Food Protection Trends - July/August 2018 - 285

it be linked to foodborne illness (22). This risk of foodborne
illness is heightened by the fact that those who utilize
hunger-relief organizations possibly have insufficient access
to healthcare (7). In 1996, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Act was passed, which removed the liability
associated with illness linked to consumption of food
donated in good faith to a hunger-relief organization (3, 22).
However, absence of liability does not negate the need for
safe food-handling during the reclamation process.
One of the barriers to ensuring food safety during the
donation and food recovery process is finding people who
can safely divert and transport food to local hunger-relief
agencies. For many businesses, this would result in paying
employees to divert and transport food without earning
any revenue. Colleges and universities provide a unique
opportunity for service learning where there is leftover,
unserved food available at on-campus dining facilities, as well
as student volunteers willing to divert and deliver the food as
a part of their educational experience and local hunger-relief
agencies in need of additional food (9, 17, 28, 32).
Although well intentioned, the use of students to divert,
transport and serve recovered food may impact the efficacy
of these programs. It has been documented that the foodhandling behaviors of young adults can be risky (1, 5, 6, 10,
16, 31). Young adults have high confidence in their ability
to handle food safely; however, many lack appropriate
training and engage in unsafe behaviors. Safe food-handling
and preparation behaviors of students have generally been
measured in situations in which they were handling food for
themselves, with other studies focused on food handlers in
foodservice (1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 23, 29). Food recovery programs
present additional safe food-handling educational challenges,
because their intricacies may be difficult to cover in current
food safety educational programs and because of the high rate
of volunteer turnover (7, 12).
To our knowledge, no studies have examined food-handling behaviors of young adults working in food recovery
programs. The objective of this study was to collect observational data on food-handling behaviors of student volunteers
in an on-campus food diversion program. Observed behaviors were compared with students' self-reported food-handling behaviors. The primary goals of the study were to identify key training needs and develop a strategy for educating
these volunteers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Student volunteers handling food as part of an on-campus
food diversion program at a public, land-grant university
were used for this case study. Two data collection methods
were used. First, volunteers participated in an observational
study in which their food-handling behaviors were observed
during volunteer shifts. After being observed, volunteers
completed an online survey to assess their self-reported
behaviors and self-identified training needs. All parts of this

study were approved through the Virginia Tech Institutional
Review Board (IRB #17-133).
Observational data collection
Three different types of student volunteer shifts that were
part of the on-campus food diversion program were included
in this study: (1) diversion, (2) cooking and (3) delivery. All
three shifts were observed for varying time frames. Volunteers received shift-specific safe food-handling training based
on their role in the program. A description of each shift type,
along with training requirements and the key training concepts for each, are outlined in Table 1.
Two days prior to each shift observation, volunteers registered
for that shift were contacted via e-mail to inform them that a
researcher would be attending the shift to observe and record
their behaviors. On the day of the observation, one researcher
met the participants to inform them that the purpose of the
observation was to better understand their experiences so
improvements could be made for future shifts. This was to
avoid bias so that their food-handling behaviors would not be
adjusted (29). Willing volunteers completed a consent form,
followed by a 7-question demographic survey to record their
gender, age, status at the university, previous experiences with
the program, previous food safety-related trainings, type of
shift being observed, and whether they were experiencing any
symptoms of illness that would prevent their participation. Once
the shift started, behavioral observations were recorded on paper
kept in a folder so participants could not view what was being
written. The observer focused on all volunteers during each
shift, as they would all be working together on the same task in a
common space. The total time elapsed for the shift and number
of volunteers present were also recorded.
Online survey
At the end of each shift, all volunteers received a link to the
survey via e-mail to be completed at their convenience. The
survey began with the same seven demographic questions
used in observation data collection, in order to describe this
sample of respondents. Participants were asked in which
volunteer shift they most recently participated, so they could
be asked shift-specific questions. Participants were asked the
following number of questions based on their shift: diversion (11 questions), cooking (11 questions), and delivery
(9 questions). Participants were then asked an additional 12
questions related to their training experiences and self-identified training needs.
Data collection and analysis
Data were aggregated in order to preserve anonymity.
Observations were organized and analyzed by use of a
rubric to identify behaviors related to the top five factors
associated with foodborne illness: (1) Improper hot/cold
holding temperatures of time/temperature control for safety
(TCS) food; (2) Improper cooking temperatures of foods;

July/August Food Protection Trends

285

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2018