Posted on

Should fluoride be added to our water?

Debates are hitting headlines as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voices new concerns about fluoride in public water systems. But what does the science actually say? And how should we as consumers evaluate the risks and benefits?

If your water supply is sourced from a municipal reservoir, you’re consuming more than just water with every glass you drink from your tap — you’re also getting a carefully regulated dose of fluoride in addition, depending on the water source, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium It is fluoride that has quietly helped prevent millions of cavities over the past 80 years.

But some now claim that fluoride may be harming children’s brains. So, what exactly are we drinking — and is it safe?

What Is Fluoride and How Does It Get into Our Water?

Fluoride is the naturally occurring anion of the element fluorine, found in rock, soil, plants, and ultimately in your water sources. It is known for reversing demineralization, strengthening tooth enamel, and repairing tooth decay.

Therefore, for tooth care, particularly for children, across the population, water systems carefully add fluoride to reach a safe and effective concentration of 0.7 mg/L — the level recommended by both the CDC and U.S. Public Health Service.

Municipal systems use one of three fluoride compounds:

  • Fluorosilicic acid (most common)
  • Sodium fluorosilicate
  • Sodium fluoride

As one water-treatment engineer explains: “We monitor fluoride levels constantly to hit that sweet spot—enough to protect teeth, but far below levels that could discolor or harm them.”

Consider this:

Fluoridating a standard barrel of drinking water requires just a few drops of fluoride — enough to protect your teeth with every sip. For those homes on well water, pediatricians often give fluoride as a small daily tablet to protect teeth.

The Proven Benefits of Water Fluoridation

Since Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to fluoridate its water in 1945, fluoride has led to a dramatic 25%–35% reduction in cavities across children and adults. The CDC calls community water fluoridation one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

The economic impact is equally significant: for every dollar spent on fluoridation, communities save about $20 in avoided dental treatment costs — preventing painful procedures, school absences, and financial burdens, particularly for lower-income families.

RFK Jr.’s Challenge: The Risks, Studies, and the Stakes

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now leading the Department of Health and Human Services, has emerged as one of fluoride’s most vocal critics, calling it “industrial waste” and suggesting links to lowered IQ, thyroid dysfunction, bone cancer, and neurological harm.

At the center of his argument are two studies:

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2024 Review: This cautiously reported that fluoride levels at or above 1.5 mg/L may be associated with slight IQ declines in children.
Additionally, a 2025 Meta-Analysis by Philippe Grandjean (Annual Review of Public Health) suggested potential neurodevelopmental risks from fluoride exposure during pregnancy — again, at exposure levels higher than U.S. public drinking water standards.

What the Science Says: Context and Dosage Matter

Here’s the catch: the levels referenced in these studies far exceed the fluoride levels used in U.S. water systems.

  • Standard U.S. fluoridation level: 0.7 mg/L
  • Levels where potential risks appear (in studies): 1.5–2.0 mg/L
  • Average adult daily water consumption: ~2.5 liters/day
  • Fluoride intake at U.S. standards: ~1.75 mg/day

To approach the fluoride intake levels associated with possible neurotoxicity, an adult would need to consume over 11 liters or about 3 gallons of fluoridated water per day, every day, for years.

For comparison, an adult African elephant drinks 50 to 100 liters of water daily. To reach concerning fluoride levels, you’d need to drink more like an elephant than a typical person at your kitchen sink, without a filter, daily, for years. You’re more likely suffer from fluoride-induced nephrotoxicity before finishing up those 21 gallons a week.

Even at these higher exposure levels, these studies RFK references only observe correlations — not causation — and often rely on data from countries where fluoride levels in untreated, unregulated, groundwater naturally reach 5–10 mg/L, which is many times higher than U.S. water systems allow.

As the American Academy of Pediatrics summarizes, fluoridation is safe. Studies that suggest harm use higher doses than what’s found in U.S. water supplies, and the risks are far outweighed by the benefits for children’s oral health.

Headlines vs. The Truth: What Experts Say

What the Headlines Say:

What the Experts Say:

  • Dr. Steven Levy, University of Iowa: “Having a very low level of fluoride in the water was substantially protecting against cavities.”
  • FactCheck.org: “The mineral fluoride, at the right dose, has been shown to reduce the risk of tooth decay… The CDC and multiple expert groups endorse water fluoridation as a safe way to reduce tooth decay.”
  • Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, U.S. Surgeon General: “Fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay and improve oral health for everyone, regardless of income or access to dental care.”
  • Dr. Myron Allukian, American Public Health Association: “Fluoride at the level used in community water systems has repeatedly been shown to be safe and effective.”

The Importance of Verification: A Reminder for All of Us

Fluoridation works. At properly regulated levels, it is safe, effective, and supported by over 80 years of real-world evidence. While RFK Jr.’s concerns raise legitimate questions for ongoing study, they focus on fluoride exposures far above what U.S. communities use.

We all deserve clean, safe water — but skepticism alone is not enough.

As consumers, parents, and voters, we must:

  • Verify claims by reading studies directly, not just headlines
  • Understand the dose: what levels are truly harmful versus helpful
  • Look at real-world data: 80 years without unexplained neurotoxic effects
  • Trust but confirm: science evolves, but so do misleading narratives

Beyond Fluoride: Why Food and Science Literacy Matter

At Dirt to Dinner, we believe deeply in understanding not only what we eat and drink, but also how public science is communicated. Fluoride is one of many public health debates clouded by partial information. So are:

  • GMOs — proven safe across 300+ studies, yet still widely misunderstood
  • Pesticide Residues — often far below safety thresholds but poorly explained
  • Hormones in Meat and Dairy — regulated and minimal, but still widely feared
  • Seed Oils — debated endlessly online but rarely with full scientific nuance
  • Food Labeling — buzzwords like “natural” or “non-GMO” often cause confusion
Posted on

Can we trust TikTok with our health?

As someone starting their “mom” journey in the early 2010s, I recall several resources in my arsenal at all times: my son’s pediatrician, Dr. Karp’s book, “The Happiest Toddler on the Block”, and – of course – Google. Those ad hoc searches led me down some pretty interesting paths, many of which ended at “mommy blogs” at that time.

Often buffeted with lovely recipes that skillfully hide veggies into rich, decadent desserts and colorful snacks, these sites provided many answers to my health-related questions. However, these answers were often overly complicated, counterintuitive, and sometimes just downright wrong.

For instance, having my kid eat sugar-laden yogurt won’t make him like fruits more—it’ll make him scream like a banshee until I give him some sickly sweet treat. That overly optimistic brownie batter mixed with “secret” avocados and bananas will end up flung across the room—guaranteed.

The Evolution of Health (Mis)information

Today, we’re looking to different sources for information in seconds. Yes, we still have those mom blogs to refer to, as well as Reddit and other sites providing anecdotal advice, but most of us are now led to newer channels in our pursuit for knowledge – social media.

Whether through friends, family, or our own enjoyment, social media – TikTok, in particular – is rapidly becoming the leading source for news, trends…and seemingly everything else. In fact, 2025 is the first recorded year of Americans accessing news via social media and video networks more than TV news and news websites/apps (see above chart).

And for TikTok alone, one in five adults gets their news here – a staggering clip from just 3% back in 2020. But where TikTok really excels in terms of views and viral spread is in the personal health space.

From “soupifying” your meals to embracing a meat-only diet, the platform is shaping how millions of us think about food and health as it relates to our bodies and our families’ overall well-being.

So, which trends make sense, and which ones should we scroll past? And how can we tell the difference? Here’s a breakdown of some recent TikTok health trends, what some related studies have shown, and what experts recommend.

We also included some tips to increase our odds of listening to those who actually know our food system and how to better navigate through the muck.

