DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR SMALL-SCALE PROCESSORS OF FERMENTED, ACID, AND ACIDIFIED FOODS

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: OTHER GRANTS
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1017125
• Grant No.: 2018-70020-28852
• Cumulative Award Amt.: $75,000.00
• Proposal No.: 2018-05221
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2018
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2020
• Grant Year: 2018
• Program Code: [A4182]- Regional FSMA Center

Recipient Organization
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
1680 MADISON AVENUE
WOOSTER,OH 44691

Performing Department
OSUE

Non Technical Summary
Processors of high acid, shelf-stable foods represent a significant portion of value-added specialty processors in the local foods industry of Ohio and California. While these products are favored among extremely small processors because of their long shelf-lives and shelf-stability, relevant food safety hazards must also be addressed by processors to ensure safe production.Some fermented and acidified food processors will be qualified facilities under the Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule and will need to support this status with documentation, and some will need to document processing exemptions under the Produce Safety Rule if they also grow ingredients for these products. Acidified food manufacturers are already subject to 21 CFR Part 114, which does not exempt them from considering microbiological hazards in their food safety plans (unlike processors of low acid canned foods). Subsequently, they will need to convert their scheduled processes into hazard analyses and food safety plans if they are not exempt from Subpart C based on size.Existing curricula including PCQI training and Better Process Control School do not address the needs of this specialized community of small and very small processors. We propose the creation of customized curricula and document templates to facilitate the development and acquisition of appropriate documentation and supporting materials for fermented and acidified food producers in establishing exemptions, documenting GMPS per Subpart B, and converting scheduled processes/process review letters into food safety plans. This content will be delivered through 10 regional trainings throughout Ohio and California.

Animal Health Component

(N/A)

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
712	5010	3020	100%

Knowledge Area
712 - Protect Food from Contamination by Pathogenic Microorganisms, Parasites, and Naturally Occurring Toxins;

Subject Of Investigation
5010 - Food;

Field Of Science
3020 - Education;

