Source: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA submitted to
SOUTHERN TRAINING, EDUCATION, EXTENSION, OUTREACH, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER TO ENHANCE PRODUCE SAFETY
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
TERMINATED
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1007735
Grant No.
2015-70020-24397
Project No.
FLAW-2015-09163
Proposal No.
2015-09163
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Program Code
A4182
Project Start Date
Sep 1, 2015
Project End Date
Aug 31, 2018
Grant Year
2015
Project Director
Danyluk, M. D.
Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
G022 MCCARTY HALL
GAINESVILLE,FL 32611
Performing Department
AG-CREC-PROCESSING
Non Technical Summary
The overall goal of this Regional Center proposal is to build a collaborative infrastructure in the Southern US to support Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) compliant training, education, extension, outreach, and technical assistance as it relates to the produce industry. The proposed Southern Center includes participation from land-grant institutions in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. It will lead, manage and coordinate regional assistance programs targeted at owners and operators of small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetables merchant wholesalers affected by FSMA requirements. In addition to land-grant institutions, established partnerships with stakeholder groups including state and local regulators, community-based and non-governmental organizations will be leveraged to maximize training effectiveness and delivery opportunities. The goal will be accomplished through the following specific objectives:Develop a cadre of PSA and FSPCA certified trainers within the Southern US who are focused on supporting the produce industry.Develop and deliver region and stakeholder specific education, training curricula, and technical assistance programs.Create strong partnerships with representative non-governmental organizations/community-based organizations to build capacity and strengthen collaboration for FSMA compliant trainings.Evaluate the impact of Southern Center education, training and technical assistance programs.Programs will focus on helping audiences understand and interpret FSMA regulations and implement systems to meet requirements across the respective environments, agricultural production and processing systems in the Southern US to ensure co-management of food safety, conservation systems and ecological health.
Animal Health Component
0%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
(N/A)
Applied
(N/A)
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
7125010302020%
7120999302010%
7121099302010%
7121199302010%
7121129302010%
7121219302010%
7121429302010%
7121499302020%
Goals / Objectives
The overall goal of this Regional Center proposal is to build a collaborative infrastructure in the Southern US to support Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) compliant training, education, extension, outreach, and technical assistance as it relates to the produce industry. The goal will be accomplished through the following specific objectives:Develop a cadre of PSA and FSPCA certified trainers within the Southern US who are focused on supporting the produce industry.Develop and deliver region and stakeholder specific education, training curricula, and technical assistance programs.Create strong partnerships with representative non-governmental organizations/community-based organizations to build capacity and strengthen collaboration for FSMA compliant trainings.Evaluate the impact of Southern Center education, training and technical assistance programs.
Project Methods
Upon receipt of this project, we will establish a Southern Regional Center Staff at UF. This staff will initially assist in establishing a:SC Website, initially including information on: the Center and its objectives; the consortium of involved institutions; contact information for all PDs, Key Persons, and Collaborators; Frequently Asked Questions; Ask an Expert; and a Calendar of future training events. As SC outputs are developed, the website will be updated (e.g., including a repository of training materials and fact sheets).Communication mechanism amongst collaborators initially including an electronic mailing list and regularly scheduled telephone conference calls. As center outputs are further implemented, additional communication mechanisms will be developed to communicate with, and disseminate information to, interested stakeholders. These outputs will include additional mailing lists and social media feeds (e.g., Twitter) to communicate upcoming workshops and relevant news releases (e.g., FSMA rule releases/updates) to stakeholders.As the project continues, the Center staff will assist consortium members, with:Logistics of trainings, including: assistance with registration; printed materials; etc.Interaction with the certifying/training bodies of PSA/FSPCA/AFDO;Facilitating interaction with PSA regional associatesFacilitating interactions and alignments with other regional centersFacilitating interaction and alignment with NCC, FDA and USDASupporting consortium applications to leverage SC funds through partnerships with regional and local entities (i.e., State Block Grants)While the Produce Safety Alliance training curriculum provides a strong foundation for fundamental knowledge, it still lacks some depth and clarity that will be necessary for our growers to fully adhere to the proposed Produce Safety rule. As an example, currently the PSA curriculum discusses post-harvest water quality parameters focusing on non-detectable generic Escherichia coli and limiting the risk of cross-contamination during this unit operation, but our growers will need to understand risks associated with common disinfectants that are approved for use in post-harvest applications, how to validate and monitor effectively to assure proper concentration, and what records need to be maintained to demonstrate control of this step. In our experience, workshops related to agricultural water use as it relates to the proposed Produce Safety Rule often include 8 h of curricula, including breakouts and laboratory demonstrations.The FSPCA curriculum is very advanced for many of our target specialty crop processors, such as packinghouses not located on the farm and currently covered in the proposed rule, who have never been viewed as a food manufacturer. For this audience we will need to build the foundation knowledge which will be key to developing adequate prerequisite programs (e.g. GMPs and sanitation programs), conducting a hazard analysis, and establishing the preventive controls they will need to have in place in order to have an effective food safety plan, tailored to the industries in our regions. As an example, we have already identified through FSMA preparations that many small specialty crop processors lack the basic knowledge to identify biological or chemical hazards are likely to be associated with their raw ingredients or be contributed during processing. Clearly, missing key hazards during the hazard analysis will undermine any food safety benefits that will be gained from the preventive controls approach.We have an extensive array of training material on hand that could be used directly or easily modified for FSMA compliance to fit the needs of our fruit and vegetable growers and processors. Early in year one, we will gather the entire consortium in Florida to further brainstorm barriers, missing pieces for our region's industry, and establish working groups to address gaps. These groups will identify what training materials currently exist, inventory these resources, and identify where our supplemental curricula gaps are with respect to content and audience (e.g., translation of existing materials into alternate languages) or alternative delivery needs (e.g., for remote regions).Three specific groups, with strong established relationships with our land-grant RC members and a history of Food Safety training, will be included as full partners in the SC processes. Florida Organic Growers (FOG), Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA), and a Local Food Hub (LFH) in Charlottesville, VA. Each have technical and education staff members who are currently involved in Food Safety training for their clientele. Representatives from these groups will be integrated into RC activities, including Objectives 1, 2, and 4, and are part of our budgetary requests. It is important to the SC that input on all developed materials and delivery methods are in line with industry current practices, specific to our regional needs.

Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Our target audiences include owners and operators of small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetables merchant wholesalers affected by FSMA rules. In addition to targeting development of Lead Instructors and Trainers at consortium institutions, primary stakeholders from Federal and State regulatory agencies, NGOs and other trade organizations, and collaborating institutions in the Southern Region have been targeted as individuals to include in our train-the-trainer plan. Changes/Problems:Several challenges have been encountered. Specifically, the evaluation team has encountered difficulties in validating participation records. Some project partners have failed to submit their attendance questionnaires, leading to a significant discrepancy between the number of participants reported the collaborators and records held by the evaluation team. A better system of communication needs to be established so the evaluation team can validate the reported participation numbers. Several states submitted all training records and pre/post test information after the grant completion date. This information will be available as an appendix to the newly funded project report. Additionally, it has not been possible to establish baseline levels of compliance as no public records exist with this information and not all implementation dates have been met; the evaluation team is consulting with the other Regional Centers to identify strategies to overcome this barrier. Finally, the SC website does not yet host the add - on training materials for use throughout the region, an ongoing goal for the short term. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?To date, 162 trainings were completed by Lead Instructors and Lead Trainers in the SC including 115 PSA and 47 FSPCA programs, whose information has been relayed back to the SC. See Table 5 for a summary of trainings by state. Table 5: Number of trainings and participation numbers by state. State No. of Trainings No. of Participants PSA FSPCA PSA FSPCA Alabama 3 0 34 0 Florida 40 11 1032 292 Georgia 21 7 617 174 Louisiana 4 4 110 106 Mississippi 8 0 120 0 North Carolina 16 6 278 93 Oklahoma 1 3 19 60 Puerto Rico 0 7 0 118 South Carolina 3 0 46 0 Tennessee 1 5 38 86 Texas 9 2 143 20 US-Virgin Island 2 0 54 0 Virginia 9 2 293 52 Total 115 47 2784 1001 Face-to-face meetings were held in January and July of 2016, 2017, and 2018 with attendance from most participating states/territories. These meeting provided opportunities for building professional relationships, networking, learning about regional activities, collaborations and capacity building, and meaningful discussions. Members of the SC attended the NECAFS Annual meeting in January 2018, and Western Regional Center's Annual meeting in March of 2017 and 2018. An overview of the SC and our Add-on curricula development (Objective 2), were presented. The SC has additionally hosted and provided an update at the NIFA FSOP Southern Regional meeting in Orlando, FL in May 2017. This provided an opportunity to interact with the 10 FSPO projects awarded in 2015 in the southern region to assist producers who are impacted by food safety guidelines. FSOP projects were subsequently integrated in to Southern Center face-to-face meetings beginning in January of 2018. The SC has also continued to participated in the FDA USDA Collaborative Training Forum. The Collaborative Training Forum is for participants who have received funding from FDA and USDA for training programs on produce safety. The Forum provides a chance for representatives of these groups to come together, share information about their programs, provide updates about the work, and discuss issues of common concern. The purpose is not to come to a consensus on issues but to have an open dialogue about them and, to the greatest extent possible, eliminate duplication and maximize the use of limited resources. he SC participated in a meeting to discuss issues specific to tribal nations related to fresh produce safety in April, 2017 hosted by the Produce Safety Alliance, and the Tribal Foods Cooperative Agreement from FDA. The SC also participated in the Local Food Safety Collaborative Steering Committee meeting since 2017. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A website entitled "Southern Center for FSMA Training" was developed and is available at: http://sc.ifas.ufl.edu/. Content at the time of this report included an updated news feed, introductory training material, logic models for evaluating PSA and FSPCA training programs, schedules of PSA and FSPCA trainings with active web links to additional information on upcoming training events, and active web links to partners and affiliates. Results have been disseminated through FSMA training sessions and related educational activities. Various stakeholder groups and individuals have participated in the training, educational, and informational activities including: food processors, regulators, growers, and educators/trainers. Minutes and highlights from the annual meeting were shared with the attendees, and 'on-request" basis. A number of presentations related to the SC have been given over the past year, including: Panel Discussion. FDA Public Meeting, Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption: Draft Guidance for Industry. Atlanta, GA, 2018. Overview of the Southern Center. Food Safety Outreach Program Transition Meeting, Washington, DC, 2018 Southern Center - Food Safety Outreach Projects and Regional Centers Lightning Round. Southern Region Integrated Produce Safety Conference, Atlanta, GA, 2018 Southern Center - Regional Center Updates. Food Safety Outreach Program Project Directors Meeting, Blacksburg, VA, 2018 Southern Regional Center. FDA Produce Safety Cooperative Agreement Program Webinar, Collaboration with FDA and USDA Funded Regional Centers, 2018. Southern Center for FSMA Training. Western Center for FSMA Training Annual Meeting, Davis, CA, 2018 Southern Center for FSMA Training - Add-on Educational Materials. International Food Protection Training Institute Training Advisory Council Meeting, Albuquerque, NM; 2018. Southern Center for FSMA training, extension, education, and outreach: accomplishments. Association of Food and Drug Officials Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance annual meeting, Albuquerque, NM; 2018. Produce Safety Programs, A Panel Discussion. 2017. Association of Food and Drug Officials Southern States 2017 Educational Conference. New Orleans, LA. 2017. National and Regional FSMA Training Centers: Application of Lessons Learned. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, RT11. Tampa, FL, 2017. The Devil is in the Details: Experiences with early implementation of the FSMA Produce Safety Rule and efforts to fill the information gaps. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, RT12. Tampa FL, 2017 How academia is supporting industry implementation of FSMA. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, S47. Tampa, FL, 2017. The voice of the stakeholder in the new regulatory framework. Session 098, 2017 Institute of Food Technology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 2017. Overview of the Southern Center and Discussion of the FSOP Communication Strategy with the Southern Center. 