Impact of COVID-19 on the Food System

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Antonello Paparella	--	2417	2022-09-20 10:07:24	\|
2	format correct	Conner Chen	-23 word(s)	2394	2022-09-21 10:03:18	\| \|
3	format correct	Conner Chen	+ 12 word(s)	2406	2022-09-22 10:44:24	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/foods11182816

The appearance of COVID-19 had a huge impact on the health of the world population but also on many other aspects related to life, such as the food system.

food system SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19

1. Impact on the Home Environment

The appearance of COVID-19 had a huge impact on the health of the world population but also on many other aspects related to life, such as the food system. After the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, the most immediate effect was the emptying of supermarket shelves. In fact, the lockdowns that many countries of the world had to face caused anxiety about not having enough food supplies ^[1]. While before the pandemic, at least for the middle social class, 50% of food was bought in supermarkets and 50% in food services, in the first months of the pandemic almost 100% moved to supermarkets ^[2]. In fact, in contrast to many other business sectors, the pandemic offered a great economic advantage for supermarkets ^[3]. Due to the fear of going out and contracting the virus, consumer visits to supermarkets became less frequent but longer in terms of time ^[2]. The most purchased foods were the commodities, such as bread, flour, eggs, milk and milk products, and shelf-stable foods such as canned products (tuna, beans, etc.), pasta, rice, and dried fruit ^[2]^[4]. In some cases, supermarkets placed product purchase limits for specific foods that were particularly demanded, such as flour and yeast in the European Union. The purchase of these primary products was linked to a growing trend of home cooking and baking, reported in many European countries ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8], often explained as a response to inactivity and boredom ^[8]. Moreover, it was observed that, due to the fear of contamination by SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2), increased hygiene measures were implemented both in the domestic preparation of foods and in the management of food products bought at the supermarket, for example by disinfecting the packaging. In the study by Mucinhato et al. (2022), it was observed that Brazilian consumers improved their hygienic behavior in food handling because they were influenced by risk perception ^[7]. Faour-Klingbeil et al. (2021) reported that consumers in Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia changed their behaviors in favor of more sanitation and disinfection practices, including more people using detergents to wash fresh fruit and vegetables, such as soaps and non-food bleach ^[9]. This practice could be very dangerous, and in fact, the authors highlighted that information campaigns for consumers on the correct use of disinfectants for both hands and food are fundamental. The lack and need for correct communication about this topic were also stated by Finger et al. (2021), who observed that even Brazilian consumers often did not use chemicals correctly ^[10].

On balance, the COVID-19 pandemic showed a significant impact on the zoonoses statistics in the European Union in 2020, as demonstrated by the data gathered by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ^[11]. In fact, according to this report, the pandemic might have caused a net decrease in both reported human cases and notification rates in all the European Union countries. Different factors might have played a role, such as the shutdown of travel, limitations in sporting and social activities, the closing of restaurants and bars, quarantine, and the whole set of mitigation measures. During summer 2020, France reported a higher number of cases of campylobacteriosis, which was explained as possibly due to less severe measures against COVID-19 ^[11].

Indeed, the changes in home cooking practices had effects on the diet quality, not necessarily perceived by most of the population, with variable consequences depending on the population subgroups. In their descriptive analyses, Sarda et al. (2022) found that individuals with financial hassles tended to cook less, whereas two out of five people reported improvements in their diet quality ^[8]. In general, the consumption of meals at home led to a greater focus on healthy foods, especially fruit, vegetables, legumes, and cereals also to strengthen the immune system against the coronavirus ^[12]^[13]. Mertens et al. (2022) carried out a survey in Belgium between July and October 2021 and found that the first motive for food choice was the sensory appeal, both before and during the pandemic, while the importance of healthiness grew during the pandemic, especially in urban areas. Furthermore, interest in the natural content of food also increased, mostly in younger respondents ^[14]. Caso et al. (2022) demonstrated that Italian consumers during the lockdown had a healthier diet and were more involved in preparing food at home, with a reduction in junk food intake. At the end of the lockdown, these habits were maintained discontinuously, with less attention to a healthy diet and food preparation, but still reducing the consumption of junk food ^[15]. According to Li et al. (2022), the perception of different types of risk (health, food safety, or financial risk) determined different behaviors in Chinese consumers ^[16]. For example, consumers who perceived higher health or food safety risks increased the healthiness of their diet, but with increased food waste compared to the situation before the lockdown. Furthermore, consumers who perceived a higher food security risk showed a greater purchase of sustainable products, unlike consumers who perceived a higher financial risk ^[16].

On the other side, in some countries, namely Denmark and Germany, the consumption of foods with a long shelf life increased ^[17]. In other cases, the feeling of depression and resignation that characterized the lockdown induced what is known as “emotional eating” which is a greater consumption of carbohydrates and sugars, which, together with reduced mobility and physical activity ^[13]^[18], could contribute to the onset of obesity and cardiovascular disease that can cause serious COVID-19 complications ^[19]. Emotional eating during lockdown was a global phenomenon, perceived also in the Middle East and in North Africa ^[20]. Comfort foods and ultra-processed products, such as snacks and sweets were particularly demanded during lockdowns ^[21]. In a survey carried out in Italy in April 2020, Di Renzo et al. (2020) observed that 48.6% of a large sample of respondents perceived a weight gain ^[5]. In another investigation carried out in Italy from April to May 2020, Izzo et al. (2021) found that 81.3% of responders reported an increase in frozen food consumption ^[22]. In the same year and in the same country, the Italian Institute of Frozen Foods reported a very significant increase in sales of frozen pizza and snacks (+15.6%), corresponding to 90,746 tons ^[23]. Another observed trend was the reduction in meat consumption ^[13], likely affected by consumers’ greater perception of the risks associated with eating meat, including the emergence of new viruses. Short-term reductions in meat intake were also observed in other zoonotic outbreaks, such as SARS and swine flu ^[24]. In addition, at the beginning of the pandemic, many restaurants and bars stopped serving rare steak and meat, as a precaution measure against foodborne pathogens. Consequently, many meat companies ceased their production during the COVID-19 pandemic ^[25].

2. Impact on Commercial Activities

In addition to an increase in home meal preparation, another clear effect of the pandemic was the increase in online food shopping ^[26]. Home delivery and takeaway were seen as alternatives to eating out: fast, convenient, easy, and without danger of contracting the virus ^[27]. Numerous dedicated apps were developed to help consumers assess and choose food products and restaurants, while other apps were useful to estimate the queuing time out of the shops. The spread of these platforms represented a new source of employment born with the pandemic. On the other hand, the classic jobs related to catering, such as that of cooks, waiters, and other workers of bars and restaurants, saw a decrease, and in many cases these people lost their jobs. Delivery and takeaway often represented the only job opportunity for restaurants ^[2]^[27]. Inevitably, the closure of many commercial activities caused a great economic damage for the workers of the sector, and this is one of the implications of COVID-19 on the increase in poverty of some categories of Western society. Despite the current improvement in the general situation also due to vaccinations, which led to the resuming of many restaurants and bars, the recovery has not yet reached the pre-pandemic levels, and many people are still in financial trouble ^[27].

While many workers lost their jobs during the pandemic, there was also a shortage of manpower for certain types of work ^[28]^[29]. For example, multinational food companies had problems in meeting the demand due to the lack of workers, often migrants, who returned to their homelands ^[1]^[30]. Therefore, labor shortage was another big issue raised by the COVID-19 crisis, in the livestock, agriculture, and industry sectors ^[12]. Even after the first wave of COVID-19, in the following waves throughout 2021, supply side disruptions became more significant than demand-side disruptions ^[31]. Supply side disruptions, due to labor shortage, transport difficulties, or closure of borders, are still evident in 2022, in particular for the food items that need to be transported from distant lands ^[29].

3. Impact on Food Access

The pandemic also worsened the condition of the poorer populations. The disruption of national and international food supply chains, caused by travel restrictions due to the risks associated with the infection, led to food insecurity in many low-income countries but also in wealthy nations ^[3]^[32]^[33]. In fact, the closure of borders caused a lack of food resources in countries that depend on imports ^[31]^[34]. Moreover, the shortage of staple food caused an increase in prices, contributing to general poverty ^[28]^[30]. It is estimated that between 83 and 123 million people, including between 38 and 80 million people from countries that rely on imports, suffered from the food shortage brought about by the pandemic ^[35]. Moreover, food insecurity negatively affected health, leading to a high incidence of chronic diseases and infectious diseases, especially in older adults ^[36], and consequently is associated with a higher COVID-19 rate ^[37].

Many governments aided the population suffering from food insecurity, in the form of cash or food. In some African countries, safety nets in the form of cash significantly reduced food insecurity, while food assistance was less effective in this direction. This was because cash assistance allowed people to consider many aspects, such as the different needs in variable diets and nutritional intake ^[32]. Furthermore, cash transfers are generally cheaper, because they are easier to manage ^[38]. The same study ^[32] evidenced how, in African countries, the category most affected by food insecurity was that of female-headed households, and the poorest and least educated people in society.

Therefore, the pandemic questioned the concept of the resilience of the food system. This term was defined by Tendall et al. (2015) as the ability of a food system to ensure that everyone has adequate and sufficient access to food, even in emergency or crisis situations ^[39]. While before COVID-19 resilience was not seen as a problem, as the main issues were about healthiness and safety of food, with the pandemic this concept, which should be taken for granted, was questioned ^[2]^[32]^[40].

4. Impact on Food Loss and Food Waste

Another serious consequence of the pandemic was the remarkable food loss during production and processing stages, and food waste at the end of the food chain, due to the closure of commercial food businesses. Perishable foods, such as meat, fish, and vegetables, were the most damaged and lost ^[34]. In many cases, the supplies stored in bars and restaurants were damaged because they were impossible to use. This resulted in great economic losses, as well as severe damage to sustainability. To minimize the losses, temporary regulations allowed and encouraged the freezing of leftover food, especially meat ^[41]. Moreover, because of the strict rules in the food supply chain, food designated for food service could not be repackaged for retail sale ^[42].

However, food loss and food waste were particularly observed on the transport front, in which the maintenance of the cold chain was the crucial point ^[43]^[44]. This can be very difficult during all the stages, from production to trade, when temperature fluctuations can easily occur, causing food waste also in normal situations ^[45]. These problems were exacerbated by the pandemic since transport required higher costs and longer times (e.g., due to health screening of workers), and furthermore, the processes were slowed down by the shortage of workers. One example is given by the difficulties in cargo handling of goods traded by sea, but inconveniences were also widely observed in air, land, or railway transportation ^[44]. In these situations, and especially while loading or unloading goods, food products were exposed to unsuitable environmental conditions for a long time, with temperature increasing up to 10 °C ^[46], and thus spoiled. Moreover, the higher temperatures could increase viral activity on food surfaces and packaging, favoring SARS-CoV-2 transmission. For example, the detection of the virus on the outer package of frozen cod in Qingdao (China) ^[47], could be linked to improper maintenance of the cold chain during transport.

Staple crops were a food category largely lost because of the pandemic, especially due to the shortage of manpower and work stoppage ^[30]. Moreover, the waste of staple crops resulted from the lower demand from the catering businesses, due to their closure. Therefore, many businesses, especially smallholder farmers, lost their jobs ^[30]. Finally, the low demand for meat and dairy products determined the waste of these food categories as well. Indeed, in some cases, the farmers were forced to cull the animals because they could not find any plant to sell them ^[12].

Therefore, on the one hand, the demand for both staple and processed products increased with the pandemic, resulting in a shortage in supermarkets, on the other hand, the closure of bars, restaurants, hotels, and workplaces and the reduction of food trade had negative repercussions on the agri-food sector, with food waste all over the world. This contradiction derives from the fact that many countries have two distinct supply chains, one for grocery stores and one for food service. Thus, the emptying of the shelves due to the high demand for goods did not correspond to a real lack of that product but to the fact that that product was lacking in the form suitable for sale at the supermarkets ^[4]. However, in some cases, the passage of goods between the two distribution channels took place. This is the case of the Canadian fruit and vegetable market, which was forced to move all supplies from food service to retail. This resulted in numerous logistical difficulties, but the supply chain was able to remain robust and resilient ^[48]^[49]. On the other hand, the cattle/beef sector in Canada was already accustomed to emergency situations, because the system had already faced one in 2003, during the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic. In fact, even in that occurrence, there was the destruction of the supply chain, and the measures put in place have been resumed in the current pandemic ^[50]^[51].

