Every year on 7 June, World Food Safety Day offers a moment to reflect on what it takes to protect the health of populations through safe food.
This year’s theme from the World Health Organization goes straight to the core of what drives food safety forward: science in action. But it is not just food science that’s in the spotlight. It is data science, social science, animal science, climate science, chemistry, microbiology and even economics. It is human intelligence and critical thinking. In short, it takes a village.
Kimberly Coffin, LRQA’s Supply Chain Assurance Technical Director and Food Scientist, joined the WHO’s World Food Safety Day webinar series this week. Here, she shares why this year’s focus cuts through the noise and brings us back to what really matters.
Food safety is not a function, it is a foundation
If the food is not safe, it is not food. A simple fact that is often lost in conversations about production, quality and nutrition. Health outcomes are routinely linked to diet, yet food safety is too often treated as a secondary concern. That mindset is not just outdated, it is dangerous. As Kimberly makes clear, food safety is not about checking boxes or managing hazards in isolation: it is a pillar of public health. When businesses get it wrong, people suffer.
Despite major advances in technology, tools and standards, foodborne illness remains widespread. The WHO points to over 200 diseases that are transmitted through food. These are not abstract numbers; they are largely preventable, and in many cases completely eradicable, illnesses that continue to impact lives across every geography.
Food safety is multidisciplinary
One of the most striking takeaways from the week’s discussions was the recognition that food safety cannot be owned by a single scientific discipline. It does not begin and end with food scientists. It relies on the combined knowledge of microbiologists, chemists, climate scientists, social scientists, economists, technologists and others. These are the people who understand consumption patterns, model foodborne illness outcomes, measure economic impacts and translate data into action.
As Kimberly put it: “Food safety doesn’t belong to one branch of science. It takes a collective effort across disciplines to truly understand and manage risk.”
Each of these disciplines brings a different lens to the same challenge. When they work together, we get a fuller picture of what risk really means and what it will take to reduce it.
Data makes it science
The phrase “there is no science without data” was repeated often throughout the series, and for good reason. But the focus is no longer on simply gathering data; the critical challenge now is knowing what data matters, how to interpret it and how to use it effectively to improve health outcomes.
Rather than stopping at hazard identification, the conversation is shifting towards understanding impact: not just on business, but on people. That means looking beyond the likelihood and severity of a hazard and asking harder questions about where harm occurs, how it spreads and who is affected. If we want better health outcomes, then risk has to be understood at the population level.
This is where tools like LRQA’s EiQ Product Integrity platform start to show their value. While not the subject of the webinars, Kimberly noted the alignment between the global dialogue and the principles behind EiQ: smarter data use, sharper insight and science-backed intervention.
Reframing the case for investment
One of the strongest messages from the WHO sessions was the importance of broadening how we talk about the value of food safety. While protecting public health should always be a central driver, the case for investment becomes more compelling when framed through a positive, forward-looking lens.
Food safety is not solely about avoiding harm, it enables productivity, strengthens competitiveness in global markets and reduces burden on healthcare systems. When governments and businesses understand how investment in food safety contributes to economic growth and resilience, they are more likely to act decisively.
As Kimberly noted, food safety should not be seen as a separate cost, but as something that can be embedded within wider investment plans. Whether upgrading a water system, expanding a production line or improving storage and transport infrastructure, there is an opportunity to build food safety into the foundations. It is not necessarily about spending more, it is about making existing investment work harder, with better outcomes for people and for business.
Climate risk is food risk
The webinars also brought a sharp focus to climate-driven hazards. Most professionals are already aware of the links between climate change and microbial risks, but chemical hazards are now emerging more forcefully as a consequence of environmental change.
Kimberly highlighted the example of arsenic in rice, where warming soil and permafrost thaw are increasing the natural concentration of heavy metals. Because rice is grown in flooded fields, arsenic present in the soil is more readily absorbed by the crop and ultimately consumed. These are risks that are playing out in our supply chains today.
This kind of insight does not come from a single field of study. It requires input from environmental scientists, chemists, agronomists and risk assessors. And it reinforces the point: food safety must be viewed through multiple lenses with a shared responsibility.
Gaps in the system: No safety without surveillance
Perhaps the most sobering part of the WHO’s programme was the exposure of how uneven the global food safety landscape remains. In some regions, there is no national system for disease surveillance, no regular contamination monitoring and in some cases, no access to basic laboratory capability.
For countries that import food, this is not someone else’s problem. Food supply chains are global, and even when a country has strong regulatory systems and oversight in place, that only covers part of the picture. If the country of origin lacks the infrastructure to detect and report foodborne risks, critical risk data is missing. And when that data is missing, risk cannot be fully understood, let alone managed.
This disconnect affects more than just regulators or producers. It influences how decisions are made, how risks are prioritised and how incidents are prevented. Global food safety depends on shared visibility. Without it, we are working with an incomplete map.
This is not about blame. It is about collective responsibility. Every country, every actor in the supply chain has a part to play in raising the global baseline.
Technology supports, but it cannot replace human intelligence
Artificial intelligence is gaining attention as a tool for outbreak prediction and food safety modelling, but the message from experts was measured. AI can support initial assessments, provide early insights and accelerate pattern recognition, but it does not replace human intelligence.
Validation, context, critical thinking and collaboration remain essential. As Kimberly noted, “It’s not just a set and play.” Data must still be questioned, tested and understood by experts who know what they are looking at. That is where the real risk management happens.
Building global resilience
There is no single solution: no one system or technology will improve food safety outcomes. It is a collective effort that depends on science in its many forms. It requires collaboration across sectors and disciplines, across borders and markets.
The challenge is not new, but the opportunity to act with clarity, purpose and shared responsibility has never been greater.
It takes a village. The question is whether we are prepared to build it, together.
Discover how we support the Food and Beverage sector