Water-Based Cooking

Here’s a “throwback” trend that’s been around since man’s introduction to fire: cooking everything with water—specifically boiling, steaming, and poaching. Influencers are calling it a “hack” for retaining nutrients, ageing backward, and clarifying skin. Others are just calling it “soup”.

While the idea isn’t anything new, it’s not wrong. Water-based methods like steaming can help preserve delicate nutrients like vitamin C and B vitamins. A study in the Journal of Food Science found that steaming retained more antioxidants than microwaving or boiling.

Furthermore, a study in Cell Reports Medicine stated that boiling and steaming improved lipid profiles and reduced advanced glycation end products, a biomarker for accelerated aging and chronic diseases.

The Carnivore Diet

Though this diet may sound revolutionary, it’s just another iteration of the ever-evolving low-carb trend…just with a lot of meat. This extreme, anti-vegan eating plan, popularized by some influencers and even public figures, includes consuming only animal products, with some also eating fish, eggs, select full-fat dairy products, and organ meats.

Advocates claim it reduces inflammation, improves mental clarity, and helps manage glucose levels, and promotes weight loss. However, the reported benefits of this diet are more anecdotal than clinical. In fact, multiple studies cite the dangers of this diet, including increased risk of heart disease and certain cancers, as well as digestive and kidney problems.

While an elimination diet of sorts may offer short-term symptom relief for autoimmune or gut conditions, most experts warn that the carnivore diet is unsustainable, as it lacks fiber, vitamin C, plant antioxidants, and other key elements for long-term health.

The Balkan Breakfast

This Mediterranean-style meal trend features fresh items like cucumbers, tomatoes, feta cheese, sourdough, eggs, and pickled veggies, all displayed charcuterie-style to start your day.

This trend is rooted in Balkan and Eastern European tradition, and TikTok health influencers praise it for being fresh, hearty, and colorful.

Though putting together such a spread takes some time, there’s good reason to go ahead with this trend. Nutrition experts love it: it’s high in fiber, healthy fats, and protein, and supports gut health. The Mediterranean Diet is one of the most researched and respected eating patterns for heart and metabolic health, and the Balkan breakfast fits right in.

Now to get the kids to love feta and pickled cauliflower…that’s a different article for another time.

Embracing Old Timey Food Habits

Yet another throwback trend, popular influencers are embracing old-school food like beef tallow and raw dairy products, and forsaking seed oils. Many believe living like we’re in pre-industrial times (sans TikTok, smartphones, and halo lamps, of course) restores gut health, promotes longevity, and reduces chronic disease.

But here’s the thing: we stopped using beef tallow and unpasteurized milk for good reason. Despite public figures and other advocates touting its benefits, consuming these products pose serious adverse health issues.

For instance, high consumption of saturated fats like beef tallow – which we cover in-depth here – are associated with increased rates of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality, even when accounting for lifestyle differences. Using seed oils, though under intense scrutiny among this influencer crowd, and other polyunsaturated fats offer better health outcomes when used in moderation.

Still want to stick with raw milk? Let’s not forget why pasteurization existed in the first place: to kill potentially deadly pathogens, such as listeria, E. coli, salmonella, and the highly-pathogenic avian flu. Hundreds of reported outbreaks have been attributed to raw dairy, so consider this the next time you visit your farmer’s market.

“Nature’s Ozempic”

TikTokers are hunting for the “all natural” alternatives to GLP-1 weight loss meds like Ozempic—turning to home remedies like apple cider vinegar, berberine, and olive oil.

Yes, ACV can slightly lower post-meal blood sugar, and berberine – a compound found in select plants, like goldenseal and barberry –  shows promise in blood sugar regulation, but neither of these compounds mimic GLP-1 drugs. And while olive oil is indeed a healthy fat, drinking shots of it won’t cause weight loss unless they’re part of a larger lifestyle change.

And it makes sense why these alternatives don’t work the same as Ozempic: the active compound in these drugs is derived from lizard venom, after all…not something you often find at your local health store. Though these may support metabolic health, they’re no magical concoction.

