Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, Zamorano 

Food Science and Technology Department 

B.Sc. Food Science and Technology 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Graduation Project 

Global Food Safety Regulations: A Comparative Analysis of U.S. and 

International growers´ responses to the Food Safety Modernization Act 

(FSMA) 

 

 

Student 

Gina Kristel Sabillón Carvajal 

Advisors 

Suzanne Thornsbury, Ph.D. 

Jorge Cardona, Ph.D. 

 

 

 

Honduras, May 2024 



2 

 

 

Authorities 

 

 

 

SERGIO ANDRÉS RODRÍGUEZ ROYO 

Rector 

 

 

 

 

ANA M. MAIER ACOSTA 

Vice-president and Academic Dean 

 

 

 

ADELA M. ACOSTA MARCHETTI 

Head of Food Science and Technology Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JULIO NAVARRO 

General Secretary 

 

 



3 

 

 

Content 

Table Index .............................................................................................................................................. 6 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Resumen ............................................................................................................................................... 10 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 11 

Materials and Methods ......................................................................................................................... 13 

Location ................................................................................................................................................. 13 

Population Sample ................................................................................................................................ 13 

Survey.................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Data Collection and Database ............................................................................................................... 14 

Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................ 15 

Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 16 

Survey Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 16 

Based on USA data only. Question 1 Have you Implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? .......... 16 

Q2. Top 3 Reasons Implemented Produce Safety Practices ................................................................. 18 

Meet FSMA Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 18 

Maintain Market Access ....................................................................................................................... 19 

Personal Commitment .......................................................................................................................... 20 

Q3. Produce Safety Practice That Has Been Most Challenging to Implement? .................................... 21 

Record Keeping ..................................................................................................................................... 21 

Wildlife and Domesticate Animals ........................................................................................................ 23 

Worker Health and Training .................................................................................................................. 24 

Q4. What Barriers are Growers Facing? ............................................................................................... 25 

Q5. To Gain Market Access Have You Implemented PFSP to Access Markets? ................................... 26 

International countries’ results ............................................................................................................. 27 



4 

 

 

Question 1: Have you implemented food safety practices? ................................................................. 27 

Meet FSMA Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 29 

Maintain Market Access ....................................................................................................................... 31 

Personal Commitment .......................................................................................................................... 32 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement ..................... 34 

Record Keeping ..................................................................................................................................... 34 

Wildlife and Domestic Animals ............................................................................................................. 35 

Question 4 What Barriers Are Growers Facing? ................................................................................... 38 

Covered and not covered ...................................................................................................................... 38 

PSA and No PSA Training....................................................................................................................... 39 

Organic and No Organic Practices......................................................................................................... 40 

Income Breakers ................................................................................................................................... 41 

Question 5 To Gain Market Access, Have You Implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? ............ 42 

Comparison Between US and International Countries ......................................................................... 43 

Question 1. Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices ................................................... 43 

Question2. Reasons Why you Implemented Produce Safety Practices ................................................ 45 

Meet FSMA Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 45 

Maintain Market Access ....................................................................................................................... 48 

Personal Commitment .......................................................................................................................... 49 

Record Keeping ..................................................................................................................................... 51 

Wildlife and Domestic Animals. ............................................................................................................ 52 

Worker Health and Hygiene Training.................................................................................................... 53 

Question 5. To Gain Market Access Have You Implemented PFSP? ..................................................... 55 

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 57 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 58 



5 

 

 

Referencias ............................................................................................................................................ 59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



6 

 

 

Table Index 

Table 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 14 

Questions assessed in the survey. ........................................................................................................ 14 

Table 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Question 1 Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices?................................................... 18 

Table 3  .................................................................................................................................................. 19 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices ........................................................... 19 

Table 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices ........................................................... 20 

Table 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices ........................................................... 21 

Table 6 ................................................................................................................................................... 22 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. .................... 22 

Table 7 ................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that have been the most challenging to implement? ................. 24 

Table 8 ................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? ................... 25 

Table 9 ................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? ..................................................................................... 26 

Table 10 ................................................................................................................................................. 27 

Question 5 To gain market access have you implemented PFSP to access markets? .......................... 27 

Table 11 ................................................................................................................................................. 29 

Question 1 Have you implemented food safety practices? .................................................................. 29 

Table 12 ................................................................................................................................................. 30 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices ..................................................... 30 



7 

 

 

Table 13 ................................................................................................................................................. 32 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices ..................................................... 32 

Table 14 ................................................................................................................................................. 33 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices ..................................................... 33 

Table 15 ................................................................................................................................................. 35 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? ................... 35 

Table 16 ................................................................................................................................................. 36 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement ..................... 36 

Table 17 ................................................................................................................................................. 37 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement ..................... 37 

Table 18 ................................................................................................................................................. 38 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? ..................................................................................... 38 

Table 19 ................................................................................................................................................. 40 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? ..................................................................................... 40 

Table 20 ................................................................................................................................................. 41 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? ..................................................................................... 41 

Table 21 ................................................................................................................................................. 42 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? ..................................................................................... 42 

Table 22 ................................................................................................................................................. 43 

Question 5 To gain market access, have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? ............. 43 

Table 22 ................................................................................................................................................. 44 

Question 1. Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? ................................................. 45 

Table 23 ................................................................................................................................................. 45 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices ................................................ 47 

Table 24 ................................................................................................................................................. 49 



8 

 

 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices ................................................ 49 

Table 25 ................................................................................................................................................. 50 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices ................................................ 50 

Table 26 ................................................................................................................................................. 51 

Question 3: Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. ................... 51 

Table 27 ................................................................................................................................................. 53 

Question 3: Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. ................... 53 

Table 28 ................................................................................................................................................. 54 

Question 3: Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. ................... 54 

Table 29 ................................................................................................................................................. 55 

Question 5. To gain market access have you implemented PFSP?....................................................... 56 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



9 

 

 

Abstract 

Food safety is a relevant issue impacting public health, the economy, and social well-being. 

Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has emerged as a crucial regulatory framework for ensuring 

safety of food internationally. The primary objective was to identify similarities and differences in 

compliance and the underlying factors influencing the adoption of food safety practices (FSP) 

among different farming groups. This project explored the comparative responses of U.S. and 

international farmers to the FSMA's Produce Safety Rule (FSMA-PSR) through a 40-question 

survey. An analysis of questions related to Food Safety was conducted for this project. The research 

findings revealed that FSMA-PSR coverage influenced the adoption of FSP, with 

covered farmers showing higher implementation rates. The income level also played a critical role, 

with higher-income farmers being more likely to invest in necessary technologies and training to 

meet regulatory standards. Additionally, while Produce Safety Alliance (PSA) training positively 

impacted FSP implementation, it was less influential than financial resources. Organic farming 

practices, although not directly linked to higher safety compliance, showed potential for 

enhancing food safety, especially when certified. Major barriers to implement FSMA-PSR 

included money and time for record-keeping, cleaning and sanitation, and personnel training. The 

study concluded that inclusive policies are necessary to provide equitable access to resources 

and training, particularly for lower-income farmers, to ensure broad compliance with food safety 

standards. These insights contributed to the understanding of agricultural food safety, 

offering valuable recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders in the agricultural sector. 

Keywords: Agriculture, Growers, Produce Safety Rule, Public health, Survey.  

 

 

 

 



10 

 

 

Resumen 

 La seguridad alimentaria impacta la salud pública, la economía y el bienestar social. La Ley de 

Modernización de la Seguridad Alimentaria (FSMA) surgió como un marco regulatorio crucial 

para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria a nivel internacional. Este proyecto tuvo como 

objetivo identificar similitudes y diferencias en el cumplimiento de la FSMA, así como los 

factores que influyen en la adopción de prácticas de seguridad alimentaria (FSP) entre 

distintos grupos agrícolas. A través de una encuesta de 40 preguntas, se exploraron las 

respuestas comparativas de agricultores de EE. UU. y de otros países sobre la Regla de 

Seguridad de Productos Agrícolas de la FSMA (FSMA-PSR), y se analizaron preguntas clave 

sobre seguridad alimentaria. Los hallazgos mostraron que la cobertura de FSMA-PSR influye 

en la adopción de FSP, con los agricultores cubiertos mostrando mayores tasas de 

implementación. Además, el nivel de ingresos fue un factor clave: los agricultores de ingresos 

altos mostraron más probabilidad de invertir en tecnologías y capacitación necesarias para 

cumplir con los estándares regulatorios. Las prácticas de agricultura orgánica, aunque no 

asociadas directamente con un mayor cumplimiento de seguridad, mostraron potencial para 

mejorar la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente cuando están certificadas. Las principales 

barreras para implementar la FSMA-PSR incluyeron limitaciones de dinero y tiempo para 

registros, limpieza y capacitación. El estudio concluye que son necesarias políticas inclusivas 

que brinden acceso a recursos y capacitación, en especial para agricultores de menores 

ingresos, para asegurar un cumplimiento amplio de los estándares de seguridad alimentaria.  

