key: cord-1018792-ubgrgmw5
authors: Djekic, Ilija; Nikolić, Aleksandra; Uzunović, Mirza; Marijke, Aluwé; Liu, Aijun; Han, Jiqin; Brnčić, Mladen; Knežević, Nada; Papademas, Photis; Lemoniati, Katerina; Witte, Franziska; Terjung, Nino; Papageorgiou, Maria; Zinoviadou, Kyriaki G.; Dalle Zotte, Antonella; Pellattiero, Erika; Sołowiej, Bartosz G.; Guiné, Raquel P.F.; Correia, Paula; Sirbu, Alexandrina; Vasilescu, Liliana; Semenova, Anastasia A.; Kuznetsova, Oksana A.; Brodnjak, Urška Vrabič; Pateiro, Mirian; Lorenzo, Jose Manuel; Getya, Andriy; Kodak, Tetiana; Tomasevic, Igor
title: Covid-19 pandemic effects on food safety - multi-country survey study
date: 2020-12-01
journal: Food Control
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107800
sha: 64518eb7d5cb84310ee2dd1513a87f4c2baddc7d
doc_id: 1018792
cord_uid: ubgrgmw5

This study provides an important insight into the response of food safety systems during the first months of the pandemic, elevating the perspective of preventing Covid-19 within conventional food safety management systems. A multi-country survey was conducted in 16 countries involving 825 food companies. Based on the results of the survey, it is obvious that the level of maturity of a food safety system in place is the main trigger in classifying companies and their responses to the pandemic challenge. Staff awareness and hygiene are the two most important attributes in combating Covid-19, opposed to temperature checking of workers in food establishment and health protocols from the World Health Organization, recognized as attributes with limited salience and importance. Companies confirmed implementation of more restrictive hygiene procedures during the pandemic and the need for purchasing more additional personal protective equipment. Retailers were identified as the food supply chain link mostly affected by the pandemic opposed to food storage facilities ranked as least affected. During this challenging period, all companies declared that food safety has not been compromised at any moment. It is important to note that less than a half of the food companies had documented any emergency plans associated with pandemics and health issues in place.

This study provides an important insight into the response of food safety systems during the first months 2 of the pandemic, elevating the perspective of preventing Covid-19 within conventional food safety 3 management systems. A multi-country survey was conducted in 16 countries involving 825 food 4 companies. Based on the results of the survey, it is obvious that the level of maturity of a food safety 5 system in place is the main trigger in classifying companies and their responses to the pandemic 6 challenge. 7

Staff awareness and hygiene are the two most important attributes in combating Covid-19, opposed to 8 temperature checking of workers in food establishment and health protocols from the World Health 9

Organization, recognized as attributes with limited salience and importance. Companies confirmed 10 implementation of more restrictive hygiene procedures during the pandemic and the need for 11 purchasing more additional personal protective equipment. Retailers were identified as the food supply 12 chain link mostly affected by the pandemic opposed to food storage facilities ranked as least affected. 13

During this challenging period, all companies declared that food safety has not been compromised at any 14 moment. It is important to note that less than a half of the food companies had documented any 15 emergency plans associated with pandemics and health issues in place. 16

Since January 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the new coronavirus 23 disease (Covid-19), officially named as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is 24 a public health emergency of international concern (WHO, 2020a), all dimensions of life have 25 experienced risks and opportunities. One of the industrial sectors that had to overcome different 26 challenges during the pandemic is the food sector, striving to produce and secure sufficient and safe 27 food. Food security, food safety and food sustainability are recognized as strongly affected dimensions of 28 food systems during the Covid-19 pandemic (Galanakis, 2020). 29

An interesting approach in paving the way during post-Covid-19 era was proposed by Rowan and 30

Galanakis (2020) focusing the agri-food sector in sustainability and new (green) innovative technologies. To support the food supply chain, the WHO has developed two main guidance documents. One 45 document addressed the food companies and the other the authorities responsible for national food 46 safety systems (WHO, 2020b, 2020c). In parallel, various other guides have been developed and updated 47 in light of new knowledge on local or international levels from governments and/or various food 48 associations, helping the food sector (BRCGS, 2020; EC, 2020; Nakat & Bou-Mitri, 2021). In spite of the 49 big health threat that SARS-CoV-2 virus poses, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) believes that there 50 is still no scientific evidence that food is a risk or transmission route (EFSA, 2020), basically because 51 coronaviruses have poor survivability on surfaces, such as food products or packaging (CDC, 2020). Yekta, 52 Vahid-Dastjerdi, Norouzbeigi, and Mortazavian (2020) develop scenarios on possible carry-through or 53 carry-over contamination routes associated with food, such as contamination from meat / meat products 54 due to some evidences suggesting that this virus can be transpired in pigs and rabbits (carry-through) or 55 by spreading Covid-19 from personnel to food products / food contact surfaces (carry-over). It is 56 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f important to mention that the first COVID-19 cases are officially linked to the Wuhan's Seafood market 57 selling exotic/wild animals (Ceylan, Meral, & Cetinkaya, 2020). However since the main transmission 58 mode is "human-to-human" (WHO, 2020b) it has an indirect effect on the entire food business. 59

