Covid-19 pandemic induced measures in food industry improves food safety as perceived by food business operators in Finland

ABSTRACT

This study examines the response of food business operators (FBOs) to the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to food safety and FBOs’ experiences of remote inspections performed by official food control. The study was conducted between November and December 2020 with a web-based questionnaire for food processing businesses in Finland. Most of the 60 responded FBOs had made changes to many own-check sectors such as working hygiene (83.4%) and preparedness for special situations (78.0%). Of the FBOs, 47.1–83.0% assessed that the changes in the own-check sectors had a positive impact on food safety and 43.2–100.0% believed that some of the changes would remain after the pandemic. Of the FBOs, 69.8% found on-site inspections at least partially replaceable with video inspection of the production areas. This study shows that, although the pandemic seriously interfered with food production, it also induced FBOs to take measures that promote food safety.

KEYWORDS:

• Covid-19
• food businesses
• food safety
• remote inspection
• food control

Introduction

The COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 began to spread globally at the end of December 2019 and The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic in March 2020 (WHO 2020a). As well as the health concerns (ECDC 2021), COVID-19 pandemic (hereafter ‘pandemic‘) has caused many challenges in the food industry from a perspective of both employee health, food availability, and food safety ([ICMSF] International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 2020; Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021).

The food sector is part of nations’ essential critical infrastructure and therefore normal food production and distribution should also be maintained during a pandemic (NESA 2021). The change in people’s consumption patterns, lockdowns, disruptions in food supply chain, and other measures taken to avoid the spread of the infection changed the operational environment of the food industry urging adaptation (ICMSF 2020; Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021; FAO 2021; Janssen et al. 2021). The changed operational environment demanded re-evaluation of the risks towards not only employee health but also food safety (Trmcic et al. 2021). It is essential to investigate the impacts of the pandemic on the food industry and food safety to create a better understanding of how the food industry reacted, what kind of measures were adopted and their impact on food safety.

The pandemic has required food business operators (hereafter FBOs) to evaluate whether the changes of the operational environment have an impact on the safety on the food they produce and conduct the needed measures to minimize the risks. The Sars-CoV-2 mainly spreads from person to person by airborne transmission through respiratory aerosols or by droplet transmission (WHO 2020b; Greenhalgh et al. 2021; ECDC 2021; Parvez & Parveen 2022). In light of information from previous outbreaks of related coronavirus (such as MERS- and SARS coronavirus), food or food packaging is not an obvious transmission route for these viruses and currently there is no significant risk of food or food packaging being associated with transmission of COVID-19 (ICMSF 2020; Bai et al. 2021; FDA 2021). The possibility of COVID-19 transmission through the food chain was uncertain during the early stages of the pandemic, however, because the novel coronavirus had not been identified in humans previously. The virus can also survive on different surfaces from hours to several days (van Doremalen et al. 2020; ECDC 2021). Thus, the transmission may happen through smear infections via food or food packaging that have been contaminated with viruses, although it is highly unlikely that people can contract COVID-19 from food products or food packaging (Goldman 2020; [ICMSF] International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 2020; CDC 2021).

The suspected cases of food fraud have increased 20% from 2019 to 2020 (EC 2021) and the pandemic has created conditions that increases vulnerability of global supply chains for food fraud (Europol 2020; Cane and Primrose 2021). The distribution of substandard products threatens the health and safety of the public while generating significant illicit profits for the criminals involved (Europol 2020). It is therefore important that FBOs are aware of the potential increased risk for food fraud and take appropriate measures to decrease their vulnerability to food frauds.

