Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ollinger, Michael
  • Muth, Mary K.
  • Karns, Shawn A.
  • Choice, Zanethia
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Food safety technology can increase a company’s capacity to prevent a foodborne contamination. A food safety audit—a quality control tool in which an auditor observes whether a plant’s processing practices and technologies are compatible with good food safety practices—can indicate how effectively food safety technology is being used. Fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and other major customers of meat and poultry processing plants conduct their own audits or hire auditors to assess the soundness of a plant’s processing operation. Meat and poultry plants can also audit themselves as a way to help maintain process control. In this report, we document the extent of food safety audits in meat and poultry processing plants. We also examine the associations between the use of audits and plant size, firm structure, and food safety technology use. Results show that larger plants, plants subject to food safety audits, and plants that are part of a multiplant firm use more food safety technology than other plants. Plants subject to both plant-hired and customer-hired audits had greater technology use than single (plant- or customer-hired) audit plants.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/117989
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service in its series Economic Information Bulletin with number 117989.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Oct 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:uersib:117989

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 1400 Independence Ave.,SW, Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20250-1800
    Phone: 202-694-5050
    Fax: 202-694-5700
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Meat and poultry processing; safety standards; product recalls; food safety technology; food safety audits; Agribusiness; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Industrial Organization; Livestock Production/Industries;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    2. Ollinger, Michael & Moore, Danna L. & Chandran, Ram, 2004. "Meat And Poultry Plants' Food Safety Investments: Survey Findings," Technical Bulletins 33559, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Ollinger, Michael & Mueller, Valerie, 2003. "Managing For Safer Food: The Economics Of Sanitation And Process Controls In Meat And Poultry Plants," Agricultural Economics Reports 33975, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Jensen, Helen H. & Roberts, T. & Unnevehr, Laurian J., 1995. "Tracking Foodborne Pathogens from Farm to Table: Data Needs to Evaluate Control Options," Staff General Research Papers 10440, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Golan, Elise H. & Roberts, Tanya & Salay, Elisabete & Caswell, Julie A. & Ollinger, Michael & Moore, Danna L., 2004. "Food Safety Innovation In The United States: Evidence From The Meat Industry," Agricultural Economics Reports 34083, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Ollinger, Michael & Moore, Danna L., 2009. "The Interplay of Regulation and Marketing Incentives in Providing Food Safety," Economic Research Report 55837, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Michael R. Thomsen & Andrew M. McKenzie, 2001. "Market Incentives for Safe Foods: An Examination of Shareholder Losses from Meat and Poultry Recalls," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 526-538.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uersib:117989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.