2017 Southern Region Food Safety Outreach Project Meeting Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2017. The Southern and Western Centers for FSMA Training -Regional Centers for small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, and/or small fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers. USDA NIFA Webinar Series. Webinar, 2016 Inside FSMA's Produce Safety Rule - Academia's Role. SQF International Conference, Orlando, FL, 2016 Manuscripts are currently being written or are in press. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Current and ongoing activities are being completed and rolled into the newly funded iteration of the project. We are finalize the new educational material "add-ons", and roll out trainings in these areas. Once finalized, a new section will be added to the SC website for these add-on curricula and any other relevant materials.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Project personnel met for a curricula development workshop in January 2016. Subsequent face-to-face meetings were held in July 2016, January and July 2017 and2018. Logic models for the FSPCA and PSA curricula, as well as an attendance questionnaire were created, and translated into Spanish. A pre/post-test for use with the FSPCA and PSA was developed and validated, materials were also translated into Spanish. Twenty (22) PSA Train the trainer courses were held in: AL (2), AR (2), FL (5), GA, KY, LA (2), MS (2), NC (2), OK, TN, TX (2), and VA. After year 1, FSPCA has altered their approach to Preventive Controls and Foreign Supplier Verification Lead Instructor Courses; they no longer seek to work to offer regional courses with our Regional Center Table 1 provides an overview of the number of attendees by type to PSA and FSPCA training. Table 1: Types of Participants by State State Attendees (n) % Extension agent Specialist Consultant Industry/other AL 30 7 3 0 90 FL 953 4 11 9 76 GA 711 3 7 6 84 LA 55 0 6 6 89 MS 100 9 26 4 61 NC 247 1 3 3 93 OK 64 5 36 8 52 PR 88 1 5 1 93 SC 3 0 0 0 100 TN 110 2 6 2 90 TX 97 3 17 4 76 VA 171 7 26 5 63 On average, participants attended approximately about one food safety trainings over the past year, and most (65%) did not attend any FSMA training prior to attendance at the SC. Less than half of all participants (41%) were aware of other businesses in compliance with FSMA. In addition, most participants agreed that the most significant barriers to compliance with FSMA were stakeholders' current knowledge of FSMA, cost of compliance, and attitudes towards FSMA compliance. At least one Lead Instructor (FSPCA) and Lead Trainer (PSA), associated with the center is present in each state; see Table 2. See Table 5 for a summary of trainings by state. Table 2: FSPCA and PSA instructors by Southern Center Members Institution PSA Trainers FSPCA Lead Instructors AL A&M University 25 0 Carolina Farm Stewardship Association 5 1 Clemson University 14 6 FL A&M University 3 2 FL Organic Growers 4 0 LSU AgCenter 5 1 MS State University 26 1 NC State University 42 12 OK State University 8 1 TX A&M Center for Food Safety 4 3 TN State University 1 1 University of AR 4 0 University of FL 38 5 University of GA 3 6 University of KY 4 2 University of PR 0 6 University of TN 9 3 VA Tech 23 4 PSA and FSPCA add-ons continued to be developed. See Table 3 for the present status of each add-on created since the beginning of the project. Table 3: Status of Add-ons PSA Add-ons In Development In Review Published Biohazards X Exemptions X Preharvest water X Postharvest water X Sanitation X Preventive Control Add-ons Beginner's guide X Advanced guide X Compliance/exemptions X Food safety plan X Teaching Examples/model FSPCA plans for 25 commodities have been or are under development by the SC. Two of them (tomatoes and dry-packed blueberries) are available in the FSPCA Lead Instructor Portal. These model plans will be posted on the SC website and linked to the NECAFS clearinghouse. To further engage our colleagues at 1890s institutions, the SC developed a table-top display and exhibited at the Research Symposium of the Association of 1890 Research Directors. The SC table-top display, also traveled to the United Fresh Produce Association, and was displayed at the FreshTEC University Showcase, the Citrus and Alternative Crops Expo, and Citrus Packinghouse Day. In an attempt to introduce NGO/CBO and other stakeholders in the Caribbean Basin to FSMA, the SC worked collaboratively with USDA NIFA to host a 0.5 day training in association with the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Food Crops Society. The Southern Center worked with PSA to host two Soil Summits, the South Central Soil Summit, and the Southeastern Soil Summit. Each Soil Summit was 1.5 days and includes presentations and break out discussions about the benefits and challenges of raw manure use relative to the safety of fresh fruit and vegetable production. The SC hosted hosted 10 remote sites for the PSA and FDA Water summit to ensure access to growers, Southern Center Members, NGOs and COBs in the southern region. The goals of the meeting were to better understand the challenges growers face in implementing the requirements in Subpart E-Agricultural Water and work collaboratively to develop practical solutions to meet fruit and vegetable production needs while protecting public health. Short-Term Outcomes - Knowledge A pre-and-post-test was used to measure knowledge gained after participation in the SC training. A directional dependent samples t-test was used to determine if there was a significant increase in knowledge after completion of the PSA training (n = 2528) and FSPCA training (n = 311). For PSA training, results showed post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = 68.11, p < 0.001), indicating a significant increase in knowledge after participation in the training. Out of 25 points, participants scored an average of 21.0 on the post-test and 16.25 on the pre-test. For FSPCA training, results indicated post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = 4.25, p < 0.001). Out of 15 points, participants' mean post-test score was 10.26, while the mean pre-test score was 7.16. Medium-Term Outcomes - Practices Adopted A qualitative evaluation was conducted with participants three months after they attended the FSPCA training at the SC. All participants from each training session were asked to participate in the follow-up survey. Trainees were contacted via email and asked to respond to two questions; (a) Are you a trainer, and (b) What have you done with the information you learned from the training. To date, 160 participants responded to the three-month follow-up survey. Results indicated while most participants were not formal trainers, they provided food safety trainings to their respective organizations. In addition, most respondents were using the information to write food safety plans and manuals for their organization, fine-tuning existing plans, implement safety plans, consult with clients on compliance laws and work with manufacturers to become compliant, and assist colleagues