IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v54y2006i4p443-459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Canada Need Mandatory HACCP? Evidence from the Ontario Food Processing Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Deepananda Herath
  • Spencer Henson

Abstract

The likelihood of the voluntary adoption of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) among food processing firms is evaluated by exploring the perceptions of food safety managers with respect to a range of possible motivating factors including the exogenous pressure to adopt HACCP, efficacy of existing food safety controls, perception that HACCP will improve the firm's food safety controls, relative costs and benefits of HACCP implementation, impact of HACCP on business performance, and the nature of barriers to implementing HACCP. While market‐based factors exert substantial pressure on firms to adopt HACCP, many food safety managers perceive that their existing food safety controls are adequate to meet existing food safety demands. While good manufacturing practice (GMP) and traceability are considered the most efficacious food safety controls, HACCP is most often perceived to provide intangible and “incidental” benefits that are often not recognized by food safety managers a priori. An important barrier to the voluntary adoption of HACCP is the perceived questionable appropriateness of HACCP for enhancing food safety controls, while financial constraints can be an absolute barrier to implementation. The results suggest a number of potential strategies through which the implementation of HACCP might be facilitated and enhanced through cooperation and coordination between regulators and industry organizations. La probabilité que les entreprises de transformation des aliments adoptent volontairement le système HACCP (analyse des risques et maîtrise des points critiques) a étéévaluée en examinant les perceptions des gestionnaires de sécurité alimentaire envers certains facteurs de motivation possibles tels que la pression exogène, l'efficacité des moyens de contrôle existants, la perception voulant que le système HACCP améliore le contrôle de la sécurité alimentaire de l'entreprise, les coûts et les avantages relatifs de la mise en place du système, les répercussions du système sur la performance de l'entreprise et la nature des obstacles à la mise en place du système. Bien que des facteurs de marché exercent d'importantes pressions pour que les entreprises adoptent ce système, de nombreux gestionnaires de sécurité alimentaire estiment que leurs moyens de contrôle existants répondent adéquatement aux demandes actuelles de sécurité alimentaire. Bien que les bonnes pratiques de fabrication (BPF) et la traçabilité soient considérées comme les moyens de contrôle de la sécurité alimentaire les plus efficaces, le système HACCP est le plus souvent perçu comme procurant des avantages intangibles et ≪accessoires≫ qui, souvent, ne sont pas reconnus a priori par les gestionnaires de sécurité alimentaire. La pertinence discutable perçue du système HACCP comme moyen d'améliorer le contrôle de la sécurité alimentaire constitue un important obstacle à l'adoption volontaire du système, bien que les contraintes financières peuvent être un obstacle absolu à sa mise en place. Les résultats suggèrent un certain nombre de stratégies potentielles grâce auxquelles la mise en place du système pourrait être facilitée et améliorée par la collaboration et la coordination entre les organismes de réglementation et les entreprises de l'industrie de la transformation des aliments.

Suggested Citation

  • Deepananda Herath & Spencer Henson, 2006. "Does Canada Need Mandatory HACCP? Evidence from the Ontario Food Processing Sector," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 443-459, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:54:y:2006:i:4:p:443-459
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00060.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00060.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00060.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nathalia Granja & Pedro Domingues & Mónica Cabecinhas & Dominik Zimon & Paulo Sampaio, 2021. "ISO 22000 Certification: Diffusion in Europe," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Donald Larson & Will Martin & Sebnem Sahin & Marinos Tsigas, 2016. "Agricultural Policies and Trade Paths in Turkey," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1194-1224, August.
    3. Henson, Spencer & Masakure, Oliver & Cranfield, John, 2011. "Do Fresh Produce Exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa Benefit from GlobalGAP Certification?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 375-386, March.
    4. Jesús Hernández-Rubio & Juan C. Pérez-Mesa & Laura Piedra-Muñoz & Emilio Galdeano-Gómez, 2018. "Determinants of Food Safety Level in Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers’ Supply Chain: Evidence from Spain and France," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Ragasa, Catherine & Thornsbury, Suzanne & Joshi, Satish, 2013. "Sustainability of EU Food Safety Certification: A survival analysis of firm decisions:," IFPRI discussion papers 1296, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Veeman, Michele & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2009. "Canadian Consumers’ Assessments of Potential Risks and Benefits of Plant Molecular Farming and Potential Food Industry Implications," Consumer and Market Demand Network Papers 310298, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:54:y:2006:i:4:p:443-459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.