifically in the
dry food industry, that affect the risk level for pest infestation and
decision-making processes for IPM, as related to HACCP system
conception and implementation.

Pest exclusion measures and sanitation in

Introduction food industry facilities
Today, pest management practices in food industries are facing a Most buildings provide three main attractions for pests: shelter,
tremendous obstacle to protect durable food products against food and warmth. It is commonly assumed that older buildings
pest infestation, because many markets have very low pest- are more prone to infestation, but new buildings with enclosed
induced damage tolerance and are also increasingly subject to roof spaces, suspended ceilings, wall cavities, panelling, raised
intense scrutiny through external inspections and audits. There floors, service ducts and lift shafts provide a large number of har-
are also somewhat antagonistic trends such as less reliance on bourages – with many interconnections – allowing a wide range
the use of residual pesticide treatments and the demand for per- of internal movement for pests. Most pests actually require very
fect food products, free of pesticide residues, which is becoming small amounts of food – an adult mouse, for example, can survive
one of the main challenges faced by the food industry in the field on as little as 3 grams a day. A few degrees increase in tempera-
of pest management. However, food facilities typically are large, ture may be sufficient to encourage infestation, particularly in
complex structures with many locations that are vulnerable to winter months. A master sanitation schedule is a vital component
insect pest infestation. Campbell et al. [1**], noted that food facili- that can influence pest management in food industries. Sanitation
ties differ from each other: in their activity or function programs and the training of personnel to implement sanitation
(warehouse, mill, food processing plant, retail store, supermar- practices are essential.
ket); in the concerned commodity (cereals, legumes, animal-
based materials, spices, dried fruits, cocoa); in the type of product Elimination of pest refuges and pest colony “nests”
generated (whole grain, flour, human food, pet food, confection-
ery, feed, etc.); in structure type (old or new, with variable con- Harbourage of insect colonies: In recent years, new methods of
struction material); in their equipment; and in their geographic protecting the production cycle have been introduced for the

*Corresponding author: P Trematerra, Email: trema@unimol.it doi:10.2212/spr.2015.1.2

© 2015 SPS (UK) Ltd.