with understanding the requirements. Many attendees also stated they recommended the training to other stakeholders. A quantitative follow-up survey was conducted with participants four months after they attended the PSA training. Questions pertained to producers' adoption of PSA-compliant practices. Table 4 shows the results of the online survey. Many participants indicated they implemented new or different training for employees on food safety or hygiene protocols, wrote or modified farm food safety plans, created or modified food safety record-keeping systems, and implemented new or different practices for monitoring on-farm facilities. Table 4: Producers' Adoption of the Produce Safety Rule Actions taken since participating in the training: n Yes (%) No (%) N/A (%) Implement new or different training for employees on food safety/hygiene protocols 52 52 17 31 Write or modify farm food safety plans 44 48 9 43 Create or modify food safety record-keeping systems 48 48 17 35 Implement new or different practices for monitoring on-farm facilities 56 47 14 39 Implement new or different methods for cleaning or sanitizing food contact surfaces 44 39 23 38 Implement new or different strategies to reduce the risk of contamination from wildlife or domesticated animals 48 33 23 44 Implement new or different traceability systems 45 29 22 49 Implement new or different testing of agricultural water for generic E. coli 52 29 31 40 Implement new or different pest control systems 42 21 38 41 Implement new or different practices for the handling of biological soil amendments of animal origin 67 19 15 66 Implement new or different methods for transportation of produce 47 17 36 47

Publications


    Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/18

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Our target audiences include owners and operators of small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetables merchant wholesalers affected by FSMA rules. In addition to targeting development of Lead Instructors and Trainers at consortium institutions, primary stakeholders from Federal and State regulatory agencies, NGOs and other trade organizations, and collaborating institutions in the Southern Region have been targeted as individuals to include in our train-the-trainer plan. Changes/Problems:Several challenges have been encountered. Specifically, the evaluation team has encountered difficulties in validating participation records. Some project partners have failed to submit their attendance questionnaires, leading to a significant discrepancy between the number of participants reported the collaborators and records held by the evaluation team. A better system of communication needs to be established so the evaluation team can validate the reported participation numbers. Additionally, it has not been possible to establish baseline levels of compliance as no public records exist with this information and not all implementation dates have been met; the evaluation team is consulting with the other Regional Centers to identify strategies to overcome this barrier. Finally, the SC website does not yet host the add - on training materials for use throughout the region, an ongoing goal for the short term. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?To date, 162 trainings were completed by Lead Instructors and Lead Trainers in the SC including 115 PSA and 47 FSPCA programs, whose information has been relayed back to the SC. .See Table 5 for a summary of trainings by state. Table 5: Number of trainings and participation numbers by state. State No. of Trainings No. of Participants PSA FSPCA PSA FSPCA Alabama 3 0 34 0 Florida 40 11 1032 292 Georgia 21 7 617 174 Louisiana 4 4 110 106 Mississippi 8 0 120 0 North Carolina 16 6 278 93 Oklahoma 1 3 19 60 Puerto Rico 0 7 0 118 South Carolina 3 0 46 0 Tennessee 1 5 38 86 Texas 9 2 143 20 US-Virgin Island 2 0 54 0 Virginia 9 2 293 52 Total 115 47 2784 1001 Two face-to-face meetings were held in January and July, 2018 with attendance from most participating states/territories. These meeting provided opportunities for building professional relationships, networking, learning about regional activities, collaborations and capacity building, and meaningful discussions. Three members of the SC attended the NECAFS Annual meeting in January 2018 in Baltamore, MD, and Western Regional Center's Annual meeting in March, 2018 in Davis, CA. The SC has also continued to participated in the FDA USDA Collaborative Training Forum. The SC also participated in the Local Food Safety Collaborative Steering Committee meeting in October, 2018. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A website entitled "Southern Center for FSMA Training" was developed and is available at: http://sc.ifas.ufl.edu/. Content at the time of this report included an updated news feed, introductory training material, logic models for evaluating PSA and FSPCA training programs, schedules of PSA and FSPCA trainings with active web links to additional information on upcoming training events, and active web links to partners and affiliates. Training material on individual PSA and FSPCA modules were unavailable on the website during Year 3. Results have been disseminated through FSMA training sessions and related educational activities. Various stakeholder groups and individuals have participated in the training, educational, and informational activities including: food processors, regulators, growers, and educators/trainers. Minutes and highlights from the annual meeting were shared with the attendees, and 'on-request" basis. A number of presentations related to the SC have been given over the past year, including: Panel Discussion. FDA Public Meeting, Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption: Draft Guidance for Industry. Atlanta, GA, 2018. Overview of the Southern Center. Food Safety Outreach Program Transition Meeting, Washington, DC, 2018 Southern Center - Food Safety Outreach Projects and Regional Centers Lightning Round. Southern Region Integrated Produce Safety Conference, Atlanta, GA, 2018 Southern Center - Regional Center Updates. Food Safety Outreach Program Project Directors Meeting, Blacksburg, VA, 2018 Southern Regional Center. FDA Produce Safety Cooperative Agreement Program Webinar, Collaboration with FDA and USDA Funded Regional Centers, 2018. Southern Center for FSMA Training. Western Center for FSMA Training Annual Meeting, Davis, CA, 2018 Southern Center for FSMA Training - Add-on Educational Materials. International Food Protection Training Institute Training Advisory Council Meeting, Albuquerque, NM; 2018. Southern Center for FSMA training, extension, education, and outreach: accomplishments. Association of Food and Drug Officials Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance annual meeting, Albuquerque, NM; 2018. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Current and ongoing activities are being completed and rolled into the newly funded iteration of the project. We are finalize the new educational material "add-ons", and roll out trainings in these areas. Once finalized, a new section will be added to the SC website for these add-on curricula and any other relevant materials.

