The survey asked respondents to indicate from whom they get information about best practices for food safety and for conservation. We summarize the responses in figure 3. It should be noted that these questions were asked at the end of the survey, and the response rate is lower most likely due to survey fatigue. It is possible that respondents might not have answered these questions because they felt uncomfortable with the topic, but no concerns were raised on these questions during either phase of piloting. Respondents reported receiving information on food safety and conservation primarily from other growers , government agencies , Cooperative Extension advisors and trade associations . For information exclusively about food safety, however, more respondents rely on their buyers , third-party auditors/inspectors and trade associations than on government agencies or Cooperative Extension advisors . Furthermore, respondents with large farms were significantly more likely than respondents with small farms to rely on third-party auditors/inspectors and their buyers exclusively for food safety information . For information about conservation, conversely, Cooperative Extension and government stand out, with 57% and 55% of all respondents seeking some form of conservation information from them, respectively . There was no statistically significant difference between large and small farms for information only about conservation . The survey also asked growers to rank the factors of importance in resolving their buyers’ food safety concerns. Respondents with large farms were much more likely to rank certification more important and to rank the length of the relationship with their buyer and buyer site visits less important than were growers with small farms .

Respondents were also asked how they prefer to get information and what topics are of most use to them. On a scale of 1 to 6 useful, indoor grow rack respondents ranked in-person workshops and written guidance available either online or in paper format significantly more highly than online webinars/trainings or videos . Using a bootstrap method with case resampling to estimate 95% confidence intervals for the rankings, no significant differences were observed across crop type or farm size . Most respondents wanted information on regulatory requirements , detailed best practice guidance , what technologies and tools are available , implementation costs , and evidence of the effectiveness of tools and practices for managing food safety hazards . Around half of respondents felt that information about how to co-manage food safety and agricultural conservation , how to prepare for a food safety audit , and guidance/tools for developing good agricultural practices would be useful. Only 39% felt that information about available consulting services would be of use. No significant differences were observed across crop type or farm size.The results of our survey suggest that on farm practices for food safety that target wildlife and potentially impact natural communities and ecosystem services via vegetation and habitat removal are still used in produce agriculture in California. Past surveys of on-farm practices used by leafy greens growers in the Central Coast found that the most common practices were buffers around cropped fields and poison bait , followed by wildlife trapping and wildlife exclusion fencing . Respondents to our survey reported similar if not higher rates of use for these same practices, suggesting that practices have remained constant within the leafy greens sector over the past 6 years and that, possibly due to expanding food safety regulations, food safety pressures and practices now reach into other sectors of the produce industry, as well.

As discussed above, many of these legacy practices have not been shown to reduce food safety risk, and growing evidence points to their impacts on ecosystem services and other public goods and benefits . Nevertheless, we found that many growers still use these and similar practices, suggesting that the on-farm practices which growers perceive to be required of them do not yet reflect available scientific information. The impact of requiring on-farm practices for food safety depends upon how and by whom rules are written and enforced, and the scale of the farm. Future field-based research should address whether this difference is due to the greater resources available to large farms or to different levels of risk and oversight associated with different market channels and supply chains. Our survey suggests that food safety and conservation are practiced and interpreted differently by growers of different size and crop type. Farms in our sample with annual sales over $500,000, for example, were more likely than farms with annual sales under $500,000 to report practicing some form of animal intrusion prevention, such as fencing or trapping. However, even among farms of similar size growing similar crops, we found a wide range of variation. Rather than converging as scientific evidence and experience grow, on-farm practices for food safety are highly heterogeneous across produce agriculture in California, suggesting that either requirements, or grower interpretations of those requirements, are inconsistent. Inconsistency in real or perceived food safety pressures raises several concerns. Our results show that many growers rely on each other for both food safety and conservation information, but perceptions of practices for food safety and knowledge of regulations varied greatly among growers. Mixed messages from their peers could lead to uncertainty over legal requirements and the potential consequences of noncompliance. In the face of uncertainty, growers may take what seems to be a conservative approach by adopting wildlife deterrence and vegetated habitat removal practices that have not been scientifically shown to reduce risk.

