Ongoing mitigation strategies and further needs of the United States food industry to control COVID-19 in the work environment

The COVID-19 pandemic has had dire effects on the United States (US) food industry through impacts on workers' health and wellbeing and supply chain disruptions. The objectives of this study were to determine what the food industry needs to be able to control COVID-19 impacts in the work environment and what mitigation strategies are being implemented. A web-based needs assessment survey was distributed from January to April 2021, via 13 food professional/trade organizations and 2 social networks, targeting management professionals at food (produce, dairy, poultry, and beef/pork) processing facilities and produce farm operations in the US. Statistical analyses evaluated patterns in self-reported adoption of mitigation strategies against COVID-19 in the participants' facilities/operations and perceived needs of the industry regarding COVID-19. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis. In total 145 responses were received, of which 79 were usable, including 38 (48%) from the dairy, 17 (22%) from the fresh produce, and 24 (30%) from a mixture of other food industry sectors. Only two usable responses were from the beef/pork sector and none from the poultry sector. Findings revealed that several social distancing, biosecurity, and surveillance mitigation strategies against COVID-19 are commonly implemented in the participants' facilities/operations, but their implementation frequency differs by the facility/operation size and industry sector. Also, findings indicated that collaboration between the food industry and government agencies, contingency plans and appropriate training, and new technologies are needed to control COVID-19 in the food industry. Subject to limitations associated with the relatively low response rate (possible selection bias), the findings suggest that the US food industry is prepared to safeguard workers' health and businesses in the event of a new COVID-19 variant or similar future disaster, provided that appropriate structures are put in place to ensure coordination and compliance, both before and during such an outbreak.


Introduction 4
Needs assessment survey design and data collection

Mitigation strategy Definition Social distancing Installed physical barriers
Clear plastic partitions preventing employees from getting too close and preventing particles or droplets exhaled by one person from entering the breathing zone of another. Staggered break times Groups of employees have different break times. Staggered arrival/departure times (staggered shifts) Groups of employees have a set number of hours to work during the day, but they have different start and finish times.

Downsizing operation
Reduction of a facility's production capacity accompanied by a reduction in the number of employees. Adjusted sick day policy Employee benefits include a paid sick leave granted when an employee is unable to work because the employee is quarantined or isolated due to COVID-19, because of a bona fide need to care for an individual subject to quarantine or isolation, or to care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school or childcare provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19. (Definition is adapted from US Dept. of Labor "Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employee Paid Leave Rights"). Spacing workers >6ft during production Keeping a space at least 6 feet between employees.

Cohorting employees
Establishing groups of employees based on their risk of infection in the company, where each cohort remains as separated from the other cohorts as possible. Biosafety Enhanced handwashing Implementation of a set of instructions for employees about . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 when and how to wash hands that goes above and beyond instructions that were in place pre-COVID-19. Alcohol-based hand rubs Implementation of a set of instructions for employees about when and how to use. Face mask, face shields, and/or goggles Implementation of a set of instructions about how and when to use face masks, face shields and goggles. Face masks are often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks. They cover the nose and mouth and are secured under the chin, fit snugly against the side of the face, and do not have gaps. Face shields are secondary protectors intended to protect the entire face against exposure. Goggles shield the eyes against the hazards. Increased air ventilation rates Increase in the rate at which external air (fresh air) flows into the building. Air cleaning/filtering Destroying or removing hazards like viral particles from the air. Surveillance Temperature screening and quarantine Screen for employees with a temperature above 99.5°F (or other cut-off value) and keep identified employees away from the workplace to determine whether they develop COVID-19 symptoms or test positive for the disease.

Test for infection and isolation
Test employees for COVID-19 infection (viral test); Isolation: keep away from the workplace an employee who is sick with COVID-19 or tested positive for COVID-19 without symptoms.

Contact tracing and quarantine
Contact tracing is a process to identify individuals who may have been exposed to a person with COVID-19. Quarantine is the practice of separating individuals who have had close contact with someone with COVID-19 to determine whether they develop symptoms or test positive for the disease. Return to work post recovery policy Any strategy implemented for employees returning to work following a COVID-19 infection based on symptoms or doctor's recommendation. b Participants were required to answer the question to continue the needs assessment survey. c Two participants from the beef/pork industry were grouped in the "Other" category for statistical analysis. (1); Prepared food (1); Restaurants (1); Seafood (1); Spirits (1); Sugar (1); Vegetable processing (1). Additional 4 2 4 3 participants were grouped into the "Other " category for statistical analysis: 1 participant who is an academic  (1); CEO (1); Emeritus professor (1); Grower (1).

