Good agricultural practices : GAP certification: is it worth it?

              Economic Benefits
GAP adoption and certification offers two pri­mary
benefits: ( 1) economic risk reduction, and ( 2) improved market access opportunities.
Economic Risk Reduction
Although GAP and third- party certification do not guarantee food safety, they do reduce the risk that a foodborne disease outbreak will orig­inate
on the farm. The risk of large economic losses— such as a catastrophic drop in sales ( especially if contaminated produce is traced to the farm operation), damage to the farm’s repu­tation,
and potential lawsuits— is also reduced with GAP adoption and certification. However, the benefit from risk reduction accrues to the grower only in the event of an outbreak. To more accurately estimate the economic benefit of GAP adoption certification, a grower needs to calculate the farm’s potential economic losses in case of an outbreak, both with and without GAP certification. Accurately estimating the prob­ability
of an outbreak is practically impossible, so the benefit of GAP certification often depends on the grower’s own perception of the outbreak risk.
Another important, but subtle, benefit of GAP adoption and certification is what economists call the “ positive externality” effect to the entire fresh- produce industry. Each grower who be­comes
certified reduces his or her farm’s risk of spreading foodborne illness and, therefore, low­ers
the risk of an outbreak that affects the entire community of growers. In contrast, if a grower does not adopt GAPs and doesn’t become certi­fied,
when an outbreak is traced back to his or her farm, both the non- compliant producer and the industry as a whole suffer, which is known as the “ negative externality” effect.
Improved Market Access Opportunities
GAP certification opens markets for producers to expand sales to major supermarket chains, school systems, restaurants, and other market outlets ( Calvin, 2003). Many retailers and food­service
buyers now require third- party GAP certi­fication
as a condition of purchase.
In 1999, for example, Safeway, the third- largest U. S. food retailer, expanded its food safety pro­gram,
requiring all suppliers of certain food com­modities
to verify that they follow government food safety standards and specifications in pro­duction
and packing. Other large retailers have followed suit. Research covering a select group of U. S. fruit and vegetable shippers indicated that in 1999, almost half of those studied pro­vided
third- party audits for GAPs for at least one of their buyers. While shippers were not always happy about complying with this request, most indicated that they would implement verification programs in response to changing buyer prefer­ences
( Calvin et al., 2001). In this study, shippers tried to distance themselves from growers with no third- party GAP certification. These shippers recognized that they can reduce risk by requiring growers to provide third- party audits for GAP. Only growers with this type of third party certifi­cation
can take advantage of the market opportu­nities
these shippers offer.
Although growers could conceivably conduct their own food safety and GAP audits, third- party audits by reputable companies, individuals, or
Good Agricultural Practices
GAP Certification: Is It Worth It?
Increased concerns about foodborne illness from fresh produce and the attendant economic loss from foodborne illness have motivated many growers to voluntarily adopt good agricultural practices ( GAPs). GAPs help reduce microbial contamination on their farms and improve food safety systems. However, GAPs won’t increase consumer demand for fresh produce unless growers let buyers know that they have taken steps to improve food safety on their farms. Consumers usually have no way to know whether or not fresh produce is grown with GAP practices.
Third- party GAP certification offers a way for growers to let buyers know that they follow appropriate food safety practices on their farms. Third- party GAP certification is voluntary— it is not yet mandated by law. Growers must measure the economic cost against the benefits before deciding whether to pursue certification.