References

Chitrakar, B.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. Improvement strategies of food supply chain through novel food processing technologies during COVID-19 pandemic. Food Control 2021, 125, 108010.
Bakalis, S.; Valdramidis, V.P.; Argyropoulos, D.; Ahrne, L.; Chen, J.; Cullen, P.J.; Cummins, E.; Datta, A.K.; Emmanouilidis, C.; Foster, T.; et al. Perspectives from CO+RE: How COVID-19 changed our food systems and food security paradigms. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2020, 3, 166–172.
Béné, C.; Bakker, D.; Chavarro, M.J.; Even, B.; Melo, J.; Sonneveld, A. Global assessment of the impacts of COVID-19 on food security. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 31, 100575.
Marchant-Forde, J.N.; Boyle, L.A. COVID-19 Effects on Livestock Production: A One Welfare Issue. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 1–16.
Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; Pivari, F.; Soldati, L.; Attinà, A.; Cinelli, G.; Leggeri, C.; Caparello, G.; Barrea, L.; Scerbo, F.; et al. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 229.
Górnicka, M.; Drywień, M.E.; Zielinska, M.A.; Hamułka, J. Dietary and Lifestyle Changes During COVID-19 and the Subsequent Lockdowns among Polish Adults: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey PLifeCOVID-19 Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2324.
Mucinhato, R.M.D.; da Cunha, D.T.; Barros, S.C.F.; Zanin, L.M.; Auad, L.I.; Weis, G.C.C.; de Freitas Saccol, A.L.; Stedefeldt, E. Behavioral predictors of household food-safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Food Control 2022, 134, 108719.
Sarda, B.; Delamaire, C.; Serry, A.-J.; Ducrot, P. Changes in home cooking and culinary practices among the French population during the COVID-19 lockdown. Appetite 2022, 168, 105743.
Faour-Klingbeil, D.; Osaili, T.M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Jemni, M.; Todd, E.C.D. An on-line survey of the behavioral changes in Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia during the COVID-19 pandemic related to food shopping, food handling, and hygienic practices. Food Control 2021, 125, 107934.
Finger, J.A.F.F.; Lima, E.M.F.; Coelho, K.S.; Behrens, J.H.; Landgraf, M.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Pinto, U.M. Adherence to food hygiene and personal protection recommendations for prevention of COVID-19. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 847–852.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2020 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 19 2021, 6971, 324.
Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 167–180.
Mignogna, C.; Costanzo, S.; Ghulam, A.; Cerletti, C.; Donati, M.B.; de Gaetano, G.; Iacoviello, L.; Bonaccio, M. Impact of Nationwide Lockdowns Resulting from the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Intake, Eating Behaviors, and Diet Quality: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. 2022, 13, 388–423.
Mertens, E.; Sagastume, D.; Sorić, T.; Brodić, I.; Dolanc, I.; Jonjić, A.; Delale, E.A.; Mavar, M.; Missoni, S.; Čoklo, M.; et al. Food Choice Motives and COVID-19 in Belgium. Foods 2022, 11, 842.
Caso, D.; Guidetti, M.; Capasso, M.; Cavazza, N. Finally, the chance to eat healthily: Longitudinal study about food consumption during and after the first COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 95, 104275.
Li, S.; Kallas, Z.; Rahmani, D. Did the COVID-19 lockdown affect consumers’ sustainable behaviour in food purchasing and consumption in China? Food Control 2020, 132, 108352.
Janssen, M.; Chang, B.P.I.; Hristov, H.; Pravst, I.; Profeta, A.; Millard, J. Changes in Food Consumption During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of Consumer Survey Data from the First Lockdown Period in Denmark, Germany, and Slovenia. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 1.
Wunsch, K.; Kienberger, K.; Niessner, C. Changes in Physical Activity Patterns Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2250.
Muscogiuri, G.; Barrea, L.; Savastano, S.; Colao, A. Nutritional recommendations for COVID-19 quarantine. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 74, 850–851.
Abouzid, M.; El-Sherif, D.M.; Eltewacy, N.K.; Dahman, N.B.H.; Okasha, S.A.; Ghozy, S.; Islam, S.M.S.; Elburki, A.R.F.; Ali, A.A.M.; Hasan, M.A.; et al. Influence of COVID-19 on lifestyle behaviors in the Middle East and North Africa Region: A survey of 5896 individuals. J. Transl. Med. 2021, 19, 129.
Bakaloudi, D.R.; Jeyakumar, D.T.; Jayawardena, R.; Chourdakis, M. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on snacking habits, fast-food and alcohol consumption: A systematic review of the evidence. Clin. Nutr. 2021; in press.
Izzo, L.; Santonastaso, A.; Cotticelli, G.; Federico, A.; Pacifico, S.; Castaldo, L.; Colao, A.; Ritieni, A. An Italian Survey on Dietary Habits and Changes during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1197.
IIAS (Istituto Italiano Alimenti Surgelati). I Consumi dei Prodotti Surgelati. Rapporto. 2020. Available online: https://www.istitutosurgelati.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/IIAS_REPORTCONSUMI2020_low.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
Attwood, S.; Hajat, C. How will the COVID-19 pandemic shape the future of meat consumption? Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 3116–3120.
