Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:10]
A
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Food Safety Matters, the podcast for food safety professionals. I'm Stacey Atchison, publisher of Food Safety magazine, and I'm joined by my co host, Adrian Blum, our editorial director, and Bob Ferguson, president of strategic consulting. So, 1, 2, 3, happy world food Safety Day. So, yes, and if you're wondering, we did practice that because we had to, but there's always. There's always posts, too. Graham's going to make sure that we sound great for you all, and if we could, we'd have some confetti in there for you, too. It's very exciting. We're very excited to have a great episode for you and to be putting this out on World Food Safety Day, it's just so awesome. So, Adrienne, tell everybody what we got going on.
- [01:00]
B
Yeah. So in today's Sunday special episode, I am speaking with Dr. Elaine Borghe from the World Health Organization's Monitoring and Surveillance Nutrition and Food Safety unit about the WHO's release of updated foodborne illness estimates
- [01:15]
C
data in support of this year's World
- [01:17]
B
Food Safety Day theme, which is From Burden to Safe Food Everywhere. So these estimates are widely referenced and they pretty much set the benchmark for estimating the burden of foodborne illness globally. So this is pretty big news, and we hope you enjoy the interview.
- [01:34]
A
Well, we know that everybody will. Adrienne, it's just awesome. And I'm just so pleased that we can get this great interview in celebration of World Food Safety Day. And I've been thinking a lot about the theme, this year's theme, and I'd actually love to hear what you guys think about, if you've thought at all, maybe you know about the theme from Burden. It means to move from burden to solutions. And I guess coming off of the summit and seeing the great community, the food safety community, that the community itself embodies what it takes to move from burden to solution every day. By sharing the burden and working towards solutions together. By insisting in large and small ways that food safety is not a competitive issue. Sharing lessons, information and strategies that will help ensure safe food and everywhere. So y' all are Food Safety. All one and all food safety rock stars. Which reminds me, we wanted to share the song Food Safety Starts with youh and Me. That was written by Cindy Zhang, Senior Director, Global Food Safety Risk Management, Global supply chain at McDonald's, retired, who's a member of Food Safety, the Food Safety Summit's educational advisory board. So we're going to share the original version of the song Cindy compose, and not the live version that was performed at the summit by the Food Safety Collaborative Culture Crew. So I just think it'd be a perfectly joyful way to end today's episode in celebration of World Food Safety Day. And we'll add that recording at the end of the episode so you can hang in, see, you know, listen to every last little bit or, you know, jump ahead and get a little preview.
- [03:21]
D
So we're making everybody wait for that, huh?
- [03:24]
A
Well, yeah, you know, it's, you know,
- [03:26]
D
you have to stay tuned. You have to stay tuned.
- [03:28]
A
You gotta, you gotta. You know, we are conducting some serious business here too.
- [03:32]
D
That's right, that's right.
- [03:33]
A
I'm sure Dr. Borgi would appreciate us putting at the end.
- [03:38]
D
So all of you take your fingers off that fast forward. You just have to figure it out. That's right.
- [03:42]
A
There you go. All right, so. And now for the news.
- [03:48]
B
Yeah. So in our first news item this week, FDA has announced a significant update to how it oversees pesticide residues in food. The updates are designed to strengthen FDA's pesticide residue monitoring program. And through that program, the agency tests thousands of food samples for hundreds of different pesticides annually. FDA also monitors pesticides in human foods through focused surveys, the Total Diet Study, and in collaboration with states through the Laboratory Flexible Funding Model Program. Now, while EPA remains responsible for establishing pesticide tolerances, FDA conducts monitoring and enforcement activities to help ensure those limits are being met in the food supply. So under the updated approach, FDA will move toward a more centralized risk based system for evaluating pesticide residue data. The updated compliance program, which has been renamed to Pesticides in Human, Domestic and Import to reflect its now sole focus on pesticides, includes revisions that streamline the program and clarify objectives for risk based sampling, operational procedures and collaboration with regulatory partners. According to the fda, this will allow it to better identify emerging issues, prioritize resources and make greater use of modern data analysis tools. FDA has also stressed that the modernization effort does not change pesticide residue limits or existing food safety standards, but rather changes how the agency collects, reviews and uses monitoring information to support regulatory decisions.
