Assessing the Food Safety and Quality Assurance System during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

This study aims to develop and test a methodological approach to assess the system of food quality and safety in the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve the study objectives, a multi-country research project was implemented with 425 enterprises from Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Belarus. The application of the developed methodological approach resulted in comparable assessments of the various criteria of the food safety and quality assurance system in supply chains. This makes it possible to implement continuous monitoring of the state of the food safety and quality assurance system in the enterprises. In addition, the study identified critical weaknesses in the safety system, including a very low level of assessment by enterprises of the impact of WHO advisory protocols. This greatly increases the risks associated with food safety in the COVID-19 pandemic. Urgent action is required to increase the confidence of food supply chain actors in WHO recommendations and national food safety and quality protocols. The conducted assessments showed that a significant proportion of enterprises did not implement a food safety system. One out of five of the respondents claimed to have implemented safety systems at an enterprise in accordance with the standards recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative. Only 2% declared the introduction of HACCP at an enterprise, which is logical given the high mistrust of WHO recommendations. The proposed approach can be used in the real sector of the economy to monitor the food safety and quality assurance system in the supply chain at the regional, sectoral and national levels.

1. Introduction

In China, the first patients with severe pneumonia were registered in December 2019. It soon became clear that humanity was confronted with a previously unknown pathogen, causing an unprecedented outbreak that was accompanied by an unprecedented response. On 30 January, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global outbreak of the disease caused by a new coronavirus as a public health emergency of international concern [1]. Despite the herculean efforts to contain the new coronavirus, the WHO declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020, urging all countries to take drastic measures to contain the threat. The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the subsequent quarantine restrictions imposed by the majority of world governments wreaked havoc on food security, disrupting much of the traditional supply chain almost overnight. Adverse expectations sparked behavioral changes in the population, which affected both eating habits [2,3] and stockpiling rates [4,5], and thus caused a sharp increase in demand for a range of food products, adding to the existing critical pressures on the surviving food supply chains [6,7]. In general, the COVID-19 crisis altered food systems markedly, affecting demand, food supply, companies’ abilities to produce and distribute food, and consumer behavior such as panic buying, shortages of specific food groups, and food waste and loss [8]. Simultaneously, researchers have emphasized the critical role of quality nutrition in combating the COVID-19 pandemic, referring to healthy and nutritious foods as “the first line of defence against disease, including immune defence against pathogens” [9]. The social imperative to ensure food quality and safety in a pandemic environment has increased dramatically under these conditions. Many supply chains have demonstrated their fragility and inability to ensure food security during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the timely provision of quality food for daily needs while minimizing the possibility of COVID-19’s contamination of food or its packaging has become particularly important. The situation in developing countries is the most dangerous, both because of the lack of sustainability of developing economies and because of the greater vulnerability of certain components: (1) the high fragility of supply chains; (2) the insufficient protection of small and medium businesses; (3) imperfect public administration; and (4) the negative expectations of the population.

In this situation, effective support for developing countries is possible within the framework of integration processes of a new technological level, such as the One Belt, One Road initiative. The One Belt, One Road initiative was proposed by China in 2013 [10]. It is focused on transnational integration of a new level, allowing for the harmonious development of the countries participating in the initiative. One Belt, One Road develops based on an open initiative, and does not require certain conditions for accession, which has led to significant activity among developing countries. At the same time, significant differences in the development of economies, the psychology of business, and the methods of doing business require additional research at the national level to develop and implement effective measures for the harmonious integration and sustainable development of the countries participating in the initiative. Thus, the main driving force behind this research was the need of the real economy for new methods of evaluating the food safety and quality assurance system during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the lack of elaboration of this problem by modern scientists and economists.

Monitoring food quality and safety has not lost its relevance in the last decade, according to a literature review [11,12,13]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, food safety and quality have assumed particular importance that is dictated by the pandemic itself and the need for reasonably stringent anti-epidemiological measures [14] to be put in place, prompting a heightened interest among the scholars in how to undertake these efforts [15]. The long-term effects of the pandemic are expected to hit the food industry in four domains:

(1)

food safety;

(2)

bioactive food ingredients;

(3)

commodity safety; and

(4)

uninterrupted food supplies [16].

