Food Safety Certifications Analysis toward Sustainability

Abstract

Food safety must move toward becoming zero emissions in line with a goal of converting all operations to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Over time, some protocols have been extended to generate actions that help ensure food safety. But it has been left aside that these protocols may be difficult to comply considering that we must move toward a sustainable economy of net zero emissions by 2050. In this chapter, we make an analysis of food safety protocols and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with some protocols. The objective is to provide food companies more tools to be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

1. Introduction

1.1 Challenges in the food industry

Food production systems have had many challenges to overcome throughout history. In the beginning, food was mainly local; that is, food was produced and consumed locally. Among the main reasons for such local production and consumption were the lack of food preservation technologies and the lack of long-distance transportation capacity.

Drying, chilling, freezing, salt, sugar addition, and pasteurization are common and basic methods of food preservation were developed to help prevent microbiological and chemical deterioration of foods. Recent food preservation techniques include ultrapasteurization, use of modified atmospheres like carbon dioxide or nitrogen, adding nitrites, nitrates, sulfites, preserving through lyophilization, ultrasonic processing, electric field pulses, nanotechnology, high pressure, ultraviolet, and other types of ionizing radiations [1, 2].

Thanks to the different methods of food preservation, the development of food additives, and the certification systems that are implemented in many companies, it is now possible to consume food that is produced in one region, can be stored, and transported to the other locations of the world and be consumed safely. Overcoming food preservation problems opened new markets, bringing with it new transportation and distribution challenges.

As reported in the World Population Prospects 2022, the global population surpassed 8 billion in 2022 and is projected to exceed 10 billion by 2060. This swift rise in population is driving an increased food demand [3].

Despite advancements in agricultural productivity and modernization boosting the sector’s profitability, they have also led to higher energy consumption, greater water usage, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide. The COP26 Climate Summit highlighted that emissions from agriculture and food production have risen by 17 percent over the last three decades. In 2019, the global agriculture and food system was responsible for emitting 17 billion tons of carbon dioxide, accounting for 31 percent of total global emissions [3].

Given climate change scenario food industry faces new challenges: making its operations sustainable to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and achieving circular economy models.

1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production

Atmospheric CO₂ levels have increased from a pre-industrial value of around 280 ppm to 419.3 ppm in 2023 [4]. Some concepts have been created to associate emissions associated with atmospheric CO₂ and other gas emissions with certain operations carried out in the production of goods and services that include the food industry. Ecological and carbon footprint is two of these created concepts.

“Ecological footprint” was a concept proposed to measure the utilization of the ecological environment and the functions provided by it in a region [3]. All operations, including agricultural and other types of operations, have a toll on natural resources. For example, agricultural operations may change soil biodiversity, affecting the carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrient cycles. To cope with reduced biodiversity and affected natural cycles, agricultural operations have used manure, pesticides, and mineral fertilization. Nonagricultural operations may require water and other natural resources affecting biodiversity and nutrient cycles indirectly by competing with nature for water and resources.

To address this issue, a mathematical approach was later developed and improved to calculate the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems, leading to the expanded concept of the “ecological footprint.” Following its introduction in 1992, the ecological footprint concept gave rise to the notion of the carbon footprint (CF), which started gaining attention in 2007, mostly because fossil fuel companies started to popularize the concept. On the other hand, some argued that the carbon footprint encompassed not only “carbon” but also included other emissions (NO_X, SO₂, etc.) and even considered land use and surface reflectance that affected climate change [3].

The widely accepted definition of a carbon footprint encompasses the greenhouse gas emissions produced throughout the entire life cycle of a product or the complete duration of an activity, incorporating all emission sources [3].

Some analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from global food production have stablished a range between 5.6 and 8.9 Gt CO₂ equivalent year⁻¹. The reported CF mean of plant-based foods has been stated to be 0.66 kg CO₂ equivalent kg⁻¹, while animal-based foods has been reported to have a mean of 6.15 kg CO₂ equivalent kg⁻¹.

Among the plant-based food, rice had the highest CF with a reported mean of 1.31 kg CO₂ equivalent kg⁻¹, and this is bad news to sushi lovers. Rice CF was reported to be 2.20, 2.61, and 4.05 times higher than that of wheat, maize, and other grains, respectively [5].

The elevated carbon footprint of animal-based foods is attributed to significant emissions of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2). These emissions result from enteric fermentation, manure management, and the substantial energy required for their production and maintenance of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Finally, reports indicate that the carbon footprint of plant-based foods is 8.9–184% higher in Asia and Europe compared to other continents, primarily due to the higher levels of agricultural inputs used in these regions [5].

Other reports stated that across all farm and crop types, the average estimated carbon footprint was 351.7 kg CO₂ equivalent ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ with a standard deviation of 223.7 and ranging from just 18 to 903 kg CO₂ equivalent ha⁻¹ year⁻¹. It has been associated with 75% of the carbon footprint to N inputs, and variations in N utilizations accounted for 97.5% of the variation in the carbon footprint across sites [6].

Contributions of other ground preparation such as sowing, crop protection, fertilization with phosphorous and potassium, and harvesting operations are reported to account for less than 8% of the average carbon footprint across different agricultural sites. Machinery use accounts for approximately 7% of the total carbon footprint, while plowing contributes to around 4%. All other applications and farming operations together add 3% or less to the overall carbon footprint [6].