The Finnish FBOs are subject to official food control (hereafter “OFC”) organized and conducted locally in 62 municipal environmental health and food control units (hereafter “units”) except for slaughterhouses that are supervised by the Finnish Food Authority (hereafter “FFA”) (undefined). The units independently plan and implement the OFC laid down in the EU food safety regulations and the Food Act (297/2021) under the supervision of the FFA. Under normal circumstances, the OFC of FBOs is mainly carried out as on-site inspections. During the pandemic, the European Commission gave member states the possibility to carry out on-site inspections also through distance communication (EC 466/2020). The FFA instructed units to favor document-based inspections and inspections through remote communications whenever possible and to conduct only urgent and necessary on-site inspections to avoid further spreading of the virus (FFA 2020a). The pandemic prompted food control authorities to consider new ways of working. However, systematic knowledge about the use, functionality and reliability of remote inspection methods (hereafter “RIM”) were lacking and still is lacking. FBOs are the subject of food control and have gained experiences of RIMs. Therefore, investigating the experiences of FBOs subjected to RIMs is important, as the knowledge will help in assessing the relevance of the methods and in developing the methods.

This survey study was designed to investigate the response of FBOs to the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to food safety. The aim was to understand what kind of measures FBOs have implemented as a response to the pandemic, their influence on food safety and whether the FBOs will continue using them under normal conditions. We also assessed how the pandemic had affected the FBOs’ operations and perception of the risk of food fraud during the pandemic. FBOs’ satisfaction with the public authority communication and perceptions of the use and reliability of RIMs used by local food control during the pandemic was also reviewed. Our results can be applied in approaches to increase food safety in food businesses and to develop remote food control inspection methods.

Materials and methods

Questionnaire for food business operators

We developed a questionnaire to investigate measures taken by FBOs as a response to the pandemic. The questionnaire inquired the FBOs’ opinions on: 1) the measures conducted in the food establishment due to the pandemic; 2) how the measures had influenced food safety; and 3) whether the measures will remain in use also after the pandemic. We also surveyed the FBOs’ opinions on: 4) the risk of food fraud during the pandemic; 5) the effects of the pandemic on operations; 6) the public authority communication on food safety risks during the pandemic; and 7) the use of remote food control inspections. The questions included closed-ended questions, in which respondents were asked to choose from a fixed number of options or to state their opinion on given claims on Likert-type scales. The respondents had the opportunity to specify their answers to closed-ended questions in open text boxes.

The effects of the pandemic on FBO’s operations were probed with a multiple-choice question. The impact of the pandemic on the measures taken by FBOs was probed with a multiple-choice question where the respondents were requested to evaluate the magnitude of changes conducted in the food establishments in 11 different own-check sectors (Figure 1) with the question: “Has the food establishment changed any procedures due to the pandemic in the following sectors?” (1 – no changes at all, 2 – changes to some extent, 3 – changes to a great extent). Own-check refers to the actions taken by the FBO to implement the requirements of the food safety legislation (FFA 2023). In this study, the 11 own-check sectors were chosen based on their relevance for food safety and prevention of transmission of the virus in the establishment (FAO 2021; FFA 2021). Of the food establishments in which procedures had been changed, the respondents were instructed to evaluate: a) the impact of the changes to food safety (the response scale ranged from 1 – impairs food safety a lot, 2 – impairs a little, 3 – neutral, 4 – improves a little, 5 – improves a lot, in further analysis; alternatives 1–2 were combined indicating “impairs food safety” and alternatives 4–5 “improves food safety”); b) the permanence of changes (on a scale of 1 – not at all, 2 – somewhat, 3 – very probable); and c) the main reason for the change with a multiple-choice question.

Figure 1. Food business operators’ (FBOs) assessment of the magnitude of changes conducted in their food establishment’s own-check sectors because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

FBO’s opinion of the threats and risks was assessed with the following two questions: “Do you consider: 1) Sars-CoV-2 virus to threaten the safety of food products in your food establishment; and 2) the pandemic increases the risk for food fraud at your field of activity?” (1 – not at all; 2 – a little; 3 – to some extent; 4 – to a great extent; 5 – to a very great extent). In further analysis, alternatives 2–3 were combined and labelled “to some extent” and alternatives 4–5 “to a great extent”. The FBOs, who estimated that the pandemic to have increased the food fraud risk, were instructed to answer the following questions: “Do you consider the following factors have increased the food fraud risk?” (1 – not at all; 2 – to some extent; 3 – to a great extent) and “Have you made further risk reduction measures to prevent food fraud in your food establishment following the COVID-19 pandemic?” (yes/no and open text box for specifying what measures).

