We are searching data for your request:
FSANZ has reviewed food safety measures for primary production and processing of berries, leafy vegetables and melons. Based on our assessment of possible options 1. In a second round of public consultation, FSANZ is calling for comment on all four options including the preferred approach to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standard Code to include a primary production and processing standard for each of the three sectors, and introduce non-regulatory measures in collaboration with industry to assist businesses to understand and comply with the standards. Consultation regulation impact statement PDF kb word kb. We are seeking feedback from all interested individuals and organisations. The period for comment closes on 9 February
WATCH RELATED VIDEO: RISK ASSESSMENT/RISK FACTOR/DETERMINANT/INDICATOR/PREDICTOR/MARKER/LANG u0026 TONETTI MODEL/DR. ANKITAContent:
- Risk Assessment Forms for Landscape Gardening
- Expert agriculture and horticulture support
- Compliance and risk based sampling for horticulture exports
- [Professional risk assessment for modern pesticides during their application in the horticulture]
- Primary production and processing standard: High risk horticulture
- Risk Assessment
- 8 Hidden Dangers of Gardening
- On-farm Food Safety
- Horticulture - Site Risk Assessment
- Introduction to Safety in Landscaping and Horticulture Services for Trainers and Supervisors
Weed Risk Assessment WRA methods for evaluating invasiveness in plants have evolved rapidly in the last two decades.
Many WRA tools exist, but none were specifically designed to screen ornamental plants prior to being released into the environment. To be accepted as a tool to evaluate ornamental plants for the nursery industry, it is critical that a WRA tool accurately predicts non-invasiveness without falsely categorizing them as invasive. We evaluated the 56 WRA questions by screening 21 known invasive and 14 known non-invasive ornamental plants.
After statistically comparing the predictability of each question and the frequency the question could be answered for both invasive and non-invasive species, we eliminated questions that provided no predictive power, were irrelevant in our current model, or could not be answered reliably at a high enough percentage.
We also combined many similar questions. The final 19 remaining PRE questions were further tested for accuracy using 56 additional known invasive plants and 36 known non-invasive ornamental species. We conclude that the PRE tool should not only provide growers with a method to accurately screen their current stock and potential new introductions, but also increase the probability of the tool being accepted for use by the industry as the basis for a nursery certification program. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The nursery and landscape industry has introduced over 50, ornamental species to the US [ 1 — 2 ].
The number of cultivars in the North America has increased rapidly from 29, in to , in [ 3 ]. Despite the large number of plant introductions, only a small percentage of them between 0. Invasive plants can be defined as introduced plants that escape cultivation and become dominant or cause harm in natural areas [ 2 ].
The most cost effective way to prevent introduction of new invasive ornamental plants is prevention at the beginning of the nursery supply chain and before it has escaped into the environment [ 1 , 10 — 12 ]. Risk assessment is the most accurate method of screening for invasive species in all pest categories plants, animals, insects, and pathogens [ 1 , 13 — 15 ]. Weed Risk Assessment WRA is a systematic process that uses available evidence to estimate the risk of a plant species becoming invasive in a given region [ 15 ].
While many WRA tools exist for a variety of applications, including evaluating plants in botanical gardens [ 16 ], none were specifically designed to screen ornamental plants prior to being released into the environment. The first WRA tool was developed in Australia for import screening purposes and has been adapted for use in other parts of the world [ 13 , 17 — 25 ]. Thus, the tool is considered by many to be too conservative in predicting invasiveness, with many non-invasive species categorized as invasive.
This will likely compromise its practical application in the horticultural industry [ 25 — 26 ]. The other existing WRA tools have limitations for the application of screening ornamentals plants for invasive risk in a practical way. Europe and the U. These existing WRA tools all contain questions regarding the environmental impact of the plant species being evaluated.
The majority of the time these questions cannot be answered for ornamental plants because they have not yet become weedy or invasive. Thus, there are no known environmental impacts for most species evaluated. To be useful to the nursery and landscape industry, a WRA tool must contain questions that are answerable for ornamental plants and retain high accuracy in predicting both potential invasiveness and non-invasiveness.
Because of this low base-rate, risk assessment models have a higher probability of predicting some false positives non-invasive species rejected as high risk for invasiveness than false negatives invasive species accepted as low risk for invasiveness [ 21 ]. For WRA tools used for border screening, like the Australian model, this is acceptable because the economic impacts of accepting an invasive species false negative are much greater than the potential reduction in economic benefits from prohibiting the import of a non-invader [ 31 ].