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Project personnel met on January 11, 2018, in Savannah, GA and July 8, 2018, in Salt Lake City, UT Fourteen (6) PSA Train the trainer courses have been held in the South in the past year, including courses in: Alabama, Florida (2), Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of attendees, most participants were from industry, and others were either consultants or specialist. The number of attendees presented in Table 1 is different from that presented in Table 5 due to lack of data from completed attendance questionnaires. Table 1: Types of Participants by State State Attendees (n) % Extension agent Specialist Consultant Industry/other Alabama 30 7 3 0 90 Florida 953 4 11 9 76 Georgia 711 3 7 6 84 Louisiana 55 0 6 6 89 Mississippi 100 9 26 4 61 North Carolina 247 1 3 3 93 Oklahoma 64 5 36 8 52 Puerto Rico 88 1 5 1 93 South Carolina 3 0 0 0 100 Tennessee 110 2 6 2 90 Texas 97 3 17 4 76 Virginia 171 7 26 5 63 For PSA trainings, most participants were farmers/private business owners. On average, participants attended approximately about one food safety trainings over the past year, and most (65%) did not attend any FSMA training prior to attendance at the SC. Less than half of all participants (41%) were aware of other businesses in compliance with FSMA. In addition, most participants agreed that the most significant barriers to compliance with FSMA were stakeholders' current knowledge of FSMA, cost of compliance, and attitudes towards FSMA compliance. At least one Lead Instructor (FSPCA) and Lead Trainer (PSA), associated with the center is present in each state; see Table 2. Table 2: FSPCA and PSA instructors by Southern Center Members Institution PSA Trainers FSPCA Lead Instructors Alabama A&M University 25 0 Carolina Farm Stewardship Association 5 1 Clemson University 14 6 Florida A&M University 3 2 Florida Organic Growers 4 0 LSU AgCenter 5 1 Mississippi State University 26 1 North Carolina State University 42 12 Oklahoma State University 8 1 Texas A&M Center for Food Safety 4 3 Tennessee State University 1 1 University of Arkansas 4 0 University of Florida 38 5 University of Georgia 3 6 University of Kentucky 4 2 University of Puerto Rico 0 6 University of Tennessee 9 3 Virginia Tech 23 4 PSA and FSPCA add-ons continued to be developed. See Table 3 for the present status of each add-on created since the beginning of the project. Table 3: Status of Add-ons PSA Add-ons In Development In Review Published Biohazards X Exemptions X Preharvest water X Postharvest water X Sanitation X Preventive Control Add-ons Beginner's guide X Advanced guide X Compliance/exemptions X Food safety plan X Teaching Examples/model FSPCA plans for 25 commodities have been or are under development by the SC and reformatted to the new FSPCA guidelines.Due to enforcement discretion, no further produce packing plans will be included in the FSPCA curriculum; these model plans will be posted on the SC website and linked to the NECAFS clearinghouse. The Southern Center worked with PSA to host two Soil Summits, the South Central Soil Summit, December 12-13 in Houston TX and the Southeastern Soil Summit, January 21-22 in Atlanta GA. Each Soil Summit was 1.5 days and includes presentations and break out discussions about the benefits and challenges of raw manure use relative to the safety of fresh fruit and vegetable production. Key goals for the summits include identifying barriers to using/producing compost while identifying management strategies, resources, and additional support necessary to support growers in minimizing food safety risks on the farm, especially when using raw manure. The SC hosted hosted 10 remote sites for the PSA and FDA Water summit to ensure access to growers, Southern Center Members, NGOs and COBs in the southern region. The goals of the meeting were to better understand the challenges growers face in implementing the requirements in Subpart E-Agricultural Water and work collaboratively to develop practical solutions to meet fruit and vegetable production needs while protecting public health. To meet these goals, the summit engaged a diverse group of stakeholders including growers, researchers, extension educators, produce industry members, and regulatory personnel. Short-Term Outcomes - Knowledge A pre-and-post-test was used to measure knowledge gained after participation in the SC training. A directional dependent samples t-test was used to determine if there was a significant increase in knowledge after completion of the PSA training (n = 2528) and FSPCA training (n = 311). For PSA training, results showed post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = 68.11, p < 0.001), indicating a significant increase in knowledge after participation in the training. Out of 25 points, participants scored an average of 21.0 on the post-test and 16.25 on the pre-test. For FSPCA training, results indicated post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = 4.25, p < 0.001). Out of 15 points, participants' mean post-test score was 10.26, while the mean pre-test score was 7.16. Medium-Term Outcomes - Practices Adopted A qualitative evaluation was conducted with participants three months after they attended the FSPCA training at the SC. All participants from each training session were asked to participate in the follow-up survey. Trainees were contacted via email and asked to respond to two questions; (a) Are you a trainer, and (b) What have you done with the information you learned from the training. To date, 160 participants responded to the three-month follow-up survey. Results indicated while most participants were not formal trainers, they provided food safety trainings to their respective organizations. In addition, most respondents were using the information to write food safety plans and manuals for their organization, fine-tuning existing plans, implement safety plans, consult with clients on compliance laws and work with manufacturers to become compliant, and assist colleagues with understanding the requirements. Many attendees also stated they recommended the training to other stakeholders. A quantitative follow-up survey was conducted with participants four months after they attended the PSA training. Questions pertained to producers' adoption of PSA-compliant practices. Table 4 shows the results of the online survey. Many participants indicated they implemented new or different training for employees on food safety or hygiene protocols, wrote or modified farm food safety plans, created or modified food safety record-keeping systems, and implemented new or different practices for monitoring on-farm facilities. Table 4: Producers' Adoption of the Produce Safety Rule Actions taken since participating in the training: n Yes (%) No (%) N/A (%) Implement new or different training for employees on food safety/hygiene protocols 52 52 17 31 Write or modify farm food safety plans 44 48 9 43 Create or modify food safety record-keeping systems 48 48 17 35 Implement new or different practices for monitoring on-farm facilities 56 47 14 39 Implement new or different methods for cleaning or sanitizing food contact surfaces 44 39 23 38 Implement new or different strategies to reduce the risk of contamination from wildlife or domesticated animals 48 33 23 44 Implement new or different traceability systems 45 29 22 49 Implement new or different testing of agricultural water for generic E. coli 52 29 31 40 Implement new or different pest control systems 42 21 38 41 Implement new or different practices for the handling of biological soil amendments of animal origin 67 19 15 66 Implement new or different methods for transportation of produce 47 17 36 47

    Publications


      Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17

      Outputs
