{"title":"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。","authors":"Jelili Adegboyega Adebiyi , 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":"{\"title\":\"Food Safety Standards Requirement Setting and GAP Audit Program Acceptance Decision-making by U.S. Buyers\",\"authors\":\"Jelili Adegboyega Adebiyi , 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}","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}
Food Safety Standards Requirement Setting and GAP Audit Program Acceptance Decision-making by U.S. Buyers
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.
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.