Foreign material contamination is one of the most persistent challenges in food manufacturing. The discovery of bone, glass, plastic, metal, or other unexpected materials in finished goods not only disrupts production but can also carry major operational and financial costs, from lost production time to wasted product and strained supplier relationships. In addition to those risks, foreign material contamination incidents can also trigger recalls, undermine consumer trust, and damage brand reputation in ways that take years to repair. 

Despite how common the problem is, the food industry has long lacked a clear, data-driven picture of how often contamination occurs, where it originates, and how facilities handle it. While individual companies may track their own incidents, benchmarking against the broader industry has been difficult. Without visibility into peers' experiences, food safety leaders have been left with limited context to gauge how their programs compare.

To help address that gap, FlexXray conducted the "2025 Foreign Material Contamination in Food Benchmark Report," surveying more than 160 food safety and manufacturing professionals across North America. 

The insights from this report do not just confirm the persistence of contamination—they highlight where prevention, detection, and response strategies are succeeding and where there is still work to be done.

Contamination is More Common Than Many Realize

One of the clearest takeaways from the survey is the simple fact that foreign material contamination is not rare. In fact, 72 percent of respondents reported experiencing contamination incidents at least quarterly or monthly, with 26 percent reporting them as weekly events.

These statistics align with what many quality assurance professionals already know from experience: Even with strong programs in place, contamination events are part of the reality of modern food production. The complexity of supply chains, the variety of ingredients handled, and the wear and tear of equipment operating around the clock all create risk factors that cannot be eliminated entirely.

The frequency data also reframes the way manufacturers think about contamination. Instead of treating it as an outlier event, the findings suggest it should be considered a recurring challenge—something to plan for and manage, not just respond to. By acknowledging the likelihood of incidents, facilities can shift their strategies toward faster, more targeted responses that limit impact when contamination does occur.

Who Spots Contamination First?

Perhaps the most eye-opening result from the Benchmark Report was in response to a simple question: What is the most common signal of a foreign material incident in your facility?

Despite heavy investment in detection technologies such as in-line X-ray, 45 percent of respondents indicated their most common way of discovering foreign material in product was direct employee reporting.

This finding underscores an important truth: While technology plays a critical role, it is often the human eye that serves as the first line of defense. Employees working on the line, handling product, or monitoring processes are frequently the ones to notice issues and raise the alarm.

For food safety leaders, this raises important questions about training and culture. If employees are the ones most likely to catch issues first, are they equipped to know what to look for? Do they feel empowered to report potential problems quickly and without hesitation? A strong food safety culture depends not just on machines and protocols, but also on people who are engaged and confident enough to act.

Where Contamination Begins

Understanding where foreign material originates is key to preventing it. According to the survey, the two most common sources cited by respondents were ingredient and supplier inputs and equipment wear or failure. Packaging materials, particularly plastics, were also identified as frequent contributors.

These results highlight the importance of looking both upstream and within the facility itself. On the supplier side, contamination risk often begins long before product reaches the plant. A shipment of raw protein containing bone fragments, or an ingredient contaminated with small pieces of plastic, can carry issues straight into the production line. Strengthening supplier agreements, enhancing incoming ingredient inspection, and fostering quality partnerships are essential steps for reducing downstream incidents.

Inside the facility, equipment remains a major source of risk, cited by nearly 50 percent of respondents. High-speed, heavy-duty production lines inevitably generate wear and tear. Components like blades, seals, fasteners, and screens can chip or break over time, introducing unintended materials into product streams. Preventive maintenance programs, informed by historical incident data and risk assessments, can help facilities prioritize the highest-risk components and reduce the chance of unexpected failures.

The broader message is clear: prevention requires a holistic approach. Focusing solely on the plant floor is not enough. Food safety leaders must extend their view upstream to suppliers and downstream to packaging, ensuring that every step in the chain is monitored for potential risk.

The Limits of Detection Systems

When asked about confidence in their detection systems, respondents revealed a mix of reliance and realism. While metal detectors and X-ray machines remain industry standards, only 19 percent of participants expressed absolute confidence that these systems would catch every contaminant.

The survey highlighted some of the known challenges:

• It can be difficult for X-rays to fully penetrate dense or layered products
• Low-density contaminants such as rubber, cardboard, or certain plastics may go undetected
• Line speed pressures force equipment to balance accuracy against throughput.

These limitations do not mean in-line systems are ineffective—they remain an essential first layer of defense. However, the findings suggest they are not sufficient on their own. Facilities need layered strategies that include verification and backup measures, whether through manual checks, additional imaging, or in some cases, third-party inspection services.

The takeaway is not that detection systems are failing, but that they must be understood in context. By recognizing their limits, food safety leaders can make smarter decisions about where to supplement with additional safeguards.

The Cost of Response

Even when contamination is identified, the response carries a cost. According to survey respondents, the most common impacts of foreign material incidents were:

• Product holds while investigations take place
• Labor and efficiency loss from reinspection efforts
• Significant product waste, often measured in thousands of pounds.

These costs go far beyond dollars. Every time a production line is shut down for rework, throughput drops and schedules are disrupted. When product is placed on hold, storage space fills up and supply chains are delayed. When product must be discarded, it represents not only financial loss but also wasted raw material and labor.

The ripple effects are clear: Even small contamination events can cascade into major operational headaches. For this reason, prevention and precision in response are equally important. The more narrowly a facility can identify the scope of affected product, the less waste and disruption it will incur.

Building a More Proactive Approach

Taken together, the findings from the report suggest an industry that is adept at responding to incidents but still striving to move further upstream. The goal is not only to react effectively but also to prevent more issues before they happen.

This requires a shift in mindset. Instead of viewing contamination as a problem to be solved only after it appears, food safety leaders can begin to see it as a risk to be managed proactively. That means:

• Strengthening supplier monitoring programs to reduce risk before ingredients arrive
• Investing in preventive maintenance to address equipment issues before they lead to incidents
• Empowering employees to serve as vigilant, informed participants in food safety
• Layering detection strategies to provide multiple opportunities to catch contaminants
• Leveraging data and traceability to limit the scope of response when incidents do occur.

By adopting these proactive practices, facilities can reduce the frequency of incidents and also minimize their impact when they occur.

Why Benchmarking Matters

Foreign material contamination remains one of the most pressing challenges in food manufacturing. The "2025 Foreign Material Contamination in Food Benchmark Report" provides an unprecedented, data-driven look at how common these incidents are, where they come from, and how facilities are responding.

Most importantly, the report provides context. Food safety leaders no longer have to wonder how their experiences compare to peers across the industry. With this benchmark, they can measure, adjust, and move toward a more proactive, resilient approach to food safety.

The full report is available for free access here. For more information, visit flexxray.com.