While open-ended or flexible regulation may aim to give farmers more freedom, inconsistencies in food safety pressures can also make it more difficult to provide guidance on strategies to comanage food safety and sustainability goals. In addition, the majority of our survey respondents reported that auditors are inconsistent in their assessments. A high degree of inconsistency may make food safety requirements appear arbitrary to growers, especially if evidence is not provided along with the justification for decisions or recommendations. A significant proportion of our respondents also did not believe that food safety certification has made their products safer, despite the high importance of certification in securing access to larger buyers. Lastly, the higher the degree of inconsistency in interpreting and responding to food safety pressures, the higher the degree of difficulty for regulators — and the consuming public — to know whether the produce industry has effectively made food safer.Taken together, our findings highlight that discrepancies remain among California produce growers with respect to their access to current, relevant food safety science and other information; their perceptions of what environmental factors pose food safety risks; and how decisions are made about which practices best suit their farming context. At the very least, there is a need for greater support for outreach programs on food safety for buyers, auditors and trade associations as well as growers, particularly further guidance as to which suite of food safety practices are most effective and compatible with protection of natural resources and ecosystem services in a variety of farm settings. However, the desire for consistency must be balanced against the need for flexibility. Farms are complex and variable environments, and interpretation of food safety risks and appropriate preventive actions depends upon the particular context of a given operation. As discussed above, the FDA Produce Safety Rule acknowledges this need by providing a degree of flexibility to growing operations, but it is necessary to evaluate the extent to which that flexibility will lead to on-farm practices that actually improve safety while minimizing environmental and economic costs. Our results suggest that in some cases pressures from third-party auditors and produce buyers may lead to inconsistency in the interpretation and implementation of food safety regulations and guidance, but our survey was conducted prior to the finalization of the Produce Safety Rule. In light of this significant regulatory development since the survey was administered, additional survey and interview based research is needed to determine the extent to which growers adopt practices based on their own goals or perceived pressures from their buyers, infoor farming equipment third-party certifiers/auditors or government regulators. Future research should investigate who has the power to decide what practices are best for food safety, and whether and in what ways the distribution of decision-making authority affects the balance between consistency and flexibility. Greater alignment and collaboration between environmental and food safety science is needed to establish a more comprehensive catalogue of practices that can help growers mitigate pathogen risks while also protecting the environment and ecosystem services. A call for consistent rules and enforcement must allow a responsive flexibility in implementing food safety guidelines.

A balance is necessary. While we cannot say what that balance should be, it is apparent from our survey that any discussion of balance can only improve with better understanding of extant food safety pressures and the ways in which they are perceived and put into practice by growers. More transparent information on what practices growers adopt in the name of food safety, and why growers adopt those practices, is urgently needed. It would improve consistency and help promote food safety efficiently and without unnecessary impacts on the environment. That would benefit both farmers and consumers.One of the most common causes of fatal and nonfatal farm injuries among youth in agricultural settings is farm machinery. ATVs are commonly used in agricultural operations to apply fertilizer and chemicals, inspect livestock and crops, supervise workers, transport personnel and material, mow grass, round up livestock, and carry and tow implements. ATVs are reported as the primary source of vehicle injury for youth on farms, causing 63% of vehicle-related injuries. Despite efforts to prevent childhood injuries through engineering controls, administrative controls, application of PPE, and training, the number of ATV-related injuries among farm youth has increased 150% in recent years. And more broadly, beyond agriculture, there are over 24,000 estimated ATV-related injuries annually among youth younger than 16 years-ofage. Youth perform a wide range of tasks on farms, including operating farm machinery like tractors and ATVs. Due to physical limitations in strength and anthropometric dimensions, some work tasks could be riskier for youth than adults, thus increasing their likelihood of being injured or even killed. Several studies have shown a strong relationship between the injuries of youth and their ages, anthropometric characteristics, and developmental abilities. For example, the results of previous studies showed that youth younger than 16 are not capable of safely operating tractors or ATVs. Different recommendations exist regarding the minimum age, required physical and mental capabilities, and safety requirements for ATV operation. Those recommendations are inconsistent and may be affected by variances in state law. Also, to our knowledge, none of the reviewed recommendations are evidence-based due to a lack of quantitative and systematic information about the extent of the physical and mental mismatches between requirements for operating ATVs and youth’s capabilities. The lack of clear and consistent information may mislead young ATV riders and their parents, thus increasing the risk of injury to young operators. This study aimed to review the available ATV standards, recommendations, guidelines, regulations, and studies related to age limitations, physical and mental capabilities, safety requirements, and injuries and fatalities of youth riding ATVs on the farm. The main goal of this study is to identify the research voids and propose changes to improve current ATV guidelines. Results of this study will contribute to the scientific basis for developing regulatory and advisory guidelines for youth operating ATVs on farms. We conducted a systematic review30 of the literature and identified relevant articles, guidelines, standards, state laws, and recommendations on age limitations, physical and mental capabilities, safety requirements, and injuries and fatalities of children riding ATVs on farms. The literature review procedures included: conducting a literature search, selection of relevant sources using inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting information from each source, and consolidation of the results. These two search engines include different types of sources, such as conference proceedings, books, reports, guidelines, and standards. Also, Google Scholar can search the full text of articles rather than just the citation, abstract, and tagging information in the PubMed and Web of Science search. Five separate searches were performed to incorporate age limitations, physical and mental capabilities, safety requirements, and injuries and fatalities of youth riding ATVs on farms.The next step was the selection of relevant sources using inclusion and exclusion criteria.