Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing for essential food production workers: evolving thinking, pilot testing, and lessons learned.

An essential part of U.S. coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical infrastructure is the country's food-production workforce. Keeping food-production workers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic has meant added workplace protections. Protection guidance came early from the Federal Government. Absent from such guidance were strategies to screen for the causative virus. Without viral screening, some food companies had outbreaks; some facilities had to close. Companies interested in viral screening had to devise their own strategies. One company devised a strategy having three main goals: (1) detecting asymptomatic infections, before opportunity for spread; (2) identifying workplace clusters, to indicate potential protection breakdowns; and (3) comparing company results to community infection rates. The company decided on pilot screenings at two U.S. production plants. Screenings involved mandatory viral testing (through reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) and optional antibody testing (both immunoglobulins G and M). Pilot screenings showed benefits along with limitations: (1) detecting asymptomatic infections, but at questionably relevant time points; (2) identifying infection clusters, but with uncertain sites of transmission; (3) showing relatively low rates of infection, but absent details for meaningful community comparisons. Establishing a worker screening process was an enormous undertaking. Company employees had to stretch job roles and were distracted form usual responsibilities. Whether other companies would find sufficient benefits to justify similar screening is unclear. Moving forward, new Federal leadership could provide greater support for, and assistance with, worker screenings. In addition, new technologies could make future screenings more feasible and valuable. The worker screening experience from this pandemic offers learnings the next.

Assessing mobile food vendors (a.k.a. street food vendors)--methods, challenges, and lessons learned for future food-environment research.

OBJECTIVES: Mobile food vendors (also known as street food vendors) may be important sources of food, particularly in minority and low-income communities. Unfortunately, there are no good data sources on where, when, or what vendors sell. The lack of a published assessment method may contribute to the relative exclusion of mobile food vendors from existing food-environment research. A goal of this study was to develop, pilot, and refine a method to assess mobile food vendors. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional assessment of mobile food vendors through direct observations and brief interviews. METHODS: Using printed maps, investigators canvassed all streets in Bronx County, NY (excluding highways but including entrance and exit ramps) in 2010, looking for mobile food vendors. For each vendor identified, researchers recorded a unique identifier, the vendor's location, and direct observations. Investigators also recorded vendors answers to where, when, and what they sold. RESULTS: Of 372 identified vendors, 38% did not answer brief-interview questions (19% were 'in transit', 15% refused; others were absent from their carts/trucks/stands or with customers). About 7% of vendors who ultimately answered questions were reluctant to engage with researchers. Some vendors expressed concerns about regulatory authority; only 34% of vendors had visible permits or licenses and many vendors had improvised illegitimate-appearing set-ups. The majority of vendors (75% of those responding) felt most comfortable speaking Spanish; 5% preferred other non-English languages. Nearly a third of vendors changed selling locations (streets, neighbourhoods, boroughs) day-to-day or even within a given day. There was considerable variability in times (hours, days, months) in which vendors reported doing business; for 86% of vendors, weather was a deciding factor. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile food vendors have a variable and fluid presence in an urban environment. Variability in hours and locations, having most comfort with languages other than English, and reluctance to interact with individuals gathering data are principal challenges to assessment. Strategies to address assessment challenges that emerged form this project may help make mobile-vendor assessments more routine in food-environment research.