Keywords

coaching workshop

fsma documentation

fermented and acidified foods

Goals / Objectives
Value-added specialty products are a sector of the food industry popular among diverse small and medium-scale food businesses. While many of these firms are large in size, small and medium-scale processors, who may or may not generate extremely high product volume, do represent a significant number of the licensed food facilities in both Ohio and California.The total number of facilities manufacturing fermented or acidified foods is difficult to parse exactly. For example, many small and medium-sized producers of fermented and acidified foods operate through shared use kitchens and co-packers, producing seasonably or variably depending on the market. This leads to an underestimate of the number of producers in the market, and difficulty in accessing this community through conventional food safety trainings. Fermented and acidified food processors represent a significant portion of the total number of food businesses, and manufacture products which require some degree of technical backing to control relevant food safety hazards. However, their size, diffuse and independent business structure, and (in the case of acidified foods and alcoholic beverage manufacturers) current engagement with other germane regulations limits their awareness and accessibility to some of the available Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) training, and the relevance of the bulk of this training to their specific needs. Therefore, we propose the development and pilot-scale implementation of training targeting fermented and acidified food (FAF) producers.Shelf-stable, low pH products may variably be considered naturally high acid, fermented or acidified, depending on production method and formulation. Fermented foods are acidified through the production of organic acids by the metabolism of bacteria. In the production of fermented vegetable products, that is often accomplished through the addition of salt to both inhibit the outgrowth of vegetative pathogens and facilitate the growth of lactic acid bacteria found natively on the plant material. The safety of other fermented foods may variably be controlled through production of ethanol and through competitive exclusion. In contrast, acidified foods are produced through direct addition of an acid, frequently but not exclusively acetic acid in the form of vinegar, and thermally processed for safety and stability. These represent significant food industries in Ohio and California which both have large manufacturing and specialty crop production capabilities.Food safety risk mitigation strategies for FAFs are largely based on processing and formulation conditions. Vegetative pathogens including diarrheagenic Escherichia coli, non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica, and Listeria monocytogenes are inactivated through thermal processing, chemical pasteurization, or a combination of the two. In hermetically sealed containers, the risk for Clostridium botulinum germination and toxin production also becomes significant unless otherwise controlled by pH. Acidified food producers are required to file their processes with FDA per 21 CFR Part 114, which does not exempt them from Subpart C or G of the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) Rule of FSMA10. Their products and processes are potentially associated with several significant hazards, however, many FAF processors are small, and may be eligible for exemption based on size as "qualified facilities." FAF products are variably sold through direct distribution (Farm Markets, on-farm sales), retail (groceries, restaurants), and increasingly complex supply chains, making their impact on public health a relevant consideration. Because many of the processors are small, independent businesses, outreach and education that is specific to their needs rather than large-scale food manufacturers is needed.The Produce Safety Rule (PSR) and PCHF Rule in FSMA have changed the minimum documentation requirements for food producers. Even facilities who will be exempt from the PSR due to processing (21 CFR 112.2) or exempt from Subpart C and G of the PCHF due to size (21 CFR 117.201), must still develop and maintain documentation in support of their exemption. Moreover, the PCHF qualified size exemption does not exempt facilities from Subpart B, modernized Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), which now also includes documentation standards that even qualified facilities need to address (21 CFR 117.110). For FAF processors who are not qualified facilities based on size, a food safety plan including the hazard analysis and relevant preventive controls is required. Acidified food producers are already subject to 21 CFR Part 114, the Acidified Food Rule, that requires them to file a scheduled process, as 21 CFR Part 113 requires for Low Acid Canned Foods (LACF). However, unlike LACF which has microbiological hazards exempt from PCHF food safety plan development, acidified food producers still must develop a food safety plan that addresses their microbiological hazards8. Therefore, they will need to convert their scheduled process into a hazard analysis and preventive control plan. The development of this documentation - exemptions, GMPs, and conversion of a scheduled process into a hazard analysis and food safety plan is not addressed in currently available curricula including Preventive Controls Qualified Individual Training (PCQI) and Better Process Control School (BPCS). Many FAF processors are small food producers and do not have nor will they hire someone with dedicated food safety expertise. Instead, they will rely heavily on local food safety inspectors, university Extension services, and third-party consultants in order to become informed of and develop appropriate response to these changing food safety regulatory standards.Document development is often one of the greatest perceived barriers to regulatory compliance for small and inexperienced processors. Concise hands-on instruction with guided exercises and feedback can increase preparedness among FAF producers which would both promote public health by increasing control over food safety hazards as well as improve regulatory compliance, FSMA implementation and enforcement, and industry satisfaction by increasing FAF processor resources and knowledge. FAFs represent an important part of the local foods sector and these manufacturers are a particularly vulnerable group often with limited resources available to reallocate towards facilitating regulatory compliance. Some acidified food processors already feel burdened by the pre-existing restrictions and requirements including BPCS, Process Authority services, and filing. In order to bolster sustainability of FAF processors, hands-on training in document development for FAF processors would help alleviate this burden faced by these manufacturers. While FAF producers often represent high risk products, processors are frequently small with limited resources available for training, consultation, and professional development. Filling in these existing knowledge gaps and direct transfer of template documents and resources through local Extension programming connected with shared use kitchens and farm markets is the most effective strategy.The goal of this project is to increase FSMA preparedness among FAF processors by delivering targeted, customized training and associated resources necessary in document development and management.

