MANGO – Market and International Trade

Back to > Major Fruits | Minor Fruits | Underutilized Fruits

This standard applies to commercial varieties of mangoes grown from Mangifera indica L. of the Anacardiaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, after preparation and packaging. Mangoes for industrial processing are excluded.1

In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the mangoes must be:

• whole;
• firm;
• fresh in appearance;
• sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded;
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
• free of black necrotic stains or trails;
• free of marked bruising;
• practically free of damage caused by pests;
• free of damage caused by low temperature;
• free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage;
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
• sufficiently developed and display satisfactory ripeness.

When a peduncle is present, it shall be no longer than 1.0 cm.

1 Governments, when indicating the acceptance of the Codex Standard for Mangoes, should notify the Commission which provisions of the Standard would be accepted for application at the point of import, and which provisions would be accepted for application at the point of export.

• to ensure a continuation of the maturation process until they reach the appropriate degree of maturity corresponding to the varietal characteristics,
• to withstand transport and handling, and
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.

 

In relation to the evolution of maturing, the colour may vary according to variety.

Mangoes are classified in three classes defined below:

Mangoes in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. They must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package.

Mangoes in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:

• slight defects in shape;
• slight skin defects due to rubbing or sunburn, suberized stains due to resin exudation (elongated trails included) and healed bruises not exceeding 3, 4, 5 cm² for size groups A, B, C respectively.

This class includes mangoes which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects may be allowed, provided the mangoes retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:

• defects in shape;
• skin defects due to rubbing or sunburn, suberized stains due to resin exudation (elongated trails included) and healed bruises not exceeding 5, 6, 7 cm² for size groups A, B, C respectively.

In Classes I and II, scattered suberized rusty lenticels, as well as yellowing of green varieties due to exposure to direct sunlight, not exceeding 40 per cent of the surface and not showing any signs of necrosis are allowed.

Size is determined by the weight of the fruit, in accordance with the following table:

Size Code Weight

(in grams)

A 200-350

B 351-550

C 551-800

The maximum permissible difference between fruit in the same package belonging to one of the above mentioned size groups shall be 75, 100 and 125 g respectively. The minimum weight of mangoes must not be less than 200 g.

Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying the requirements of the class indicated.

Five per cent by number or weight of mangoes not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.

Ten per cent by number or weight of mangoes not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.

Ten per cent by number or weight of mangoes satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting, marked bruising or any other deterioration rendering in unfit for consumption.

For all classes, 10 per cent by number or weight of mangoes in each package are permitted to be outside (above or below) the group size range by 50 per cent of the maximum permissible difference for the group. In the smallest size range, mangoes must not be less than 180 g and for those in the largest size range a maximum of 925 g applies, as follows:

NormalSizeRange

PermissibleSizeRange

(< 10% of fruit/package exceeding the normal size range)

Max. Permissible

Difference between fruit in each package

A 200 – 350 180 – 425 112.5

B 351 – 550 251 – 650 150

C 551 – 800 426 – 925 187.5

The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only mangoes of the same origin, variety, quality and size. The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire contents.

Mangoes must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside the package must be new,2 clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.

Mangoes shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Tropical Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).

The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the mangoes. Packages (or lot for produce presented in bulk) must be free of all foreign matter and smell.

2 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.

In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985, Rev. 2-1999), the following specific provisions apply:

If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the produce and may be labelled as to the name of the variety.

Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.3 For produce transported in bulk these particulars must appear on a document accompanying the goods.

Name and address of Exporter, Packer and/or Dispatcher. Identification code (optional).4

Name of produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of variety and/or commercial type (optional).

Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.3 Governments, when indicating their acceptance of this Standard, should notify the Commission as to which provisions of this Section apply. 4 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.

However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.

• Class;
• Size (size code or weight range in grams);
• Number of units (optional);
• Net weight (optional).

 

Mangoes shall comply with those maximum levels for heavy metals established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission for this commodity.

Mangoes shall comply with those maximum residue limits established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission for this commodity.

8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev. 3-1997), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice. 8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-1997).

