Food safety and sustainability are inseparable, explains Professor Chris Elliott, noting the uncomfortable realisation that improvements to one often lead to weakness in the other. Read about why food safety frameworks must evolve alongside circular economy policies to realise the benefits of food innovation.
My recent participation at the Food Revolution conference in Italy garnered striking insight into potential trade-offs that are starting to emerge on the path to ethical food production. While the emphasis was certainly on how we transition to a more sustainable global food system, there seemed better understanding regarding the growing concerns about the impacts to food safety that may result. For quite a few years, the global food industry has rightly been challenged to become more sustainable in terms of reducing emissions, cutting waste, using less water and recycling more packaging. The shift towards providing alternative proteins and embracing the circular economy, where possible, has also been at the forefront of industry thinking.
These targets are not only commendable but are widely considered to be essential. Without doubt our modern food system is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, depletion and pollution of fresh water and environmental degradation. Without substantial reform and innovation, the long-term resilience of global food production itself is at risk.
Yet in our haste towards sustainability, we may unintentionally be creating a new generation of food safety risks. I have raised this concern on numerous occasions, often to mixed reactions. This is not an argument against sustainability – far from it – rather it is a warning that sustainability and food safety must be viewed through a single integrated lens. Scientific evidence is increasingly showing that interventions designed to improve environmental outcomes can sometimes generate unintended public health consequences if risk assessments fail to keep pace.
Without doubt our modern food system is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, depletion and pollution of fresh water and environmental degradation. Without substantial reform and innovation, the long-term resilience of global food production itself is at risk.
Yet in our haste towards sustainability, we may unintentionally be creating a new generation of food safety risks.”
A recent Nature publication provided some clear examples of how circular economy approaches can unintentionally generate food safety risks. This study demonstrated how sustainability-driven agricultural practices designed to recycle waste streams and maximise resource efficiency are likely to inadvertently increase human exposure to a range of hazardous contaminants. Notably, they describe how the reuse of organic materials, water and agricultural by-products within circular systems can alter contaminant cycling and create new exposure pathways. A mycotoxin case study highlighted how reduced fungicide use and changing agricultural practices linked to sustainability goals may increase fungal toxin contamination under certain environmental conditions. The article also outlined an example where recycling practices can unintentionally redistribute toxic elements, particularly arsenic, through soils, water and crops.
One of the clearest examples of increasing food safety risks is the acceleration towards recycled food packaging materials. Reducing reliance on virgin plastics is now central to global sustainability policy. Yet food-contact materials require exceptionally high chemical safety standards, and the science around recycled plastics is still evolving rapidly. A newly published report from the FAO warns that poorly controlled recycling systems could introduce contaminants into food packaging streams, including endocrine-disrupting chemicals, flame retardants, mineral oils, heavy metals and persistent pollutants such as PFAS. As analytical methods improve, we are detecting complex mixtures of a wide range of chemicals in food that have migrated from recycled food-contact materials at concentrations that regulators are still struggling to evaluate in terms of their combined toxicity.
The circular economy presents perhaps the most complex challenge of all. Circularity is now central to many sustainability strategies. Food waste is converted into animal feed. Organic waste becomes fertiliser. By-products are reintroduced into production systems rather than discarded. In principle, this is highly efficient and environmentally attractive. In practice, however, circular systems may also create pathways for contaminant recirculation. A recent publication in npj Science of Food highlights critically important but often overlooked issues around circularity. The reuse of wastewater, food waste, recycled packaging materials and alternative feedstocks are discussed. All of these can create new pathways for microbiological, chemical and physical contaminants to enter the food chain. Again, manmade and natural chemicals such as PFAS, heavy metals, mycotoxins, microplastics and non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) from recycled plastics are placed in the spotlight. The authors of this study stress that circularity without a strong “safe-by-design” framework risks undermining consumer trust and potentially increasing the burden of foodborne disease.
Circular systems may also create pathways for contaminant recirculation.”
The publication Review of Food Safety Hazards in Circular Food Systems in Europe is also an excellent read in terms of highlighting the complexities of balancing sustainability ambitions with food safety in a circular economy. Here, the authors demonstrate that while recycling can significantly reduce environmental impacts, these same practices may also introduce new or poorly understood hazards into the food chain. Importantly, the review stresses that many of these risks are still insufficiently understood. Thus, what becomes very clear is that food safety frameworks must evolve alongside circular economy policies. The publication reinforces the call for a ‘food safety by design’ approach where sustainability initiatives are assessed through both environmental and public health lenses simultaneously. The challenge facing regulators is therefore becoming increasingly multidimensional; sustainability, climate resilience, food security and food safety can no longer be treated as separate policy areas.
Another topic of concern is the rapid expansion of alternative proteins. Insects, algae, cultivated meat and precision fermentation products are increasingly promoted as environmentally sustainable alternatives to conventional livestock systems. However, every novel food production system introduces new toxicological, allergenic and microbiological questions, which must be answered. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has repeatedly highlighted the need for careful assessment of allergenicity and contaminant accumulation in edible insects. Studies show that insects can bioaccumulate heavy metals and environmental contaminants depending on what they are reared on. Cross-reactivity with shellfish allergies also presents a significant issue for sensitive consumers. This doesn’t mean alternative proteins are inherently unsafe; rather, it demonstrates that sustainability-driven innovation must be accompanied by equally innovative safety evaluations. Too often, discussions around sustainable proteins focus almost exclusively on their carbon footprints while underestimating toxicological and microbiological impacts.
Climate change is already compounding many food safety problems. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events are increasing the prevalence of mycotoxins and increased needs for use of pesticides. Sustainability strategies that reduce chemical interventions without robust alternative control systems are likely to inadvertently increase biological and natural toxin hazards.
Environmental gains should never be assessed in isolation from toxicological, microbiological or indeed nutritional consequences.”
I have given just a few examples of the sustainability–food safety paradox – there are many others. I am of the firm belief that every sustainability intervention should undergo the same rigorous scientific scrutiny in terms of food safety hazards. Environmental gains should never be assessed in isolation from toxicological, microbiological or indeed nutritional consequences.
I stress that the green transition in food systems is essential; however, sustainability must never become a blinkered approach towards environmental targets without considering wider public health implications. Food safety and sustainability are inseparable. The sooner we fully recognise that reality, the better prepared we will be to build genuinely resilient food systems for the future.
No comments yet