2. Basis of food certification

Food is exposed to different possible sources of contamination during its production, transport, and ultimately during sale to the end consumer. To maintain the confidence of consumers and the entire value chain, it must be ensured that food can be consumed without causing disease or posing any risk. Food certifications are responsible for ensuring that risks are minimized providing company mechanisms to prove they produce safe foods for the world. Lowering risks is the best approach since it is not possible to reduce risks to zero.

Certifications have classified the sources of contamination based on their characteristics or interaction with food since their physical, chemical, and biological nature or origin. Certifications deal with potential contaminants by establishing a series of basic procedures. This helps prevent the risks associated with food production.

Basic food certifications are based on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), and Hazard Analysis and Critical Point Control (HACCP). All certification systems or certification bodies have certifications that include GAP, GMP, and HACCP [7, 8].

2.1 Good agricultural practices (GAP)

GAP schemes have several requirements, like for example:

• Operators and personnel must be trained in hygiene practices to prevent disease spreading and to avoid food contamination.

• Fertilizer application should be guided by soil analysis and applied at rates that crops can absorb efficiently.

• Pesticides ought to be used within a pest management framework, such as integrated pest management (IPM), based on the observation or risk assessment of pests or diseases, with efforts to preserve beneficial organisms. Applications must comply with the preharvest intervals mandated by government or applicable regulations and conditions for use. Of course, only approved pesticides or herbicides must be used.

• Application equipment should be in good condition to be sure about the correct dose is applied.

• Fertilizer and pesticides operators must be trained to avoid unintended contamination.

• While applying the chemical protection, sufficient distance from water sources must be maintained to avoid contamination due to run offs to water sources.

• To ensure that all these principles have been respected, records must be kept of all the steps and treatments carried out during production [7].

2.2 Good manufacturing practices (GMP)

GMPs are similar in essence to GAPs, with the difference that they focus on manufacturing processes. The same principles of hygiene and handling of chemical substances are followed to avoid contamination. Good manufacturing practices (GMP) encompass a series of operational guidelines designed to manage food safety and quality aspects that, while important, do not directly mitigate all food safety hazards [8]. Generally, GMP establishes areas and/or process lines that help prevent cross-contamination; in example, raw materials are placed and handled in a form that do not contaminate the final product. Examples of GMP principles are the following:

• Ensure that manufacturing areas are kept clean and hygienic at all times.

• Implement strict environmental controls to minimize the risk of cross-contamination between different food products.

• Establish clearly defined and meticulously controlled manufacturing process procedures.

• Thoroughly validate all procedures to guarantee product safety and maintain consistency.

• Control manufacturing process and evaluate/validate any process change.

• Record each process step data during manufacturing.

• Implement protocols in non-food handling areas to reduce the likelihood of contamination during the distribution and shipping of food products.

• Develop a rapid recall system to swiftly address any instances of unsafe food products being distributed for sale.

Many countries follow GMP procedures and have created their own GMP guidelines and include them in their own legislations [8].

2.3 Hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP)

On the other hand, HACCP was developed in1960’s when the National Aerospace Agency (NASA) asked Pillsbury, a United States food company, to produce food that could be consumed by astronauts in space. The collaboration led to the creation of an innovative quality assurance system for food safety, emphasizing proactive measures through meticulous control and comprehensive record-keeping throughout every stage of the food processing cycle, from sourcing raw materials to distributing the final products [8].

The HACCP system currently in use has been modified since its conception to be more suitable for different types of processes to which they can be applied. The current seven basic HACCP principles that are implemented internationally are:

• Do a hazard analysis to identify all risks.

• Identifying Critical Control Points (CCPs). Those risks that cannot be controlled implementing GAP and/or GMP procedures.

• Establishing Critical Limits (CL) for CCP’s.

• Implementing continuous monitoring for CL’s.

• Implementing Corrective Measures if deviations occur.

• Establishment of verification and validation of procedures and corrective measures that may be needed if deviations from CL intervals are detected.

• Keep documentations and records [8].

These types of certifications include traceability procedures since many of the foods are produced, stored, and distributed for periods of time that can vary from days, months to even years. Technological advancements have played a pivotal role in driving progress in the realm of food safety and traceability on a global scale. These advancements encompass a spectrum of initiatives, ranging from governmental endeavors aimed at safeguarding public health to private sector initiatives undertaken by growers and retailers to align with consumer demands for enhanced food safety standards and environmental sustainability measures [7].

3. Food safety certification systems

Global trading has meant that systems have to be unified to achieve adequate homogeneity so that food suppliers can deliver their products globally.

3.1 Global food safety initiative (GFSI)

To facilitate the commercial exchange of foods, after several high-profile foodborne illness outbreaks Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) was developed in 2000, to help consumer confidence in the food supply chain [9].

GFSI is an industry-led initiative designed to develop robust food safety management systems. Its primary goal is to ensure that food processing facilities produce safe food for consumers. As a private entity, GFSI supervises and endorses various auditing platforms based on World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) documents and treaties like CODEX Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) [10, 11].

