Food Safety Standards Requirement Setting and GAP Audit Program Acceptance Decision-making by U.S. Buyers

IF 2.8 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Jelili Adegboyega Adebiyi , Leslie D. Bourquin
{"title":"Food Safety Standards Requirement Setting and GAP Audit Program Acceptance Decision-making by U.S. Buyers","authors":"Jelili Adegboyega Adebiyi ,&nbsp;Leslie D. Bourquin","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA AMS) developed suites of voluntary fee-for-service Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) audit verification programs, which, for reasons not well understood, are underwhelmingly accepted by produce buyers. To explore this low acceptance, this study conceptualized that buyers set food quality and safety requirements that their suppliers must meet to access their markets. These requirements likely influence which audit programs buyers deem acceptable. To date, no study has examined how buyers set these requirements or how such decisions shape their acceptance of GAP audit schemes. Therefore, this study surveyed and interviewed buyers to understand their food safety requirements for various types of produce, suppliers, and operations, as well as how these factors influence their selection of audit programs. The resulting information was used to understand the implications of buyers’ food safety requirements for the low acceptance of USDA GAP audit schemes. The findings revealed that buyers’ decisions regarding food safety requirements and audit acceptance are complex, shaped by numerous contextual factors, including regulatory demands, supplier and their operation types, operation scale and location, brand types, retailer reputation, produce risk profiles, and the type, scope, and stringency of audit schemes. The primary factors were the buyers’ customers’ requirements. Beyond fostering food safety, the requirements were set to strengthen buyers’ reputation and competitiveness, enhance quality assurance, and help them capture a share of the produce market. The study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for expanding acceptance of USDA GAP audit schemes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 11","pages":"Article 100620"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X25001723","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA AMS) developed suites of voluntary fee-for-service Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) audit verification programs, which, for reasons not well understood, are underwhelmingly accepted by produce buyers. To explore this low acceptance, this study conceptualized that buyers set food quality and safety requirements that their suppliers must meet to access their markets. These requirements likely influence which audit programs buyers deem acceptable. To date, no study has examined how buyers set these requirements or how such decisions shape their acceptance of GAP audit schemes. Therefore, this study surveyed and interviewed buyers to understand their food safety requirements for various types of produce, suppliers, and operations, as well as how these factors influence their selection of audit programs. The resulting information was used to understand the implications of buyers’ food safety requirements for the low acceptance of USDA GAP audit schemes. The findings revealed that buyers’ decisions regarding food safety requirements and audit acceptance are complex, shaped by numerous contextual factors, including regulatory demands, supplier and their operation types, operation scale and location, brand types, retailer reputation, produce risk profiles, and the type, scope, and stringency of audit schemes. The primary factors were the buyers’ customers’ requirements. Beyond fostering food safety, the requirements were set to strengthen buyers’ reputation and competitiveness, enhance quality assurance, and help them capture a share of the produce market. The study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for expanding acceptance of USDA GAP audit schemes.
美国买家的食品安全标准要求制定和GAP审核计划接受决策。
美国农业部农业营销服务局(USDA AMS)开发了一套自愿付费服务的良好农业规范(GAP)审计验证计划,由于人们不太清楚的原因,这些计划并没有被农产品买家所接受。为了探讨这种低接受度,本研究将买方设定的食品质量和安全要求概念化,他们的供应商必须满足这些要求才能进入他们的市场。这些要求可能会影响买方认为可接受的审计程序。到目前为止,还没有研究调查买家是如何设定这些要求的,或者这些决定是如何影响他们对GAP审计计划的接受程度的。因此,本研究对购买者进行了调查和访谈,以了解他们对各类产品、供应商和操作的食品安全要求,以及这些因素如何影响他们选择审核方案。由此产生的信息被用来理解买方的食品安全要求对美国农业部gap审计计划的低接受程度的影响。调查结果显示,购买者关于食品安全要求和审计接受的决定是复杂的,受到许多背景因素的影响,包括监管要求、供应商及其运营类型、运营规模和位置、品牌类型、零售商声誉、产品风险概况以及审计方案的类型、范围和严格程度。主要的因素是买方客户的需求。除了促进食品安全外,这些规定还旨在加强买家的声誉和竞争力,加强质量保证,并帮助他们在农产品市场上占有一席之地。研究最后讨论了这些发现对扩大接受美国农业部GAP审计计划的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with: Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain; Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality; Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation; Food fermentations and food-related probiotics; Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers; Risk assessments for food-related hazards; Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods; Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信