The Opening Markets project
Audrey Kreske
Family and Consumer Sciences
North Carolina State University
ackreske@ncsu.edu
*Funded by Carolina Farm Stewardship Association*
Jaquith Strawberry Farm
Rural Washington county, Oregon
35 acre strawberry producer – 4rth generation
Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak
 15 sick
 4 hospitalized
 2 suffered kidney failure
 1 died
Jaquith Berries
 Sold to nearly 20 buyers and to the public at the farm or
roadside stands, farmers markets and retail outlets
 Hand written lists of buyers – sometimes only first names
 Berries changed hands often – Buyers to Farmers Markets to
Consumers
 Lab tests confirmed that deer feces found in fields was the
source
 Deer – natural reservoir for E. coli O157:H7
 Pickers should have noticed deer feces
 Recalls of 4,800 flats announced by Ron Spada Farms of
Portland and Growers Outlet
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/GAPGHPAuditVerificationProgram
http://gapsmallfarmsnc.wordpress.com/
http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/NCgradesvc/
The Process
 USDA GAP certification
 Good agricultural practices Parts 1 and 2
 Good handling practices Parts 3 and 4
 Grading (80% to pass)
 Points 5, 10, 15, no partial points
 N/A
 $92/hour
 Conducting the audit, travel time and preparatory time
 Unannounced 2nd visit (separate cost)
 In operation less than 30 days
 Submit food safety manual for review
GAP certification
Opening Markets project
 12 farms across NC with <30 acres
 One hour visits
 Survey and onsite evaluation
 Self diaries
 Flip cam
 Providing food safety manual templates and other
documents
 Determining economic impact
Participating farms
 Growing method
 Labor
 Full/part-time
 Seasons in operation
 Commodity diversity
 Livestock
 Current markets
 Direct to market,
wholesale
 Water source
 Bathrooms
 Liability insurance
Farm characteristics
 Growing method
 7 out of 12 certified
organic
 House bathroom
 7 out of 12
 Dog on property
 5 out of 12
 Fencing
 3 out of 12 with no
fencing
 Irrigation water
 4 out of 12 well water
only
 Livestock on property
 5 out of 12
 Employees
 9 out of 12
Risk reduction on the farm
 Water source (production and wash water)
 Application method (microsprinkler/drip)
 Testing/treatment
 Animals
 Domestic and wildlife
 Livestock
 Used for weed/pest control
 Worker health and hygiene
 Traffic patterns
Risk reduction on the farm
 Manure/composting
 Definitions (raw manure/green)
 Composting method
 Active/passive
 Application time
 90/120 days
 Crop rotation
 Bathroom and hand washing
 House bathroom
Risk reduction on the farm
 Equipment/containers
 Cleaning/sanitizing
 Packaging
 Reuse
 Facilities/storage
 Cleaning/sanitizing
 Pest control
 Traceability
 Mock recalls
 Quality
 Sprouts
Barriers identified
① Language of the document
② Misinformation
③ Time
④ Documentation
⑤ Buyer expectations
⑥ Site specific risk recognition/audit requirements
Next steps
GAP guidance document
Economic impact of GAPs
Summer 2012 certification
Conclusions
 Several routes of contamination….
 No kill step when produce is consumed raw
 Outbreaks have shown that microorganisms survive
and cause infection
 Good Agricultural Practices can be attained
 Ultimately reducing risks on the farm regardless of
GAP implementation is important
Questions??
Thank You
Audrey Kreske, PhD
ackreske@ncsu.edu
http://gapsmallfarmsnc.wordpress.com/
www.foodsafetyinfosheets.com
www.barfblog.com
*Funded by Carolina Farm Stewardship Association*