Key steps help identify hidden pathogen risk

Produce facility managers don’t need to be convinced that pathogen control matters. The challenge lies in identifying and understanding the risks, along with instituting process control measures that minimize those risks.

Regulatory requirements for putting out a safe product evolve over time, and contamination patterns don’t always show up where traditional programs are designed to catch them.

Pathogen-driven recalls jumped 41% in 2024, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), and now account for 39% of all food recalls. A single salmonella outbreak tied to cucumbers sickened 551 people across 34 states and hospitalized 155. The contamination entered the production chain early and moved through multiple distribution points before anyone traced its source.

The incidence of salmonella demonstrates how pervasive pathogens are in the environment — and the risk they pose across the food supply chain. No link can be neglected. A single gap gives pathogens a foothold, and from there they can reach the general public. That’s why every stage of the food supply system needs to be assessed, with appropriate and effective controls in place to minimize the likelihood of transmission.

Many of the risks that feel hardest to manage, like aging equipment and chemistry that drifts mid-shift, are increasingly solvable through better technology and a stronger business case for investment.

Here’s where processors are finding the most room to improve through three key steps.

No. 1: Get strategic with sanitary design

The physical layout of a facility determines how many places pathogens like E. coli, listeria and salmonella can spread beyond the reach of traditional cleaning and sanitation protocols.

The Center for Produce Safety has documented a consistent pattern: organisms colonize floors, drains, floor-wall junctures, conveyor surfaces, brush beds and catch pans — all areas where moisture and organic material persist between cleaning cycles.

Sanitary design addresses risk at the surface. Equipment and facility surfaces that minimize crevices and standing water give pathogens fewer places to harbor and give sanitation crews a realistic chance of keeping up with biological regrowth between sanitation cycles.

Most facilities recognize this but move slowly on sanitary design upgrades because the investment is significant, and equipment replacement means downtime. The long-term production cost factors tend to favor the investment.

Facilities that operate with sanitary design principles spend less labor and chemistry fighting recurring contamination in the same problem areas — costs that compound over years of production but often do not stand out from the total cost of operation.

The food safety benefit is the primary driver, but operational efficiency gains often make capital expenditure easier to justify.

No. 2: Get strict with GMPS and traffic patterns

How people and equipment move through a facility is one of the most underestimated causes of cross-contamination.

For example, an employee walking from a raw receiving area to a finished product zone carries organisms on boots and clothing. Equipment that moves between zones without adequate sanitation protocols does the same.

Strong good manufacturing practices (GMP) programs define clear boundaries between zones and enforce the practices that keep contamination from crossing them. Dedicated footwear, equipment sanitation between uses, controlled traffic flow — these aren’t new concepts, but facilities that enforce them rigorously see measurably fewer environmental positives than those that treat them as guidelines rather than operating requirements.

The difference usually comes down to culture. Written procedures matter, but they only hold when leadership reinforces them daily and employees treat them as how the facility operates rather than rules posted on a wall.

The facilities with the strongest GMP track records have made food safety practice a visible, spoken priority from the top of the organization down to the production floor.

No. 3: Get better visibility into process water

Process water is often the largest single contact point between a facility’s sanitation program and the product itself. Flume systems and wash tanks that hold proper antimicrobial concentration at the start of production are impacted by variables that can be difficult to account for during the course of a production run.

Therefore, routine sampling is a must but often falls victim to costs, personnel shortages, lack of adherence to standards and norms, or inadequate control systems that do not have redundancy or reference testing built into the system. Facilities that rely on periodic titration to track chemistry may not catch out-of-compliance controls for hours.

Automated monitoring closes that gap by flagging deviations in real time, giving operators the ability to correct conditions before affected product gets closer to consumers. But even here, the automation is only as good as the team that maintains it. Servicing and calibrating take on amplified importance, especially if the automated measurement is the driver for a dosing control system. Having proper calibration procedures and control samples for reference comparison becomes foundational.

One way to reduce risk is to use wash water chemistries that are EPA-registered to control specific pathogens. For example, peracetic acid solutions are recognized as effective against many foodborne pathogens, and a properly vetted peracetic acid chemistry will include relevant claims on the label along with the EPA registration number. These offer a level of safety, ensuring the chemistry is killing pathogens within produce wash water at its use concentration.

However, even when products include an EPA registration and antimicrobial claims, those products can perform differently on a given produce type. Processors may want to further validate the efficacy of their process wash water system within their specific production.

Building a program that supports growth

For produce processors, improvements to pathogen control have a direct impact on food safety, potential revenue and the core resilience of the business itself. Retailers increasingly evaluate processors’ food safety programs before awarding or renewing contracts, and that scrutiny intensifies after each larger outbreak event.

Processors with documented, well-integrated pathogen control programs are better positioned to win and hold that business. Digital documentation strengthens that position. Facilities that track GMP compliance and water treatment performance through digital systems rather than paper records reduce the risk of human error and can pull audit-ready documentation on demand.

When a retailer or regulator asks for evidence that your program is working, the speed and completeness of the answer matter. Processors that integrate the aforementioned functions into a single pathogen control system are in a much better position than those that treat them as individual boxes to check.

Systematically identifying and minimizing risks — and documenting compliance with the facility’s food safety plan — demonstrates a commitment to both understanding the need for pathogen control and implementing measures that confirm its effectiveness. When every element mutually reinforces the others, processors gain the visibility and control necessary for staying ahead of pathogenic threats while building operations that protect consumers and business priorities alike.

Richard Walsh, Ph.D., is senior staff scientist for Ecolab.