Progress 09/01/23 to 08/31/24
Outputs
Target Audience:We are targeting two groups with the sanitation training tools we develop.We will target small produce growers and trainers who work with small produce growers (e.g., government regulators, Extension personnel).The majority of U.S. farms are small (89.1%) even though most fruit and vegetable production is on large farms. Many training curricula do not address the unique context (physical and operational attributes) common on small farms. Small farms might be at higher risk for food safety problems as these growers may not have access to the technical resources that large farms have. In addition, lack of time, experience, support, knowledge and limited focus on food safety relative to other operational priorities also challenge small growers. Importantly, compliance with food safety practices might be perceived to impose disproportionately larger costs on small growers because they cannot benefit from economies of scale like larger farms can. Additionally, among all U.S. farms only 4.6% are classified as farmers of color. Latino/Hispanic growers, particularly new immigrants, face additional challenges - possibly limiting their understanding of the cultural, regulatory, and legal environments - as well as potential difficulty accessing services designed to support them. Limited English-language proficiency can magnify the aforementioned challenges as language proficiency can facilitate access to current and correct technical information.Further complicating matters, most small growers, are less likely to be members of a trade association, which could provide technical and operational support. We believe many small growers rely on government regulators, Extension personnel, or word-of-mouth for information about how to comply with food safety regulations. Many regulators and Extension personnel might not have a deep understanding of the evidence base underpinning food safety standards, including sanitation practices, suggesting the need to also educate this population about basic sanitation practices. Notably, many of these trainers simply complete a train-the-train course, which often focuses on how to deliver content rather than the evidence behind the content. Increasing their knowledge through training and supplemental materials could subsequently increase not only their knowledge but their confidence in answering small grower questions, who we assert are dependent on them for guidance. Changes/Problems:No major changes were made with the exception that we used three channels to administer the online survey. These included: (1) having the research team send emails to 156 email addresses of small growers in Florida. (2) A team member met with 12 growers in person, inviting them to participate in the study. Those who agreed were provided either a print copy of the survey or a QR code linked to the online survey. (3) University of Florida Extension Agents sent the survey to over 1000 email addresses available through their personal listservs. Small growers are a very hard-to-reach audience suggesting a need to explore how to increase their participation in research/evaluation studies. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?SANITATION TRAINING TOOLS (Small Grower and Educator Modules) Small Growers -- after the training tools are created in English they will then be translated in Spanish using a certified, professional translator. The translation will be verified for language accuracy and cultural sensitivity by members of the University of Florida CAFÉ Latino. The 50 members of CAFE Latino are not solely Latinx faculty and staff but include representation from various racial/ethnic groups.CoPD Simonne will recruit up to 15 University of Florida Extension Agents who represent the five regions of Florida (up to 3 agents per region). Before these agents deliver the module,a 6-hour training will be conducted in two Florida locations to teach Extension Agents who will deliver the training about the evidence base of the module content as well as protocols for module delivery and data collection techniques. We aim to deliver the module to at least 100 small growers in the state of Florida. NOTE: We recognize that smaller growers are a hard-to-reach audience, which is why it is critical for Extension Agents to be involved. We will employ a randomized experimental design using a waitlist control group to determine training effect. Growers will attend trainings closest to their businesses or homes, which will limit pure randomization of grower assignment across the 15 Extension Agents. Both groups will complete pre- and post-test surveys in which we will measure self-reported pre-training sanitation practices, knowledge, awareness, and perception about the importance of sanitation. To characterize sustainable adoption of sanitation practices, data collection will take place at three points in time: (i) before the training intervention begins and (ii) one month after exposure to the training intervention. Educator Module --The educator module will be completed and shared. Our evaluation tools will center around measuring educator knowledge and confidence delivering sanitation content at baseline and followup, which will be approximately one month after exposure. In this phase of the project there will be no control group as the intent is to show change