Palabras clave: Encuesta, FSMA, Inocuidad, Productores, Seguridad Alimentaria  

 

 

 

 



11 

 

 

Introduction 

Food safety is a globally relevant issue that directly impacts public health, the economy, and 

social well-being (Boys et al., 2015). In this regard, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has 

emerged as a crucial regulatory framework for ensuring safety of food in the United States. According 

to Clements et ál. (2020), The FSMA Produce Safety Rule is a regulation designed to reduce the number 

of foodborne illness outbreaks associated with fruits and vegetables and establishes requirements for 

certain agricultural inputs domestically and abroad. Within this law, the Product Safety Rule (FSMA-

PSR) plays a fundamental role, which sets specific standards and requirements for growers to prevent 

illnesses. Continuously improving food safety can have economic and social benefits in addition to 

reducing foodborne illnesses (NIFA, 2021). The FSMA-PSR established for the first time science-based 

minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packaging and storage of fruits and vegetables 

grown for human consumption (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2023; United States Food and 

Drug Administration [USDA], 2023). (USDA, 2023) This comparison is relevant not only for its 

implications for global food safety but also for its implications for regulatory compliance, 

competitiveness in international markets, and agricultural sustainability. 

Primarily, it is crucial to understand the context in which U.S. farmers operate under this 

regulation. The United States is one of the leading agricultural producers worldwide, with a highly 

diversified industry ranging from large commercial farms to small family farms (Drew y Clydesdale, 

2015). The implementation of the FSMA has brought about a significant change in agricultural 

practices, with stricter requirements for monitoring, recording, and managing risks associated with 

food production. On the other hand, an analysis of the response of international farmers to this 

regulation revealed a broad landscape involving different socio-economic, cultural, and structural 

realities (Gizaw, 2019). Farmers outside the United States face unique challenges in accessing to 

resources, technology, and training to comply with international standards such as those established 

by the FSMA. This divergence in circumstances can have a significant impact on how international 



12 

 

 

farmers receive and adapt to regulatory requirements. The juxtaposition of U.S. and international 

perspectives will contribute to a thorough understanding of the global dynamics, thereby informing 

future regulatory strategies, and promotion international cooperation in ensuring the safety and 

integrity of the global food supply (Food and Drugs Administration [FDA], 2024a). 

The main objective of this study was to identify similarities and differences in the responses 

of U.S. and international farmers to the FSMA-PSR, aiming to provide valuable insights for improving 

public policy, promoting good agricultural practices globally, and strengthening food safety. Through 

a detailed comparative analysis, the research seeks to assess the degree of compliance and 

understand the underlying factors influencing farmers' decisions and actions in both contexts. By 

exploring this crucial topic, the study contributes to both academic and practical knowledge on the 

FSMA-PSR Agricultural Product Rule, enhancing collective well-being through a deeper understanding 

of its impacts on diverse farming practices. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



13 

 

 

Materials and Methods 

Location 

The survey was conducted in the United States in collaboration with the Product Safety 

Alliance (PSA), USDA Economic Research Service, University of Vermont, University of Florida, and 

Cornell University on May 2022.  

Population Sample 

The survey was comprised of growers who participated in PSA Grower Trainings conducted 

between 2017 and 2020, These specific years were chosen to encompass growers who aligned with 

the compliance dates of the FSMA-PCR. A total of 705 growers participated in the study, representing 

diverse geographical regions. Specifically, 450 growers were from the USA, while 199 were from North 

America, Central America, South America, and Oceania combined. This geographical distribution 

ensured a broad representation across different agricultural contexts and regulatory environments. 

Survey 

The study utilized a comprehensive survey consisting of a total of 40 questions. These 

questions were structured into four sections: demographics and farm characteristics (Questions 4 to 

18), focusing on the participant's background and farm specifics; food safety-related inquiries 

(Questions 18 to 27), cost-related queries (Questions 28 to 32), and market access considerations 

(Questions 33 to 36). A deliberate selection was made of five questions from the survey to focus the 

research on specific aspects relevant to the study's objectives (Table 1). The results were  discussed 

based on the following categories: “covered “and “not covered”, referring to farms' covered status 

under the FSMA-PSR; Produce Safety Alliance (PSA) training versus no PSA training; income brackets: 

under $30,160, between $30,160 and $603,202, and above $603,202, representing total farm 

earnings; and organic practices: “no organic practice” versus “use of organic practices or certified”. 

These categories were chosen to provide a comprehensive analysis of the survey findings across 



14 

 

 

different regulatory compliance statuses, training backgrounds, financial capacities, and agricultural 

practices related to food safety and market access. 

Table 1 

Questions assessed in the survey. 

No. Questions 

1 Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices (PFSP)? 

2 Top 3 reasons implemented Produce Safety Practices (PSP)? 

3 Produce Safety Practices that have been the most challenging to implement.  

4 What barriers are growers facing? 

5 To gain market access have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices?  

 

Data Collection and Database 

The data for this study was gathered by The Northeast Center to Advance Food Safety 

(NECAFS) using the Qualtrics XM software. This software is widely known for its capabilities in 

conducting surveys and collecting data efficiently. By utilizing this technology, NECAFS was able to 

optimize the data collection process and ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information 

obtained from the growers.  

The study involved comparing responses from U.S. growers who adhere to FSMA regulations 

with the responses of international growers. Using the survey to collect both qualitative and 

quantitative data on growers' perceptions, practices, commodities, and their adaptations to FSMA 

requirements. The study employed a comparative analysis of responses from U.S. and international 

growers to examine how different regulatory frameworks impact food safety practices. 

 

 

 

 

 



15 

 

 

Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis 

Descriptive and explanatory statistical analysis was used to interpret the relationships and 

observed trends in the provided contingency tables. Descriptive statistics were employed to 

summarize the survey data, followed by chi-square tests with a 95% confidence level (P ≤ 0.05). 

Additionally, Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the differences between the categories 

evaluated in the US and international groups, as well as between US-only and international-only 

groups in the adoption of Produce Food Safety Practices (PFSP), with a significance level of 95% 

(P<0.05).This approach, combined with the initial descriptive and explanatory data analysis, allowed 

for a comprehensive interpretation of the survey results, identifying key factors influencing food 

safety practices among agricultural producers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



16 

 

 

Results and Discussion 

Survey Analysis 

A total of 40 questions were completed in the survey. This document will analyze responses 

to questions regarding the implementation of food safety practices in production, challenges faced, 

and barriers encountered by growers. The specific questions to be analyzed include the 

implementation of food safety practices, reasons for implementation, challenges, barriers, and market 

access. 

Based on USA data only. Question 1 Have you Implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? 

A significantly high proportion of growers both covered and not covered by FSMA, have 

implemented PFSP. However, growers with coverage have an implementation rate of 98.1%, while 

those without coverage have a rate of 92.2% (Table 2). This suggested that FSMA coverage may be 

associated with higher implementation of food safety practices. The difference in implementation 

rates suggests that producers covered may have more resources or incentives to adopt PFSP. 

According to (Tai, 2016), coverage can provide a financial safety net that allows producers to invest in 

improvements and meet food safety standards without the fear of significant economic losses in case 

of incidents. Additionally, insurance programs often link specific food safety requirements, which may 

oblige covered growers to comply with these practices. Regional and market factors may also 

influence PFSP implementation.  

Growers in areas with greater access to agricultural coverage and more competitive markets 

may be more motivated to implement PFSP to remain competitive and meet buyer and regulatory 

expectations. Growers with Produce Safety Alliance (PSA) training and those without such training 

have high rates of PFSP implementation, with a minor difference between them. Growers without PSA 

training have an implementation rate of 96.4%, while those with PSA training have a rate of 94.8%. 

The slight difference in PFSP implementation suggests that PSA training may not be a determining 



17 

 

 

factor in the adoption of these practices. Other factors such as prior experience, risk perception, or 

resource availability may have a greater impact on PFSP implementation. Growers without PSA 

training who implement PFSP may be motivated by other incentives, such as market demand, buyer 

requirements, or their own perception of the importance of food safety. These producers may have 

adopted practices voluntarily or in response to local and national regulations (Overbosch y Blanchard, 

2023). Both organic and non-organic producers have high rates of PFSP implementation, with a slight 

difference between them. In Table 2 non-organic producers show an implementation rate of 95.4%, 

while organic producers have a rate of 93.7%. Organic farming practices show a minimal impact on 

PFSP adoption rates compared to non-organic methods. Both groups are equally dedicated to PFSP 

implementation. Organic growers adhere to stringent standards, while non-organic producers are 

driven by market demands, regulatory compliance, and similar barriers and facilitators. The small 

difference in PFSP implementation rates between organic and non-organic producers suggests that 

farming practices do not significantly impact the adoption of food safety practices. Both groups face 

similar barriers such as cost and resource availability yet access similar facilitators like governmental 

support and educational resources promoting food safety.  

Policy makers should ensure impartial access to resources and incentives for all growers to 

enhance food safety practices (Uddin y Bari, 2019). Income strongly influences PFSP implementation: 

< $30,160 earners at 89.6%, $30,160-$603,202 at 96.5%, > $603,202 at 99.2%. Higher incomes enable 

investment in technology, training, and compliance with food safety regulations. Access to advanced 

technology and subsidies aids compliance. Economies of scale reduce costs for larger operations. 

Governments and agricultural bodies should tailor support programs to lower-income producers, 

fostering collaboration with buyers for incentives and resources. Overall, financial resources crucially 

impact PFSP adoption, necessitating inclusive policies for equitable food safety enhancement across 

agricultural sectors. 