Many studies have focused on determining how to reduce the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food sector [17,18]. Moreover, the environmental challenges stemming from COVID-19 pose a strong threat to both individual food safety and commodity safety at the micro, meso and macro levels. Meanwhile, some researchers [18,19] tend to view the existing challenges in terms of the opportunities they bring for the food sector. For example, Galanakis viewed the uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic as “a strong drive for the introduction of breakthrough technologies capable of bringing the entire food sector to a fundamentally new technology height” [20]. The innovations such as aquaculture, lab-grown aseptic meat, food production automation and robotics, non-thermal technology, virtual reality, and 3D printing are all suggested as the main development avenues [20]. Focusing on the high-tech segment, Chitrakar et al. provided an overview of breakthrough food storage and packaging technologies to ensure food safety and quality, such as smart packaging, smart freeze and thaw technology, smart monitoring technology, smart odor detection, smart taste recognition, smart moisture detection, smart near-infrared spectroscopy, smart computer vision technology, and artificial intelligence technology [19]. Regrettably, these studies were merely descriptive and provided no economic justification for the proposed technologies’ feasibility at the current stage of industry development. Overall, the review of theoretical sources suggests that some studies examined how the COVID-19 pandemic affects the food sector. Moreover, while acknowledging the scientific contribution of predecessors in food safety and quality in the COVID-19 context, it should also be noted that the majority of the studies are descriptive in nature, which makes their practical application difficult to achieve [8,16,20]. In addition, some studies are highly specialized, which makes it difficult to apply their findings to real-world situations, unless they are significantly adjusted [11,12]. Barau et al. [21], for example, looked into the possibility of improving urban food security and food quality through bioeconomic principles. They suggested using experimental farms and university research centers for the implementation of urban high-tech farms. However, while this solution is novel and achievable, their study concerned a demonstration farm at the Kano Dryland Agriculture Centre (CDA) of Bayero University in Kano, Nigeria, and cannot be used in other climates, unless much adjustment is made. A review of food fraud and food authenticity in the food supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic is attractive, but the food safety strategies proposed in the article focus solely on protecting food authenticity, with no other elements considered, limiting the practical application of the study findings [22]. Thus, the analysis of theoretical sources revealed that, despite the widespread scientific interest in food safety and quality assurance issues at the time of the study, the real-world demand for science-based methodologies for assessing the food safety and quality assurance system has not been met.

The purpose of this article was to develop a methodological approach to evaluating the food quality and safety assurance system during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study objectives were:

(1)

to investigate the present-day scientific approaches and recommended solutions regarding food quality and safety in the COVID-19 context;

(2)

to develop a methodological approach to assess the system of food quality and safety in the COVID-19 context;

(3)

to validate the developed approach using the example of small businesses of the post-Soviet economic space (Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Belarus);

(4)

to identify the weakest points of the food safety and quality assurance system to prevent adverse effects.

2. Methods and Materials

The development and implementation of a complex multi-stage research project involving several countries, including the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Belarus, and Ukraine, enabled the research objectives to be met.

Figure 1 depicts the major stages of the study (developed by the authors).

Scientific publications on quality assurance and food safety in the COVID-19 context were comprehensively reviewed. As a result, most appropriate (under current conditions) research methods and tools were identified. A structured telephone interview and an online interview were chosen as the main research methods, given the complexity and low foreseeability of the pandemic, necessitating social distancing. Primary data collection was also carried out in stages: cold calling interviews to build a respondent profile and an online interview to assess the effectiveness of the food quality and safety system in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Enterprises were selected from specialized databases of small and medium-sized enterprises separately for each country, including:

-

database of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities of the Russian Federation [23];

-

database of the State Tax Service under the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Azerbaijan [24];

-

database of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations of Ukraine [25];

-

database of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs of the Republic of Belarus [26].