A certification within the GFSI standards of a supplier is a recognized program to show their customers and potential customers that their facilities are operating with a structured, comprehensive, and effective food safety program. GFSI has established a benchmarking process that compares food safety protocols and schemes against the GFSI Guidance Document. This comparison helps define the recognition process for food safety standards globally [10].

More than 150 companies and organizations collaborate with GFSI in working groups (Figure 1) to help key objectives by creating or modifying guidelines in strategic food safety issues are tackled by working groups consisting of experts from a range of sectors, including retail, manufacturing, food service, service provision, certification programs, accreditation bodies, academia, and industry associations. GFSI objective is to improve food safety and business efficiency by creating a common acceptance of good food safety requirements. It is benchmarked when all its criteria are considered to be equivalent to the requirements set out by GFSI [11].

Figure 1.

Working groups and members reported by World Trade Organization (2022).

The above-mentioned GFSI schemes provide effective shared risk management tools to protect consumers, suppliers, buyers, and transport chain companies related to food production and supply.

In this sense, several major food retailers have implemented that all their food suppliers must be certified against one of the GFSI benchmark schemes. In food production companies, GFSI compliance resulted in better training for their production employees and better documentation of their food safety management practices. Helping food-related companies to protect themselves against foodborne illnesses may result in legal adverse processes. Despite the concerted efforts of regulators and the food industry, the frequency of food recalls has not seen a significant reduction [9].

Although food recalls numbers have not decrease, the fact that food production has increased several folds in the last century is a good indicator that food safety protocols and schemes are well designed for a global increasing food production in our global economy.

Also, it has been reported through survey results that companies found GFSI certification to be very or beneficial. But still costumer requirements are the major driver for food safety certification. Other reported benefit by some certified food production companies complying with GFSI schemes in the survey is they had improved the quality of the food produced [9].

3.2 Other food safety certifications

Due to the great amount of people, institutions, and organizations involved in assuring food safety, other certifications schemes have raised. Examples of food safety and environmental certification systems worldwide recognized with a wide variety of product application range can be seen in Table 1.

Food certification	Description	Source
FSSC/FS 22000	Food Safety System Certification standard for food manufacturers.	a
ISO 22000	Is a standard that goes all the way from the farm to the fork, including packaging, ingredient suppliers, storage, distribution, chemicals, and machinery used by manufacturers. Can be applied to primary producers such as farms.	a
BRC	Brand Reputation through Compliance enforced by retailers worldwide to their food suppliers.	a
SQF	Safe Quality Foods world’s leading food safety and quality management systems for food suppliers including food safety. Some materials and chemicals are SQF approved to be used in foods and may be required in some audits.	a
IFS	International Food Standard, quality and food safety standard for branded food products, enforced by retailers and wholesaler, intended for food safety and quality assurance.	a
GlobalGAP	Retailer-producer alliance protocols to raise standards in primary agricultural production that includes water, fertilizers, pesticide management. It includes sections for good labor practices.	a
USDA Certified Organic	The National Organic Program (NOP), a program of the USDA, for foods produced without the use of most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics, genetic engineering, irradiation, or sewage sludge.	b
Non-GMO Project Verified	Prevents the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) or ingredients derived from GMO’s. Requires food producers to trace, segregate, and regularly test ingredients at high risk of being genetically modified or exposed to genetically modified organisms, providing consumers the option to avoid GMOs in their food.	b
Demeter Biodynamic	Certification that prohibits harmful farming practices. Similar to USDA Certified Organic but goes a step further taking soil health, animal welfare, and biodiversity protection as well as dictating standards for food processing.	b
Rainforest Alliance Certified	Promotes environmental sustainability and conservation of biodiversity, natural resources, and farm management.	b
Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW	This is an animal welfare certification administered by A Greener World (AGW). Require standards for animal treatment through all stages of production, from breeding and pasture farms to transport and slaughter.	b
Certified Humane	Humane Farm Animal Care sets standards, which guarantees that animals have the freedom to behave naturally, are fed a diet free of animal by-products, antibiotics, and growth hormones, and are slaughtered humanely.	b
Salmon-Safe	Salmon-Safe certification requires food producers (and other businesses) to adopt practices that protect water and wildlife habitat in West Coast salmon watersheds. The standards include water quality and use management, erosion and sediment control, animal management, and conservation of biodiversity.	b
Audubon Conservation Ranching Program	Audubon developed the Conservation Ranching Program to focus on the protection of native grasslands, which provides critical habitat to birds and other wildlife throughout the world.	b

Table 1.

International recognized food certifications related to food safety and environment.

^a

De Baerdemaeker and Saeys [7].

^b

Food Alliance [12].

Different level authorities may enforce certain local or national requisites that may help achieving international certification because they are based in the same models for food risk assessment. Therefore, complying with local regulations will be a good step toward sustainability.

4. Environmental impacts

Life cycle analyses help to understand the environmental impacts of individual products on carbon cycle, greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, eutrophication, material usage, and other issues that may derive in an unsustainable operation in companies, government, and society in general.

