From Farm to Fork: Why Security Is the Missing Ingredient in Food Safety

By Scott R. Gane, CPP, Huffmaster

The year 2024 saw severe foodborne illness outbreaks. These included a Salmonella outbreak linked to cucumbers, which resulted in 551 illnesses and 155 hospitalizations. Another significant incident happened with Diamond Shruumz-brand edibles, leading to illnesses, hospitalizations, and even deaths. In addition to those two, Charcuterie meat products and Boar’s Head deli meats were also recalled.

That’s a lot of sickness, hospitalizations, and heartache. One can only wonder how secure these companies’ food chains were and how closely each adhered to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This act was implemented to change the focus from responding to foodborne illnesses to preventing them. Part of the FSMA’s strength is making security departments integral players in creating a solution.

FSMA was enacted to help ensure that the safety of the food supply is a shared responsibility. It applies to all points in the global supply chain for both human and animal food. Its rules outline specific actions to prevent contamination. The rules range from Preventive Controls for Human Foods to the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food. A significant safety step was taken by creating the Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. This rule requires mitigation (risk-reducing) strategies, which include preparing and implementing a food defense plan.

The defense plan

This prevention plan must include the identification of vulnerabilities, an outline of actionable steps, and mitigation strategies that must be presented. Additionally, procedures for food defense monitoring, corrective actions, and verification must be included. Having security on board during the vulnerability assessment is crucial for identifying potential points of adulteration within the manufacturing process. Security teams have extensive knowledge of the facility and understand how people move about within it. This knowledge and understanding make security teams valuable participants in identifying vulnerabilities and providing mitigation strategies. 

Security teams use the most up-to-date security technology and a cost-effective approach. FSMA suggests that there are simple procedures, such as securing potential adulteration points with keyed padlocks, as well as more sophisticated techniques, including high-resolution security cameras with AI analytics. 

Hi-res cameras

Security cameras equipped with AI analytics and high-resolution capabilities are becoming the cost-effective and efficient go-to solution for implementing effective mitigation strategies. These cameras can be programmed within “bounding boxes.” The boxes, which cover specified areas, sound alerts when suspicious activity is detected. With security professionals trained to recognize potential adulteration events and monitor the cameras, action can be taken that heads off disaster and prevents economic damage.

AI security cameras can prevent contamination by monitoring hygiene, food handling practices, and equipment cleanliness. They also become important when investigating contamination incidents, as well as ensuring compliance with regulations. Handwashing, glove usage, and proper attire are requirements, but ensuring compliance can be achieved with cameras in strategic locations. The camera’s AI algorithms analyze the footage to detect hard-to-spot incidents, such as an employee touching their face or hair, and then issue an alert for immediate intervention. 

These cameras can also detect cross-contamination. Again, AI will “see” if raw and cooked foods are exposed to each other. This kind of surveillance can prevent cross-contamination. They can also catch employees who may knowingly or unknowingly be using expired ingredients or products. Spills, debris, or other contaminants in the facility will trigger warnings. The AI algorithms can identify deviations from cleanliness standards and prompt timely action. These cameras can also be trained to monitor drainage systems, detecting blockages or contamination.

All of these prevention and mitigation strategies, assisted by sophisticated camera technology, will not only keep people safe but also secure the bottom line by helping companies avoid lost revenue due to reduced productivity, as well as legal and regulatory costs. In 2024, the cost of foodborne illness in factories (and the broader food industry) in the United States was significant. 

In the food industry, recalls are estimated to have cost companies around $10 million on average. Labeling errors, however, contributed to a significant financial burden, with an estimated $1.92 billion in direct recall expenses in 2024. Companies lost revenue due to damaged reputations and experienced reduced productivity as a result of food safety failures. The Boar’s Head example (mentioned above) led to a listeria outbreak, resulting in a $3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by consumers.

Conclusion

Food contamination and/or adulteration can trigger costly investigations and legal proceedings; companies can face penalties and fines, and, most importantly, people’s lives can be at stake due to inadequate security and lax preparation.

There are challenges to ensuring safety and regulatory compliance, which include the monitoring of employees. There are also break-ins to consider, which could cause property damage and inventory loss. No food manufacturer wants to have to shut down the line. 

However, with the help of security professionals who are willing to implement advanced measures, reactive approaches can be shifted to proactive ones using highly advanced cameras and other security technology. Real-time security and analytics provide excellent protection for consumers, reputations, and brands.

Scott R. Gane, CPP is the Chief Security Officer (CSO) for Huffmaster. He is responsible for the day-to-day management of the administration, operation, and financial health of the division, as well as the security consulting line of business. In that capacity, he manages security program evaluation, corporate policy and procedure development, training, federal security compliance initiatives (with an emphasis on CFATS, MARSEC and C-TPAT), corporate investigations, security risk, threat, and vulnerability analysis, and business risk management.