Food Protection Trends - July/August 2023 - 299

and utensils; processes and controls; warehousing; and
distribution, holding and distribution, and defect action levels)
and specific process, environmental, and supplier hazards.
Gilbert et al. (10) reported that food safety communicators
felt that small and very small processors had below-average
knowledge about basic food safety and sanitation procedures.
Most small and very small food processors had no-to-average
awareness of the PCHF requirements (97%), had averageor
less-than-average knowledge of the basic food safety and
sanitation procedures (79%), and felt that a lack of awareness
and understanding of the regulation was very or extremely
challenging (74%) (13). This suggests that there is a strong
need to improve food safety-related outreach to small and very
small processors to improve their preparedness for conducting
important activities.
Overall program evaluation
Participants evaluated the program, provided feedback on
specific modules, and indicated their level of preparedness
regarding specific food safety-related concepts. The majority
(87%) of workshop participants agreed/strongly agreed that
overall, the course met their expectations, where the average
combined score was 4.3 ± 0.8 (based on a 5-point Likert
scale) (Table 5). Furthermore, 93% of participants agreed/
strongly agreed that they will apply the knowledge and skills
learned in the course to food applications, where the average
combined score was 4.5 ± 1.0 (based on a 5-point Likert
scale) (Table 5). Although only a few participants (n = 34)
indicated how they would use their new knowledge, the
most frequently cited application was to develop food safety
plans, followed by label review and GMP procedures. Finally,
participants agreed that the course was very useful. There
were no differences between the evaluation scores for courses
offered in person and virtually, indicating that the delivery
format did not impact the program.
Although program content delivery was the same for
in-person and virtual training, there were some modifications
needed for virtual trainings to maintain engagement. Specifically,
when delivering the virtual sessions, the program had
additional team members involved in an effort for instructors
to better connect with the virtual learners. This included
having one presenter and alternating the speakers in every
module, maintaining one person responsible for managing
the chat room so that instructors could respond to questions,
and having a third person responsible for the virtual platform
production (i.e., Zoom) to manage the virtual classroom
attendance, manage the content sharing and screen share, and
monitor hand raising for questions and provide technological
assistance. As described in Table 1, the hands-on learning
activities had modifications to demonstrate the concepts.
One large difference is that the hands-on learning activities
involved video demonstrations and various online shared
digital files where participants could collaborate in the same
file to complete exercises. Interestingly, the overall self-rated
level of understanding of concepts presented in the modules
was high (average score at or above 4.4 on the Likert scale,
where 5 strongly agreed), and there were no observed differences
between in-person and online instruction. Although
there were some modifications in the overall delivery of the
training between in person and online, the virtual training
appeared to be as effective as the in-person training. Participants
most frequently commented that the most valuable
part of the course was regarding labeling and hazard analysis.
Some topic areas that participants would like to learn about
in the future included a deeper coverage of microbial hazards
and appropriate control measures and more real-world food
product examples. Similarly, Gilbert et al. (10) reported the
top rank ordered informational needs of small processors included
food safety plan models, food safety training, process
authority directory, and where to find PCHF courses and
private food safety consulting directory information.
The self-rated level of understanding of key concepts
presented in the workshop was assessed for each module.
Workshop participants had a high level of understanding
of the concepts presented, where the average module score
(over all workshop events) was 4.4 to 4.6 (Table 6). The
hazards and hazard analysis and preventive controls modules
had lower levels of understanding (Table 6). Although not
statistically significant, participants had a higher self-rated
level of understanding of the modules on quality/safety and
labeling. The module about labeling was highly valued, and
label review was one of the frequently mentioned ways that
participants planned to apply their newfound knowledge.
A survey with processors in the state of Ohio found that
although most processors understand the concept of a hazard
analysis as it relates to their business, smaller processing
facilities lacked written plans (that would include a hazard
analysis) and sufficient food safety training (2). Limited
experience, resources, and training are contributing factors
to the lack of written food safety plans (2). Additional
programming or coaching in food safety management
systems would increase the likelihood of implementation
of written programs (11). Furthermore, when food safety
concepts are introduced to small-scale processors more
frequently and in smaller content doses, with additional
technical support from food safety experts provided, the
self-reported knowledge confidence increased significantly
(21). Therefore, this product development training program
introduced many of the food safety concepts early in the
food business development cycle in hopes of increased
awareness of these critical considerations to enable increased
preparedness in developing scale-appropriate food safety
plans in the future.
Preparedness and interest in implementing key food
safety practices
When comparing pre- and postsurvey responses,
workshop participants felt significantly more prepared to
July/August Food Protection Trends 299
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2023

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