Toxicological impacts and mitigation strategies of food contaminants: a global perspective and comprehensive narrative review

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract

Highlights

• •Food contaminants threaten global food safety and human health.
• •Chronic exposure to food contaminants causes cancer, endocrine, and neurodegenerative disorders.
• •Heavy metals, mycotoxins, and pesticides damage DNA and disturb cellular redox homeostasis.
• •LC-MS and ICP-MS enhance detection and regulatory monitoring of food contaminants.
• •Evidence-based and integrated strategies across the food chain ensure sustainable food safety.

Abstract

Food contaminants—including chemical, biological, physical, allergenic, and radiological agents—pose major global food safety challenges. This review synthesizes evidence from 2014 to 2025 on Food contaminants sources, cellular and molecular mechanisms, monitoring strategies, and mitigation approaches. Major food contaminants include heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic), mycotoxins (aflatoxins, and ochratoxin A), pesticide residues, allergens, microplastics, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), radioactive isotopes (cesium-137, and iodine-131), and microbial agents such as Bacillus, Salmonella, Listeria, and Escherichia species. At the molecular level, heavy metals trigger oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and DNA damage; aflatoxins form DNA adducts, driving carcinogenesis; organophosphate residues inhibit cholinesterase; allergens activate IgE-mediated hypersensitivity; and radiological agents generate reactive oxygen species, causing lipid peroxidation and genomic instability. Regulatory agencies, including WHO, FDA, EFSA, and the European Commission, classify metals as priority hazardous substances and set maximum residue limits (MRLs), tolerable daily intakes (TDIs), and action levels for vulnerable populations, such as children. For example, cadmium in wheat is limited to 100 ppb in the EU, lead in candy to 0.1 ppm, and arsenic in apple juice to 10 ppb. Advanced detection technologies, such as liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), enable precise monitoring of contaminants at trace levels. Mitigation strategies emphasize improved agricultural practices, safe processing, allergen control, environmental monitoring, and policy enforcement. Ongoing research on emerging contaminants, particularly PFAS and nanoplastics, is crucial to strengthening food safety systems and protecting public health.

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies food contamination as a major global challenge, stating that “contamination in one place may affect consumers on the other side of the planet” (Altaf, 2016). The Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO, defines a contaminant as “any substance not intentionally added to food, present as a result of production, processing, packaging, transport, storage, or environmental exposure” (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995, World Health Organization, 2024). Similar definitions from the FAO, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) emphasize that contaminants are unintended biological, chemical, or physical agents that pose health hazards and require regulatory oversight based on toxicological risk assessments (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2024, Food and Administration, 2024, European Food Safety Authority, 2024). Food contaminants originate from environmental pollution, agricultural practices, food processing, and handling (de la Cruz et al., 2023). These include heavy metals, pesticides, mycotoxins, pathogens, allergens, and foreign particles that compromise food safety from farm to fork. Climate change further amplifies these risks by altering ecosystems and increasing toxic exposures (Sharma et al., 2020).

The health impacts from contaminants are severe: heavy metals impair the nervous system, pesticides disrupt endocrine functions, mycotoxins cause carcinogenic effects, and pathogens lead to gastrointestinal diseases (Mahunu et al., 2024). Toxicological pathways include oxidative stress, DNA damage, and inflammatory responses (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020). Mitigation relies on regulatory frameworks, good agricultural practices, advanced food processing, and public education (Ali et al., 2021). Despite these measures, the WHO estimates that foodborne pathogens infect approximately 600 million people each year, leading to around 420,000 deaths and numerous severe illnesses requiring hospitalization (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025). The associated medical expenses and productivity losses may exceed USD 110 billion annually (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025). The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) estimates that more than 1.5 million deaths globally were attributed to lead exposure in 2021, primarily due to cardiovascular effects (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2024). Additionally, lead exposure was estimated to account for more than 33 million years lost to disability (disability-adjusted life years, or DALYs) worldwide in 2021. In 2010, cyanide in cassava, peanut allergen, aflatoxin, and dioxin combined were estimated to cause 339,000 illnesses, 20,000 deaths, and 1,012,000 DALYs (Gibb et al., 2015 Dec). This review integrates recent global evidence on chemical, biological, physical, and other types of food contaminants, elucidating their origins, toxicodynamic mechanisms, and associated health risks. It further examines international monitoring systems and regulatory frameworks (FAO, WHO, FDA, EFSA), highlighting innovative mitigation strategies and the growing challenges that environmental pollution, climate change, and industrialization pose to global food safety.

Methods

This narrative review synthesizes qualitative evidence on the sources, toxicological impacts, and mitigation strategies of food contaminants. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language publications from January 2014 to May 2025. Search terms included combinations such as “food safety,” “chemical contaminants,” “microbial toxins,” “biological contaminants,” “physical contaminants,” “allergenic contaminants,” and “radiological contaminants.” Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed studies, gray literature, and institutional reports addressing toxicology, biotechnology, or public health aspects of food contaminants. Studies focusing on mitigation strategies or exposure reduction approaches were prioritized. Eligible studies also examined diverse populations, geographical settings, and food systems to ensure a broad evidence base. Exclusion criteria included non-English publications, studies lacking sufficient methodological detail, and studies not relevant to food contaminants. Editorials, opinion pieces, and commentaries without empirical evidence were also excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, followed by full-text review to confirm eligibility. Data were extracted using a standardized matrix to systematically capture study characteristics and synthesize key findings qualitatively.

Classification of food contaminants based on source and nature

Major food safety authorities—including Codex Alimentarius (FAO/WHO), FDA (USA), EFSA (Europe), Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Canada), and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (Australia/New Zealand)—classify food contaminants into five primary categories: chemical, biological, physical, allergenic, and radiological (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995, World Health Organization, 2024, Food and Agriculture Organization, 2024, Food and Administration, 2024, European Food Safety Authority, 2024) (Table 1 & Fig. 1). These classifications are based on their origin, toxicological properties, and potential health effects. In addition, cross-contamination sources, processing-related contaminants (e.g., acrylamide, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)), and emerging contaminants (e.g., microplastics, nanomaterials, and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)) are increasingly recognized due to advancements in analytical detection and global surveillance systems.

Table 1.

Types, examples and health effects of food contaminants.