Project Methods
Objective 1 - Develop and verify a contact list for FAF processors in CA and OHGoal: Establish lines of communication with FAF processors in Ohio and CaliforniaMethods: Many FAF processors are currently or have been previously engaged through trainings and technical services with the university Extension personnel involved in this proposal. Therefore, contact list assembly will be based on collating and verifying contact information from existing listservs, and updating lists with the information for new businesses. Previous engagements with relevant community stakeholders include food preservation trainings, fermented food workshops, BPCS courses, process authority services, and individual inquiries. License holders for canneries, bottlers, and retailers with relevant variances can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to associated state-level food safety regulators. Finally, key contacts for future course advertisement will be identified at shared-use kitchen facilities and farm markets through existing relationships and formal professional association membership. Letters of support from several of these contacts are included. Associations of relevant stakeholders including the Ohio Farmer's Market Management Network, OSU Local Foods Team and Direct Marketing Team, Center for Innovative Food Technology, Food Industries Center, and Appalachian Center for Economic Networks. In California, contacts will be collected through established channels such as: the UC Davis Food Science and Technology Cooperative Extension Specialists, UC Davis Food Science and Technology Department Industry Advisory Board, the Robert Mondavi Institute Advisory Board, the UC Davis World Food Center, the California League of Food Producers, the UC Lab for Research in Food Preservation, and the California Department of Public Health Food and Drug Branch. Contact information will be verified by phone, at which time the primary person for point of contact will be identified or confirmed.Objective 2 - Create a curriculum and templates for training FAF processors in FSMA document developmentGoal: Development of training resources and distributable tools customized for FAF processors to support FSMA compliance within those communities.Method: Training curricula will include: (1) a slide deck appropriate for the one-day training in Obj. 3, (2), handouts designed to structure self-determination of documentation requirements in the form of a decision tree, (3) templates for the necessary documentation that is distributable as hard-copy handouts and as digital documents, and (4) a workbook which includes (1-3) as well as sample documents from fictional companies to be used as models. This content will address exemption requirements from the PSR based on processing, exemption from PCHF Subpart C and G based on size, GMP requirements, and conversion of scheduled processes into hazard analysis and food safety plans. These resources will be based on the PSR, PCHF, FSPCA materials, Acidified Foods Rule, FDA draft guidance, including that for qualified facility attestation using form FDA 3942a, and primary research on food safety hazards and controls. The development of the material will primarily be developed by PD-Snyder and the M.S. student supported from this grant under her supervision. The content will be reviewed for technical accuracy and usability by a panel of experts including regulatory, academia, and industry. Letters of support from several expert reviewers have been included. Rubrics for evaluators will include value and accuracy of information, alignment with FSMA, and utility for the community group.Objective 3 - Provide small-group training sessions and individualized guidance to FAF processors in the development of FSMA documentationGoal: Increase confidence and proficiency among FAF processors in document development and FSMA preparedness.Methods: A total of 10 trainings will be offered, five will be hosted by PD-Snyder in Ohio and five will be hosted by PD-DiCaprio in California. PD-Snyder will also travel to and assist in facilitation of California trainings. Workshops will consist of one-day trainings limited to the first 20 applicants at each location to facilitate small group discussions and individualized attention. Trainings will be based regionally throughout each state to increase access to a diverse audience (Fig. 2) and held at collaborators' facilities in shared-use kitchens and training centers (see letters of support). Participants will be recruited through advertisements sent two months in advance to the contact list assembled in Obj. 1 and through targeted promotion from key contacts at shared use kitchens and farm markets. Participants will be charged a nominal $15 enrollment fee to increase attendance after registration and to offset small incidental costs. At the trainings, participants will be divided into smaller groups and structured workshop content generated in Obj. 2 will be used to guide participants through identification of the documentation they will need to develop. Using the templates provided, participants will also draft the needed materials and create a work list of supporting documentation to additionally obtain. Participants will be surveyed before and after participation in the course, and course evaluations and long-term follow up will also be included. Co-PD DiCaprio will lead development of evaluation tools including user-surveys and assessments from participants, described below.

