Time for a Revolution in Risk Analysis in Food Safety: Toward a Harmonized, Unified Model

The Crossroads We’re Facing

For decades, risk analysis in the food industry has been fragmented. Food safety, food fraud, and food defense have each been treated as separate silos, with their own risk models such as HACCP, Preventive Controls, TACCP, and VACCP. They have been running in parallel but rarely in harmony. In the end, we have built too many models all aimed at the same purpose: protecting consumers and delivering safe, trustworthy food. What we get instead is duplication, complexity, and missed opportunities. The time has come to bring them together into one integrated, data-driven approach.

What’s Wrong with the Status Quo

The cracks in the current system are easy to see, and they reveal themselves in several critical ways.

For food safety, the HACCP approach gives priority to critical control points, but many recalls and incidents are not simply failures at those points. They often trace back to weak infrastructure, poor hygiene, inadequate sanitation, gaps in environmental control, and other prerequisite programs. When these foundations are under-prioritized, hazards are far more likely to emerge downstream. The Preventive Controls framework recognizes this, but in practice the basics are still too often overlooked.

Another weakness lies in the way risk models remain fragmented. Silos dominate. Food safety teams may have no visibility into fraud vulnerabilities, while those focused on TACCP may not fully understand contamination pathways. When a risk surface shifts, whether because of a new supplier, a climate shock, or geopolitical instability, the ripple effects often go unnoticed.

One of the other main gaps in today’s risk models is efficiency. Different frameworks demand separate audits, datasets, and reports. Time and resources are wasted collecting overlapping information, and still the blind spots remain. The connections between issues, such as how a process deviation can create openings for fraud or sabotage, often get missed because no single framework captures the whole picture.

There is also a gap between regulation and reality. Regulations often still expect separate assessments, but that is not how risks show up in real life. A fraudulent substitution might look like an economic crime, but it can also create a serious safety hazard. A deliberate vulnerability can turn into a contamination risk. You can pass an audit and still be blindsided by a cascade of threats.

Toward a Holistic Risk Assessment Model

What we need is a harmonized model that brings contamination, threats, vulnerabilities, and human factors together in one framework.

At its foundation, this means building an integrated risk structure where HACCP, Preventive Controls, TACCP, and VACCP are not treated as separate checklists but as interdependent parts of the same system. It also means creating coherence in data: common definitions, consistent thresholds, and systems that allow information to flow seamlessly across functions.

Just as critical is the role of culture and behavior. No framework will succeed unless people are part of the equation. Risk analysis must include how employees perceive risk, how leaders reinforce accountability, and how culture shapes the consistent execution of controls.

For this approach to be effective, the model must then be endorsed and agreed upon by regulators, industry, and academia, creating a shared foundation that can be widely adopted. This alignment ensures not only consistency but also credibility across the global food system.

The Benefits: What Happens When We Get It Right

When we bring our approach together into one model, the payoff is real. Systems become more resilient because risks are visible and managed as a whole. Efficiency improves as duplication gives way to more targeted actions. Transparency builds trust with regulators, partners, and consumers. And most importantly, when risks are properly understood, they can be controlled more effectively, which means fewer incidents and fewer costly market actions.

Call to Action: Leadership That Sees the Whole Picture

This evolution is not optional. The food industry is at a turning point. It is time to move past fragmented assessments and toward a harmonized risk model that combines science, data, governance, and human behavior. By doing this, we can strengthen resilience, protect public health, and build the trust on which our food system depends.

Final Thought

We need to stop thinking of risk in parts and start thinking of it as a whole. Just as food safety itself is shifting from reactive to predictive and preventive, risk analysis must also evolve. It should no longer be a collection of disconnected checklists but a unified, intelligent, living system.

The stakes are high, but the opportunity is even greater. Those who lead this change will set the new standard for the industry. The question is: who will step up and lead?