Types	Examples	Key characteristics	Cause/sources
Chemical contaminants
Pesticides and herbicides (Mdeni et al., 2022)	Organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and glyphosate.	Synthetic compounds used to control pests; persistent	Agricultural application, contaminated soil or water
Food additives (Sheth, 2023)	MSG, nitrates, and nitrites	Substances added to enhance taste, preserve, or improve appearance	Intentional addition during processing; overuse can be harmful
Heavy metals (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020)	Lead, mercury, chromium, nickel, and cadmium	Non-biodegradable elements; accumulate in environment	Natural mineral content, industrial pollution, mining, combustion, and fertilizers
Phytotoxins (Mititelu et al., 2025)	Cyanogenic glycosides, ricin, saponins, and tannins.	Naturally occurring plant toxins	Certain plant species, improper processing or storage
Mycotoxins (Chen et al., 2022, Bachheti et al., 2020)	Aflatoxins, ochratoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and ergot alkaloids	Fungal secondary metabolites	Mold growth in crops during harvest, storage, or transport
Processing aids (Hellberg and Chu, 2016, Pawar et al., 2023)	Amylase, solvents like hexane, catalysts such as nickel, and antifoaming agents	Used in manufacturing or processing	Residual chemicals from food processing steps
Veterinary drugs (Vinay et al., 2025, Morley et al., 2005)	Antibiotics like tetracyclines, hormones like estradiol, and antiparasitics like ivermectin	Drugs administered to livestock	Residues in meat, milk, or eggs from treated animals
Food contact materials (Alamri et al., 2021, Caneschi et al., 2023)	BPA, phthalates, mineral oil hydrocarbons, and PFAS	Chemicals migrating from packaging or equipment	Leaching from plastic containers, cans, coatings, and non-stick surfaces
Process-related contaminants (Geueke and Muncke, 2018, Sheth, 2023)	Acrylamide, PAHs, chloropropanols, furan, and nitrosamines	Formed during heating, smoking, or processing	Thermal treatment, frying, smoking, roasting, and chemical reactions in processed food
Environmental pollutants (Stadler et al., 2020)	Dioxins, PCBs, and POPs like DDT and HCB	Persistent organic pollutants	Industrial discharge, waste incineration, pesticide use, and environmental contamination
Biological contaminants
Bacteria (Alum et al., 2016, Garvey, 2019, Asuming-Bediako et al., 2019, Koluman and Koluman, 2017, Scallan et al., 2011, Zhu et al., 2017)	Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes	Single-celled microorganisms; may produce toxins	Contaminated water, raw food, poor hygiene, inadequate cooking
Virus (Garvey, 2019)	Norovirus and Hepatitis	Require living hosts to replicate	Contaminated food or water, and infected handlers
Paasites (Alum et al., 2016, Garvey, 2019)	Giardia lamblia, Toxoplasma gondii, and Trichinella spiralis	Eukaryotic organisms infecting humans via food	Contaminated water, undercooked meat, and unwashed produce
Fungi (Awuchi et al., 2021, Abdolshahi and Yancheshmeh, 2020, Yenew et al., 2025 Jul)	Molds and yeasts	Eukaryotic microorganisms	Contaminated crops, and poor storage conditions
Physical contaminants (Ahmed et al., 2021, Bujang et al., 2020, Cavalheiro et al., 2020, Singh et al., 2019)
	Plastic, shattered glass, metal bits, stones, wood splinters, hair, bone fragments, and pests.	Foreign objects accidentally introduced	Improper handling, packaging, machinery, or storage
Allergenic contaminants (Mdeni et al., 2022, Blom et al., 2018, Esteban et al., 2017)
	Peanuts, dairy, eggs, soybeans, wheat, seafood, shellfish, tree nuts, and sesame.	Proteins triggering immune response	Cross-contact during processing, mislabeling, and natural presence in foods
Radiological contaminants (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021, Rajkhowa et al., 2021)
	Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and radon	Radioactive isotopes	Nuclear accidents, contaminated soil, water, or air

Abbreviations: BPA: bisphenol A; DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid; DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HCB: hexachlorobenzene; MSG: monosodium glutamate; PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PCBs: polychlorinated biphenyls; PFAS: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances; POPs: persistent organic pollutants.

Fig. 1.

The types of food contaminants with their classification.

Chemical contaminants

Chemical contaminants can enter the food supply during production, processing, storage, packaging, or through environmental exposure (Lebelo et al., 2021, Teschke, 2022). These include pesticides, herbicides, synthetic additives, phytotoxins, mycotoxins, processing aids, veterinary drugs, and chemicals migrating from packaging or equipment. Pesticides such as organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and glyphosate may accumulate in crops, while additives like MSG, colorants, and preservatives can leave residues or form secondary compounds (Mdeni et al., 2022). Plant-derived metabolites—including alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, terpenoids, phenolics, and lectins—as well as fungal mycotoxins such as aflatoxins, ochratoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and ergot alkaloids often persist through storage and processing (Chen et al., 2022, Bachheti et al., 2020, Hellberg and Chu, 2016). Processing aids (Vinay et al., 2025), veterinary drugs (Vinay et al., 2025, Morley et al., 2005), and migrating chemicals such as BPA, phthalates, PFAS, and MOHs (Morley et al., 2005), and heavy metals (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020) may also contaminate foods, along with compounds formed during thermal (Caneschi et al., 2023) or additive reactions (Geueke and Muncke, 2018), including acrylamide, PAHs, 3-MCPD, furan, ethyl carbamate, and benzene. Persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins, PCBs, and legacy pesticides, along with non-plant biological toxins from algae and bacteria, further contribute to chemical contamination (Sheth, 2023).

Heavy metals, comprising about 40 elements with densities greater than 5 g/cm³, exhibit toxicity dependent on chemical species and exposure dose (Stadler et al., 2020). Major sources include industrial emissions (mining, smelting, and manufacturing), agricultural practices (phosphate fertilizers containing cadmium, and arsenic-based pesticides), and urban waste (electronic waste, and untreated sewage) (Akhtar et al., 2021). Even low-level, chronic exposure (0.5–5 µg/kg/day) can disrupt human metabolic processes (Rahman and Singh, 2019, Rai et al., 2019). Drinking water is a major exposure route for lead (Pb²⁺), arsenic (As³⁺/As⁵⁺), cadmium (Cd²⁺), and mercury (Hg²⁺), originating from natural sources like aquifers and human activities such as industrial discharge, mining, agricultural runoff, and aging water infrastructure. Lead exposure may stem from historical use of paint, gasoline, plumbing materials, and certain cookware, with the FDA’s Closer to Zero initiative providing guidance to minimize dietary lead in foods for infants and young children (Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-and-foodwares, 2025).

Cadmium contamination arises from soil, water, industrial activities, phosphate fertilizers, and products such as batteries and pigments (Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/fda-issues-warning-about-imported-cookware-may-leach-lead-august-2025). Mercury enters foods via natural sources (volcanic activity, and geological weathering) and human activities like fossil fuel combustion and small-scale gold mining, with seafood as the main dietary source. Arsenic occurs naturally in soils and rocks or from pesticide use, mining, fracking, and coal-fired power plants (Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/mercury-food, 2025). Levels in food vary with environmental concentration, bioaccumulation, and agricultural practices. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to neurotoxic effects during brain development, prompting the establishment of Interim Reference Levels and guidance on fish consumption to minimize exposure while maintaining nutrient intake (Flannery et al., 2020).

From 1998 to 2001, the British Geological Survey and Bangladesh’s DPHE analyzed 2,022 well water samples across 41 districts. They found that 51 % exceeded the WHO arsenic limit of 10 µg/L, 35 % surpassed Bangladesh’s 50 µg/L standard, and 25 % contained over 100 µg/L, with some wells reaching 1,000 µg/L (Available online: https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/groundwater/health/arsenic/Bangladesh/, 2025, Available online: https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/groundwater/downloads/bangladesh/reports/Vol1Summary.pdf, 2025). Among 326 deep groundwater samples, only 4.6 % exceeded 10 µg/L (Edmunds et al., 2015, Available online: https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/ groundwater/downloads/bangladesh/reports/Vol2MainBook.pdf, 2025), although this subset may underrepresent the broader problem. Cadmium levels ranged from 0.01–0.15 mg/L, far above the WHO limit of 0.003 mg/L, mainly due to industrial effluents (Mahajan et al., 2022). In Flint, Michigan (2014–2015), switching to the Flint River without corrosion control caused lead to leach from pipes, with household water levels reaching 13,000 ppb, far above the EPA action level of 15 ppb (The Flint Water Crisis: What’s Really Going On Available online: https://www.acs.org/education/chemmatters/past-issues/, 2025, Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water, 2025). In China, over 10 % of sampled water sources exceeded the WHO mercury limit of 1 µg/L, with concentrations up to 5 µg/L, highlighting global heavy metal contamination risks in drinking water (Mititelu et al., 2025).