      Target Audience:Our target audiences include owners and operators of small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetables merchant wholesalers affected by FSMA rules. In addition to targeting development of Lead Instructors and Trainers at consortium institutions, primary stakeholders from Federal and State regulatory agencies, NGOs and other trade organizations, and collaborating institutions in the Southern Region have been targeted as individuals to include in our train-the-trainer plan. Changes/Problems:Several challenges have been encountered. Specifically, the evaluation team has encountered difficulties in validating participation records. Some project partners have failed to submit their attendance questionnaires, leading to a significant discrepancy between the number of participants reported the collaborators and records held by the evaluation team. A better system of communication needs to be established so the evaluation team can validate the reported participation numbers. Additionally, it has not been possible to establish baseline levels of compliance as no public records exist with this information and not all implementation dates have been met; the evaluation team is consulting with the other Regional Centers to identify strategies to overcome this barrier. Finally, the SC website does not yet host the add - on training materials for use throughout the region, an ongoing goal for the next reporting period of the project. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?To date, 97 trainings were completed by Lead Instructors and Lead Trainers in the SC including 57 PSA and 40 FSPCA programs, whose information has been relayed back to the SC. .See Table 3 for a summary of trainings by state. Table 3: Number of trainings and participation numbers by state. State No. of Trainings No. of Participants PSA FSPCA Alabama 1 0 16 Florida 23 8 897 Georgia 4 3 207 Louisiana 4 4 216 Mississippi 9 0 123 North Carolina 6 6 200 Oklahoma 0 3 60 Puerto Rico 0 7 118 Tennessee 1 5 124 Texas 3 1 61 Virginia 6 3 286 Total 57 40 2308 Two face-to-face meetings were held in January and July, 2017 with attendance from most participating states/territories. These meeting provided opportunities for building professional relationships, networking, learning about regional activities, collaborations and capacity building, and meaningful discussions. Three members of the SC attended the Western Regional Center's Annual meeting in March, 2017 in Honolulu, HI. An overview of the SC and our Add-on curricula development (Objective 2), were presented. The SC has additionally hosted and provided an update at the NIFA FSOP Southern Regional meeting in Orlando, FL in May 2017. This provided an opportunity to interact with the 10 FSPO projects awarded in 2015 in the southern region to assist producers who are impacted by food safety guidelines. The SC has also participated in the FDA USDA Collaborative Training Forum, introducing its objectives in an April, 2017 call, and attending all calls since. The Collaborative Training Forum is for participants who have received funding from FDA and USDA for training programs on produce safety. The Forum provides a chance for representatives of these groups to come together, share information about their programs, provide updates about the work, and discuss issues of common concern. The purpose is not to come to a consensus on issues but to have an open dialogue about them and, to the greatest extent possible, eliminate duplication and maximize the use of limited resources. The SC participated in a meeting to discuss issues specific to tribal nations related to fresh produce safety in April, 2017 hosted by the Produce Safety Alliance, and the Tribal Foods Cooperative Agreement from FDA. The SC also participated in the Local Food Safety Collaborative Steering Committee meeting in August, 2017. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A website entitled "Southern Center for FSMA Training" was developed and is available at: http://sc.ifas.ufl.edu/. Content at the time of this report included an updated news feed, introductory training material, logic models for evaluating PSA and FSPCA training programs, schedules of PSA and FSPCA trainings with active web links to additional information on upcoming training events, and active web links to partners and affiliates. Training material on individual PSA and FSPCA modules were unavailable on the website during Year 2. Results have been disseminated through FSMA training sessions and related educational activities. Various stakeholder groups and individuals have participated in the training, educational, and informational activities including: food processors, regulators, growers, and educators/trainers. Minutes and highlights from the annual meeting were shared with the attendees, and 'on-request" basis. A number of presentations related to the SC have been given over the past year, including: Produce Safety Programs, A Panel Discussion. 2017. Association of Food and Drug Officials Southern States 2017 Educational Conference. New Orleans, LA. 2017. National and Regional FSMA Training Centers: Application of Lessons Learned. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, RT11. Tampa, FL, 2017. The Devil is in the Details: Experiences with early implementation of the FSMA Produce Safety Rule and efforts to fill the information gaps. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, RT12. Tampa FL, 2017 How academia is supporting industry implementation of FSMA. 2017 International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting, S47. Tampa, FL, 2017. The voice of the stakeholder in the new regulatory framework. Session 098, 2017 Institute of Food Technology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 2017. Overview of the Southern Center and Discussion of the FSOP Communication Strategy with the Southern Center. 2017 Southern Region Food Safety Outreach Project Meeting Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2017. The Southern and Western Centers for FSMA Training -Regional Centers for small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, and/or small fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers. USDA NIFA Webinar Series. Webinar, 2016 Inside FSMA's Produce Safety Rule - Academia's Role. SQF International Conference, Orlando, FL, 2016 What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Two face-to-face meetings are being planned for the next reporting period: January 11 at the SERFVC in Savannah, GA, and July at the IAFP Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, UT. We are currently working with PSA to host two Soil Summits, the South Central Soil Summit, December 12-13 in Houston TX and the Southeastern Soil Summit, January 21-22 in Atlanta GA. Each Soil Summit is 1.5 days and includes presentations and break out discussions about the benefits and challenges of raw manure use relative to the safety of fresh fruit and vegetable production. Key goals for the summits include identifying barriers to using/producing compost while identifying management strategies, resources, and additional support necessary to support growers in minimizing food safety risks on the farm, especially when using raw manure. Additionally, produce growers, educators, and researchers will gain a better understanding of current FDA research and risk assessment efforts and the final FSMA Produce Safety Rule standards included in Subpart F - Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin and Human Waste. During the final year of the project, we will finalize the new educational material "add-ons", and roll out trainings in these areas. Once finalized, a new section will be added to the SC website for these add-on curricula and any other relevant materials.

