Empowering Farmers, Farmers Market Managers, and Gleaners to Safely Address Local Hunger and Food Insecurity

As part of this project we created three supplemental training videos - one focused on food safety for gleaners, one for farmers, and one for farmers market managers. We had significant use of the gleaner-facing video (513 views), however we had limited engagement with the farmer (23 views) and farmers market video (21 views). Despite maximizing our networks, we would have hoped for a greater amount of use amongst farmers and farmers market vendors. This could have been a result of our delayed publishing of the videos in relation to when this final report is due. However, this is similar to our results in another USDA-NIFA funded project where we created a series of online trainings ans an interactive immersive reality training for farmers and farmers market manager. We believe the low uptake in the training is a result of the material not being part of a required training program - that our farmers and farmers market managers can often be so focused on the required trainings (of which there are an increasing number) in order to operate and still farm or manage their market. While we had views, we did not collect any evaluation data from our farmer and farmers market training to be able to report here. We will continue to advertise the materials and share them through our courses and part of presentations.

The below report focuses on our findings from the gleaner-focused evaluation, and our intention is to submit the results and an analysis later this year to a referred journal. 

--

As part of our collaboration with the Society of St. Andrew (SoSA), we worked to support efforts to enhance food safety practices in gleaning activities. SoSA brings people together to harvest and share healthy food, reduce food waste, and build caring communities by offering nourishment to hungry neighbors. To reinforce food safety during gleaning, we developed a straightforward and comprehensive training resource specifically designed for SoSA’s gleaning volunteers.

We created a 15-minute training video that provides a thorough review of key food safety practices relevant to gleaning. The video was intended for both first-time and experienced gleaners, and volunteers were encouraged to watch the video before participating in gleaning activities. We conducted an online survey to assess the effectiveness of the training video and to identify ways to improve it in the future.

The target population for this study included SoSA’s volunteer gleaners as well as part-time and full-time staff members involved in gleaning activities. We utilized non-probability and convenience sampling methods, distributing the survey through SoSA’s email platform. Volunteers were invited to complete the survey after viewing the training video, with instructions to save a confirmation page as documentation for their gleaning supervisors. Data collection occurred between mid-August 2024 and mid-March 2025. In total, 73 individuals initiated the survey, with 61 completing it.

Results

Knowledge-Related Survey Responses

In response to the statement "All farm activities have the potential to introduce contamination to fresh produce," 95% (n = 58) of participants answered correctly, while three responded incorrectly. When asked whether it is acceptable to volunteer when sick or injured, 100% (n = 61) of participants answered correctly. Participants were asked to identify symptoms of foodborne illness and could select multiple options. All participants (100%, n = 61) correctly selected diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and fever, while 98% (n = 60) correctly identified abdominal pain. However, 59% (n = 36) incorrectly selected rash, which is not typically associated with foodborne illnesses. This highlights, in our opinion, the need to clarify symptoms of allergic reaction, foodborne illness, and the distinction between them. 

When asked what should be maintained to protect against the likelihood of contaminating fresh produce and food contact surfaces, 95% (n = 58) correctly selected “personal cleanliness.” A small number of respondents selected incorrect options, including professionalism (n = 2) and distance (n = 1). Participants were asked to place the steps of handwashing in the correct order. A total of 85% (n = 52) ordered the steps correctly, while 15% (n = 9) did not. The correct sequence was: (1) wet your hands with microbially safe water, (2) apply soap, (3) scrub your hands and forearms for at least 20 seconds, paying attention to cleaning between your fingers and around your nails, (4) rinse your hands, (5) dry your hands with a single-use paper towel, and (6) throw the paper towel in the trash.

Training Evaluation 

Participants rated their satisfaction with the training content. A total of 89% (n = 54) reported being either satisfied or very satisfied. Five participants reported being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and two participants reported being very dissatisfied. 

When asked to elaborate on their level of satisfaction with the training, participants frequently emphasized the clear presentation of the materials. Many described the training as clear, concise, and easy to understand, highlighting its accessibility across experience levels. Respondents also valued the knowledge and awareness gained, noting that the training served both as an introduction and a refresher on food safety. For example, one respondent stated, “Training was excellent. I have never gleaned before, so this was essential information. I feel better prepared,” while another commented, “I work in a professional food service capacity and found this presentation to be direct, accurate, and easy to understand…” 

Some raised practical concerns about gleaning conditions, such as the lack of sanitation facilities at gleaning sites, highlighting a gap between recommended practices and real-world settings. One participant noted, “There is no water available whenever I have gleaned,” and another shared, “I have also been gleaning for 16 years and cannot recall a farm with the requisite water supply to properly wash hands or sanitize supplies.”

Participants were asked what aspects of the course they were most satisfied with, and many respondents expressed overall positive impressions of the course using broad affirmations such as “All,” “Everything,” Participants appreciated that the course was “clear,” “well-paced,” and “easy to understand,” highlighting the effectiveness of its instructional design. Respondents also valued the visual aids, such as pictures and images, for helping communicate key points. For example, one stated, “Images are helpful to guide what to do and what not to do.” Several comments reflected increased awareness of food safety and hygiene practices, including handwashing, contamination risks, and safe handling procedures. One stated “Reminder about good personal hygiene and the importance of transporting the produce in clean containers or in a clean car.” Some participants suggested practical additions to the training video to better align with real-world gleaning conditions. One emphasized the need to address the lack of sanitation facilities on farms by advising gleaners and coordinators to clean hands and equipment at home and bring clean collection tools to the site. Other respondents recommended including guidance on designated smoking areas, handwashing after breaks, and prohibiting smoking in vehicles used to transport food.

