Food Safety Risks of Harvesting Dropped and Drooping Produce: A Review.

ABSTRACT: The Produce Safety Rule of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) sets forth minimum standards for fruit and vegetable production in the United States. One provision states that growers must not harvest dropped produce because damage or ground contact may contaminate produce. In an unpublished survey of 2020 food safety inspections conducted by the Northeast Center to Advance Food Safety, handling of dropped produce covered by the FSMA was a common misunderstood and noncompliance issue among growers in the Northeast. In consideration of this provision's on-farm practicality, this review was conducted to evaluate the risks associated with dropped and drooping produce, to guide growers in making informed risk management decisions, and to answer the following questions: (i) what are the risk factors that influence transferability of pathogens from touching the ground to produce and (ii) what are the risks associated with harvesting dropped or drooping produce covered under the Produce Safety Rule? A search of online databases revealed 12 relevant publications, which highlighted moisture, contact time, and crop features as affecting contamination rates from a ground surface to a crop surface. Soil and mulch posed a differential risk, with bare soil generally presenting a lower risk than plastic mulch. The effects of other mulch types are unclear. Mulches may promote pathogen persistence in soil, although they may also protect produce from contaminated soils. These studies were limited in their scope and applicability and most did not directly address dropped produce. Research is needed to clarify the various effects of dropped and drooping produce, the impact of ground surface type on pathogen survivability and transfer, soil and crop features that facilitate contamination, and postharvest risks of harvesting dropped or drooping produce. A comprehensive understanding of these issues will guide growers in implementing preventive measures and better managing risk in a way practicable to each farm's unique conditions.

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

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.

UKPMC: a full text article resource for the life sciences.

UK PubMed Central (UKPMC) is a full-text article database that extends the functionality of the original PubMed Central (PMC) repository. The UKPMC project was launched as the first 'mirror' site to PMC, which in analogy to the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, aims to provide international preservation of the open and free-access biomedical literature. UKPMC (http://ukpmc.ac.uk) has undergone considerable development since its inception in 2007 and now includes both a UKPMC and PubMed search, as well as access to other records such as Agricola, Patents and recent biomedical theses. UKPMC also differs from PubMed/PMC in that the full text and abstract information can be searched in an integrated manner from one input box. Furthermore, UKPMC contains 'Cited By' information as an alternative way to navigate the literature and has incorporated text-mining approaches to semantically enrich content and integrate it with related database resources. Finally, UKPMC also offers added-value services (UKPMC+) that enable grantees to deposit manuscripts, link papers to grants, publish online portfolios and view citation information on their papers. Here we describe UKPMC and clarify the relationship between PMC and UKPMC, providing historical context and future directions, 10 years on from when PMC was first launched.