Food safety laboratories are undergoing a significant shift as the food industry faces increasing pressure for speed, accuracy, and transparency. Traditional microbiological methods remain foundational, but they are often too slow to support today’s accelerated production cycles and complex supply chains. As a result, laboratories are adopting rapid microbiological methods, digital data systems, and artificial intelligence to enhance decision-making and reduce risk.
These technologies are not replacing scientific expertise—they are expanding what laboratories can deliver. When integrated thoughtfully, they improve efficiency, strengthen data integrity, and help manufacturers identify issues earlier in the production process.
The Growing Role of Rapid Microbiological Methods
Rapid microbiology has become essential for processors seeking faster turnaround times and more consistent results. Technologies such as molecular assays, automated enumeration systems, and ATP bioluminescence offer several advantages:
Faster results, enabling earlier product release
Reduced manual handling, lowering variability and labor demands
Improved sensitivity, especially for stressed or low-level organisms
Digital traceability, supporting audit readiness and data integrity
For many facilities, the value lies not only in speed but in the ability to intervene earlier. Rapid methods allow quality teams to detect deviations before they escalate into waste, rework, or regulatory action.
Artificial intelligence is beginning to influence how laboratories interpret and manage microbiological data. Its most impactful applications include:
Identifying patterns across historical testing data
Predicting spoilage and contamination risks
Automating data checks, reducing transcription errors
Supporting root-cause analysis with more complete datasets
When paired with a laboratory information management system (LIMS), AI helps laboratories transition from reactive testing to proactive risk management. Instead of simply reporting results, labs can provide insights that help manufacturers prevent issues before they occur.
Quality Systems and Accreditation Expectations
As laboratories adopt new technologies, accreditation bodies are raising expectations around method validation, documentation, and data integrity. This shift is encouraging labs to:
Strengthen quality management systems
Standardize workflows to reduce analyst-to-analyst variation
Improve documentation for regulatory and customer audits
Integrate digital tools that support real-time monitoring
The laboratories that excel are those that combine scientific rigor with operational discipline.
A Changing Role for Food Safety Laboratories
The modern laboratory is evolving from a testing provider to a strategic partner. Today’s labs increasingly support manufacturers by offering:
Technical guidance on sampling and environmental monitoring
Data-driven insights for continuous improvement
Training for quality and production teams
Support for regulatory readiness and risk mitigation
This expanded role reflects the growing importance of laboratory expertise in ensuring food safety across the supply chain.
Conclusion
Rapid microbiology, digitalization, and artificial intelligence are reshaping the capabilities of food safety laboratories. These tools enhance—not replace—scientific judgment, enabling laboratories to deliver faster, more reliable, and more actionable information. As the industry continues to evolve, laboratories that embrace innovation while maintaining strong scientific foundations will play a central role in building a safer and more resilient food system.
Every food and beverage company has a food safety program.very company has a food safety culture, good or bad. Across the industry, you can see a clear maturity curve. At one end are organizations that meet regulatory requirements because they must – they comply, they document, and they prepare for audits. At the other end are those that embed food safety into everything they do. For them, compliance is a byproduct of strong processes and shared values, not just the finish line. They move past “what’s required” and focus on “what’s right,” creating an environment where food safety isn’t something checked off once a year but lived out daily across every shift and every site.
This shift in mindset represents the real evolution of food safety maturity. It’s the difference between protecting a business and strengthening it. When companies see compliance as the goal, improvement stops at the minimum acceptable level. But when they treat food safety as a reflection of their culture, every metric – from audit scores to customer satisfaction – begins to move in the right direction. Food safety excellence in 2026 shouldn’t really be about policing processes, it should be about empowering people to take ownership. The organizations that reach this stage understand that sustainable quality comes from within, when teams no longer ask, “Do we meet the standard?” but rather, “How can we raise it?”
The compliance plateau
It’s easy to assume that passing audits and meeting regulatory deadlines means a business is in good shape, and many companies think that’s enough.. But compliance alone doesn’t guarantee consistency, and it doesn’t always tell the full story of what’s happening on the floor. Documentation can look perfect while small, unrecorded deviations create hidden risks. Every gap in recordkeeping represents a potential business risk, not just a compliance failure, and those risks compound quietly over time. The reality is that many food and beverage companies hit a “compliance plateau.” They have the right forms, the right SOPs, and the right intentions, but their systems are designed to prove compliance rather than to improve performance. That leaves a lot of potential on the table.
It also breeds complacency. Teams work hard to stay audit-ready but lose sight of why the standards exist in the first place. The focus becomes “what we have to do” instead of “what we could do better.” And in that mindset, root causes stay buried and the same issues resurface year after year. Breaking through requires a shift in perspective that treats every inspection, every deviation, and every data point as a learning opportunity. When companies start asking how they can prevent issues instead of just documenting them, they move from compliance maintenance to cultural improvement.
Culture as a catalyst
A strong food safety program depends on process, but a lasting one depends on people. When food safety becomes everyone’s responsibility, from operators on the floor to leadership in the boardroom, it becomes a shared mission. For this to work, trust and visibility are essential – when teams can see real-time data about performance, issues, and trends, they’re likely to take greater ownership of results. Transparency removes the fear of “being caught out” and replaces it with a sense of accountability and pride. In that sense, the more open the system, the stronger the culture.
Building this kind of environment also means reframing how success is measured. Instead of celebrating clean audits alone, mature organizations recognize and reward proactive behaviors – flagging small deviations before they escalate, taking initiative to correct problems, and learning from near misses. Over time, those actions create a cycle of continuous improvement. Food safety becomes something teams compete to uphold rather than something imposed from above. And because safety is inherently “pre-competitive” – there are no brand wins for getting it right, only reputational harm for getting it wrong – raising internal standards benefits the industry as a whole.
Digitization as an enabler
Culture can’t be established in a vacuum – the right systems need to be in place to support and reinforce it. That’s where digitization becomes a key differentiator. By moving from paper records and delayed reporting to real-time data capture, food safety teams gain the visibility they need to stay ahead of issues. While a paper system merely stores information, often poorly with high risks of error and duplication, a digital system connects people, processes, and performance under one single source of truth. When a deviation occurs, alerts trigger immediately, corrective actions are tracked, and insights feed back into continuous improvement. The result is a living system that evolves with each and every data point.
And this level of visibility and proactivity has a knock-on effect on behavior. When operators see that the data they enter drives decisions and improvements, engagement rises. When managers can analyze patterns across sites or shifts, prevention actually starts to seem possible. Over time, digitization weaves food safety into the nuts and bolts of daily operations, turning isolated checks into connected intelligence. It’s important to note that this technology will never replace human judgment, nor should it, but it does strengthen it by giving teams the clarity and confidence to act quickly and consistently. In the most mature organizations, digital systems are the quiet backbone of culture: always on, always learning, and always reinforcing the commitment to do things right the first time.
Water management in food processing is essential to ensuring the safety of employees and consumers. Disinfection and sanitation are other vital components, but they often influence each other. Hard water in food processing, while common, affects the performance of chemical cleaners. The workforce must recognize the dangers of using sanitizers on hard water — even if they are industry-approved — and implement strategies to mitigate their adverse effects.
Where Hard Water in Food Processing Comes From
Hard water is a persistent problem in the U.S., indicating calcium carbonate concentrations of 121 milligrams per liter or more. The presence of typical hard-water minerals is not a public safety concern for food manufacturers, but it affects how they clean and sanitize. Understanding the many points of entry is the first step in solving the problem.
It enters most structures from groundwater sources. As water travels through the soil and other rocks, it becomes laden with additional nutrients and minerals, such as magnesium and calcium. The density of these can vary based on numerous factors, like geography and how far the water has to travel. It also depends on the region’s and the company’s filtration and treatment infrastructure.
How Does Hard Water Ruin Food Sanitation Chemicals
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outlines what food-grade sanitation chemicals are approved for use on contact surfaces and equipment. They include chlorine and peroxyacetic acid (PAA), with restrictions being even more noticeable in organic-certified organizations. However, many of these react poorly to hard water.
Common surfactants in sanitation chemicals are ineffective against most divalent cations. When hard-water ions interact with the active ingredients, they can form soap scum. The residue can accumulate quickly, reducing the effectiveness of cleaning agents.
The salt formation is insoluble, so other tools and sanitation chemicals are required to remove it. While it may appear as a mere visual distraction on a food-grade surface, the presence of the insoluble precipitate suggests the disinfectant had a reduced rate of kill against bacteria and other harmful microorganisms.
If biofilms and limescale form, technicians may feel incentivized to use more of their cleaners to remove them. However, research shows that sometimes increasing the amount of the chemical can also have an adverse effect. Tests using 200 parts per million of chlorine, 400 ppm of quaternary ammonium compound and 160 ppm of PAA led to a greater presence of Listeria on stainless steel surfaces. Neglecting targeted cleaning methods could lead to increased foodborne illness outbreaks and product recalls.
Additionally, cleaners such as chlorine and iodine-based options also react poorly to hard water in other ways. Hard water’s acidity can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine by making it less present in an active state. This reduction in efficacy is not visible to the naked eye, making it a deceptively common problem in food processing facilities.
How to Execute Water Management in Food Processing Facilities
If the workforce wants to abate concerns caused by hard water, they must institute a robust water management plan. It must be multipronged, including behavioral shifts and technological implementations to be as comprehensive as possible. Otherwise, it would introduce hazards into the workspace, which would go against the most prominent safety controls, including the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points and Good Manufacturing Practices.
Use Cold Storage
Sanitation and disinfection are required parts of workflows to keep food clean and nutritious, but so is the way it is stored. The appropriate storage solution amplifies the effectiveness of all cleaning efforts by preventing bacterial reproduction, machinery failures and scale buildup. It only takes one hour of downtime for an organization to lose thousands of dollars, so leveraging storage to prevent additional cleaning is crucial. Maintaining storage equipment is even more important.
Install Water Softeners and Purification
Companies can remove minerals in the water they use before it hits the production floor. Ion-exchange water softeners and reverse osmosis technologies are among the industry’s most reliable methods for removing calcium and magnesium from water. They take both out of the equation so sanitation chemicals can work at maximum efficiency.
Experiment With Different Formulations
Teams can use conventional sanitizing chemicals with revised ingredients and compositions to fight against hard water if the organization is unable to soften or filter it. Chelating agents are powerful additives because they bind to minerals, preventing them from interfering with active ingredients. One common chelant is citric acid, which may cost more to implement, but it could be cost-effective in the long term by preventing other issues.
Water Quality As the Foundation of Food Safety
Limescale buildup is more than unsightly — it has profound implications for poor sanitation in food manufacturing. Water hardness is a greater health threat in these environments than most realize because it is typically not a concern in other circumstances. However, food experts have a responsibility to understand why their chemicals may not work as well when interacting with hard water. Then, they must collaborate with leadership and local utilities to prevent its transmission into food facilities and protect citizens.
Managing a warehouse today can feel a lot like going on a beach vacation without a plan. You’ve packed your suitcase, brought sunscreen, and maybe even remembered the snacks, but the tides, the jellyfish, and the long lines at the rental shop all catch you off guard. Traditional warehouse management systems (WMS) can feel the same way. They enforce rules, track inventory, and issue alerts, but when something goes wrong, employees often find themselves scrambling to figure out what to do next. Searching manuals, calling support, or tracking down a colleague who “knows the system” can feel like running down the beach in flip-flops after a wayward volleyball.
Generative AI is changing that experience. Instead of being a rigid, static tool, the WMS becomes a co-pilot, a system that anticipates challenges, responds intelligently, and guides employees in real time. The difference is like stepping from a chaotic, sunburned first day into a perfectly planned vacation, where every detail is accounted for and the experience flows effortlessly.
The Challenges of Traditional WMS: A Chaotic Vacation
Modern warehouses are complex operations under tremendous pressure. Orders continue to climb, delivery windows shrink, and labor shortages make every team member essential. Yet many WMS environments still operate with interfaces and workflows designed for a very different era. The result is:
New employees spend weeks learning where to click rather than focusing on their work.
Experienced staff hunt for data buried somewhere in the system.
Simple questions can spiral into hours of inefficiency.
Day after day, these small frustrations erode productivity, accuracy, and employee satisfaction, just like a beach day where everything goes slightly wrong, leaving you exhausted and frustrated by the end.
Generative AI WMS: The Perfectly Planned Trip
Generative AI flips the traditional WMS experience on its head. Rather than forcing employees to adapt to rigid workflows, AI adapts to them. Questions can be asked in natural language, data is delivered instantly, and repetitive tasks no longer steal attention from high-value work.
Imagine asking your WMS a simple question: “Are any Costco orders at risk of missing their shipment deadlines today?”
Behind the scenes, the system:
Pulls real-time inventory data and status of shipment fulfillment tasks
References data from labor resource planning, transportation management, dock scheduling, and other warehouse systems
Gathers data and context for the orders to identify and escalate at risk shipments
Proposes issue resolution scenarios such as changing shipment mode from ground to air
From the employee’s perspective, it’s effortless, like having a vacation guide who already knows the tides, the sunscreen, and the best route to avoid crowds. Operationally, it’s transformational.
Empowering People
The most profound impact of Generative AI is on the human experience. A WMS that can listen, learn, and respond acts like a thoughtful vacation planner who is always available, patient, and proactive. Employees can:
Resolve questions independently without interrupting colleagues
Learn as they work, shortening onboarding times
Access insights via voice commands, mobile devices, or multilingual interfaces
The result is a more confident, engaged workforce, able to focus on meaningful tasks rather than firefighting. Just as a well-planned vacation lets you relax and enjoy the beach, a Generative AI-powered WMS allows employees to focus on execution instead of struggling with the system.
From Reactive to Proactive: Anticipating the Waves
While Generative AI quickly responds to questions, it simultaneously anticipates challenges. By continuously analyzing historical and live data, AI can identify trends, anomalies, and potential risks before they disrupt operations.
It’s like having a travel planner who already knows the best beaches, the shortest lines, and when the tide will turn. With this foresight, teams can prevent small annoyances from ruining the day like inventory bottlenecks, process delays, and service issues are addressed before they escalate, keeping operations running smoothly.
Rolling Out AI Without a Tan Line
Replacing a WMS doesn’t have to mean a disruptive, all-at-once change. While a Generative AI–powered WMS represents a new foundation, its value doesn’t need to arrive in a single “big bang” moment.
The most effective transformations roll out AI capabilities incrementally, starting with focused, high-impact use cases that align to real operational needs. Early wins build confidence, demonstrate value, and allow teams to adapt naturally as the platform expands into deeper optimization and autonomy.
This approach helps ensure adoption feels supportive rather than forced. Employees experience AI as a co-pilot that improves how they work from day one, not a system imposed on them overnight. Best practices include:
Starting with small pilot use cases in real operational scenarios
Providing clear, practical training instead of abstract theory
Involving employees early to build trust and familiarity
When introduced thoughtfully, AI-driven WMS transformation delivers lasting value without leaving teams feeling burned out in the process.
The Future of Autonomous, Adaptive Warehouses
The WMS of the near future is becoming increasingly autonomous and adaptive. Visual AI, real-time optimization, and dynamic route planning are not science fiction, but they are tools already helping reduce waste, improve throughput, and make warehouses more resilient.
A Generative AI WMS can adjust strategies on the fly, allocate resources in real time, and anticipate workflow disruptions. Much like a cruise ship that reroutes its course smoothly to avoid storms and crowded ports, these systems keep operations on track, even in complex, high-pressure environments.
From System of Records to system of Intelligence
Generative AI is transforming what a WMS is expected to do. Instead of just recording transactions and enforcing rules, it becomes an intelligent, human-centered partner that listens, learns, and acts.
Traditional WMS are like chaotic, poorly planned vacations that are functional, but stressful and full of surprises. Generative AI WMS are like meticulously planned trips where everything is anticipated, every decision is guided, and every moment is optimized. Employees are empowered, decisions happen faster, errors decrease, and operations flow smoothly.
The next era of warehouse management goes beyond automation. It’s adaptive, collaborative, and designed to make the complex feel effortless. When your WMS can “ask and answer questions” like a seasoned travel planner, the whole operation runs better, and everyone enjoys the experience along the way.
At recent meetings with the FDA and USDA in Washington, DC—which I attended as Co-Chair of the steering committee for the Alliance for Recall Ready Communities, along with Gillian Kelleher and Dr. Darin Detwiler—the agencies provided updates on their recall modernization efforts. They both acknowledge the increasing challenge of complex supply chains, and continue to prioritize recall process improvements. They expressed strong interest and support for continued collaboration with the Alliance and the industry as a whole.
We updated the agencies on the Alliance’s efforts, explaining how our workgroups are finalizing draft models for a supply chain recall process, recall simulations, and standardized recall data. We plan to pilot implementation of the Recall Ready Community model in the first half of 2026. Ultimately, both meetings had similar takeaways: now is the time to address recall management as an important part of resiliency in increasingly complex supply chains.
Resilient Supply Chains: Connectivity, Communication & Action
With federal policies and priorities continuing to shift under the current administration, companies need to stay focused on protecting consumers and their businesses. While regulatory agencies have committed to improving the recall process, the industry must still shoulder the responsibility of protecting consumers when something goes wrong.
The way recalls are managed impacts consumer trust, public health, business continuity, and brands’ reputations, for better or worse. The negative impact of recalls often grows exponentially when companies and their trading partners are reactive vs. prepared. That’s where resilient supply chains come in.
A resilient supply chain allows food companies to anticipate and mitigate risk, identify and contain issues quickly, and absorb disruption without losing control. It shortens recovery time, reduces financial and reputational damage, and satisfies regulatory compliance. Just as importantly, it builds confidence—with consumers, regulators, and trading partners—through clear communication and decisive response.
This level of resilience is built on preparation. Recall modernization is a critical part of that preparation. Modern recall management treats recalls as a shared supply chain process, not isolated company events. It replaces siloed systems and fragmented workflows with connected data, standardized communication, and coordinated execution across partners.
Trademarks of a Resilient Supply Chain
Individual companies can’t be entirely resilient on their own. True resilience is built across the supply chain, through shared systems, aligned expectations, and coordinated action with trading partners. A resilient supply chain:
Enables fast, accurate data flow
Coordinates recall plans with trading partners in advance, and
Practices for recalls collaboratively.
Resilience is characterized not just by how quickly a company reacts, but by how well the entire supply chain works together. The following trademarks separate resilient supply chains from reactive ones:
Built-in visibility – Trading partners have real-time insight into product movement, testing, and crisis response.
Actionable data – Clean, structured information empowers better decision-making, data sharing, and response.
Clear, fast communication – Predefined protocols, easy to access contact data, and customized templates help trading partners distribute the right messages to the right people without delay. This helps key stakeholders—including trading partners, consumers, and regulators—take quick, proper actions.
Calculated adaptability – Resilient trading partners have the ability to shift sourcing, adjust operations, or re-route product without compromising safety or traceability.
Interoperability – Systems work together across functions—testing, traceability, recall execution—rather than operating in silos.
Dynamic training – Supply chain partners must prioritize ongoing training, regular practice, scenario planning, mock recalls, and post-incident reviews to test, learn, and improve. Working collaboratively helps trading partners prepare for real-life recalls so they can act quickly, confidently, and properly to reduce risks, damage, and disruption.
Coordinated responses – Resilient supply chains work together, ensuring a coordinated, integrated response to recall management. Think about recalls as supply chain activities, not individual company activities.
Proactiveness– Resilient supply chains are proactive, not reactive, working continuously to improve safety and quality, mitigate risks, and address issues before they become widespread problems.
Resilience isn’t a backup plan, or a measure of how well a company improvises under pressure. It’s the result of deliberate preparation—building systems, aligning partners, and practicing responses long before a recall occurs. True resilience assumes disruption will happen and ensures the supply chain is equipped to respond with clarity, coordination, and control when it does.
Work Together to Protect Public Health
Effective recall management starts well before a food safety issue is identified. Resilient supply chains also work to minimize the chances of a recall occurring in the first place. This includes proactive risk monitoring activities and the use of tech tools to flag potential safety risks early, helping prevent breaches and subsequent recalls.
Still, disruptions will continue to happen. With the right systems and processes in place, companies can identify and contain affected products faster, communicate clear instructions, and reduce risk to public health, brand reputation, and consumer trust.
As the industry looks ahead, preparedness is a practical place to focus—within individual organizations and across the supply chain—long before the next recall demands it. That focus aligns with ongoing recall modernization efforts at both the agency and industry levels, as resiliency is increasingly recognized as essential in today’s complex, global supply chains. Progress will depend on putting those shared frameworks into practice across the supply chain.
Food safety in 2026 sits at a critical inflection point. Global supply chains remain fragile and volatile, regulatory scrutiny continues to intensify, and consumer tolerance for food safety failures is at an all time low. On the other side of the coin, food safety and quality assurance (FSQA) leaders are being asked to do more with fewer resources, manage risk proactively, respond to incidents faster and more effectively, and demonstrate compliance across increasingly complex operations. According to Mars company FSQA Director Vera Dickinson “coupling food safety with innovation is just a logical thing.”
The past year underscored a key truth: traditional, manual approaches to food safety management are no longer sufficient. As we move into 2026, FSQA executives are prioritizing digitization, data integration, and predictive technologies, not as “nice to have” tools, but as foundational capabilities for protecting public health and brand trust going forward into the future.
According to Brendan Niemira, IFT Chief Science and Technology Officer, “our food system is under pressure like never before. Climate change, resource scarcity, geopolitical disruptions, and rising consumer demands are creating unprecedented challenges. In 2026, those challenges will only intensify, but with those challenges comes opportunity for the food science community to turn uncertainty into innovation, complexity into clarity, and challenges into solutions.”
3 Persistent Pressures Defined Food Safety in 2025
1. Continued Supply Chain Complexity
While most problems that arose within the pandemic have eased, but with the U.S. tariffs policy changing so frequently, global sourcing still remains volatile. Ingredients often cross multiple borders, increasing exposure to contamination risks of country-specific germs, inconsistent regulatory oversight, and traceability gaps.
Larry Rehmann, former Diamond CEO an Senior Operations Leader said “food companies are in the business of managing risk.” FSQA teams are now responsible for monitoring risk well beyond their four walls and what they traditionally handled and that has become an increasing focus as supply chain complexity has grown.
2. Heightened Regulatory Expectations
Regulators are demanding faster access to records, stronger preventive controls, and clearer accountability, all piled onto the plate of the FSQA. In the U.S., enforcement of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) continues to emphasize prevention, traceability, and rapid access to digital records. Similar regulatory trends are emerging globally.
3. Rising Consumer and Retailer Scrutiny
Word of food safety incidents travels faster than ever. Social media, online news, and retailer compliance programs amplify the reputational and financial damage of recalls, even when public health impacts are limited. As a result, food safety has become a board-level concern rather than a back-office compliance function.
When something goes wrong, almost everyone hears about it, all thanks to our age of exponentially increasing social media communication. On top of this, recent consumer trends have shown that the public has grown much more attentive to the quality of the food they consume in recent years and decades. This combined with the breadth of social media creates a difficult reputational playing field to please the public eye.
Food Safety by the Numbers: 2025 Snapshot
Despite advances in regulation and technology, foodborne illness remains a significant global public health issue. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 48 million people experience foodborne illness each year, resulting in approximately 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths annually. That’s about 7.25% of the U.S. population affected annually. These figures have remained relatively consistent year over year, underscoring the persistent nature of food safety risk. Peter Begg, Lyons Chief Quality Officer, underscores this truth. He noted that “microorganisms don’t care who you are.”
Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 600 million people fall ill from contaminated food each year, leading to 420,000 deaths worldwide
Food recalls were also frequent in 2025, with pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and undeclared allergens continuing to be among the leading causes of regulatory action.
Top Priorities for FSQA Leaders in 2026
As organizations look ahead, several priorities are emerging as central to food safety strategy.
1. Proactive Risk Management
FSQA leaders are shifting away from cause and effect, incident-driven approaches toward proactive risk identification. This includes earlier detection of deviations, real-time monitoring of critical control points, and the use of predictive analytics to prevent issues before they escalate into recalls. Vera Dickinson, Founder, InnovaQ & Former FSQA at Mars & Mondelēz, sees AI being the copilot for food safety leaders in this respect. Instead of worrying about job replacement with AI, Dickinson encourages food safety leaders to adopt it and use it to more efficiently manage risk.
2. End-to-End Traceability
Traceability expectations are expanding beyond “one step forward, one step back.” Regulatory agencies and trading partners increasingly expect organizations to demonstrate end-to-end visibility across suppliers, co-manufacturers, and distribution channels, communication across the board. Faster traceability has been shown to reduce recall scope and response time
3. Continuous Audit Readiness
Rather than preparing for audits periodically, FSQA teams are prioritizing continuous audit readiness. Bryan Armentrout, VP at Whitewave Foods, said, “audits main; risk assessments prevent.” Digital recordkeeping and standardized workflows are becoming essential as regulators expect immediate access to complete and verifiable documentation. This also goes a long way in the eye of the public, a sort of, “nothing to hide,” approach.
4. Workforce Enablement
Labor shortages and high turnover continue to challenge food safety operations. Leaders are investing in systems that simplify training, reduce manual paperwork, and enable frontline teams to execute food safety programs consistently and accurately. The real challenge comes from finding the balance of efficient and timely onboarding that leads to proficient and effective workers.
The Expanding Role of AI in Food Safety
Like a growing tidal wave, artificial intelligence is moving from experimental use cases to practical application within food safety programs, being deployed on the front lines more and more frequently.
AI-enabled systems are increasingly used for anomaly detection, identifying patterns or deviations in operational data that may signal emerging risk. Predictive models can help prioritize inspections, preventive maintenance, and corrective actions by analyzing historical and real-time data more timely and effectively than a human counterpart.
Additionally, AI is being applied to document intelligence, supporting faster analysis of audit reports, corrective action records, and compliance documentation. These tools help FSQA professionals focus less on administrative review and more on risk mitigation and continuous improvement, staying ahead of the curve.
However, AI is not replacing food safety professionals. Instead, it brings both worlds together, augmenting human expertise, enhancing visibility, speed, efficiency, and decision-making across complex food systems.
The Benefits of Technology for Food Safety Programs
Across the industry, digital transformation is delivering measurable benefits:
Faster recall response: Digital traceability systems enable organizations to identify affected products and locations in hours rather than days, again, allowing for much more proactive responses.
Improved compliance confidence: Centralized digital records reduce the likelihood of missing or incomplete documentation during inspections, keeping everyone on the same page.
Stronger cross-functional collaboration: Integrated platforms allow quality, operations, procurement, and leadership teams to operate from a single source of truth.
Roger Hancock, CEO, Recall InfoLink, went on the record as saying that “connected technology improves visibility, traceability, and recall response efficiency. While progress has been made, siloed systems and disconnected data make it harder to manage recalls effectively. The industry is finally shifting toward more responsive, tech-enabled food safety workflows”
Reduced financial impact: The Consumer Brands Association estimates that the average direct cost of a food recall can exceed $10 million, excluding long-term brand damage, making prevention and early detection financially critical.
Will Food Recalls Increase or Decrease in 2026?
The outlook for 2026 is mixed. In the short term, recall activity may remain steady or increase slightly, not necessarily because food is becoming less safe, but because detection, testing, and reporting capabilities continue to improve. Greater transparency often results in earlier identification of issues that previously went undetected. Think of it this way: a new wave of recalls in 2026 doesn’t signify steps backward, but rather shows the growth and advancement of food safety technologies doing its job better, catching already established food safety issues earlier and more frequently.
Over the longer term, organizations that adopt preventive, data-driven food safety systems early are expected to experience fewer large-scale recalls and more targeted product withdrawals, reducing both public health impact and business disruption.
What This Means for the Future of FSQA
Food safety in 2026 is no longer defined solely by compliance. The most resilient organizations are those that treat food safety as a strategic, technology-enabled function, supported by real-time data, predictive insight, and continuous improvement. Those willing to get ahead of the game will come out on top.
As regulatory expectations rise and supply chains grow more complex, the gap between digitally mature food safety programs and legacy, traditional approaches will continue to widen. For FSQA leaders, the path forward is clear: proactive risk management, enabled by data and technology, is essential to protecting both public health and brand trust in the years ahead.
For the cold chain, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors act as the first line of defense by continuously generating valuable condition information. Even small fluctuations in temperature can reduce shelf life. Food manufacturers and distributors would be wise to utilize this solution.
Common Challenges Within the Cold Chain
The cold truth about conventional temperature monitoring is that it’s error-prone. Personnel receiving trucks for grocery stores record temperature gauge information on a paper ledger attached to a clipboard. They may enter those figures into a digital spreadsheet, but the process is largely manual, which entails significant reliability flaws.
The recorded value upon arrival does not reflect the shipment’s actual temperature history. Spoiled food has significant implications for human health. Inaccurate readings, miscommunications, information gaps and noncompliance are common problems in the cold chain. Human error and disparate recordkeeping systems exacerbate the issue.
Even slight temperature excursions can significantly impact product quality. While most food spoilage microbes thrive in the 68° Fahrenheit to 104° Fahrenheit temperature range, they can grow rapidly in the temperature danger zone, which is just a few degrees away from the ideal refrigerator temperature.
How Existing Cold Chain Solutions Fall Short
Food produced for human consumption cannot reach consumers when temperature abuse during storage supports spoilage and the growth of pathogenic bacteria. Since even minor deviations can cause issues, conventional data loggers no longer meet industry needs. They are unreliable at best and erroneous at worst.
Say a temporary power outage occurs. By the time the refrigerated truck arrives at its destination, the thermometer may display an acceptable temperature, while the containers are still in the temperature danger zone. The discrepancy between the fridge and packaging temperatures could impact product quality.
IoT sensors enable precision monitoring. In one study on table grapes — which are exceptionally sensitive and must remain at negative 33 ° Fahrenheit — researchers found inadequate airflow in containers can create hot spots. The temperature between the control and ventilated units deviated by around 30% on average.
The researchers demonstrated the superiority of existing monitoring solutions. Industry professionals need an accurate, reliable solution to ensure product safety and quality. This has never been more crucial, as consumer awareness regarding healthy eating and wellness is on the rise. Organic food sales reached $63.8 billion in 2023 alone.
IoT Technology Is Your First Line of Defense
Many companies ship temperature-sensitive products using coolants such as dry ice — the solid form of carbon dioxide (CO2) — to maintain a stable, low-temperature environment while in transit. Solid CO2 creates no waste or water, making it safe to include in shipments.
Several factors can influence dry ice’s effectiveness, posing a problem since precise control is crucial. Generally speaking, dry ice sublimates at a rate of 8% every 24 hours, converting from a solid to a gas.
This process may occur more quickly, depending on the material’s size and shape. Blocks boast the slowest sublimation rate and longest shelf life among all types, making them ideal for most distribution applications. However, pellets are excellent for flash-freezing in case the truck’s cooling mechanism malfunctions.
Regardless of the type used, the temperature inside a container can change during the sublimation process. If the sublimation rate is significantly higher than expected, spoilage may occur. This is where IoT comes in. It offers an unprecedented level of visibility into the cold chain, helping mitigate temperature excursions in real time.
Implementing IoT Sensors for the Cold Chain
Since modern IoT sensors are discreet and affordable, implementation is relatively straightforward. Sensors — regardless of the type — cost just 40 cents on average. Businesses can continue relying on cost-effective, reliable solutions like dry ice because they can easily retrofit their fleets instead of overhauling them.
For the cold chain, IoT sensors are the first line of defense. They make temperature logging more convenient, accurate and inexpensive. Professionals can track shipments’ conditions in real time as the technology establishes a comprehensive, verifiable record.
They can go beyond temperature monitoring, measuring metrics like humidity, location, truck door status and water leakage. In addition to enhancing recordkeeping, this technology enables proactive intervention. For example, decision-makers can adjust a truck’s route to avoid a delay or extreme weather conditions.
As a result, food manufacturers reduce spoilage and wastage. Expenses associated with shipping will decrease, as they will no longer need to compensate for product losses. Increased visibility supports data-driven strategies, ensuring safety, quality and compliance.
Considerations for Effective Implementation
While standard IoT temperature sensors for the cold chain are effective, industry leaders should consider implementing the latest, most advanced solutions to maximize their returns. Either way, implementation should be relatively straightforward.
One research group developed a cost-effective temperature and humidity monitoring system built on IoT services and long-range, wide-area (LoRaWAN) networks. Sensors wirelessly transmit data to a LoRa gateway, which forwards the information via Wi-Fi, Ethernet or cellular networks to a central cloud server for processing, analysis and storage.
Multiple gateways can simultaneously receive the data transmitted by a LoRa node. Companies often deploy many gateways in a given area to strengthen the network’s reliability. Redundancy in the data transmission process increases the likelihood of successful delivery and minimizes the chances of data loss due to communication interruptions.
Ambient IoT is an emerging class of connected devices that harvest energy from their surroundings, including through vibrations, magnetic energy fields, light and thermal gradients. Conventional sensors can operate on a wireless power infrastructure, but they typically run on batteries. Retailers must either replace them or recharge them, which can be tedious and costly.
Generally, the investment is worth the return. However, batteries themselves introduce restrictions regarding device size, placement and lifespan. A grocery distribution center with 60 dock doors across 500,000 square feet could spend millions of dollars on a comprehensive system. It could deploy an ambient IoT system for 10 to 20 times less.
Preventing Food Recalls With IoT Sensors
Food manufacturers and distributors would greatly benefit from implementing IoT sensors in the cold chain. Cutting-edge solutions like ultra-low power ambient IoT would enable them to embed sensors virtually anywhere. Sending information to the cloud in real time could help them transform communication, driver accountability and recordkeeping.
Every global supply chain faces constant pressures between economic shifts, tariffs, and logistics challenges. But disruptions in the food supply chain carry unique consequences. They don’t just impact bottom lines – they can lead to food insecurity, price spikes, widespread waste, and even create uncertainty about food safety. A single delay or temperature spike can mean spoiled produce, unsafe products, or empty shelves.
In the U.S. alone, food travels an average of 1,500 miles before reaching consumers – and every mile introduces risks. Managing this complexity requires more than just traditional tracking methods. Without accurate, item-level data, grocers and suppliers are forced to operate in the dark, making it difficult to respond quickly to these potential disruptions.
In a 2025 survey conducted by Impinj of supply chain leaders in the food and grocery sectors validates this challenge. While 90% of respondents believe their organization is equipped to drive accurate supply chain visibility, only one-third actually have a consistent, 360-degree, real-time view. This data accuracy gap makes it difficult to anticipate issues or respond quickly when disruptions occur, and it comes with a serious cost.
Closing the Data Accuracy Gap
To manage these challenges, many organizations are turning to item-level visibility technologies, such as RAIN RFID, which have become increasingly present across food supply chains. Unlike traditional barcodes that require manual line-of-sight scanning, RAIN RFID tags can be attached to or embedded in packaging and read in bulk. Employees can count thousands of items in seconds and generate rapid inventory reports, which increases the likelihood that they can identify errors before they become problems.
Major food retailers are already seeing results. Chipotle, for example, has adopted RFID to track food shipments to its 3,300 restaurants, while Kroger plans to deploy it enterprise-wide to support its omnichannel purchase strategy and improve inventory accuracy.
Technology like RAIN RFID isn’t just a tool, but a foundation for proactive management. More precise item-level information unlocks several opportunities for grocers, such as more targeted recalls, optimized inventory, and minimized waste. It is with this level of visibility that grocers can move from reacting to problems to strategically managing them – whether it’s responding to a major recall or reducing everyday waste.
Food Safety and the Cost of Blind Spots
Food safety has always been a top priority for grocers, especially as regulations evolve. Last year, the FDA postponed the compliance date for its Food Traceability Rule – a decision supported by many in the industry grappling with supply chain complexity. But delayed compliance requirements don’t eliminate risk.
Recalls are expensive, time-sensitive, and widely disruptive – and they illustrate how data blind spots can escalate quickly. In Q3 2025, the FDA logged 145 food recalls – its second-highest quarterly total since 2020.When grocers lack item-level visibility, even a single recall can trigger massive over-removal of products. Without knowing exactly which pallets or shipments are affected, or where those items are located on shelves, retailers may be forced to discard entire batches of product, including items that are safe. This over-removal not only amplifies financial losses but also undermines consumer trust and increases waste.
However, item-level visibility technologies like RAIN RFID enable retailers to gain a detailed record of each product’s journey from supplier to shipment to shelf. In the event of a recall, RAIN RFID can enable brands to remove only the affected items, reducing unnecessary food waste.
The Billions Lost to Everyday Waste
Routine spoilage and waste drain billions from grocery operations. Managing perishables across departments is inherently complex, and visibility gaps only make it worse.
ReFED, a US-based non-profit that works to reduce food loss and waste across the U.S. food system, estimated that the cost of surplus and wasted food for businesses and consumers reached a staggering $473 billion in 2022 alone. And last year, grocery and supply chain leaders felt the impact. According to Impinj’s 2026 report, 75% cited waste reduction as a major challenge, and respondents estimated losing an average of $79 million annually to food waste and spoilage.
Addressing these challenges requires more than just better forecasting. It demands item-level visibility into every product’s journey throughout the supply chain. RAIN RFID offers a practical way to close these visibility gaps, helping grocers track inventory and optimize it before it goes to waste.
Building a Smarter Food Supply Chain
While the food supply chain faces time-sensitive challenges and heavy regulation, innovative technologies are making it easier to manage operations, improve efficiency, and build resilience.
By leveraging item-level visibility through RAIN RFID, grocers and suppliers can close the data accuracy gap, create smart solutions for food safety, and reduce waste. The result is a smarter, more reliable food system that reduces losses and enables grocers to focus on delivering streamlined customer experiences.
Plant-based companies have to compete with themselves and animal products. Safety could be the key thing that sets them apart and allows them to become more common on grocery store shelves.
Keeping food free of contaminants, as well as preserving its taste, color and smell, are essential metrics for manufacturers to follow. It is crucial for preventing foodborne illness and crises caused by recalls. These issues have plagued almost every corner of the food sector, particularly in the meat industry. Safety slips will also pose a risk to plant-based food safety if left unchecked, especially as it grows in demand and popularity.
Countering the “Health Halo” Effect
Plant-based burger made with Boca-brand patties
For plant-based products to succeed, food safety and quality experts need to treat them with the same level of compliance and safety as any other food. Just because they do not contain animal parts does not mean they are free from potential problems, and the industry needs to keep this top of mind if they want to stay competitive.
Lund University lecturer, Jenny Schelin, warned the food industry, saying, “There is a naive belief that plant-based food is safer than animal-based food. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Plant-based foods are just as vulnerable to the same pathogens we find in meat, fish, milk and eggs.”
There is a prominent health halo surrounding plant-based options, meaning the public’s perception of them is skewed because they are free from animal products. This mentality can also transfer to food workers, making them complacent when handling food and educating customers. In reality, these products deserve as rigorous testing as any other.
The High Cost of Contamination
Outbreaks from contaminated foods can ruin a brand’s reputation. People associate them with dangerous products and stop buying from them altogether. Plant-based companies cannot afford this hit to their market standing, especially when animal products already out compete vegetarian and vegan options. Plant-based makers are contending with their niche and also battling against the meat industry.
Complex Processing Increases Risk
Cast-iron skillet with soy plant-based sausage by Like Sausage
Every food item has multiple processing steps, but plant-based alternatives could have even more. Every transition is an opportunity to invite contamination or a quality concern. This includes non-food items, such as metal or glass, entering the mix. It has made traceability a higher priority for food manufacturers, and plant-based operations must follow suit to preserve the nutritional and monetary value of their output.
Following compliance frameworks like ISO 22000 on food safety management is one of the best ways to know the industry’s top recommendations for supply chain oversight. ISO regularly updates its standards to accommodate the modern needs of the industry. For example, many plant-based foods contain fibrous elements, catching in processing equipment and making them harder to maintain. These difficulties could create more problems, but they are fixable with monitoring and robust management guidelines.
The Peril of Temperature Miscalculation
Temperature is one of the most critical factors in plant-based food safety. Manufacturers can see this in products that have been sold for years, such as pre-cut fruit cups. Researchers have observed fruit cocktails in various temperatures to see how it impacts the likelihood of Listeria. Temperatures of 8° Celsius or more were dangerous, while temperatures of 4° to 5° Celsius slowed down growth.
Animal products are vulnerable to temperature changes, but plants can be even more so. Manufacturers of meat replacements or milk alternatives, for example, need to use these prior case studies to inform their temperature management. Although plant-based products undergo processing and may contain additives to alter their properties, maintaining temperature resilience requires ongoing supervision.
The Allergen Minefield
Safety concerns extend beyond preventing the spread of illness. Competitive advantage requires plant-based foods to appeal to everyone, regardless of dietary restrictions or health conditions.
Unfortunately, many meat alternatives contain common allergens, like nuts and soy. One of the most common and dense plant protein products, seitan, is made from wheat, preventing those with Celiac disease from consuming it. If companies want to expand their market appeal, they have to prevent cross-contamination and introduce safe options for all consumers.
This means clearly labeling anything that is potentially exposed to these allergens. Stickers and safety information should be prominently displayed and easily accessible. Additionally, third-party allergen testing is vital for market competitiveness. This increases customer confidence.
Building a Brand on Trust
A latte made with Oatly branded oat milk
Ultimately, safety in plant-based food manufacturing is crucial because it enhances the brand’s visibility and desirability, making it more appealing to support. If the public associates vegetarian and vegan alternatives with health crises and recalls, manufacturers will fail to provide buyers with sustainable and diverse food options.
Regulatory changes and health issues in the meat industry could introduce more risks to those in the U.S. who eat poultry and pork. Officials are suggesting that these changes in safety will make it more dangerous to consume meat. As quality and safety become less mandated, fewer people may support the sector due to fear.
The plant-based industry cannot afford to fall into these traps to increase revenue. Reinforcing strict protocols will lead to greater business longevity rather than short-term profit gains from faster processing.
Plant-Based Food Safety Essentials for Market Friendliness
If plant-based foods are to compete with animal products and maintain market relevance, they must prioritize safety. This can enhance the workforce’s well-being while demonstrating respect for the public that supports them. Stakeholders must set this precedent early to influence the market’s future.
Food adulteration can be either intentional or incidental, such as heavy metal contamination, pesticide residue, or packaging-related issues. When this adulteration is deliberately carried out by addition, omission, or substitution for economic gain, it is known as economically motivated adulteration (EMA), a subset of food fraud. The motivation for both EMA and food fraud is primarily financial gain. However, food fraud extends beyond EMA to other deceptive practices such as misbranding, counterfeiting, and diversion.
In late 2023, cinnamon apple puree and apple sauce products sourced from Ecuador were recalled after testing positive for elevated levels of lead and chromium1. The FDA’s leading hypothesis was that the incident was likely due to EMA, and the contamination went undetected until it escalated into a serious public health issue. This highlights the importance of implementing robust traceability systems and conducting food authentication tests to ensure that only genuine products reach the consumer market, in compliance with all relevant food safety and quality standards.
Spectroscopy Simplified
Spectroscopic techniques such as UV-Vis Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR), Raman Spectroscopy, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy, when combined with chemometrics, are among the most reliable methods in verifying food authenticity. UV-Vis Spectroscopy is widely utilized in most analytical laboratories for analyzing chromophore-containing compounds, such as pigments. In the food manufacturing sector, it can be used to detect dilution of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, such as juices and wines. However, it provides limited structural information, an area where FTIR performs comparatively well.
FTIR, in contrast, is ideal for routine screening in food authentication. It can be used to detect adulteration in olive oils with cheaper oils such as sunflower, palm, or soybean oils, and the addition of sugar syrup to honey2. The portability of Raman and NIR is advantageous for non-destructive on-site testing. While they can provide rapid profiling, they are typically less sensitive than FTIR for trace analysis and are most beneficial when used complementarily in a laboratory setting. Since Raman relies on light scattering, it can overcome certain challenges FTIR faces in analyzing high-moisture foods, like milk. Such foods strongly absorb infrared, which can interfere with and weaken signals, impacting detection accuracy.
Large organizations with dedicated R&D laboratories may benefit from setting up an in-house FTIR. If small and mid-size organizations were to adopt product authenticity testing as a standard practice with high testing volumes, having an in-house FTIR could turn out to be an economical choice over time. For operations with low testing frequency, outsourcing could be more cost-efficient. Finally, while NMR delivers detailed information, it is time-consuming and requires expensive equipment as well as expert handling, making it better suited for confirmatory analyses. In such cases, it is practical to use specialized third-party labs, as operating costs can outweigh the benefits.
Chromatography in Action
Chromatographic separation techniques such as Gas Chromatography (GC) and High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) are often coupled with Mass Spectrometry (MS) for detecting trace levels of adulterants in intricate food matrices that cannot typically be detected by spectroscopic methods alone. Both GC-MS and LC-MS are powerful and selective techniques, but they come with significantly higher purchasing and operating costs than FTIR. Their preference can be driven by the need for advanced research or for regulatory compliance purposes, in addition to authentication testing.
GC-MS is ideal for volatile compounds that can withstand high temperatures and can be used for identifying synthetic flavor compounds in natural flavors and juices. Flavorings and non-alcoholic beverages are among the top 10 implicated categories of food fraud, and olive oils have been frequently associated with mislabeling incidents3. In contrast, LC-MS is better suited for non-volatile, thermally sensitive, and high-molecular weight compounds. Common applications of LC-MS include detecting melamine in milk and identifying Sudan dyes in chili powder.
To prevent fraud, testing is most effective when done at the ingredient level, and raw material suppliers should be encouraged to engage in such practices. This offers multi-ingredient food manufacturers a greater reliance on their suppliers for authenticity and, depending on the scope of their operation, may reduce the need for additional testing of incoming materials.
Decoding Mass Spectrometry
MS techniques such as Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) and Inductively Coupled-Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) have distinct applications. IRMS measures stable isotope ratios, whose abundance varies with environmental and agricultural factors, serving as a strong indicator of growing conditions and geographical origin. With IRMS, it is possible to ascertain whether a conventional product is mislabeled as organic or if meat has been derived from a grass-fed or grain-fed cow4. While spectroscopic methods can cover a broader spectrum in provenance mapping, IRMS is more focused and definitive in such an approximation.
Likewise, ICP-MS analyzes the elemental composition of heavy metals and trace minerals. It is often used to detect heavy metal contamination, such as arsenic in rice or lead in water, and to estimate mineral content in supplements. Since both IRMS and ICP-MS are high-precision instruments that involve considerable capital investments, internal implementation is justified for regulatory agencies where accuracy is key. For private organizations, the choice ultimately depends on their requirements, infrastructure, and budget thresholds.
Cracking the Molecular Code
Molecular techniques such as Conventional PCR and Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) are popular choices for species identification due to their speed, precision, and reliance on genetic information, which is not influenced by farming conditions. Both methods detect and amplify DNA, but only qPCR can quantify genetic material in real-time by using fluorescent probes. This offers qPCR a functional advantage over conventional PCR.
Historically, meat and dairy products have been frequently implicated in food fraud incidents3. For example, conventional PCR can detect whether beef is adulterated with pork, whereas qPCR can determine the amount of pork meat present. An alarming case of fraud occurred in 2013 when horsemeat ended up in the supply chain across Europe, labeled as beef. Similarly, qPCR can distinguish whether goat milk has been diluted with cow milk, as well as the extent of dilution.
Another type of PCR, known as multiplex PCR, allows simultaneous detection of multiple species in a single assay, which can save time and expenses, but the overall process can be complex to implement. While PCR instruments are essential for biotechnological research in pharmaceutical companies and are often favored by regulatory agencies, their routine use in food manufacturing establishments might be limited unless the company participates in applied research, such as the development of bioengineered foods.
Relative cost analysis of standard analytical technologies, categorized from 1 (very low) to 6 (extremely high) based on approximate market pricing. The variations between entry-level equipment and advanced models have been accounted for in the design (Credit: B. Ghosh)
The Analytical Dilemma
The bar graph in Figure 1 demonstrates a clear trend between the equipment cost and the depth of the analysis achieved. In summary, the more comprehensive the analysis, the higher the cost of the equipment, and the greater the technical expertise required. Food manufacturers can use these observations to determine the approach best suited to their scope and budget. UV-Vis Spectroscopy requires basic operation skills and is relatively easy to handle. Given their low cost, they can be easily integrated into an existing internal lab infrastructure.
Now, the choice between FTIR and Raman can be challenging as both techniques have distinct strengths and complement each other. FTIR excels at analyzing a broad range of food matrices, while Raman offers a convenient application for field use. Among the mid-range category, qPCR requires careful handling during sample preparation to prevent false positives, and companies can evaluate outsourcing testing to accredited labs, collaborate with research institutions, or appoint trained specialists.
GC-MS, LC-MS, and ICP-MS tend to have considerable costs, making them ideal for confirmatory analyses. Whether they are used regularly or customarily, operational needs and budget thresholds are ultimately the deciding factors for an in-house infrastructure development. IRMS and NMR are superior and highly advanced instruments that are employed for specialized research rather than routine food authentication testing. When required, they can be selectively utilized through third-party labs.
From Insight to Action
Food authentication technologies like spectroscopy, chromatography, mass spectrometry, and PCR play a key role in ensuring the integrity of food products. While each technique comes with a cost and capability trade-off, strategically leveraging them within the existing safety and quality framework offers an additional layer of protection from food fraud. Figure 2 summarizes essential practices organizations should adopt and avoid to strengthen food fraud prevention and mitigation efforts.
Recommended practices for food fraud prevention (Credit: B. Ghosh)
Raw material suppliers must actively engage in product authenticity testing. Multi-ingredient or finished product manufacturers can adopt the following best practices depending on the nature of their supplier relationships.
New suppliers – Request or conduct authenticity testing before initial bulk purchase.
Domestic and/or established relationship with suppliers – Perform random raw material sampling on a rotating basis for authenticity testing.
International suppliers and/or complex supply chains – Conduct authenticity testing at least annually.
Food fraud can quickly evolve into a food safety or a food quality issue. Investing in the right authentication tools today can prevent costly recalls tomorrow. In addition to testing, it is essential to stay informed and monitor emerging trends in the rapidly evolving supply chain landscape. Building a safer global food system requires prioritizing prevention over reaction by proactively detecting and eliminating food fraud risks before they occur.
Mendes, E., & Duarte, N. (2021). Mid-infrared spectroscopy as a valuable tool to tackle food analysis: A literature review on coffee, dairies, honey, olive oil and wine. Foods, 10(2), 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020477
Everstine, K. D., Chin, H. B., Lopes, F. A., & Moore, J. C. (2024). Database of food fraud records: Summary of data from 1980 to 2022. Journal of food protection, 87(3), 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100227
Hong, E., Lee, S. Y., Jeong, J. Y., Park, J. M., Kim, B. H., Kwon, K., & Chun, H. S. (2017). Modern analytical methods for the detection of food fraud and adulteration by food category. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97(12), 3877-3896. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8364
Vinothkanna, A., Dar, O. I., Liu, Z., & Jia, A. Q. (2024). Advanced detection tools in food fraud: A systematic review for holistic and rational detection method based on research and patents. Food Chemistry, 446, 138893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.138893
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
