Does Canada Need Mandatory HACCP? Evidence from the Ontario Food Processing Sector
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".