Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of adopting food safety practices, growers have generally not been able to charge a
higher price for a product grown with more attention to food safety (discussed in more
detail below).
Other benefi ts may infl uence growers' decisions to adopt better food safety prac-
tices. These benefi ts are mostly related to reducing risk. Growers want to reduce the
probability of an outbreak being traced to their fi rm that could cause lost sales, damage
to reputation and brand name, costly lawsuits, etc. These benefi ts accrue only in the
event of an outbreak. Before an outbreak occurs, some growers may think that the
probability of experiencing these benefi ts is very low. A more immediate benefi t of
adopting better food safety practices is that it satisfi es many retailers and food-service
buyers who require third-party audits of grower food safety practices as a precondition
of purchase. Having higher food safety practices gives growers broader market access,
which is an important competitive advantage and incentive to adopt GAPs.
A primary factor weighing against the potential benefi ts of adopting new food
safety standards is the costs, which are immediate and often large. Growers want to
reduce the risk of outbreaks, but unless the contamination mechanism is understood,
it is not clear whether additional practices will reduce risk or just raise costs. The lack
of relevant science may limit opportunities to control risk (Hennessy and others 2003).
Perfect safety for products grown in a natural environment is not attainable (the FDA
acknowledges that no practices guarantee perfect safety) and a grower could go broke
trying to approach that elusive goal.
Costs of adopting new food safety practices include both recurrent and nonrecurrent
costs. Nonrecurrent costs may entail investments in water quality and waste manage-
ment infrastructure, harvest machinery, and packinghouse facilities. Recurrent costs
of compliance may include higher costs for water, water testing, training workers in
hygiene in the fi eld, upgrading data collection and record keeping systems, etc.
In the case of the new California LGMA, several new practices are expected to be
quite expensive, such as water testing, record keeping, and buffer zones. Before the
outbreak, some growers had already adopted some of these new practices, and their
costs of adopting the rest will be lower than the costs for growers who had more
limited food safety programs and have to adopt all the safety practices at the same
time. Costs will also vary among farmers. Smaller farms may fi nd the costs of record
keeping and related training diffi cult to meet as they try to spread the cost over a lower
production base. The buffer zone costs will vary by location, with farms in outlying
areas with more risk of wild animal intrusion or near cattle operations needing to
consider more remedial actions than growers surrounded only by other leafy greens
fi elds. Some retailers and food-service buyers are requesting additional practices such
as fi nal product testing, which will also raise the costs of being a leafy greens grower
in California.
Growers adopt new food safety practices if expected benefi ts exceed expected
costs. However, not all growers make the same decisions with respect to adopting
more food safety practices. Even among growers of the same crop, benefi t - cost analy-
ses upon which decisions are based can vary depending on characteristics of the
growers and their operation. Early adopters have more choices. At some point, new
practices become the industry standard, and those who did not adopt early in the
process must fi nally adopt if they want to remain competitive.