 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

prevention and control of pests. The filling or patching of crevices Temperature and air-conditioned workshops: The population
and cracks in floors and walls should be systematically done to dynamics of stored product insect pests such as meal moth or flour
limit accumulation of fine food material that attracts pests. Con- beetles - which are common species in food industry facilities - is
stant monitoring of insects with different techniques and careful at their optimum in the range from 25 to 30°C. In factories produc-
attention of staff can prevent heavy infestations. For example, Lep- ing cooked products (such as biscuits or bread), ambient tempera-
idoptera and Coleoptera populations can be limited by: intensive ture may be in this range all year, especially in the rooms where
trapping with pheromone and food traps: examining tracks in dust cooking ovens produce heat. These areas have an increased risk of
left on floors or machine craters; replacing wooden structures with insect pest presence such as Indian Meal Moth (IMM) which may
metallic ones; sealing cracks and crevices in walls and floors; and lay eggs after cooking while the product is cooling. The associated
replacing Archimedean screw conveyors with pneumatic (fluid-lift) risk is easily identified; for example, when a conveyor belt covered
conveyors. Some elements in building structures and machinery with cooling biscuits stops (because of a technical issue), cooled
should also be changed or replaced (eg, gaskets). Crevices in which biscuits are available to IMM females for egg deposition. One solu-
debris could accumulate must be sealed, and walls, edges and col- tion to this issue is to cool the food production areas below the
umn floor junctions should be modified to prevent the accumula- lower threshold of moving activity of flying insects (IMM or flour
tion of food particles. moths or the drugstore beetle, Stegobium paniceum (L)), ie,
below 15°C. Below this lower limit, insects remain quiet and do not
Cleaning and hygiene maintenance: Today, large vacuum clean- lay eggs on the produce before wrapping (eg, biscuits) and packag-
ers are used to eliminate accumulated dust; brooms and pressure ing. Consequently, it is recommended to use air conditioning
cleaners must be banned. In fact, the removal of debris is more (lower than 14-15°C ) in production areas to inhibit insect move-
efficacious than any localized chemical treatment. Only by con- ments.
trolling the entire processing cycle, from the purchase of raw ma-
terial to the distribution of the finished product, will it be possible Internal and external lightening of the buildings: The type of
to reduce the risk of infestation. Nowadays, very few quality man- lighting at a site will, to a certain extent, determine the attractive-
agers of food industries consider the problem of maintaining prop- ness of the site to flying insects or other pests. Most attractive are
er hygienic conditions as really important, although it represents mercury-vapour lamps and special fluorescent lamps used for per-
the first step in reducing pest infestations. However, in many cas- fect colour rendition. Next are “ordinary” commercial and house-
es, standard cleaning procedures need to be modified and staff hold fluorescent tubes. The warmth of IR light is also attractive to
trained to clean the least accessible areas. These areas are generally insects, although the area of attraction surrounding the source will
neglected and therefore sure sources of infestation, and, thus, are probably extend only for a few meters. High-pressure sodium-
considered a potential critical control point. The most vulnerable vapour lamps, however, emit very little UV or IR and are currently
points may be identified by visual inspection of trained personnel thought to be the least attractive to insects. Unfortunately, these
or better, by an external audit carried out by a sanitation specialist. lamps give an orange light and cannot be used where the recogni-
The attention of all staff should be directed to the importance of tion of colours is important. It is recommended that an absolute
cleanliness and their duty to adhere to these recommendations. minimum amount of lighting is physically attached to the building;
instead, lights should be positioned five or six meters away and
Influence of physical condition control direct lighting towards doorways. Apart from the obvious benefits
of attracting insects away from the building, there are also benefits
Site location and structure type design: The maintenance of to be obtained in making the building less attractive to birds that
pest-free conditions in all areas of the site is an important action of often roost and nest on such lighting structures due to
an IPM program. Knowing that some pest infestation risks can their warmth. Lighting just inside doorways and in loading bays
originate from the proximate environment of any food plant, the should be high-pressure sodium-vapour or low wattage incandes-
perimeter around all structures and between structures should be cent bulbs. The power conduit for external lights must be designed
kept free of vegetation and better, with a concrete pavement of so that it does not provide roosting or nesting sites for nuisance
minimum one meter wide. This is because concrete is more easily birds. White or light yellow surfaces of building should be avoided
cleaned and weeds cannot grow on them. The basement walls of due to their ability to reflect UV light. This should be considered
food plant buildings should be “insect proof” at the junction with when deciding the overall building colour scheme but can,
the steel cladding of the building wall. This junction may be dam- however, be relevant to smaller scale studies such as the colour of
aged from inside the building by impacts from pallet stacker surfaces around entryways. Darker blue or green colours are pref-
trucks, which can give pests access to the food plant. Any damage erable.
that creates critical entry points for pests must be quickly repaired
and there should be easy visual inspection of the entire exterior of Exterior environment of food industry buildings: Perimeter
the buildings. Where a new construction is being considered, an security fences are generally of chain-link, wire mesh, weld-mesh
assessment of activities and the environment in proximity to the or metal railing construction. These should be set into concrete
proposed site must be made. Landfill sites, watercourses, marsh- footings to prevent mammals gaining entry under the fence. In the
lands, derelict sites, and farms are all examples of activities that immediate building perimeter concrete pathways are preferable to
regularly generate pest activity. When an old industrial building is gravel pathways as gravel could be burrowed into by rodents de-
re-used, the previous use of the site and its pest history must be spite the ability of gravel to back fill on itself. Paving slabs are of-
considered. Where an existing building is being renovated it must ten laid on sand, which is conducive to infestation by ants and
be taken into consideration what the building was previously used allows mole gallery digging.
for since pests may still be resident. Thus, buildings that have pre-
viously been used in the food industry are most likely to have a Water drainage: Pooling water from overflow will encourage vari-
pest history. A snagging list should be generated and dealt with ous pests, particularly flies. A readily available source of water is
before formal receipt of a new building or extension. Retrospective also a requirement for successful rat populations. Good drainage of
repair is far harder to accomplish once production has started and land is required to prevent waterlogged soil. Certain insect pests
is running and when the construction company no longer has a (eg, cockroaches) rely on a water source for breeding. Grids should
presence on site. As a formal rule, no food should be allowed on to be designed so that waste materials can pass through easily and
the site being constructed. they can be removed easily for cleaning.