Across all the stages of the value chain life cycle analysis is an effective tool for evaluating the environmental impact of food from various stages, including the production of agricultural inputs, farming, processing, transport, and storage, to the consumer activities of shopping, cleaning, cooking, home storage, recycling, and behavior. This type of analysis makes it possible to do so in a scientifically reliable and consistent way, understandable and not misleading [7]. Life cycle analysis, endorsed by international bodies such as the European Commission and the United Nations Environment Program, quantitatively assesses environmental impacts throughout a product’s entire life cycle to support sustainability policymaking [13].

4.1 Life cycle analysis and greenhouse gas emissions

A life cycle analysis of products consumed in the European Union revealed that housing, food and drink, and private transport are the three main areas of consumption with the greatest environmental impact. These areas are almost equally significant, jointly responsible for 70–80% of environmental impacts and about 60% of consumption expenditure [7]. Only food waste already accounts for approximately 8 percent of the world greenhouse gas emissions [14].

According to some reports, globally, 30 to 40 percent of food intended for human consumption is not eaten. This equivalent to 1.3 billion tons per year represents 30% of the planet’s agricultural surface, 1.4 billion hectares, and 250 million cubic meters of water. Economically, it represents an equivalent losing of 2.5 billion dollars per year, which is equivalent to the GDP of France. Reducing food waste and loss is a target of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, Goal 12.3 aims to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains by 2030 [14, 15, 16].

In 2010, the production of food lost in the United States resulted in the emission of 160 million tons of CO₂ equivalents, highlighting the environmental impact of food waste [13].

Projected population growth and ongoing economic development will necessitate the annual production of 53 million more metric tons of food by 2050. This increase would require converting an additional 442 million hectares of forests and grassland into farmland over the next three decades, releasing 80 billion tons of carbon dioxide—15 times the emissions of the entire U.S. economy in 2019. Without radical changes in production and consumption, these trends are likely to exacerbate the impacts of food systems [13, 14].

Therefore, reducing food and materials associated with food production will be a great strategy to achieve sustainable food production systems and it should be integrated to food certification protocols.

In the global economy, food impacts are widespread because the resources needed for production and the commodities themselves often travel long distances from their origins to where they are consumed. Thus, impacts have increased due to traditional food production system model where a more intensive systems have increased yields, used monocultures, and relied on high level of pest control [13]. Higher impacts are also related to required packing and transportation.

In this sense, for example, in California in USA much effort has been made to assure food safety of leafy green. But some of the criteria taken to reduce food risk have resulted in more material required for water treatment, higher numbers of laboratory analysis to test for pathogens on final products, longer distances to CAFOs [17], just to mention some examples. Apart from environmental impacts of increased requisites for food safety, some organizations have challenged these criteria because it may end up making the industry of leafy green economically not feasible.

Several carbon calculators based on life cycle analysis are available, simplifying emission estimation. Users input necessary data, such as the number and type of livestock or fertilizer inputs, and the calculators automatically generate emission estimates [15].

Another source of GHG emissions is deforestation and habitat loss. It is reported that in 2019, land-use change emissions accounted for around 16 percent of the total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, equivalent to 1.8 of 11.5 total Gigatons of Carbon poured into the atmosphere. Particularly, interest has been put in increasing agricultural soil biodiversity preservation due to its capacity of carbon sequestration providing significant climate change mitigation [15].

In this sense, a new part of certifications should be focused in sustainable, water use, and emissions mitigation practices. Also is recommended for companies to do life cycle analysis of their products and promote biodiversity conservation. Very special attention should be put in soil conservation because it has the greatest potential for atmospheric carbon sequestration.

With regard to fisheries compared with land-based food systems, fisheries generally require fewer inputs. Apart from fuel for fishing vessels, they do not need irrigation, feed, agrochemicals, fertilizers, or land use. However, because fisheries depend on rapidly depleting wild stocks, their sustainability must be assessed with a broader perspective, considering their ecological impact on the ecosystems in which they operate [13]. Fisheries have a clear negative impact on environment because they change population dynamics.

Aquaculture would be the alternative to fisheries. This is why fishery products are often compared with aquaculture products (like salmon) and agricultural products [13]. But aquaculture has been reported to not be a sustainable activity by some in the scientific community. Aquaculture has been accused of some impacts like:

• Destruction of natural ecosystems, in particular mangrove forests to construct aquaculture farms.

• Soil salinization and acidification.

• Pollution of drinking water sources.

• Eutrophication and nitrification in ecosystems receiving effluent.

• Ecological impacts on natural ecosystems due to the introduction of exotic species.

• Ecological impacts from improper medication practices.

• Changes in landscape and hydrological patterns.

• Trapping and killing of eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults of various organisms [18].

4.2 Water usage impact

Water is an extremely valuable and life-sustaining resource. Many regions across the world experience water scarcity. Agriculture and food processing sectors are considered major water consumers. It has been proposed the term water footprint as a volumetric water use indicator. Although life cycle analysis considers water pollution in separate impact categories, freshwater eutrophication and freshwater ecotoxicity only consider the net consumption as relevant for an environmental assessment. Water footprint should go beyond water volumes and assess the potential impacts of water use [15].

