• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估农场食品安全改进的成本和收益:对良好农业规范(GAP)培训参与者的调查。

Assessing the costs and returns of on-farm food safety improvements: A survey of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) training participants.

机构信息

Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.

Produce Safety Alliance, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 2;15(7):e0235507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235507. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0235507
PMID:32614870
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7332080/
Abstract

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) training programs were developed to provide guidance to fruit and vegetable growers on how to reduce food safety risks on the farm. These programs have been enhanced over the years due, in part, to increasing buyer and regulatory requirements. However, the costs of implementing additional food safety practices has been identified as a primary barrier to long-term farm financial feasibility, particularly for smaller scale producers. A survey of past participants in New York State revealed that increasing food safety improvements facilitated by GAPs have not significantly impacted the size of farm operations or the types of crops grown. In terms of farm size, we show that both the financial costs and financial benefits of food safety improvements increase with farm size, but at decreasing rates. In so doing, relatively higher market sales gains per acre by smaller farms from additional food safety investments offset the relatively higher costs to them of their implementation. We also demonstrate that benefits of food safety improvements were significantly higher for farms that had third-party food safety audits and for those that market primarily through wholesale channels. The results should prove welcome by educators as they encourage participation by all scales of producers in GAPs trainings and for growers in understanding that food safety investments can support both reduced microbial risks and sales growth.

摘要

良好农业规范(GAP)培训计划旨在为果蔬种植者提供指导,帮助他们降低农场的食品安全风险。这些计划近年来得到了加强,部分原因是买家和监管要求不断提高。然而,实施额外食品安全措施的成本已被确定为长期农场财务可行性的主要障碍,特别是对于规模较小的生产者而言。对纽约州过去参与者的调查显示,GAP 促进的食品安全改善并没有显著影响农场经营规模或种植作物的类型。就农场规模而言,我们表明食品安全改善的财务成本和收益都随着农场规模的增加而增加,但增加的速度在下降。因此,较小农场通过额外的食品安全投资获得的每英亩更高的市场销售收益,抵消了实施这些投资对它们的相对较高成本。我们还表明,对于那些进行第三方食品安全审计的农场和主要通过批发渠道销售的农场,食品安全改善的收益要高得多。这些结果应该受到教育工作者的欢迎,因为它们鼓励所有规模的生产者参与 GAP 培训,并让种植者了解食品安全投资可以支持降低微生物风险和销售增长。

相似文献

1
Assessing the costs and returns of on-farm food safety improvements: A survey of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) training participants.评估农场食品安全改进的成本和收益:对良好农业规范(GAP)培训参与者的调查。
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 2;15(7):e0235507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235507. eCollection 2020.
2
Validation of good agricultural practices (GAP) on Minnesota vegetable farms.明尼苏达州蔬菜农场良好农业规范(GAP)的验证
Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2015 Feb;12(2):145-50. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2014.1817. Epub 2015 Jan 7.
3
Survey of food safety practices on small to medium-sized farms and in farmers markets.中小农场和农贸市场的食品安全实践调查。
J Food Prot. 2013 Nov;76(11):1989-93. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-158.
4
On-farm safety program.农场安全计划。
J Agromedicine. 2008;13(3):139-48. doi: 10.1080/10599240802371672.
5
Produce Growers' On-Farm Food Safety Education: A Review.生产者田间食品安全教育:综述。
J Food Prot. 2021 Apr 1;84(4):704-716. doi: 10.4315/JFP-20-320.
6
A socio-cognitive strategy to address farmers' tolerance of high risk work: Disrupting the effects of apprenticeship of observation.一种应对农民对高风险工作耐受性的社会认知策略:打破观察性学徒制的影响。
J Safety Res. 2017 Feb;60:113-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2016.12.006. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
7
A Comparison of Interventional Approaches for Increasing Power Take-off Shielding on New York Farms.纽约农场提高动力输出防护的介入方法比较
J Agromedicine. 2017;22(3):251-258. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2017.1318726.
8
Validation of Self-Reported Power Take-Off Shielding Using On-Site Farm Audits.通过现场农场审计验证自我报告的动力输出屏蔽情况。
J Agric Saf Health. 2015 Apr;21(2):95-104. doi: 10.13031/jash.21.10724.
9
Factors impacting producer marketing through community supported agriculture.影响生产者通过社区支持农业进行营销的因素。
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 9;14(7):e0219498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219498. eCollection 2019.
10
Livestock and livelihoods of smallholder cattle-owning households in Cambodia: the contribution of on-farm and off-farm activities to income and food security.柬埔寨小农户养牛家庭的牲畜与生计:农业和非农业活动对收入及粮食安全的贡献。
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2018 Dec;50(8):1747-1761. doi: 10.1007/s11250-018-1615-6. Epub 2018 May 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Environmental and Food Safety Assessment of Pre-Harvest Activities in Local Small-Scale Fruit and Vegetable Farms in Northwest Portugal: Hazard Identification and Compliance with Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs).葡萄牙西北部当地小型果蔬农场收获前活动的环境与食品安全评估:危害识别与良好农业规范(GAPs)的合规情况
Foods. 2025 Jun 18;14(12):2129. doi: 10.3390/foods14122129.
2
Pesticide safety behavior among vegetable farmers in Bangladesh: Evaluating the role of market aggregation services.孟加拉国菜农的农药安全行为:评估市场聚合服务的作用。
Heliyon. 2024 Dec 16;11(1):e41013. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41013. eCollection 2025 Jan 15.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using outbreak data, United States, 1998-2008.利用暴发数据对 1998-2008 年美国食源性疾病、住院和死亡归因于食品类别的情况进行分析。
Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;19(3):407-15. doi: 10.3201/eid1903.111866.
2
The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities.受污染新鲜农产品导致的食源性疾病暴发负担日益加重:风险与机遇
Epidemiol Infect. 2009 Mar;137(3):307-15. doi: 10.1017/S0950268808001969.
3
Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases.
Assessing the cost barrier for small and medium food processing businesses to meet Preventive Controls for Human Foods standards.
评估中小型食品加工企业达到《人类食品预防控制标准》的成本障碍。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 13;19(9):e0306618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306618. eCollection 2024.
4
Behavior toward on-farm food safety: Commercial and exporter pistachio growers.对农场食品安全的态度:商业和出口开心果种植者。
Heliyon. 2023 Apr 5;9(4):e15249. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15249. eCollection 2023 Apr.
饮食、营养与慢性病预防
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2003;916:i-viii, 1-149, backcover.
4
Safety of consumer handling of fresh produce from the time of purchase to the plate: a comprehensive consumer survey.新鲜农产品从购买到上桌期间消费者处理的安全性:一项全面的消费者调查。
J Food Prot. 2002 Aug;65(8):1287-96. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-65.8.1287.