Small and medium-sized enterprises were determined in accordance with the national regulations of the Russian Federation [27], Ukraine [28], Azerbaijan [29], and Belarus [30]. Given past experience [31], the base for selection was limited to the businesses whose core activities are related to the food supply chain:

(1)

primary production,

(2)

food processing,

(3)

storage/distribution,

(4)

retail and wholesale.

Two hundred enterprises were selected for the Russian Federation, and 75 enterprises each for Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Belarus (a total of 425 enterprises). After that, using cold calls, in April-May 2021, the 1st stage of field research was conducted—data collection about respondents. At the same time, all respondents were informed about the goals and objectives of the study, and verbally confirmed their consent to participate.

The proportion of companies that refused to participate in the study was as follows: Russia, 40%; Azerbaijan, 36%; Ukraine, 52%; Belarus, 100%. As a result, the next stage of the study involved 204 businesses, including 120 in Russia, 36 in Ukraine, and 48 in Azerbaijan. The second phase of the study was conducted in June 2021 through an online interview. The COVID-19 Food Safety and Quality Assurance Assessment Questionnaire was developed following the experience of predecessors [31]. The questionnaire was in line with the WHO Food Safety Recommendations [32].

The comprehensive survey form had two blocks: demographic profile of the respondent (company representative), and questions about the food quality and safety assurance system that a company has adopted in the COVID-19 pandemic setting. It was decided to use the survey form in stages, resulting in Block 1 (demographic profile) being separated into a “Survey Form” for telephone interviews, while the questionnaire for the online survey was limited to the assessment of the COVID-19 pandemic food quality and safety system.

Since the main documents regulating food quality assurance and safety in the COVID-19 context were the globally recognized WHO Interim Guidance: “COVID-19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses” [32] dated 7 April 2020 and “COVID-19 and Food Safety: Guidance for competent authorities responsible for national food safety control systems in Interim guidance” dated 22 April 2020 [33], the main guidance criteria as designated in the said documents were used in the development of the questionnaire.

A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess individual criteria on the following scale of measurement: completely disagree—1 point; rather disagree than agree—2 points; difficult to answer—3 points; rather agree than disagree—4 points; completely agree—5 points. The Likert scale is characterized by a high level of comprehension by respondents, which provides a significant efficiency of completed questionnaires and minimizes the possible distortion of information due to the incorrect interpretation of a question, as well as the relative ease of processing the questionnaire and interpretation of the results [34].

In addition, the final part of the study used a best-worst scale [31] to identify the most and least influential (according to respondents) attributes of food quality and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on WHO guidance [1,32,33] and previous research, 9 main attributes for the assessment were identified:

(1)

facility sanitary and hygiene procedures;

(2)

staff awareness;

(3)

frequent hand washing;

(4)

WHO/government health protocols;

(5)

worker temperature check-ups;

(6)

adequate supply of gloves, masks, disinfectants, and cleaning chemicals;

(7)

physical distance between workers;

(8)

wearing of masks and gloves;

(9)

site visit prohibitions/restrictions.

Seven best-worst choice sets were designed for the study: 3 sets of 5 attributes and 4 sets of 4 attributes. While 6 attributes were assessed 3 times, attributes 5 (worker temperature check-ups), 6 (adequate supply of gloves, masks, disinfectants, and cleaning chemicals), and 7 (physical distance between workers) were assessed 4 times.

The survey form and questionnaire were originally developed in English, but because of the possible language barrier, they were translated into each country’s native language (Russian, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian, and Belarusian).

Basic Research Methods

The primary data processing stage made extensive use of encryption to map significant amounts of data compactly. To assess the normality and reliability of the sample, mean value and standard deviation were used.

Formula (1) was used to measure the mean value µ:

$$\mu =\frac{1}{n}{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^n{x}_i$$

(1)

where x is the value of an indicator in question, and n is the number of values in the time series.