2
 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

Increased risk of infestation by exterior environment: It is not example roofs or ceilings that are high, accumulate dust and de-
advisable to plant trees or bushes near a food facility and direct bris, and serve as a harbourage for pests. So, one of the key indus-
contact of tree leaves and branches with the exterior wall of the try practices that affect pest management is the building design.
facility should be systematically prevented, because foliage pro-
vides excellent harbourage for many pest species. At a respectable Available access of pests to food and/or water inside food fa-
distance from the walls, preference should be given to plants that cilities: As rodents and birds rely on a supply of drinking water,
shed the least seeds and fruits. Seeds and fruit may initially attract sources of free water should be avoided. Any pools on concrete
and then support insects, rats, mice and various pest birds. Shrubs bases or on flat roofs have to be removed. Drainage channels
and trees should be of a coniferous type (releasing odour repulsive should be sufficiently wide to accommodate expected volumes.
for a range of food industry related insects). Leaf fall from decidu- They should be fitted with drainage grills that do not clog with
ous trees that accumulates in guttering will restrict the run-off of waste and are easily removed for cleaning. The ends of drainage
rainwater and may give rise to localised infestations of insects that channels should be buttressed so that waste does not accumulate.
rely on standing water to breed, for example midges and mosqui- Rainwater downpipes should be fitted externally, rodent entry into
toes. Leaves that accumulate along foundations provide harbour- a downpipe from the ground can be prevented by the use of a back
age and sheltered runs for rats and mice. Tree limbs and branches inlet gully. Pipes and cables: ie, gas, electric and water, must be
should be least 2 m away from building exteriors (3 m if squirrels tightly sealed where they pass through walls as rodents may gain
are a problem). Plants should not be planted too densely. Dense entry via this route. Ducts can be sub-divided to prevent rodents
ground cover will provide coverage and harbourage for rodent gaining access along their length.
pests. Access in between shrubs is important for pest control in-
spection. Vegetation should not encroach within 5 m from any Doors, windows and portal apertures: Exit doors should be a
outside wall of a building. Rural vegetation can aggravate both good fit and self-closing, with a sensor to detect if the door has
rodent and insect pests. Climbing plants should not be planted been propped open. Rats and mice can move around within a
against the walls of buildings. These could create entry routes for building via gaps that exist below doors. Roll-up doors should be
pest rodents, harbourage for pest bird species and entry routes for fitted with a flexible bottom “seal” and T-extensions to fit rail
some insect pests. Grass should be kept closely cut at all times. tracks. The use of strip curtain doors or rubber flap-back doors
Long grass will offer cover and harbourage for rodent pests. Rain- around external wall door openings should be avoided. Automatic
water downpipes are easy ways for rodents to climb near the roof high-speed roller doors are preferable but their timing needs to be
of the buildings to reach the space between the roof and the wall adjusted so that they are open for the minimum amount of time.
existing in numerous buildings. Vehicle loading ports should be adequately sealed once trailers
have docked, and the port doors should not be opened until trail-
Risks related to building structure design: Regarding building ers are completely in position. Open loading ports equipped with
structure, wall foundations must be taken down to a solid bottom lights will attract night flying and daytime flying insects. Installing
at least 80 cm below ground level and concrete laid between the doors that have hollow frames is not advised. Mice may use hollow
walls to prevent rodents burrowing into the building. The addition doorframes as harbourage. Insects can breed in the accumulated
of a concrete curtain wall to a depth of 60 cm will protect the foun- food debris inside the base of the frame. Although opening win-
dations against rodent ingress. It may be appropriate to apply a dows can be adequately screened against flying insect ingress, air
band of “non-friction” material one metre above ground level to conditioning with light positive pressure inside the building is
prevent rodents climbing external walls. Airbricks supply ventila- preferable. Nevertheless, a useful device to protect buildings from
tion to walled cavities but they may also allow mice and insect flying insects entry is the air curtain. Especially, points of lorry
pests access. Pre-formed corrugated cladding should be avoided as loading openings, where doors are not very tightly closed, can be
corrugations are difficult to seal adequately against pest entry at effectively protected from flying insects by this device. Outside air
the point where they meet conventional walling. An epoxy-resin containing flying insects can be drawn into buildings that have
type material should be considered. The external surface of walling negative pressures. Pest birds may use window ledges as day or
should have no ledges because ledges may provide suitable day or night time roosts. Ceiling voids are potential harbourages for pests.
night time roosts for pest bird species. For the same reason over- Enclosed voids can also make inspection for pests difficult. More
developed external wall facia should be avoided. The internal sur- generally, industry practices leading to negligence and lack of
face of walling should have no ledges. Ledges provide suitable are- common sense, like “keeping doors and windows open for aera-
as for product residues to accumulate and are difficult to access for tion” allow access to insects. GMP compliances for point of entries
cleaning. All drains should be accessible (from visit ‘openings’) and and common sense practices can eliminate pest infestation.
facilitate flushing and rodding. Special attention must be given to
vertical ducts that pass between floors. Ducting may also allow Storage food products above ground level: Racking should be
rodent and insect pests free movement between floors. Specific used to keep all goods off the floor. Raising goods will also allow
advice for these details in construction design are available from effective cleaning. Adequate space around racking should be al-
Troller [2*]. lowed. This will facilitate good pest control inspection and allow
for thorough cleaning. The pillars supporting the rack for pallets of
Interior design of food plants and stores for pest-proofing raw food commodities are often protected from shocks by metallic
shields that may house dust and food ingredients. These pods of
Floor, walls and ceilings — design and colour: Tiled flooring is pallet racks must be regularly cleaned to prevent insect colonies
not recommended. All expansion joints should be well sealed and from forming in such protected locations. Adequate space between
sealing material should be made from a material that allows for racking bays should also be provided. This will allow for good pest
movement. Flooring under equipment (elevated from the floor) control inspection and allow for thorough cleaning. Good stock
should be completely smooth to allow thorough removal of waste rotation methods should be enforced. A minimum quantity of
material. Covings at wall-to-floor junctions reduce the accumula- ingredients/packaging should be kept in stock; it is preferable to
tion of debris and facilitate effective cleaning. All cracks and crev- have suppliers who are flexible enough to supply on demand. The
ices should be sealed to prevent the accumulation of product resi- use of pallets constructed of wood should progressively be replaced
dues that provide insect breeding sites. Buildings are often de- by the use of pallets in plastic material. Storage shelving should
signed with places that are hard to reach for regular cleaning, for not have concealed cavities. If spillages cannot be cleaned easily,

