The 1800s saw the transition of the food industry from one of self-sufficiency to central 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 being added. Some additives were added for monetary advantage but others were ignorance on how toxic agents were. This all changed in 1820 when Fredrich Accum published "A Treatise on Adulterations of Food and Culinary Poisons" that provided analytical methods for detecting poisons in foods.
Moreover, Accum provided the names of the bad food processors who participated in supplying adulterated foods to the market. As one could imagine, this did not go down well with food manufactures and led to threats being made to Accum along with having members of the Royal Institute undermine his credibility. In the end, Accum opted for a quite life and left the UK for Germany where he spent the rest of his days teaching. Accum was the first to bring a spotlight on the industry, which was not interested in hearing about new hazards or changing its ways – a theme that would run through the food industry even to the present day.
The food industry has come a long way
The food safety systems and standards are the highest they have ever been in history but it is noticeable that food recalls are also at an all time high and foodborne illness outbreaks are reported on a weekly basis. The question often raised is if this represents a failing food safety management system or one that is working as intended.
The 21st century technological advances in food safety
The past 15 years have brought major technological advances in diagnostics that enable hazards such as pathogens to be screened for quicker, more sensitively and at relatively low cost. In the same manner, DNA sequencing of differentiate strains has become routine, which was unthinkable for those who were around in the 1990s. Collectively, this has led to more testing being performed in the food sector that increases the probability of detecting pathogens if present compared to culture based techniques. When outbreaks occur, the power of DNA sequencing has increased the rate of source attribution to an estimated 27 percent compared to 10 percent a decade ago. Therefore, even though foodborne illness levels may have declined, the probability of detection has increased.
Artificial Intelligence is the new technology on the block, and it remains uncharted territory in terms of what impact it will have on food safety. It is envisaged that the ability to collect, correlate and predict data from diagnostic tests will provide a powerful surveillance tool. The ability of Artificial Intelligence to complement the inspector's role will be a reality in a matter of years. Technology will soon be available to not only design food safety plans but also monitor implementation – literally, machines overseeing machines.
The role regulations under the modernization acts within Canada and United States have also had an impact on food safety. Although different in approaches, both acts have a common theme of ensuring industry is more transparent with regulators when issues occur. Indeed, this alone is thought to explain the 700 percent increase in recalls because of the presence of foreign material within the first year of implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This was not attributed to a sudden increase in incidents but a willingness of industry to report them.
When detection outpaces control
To answer the original question, the increase in recalls and outbreaks does signify that the current food safety systems are working. However, the food safety management system has the foundation of testing and traceability to a greater degree than control, which was the original vision of HACCP. The ability to detect hazards has outpaced the ability to control. With rapid technological advances, 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 make ever increasingly stringent criteria. This has been successful in certain sectors with the beef industry being an example. In the wake of the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to Jack-in-the-Box, the sector implemented major reforms to reduce the pathogen's prevalence thanks to a change in federal law. There was the increased testing but importantly this was coupled with control across the chain from farm to fork with decontamination interventions in processing under a HACCP food management scheme. One would think the example from the beef sector would have provided a template for other sectors to follow but evidently, this did not occur to the same extent.
A lesson from the egg sector
A clear example of how advances in diagnostics outpaced control measures is evident in the egg sector. Eggs have a long history of association with Salmonella, with the outbreak linked to DeCosters eggs in 2010 representing a major event. The outbreak caused thousands of cases and resulted in a 500 million egg recall. In response, sanitation and feed standards were improved along with greater surveillance for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in the production environment. Such measures aim to prevent SE contamination of eggs, and when detected, batches were diverted to pasteurization or cooked products.
The enhanced food safety practices were initially effective as there were only sporadic outbreaks of SE linked to shelled eggs. However, a new diagnostic test was introduced that could not only detect low levels of Salmonella compared to the classic culture-based techniques but could also specifically detect SE. Upon implementation of the testing regime, the number of SE hits began to increase. Alongside the new diagnostic test, the availability of DNA sequencing could differentiate strains, enabling foodborne illness cases to be linked and outbreaks detected. The more outbreaks that occurred, the more testing was recommended. In 2025, there have been five major recalls/outbreaks in North America that resulted in millions of eggs being recalled, which, along with avian influenza, has put pressure on egg supplies.
Doing the right thing is sometimes not enough
The rise in outbreaks and recalls linked to SE-contaminated eggs was unexpected in the industry, given that the rules implemented in 2011 appeared effective. However, in reality, the initiatives were focused on preventing contamination rather than inactivating SE.
Where have the innovations in controlling contamination gone?
When the industry decided to focus on diagnostics and testing was at the price of innovative intervention technologies. Indeed, in the past 20 years there has been little innovation in the area with thermal treatment, irradiation, high pressure processing, UV-based systems and chemical sanitizers remaining main focus. The underlying reasons for the lack of innovations are multifaceted. Obviously, the belief testing would lead to a safer food supply, and current interventions that work to control pathogens were the main factors. Egg washing is a good example, given that the process has limited efficacy and can facilitate the ingress of SE through the removal of the cuticle layer. However, the belief that the process was effective was a barrier to introducing alternative technologies.
The information age will transition of the age of control
History has demonstrated that effective interventions are developed when sufficient scientific data demonstrate the existence of an issue. For example, thermal pasteurization of milk was introduced after links between disease and raw milk were established. The same could be applied to water contaminated with cholera, which led to the introduction of chlorination. Therefore, the current information age, with testing, diagnostics, 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, will likely regain interest, and thermal processing will always have a place. The key future challenges will be improving facility sanitation, particularly for in-process and low-moisture foods. Non-thermal decontamination of eggs, fresh produce and frozen foods would also be needed. Technologies that are or close to market include chemical approaches (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 broad range of sectors from farm-to-fork.
Final thoughts
Fredrick Accum was vilified at the time for exposing hazards in the food industry but subsequently seen as a pioneer in food safety. Like the modern day, where diagnostics and testing remain the focus, there will be those who would argue that testing to ever-increasing sensitive levels has little relation to the actual risk to the product or consumer. Others would rather not have the spotlight on the industry, and that innovation is not required. However, new knowledge cannot be returned to the bottle, and the industry must address challenges to maintain consumer confidence and to achieve a sustainable future with fewer outbreaks and recalls.
The authors: Dr. Keith Warriner and Dr. Cristina Chaippe are with the Department of Food Science at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The University of Guelph is one of Canada’s top comprehensive and research-intensive universities. Established in 1964, today the University’s eight colleges conduct cutting-edge teaching and research across 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.
