A new peer-reviewed article published in Frontiers in Science argued that achieving “zero risk” in food safety is neither feasible nor desirable, and that overly stringent controls focused on single outcomes may introduce unintended environmental and economic consequences.

The paper, titled, “Balancing Food Safety and Sustainability: Trade-Off Risk Assessments and Predictive Modeling,” was published in Frontiers in Science. Led by Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D., D.V.M. of Cornell University, the paper was authored by a global team of researchers.

The authors emphasized that food safety must be evaluated within the broader context of sustainability and food security, within the “One Health” context, which recognizes the interconnected nature of human, animal, and environmental health. At the international level, food safety is already tied to broader public health and sustainability goals within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Global Strategy for Food Safety. Despite this global recognition, the practical implementation of the One Health concept for decision-making throughout food systems remains limited.

Zero-Risk Approach May Lead to Unintended Consequences

The authors stated that advances in detection technologies have increased the ability to identify hazards at very low levels, including those unlikely to pose meaningful public health risks. However, responding to these detections with black-and-white, hazard-based actions, such as product disposal or recalls, may divert resources from higher-risk issues and contribute to food waste, increased costs, and environmental impacts.

Examples of such consequences outlined by the authors include the excessive disposal of food due to low-level microbiological contamination, increased energy use from stringent cold-chain requirements, and ecological impacts from interventions such as wildlife exclusion or water-intensive sanitation practices.

The study reiterated that all foods inherently carry some level of risk, and that food safety systems should aim for “sufficiently safe” food rather than the impossible goal of absolute safety.

Shift Toward Risk-Based Decision-Making

The researchers contrasted hazard-based approaches, which treat any detection of a pathogen as a trigger for action, with risk-based approaches that consider the likelihood and severity of illness based on exposure.

They noted that risk-based frameworks enable more targeted interventions, such as prioritizing controls for high-risk foods or processing steps, and establishing performance criteria, including pathogen reduction targets aligned with acceptable risk levels.

However, defining “acceptable” or “tolerable” risk remains a challenge, as it involves scientific, economic, and societal considerations.

Modeling and AI Tools Support Trade-Off Assessments

The study highlighted the growing role of quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRAs), Monte Carlo simulations, and emerging tools—including geographic information system models, agent-based models, and artificial intelligence (AI)—in evaluating food safety risks.

These tools have been used to model contamination pathways, assess intervention effectiveness, and estimate public health outcomes, such as cases of illness or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

According to the authors, such tools can also support more comprehensive “trade-off risk assessments” that account not only for food safety outcomes, but also for economic costs, environmental impacts, and social factors.

Integrating Sustainability into Food Safety Decisions

The study emphasized that food safety interventions can have both benefits and trade-offs across multiple domains. For example, measures that reduce pathogen risk may increase emissions or food costs.

To address this complexity, the authors called for integrated frameworks that evaluate both risks and benefits within the same assessment, rather than treating them separately.

They also pointed to existing approaches, such as combining risk assessments with life-cycle assessments, to better capture environmental and public health impacts.

Risk Negotiation and Future Directions

The researchers also identified “risk negotiation” as an emerging approach to food safety decision-making, involving structured, evidence-based processes that incorporate stakeholder input and balance competing priorities.

They suggested that AI could support these processes by analyzing large datasets, simulating outcomes, and facilitating decision-making across stakeholders.

However, the authors noted that broader adoption of these approaches will require improved data availability, standardized methodologies, and greater alignment between scientific, regulatory, and societal expectations.

Implications for Industry and Regulators

The study concluded that food safety systems must evolve to address increasingly complex and systems-wide challenges, including climate change, resource constraints, and globalized food supply chains.

By adopting risk-based, trade-off-informed approaches, policymakers and industry stakeholders may be better positioned to develop food safety strategies that protect public health while supporting sustainability and food system resilience.

References

1. Weidmann, M., et al. “Balancing food safety and sustainability: trade-off risk assessments and predictive modeling.” Frontiers in Science, 4:1720772 (March 2026). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2026.1720772
2. Allende, A. and Bover-Cid, S. “Beyond the zero-risk illusion: negotiating food safety in a One Health era.” Frontiers in Science, 4:1822369 (March 2026). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2026.1822369
3. Weidmann, M. and Sunil, S. “How Safe is Too Safe When it Comes to Our Food?” Frontiers for Young Minds, 14:1799945 (March 2026). https://doi.org/10.3389/frym.2026.1799945.