Food Protection Trends - July/August 2023 - 294

regulatory requirements for product labels and demonstrated
how product labeling decisions impact food safety risk
management. Finally, the course wrapped up by introducing
the different food safety management systems so that
qualified exempt facilities are more prepared for regulatory
compliance in the future. The program was delivered using
a PowerPoint (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) slide
presentation with engaging activities that included the
following: group-based discussions, hands-on exercises, and
real-time demonstrations. Table 1 illustrates information
about each module, including the learning objectives and
specific activities conducted. In brief, the overall program
aim was to increase food safety awareness and preparedness
for regulatory compliance.
This educational program was offered in person twice
(Ballston Spa, NY, in 2019 and Warren, RI, in 2020)
and virtually six times during 2020 to 2021 during the
coronavirus pandemic. Program group-work activities were
modified for the virtual delivery, as noted in Table 1. Overall,
the program was presented to 143 participants for in-person
and virtual programming combined.
Assessment of the program through participant
evaluation
A postprogram evaluation tool was developed to assess
program participant background information (i.e., food
production status, food commodities produced, years
working in industry), intent to apply knowledge and skills
learned in the course, usefulness and understanding of
module content, and interest in and preparedness regarding
implementation of key food safety activities. For in-person
workshops, interest and preparedness were assessed before
and at the completion of the workshop. Because of time
constraints and limitations with virtual formats, this was
not assessed before program delivery when the content was
delivered online. The evaluation tool was approved by the
University of Rhode Island Institutional Subjects Review
Board (reference 1119582-2). Question formats included
multiple choice, open-ended text, and Likert scales. A 5-point
Likert scale was used to assess understanding of concepts (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree) and a 4-point scale was used to assess course
usefulness (1 = not useful, 2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately
useful, 4 = extremely useful).
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software (version
27; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Analysis of descriptive
statistics (e.g., frequency, percent, mean and standard deviation)
and t tests were performed to determine statistical
significance between means (where the P-value for significance
was set at P < 0.05). For some open-ended questions, responses
were categorized (e.g., the types of food products being
produced, level of experience, and/or training).
294 Food Protection Trends July/August
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Participant profile
The course was delivered a total of eight times (twice in
person and six times virtually) to 143 participants. There
were 90 survey respondents (27 were in person and 63 were
virtual), yielding a 62.9% response rate. The program evaluation
response rate was lower when the program was delivered
virtually than in person. The higher survey response rate for
in-person events could be attributed to direct monitoring of
participants for complying with the request because in-person
participants could be physically seen submitting their
surveys into a confidential envelope, whereas the Web-delivery
methods deployed to virtual participants often result in
lower response rates (8). Workshop participants were split
among " planning " to develop (32%), currently developing
(36%), and currently processing (36%) food products (Fig.
1). Many participants (47%) had less than 5 years of experience
working in the food industry, and most were considered
" early-stage " developers, that is, they have been developing
their food products for 1 to 5 years (Table 2).
Products produced
The top three food categories produced were condiments
(25%); value-added produce (25%); and grains, cereals, and
baked goods (19%) (Table 3). Condiments included sauces,
pesto, hummus, and spreads. Value-added produce included
acidified canned products (11%), dried products (6%),
fresh-cut or prepared products (7%), and frozen products
(2%). The food safety risks associated with value-added
produce include items with higher food safety risks (i.e.,
low-acid canned foods) and others with lower risks (i.e.,
jams and jellies, many baked goods). Food safety risk factors
and process controls vary, depending upon the type of food
products produced. This training speaks broadly about food
safety considerations related to product development. The
course introduced the PC regulation and illustrated what is
involved when conducting a hazard analysis. It is essential
to explain different food safety considerations for various
food products/processes to enhance learning and increase
awareness of the factors that must be considered to produce
safe food.
Another study found that canned goods (25%), value-added
produce (11%), and pickled vegetables (9%) were the
most frequently cited food categories produced by producers
who also process value-added products on a small scale (4).
Similar products were reported by small processors operating
out of shared-use facilities with the top products reported
being cereal and bread and baked goods, followed by condiments
and beverages (nonjuice) (14). A national study by
Econsult Solutions Inc. in 2020 reported that ready-to-eat
foods (67%) and baked goods (65%) were the most common
products made at shared-use kitchens, followed by sauces and
spreads (40%), jams and jellies (33%), and spices and rubs
(33%) (9).
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2023