- [05:19]
D
So a couple things, one of the things that this is related to is the pesticide residue monitoring report that comes out is that annual periodically and they test like aging, like you said, about 3,000 3,500 samples. The last one that came out there was pretty good compliance with, with pesticide residue guidelines and rules. So what they're saying here is those are not changing at all. It's just the way that the FDA runs the program and runs the analytical for the program One of the things I remember we talked about this before when the report came out the end of 25 was there is a bit of a discrepancy in compliance between domestically produced and import. So they're also have that domestic and import focus here. The other thing they mentioned in the announcement was this separates out industrial chemicals like dioxins and has they're going to have their own separate program. So you don't have people focusing on pesticides and dioxins, which can have some different analytical challenges. And they also mentioned that they are updating the equipment, the analytical equipment that they're using in the lab to be harmonized across all of the the lab analysis for pesticides. I don't know if this is be effective, but depending upon what they do there, if you have more sensitive equipment, you may have some changes in comparative data from before. I'm not sure quite how they're doing that with the type of gas chromatographs and tests that they're putting in. But it'd be interesting to see if there's any change in the detection or not the detection. Detection levels are the sensitivity of the equipment if they're only being used for pesticides. So to me this sounds like a pretty good change in focus or not change in focus, but more focus. So it sounds like a pretty good, pretty good plan.
- [07:00]
B
Okay. So. Turning now to developments on Capitol Hill, bipartisan legislation has been introduced that would expand FDA's authority over contaminated imported foods. The bill named the Destruction of Hazardous Imports act would allow FDA to order the destruction of imported food products that have been refused entry into the US because they are contaminated, adulterated or otherwise present a risk to public health. Currently, importers whose products are denied admission generally have the option to re export those shipments, also known as port shopping. Supporters of the legislation say this creates a loophole allowing unsafe products to remain in global commerce and potentially reappear elsewhere in the supply chain. The bill's sponsors say that granting FDA the authority to require destruction of certain refused shipments would strengthen food safety protections and provide the agency with an additional enforcement tool. They also contend that the measure could discourage attempts to import unsafe products into the US market in the first place. FDA's Human Foods Program requested the authority to destroy unsafe food imports. In a list of legislative proposals complementing the HFP's priority deliverables for 2026, the agency said it had observed importers exporting or attempting to re import commercial sized shipments that pose a significant public health concern, including food contaminated with pathogens and harmful chemicals. The agency specifically underlined a 2023 incident where a high volume wholesaler pled guilty to attempting to re import 2,100 cartons of frozen eels from China that were refused entry by FDA due to the presence of carcinogenic animal drugs. The safety of imported shrimp has been another special focus of legislators and regulators in recent years. A high profile food safety incident occurred in 2025 when FDA discovered radioactive isotope cesium137 in shipments of shrimp from Indonesia which were distributed nationwide under various brand names at large retailers. Shrimp is the most widely consumed seafood in the US and 94% of the country's seafood is imported. FDA also argues that the authority to destroy unsafe food imports would increase efficiency by reducing the need to involve U.S. customs and Border Protection in the seizure of unsafe FDA regulated products and allow the agency to require importers to pay the destruction costs up front.
- [09:26]
D
We talked a little bit about this off air when this story first came up and I have to admit I was not familiar with this problem at all. This idea of port shopping where things would get thrown, thrown back at the importers. I looked this up and I'm going to say this with the idea that you can't look these things up quickly and try to be an expert on it. But apparently the FDA for some years has had what's called administrative destruction authority for drugs and medical devices. So there was a. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and innovation act in 2012 gave the agency the authority to destroy, without providing an opportunity for export, any refused drug valued at 2500 or less, etc. And they go through all this. So the FDA has the authority for drugs and medical devices but not for food. So it doesn't count for food. And I don't know why it does not count for food or food was not included. But it looks like that was something that was overlooked or just a loophole that the Human Foods program is trying to close. So this makes a lot of sense that they should be able to do that in the same way that they want to do this with drugs. The 25, there's a 20$500 threshold, which I also don't understand where this moves into Customs and Border Patrol authority. So there's some mixed authorities going on there as well.
- [10:43]
A
Yeah, that part's interesting, but I think it's a good idea that they close the loophole. So it sounds like even though they were speaking of the need to involve U.S. customs and Border Patrol, it's probably at that $2,500 level. Is probably still going to wind up over there. I mean we were kind of joking too about, well, we could each individ usually import that much on our own. It's not much of a shipment if it's under $2,500. So anyway, usually these things go back
- [11:18]
D
to some other kind of legislation where that number was set or something. But you know, who knows where that came from? I'm not sure. The one thing I will, I will notice is since this happened and Adrian also mentioned the cesium issue from last year, two things have happened. One is in Baton Rouge, state administrators or state, the representatives have petitioned the USDA to buy more US Shrimp as opposed to taking imported shrimp because of these, these quality issues that they've been seeing. And also in Washington, senators from Louisiana and Alabama have questioned some of the import issues and how these are being dealt with. And they have petitioned several of the certification groups within the seafood industry saying what's going on here? What's happening? Why are we seeing this and why don't we pay more attention to domestically raised shrimp? So this issue with the shrimp is going to be around for a little bit even regardless of what happens with the FDA and the human foods program. But it's, it's going to, the volume on this is going to stay up for a while, I think.
- [12:19]
A
Yeah. And the one thing that I had asked Bob about too was this idea of I find it interesting that you could pork shop. Like how does, how would that even work if everybody's using the same standards, you know, a methodology for inspection or testing. I guess, you know, it's the age old metrics thing. Like it's still one person measuring is going to get a different result. You know, they're going to get a different result in Louisiana than they would in San Pedro. I mean, I don't know, but I guess it happens. Not surprising.
- [12:55]
D
You made a good point right before we started to record that. If you present something at a port, does that cease to be what you own and can. Does the FDA have the authority to confiscate it? And it looks like they didn't.
- [13:08]
A
That's what they're saying.
- [13:09]
D
Right. So they don't. So they can just take the boat and go to another port. Maybe it's in another country, maybe it's in another city in the U.S. who knows?
- [13:18]
A
Well, but they're saying they don't. They know we're going to seize it.
- [13:23]
D
Well, now they'd like the authority to seize it and destroy it. Yeah, exactly.
- [13:26]
A
Yeah, but only if it's under $25
- [13:30]
D
or they cooperate with CBP. Whatever happens there. Exactly.
- [13:34]
A
There you go. Right? Well, they're working on it. There you go.
- [13:38]
C
Okay.
- [13:38]
B
So next up in news, New research is challenging some common assumptions about natural food colorants. A series of large scale epidemiological studies conducted by a team of French researchers has suggested associations between food additives, specifically colorants and preservatives, and an increased risk of certain health harms like cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Notably, the study found increased risk for diabetes and cancer to be associated with the consumption of both artificial and natural dyes. So researchers at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research generated data on the exposure to specific food additives and the incidence of chronic diseases in population based studies. Until now, this knowledge gap had remained unaddressed despite the widespread use of colorants and preservatives in the global food market. The researchers analyzed 15 years of nutrient sante data spanning information from more than 100,000 volunteers as well as the European Food Safety Authority's Additive Use and exposure data to calculate exposure estimates for food dyes and preservatives. Food colorants as a whole were associated with a 38% increase in the risk of type 2 diabetes among those with the highest consumption and among the different types of dyes. Caramel colors were associated with a 43% increase and carotenoid colors were associated with a 39% increase. When compared to cancer incidence. Increased levels of food dye exposure were associated with a 14% greater risk of cancers in general and a 21% greater risk of breast cancer and a 32% greater risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Notably, beta carotene was associated with a 16% increase in the risk of cancer overall and a 41% increase in the risk of breast cancer, and plain caramel was associated with a 15% increase in the risk of cancer overall. So when asked about the findings relevance to natural food dyes, two of the researchers explained to Food Safety magazine why additives derived from natural sources may carry health risks that are not associated with the consumption of the same substance in its original plant form. Substances can exert different effects depending on the matrix in which it's ingested. Since the food properties affect absorption and metabolism by both microbiota and host, Physical and chemical interactions of other substances also play a role. So, for example, the researchers cited previous studies showing that high dose beta carotene isolated in dietary supplements in interaction with tobacco or asbestos exposure causally increases lung cancer risk while no association was detected for natural beta carotene in fruits and vegetables. The findings are consistent with those of two other recent studies based on Nutrinet sante data, which recently observed associations between the consumption of preservatives and the risk of cancer and type 2 diabetes.
