Food Protection Trends - August 2009 - 489

INTRODUCTION Current practices associated with production, harvesting, processing, packaging, transportation and preparation of vegetables provide many opportunities for transfer of pathogens to humans. Despite a recent concerted effort by industry, academia, and government to reduce the incidence of foodborne diseases associated with fruits and vegetables, infections continue to occur. This has resulted in great interest in identifying and promoting adoption of practices that will result in a safer food supply and a more robust US agricultural economy. Specifically, individuals involved in various stages of production along the farm-to-table continuum need to be the target of risk communications that enhance their ability to make optimum decisions regarding food safety practices. The research findings reported here are the first of five stages that are collectively intended to improve the effectiveness of on-farm decision making related to microbial contamination prevention and response. Enhancing such decision making requires assessing the degree to which farmers’ knowledge and perceptions correspond with those of experts. The goal of this assessment is to identify potential gaps and misconceptions that need to be addressed through future research, education, and extension efforts and to discover overlooked and emerging concepts not identified by experts. To identify farmers’ knowledge and perceptions, this project employs a mental models approach. The concept of mental models is a well-established theory in psychology and decision science (7–9). Mental models can be thought of as a complex web of deeply held beliefs that operate below an individual’s conscious level. They affect how an individual defines a problem, reacts to an issue, gathers and processes information, assesses risks and benefits, and makes decisions about topics and issues that are communicated to them. Because mental models define an individual’s thoughts and actions with regard to a particular cultural domain, they can also limit an individual to a range of familiar patterns of reasoning and behavior. Effective analyses of these models can provide insight into broadening the boundaries of a particular audience with more specific risk communications (9). The methodology of using mental models, to inform risk communication by identifying what people already know and what they need to know, has been the focus of extensive policy and management applications. A short list of these applications, which represents the relevance of this approach across multiple social scales, includes global climate change (2), wildfire management (13), antibiotic use in livestock (3), radon in homes (1), and agricultural weed management (12). In general, these studies have highlighted the underlying motivational and cognitive processes that are reflected in the target audiences’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. It is these processes that provide important insights into patterns of decision behavior and the underlying gaps in knowledge and perceptions that must be addressed through future risk communications. MATERIALS AND METHODS Research approach and design As a research method, the mental models methodology is based on five steps: developing an expert conceptual model of the problem and associated decision process, conducting interviews to develop the target audience mental models, conducting a confirmatory (survey-based) assessment of the identified gaps, developing the risk communication message, and evaluating the effectiveness of the message (9). The research reported here integrates expert knowledge on microbial hazards to fresh and fresh-cut produce into what is known as the “expert” or comprehensive, technical model. This first step in the mental models methodology provides the theoretical baseline for all future research. As a result, the expert model is not limited to concepts on which the expert participants agree, but rather attempts to capture the full state of knowledge on the topic. An expert model targeting foodservice operators, regulatory agencies and consumers with regard to improving microbial safety of fresh produce was recently published (10), but no such previous effort has been made focusing on contamination on-the-farm. The expert model for prevention of and response to contamination related to fresh and fresh-cut produce was initially developed based on informal conversations with the principal investigators on the project and a directed review of exist- ing literature (4, 5, 6, 11). An expert model workshop was then conducted in April 2007, with broad representation of approximately 20 key experts in the fields of food safety, plant pathology, microbiology, animal health, horticulture and crop sciences, consumer sciences, and decision science, from universities that include The Ohio State University, Kansas State University’s International Food Safety Network (iFSN), University of Georgia, and the University of California at Davis. Representation at the workshop also included experts from federal government agencies (e.g., CDC, USDA), and the food industry (e.g., vegetable growers/farmers, retail grocers). The expert model workshop began by presenting participants with the draft simple expert model that had been developed previously. Participants were then asked to discuss: potential hazards that exist at each step in the food production system; risk communication and management related to food risks; the roles and responsibilities of key players along the food system “chain of custody” and the degree of coordination among them; and influences that impact on-farm risk mitigation activities (e.g., regulations, economic forces, industry pressures, etc.). After this exercise, participants developed hypotheses of key influences on producer understanding of the potential for contamination, their level of preparedness, and readiness to act in response to a contamination event. Finally, participants were asked to discuss the influence of government and university risk communication and management on farmer preparedness and response. Participant feedback was recorded and incorporated into the model by consensus of the research team. The revised model was then returned to the panel of experts for review and comments. Following a period of review, another meeting was held in August 2007, in which the original participants and those who were unable to attend the first workshop (e.g., FDA) either attended in person or called in to provide comments and feedback, as well as final approval of the model. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The expert participants confirmed many of the concepts included in the draft model but also identified additional concepts related to the food system (“chain AUGUST 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 489
Food Protection Trends - August 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - August 2009