 



18 

 

 

Table 2 

Question 1 Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? 

Category Yes No n 

Covered (A) 0.981 0.019 211 

PSA training (B) 0.948 0.052 388 

    

Not covered (B) 0.922 0.078 232 

No PSA training (A) 0.964 0.036 55 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.896 0.104 144 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.965 0.035 171 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.992 0.008 128 

    

No organic practice (A) 0.954 0.046 348 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.937 0.063 95 

Note. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -

$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  

Q2. Top 3 Reasons Implemented Produce Safety Practices 

Meet FSMA Regulations 

The analysis highlighted in Table 3, clear trends in food safety practice implementation, 

focusing on FSMA regulatory adherence. Those producers complying with FSMA exhibit a higher rate 

(85.5%) of food safety practice implementation, compared to 60.3% among producers. The 

regulations have a direct impact on operational decisions. Income levels also significantly impacted 

adherence to food safety practices. Producers earning less than $30K showed only 60.4% compliance, 

while those earning over $600K experienced a 28% increase, emphasizing that access to financial 

resources was crucial for meeting regulatory standards like FSMA. Despite 52.4% of non-PSA-trained 

growers implementing FSP, lack of specific training remains a potential barrier. Continuous education 

and specialized knowledge are critical for optimal food safety practices in agriculture (Clements et al., 

2019). FSMA compliance and income levels are key influences of food safety practice adoption, with 

PSA training playing a crucial role in enhancing implementation. These findings underscore the 



19 

 

 

complex interplay of regulation, financial resources, and education in agricultural food safety 

(International Fresh Produce Association, 2024). Improving training in specific food safety practices 

could close observed gaps in implementation, especially among those who have not received 

specialized training. 

Table 3  

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices  

                                            Category                            Yes            No             n  

Covered (A) 0.855 0.145 213  

PSA training (B) 0.766 
 

0.234 
 

351 
 

 

Not covered (A) 0.603 0.397 237  

No PSA training (B) 0.524 0.476 59  

Under $30,160 (A) 0.604 0.396 147  

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.78 0.22 174  

Above $603,202 (C) 0.784 0.216 129  

No organic practice (A) 0.707 0.293 354  

Use organic practice or certified (B) 0.61 0.39 320  

Note. Reason to Meet FSMA Regulations. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 
$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  
 

Maintain Market Access 

Growers who received Produce Safety Alliance (PSA) training demonstrated significantly 

higher coverage of FSP (72.1%) compared to those without training (59.5%), indicating the critical role 

of PSA training in ensuring market access as shown on Table 4. Secondly, income levels impacted 

implementation, with lower earning groups showing lower coverage (36%) than higher earning groups 

(5.95%), highlighting financial constraints as a barrier to effective practice implementation. Thirdly, 

while organic practices alone do not directly correlate with higher coverage (50%), farmers using 

organic practices or certified methods show improved coverage (61%), suggesting a potential link 

between organic practices and effective food safety implementation for market access (Graves et al., 

2019). Strategies aimed at enhancing PSA training availability, addressing financial barriers, and 

promoting organic practices could significantly support operators in maintaining market access 



20 

 

 

through robust food safety implementation. These insights underscore the importance of targeted 

training and support initiatives tailored to improve compliance with food safety standards, thereby 

safeguarding market access for producers across different operational and economic contexts (Wirth, 

2023)  

 

Table 4 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices 

Note. Reason: Maintain market access. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 
$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  
 

Personal Commitment  

In Table 5, the rate among the covered group was lower (48%) compared to the uncovered 

group at 0.754, indicating that personal commitment was higher where practices were not required. 

In contrast, groups without PSA training (A) were different than those with training (B) at (68%), 

suggesting personal commitment may have outweighed formal training (Food and Drugs 

Administration. FDA, 2024b). Lower income brackets (A, under $30,160) exhibited better adherence 

(0.792) than higher brackets (B, $30,160 - $603,202 at 0.567; C, above $603,202 at 0.514), 

underscoring personal commitment over financial incentives. Organic practices (A, none at 0.604; B, 

organic/certified at 0.667) related positively with adherence, indicating intrinsic motivation (Mata y 

Category  Yes No n  
Covered (A) 0.721 0.279 213  
PSA training (B) 0.576 0.424 391  
     
No PSA training (A) 0.595 0.405 59  
Not Covered (B) 0.436 0.564 237  
     
Under $30,160 (A) 0.368 0.632 147  
Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.596 0.404 174  
Above $603,202 (C) 0.757 0.243 129  
     
No organic practice (A) 0.5 0.5 130  
Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.61 0.39 320  



21 

 

 

Bauer, 2024). Low coverage and absence of PSA training correlated with higher commitment, lower 

income predicted better adherence, and organic practices may have fostered dedication. These 

insights suggested prioritizing targeted training, financial strategies, and organic certifications to 

enhance operators' commitment to FSP.  

Table 5 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons implemented Food Safety Practices  

Category Yes No n  

Covered (A) 0.48 0.52 213  

Not covered (B) 0.754 0.246 237  

     

No PSA training (A) 0.69 0.31 59  

PSA training (B) 0.608 0.392 391  

     

Under $30,160 (A) 0.792 0.208 147  

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.567 0.433 174  

Above $603,202 (C) 0.514 0.486 129  

     

No organic practice (A) 0.604 0.396 354  

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.667 0.333 96  
Note. Reason Personal Commitment. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 

$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  

 Q3. Produce Safety Practice That Has Been Most Challenging to Implement? 

Record Keeping 

  Record keeping as a challenge in the implementation of produce safety practices reveals 

significant differences across various producer categories. Growers covered by regulations fouind 

these practices more challenging (98.1%) compared to those not covered (92.2%), suggesting that 

regulatory requirements increase the complexity of record keeping as it has more information to keep 

as can be seen on Table 6. Similarly, producers without PSA training reported higher difficulties 

(96.4%) compared to trained ones (94.8%), indicating that training could mitigate these challenges 

(Tarnate, 2019). Growers that were not using organic practices also experienced greater difficulties 

(95.4%) compared to those using them (93.7%). Firstly, while training provides specific knowledge and 



22 

 

 

skills in agricultural produce safety, implementation of the training may face obstacles due to factors 

such as the complexity of regulatory requirements, the availability of work with resources for 

maintaining detailed records, and the time management needed to meet these demands (Fawell y 

Germida, 2012). Additionally, variability in the interpretation and application of regulations among 

different farmers and regions could also contribute to difficulties, even among those with formal PSA 

training. Moreover, income levels were strongly associated with the level of difficulty experienced, 

with producers in lower income brackets (<$30,160) being the most affected (89.6%), while those with 

higher incomes (> $603,202) reported the least difficulty (99.2%).These findings suggested that 

policies and support programs should focus on providing additional resources and specific training to 

regulated producers, those with lower incomes, and those without organic practices to enhance 

effective implementation of record keeping in agricultural produce safety. 

Table 6 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. 

Category Yes No n 

Covered (A) 0.585 0.415 213 

PSA training (B) 0.611 0.389 391 

    

No PSA training (A) 0.488 0.512 59 

Not covered (B) 0.609 0.391 237 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.575 0.425 147 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.574 0.426 174 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.643 0.357 129 

    

No organic practice (A) 0.582 0.418 354 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.649 0.351 96 

Note. Practice Record Keeping. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, 

Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  

 

 

 



23 

 

 

Wildlife and Domesticate Animals 

Growers covered by FSMA PSA reported a lower proportion of success (36.1%) in managing 

wildlife and domestic animals compared to those not covered (48.0%), suggesting that regulatory 

compliance introduced significant challenges, potentially due to stricter standards and oversight 

requirements (Table 7). Also, growers with PSA training showed a slightly lower proportion of success 

(41.7%) compared to those without training (43.9%). While training appeared to offer some 

advantages in handling these challenges, the difference was not substantial, indicating that additional 

factors beyond training influenced effectiveness (Lysenko y Schott, 2018). Wildlife and domestic 

animals can introduce pathogens and contaminants into agricultural settings, potentially 

compromising food safety. Effective management practices could mitigate those risks, promising that 

produce remains safe for consumption. Regulatory agencfinancial resources, challenges in wildlife and 

animal management persisted. However, lower incomies impose standards and requirements to 

safeguard food production from biological hazards (Williams et al., 2021). Growers in higher income 

brackets (> $603,202) reported the lowest success rate (33.0%), indicating that, despite greater e 

brackets (< $30,160). Agriculture's economic viability. With successful management, practices could 

reduce production costs associated with pest control and mitigate financial risks (Harrison et al., 

2013).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



24 

 

 

Table 7 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? 

Category Yes No n  

Covered (A) 0.361 0.639 213  
PSA training (B) 0.417 0.583 391  
     

No PSA training (A) 0.439 0.561 59  
Not covered (B) 0.480 0.520 237  
     
Under $30,160 (A) 0.500 0.500 147  
Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.433 0.567 174  
Above $603,202 (C) 0.330 0.670 129  
     
No organic practice (A) 0.425 0.575 354  
Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.403 0.597 96  

Note. Practice Wildlife and domestic animals. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. 

Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

Worker Health and Training 

Growers covered by FSMA PSA reported a lower proportion of success (36.1%) in effectively 

implementing worker health and hygiene training compared to those not covered (48.0%) (Table 8). 

This suggested that regulatory compliance introduced significant challenges, potentially due to 

stringent requirements and enforcement (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2021). 

Organic farming practices may have introduced additional complexities, including stringent hygiene 

standards and certification criteria, which may have presented challenges for producers maintaining 

consistent compliance. Income differences reflected varying capacities to invest in infrastructure, 

training, and technologies that support comprehensive worker health and hygiene programs 

(Crawford, 2019). Effective worker health and hygiene practices are fundamental to preventing 

foodborne illnesses and ensuring the safety of agricultural products consumed by the public. There 

was a significant difference in success rates between growers using organic practices or certified 

(40.3%) and those not using such practices (42.5%). This highlighted potential challenges specific to 

organic farming contexts, such as adherence to stricter hygiene standards and certification 

requirements. Prioritizing worker health and hygiene training in produce safety practices is essential 



25 

 

 

for advancing public health, regulatory compliance, and equitable agricultural practices. By addressing 

these challenges through targeted interventions and supportive policies, stakeholders can promote 

resilient and responsible agricultural systems that meet developing consumer expectations and 

regulatory standards (King, 2022).  

Table 8 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? 

Category Yes No n 

Covered (A) 0.426 0.574 213 

PSA training (B) 0.346 0.654 391 

    

No PSA training (A) 0.39 0.61 59 

Not covered (B) 0.274 0.726 237 

        
No organic practice (A) 0.347 0.653 354 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.364 0.636 96 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.255 0.745 147 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.383 0.617 174 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.4 0.6 129 

Note. Worker health and hygiene training. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 
$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 
 

Q4. What Barriers are Growers Facing? 

The main barriers were money, time and knowledge (Table 9). Firstly, the categories with the 

highest scores in this barrier (Money) were Hygiene Facilities (0.41), followed by Field Water (0.37), 

and Cleaning (0.25). 

This indicated that lack of financial resources was a significant barrier for establishing adequate 

hygiene facilities, managing field water, and maintaining effective cleaning practices. The second 

barrier was time. The categories that stood out here were Record keeping (0.57), followed by Cleaning 

(0.42), and Worker Hygiene Training (0.36). Time management is critical for maintaining accurate 

records, adhering to cleaning practices, and providing hygiene training to workers, and it was the most 

voted barrier, as Time for record keeping (Liu y Eaton, 2023). The third one was knowledge, the areas 



26 

 

 

with the highest scores in this barrier are Field Water (0.14), Cleaning (0.15), and Post Harvest Water 

(0.15). 

The lack of specific knowledge on field water management and cleaning may limit producers. To 

address this, allocate resources to hygiene facilities, provide ongoing training, and invest in targeted 

educational programs, because continuous training in hygiene and cleaning techniques for workers 

are crucial (Narine et al., 2019).   

Table 9 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? 

Category Barriers 

 
Money Time Knowledge Mindset Training 

Hygiene Facilities 0.41 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.04 

Amendment Testing 0.27 0.24 0.11 0.05 0.06 

Wildlife 0.31 0.40 0.10 0.07 0.04 

Field Water 0.37 0.33 0.14 0.05 0.07 

Post Harvest Water 0.24 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.06 

Cleaning + Worker Training 0.43 0.80 0.28 0.24 0.20 

Record keeping 0.19 0.57 0.13 0.13 0.08 

 

Q5. To Gain Market Access Have You Implemented PFSP to Access Markets? 

Growers covered by FSMA showed a higher rate of implementing PFSP (48.7%) compared to 

those not covered (17.1%). This suggested that regulatory requirements significantly influenced the 

adoption of PFSP, potentially as a prerequisite for market entry (Table 10). Growers with PSA training 

had a higher implementation rate of PFSP (40.0%) compared to those without training (27.5%). This 

highlighted the role of training in enhancing awareness and compliance with safety practices 

necessary for market access. (National Library of Medicine, 1998). Compliance with PFSP enhances a 



27 

 

 

producer's competitiveness by meeting market demands for safe and high-quality agricultural 

products. Also, FSP implementation aligns with regulatory requirements, ensuring adherence to safety 

standards and facilitating smooth market entry and meeting PFSP demonstrates commitment to food 

safety, enhancing consumer trust and preference for products from compliant producers (Linton y 

McSwane, 2013). For organic practices, there was a small difference in PFSP implementation between 

growers using organic practices or certified (29.7%) and those not using them (36.4%). This indicated 

that while organic certification may involve additional safety standards, it does not significantly hinder 

PFSP implementation. 

Table 10 

Question 5 To gain market access have you implemented PFSP to access markets? 

Category Yes No n  

Covered (A) 0.487 0.249 187  

Not covered (B) 0.171 0.429 177  

     

No PSA training (A) 0.275 0.383 40  

PSA training (B) 0.400 0.284 324  

     

No organic practice (A) 0.364 0.397 286  

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.297 0.295 78  

     

Under $30,160 (A) 0.248 0.343 105  

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.486 0.321 140  

Above $603,202 (C) 0.513 0.101 119  
Note. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -

$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  

International countries’ results 

Question 1: Have you implemented food safety practices? 

The Covered group showed a high proportion of "yes" responses (98.3%) compared to the Not 

Covered group, which had 91.2%. The T-tests revealed significant differences, indicating that the 

Covered group tended to have a higher proportion of "yes" responses (Table 11). The letters A, B, and 

C in the table represent different categories using t-tests. "A" and "B" are different levels or groups 



28 

 

 

within each category, while "C" indicates a third group or level. The t-test results indicate the statistical 

significance of differences between groups. For instance, t-test (A) and t-test (B) assess the difference 

between categories, and t-test (C) compares the third group. A statistically significant difference 

between the groups is indicated by a significant result (designated as "A" or "B") from the t-tests. The 

higher proportion of "yes" responses in the Covered group may have been due to more effective or 

comprehensive implementation of the relevant practices. According to recent research, thorough 

implementation of safety standards led to increased compliance and better outcomes. On the other 

hand, the Not Covered group might have struggled with less effective practices or incomplete 

coverage, resulting in lower "yes" responses. The PSA Training (B) group had 94.9% "yes" responses, 

whereas the No PSA Training group had 92.6%. Although the difference was not substantial, the t-

tests suggested that PSA training might have positively impacted the proportion of "yes" responses. 

The greater proportion of "yes" responses in the PSA Training group could have been attributed to the 

positive impact of training on understanding and adherence to practices (Food and Drugs 

Administration. FDA, 2020). Training programs had been shown to improve knowledge and 

compliance, leading to better outcomes. Although the difference was not substantial, training 

generally enhanced performance and adherence (Trinetta et al., 2021). In the category of organic 

practices, the group using organic or certified practices had 92.2% "yes" responses, while the group 

without organic practices showed 95.2%. The difference between these groups was smaller, and the 

t-tests indicated that the impact of organic practices on "yes" responses was less pronounced. The 

smaller difference between groups with and without organic practices suggested that while organic 

certification could have benefits, its impact on "yes" responses might have been less pronounced 

compared to other factors. This was supported by recent findings that indicated the effectiveness of 

organic practices varied depending on implementation and context (Etuk et al., 2024). The higher 

"yes" response rate in the non-organic group could have been due to other beneficial practices in 

place (Kheradia y Warriner, 2013). Income also affected "yes" responses: the group earning below 



29 

 

 

$30,160 (A) had 89.3% "yes" responses, the group earning between $30,160 and $603,202 (B) had 

96.3%, and the group earning above $603,202 (C) had 99.2%. The t-tests showed significant 

differences between these groups, indicating that higher income correlated with a higher proportion 

of "yes" responses. 

This analysis revealed how various factors impacted responses and suggested important 

implications for interpreting data within the study’s context. Significant differences in "yes" responses 

across income ranges likely reflected varying resource availability. Higher income levels generally 

provided better access to resources and higher-quality practices, which could enhance compliance 

(Bovay y Sumner, 2018). Lower-income groups might have faced consequences that impacted their 

ability to fully implement the standards of FSMA.  

Table 11 

Question 1 Have you implemented food safety practices? 

Category Yes No  n t-test (A) t-test (B) t-test (C) 

Covered (A) 0.983 0.017  238 B A 
 

PSA training (B) 0.949 0.051  430    

        

No PSA training (A) 0.926 0.074  68 
   

Not covered (B) 0.912 0.088  260 B A  

       
 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.922 0.078  103    

No organic practice (A) 0.952 0.048  395   
 

        

Under $30,160 (A) 0.893 0.107  
 

BC A A 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.963 0.037  
 

BC A A 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.992 0.008  
    

Note. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -

$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. t-test (A): Significant difference between A, B, and C (p<0.05). t-test (B): Significant 

difference between B, A, and C (p<0.05).  

Meet FSMA Regulations 

Covered showed an 86.1% "yes" response rate, compared to 61.9% for the "Not Covered (B) group. 

This difference indicated that comprehensive coverage is associated with higher "yes" responses. The 



30 

 

 

letters A, B, and C in the table represent different categories using t-tests. "A" and "B" are different 

levels or groups within each category, while "C" indicates a third group or level. The t-test results 

indicate the statistical significance of differences between groups. For instance, t-test (A) and t-test 

(B) assess the difference between categories, and t-test (C) compares the third group. A statistically 

significant difference between the groups is indicated by a significant result (designated as "A" or "B") 

from the t-tests. For PSA training, the "PSA Training (B)" group has a 76.6% "yes" response rate, while 

the "No PSA Training (A)" group has 56.2% (Table 12). This is aligned with findings that targeted 

training programs significantly improve performance (Walters y Rodriguez Joel, 2017). The "Use 

Organic Practices or Certified" group has an 80.5% "yes" response rate, compared to 72.6% for the 

"No Organic Practices" group. The difference, though notable, is not extremely large, but it does 

suggest that organic practices are associated with higher "yes" responses. This supports recent 

research indicating that certified practices can lead to improved outcomes (Pacini et al., 2003). Income 

range analysis shows that the group earning below $30,160 (A) has a 65.4% "yes" response rate, 

whereas both the $30,160 to $603,202 (B) and above $603,202 (C) income groups have 78.6% "yes" 

responses. The T-tests (A: BC, B: A) indicate significant differences, suggesting that higher income is 

linked to a higher proportion of "yes" responses.   

Table 12 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices 

Category Yes No n t-test (A) t-test (B) t-test (C) 

Covered (A) 0.861 0.139 202 B A 
 

PSA training (B) 0.766 0.234 351 B A  

       

Not covered (B) 0.619 0.381 197 B A 
 

No PSA training (A) 0.562 0.438 48 B A 
 

       

Under $30,160 (A) 0.654 0.346 133 BC A A 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.786 0.214 154 BC A A 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.786 0.214 112 
   

       

No organic practices  0.726 0.274 317 
   



31 

 

 

Category Yes No n t-test (A) t-test (B) t-test (C) 

Use organic practices or certified  0.805 0.195 82 
   

Note. Reason to Meet FSMA regulations. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 

$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. Significant difference between A, B, and C (p<0.05). t-test (B): 

Significant difference between B, A, and C (p<0.05).  

Maintain Market Access 

As shown in the Covered group, it reported a 71.8% "yes" response rate, while the Not 

Covered (B) group had a significantly lower rate at 46.2%. The letters A, B, and C in the table represent 

different categories using t-tests. "A" and "B" are different levels or groups within each category, while 

"C" indicates a third group or level. The t-test results indicate the statistical significance of differences 

between groups. For instance, t-test (A) and t-test (B) assess the difference between categories, and 

t-test (C) compares the third group. A statistically significant difference between the groups is 

indicated by a significant result (designated as "A" or "B") from the t-tests. (Table 13). This finding was 

consistent with recent studies that emphasized the importance of full coverage in achieving better 

performance metrics. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United  [FAO], 2021) Moreover, PSA 

Training (B) showed a 58.7% "yes" response rate, whereas the group with "No PSA Training (A)" had a 

higher rate at 62.5%. This slight difference, while not overwhelmingly large, indicated that the impact 

of PSA training might have varied depending on other factors such as prior knowledge or experience. 

In addition, the income range analysis revealed a change in "yes" responses, with the lowest income 

group (under $30,160) showing a 42.9% "yes" response rate, the middle-income group (between 

$30,160 and $603,202) at 61.0%, and the highest income group (above $603,202) at 75.9%. The t-

tests (A: BC, AC, AB) demonstrated significant differences across these income categories, indicating 

that higher income levels were strongly associated with better compliance and positive outcomes. 

This supported existing literature that linked financial resources to improved access to tools and 

practices that enhanced performance (Duarte et al., 2011).  



32 

 

 

Table 13 

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices 

Note. Reason to Maintain Market access. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 

$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. Significant difference between A, B, and C (p<0.05). t-test (B): 

Significant difference between B, A, and C (p<0.05).  

Personal Commitment 

In this case, the group covered (A) showed a lower "yes" response rate (48.5%) compared to 

the "Not Covered (B)" group, which had a significantly higher rate at (73.6%). The letters A, B, and C 

in the table represent different categories using t-tests. "A" and "B" are different levels or groups 

within each category, while "C" indicates a third group or level. The t-test results indicate the statistical 

significance of differences between groups. For instance, t-test (A) and t-test (B) assess the difference 

between categories, and t-test (C) compares the third group. A statistically significant difference 

between the groups is indicated by a significant result (designated as "A" or "B") from the t-tests (Table 

14). Not Covered (B) group might be taking extra steps or employing alternative strategies to meet 

market requirements despite not having the same coverage as the "Covered (A)" group. This 

unexpected result may have indicated alternative strategies or compensatory mechanisms being 

employed by those without coverage (Bailey, 2022). The "No PSA Training (A)" group had a 66.7% 

"yes" response rate, slightly higher than the 60.1% observed in the "PSA Training (B)" group. This 

Category Yes No n t-test (A) t-test (B) t-test (C) 

Covered (A) 0.718 0.282 202 B A 
 

PSA training (B) 0.587 0.413 351    

       

Not covered (B) 0.462 0.538 197 B A  

No PSA training (A) 0.625 0.375 48 
   

       

Under $30,160 (A) 0.429 0.571 133 BC AC AB 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.610 0.390 154 BC AC AB 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.759 0.241 112 
   

       

No organic practice (A) 0.603 0.397 317 B A 
 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.549 0.451 82 B A 
 



33 

 

 

suggested that PSA training did not necessarily lead to higher "yes" responses, possibly due to 

variations in prior experience or the nature of the practices assessed (Versteeg, 1992). In the income 

range analysis, the group earning below $30,160 (A) exhibited the highest "yes" response rate at 

76.7%, followed by the middle-income group (between $30,160 and $603,202) at 54.5%, and the 

highest-income group (above $603,202) at 50.9%. This challenged the typical assumption that higher 

income correlates with better outcomes, hinting that lower-income groups might have adopted 

different strategies or possessed different motivations (McBride, 2024). The "No Organic Practices 

(A)" group reported a 59.3% "yes" response rate, indicating a moderate level of compliance or positive 

outcomes. The absence of organic practices did not significantly impact the "yes" response rate, 

implying that non-organic practices may have been equally effective, or that organic certification was 

not the sole determinant of compliance (Gambelli et al., 2014).  

Table 14  

Question 2 Top 3 reasons for implementing Food Safety Practices 

Category Yes No n t-test (A) t-test (B) t-test (C) 

Covered (A) 0.485 0.515 202 B A 
 

Not covered (B) 0.736 0.264 197 B A 
 

       

No PSA training (A) 0.667 0.333 48 
   

PSA training (B) 0.601 0.399 351 
   

       

Under $30,160 (A) 0.767 0.233 133 BC A A 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.545 0.455 154 BC A A 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.509 0.491 112 
   

       

No organic practice (A) 0.593 0.407 317 
   

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.671 0.329 82 
   

Note. Reason: Personal commitment. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under 

$30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 



34 

 

 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement 

Record Keeping 

In the "Covered (A)" group, only (39.5%) of participants were able to affirmatively respond to 

successful record-keeping practices, while (60.5%) found it challenging. This trend is even more 

pronounced in the "Not Covered (B)" group, where only (32.1%) were successful, and (67.9%) 

struggled with record keeping. These results suggest that coverage status might influence the ability 

to maintain proper records, potentially due to differences in resource availability or support systems. 

In Table 15, growers with PSA training (B) had a lower affirmative response rate of (35.2%) compared 

to (41.3%) in the "No PSA Training (A)" group. This indicates that even formal training does not entirely 

mitigate the challenges associated with record keeping. Training can raise awareness, it might also 

highlight the complexities of compliance, making some practices seem more daunting and leading to 

lower affirmative responses (Cavazza y Serpe, 2010). Among those not using organic practices (A), 

(37.2%) managed to implement record-keeping effectively, whereas only (30.9%) of those using 

organic practices or certified (B) were successful. This difference could imply that organic or certified 

operations may have more stringent record-keeping requirements, making it more difficult for these 

participants to maintain compliance. Organic certification often entails additional documentation, 

which can add to the challenge of record keeping (Vigar et al., 2019). The data show that participants 

with the lowest income (under $30,160) had the hardest time with record keeping, with only (31.1%) 

successfully managing it. In contrast, (37.3%) of those in the middle-income range and (39.7%) of those 

in the highest income bracket ($603,202 and above) were successful. This pattern suggests that 

higher-income groups may have better access to resources, such as software or personnel, that can 

assist with maintaining records. Financial resources often play a critical role in the ability to comply 

with detailed and labor-intensive practices like record keeping (Durham et al., 2014).  

 

 



35 

 

 

Table 15  

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? 

Category Yes No n 

Covered (A) 0.395 0.605 205 

PSA training (B) 0.352 0.648 355 

    

Not covered (B) 0.321 0.679 196 

No PSA training (A) 0.413 0.587 46 

    

No organic practice (A) 0.372 0.628 320 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.309 0.691 81 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.311 0.689 132 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.373 0.627 153 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.397 0.603 116 

Note. Reason: Record Keeping. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, 

Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

Wildlife and Domestic Animals 

Identifying the most challenging Produce Safety Practices (PFSP) to implement concerning 

wildlife and domestic animals reveal several key insights. Growers with coveremain5.1%) and those 

with PSA training (41.1%) reported lower affirmative response rates, indicating that managing wildlife 

and domestic animals remains a significant challenge despite having access to resources and training 

(Table 16). This contrasts with growers without coverage (47.4%) and those without PSA training 

(41.3%), who also struggled but to a lesser extent. 

The lower implementation rates in the "Covered" and "PSA Training" groups suggest that even with 

support and education, addressing issues related to wildlife and domestic animals remain complex. 

This complexity often arises from the unpredictable nature of wildlife and difficulties in managing 

domestic animals, which can hinder effective compliance with safety practices (Gupta et al., 2023).  

The data show similar challenges between growers with no organic practices (41.2%) and 

those using organic practices or certified (40.7%). This indicates that managing wildlife and domestic 



36 

 

 

animals is a broad issue not significantly influenced by the type of practices being followed. 

Furthermore, lower-income growers (45.5%) faced more difficulties compared to those in the middle-

income bracket (43.1%) and the highest-income group (33.6%). Financial constraints may limit 

resources and strategies for managing these challenges effectively (Jobbs, 2003) .  

Overall, these findings highlight that managing wildlife and domestic animals remains a challenging 

aspect of PFSP, influenced by factors such as coverage, training, and income. Addressing these 

challenges may require more specialized strategies and resources. 

Table 16  

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement 

Category  Yes  No  n 

Covered (A) 0.351 0.649 205 

PSA training (B) 0.411 0.589 355 

    

Not covered (B) 0.474 0.526 196 

No PSA training (A) 0.413 0.587 46 

    

No organic practice (A) 0.412 0.588 320 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.407 0.593 81 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.455 0.545 132 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.431 0.569 153 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.336 0.664 116 

Note. Reason: Wildlife and domestic animals. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. 

Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

Worker Health and Hygiene Training 

Worker health and hygiene training, focused on the challenges of implementing Produce 

Safety Practices (PFSP) related to worker health and hygiene training, revealed several important 

trends. Growers with coverage (44.4%) and those with PSA training (36.9%) reported significant 

difficulties, indicating that maintaining effective health and hygiene training is challenging even with 

these resources. This suggests that comprehensive training programs for worker health and hygiene 

can be particularly complex to implement. Growers without PSA training (39.1%) and those not 



37 

 

 

covered (29.6%) faced even greater challenges, with the non-covered group showing the lowest 

implementation rate (Table 17). This highlights how the absence of coverage and training severely 

impacts the ability to effectively implement these practices.  The lack of proper training and resources 

often leads to lower compliance rates and increased difficulties in maintaining safety standards (Leape 

et al., 2006).  

The data also showed that growers with no organic practices (37.8%) faced similar challenges 

as those using organic practices or certified (34.6%), suggesting that the issue of worker health and 

hygiene training is consistent across different practice types. Additionally, lower-income growers 

(31.8%) struggled more compared to those in middle-income (39.9%) and high-income groups 

(39.7%). Financial limitations can restrict access to effective training programs and resources. Overall, 

these findings underscore that worker health and hygiene training remains a challenging aspect of 

PFSP implementation, influenced by coverage, training, and income. Addressing these challenges 

requires enhanced support and resources (Adalja y Lichtenberg, 2018). 

Table 17 

Question 3 Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement 

Note. Reason: Worker health and hygiene training. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety 
Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

 

Category  Yes   No  n 

Covered (A) 0.444 0.556 205 

PSA training (B) 0.369 0.631 355 

    

No PSA training (A) 0.391 0.609 46 

Not covered (B) 0.296 0.704 196 

    

No organic practice (A) 0.378 0.622 320 

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.346 0.654 81 

    

Under $30,160 (A) 0.318 0.682 132 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.399 0.601 153 

Above $603,202 (C) 0.397 0.603 116 



38 

 

 

Question 4 What Barriers Are Growers Facing? 

Covered and not covered 

The barriers growers faced in implementing Produce Safety Practices (PFSP) under the FSMA-

PSR highlight several key challenges. For growers with coverage (i.e., those whose farms were covered 

under the FSMA-PSR), the primary barriers included time (45.4%) and money (22.9%). These barriers 

were more prominent compared to growers without coverage, who reported time (25.9%) and money 

(18.8%) as significant challenges (Table 18). The challenge related to practice-specific knowledge was 

voted by (10.4%) of covered growers versus (7.1%) of non-covered growers, indicating a slightly 

greater issue among those with coverage. Similarly, mindset issues such as confidence and motivation 

were reported by (17.1%) of covered growers compared to (11.7%) of non-covered growers, 

suggesting that mental and motivational factors also play a role.  

Access to training and education was (11.7%) of covered growers and (9.4%) of non-covered growers, 

showing a modest challenge. Barriers such as awaiting final regulation (0.4% vs. 1.9%) and changing 

buyer expectations (3.8% vs. 1.5%) were less significant. These findings suggest that time and money 

are major barriers for both groups, with additional challenges related to mindset and practice-specific 

knowledge. Addressing these issues may require tailored support and resources to improve PFSP 

implementation.  

Table 18 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? 

 
Covered, n Not covered, n Covered, % Not covered, % 

1 - Money 55 50 22.9 
 

18.8 
 

2 - Time 109 69 45.4 
 

25.9 
 

3 - Practice specific knowledge 25 19 10.4 7.1 

4 - Mindset (confidence, motivation) 41 31 17.1 11.7 



39 

 

 

 
Covered, n Not covered, n Covered, % Not covered, % 

5 - Access to training/education 28 25 11.7 9.4 

6 - Awaiting final regulation 1 5 0.4 1.9 

7 - Changing buyer expectations 9 4 3.8 1.5 

8 - N/A 36 65 15.0 24.4 

No Response 42 86 17.5 32.3 

Note. Category covered, not covered. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR.  

PSA and No PSA Training 

Growers with PSA training (i.e., those who have undergone Produce Safety Alliance training) 

identified time (35.7%) and money (21.2%) as significant barriers. In contrast, growers without PSA 

training reported time (31.9%) and money (18.1%) as their primary challenges (Table 19).  

The challenge related to practice-specific knowledge was reported by 9.7% of non-PSA trained 

growers and 8.5% of PSA-trained growers, indicating that while it was a notable issue, it was less 

significant compared to time and financial constraints. Mindset issues such as confidence and 

motivation were cited by 6.9% of non-PSA trained growers and 15.4% of PSA-trained growers, 

suggesting that mindset challenges were more pronounced among those with formal training.  

Access to training and education was reported by 13.9% of non-PSA trained growers and 9.9% of PSA-

trained growers, reflecting a moderate barrier. Other barriers, such as awaiting final regulation (1.4% 

vs. 1.2%) and changing buyer expectations (0% vs. 3.0%), were relatively minor. The “N/A” category 

showed that 15.3% of non-PSA trained growers and 20.7% of PSA-trained growers did not identify any 

barriers. Notably, the no-response rate was higher among non-PSA trained growers (36.1%) compared 

to PSA-trained growers (23.5%).  

 

 

 

 

 



40 

 

 

Table 19 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? 

Choice No PSA 
training, n 

PSA training, 
n 

No PSA training 
(%) 

PSA training 
(%) 

1 - Money 13 92 18.1 21.2 
2 - Time 23 155 31.9 35.7 
3 - Practice specific knowledge 7 37 9.7 8.5 
4 - Mindset (confidence, motivation) 5 67 6.9 15.4 
5 - Access to training/education 10 43 13.9 9.9 
6 - Awaiting final regulation 1 5 1.4 1.2 
7 - Changing buyer expectations 0 13 0.0 3.0 
8 - N/A 11 90 15.3 20.7 
No Response 26 102 36.1 23.5 

Note. Category PSA training, No PSA training. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. 

Organic and No Organic Practices 

Growers who do not use organic practices reported time (35.3%) and money (20.9%) as their 

primary barriers, reflecting the significant impact of these factors on their ability to implement safety 

practices. In contrast, growers using organic practices or certified systems reported similar challenges, 

with time (34.6%) and money (20.2%) also being major issues. Practice-specific knowledge was 

reported equally by both groups, at (8.7%), indicating that this barrier does not differ significantly 

between those using organic practices and those who do not. Mindset issues, such as confidence and 

motivation, were cited by (13.2%) of non-organic growers and 18.3% of organic growers, suggesting 

that challenges are somewhat more common among those who use organic practices.  

Access to training and education was noted as a barrier by 10.0% of non-organic growers and (12.5%) 

of those using organic practices, indicating a moderate challenge for both groups. Minor barriers 

included awaiting final regulation (1.2% vs. 1.0%) and changing buyer expectations (2.7% vs. 1.9%), 

reflecting that these issues are less significant overall (Table 20).   

 

 



41 

 

 

Table 20 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? 

Choice No organic 
practice, n 

Use organic 
practices or 
certified, n 

No organic 
practice, % 

Use organic 
practices or 
certified, % 

1 - Money 84 21 20.9 20.2 
2 - Time 142 36 35.3 34.6 
3 - Practice specific 
knowledge 

35 9 8.7 8.7 

4 - Mindset (confidence, 
motivation) 

53 19 13.2 18.3 

5 - Access to 
training/education 

40 13 10.0 12.5 

6 - Awaiting final 
regulation 

5 1 1.2 1.0 

7 - Changing buyer 
expectations 

11 2 2.7 1.9 

8 - N/A 79 22 19.7 21.2 
No Response 99 29 24.6 27.9 

Note. Category Use organic practices, No organic practices.  