The inspection methods used by OFC since the beginning of the pandemic were probed with a multiple-choice question. The perceived reliability of RIMs was measured with the question: “How reliable do you think the following remote inspection methods are compared with the on-site inspection?” (1 – clearly more unreliable; 2 – somewhat more unreliable; 3 – equally reliable; 4 – somewhat more reliable; 5 – clearly more reliable. In further analysis, alternatives 1–2 were combined and labelled “less reliable” and alternatives 4–5 “more reliable”). The FBO was asked if the on-site inspections could be replaced by RIMs with the question: “Do you consider that the on-site inspection of food establishment could be replaced by the following remote inspection methods?” (1 not; 2 – partially; 3 – totally replaceable).

FBOs’ satisfaction with the public authority communication was assessed with three questions concerning the sufficiency, clarity, and consistency of authority communication of food safety risks caused by the Sars-CoV-2 virus (1 – very unsatisfied; 2 – quite unsatisfied; 3 – quite satisfied; 4 – very satisfied).

Moreover, the following background information was derived regarding food establishments (registered or approved establishment, main type of production, number of staff, production volume, handling of unpacked foodstuff) and respondents (gender, age, education level, working experience in years and job title of respondents).

Data collection

The questionnaire was piloted by a representative from food industry, and small modifications to the questionnaire were made based on the feedback. The study was conducted between November and December 2020 with a web-based questionnaire (elomake, Eduix Oy). The questionnaire was sent to all the 260 members of the Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation and to all approved food establishments (FFA 2020b) whose e-mail address was available (530/937). A reminder was sent three weeks later. We requested one completed questionnaire per food establishment. The respondents were instructed that the questionnaire concerned the period from the beginning of the pandemic to the time of issuing the questionnaire. The beginning of the pandemic was determined to be 11 March 2020 when the WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic (WHO 2020a). Respondents answered the questionnaire anonymously.

Statistical analysis

SPSS statistical software 28.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyse the data. FBOs were divided into micro- (under 10), small- (10–49), medium- (50–249) or large-sized (at least 250) food establishments according to the number of staff based on the European Commission Recommendation (EC 2003). Based on the job title, the respondents were divided into two groups, whether the respondent was responsible for food quality or not. An “I don’t know” option was included in the response alternatives, but it was coded as a missing value.

The mean score variable measuring FBOs’ satisfaction with the quality of public authority communication of food safety risks caused by the Sars-CoV-2 virus was constructed from the variables measuring sufficiency, clarity, and consistency. Internal consistency of the variable was assessed with Cronbach’s α (Cronbach’s α = 0.945), which exceeded the recommend minimum value of 0.7 (Nunnally 1978).

The association of the respondent-related (education, responsible for food quality) and the establishment-related factor (number of staff) with all the statements were analysed with Mann-Whitney U-test to compare differences between two independent groups or Kruskal–Wallis test to compare three or more independent groups. Statistical significance was accepted with a p-value<0.05.

Results

Characteristics of respondents

A total of 60 FBOs responded to the questionnaire. Most of the respondents were approved establishments 88.3% (53/60) and medium- or large-sized companies (55%, 33/60) (Table 1). In Finland in 2019, there were 1400 micro-, 261 small-, 86 medium-, and 19 large-sized food processing companies (SF 2021). The response rate for the micro-sized food processing companies was 3.4% (18/1400), small-sized 3.4% (9/261), medium-sized 26.7% (23/86), and large-sized 52.6% (10/19). The most common type of production represented was dairy (31.7% of respondents) and meat production (25.0%).

Table 1. Characteristics of responded food business operators (N = 60).