Biological contaminants

Biological contaminants, including bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi, are common in the food supply and originate from sources such as contaminated water, animal feces, improper handling, and unhygienic processing (Alum et al., 2016). Bacteria such as Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli (E. coli O157:H7), and Listeria monocytogenes are frequently found in raw meats, unpasteurized dairy, and ready-to-eat foods (Garvey, 2019). Viral pathogens, including norovirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis E, and rotavirus, are transmitted through contaminated water, produce, or shellfish (Anukwonke et al., 2022). Parasites such as Giardia lamblia, Toxoplasma gondii, Trichinella spiralis, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Cyclospora cayetanensis are associated with undercooked meats, contaminated vegetables, or water (Alum et al., 2016). Fungi, including Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Rhizopus, colonize improperly stored foods and may produce mycotoxins (Awuchi et al., 2021, Abdolshahi and Yancheshmeh, 2020). Certain bacteria form heat-resistant spores, while many microbial species develop biofilms on food contact surfaces and equipment, enhancing persistence. Marine biotoxins, algal cells, and cyanobacteria can contaminate seafood, seaweed, and irrigation water (Alum et al., 2016).

In 2023, EU countries reported 251,603 foodborne infections and 1,450 outbreaks involving 10,894 people, mostly caused by bacteria (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)|European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), 2024). Campylobacteriosis was the most common, with 137,107 cases in 2022 (43.1/100,000), 10,551 hospitalizations, and 34 deaths, primarily linked to fresh poultry; 17.5 % of broiler carcasses exceeded the 1,000 CFU/g Campylobacter limit (EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2023, Asuming-Bediako et al., 2019). Salmonellosis, caused mainly by S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis, affected 65,208 people in 2022 (15.3/100,000), with 38.9 % hospitalized and 81 deaths. Salmonella contamination in animal-derived foods ranged from 7–8.9 % (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025, EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2023).

Yersiniosis, largely due to Yersinia enterocolitica (O3), was reported in 7,912 cases (2.2/100,000) across 26 EU countries in 2022, rising from 6,789 in 2021; animal testing showed <0.5 % positivity, and food contamination was ∼3.5 % (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025, EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2023). Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) caused 7,117 cases (2.1/100,000), with 38.5 % hospitalized and 28 deaths; HUS occurred in 562 cases (Koluman and Koluman, 2017). Listeriosis, though rare, had high mortality: 2,738 cases in 2022 (0.62/100,000) and 1,330 hospitalizations. The prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in livestock was highest in sheep and goats (5.8%) and in cattle (1.2%), and the pathogen was also detected in ready-to-eat foods such as meats, fish, and dairy products (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025, Scallan et al., 2011, Zhu et al., 2017). Fungal contamination in vegetables, especially in developing countries, is common. Yeasts averaged 0.94 log CFU/g and molds 0.90 log CFU/g, highest in spinach (yeast 1.09) and cabbage (mold 1.02). Contributing factors included unwashed produce, manual handling, floor display, lack of refrigeration, untrimmed fingernails, and afternoon sampling (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025, Yenew et al., 2025 Jul).

Physical contaminants

Physical contaminants are unintended foreign objects in food, typically arising from lapses in handling, processing, or quality control (Ahmed et al., 2021). Common examples include glass fragments, metal shards, stones, plastic particles, wood splinters, bone, hair, fibers, jewelry, and insects. Microplastics—particles smaller than 5 mm—are an emerging concern, found in seafood, salt, and processed foods, and may also carry chemical contaminants (Bujang et al., 2020). Contaminants can enter the food supply at any stage, from harvesting and processing to packaging, storage, and retail (Cavalheiro et al., 2020). These contaminants are classified as unavoidable or preventable. Unavoidable contaminants are small, incidental elements that remain despite quality control measures, such as soil on vegetables or stems in berries. Preventable contaminants, such as glass shards, plastic pieces, or jewelry fragments, can be minimized through proper handling and safety procedures (Singh et al., 2019).

Other types of food contaminants

Allergenic contamination occurs when trace amounts of proteins—such as milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, fish, shellfish, sesame, mustard, celery, lupin, or buckwheat—are unintentionally introduced during food production, processing, or handling (Blom et al., 2018). Cross-contact can arise from shared equipment, inadequate cleaning, airborne dispersal, or mislabeling (Mdeni et al., 2022). Hydrolyzed proteins, enzymes, spices, flavorings, and botanical extracts may also contribute (Esteban et al., 2017). Radiological contaminants, including isotopes such as cesium-137, strontium-90, iodine-131, plutonium-239, technetium-99, tritium, and naturally occurring radon, radium, and uranium, can enter the food chain via environmental contamination, nuclear activity, or waste disposal, accumulating in crops and aquatic systems (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021, Rajkhowa et al., 2021).

Emerging contaminants

Several emerging contaminants—including microplastics, tetrabromobisphenol A and its derivatives, agrochemicals, chemical ripening agents, heavy metals, phthalates, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products—have been detected in food chains (Eze et al., 2024). PFAS, highly persistent synthetic chemicals resistant to grease, oil, and heat, enter the food supply through contaminated environments or packaging (Ruffle et al., 2020). They have been used in industrial and consumer products since the 1940s and bioaccumulate in humans and animals. PFAS types vary: long-chain PFOS and PFOA are highly persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, while PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA are less persistent. Short-chain PFAS (GenX, and PFBS) are alternatives with lower persistence and toxicity, and emerging PFAS (PFPeA, and PFDoA) are under study for environmental behavior and exposure (Rajkhowa et al., 2021). Dioxins, including furans and dioxin-like PCBs, are released mainly from combustion and persist globally. PCBs, once used as coolants and dielectric fluids, remain in the environment. Benzene, emitted from automobiles, coal and oil combustion, and industrial production, and perchlorate, a naturally occurring and synthetic chemical, can also contaminate soil, water, and food (Genualdi et al., 2021). Radionuclides, either naturally occurring or from nuclear activities, may enter the food chain through soil, water, and crops (Alengebawy et al., 2021).

Plastics, widely used across industries, accumulate in landfills and ecosystems due to poor recycling. Weathering breaks plastics into microplastics (<5 mm) and nanoplastics (<1 μm), which can enter food via environmental contamination, air, or personal care products (Rajkhowa et al., 2021). Microplastics, originating from plastic breakdown, are widespread in the marine ecosystem and food supply. They are composed mainly of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyurethane (PU) (Genualdi et al., 2021). Dietary sources for humans include drinking water, crustaceans, mollusks, fish, and salt, with estimated daily intakes ranging from 6 to over 400 microplastic particles depending on the source (Rubio-Armendáriz et al., 2022). PFAS have been detected in seafood, freshwater fish, and grocery-purchased foods in the United States, highlighting the broad distribution of these emerging contaminants.

Mechanisms of toxicity

Highly reactive metal species such as methylmercury (MeHg), cadmium ions (Cd²⁺), lead ions (Pb²⁺), and inorganic arsenic species (AsIII and AsV) can bind to cellular enzymes, such as glutathione reductase or δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase, and interact with key molecular components (Rahman and Singh, 2019, Karri et al., 2018). These interactions may result in enzymatic inhibition, disruption of redox balance, interference with ion transport, and modulation of DNA repair processes. Their persistence and bioaccumulation within ecosystems amplify their presence in the food chain. Food contaminants influence biological systems through multiple molecular and cellular mechanisms that alter cellular homeostasis (Rahman and Singh, 2019) (Table 2 & Fig. 2).

Table 2.

Molecular and cellular mechanisms of food contaminant toxicity.

