Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023 - 55

as engineering controls (i.e., measures that do not interfere
with employees' work but reduce the spread of COVID-19)
(16). Poor air quality and airflow inside meat and poultry
processing plants have been associated with an increased risk
of workers becoming infected with COVID-19 (56). The
CDC recognizes the challenges associated with the use of
ventilation as a COVID-19 control strategy (16). Installation
of air filtering and ventilation systems is a more complex process
compared with other recommended biosafety strategies
to combat COVID-19 because it requires consideration of
several additional factors, including the selection of systems
adequate for the size, occupancy level, and specific features
(e.g., production environment) of each facility (11). Because
of the complexity of installing air filtering and ventilation
systems (16) and the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness
of some of these methods for collecting and/or removing
viral particles in the air (34), we hypothesize that facility
management will favor other more commonly recommended
control strategies that are easier to implement to prevent
COVID-19 transmission. The survey findings highlight the
importance of further research and guidance about the implementation
of air filtering and ventilation and their advantages
in terms of cost-effectiveness over other mitigation measures.
Most surveillance strategies were widely implemented
by the participants' produce grower operations and food
processing facilities. This finding is not surprising considering
that virus testing and isolation, contact tracing,
and quarantine of contacts have been proposed as useful
methods to prevent COVID-19 transmission in the community
(6, 59). These methods have also been promoted
by the CDC and OSHA as ways to reduce COVID-19
dissemination in the workplace (15, 70). An early report
of mitigation strategies used in the food industry pointed
out temperature screening as a widely applied method
in the U.S. poultry and meat industry sectors (76), and
this strategy was recommended by the CDC and OSHA
for implementation in food industry facilities and operations
(13, 73). Findings from the survey support that in
facilities and operations where virus testing and isolation
were not implemented, the likely reason was the associated
financial burden, reflecting both the cost of testing
and losses due to absences of isolating workers and the
related production losses. Overall, our findings suggest
that the U.S. food industry is willing to apply surveillance
measures to prevent further transmission of COVID-19
cases in their facilities and operations, but access to these
measures needs improvement and they must be strategically
applied to avoid increasing the costs associated with
absenteeism and productivity loss.
Regarding temperature screening, some survey participants
expressed distrust of this measure for detection of
mild cases of COVID-19, a topic that has been a matter of
discussion throughout the pandemic (10, 28, 48, 64). A survey
study directed at food-related companies in 16 countries
(mainly in Europe) revealed that temperature screening of
workers was considered of limited importance for preventing
the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in food companies
(24). Reports have suggested poor sensitivity (55) and specificity
(17, 46) of temperature screening (both infrared thermometers
and thermal imaging cameras) when used to detect
mild COVID-19 cases. Poor specificity resulting in many
false-positive results, leading to an unnecessary increase in
absenteeism and the associated rise in costs due to productivity
loss. Chen et al. (17) found that the specificity for infrared
thermometers was 61 and 67%, depending on the part of the
body being measured (wrist and forehead, respectively).
This drawback is extremely important for labor-intensive
sectors of the food industry, which rely on the availability
of qualified workers to continue food production. Temperature
screening has been proposed as a valuable and easily
implemented tool to reduce COVID-19 cases, particularly
at the beginning of the pandemic when the knowledge
about the virus and the effectiveness of preventive methods
and available guidance was limited (22, 39). However, given
the issues associated with this strategy, the increased access
to vaccination against COVID-19, and the widespread
implementation of other controls in the food industry,
temperature screening as a surveillance strategy and how it
is implemented (if needed) should be reevaluated to avoid
increasing absenteeism among workers.
Facility and operation size and industry sector
Large and medium-size facilities and operations represented
by the survey participants more frequently implemented
physical distancing, biosafety, and surveillance
mitigation strategies than did small businesses. Due to
scale economies, implementation of mitigation strategies
might lead to a greater reduction in production capacity
for smaller than for larger businesses, resulting in greater
economic losses that cannot be sustained by those small
businesses, as evidenced by studies pointing out their lack
of financial resilience to sustain the impacts of COVID-19
(8, 29). For example, the implementation of complex
measures such as air cleaning and filtering, which entail
high fixed costs, is likely to be economically infeasible
or even unnecessary for operations that have only a few
employees. Findings from the survey revealed that small
facilities and operations are more commonly concerned
about funding. Participants also mentioned that small
facilities and operations struggled to manage COVID-19-
related work absences and that better financial support
is required to assist small to medium-size businesses.
Because small businesses typically lack access to the types
of financial resources readily available to larger firms (i.e.,
institutional funding), it is important to continue research
(3, 4) directed at developing cutting-edge and low-cost
technologies to assist small businesses in responding to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
January/February Food Protection Trends
55
Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023