Formula (2) was used to measure the standard (root-mean-square) deviation σ:

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^n{\left(x_i-\mu \right)}^2}$$

(2)

where x is the value of an indicator in question, n is the number of values in the time series, and µ is an indicator of the mean value.

The variation coefficient c_v was measured using Formula (3):

$$c_v=\frac{\sigma }{\mu }$$

(3)

where σ is the root-mean-square deviation, and µ is an indicator of the mean value.

In addition, the item-total correlation was used to determine the normality and acceptability of the questions. The Pearson correlation coefficient was measured using Formula (4) in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, as shown below:

$$r_{xy}=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m\left(x_i-\overline{x}\right)\left(y_i-\overline{y}\right)}{\sqrt{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{\left(x_i-\overline{x}\right)}^2{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{\left(y_i-\overline{y}\right)}^2}}=\frac{cov\left(x,y\right)}{\sqrt{s_x^2{s}_y^2}}$$

(4)

Best-worst scores (BWS) were calculated in the following ways: (1) by counting the number of times each attribute was chosen as best/worst; and (2) as a standardized “score” for each attribute, as shown in Formula (5) below [31]:

$$BWS=\frac{F_B-F_W}{a\times n}$$

(5)

where F_B is the frequency of being chosen as best (i.e., most important); F_W is the frequency of being chosen as worst (i.e., least important); a is the presence in the series; and n is the number of respondents.

The results were interpreted using a data graphical representation technique.

The main limitation of this study was the political situation in Belarus, which made some respondents reluctant to participate and limited the sample size. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic should be acknowledged as a substantial limitation of this study, as it had a marked impact on the choice of research tools (techniques were used that were in line with the social distancing principle (telephone survey, online questioning)), as well as the limited research budget, which harmed the sample size and did not allow for completing an additional research stage following the withdrawal of Belarusian businesses from the project.

3. Results

The telephone survey helped to determine the profile of businesses. According to the survey findings, only 21% of businesses that confirmed their consent to participate in the research are engaged in primary food production, while nearly a third (30%) of them are engaged in food processing. The share of service businesses that provide food storage and transportation services is below 7%. The largest segment (42%) is represented by wholesalers and retailers that close the food supply chain (Figure 2).

The position structure of those who participated in the study is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4 shows data on how businesses adopted the food safety system in-house.

Based on Figure 4, the vast majority of businesses (77%) do not have a food safety system in place, which increases the risks to businesses during a pandemic by a significant margin. About one-fifth of the surveyed businesses (21%) declared having safety systems adopted in-house as required by the Global Food Safety Initiative (FSSC 22000, BRC, IFS, GlobalGAP, etc.), and only 2% reported adopting the HACCP system in-house.

Table 1. Sample’s acceptability and normality analysis.

Seq. No.	Question	Mean ± Standard Deviation	Item-Total Correlation
1	We have developed documents governing the response to incidents affecting food safety as part of our food safety system (RQ1)	2.03 ± 0.86	0.454
2	The pandemic has been identified as one of the possible emergency incidents in our food safety system (RQ2)	2.06 ± 0.88	0.463
3	The business has a high-performance food safety team (RQ3)	1.65 ± 0.64	0.465
4	Our business’s food safety team is further briefed on how to respond in the event of a pandemic (RQ4)	1.46 ± 0.66	0.522
5	After the COVID-19 pandemic was announced, we had to give our staff ad hoc briefings (RQ5)	3.95 ± 0.88	0.328
6	We applied stricter personal hygiene procedures (handwashing, physical distancing, etc.) in the COVID-19 pandemic context (RQ6)	4.53 ± 0.62	0.271
7	We had to purchase additional personal protective equipment (masks, gloves, protective clothing) in the COVID-19 pandemic context (RQ7)	4.44 ± 0.61	0.246
8	We had to adjust our sanitation/cleaning practices related to facility hygiene in the COVID-19 pandemic context (RQ8)	4.39 ± 0.61	0.257
9	COVID-19 pandemic announcement necessitated more investment in sanitation/cleaning equipment and supplies (RQ9)	4.34 ± 0.60	0.247
10	Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, food safety has never been compromised in our business (RQ10)	3.76 ± 0.87	0.341

Note: Author-developed.

shows the acceptability and normality analysis based on the findings of the second stage of research.

The mean scores derived from a Likert scale ranged from 1.46 to 4.53, with a standard deviation of less than 0.88, indicating the acceptability and normality of the sample.

The “elements-totals” coefficient values for RQ5, RQ6, RQ7, RQ8, RQ9, and RQ10 are between 0.2 and 0.39, which indicates sufficient correlation and the acceptability of using the results for further analysis. The “elements-totals” coefficient values for RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4 are above 0.4, which indicates a very good correlation, normality, reliability and acceptability for further review and a minimal risk of distortion of information. The “elements-totals” coefficient values ranging between 0 and 0.19 (low correlation) were not recorded in this study. Thus, the sample is reliable, normally distributed, and acceptable for further analysis.

The mean score (4.53) for question RQ5 was the highest (Figure 5). When answering this question, 58% of respondents strongly agreed, 38% agreed, and 2% were neutral. Not a single respondent disagreed with the suggested statement.

The mean values for mutually related statements RQ3 (1.65) and RQ4 (1.46) were the lowest (Figure 6).

A significant portion of respondents disagreed with the statement about the success of the food safety team at the business: 85 respondents strongly disagreed, 110 disagreed, and 7 respondents were neutral. Accordingly, comparable results are observed for the question about additional training for the food safety team: 124 respondents strongly disagreed, 70 disagreed, and 7 respondents were neutral. Statements on the success of the food safety team and additional training received a “rather agree than disagree” answer from just two businesses (out of 204), and only one respondent strongly agreed with the said statements.

The results of studying the most important, according to respondents, attributes considered by companies during a pandemic according to the “best-worst” methodology [2] are presented in

Table 2. More and least important attributes according to the best-worst scaling results.

	Most Important	Least Important	BWS
Site hygiene	199	41	0.26
Staff awareness	240	72	0.27
Frequent hand washing	81	37	0.07
WHO/Government health protocols	8	586	−0.94
Worker temperature check-ups	118	140	−0.03
Adequate supply of gloves, masks, disinfectants, and cleaning chemicals	280	139	0.17
Physical distance between workers	88	235	−0.18
Wearing masks and gloves	338	20	0.52
Site visit prohibitions/restrictions	76	162	−0.14

.

Relying on the “rule of thumb” that the score corresponds to the relative strength of influence or importance of the attribute, a zero value is assumed to be the lack of importance. Thus, according to the study findings, wearing masks and gloves (BWS = 0.52), staff awareness (BWS = 0.27), and site hygiene (BWS = 0.26) have the greatest impact on food safety and quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study findings are least influenced by WHO/government health protocols (BWS = −0.94), physical distance between workers (BWS = −0.18), and site visit prohibitions/restrictions (BWS = −0.14). At the same time, the most alarming is the extremely low evaluation by respondents of the impact of health protocols from the WHO/government. In a series of three evaluations by this attribute, the score “worst” was obtained 586 times, and the score “best” was obtained 8 times, which is associated with the “infodemic” of rumors and misinformation, undermining the credibility of the WHO and legislative bodies [31]. This is also due to the traditionally wary attitude of entrepreneurs in the post-Soviet economic space to government initiatives (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

There are many publications on ensuring food safety during the COVID-19 pandemic [14,35,36]; this article, however, stands out. Thus, unlike S. Aday and M. S. Aday [37], who analyzed the effects of COVID-19 on the food supply chain, primarily food safety, this study offers an analysis of the primary data collected during the “field” stage of the research. The analysis of secondary information also underpins the study of food safety methods that Maragoni-Santos et al. [38] suggest. While paying tribute to the predecessors’ contribution, it should be noted that the results presented in this article are much more specific due to the nature of the information analyzed.

