Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023 - 57

technological advances such as automation (61, 77). Further
studies are needed to determine the specific technological
requirements across industry sectors in the U.S., the ability of
food industry sectors to invest in new technologies, and the
mechanisms by which these new advances could contribute
to improving resilience in the industry.
Limitations
A major limitation of this needs assessment survey is the
relatively low number of responses received and the associated
potential selection bias, despite the engagement of a number
of professional and trade organizations and the distribution
of the survey via social media. The current widespread
application of survey-based studies to understand various
aspects of COVID-19 in the U.S. food industry (30, 49, 58)
might have resulted in the industry's fatigue and increased
reluctance to respond to surveys as the pandemic progresses,
particularly given that our survey was distributed >1 year
after the COVID-19 pandemic began.
Another major study limitation is that despite efforts to recruit
more professional and trade organizations associated with the
beef, pork, and poultry sectors, only one such organization
agreed to distribute our needs assessment survey. We can only
speculate about the possible reasons for the failure to engage
more organizations associated with those sectors. Those sectors
may have rightly grown more cautious as a result of the heavy
toll the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted on the U.S. meat industry,
including in terms of infections, deaths, facility closures,
and lawsuits (27, 36, 65, 66, 76). Another reason for the limited
engagement of those sectors may also be the fact that the study
authors have stronger ties with the dairy and produce sectors,
which were well represented in the survey. Because of the limited
representation of the beef, pork, and poultry sectors in this study,
further research is necessary to determine the generalizability of
findings to those sectors. Although the survey could be repeated
to get a better representation of the beef, pork, and poultry
sectors, direct comparison with the results of the present study
would not be possible, even if the same survey instrument were
used, because of changes that have occurred in the epidemiology
of COVID-19 and industry responses since the survey was
closed in April 2021.
In line with the targeted recruitment efforts, responses
were predominantly from individuals in high managerial
positions (e.g., executives and facility managers), with only a
few responses from individuals in nonmanagerial positions. Although
this recruitment strategy potentially limited the range
of perspectives included in the study, opinions and perceptions
from individuals " at the top of the ladder " were targeted
because they can provide valuable insight into facility and
operation needs, challenges, decisions, and overall impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. food industry. However,
this study did not include the complete spectrum of worker
positions (particularly nonmanagerial) and therefore does not
fully reflect food industry worker needs.
Every produce farm and food processing facility is unique
and requires an approach to COVID-19 control tailored to
their characteristics. However, apart from facility size and
industry sector, we did not ask for the facility or operation
characteristics and therefore cannot interpret whether
a particular mitigation strategy in a particular facility or
operation would be necessary, meaningful, or even possible.
Because of the relatively small number of responses, more
elaborate approaches to control for potential confounding
of the associations between the outcomes and predictors
of interest could not be conducted. Because Likert-item
responses were considered interval or numerical data,
assessment of associations were analyzed with nonparametric
methods, which are less efficient than parametric methods
for detecting existing effects.
The survey was open for participation for almost 3 months
in early 2021, a period characterized by major changes in the
U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the start
of COVID-19 vaccination programs for essential non-health
care workers. Some of those changes may have affected
participants' responses depending on when they completed
the survey and might not represent the needs of the U.S. food
industry and the adoption of mitigation strategies early in
the COVID-19 pandemic. Although open-ended questions
allowed participants to comment about concerns regarding
limited access to COVID-19 vaccines for food industry
employees and their vaccination hesitancy, the survey did
not include questions about vaccination because vaccines
were not available at the time the pilot process was finished
and the survey was initially distributed. Thus, a timely
assessment of the food industry's needs regarding COVID-19
vaccination should be conducted.
Although questions about COVID-19 morbidity and
mortality in the participants' facilities and operations could
have provided valuable insights, we chose to exclude those
questions to improve the survey completion rate. Similarly,
we did not ask about the participants' perceptions of the
effectiveness of mitigation strategies because without the
context of facility or operation characteristics and data on
COVID-19 epidemiology, interpretation of their perceptions
would be limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Assuming that the responses of these survey participants
are reflective of the wider U.S. food industry, the food industry
facilities and operations in the U.S. are broadly prepared to
protect their workers and businesses quickly and effectively
in the event of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant or similar airborne
pathogen. Future collaborations between the U.S. food industry
and federal and state agencies to establish contingency
plans and define appropriate training and the development of
new technologies for automation and to support training in
the food industry will be crucial in building resilience against
future COVID-19-related and similar disturbances.
January/February Food Protection Trends
57
Food Protection Trends - January/February 2023

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