Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Including growers in the “food safety” conversation: enhancing the design and implementation of food safety programming based on farm and marketing needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Experts identified water quality, manure, good handling practices (including personal hygiene and equipment sanitation), and traceability as critical farm problem areas that, if addressed, are likely to decrease risk associated with microbial contamination of fresh produce from all scales of agriculture. However, the diverse nature of production strategies used by produce farmers presents multiple options for addressing foodborne illness issues while simultaneously creating potential complications. We use a mental models methodology to enhance our understanding of the underlying factors and assumptions of small, medium, and large produce growers that influence their decision-making processes for contamination prevention and control. This empirical evidence demonstrates how challenges and opportunities to food safety are related to the scale of production and marketing strategies. We believe that refining the development of standards and existing extension and outreach food safety programs are important to both consumer protection and supporting agricultural communities. Additionally, this approach will help develop and refine food safety programs that will result in empirically grounded recommendations based on identified grower information needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Farmers of produce refer to themselves as “growers.” Consequently, we use the self-labeled term “grower” when referring to produce farmers in our research.

  2. Enterprises in this research are farms and scales that follow USDA ERS definitions for farm sizes: large farms have gross incomes over $500,000, medium farms are $100,000 to $499,000, and small farms are less than $100,000.

  3. Traceability is not addressed in this research because it is an approach to surveillance of food safety contamination and not a source of on-farm food safety.

  4. University Extension is part of the University Land Grant system responsible for communication and learning activities that engage the public.

  5. The FDA will open the comment period for produce growing food safety rules with a draft set of rules in January 2012, and close it by April 2012. The final ruling will be adopted by April 2013 with full compliance among produce growers expected by April 2014 (Leanne Skelton, personal communication, 2011, Senior Policy Analyst in the USDA Center for Food safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety).

  6. Unpublished notes from the 2006 workshop. Farmers participating in the workshop contested the efficacy of various washing practices that are promoted by industry citing concerns that these practices lack sufficient scientific validation and if used alone are unlikely to eliminate contamination sources.

  7. The expert panel included members with food safety expertise from the following groups: university produce scientists, animal health scientists and Extension specialists with regional expertise (University of Georgia, Kansas State University, University of Kentucky, Ohio State University, University of California at Davis); experts from the Center for Disease Control, USDA, FDA, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture; food safety officers from national grocers, retailers and marketers associations; large and small-scale produce growers; and inspectors and auditors from PrimusLabs, a national third party auditor.

  8. There are three methodological challenges to a microbial detection in water used in the production of fresh produce (Ilic et al. 2010). First, lab conditions vary greatly across facilities and from real world conditions creating a problem of precision in testing. Second, there are differences in test quality resulting from using indicators species rather than target species, creating problems of accuracy. E.g., testing for total coliforms as an indicator is considerably less expensive than testing for E. coli OH157, a major human pathogen. Additionally, in lieu of a test metric developed for food safety, the metric currently used (235 MPN/100 ml of water) was developed by the USEPA to establish safe swimming waters (USEPA 2003). Third, tracing contamination from farm to fork is increasingly difficult in large commodity chain networks.

Abbreviations

CLGMA:

California leafy greens marketing agreement

FDA:

Food and drug administration

GAPs:

Good agricultural practices

NLGMA:

National leafy greens marketing agreement

SOPs:

Standard operating procedures

References

  • Barker-Reid, F., D. Harapas, S. Engleitner, S. Kreidl, R. Holmes, and R. Faggian. 2009. Persistence of Escherichia coli on injured iceberg lettuce in the field, overhead irrigation with contaminated water. Journal of Food Protection 72(3): 458–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. 1982. Of time and the enterprise. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beuchat, L.R., and J.H. Ryu. 1997. Produce handling and processing practices. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(4): 459–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Born, B., and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, I., R.W. Kates, and G.F. White. 1993. The environment as hazard. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., and C. Bain. 2004. New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69(3): 321–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E., A. Reichel, and Z. Schwartz. 2001. On the efficacy of an in-house food sanitation training program: Statistical measurements and practical conclusions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 25(1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L., and P. Howard. 2008. Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scales alternatives. Agriculture and Human Values 25(3): 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A., J. Barham, and D. Tropp. 2009. Emerging market opportunities for small-scale producers. Proceedings of a Special Session at the 2008 USDA Partners Meeting, April.