Income Breakers  

In Table 21, growers with total farm earnings under $30,160 reported time (22.0%) and money 

(21.4%) as the primary barriers to implementing safety practices. In comparison, those with earnings 

between $30,160 and $603,202 identified time (37.1%) and money (18.6%) as their main challenges. 

Growers with earnings above $603,202 noted time (50.8%) and money (23.1%) as their most 

significant obstacles. The challenge of practice-specific knowledge was reported by 8.2% of growers 

with earnings under $30,160, 7.2% of those between $30,160 and $603,202, and 11.5% of those with 

earnings above $603,202, suggesting that higher-income growers face more issues related to this 

barrier (Imami et al., 2021).  

Mindset issues, such as confidence and motivation, affected 11.5% of growers with lower 

earnings, 11.9% of those in the middle-income bracket, and 21.5% of higher-income growers, 

indicating a greater prevalence of mindset-related challenges among wealthier growers. Other 



42 

 

 

barriers, including awaiting final regulation and changing buyer expectations, were minor across all 

income levels. 

Table 21 

Question 4 What barriers are growers facing? 

Note. Category Income breakers. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

Question 5 To Gain Market Access, Have You Implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? 

Growers with farms covered under FSMA-PSR reported a (47.8%) implementation rate of 

PFSP, whereas those with PSA training had a (38.7%) implementation rate. Growers without PSA 

training had a significantly lower rate of (26.1%). This indicates that PSA training positively influences 

PFSP implementation, though the FSMA-PSR coverage also plays a crucial role. 

Among growers with no organic practices, (36.8%) implemented PFSP compared to 39.0% of those 

using organic or certified practices as can been seen on Table 22. This small difference suggests an 

advantage in PFSP implementation for those involved in organic practices.  

Income level also impacted PFSP implementation. Growers with earnings under $30,160 had a (27.1%) 

implementation rate, those with earnings between $30,160 and $603,202 had a (35.1%) rate, while 

growers with earnings above $603,202 had a notably higher rate of (50.8%). Higher-income growers 

 
Choice 

Under 
$30,000 

Between 
$30,000- 
$603,000 

Above 
$603,000 

Under 
$30,000 

Between 
$30,000- 
$603,000 % 

Above 
$603,000% 

1 - Money 39 36 30 0.214 0.186 0.231 
2 - Time 40 72 66 0.220 0.371 0.508 
3 - Practice specific 
knowledge 

15 14 15 0.082 0.072 0.115 

4 - Mindset (confidence, 
motivation) 

21 23 28 0.115 0.119 0.215 

5 - Access to 
training/education 

18 15 20 0.099 0.077 0.154 

6 - Awaiting final 
regulation 

2 4 0 0.011 0.021 0.000 

7 - Changing buyer 
expectations 

2 3 8 0.011 0.015 0.062 

8 - N/A 51 34 16 0.280 0.175 0.123 



43 

 

 

are more likely to implement PFSP, potentially due to better financial capacity and higher market 

demands. 

Table 22 

Question 5 To gain market access, have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? 

Category Yes No n  

Covered (A) 0.478 0.191 209  

PSA training (B) 0.387 0.291 357  

     
    

 No PSA training (A) 0.261 0.391 46  

     

     
    

 No organic practice (A) 0.368 0.308 321  

Use organic practices or certified (B) 0.39 0.28 82  
    

 
Under $30,160 (A) 0.271 0.473 129  

Between $30,160 - $603,202 (B) 0.351 0.318 154  

Above $603,202 (C) 0.508 0.1 120  

Note. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA-PSR. PSA training: Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -

$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings.  

Comparison Between US and International Countries 

Question 1. Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices 

In the "Covered" category (FSMA-PSR coverage), there is a clear difference between the 

responses of domestic (98%) and international (36%) producers who are not covered by the 

regulation. The probability associated with this difference is very low (<.0001), indicating a statistically 

significant difference. This suggests that the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has a strong 

impact on domestic producers, leading to higher adoption of food safety practices. International 

producers, not required to comply with FSMA, may not feel the same regulatory pressure to 

implement these practices, explaining the lower adoption rate (Eruaga, 2024). In contrast, in the 

categories of PSA Training and Organic, no significant differences are observed between domestic and 

international producers (1.0000 and 0.8834, respectively). This indicates that producers who receive 

training from the Produce Safety Alliance or practice organic farming tend to implement food safety 



44 

 

 

practices consistently, regardless of their location as shown on Table 23. These results suggest that 

training and organic practices foster a strong and uniform food safety culture, without local 

regulations playing as critical a role as in the case of producers covered by FSMA (Bugingo et al., 2024). 

Regarding the income category, no significant differences were observed in the adoption of food 

safety practices between the different income groups, both domestically and internationally (Pr > X2 

= 1.0000 across several categories). This suggests that the implementation of these practices does not 

depend on the size or income level of the farm, indicating that food safety is a consistent priority for 

farms regardless of their economic capacity. This finding is important as it counters the assumption 

that smaller or lower-income farms might have fewer resources to adopt these practices (Humphrey, 

2017).   

In the "Covered" category (FSMA-PSR coverage), there is a clear difference between the responses of 

domestic (98%) and international (36%) producers who are not covered by the regulation. The 

probability associated with this difference is very low (<.0001), indicating a statistically significant 

difference. This suggests that the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has a strong impact on 

domestic producers, leading to higher adoption of food safety practices. International producers, not 

required to comply with FSMA, may not feel the same regulatory pressure to implement these 

practices, explaining the lower adoption rate (Eruaga, 2024). In contrast, in the categories of PSA 

Training and Organic, no significant differences are observed between domestic and international 

producers (1.0000 and 0.8834, respectively). This indicates that producers who receive training from 

the Produce Safety Alliance or practice organic farming tend to implement food safety practices 

consistently, regardless of their location as shown on Table 23. These results suggest that training and 

organic practices foster a strong and uniform food safety culture, without local regulations playing as 

critical a role as in the case of producers covered by FSMA (Bugingo et al., 2024). Regarding the income 

category, no significant differences were observed in the adoption of food safety practices between 

the different income groups, both domestically and internationally (Pr > X2 = 1.0000 across several 



45 

 

 

categories). This suggests that the implementation of these practices does not depend on the size or 

income level of the farm, indicating that food safety is a consistent priority for farms regardless of 

their economic capacity. This finding is important as it counters the assumption that smaller or lower-

income farms might have fewer resources to adopt these practices (Humphrey, 2017).  

Table 23  

Question 1. Have you implemented Produce Food Safety Practices? 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

Covered under FSMA 

 

Yes 98% a 98% a 1.0000 

No 92% a 36% b <.0001 

 

PSA Training 

Yes 95% a 95% a 1.0000 

No  96% a 93% a 0.8273 

 

 

Organic Practices 

Yes 94% a 92% a 0.8834 

No 95% a 95% a  1.0000 

 

 

Annual gross revenue 

<30K 90% a 89% a 0.9404 

30-60K 96% a 96% a 1.0000 

>603K 99% a 99% a 1.0000 

Note. Pr>X2: A significant level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis between US and International on each category using Chi Square 

Test; a-b letters indicate significant differences between each category. Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA. Produce Safety 

Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

 

Question2. Reasons Why you Implemented Produce Safety Practices 

Meet FSMA Regulations 

In the "Covered" category, the responses of domestic (86%) and international (58%) 

producers 



46 

 

 

show  a statistically significant difference (0.0196). This suggests that being covered by FSMA 

regulations is a strong motivator for implementing food safety practices among domestic producers.  

A similar  significant difference is seen in the "Not Covered" group, with domestic producers (60%) 

implementing food safety practices at a higher rate than international producers (27%), even without 

regulatory pressure (0.0004). This indicates that, even outside the regulatory scope, domestic 

producers may feel greater responsibility or market pressure to adopt safety practices. The "No 

Organic" category also shows a significant difference (0.0271), with domestic producers (71%) 

implementing food safety  

practices more frequently than international producers (47%). This suggests that conventional farming  

systems in the U.S. might be more aligned with food safety regulations or market demands, regardless  

Similarly, income levels show no significant differences between domestic and international 

producers, particularly in the higher income brackets. Both "Between $30,160 - $603,202" and "Above 

$603,202" categories display identical rates (78-79%) for implementing safety practices (0.9364), 

implying that financial capacity is not a decisive factor in this context. Lower-income producers 

("Under $30,160") also show no significant difference (0.1432), though the trend suggests slightly 

lower implementation rates among international producers of organic certification (Afatsawu y Kheni, 

2022). In the "Organic" category, the difference between domestic (81%) and international (58%) 

producers approaches significance (Pr > X2 = 0.0511). While not statistically significant at the 0.05 

level, it indicates a trend where organic producers in the U.S. might be more influenced by regulatory 

or market forces than their international counterparts, possibly due to consumer demand for organic 

products being tied to rigorous safety standards  

(Organic Produce Network, 2024).In categories like PSA Training and income brackets, there are no   

significant differences in responses between domestic and international producers. For PSA-traines 



47 

 

 

producers, both domestic (76%) and international (65%) producers show similar motivations for 

implementing food safety practices (0.3543), indicating that training is likely to create a consistent 

emphasis on food safety across borders.  

