It has been said, “What is old is new again.” Pre-harvest food safety seems new again, but it’s far from a new concept. For those who may be new to this term, pre-harvest references food safety on the farm, in the live animal or at any point before harvest in respect to meat and poultry safety. Back in the early 1990s I built my career studying beef pre-harvest food safety. It was a well-funded and “hot” area and many resources from federal, state, commodity and even the industry were dedicated to research and solutions prior to harvest. I will begin by saying that I fully support pre-harvest food safety efforts. However, pre-harvest strategies must be data-driven and science-based.

Some stakeholders and even some FSIS leaders have started using pre-harvest food safety as a “new” area of focus as if it will eliminate human illnesses from foodborne pathogens. The agency has no authority on the farm, but could implement strategies that incentivize mitigation at pre-harvest. While I appreciate the fact that there is an interest at pre-harvest again, there are many pieces of the puzzle that are missing. Pre-harvest must be driven by sound science and not by sound bites. There are data gaps — as described below — that must be closed for success.

1. Expansion of mitigation strategies

Over the years, science has afforded us a few options for mitigation at the pre-harvest stage. The most successful strategies are Salmonella vaccinations for poultry and probiotics for cattle. These approaches both have limitations. For poultry vaccinations, it takes time to reap the benefits as they are often serotype-specific and begin at the breeder phase. As has been observed many times, Salmonella is resilient and when one serotype declines, others take their place. There was an effort to develop vaccinations to mitigate E. coli O157:H7 in cattle, but they fell short of gaining full regulatory approval and in efficacy. Probiotics selected and screened for the specific purpose of reducing pathogens have proven effective in reducing pathogens in cattle and poultry and hold great potential for many applications. Unfortunately, there are many imposters on the market and one needs to be careful to choose products that are proven effective.

2. Impact of pre-harvest mitigation on final product safety and human health

Pre-harvest mitigations are early in the food supply chain. The goal is to reduce the risk to human health. The use of pre-harvest strategies does not alleviate the need for additional strategies and good practices during processing as well as consumer food safety strategies. Without the dedication of the entire supply chain, the benefits at pre-harvest could be lost.

3. Monitoring and validation in the field

As with any mitigation strategy, there must be a mechanism to monitor to ensure that it has been implemented properly. Additionally, while some strategies work well in small scale studies, it is critical that the strategy be validated for continuous use in the field. The monitoring and validation take time and data must be generated in real world settings.

4. Logistical considerations

In addition to the data gaps, there are some logistical challenges as well. Of prime importance is cost of the mitigation and who will pay for it. There has been much discussion over the years about the costs. Should the producer pay for a mitigation where the benefits belong to the processor/packer? The practicality also must be considered prior to industry use. The strategy must fit into the current production practices of the operation and should not be detrimental to the performance or health of the animal.

This list is not necessarily all-inclusive. There are many other broad topics to consider. I appreciate the fact that pre-harvest food safety is a point of discussion again, but there must be data to support the discussions and strategy is important. It’s time to bring all parties to the table to discuss and fill the gaps!

Sound bites or sound science?

Join for free* to continue reading.