3
 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

pests may make use of them to conceal their harbourages. Clean- films that are used to package finished food products. The result of
ing of floors and walls must be regularly carried out and if possible such permeability generally is a rapid localisation of appropriate
each day. feed substrate by flying insects (eg, IMM, Plodia interpunctella
(Huebner)) or by rodents. Additionally, certain types of package
Organization of food product chain (cardboard cassette and boxes with flexible pouring spout or bags
with wide apertures that do not reseal) are no longer able to pre-
Food processing chain organization: The major principle of vent insect entry after first opening.
product flow organization in a food processing plant is that raw
material and processed or finished produts should not be in close Early detection of pest presence and monitoring
proximity. The strict separation of raw and processed product is insect pest density
essential to avoid contamination of any kind. The GMP recom-
mendation for product flow direction in the process area is in com- Identification of vulnerable situations for pest in food indus-
pliance with the “go forward” principle, so that raw ingredients try
never cross the processed or semi-processed food line. Because
insect pest development can be completed in one month in indoor Visual inspection “corridor” between products, machinery and
conditions, raw food commodities must not be kept for the mini- walls: In storerooms, stacking of goods should be far away from
mum period of time in storage. So, in all storage rooms, the prod- walls (30 – 50 cm) to allow free access to the area behind for in-
uct flow must comply with the principle “first in, first out” so that spection and cleaning. Strict separation is required between raw
the stock rotation is as short as possible. There is a great need to materials, food processing areas, finished food products, and the
ensure a sanitary environment in the chain for dry food product packaging zone to prevent cross-contamination. Plant and other
processing. equipment must be free of infestation before being brought on
site. Rubbish storage areas must be kept tidy, using only close-
Cleaning material and equipment: The prevention of infestation fitting containers regularly emptied.
issues in food processing lines is closely related to cleaning effec-
tiveness and regularity after the detection of insect outbreaks and Management of waste: Waste areas should be situated more than
emerging issues in conveyors belts or in equipment and machines. 10 m away from the main building in order that any pests that may
Cleaning should focus on ingredients and dough fragments that be attracted are kept at a distance. All waste bins should have tight
have fallen down and accumulated below the conveyor belts or are fitting lids which must be kept closed at all times. If individual bins
stuck on belt support rollers. All residues in machinery should be or skips are not covered, then the area should be enclosed within a
removed regularly (eg, each day) and the whole machinery thor- mesh cage to prevent access by birds. Waste skips should be
oughly cleaned after each change in product type or before long placed on a concrete pad to prevent rats burrowing underneath
shut-down periods. Food products waiting on a stopped conveyor and be situated on rails of a height that will allow for thorough
belt for more than half an hour should be immediately removed cleaning below.
and should not stored in open containers close to the processing
chain. Equipment which is to be taken out of production for a long Factors limiting IPM strategies implementation in the food
period of time must be thoroughly cleaned to remove all food resi- industry
dues. All these cleaning practices are part of GMP and comply with Full implementation of the IPM approach requires more effort
the principles of proper sanitation in the food system sustained by than other types of control programms, but once in place, it can be
recent regulations such as the Food Safety Modernization Act, used to make more reliable pest management decisions. Unfortu-
enacted in 2011, or the EU Food Hygiene regulation package [3]. nately, many of the studies reported in literature have been
achieved under laboratory conditions, so there is limited infor-
Underused packaging and food materials: Little-used ingredi- mation on their integration under field conditions. Studies in sim-
ents and packaging material are more likely to have pest activity ulated food factories have illustrated that it is difficult to impact
develop in them and to be used by pests as harbourage. For exam- populations in hidden refuge with biocide applications not applied
ple, corrugated cardboard material temporary stored in a food directly to the food patches, and that trap captures to evaluate the
processing area may be the perfect refuge for migrant larvae of the impact of treatment did not always reliably track changes in pest
IMM. populations. This situation leads to a difficult appreciation by food
quality managers of the economical damage threshold (EDT) from
Isolation and treatment of infested commodities and out-of- which corrective measures to control a latent infestation have to
use material: Construction of a quarantine building is recom- be implemented. Yet, the IPM strategy is based on corrective inter-
mended for the isolation of infested commodities or commodities vention in dependence to EDT.
that are being received from a suspect supplier. Returned goods
should be stored in their own quarantine area, away from ingredi- Self-determination of EDT and decision support tools use
ents, packaging and finished goods - ideally in a separate building
unconnected to main production and warehousing areas. When Relationship between monitoring data and pest infestation
food processing or packaging material is out of use, this equipment level prediction: Many of the components of an IPM programme
always remain attractive to flying pests because of food product or are known and are available for use, but our understanding of how
food dust deposit inside. This “out-of-use "equipment should be to optimally integrate and target these tactics as part of an IPM is
rapidly removed from workshops containing raw ingredients or limited. An IPM program is an evolving process that applies local
processed food. intelligence and responds to changing needs [4]. Adoption has also
been hindered by: (i) a poor understanding of pest population
Packaging defaults (imperfect insect proofing) displacement in the spatially and temporally complex landscapes
Finished food produced from food processing plants is susceptible where food is processed and stored; (ii) the difficulty of evaluating
to quick infestation all along the marketing channels if packaging pest populations; (iii) the limited information on structure treat-
material is permeable to food odour. This permeability to food ment efficacy; and (iv) how to optimally select and combine man-
odour is a common weakness of a lot of inexpensive packaging agement tools. Many questions remain about the use of these