Starting from the introduction of good hygiene practices (GHP) and establishment of hazard analysis and 60 critical control point (HACCP) system (CAC, 2003) August 2020. Companies were contacted in advance to analyze availability for participating in the survey. 82

The only criterion was that the food establishments operate in at least one part of the food supply chain: 83 primary production, food processing, storage / distribution, retail and wholesale covering companies 84 from both animal origin and plant origin food sectors. 85

The survey has been performed using a questionnaire developed in English language and was translated 86 to local language of the participating countries using the back translation method to ensure accuracy. 87

Due to different Covid-19 restrictions, questionnaires were either sent to companies asking them to 88 answer to all the questions or filled using an online platform (Slido®). Persons answering the 89 questionnaires were food safety / HACCP team leaders (49.0%), production managers (19.3%) or 90 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f members of top management (31.8%). A total of 825 food companies from 16 countries were included in 91 the survey. The company characteristics are presented per country in Table 1 . 92 93

Questionnaire used for the survey 94 A questionnaire has been developed to analyze whether the pandemic associated with Covid-19 has 95 affected food safety in food companies. The set of answers gave the possibility to analyze opinions of 96 companies related to the pandemic, recognize Covid-19 attributes associated with food safety, evaluate 97 emergency preparedness within companies and identify weakest links in the food supply chain. For this 98 purpose, five sections were developed. 99

The first section consisted of information related to the companies (country of origin, size, type of 100 activity and status of the food management system). 101

The second section explored nine food safety statements: three statements related to their food safety 102 preparedness plans and six associated with Covid-19. The respondents had the option to rate their 103 degree of agreement according to a five-point Likert scale from 1 'strongly disagree', 2 'disagree', 3 'no 104 opinion', 4 'agree' to 5 'strongly agree'. 105

Priorities in preventing pandemic effects in food companies were analyzed in the third section which 106 focused on nine attributes associated with Covid-19 (Table 2) using Best-Worst scaling (most influential 107 was considered as "best", least influential as "worst"). 2020b), so we developed two more attributes 'use of masks and gloves' and 'physical distance between 122 workers'. To adhere to the physical distancing recommendation, we also developed another attribute 123 'prevent / limit visits to the object', which was also a recommendation outlined by governments during 124 lockdown. Based on the fact that during the first months of the pandemic, several countries experienced 125 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f shortage in supply of masks, gloves and cleaning chemicals, we have developed another attribute -126 'sufficient stock of gloves, masks, sanitizers and cleaning chemicals'. Finally, since during the pandemic 127 the world suffered an overabundance of (dis)information with the potential of undermining the public 128 health response (WHO, 2020d), we developed the final attribute 'health protocols from 129 WHO/government'. 130

As recommended in the work of Merlino, Borra, Girgenti, Dal Vecchio, and Massaglia (2018) a range of 131 3-5 attributes should be included in each set of choices, with each attribute being available 3 -5 times. 132

In this survey we chose 4 attributes per subset (Table 3) having each presented at least 3 times within 133 the questionnaire (attribute 'use of masks and gloves' was available 4 times). Finally, seven sets have 134 been created. 135

The fourth section was dedicated to identifying food safety systems within the food supply chain that 136 were mostly affected due to Covid-19 pandemic. The demographic portfolio of the companies and countries that participated in the survey is displayed in 168 Table 1 . The number of companies per countries was in the range between 32 and 63. The majority of 169 companies were classified as small with below 50 employees (44.6%), followed by medium sized 170 companies (28.7%), and big companies with over 250 employees (26.7%). 171

Companies operating in the animal origin food supply chain (primary production and food processing of 172 meat and poultry, fish, dairy and eggs) represented half of the sample (50.2%), followed by companies 173 operating in the plant origin food supply chain (primary production and food processing of fruit, 174 vegetables, cereals and beverages) with 31.5% and food service companies (storage, distribution, 175 wholesale, retail and food service establishments) with 18.3% of the sample. 176

Regarding the food safety system implemented, 65.2% of companies responded that they have a 177 certified FSMS according to any standard recognized within the Global Food Safety Initiative such as FSSC 178 22000, BRC, IFS, GlobalGAP or similar (GFSI, 2020). The HACCP system alone was operative and 179 implemented in 22.2% of companies while 12.6% of companies declared that they did not have any food 180 safety system in place. 181 182

Based on the Likert scale used (from 1 'strongly disagree' to 5 'strongly agree), companies strongly 184 agreed that they have implemented more restrictive hygiene procedures during the Covid-19 pandemic 185 (4.5). Hygiene controls within food companies are implemented to prevent cross-contamination of food 186 by any pathogen, including risks of food contamination by Covid-19 (EC, 2020). Also, they confirmed that 187 they had to purchase more additional personal protective equipment (4.4). Although usage of PPEs is 188 advised by the WHO, its role in food companies is twofold -to reduce spreading of Covid-19 and to 189 prevent any cross-contamination (Nakat & Bou-Mitri, 2021; WHO, 2020b). An important highlight is that 190 companies clearly stated that food safety was not compromised at any moment during the pandemic 191 The 'mature' cluster had highest scores on all nine statements compared to cluster 'basic' which 205 achieved lowest scores for all statements. A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that there was a statistically 206 significant difference between the clusters (p<0.05). Cluster 'on-the-way' for the first three statements 207 analyzing ex-ante readiness for the pandemic had similar results as the 'basic' cluster which showed a 208 limited level of readiness for food safety emergencies and pandemics. Out of the other six statements, 209

for five of them all three clusters showed statistically significant differences in answers (p<0.05). 210 211

Best-worst methodology allowed to identify most influential Covid-19 attributes considered by food 213 companies during the pandemic. The number of times that an attribute was selected as the most 214 influential (best) or least influential (worst) as well as the average score for each attribute, for the entire 215 sample and per cluster, are depicted in Table 5 . For easier interpretation, the "rule of the thumb" in 216 which a score indicates the relative strength of influence or salience of an attribute across the sample 217 was used. In this way, "0" indicated no salience and towards "±1.0" the increasing/decreasing salience 218 (Wittenberg, et al., 2016) . 219

Considering the entire sample, it is obvious that 'staff awareness' (0.400) is recognized as the most 220 However, in our case 'use of mask and gloves' was recognized as an attribute indicating no salience. One 249 of the reasons may be the use of various PPEs (depending on the food sector), already before the 250 pandemic. 251

The same methodology was employed to analyze food safety systems in the food supply chain that were 252 'mostly affected' and 'least affected' during the pandemic Covid-19 (Table 6 ). According to respondents it 253 turned out that food safety systems were most affected by the pandemic in retails, while storage was 254 identified as the least affected link. Our study showed that households indicate no salience. The limitation of this study is that this research was focused on companies' perceptions and beliefs 330 related to their food safety in the pandemic environment with no on-site assessments performed. 331 Therefore, it was not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of food safety systems as well as emergency 332 preparedness plans in place associated with this pandemic. Future research should explore Covid-19 333 pandemic effects on food fraud, food defense and food security. Food business type: Animal origin food covers primary production and food processing of meat and poultry, fish, dairy and eggs; Plant origin food covers primary production and food processing of fruit, vegetables and beverages; Food service covers storage, distribution, wholesale, retail and food service establishments. Food safety management system (FSMS) status: No system -company declares they don't have any food safety system in place: HACCPcompany has implemented only a HACCP based system; FSMS -company has certified its FSMS (e.g. ISO 22000; BRC, IFS, GlobalGAP).

The Mean values ± Standard deviations 1 and modes 2 were obtained from the raw data. Note: Items denoted with different letters are significantly different at the level of 5%. Likert scale: (1) "Strongly disagree", (2) "Disagree", (3) "No opinion", (4) "Agree", (5) "Strongly agree". Table 5 . Subjective priority of Covid-19 attributes: Best-Worst scaling report -frequency counts and standardized average score considering the entire sample and for the three clusters representative. Table 6 . Subjective priority of food safety system in the food supply chain: Most-Least scaling report -frequency counts and standardized average score considering the entire sample and for the three clusters representative. 

WHO Director-General's statement on IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Coronavirus 434 (2019-nCoV)

World Health Organisation & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 440 Nations

COVID-19 and Food Safety: Guidance for competent authorities responsible for national 443 food safety control systems In Interim guidance

Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the 448 harm from misinformation and disinformation -Joint statement by WHO

World Health Organisation

WHO save lives: clean your hands in the context of Covid19

Using Best-Worst Scaling to 456 Understand Patient Priorities: A Case Example of Papanicolaou Tests for Homeless Women

Food Products as Potential 459 Carriers of SARS-CoV-2

Figure 1. Principal component analysis loadings (a) and scores (b) plots for the nine factors influencing emergency preparedness deployed by size of the companies, their activities in the food sector and their food safety systems. Factors: Nature -Natural disaster; Bioterrorism; Fire; Ingredient / packaging -Ingredient / packaging contamination; Water -Water contamination; Pandemic -Pandemic and other health issue

Food business type: Animal origin food covers primary production and food processing of meat and poultry, fish, dairy and eggs; Plant origin food covers primary production and food processing of fruit, vegetables and beverages; Food service covers storage, distribution, wholesale, retail and food service establishments. Food safety management system (FSMS) status: No system -company declares they don't have any food safety system in place: HACCP -company has implemented only a HACCP based system

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Highlights -825 food companies from 16 countries were included in this multi-country study -Maturity of a food safety system triggers the response to the Covid-19 pandemic -Staff awareness and hygiene are most important attributes combating Covid-19 -Retailers are the food supply chain link mostly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic -Less than a half of companies have any emergency plans associated with pandemics J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: