Food Safety Science White Paper

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Research, Education and Economics

Office of the Chief Scientist

July 24, 2012

Food safety and the related issue of food protection continues to be a public health priority that 

requires extensive research, education, and extension efforts focused on the prevention of 

foodborne outbreaks. This continued priority is in part due to that fact that the production, 

processing and distribution system for food in and for the U.S. is a diverse, extensive, and easily 

accessible system. Such an open system is vulnerable to the introduction of contaminants 

through natural processes, global commerce, and by intentional means. The reduction and 

control of foodborne pathogens, toxins, and chemicals in the food supply are not possible with a 

single strategy but rather through concomitant efforts along the food production chain.

The Current State of the Science

Identifying and conducting research, education, and outreach activities necessary for effectively 

reducing foodborne illness is a challenging and constant undertaking due to the complexity and 

continual evolution of food production and processing practices, food distribution, consumer 

preferences and activities, and foodborne hazards. Attempts at measuring the impact of 

foodborne illness both domestically and internationally can be difficult, with disparate results. 

And as several recent scientific reports illustrate, while many food safety issues persist, new 

challenges also arise.

In the U.S., it has been difficult to estimate the number of foodborne illnesses and consequently 

the burden on society. CDC now estimates that 47.8 million illnesses and 3,037 deaths were 

caused by contaminated food consumed in the U.S. (Scallan et al., 2011a; Scallan et al., 2011b;

Mead, 1999). Although this recent data indicates lower numbers of cases than their previous 

estimates, we are cautioned that these estimates cannot be compared with those of 1999 because 

of changes in data sources and methods. Estimates of the economic burden of foodborne illness 

are also subject to uncertainty. Batz, Hoffmann, and Morris (2011) estimate the annual cost of 

fourteen pathogens at $14 billion/year. These fourteen pathogens represent over 95 percent of 

the annual illnesses and hospitalizations, and almost 98 percent of the deaths, estimated by CDC 

to be due to the 31 foodborne pathogens identified in Scallan et al. (2011a). Of these fourteen, 

90 percent of the economic cost is due to five pathogens: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria

monocytogenes, Toxoplasma gondii, and norovirus. There are almost no foodborne diseases 

registries in the U.S. that would enable long-term follow up on patients who have suffered from 

foodborne illness. The estimated burden of foodborne illness indicates that more effective 

strategies to increase the safety of food in the U.S. are needed. The best strategies are not limited 

only to research, but include education and outreach.

U.S. food safety research, education, outreach and subsequent regulation must continue to evolve 

to address the enormity of foodborne hazard challenges, with accomplishments measured at the 

public health level. Persistent outbreaks related to major commodity-specific foods that may 

directly affect public health, regulations, industry, and trade, require immediate attention. More 

broadly, food and food safety research and policy decisions must be based on a science- and 

health-based food safety system. Food safety programs constructed around public health include 

foodborne diseases outbreaks and chronic sequelae, but also broader thinking about future 
2

potential threats before they impact the food supply, and how food affects the health of its 

consumers. Because 75% of the foodborne diseases are zoonotic (transmitted from animals to 

humans), cooperation between animal and human health scientists is necessary to explore 

possible new foodborne zoonotic pathogen threats and to be aware that immune-suppressed 

populations may be a higher risk for zoonotic disease. 

Several significant reports in the last 15 years have focused on the need for a science-based and 

public health-focused food safety system. The 2003 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report 

“Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food” provided pivotal new recommendations on developing 

science-based food safety criteria that would be linked to public health objectives (Institute of 

Medicine, 2003). This report was unique in outlining specific criteria that could be defined at 

each phase of production. The microbiological criterion, for example, defines the acceptability 

of a product or food lot, based on the number (or presence or absence) of microorganisms, 

including their toxins or metabolites, while the food safety provides a way to relate performance 

standards in food production to public health objectives. The IOM recognized the importance of 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles and “Good Agricultural 

Practices” being implemented by industry. IOM also recognized that the application of criteria 

and standards throughout the food continuum would not be easy because of the numerous 

opportunities for disease causing organisms and chemical contaminants to enter the food supply. 

Pre- and post-harvest food safety efforts, moreover, have often been handled independent of one 

another. The IOM noted further that the food safety regulatory framework is fragmented among 

different regulatory agencies and different stages of food production. The 1998 IOM report 

“Ensuring Food Safety from Production to Consumption” previously reported on the 

fragmentation of food safety not only in regulatory statutes but also in regards to surveillance, 

public perception, and research. 

More than twelve years after the 1998 IOM report, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act was

implemented in January 2011. This Act is supported by consumers, public health advocates, and 

major industry groups as an important advancement for mandatory recall powers and 

national/international inspections. Although the Act specifically addresses FDA needs and 

issues, it also tasks the agency to collaborate with other federal agencies to coordinate and 

improve strategies on prevention, traceability, and accountability, for U.S.-grown and imported 

foods. 

The President’s Food Safety Working Group (WG) is another example of collaboration between 

Federal agencies. USDA and DHHS, along with several partner agencies, make up the WG 

whose core mission is to strengthen federal efforts and develop strategies to improve food safety. 

The WG advises the President on the efficacy of U.S. food safety legislation, opportunities for 

fostering coordination of food safety efforts through the government, and ensuring laws are 

adequately enforced to keep food safe. The three core guiding principles of the current WG 

support: 1) outbreak prevention, 2) effective food safety inspections and enforcement, and 3) 

surveillance of and intervention in outbreaks of foodborne illness. Allied to these core principles 

is the need to address the science-based national food safety objectives outlined in the Healthy 

People 2020, a CDC initiative to improve the health of Americans. 

Food safety is a growing global concern due to increased international travel and migration, 

globalization of trade, and social and economic changes. Food safety problems extend across a 

diversity of food systems in developed and developing countries, including a broad range of 

foodborne contaminants. In May 2010, the World Health Assembly re-emphasized their 2002
3

resolutions: to continue the global strategy for the surveillance of foodborne diseases and for 

efficient gathering and exchange of information in and between member countries; to continue 

the recognition of the important role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and to promote 

recent WHO initiatives for the estimation of the burden of foodborne illness and surveillance 

capacity building (WHO, 2010; WHO, 2002). Similarities in the goals of the U.S. and the WHO

provide opportunities for scientific interaction, collaboration among agencies and institutions, 

and address global concerns on import and export food safety standards. Global partnerships and 

common standards are increasingly important as the import and export of food increases. During 

the last 10 years, while the amount of food imported into the U.S. has tripled, only 1-2% is ever 

physically examined. Justifiably, concern over the safety of imported foods is highlighted in the 

new FDA Food Safety Modernization Act recently approved by Congress. 

The goal for USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area to advance the

research, education and extension efforts in food safety is clear. The REE strategy is to advance 

research, education, and outreach in known, high priority areas of food safety concern. REE 

agencies work to be responsive to emerging problems and regulatory needs, while maintaining 

long-term goals. Educational and outreach priorities are coordinated with research activities and 

needs. 

Both the IOM 1998 and 2003 reports identify research, education, and outreach efforts that are 

still relevant today. Many of these efforts were more recently cited in the 2010 American 

Academy of Microbiology (AAM) report, “Global Food Safety.” Many of these priorities are 

addressed by USDA science. These goals are a response to the increasing need to understand the

behavior and interactions of microbial populations within their ecological niches, with other 

microbes and foodborne hazards, the environment, and humans. Enhanced technologies and 

approaches provide new opportunities for identifying emerging pathogens and helping private 

industry and regulatory bodies identify foodborne hazards.

All food safety research, education, and extension is conducted with the ultimate aim of 

eliminating pathogens, and other biological and chemical contaminants in foods; consequently, 

reducing the occurrence of foodborne illnesses. To this end, we have identified two primary 

goals: prevention and control. These goals are intended to address current problems but also to 

meet emerging challenges and technologies. For example, climate change not only affects food 

security, water quality and resources, and crops, but may also influence the emergence of new 

pathogens or may lead to an increase in aflatoxin levels. The increased use of biotechnology in 

detection methods (nanotechnology) and in bioengineered crops has raised the awareness of 

evaluating food safety. These are but two of the many challenge areas in which REE has the 

potential to make significant advances through research, education and extension efforts.

Current Research Challenges and Proposed Research Program

Vision: Provide science that informs decisions and policies that contribute to a safe food supply 

and the reduction of foodborne pathogens and other contaminants.

USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics agencies are uniquely positioned to contribute 

science-based information to public health decisionmaking and agricultural policymaking that 
4

will ultimately help to reduce foodborne pathogens and other contaminants. Each agency 

contributes unique expertise and roles. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides the

research infrastructure and expertise to address short and long-term needs in food safety. 

Because of its federally-operated infrastructure, ARS is able to respond quickly to emerging and 

critical food safety issues. At the same time, this well-established research program provides 

food safety research assistance to regulatory agencies, private industry, and international 

collaborators. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=108). 

The Economic Research Service (ERS) has a unique capacity to assess potential and real costs 

and benefits of foodborne illness outbreaks and food safety programs throughout the supply 

chain. ERS economists were the first to estimate the costs of foodborne illness, and continue to 

update these estimates in collaboration with CDC. ERS economists address food safety 

management questions from the farm, through processing, all the way to food retailing and 

consumer response to recalls. This integrated approach facilitates unique and important research 

to identify the most efficient mechanisms for food safety improvement. 

(http://www.ers.usda.gov). 

With a mission to collect and analyze survey and field data to better understand agriculture’s role 

in food safety, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) plays a unique role within 

USDA. The agency collects data from agricultural operations and agri-business, and collects 

corollary data providing context to the extent, impact, source, or spread of agricultural products. 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov).

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) funds research, education, and extension 

at the state and local levels and provides program leadership in these areas. Food safety-related 

grant programs include the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, National Integrated Food 

Safety Initiative, Specialty Crops Research Initiative, and Small Business Innovation Research 

(SBIR). Formula grant programs include Hatch, Evans-Allen and Science and Education 

Resources Development. Each program has a slightly different focus but they are

complementary. NIFA promotes and enhances the scientific disciplines of food safety through 

these extramural grants with the overall focus of protecting consumers from microbial and 

chemical contaminants that may occur during all stages of the food chain, from production to 

consumption. (http://www.nifa.usda.gov).

As food safety knowledge and activities have evolved, REE’s goals have evolved as well. The 

research goals across these agencies provide both broad and focused approaches for research, 

education, and extension activities in food safety. The range that they span provides the 

opportunity to develop research applicable to addressing current recognized foodborne 

pathogenic and contaminant threats, while also providing the framework for research, education, 

and extension activities to address long-term, as well as just emerging needs. As technologies 

and methods evolve, new pathogens are often identified. Examples of salient emerging issues of 

concern include produce food safety, the detection and characterization of chemical (or biothreat) contaminants, the potential effects from climate change on food safety, and the 

development and evaluation of prevention and intervention strategies along the food continuum. 

Coordination among the REE agencies is critical to help provide food safety knowledge and 

solutions, and will be addressed through the following strategies:
5

1. Providing research that helps define and explain the microbial populations (pathogens 

and normal flora) in foods and surrounding environments.

2. Providing research to aid understandings of the biology and behavior of foodborne

pathogens.

3. Developing technologies for the detection and characterization of food supply 

contamination from microbial pathogens, toxins, chemicals, and biologics.

4. Developing intervention and control strategies for potential foodborne contaminants 

along the food production continuum.

5. Developing, providing, and evaluating analytical and statistical methods that will help in 

the measurement and evaluation of foodborne pathogens and contaminants, pathogen 

load, the economic cost and burden of foodborne illness, and public health risk.

6. Providing research strategies, models, and data that identify and characterize effective 

management strategies and incentives for food safety improvement and the costs and 

benefits of improved safety for public health and industry viability.

Strategy 1: Provide research that helps define and explain the microbial populations 

(pathogens and normal flora) in foods and surrounding environments.

Current USDA Science:

This objective unifies pre-and post-harvest food safety into a single entity, as it identifies and 

characterizes the movement, structure, and dynamics of microbial populations throughout food 

production and processing; hence, across the entire continuum. At the microbial level, the 

diversity and complexity within environments and food matrices may change with spatial and 

temporal influences, or with the competitive or synergistic relationships among pathogens and 

commensals. Environmental factors may determine the conditions under which particular 

microorganisms exist, and microorganisms may in turn influence the conditions prevailing in the 

microbial and surrounding environment. Currently, each REE agency is contributing to this 

strategic area. The following are examples of REE strengths:

• Leading the epidemiologic and ecologic long term population study of produce in 

California. This research helped find solutions to the causes of many recent produce 

associated foodborne outbreaks. (ARS)

• Maintenance of a network of experts and facilities for defining microbial populations in 

waterways and soils, and determining how these factors affect the production of produce 

and potential public health risks. (ARS)

• Maintenance of a network of scientists and facilities evaluating both pre- and post-harvest 

interventions for the most common foodborne pathogens in multiple food animal species.

(ARS)

• Examination of how consumers respond when Federal health and safety officials inform 

them about the safety of particular foods. (ERS)

• Administration of extramural grants in food safety and related topics. This research 

portfolio includes research on monitoring, surveillance, and control of microbial 

pathogens, chemicals, toxins, and nanoparticles in food and the environment (pre- and 

post-harvest environments). (NIFA)
6

Primary Goals: 

To provide data that will enhance our knowledge of the interaction among foodborne pathogens 

and contaminants, foods, hosts, and the environment. This knowledge will help in the design and 

implementation of potential control and intervention strategies. The principal focus is addressing 

microbial pathogens, and to a lesser extent biological (toxins) and chemical (residues) 

contaminants.

Anticipated Outcomes:

• The development of approaches/designs for both microbial and population-based studies, 

monitoring of known and emerging foodborne pathogens, biological and chemical 

contaminants, and the provision of data for identified data gaps. (ARS, NIFA)

• Determination of the role/effect of transportation, lairage, slaughter, harvesting, 

processing, storage, environment, and equipment on foodborne hazard fate and transfer.

(ARS, NIFA)

• The development of approaches/designs for the analysis and interpretation of complex 

data. (ARS, ERS, NIFA)

Strategy 2: Provide research to understand the biology and behavior of foodborne

pathogens and biological and chemical contaminants.

Current USDA Science: 

Various technologies must be used to understand the complex biological interactions in 

foodborne pathogens. It is appropriate to employ the concept of “systems biology” involving an 

integrated, systematic, and trans-disciplinary approach combining microbiology, genomics, 

proteomics, other “omics,” and bioinformatics. Included within this area is pathogenicity and 

virulence. Understanding pathogenicity is critical for pathogen intervention and control, 

modeling, and for providing data for the development of risk assessments by regulatory agencies. 

Pathogens have the capacity to readily and rapidly adapt and evolve, or arise from new origins.

Implemented control strategies may accordingly lose effectiveness, demanding the development 

of new production processes and products to maintain and improve food safety. Effective risk 

assessments conducted by regulatory agencies are dependent upon proper understandings of 

pathogen behavior, dose response, activity in foods, and influences that may positively or 

negatively affect virulence. Assessing the virulence of foodborne organisms and differences 

among serotypes is critical in implementing new surveillance and intervention strategies. The 

following are examples of REE agency strengths and resources:

• A dedicated program that examines the behavior of microorganisms in foods. The 

Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP) works to predict the growth and activity of 

foodborne bacteria under various environmental conditions. Since the early 1990s, PMP 

data has been distributed in spreadsheets, stand-alone software, and now online. (ARS)

• Developed in association with other international organizations, “ComBase” is a database 

containing information about how microorganisms respond to different environments. 

The goals of ComBase are to improve efficiency in locating microbiological information; 

to provide a means to compare data; and to reduce redundancy in conducting 

microbiological studies. (ARS)
7

• The USDA extramural research portfolio includes competitive grants that investigate the 

microbial ecology of foodborne pathogens in animals, soil, water, and on food surfaces. 

Research also includes mechanisms for the attachment, internalization and migration of 

foodborne hazards into plant tissues, and their interaction with microorganisms. (NIFA)

Primary Goals:

Provide data that will help in understanding the biology and behavior of foodborne pathogens, 

including contaminants such as chemicals and toxins. These data can help support risk 

assessments, contribute to validation processes, and lead to better control and intervention 

methods.

Anticipated Outcomes: 

• The development of a comprehensive microbial database containing molecular, 

physiological, and genetic data on each known foodborne pathogen and its niche. (ARS)

• The development of model systems that can be used in risk assessment. (ARS, NIFA)

• The development of approaches/designs for the analysis and interpretation of complex 

data. (ARS, NIFA)

• The identification of control and mitigation strategies that limit foodborne hazard 

contamination of fresh produce. (ARS, NIFA).

Strategy 3: Develop technologies for the detection and characterization of food supply 

contamination from microbial pathogens, toxins, chemicals, and biologics.

Current USDA Science:

Challenges occur when either microbes or other contaminants enter the food supply through raw 

materials or via contamination during processing. Therefore, detection and characterization is 

required at the earliest possible stage in the food chain, providing the necessary data for targeted 

interventions and reducing the need for recall of food products from purchase endpoints. Where 

possible, technologies must be developed for the entire food chain which allow the most 

effective, data-driven, and rapid detection and characterization (e.g. determination of viability 

and infectivity) capabilities. Effective research addresses specific stakeholder needs, focusing on 

the most promising technologies, point of use, and specifying technology for baseline studies, 

real-time control, traceability and/or forensics. This requirement means that decisions must be 

made relative to what should be detected, and the required level of detection and 

characterization. It also means that technologies with the highest level of 

detection/characterization capability might not always be the most practical, useful, or 

economically viable for particular objectives. The following are examples of REE agency 

strengths:

• The Research Center at Fargo, ND is the only USDA laboratory with the ability to 

conduct research and analysis on the prevalence of dioxins in food animals and foods. 

This laboratory conducts the national dioxin studies for USDA’s Food Safety and 

Inspection Service. (ARS)
8

• The Research Center at Wyndmoor, PA, is the only USDA laboratory that develops 

detection technologies for chemical contaminants, e.g. pesticides, hormones, antibiotics 

in foods. (ARS)

• The Research Centers at Athens, GA and Beltsville, MD are the only USDA laboratories 

that develop sensing technologies and approaches that enable real–time and sensitive 

detection of foodborne pathogens, and chemical contaminants in and on foods. (ARS)

• The Research Center at Albany, CA is the only USDA laboratory with the expertise for 

the development of methods and technologies to detect biosecurity agents in food 

matrices. These technologies are used by USDA, DHHS (FDA/CDC), the Department 

Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. military. (ARS)

• The Research Center at Peoria, IL is the only USDA laboratory with the expertise and 

capability to detect and characterize mycotoxins that pose a public health risk. (ARS)

• The USDA extramural research portfolio includes a focus on the development and testing 

of detection methods for field use in a variety of settings. Recent programs solicited 

research on the development of and testing for foodborne viruses, E. coli, Salmonella, 

and Campylobacter, and other pathogens. (NIFA)

Primary Goals:

Develop detection technologies for foodborne pathogens and contaminants. These technologies 

can be transferred to other regulatory agencies and industry for implementation that could lead to 

the reduction or elimination of foodborne pathogens or contaminants. Technologies for the 

characterization of existing and emerging pathogens, toxins, chemicals, and biologics will 

provide important data for developing future recommendations and activities.

Anticipated Outcomes: 

• The development of specialized technologies to differentiate pathogenic from nonpathogenic strains, and to elucidate the differences (ARS, NIFA).

• The development of detection technologies for emerging or multiple microbial pathogens 

that are cost effective and provide the required information for implementation (ARS, 

NIFA).

• The development of technologies for the rapid and sensitive detection of toxins, 

chemicals, and biologics that can be implemented for improved food safety and food 

defense (ARS, NIFA)

• The development of multi-task, real-time, on/in-line inspection technologies that detect 

contaminants and quality attributes simultaneously at required line speeds (ARS).

Strategy 4: Develop intervention and control strategies for foodborne hazards along the 

food production continuum.

Current USDA Science:

Intervention and control strategies help to significantly decrease or eliminate foodborne 

contaminants in food animals and their derived products, seafood, and plant crops during critical

periods of production and processing. Reduced shedding of zoonotic pathogens by food 
9

producing animals and contamination of seafood and plant material helps reduce the pathogen 

load during slaughter/harvesting, and subsequent processing and storage. In the past 15 years, 

there has been a greater focus on plant food safety, since fresh produce has become a common 

source of foodborne illness. This attention provides an opportunity to strengthen and increase 

research specifically addressing produce needs. Many food processing/storage technologies have 

the ability to inactivate microorganisms to varying degrees; however, the intensities required can 

result in adverse functional and/or sensory properties, and significant reduction in quality. 

Consequently, there is a continued need to develop and subsequently combine new/innovative 

processing technologies. The following are examples of REE strengths: 

• The intramural and extramural research portfolio includes development and validation of 

pre- and post-harvest intervention and control strategies for multiple microbial pathogens 

and their numerous serotypes in various food animals, plants (produce), and seafood. The 

research addresses industry and regulatory agency needs. These projects include 

education and/or extension efforts. (ARS, NIFA)

• The development of improved production techniques to address problems in commercial 

biological control practices and increase efficacy against mycotoxin producing fungi, 

including the understanding of the genetics of mycotoxin production through an 

examination of the population dynamics of toxigenic fungi. (ARS)

• Research that develops, evaluates, and validates new approaches for regulatory 

monitoring of chemical residues in foods and feed. (ARS)

• The provision of toxicological data and development and validation of analytical 

methodology for the detection of microbial toxins in food and feed. (ARS)

Primary Goals: 

To develop intervention and control strategies for foodborne pathogens and contaminants, 

including chemicals, toxins, and biologics that can be implemented along the food production 

continuum where appropriate. To evaluate the impact of these interventions and control 

measures on pathogen load and potential foodborne disease risk.

Anticipated Outcomes:

• The development of approaches that evaluate and validate the impact of 

intervention/management strategies on contamination in the food continuum. This 

includes organic, conventional, and other production systems at all levels (small, medium 

and large operations) as well as alternative harvest, processing, and marketing methods.

(ARS, NIFA)

• The development of technologies for assessing the efficacy of various processing 

methods to reduce or eliminate contaminants in foods for human/animal consumption.

(ARS, NIFA).

Strategy 5: Develop, provide, and evaluate analytical and statistical methods that will help 

in the measurement and evaluation of foodborne pathogens and contaminants, pathogen 

load, the economic cost and burden of foodborne illness, and public health risk.
10

Current USDA Science:

Research is still evolving in the area of analytical and statistical methods to quantify foodborne 

“risk” from pre-harvest, through processing, to the consumer. Measurements at the pre-harvest 

level include prevalence or number of organisms shed or other contaminants at the animal or 

farm level. Verification testing in processing plants or research studies quantifying pathogen

prevalence provide potential data regarding risk. It is currently difficult to correlate these data 

with the prevalence of foodborne disease or public health risk. The IOM (2003) report outlines 

specific microbiologic criteria, performance standards, food safety criteria, and public health 

objectives that producers, scientists, and regulators can strive to measure and implement. 

Currently, the two major food safety regulatory agencies, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) and FDA are looking to other agencies for guidance on analytical and statistical 

approaches for qualitative and quantitative measures. This initiative also fits with the President’s 

Food Safety Working Group (WG) goals. REE strengths in this area include:

• Collaboration with CDC on the estimation of foodborne illness and provision of publicly 

available analyses of the estimations and assumptions. (ERS)

• Collaborations with the WHO on the global burden of disease and the education in 

laboratory (methods) and epidemiologic capabilities. (ARS, ERS)

• Providing extramural grant support for epidemiologic approaches that help quantify 

foodborne hazard load from the farm through processing. Explore different approaches to 

better explain and measure how foodborne hazard load may equate to public health risk.

(NIFA)

• Technology development to better characterize and quantify foodborne pathogens and 

contaminants along the food chain, used in risk assessments for public health risk. (ARS)

Primary Goals: 

Develop research, education, and extension efforts that will aid in the understanding of the 

quality and quantity of foodborne contamination and foodborne disease. Outline potential 

collaborations and studies that could better characterize and define pathogen load, foodborne 

disease, and public health risk. 

Anticipated Outcomes:

• Provide burden of foodborne illness estimates for medical costs, loss of productivity and 

other outcomes in collaboration with public health agencies, like CDC and WHO. (ERS)

• The development of intramural and extramural research directions that aid 

understandings of risk-based standards, metrics, and the impact of interventions and 

control strategies. (ARS, NIFA)

• The development of education and extension efforts capable of enhancing analytical and 

statistical methods (such as epidemiology, bioinformatics, geographical information 

systems, and meta-analysis). (NIFA)

Strategy 6: Provide research strategies, models, and data that identify and characterize 

effective management strategies and incentives for food safety improvement and the costs 

and benefits of improved safety for public health and industry viability. 
11

Current USDA Science:

One area of focus is estimating the costs of foodborne illness to help policymakers rank risks, 

focus policy, and prioritize spending. Research is needed to show how use of product testing, 

food safety equipment, sanitation practices and other food safety technologies vary by plant size, 

production characteristics, and how the choice of technology is affected by third party audits and 

other contracting mechanisms. This research will identify gaps in food safety management that 

can be addressed by new technologies. Research is needed to identify cost effective farm and 

processing strategies which focus on the prevention of contamination and demonstrate economic 

trade-offs associated with preventing contamination before it happens. Expertise in data 

collection and survey implementation (NASS) provides an opportunity to update and extend 

economic implementation burden estimates for industry, from farm to processing plants. The 

following are examples of REE strengths: 

• Estimation of the economic burden of foodborne illness and potential contamination 

events due to medical costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths, and long-term 

outcomes (such as reactive arthritis, neurologic and kidney damage, and yet unknown 

consequences). Updating these estimates in collaboration with CDC and providing

publicly available analysis of how such estimates vary with different assumptions.

Evaluation of macro- and microeconomic effects (from reduction in GDP in absolute or 

growth rate to the firm level). (ERS)

• Estimation of how the costs of new meat and poultry regulations vary by plant size and 

type of production system. Investigation of the incentives for improvement in different 

commodity supply chains to identify best industry practices and potential barriers to 

improvement. (ERS)

• On-going surveying of farm production practices and costs and returns (ARMS) includes 

questions addressed to farm-level production practices that can affect food safety. These 

data support analysis of alternative management strategies for farm level pathogen

reduction. (ERS, NASS)

• Examination of how consumers respond when Federal health and safety officials inform 

them about the safety of particular foods (ERS)

• Collaborations in two WHO initiatives where current REE food safety expertise and 

research help enhance international efforts. These WHO programs involve the estimation 

of the global burden of foodborne disease and the training in laboratory and 

epidemiology capabilities. (ARS, ERS)

• Providing research strategies, models, and data that identify and characterize effective 

management strategies and incentives for food safety improvement and the costs and 

benefits of improved safety for public health and industry adoption. (ERS, NIFA)

Primary Goals:

To provide data and strategies which describe the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of research 

and management strategies that could improve public health and industry viability. This 

knowledge will help measure the impact and outcome of intervention and control strategies 

focused on the reduction of foodborne pathogens and contaminants.
12

Anticipated Outcomes: 

• Providing relevant data to regulatory agencies for use in HACCP programs, risk 

assessments, labeling, persistence, and issues related to international trade. (ARS, ERS)

• The development of the economic models and data to explain how interventions might be 

adopted and used by various agricultural production systems. (ERS, NASS)

• The development of economically viable control and mitigation strategies taking 

advantage of environmental, vector and reservoir characteristics (ARS, NIFA, ERS, 

NASS)

• The identification of incentives for investment in food safety improvements in meat and 

poultry plants. (ERS, NASS)

• The identification of on-farm food safety practices and incentives.(ERS, NASS)

• Increase understanding of the outcomes from foodborne illness, including severity and 

medical costs, lost work productivity, and economic consequences of the loss of life. 

Update and extend economic burden estimates to include their full economic impacts.

(ERS)

References:

American Academy of Microbiology (AAM). (2009). Global Food Safety: Keeping Food Safe 

from Farm to Table. Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiology.

Batz, M. B., Hoffmann, S., & Morris, J. G., Jr. (2011). Ranking the Risks: The 10 PathogenFood Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health. Emerging Pathogens 

Institute, University of Florida.

IFT Foundation. (2009). Making decisions about the risks of chemicals in foods with limited 

scientific information. Comparative Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 8: 269-

303.

Institute of Medicine (IOM). (1998). Ensuring Safe Food from Product to Consumption. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2003). Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

National Advisory Committee on Microbial Criteria for Foods (NACMCF). (1998). Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Point Principles and Application Guidelines. Journal of

Food Protection 61(9), 1246-1259.

Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., & Tauxe, R. 

(1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious 

Diseases, 5: 607-25.
13

Scallan, E, Griffin, P. M., Angulo, F., Tauxe, R., & Hoekstra, R. (2011a). Foodborne Illness 

Acquired in the United States-Unspecified Agents. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(1), 

16-22.

Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R., Angulo, F., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M., Roy, S. L., Jones, J. L., & 

Griffin, P. M. (2011b). Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States- Major 

Pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(1), 7-15.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Global Strategy for Food Safety. Geneva,

Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/general/global_strategy/en

World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Advancing Food Safety Initiatives. Resolution from 

the 63rd World Health Assembly to update the Global Strategy for Food Safety. Retrieved 

from http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA63/A63_R3-en.pdf