MRLs: The MRL is the highest concentration of a chemical residue that is legally permitted or accepted in a food. The MRL does not indicate the amount of chemical that is always present in a treated food but it does indicate the highest residue that could possibly result from the registered conditions of use. The concentration is expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of the food. MRLs assist in indicating whether an agricultural or veterinary chemical product has been used according to its registered use and if the MRL is exceeded then this indicates a likely misuse of the chemical product. MRLs in the Food Standards Code also act both to protect public health and safety by ensuring that chemical residues are no higher than necessary, and as international trading standards.

EU Regulations: The EU, the USA and Japan each operate a complex system of seasonal duties, quotas and entry prices to regulate fruit and vegetable import. The main aim is to protect domestic producers, so more complex systems apply to temperate crops. For example, the EU and Japan apply seasonal tariffs to citrus import, while the USA applies them on cantaloupe melons. In addition, the EU imposes minimum entry prices for products such as citrus, apples, grapes, pears and tomatoes. Applied tariffs on fresh tropical fruits tend to be low in developed countries (from 0 to 20 percent).

The EU has two tariff rate quotas (TRQ) in the case of bananas – one of 750,000 tonnes reserved for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) country suppliers with zero duties, and the other of 2,653,000 tonnes with the tariff of 75 euro per tonne for non-ACP countries. Additional import attract a prohibitive tariff. In practice, this system has protected exports from ACP countries to the EU while limiting exports from Latin American suppliers. Depending on the tariff chosen, this may result in higher imports from Latin American countries, lower imports from ACP countries and a fall in prices in the EU.

Tariff escalation is apparent in the fruit and vegetable sector, with tariffs on imported processed produce generally higher than fresh produce. Fruit juice and fruit preparations are subject to higher tariffs than fresh produce in the EU, Eastern Europe, North America andSouthern Africa.

Very recently, a number of developing countries and developed countries began to protect their domestic industries. Developing countries have raised tariffs, introduced tariff quotas and occasionally banned imports of selected fruits and vegetables.

Phytosanitary controls imposed by importers are critical for developing countries exporting fresh fruit and vegetables. These controls are particularly stringent in theUSA,AustraliaandJapan. Between 1995 and 2000, nearly 270 sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures were introduced against import of fresh fruit and vegetables worldwide.

A major hindrance to fresh produce trade is the lack of harmonized technical standards and treatments for exports. Some countries apply the Codex Alimentarius for maximum pesticide residue limits (MRLs), while others apply their own, often stricter MRLs that may only partially conform to the Codex. New MRL regulations in the EU will affect production practices and costs in producing fruits and vegetables. Another difficulty arises from setting MRLs at the limit of determination, as it makes verification of compliance depend on  often very costly modern analytical methods. Quarantine regulations are another serious impediment. For example, measures to prevent bio-terrorism are likely to increase the administrative and regulatory burden on exporters of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Developing countries (like Malaysia) exporting tropical fruits face serious challenges in meeting the phytosanitary regulations of importing countries due to the phasing out of methyl bromide. While there is ongoing research for alternatives, harmonization is still a long way off. However, if taken positively these regulations should be adhered and practiced to facilitate easy entry into EU fruit markets.

EUREPGAP started as a retailer initiative in 1997 with major inputs and support from the chemical companies. EUREPGAP was established by the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) with the aim of setting standard and procedures for the development of GAP. [For further details, refer “EUREPGAP Document EUREPGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Version September 2001” & GENERAL REGULATIONS FRUIT & VEGETABLES ENGLISH VERSION Code Ref: FP 2.1 GR Version: 2.1-Jan04

The main objective of EUREPGAP is, to lead the system to an EN 45011-based accredited certification system, referring to the cope of “EUREPGAP Fruits and Vegetables”. Partners from the entire food chain for fruit and vegetable production have agreed upon the EUREPGAP certification document and procedures, which were achieved after extensive consultation over a three-year period.

Certification to EUREPGAP will become mandatory as from March 2003 for farms growing produce for export to Europe, although the EC may allow some latitude in this regard. At this point in time different certification systems could be required for export to other countries such as the USA, and Australia. As Europe is our largest export destination, EUREPGAP certification will in all likelihood become a minimum requirement for entry into the EU market. However, it should be kept in mind that additional retailer requirements will still have to be met.

