Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023 - 18

practices (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 15, 20, 36). A majority (66%) of
growers surveyed by Bihn et al. (7) identified " financial
resources " as the top limiting factor to implementation. In
one study of Vermont growers, the initial GAPs certification
cost for the average farm surveyed was estimated at $46 per
acre (5). The cost of produce safety compliance is variable
but nonetheless problematic for many growers (1, 3, 8).
Implementation costs were listed as a major barrier to
compliance in studies across the United States (15, 20, 36).
Produce buyers anticipated that they may lose some suppliers
who cannot afford produce safety implementation (20).
Growers struggling to comply with produce safety
standards also specifically identified infrastructure and
equipment needs (15). In some cases, equipment could
not be reliably sourced, or the technical skills and labor
to provide proper produce safety measures were limited
(15). Difficulties associated with locating, purchasing,
and installing the needed infrastructure and equipment
to improve produce safety held some growers back from
compliance (15).
In a study of New York growers, when food safety practices
were adopted to maintain or expand market access the
economic value of the market was greater than the costs
incurred to meet buyer standards (32). Although these
economic benefits are higher for large farms that used a
third-party audit, small- and medium-sized farms also had
revenue increases that were greater than their food safety
improvement costs (32).
Key produce safety need identified: time
Producer growers also expressed a need for more time to
both improve and document their practices (5, 7, 16, 35).
Becot et al. (5) estimated that the Vermont produce growers
they surveyed would need an additional 7 h per week of
labor to earn GAPs certification. Growers also needed time
to work on a written food safety plan (16). Many reported
that a barrier to proper produce safety practices was simply
the amount of time it would take to get their operations
into compliance, some citing an overall lack of available
farm labor (7). In a study of Pennsylvania growers, Tobin et
al. (35) reported that increasing technical assistance alone
would not necessarily improve practices; survey respondents
required more time for implementation.
Key produce safety need identified: mindset
Implementation of behavioral changes depends on
motivation, perspective, and confidence, collectively
referred to in this review as mindset. Some study authors
recommended that educators and trainers begin by
emphasizing past illnesses and outbreaks and highlight the
importance of proper food safety risk management (23,
30). In contrast, Parker et al. (22), who interviewed growers
in the midwestern United States, concluded that recently
well-publicized outbreaks of foodborne illness may cause
18
Food Protection Trends January/February
producers to feel skeptical about the effectiveness of produce
safety protocols.
Growers could be motivated to implement change by
gaining a better understanding of the risks of microbial
contamination and the pathways of contamination that
apply to farms and production and processing areas (17,
28). Often, the motivation to make changes can come
directly from the buyers of fresh produce (20). Tobin et al.
(35) found that working with both growers and buyers (in
this case, supermarket representatives) can help clarify the
food safety needs of both groups. Consumer preferences
and perceptions about the safety of purchased food may
also provide motivation for growers (6, 26, 31). Prior to the
PSR, decision making was guided by growers' own choices
and buyers' preferences, and GAPs and other third-party
certification programs were voluntary (4, 10, 20). Growers
are now additionally motivated by the need to comply with
the FSMA PSR (20). Researchers pointed out that on-theground
employees, in addition to farm owners and managers,
must have some motivation or incentive to comply with
practices (10). Produce safety training and education for
producers and buyers helps all parties gain an understanding
of both the importance and complexities of the process (10).
Although growers must have the motivation to prioritize
and take action to meet regulatory compliance, part of the
educator's duty is also to instill the confidence needed to
take these actions, and produce safety training can increase
growers' confidence and intentions to make changes (21).
Growers with a long history of compliance with food safety
standards and culture had the most confidence in their ability
to adapt to changing requirements (4). In contrast, Bihn et
al. (7) found that some growers felt overconfident in their
ability to assess and manage food safety risks, believing that
they did not need training or behavior changes.
Outreach professionals should consider their methods of
delivery (7, 27, 31). Bihn et al. (7) reported that among local
food producers surveyed, preferred sources of food safety
information were websites, written materials, and agricultural
extension meetings or workshops. Growers' preferred
delivery methods for outreach and assistance differ widely
and may have changed over the last two decades in response
to changes in technology and shifting regulatory landscapes
(27, 31).
External factors influencing produce safety needs
External nonproduce safety factors also influence the
needs of growers, including region, farm size, farm type, and
market (Figure 2). These externalities shape the way growers
prioritize and approach produce safety in their operations.
External factor influencing produce safety needs: region
Production practices differ by region in the United States;
therefore, the burden of regulatory compliance varies geographically
(2, 25, 31). In a nationwide study, Adalja and
Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023
