Elsevier

Food Control

Volume 114, August 2020, 107220
Food Control

Short communication
A preliminary assessment of food safety training needs and preferences among Ohio food processors of various sizes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107220Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Most food processors self-report knowledge of GMPs and hazard analysis.

  • Food processor size influences preference for food safety training delivery method.

  • Time and cost are the barriers most often identified for implementing on going food safety training.

Abstract

An anonymous survey regarding food safety training needs and preferences was distributed through an email-embedded link to Ohio food processors through extension listservs. Respondents were characterized by food production in licensed facilities inspected by the Ohio Department of Agriculture's Division of Food Safety. They were also categorized into one of four groups depending on total number of employees, including Very Small (1–2), Small (3–10), Medium (11–30), and Large (>30). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed based on the 75 out of 500 food processors that responded to the survey. Both “time” (>25%) and “cost” (19%) were most frequently identified as barriers to implementing on-going employee training across respondents. Additionally, respondents from facilities with 1–2 employees indicated a preference for online training (89.2%) compared to respondents from the facilities with >30 employees who preferred in-person trainings (61.9%). Close to 50% of respondents from Very Small, Small, and Large facilities required continuing food safety training for employees, which was required in only 27.3% of the Medium-sized facilities. Future training programs that addresses the preferences and perceived needs among food processors may increase the implementation of continuing food safety education among diverse facilities.

Introduction

Providing food safety training to the industry has been an important function of land-grant university extension programs (Snyder, Shumaker, & Nelsen, 2018). While some courses can be categorized as mandatory certificate programs in that they fulfill regulatory requirements (e.g. Better Process Control School [BPCS], Preventive Controls Qualified Individual [PCQI] training), many other programs can be seen as value-added in that participants elect to attend to receive specialized education beyond what is minimally required (United States Food and Administration, 2018). Previous studies have established the value of training in ensuring food safety (Soon, Baines, & Seaman, 2012; (United States Small Business Administration, 2018). Consequently, the development of elective training programs that encourage non-mandatory industry participation is necessary for diverse food industry stakeholders. Evaluation of preferred delivery methods, self-reported areas of strengths, and identification of desired training content would help direct future development of extension education programs.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) Rule contains specific requirements for employee training that are specified in Subpart A (21 CFR 117.4). These trainings requirements apply to all employees engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2015a). Training may be achieved through classroom food safety extension programming, online tutorials, or internal trainings led by qualified staff. Notably, this requirement exists for all food production facilities regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), regardless of size. However, the needs, resources, and preferences in training style and content likely vary among facilities of different sizes. For example, the smallest food businesses have only 1 to 2 employees. These small-scale food processors may produce in their own dedicated facility or utilize a shared-use licensed kitchen. Although each of these businesses have limited production capacity, there are many small-scale food processors and they collectively represent a significant number of the licensed food facilities in Ohio (Low, 2015). Moreover, these small-scale processors face unique challenges based on time, financial assets, and task specialization (Yapp & Fairman, 2006). Food production facilities that employ 3 to 10 people represent small businesses as well, but notably are entities where additional personnel beyond the business owner(s) have been hired. Food business owners often have to address resource tradeoffs in training their employees, which is increasingly difficult due to employee turnover. Businesses of comparatively larger size face different challenges for food safety training. The largest food corporations are composed of multiple production facilities each with individualized food safety needs (Yapp & Fairman, 2006).

Since the food safety plan development and implementation needs are different based on food business size, the PCHF Rule includes a scale-sensitive approach to implementation across its seven subparts (A through G). Qualified facilities, those that produce < $1 million in food manufactured, packed, held, and distributed or those that generate < $500,000 in annual gross sales and sell the majority of the food directly to qualified end users, are exempt from subparts C and G which describe the PCHF Rule food safety plan elements that are the focus of the PCQI training (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2015c). Nonetheless, regardless of size and regulatory exemptions, all facilities are responsible for producing safe food. Programs offered through University Extension have been a cost-effective resource for diverse businesses to receive training on both mandatory and non-mandatory (“best practice”) food safety systems. So called “add-on” content that supports compliance with the PCHF Rule includes additional training resources outside of the standardized PCQI training curriculum, both for certified PCQIs as well as processors exempt from PCQI training as qualified facilities (Worsfold, 2005). In either case, a scale-sensitive approach to the development of non-mandatory extension training programs may be warranted in order to best meet the needs of Ohio industry stakeholders. The goal of this study was to survey FDA regulated food industry clients previously engaged within Ohio food safety extension programs and preliminarily assess preferences regarding attributes of training program content and structure based on facility size as determined by the number of employees.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Survey tool development and data handling were performed as previously described (Snyder & Worobo, 2018). Briefly, data were collected from surveys sent to food processors from the date of October 29th, 2018 through November 12th, 2018. Survey questions were developed to identify preference and perceived need among respondents for food safety training (Table 1). Questions were presented in formats such as forced choice (yes, no), multiple choice selection, identification of as many responses

Results

In total, responses were received from 75 food processors and distributed among four sizes categories (Table 2). For question 1 (Fig. 1), participants were asked if they understood hazard analysis and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). A total of 73 respondents self reported “yes” that they were familiar with hazard analysis and GMPs, while only 2 respondents answered “no”.

Question 3 asked if the respondents felt that food safety training and implementation was sufficient in their facility.

Discussion

The PCHF Rule defines facility size with respect to value of food produced based on a dollar amount (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2015c). For the purpose of this study, the number of employees was used as a proxy for business size. Although the survey was anonymous, respondents may have been disinclined to provide sales data or may not readily know that information, depending on their role within the business. Additionally, for the purpose of developing training programs, the

Conclusion

The PCHF Rule of FSMA increases the need among processors for food safety training content, both in terms of certificate courses with standardized curriculum (e.g. PCQI training) and non-mandatory training to enhance learning outcomes and compliance. Participation in non-mandatory food safety extension programs may be particularly relevant for small food processors eligible for qualified exemptions from Subparts C and G of the PCHF Rule, although all facilities are now required to offer and

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Nicholas A. Barone: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Erin DiCaprio: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Abigail B. Snyder: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Connect & Collaborate grant program at The Ohio State University and the Food Safety Outreach Program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Proposal Number 2018-05221).

View full text