The lack of significance in the "No PSA Training" group (0.3023) suggests that, without training, 

producers may not perceive as strong a need for compliance, and this perception does not change by  

the location as can be seen on Table 24. 

Similarly, income levels show no significant differences between domestic and international 

producers, particularly in the higher income brackets. Both "Between $30,160 - $603,202" and "Above 

$603,202" categories display identical rates (78-79%) for implementing safety practices (0.9364), 

implying that financial capacity is not a decisive factor in this context. Lower-income producers 

("Under $30,160") also show no significant difference (0.1432), though the trend suggests slightly 

lower implementation rates among international producers.  

Table 24 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

Covered under FSMA 

Yes  86% a 58% a <.0001 

No 60% b 27% b 0.0004 
 
 
 

PSA Training 

Yes 76% a 65% a 0.3543 

No 52% b 42% b 0.3023 
 
 

Organic practices 

Yes 81% a 58% a 0.0511 

No  71% b 47% b 0.0271 
 
 
 

 

Annual gross revenue 
<30K 60% a 45% a 0.1432 



48 

 

 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

30-60K 78% b 79% b 0.9364 

>603K 78% b 79% b 0.9364 

Note. Pr>X2: A significant level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis between US and International on each category using Chi Square 

Test. a-b letters indicate significant differences between each category.  Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA. Produce Safety 

Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

Maintain Market Access 

Several categories show no significant differences between U.S. and international producers. 

In the "Covered" category, both U.S. and international producers report the same percentage (72%) 

for implementing food safety practices to maintain market access, with no significant difference 

(1.0000). Similarly, in the "Not Covered" category, although U.S. producers (60%) implemented 

practices slightly more than international producers (46%), this difference is not statistically significant 

(0.1739. 

For the "PSA Training" group, there is no significant difference between U.S. (67%) and 

international (59%) producers (0.4760). This shows that training programs have a similar impact across 

regions, emphasizing the global nature of food safety standards (Altomonte, 2024). Likewise, "No PSA 

Training" producers exhibit no significant differences (0.7868), underscoring that, despite the lack of 

formal training. The "Organic" category approaches significance (0.0944), with 74% of U.S. organic 

producers implementing food safety practices, compared to 55% of international organic producers 

(Table 25). This may reflect stronger consumer expectations and regulatory pressures within the U.S. 

organic market (Kim & Garcia, 2021), but further research would be necessary to confirm this trend. 

Significant differences are evident in the "Under $30,160" and "Above $603,202" income brackets. In 

the "Under $30,160" group, U.S. producers (79%) are significantly more likely to implement practices 

compared to international producers (43%) (0.0011).  



49 

 

 

Conversely, in the "Above $603,202" group, international producers (76%) are significantly more likely 

to implement food safety practices than U.S. producers (51%) (0.0265). This might be explained by 

international producers' need to comply with food safety standards to participate in global markets.  

Table 25 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices? 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

Covered under FSMA 

Yes 72% a 72% a 1.0000 

No 60% b 46% b 0.1739 

 

 

PSA Training 

Yes  67% a 59% a 0.4760 

No 60% a 63% a 0.7868 

 

 

Organic practices 

Yes 74% a 55% a 0.0944 

No  70% a 60% a 0.3805 

 

 

Annual gross revenue 

<30K 79% a 43% a 0.0011 

30-60K 57% b 61% b 0.7127 

>603K 51% b 76% b 0.0265 

Note. Pr>X2: A significant level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis between US and International on each category using Chi Square 

Test. a-b letters indicate significant differences between each category.  Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA. Produce Safety 

Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

 

Personal Commitment  

In the "Covered" category, 48% of U.S. producers and 40% of international producers cited 

personal commitment, with no significant difference (0.3938). This suggests that the value placed on 

food safety transcends regulatory frameworks. For the "Not Covered" category, both U.S. (75%) and 

international (66%) producers showed no significant difference (0.4485), indicating that personal 



50 

 

 

commitment to food safety is similar among producers regardless of their regulatory coverage. In the 

"PSA Training" and "No PSA Training" categories, no significant differences were noted (0.9276 and 

0.8638, respectively), suggesting that training does not significantly alter the level of personal 

commitment among producers.   

The "Organic" category also demonstrated no significant differences (0.4760), further 

supporting the notion that personal commitment is a universal driver among organic producers (Table 

26). In income brackets, U.S. producers in the "Under $30,160" category (79%) and international 

producers (77%) showed no significant difference (Pr > X2 = 0.8728), reflecting a shared commitment 

to food safety across income levels.  

Table 26 

Question2. Reasons why you implemented Produce Safety Practices? 

Category US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

Covered 48% a 40% a 0.3938 

Not Covered 75% b 66% b 0.4485 
 
 

PSA Training 61% a 60% a 0.9276 

No PSA Training 69% a 67% a 0.8638 
 
 

Organic 67% a 59% a 0.4760 

No Organic 60% a 59% a 0.9270 
 
 

Under $30,160 79% a 77% a 0.8728 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 57% b 54% b 0.7758 

Above $603,202 51% b 51% b 1.0000 

Note. Pr>X2: A significant level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis between US and International on each category using Chi Square 

Test. a-b letters indicate significant differences between each category.  Covered: farms' covered status under the FSMA. Produce Safety 

Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 



51 

 

 

Record Keeping  

In the "PSA Training" category, 61% of U.S. producers reported record keeping as challenging 

compared to 35% of international producers, with a significant difference (0.0080). This disparity 

suggests that producers who received formal training may still struggle more than their international 

counterparts, possibly due to differences in regulatory (Table 27).  For the "Organic" category, 65% of 

U.S. organic producers found record keeping challenging, while only 31% of international organic 

producers reported the same, resulting in a significant difference (0.0005). This may reflect the more 

stringent documentation requirements in the U.S. for organic certification.  

In the "No Organic" category, U.S. producers faced challenges (58%) compared to 37% of international 

producers, also significant (0.0312). This indicates that organic status influences the perception of 

record-keeping challenges differently across regions.  

Income levels also show significant challenges. Producers earning "Under $30,160" faced challenges 

(58% U.S. vs. 31% international), with a significant difference (0.0042). Similarly, for those in the 

"Between $30,160 - $603,202" category, 57% of U.S. producers reported challenges compared to 36% 

of international producers (0.0233). For those "Above $603,202," 64% of U.S. producers found it 

challenging versus 40% internationally (0.0186). These findings suggest that income levels may 

influence the capacity to implement effective record-keeping practices.  

Table 27 

Question 3: Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement? 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

Covered under FSMA 

Yes 58% a 55% a 0.7778 

No 61% a 47% a 0.1779 
 
 

PSA Training 
Yes  61% a 35% a 0.0080 



52 

 

 

Category Responses US (%) International (%) Pr > X2 

No 49% a 41% a 0.3991 
 
 
 

Organic practices 

Yes 65% a 31% a 0.0005 

No  58% a 37% a 0.0312 
 
 

Annual gross revenue 

<30K 58% a 31% a 0.0042 

30-60K 57% a 36% a 0.0233 

>603K 64% a 40% a 0.0186 

Note. Reason: Record Keeping. Pr>X2: A significant level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analysis between US and International on each 

category using Chi Square Test. a-b letters indicate significant differences between each category.  Covered: farms' covered status under 

the FSMA. Produce Safety Alliance. Under $30,160, Between $30,160 -$603,202: Above $603,202: total farm earnings. 

 

Wildlife and Domestic Animals.   

In the "Covered" category, 36% of U.S. producers reported challenges, while 43% of international 

producers felt similarly, with no significant difference (0.4310). This suggests that the challenges posed 

by wildlife management are similar for producers in both regions (Table 28). 

In the "Not Covered" category, 48% of U.S. producers faced challenges compared to 55% of 

international producers, also not significant (0.4904). Regarding the "PSA Training" category, 42% of 

U.S. producers found the practice challenging, while 41% of international producers reported the 

same, showing no significant difference (0.9126). This suggests that training alone may not effectively 

address the complexities of managing wildlife and domestic animals (Cornell CALS, 2024).  

In the "Organic" category, 40% of U.S. organic producers reported challenges, compared to 41% of 

international producers, with no significant difference (0.9115). For "No Organic," 42% of U.S. 

producers faced challenges compared to 41% internationally (0.9126). This consistency indicates that 

organic status does not greatly influence perceptions of wildlife management challenges. 

 



53 

 

 

Table 28 

Question 3: Produce Safety Practice that has been the most challenging to implement. 

Category US (%) Internacional (%) Pr > X2 

Covered 36% a 43% a 0.4310 

Not Covered 48% a 55% a 0.4904 
 
 

PSA Training 42% a 41% a 0.9126 

No PSA Training 44% a 41% a 0.7449 
 
 

Organic 40% a 41% a 0.9115 

No Organic 42% a 41% a 0.9126 
 
 

Under $30,160 50% a 46% a 0.6831 

Between $30,160 - $603,202 43% a 43% a 1.0000 

Above $6