4
 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

tools: from the very practical issues such as how many traps are only give information on insect presence when relatively high
needed and which types work best, to fundamental issues concern- densities are present. The lower limit of density that can be ex-
ing the relationship between trap captures and pest population pected from bulk sample examination is evaluated at one insect
density, distribution and level of infestation. In many cases, the per 2 kg of raw material (as grain) [7**]. This is already a high level
gap between IPM research and practical management remains of infestation and much higher than most of the tolerable EDT
large. (more often fixed at one insect per 5 kg of grain). As grain products
move from bulk storage to processing and milling facilities, then
Strengthening pest monitoring programs for food industry through distribution and marketing channels to consumers, the
The success of an IPM program in food industry is highly depend- concept of EDT becomes more difficult to apply. When there is
ent on an effective monitoring system that supplies information ‘zero tolerance’ for insects, controls become more preventative,
useful for translating the number and type of insect catches in but it is not very realistic. More often with bulk raw commodities,
traps into practical knowledge about changes of populations over there are no precise damage thresholds or injury levels, and it may
time and location of foci of infestation, as well as the routes of be difficult to adequately determine pest levels or to estimate all of
entry [5]. Thus, insect monitoring is a primordial component of the direct and indirect costs of corrective interventions. In this
pest management in food processing plants [6**]. Economic losses context, there is reluctance or lack of interest on the part of the
due to insects and unnecessary pest management expenses can be food grain storage and handling industry to move away from cal-
avoided using insect monitoring and decision-making tools related endar-based pesticide treatments to a more integrated approach,
to risk prediction by the assessment of EDT, the use of predictive based on prevention rather than control after EDT is reached. This
models of pest population density changes over time, and the feed- is due, in large part, to a justifiable concern about making mistakes
ing of expert systems to determine the best time and way to sup- with pest control in an industry with an extremely low pest thresh-
press pest populations [7**, 8**]. Computer simulation models can old requirement.
be used to compare the effectiveness of different pest management
methods, alone or in combination, for stored-product insects. Biocontrol agents difficult application in the food industry
These models can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of buildings: The artificial nature of food chain environments and
different implementation options, and to optimise the timing of low tolerance in many situations for the presence of insects, means
pest management programs for stored-product insects [1, 7**]. IPM relies less on promoting population regulation using natural
Currently, computer simulation models are available primarily for enemies and puts greater focus on modifying the environment to
insect pests of stored grain, but in the future such models should make it less favourable for pest establishment and persistence. The
be particularly useful in decision-making for pest management exception to this is bulk storage, where biological control shows
strategies in dry food processing and marketing chains. more potential for success since some insects can be tolerated in
many situations and natural enemies can be cleaned out of the
Modern tools to be integrated in IPM programs for material before processing [32**, 33*]. A summary of the more
pest risk minimization promising modern tools that may be integrated to IPM programs
As stated by Adam et al. [9] in the case of implementation of IPM for the food industry is described in Table 1. The IPM concept is a
in stored-grain, many quality managers of food plants have not yet whole system based on risk prevention, monitoring and prevision
adopted IPM practices for many reasons: additional cost or person- including pest resistance management, use of selective chemical
nel implication, minimum required knowledge, difficulty adopting treatments, use of corrective intervention thresholds and promot-
a new technology, pressure of pesticide supplier or fumigation ing environmental sustainability.
company, etc. Limited acceptance of IPM in food facilities can be
partially explained by a combination of the costs of corrective pest Further research needs for larger implementation
control interventions, difficulties in sampling properly, unreliable of IPM in food industry
data, and difficulties encountered in the calculation of meaningful Research should optimise or further develop other semiochemicals
EDT. Precise treatment thresholds and economic injury levels have (attractants and repellents) to aid in the monitoring of some
not been completely established for operational practice, and stored-product insects and to provide new biocontrol tools. In this
standards and rejection criteria are inconsistent and difficult to regard, future stored-product protection combinations of repel-
apply. As a result, treatments based on an economic threshold are lents and attractants may also find use in push-pull tactics [34].
not typically performed and control strategies are often applied Push-pull strategies involve the behavioural manipulation of insect
preventatively, even when using tactics that do not have any resid- pests and their natural enemies via the integration of stimuli that
ual effect. In current practice, many locations still rely on calendar- act to make the protected resource unattractive or unsuitable to
based pesticide applications and have little understanding of the the pest (push) while luring them towards an attractive source
basis of pest management. Nevertheless, most of the risks of infes- (pull) from where the pests are subsequently removed. Deterrent
tation of food industry plants by noxious pests listed above may be or repellent semiochemicals can be used to discourage pests from
controlled by customized application of IPM programs covering entering a site, while at the same time, attractants or stimulants
the four components of dry Food Quality and Safety Assurance can encourage pests to congregate in an adjacent area where they
from raw commodities to finished food products (Table 1). Com- can be controlled more effectively and safely by chemical pesti-
bining and integrating different management tools and careful cides or biocontrol agents. Computer, smartphone and touchpad
selection and timing of different approaches, together with an applications affording a practical and user-friendly support in
understanding of pest behaviour and ecology, should result in a building IPM specific programs and on-line advice for risk previ-
greater effectiveness and more accurate solutions to pest presence sion and prevention should become accessible to food industry
in finished food. quality managers in the near future.