Mussell, A.; Bilyea, T.; Hedley, D. Agri-food supply chains and COVID-19: Balancing resilience and vulnerability. Agri-Food Econ. Syst. 2020, 1–6.
Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193.
De Souza, T.S.P.; Miyahira, R.F.; Matheus, J.R.V.; de Brito Nogueira, T.B.; Maragoni-Santos, C.; Barros, F.F.C.; Costa Antunes, A.E.; Fai, A.E.C. Food services in times of uncertainty: Remodeling operations, changing trends, and looking into perspectives after the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 120, 301–307.
Dudek, M.; Śpiewak, R. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons Learned for Public Policies? The Case of Poland. Agriculture 2022, 12, 61.
Zhu, X.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Sun, B. The global concern of food security during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts and perspectives on food security. Food Chem. 2022, 370, 130830.
Kim, K.; Kim, S.; Park, C.Y. Food Security in Asia and the Pacific amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. ADB Briefs 2020, 139, 1–15.
Khan, M.; Alroomi, A.; Nikolopoulos, K. Supply Chain Disruptions and Consumer Behavior Change from COVID-19: Empirical Evidence and Long-Term Implications for Supermarkets in the UK. J. Humanit. Arts Soc. Sci. 2022, 6, 28–42.
Dasgupta, S.; Robinson, E.J.Z. Impact of COVID-19 on food insecurity using multiple waves of high frequency household surveys. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1865.
Kent, K.; Alston, L.; Murray, S.; Honeychurch, B.; Visentin, D. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rural Food Security in High Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3235.
Marti, L.; Puertas, R.; García-Álvarez-Coque, J.M. The effects on European importers’ food safety controls in the time of COVID-19. Food Control 2021, 125, 107952.
Torero, M. Prepare food systems for a long-haul fight against COVID-19. In IFPRI Book Chapters; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
Leung, C.W.; Kullgren, J.T.; Malani, P.N.; Singer, D.C.; Kirch, M.; Solway, E.; Wolfson, J.A. Food insecurity is associated with multiple chronic conditions and physical health status among older US adults. Prev. Med. Rep. 2020, 20, 101211.
Choi, S.L.; Men, F. Food insecurity associated with higher COVID-19 infection in households with older adults. Public Health 2021, 200, 7–14.
Ahmed, A.U.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Nasreen, M.; Hoddinott, J.; Bryan, E. Comparing Food and Cash Transfers to the Ultra Poor in Bangladesh; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 17–23.
Béné, C. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security—A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 805–822.
Ministero della Salute. Misure Straordinarie per la Rideterminazione della Shelf-Life dei Prodotti Alimentari. Available online: https://www.aulss7.veneto.it (accessed on 1 February 2022).
HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts). Impacts of COVID-19 on food security and nutrition: Developing effective policy responses to address the hunger and malnutrition pandemic. HLPE Issues Pap. 2020, 1–24.
Qian, J.; Yu, Q.; Jiang, L.; Yang, H.; Wu, W. Food cold chain management improvement: A conjoint analysis on COVID-19 and food cold chain systems. Food Control 2022, 137, 108940.
Skawińska, E.; Zalewski, R.I. Economic Impact of Temperature Control during Food Transportation—A COVID-19 Perspective. Foods 2022, 11, 467.
Mercier, S.; Villeneuve, S.; Mondor, M.; Uysal, I. Time–Temperature Management Along the Food Cold Chain: A Review of Recent Developments. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 647–667.
McKellar, R.C.; LeBlanc, D.I.; Rodríguez, F.P.; Delaquis, P. Comparative simulation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 behaviour in packaged fresh-cut lettuce distributed in a typical Canadian supply chain in the summer and winter. Food Control 2014, 35, 192–199.
Liu, P.; Yang, M.; Zhao, X.; Guo, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Lei, W.; Han, W.; Jiang, F.; Liu, W.J.; et al. Cold-chain transportation in the frozen food industry may have caused a recurrence of COVID-19 cases in destination: Successful isolation of SARS-CoV-2 virus from the imported frozen cod package surface. Biosaf. Health 2020, 2, 199–201.
Chenarides, L.; Richards, T.J.; Rickard, B. COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets: One year later. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2021, 69, 203–214.
Richards, T.J.; Rickard, B. COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2020, 68, 189–194.
Rude, J. COVID-19 and the Canadian cattle/beef sector: Some preliminary analysis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2020, 68, 207–213.
Rude, J. COVID-19 and the Canadian cattle/beef sector: A second look. Can. J. Agric. Econ. /Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2021, 69, 233–241.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Food Science & Technology

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Antonello Paparella

Chiara Purgatorio

Clemencia Chaves-López

Chiara Rossi

Annalisa Serio

View Times: 732

Update Date: 22 Sep 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm