## 4 Results and Discussion
### The AHP Model for Identifying the Best Mitigation Options  
Figure 10 depicts the final AHP hierarchy model tree with the final mitigation options selected from the previous step to ensure the safety of IFMSC. In the first step of running the model, the decision matrix is constructed by comparing the mitigation attributes pairwise as it is shown in Table 6, and the performance score is calculated by the decision-makers using Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & ER.M4 & ER.M5 & OR.M1 & OR.M3 & QR.M2 & QR.M3 & QR.M4 & QR.M5 \\ \hline ER.M4 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 4 & 0.5 & 4 & 5 & 3 \\ \hline ER.M5 & 0.5 & 1 & 0.5 & 2 & 0.33 & 2 & 4 & 3 \\ \hline OR.M1 & 0.5 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 0.5 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline OR.M3 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 1 & 0.33 & 3 & 2 & 2 \\ \hline QR.M2 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 5 & 5 & 7 \\ \hline QR.M3 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.33 & 0.2 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline QR.M4 & 0.2 & 0.25 & 0.33 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 1 & 2 \\ \hline QR.M5 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.14 & 0.33 & 0.5 & 1 \\ \hline Sum & 5.03 & 9.58 & 7.08 & 13.33 & 3.20 & 17.83 & 22.5 & 25 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Pairwise comparison of mitigation criteria factors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline  & **Frequency** & **Percentage (\%)** \\ \hline Professional Experience & & \\ \hline Experienced in supply chains management & 12 & 26.6 \\ A professional in food supply chain & 15 & 33.4 \\ management (sourcing, procurement, warehousing, distribution, retailing) & 18 & 40 \\ Food consumer & 45 & 100.0 \\ \hline Activity in Food Supply Chain & \\ \hline Supplying raw materials & 1 & 2.2 \\ Manufacturing & 4 & 8.9 \\ Packaging & 3 & 6.7 \\ Distributing & 5 & 11.1 \\ Retailing & 32 & 71.1 \\ Total & 45 & 100.0 \\ \hline Years of Experience & \\ \hline \textgreater{}10 years & 15 & 33.3 \\ 1–3 years & 12 & 26.7 \\ 4–6 years & 10 & 22.2 \\ 7–9 years & 8 & 17.8 \\ \hline Total & 45 & 100.0 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._Figure 9: Focus group results on mitigation alternatives and their codes. Following this, the decision matrix is normalized by converting attributes to non-dimensional types using Equation (1). A weighted normalized decision matrix can be calculated using Equation (2). The C.R. is calculated before the ranking, as shown in Table 7, and is 0.039, which is less than 0.1, showing our matrix has a reasonable consistency. Table 8 shows the final weighted normalized matrix and ranking. The topmost ranking goes to QR.M2. It refers to the mitigation alternative requiring a precise test and quality check along the supplier chain before the IFM is delivered. The QR.M2 alternative has been classified as avoiding the risk mitigation strategy illustrated in Figure 8. This classification makes sense, particularly when talking about a product that infants will consume, and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline Lambda Max. & CI & RCI & CR \\ \hline
8.39 & 0.056 & 1.41 & 0.039 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of the consistency test. Figure 10: Finalized AHP mitigation alternatives hierarchy. it is inappropriate in this case to accept, control, transfer, or monitor our risks. Ensuring the IFM is of high quality at every stage of the FSC is critical to ensuring product safety. The quality control model that [PERSON] et al. (2020) proposed with an emphasis on the Chinese dairy industry is not recommended because the decentralized supply chain structure may lead to distortions in product quality depending on the sampling technology. Stakeholders within the supply chain cannot benefit from a centralized and single authority system ([PERSON], 2019). Therefore, the best way to manage quality would be to find an equilibrium between both models without giving any part of the supply chain a single authority point.