Category	% (n)
Number of staff
<10	30.0 (18)
10–49	15.0 (9)
50–249	38.3 (23)
≥250	16.7 (10)
Total production volume kg
<100 000	26.6 (16)
100 000–1 million	13.3 (8)
1–10 million	30.0 (18)
>10 million	30.0 (18)
Approved or registered establishment
Approved	88.3 (53)
Registered	11.7 (7)
Main type of production^a
Dairy	31.7 (19)
Meat	25.0 (15)
Vegetable	13.3 (8)
Fish	13.3 (8)
Composite food^b	11.7 (7)
Storage	6.7 (4)
Other (drink, spices, food additives, egg)	8.3 (5)
Handling of unpacked foodstuff	80.0 (48)

^aSome FBOs have more than one type of production.

^bComposite food is defined as a mixture of processed animal products and processed plant products.

Over half of the respondents (58.3%, 35/60) were women and 86.7% (52/60) were between the age of 30 and 60 years. Of the respondents, 98.3% (59/60) had a degree after basic education, and 60.0% (36/60) had a degree from a higher education institution (university or polytechnic). Respondents had been working on average for 19.7 years (n = 60) and only 8.3% (5/60) had less than 5 years of working experience in food business. Of the respondents, 55% (33/60) were responsible for quality, and the rest were working in different managerial positions. The majority of the respondents responsible for quality, held a polytechnic or university degree (78.8%, 26/33) and worked in food establishments with 50 or more employees (78.8%, 26/33), whereas the majority of respondents working in managerial positions had lower education level than polytechnic or university (63.0%, 17/27) and worked in food establishments with less than 50 employees (74.1%, 20/27).

Measures in food establishments and impact on food safety

The pandemic had caused changes in the production volumes of food categories (56.7% of respondents), drop in orders (55.0%), increase of orders (35.0%) and suspension of production (13.5%). Employees had been placed in quarantine in 51.7% (31/60) of the establishments but personnel with confirmed COVID-19 infection had occurred only in 11.7% (7/60) of FBOs since beginning of the pandemic.

Most respondents (93.3%, 56/60) reported some or great changes in their own-check sectors because of the pandemic. Some or great changes were most often made to own-check sectors concerning visitor management (93.3%, 56/60), working hygiene of personnel (83.4%, 50/60), protective clothes of personnel (80.0%, 48/60) and cleaning activities of facilities and equipment (80.0%, 48/60) (Figure 1). Micro-sized FBOs had made significantly less changes than medium- and/or large-sized companies (p < 0.05) in following own-check sectors: the cleaning activities of facilities and equipment, the routes and clean area division, preparedness to special situations, protective clothes of personnel and visitor management practices. The respondents responsible for quality reported changes in the sectors of protective clothes of personnel and visitor management practices (90.9%, 30/33 and 33/33, 100%, respectively) more often than other respondents (66.7%, 18/27 and 85.2%, 23/27, respectively) (p = 0.009 and p = 0.0035).

Of the respondents 47.1–83.0% assessed in all own-check sectors, that the changes made due to the pandemic had improved food safety (Figure 2). The three most common sectors where food safety had improved due to the changes concerned working hygiene of personnel (83.0%, 39/47), hand washing facilities and equipment (81.8%, 36/44) and preparedness to special situations (70.3%, 26/37). No assessments were associated significantly between establishment or respondent-related factors.

Figure 2. The impact of changed procedures on food safety evaluated by food business operators (FBO) that had conducted pandemic induced changes in their food establishment..

Of the respondents, 53.4% (31/58) estimated that Sars-CoV-2 virus has not caused a threat to the safety of food products at all, 41.4% answered to some extent, and 5.2% answered to a great extent. The respondents responsible for quality evaluated the threat to the safety of food products to be greater (59.4%, 19/32 considered the threat to be of some or great extent) than other respondents (30.8%, 8/26) (p = 0.037). Of respondents 43.2–100.0% assessed that it is somewhat or very probable that the changes made in the own-check sectors will remain in place also after the pandemic (Figure 3). The changes that will most probably remain after the pandemic concerned hand washing facilities and equipment (100%, 40/40 of respondents assessed that the changes made will remain somewhat or very probably) and working hygiene of personnel (95.3%, 41/43). The respondents responsible for quality considered it less likely that the changed practices in the sectors of both reception and dispatch of foodstuff and protective clothes of personnel will remain permanent (68.8%, 11/16 and 55.2%, 16/29, respectively, answered it is not probable at all) than the other respondents (15.4%, 2/13 and 13.3%, 2/15, respectively) (p = 0.013 and p = 0.008, respectively).