5 3
Additionally, one participant who answered "Other" specified working in all industry sectors. g Original levels "Less than 10", "10-49", "50-99", "100-249", "250-499", "500-999", "1000-2000", and "More than  h This question was only shown to 17 participants who selected the option "Fresh produce" in question Q15. i This question was only shown to 3 participants who selected the option "Grower and Processor" in question Q18.  (that asked about conditions and COVID-19 controls in a food production facility or 2 6 3 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. know; thus, the observed range spanned the full range of possible responses. c Nine participants responded "Do not know" and were grouped with "No response" for analysis.  provide group temporary (seasonal) housing to any of your employees?". provide group transportation services (bus, truck, etc.) to employees to/from work?". . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint 1 7 (predictors) describing "Industry sector" (Q1) and "Facility/operation size" (Q20) after 2 7 9 post-hoc analysis and false discovery rate adjustment. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021.
0.5 0-0.6 Q36, Have any of these employee biosafety strategies been applied in this facility/operation, at any point since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic? -Face mask, face shields, goggles Industry sector Dairy a 1 1-1 Fresh produce b 1 0.5-1 Other a,c 1 1-1 -Air cleaning/filtering Facility/operation size is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint Fresh produce b 0.5 0.5-1 Other a,b 1 0-1 -Return to work post recovery policy Facility/operation size Small a 1 0.4-1 Medium b 1 1-1 Large a,b 1 0.9-1 Other statistically significant associations found in this study are presented in S3 Table. 2 8 1 @ Likert question (Q) number in the needs assessment survey.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021.
Cost of implementation Increases worker absences Lack of concern or need a The complete wording of the Likert questions can be found in S1 Table. 3 0 0 3 0 1 The most common roles of the 79 participants in their organizations were corporate food 3 0 2 safety and quality manager (29, 37%), followed by facility managers (21, 27%), and c-suite 3 0 3 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint tests showed that the reported concern for Limited financial resources was significantly higher in  Table 5). Similarly, the reported concern for Supplier management was also significantly higher in small compared to large-sized facilities/operations (Q5, p = 0.03; Table 5). In response to the . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint from "Not at all concerning" to "Extremely concerning" [A] and "Not at all challenging" to  Among challenges associated with the labor force needed to maintain the production 3 6 5 capacity (Q7, Fig 1B), most participants perceived that all of the items presented to them were at . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint challenging (median score = 4). Additional challenges to maintaining the production capacity industry compared to the dairy industry sector and the group of "Other" industry sectors (p = 3 8 0 0.05 and p = 0.03, respectively; Table 5).
In the corresponding open-ended question participants  Table 6). sector. For each item within a Likert question, a median shown to the right of the heatmap was 3 9 0 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

0 4
In terms of the risk of shutdown associated with the facility/operation due to work 4 0 5 absences for certain specialized job functions (Q27, Fig 3A), participants indicated that concerned about Activities in the local community (median score = 4). In addition, respondents  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint shown to the right of the heatmap was calculated from the interval values (1-5), assigned to 4 2 1 answers ranging from "No risk" to "Very high risk" [A] and "Not at all concerning" to  Staggered shifts which were adopted or partially/temporarily adopted by about half of the . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint 4A). Small facilities/operations implemented several social distancing strategies significantly 4 3 5 less frequently than medium-and large-sized facilities and operations, including installing of 4 3 6 physical barriers (p = 0.005 and p = 0.005, respectively), staggered break times (p < 0.001 and p 4 3 7 = 0.004, respectively), and staggered shifts (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively;Q34, Table 5). In  Table 5). In addition, dairy facilities 4 4 1 were more likely to adopt Spacing workers >6ft during production (p = 0.05) compared to 4 4 2 facilities/operations from the group of "Other" industry sectors (Q34, Table 5). The responses to imposed constraints as well as the perceived lack of need or concern were reasons for non-4 4 5 implementation of social distancing measures (thematic analysis of Q35, Table 6). For example, 4 4 6 in the following quote one of the participants expressed a concern about downsizing the 4 4 7 operation as a strategy to contain the infection spread:  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint except strategies that reduce productivity, involve major costs, or/and had insufficient 5 0 0 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint because the latter assessed dairy processing facilities rather than dairy farms, and targeting the survey participants in the current study mentioned that the lack of access to preventive measures, 5 8 2 including PPE, was an important concern in efforts to control COVID-19 in their industry sector.

8 3
Previous reports indicate that the unavailability of supplies early in the COVID-19 pandemic was consequence of disruptions in the PPE supply chain in the US [43] and elsewhere, whose 5 8 7 weaknesses were exposed during this pandemic [44]. The survey findings about the lack of 5 8 8 access to preventative measures strongly suggest that establishing a reliable and efficient system 5 8 9 to ensure PPE availability and distribution to food facilities/operations is essential for the success 5 9 0 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint are somewhat unexpected considering that ventilation and air filtering have been recommended . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 occupancy level, and specific facilities' features (e.g., production environment) [45]. Because of 6 1 4 the complexity of installing air filtering and ventilation systems [22], and the ongoing discussion  Surveillance strategies were widely implemented by the participants' produce grower have also been promoted by the CDC and OSHA as ways to reduce COVID-19 dissemination in 6 2 7 the workplace [33,49]. Indeed, an early report of mitigation strategies used in the food industry 6 2 8 pointed out temperature screening as a widely applied method in the US poultry and meat 6 2 9 industry sectors [15], and it is currently being recommended by the CDC to be implemented in . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint infrared thermometers can range between 61% to 67%, depending on the part of the body being 6 5 0 measured (wrist and forehead, respectively). This is an extremely important drawback for labor-6 5 1 intensive sectors of the food industry, which rely on the availability of qualified workers to 6 5 2 continue food production. It was proposed that temperature screening has been a valuable and 6 5 3 easy to implement 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 6 5 5 guidance was limited [57,58]. However, given the issues associated with this strategy, the . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint survey and might not represent needs of the US food industry and adoption of mitigation we chose to exclude those to improve the response rate. Provided that the responses of survey participants are reflective of the wider US food . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint well as the development of food industry-directed technologies will be crucial to build resilience 8 1 5 against future COVID-19-related and similar disturbances. We thank Alina N. Stelick and Cecil Barnett-Neefs for providing feedback during the needs 8 1 8 assessment survey design process. We are also grateful to advisory council members who 8 1 9 assisted during the pilot of the needs assessment survey, the professional and trade organizations 8 2 0 who assisted in its dissemination, and everyone whose participation made this study possible.    . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. the COVID-19 pandemic on the dairy industry: Lessons from China and the United States https://www.sesync.org/news/wed-2020-12-02-1543/effects-of-covid-19-meat-and-poultry- https://www.fooddive.com/news/meat-processors-wrestle-with-worker-shortages-as-us- Resilience and Vulnerability. Agri-Food Econ Syst. 2020; 1-6. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 9, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261702 doi: medRxiv preprint