Mechanism	Molecular Pathway or Target	Representative Contaminants	Health Consequences	Target Body System/Organ
Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Dysfunction (Rahman and Singh, 2019, Rather et al., 2017, Srivastava et al., 2024)	ROS overproduction; mitochondrial DNA damage; mPTP opening; and ATP depletion	Heavy metals, pesticides, and mycotoxins	Lipid peroxidation, cell death, and organ dysfunction	Liver, brain, kidney, and cardiovascular system
DNA Damage and Genotoxicity (Onyeaka et al., 2024, Moe et al., 2016)	DNA adducts, strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations; p53, ATM, and ATR activation	Aflatoxins, heavy metals, and pesticides	Mutagenesis, and carcinogenesis	Liver, bone marrow, and GI tract
Cell Cycle Dysregulation (Rather et al., 2017)	G1/S or G2/M arrest; and cyclin/CDK dysregulation	Various genotoxicants	Uncontrolled proliferation or apoptosis	All proliferative tissues (e.g., liver, and colon)
Membrane Integrity and Ion Homeostasis (Rather et al., 2017, Onyeaka et al., 2024)	Disruption of lipid bilayers and ion channels (e.g., Ca2+ channels)	Cadmium, and lead	Altered signaling, apoptosis, and calcium overload	Neurons, cardiac muscle, and renal tubules
Protein Modification and Enzyme Inhibition (Rana et al., 2020)	Covalent adducts with protein residues; enzyme inactivation (e.g., glutathione peroxidase, and acetylcholinesterase)	Heavy metals, and pesticides	Impaired detoxification, neurotransmission, and cellular dysfunction	CNS, liver, and erythrocytes
Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress (Kordas et al., 2018)	UPR activation via CHOP and JNK pathways; misfolded protein accumulation	Chemical toxicants	Apoptosis, and protein misfolding diseases	Pancreas, liver, and neurons
Autophagy Dysregulation (Kubier et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2020)	Inhibited or excessive autophagic flux; and damaged organelle accumulation	Various contaminants	Oxidative stress, and autophagic cell death	Neurons, hepatocytes, and renal epithelium
Epigenetic Modifications (Xu et al., 2021)	DNA methylation, histone modification, and microRNA regulation	EDCs, heavy metals	Gene silencing, carcinogenesis, and heritable toxic effects	Germ cells, embryonic tissues, and liver
Intracellular Signaling Modulation (Srivastava et al., 2024, Collin et al., 2022, Kuraeiad and Kotepui, 2021)	MAPK, NF-κB, PI3K/Akt pathway disruption	Multiple contaminants	Inflammation, apoptosis, and metabolic imbalance	Immune system, endocrine organs, and brain
Microbiota Dysbiosis (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020)	Shift in microbial taxa; leaky gut; and impaired xenobiotic metabolism	Various foodborne contaminants	Inflammation, immune dysregulation, and metabolic disorders	Gastrointestinal tract, and immune system
Endocrine Disruption (de la Cruz et al., 2023, Tang and Zhao, 2021, Kumar et al., 2020)	Hormone receptor agonism/antagonism; and altered hormone biosynthesis	EDCs (e.g., BPA, and phthalates)	Reproductive, metabolic, and developmental disorders	Reproductive organs, thyroid, pancreas, and brain

BPA: bisphenol A; ROS: reactive oxygen species; RNS: reactive nitrogen species.

Fig. 2.

The molecular mechanism of food contaminants toxicity.

Molecular mechanisms

Oxidative stress is a major pathway for heavy metals, pesticides, mycotoxins, and emerging contaminants (Rahman and Singh, 2019). Excess reactive oxygen species (ROS)—including superoxide anions, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals—damage lipids, proteins, and DNA, impair mitochondrial electron transport, and activate intrinsic apoptotic pathways via cytochrome c (Rather et al., 2017). Metals such as cadmium, lead, and mercury strongly induce ROS even at low chronic exposure, whereas pesticide-induced oxidative stress is often dose-dependent and cumulative over repeated exposures (Srivastava et al., 2024). Genotoxicity involves DNA adduct formation, strand breaks, cross-linking, and chromosomal alterations (Onyeaka et al., 2024). Aflatoxins produce reactive epoxides with high genotoxic potency per unit exposure, while heavy metals and organophosphates induce oxidative DNA damage that contributes more to chronic cumulative toxicity (Moe et al., 2016). Cellular responses include activation of DNA repair pathways and cell cycle checkpoints (p53, ATM, and ATR) (Rather et al., 2017).

Protein and enzyme interactions occur via covalent adduct formation, sulfhydryl binding, and inhibition of detoxifying enzymes (e.g., glutathione peroxidase) or acetylcholinesterase, affecting metabolism, antioxidant defenses, and neurotransmission (Rana et al., 2020). Organophosphates show acute effects even at lower doses compared to metals. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress from protein misfolding triggers the unfolded protein response (UPR), and prolonged stress activates apoptotic signaling via CHOP and JNK pathways (Kordas et al., 2018). Epigenetic modifications—including DNA methylation, histone alterations, and microRNA regulation—modulate gene expression without changing sequences, influencing long-term cellular programming. EDCs show high potency even at low exposure, while metals and pesticides require higher or cumulative exposures to achieve similar epigenetic effects (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020).

Research by Srivastava et al. (2024) demonstrated that arsenate (AsV), the predominant species in aerobic soils, is co-transported into plant roots with inorganic phosphate (Pi) and translocated via high-affinity phosphate transporters (Srivastava et al., 2024). In Arabidopsis, AtPHT1;1, AtPHT1;4, AtPHT1;8, and AtPHT1;9 mediate AsV uptake, movement, and tolerance (Srivastava et al., 2024). In rice, xylem-mediated translocation of arsenite (AsIII) and AsIII-thiol complexes to shoots is driven by efflux transporters OsLsi2 and OsABCC7, while phloem loading of AsIII in Arabidopsis is regulated by AtINT2 and AtINT4 (Srivastava et al., 2024). Tang et al. (2021) identified OsMATE2 as key for arsenic accumulation in rice seeds (Tang and Zhao, 2021). Cadmium uptake involves nutrient transport systems for Ca, K, Zn, and Fe, including NRAMPs, HMAs, ZIP transporters, ABC transporters, and the YSL family (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020). Chromium (III) is absorbed passively, whereas chromium (VI) is actively transported via carriers for sulfate and phosphate (Xu et al., 2021). Comparative studies indicate that arsenic and cadmium accumulation in edible plant tissues can reach levels several-fold higher than other metals under similar soil or environmental exposure (Tang and Zhao, 2021).

Cellular mechanisms

Contaminants disrupt membrane and ion homeostasis, altering phospholipid bilayers, transporters, and ion channels, particularly calcium channels, which affects intracellular calcium flux, mitochondrial function, and apoptotic signaling (Chen et al., 2022, Awuchi et al., 2021). Cadmium and lead exert strong effects even at low chronic exposure, whereas pesticides and PFAS generally require higher concentrations or repeated exposures to perturb membrane transporters and receptors (Kubier et al., 2019). Autophagy modulation occurs when contaminants inhibit or over-activate autophagic flux, leading to accumulation of cellular components or autophagic cell death (Collin et al., 2022, Kuraeiad and Kotepui, 2021). Metals such as cadmium show moderate potency in autophagy inhibition, while EDCs may trigger signaling changes at very low exposure levels (Kumar et al., 2020).

Signaling pathways—including MAPKs, NF-κB, and PI3K/Akt—are perturbed, affecting inflammation, apoptosis, proliferation, and metabolism (Srivastava et al., 2024). EDCs interact with hormone receptors (estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and glucocorticoid) and modify biosynthetic and transcriptional programs, exerting potent molecular effects even at low exposure. Metals and pesticides act depending on bioaccumulation, tissue distribution, and cumulative exposure (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020, Tang and Zhao, 2021). Comparative analyses suggest that arsenic and cadmium have higher cellular accumulation potential, while organophosphates and EDCs show stronger acute signaling effects at lower doses (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020).

Health risks from food contaminants

Food contaminants pose two main types of health risks: chronic and acute (Eze et al., 2024 Jun) (Table 3 & Fig. 3). Chronic health risks arise from long-term or repeated exposure to low levels of contaminants, gradually accumulating in the body and potentially causing conditions such as cancer, neurodegeneration, metabolic disorders, and reproductive impairments (Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/mercury-food, 2025). Acute health risks result from a single or short-term exposure to high contaminant levels, leading to rapid-onset effects such as gastrointestinal illness, neurological disturbances, allergic reactions, or toxic organ injury (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)|European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), 2024) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Chronic and acute health impact of food contaminants.

Contaminant type	Chronic health impacts	Acute health impacts	Key stakeholders/notes
Heavy Metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020, Rahman and Singh, 2019, Rai et al., 2019)	Neurodevelopmental deficits, cognitive impairment, kidney and liver damage, cardiovascular disorders, and reproductive toxicity	Gastrointestinal irritation, neurological symptoms (tremors, ataxia, and paresthesia), renal impairment, and multi-organ failure in severe cases	Regulators (FDA, EFSA, and WHO), farmers, food processors, water suppliers, and public health authorities
Mycotoxins (aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, and fumonisins) (Bachheti et al., 2020, Hellberg and Chu, 2016)	Hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, immunosuppression, and carcinogenicity	Acute mycotoxicosis: liver damage, hemorrhagic manifestations, and immunosuppression	Grain producers, storage facilities, regulatory agencies, and food safety labs
Pesticides (organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and glyphosate) (Mdeni et al., 2022)	Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and metabolic disorders	Cholinergic symptoms, paresthesia, dizziness, convulsions, and gastrointestinal irritation	Farmers, agrochemical companies, regulatory bodies, and public health organizations
Process-Related Contaminants (acrylamide, PAHs, and nitrosamines) (Geueke and Muncke, 2018)	Carcinogenicity, liver and kidney injury, and chronic inflammation	Nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, and CNS effects at high doses	Food processors, packaging industry, regulatory agencies, and risk assessors
Allergenic Proteins (milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, fish, shellfish, sesame, mustard, celery, lupin, and buckwheat) (Esteban et al., 2017)	Sensitization, and chronic allergic conditions	IgE-mediated reactions: urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis	Food manufacturers, restaurants, labeling authorities, healthcare providers, and consumers
Biological Contaminants (Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria, Norovirus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium) (Scallan et al., 2011, Zhu et al., 2017)	Chronic gastrointestinal disorders, and post-infectious sequelae	Acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever; and severe outcomes like hemolytic uremic syndrome	Farmers, slaughterhouses, food processors, restaurants, and public health authorities
Radiological Contaminants (cesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90) (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021)	Thyroid, bone, and other cancers, and developmental abnormalities	Acute radiation syndrome: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mucosal ulceration, and hematopoietic suppression	Nuclear regulatory agencies, environmental monitoring bodies, food suppliers, and public health authorities
Physical Contaminants (glass, metal shards, stones, plastics, and insects) (Cavalheiro et al., 2020, Singh et al., 2019)	Rare long-term effects	Mechanical injury: oral and gastrointestinal lacerations, and choking, perforation	Food manufacturers, processing plants, inspectors, and packaging companies
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) (BPA, phthalates, PCBs, and PFAS) (Stadler et al., 2020)	Reproductive dysfunction, metabolic disorders, and thyroid abnormalities	Acute effects rare; primarily chronic exposure concerns	Manufacturers of plastics and consumer products, regulatory bodies, researchers, and healthcare providers
Microplastics and Chemical Residues (Rajkhowa et al., 2021, Genualdi et al., 2021)	Altered gut microbiota, impaired nutrient absorption, and immune system disruption	Acute effects uncommon; primarily chronic exposure concern	Environmental agencies, food processors, water utilities, and research institutions

Fig. 3.

The chronic and acute health impacts of food contaminants.

Chronic health impacts

Exposure to heavy metals, organophosphates, mycotoxins, and other contaminants can cause neurotoxicity, manifesting as cognitive deficits, developmental delays, and an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020, Mdeni et al., 2022, Chen et al., 2022, Bachheti et al., 2020). Many contaminants are carcinogenic, including aflatoxins, acrylamide, PAHs, and nitrosamines, affecting the liver, kidneys, and other organs (Chen et al., 2022, Bachheti et al., 2020). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and metals impair reproductive and developmental outcomes (Sterckeman and Thomine, 2020). Immunotoxic contaminants—such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticides, and allergens—alter immune responses (Bachheti et al., 2020). EDCs, microplastics, and chemical residues can disrupt metabolism, gut microbiota, and systemic homeostasis, contributing to obesity, insulin resistance, and chronic inflammation (Stadler et al., 2020). Radiological contaminants (137Cs, 131I, and 90Sr) and persistent chemicals like POPs pose cumulative risks to cardiovascular, thyroid, and metabolic health (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021, Rajkhowa et al., 2021). Chronic exposure also promotes genotoxicity and heritable epigenetic changes (Alengebawy et al., 2021).

Acute health impacts

Biological contaminants such as Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Listeria, norovirus, and Giardia cause gastrointestinal illness within hours to days (Alum et al., 2016, Garvey, 2019, Asuming-Bediako et al., 2019). Organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and glyphosate induce neurological and systemic toxicity (Mdeni et al., 2022). Acute heavy metal exposure can cause gastrointestinal, neurological, and renal effects (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020), while mycotoxins may provoke severe hepatotoxicity (Bachheti et al., 2020). Allergenic proteins can trigger IgE-mediated reactions, including anaphylaxis (Blom et al., 2018). Physical contaminants may lead to mechanical injuries, and radiological isotopes can cause acute radiation syndrome (Singh et al., 2019). Process-related chemicals and residual solvents can provoke nausea, central nervous system effects, and mucosal irritation following high-level exposure (Sheth, 2023).

Mitigation strategies and policy or control measures

Food contamination mitigation requires integrated approaches across the food production, processing, distribution, and consumption chain. Strategies must be tailored to contaminant types but often share common preventive and control principles. (Stadler et al., 2020) (Table 4 & Fig. 4).

Table 4.

Common and distinct mitigation strategies of food contaminants.