Water is usually classified as withdrawn or consumed from surface or groundwater. Water withdrawal refers to all the water extracted from a source, part of which may be returned to the environment. Water consumption, on the other hand, refers to water that is not returned but lost to evaporation or incorporated into products. In the agriculture or manufacture certification case, water use inventory is sometimes limited to irrigation or used in for the process and for human consumption [15]. But water used for other purposes should also be taken into account. For example, water used in bathrooms or for cleaning may end up contaminated with chemical substances aimed to reduce food risk by killing harmful bacteria. But it also damages good bacteria, reduces biodiversity, causes eutrophication, and affects environment natural nutrient cycles.

The time of water withdrawal can also matter, especially when using naturally flowing rivers and lakes. Because water availability and demand vary throughout the year, annual water scarcity indices hide this variability and more often underestimate water scarcity. Therefore, water scarcity indices should be developed and provided by government of all regions, in a monthly scale time [15].

Therefore sustainable and circular economy certification protocols should include all water sources, indices for scarcity, biodiversity effects, chemical contamination, and final disposal of all used water. In contrast, current food safety protocols only focus on risk related to water usage on foodborne illnesses or in contamination that may result in human health issues.

4.3 Sanitation chemical impact

Increased hand washing and surface decontamination have led to more extensive disinfection campaigns in industries, public facilities, community spaces, and homes, resulting in unprecedented global use of sanitizers and disinfectants [19].

Hand hygiene is crucial for reducing pathogen transmission, which is why organizations like the World Health Organization emphasize hand washing and surface sanitation. Hand sanitizing gels have contributed to around 2% of our carbon footprint, in average depending on the type of hand sanitizer or handwashing practices used, and people may spend between 16 and 114 hours per year on hand hygiene, impacting their health [20].

Commonly used cleaning products like air fresheners, and pesticides used in food facilities and in households may have harmful substances in their formulations (Table 2). Even do there are some green alternatives they are not widespread used or known. Most of the market-made cleaners contain strong chemicals, which are very harmful when inhaled. Exposure to cleaning products can be hazardous for cleaning workers, such as skin and lung-related diseases, and cancer [21]. This is why training is always the best way to assess cleaning hazards to workers and to food products. But food safety training does not take into account environmental impacts of cleaning product formulation.

Commercial name	Chemical composition as displayed on the product
Harpic Power Plus	Hydrochloric Acid, HydroxyEthyl Oleylamine, Cetyl Trimethyl Ammonium Chloride, methyl Salicylate, Butylated HydroxyToluene, Acid Blue 80, Acid red 52, Water
Domex Active Green Formula	Sodium Hypochlorite, Ionic and Non-Ionic Surfactants, Sodium Hydroxide
Mr. Muscle Visible Power	Hydrochloric Acid, Inorganic Acid, Alkyl Amine Ethoxylate, fatty Alcohol Ethoxylate

Table 2.

Substances present in cleaning products used for toilet cleaning.

Source: Govindaraj et al. [21].

According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control [22], chemical toilet products may contain chemicals that can cause septic tank failures by killing essential bacteria. For example, formaldehyde also kills bacteria necessary to breakdown the wastes to decompose in septic tanks which can eventually clog the system. When septic systems fail, untreated sewage can pose increased health risks. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control recommends avoiding certain substances in RV cleaning to prevent these failures (Table 3):

Substance	Harmful effect on environment and/or humans
Bromo-nitropropane-diol	Bacterial pesticide
1-(3-chlorallyl)-3,4,7-triaza-1-azoniaadamantane chloride	Bacterial pesticide
Paraformaldehyde	Very toxic to humans
Para-dichlorobenzene	Known carcinogen and drinking water contaminant; moderately toxic to humans

Table 3.

Cleaning substances recommended to be avoided in RV cleaning by California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control [22].

Hand sanitizers are essential for maintaining hygiene, but frequent use can have adverse effects. Some components of sanitizers and disinfectants may harm humans and disrupt environmental systems, necessitating stricter regulations on their composition. Thus, there is a need of strict regulations on the manufacturing units regarding the composition of sanitizers. Training should be performed to make personnel aware of the correct use of sanitizer and the impacts of their components on the body, as well as in correct disposal of various disinfectants [23]. Environmental impact of some hand sanitizer components can be seen in Table 4.

Hand sanitizer active ingredient	Environmental impact
Isopropyl alcohol	Highly biodegradable but may impact aquatic organism due to its direct impact on dissolved oxygen concentration. a
Sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acids, and other chlorine disinfectants	Chlorine after reacting with organic matter produces organic chlorine compounds, which persists in the environment and poses threat to aquatic flora and fauna.a
Propylene glycol	Considered biodegradable. Propylene glycol substances are rapidly and ultimately biodegraded under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions by a wide variety of microorganisms. Current uses, associated exposures, and controls will not result in effects in the environment. b
Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) and diethylenetriaminepentaacetic (DTPA)	Behave as a persistent substances in the environment and contributes to heavy metals bioavailability and remobilization processes in the environment, which is a major concern because may cause heavy metal contamination. d^,e
Sodium benzoate	when enters in wastewater impairs with the microbial life and therefore impacts the efficiency of wastewater treatment plant.a
Triclosan. 5-chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) phenol	Persistent and serious environmental toxicant that impacts the biology of many species. Has the potential to negatively affect human health, and can lead to changes in normal homeostasis in humans.c
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)	Highly reactive with other compound at a very fast speed does not accumulate but may cause population disturbances if disposed inadequately.a
Ethanol	Highly biodegradable but may impact aquatic organism due to its direct impact on dissolved oxygen concentration.a

Table 4.