- [16:38]
A
Well, I didn't know I was going to need a degree. For today's news. Excuse me, I'll be right back.
- [16:48]
D
Well, Stacy, I'm going to pat you on the back here because we've talked about this for the last couple of years here on the podcast that with petroleum based dyes being replaced by natural dyes, we talked about the fact that they still need to be tested and approved. Just because something is natural, which frankly, I don't think has an agreed upon definition. But just because something is natural doesn't mean it's. It's okay. You know, the joke I make sometimes is I wouldn't want to eat ground poison ivy or something like that. But it's certainly natural. But you don't want to put it in your food. So it has nothing to do with the definition of natural. So this is, this shouldn't be a surprise. I'd be interested to know more about some of these causal links with the dyes and where they're coming from. But this shouldn't be a surprise. And I think I mentioned a second ago the natural doesn't really have a definition. My understanding, and this could be wrong is that I don't think the FDA has a definition. They do.
- [17:45]
A
Yeah.
- [17:45]
D
Okay.
- [17:46]
A
There is.
- [17:46]
D
I thought there was more of a policy.
- [17:48]
A
I think it's in. Well, I think it might be defined. I'm really reaching and I wish I had an informed answer for you, but I. But I believe that it's in the register, you know, like the Federal Register. The Federal Register. I think there is. I think there is a definition for natural. Yeah. Because it was, it came up a lot, you know, with natural and organic, all that, the difference between the two. So I do believe it is defined. The stuff that makes me. There are two things that I drill down on here. The effects. Substances can exert different effects depending on the matrix. So obviously when you combine it with tobacco and asbestos.
- [18:31]
D
Well,
- [18:33]
A
I'm sorry. So that says to me, well, when. So we're back to, in my mind, highly ultra processed food. We're back to processed foods. Right. So it's not just, to me, it's not necessarily just whether it's a natural colorant or a chemical colorant. It's the fact that it's this highly Processed food.
- [18:59]
C
Well, I think one of the interesting things about that particular study that the authors talked about with Bailey in writing this story was that basically it was like if you looked at people who are exposed to tobacco or asbestos without having beta carotene thrown into the mix, it was a certain percentage would be associated with developing these types of, you
- [19:22]
B
know, cancer or whatever, right?
- [19:23]
C
But then people who routinely also had beta carotene in their diet via supplement or whatever had this, like, not an insignificant percentage jump in, right? And so people who were also, you know, you know, maybe smokers, the tobacco and had the beta carotene exposure, then
- [19:42]
B
their risk for, you know, a certain
- [19:43]
C
type of cancer was, you know, greater
- [19:46]
B
in a significant percentage increase.
- [19:48]
C
So that was, that was how they explained it, which I thought was very interesting. I mean, more, you know, readers can find, the audience can find more details in the actual story, which of course will be in a link in our show Notes.
- [19:57]
B
But it's definitely worth reviewing because this is a pretty in depth story.
- [20:00]
C
And the studies themselves, which are linked
- [20:02]
B
in the article as well, are worth looking over too, because they give much
- [20:07]
C
more information than, you know, we would.
- [20:09]
B
A much deeper dive than we would
- [20:10]
C
do in, you know, a news segment. But definitely take a look at that link.
- [20:16]
A
Well, and I also then the microbiota, right? And the microbiomes and gut health, I also, that just, you know, goes ding, ding, ding, ding, ding for me as far as the differences with people and our general gut health. So I guess the more we're drilling down on this stuff, the more we learn about what the impacts are and what health means, what is a healthy system for us and how do we improve our systems. So it is very, very interesting.
- [20:51]
B
Okay. And so before we go today, a new study from researchers in Washington University in St. Louis suggested that sorbitol, a sugar alcohol commonly used as a low calorie sweetener, sugar free candies, gum, protein bars and other reduced sugar foods may contribute to metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease, or malsd under certain conditions. Malsd, which was formerly known as non alcoholic fatty liver disease, is associated with obesity, diabetes and metabolic dysfunction. So the researchers found that when gut bacteria capable of breaking down sorbitol are absent or overwhelmed, the sorbitol can accumulate and be converted into fructose in the liver, a sugar already known to contribute to fatty liver disease. So the findings from the study challenge the assumption that sugar alcohols are metabolically inert and harmless alternatives to traditional sugars. The study also suggested that the gut microbiome plays a key role in preventing sorbitol related liver effects by degrading the compound before it reaches the liver. The researchers emphasized that the results don't mean sorbitol should be avoided entirely, but they do highlight the need for further investigation into how sugar substitutes interact with gut microbes and metabolic health.
- [22:08]
A
Well, this story has gotten a tremendous amount of uptake on our website, so you'll definitely want to obviously creating a great deal of interest there for people to review and more on those microbiomes that gut health.
- [22:24]
D
Again, those last two stories had a lot in common because you get these ideas, you get these words like associated with or causal and there's an awful lot of moving parts that is stuff when you get into it. And it's interesting to know how this is all going to come out. And there's a lot of research on sweeteners because there's a lot of the artificial sweeteners now. And I think, you know, a lot of people tell you there's not enough known. So again, this is one of those things where if you think there's a real simple A equals B kind of answer a direct causal relationship, it doesn't come out that way. So again, a lot of moving parts on both of these, lots of variables, all the different additives and, and sugar substitutes. There's a lot to these.
- [23:02]
A
Hats off to the scientists who work so hard to bring us this data.
- [23:06]
D
Yeah, that's right. And then, and also the manufacturers are all going to have a lot on their hands because if you start to, we talk about this all the time, we start to reformulate to remove Sorbitol. What, what are you replacing it with? Is it better? Is it the same? It's going to be interesting.
- [23:20]
A
Yeah.
- [23:21]
D
Yep.
- [23:22]
A
So as always, there are links to all the articles that we've referenced in our show notes and if you don't already, we invite you to follow us on our social channels, LinkedIn X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. Just search for Food Safety magazine. And to take a deeper dive into all the great content that we offer, Visit our website, food-safety.com okay, now it's time for Adrienne's interview with Dr. Elaine Borghe, unit head for monitoring and surveillance nutrition and food safety at the World health organization or WHO. Dr. Borgi contributes to coordination of efforts for nutrition and food safety data management, generation of regional and global level estimates and data sharing tools and the facilitation of interdepartment data and methods harmonization. She holds a PhD from the Statistics Department of the University of Wisconsin and a Master's degree in Statistics from the State University of Campanas in Brazil. Previously to her position at the who, she was a lecturer at the State University of Campanus for 12 years. In addition to teaching, she provided statistical support to research and agricultural planning for rural sustainable development. And now here's their discussion.
- [24:38]
C
Well, today is World Food Safety Day, which is an initiative hosted by the World Health Organization or the Whole and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations or the FAO to promote collective action on food safety. And this year WHO is releasing updated Foodborne Illness Estimates data in support of this year's World Food Safety Day theme, which is From Burden to Safe Food Everywhere. And here with me today is Dr. Elaine Borghe to discuss the release of this benchmark data, what's new and how the data will help support the mission of World Food Safety Day. So welcome to the podcast, Dr. Borghi. It's great to have you here.
- [25:22]
E
Thank you very much Adrian for inviting me and giving the opportunity to speak about this event and the release of the new estimates. It's a pleasure to be here.
- [25:35]
C
Absolutely. We're so happy you're here. So now WHO's Foodborne Illness Estimates set the benchmark for estimating the burden of foodborne illness globally. Can you walk us through the origins of this initiative and how the methodology for calculating this data has evolved over time?
- [25:54]
E
Yes, for sure. A little bit of History this work began two decades ago when WHO recognized a fundamental gap. Countries had no consistent science based way to understand how many units, hospitalizations and deaths were truly caused by unsafe food. Foodborne diseases are notoriously underreported and under diagnosed, often difficult to trace back to food, and in some cases, such as cancer linked to long term exposures, the effects may not appear for years. Our first global estimates, released in 2015, brought together epidemiologists, food safety specialists and data scientists from around the world to build a harmonized methodology capable of capturing the real burden, including cases that never made it to the official reporting system. This work, led by the Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group named sferg, which developed the standard approach for data collection, gap filling, modeling and source attribution. The recent mandate given to WHO by its Member States at the World health assembly in 2020 for regularly monitoring and reporting the global burden of foodborne and zoonotic disease at national, regional and international levels, emphasized the need to not only update the estimate, but to strengthen further the underlying data for that level of granularity. For the 2026 edition that we are launching on the for the that we launched on the 4th of June, we strengthen and further standardize the entire process. Methodologically, the new estimates are far more robust. In addition to including more hazards, a set of 42 in the current edition, we strengthened and standardized data collection, updated source attribution models and incorporated time trend analysis. The assessment now integrates epidemiology, exposure science, toxicology and probabilistic modeling in a more cohesive way.
- [28:40]
C
Well, thanks for that background, Dr. Borghi. And you know, I know that the 2026 release of the data also includes the first ever national level estimates covering the years 2000 to 2021. That's quite a long time period. So my question is, what are the most significant advancements or new insights compared to previous editions?
- [29:03]
E
Well, this 2026 Elise represents a major leap forward. For the first time, we are providing time series, as you just said, giving countries a much clearer, clearer picture of how foodborne disease burdens have evolved over two decades. This will help counters to scale up their monitoring systems toward the reduction of the foodborne disease and use the estimates in a more actionable way. Among the 42 biological and chemical hazards, there are four metals associated with non communicable disease. This significant shift, it moves food safety beyond its additional focus on acute infections and highlights its role in long term health risks, including chronic disease outcomes. Another important advancement that I can mention is the level of counter engagement. Who conducted this time? Extensive consultations open to all member states and provided a series of webinars also for national focal points to increase engagement rate from early stage. This not only improved transparency, but also brought in additional national data. This makes the 2026 estimate more grounded in real world evidence and more useful for countries seeking to targeted interventions.
- [30:48]
C
So it sounds like, you know, getting all the stakeholders involved really early was key to, you know, compiling this data. And I guess that leads into my next question for you is, you know, how does who compile and validate such comprehensive global, regional and national data? And what role do international partners and surveillance systems play in this process?
- [31:11]
E
Yes, well, compiling these estimates, it was a massive undertaking.
- [31:17]
C
Yeah, I can imagine.
- [31:20]
E
We draw on thousands of data points from surveillance systems, population based studies and the scientific literature. And we work closely with academic institutions, national authorities and international aid agencies to ensure that data are both robust and comparable across countries. Our primary evidence base comes from a series of systematic reviews carded out by 19 institutions and more than 120 scientists worldwide, as supplemented with additional data sets from partners such as UNEP and the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation from the outset, we established a standardized review protocol registered in Prospero with scienceano, the Belgium Institute for Health, providing oversight. To ensure methodological rigor and consistency, a technical advisory group independent experts further reviewed the evidence and modeling approaches. During the count consultation, member states were invited to review preliminary results, review the data sources used for generating those estimates, and contribute additional information not captured in the systematic reviews. As you can imagine, this process strengthen the accuracy, transparency and relevance of the final estimates, ensuring they reflect both global scientific evidence but also counter level realities.
- [33:09]
C
Yeah, that is certainly a massive undertaking and you know, the number of people and teams involved, you know, certainly extremely impressive. Now as we said before, the World Food Safety Day theme this year is From Burden to Solutions Safe Food Everywhere. So how do these new foodborne illness burden estimates help translate data into actionable food safety interventions?
- [33:33]
E
Yeah, that is the key question and the answer is that these new estimates are designed to help counties move from simply understanding the burden to taking concrete action. By using the Disability Adjusted Life Year or DALI as we call metric, we can compare the health impact of very different foodborne hazards in a single scale. Whether a country is dealing primarily with infection agents or with chemical exposure linked to chronic disease, DALYs make it clear which hazards hazards cause the greatest harm and therefore demand priority attention for each of the countries. When adapted to national context, the estimates become a practical tool for risk ranking, shaping evidence based policies and guiding target interventions and resource allocation. They also strengthened the foundation for building more effective control system food control systems. But data alone is not enough. Turning evidence into solution requires a strong political commitment and coordinated actions across sectors food safety, agriculture, environment and health. The health sector in particular plays a key role in improving access to care and reducing disability of outcomes. Finally, these estimates help raise awareness among policymakers and consumers alike. They support educational efforts, for example, that encourage safer food practices and drive behavior change. Together, all these elements, evidence, policy coordination and awareness are how we translate burden estimates into real improvements in food safety and public health.
- [35:52]
C
So as you said, these data are intended to support governments, industry and other stakeholders. So you touched a little bit on this just now, but looking at how the different groups are using these foodborne illness burden estimates to prioritize risks, allocate resources and strengthen food safety systems. Can you comment on any of that?
- [36:14]
E
Yes, of course. How is another very important question. And different groups can use these estimates in ways that complement one another. For government, for example, the data provide a solid evidence base for national risk ranking. As we Said. By quantifying the health impact of each hazard using common metrics, counties can clearly identify which hazard food combination require urgent attention and design more targeted, efficient policies and interventions for industry. In turn, the estimates underscore how essential they their role is in keeping the food chain safe. The data help guide decisions on risk management measurement measures, sorry investment in safer production process and alignment with national international food safe priorities for public health and food safety authorities. The estimates support the strengthening of food control systems. By integrating evidence across sectors, they reinforce the need for coordinated action bringing together agriculture, food production, environment and health to address both infectious and non communicable disease risks linked to food. Finally, these estimates are powerful also tools for communication. By making the burden of foodborne disease visible, they help engage consumers and civil society, inform educational efforts and support behavior change. In this way, the data not only guide policy but also help build a culture of food safety across society.
- [38:23]
C
And you know, I think that key piece that you mentioned about making foodborne illness more visible and the data, what the data do to help support that, that kind of leads into another question I have for you, which is, you know, these 2026 estimates also highlight differences in the burden of foodborne illness across regions and different population populations. So what do these disparities tell us about where targeted interventions are most needed right now?
- [38:52]
E
Indeed, the burden of foodborne illness is not evenly distributed and these disparities tell us something important. Foodborne diseases are largely preventable and the strong political commitment and effective action make a measurable, measurable difference. For example, in many regions, foodborne diarrhea diseases, especially among children under five, remain the dominant contributor to the burden, far outweighing the impact of chemical hazards. But this pattern is not universal. In parts of Southeast Asia, for instance, exposure to metals such as arsenic and lead contributes substantially to the overall burden. These differences point to very different interventions needs. Some risk can be reduced through consumer level actions such as following who's 5 keys to save per foot. It's a very simple set of guidance guidelines that are very super helpful. Others, like reducing metals contamination, require upstream solutions at the production and environmental levels beyond the regional patterns. The real value lies in drilling down to national data, understanding each which population are most affected, what foods or hazards drive the burden, and where target interventions will have the greatest impact is key. That is why identifying not only the magnitude of the burden, but also the sources of dietary exposure is so critical. It allows counties to tailor solutions that address their specific risks and protect the populations most affected.
- [40:56]
C
And you know, I know that the 2026 estimates also include economic burden data. So how important is it to quantify the financial impact of foodborne disease? And you know, how can that influence policy and investment decisions?
- [41:12]
E
Yes, quantifying the economic burden is essential because it makes clear that foodborne disease is not only a public public health issue, it is a development issue. When you translate illnesses and mortality into financial terms, policymakers can see the broader socio economic consequences of unsafe food from lost productivity to increased health care costs and disruptions in trade and agri food systems. This evidence strengthens the case for investing in food safety both through regulatory measures and through non regulatory approaches that improve practices across the food chain. The World Bank's 2019 report named the Safe Food Imperative was a landmark in this regard. It highlighted that many low and middle income countries face competing demands for limited public resources, yet often underestimate the wide ranging impacts of foodborne hazards. By quantifying the economic burden, we help governments better understand the return on investment in food safety and support more strategic long term planning. In short, economic data make the cost of inaction visible and that visibility is a powerful, powerful driver for smarter policy and stronger food safety systems.
- [43:01]
C
So we talked about heightening the visibility of foodborne disease and also you spoke a little bit about, you know, how these data could influence both regulatory and non regulatory measures. So I guess that kind of leads into my last question for you today is, you know, looking ahead, how does WHO envision these updated estimates will shape global food safety policy, surveillance and collaboration in the years following this World Food Safety Day?
- [43:31]
E
We see these updated estimates as catalysts for strengthening evidence based food safety worldwide. When countries understand the magnitude and sources of their foodborne disease burden, they are better equipped to design policies, target surveillance and build risk based food safety systems that are and resilience and responsive. The national level data in particularly will help governments monitor trends over time and evaluate whether interventions are truly reducing units and saving lives. But the estimates are only one part of the picture. WHO also coordinates a broad set of initiatives that that helps countries translate evidence into action. Programs such as Infosun, the International Food Safety Network play a critical role in rapidly share information during food safety emergencies, enabling countries to respond faster and prevent and prevent further harm. The WHO alliance for Food Safety brings together governments, industry, academia and civil society to strengthen capacity and promote coordinated multi sector outflows. Our surveillance and response efforts, including work on early warning systems and laboratory capacity, help counties detect hazards sooner and act more effectively. Together, these initiatives ensure that the new burden estimates do not sit on a shelf. They feed directly into stronger prevention, quicker response, and deeper collaboration across borders. Looking ahead, we expect these estimates to shape global food safety policy for years to come by providing a common evidence base that unites countries, partners and sectors around the shared goal of safer food everywhere.
- [46:11]
C
Well, thank you Dr. Borgi, for explaining how not only does the release of these updated foodborne illness burden estimates make foodborne illness more visible in more ways than ever before, but also how these data can be used as a springboard for further collaboration, policy and closer surveillance of foodborne illness. I really appreciate you coming on the podcast to us to speak with us about World Food Safety Day and the release of the WHO updated Foodborne Illness burden Estimates. Certainly incredibly important data to have and be influencing a lot of, you know, policy, activities, initiatives, collaboration. So thank you so much for sharing the details of the methodology and the new release of the data with our listeners and also for coming on to celebrate World Food Safety Day. So it's wonderful to have you here.
- [47:08]
E
Thank you very much for having me and for helping us to amplify the message around these estimates and the food safety everywhere. Thank you.
- [47:19]
C
Absolutely. Thank you.
- [47:21]
A
Thanks again to Dr. Elaine Borghe for joining us on the podcast today. And of course, thanks to all of you for listening. And you know we love hearing from you, so please don't ever hesitate to send us your questions or suggestions to podcastood safety.com or post a note on LinkedIn, X, Facebook or Instagram. We're always pleased to get your feedback and to make sure that new and bonus episodes magically appear in your podcast player. All you have to do is click that Follow or Subscribe button in the player of your choice and presto. Bingo. Many, many hunters, hundreds of episodes of fear. And while you're there, please throw some stars our way by rating the podcast, especially if you enjoyed it. It only takes a moment and it's good for everyone. And that's it for us today. Our next regular episode will post on June 23rd. In the meantime, take good care of yourselves and those around you. We'll talk to you then. Oh, and now, as promised, we're going to play you out with Food Safety Starts with you and me, the original song written and produced by Cindy Jeong. Thanks again to Cindy for this wonderful gift to our community. Enjoy.
- [48:39]
F
From the fun to the fork We've got a mission in our hands Keep, keep it clean, keep it safe that's how the journey stands Hand wash, sanitize, check your temp and time Every step we take keeps the food line fine Validation, verification, science leads the way data drives protection every single single day from soil to store from lab to line it's trust we build one meal at a time Food safety starts with you and me together strong from sea to sea farm to four we all agree Safe food safe world that's our legacy. Culture's not a checklist it's the heart and soul we share Doing right when no one's watching shows we care Environmental checks has it on the floor we're raising the bar forevermore Me, I and J are changing the game Smarter systems safer need validation what do we see A world free from illness that's our
- [50:18]
D
dream
- [50:21]
F
Consumers are counting Their trust runs deep we promise promise to protect every bite they eat it's not competition it's collaboration for safer food across every nation Food safety starts with you and me together strong in harmony from farm to fork we'll always be be guardians of trust for humanity Safe food safe world that's how it should be Food safety starts with you and me. It.