Progress 09/01/18 to 08/31/20

Outputs
Target Audience:We originally committed to performing 5 trainings and targeted reaching 100 processors in Ohio but due to the demand for the course, we performed 6 trainings which served >200 Ohio processors. The training, generally, was designed to target small, specialized food processors who may be eligible for qualified exemptions from Subparts C and G of the PCHF Rule. The five regional trainings in Ohio (Northeast, Northwest, Central, Southeast, Southwest) were held on-site at collaborating shared-use kitchens. This allowed us to reach processors previously unconnected to the university Extension system. We received additional requests from the Ohio Winemakers Association to offer the training at their annual meeting, so a modified version of the presentation specific to producers of alcoholic beverages was presented to reach additional clientele. Collaborating host sites (i.e. Extension partners, shared-use kitchens, farm market managers) requested trainings for subsequent years and in other states. The trainings were specifically targeted to processors of fermented, acidified and acid food products, although other small manufacturers, notably those producing juice, retail operators/food service, and water activity-controlled food producers also requested to attend the workshops. Shelf-stable products represent a category of foods generally favored by small-scale processors because of their extended shelf-life and lack of dependence on a cold-chain. Therefore, targeting these processors collectively, because of their shared microbiological hazard concerns, technical needs, and relationship to the PCHF rule will allow for the most effective method of targeting local communities of high risk, high impact food products. This group often relies on communities of support to pool resources in order to comply with regulations and remain sustainable. These resources variably include: shared-use kitchens, where diverse processors rent time in a licensed food manufacturing facility with various equipment infrastructure for manufacture; shared distribution systems such as farm markets which allow for direct marketing and sale of specialty products where advertisement and clientele recruitment efforts are pooled; and use of university Extension resources for training and food safety technical expertise in the form of workshops and education, process authority services, and disbursement of updates and guidance on emerging food safety regulations Targeted stakeholders include processors of fermented fruit and vegetable products (e.g. sauerkraut, lactofermented pickles, kimchi, kombucha, vinegar, hard cider, wine, etc.) as well as acidified food manufacturers (e.g. pickles, red sauces, salsas, non-standard dressings, pepper and bacon jellies, mustards, etc.). Other relevant stakeholders will also be included as potential participants who would benefit from this training. These include the leadership at shared use kitchens and farm markets, as well as processors of "Acid Foods" exempt from 21 CFR Part 114 who use similar process preventive control approaches to manage similar microbiological hazards. In California, four trainings were held in Davis CA. The audience served was primarily producers of acidified low acid canned foods. In California, producers of acidified low acid canned food are required to hold a California Cannery License. This license requires a letter from the state approved Process Authority and lot inspection and release. A small proportion of workshop attendees were producers of fermented products. In California, production of fermented foods must be done in a facility holding a Processed Food Registration. This can include shared-use commercial kitchens with a valid license to produce fermented foods. Participants were asked to rate course materials as informative and useful on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1=not informative, 2=mildly informative, 3=neutral, 4=informative, and 5=very informative. Overall, participants the course materials on "Filing your process" 4.67 on this scale and "Records and record review" and 4.42. Changes/Problems:Several unforeseen challenges, including delays in award allocation (received May 2020 to UCD), PI transition and an additional subaward, the pandemic, and an absence for maternity leave, faced the team. This hampered the ability of the team at the University of California Davis to offer training courses across the state over a broader time range. Despite these challenges, four trainings serving 62 processers were still achieved in CA and 6 trainings were performed in OH for 220 processors. Additionally, course materials developed through this project will continue to be utilized beyond the project end date. Online offerings of the course are planned for fall 2020 and winter 2021. Developed evaluation tools will also be utilized to survey small scale acidified food processors in California. We anticipate publishing the outcomes of this survey in 2021. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Processors A diverse array of food processors (n=282) participated in training and professional development activities relating to food safety, FSMA compliance, and document development. This included 220 participants in Ohio and 62 participants in California who were engaged in in-person course delivery. Educators Food safety professionals in academia, industry, and regulatory (n=10) also attended and/or participated in these trainings. This additionally served to increase awareness and compliance with FSMA and improve food safety knowledge among individuals with an educational or outreach responsibility towards the target audience. Students Food science students (n=3) participated in this training. An M.S. student has been responsible for collecting and analyzing training outcomes as part of his thesis work and has presented these findings at a Regional Center training and international food safety conference. This M.S. student successfully defended their thesis in March and their work resulted in a peer-reviewed, published journal article, described below. An additional PhD student co-taught during these workshops. These experiences help train the next generation of U.S. food safety professionals. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have reached >200 processors in our target community - small, specialty food processors who are not currently subject to Subpart C and G of the PCHF Rule and for whom PCQI training is inappropriate. This has included work with shared-use kitchens, farm markets, and industry groups (i.e. Ohio Wine Makers) to reach these niche communities. Results have also been disseminated to peer food safety educational communities through presentation at conferences and through collaboration with our Regional Center. We have also engaged collaborating food safety educators through co-instruction and the sharing of developed curriculum and materials. These events are specific to result dissemination outside the state of Ohio. Within the state of Ohio, promotion of the results from these trainings and "train-the-trainer" in-services has included presentations at OSU Extensional professional development events (Agriculture and Natural Resource Educator Annual Retreat, Family Consumer Science Annual Food Safety Bootcamp, Direct Marketing Team annual report). These efforts encourage other Educators to continue this training in support of these small, specialized food processors as the seek to achieve regulatory compliance and enhance their control over food safety in the future. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Through the outreach efforts in Objective 1, we identified a contact list of FAF processors that exceeds 500 businesses. This list will be used in subsequent food safety programming to reach new audiences who previously were not exposed to training opportunities through Extension. Some of these new contacts additionally include farm market managers and shared-use kitchen supervisors who will subsequently be able to drive new contacts/small businesses towards these resources. We have also developed a targeted, customized training series for FAF processors that was reviewed and revised by food safety regulators, educators, and processors and has been delivered to well over 200 small businesses. Interest in the training course was largely driven by concern among small businesses regarding FSMA compliance. However, following training, both regulatory compliance and the development of food safety documents for use during production was viewed as much more manageable among this stakeholder group. Additionally, food safety awareness was also improved through these trainings. Of the stakeholders we reached through this program, 80% indicated they had never previously attended a FSMA-PCQI or BPCS course before. Additionally, 68% indicated that they had never attended a GMP course before, suggesting that the majority of our audience would potentially benefit from exposure to formal food safety training. Indeed, 85% of participants found the course "very useful" and 15% found the course "somewhat useful." No participants found the course "fairly" or "not useful." Following training, the number of respondents who indicated that they were very knowledgeable of food safety requirements and were familiar with how to implement them in their business more than doubled. Additionally, the overall average scores (± standard deviations) for the pre- and post- training quizzes were 41.6% (± 35.2%) and 82.2% (± 31.0%), respectively. After performing a paired comparison T-test, there was a significant difference discovered between the overall average scores of the pre-training quiz compared to the overall average scores of the post-training quiz (p<.05). These scores prove an increase in understanding of food safety concepts and requirements asked, post-training, and that these FAF processors are more knowledgeable of and understand the requirements of their facilities as well as how to provide proper documents needed to prove eligibility for qualified facility exemption under FSMA. Attendees of past trainings were invited, via email, to participate in an online quiz approximately six months after the training session. From contact information provided, 92 emails were successfully delivered, with 12 quizzes completely answered and submitted (13.0% response rate). The average score (± Standard deviation) for the six-month quiz was 67.4% (± 13.4%).

