Foodborne pathogens account for approximately 420,000 deaths and 600 million cases of illness annually, but current food safety regulations are often based on ultra-sensitive tests that focus on detecting pathogens, regardless of the relative threat to consumers.
A study led by Cornell researchers suggests that these ultrasensitive tests, with "zero-detection" expectations, may be pushing edible food into the trash, driving up costs with limited public health benefits and causing other consequences that can negatively impact the environment and human health.
"Although the public expects food to be completely safe, there will always be some risk of foodborne illness," said lead author Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D. '97, the Gellert Family Professor in Food Safety in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS). "Just as we don't limit highway speeds to 10 miles per hour to minimize deaths, we need to take a balanced approach that considers possible negative consequences of extreme food safety measures."
The research, published March 16 in Frontiers in Science, argues that food safety regulations should set evidence-based targets for food that is sufficiently safe rather than aiming for zero risk, which is neither achievable nor desirable. Similarly, food safety practices should focus on targeting the highest risks.
The study details how hazard-based rules - those that treat any detection of a pathogen as unacceptable regardless of dose, exposure, or a food's capacity to support microbial growth - can trigger alarms out of proportion to the actual risk to consumers. In some cases, ultra-sensitive tests flag miniscule amounts of microorganisms or toxins that are unlikely to cause disease.
This can result in the disposal of food that would have been safe to eat, as well as reduced availability and acceptance of nutritious food products, leading to unnecessary recalls that erode consumer trust. Recalls may be instituted, due to an abundance of caution, simply because bacteria similar to disease-causing organisms are found in fields or processing facilities.
Beyond ultra-sensitive testing, the study authors point to additional protective measures that can raise energy use, increase costs and diminish nutritional quality when applied indiscriminately. Colder storage temperatures, additional packaging and more aggressive heat treatments are important safeguards but should be calibrated to achieve an acceptable or tolerable level of risk, accounting for environmental, economic and nutritional trade-offs.
"There's well-established evidence that focusing on end-product testing is generally ineffective to ensure safety," said co-author Sriya Sunil '19, Ph.D. '24, a postdoctoral researcher in food science (CALS). "Overemphasis on end-product testing may distract from other food safety measures that can provide greater public health benefits."
To counter this, the team advocates for a shift from hazard-based approaches to targeted risk-based approaches, which consider the likelihood of human illness when implementing food safety measures. However, even current risk-based approaches may fall short with regards to broader societal goals, including those related to sustainability.
For example, lowering the refrigeration temperature for foods can minimize safety risks, but may increase energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers found that a truly risk-based approach for food safety should align with broader societal priorities around sustainable, nutritious and secure food systems, to identify acceptable or tolerable risks.
To help establish acceptable or tolerable risks, they said, computational tools can be used that incorporate vast amounts of information about food safety risks in the food system, as well as associated environmental and economic costs.
While there is value in having consistent food safety standards that align with societal priorities, particularly for global trade purposes, it requires balancing competing interests of different individuals and societies. Further development of risk-based systems will require broader academic, government and industry-based cooperation.
"Specialists across social sciences, economics, and life sciences must work together to establish values that align with consumers' priorities," Wiedmann said.
Funding for this research came from the United States Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture; the Specialty Crop Research Initiative; the Artificial Intelligence Institute for Next Generation Food Systems; and the Cornell Institute for Digital Agriculture.
