The 1800s saw the food industry transition from one of self-sufficiency to centralized mass production to support the urbanization of the population. The degree of separation between producer and consumer has led to widespread adulteration with the addition of additives such as lead, opium and other toxic substances. Some additives were added to gain a monetary benefit, but others were unaware of the agents’ toxicity. Everything changed in 1820 when Fredrich Accum published “A Treatise on the Adulterations of Foods and Culinary Poisons” which provided analytical methods for detecting poisons in foods.
Additionally, Accum provided the names of bad food processors who were involved in supplying the market with adulterated foods. As one could imagine, this did not go down well with food manufacturers and led to threats against Accum as well as members of the Royal Institute which undermined its credibility. Ultimately, Accum opted for a quiet life and left the United Kingdom for Germany where he spent the rest of his days teaching. Accum was the first to draw attention to the industry, which was not interested in hearing about new dangers or changing its habits – a theme that will still be found in the food industry today.
The food industry has come a long way
Food safety systems and standards are the highest ever in history, but it is notable that food recalls are also at an unprecedented level and outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are being reported every week. The question often raised is whether this is a failed food safety management system or whether it is working as intended.
21st century technological advances in food safety
The past 15 years have seen major technological advances in diagnostics, making it possible to detect hazards such as pathogens more quickly, with more sensitivity and at relatively low cost. Likewise, DNA sequencing of different strains has become routine, which was unthinkable for those that existed in the 1990s. Collectively, this has led to more testing being done in the food sector, which increases the likelihood of detecting pathogens if they are present compared to culture-based techniques. When outbreaks occur, the power of DNA sequencing has increased the source attribution rate to about 27 percent, up from 10 percent a decade ago. Therefore, although levels of foodborne illness have decreased, the probability of detection has increased.
Artificial intelligence is the new technology on the market, and it remains uncharted territory in terms of the impact it will have on food safety. It is envisaged that the ability to collect, correlate and predict diagnostic test data will be a powerful surveillance tool. The ability of artificial intelligence to complete the role of the inspector will be a reality in a few years. Technology will soon be available not only to design food safety plans, but also to monitor their implementation – literally, machines overseeing machines.
The role of regulations under modernization laws in Canada and the United States has also impacted food safety. Although their approaches are different, both laws have a common theme: ensuring that the industry is more transparent with regulators when problems arise. Indeed, this alone would explain the 700 percent increase in recalls due to the presence of foreign materials during the first year of implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This was not attributed to a sudden increase in incidents but to the industry’s willingness to report them.
When detection exceeds control
To answer the original question, the increase in recalls and outbreaks does indeed mean that current food safety systems are working. However, the food safety management system relies more on test and trace than on control, which was the original vision of HACCP. The ability to detect dangers has exceeded the ability to control them. With rapid technological advancements, the gap between detection and control is widening at an ever-increasing rate.
Power without control
In the event of an outbreak, the common response is to increase testing and establish increasingly strict criteria. This has been successful in some sectors, the beef sector being one example. Following the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 linked to Jack-in-the-Box in 1993, the industry implemented major reforms to reduce the prevalence of the pathogen through a change in federal law. There has been an increase in testing, but importantly, this has been coupled with monitoring throughout the chain, from farm to fork, with decontamination interventions during processing as part of a HACCP food management program. You would think that the example of the beef sector would have provided a model for other sectors to follow, but clearly this has not happened to the same extent.
A lesson from the egg sector
The egg sector provides a clear example of how advances in diagnostics have outpaced control measures. Eggs have long been associated with Salmonella, with the outbreak linked to DeCosters eggs in 2010 representing a major event. The outbreak caused thousands of cases and led to the recall of 500 million eggs. In response, animal hygiene and feed standards have been improved as well as increased surveillance for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in the production environment. Such measures aim to prevent SE contamination of eggs and, when detected, batches are diverted to pasteurization or cooked products.
The enhanced food safety practices were initially effective as there were only sporadic outbreaks of SE linked to shell eggs. However, a new diagnostic test has been introduced that can not only detect low levels of Salmonella compared to conventional culture-based techniques, but also specifically detect SE. As soon as the testing regime was implemented, the number of SE hits began to increase. Along with the new diagnostic test, the availability of DNA sequencing could differentiate strains, helping to link cases of foodborne illness and detect outbreaks. The more outbreaks there were, the more testing was recommended. In 2025, there were five major recalls/outbreaks in North America that resulted in millions of eggs being recalled, which, along with avian flu, put pressure on egg supplies.
Making the right choice is sometimes not enough
The increase in outbreaks and recalls related to SE-contaminated eggs was unexpected in the industry, given that rules implemented in 2011 appeared to be effective. However, in reality, the initiatives were aimed at preventing contamination rather than inactivating SE.
Where have the innovations in contamination control gone?
When the industry decided to focus on diagnostics and testing, it came at the cost of innovative intervention technologies. Indeed, over the past 20 years there has been little innovation in this area, with heat treatment, irradiation, high pressure treatment, UV-based systems and chemical disinfectants remaining the main focus. The underlying reasons for the lack of innovation are multiple. Clearly, belief testing would lead to a safer food supply, and current interventions aimed at controlling pathogens were key drivers. Egg washing is a good example, as the process has limited effectiveness and may facilitate ES penetration via removal of the cuticular layer. However, the belief that the process was effective was a barrier to the introduction of alternative technologies.
The age of information will shift to the age of control
History has demonstrated that effective interventions are developed when sufficient scientific data demonstrate the existence of a problem. For example, thermal pasteurization of milk was introduced after links between the disease and raw milk were established. The same could apply to water contaminated by cholera, which led to the introduction of chlorination. Therefore, the current information age, with testing, diagnostics and sequencing, must be seen as a means of collecting data in order to focus efforts on the development of interventions.
The future of interventions
Technologies, such as irradiation, will likely see renewed interest and heat treatment will always have its place. Key future challenges will be improving facility sanitation, particularly for foods that are being processed and have low moisture content. Non-thermal decontamination of eggs, fresh produce and frozen foods would also be necessary. Technologies that are or are close to the market include chemical (hydroxyl radical process, gas plasma), physical (solid-state microwave, infrared) and biological (vaccines, bacteriophages, antimicrobial peptides) approaches. There is no doubt that the next generation will develop new decontamination technologies that can be applied to control hazards across a wide range of sectors, from farm to fork.
Final Thoughts
Fredrick Accum was vilified at the time for exposing the dangers of the food industry, but was later considered a pioneer in food safety. Like today, where diagnostics and testing remain the center of attention, some would argue that testing at ever higher sensitivity levels has little relation to the actual risk to the product or consumer. Others would prefer that the industry not be in the spotlight and that innovation would not be necessary. However, new knowledge cannot be put back into the bottle, and the industry must overcome challenges to maintain consumer confidence and achieve a sustainable future with fewer outbreaks and recalls.
The authors: Dr. Keith Warriner and Dr. Cristina Chaippe work in the Department of Food Sciences at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The University of Guelph is one of the best comprehensive and research-intensive universities in Canada. Created in 1964, today the University eight colleges conduct cutting-edge teaching and research in a range of disciplines in the physical and life sciences, business, arts, social sciences, and agricultural and veterinary sciences. There are more than 36,000 undergraduate and graduate students.