As a result, most risk assessment tools tend to be more conservative in classifying invasiveness, and thus, less accurate in predicting non-invasiveness. The objective of this study was to use a science-based and systematic process to develop a highly accurate for both invasive and non-invasive plants Plant Risk Evaluation tool PRE specifically for screening ornamental plants. We assessed questions from existing WRA tools and developed the PRE tool with the most predictive and relevant questions for ornamental plants.
The tool was designed to possess the maximum overall accuracy sensitivity and specificity while making allowances for ease of use and brevity. The long-term goal of the project is to provide a voluntary screening tool for the horticultural industry that ultimately prevents new potentially invasive plants from being introduced or sold in regions of the US where they are likely to become invasive.
The PlantRight campaign is a collaboration of stakeholders from the nursery industry, government agencies, academic institutions, and environmental groups.
The PlantRight PRE tool relies on available scientific evidence to estimate the risk of an ornamental plant species becoming invasive and causing environmental or economic harm in a defined geographic region. For this study, we evaluated plants for invasiveness within the different climatic regions of California, but the PRE tool can be used to evaluate plants for any specified region. To avoid overestimating accuracy for plants known to be invasive within California, we excluded all information about invasion and impacts that was specific to the geographic area of the assessment i.
The initial step in developing the PRE tool required an evaluation of several pre-existing WRA screening tools [ 2 , 15 — 17 , 27 , 33 — 34 ] to determine the most appropriate and highly predictive questions contributing to model accuracy for ornamental plants. We evaluated the existing WRA tools and selected questions that were found in two or more of these tools. Using these criteria we identified 56 questions to evaluate that ranged in topic from invasive history, climate match, difficulty of control, environmental impacts, reproductive and dispersal strategies, and growth rate S1 Table.
Each question was given the same weighted score used in the WRA tool it was taken from, with most questions having a score of 1 for a yes answer and 0 for a no answer. We screened a small population of plant species 35 plants—21 known invasive and 14 known non-invasive plants to do our initial evaluation of the 56 questions we selected from existing WRA models. While this sample size is relatively small, it served as a preliminary evaluation to test our criteria for including questions in the PRE tool and to determine if the questions were answerable for ornamental plants, which in many cases they were not.
The Cal-IPC Inventory is based on an assessment that focuses on impacts and invasiveness of species already within the state, while WRA models typically consider species that are present but not yet invasive, or have yet to be introduced to a region. Thus, the behavior of the plant is more related to other regions of the country or world.
These lists of non-invasive plants are considered appropriate for California and are similar in form and function to known invasive plants. For each plant species evaluated, a complete literature review was performed, along with searches of online databases and species fact sheets.
The information gathered in the literature and internet review was used to answer yes or no for each question in the model. For each plant species evaluated, we calculated the total score the sum of points from all the questions and the percentage of questions that were answered Table 1. For each question, we calculated the percentage of times it was answered for all known invasive and non-invasive plants.
Through this process, we developed the PRE tool by narrowing the 56 questions down to 19 Table 2. In a more robust evaluation, we tested the 19 question PRE tool by screening 92 additional plants 56 known invasive and 36 known non-invasive plants. These plants also represent a wide range of growth forms and taxonomic groups Table 3.
The non-invasive species in both lists have many outstanding qualities for use in California gardens, including ease of propagation, few pest or disease problems, and high water use efficiency.
Typically, the testing of a risk assessment tool for accuracy includes post-hoc testing of a list of non-native species that are already known to be invasive versus non-native species that have been introduced for a substantial period of time into the area of concern, but are not considered invasive. We selected non-invasive species that had been in cultivation in California for at least 30 years with no record of escape and invasiveness.
An accuracy rate can be determined by the number of correct predictions for the known invasive and non-invasive species. The final score for each species was the sum for all of the scores for the all of the questions answered. Likelihood ratio LR was used to compare the predictive potential of the questions we evaluated [ 31 ]. LR is independent of the base-rate of invasives and non-invasives in the environment.
Higher values give better predictive ability and a value of 1 would provide no predictive capability. Receiver operating characteristic ROC curve analysis is commonly used to evaluate the performance of WRA tools [ 15 , 33 ]. A ROC curve represents test sensitivity accuracy for correctly categorizing non-invasive plants as having low risk of invasiveness against the complement of specificity accuracy for correctly categorizing invasive plants as having high risk of invasiveness over the range of potential cut-off levels [ 39 ].
