Assessing produce safety rule knowledge, behavior change, compliance, and the development of resources of specialty crop produce growers in the US: North Central Region, Alabama, Georgia
Date
2022-08
Authors
Perry, Bridget J.
Major Professor
Advisor
Shaw, Angela M.
Coleman, Shannon M.
Cooper, Theressa N.
Francis, Sarah L.
Nair, Ajay
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Altmetrics
Abstract
AAn increase in the number of foodborne illness outbreaks associated with contaminated fresh produce has resulted in a focus on industry food safety practices and evidence-based education from farm to market. In response, the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) as a preventive rather than reactive method for mitigating risks of foodborne illness outbreaks. FSMA includes the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), which mandates immediate training for fresh produce growers in the U.S. The overall purpose of this dissertation was to assess the information needs of produce growers related to the PSR, identify their preferred types of education delivery methods, and provide next-step guidance for Extension personnel in developing educational resources. This was achieved through three studies.
Study 1 entailed a two-round needs assessment survey. Each round of the needs assessment surveys was distributed by educators and organizations (n=30) in 12 NCR states. Round 1 emphasized the importance of regionally identifying the needs of growers and suggested an effective process for doing so. This was achieved in Round 1 by inquiring about participants' current knowledge and information needs related to key areas of the PSR. Participants were asked to use a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= no knowledge and 5 = high knowledge) to rate their current knowledge and need for additional information. Four areas of priority knowledge needs were identified in round one: (1) wild and domestic animals, (2) worker training, (3) biological soil amendments, and (4) agriculture water. Participants were also asked to use a Likert-type scale to rate how likely they were to use educational materials from various delivery methods. Findings indicated that growers preferred educational materials such as checklists, printed publications, and face-to-face trainings.
Round 2 assessed growers’ knowledge and identified ranking order priority areas of information needed to guide NCR growers' educational resource developments. Preferred methods of delivery of educational resources were also identified. In Round 2, participants ranked the four-priority knowledge needs areas identified in Round 1 from most understood to least understood topic (1= least understood and 4= most understood). Results indicated the following ranking orders of topics from least understood to most understood: (1) biological soil amendment tests and their frequency; (2) agriculture water tests and their frequency; (3) wild and domestic animals; and (4) workers’ training, health, and hygiene. Participants were asked to rate how likely there were to use educational resources using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Very unlikely and 5 = Very Likely). Participants indicated that they were likely or very likely ( rating of 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale) to use educational materials in formats such as Extension publications/factsheets, printed checklists, and online videos. The top two preferences for learning new information were hands-on/ experiential events such as field days and site visits followed by text-baes materials such as Extension publications and books whether online and-or in print.
Study 2 involved a knowledge assessment that evaluated the impact of training modules from the Produce Safety Alliance Grower Training Course. Knowledge change from this seven-module course was assessed via a 25-question, multiple-choice test over a two-year period. The test was administered before the training began (pretest) and immediately after (posttest). Findings indicated no significant differences in scores (total knowledge change) from year to year. Growers entered the training each year with high scores in worker health, hygiene, and training (Module 2); however, participants continued to score low on Module 7 (develop a farm food safety plan) after training.
In both years, two questions were troublesome for participants to answer correctly. Concepts from one question were found to be confusing because although there is an entire module in the PSA Grower Training Course that covers how to develop a farm food safety plan, it is not a requirement of the FSMA PSR. Concepts from another question related to the types of required records that must be kept according to the PSR. Findings led to the development of a new document that highlights the required records for the PSR. The results also indicated that produce growers, food safety experts, and trainers within the NCR may still need tailored educational resources to comply with the PSR.
Study 3 assessed the training needs and intent to adopt Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) of small-scale and limited resource specialty crop growers in Alabama and Georgia via a two-phase mixed-method theoretical-based approach. Phase 1 used virtual focus groups to examine the target population's attitudes, motives, knowledge, barriers, and information needs toward implementing food safety practices outlined in the PSR after completing the PSA Grower Training Course. Participants preferred types of educational resources were also assessed. Results indicated handwashing was considered an essential daily food safety practice, while recordkeeping was the most challenging practice due to lack of time and staffing. Preferred educational resources and approaches were posters and hands-on activities. Hybrid training, part lecture and part on-farm demonstrations, and opportunities to learn from others were also found to be of interest.
Phase 2 examined participants’ intent to adopt Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs). Respondents rated how often they have implemented practices to reduce the risk of produce contamination after completing the training. Participants were also given the option to answer that they were already implementing a practice before completing the training. Respondents rated their level of agreement with statements to each of the three constructs of the TPB (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control) related to their intent to change their food safety behavior after completing training. Study 3 respondents were predominantly African American, female, 69 years of age, and had been farming for 10 years or less.
Results from this exploratory assessment survey study indicated that the TPB could predict respondents’ intent to change produce food safety practices post completion of the PSA Grower Training Course by this surveyed population of small-scale and limited resource specialty crop growers in Alabama and Georgia. Intent and perceived behavior control (PBC) was positively correlated (.540, p=0.025). PBC explained 29 percent of the variation in behavior. Extension personnel should focus educational resource development on intentions that target PBC.
Series Number
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Academic or Administrative Unit
Type
dissertation