## 3 Results
### Analysis of Non-Compliances  
Before certification, 35 of the 70 assessed parameters were compliant with requirements. However, after certification, 68 parameters were compliant, and only 2 remained not compliant, which were two requirements in the pest control section (Q 8.3 and 8.4). The differences were significant, which is confirmed by McNemar's Chi-square statistic A/D = 27.68, with \(p<0.001\). This indicated that the certification had a significant impact on meeting the food safety requirements. After certification, considerably more food safety parameters were compliant than before certification. The differences were significant, which is confirmed by [PERSON]'s Chi-square statistic A/D = 31.03, with \(p<0.001\). The null hypothesis was rejected in favour of an alternative hypothesis, which indicated that before certification there were significantly more not compliant parameters than after certification. Cochran's Q test showed that the overall level of compliance before certification was 50%, and after certification--97.14% (Figure 4). The \(p<0.0001\) was lower than \(\alpha\), which indicated that the certification had a positive and significant impact on the level of compliance. Non-conformities before and after certification (Stages 1 and 2) are shown in Table 3. Before certification, non-conformities were observed in all sections except one--workers' hygiene practices. Whereas after certification, non-conformity was found only in the pest control section. All individual non-conformities in each section were improved after certification except for two parameters in the pest control section. The flying insect traps were not properly located near exterior doors (Q. 8.3) and rodent control devices were not properly placed and maintained in the facility (Q. 8.4). Figure 3: Percentage of compliance with requirements, in particular the food safety sections before and after certification (Stage 1 and 2, respectively). * reflects the significant improvement. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Section**} & **Assessment Questions as per** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Conformities**} \\  & **Table 1** & **Before Certification** & **After Certification** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Regulatory Compliance} & 1.5 & + & - \\  & 1.10 & + & - \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Food Safety Plan} & 2.1 & + & - \\  & 2.2 & + & - \\  & 2.3 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2.4 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2.5 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2.6 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2.7 & + & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Identified non-conformities before and after certification. Figure 4: Percentage of fulfilment of food safety parameters before and after certification—Cochran’s Q test, number of parameters: 70 Q = 33.00; df = 1; \(p\) < 0.0001. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Section** & **Assessment Questions as per** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Conformities**} \\  & **Table 1** & **Before Certification** & **After Certification** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Food Safety Plan} & 2.8 & + & - \\  & 2.9 & + & - \\  & 2.10 & + & - \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Process and Product Controls} & 3.1 & + & - \\  & 3.3 & + & - \\  & 3.5 & + & - \\  & 3.6 & + & - \\  & 3.9 & + & - \\  & 3.10 & + & - \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sanitation} & 4.5 & + & - \\  & 4.6 & + & - \\  & 4.8 & + & - \\  & 4.10 & + & - \\ \hline Workers’ Hygiene & \multirow{2}{*}{all} & - & - \\  & Practices & 6.5 & + & - \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Plant and Grounds} & 7.2 & + & - \\  & 7.3 & + & - \\  & 7.4 & + & - \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Pest Control} & 8.1 & + & - \\  & 8.3 & + & + \\  & 8.4 & + & + \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Packaging and Labelling} & 9.1 & + & - \\  & 9.2 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 9.3 & + & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & 9.4 & + & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{l}{Employees and Visitors} & 10.5 & + & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}