AUROC is calculated as the sum of trapeziums, or the difference between the x-values multiplied by half the sum of the y-values. In our initial evaluation of the 56 questions from existing WRA models, the cumulative scores for all 56 questions ranged from 21 to 44 for known invasive plants, with an average score of 31 Table 1.
The scores for known non-invasive plants ranged from 5 to 14, with an average score ofOf the 56 questions evaluated, 17 were eliminated because they did not provide statistically significant predictive power to separate known invasive from known non-invasive plants S1 Table.
Three questions were eliminated because of the inherent bias in the question. For example, the question was only known and answered when the phenomenon was studied, which was nearly always with known invasive species i. Eight other questions showed statistical significance but were irrelevant to evaluating ornamental plants or new plant introductions. Species such as corn, which is highly domesticated, is known to have very low invasive potential [ 41 ].
Furthermore, the purpose of this model is not to evaluate the potential for significant impact or to prioritize species or populations for management or eradication, but rather to evaluate the potential to escape and establish outside of cultivation. Finally, there were three questions on the management of species that were eliminated from our final model. These questions are more relevant to prioritization models that allow land managers a decision-making process for allocation of limited resources to manage invasive plant infestations [ 44 ].
Of the 19 questions we included in the final PRE tool, 11 showed statistical significance in separating known invasive from non-invasive species, four were the result of merging two similar questions, where both were significant or near significant e. The remaining three questions included in the final PRE model included a new question on whether the plant produces viable seed. While there were other questions on the length of seed viability or whether seeds require pretreatment in order to germinate, these questions were often difficult to answer with ornamental species.
Thus, we felt that a simpler form of the questions would be more useful and add additional power to the prediction of invasiveness and non-invasiveness. We retained one of the climate-related questions Is the species found predominantly in a climate matching those within the targeted region?
This question provided no separation in our analysis because we sampled from a population of known invasive and non-invasive species from within the geographic area of evaluation i. The results of the additional screenings are presented in the next section.
Finally, as was the case with the 56 question evaluation, the question asking if the species was found predominantly in a climate that matches those of the region of introduction question 5 could not be evaluated with the 94 species because all the species assessed were already within the geographic area of evaluation i.
While the scores for 16 of the 19 questions gave one point for a yes answer and zero points for a no answer, three questions were weighted more heavily Table 2. In the climate matching questions question 5 we used two points for a yes answer, which is consistent for other WRA models with the same question [ 15 , 17 ]. However, for questions 1 to 3, we increased the weighting from one point for naturalization where it is not native question 1 , to two points for invasive elsewhere in the US or world question 2 , to three points for invasive elsewhere in the US or world, but in a similar climate question 3.
We considered that the risk of invasiveness in the region of interest was greater when a species had already become invasive in a different region of the world that had a similar climate to the region of interest. The scores for known invasive plants ranged from 12 to 21, while the scores for known non-invasive plants ranged from 2 to 13 Table 3. By plotting score frequencies we were able to assign scoring cutoffs for the PRE tool Fig. For the 57 known invasive plants evaluated through the 19 question PRE tool, no species were classified as accept Table 3.
Koelreuteria paniculata has been reported to have escaped cultivation and become invasive in several US states, particularly Texas [ 46 ] and Florida [ 47 ], though it has not been reported as an invasive or naturalized plant in California.
Smith et al. In this case, values close to one provide no predictive power in categorizing potential invasive from non-invasive species. As further support for the accuracy of the PRE tool, the AUROC evaluation had a score of 1, indicating it has high accuracy for correctly categorizing plant species as either high or low risk of invasiveness Fig.
We believe that the increase in accuracy with the PRE model compared to other similar models may be due to both the reduction in subjectivity associated with questions that were changed or removed, as well as the elimination of questions that added no separation power.
It is possible that the inclusion of these questions reduced the ability to accurately evaluate non-invasive plants. The next steps in the development and validation of the PlantRight PRE tool will be to: 1 test the consistency of the tool by different users, 2 test the accuracy of the tool in evaluating invasive risk on a national scale to demonstrate that it can be used beyond California, and at different scales , 3 incorporate climate matching capabilities, 4 develop an online database in partnership with UC Davis, and 5 encourage nursery industry adoption.