Environmental impacts of substances commonly present in hand sanitizers.

^a

Bala and Ahamad [23].

^b

West et al. [24].

^c

Yueh and Tukey [25].

^d

Oviedo and Rodríguez [26].

^e

Sillanpää [27].

Especially attention should be taken in triclosan, EDTA, and DTPA containing sanitizers because of its negative effect in the environment and in human health. Studies show that household soaps with less than 1% triclosan are no more effective than plain soaps in reducing bacterial counts. Triclosan is also used as a biocide in consumer products, but the EPA has prohibited manufacturers from claiming it protects against disease. Polyethylene films may contain triclosan, and it may be incorporated in other plastics. But EPA has acted to prevent manufacturers from claiming that the use of triclosan in such products provides protection against disease [25]. Therefore, triclosan, EDTA, and DTPA containing products should be limited or avoided.

Public awareness of freshwater vulnerability and concerns about detergent pollution and health issues is key to promoting environmentally friendly practices. Reducing contamination risks requires changing daily behaviors and educating people about water resources and sewage management, even though acquiring new information does not immediately lead to new behaviors [28].

5. Alternatives

5.1 Regenerative farming practices

Regenerative farming practices can increase yields by 5–35%, restore soils, and sequester more carbon. Compost and manure replace artificial fertilizers, and unused farm produce can be recycled into natural fertilizer or biogas. Restaurants in the U.S. support these practices through initiatives like Zero Foodprint, which funds regenerative farms [14].

Despite various descriptions of regenerative agriculture, no consensus exists, posing challenges for stakeholders. Researchers and policymakers are working to define the concept to guide future research and policy. This may cause confusion for farmers, agriculture advisors, policy makers, and consumers [29].

European Institute of Innovation and Technology has made efforts to help on the application of regenerative agriculture and published an online manual available in the following link: https://www.eitfood.eu/media/documents/FR_edited_Intro_15_11.pdf. Although this manual should be used as a guide document and modification must be performed to every single operation.

Five principles have established to guide the application regenerative agriculture (Table 5). Regenerative agriculture emphasizes minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining soil cover year-round, keeping live plants and roots in the soil, incorporating biodiversity, and integrating animals. Factors such as precipitation, temperature, soil type, and market conditions must be considered before implementation [29].

Regenerative agriculture principle	Practices related to the principle, description, and/or benefits
Minimize soil disturbance	No tillage, or minimum tillage, is recommended as an effective climate smart agriculture management practice. Some studies have predicted low emissions of N2O from no tillage compared with conventional systems in the longer term. Reduces the use of fossil fuels on machinery and equipment. May reduce herbicide use when combined with an integrated approach such as crop competitive enhancement. a
Keep the soil covered year-round	Involves keeping soil covered and living roots in the soil all year. May require using cover crops into the farming system. Helps in keeping soil structure and microorganisms biodiversity. a
Keep live plants and roots in the soil for as long as possible	Involves keeping soil covered and living roots in the soil all year. May require using cover crops into the farming system. Helps in keeping soil structure and microorganism biodiversity. a
Incorporate biodiversity	Use biological control of pests. Crop rotation. Allow beneficial species to thrive (like some types of birds, insects, and soil microorganisms). May require reduction of pesticide and herbicide use. Soil biodiversity may be improved using residue as a surface mulch. Strip cultivation also enhances biodiversity. Strip cropping affect nutrients and may result in higher content of some minerals, while reducing others content. Microorganisms account for 80–90% of total soil metabolism and therefore are essential in the biochemical transformation of organic matter and nutrient bioavailability. a^,b
Integrate animals	Integrate livestock to improve soil health and diversify. Although it is widely blamed for contributing to methane emissions it should be viewed as returning to natural nutrient cycles of nature. a

Table 5.

Regenerative agriculture principles and practices.

^a

Khangura et al. [29].

^b

Głowacka [30].

Integrating animals may not be feasible in all cases. For example, in leafy greens that are eaten raw, like lettuce, introducing animals may pose a high risk to food safety. Therefore, it may be preferable to introduce treated manure. Still, in times when soil is been already harvested, animals may be introduced to improve soil fertility. If this practice is to be implemented, the necessary requisite should be fresh produce analysis for the presence of pathogens such as fecal coliforms, specifically E. coli and Salmonella, previous harvest.

In leafy green, there is the tendency to move away from animals and associated animal risks due to recalls and outbreaks. This may be unsustainable and generates higher carbon footprints due to the use of mineral fertilizers, larger transportation distances, lower areas allowed to be cultivated, and other practices to reduce food safety risks. Leafy greens industries should discuss sustainable practices to review their food safety protocols to find a balance between food safety and sustainability.

Pesticide reduction is crucial for regenerative agriculture. Some pesticides harm soil fertility and non-target species. For example, broad-spectrum fungicides and insecticides can negatively affect beneficial soil microbes. Negative impacts on soil should be avoided in order to achieve regenerative agriculture. For example, insecticides have been linked to negative impacts on soil bacterial and fungal communities and endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, and imidacloprid, and have negative impact on soil bacteria and other organisms [29].