not effect. COMMUNICATING RESULTS Systematic Literature Review -- A systematic literature review is being formatted for submission to the Journal of Food Protection. Other Communication Channels --We will also make presentations at national and regional research meetings (e.g., International Association of Food Protection) as well as at appropriatecommodity-specific meetings. We will also engage our colleagues in the Southern Center for FSMA Training, eXtension, and Association of Food and Drug Officials to determine how best to disseminate our approach to within the group and beyond. Also, intervention findings will be communicated through appropriate scholarly publications, such asJournal of Food Protection, Food Protection Trends, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK --The research team receivedfeedback from the stakeholder panel (N=7) about essential content for the modules targeting small growers and educators who work with small growers. Across all responses, stakeholders indicated that all proposed topics included on the checklist must be covered in the training toolstargeting educators. However, for the training toolstargeting small growers, stakeholders agreed that practical knowledge and application was more important than in depth, theoreticalknowledge. Additionally, stakeholders suggested the addition of content related to sanitary design, organic growers, and state regulations. ONLINE SURVEY AND INTERVIEWS -- An online survey was administered by the University of Florida team through three channels. First, the research team sent emails to 156 email addresses of small growers in Florida. Secondly, a team member met with 12 farmers in person, inviting them to participate in the study. Those who agreed were provided either a print copy of the survey or a QR code linked to the online survey. Lastly, University of Florida Extension Agents sent the survey to over 1000 email addresses available through their personal listservs. Ten growers completed the survey and three participated in the follow-up interview via Zoom. Multiple attempts were made to increase the sample size, which was the reason for the three administration channels.The low response rate confirmed our concern that small growers might be a hard-to-reach audience.Even so, survey responses indicated a few important items that are being to used to inform the training tools.First, most growers use on-farm ground water and test their water quality. The most common testing focused on bacterial counts and the pH of pre-harvest water. Second, harvested produce was mainly transported in unrefrigated vehicles or coolers with ice packs.Third, half of the responses used checklists to evaluate the cleanliness oftheir work spaces and tools.Lastly, nearly all had consulted Extension agents regarding risk management training. These findings highlight three takeaways -- (1) small growers are open to learning new information; (2) checklists can serve as valuable tools to monitor sanitation; and (3) water quality and transportation should be addressed in the sanitation tools. The small number of interviews (N=3) makes thematic analysis impossible.However, three important findings of interest emerged. First, it was evident that farmers were relucant to speak with the research team about their sanitation practices. One expressed fear of oning inspections by "governmentauthorities" driven by past experience with other research groups.Second, growers conducted all processing steps from pre-harvest to sales, thus, did not have staff or volunteers to train and did not post sanitation signage.Third, growers expressed they had little time or resources to devote to documenting sanitation activities.These three preliminary findings, while not generalizable, suggestthat this hard-to-reach audience may lack uniformity in their sanitation practices and business environments.Any tools produced by the projectteam should be easy to access and quick to complete. SANITATION TRAINING TOOLS -- NOTE: The supplemental materials to be developed as part of Objective 3 will be in the form of a series of modules.The content to address was finalized and the first of 13 modules making up the sanitation training tools for educators who work with small growers was created. The remaining 12 are expected to be completed by the end of October 2024. The modules for small growers has not yet begun as the modules targeting educators will be used as the basis for the small grower modules. Both sets of moduleswill be parallel in content and format but the educator modules will provide more in-depth, theoretical information than will the modules targeting small growers. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW -- Nearly half (46%) of all foodborne disease outbreaks are attributed to eating contaminated produce. Food safety training is one approach used to decrease risk. Through this review we aimed to determine: (1) how produce safety training is currently evaluated and (2) which training approaches improved practices. Our team used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct the review. A total of 21 articles were included in our analysis. Few published studies evaluated the effect of food safety training on produce growers using a true experimental design. The paper is being formatted for submission to the Journal of Food Protection.
Publications
|