Discussions are already underway to ensure harmonization between the different food safety schemes and benchmarking will be essential to link the various systems. While certification to EUREPGAP will result in additional costs to growers, there will be numerous benefits. Long-term benefits include more motivated farm workers due to improved facilities, training and better working conditions with a subsequent increase in living standards. This would obviously also result in better productivity and outputs to the ultimate benefit for the grower.

• More environmentally sound farming practices
• More judicious use of chemicals and
• Most importantly a cost benefit to the grower due to better management practices enforced by the standard.

 

It is important to note that EUREPGAP only covers produce up to the farm gate and thereafter other systems such as GMP, HACCP etc will become essential. All food industries must also implement GMP and GHP, both of which are prerequisite programs for HACCP. The South African fish industry, represent a classical case study in terms of its adoption of HACCP. The challenge is now for primary agriculture and the food procession industries to follow this example.

Besides the fruit and vegetables other EUREPGAP certification procedures have been developed for fresh flower, while draft documents covering animal production protocols which includes beef and lamb; pig meat; poultry; eggs; dairy; fish farming; and game/exotic foodstuffs, have been issued. Other drafts for crops, such as barley, beans, wheat, linseed, maize, soybeans, etc. have also been prepared for release. Feed is also in the process of being addressed due to the many food scares over the past few years.

GlobalGAP: The concept of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) has evolved in recent years in the context of a rapidly changing and globalizing food economy and as a result of the concerns and commitments of a wide range of stakeholders about food production and security, food safety and quality, and the environmental sustainability of agriculture. GAP applies recommendations and available knowledge to addressing environmental, economic and social sustainability for on-farm production and post-production processes resulting in safe and healthy food and non-food agricultural products. A broadly accepted approach using GAP principles, generic indicators and practices will help guide debate on national policies and actions and on the preparation of strategies to ensure that all stakeholders participate in and benefit from the application of GAP in the food chain.

1. Prevention of microbial contamination of fresh produce is favored over reliance on corrective actions once contamination has occurred.
2. To minimize microbial food safety hazards in fresh produce, growers or packers should use GAP’s in those areas over which they have a degree of control while not increasing other risks to the food supply or the environment.
3. Anything that comes in contact with fresh produce has the potential of contaminating it. For most food-borne pathogens associated with produce, the major source of contamination is associated with human or animal feces.
4. Whenever water comes in contact with fresh produce, its source and quality dictate the potential for contamination.
5. Practices using manure or municipal bio-solid wastes should be closely managed to minimize the potential for microbial contamination of fresh produce.
6. Worker hygiene and sanitation practices during production, harvesting, sorting, packing and transport play a critical role in minimizing the potential for microbial contamination of fresh produce.
7. Follow all applicable local, state and Federal laws and regulations, or corresponding or similar laws, regulations, or standards for operators outside theU.S.for agricultural practices.
8. Accountability at all levels of the agricultural environment (farms, packing facility, distribution center, and transport operation) is important to a successful food safety program. There must be qualified personnel and effective monitoring to ensure that all elements of the program function correctly and to help track produce back through the distribution channels to the producer.

 

It is very appropriate and relevant that this ruling is applicable and acceptable by starfruit growers and exporters.

Heat treatments: Hot-water immersion, high temperature forced air, and/or vapor heat are three heat treatment technologies that can be used for post-harvest insect control for perishable commodities such as fresh fruits (e.g., mangos, papaya, persimmon, citrus, bananas, carambola), fresh vegetables (e.g., peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumber, and zucchini squash), bulbs, and cut flowers. Heat has been approved as a quarantine treatment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) against pests (mainly fruit flies) for several perishable commodities.

In most cases, heat treatments are performed by the country of origin before a product is exported. The temperature, duration, and application method is both cultivar and commodity specific and must be very precise to kill pests without damaging the commodity.