      Impacts
      What was accomplished under these goals? Project personnel met on January 5, 2017, in Savannah, GA at the Southeast Regional Fruit and Vegetable Grower (SERFVG) Annual Meeting. The meeting focused on: updates from various partners, presentations of PSA add-ons, presentations of preventive control add-ons, evaluation, website overview, and plans for the future. A total of 39 people were present. Additionally, project personnel met on July 9, 2017, in Tampa, FL at the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) Annual Meeting. The meeting focused on: partner updates, evaluation and scholarship, budget updates, status of add-ons, plans for reviewing add-ons, and future plans. A total of 31 people were present. Fourteen (14) PSA Train the trainer courses have been held in the South in the past year, including courses in: AL, AR (2), FL (3), GA, LA, MS, NC, OK, TN, and TX (2). FSPCA has altered their approach to Lead Instructor Courses, now only hosting a handful of coursesat locations of their selection; they no longer seek to offer regional courses with the SC;they have contacted us to host Foreign Supplier Verification Lead Instructor Courses, of which two have been hosted by the SC. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of attendees by type to PSA and FSPCA training. Based on the table, most participants were from industry, and others were either consultants or specialist. Only a minority of participants were Extension agents, as most Extension agents were encouraged to take the PSA train-the-trainer course in order to be able to help teach. The number of attendees presented in Table 1 is different from that presented in Table 3 due to lack of data from completed attendance questionnaires. Table 1: Types of Participants by State State Attendees (n) % Extension agent Specialist Consultant Industry/other AL 12 8 0 0 92 FL 624 3 13 9 75 GA 190 4 18 9 69 LA 55 0 6 5 89 MS 100 9 26 4 61 NC 184 1 3 4 92 OK 48 2 48 6 44 PR 88 1 5 1 93 TN 110 2 6 2 90 TX 52 6 21 8 65 VA 119 3 34 6 58 Participants had a diverse set of specializations. Most specialized in food safety, quality assurance and control, HACCP, and sanitation. For PSA trainings, most participants were farmers and private business owners. On average, participants attended approximately fewer than two food safety trainings over the past year, and most (63%) did not attend any FSMA training prior to attendance at the SC. Fewer than half of all participants (46%) were aware of other companies that were in compliance with FSMA. In addition, most participants agreed that the most significant challenges to compliance with FSMA were improving stakeholders' knowledge of FSMA, cost of compliance, and attitudes towards FSMA compliance. PSA and FSPCA add-ons continued to be developed. See Table 2 for the present status of each add-on created since the beginning of the project. Table 2: Status of Add-ons PSA Add-ons In Development In Review Published Biohazards x Exemptions x Preharvest water x Postharvest water x Sanitation x Preventive Control Add-ons Beginner's guide x Advanced guide x Compliance/exemptions x Food safety plan x Teaching Examples/model FSPCA plans for 25 commodities have been or are under development by the SC. Two (tomatoes and dry-packed blueberries) were used as the basis for a United Fresh working group and were used to develop the FSPCA review process for teaching examples. These two teaching examples are now available in the FSPCA Lead Instructor Portal for any lead instructor to download and provide in their courses. All teaching examples except the tomato and dry-packed blueberry plans need to be reformatted according to the new FSPCA guidelines for submission to be included in the FSPCA curricula. To further engage our colleagues at 1890s institutions, the SC developed a table-top display and exhibited at the Research Symposium of the Association of 1890 Research Directors April 1-4 in Atlanta GA, where Food Safetyis one of the topic areas. The SC took this opportunity to become more familiar with 1890 programs, and to familiarize 1890 administrators, faculty, and students with our outreach activities. A number of introductions resulted from this meeting, and should additional funds be available to continue beyond the current grant, contact at additional 1890 schools have been established. The display developed and described above, also traveled to the United Fresh Produce Association, and was displayed at the FreshTEC University Showcase on June 13th, in Chicago, IL.The table-top display also made an appearance at the 2017 Citrus Expo August 16-17, 2017 in North Fort Myers, FL. In an attempt to introduce NGO/CBO and other stakeholders in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and other nations in the Caribbean Basin to FSMA, the SC worked collaboratively with USDA NIFA to host a 0.5 day training in association with the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Food Crops Society titled "Introduction to FSMA - What you should be aware of". The Purpose of this meeting was to update interested attendees on the Food Safety Modernization Act and how it will influence future food safety requirements and training needs across the Caribbean. In addition to USDA NIFA, speakers from the FDA Produce Safety Network also spoke at the event. Approximately 50 individuals attended. In November 2016, Dr. Kate Shoulders of the University of Arkansas developed and validated a pre/post-test for use with the PSA trainings, which was subsequently shared with project personnel. This test,and to the previously developed FSPCA test,were translated into Spanish. Pre/post-tests have been shared with educators beyond the SC upon request. Short-Term Outcomes - Knowledge To measure knowledge gained after participation in the PSA training, a pre-and-post-test was developed and tested by Dr. Kate Shoulders, University of Arkansas. The test has an established internal consistency of .718 as a 15-item exam. Results of the pilot test showed the test is valid, with a significant difference between the untrained individuals (pretest) and the trained individuals (posttest) (Sig. = .000). A directional dependent samples t-test was used to determine if there was a significant increase in knowledge after completion of the PSA training (n = 921) and FSPCA training (n = 163). For PSA training, results showed post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = -43.36, p < 0.001), indicating a significant increase in knowledge after participation in the training. Out of 25 points, participants scored an average of 21.38 on the post-test and 16.75 on the pre-test. For FSPCA training, results indicated post-test scores were statistically and significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = -10.36, p < 0.001). Out of 15 points, participants' mean post-test score was 9.94, while the mean pre-test score was 8.10. Medium-Term Outcomes - Practices Adopted A qualitative evaluation was conducted with participants three months after they attended PSA and FSPCA training at the SC. All participants from each training session were asked to participate in the follow-up survey. Trainees were contacted via email and asked to respond to two questions; (a) Are you a trainer, and (b) What have you done with the information you learned from the training? To date, 145 participants responded to the three-month follow-up survey. Results indicated most participants were not formal trainers, but provided food safety trainings to their respective organizations. In addition, most respondents were using the information to write food safety plans and manuals for their organization, fine-tuning existing plans, implement safety plans, consult with clients on compliance laws and work with manufacturers to become compliant, assist colleagues with understanding the requirements, and share information with growers. Many attendees also stated they recommended the training to other stakeholders.

