Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023 - 470

operations suggests that there are other incentives for farms
to keep and maintain adequate records that may be beneficial
for produce farmers as well. A study to assess the effect of
record keeping on dairy farm milk production and revenue
in Thailand found that farms that kept records had a higher
milk yield per farm and a higher monthly milk revenue
per farm than those that did not (37). Furthermore, the
study suggested that these records were used by farming
operations for monitoring, planning, culling, and selection
decisions and improving management efficiency, which
had a positive impact on their outputs and bottomlines
(37). Van Staaveren et al. (36) examined the relationship
between record keeping of tail lesion scores from pig biting
and farm performance parameters on pig farms and found
that farms that recorded financial and performance-related
records had a lower instance of moderate tail lesions, which
is considered an indicator of good management practices
and positively affected the health, welfare, and value of
the pigs. Organizations such as the PSA and local, state,
federal, and extension programs throughout the United
States have created various training materials and record
keeping templates for farming operations to assist with PSR
compliance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the farm assessments showed that there
are several areas of opportunity to address compliance with
the PSR. This section demonstrates the specific areas based
on subsections that had the greatest number of challenges
across the 69 farms included in this study in complying with
the PSR. First, there is a need to address training needs of
farm personnel and the supervisor or responsible person
for the farm. In addition to the training component, it is
crucial for farms to document the training and include
information such as training dates and personnel trained.
In 30% of assessments, it was observed that growers were
REFERENCES
1. Adalja, A., and E. Lichtenberg. 2018.
Implementation challenges of the food safety
modernization act: evidence from a national
survey of produce growers. Food Control
89:62-71.
2. Allwood, P. B., T. Jenkins, C. Paulus, L.
Johnson, and C. W. Hedberg. 2004. Hand
washing compliance among retail food
establishment workers in Minnesota. J. Food
Prot. 67:2825-2828.
3. Bartz, F. E., J. S. Lickness, N. Heredia, A.
Fabiszewski de Aceituno, K. L. Newman,
D. W. Hodge, L. A. Jaykus, S. García, and
J. S. Leon. 2017. Contamination of fresh
produce by microbial indicators on farms
and in packing facilities: elucidation of
environmental routes. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 83: e02984-16.
4. Behnke, C., S. Seo, and K. Miller. 2012.
Assessing food safety practices in farmers'
markets. Food Prot. Trends 32:232-239.
5. Beiza, A. A., Z. H. Mohammad, and S.
A. Sirsat. 2021. Persistence of foodborne
pathogens on farmers' market fomites. J. Food
Prot. 84:1169-1175.
6. Bihn, E. A., and D. Clements. 2022. Produce
Safety Alliance curriculum modules.
Available at: https://producesafetyalliance.
cornell.edu/sites/producesafetyalliance.
cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/PSAFlyer.pdf.
Accessed 23 March 2021.
7. Bovay, J., P. Ferrier, and C. Zhen. 2018.
Estimated costs for fruit and vegetable
producers to comply with the Food Safety
Modernization Act's produce rule, EIB-195.
Available at: www.ers.usda.gov. https://
ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/276220/.
Accessed 17 September 2021.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2020. Foodborne germs and illnesses.
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/
foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html. Accessed
26 July 2021.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2022. List of multistate foodborne
outbreak notices. Available at: https://
www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/
lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_
refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%
2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistateoutbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html.
Accessed
26 July 2021.
wearing torn gloves during harvesting activities. There were
multiple instances (90%) where observations showed that
harvested covered produce came in contact with soil or
non-food-contact surfaces. In 41% of instances, observations
were made that although personnel were performing the
task, information was not recorded. For example, the farm
personnel were cleaning and sanitizing equipment, but the
date and method used were not documented. Last, 45% of
instances showed that records were not signed and dated by
the supervisor or responsible person. These non-compliance
issues can be addressed by emphasizing the importance
in addressing specific items in the PSR and how it aligns
with produce safety in general. The farm assessments are
conducted as part of the regulatory process; however,
education is a crucial component of the process. Growers
need to know what they will be held accountable to and
why. This includes explaining components of the PSR and
including scientific and empirical evidence of why following
specific practices can reduce the risk of contamination.
The data in this study contains on-farm field data from the
first batch of assessments conducted on Texas farms. The
analysis of the data provided herein can serve as a baseline for
future studies. In addition, the patterns of non-compliance
observed can provide critical approaches to future training
needs for farms of all sizes so that on-farm produce safety
issues can be addressed preemptively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partially supported by FDA grant PAR-16137.
The views expressed in written materials or publications
and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect
the official policies of the Department of Health and Human
Services, nor do any mentions of trade names, commercial
practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
470 Food Protection Trends November/December

http://www.ers.usda.gov https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/276220/ https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/276220/ https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html https://producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/sites/producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/PSA https://producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/sites/producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/PSA http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html https://producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/sites/producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/PSA http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ffoodsafety%2Foutbreaks%2Fmultistate-outbreaks%2Foutbreaks-list.html

Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023