Contaminant Class	Mitigation Strategy	Description	Examples of Mitigation	Key Stakeholders
Common Strategies to All Contaminants (Bereda, 2025, Amir et al., 2021, Asuku et al., 2024, Bailey et al., 2012, Bihn and Reiners, 2018, Brown and Lee, 2020, Castillo et al., 2016, Cauvain and Young, 2016, Chichester and Tracey, 2017, Danyo et al., 2024, El Hawari et al., 2024, Elmassry et al., 2022, Elumalai and Shanmugasundaram, 2024, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2018, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2019, Farkas et al., 2010, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021, Gänzle, 2015, Gurikar et al., 2023, Harshitha et al., 2024, Hartmann et al., 2024, Igbal et al., 2018, Jones et al., 2014, Jukes and Jukes, 2014, Kumar and Sharma, 2018, Li and Sun, 2022, Li and Zhao, 2024, Matta and Gjyli, 2016, Meena et al., 2020, Mertens et al., 2017, Miao et al., 2014, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 2015, Omotayo et al., 2019, Patel and Zhang, 2019, Pesticide Action Network, 2020, Saldaña et al., 2011, Sekoai et al., 2019, Shigaki, 2020, Singh et al., 2023, Thompson and Darwish, 2019, Turner and Griffiths, 2020, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2016, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2020, Vojdani and Vojdani, 2021, World Health Organization (WHO), 2020, Yuan et al., 2013, Zadeh and Fallah, 2021, Zhang and Li, 2021, Zohri et al., 2015)	Good Agricultural and Manufacturing Practices (GAPs & GMPs)	Preventive measures at farm and processing level to reduce contamination risks.	Regulating pesticide use, sanitation in processing, and pest control	Farmers, processors, manufacturers, and regulators
	Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)	Risk-based identification and control of contamination points in food production.	Metal detection, cooking, allergen cross-contact prevention, and radiological monitoring	Food safety managers, QA teams, and regulators
	Effective Sanitation and Hygiene	Cleaning, hygiene, and environmental decontamination to reduce biological, allergenic, chemical, physical, and radiological hazards.	Equipment cleaning, handwashing, and soil/water decontamination in radiological zones	Food handlers, sanitation teams, and supervisors
	Supplier Control and Raw Material Screening	Ensuring raw materials come from verified, approved sources to limit contaminants.	Supplier audits, and pesticide residue and microbial testing	Procurement teams, suppliers, and food safety labs
	Food Traceability and Recall Systems	Systems to quickly identify and remove contaminated products from the market.	Batch tracking, barcode systems, and blockchain	Manufacturers, distributors, and regulators
	Analytical Testing and Monitoring Programs	Routine laboratory tests for contaminants and environmental surveillance.	HPLC, GC–MS for chemicals; ELISA for allergens; PCR for pathogens; and radionuclide assays	Food testing labs, and regulatory agencies
	Education and Training of Personnel	Training workers on contamination risks and control measures.	Allergen control workshops, chemical handling training, and hygiene protocols	Employers, trainers, and safety officers
	Proper Labeling and Allergen Declarations	Accurate ingredient and allergen labeling to inform consumers and prevent exposure.	Ingredient lists, allergen warnings, and origin labeling	Manufacturers, regulators, and consumer groups
	Regulatory Compliance and International Standards	Compliance with global/national safety standards and contaminant limits.	Codex MRLs, FDA and EU contaminant limits	Regulators, and import/export authorities
	Technological Interventions	Advanced technology use to reduce contaminants or enhance detection and traceability.	Irradiation, high-pressure processing, optical sorting, and biosensors	Processors, and technology providers
	Risk Communication and Public Awareness	Educate consumers on safe food handling and contamination risks.	Public advisories on outbreaks or radiological events	Public health agencies, media, and NGOs
	Environmental and Source Control	Environmental-level controls to reduce contaminant entry into the food chain.	Regulating industrial discharge, runoff management, and soil remediation	Environmental agencies, farmers, and industries
Chemical Contaminants (Mahunu et al., 2024, Lebelo et al., 2021, Chen et al., 2022, Caneschi et al., 2023, Stadler et al., 2020, Mititelu et al., 2025, Rajkhowa et al., 2021, Eze et al., 2024, Alengebawy et al., 2021, Kordas et al., 2018, Li and Zhao, 2024, Singh et al., 2023, Sekoai et al., 2019, Asuku et al., 2024, Bihn and Reiners, 2018)	Substitution of Hazardous Substances	Replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives.	Use of natural preservatives instead of synthetic nitrites	Food chemists, manufacturers, and regulators
	Regulation and Withdrawal of High-risk Substances	Ban or restrict toxic pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, endocrine disruptors.	Banning DDT, and restricting BPA	Regulators, agricultural and authorities
	Setting and Enforcing Maximum	Residue Limits (MRLs) | Define safe residue levels specific to food types.	Codex MRLs for pesticides	Regulators, and testing labs
	Processing Optimization	Modify processing to minimize harmful chemical formation.	Lower frying temperatures to reduce acrylamide	Food technologists, and manufacturers
	Buffer Zones and Runoff Control	Prevent chemical drift and leaching in agricultural landscapes.	Buffer strips, water management practices	Farmers, and environmental agencies
	Material Selection for Food Contact Surfaces	Use packaging that does not leach hazardous chemicals.	BPA-free plastics, phthalate-free films	Packaging manufacturers, and regulators
Biological Contaminants (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020, Vinay et al., 2025, Stadler et al., 2020, Rahman and Singh, 2019, Rai et al., 2019, Awuchi et al., 2021, Ahmed et al., 2021, Singh et al., 2019, Esteban et al., 2017, Rajkhowa et al., 2021, Rana et al., 2020, Kubier et al., 2019, Bihn and Reiners, 2018, Harshitha et al., 2024, Omotayo et al., 2019, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2019)	Thermal Inactivation	Heat treatments to kill pathogens.	Pasteurization of milk, and cooking meat	Food processors, and QA teams
	Time-Temperature Control (Cold Chain)	Refrigeration/freezing to inhibit microbial growth.	Cold storage of seafood, and frozen foods	Supply chain managers, and retailers
	High-Pressure Processing (HPP)	Non-thermal pathogen inactivation while preserving food quality.	HPP treatment of juices, and RTE meats	Food processors
	Biocontrol Agents and Competitive Exclusion	Use beneficial microbes to suppress pathogens.	Lactic acid bacteria in fermented foods	Microbiologists, and producers
	Bacteriophage Application	Use specific phages targeting harmful bacteria.	Phages targeting Listeria in ready-to-eat meats	Biotech companies, and food producers
	Parasitic Cyst Deactivation	Freezing or acidification to kill parasites.	Freezing fish to deactivate parasites	Processors, and regulators
	Mycotoxin Reduction Strategies	Resistant crop varieties, drying, and toxin binders to reduce mycotoxins.	Grain drying < 13 % moisture, and bentonite in animal feed	Farmers, and feed manufacturers
Physical Contaminants (Ali et al., 2021, Bachheti et al., 2020, Geueke and Muncke, 2018, Anukwonke et al., 2022, Bujang et al., 2020, Kordas et al., 2018, Asuku et al., 2024, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2016, Gurikar et al., 2023, Jukes and Jukes, 2014, Igbal et al., 2018, Pesticide Action Network, 2020, Shigaki, 2020, Zadeh and Fallah, 2021, Chichester and Tracey, 2017)	Metal Detection and X-ray Inspection	Detection of metal and non-metal foreign objects.	Inline metal detectors, and X-ray machines	Process engineers, and QA teams
	Optical Sorters and Sieving	Removal of stones, shells, and extraneous matter.	Optical sorting of nuts, and sieving grains	Processors, and equipment suppliers
	Magnetic Traps	Capture iron particles in liquids and powders.	Magnetic traps in flour mills	Equipment suppliers, and processors
	Product Design Review	Avoid use of fragile materials that can break and contaminate food.	Avoiding glass thermometers	Product designers, and QA teams
	Physical Segregation and Zoning	Dedicated zones to reduce cross-contamination with physical hazards.	Separate packaging rooms	Facility managers
Allergenic Contaminants (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2024, Food and Administration, 2024, de la Cruz et al., 2023, Lebelo et al., 2021, Akhtar et al., 2021, Rahman and Singh, 2019, Meena et al., 2020, Omotayo et al., 2019, El Hawari et al., 2024, Farkas et al., 2010, Saldaña et al., 2011, Cauvain and Young, 2016, Miao et al., 2014, Yuan et al., 2013, Hartmann et al., 2024, Vojdani and Vojdani, 2021, Mertens et al., 2017, Bailey et al., 2012)	Dedicated Equipment and Production Lines	Separate processing lines to prevent allergen cross-contact.	Nut-free or gluten-free product lines	Manufacturers, and QA teams
	Validated Cleaning Protocols	Allergen-specific cleaning verified with sensitive tests.	ELISA swabbing for peanut/milk residues	Sanitation teams, and QA teams
	Allergen Mapping and Risk Zoning	Identify allergen flow and restrict access to minimize cross-contact.	Controlled allergen zones	Facility managers
	Supplier Auditing and Ingredient Testing	Verify allergen declarations and screen for hidden allergens.	Testing spices and imported ingredients	Procurement, food safety labs
	Air Handling Systems	Control airborne allergen spread through ventilation and airflow management.	Localized ventilation, and HEPA filtration	Facility engineers
	Controlled Recipe Formulation	Avoid or substitute high-risk allergenic ingredients.	Using hypoallergenic substitutes	Product developers
Radiological Contaminants (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995, World Health Organization, 2024, Food and Administration, 2024, Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020, Morley et al., 2005, Blom et al., 2018, Esteban et al., 2017, Meena et al., 2020, Omotayo et al., 2019, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2016, Zohri et al., 2015, Castillo et al., 2016, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 2015, Thompson and Darwish, 2019, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2018, Jones et al., 2014, Gänzle, 2015, Patel and Zhang, 2019, Kumar and Sharma, 2018, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2020, Turner and Griffiths, 2020, Li and Sun, 2022, Zhang and Li, 2021, Brown and Lee, 2020)	Soil Remediation and Crop Rotation	Phytoremediation and crop substitution to reduce radionuclide uptake.	Deep plowing, planting non-food crops	Environmental agencies, and farmers
	Foodstuff Substitution	Use uncontaminated feed, irrigation water, and raw materials.	Sourcing irrigation water from safe supplies	Farmers, and supply chain managers
	Postharvest Processing Techniques	Washing, peeling, blanching reduces surface radionuclides.	Washing leafy vegetables, and peeling root crops	Processors
	Import/Export Controls	Radiological testing and certification of foods from affected regions.	Fukushima food import restrictions	Customs, and regulators
	Regional Bans and Land-Use Restrictions	Prohibit agriculture in contaminated zones.	Nuclear accident exclusion zones	Governments, and regulators

Fig. 4.

Common and distinct mitigation strategies of food contaminants.

Mitigation strategies of chemical food contaminants

Mitigation strategies are practical approaches implemented across the food chain to prevent, reduce, or remove chemical contaminants in foods (Ali et al., 2021). Their main intention is to minimize contaminant introduction and accumulation while maintaining food quality and safety. The pervasive presence of chemical contaminants in the food supply necessitates comprehensive mitigation strategies spanning the entire food production and supply chain. Effective control measures integrate preventive, monitoring, and corrective approaches designed to reduce contaminant introduction, accumulation, and human exposure (Li and Zhao, 2024 Oct 5).

Agricultural Practices and Source Control: Mitigation begins at the agricultural level through adoption of good agricultural practices (GAPs) that minimize chemical input and environmental contamination. Integrated pest management (IPM) reduces reliance on hazardous pesticides by employing biological controls, crop rotation, and resistant cultivars, thereby lowering pesticide residues in crops (Stadler et al., 2020). Optimization of fertilizer application and water management limits heavy metal uptake from contaminated soils and irrigation sources (Li and Zhao, 2024 Oct 5). Soil remediation techniques, including phytoremediation and bioremediation, facilitate the removal of persistent contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides from agricultural lands (Caneschi et al., 2023).

Processing and Manufacturing Controls: Food processing stages present critical points for contaminant introduction or formation. Implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems enables identification and control of contamination risks during processing (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021). Thermal processing parameters can be optimized to minimize formation of process-related contaminants such as acrylamide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Rajkhowa et al., 2021). Use of clean processing aids and strict verification of raw materials prevent introduction of chemical residues. Additionally, packaging materials should comply with migration limits for substances like bisphenol A and phthalates, and food contact materials must be routinely tested to prevent leaching of harmful chemicals (Esteban et al., 2017).

Post-Harvest and Storage Interventions: Post-harvest handling and storage conditions influence contaminant levels, particularly for mycotoxins and pesticide residues (Stadler et al., 2020). Adequate drying, temperature, and humidity control inhibit fungal growth and mycotoxin production (Sharma et al., 2020). Use of biocontrol agents and natural antifungal compounds offers promising alternatives to chemical preservatives (Mahunu et al., 2024). Moreover, proper storage materials and conditions reduce migration of packaging-related contaminants into food products (Singh et al., 2023).

Consumer-Level Mitigation: At the consumer level, awareness and behavior modification contribute to exposure reduction. Washing, peeling, and cooking can decrease pesticide residues and microbial contamination on fresh produce (Kordas et al., 2018). Selection of foods from verified sources and adherence to expiry dates further minimize risks (Stadler et al., 2020). Public education campaigns play a vital role in informing consumers about safe food handling and contaminant avoidance (Sekoai et al., 2019).

Emerging Technologies: Innovative technologies are advancing the mitigation of chemical contaminants. Nanotechnology-enabled sensors enhance rapid detection and real-time monitoring of contaminants throughout the supply chain (Lebelo et al., 2021). Advanced filtration and detoxification techniques, such as activated carbon adsorption, enzymatic degradation, and ozone treatment, demonstrate efficacy in removing pesticide residues and mycotoxins from food matrices and water (Alengebawy et al., 2021). Genetic engineering of crops for increased resistance to pests and reduced uptake of heavy metals offers long-term potential to limit contaminant accumulation (Asuku et al., 2024).

Targeted Detoxification Techniques: Specific contaminants require tailored detoxification approaches. For example, mycotoxin contamination can be reduced by physical sorting, chemical detoxification (e.g., ammonization), and biological degradation using microbial enzymes (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020). Heavy metal contamination may be addressed through soil amendments that reduce metal bioavailability or phytoremediation using hyperaccumulator plants (Asuku et al., 2024). Novel adsorbents and binding agents added during processing can sequester residual toxins, and reducing bio accessibility (Bihn and Reiners, 2018).

Innovations in Analytical and Predictive Tools: Cutting-edge analytical technologies enable more precise identification and quantification of chemical contaminants, allowing rapid response and targeted mitigation. High-throughput screening, biosensors, and spectrometric techniques facilitate early contamination detection in raw materials and finished products (Lebelo et al., 2021). Coupled with predictive modeling and big data analytics, these tools support risk prioritization and resource allocation for mitigation efforts (Harshitha et al., 2024). Sustainable Agricultural Intensification: Sustainability-focused strategies emphasize reducing chemical inputs while maintaining crop yield. Organic farming practices, agroecology, and conservation agriculture promote soil health and biodiversity, thereby reducing contaminant entry into the food chain (Harshitha et al., 2024). Integrated nutrient management and precision agriculture technologies optimize fertilizer and pesticide applications, minimizing environmental residues and food contamination (Omotayo et al., 2019).

Food Chain Traceability and Certification: Robust traceability systems enhance mitigation by enabling rapid identification and recall of contaminated food batches. Implementation of blockchain and digital tracking technologies improves transparency and accountability throughout the supply chain (Stadler et al., 2020). Certification schemes, including Global GAP and organic labels, enforce compliance with contaminant control standards and promote consumer confidence (Harshitha et al., 2024).

Policy and control strategies

Policy and control measures are regulatory frameworks, standards, and guidelines established to govern food safety practices (Ali et al., 2021). Their goal is to ensure consistent, legally enforceable protection against chemical contaminants.

Regulatory Standards and Monitoring: International and national regulatory agencies, including the European Union, U.S. FDA, EFSA, and USEPA, have established maximum residue limits (MRLs), tolerable daily intakes (TDIs), and action levels for hazardous metals in food. For example, the EU sets cadmium in wheat at 100 ppb to prevent market contamination (European Commission, 2006) (Elmassry et al., 2022), while the FDA limits lead in candy to 0.1 ppm and arsenic in apple juice to 10 ppb, acknowledging sensitive populations (Mititelu et al., 2025). Arsenic occurs as inorganic arsenate (AsV) and less toxic organic forms—MMAV, MMAIII, DMAV, and DMAIII (Srivastava et al., 2024, Matta and Gjyli, 2016). Lead exists as Pb (II) ions, inorganic compounds (CO₃²⁻, and SO₄²⁻), or organic ligands such as fulvic and humic acids (Kumar et al., 2020). WHO guidelines recommend 3.0 µg/L for cadmium in water (Kubier et al., 2019), while chromium (VI) often exceeds the 50-ppb guideline (Srivastava et al., 2024). Regular monitoring programs using advanced analytical methods such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) facilitate trace detection (Chen et al., 2022), and risk assessment frameworks guide regulatory decision-making (World Health Organization (WHO), 2020).