High-Protein Everything

The TikTok health community is obsessed with protein-rich foods, with many creators demonstrating how to “protein-ify” meals to stay fuller longer, reduce carb intake, and support workouts.

Some creators specialize in finding ways to enrich their child’s diet with added protein, such as mixing protein powder into smoothies, adding egg whites into their favorite mac & cheese recipe, and making “chicken chips” for a snack.

Experts generally agree that most people, especially women and older adults, don’t get enough protein, which is critical for muscle development, metabolism, and satiety. Aim for at least 1g protein per 1kg of body weight.

Children’s protein needs are easier to achieve and most likely already established in their diet. In fact, consuming too much protein can hurt their kidneys, liver, and digestive system. It can also lead to weight gain, since any unused protein converts to fat.

And no matter the age, be aware of overly processed protein snacks and products filled with too much sugar or low-quality ingredients.

Sifting Through The Junk

There’s no doubting that TikTok is shaping how people eat and think about wellness, whether for better or worse.

Some of the most viral trends are rooted in solid research. So how do we separate the sizzle from the substance?

Here are a few tips and a helpful checklist for when you’re in doubt:

Follow credible creators

Look for medical credentials, like RD, RDN, MD, PhD; seek out those who cite studies in medical journals and verified professionals.

Here are some credible experts we like who mythbust common health and nutrition misconceptions with research-backed studies:

Conduct a quick internet search

Search key facts or claims outside TikTok, which often directs you to echo chambers of like-minded thinking. If no reputable news outlet or scientific journal has reported it, it’s likely false or exaggerated.

Check the comments

Smart users often fact-check creators in the comments. Look for debates, citations, or corrections.

Reverse image or video search

For shocking clips, use Google Images or InVID to trace the source.

Look for sensationalism

If it sounds too dramatic, too perfect, or too scary to be true, it probably is. Emotional manipulation is a red flag. Credible creators avoid extreme statements and miracle claims.

Cross-check with fact-checking sites

Use Snopes, AP Fact Check, or Media Bias/Fact Check to confirm viral claims.

Consider the company’s intentions

For most social media platforms, sensationalism leads to views, and views lead to increased profits for the parent company. And check on the company’s location, too. Though TikTok operates on U.S. servers, its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, raises serious concerns regarding data security practices and government intent for collecting data from its 2 billion users.

Posted on

SNAP Faces Government Diet

SNAP has recently been in the spotlight due to the Make America Healthy Again movement. RFK, Jr. has stated that using taxpayer money to subsidize junk food, such as sodas and cookies, makes no sense, as “there is no nutrition in these products.”

Health advocates also strongly criticize the amount of money spent by recipients on sweets, sugar-laden beverages, salty snacks, over-processed foods and other items well known to be inconsistent with a heathy diet, especially when overconsumed.  They point out that SNAP imposes no nutritional standards for purchased foods.

The Trump Administration’s focus on improving the nation’s healthful food supply has added an important new element to the debate over SNAP and its future. Not to mention the health care support needed for those who are obese, have diabetes, cancer, or heart disease due to a poor diet.

What is SNAP?

SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is a federal program designed to supplement food budgets among lower-income households to assure the nutritious food essential to the health of all family members. It is part of the broader Farm Bill and accounts for 1.5% of total federal spending.

As reported by Harvard’s Kennedy School from USDA’s February 2025 data, $100 billion was spent on SNAP in 2024 for approximately 41 million people. This equates to about $2,439 per person each year, or $203 a month. The average recipient receives $188 in monthly benefits. The remaining $15 difference most likely goes towards funds administration.

Who uses SNAP?

In 2024, 12.3% of the U.S. population was on the SNAP program.

Eligibility and the amount of assistance from SNAP are based on gross and net monthly income. In most cases, eligible households must have a gross monthly income of less than 130 percent of the federally determined poverty level, or a net income of 100 percent of the poverty level.

For a single-person household, the poverty level is $15,650 a year, for a family of four, it is $32,150.

Certain exceptions exist for special categories, such as the disabled or seriously ill. But 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to individuals and households meeting the basic income criteria.

The states determine their own guidelines laid out in the program criteria. Benefits are based on USDA’s calculation of the cost of low-cost nutritious meals in the Food & Nutrition Service’s Thrifty Food Plan.

SNAP also requires recipients to comply with various work requirements, including registering for work, maintaining existing employment, accepting offered jobs and participating in job training or education.

Certain non-citizen groups are also eligible, including those designated as refugees, asylum-seekers, and victims of trafficking.  SNAP generally is not available for tourists or students and is prohibited for undocumented residents.

What can and do SNAP recipients purchase?

Here are some items you can and cannot purchase using SNAP funds, according to USDA regulations:

For an expanded list of items covered by SNAP, click here.

Most studies indicate that SNAP recipients tend to mirror the food buying habits of non-SNAP households.

The most comprehensive analysis of buying habits by USDA dates back almost a decade, to 2016.  Its finding and analysis must be evaluated in the context of a pre-Covid, pre-economic slowdown. However, those results seem to match the various ad hoc reports currently found in cyberspace.

Key findings in the USDA report:

  • About 40 cents of every SNAP dollar goes for what are called “basic” foods: meats, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread.
  • Another 20 percent is spent on sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.
  • The remaining 40 percent is spent across a wide variety of items, including cereals, prepared foods, dairy products, rice and beans.

Citing USDA data, the Economic Policy Innovation Center in May 2024 reported the top items purchased through SNAP as:

Why is SNAP so much in the news?

Two major issues have helped propel the SNAP program into the public – and political – spotlight.  One is its sharply increasing use and cost.  The other is the use of SNAP benefits to support purchase and consumption of foods and beverages that are inconsistent with its stated objective of advancing “healthy” diets.

Government efforts to help disadvantaged food consumers afford better, healthier food aren’t something new. In fact, they date back to 1939, when the first “food stamp” program over its initial four years provided economic support for an estimated 20 million households at one point or another. Consumers in almost half the counties in the United States participated, at a cost of $262 million at the time. In other words, substantial government spending on food help is 86 years old.

SNAP as we know it today can be traced to 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson helped make the food stamp program permanent.

Initial estimates at that time projected participation at 4 million, at a cost of $360 million per year. Those estimates proved what may charitably called optimistic.

If anything, the program might be argued to be too successful.  Participation has remained high over the years – with commensurate growth in its cost.

SNAP expenditures have increased by about 40 percent since the passage of the last Farm Bill in 2018 – from about $81 billion in 2018 to $113 billion in 2023.

What program changes can we expect?

Congressional budget officials project SNAP spending to continue to increase without changes to the program. To budget-minded policy makers, the past and future cost increases have become a major political target, with all sorts of proposals to tighten eligibility requirements, push more program costs (and controls) to the states, and other reforms.

Not all lawmakers agree, pointing to the potential adverse effects of reduced participation on not just the most needy members of our society but also the communities in which they live. The argument has been a major issue in the on-going battles to craft a comprehensive budget bill and finally approval a long-overdue Farm Bill.

2018 Farm Bill: Funding Allocation

Many political observers caution that efforts to divorce the SNAP program from its usual place in the comprehensive Farm Bill could substantially weaken political support for farm and rural policies, especially among largely urban politicians and others in a Congress who are new and unsophisticated in their understanding of farm policies.

In this hyper-politicized environment, hyberbole and political sniping have become prominent elements of the discussion, making the outcome of the debate very uncertain.

Posted on

Tech’s Essential Role in Food Safety

Each year, the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans are affected by foodborne illness, resulting in over 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. Behind those numbers are real people—a child at lunch, a grandparent at dinner, a parent preparing a family meal—who simply expected their food to be safe.

Who’s Watching Our Food?

Meanwhile, the infrastructure designed to protect that safety is facing mounting pressure. Recent cuts from the new administration to the FDA’s food safety programs are compounding challenges for inspection teams already stretched thin. State public health labs are grappling with outdated technology and staffing shortages. The result: slower investigations, fewer routine checks, and an increasing reliance on food producers to self-monitor.

It only takes one outbreak to expose the vulnerabilities in our food system.

These outbreaks happen on a fairly regular basis:

In May 2025, there was a salmonella outbreak with cucumbers affecting consumers in Florida. In 2024, the U.S. faced a string of serious foodborne illness events: a Listeria outbreak linked to deli meats claimed 10 lives across 19 states; Salmonella-contaminated cucumbers sickened more than 500 people in two separate incidents; and a nationwide recall of Yu Shang Food products followed another deadly Listeria case.

Why Tech Is Essential in an Era of Shrinking Oversight

Yes, the scale of foodborne illness is alarming—but it’s also important to consider the context. Every day, hundreds of millions of Americans eat multiple meals, resulting in billions of opportunities for something to go wrong. That the vast majority of those meals are safe is a credit to the resilience of our food system. But that resilience is not guaranteed.

As the system grows in scale and complexity, so must our approach to protecting it. Total elimination of risk is statistically impossible, but we can drive that risk down to the lowest level possible through smarter practices, stronger technology, and more coordinated oversight. That means moving beyond manual spot-checks and embracing proven tools already at our disposal, from rapid DNA sequencing to AI-based monitoring and smart traceability platforms.

Food safety isn’t the responsibility of regulators alone. It’s a shared commitment between government agencies, industry leaders, technology developers, and, yes, consumers themselves. In a system this vast, progress from constant, deliberate improvement.

The Tools That Can—and Should—Protect Us

Today’s food system is more complex, globalized, and fast-moving than ever before.

Fresh berries from Chile, seafood from Vietnam, baby spinach grown in California—all of it might travel thousands of miles, change hands a dozen times, and still land safely on your plate within days. That’s an incredible feat of logistics and science, but also a reminder that our food chain is vast, intricate, and increasingly difficult to monitor with traditional tools alone.

Behind the scenes, a suite of cutting-edge technologies is quietly revolutionizing the way we protect our food—from AI algorithms that scan for contamination risks before a human could spot them, to biosensors embedded in packaging that alert us when a product has spoiled, to blockchain systems that trace a head of lettuce back to its exact harvest date and field location in seconds.

These tools aren’t speculative or futuristic—they’re here now. They’ve been validated by the world’s leading health agencies and are backed by rigorous, peer-reviewed science. In many ways, they represent the next logical leap in food safety: faster, smarter, more precise, and scalable for the global food economy.

Yet despite this incredible promise, several of these technologies remain underused—not because they’re flawed, but because they sound unfamiliar. Terms like “irradiation,” “high-pressure processing,” or “digital traceability” can be off-putting to consumers unfamiliar with the science behind them. That’s not a reason to slow down. It’s a call to educate, demystify, and embrace the tools that can dramatically reduce illness and improve trust in the system.

Technologies Advancing our Food System

When you pull back the curtain on today’s food safety landscape, the story isn’t one of doom or decline. It’s one of innovation—of brilliant minds developing tools that keep millions of people safe every single day. And the sooner we embrace that story, the stronger our food system will be. Let’s take a look at some of the technologies that will create a more efficient and safer food system:

Food Irradiation: A Quiet Powerhouse

Let’s start with one of the most proven—but most misunderstood—food safety interventions. Food irradiation uses ionizing radiation to kill pathogens like E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella in meat, produce, and spices.

It doesn’t make food radioactive or nutritionally inferior. In fact, both the World Health Organization and the U.S. FDA have endorsed it as safe and effective for decades. A 2022 review in Frontiers in Nutrition confirmed that irradiation reduces pathogen levels by over 99.9% in some foods.

Yet fewer than 0.01% of U.S. grocery items are irradiated, in part due to labeling fears (products must carry a “treated with radiation” statement) and limited consumer understanding.

