In the 1800s, the food industry moved from self-sufficiency to centralized mass production to support the urbanization of the population. The degree of separation from producer and consumer led to rampant adulteration with additives such as lead, opium and other toxic substances. Some additives were added for financial gain, but others were unaware of how toxic the agents were. This all changed in 1820 when Fredrich Accum published his Treatise on Food Adulteration and Culinary Poisons, which presented analytical methods for detecting poisons in foods.
Moreover, Accum provided the names of bad food manufacturers who were involved in supplying adulterated products to the market. As one might guess, this did not go down well with food producers and led to threats against Accum, as well as members of the Royal Institution undermining his authority. In the end, Accum chose a quiet life and left Britain for Germany, where he spent the rest of his days teaching. Accum was the first to bring attention to an industry that was not interested in hearing about new dangers or changing its practices – a theme that runs through the food industry even to this day.
The food industry has come a long way.
Food safety systems and standards are the highest ever, but notably, food recalls are also at an all-time high, with foodborne illness outbreaks being reported weekly. The question that often arises is whether this is a faulty food safety management system or a system that is working as intended?
21st Century Technological Advances in Food Safety
Over the past 15 years, there have been significant technological advances in diagnostics that enable the detection of hazards such as pathogens faster, more sensitively, and at relatively low cost. Likewise, DNA sequencing of differentiated strains has become routine, something unthinkable to those alive in the 1990s. Collectively, this has led to an increase in the number of tests performed in the food sector, which increases the likelihood of detecting pathogens if they are present compared to culture-based methods. When outbreaks occur, DNA sequencing capabilities have increased the source attribution rate to about 27 percent, up from 10 percent a decade ago. So, even though rates of foodborne illness may have decreased, the likelihood of their detection has increased.
Artificial intelligence is an emerging technology and remains uncharted territory in terms of what impact it will have on food safety. The ability to collect, correlate, and predict diagnostic test data is expected to become a powerful surveillance tool. The ability of artificial intelligence to complement the inspector's role will become a reality within a few years. Technology will soon be available to not only develop food safety plans, but also monitor their implementation—literally, machines controlling machines.
Role-playing regulations under modernization laws in Canada and the United States have also had an impact on food safety. Despite their differences in approach, both laws share a common theme: making the industry more transparent with regulators when problems arise. Indeed, it is believed that this alone can explain the 700 percent increase in recalls due to foreign materials during the first year of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This was not due to a sudden increase in the number of incidents, but to the industry's willingness to report them.
When detection outstrips control
To answer the original question, the increase in recalls and disease outbreaks does mean that current food safety systems are working. However, the food safety management system relies more on testing and traceability than on control, which was the original concept of HACCP. The ability to detect dangers outpaces the ability to control. Thanks to rapid technological advancement, the gap between detection and control is widening at an ever-increasing rate.
Power without control
In the event of an outbreak, a common response is to increase testing and tighten criteria. This has been successful in some sectors, an example being the meat industry. Following the 1993 Jack in the Box outbreak of E. coli O157:H7, the sector underwent major reforms aimed at reducing the prevalence of this pathogen through changes in federal law. The amount of testing was increased but, importantly, this was combined with controls throughout the farm-to-fork chain, as well as in-process disinfection measures in accordance with the HACCP food management scheme. One would think that the example of the meat sector would serve as a model for other sectors to follow, but apparently this has not happened to the same extent.
Egg sector lesson
A prime example of how advances in diagnostics are outpacing control measures is in the egg sector. Eggs have a long history of connection with The Salmonella outbreak linked to DeCoster's eggs in 2010 was a major event. The outbreak caused thousands of cases and led to the recall of 500 million eggs. In response, sanitation and feeding standards have been improved and surveillance for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in the production environment has been strengthened. Such measures are aimed at preventing SE contamination of eggs, and if detected, batches were diverted for pasteurization or cooking.
Improved food safety practices were initially effective as only sporadic outbreaks of SE associated with inshell eggs were observed. However, a new diagnostic test was introduced that could not only detect low levels of Salmonella compared to classical culture methods, but also specifically detect SE. After the implementation of the testing regime, the number of SE hits began to increase. Along with the new diagnostic test, the availability of DNA sequencing can differentiate strains, allowing cases of foodborne illness to be linked and outbreaks identified. The more outbreaks there were, the more tests were recommended. There were five major recalls/outbreaks in North America in 2025, resulting in the recall of millions of eggs, which, along with avian flu, put pressure on egg supplies.
Doing the right thing is sometimes not enough
The increase in outbreaks and recalls associated with eggs contaminated with SE was surprising to the industry, given that regulations introduced in 2011 had been effective. However, initiatives have actually focused on preventing infection rather than inactivating SE.
Where have the innovations in pollution control gone?
When the industry decided to focus on diagnostics and testing, it came at a price with innovative intervention technologies. Indeed, there has been little innovation in this area over the past 20 years: heat treatment, irradiation, high-pressure treatment, UV-based systems and chemical disinfectants remain the focus. The reasons for the lack of innovation are multifaceted. It is clear that testing beliefs will lead to a safer food supply, and current pathogen control measures have been major factors. Egg washing is a good example, given that this process has limited effectiveness and may promote SE penetration by removing the cuticle layer. However, belief in the effectiveness of this process has been a barrier to the adoption of alternative technologies.
The information age will replace the age of control
History has shown that effective interventions are developed when sufficient scientific evidence supports the existence of a problem. For example, heat pasteurization of milk was introduced after a link was established between disease and raw milk. The same could be applied to water contaminated with cholera, leading to the introduction of chlorination. Thus, the current information age of testing, diagnosis, and sequencing should be viewed as a means of collecting data to focus efforts on developing interventions.
The future of interventions
Technologies such as irradiation are likely to see renewed interest, and thermal processing will always have a place. Key future challenges will be to improve sanitation conditions in factories, especially for in-process and low-moisture foods. Non-thermal disinfection of eggs, fresh and frozen foods will also be required. Technologies that are marketable or close to market include chemical (hydroxyl radical process, gas plasma), physical (solid-state microwave, infrared) and biological (vaccines, bacteriophages, antimicrobial peptides). Undoubtedly, the next generation will develop new decontamination technologies that can be applied to control hazards across a wide range of sectors, from farm to table.
Final Thoughts
At the time, Fredrik Akkam was criticized for exposing dangers in the food industry, but he was subsequently considered a pioneer in the field of food safety. As today, when the focus remains on diagnostics and testing, there will be those who will argue that testing at ever-increasing levels of sensitivity has little relevance to the actual risk to the product or consumer. Others would prefer the industry not be in the spotlight, and there is no need for it. However, new knowledge cannot be returned to the bottle, and the industry must address the challenges to maintain consumer confidence and achieve a sustainable future with fewer outbreaks and recalls.
Authors: Dr. Kate Warriner and Dr. Christina Schappe are with the Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The University of Guelph is one of Canada's premier comprehensive and research-intensive universities. Founded in 1964, today the university eight colleges conduct cutting-edge teaching and research in a range of disciplines in the physical and biological sciences, business, arts, social sciences, and agricultural and veterinary sciences. There are more than 36,000 of them students and graduate students.