      Publications


        Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/16

        Outputs
        Target Audience:Our target audiences include owners and operators of small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetables merchant wholesalers affected by FSMA rules. In addition to targeting development of Lead Instructors and Trainers at consortium institutions, primary stakeholders from Federal and State regulatory agencies, NGOs and other trade organizations, and collaborating institutions in the Southern Region have been targeted as individuals to include in our train-the-trainer plan. Changes/Problems:Several challenges have been encountered. Specifically, the evaluation team has encountered difficulties in validating participation records. Some project partners have failed to submit their attendance questionnaires, leading to a significant discrepancy between the number of participants reported the collaborators and records held by the evaluation team. A better system of communication needs to be established. Additionally, it has not been possible to establish baseline levels of compliance as no public records exist with this information and not all implementation dates have been. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Table 3 provides an overview of the number of attendees by type to FSPCA training. Based on the table, most participants were from industry, and others were either consultants or specialist. Only a minority of participants were Extension agents. Table 2 is not complete; project partners have failed to submit their records in some instances. Table 3: Type of Participants by State % State Attendees (n) Extension agent Specialist Consultant Industry/other Georgia 36 0 11 4 85 Texas 11 0 11 22 67 Florida 120 3 10 14 73 Louisiana 55 0 6 6 88 Oklahoma 55 2 54 7 37 Puerto Rico 88 0 2 0 98 Tennessee 15 0 0 13 87 Total/Avg. 380 1 13 9 76 Participants had a diverse set of specializations. Most specialized in food safety, manufacturing, quality assurance and control, operation management, HACCP, packing, processing, distribution, and sanitation. On average, participants attended approximately two food safety trainings over the past year, and most (62%) did not attend any FSMA training prior to attendance at the SC. Almost half of the participants were aware of other companies that were in compliance with FSMA. Also, most participants agreed that the most significant challenges to compliance with FSMA were improving stakeholders' knowledge of FSMA, motivating persons to participate in FSMA training, and cost of compliance. Two face-to-face meetings were held in January and July, 2016 with attendance from most participating states/territories. These meeting provided opportunities for building professional relationships, networking, learning about regional activities, collaborations and capacity building, and meaningful discussions. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A website entitled "Southern Center for FSMA Training" was developed and is available at: http://sc.ifas.ufl.edu/ Content at the time of this report included a new feed, schedule and links for upcoming training events, list of partners and affiliates, and resource section. No training materials were available on the website during Year 1. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Two face-to-face meetings are being planned for the next reporting period: January at the SERFVC in Savannah, GA, and July at the IAFP Annual Meeting in Tampa, FL. During the final year of the project, we will finalize the new educational material "add-ons", and roll out trainings in these areas. Once finalized, a new section will be added to the SC website for these add-on curricula and any other relevant materials.

        Impacts
        What was accomplished under these goals? Project personnel met for a curricula development workshop in Orlando, January, 21 - 22, 2016. The workshop initiated development of region-specific supplements to the produce safety core curriculum, pilot-testing the water calculator, and agreeing on add-ons for the preventive controls rule. Furthermore, the workshop covered curriculum development using the backward design method. The evaluation team developed a logic model of FSPCA training, which was distributed to state leads and co-leads in March. Additionally, an attendance questionnaire was provided to key personnel/trainers in February to ensure effective tracking of program participation. A Spanish version was also created. PSA and FSPCA add-ons were developed. With respect to PSA supplemental materials, the following add-ons were created; Bio-Hazards; Sanitizers, Chemicals, Postharvest Water; Sanitation and Equipment Design; Exemptions and; Pre-harvest Water. On FSPCA add-ons, the following were developed; Beginner's guide; Advanced guide; Allergens; Food safety plan development; Sanitation, equipment & facility design; Suppliers; Hazard analysis and Risk assessment and; Compliance/Exemption. Also, other FSPCA add-ons were created for specific crops including, but not limited to, tomatoes, green beans, collards, pecan/peanut, blueberries, strawberries, broccoli, apples, peaches, bulb onions, cantaloupe, sweet potatoes, grapefruit, mango, peppers, watermelon, carrots, cucumber, and squash. The original evaluation plan called for collecting baseline data of compliance with FSMA rules. To date, this has not been accomplished, in part because of a lack of public data which could be used to estimate compliance. However, a small-scale study of Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association members provides some insight into current practices. Producers were asked to indicate whether they currently engage in selected on-farm practices, each of which are consistent with measures outlined in the Produce Safety Rule. These practices were divided into five broad areas: (a) workers' training, health and hygiene; (b) soil amendments; (c) domesticated and wild animals; (d) agricultural water usage and; (e) postharvest practices. Table 1 enables an overview of practices currently engaged in by producers. Based on Table 1, it appears focus should be placed on improving postharvest practices. Table 1: Practices ranked by highest need for attention (Highest = 1). Rank Practice Description 1 Postharvest Practices Standards related to practices, tools and buildings to prevent contaminating produce (e.g. storage, cleaning of equipment) 2 Biological soil amendments Microbial standards that limits detectable amounts of bacteria for processes used to treat biological soil amendments. 3 Domesticated and wild animals Practices to identify, and not harvest produce contaminated by certain animals. 4 Water quality Establishes criteria for microbial water quality based on the presence of generic E. coli. 5 Worker training, health and hygiene Hygienic practices that prevents contamination of produce by infected persons and visitors. A qualitative evaluation was conducted with participants four months after they attended FSPCA training at the SC. Based on date of training, two participants from each training session were conveniently selected (currently, n = 6). Trainees were contacted via email with an invitation to participate in an online survey administered through Qualtrics. The survey gathered open-ended responses to questions about participants' satisfaction with the training. In particular, trainees were asked to discuss their thoughts on: materials and information provided; perceived competency gained; ability to train others, and; overall satisfaction with the training. Based on responses from trainees, participants reported satisfaction with the adequacy of information provided, felt more competent and had generally high levels of self-confidence in their ability to provide training to others, and indicated high overall satisfaction with the training. Short-Term Outcomes - Knowledge To measure knowledge gained after participation in the training, a pre-and-post test was conducted. A directional dependent samples t-test was used to determine if there was a significant increase in knowledge after completion of the training. Results showed post-test scores were significantly higher than pre-test scores (T = -3.99, p < 0.01), indicating a significant increase in knowledge after participation in the training. Medium-Term Outcomes - Practices Adopted All participants were contacted via email three months after completion of their respective training sessions. Trainees were asked to indicate whether or not they are currently providing training, and to explain what they have done with the information learned from the training. Based on preliminary responses (n = 15), 73% of participants were not currently providing training. Further, most participants were from industry, and used the information learned in the training to develop food safety plans, and guide compliance initiatives within their organizations.

        Publications