“We know it works. It’s time to normalize it,” says Dr. Christine Bruhn, a food safety expert at UC Davis. “Like pasteurization, irradiation should be seen as a modern tool, not a threat.”

High-Pressure Processing (HPP): Cold, Clean, Effective

HPP is a non-thermal method that uses cold water under extreme pressure to kill bacteria in ready-to-eat foods—no heat or chemicals required. Brands like Suja Juice, Wholly Guacamole, and Boar’s Head already use it to extend shelf life and reduce risk without preservatives.

A 2023 study in Food Control found that HPP extended the shelf life of deli meats up to three times longer, while maintaining safety standards and quality.

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS): Tracking Outbreaks at the DNA Level

This powerful tool maps the genetic code of pathogens found in food, allowing scientists to trace outbreaks with precision.

During the 2022 E. coli outbreak in leafy greens, WGS helped CDC investigators pinpoint a contaminated water source on a specific farm—days faster than traditional methods.

WGS is now standard in many public health labs, but its continued use depends on consistent funding and cross-agency collaboration.

“It’s the future of outbreak detection,” says Dr. Marc Allard, a senior microbiologist at the FDA. “But it’s not plug-and-play. It requires infrastructure, training, and support.”

Blockchain & Digital Traceability: Speed Matters

When a food recall hits, every minute counts. Traditional traceback methods can take days or even weeks to determine the source of contamination. But in a 2023 pilot by IBM and Walmart, blockchain technology reduced that time to just 2.2 seconds for leafy greens.

Digital traceability systems can also help identify which specific lots are affected—avoiding costly over-recalls and consumer panic.

Smart Packaging & Biosensors: Early Warnings Built In

Imagine packaging that changes color when food spoils, or embedded sensors that detect pathogens before the product leaves the facility. These technologies already exist—and they’re evolving quickly.

A 2021 study in Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical demonstrated a biosensor that could detect Salmonella in under two hours—a major improvement over conventional lab tests.

Antimicrobial Interventions in Meat Processing

Foodborne pathogens often originate in raw meat and poultry.

That’s why USDA-approved interventions, like lactic acid rinses and peracetic acid sprays, are used to reduce microbial loads during processing.

A 2023 review in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety found that these methods can reduce E. coli O157:H7 by up to 90%, especially when used in combination with HPP or chilling systems.

Despite their efficacy, these practices are sometimes misrepresented as “bleach baths.” In reality, they’re a cornerstone of safe meat processing—and far safer than the alternative.

Artificial Intelligence: Smarter, Risk-Based Monitoring

AI is being used to analyze inspection reports, monitor real-time production data, and flag anomalies that human inspectors might miss.

This allows agencies to prioritize inspections based on actual risk, not just routine schedules.

While still developing, machine learning systems have already shown promise in improving predictive analytics for food recalls and contaminant detection.

“AI isn’t about replacing inspectors,” says Dr. Ben Chapman, a food safety researcher at NC State. “It’s about helping them focus where it matters most.”

The Cost of Inaction

Food safety isn’t just about public health—it’s about economic resilience. According to the USDA, foodborne illness costs the U.S. economy more than $17.6 billion annually, factoring in healthcare, lost productivity, and recalls.

One major outbreak can crater consumer confidence and devastate an entire industry. The 2018 romaine lettuce E. coli outbreak, for example, led to a multi-month sales plunge and changes in how leafy greens are grown and labeled.

We can’t afford to fall behind.

Moving Forward: Science, Not Sentiment

We once feared pasteurization. Now it’s non-negotiable. We once worried about refrigeration. Now we trust it implicitly.

Skepticism toward industrial-sounding technology is understandable. But it shouldn’t block solutions that are backed by decades of data and global consensus. These tools  aren’t silver bullets, but they are essential allies in an increasingly vulnerable system.

Regulators matter. But so does innovation. If funding realities limit the reach of federal oversight, we must fill the gaps with the best tools available—and that means trusting science over fear.