Confronting Views of Companies and Authorities on Food Safety Issues-A Cross-Country Survey

Abstract

This study investigated food safety issues as perceived by food companies and food safety authorities in six countries in Europe and Central Asia. A total of 66 companies and 16 authorities participated in the survey. The results provide important insights related to what the main food safety priorities are, how they are addressed in the countries that participated in the survey, and what the role of the main stakeholders is in the food value chain. Almost 50% of food companies identified 'food fraud' as the most influential food safety attribute. One-third of food safety authorities recognized 'food safety management system' as the most influential food safety attribute. Principal component analysis separated food safety statements into two dimensions named 'food safety hazards and risks' and 'food safety system'. Although there are slight differences in food safety statements between the two stakeholders, i.e., food companies and food safety authorities, it is the country of origin that plays a more important role in understanding their views. Food companies will need to implement a systemic approach and transform the entire food value chain continuum while considering new food safety challenges. It is expected that food safety authorities will have to play a more proactive role in the future.

Keywords: food safety; food safety integrity; food safety knowledge; food value chain.

Figure 1

Network visualization of different safety topics based on the three selected keyword phrases (‘food safety management’, ‘food safety risks’, and ‘food safety issues’).

Figure 2

Principal component analysis loadings (a) and scores (b) plots for the 24 statements deployed by type of respondents and country. Rotation method: Varimix. Statements: (■) Legislation is up to date—LD; Legislation is understandable—LU; Proactive approach—PA; Transparently share information—TI; Knowledge among food inspection services—KI; Knowledge among food handlers—KH; Knowledge among food consumers—KC; Outbreak investigation—OI; Outbreak communication—OC; Assessment/audit services—AS; Scientific knowledge—SK; Laboratory methods—LM; System change in COVID-19—S19; Authority change in COVID-19—A19; Microbial hazards—MH; Chemical hazards—CH; Physical hazards—PH; Antimicrobial resistance—AR; Food fraud—FF; Food safety culture—FC; Continually improving—CI; New distribution channels—DI; Globalization of trade—GL; Novel food technologies—NO. Respondents (♦)—food company and food safety authority; Country (●)—Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Türkiye.

Figure 2

Principal component analysis loadings (a) and scores (b) plots for the 24 statements deployed by type of respondents and country. Rotation method: Varimix. Statements: (■) Legislation is up to date—LD; Legislation is understandable—LU; Proactive approach—PA; Transparently share information—TI; Knowledge among food inspection services—KI; Knowledge among food handlers—KH; Knowledge among food consumers—KC; Outbreak investigation—OI; Outbreak communication—OC; Assessment/audit services—AS; Scientific knowledge—SK; Laboratory methods—LM; System change in COVID-19—S19; Authority change in COVID-19—A19; Microbial hazards—MH; Chemical hazards—CH; Physical hazards—PH; Antimicrobial resistance—AR; Food fraud—FF; Food safety culture—FC; Continually improving—CI; New distribution channels—DI; Globalization of trade—GL; Novel food technologies—NO. Respondents (♦)—food company and food safety authority; Country (●)—Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Türkiye.