  • Feagan, R.B., and D. Morris. 2009. Consumer quest for embeddedness: A case study of the Brantford farmers’ market. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33(3): 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W., M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, I. Nair, and L.B. Lave. 1991. What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis 11: 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagliardi, J.V., and J.S. Karns. 2002. Persistence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on plant roots. Environmental Microbiology 4(2): 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenfeld, A., and H. Roberts. 2000. Size matters: Barriers and prospects for environmental management in small and medium sized enterprises. In Small and medium sized enterprises and the environment, ed. R. Hillary, 106–118. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, J., R. Dismikes, W. Chambers, C. Greene, and A. Kremen. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: Views of organic farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19: 218–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, S.D., and Y. Kusunose. 2009. Grower compliance costs for the leafy greens marketing agreement and other food safety programs. UC small farm program research brief. http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/docs/leafygreens.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • Hopper, E. 2009. Of mice and men: Wildlife suffer the consequences of contaminated greens. Terrain Spring:22–24.

  • Ilic, S., J. Odomura, and J. LeJeune. 2008. Coliforms and prevalence of generic Escherichia coli and foodborne pathogens on minimally processed spinach in two packing plants. Journal of Food Protection 71: 2398–2403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilic, S., P. Drechsel, P. Amoah, and J. LeJeune. 2010. Applying the multiple-barrier approach for microbial risk reduction in the post-harvest sector of wastewater-irrigated vegetables. In Wastewater irrigation and health, ed. P. Drechsel, et al., 239–259. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inwood, S. 2008. Sustaining the family farm at the rural urban interface: A comparison of the farm reproduction processes among commodity and alternative food and agricultural enterprises. Doctoral Dissertation. The Ohio State University. http://gradworks.umi.com/33/38/3338298.html. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • Inwood, S., J.S. Sharp, R.H. Moore, and D.H. Stinner. 2009. Restaurants, chefs and local foods: Insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework. Agriculture and Human Values 26(3): 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E., and R.E. Nisbett. 1971. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior, ed. E.E. Jones, et al., 79–94. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, P.R., C.R. Handy, E.W. McLaughlin, K. Park, and G.M. Green. 2000. Understanding the dynamics of produce markets: Consumption and consolidation growth. USDA ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin 758.