Figure 3. The food business operators’ (FBOs) opinions on how probable it is that the changed measures will remain permanent in the food establishment..

In 9/11 own-check sectors, 64.1–96.1% of the respondents reported that the protection personnel from acquiring COVID-19 was the most common reason for changes. The protection of personnel was answered as the primary reason especially in the sectors of visitor management (96.1%, 49/51) and hand washing facilities and equipment (95.1%, 39/41). However, the protection of food products was an important reason particularly when changes had been made to the handling of unpacked ready-to-eat food (90%, 9/10 of respondents assessed that the protection of food product was the primary reason), the requirements for raw material suppliers (41.7%, 5/12) and cleaning activities of facilities and equipment (31.1%, 14/45).

Of the respondents, 50.0% (26/52) stated that the pandemic has increased the risk for food fraud in their food industry sector to some extent, but only 3.8% (2/52) to a great extent. The respondents responsible for quality evaluated the risk of food fraud greater as 69% (20/29) reported that the risk had increased to some or great extent compared to other respondents (34.8%, 8/23) (p = 0.049). Most of those respondents (88%, 22/25), who estimated that the pandemic has increased the risk of food fraud, considered that FBOs’ financial difficulties has some or a great impact on the increased risk (Figure 4). Further risk reduction measures had been taken in 33.3% (9/27) of food establishments to prevent food fraud following the pandemic. Open answers revealed that FBOs had performed additional risk assessments (3/8) and evaluations of raw material suppliers (3/8).

Figure 4. The respondents’ opinions on to what extent following factors have increased the risk for food fraud. Only respondents who estimated that the risk for food fraud has increased following the pandemic were asked to answer.

Food business operators’ opinion on food control authority actions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Most of the FBOs (58.9%, 33/56) were quite or very satisfied (mean [M]≥2.5), whereas 41.1% were quite or very unsatisfied (M < 2.5) with the quality of public authority communication of food safety risks caused by the Sars-CoV-2 virus (M = 2.6, SD = 0.9). The respondents who were quite or very unsatisfied with the quality of the public authority communication highlighted in their open answers (4/6) that they had received no information on food safety risks at all. Respondents responsible for quality (M = 3.0, SD = 0.6, n = 32) were significantly more satisfied with the quality of public authority communication than other respondents (M = 2.2, SD = 0.9, n = 26) (p < 0.001).

The FBOs reported that the following inspection methods had been used during the pandemic: physical inspection in the food establishment (78.3%, 47/60), document-based inspection at the inspector’s office (40.0%, 24/60), virtual document-based inspection using videoconferencing (e.g. Microsoft Teams or Skype) (21.7%, 13/60), and video inspection of production area using smartphones (3.3%, 2/60). Altogether 46.7% (28/60) FBOs had been inspected using RIMs.

Document-based inspection at the inspector’s office was estimated as the most reliable RIM as 74.1% of respondents (43/58) estimated the method equally or even more reliable compared with inspection of the documents on-site (Table 2). Instead, most of the FBOs (69.8%, 37/53) estimated the video inspection of production areas using smartphones less reliable than inspections on-site (Table 2). The respondents responsible for quality more often evaluated document-based inspections at the inspector’s office (90.9%, 30/33) or virtually (71.0%, 22/31) as equally or more reliable compared to document inspection on-site than the other respondents (52.0%, 13/25; 28.0%, 7/25, respectively) (p = 0.001; p = 0.003, respectively).

Table 2. Food business operators’ (FBO) opinions on the reliability of remote inspection methods (RIM) compared with inspections on-site, and whether on-site inspections in food premises could be replaced with RIMs conducted by local food control.

Remote inspection method	Reliability of remote inspection methods %				Replaceability of on-site inspections with remote inspections %
	n	Less reliable	Equally reliable	More reliable	n	Not replaceable	Partially replaceable	Totally replaceable
Document-based inspection at the inspector’s office	58	25.9	65.5	8.6	58	12.1	34.5	53.4
Virtual document-based inspection using videoconferencing (e.g. Teams or Skype)	56	48.2	48.2	3.6	56	12.5	69.6	17.9
Video inspection of production area using smart phones	53	69.8	26.4	3.8	53	30.2	47.2	22.6

Most of the respondents evaluated the video inspection of production areas using smart phones, virtual document-based inspection using videoconferencing or document-based inspection at the inspector’s office could partially, or even totally, replace the on-site inspections (69.8%, 37/53; 87.5%, 49/56 and 87.9%, 51/58, respectively) (Table 2). The respondents responsible for quality (31/31) considered more often that a virtual document-based inspection using videoconferencing could partially or even totally replace (77.4%, 22.6%, n = 31, respectively) the on-site inspections than the other respondents (60.0%; 12.0%; n = 25, respectively) (p = 0.011).

Discussion

This study shows that the pandemic induced many changes in operations and own-checks in Finnish food businesses. The pandemic forced about half of the FBOs to cope, for example, with decreased product demand and employee quarantines as in many other countries (ICMSF 2020; Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021; Cane and Primrose 2021; Djekic et al. 2021; Trmcic et al. 2021). Although the pandemic seriously interfered with food production, it also induced FBOs to take measures that promote personnel health and food safety. The pandemic also affected the OFC in food establishments in a way that may have consequences on future official control inspection methods.

The existing own-check system and good hygienic practices ensure the food safety and provide the basis for minimizing the risk for transmission and cross-contamination of Sars-CoV-2 in food industry (ICMSF 2020). Many organizations (ICMSF 2020; FAO 2021; FDA 2021) have prepared guidelines for FBOs how to prevent COVID-19 transmission within their operations such as using of facemasks, enhancing the cleaning and disinfection measures and increasing physical separation of personnel. It has been up to the FBOs to review the existing own-check system and when necessary, to strengthen and introduce the effective measures to minimize the transmission (ICMSF 2020). This study highlights that the majority of the FBOs had reviewed the own-check system and made changes to the system as a response towards the threat of the COVID-19 transmission. Similar improvements have been observed in other countries (Djekic et al. 2021; Trmcic et al. 2021). Many of the own-check sectors, such as working hygiene, cleaning activities and handwashing facilities and equipment that had been modified, are basic activities to maintain a hygienic food processing environment and are crucial for food safety (ICMSF 2020; FAO 2021; FFA 2021). This finding indicates that food safety was increased during the pandemic.

The primary reason for making changes in own-check, however, was most often to protect personnel from acquiring Covid-19, not food safety. This is understandable as the safety of the personnel is crucial not only for the personnel itself but also for the functionality of the food establishments and reliability (Bai et al. 2021). The measures taken to protect personnel such as protective clothing, cleaning, and handwashing are important in promoting personnel health (WHO 2020b), but at the same time influence food safety, which highlights the dual effect of the measures (ICMSF 2020; FAO 2021).

Although many changes were primarily made to protect the personnel, changes were also made to protect the products from Sars-CoV-2 virus contamination. This highlights the fact that many FBOs considered Sars-CoV-2 virus a possible, although mostly a small, threat for food safety. Among those who had made changes, cleaning activities, and the protection of unpacked ready-to-eat food products were considered especially important. These measures were intended to protect foods from contamination through droplets or cross-contamination via surfaces. Most of the FBOs handled unpacked foodstuff which increased the need for precautionary measures. It is important to note that the knowledge of the transmission modes of the virus in the beginning of the pandemic was scarce and precautionary measures were taken based on common knowledge of viruses, not on specific knowledge of Sars-CoV-2 virus. The measures taken seem well justified as the Sars-CoV-2 virus was later shown to be able to survive on food and even for several hours on surfaces in certain conditions possibly enabling cross-contamination even if the risk of surface transmission is considered to be low, less than 1 in 10,000 (Bai et al. 2021; CDC 2021; ECDC 2021).

FBOs are obligated to prepare for potential hazards ([EC] European Commission 852/2004., 2004; FFA 2021; Food Act 297/2021). The pandemic challenged the preparedness of FBOs in a fundamental way which has raised the importance of preparedness for future disruptions and adverse health effects (Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021; Trmcic et al. 2021). It is not a surprise that the majority of the FBOs made changes to preparedness concerning special situations and it is likely that FBOs preparedness is now on a higher level than before the pandemic. This has positive effects not only on personnel safety but also on food safety as assessed by most of the FBOs.

This study indicates that some improvements in food safety will remain also after the pandemic as almost half of the FBOs estimated the probability of the permanence of the changes made in own-check sectors somewhat or very probable. Clearly some of the measures taken during pandemic have been assessed as important and feasible to uphold. The pandemic has also impacted positively attitudes toward for example the application of digital innovations improving food safety practices (Halim-Lim et. 2023). It is possible that the pandemic has caused some rethinking among FBOs and there is more willingness to seek for new solutions and to maintain a higher level of personnel protection and food safety level than before. This can lead to long-term positive impact on food safety in the food industry, although this should be verified in later studies.

Changes to the own-check sectors were made more often in larger than smaller food establishments. The study reveals no reasons for this, however it is possible that the prevention of transmission of virus among personnel in larger establishments is more challenging requiring more measures than in smaller establishments. Furthermore, FBOs from smaller businesses might not have the same knowledge in food safety (Kaskela et al. 2019) and might perceive less clearly the food safety risks (Nevas et al. 2013) than FBOs in larger businesses which usually have more human, financial and technical resources to implement food safety requirements (Djekic et al. 2021). The respondents responsible for food quality also experienced greater threat to the safety of food products and the risk of food fraud, which may have influenced the willingness or need for changes. This could be explained by the better knowledge and understanding about the topics of food safety and food fraud.

The public authority is responsible for providing effective crisis communication and ensuring that accurate, updated, and credible information and advice are available (WHO & FAO 2020; Kim 2022). The results show that there is a need to develop public authority communication under special circumstances as over 40% of respondents were not satisfied with the quality of information provided about the risk of food safety caused by Sars-CoV-2 virus. It seems, that at the time of the survey, 8–9 months after the WHO declared COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic, the public authority communication on the transmission of Sars-CoV-2 virus in the food chain had not reached all the FBOs. FBO’s uncertainty on the transmission of virus through the food chain may have impacted the scale of the measures taken to increase food safety. Based on these results, it is recommendable that the authorities evaluate and develop the communication policy concerning food safety issues in exceptional circumstances, with a focus on reaching all FBOs.

The pandemic has increased the risk of food fraud (Europol 2020; Cane and Primrose 2021; EC 2021), which has been acknowledged by many FBOs according to this survey. Importantly, many FBOs were also aware of factors that may increase the risk for food fraud such as financial difficulties and changes in raw material suppliers (Wisniewski et al. 2019; Mcgrath et al. 2021; WHO and FAO 2020; Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021; Cane and Primrose 2021). Even if almost half of the FBOs indicated at least a little higher risk for food fraud in their food industry sector, only about one-third had made further risk reduction measures to prevent food fraud following the COVID-19 pandemic. It is possible that FBOs considered the existing measures sufficient against fraud or FBOs lack measures to improve the prevention. There is a need to further investigate how FBOs ensure the reliability of the food chain to avoid food fraud.

The pandemic has affected the local food control requiring the authorities to consider new ways of inspecting ([EC] European Commission 466/2020, 2020). The FFA recommended the local food safety authorities to favor RIMs except in situations requiring urgent on-site inspections (FFA 2020a). The local food control has had considerable discretionally power regarding how to conduct food control during the pandemic. Based on the results, the RIMs like document-based inspection at the inspector’s office or virtually have been used during the pandemic. This demonstrates nimbleness and adaptability of food control under exceptional circumstances.

It is noteworthy that most of the respondents found the remote document-based inspections virtually or at the inspector’s office equally or more reliable than the document-based inspections on-site. The virtual document-based inspection may be an effective method to inspect large entities, especially if the FBO has an electronic own-check system, enabling also interaction between inspector and FBO. However, most FBOs found video inspection of production areas to be less reliable than on-site inspections. This is not surprising considering the limitations of video inspection to see as clearly and to use all the senses as can be done on-site. The FBO also has the possibility to influence the targets of the video (ICF 2021). Based on observations among food control authorities in the UK, clear communication of inspector and longstanding relationship with FBO is important to be able to make reliable conclusions remotely (ICF 2021).

Most of the FBOs found the RIMs as alternative for on-site inspections even if only part of these respondents had practical experience of RIMs and only a few FBOs had experiences of video inspection of production areas using smartphones. Interestingly, even if some of the FBOs did not consider remote inspections as reliable as on-site inspections, they were ready to replace the on-site inspections with remote inspections. It is possible that FBOs had a desire to reduce the on-site inspections to protect personnel during the pandemic. The respondents may also perceive the on-site inspections as unnecessary or time-consuming if they found the RIMs to give the same control result. Previous results indicate that one-third of the FBOs think that inspections have no significant effect, which may also affect the opinion on the replaceability of on-site inspections with remote inspections (Kettunen et al. 2017). It is concerning, however, that some FBOs are prepared to replace the on-site inspections with remote inspections at the expense of reliability.

It is possible that the RIMs could partially or even totally replace some areas of inspection, as perceived by many FBOs, especially inspection of plans and documents. However, the use of RIMs may create new challenges in consistency, effectiveness, and reliability. The reduced on-site inspections may negatively impact food safety and detection of fraudulent activity (WHO & FAO 2020; Boyacι-Gündüz et al. 2021; Cane and Primrose 2021; Trmcic et al. 2021). Also, the technical requirements for using RIMs can cause challenges for some FBOs (ICF 2021; Mofid et al. 2021). Thus, the on-site inspections are still important to provide the full visual context, but to also permit face-to-face communication.

Limitations and need for further research

The response rate of the questionnaire was low requiring caution in drawing generalized conclusions. This study cannot draw any conclusions on differences between industry sectors because of the low response rate. In addition, conclusions concerning micro- and small-sized businesses should be made bearing in mind the very low response rate. The low response rate among micro- and small-sized businesses can partly be explained with the fact that the questionnaire was sent to approved establishments with an available e-mail address. It can be assumed that those approved establishments that did not have an e-mail address were mostly very small FBOs. In addition, the members of the Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation are mostly not micro-sized businesses. Moreover, it can be hypothesized that micro- and small-sized FBOs are not that interested to answer surveys as they may not have personnel dedicated only for food safety issues. However, the results of this research are quite representative for the medium- and large-sized food establishment. The fact that some of the respondents were responsible for food quality and some not may have influenced the perceptions on food safety and food fraud risks as suggested by the results. The data was collected between November and December 2020 and the respondents were instructed to estimate the conducted measures of the food establishment by considering over 8–9 months period from 11 March 2020, when the WHO declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. Further research is needed to investigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food industry and food safety also during a longer period, especially whether the changes made in own-check sectors will remain. Even though many FBOs considered the RIMs quite reliable and an alternative for on-site inspections, further research is needed on the RIMs of OFC both from the inspectors and FBOs point of view and the long-term monitoring comparing the inspection results of on-site and remote inspections.

Conclusions

The food industry has made many changes in own-check caused by the pandemic. Most of these changes have also had a positive influence on food safety and some may remain. Many FBOs were aware of an increased food fraud risk, although few had implemented further risk reduction measures. FBOs’ capability to prevent fraud should be further assessed. Authority communication should be improved as many FBOs received no information regarding food safety risks related to the pandemic. The FBOs found the remote inspections conducted by OFC during the pandemic surprisingly reliable and an alternative for at least some of the on-site inspections. Based on our findings, it is probable that the RIMs will remain as alternative inspection tools also after the pandemic. However, their reliability as an alternative for on-site inspections should be further investigated.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation for disseminating the questionnaire and all participating FBOs for their cooperation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Walter Ehrström Foundation.