Peculiarities of bulk-stored commodities: Differences exist be- References

tween bulk-stored commodities and other parts of the food chain. Papers of interest have been highlighted as:
For bulk-stored commodities, and particularly in commercial ele- * Marginal importance
vators, it is often difficult to adequately monitor large grain bulks ** Essential reading
due to the need to directly sample the large volume of grain and
detect relatively low densities of insects. Collecting samples may 1 Campbell JF, Perez-Mendoza J and Weier J. Insect pest management decisions in

5
 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

Table 1: IPM more recent tools that may be integrated in IPM programs for the food industry.
Actions for risk
IPM component management Alternative tool Main advantage Main constraint Reference

Interpretation of trap network data Accurate detection Each trap bar-coding [8, 10]
with geographical positioning system of the core of and GPS positioning of
Identification Identification of (GPS) infestation each trap
of critical pest critical points by
entry points in which insect pests Localisation of loci of pest infestation Accurate location of Weekly trap data [1, 10, 11]
food industry can penetrate by contour mapping from trap catches infested goods processing
facilities into the facility

Sanitation measures Low temperature and RH in working Corrective Air conditioning of all
especially at pest entry areas when free-access food is on the treatment never rooms
points and regular chain needed
Pest exclusion inspection and
measures for surveillance of
Pest-proof packaging film and Protection from Bioassay for food bag or [12]
risk prevention identified CCP.
structure for finished food products pests in the box testing insect proof
Regulation of
for sale marketing channels properties
physical conditions

Enhanced strategies of pheromone Effective means of Not adapted to limit [13]

use: mass trapping and attract-and- surveillance for crawling beetles
kill strategies flying insects populations
Permeation of food facility Effective against Slow reduction of pest [14]
atmosphere with pheromone for flying insects population expensive
Identification of
mating disruption or self-confusion renewal of dispensers
Permanent infestation locations
monitoring inside the building, Use of electronic devices detecting Early detection Only useful for insect [15–17]
for risk processing very low level of insect density in especially for grain detection in bulked
prediction equipment and bulked commodities insect pests commodities
machinery
Prevision of pest density changes over Calculation of safe Collection of daily data [18, 19]
time by predictive models from storage time before of temperature and RH
physical-chemical parameters or EDT reaching for model feeding
conditions

Pheromone trap use for auto- Self-function device Expensive and slow in [20, 21]
inoculation-release of a microbial action
pesticide
Improvement of efficacy of registered Lower risk of Preventive action; weak [22]
pesticides by combination with chemical residues in curative effect
mineral products or biorationals food

Replacement of surface or space Targeting more difficulties to register [23–26]

treatments with chemicals by bio- specific pest species for use in food
control agents or biopesticides than chemical processing plants
pesticides
Use of physical treatment as Complete Competitive only for [27, 28]
Selection of non- alternative to fumigation (microwave disinfestation high value-commodities
chemical solutions heating, temporary freezing, process with neither (eg, medicinal plants
rather than chemical controlled- and modified- persitence nor and spices)
Application disinfestation means atmospheres) residual effect
of pest control Develop the use of
measures biocontrol or beneficial New fumigants for whole structure, Complete Minimal airtightness of
(when EDT is agents plant or warehouse disinfestation disinfestation of buildings required;
reached) (SO2F2, methyl iodide, ethyl formate food plants or stores manager reluctance
in a single
fumigation
Use of natural pesticides of microbial Short period of Difficulty to register [24, 29]
or fungal origin, a vegetal extract or remanence (activity fomulations from a
an essential oil (EO) and smell) for the small number of
most volatile EO active substances

New formulation or conditioning More practical Managers reluctance to

of phosphine controlled-release implementation and regularly use toxic gas
phosphine gas by automatic control of fumigant at a high concentration
equipment) doses

Replacement of fumigation Complete Stopping of the working [30, 31]

of food-processing plants by disinfestation activity during one day
heat disinfestation through one minimum
application

6
 Trematerra and Fleurat-Lessard / Stewart Postharvest Review 2015, 1:2

food processing facilities. In: Hagstrum DW, Phillips TW and Cuperus G (eds.) storage. Journal of Stored Products Research 2000: 36: 131-151.
Stored Product Protection S156, KS Research and Extension (publ.). 2012: 19: 219- 19 Beckett SJ, Longstaff BC and Evans DE. A comparison of the demography of four
233. major stored grain coleopteran pest species and its implications for pest manage-
**This book chapter is an updated review of current practice of IPM implementation in ment. In: Highley E, Wright EJ, Banks HJ and Champ BR (eds.) Proceedings of
food processing plants, from IPM principle application to responsive treatment based 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Canberra,
on decision-making from action thresholds. April 17-23, 1994, vol. I: 491-497.
2 Troller JA. Sanitation in Food Processing (2nd edition). Academic Press, Inc., San 20 Trematerra P. Advances in the use of pheromones for stored-product protection.
Diego (CA), 1993: 263-286. Journal of Pest Science 2012: 85: 285-299.
* This book chapter provides illustrated information on how to design all structure and 21 Trematerra P. Aspects related to decision support tools and Integrated Pest
interior equipment of a food processing plant in order to limit pest multiplication sites. Management in food chains. – Food Control 2013: 34: 733-742.
3 Anonymous, 2004. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament **This article describes the complex decision-making process in using pest monitoring
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, JO European data before responsive treatment implementation within the frame of IPM programs.
communities Commission Brussels, Belgium. 22 Dowdy AK and Fields PG. Heat combined with diatomaceous earth to control
4 Pinniger D and Child B. Learning from museums-IPM in practice. In: Credland the confused flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in flour mill. Journal of
PF, Armitage DM, Bell CH, Cogan PM and Highley E. (eds.) Proceedings 8th Stored Products Research 2002: 38: 11-22.
International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, York (UK), 23 Lord JC. Desiccation increases the efficacy of Beauveria bassiana for stored-grain
CABI, Wallingford (UK) 2002: 248-251. pest insect control. Journal of Stored Products Research 2007: 43: 535–539.
5 Burkholder WE. Practical use of pheromones and other attractants for stored 24 Kavallieratos NG, Athanassiou CG, Michalaki MP, Batta YA, Rigatos HA, Pashali-
product insects. In: Ridgway RL, Silverstein RL, Inscoe MN (Eds.) Behaviour dou FG, Balotis GN, Tomanović Z and Vayias BJ. Effect of the combined use of
modifying chemicals for insect management: application of pheromones and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschinkoff) Sorokin (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomy-
other attractants. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1990: 497-516. cetes) and diatomaceous earth for the control of three stored-product beetle
6 Campbell JF, Mullen MA and Dowdy AK. Monitoring stored-product pests in species. Crop Protection 2006: 25: 1087-1094.
food processing plants with pheromone trapping, contour mapping, and mark- 25 Athanassiou CG, Kavallieratos NG, Vayias BJ, Tsakiri JB, Mikeli NH, Meletsis CM
recapture. Journal of Economic Entomology 2002: 95: 1089-1101. and Tomanović Z. Persistence and efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae
**This article details how to apply the interpretation of trap catches through contour (Metschnikoff) Sorokin (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) and diatomaceous
mapping for localization of the stored product insects multiplication site in large food earth against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Rhyzopertha
plants. dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) on wheat and maize. Crop Protection
7 Fleurat-Lessard F. Monitoring insect pest populations in grain storage: the 2008: 27: 1303-1311.
European context. Stewart Postharvest Review 2011: 7: 3:5 doi: 10.2212/spr.2011.3.5 26 Cavoski I, Caboni P and Miano T. Natural pesticides and future perspectives. In:
**This recent review provides details on all the methods and tools usable for monitor- Stoytcheva M (ed.) Pesticides in the Modern World – Pesticide Use and Manage-
ing insect populations changes in bulked grain and storage facilities. ment. InTech Europe Publisher, Rijeka, Croatia 2011: 169-190. http://
8 Arthur F, Phillips TW. Stored-Product Insect Pest Management and Control. In: www.intechopen.com/books/
Hui YH, Bruisma B, Gorham JR, Wai-Kit Nip, Tong PS and Ventresca P. (eds.) 27 Dupuis SA, Fuzeau B and Fleurat-lessard F. Feasibility of French beans disinfes-
Food Plant Sanitation Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York 2003:21: 340-361. tation based on freezing intolerance of post-embryonic stages of Acanthoscelides