  • Lubell, M. 2007. Familiarity breeds trust: Collective action in a policy domain. Journal of Politics 69(1): 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, D.G. 2009. Coming to grips with foodborne infection—Peanut butter, peppers, and nationwide Salmonella outbreaks. New England Journal of Medicine 360(10): 949–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M.G., B. Fischoff, A. Bostyrom, and C.J. Atman. 2002. Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paggi, M. 2008. An assessment of food safety policies and programs for fruits and vegetables: Food-borne illness prevention and food security. Paper presented at North American Agrifood Integration Consortium Workshop V: New Generation of NAFTA Standards, Austin, TX. http://naamic.tamu.edu/austin/paggi.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • Palumbo, M.S., J.R. Gorny, D.E. Gombas, L.R. Beuchat, C.M. Bruhn, B. Cassens, P. Delaquis, J.M. Farber, L.J. Harris, K. Ito, M.T. Osterholm, M. Smith, and M.J. Swanson. 2007. Recommendations for handling fresh-cut leafy green salads by consumers and retail foodservice operators. Food Protection Trends 27(11): 892–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao, S., D.F. Kelsey, and W. Long. 2009. Spray washing of tomatoes with chlorine dioxide to minimize Salmonella on inoculated fruit surfaces and cross-contamination from revolving brushes. Journal of Food Protection 72(12): 2448–2452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolisso, M., and R.S. Maloney. 2000. Farmer morality and Maryland’s nutrient management regulations. Culture and Agriculture 22(3): 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J.S., R. Moore, and M. Weaver. 2007. Land tenure as a variable in community based watershed projects: Some lessons from the Sugar Creek Watershed, Wayne and Holmes Counties. Ohio. Society and Natural Resources 20(9): 815–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangarajan, A., M.P. Pritts, S. Reiners, and L.H. Pederson. 2002. Focusing food safety training based on current grower practices and farm scale. HortTechnology 12(1): 126–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, S., R. Farnsworth, D. Bullock, and R. Yusuf. 1997. Family factors affecting adoption of sustainable farming systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52(2): 265–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, S., R.L. Farnsworth, and J.A. Rendziak. 1998. Is locally led conservation panning working? A farm town case study. Rural Sociology 63(2): 214–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J.F. 1984. The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review 49: 711–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, J., J. Lamarche, and A.E. Joseph. 2008. Unpacking the terms of engagement with local food at the Farmers’ Market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies 24(3): 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, D.G., and T.L. Napier. 1993. Comparison of Amish and non-Amish farmers: A diffusion/farm structure perspective. Rural Sociology 58(1): 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, M., and J. Odumeru. 2004. Irrigation water as source of foodborne pathogens on fruit and vegetables. Journal of Food Protection 61(12): 2839–2849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., C. Shennan, and M. Brown. 2006. Food safety versus environmental protection on the Central California Coast: Exploring the science behind an apparent conflict. CAFSF Research Brief #10. Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Stuart, D. 2008. The illusion of control: Industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety. Agriculture and Human Values 25(2): 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, E.C.D., C.K. Harris, A.J. Knight, and M.R. Worosz. 2007. Spinach and the media: How we learn about a major outbreak. Food Protection Trends 27(5): 314–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.J., G. Davies, H. Moore, A.C. Grundy, and A. Mead. 2007. Organic weed management: A review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Protection 26: 377–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA AMS). 2009. Emerging market opportunities for small-scale producers: Proceedings of a special session at the 2008 USDA Partners Meeting. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5076556. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2009. Food availability (per capita) data system. http://www.ers.usda.gov. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Bacterial water quality standards for recreational waters (freshwater and marine waters) status report. EPA/823/R-03/008. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). 2010. Preventative controls for fresh produce; Request for comments. Docket ID FDA-2010-N-0085. http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-N-0085. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • Veneman, A.M. 2001. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Washington, D.C., US Department of Agriculture, 26 September. http://www.usda.gov/news/special/ctc25.htm. Accessed 9 Jan 2012.

  • Webster, K., C. Jardine, S.B. Cash, and L.M. McMullen. 2010. Risk ranking: Investigating expert and public differences in evaluating food safety hazards. Journal of Food Protection 73(10): 1875–1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R., M.A. Tucker, N.H. Hooker, J.T. LeJeune, and D. Doohan. 2008. Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: Perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technology 22: 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R., J.S. Parker, D. Kovacs, D. Doohan, and J. LeJeune. 2009. Contamination prevention and response related to fresh and fresh-cut produce: An expert perspective on the farmer decision making process. Food Protection Trends 29(8): 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yapp, C., and R. Fairman. 2006. Factors affecting food safety compliance within small and medium-sized enterprises: Implications for regulatory and compliance strategies. Food Control 17: 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zischke, M, 2006. Leafy greens industry statistics. Paper presented at the “Building a framework for prioritizing opportunities to reduce risk” project meeting, Asilomar, CA.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This project was funded through the USDA NIFA National Integrated Food Safety Initiative, project #2007-51110-03817

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 233A Howlett Hall, 2001 Fyffe Ct., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Jason S. Parker

  2. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 316D Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Robyn S. Wilson

  3. Food and Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, 138 Food Animal Health Building, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Jeffrey T. LeJeune

  4. Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 216 Williams Hall, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Douglas Doohan

Authors
  1. Jason S. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robyn S. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey T. LeJeune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Douglas Doohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason S. Parker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, J.S., Wilson, R.S., LeJeune, J.T. et al. Including growers in the “food safety” conversation: enhancing the design and implementation of food safety programming based on farm and marketing needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers. Agric Hum Values 29, 303–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9360-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9360-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation