Strengthening Food Safety Controls Across Global Markets
Food manufacturers in both the United Kingdom and the United States face a shared reality. Supply chains are more complex, consumers expect faster transparency, and regulators demand visible proof that controls work in practice. Recent incidents have shown that food safety depends on more than procedures. It requires systems that stay active under pressure.
Recent incidents highlight the human and financial cost
In the United States, a large outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes associated with ready-to-eat pasta meals led to 20 confirmed infections across 15 states. Nineteen people were hospitalised and four deaths were reported. The recall covered more than 245,000 lb of product and spread quickly through connected brands that had used the same ingredient batch.
In the United Kingdom, allergen control remains the main cause of recalls. Data from the Food Standards Agency show 242 allergen-related incidents and 58 allergen alerts in the first ten months of 2025. One single event earlier in the year affected over 300 products across 56 brands, after an allergen entered a shared ingredient stream.
A study published in Food Control analysed 1,036 UK food recalls between 2016 and 2021 and found that 57.6 per cent were allergen-related. The trend continues upward. (ScienceDirect, 2022)
The financial impact of such failures is severe. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and Food Marketing Institute estimate that the average direct cost of a U.S. food recall is about US $10 million, covering retrieval, logistics and disposal. Indirect costs such as lost contracts and brand damage often multiply that figure several times. (Food Manufacturing, 2024)
A review of historic insurance claims by CRC Group found that a single recall in the produce sector can cost over US $1.5 million in product value alone, before accounting for reputational loss and regulatory intervention. (CRC Group, 2024)
These incidents confirm that recall risk is growing in frequency and scale. Pathogens, allergens and foreign-body contamination all present potential triggers.
Root causes that cross borders
Although each incident differs in detail, recurring weaknesses appear in nearly every investigation.
Supplier and ingredient control
Failures at the supplier level are a major risk factor. Contaminated or mis-specified ingredients can enter production without proper verification. The recent Food Manufacture webinar on allergen management emphasised the importance of raw-material risk assessment as the first barrier. Manufacturers must know which allergens are present in a raw material, which are handled in their own facilities, and which may share production lines.
Similar patterns appear in pathogen outbreaks, where an upstream contamination spreads rapidly through dependent brands. Supplier oversight must combine specification management, training and verification with a clear chain of accountability.
Training, behaviour and culture
Even the best systems depend on people. Gaps in onboarding, refresher training or behavioural monitoring often create space for error. Communication between packaging, artwork and production teams can also break down, particularly where multiple languages or shifts are involved.
The allergen briefing pointed to poor communication as a frequent source of mis-labelling incidents. When information about packaging revisions or allergen statements is not transferred accurately to line operators, products can reach the market with incomplete or wrong information.
Process control and verification
Process controls protect against failure only when they are verified in real time. Many recall investigations reference incomplete temperature or calibration logs, or a lack of documented review by supervisors. The technology to automate alerts and capture validation data exists, but the discipline to use it consistently is what determines effectiveness.
Environmental monitoring and hygiene
Pathogens such as Listeria persist in factory environments despite cleaning schedules. The challenge is consistency and validation. Modern environmental monitoring programmes rotate swab sites, track results and ensure corrective actions are completed. When this discipline lapses, bacteria can remain undetected for weeks.
Recent data from global recall tracking show that microbial contamination accounted for around half of all food recalls in the first half of 2024, particularly in cereals, bakery and ready-to-eat categories. (Food Manufacture, 2024)
Traceability and recall readiness
Traceability speed is a critical factor once a risk is discovered. Companies that can identify affected lots within hours contain damage far more effectively than those that rely on paper trails. Retailers and auditors now expect mock recalls to be run at least twice per year and for corrective actions to be documented and verified. These exercises often reveal the same weakness: record-keeping spread across too many systems.
Control themes that apply to every market
Whether operating under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act or UK and EU food-safety regulations, manufacturers face similar expectations. Controls must be preventive, measurable and demonstrable.
| Control Area | Frequent Weakness | Recommended Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier and Ingredient Oversight | Ingredient risks not fully assessed or verified after change | Integrate supplier audits, training and raw-material risk reviews. Verify Certificates of Analysis before use. |
| Training and Culture | Inconsistent onboarding, poor refresher tracking | Link training to job roles. Record competency digitally. Reinforce with short, frequent learning. |
| Process Control | Missed verification steps or calibration delays | Automate alerts and require supervisor sign-off during shift. Review CCP logs daily. |
| Environmental Monitoring | Incomplete zone mapping or lack of trending | Establish rotating swab schedule. Trend results monthly and trigger retraining after positive findings. |
| Traceability and Recall | Manual tracking slows response | Adopt electronic lot tracking. Conduct mock recalls twice yearly and close all CAPAs formally. |
The 2025 Food Manufacture webinar on allergen risk provided several practical lessons relevant across all categories.
Incident volume is increasing. The FSA recorded 264 allergen incidents and 58 alerts in 2024, a year-on-year increase.
Single-ingredient exposure magnifies risk. One shared input can affect hundreds of products, demonstrating the importance of supplier coordination.
Automation and AI tools are emerging. Packaging scanners and AI systems can now verify artwork versions and review Certificates of Analysis for anomalies.
Human oversight remains essential. Automated systems still require accurate input data and clear responsibility for approval.
Cross-department communication prevents error. Coordination between design, supply chain and production teams is essential for accurate labelling.
These insights reinforce that food safety is a multidisciplinary issue. Technology strengthens control, but success depends on people using it correctly.
The cost and benefit of control
Independent studies confirm that prevention delivers measurable returns. The GMA/FMI research cited earlier found average direct recall costs of around US $10 million, while insurers report that indirect costs can reach several times that figure. In the UK, industry specialists such as RQA Group have estimated the total cost of a large recall at £2.5 million to £10 million, depending on scale and retailer involvement.
Strong control systems reduce those exposures. Digital training management, automated verification and centralised traceability shorten response time, cut waste and protect brand value. They also simplify audit preparation and can improve insurance terms. In markets where consumer trust is central to brand equity, prevention is no longer an optional investment.
Integrating people, process and technology
Manufacturers that perform best in audits share three traits.
Engaged people. Employees at all levels understand their role in protecting food safety. They have immediate access to relevant instructions and training.
Clear processes. Work instructions, cleaning routines and verifications are standardised and easy to review.
Linked technology. Training, quality data and corrective actions are managed in connected systems that provide real-time visibility.
Digital tools do not replace expertise, they make it visible. Linking training and verification data ensures that when a process changes, everyone involved can confirm understanding instantly. This connection is becoming a benchmark requirement for major customers and auditors.
Key points for manufacturers
The evidence from recent recalls and allergen incidents points to several universal lessons.
- Supplier assurance remains the foundation of control.
- Training quality determines consistency and culture.
- Verification and calibration protect process integrity.
- Environmental monitoring must be continuous and documented.
- Traceability speed defines the reach of a recall.
These themes apply equally in the U.S., UK and all major export markets. A failure in any one of them can trigger a chain reaction across others.
Conclusion
Food safety is a shared responsibility that crosses borders. As supply chains grow and consumers demand transparency, manufacturers must prove that their controls are both designed and maintained to prevent failure. Recent incidents show that even one weak link in supplier oversight, training or verification can have widespread consequences.
By reinforcing the five control areas outlined here and by using integrated systems that connect people, process and technology, food manufacturers can reduce recall risk, meet regulatory expectations and maintain consumer trust.