Studies comparing biodiversity among different farm types—conventional, organic, and integrated management—show that reducing chemical use can protect essential food webs. As a result pesticide inputs are replaced by alternative pest management strategies [6, 31].

The analysis here suggests the potential of management for C emissions and for biodiversity may generally be decoupled. Reducing carbon footprints and pesticide use must be evaluated separately for each production system. As a case in point, biological nitrogen fixation by legumes can enhance system biodiversity and reduce pest populations naturally. Biodiversity should be encouraged to reduce pests, and therefore pesticide usage [6].

Soil is a significant carbon reservoir, and farming practices can either sequester or release carbon. Reduced tillage can sequester approximately 115 kg of carbon per hectare annually in the UK [6]. Disturbance of soil integrity may result in more carbon emission sources instead of sinks.

Agricultural production contributes to climate change, but reducing its carbon footprint can help mitigate these effects and support sustainable development. Some indicators may be focused on crop yield, moisture levels, and soil fertility [3].

Minimizing fertilizer use involves improving crop nitrogen uptake efficiency and using biological nitrogen fixation. There is, nevertheless, the potential to achieve N use efficiency by combining genetic and agronomic approaches. Introducing leguminous crops with symbiotic bacteria has significantly reduced nitrogen fertilizer use in some regions [6].

Governments can promote sustainable agriculture through policies, research investments, renewable energy promotion, carbon credits, transparency, labeling, certification, and digital solutions like machine learning. Avoidance of “greenwashing schemes” should also be promoted by governments. This may enhance consumer trust and support to sustainable agricultural development [3]. In our opinion, artificial intelligence and machine learning should be incorporated as an approach to agricultural sustainability.

5.2 Waste reduction approach

The United Nations Development Program and the Global Environment Facility have installed solar-powered refrigeration units to help farmers store perishables without compromising quality [14].

French supermarket chain Intermarché in 2014 aimed to avoid waste by changing cultural attitudes toward “imperfect” foods. The “inglorious fruits and vegetables” campaign launched. Imperfect produce, often discarded before leaving the farm, accounts for up to 40% of edible fruits and vegetables [14].

Nine U.S. states mandate diverting organic waste from landfills to reduce methane emissions. Project Drawdown estimates that global implementation of these solutions could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 14 billion metric tons over 30 years [14].

Plant residues, whether burned, removed, or incorporated into soil, significantly impacts soil carbon stocks. However, since there are often other uses for such coproducts [6], variations in alternatives may arise.

If current food practices continue, by 2050 emissions due to food lost would rise from 18 to 22 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Instead, if better practices are put in place in several levels of the food chain, then annual emissions related to food waste could drop from 8 to 11 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, depending on the ambitious of the plans implemented [14].

Food production facilities must assure food safety but also implement a plan toward sustainable practices. For example, aquaculture sustainability requires proper site and species selection, optimal culture systems, effective feed and feeding practices, bioremediation, reduced dependence on fishmeal and fish oil, compliance certification, and improved research and legislation [18]. Other food production practices may require similar efforts, but assessment of every operation should be encouraged.

Considering global trends, it is crucial to focus on understanding the trade-offs between food safety, human consumption, and the operational needs of farming, aquaculture, animal food production, and transportation. Evaluating these systems necessitates expanding the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) toolbox to more accurately model the shifts in demand and impacts. While environmental extended input-output methods have enhanced the assessment of the global food system, they often categorize agricultural products broadly, lacking the granularity of LCA. Input-output analysis has categories that lack the detail of Life Cycle Analysis. Therefore, more data collection is needed for underassessed foods and impact pathways. The complexity of these mechanisms requires interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists beyond the LCA community to better describe and quantify the environmental impacts of food system interactions [13].

5.3 Sustainable aimed sections in food safety protocols

Food safety protocols should include or modify their questions aiming at promoting sustainable practices. Examples of this type of questions are given in Table 6:

Section	Question	Metric
Water	Do water volumes used in operation take into account recharging volumes?	Water volumes used must not be superior to water recharges to water sources. It can be based on water authority information. Operations should demonstrate that they are not part of water depletion and is adjusting its operation water volumes according to water recharging volumes, therefore not generating water depletion, scarcity, or lowering water freatic level.
	Gray and fecal matter contaminated water produced in the facility are treated or dispose according to recognized international recommendations?	Gray and fecal matter contaminated water should be treated before it can be returned to nature
	Do the company have identified water used in their facilities as water withdrawn or consumed water?	Water should be identified as withdrawn or consumed. Withdrawn water refers to all the water extracted from a water body, of which a part might be returned to the environment and/or returned to treatment systems in the same location where it was extracted. Consumed water is water not returned to the environment and/or treatment systems in the same location where it was extracted. Consumed water can be part of their products and/or can be transported to other locations for several reasons.; Withdrawn or consumed water volumes must be identified.
	Do water usage practices promote biodiversity conservation?	Water used should be returned to the environment without any chemicals or contamination that may affect biodiversity.
Cleaning chemicals	Chemicals used for cleaning bathrooms are appropriate to promote water treatment?	Chemicals identified to cause septic tank failures by killing the bacteria essential to the treatment process in the septic tank should be avoided. Chemicals identified to affect water treatment should be avoided.
	Are cleaning chemicals and/or formulation identified?	All chemicals or formulations used for cleaning must indicate the chemical substances contained in the formulations and not only active ingredients. Ingredients posing treats to the environment should be identified and have a limited use.
	Cleaning personnel is trained on environmental impacts or cleaning products?	Personnel training on cleaning product and practices environmental impacts must be performed. Awareness of cleaning products and practices to the environment should be focused in biodiversity conservation through the use of sanitation practices that minimizes environmental impact and helps create a biodiversity conservation culture in communities.
	Hand sanitizers are biodegradable and do not contain chelating chemicals as part of their formulations.	Hand sanitizers must be biodegradable and preferable should not contain chelating chemicals in their formulations.
Pest control chemicals and practices	Are pest control chemicals and practices adjusted to avoid a negative impact on the environment and biodiversity.	Protocols indicating how practices performed in the facility are designed to avoid an adverse effect on environment and biodiversity.
Pesticides	Do pesticide use is based on regenerative agriculture practices recognized by international organizations.	It should be demonstrated that regenerative agriculture is considered in chemical substances used.
Fertilization	Do fertilization use is based on regenerative agriculture practices recognized by international organizations.	It should be demonstrated that regenerative agriculture is considered in chemical substances used.
Waste	Waste inventories are available?	Waste inventories must be available.
	Waste reducing plan has been created to reduce waste?	Waste reducing plan must be available in order to reduce materials usage.
	Do material used in previous seasons or production times can be allowed to be used in future seasons or productions times?	In order to get to zero waste are the materials like labels and packing materials designed in order to be used in the future in case there are leftovers from previous production times.
	Do waste management practices reduce the generation of greenhouse gas emissions	Waste management is focused in reducing, recycling, and reuse of materials. Burning and practices that may generate carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases emissions must be avoided when possible. Waste should be disposed in a manner that lowers the environmental impact.
	Do waste management practices reduce environmental negative impacts and promote biodiversity conservations	Biodiversity must not be affected by waste management practices.

Table 6.

Example questions and metrics that may be included in food safety protocols or in sustainable certifications.

These are some example questions and are only intended to give an example of food safety questions aimed to promote sustainability. It is necessary to create questions that consider all food chain participants in order to make them more applicable. For example, Food Safety Act in the USA has been released and applied in a staggered manner to allow producers and food handling facilities to be ready to full application of this regulation. Biodiversity and environmental questions related to food safety can also be applied in the same manner, in order to be industry friendly protocols. Therefore, the recommendation for sustainable food safety protocols should must be created, reviewed, and presented in audits as recommended practices and subsequently be enforced in a mandatory manner in a reasonable period of time.

5.4 Environmental assessments may fail, and food safety protocols are more robust and accepted protocols

Food safety protocols are widely accepted and enforced across the industry. Some protocols already include some questions about environment and water, for example, Globalgap (formerly known as Euregap). This may be a good reason to include questions that may help to lower environmental impacts.

While environmental assessments may be can be voluntary compliance. It has been reported that alarming fact is, many environmental impact assessments (EIA) are of limited value and some are virtually useless. Many EIA are failing to stop dangerous projects, and there are accumulating failure examples. EIA sometimes approve projects that harm critical habitats or endanger species, highlighting the need for more stringent evaluation criteria. EIA are failing due to four main reasons: 1) Not enough economic, material, and time resources are dedicated to creating complete assessments; 2) impacts of any development are rarely confined to its planned spatial footprint; 3) many economic interests may come in play; and 4) evaluators that may stop a project may not be hired in next projects assessments; there is a clear conflict of interests [32].

In this sense, the environment can be better protected if environmental requirements are included in different protocols that companies and governments are forced to comply with. Therefore, food safety protocols are a good way to reinforce care for the environment and sustainability practices.

6. Conclusions

Food safety certification system should be modified to take into account sustainable practices and encourage modifications in the food production chain to promote better and more sustainable operation practices.

In water usage practices, they should be designed to avoid water sources depletion, water scarcity, and be adjust to recharging annual water volumes.

Waste management must be focused not only in food safety but also in creating waste inventories, minimizing waste, and reducing environmental impacts and the generation of greenhouse gases due to waste management practices.

Chemical usage should not only focus on personnel and food safety but also in environmental impact. Pest control and cleaning chemicals environmental impacts can be reduced by practices like training and adhering to already existing protocols.

Biodiversity conservation and environment impact questions can be added to protocols, environmental questions already exists in protocols like Globalgap. Keeping a good soil biodiversity can help reducing fertilizer usage. Biodiversity conservation and low environmental impact will help on food safety because pathogenic microorganisms tend to be controlled by populations of beneficial microorganisms. Minimizing environmental impacts of sanitation chemicals including those found in bathroom and hand cleaning will help to avoid present and future food risks.

Food safety protocols are a good way to reinforce care for the environment and sustainability practices.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements go to our families for their support, to CINVESTAV in giving the opportunity for increased or preparation and capacities to be able to this type of documents, and to Tecnologico de Monterrey for allowing the collaboration.

Disclaimer

This an original work aimed to help a transition toward sustainable food safety systems. This work was not funded by any institution nor organization.