Hot-Water Immersion: Hot-water immersion consists of submerging the commodity in a hot-water bath at a specific temperature for a specified time based on the commodity being treated and the pests that may be present (APHIS 1993). For perishable food commodities, the mandated probit 9 level of fly control can be achieved by heating the core of the fruit to 43°– 46.7° C with exposure times varying from 35 to 90 minutes (APHIS 1993). Hot-water immersion immersion is not recommended for grapefruit, stone fruits (plums, nectarines and peaches), or carambola (starfruit), because this treatment does not produce probit 9 security and/or produces unacceptable fruit damage in thes specific.

Vapor heat was found to be effective as a potential quarantine treatment for carambola; vapor heat and forced hot-air treatment systems are less damaging to commodities and more versatile than other treatment systems, however they are more expensive. For example, both vapor heat and hot-air treatment systems may initially require larger capital investments ranging from US $20,000 to US$200,000 for large commercial facilities.

MANGOES: 4 kg containers BR Tommy Atkins USD12.97 CR Tommy Atkins USD10.97 @ NEW COVENT GARDEN Terminal Prices as of 22-APR-2008.
MANGOES: 4 kg containers BR Tommy Atkins 12s 11.91 CR Tommy Atkins 5s 11.91 6s 11.91 8s 11.12 10s 11.12 12s 11.12 14s 11.12 @ ROTTERDAM Terminal Prices as of 18-APR-2008.

1. Diczbalis, Y., Wicks, C. and Landrigan, M. (1997). Heat sums to predict fruit maturity in mango (cv. Kensington Pride). Draft report for HRDC FR605 NTDPI&F.
2. Johnson, P.R. and Robinson, D.R. (1997). An evaluation of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars and their commercial suitability for theKimberley. Department of Agriculture. 21/97 ISSN 1326-4168 Agdex 234/34.
3. Morton, J. 1987. Mango. p. 221–239. In: Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton,Miami,FL.
4. P.R. Johnson and D. Parr. Mango growing in Western Australia. Bulletin 4348
5. Maxwell, Lewis S. and Betty M. Maxwell. Florida Fruit. Lewis S. Maxwell, Publisher. 1984. pp. 61-63
6. Samson, J. A. Tropical Fruits. 2nd ed. Longman Scientific and Technical. 1986. pp. 216-234.
7. Sherrard, J., Johnson, P.R. and Luke, G. (1997). Mango irrigation requirements for the Broome and Ord irrigation areas of Western Australia. Department of Agriculture. Draft report.
8. Sites on Mango

 

• Subtropical/Trop. Fruit Crops Database: http://www.agnic.nal.usda.gov/agdb/stropfc.html
• Mango Produce Facts Linked from the Postharvest Outreach Program, UC Davis
• Mango Overview, Propagation, And Agroforestry Uses Linked from Cornell University
• All About Mangoes
• Mango Fruit Facts and Mango Publications Courtesy of California Rare Fruit Growers.
• Mango Information  Linked from NewCrops, Purdue University.
• Mango Tip Burn And Sunburn Images  Linked from Texas A & M.
• Mango Production Regions  Linked from the Dept. of Agronomy, U.C. Davis
• Mango-Research and Development A site on various aspects related to manoes
• Mango recipes, history, varieties etc  — http://freshmangoes.com. or http://freshmangoes.com/mangonews/
• Mango Index Linked Information Mango Produce Facts
• Mango Food Resource (http://osu.orst.edu/food-resource/index.html) Oregon State University, Corvallis
• Postharvest Handling of Pickling Mango
• Mango  an introductory description  http://www.safari.net/~lychee/mango.htm
• Mangoes – Preparation and nutrition information – Preparation, cooking, and nutritional information for Mangoes
• Mango Botanical Description
• Subtropical/Tropical Fruits Menu  University of Florida.
• Subtropical/Tropical Fruit Crops National Agriculture Library, USA
• Market Asia – Technical Information (Postharvest and Market Guides) http://www.marketasia.org/tech
• Mango Mania! is page devoted to the king of fruits http://www.delphis.dm/mango.htm
• http://www.destinationtropicals.com/tropical_plants/plant_43.asp
• http://mangoseedling.com/culturalmgmt.html