Covid at work in the food and drink processing industry: summary and results

The Food and drink processing industry (FDPI) represent an essential sector that maintained operations
throughout the pandemic and periods of lockdown, and thus were considered at potential risk for workrelated outbreaks of COVID-19. This part of the PROTECT Programme aimed to study the impacts of
the pandemic on the FDPI and evaluate the barriers and enablers of mitigation measures in the sector.
The FDPI study, the ‘Covid @ Work Study’ (CAWS), engaged with the FDPI community primarily
through various industry federations or associations and unions. This was a challenging time for the
sector, due to both the pandemic and Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, both of which
created uncertainties in the supply/demand chains as well as workforce availability.
The CAWS included an online baseline survey, a follow-up interview survey, and sector stakeholder
qualitative interviews. In addition, a literature review was performed to examine other FDPI studies
globally. To examine the risks in the FDPI in the context of other essential sectors which continued to
operate throughout the pandemic, results from another PROTECT analysis were included in this report.
Key findings:
· In a sample of companies within subset of sectors (primarily beverage, grain milling, malting,
distilling, prepared meals, and baked goods sub-sectors), infection rates appeared to be most
influenced by deprivation in the surrounding community, with those with more remote workers
at less risk and those with larger numbers of workers overall, to be at higher risk.
· Based on Office of National Statistics data, the FDPI sector as a whole was not necessarily at
greater risk of infection than other essential sectors, but risks varied depending on location.
However this is an aggregate analysis and does not include risks to individual FDPI subsectors.
· Environmental factors such as ventilation, temperature, humidity, and noise were identified by
stakeholders and experts in the sector, as potential factors that raise transmission risks, but in
some cases infrastructure limited companies’ ability to implement controls such as improved
ventilation (especially fresh air intake) and social distancing. There was desire for more
information on the impacts of these factors and related controls.
· Infection risk was higher for companies with a larger number of workers on site, in particular
where workers tend to work in closer proximity to each other.
· Socioeconomic factors are important with respect to communication and implementation of risk
mitigation measures. The FDPI workforce tends to be of lower income levels and temporary or
migrant workers often work in this sector. Language and financial barriers were among the
challenges faced by companies. Companies acknowledged that providing more than statutory
sick pay enabled their workers to take leave when ill, an important measure to prevent
workplace transmission of illness.
· Inconsistencies rapid changes in government policies and guidance across the UK made the
COVID-19 response challenging for the industry