Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024 - 403

compartments of seeds to mature plants (58). Also, human
pathogens can be transmitted via seeds to growing plants,
although internal contamination with pathogens appears
to be unlikely to occur (69). A scientific opinion published
in 2011 (24) hypothesized that the increased proliferation
of inoculated Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) on
hydroponically-grown microgreens could be potentially due
to a less competitive microbiota. Hence, further research
of the plant and overall environmental microbiome in CEA
facilities, and the impact of microbiomes on food safety risks
in CEA systems, may be valuable.
A specific operational challenge is that production in CEA
facilities is essentially continuous, which means that it is
typically difficult for facilities to define and validate a " clean
break " between production lots. Supporting this, researchers
hosting a two-day conference regarding food safety in CEA
titled Strategizing to Advance Future Extension and Research
(S.A.F.E.R.) in April 2023 identified a lack of clean breaks as
a challenge that could be potentially mitigated with the use of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) (37). While there is no clear path
to defining a clean break without full sanitation, AI-facilitated
data analytics may be able to use regular (e.g., daily) testing
data, as well as other data (e.g., sampling effort), to characterize
the likely length of a contamination event although it
is possible this could be underestimated due to the inherent
rare nature of contamination events. This would be valuable
as a lack of a break between lots can represent a substantial
business risk as regulatory agencies (as well as customers)
may, in case of a single contamination event (e.g., a product
sample collected on a given day that tested positive for a
pathogen), request and/or require clean breaks to agree on a
recall that is limited to one day's production. Without a sanitation
break to support that contamination would not have
been carried over to subsequent days and lots (e.g., through
water), it may be necessary to issue a recall that covers all
products in the marketplace (15). In some CEA facilities,
production is only stopped once a year (which is when
repairs and equipment cleaning occur); even then, full clean
breaks may not occur, e.g., if water is not completely removed
in deep water hydroponic systems.
Because CEA is a unique position between both
primary producer and processer, the regulatory framework
applicable to CEA is often unclear, leading to gaps in
regulation and confusion for both regulators and industry.
There however are already specific guidelines describing
Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good Hygiene
Practices (GHPs) for CEA facilities (26), which include
general recommendations such as: (i) protected facility
structures should be located, designed and constructed to
avoid contamination and harborage of pests; (ii) worker
training and sanitation practices are necessary in all facilities;
(iii) proper water management and soil amendment use
are critical to controlling and reducing risks. Additionally,
in the US, CEA firms are expected to adhere to the Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and the Produce Safety
Rule (28). That being said, CEA is unique compared to
the traditional produce supply chain because growing,
harvesting, processing and packaging often occur in the same
room or adjoining rooms, leading some firms to additionally
be governed by the Preventive Controls for Human Food
Rule (29) depending on their system. This can cause
confusion from regulatory bodies and industry about what
recommendations and frameworks apply, potentially leading
to gaps in food safety and sanitation systems (37). A related
challenge is that CEA needs more guidance, as well as fieldbased
assessments and data-based development of corrective
actions, mitigations, responses to positive findings, including
standardization of environmental monitoring programs
(EMPs) for CEA (2, 66). A specific challenge for EMPs
in CEA is that it may be hard to distinguish between the
different Zones, which define proximity to food (i.e., Zones
1, 2, 3, 4) (60), as essentially all surfaces are connected via
water recirculation. Formal risk assessments or risk ranking
may thus be needed to `rank` food safety risks associated with
CEA of specialty crops and to inform food safety regulations
for CEA (37).
Finally, in all food processing environments using
human intervention, microbial and viral contamination via
employees is a possible source. Personal hygiene and health
requirements are critical as CEA personnel come directly in
contact with edible and inedible portions of FVHs during
seeding, and harvesting/packaging (9). In many CEA
facilities, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) or GAPs
are enforced, such as personal protective equipment (PPE)
wearing and hand washing (46); however, in some CEA
facilities there may be a need to strengthen these practices.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIGITAL AND AI TOOLS
IN CEA FOOD SAFETY
There have been a number of exciting advances in the
food safety applications of AI and digital tools, spanning
both mechanistic (e.g., simulation and agent-based models)
and data-driven approaches. Some of these tools have taken
advantage of new real-time data streams, such as social
media and mobile apps, or have benefited from other large
scale data streams and technologies, such as next-generation
sequencing (NGS), smart labels, and blockchain. The
development of sensors and their integration with Internet
of Things (IoT) technologies also provides an avenue for
data streams that could be utilized by AI to manage food
safety risks (45). The application of these AI and AI-enabling
technologies has shown promise in different areas, such as
better pathogen detection and disease control. For example,
BERTweet extracts foodborne illness-related entities from
Twitter/X and was shown to identify unreported foodborne
illness outbreaks (67). A Bayesian hierarchical model was
developed for real-time monitoring and nowcasting of
foodborne disease cases from public health surveillance
November/December Food Protection Trends 403
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024