This non-binding guide provides information and examples of good practice in connection with the implementation of health and safety directives, together with other necessary elements such as explanations and practical examples of the hazards and risks during all stages of farming, horticulture and forestry work. This guide is designed to help all stakeholders, in particular farmers, supervisors especially in SMEs , employers, workers and their representatives, and others, to implement directives and to properly manage the prevention of risks due to work. This guide also contains a summary of the various EU directives, references and bibliography of information providers, a glossary, a list of key questions and a list by topic, a table of practical examples and a general table of the duties of the stakeholders. This guide contains various examples of good practice which have either been selected from the guides existing in the EU Member States or specially designed for this guide.
Select personal protective equipment (PPE), tools and equipment in accordance with risk assessment and health and safety guidance.
How you use these guidelines is a matter of personal choice. These guidelines have three main components: introductory chapters that provide background information about the issues and the guidelines the main working chapters to help you assess and manage your enterprise. These chapters cover risk assessment, suggested practices, monitoring and recording options, and references and further resources for the eight key management chapters a series of practical tools and resources. We recommend that you choose to start in one the following ways: Select a Chapter and start with the associated Risk Assessments The guidelines cover a total of 20 different topics, divided into eight numbered chapters. At the start of each major topic, there is a simple Risk Assessment diagram that asks key questions about your enterprise. Work your way through each Risk Assessment, answering the questions. However, you may want to read on to check your understanding of the issues. By working through all the Risk Assessments you can prioritise issues that may need attention on your property. Start with the Review Checklist The checklist covers the major environmental assurance issues dealt with in the main text of the guidelines.
Ultraviolet radiation from the sun can start to burn unprotected skin within minutes. In Victoria, from September to April, check the SunSmart UV Alert each day for the daily sun protection times, in the daily newspaper or on your smartphone. When the UV level is three or above:. Common lawnmower injuries include open wounds and bone fractures involving the hands and feet.
Air and Water Pollution
The sector sees some of the highest numbers of accidents in the UK which can lead to serious and fatal injuries. Both children and adults are likely to be at risk in this sector and it's critical that we all use good health and safety practices. Take this short course as your first step to proceeding to accredited qualifications in health and safety at work. This is a theory and practical based one-day course. You'll receive a certificate of attendance when you've completed the training. There's no assessment but you can consider taking a further course or recognised qualification.
Use the search below to search the site or find your local unit office. Fresh produce contamination is a significant concern regardless of the produce grown, production system used, size of farm, or market outlet. Reducing contamination risks begins on the farm, and there are many practices growers can implement as a means to reduce risks. These are called Good Agricultural Practices GAPs , and they relate to water and soil quality, especially as impacted by wildlife and livestock management; worker health and hygiene including proper produce handling during production, harvest, and post-harvest; and ensuring traceability of the product from the farm to the marketplace. Growers can incorporate these practices to reduce produce contamination. Virginia Cooperative Extension's Fresh Produce Food Safety team is spearheading statewide efforts to support the implementation of practical and effective on-farm food safety practices through comprehensive, interdisciplinary fresh produce food safety education. Amber Vallotton avallott vt. Laura Strawn lstrawn vt.
N.B. The aim of a risk assessment is to provide general information on the type of hazards Assessment of risk for gardening activities involving.
The increased strength and variety of risk mitigation measures available for products with professional uses has rendered the current guidance inadequate. The key changes are to products with an amateur use risk enveloping to a professional use risk assessment, particularly in the Aquatic compartment. There is a new label proposed for those with large buffer zones.
From farmers to gardeners, we support thousands of business owners across the UK to stay safe and compliant. See plans and pricing. Along with meeting HSE requirements, you also need to follow guidelines set out by:. We have been incredibly grateful to Peninsula for their support. Running an animal sanctuary can be complex when it comes to health and safety and we have been supported in so many ways.
Discover our simple and effective health and safety documents for gardeners.
Please note that this checklist template is a hypothetical appuses-hero example and provides only standard information. The template does not aim to replace, among other things, workplace, health and safety advice, medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, or any other applicable law. You should seek your professional advice to determine whether the use of such a checklist is appropriate in your workplace or jurisdiction. Download as PDF. Lumiform enables you to conduct digital inspections via app easier than ever before. Digitalize this paper form now Register for free on lumiformapp. Risk Assessment Have all workers been inducted to this site?
We know the horticulture sector inside and out. In a seasonal industry that can be heavily dictated by the weather, you need flexibility when it comes to your workforce — and we get that. From reporting accidents and conducting risk assessments , to Pre-Qualification Questionnaires and SMAS accreditation , you need to be on the pulse to keep your business — and everyone in it — safe.