The study by Kumar and Kumar Singh [39] explored strategic frameworks for the development of sustainability and security in agri-food supply chains. Recognizing the relevance of other research, a number of differences in the presented research should be emphasized: first, the focus of this study directly on the food safety and quality assurance system; secondly, the multi-country nature of this study; and thirdly, the research tools.

In contrast to the qualitative research methods used in the work of Kumar and Kumar Singh (8 expert interviews) [39], the presented study is based on the results of a structured telephone interview and an online interview of 204 food supply chain business representatives from Russia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. The study of food safety and food quality management during the COVID-19 pandemic presented by Anita and Pratomo [40] is very interesting in terms of methodology. However, in contrast to this article, the study of the predecessors offered a narrower approach, considering food safety within a single industry—the hospitality industry.

In addition, the significant influence of the multi-country study of the pandemic’s impact on food safety [31] in shaping the proposed methodology should be noted. The research coverage (825 food businesses in 16 countries) limited the ability of researchers to develop practical recommendations due to the marked differences in the food safety and quality assurance systems in the countries studied.

5. Conclusions

The result of this study is a methodological approach to assessing the food safety and quality assurance system, taking into account the main recommendations for the collection of primary information in the COVID-19 pandemic. This methodological approach was tested on the example of food enterprises in Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Belarus. The proposed methodological approach was based on telephone interviews and online questionnaires, which corresponded to the principles of social distancing, and did not pose a threat to respondents and researchers. The results of the first stage showed that the used methodology of “cold calls” was ineffective for the enterprises in Belarus, so further testing was conducted for the enterprises in Russia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine.

The developed methodological approach used a five-point Likert scale and a “best-worst” evaluation method to assess food safety and quality assurance. This ensured clear questions for respondents, easy processing and interpretation, as well as high adaptability of the methodology to industry or regional specifics.

The proposed methodological approach was tested on the example of small and medium-sized enterprises in the food supply chain of Russia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. This allowed for obtaining comparable quantitative assessments of the main criteria for ensuring food safety. This makes it possible to use this method to implement continuous monitoring and situational management of the food safety and quality assurance system at the regional, sectoral and national levels.

According to the survey results, the respondents believe that the factors with the greatest impact on food safety and quality in the COVID-19 pandemic are the use of masks and gloves (BWS = 0.52), staff awareness (BWS = 0.27), and facility hygiene (BWS = 0.26). In addition, testing of the proposed methodological approach revealed critical weaknesses in the food safety and quality assurance system during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly respondents’ extremely low assessment of the influence of WHO and national protocols on food safety assurance (BWS = −0.94). Undoubtedly, the low level of confidence among food supply chain actors in WHO advisory protocols significantly weakens the food safety and quality assurance system, increasing the associated risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires the immediate development of additional measures to increase the confidence of enterprises in WHO recommendations and national protocols. At the same time, testing showed that 77% of businesses did not implement a food safety system at all, while 21% claimed to have implemented safety systems at an enterprise in accordance with the standards recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative. Only 2% claimed to have established HACCP at an enterprise, which is logical given the high mistrust of WHO recommendations. This greatly increases the risks associated with food safety and quality assurance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thus, the proposed methodological approach makes it possible to obtain a quantitative assessment of the food safety and quality assurance system under conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. This makes it possible to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of measures to improve the effectiveness of food safety and quality systems in the real economy, including at the sectoral and regional levels. Monitoring will not only identify “weaknesses” in the system of food safety and quality in a timely manner, but will also maximize the effectiveness of management measures to improve the system of food safety and quality in enterprises, which in the context of the pandemic is very important.

One of the advantages of the proposed methodological approach is the possibility to conduct the assessment by means of Microsoft Excel. In other words, the proposed methodological approach does not require expensive specialized software and additional personnel. This facilitates its implementation at the sectoral and regional levels and increases its practical relevance in the context of the global economic crisis.