New Study Takes a Hard Look at What Should Guide Food Safety

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 new study led by Cornell researchers suggests 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.

The research, published 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.

For more, continue reading at news.cornell.edu.