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Barone, N. and Snyder, A.B. An assessment of food safety training needs and preferences among Ohio food processors of various sizes. International Association of Food Protection. Annual Meeting. Louisville, KY.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Barone, N., DiCaprio, E., and Snyder, A.B. FSMA document development and management training for small-scale processors of fermented and acidified foods. North Central Region FSMA Annual Conference. Indianapolis, IN.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Barone, N., DiCaprio, E., and Snyder, A.B. A preliminary assessment of food safety training needs and preferences among Ohio food processors of various sizes. Food Control. 114: 107220

Progress 09/01/18 to 08/31/19

Outputs
Target Audience:At this point in the project, the Ohio trainings have been completed. We originally committed to performing 5 trainings and targeted reaching 100 processors in Ohio but due to the demand for the course, we performed 6 trainings which served >200 Ohio processors. The training, generally, was designed to target small, specialized food processors who may be eligible for qualified exemptions from Subparts C and G of the PCHF Rule. The five regional trainings in Ohio (Northeast, Northwest, Central, Southeast, Southwest) were held on-site at collaborating shared-use kitchens. This allowed us to reach processors previously unconnected to the university Extension system. We received additional requests from the Ohio Winemakers Association to offer the training at their annual meeting, so a modified version of the presentation specific to producers of alcoholic beverages was presented to reach additional clientele. Collaborating host sites (i.e. Extension partners, shared-use kitchens, farm market managers) have requested trainings for subsequent years based on interest and trainings are tentatively being scheduled for 2020 incontinuation of this work. The California leg of trainings (5 committed trainings targeting an additional 100 processors) are currently underway and have been scheduled through the month of September. The trainings were specifically targeted to processors of fermented, acidified and acid food products, although other small manufacturers, notably those producing juice, retail operators/food service, and water activity-controlled food producers also requested to attend the workshops. Shelf-stableproducts represent a category of foods generally favored by small-scale processors because of their extended shelf-life and lack of dependence on a cold-chain. Therefore, targeting these processors collectively, because of their shared microbiological hazard concerns, technical needs, and relationship to the PCHF rule will allow for the most effective method of targeting local communities of high risk, high impact food products. This group often relies on communities of support to pool resources in order to comply with regulations and remain sustainable. These resources variably include: shared-use kitchens, where diverse processors rent time in a licensed food manufacturing facility with various equipment infrastructure for manufacture; shared distribution systems such as farm markets which allow for direct marketing and sale of specialty products where advertisement and clientele recruitment efforts are pooled; and use of university Extension resources for training and food safety technical expertise in the form of workshops and education, process authority services, and disbursement of updates and guidance on emerging food safety regulations. Intended Audience: Targeted stakeholders include processors of fermented fruit and vegetable products (e.g. sauerkraut, lactofermented pickles, kimchi, kombucha, vinegar, hard cider, wine, etc.) as well as acidified food manufacturers (e.g. pickles, red sauces, salsas, non-standard dressings, pepper and bacon jellies, mustards, etc.). Other relevant stakeholders will also be included as potential participants who would benefit from this training. These include the leadership at shared use kitchens and farm markets, as well as processors of "Acid Foods" exempt from 21 CFR Part 114 who use similar process preventive control approaches to manage similar microbiological hazards. Changes/Problems:Generally, the approach to the project has been very successful. California trainings were delayed due to the co-PD's materninity leave, but are currently underway and will be completed within our one-year extension. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Processors A diverse array of food processors (n=220) participated in training and professional development activities relating to food safety, FSMA compliance, and document development. Educators Food safety professionals in academia, industry, and regulatory (n=10) also attended and/or participated in these trainings. This additionally served toincrease awareness and compliance with FSMA and improve food safety knowledge among individuals with an educational or outreach responsibility towards the target audience. Students Food science students (n=3) participated in this training. An M.S. student has been responsible for collecting and analyzing training outcomes as part of his thesis work and has presented these findings at a Regional Center training and international food safety conference. An additional PhD student co-taught during these workshops. These experiences help train the next generation of U.S. food safety professionals.? How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have reached >200 processors in our target community - small, specialty food processors who are not currently subject to Subpart C and G of the PCHF Rule and for whom PCQI training is inappropriate. This has included work with shared-use kitchens, farm markets, and industry groups (i.e. Ohio Wine Makers) to reach these niche communities. Results have also been disseminated to peer food safety educational communities through presentation at conferences and through collaboration with our Regional Center. We have alsoengaged collaborating food safety educators through co-instruction and the sharing of developed curriculum and materials. These events are specific to result dissemination outside the state of Ohio. Within the state of Ohio, promotion of the results from these trainings and "train-the-trainer" in-serviceshas included presentations at OSU Extensional professional development events (Agriculture and Natural Resource Educator Annual Retreat, Family Consumer Science Annual Food Safety Bootcamp, Direct Marketing Team annual report). These efforts encourage other Educators to continue this training in support of these small, specialized food processors as the seek to achieve regulatory compliance and enhance their control over food safety in the future. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We have completed the trainings in Ohio and are currently performing analysis of our training outcomes. Six-month follow-up surveys were recently distributed to participants. Trainings in California will beoccurring in late summer/early fall. Currently, six trainings are scheduled, and data will be collected on those trainings as well. We are also expanding the utilization of these materials to a national program in continuation of this work.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Through the outreach efforts in Objective 1, we identified a contact list of FAF processors that exceeds 500 businesses. This list will be used in subsequent food safety programming to reach new audiences who previously were not exposed to training opportunities through OSU Extension. Some of these new contacts additionally include farm market managers and shared-use kitchen supervisors who will subsequently be able to drive new contacts/small businesses towards these resources. We have also developed a targeted, customized training series for FAF processors that was reviewed and revised by food safety regulators, educators, and processors and has been delivered to well over 200 small businesses in Ohio. Interest in the training course was largely driven by concern among small businesses regarding FSMA compliance. However, following training, both regulatory compliance and the development of food safety documents for use during production was viewed as much more manageable among this stakeholder group. Additionally, food safety awareness was also improved through these trainings. Data analytics from knowledge assessments will be presented in the final report.?

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Barone, N. and Snyder, A.B. An assessment of food safety training needs and preferences among Ohio food processors of various sizes. International Association of Food Protection. Annual Meeting. Louisville, KY.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Barone, N., DiCaprio, E., and Snyder, A.B. FSMA document development and management training for small-scale processors of fermented and acidified foods. North Central Region FSMA Annual Conference. Indianapolis, IN.