When asked what aspects of the course participants were most dissatisfied with, the majority of participants indicated they had no complaints, frequently responding with remarks such as, “None” or “N/A.” A few participants mentioned audio quality issues. One respondent pointed to language, describing a word such as “mitigating” may be complex for general audiences. Additional concerns included the practicality of implementing hygiene practices in real-gleaning environments, where water and sanitation may be limited. One participant commented, “Just the logistics of meeting these hygiene levels in a field without access to water.” While critical feedback was minimal, it offered useful suggestions for improving the training experience.

Participants also rated their perceived knowledge across four topics before and after the training. A paired-samples t-test indicated statistically significant increases across all assessed areas. Specifically, participants’ knowledge of incorporating food safety into gleaning increased significantly from before the training (M = 3.13, SD = 0.99) to after the training (M = 3.95, SD = 0.74), t (60) = -6.94, p < .001, with a large effect size (d = 0.92). Participants’ knowledge of food safety hazards associated with gleaning also increased significantly, with mean scores rising from 3.02 (SD = 1.04) to 3.93 (SD = 0.77), t (60) = -7.26, p < .001, with a large effect size (d = 0.99).

Participants’ knowledge of the importance of addressing food safety hazards improved significantly, increasing from 3.46 (SD = 0.79) before the training to 4.03 (SD = 0.63) after the training, t (60) = -6.46, p < .001, with a medium effect size (d = 0.69). Finally, participants’ knowledge of strategies to minimize risks from food safety hazards increased significantly from 3.39 (SD = 0.82) to 3.97 (SD = 0.71), t (60) = -6.46, p < .001, also reflecting a medium effect size (d = 0.69).

Table 1.  Participants’ Changes in the Mean Scores of Knowledge related to Food Safety and Gleaning

Note. n = sample size, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, t = t score, p = p-value, d = Cohen's d statistic.

Participants also responded to two statements about their preparedness after completing the training. For the statement "I feel prepared to volunteer as a gleaner," 93% (n = 57) of participants either agreed or strongly agreed, three participants neither agreed nor disagreed, and one strongly disagreed. For the statement "I feel prepared to address food safety hazards associated with gleaning," 97% (n = 59) of participants either agreed or strongly agreed, one participant neither agreed nor disagreed, and one participant strongly disagreed.

Additionally, participants were asked whether they intended to take appropriate steps to address food safety hazards associated with gleaning as a result of the training. Most participants (72%, n = 44) indicated that they intended to take appropriate steps, and 28% (n = 17) reported that they were already implementing such practices. No participants selected "maybe," "no," or "not applicable" as their response options.

Participants were asked to share additional comments or suggestions to improve the training, and their responses reflected a mix of appreciation and constructive feedback. Many expressed general satisfaction with the course, while several offered constructive feedback for improvement. Some recommended alternative learning formats, such as a text-based version of the training, with one noting, “I prefer to read instruction rather than watching video.” Others emphasized the importance of language accessibility, suggesting the course be made available in Spanish. One participant raised concern about potential disease transmission during gleaning, specifically from volunteers who may have contagious conditions such as AIDS or chickenpox. They questioned whether produce handled by someone who is later found to be ill should be discarded. Additionally, some respondents proposed making refresher trainings mandatory to reinforce learning.

Participant Characteristics and Gleaning Experience

Participants were asked about their roles related to gleaning. A total of 87% (n = 52) identified as volunteer gleaners, two identified as part-time staff, and one identified as full-time staff. Five participants selected "other” and described their role in gleaning. Two respondents indicated that although they intended to volunteer as gleaners, they had not volunteered yet. Others mentioned roles such as “retired gleaning coordinator with SoSA” or “farmer,” 

Regarding prior gleaning experience, 28% (n = 17) of participants reported having gleaned more than 11 times. Other participants reported gleaning 2–5 times (18%, n = 11), 6–10 times (16%, n = 10), or once (11%, n = 7). 26% (n = 16) reported having no prior gleaning experience.

Participants were allowed to select multiple locations where they had previously gleaned. Farms were the most commonly reported (84%, n = 38), followed by produce drop-off sites (40%, n = 18), produce pickup locations (24%, n = 11), and farmers markets (16%, n = 7). Additionally, 16% of participants (n = 7) selected “Other” and described a variety of community-based gleaning contexts. The responses included gleaning in community gardens, food pantries receiving farmer donations, orchards, and food shows. One participant also reported involvement in food distribution, delivering gleaned produce to local food banks in Florida.

Participants also reported their state of residence. North Carolina was most frequently reported (35%, n = 21), followed by Florida (23%, n = 14) and Virginia (10%, n = 6). Smaller numbers of participants resided in Indiana (n = 4), Alabama (n = 3), Ohio (n = 3), Georgia (n = 2), South Carolina (n = 2), Maryland (n = 1), and Mississippi (n = 1).

We believe that as a result of the positive change in knowledge and intention to follow safe food handling practices, this project has positively affected agricultural sustainability and will influence future sustainability because we have addressed, and hopefully removed, a barrier to farmers and markets from working with gleaners. Economically, this will allow the farmers to access tax credits based on the value of what is donated. Environmentally, this will allow produce that would otherwise go to waste to enter the food system for consumption and maximize the value of the inputs used. Socially, this will create increased connection between the farmer/market and their local community and the intrinsic benefit of supporting the food recovery system.