A lot of fresh produce safety verification was established in the absence of regulations. After dealing with fallout following outbreaks, food service and retail buyers started setting and enforcing standards for their suppliers. Between self-audits or declarations, regulatory inspections, buyer visits and third-party audits there’s a lot of data gathered on many factors – some risky, some not so much. 

Putting it all together is an exercise in exploring jurisdiction, laws, industry standards and vendor requirements. It’s a confusing patchwork, even for those in the supply chain. One of the standards, increasingly pointed to as a cost-effective option for small and medium-sized farmers, is found in the USDA GAPs audit.

In an attempt to pull back the curtain on the auditing process, Lancaster Online details a mock USDA GAPs audit at a Pennsylvania farm.

Most people, farmers included, do not like being held up to scrutiny. But the Woerner family in Adams County offered their operation up to just that last week. They allowed Brenda Sheaffer, a state Department of Agriculture inspector, to conduct a public mock audit at their packing house. The walk-through, organized by Penn State Extension, was designed to help growers see an operation through an inspector’s eyes.

No birds were nesting in the rafters, and the roof did not have any glass skylights that could break and fall into the food when packing time comes around. So far, so good.

“Wood cannot be sanitized,” she said. “You can clean it, but you can’t sanitize it.” Instead, the surfaces should be metal or plastic, or they could be coated with food-grade paint, she said. Wood is a touchy subject because many farmers transport their fruit in wooden crates. Even though it is a common practice, those wooden crates can lead to a deduction on the audit, though the crates by themselves will not cause the farm to fail the inspection, Sheaffer said.