**This book chapter is an exhaustive review which provide very useful details on sani- obtectus (Say) (Col.: Brucidae). In: Lorini et al. (eds.) Proceedings 9th Internation-
tation methods and various insect pest monitoring strategies in food plants al Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Campinas (Brazil), Brazili-
9 Adam BD, Phillips TW and Flinn PW. The Economics of IPM in Stored Grain: an Post-Harvest Association Publ. 2006: 956-965.
Why Don't More Grain Handlers Use IPM? In: Lorini et al. (eds.) Proceedings 9th 28 Vincent C, Weintraub P, Hallman GJ and Fleurat-Lessard F. Insect management
International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Campinas with physical methods in pre- and post-harvest situations. In: Radcliffe EB,
(Brazil), Brazilian Post-Harvest Association (publ.) 2006: 3-12. Hutchison WD, Cancelado RE (Eds.) Integrated Pest Management, Cambridge
10 Arbogast RT, Kendra PE, Chini SR and McGovern JE. Meaning and practical University Press, Cambridge (UK) 2009: 309-323.
value of spatial analysis for protecting retail stores. In: Credland PF, Armitage **The authors review the principles of IPM application to postharvest insect popula-
DM, Bell CH, Cogan PM and Highley E. (eds.) Proceedings 8th International tion control using physical control methods and classical monitoring tools.
Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, York (UK), CABI, Walling- 29 Kavallieratos NG, Athanassiou CG, Vayias BJ, Kotzamanidis S and Synodis SD.
ford (UK) 2002: 1033-1038. Efficacy and adherence ratio of diatomaceous earth and spinosad in three wheat
11 Trematerra P and Sciarretta A. Spatial distribution of some beetles infesting a varieties against three stored-product insect pests. Journal of Stored Products
feed mill with spatio-temporal dynamics of Oryzaephilus surinamensis, Triboli- Research 2010: 46: 73-80.
um castaneum and Tribolium confusum. Journal of Stored Products Research *This article is presenting the complexity of the use modern tools of biocontrol (myco-
2004: 40: 363-377. insecticide) to the case of stored product insect control.
12 Mullen MA. Rapid determination of the effectiveness of insect resistant packag- 30 Subramanyam Bh, Mahroof R and Brijwani M. Heat treatment of grain-
ing. Journal of Stored Products Research 1994: 30: 95-97. processing facilities for insect management: a historical overview and recent
13 Weier JA. Value of spatial analysis in pest management, from the perspective of advances. Stewart Postharvest Review 2011: 3: 1, doi: 10.2212/spr.2011.3.1
the pest control operator. In: Credland PF, Armitage DM, Bell CH, Cogan PM *This article is presenting the potential of heat treatment disinfestation of grain-
and Highley E. (eds.) Proceedings 8th International Working Conference on processing plants with a history of the renewal of this old practice of mill disinfestation
Stored Product Protection, York (UK), CABI, Wallingford (UK) 2002: 1028-1032. as the main alternative to methyl bromide fumigation.
14 Mohandass S; Arthur FH, Zhu KY and Throne JE. Biology and management of 31 Vacquer B, Lethuillier L, Brunel M, Fraterno R and Fleurat-Lessard F. First appli-
Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in stored products. Journal of cation in France of heat disinfestation of a large wheat mill. 9th Conference
Stored Products Research 2007: 43: 302-311. IOBC/WPRS on Integrated Protection of Stored Products, Bordeaux, France, 01-
15 Shuman D, Weaver DK and Mankin RW. Quantifying larval infestation with an 04 July 2013, IOBC/wprs Bulletin 2014: 98: 243-251.
acoustic sensor array and cluster analysis of cross-correlation outputs. Applied 32 Phillips TW and Throne JE. Biorational approaches to managing stored-product
Acoustics 1997: 50: 279-296. insects. Annual Review of Entomology 2010: 55: 375-397.
16 Fleurat-Lessard F, Tomasini B, Kostine L and Fuzeau B. Acoustic detection and **This exhaustive review is a comprehensive description of all the methods and tech-
automatic identification of insect stages activity in grain bulks by noise spectra niques using biorationals and biological agents usable in IPM programs for the control
processing through classification algorithms. In: Lorini I et al. (Eds.), Proceed- of stored product insect pests, including innovative techniques still under research.
ings 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Cam- 33 Schöller M and Flinn PW. Parasitoids and predators. In: Subramanyam Bh. and
pinas, Brazil, 15-18 October 2006: 476-486. Hagstrum DW (eds.), Alternatives to pesticides in stored-product IPM, New
17 Leblanc M-P, Gaunt D and Fleurat-Lessard F. Experimental study of acoustic York: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000: 229-272.
equipment for real-time detection of insects in grain bins – Assessment of its *The authors highlight the potential of biological control in stored-product pest con-
potential for infestation risk prediction during long-term storage periods. Pro- trol programs.
ceedings IOBC-WPRS Conference, Campobasso, Italy, July 2009, IOBC/wprs 34 Cook SM, Khan ZR and Pickett JA. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated
Bulletin 2011: 69: 79-88. pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 2007: 52: 375-400.
18 Driscoll R, Longstaff BC and Beckett S. Prediction of insect populations in grain

View publication stats