Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40121426›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2025

Immigrant workers in the meat industry during COVID-19: comparing governmental protection in Germany, the Netherlands, and the USA.

Nora Gottlieb, Ingrid Jungwirth, Marius Glassner, Tesseltje de Lange, Sandra Mantu, Linda Forst

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nora GottliebDepartment of Population Medicine and Health Services Research (AG2), School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P. O. Box 10 01 31, D-33501, Bielefeld, Germany. nora.gottlieb@uni-bielefeld.de.
Ingrid JungwirthFaculty of Society and Economics, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Marie-Curie-Str. 1, 47533, Kleve, Germany.
Marius GlassnerFaculty of Society and Economics, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Marie-Curie-Str. 1, 47533, Kleve, Germany.
Tesseltje de LangeFaculty of Law, Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9049, 6500 KK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sandra MantuFaculty of Law, Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9049, 6500 KK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Linda ForstEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Illinois, 1603 W. Taylor Street, 60612, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

European Union Horizon 2022 HORIZON-CL2-2022-TRANSFORMATIONS-01, project no. 101094652ZonMw 10430032010031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The meat industry showcases the precarity of employment arrangements as part of broader global economic liberalization. In many countries, its workforce consists mostly of precariously employed immigrant and resident foreign-born workers. Categorized as "essential workers", they worked throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, while facing high infection risk. Using case-studies in three country contexts - Illinois/USA, the Netherlands, and North Rhine-Westphalia/Germany - we analyzed policy documents, investigative reports, publicly available data, and informal expert consultation to examine structural causes of protection gaps for workers in the meat industry as well as facilitators and barriers to improving occupational safety and health. The Framework Method was applied to systematize and compare the overall data.Our analysis yields two key findings: First, immigrant workers in the meat industry face similar structural conditions across country contexts, with intersecting immigration- and employment-related precarity, generating gaps in social and health protection and deficiencies in the realization of theoretically held rights. Second, as policy responses to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks varied, our case-studies showcase fundamentally different approaches to state responsibility for worker wellbeing as part of food supply chain (FSC) governance. The sacrificial-worker approach, observed in Illinois/USA, prioritized industry interests over worker and public health. In the Netherlands, a passive government delegated responsibilities to industry actors who forestalled systemic change through ad hoc adjustments, leaving the core problem of workers' precarity intact. In Germany, the government leveraged the COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst for change by enforcing a ban on subcontracting workers in the meat industry, with the potential to fundamentally shift industrial relations and thus address the root causes of worker precarity. Our results highlight economic liberalization and related worker precarity as central determinants of health inequities; and they underscore the imperative for more equitable social and health protection of all workers as part of FSC governance, and as part of food systems transformation for sustainability.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emigrants and ImmigrantsEmploymentFood IndustryGermanyHumansNetherlandsOccupational HealthUnited StatesCOVID-19Emergency preparednessFood systemsImmigrant laborLabor migrationMeat industryOccupational safety and healthPolicy analysisPrecarious work

Identifiers

PMID40121426
PMCPMC11929214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.