Risk Communication and Stakeholder Engagement: Effective mitigation necessitates transparent communication among producers, regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders. Dissemination of risk information related to chemical contaminants promotes informed decision-making and compliance with safety standards (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021). Training programs for farmers and food handlers on best practices, safe pesticide use, and contamination avoidance foster proactive mitigation (Harshitha et al., 2024). Consumer education campaigns also empower individuals to make safer food choices and adopt hygienic practices, thus reducing exposure (Danyo et al., 2024).

International Collaboration and Harmonization: Given the transboundary nature of food trade and contaminants, harmonization of standards and joint monitoring efforts are essential. Organizations such as Codex Alimentarius Commission, WHO, and FAO facilitate development of internationally recognized maximum residue limits and risk assessment protocols (Asuku et al., 2024). Collaborative surveillance networks enable early detection of contamination outbreaks and dissemination of mitigation guidance globally, ensuring consistent food safety across borders (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021).

Regulatory Enforcement and Capacity Building: Enforcement of food safety regulations requires adequate laboratory infrastructure, trained personnel, and legal frameworks. Capacity building in low- and middle-income countries is critical to improve detection, monitoring, and mitigation capabilities. Support from international agencies aids development of national food safety authorities and harmonization of regulatory systems (Amir et al., 2021).

Mitigation strategies for biological food contaminants

Practical measures implemented throughout the food production and supply chain to reduce, control, or eliminate biological contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025). To prevent contamination and proliferation of microorganisms, ensuring food safety from farm to fork and minimizing the risk of foodborne illnesses.

Biological contaminants in food, including bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi, represent significant sources of foodborne illnesses worldwide. Effective mitigation requires an integrated, multi-hurdle approach encompassing pre-harvest, post-harvest, processing, and consumer-level interventions to minimize microbial contamination and proliferation throughout the food supply chain (Elumalai and Shanmugasundaram, 2024).

Good Agricultural and Aquacultural Practices: At the primary production level, implementing Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Aquacultural Practices (GAqP) is fundamental to reducing contamination from pathogenic microorganisms. This includes the use of clean water for irrigation and animal husbandry, appropriate manure management, crop rotation to reduce pathogen persistence, and control of animal access to growing areas. Monitoring soil quality and preventing the introduction of zoonotic pathogens from livestock through biosecurity measures are essential components (Rajkhowa et al., 2021). Hygienic Harvesting and Handling: Minimizing microbial contamination during harvesting and initial handling is critical. Workers’ hygiene training, use of sanitized tools and containers, and avoidance of contact with contaminated water sources reduce cross-contamination risks. Prompt cooling and appropriate packaging inhibit microbial growth and extend shelf life (Rajkhowa et al., 2021, Kubier et al., 2019).

Thermal Processing and Pasteurization: Thermal interventions remain the cornerstone of microbial inactivation in food processing. Pasteurization, boiling, blanching, and cooking effectively reduce bacterial, viral, and parasitic loads. The parameters—temperature and time—are optimized to balance microbial safety with preservation of nutritional and sensory qualities. Thermal treatment protocols must be rigorously validated for different food matrices (Ahmed et al., 2021). Non-Thermal Technologies: Emerging non-thermal decontamination methods offer promising alternatives to heat treatment, preserving food quality while ensuring microbial safety. High-pressure processing (HPP), pulsed electric fields (PEF), ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, cold plasma, and ultrasound disrupt microbial cells and inactivate pathogens with minimal impact on food nutrients and organoleptic properties (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021).

Proper Storage and Temperature Control: Maintaining appropriate cold chain logistics—from harvest to retail—is essential to inhibit microbial growth and toxin production. Refrigeration (4 °C or below) and freezing slow metabolic activities of most pathogens and spoilage organisms. Storage conditions must be monitored continuously, with rapid temperature recovery after handling and transportation (Rana et al., 2020).

Water Quality Management: Ensuring the microbiological safety of water used in food production and processing is vital. Treatment methods such as chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet disinfection, and filtration reduce pathogen loads in irrigation and wash water. Regular water quality monitoring prevents contamination outbreaks linked to contaminated water sources (Rai et al., 2019). Sanitation and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP): Strict adherence to sanitation protocols and GMP in food processing facilities reduces cross-contamination risks. Cleaning and disinfection of equipment, surfaces, and facilities using validated agents and methods prevent biofilm formation and microbial persistence. Personnel hygiene, pest control, and facility design also contribute to effective microbial control (Vinay et al., 2025).

Use of Bio preservatives and Natural Antimicrobials: The application of bio preservatives, including bacteriocins (e.g., nisin, and pediocin), organic acids (e.g., lactic acid), and plant-derived compounds (e.g., essential oils, and phenolics), offers a natural and consumer-friendly approach to controlling microbial growth in foods. These substances inhibit spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms through mechanisms such as membrane disruption and enzyme inhibition, extending shelf life and enhancing food safety (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2019).

Controlled Atmosphere and Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP): Controlled atmosphere (CA) and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) technologies manipulate the gaseous environment surrounding food products to suppress microbial proliferation and oxidative degradation. By reducing oxygen levels and increasing carbon dioxide or nitrogen concentrations, these methods delay microbial spoilage, particularly in fresh produce, meats, and seafood. Optimization of gas composition and packaging materials is critical for efficacy (Esteban et al., 2017). Rapid Detection and Diagnostic Technologies: The development and deployment of rapid, sensitive diagnostic tools, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assays, immunoassays, and biosensors, facilitate early identification of microbial contaminants in food production and processing environments. Early detection enables timely interventions and reduces the risk of contaminated product distribution (Singh et al., 2019).

Probiotics and Competitive Exclusion: Utilizing beneficial microorganisms, or probiotics, to outcompete and inhibit pathogenic bacteria in foods is an emerging strategy. Competitive exclusion leverages the natural microbiota to maintain microbial balance and prevent colonization by harmful species, especially in fermented foods and animal production (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020). Water Reuse and Wastewater Treatment: In agricultural and processing settings, safe reuse of water is increasingly important. Advanced wastewater treatment technologies, including membrane filtration, advanced oxidation processes, and constructed wetlands, reduce microbial loads in effluents and prevent contamination of irrigation water and food contact surfaces (Rubio-Armendáriz et al., 2022).

Vaccination and Animal Health Management: Improving animal health through vaccination against zoonotic pathogens reduces microbial contamination risks in animal-derived foods. Healthier livestock populations lower pathogen shedding rates, decreasing environmental contamination and foodborne transmission (Rahman and Singh, 2019).

Policy and control measures (biological contaminants)

Regulatory, governance, and procedural frameworks that establish standards, enforce compliance, and guide interventions to manage biological hazards in food (Sheth, 2023). To maintain consistent food safety practices, monitor contamination, enforce hygiene standards, and protect public health at national and international levels.

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP): The implementation of HACCP systems enables systematic identification, monitoring, and control of biological hazards throughout food production and processing. Critical control points are established where contamination risks are highest, and corrective actions are taken promptly to maintain food safety (Bihn and Reiners, 2018).

Consumer Education and Safe Food Handling: Educating consumers on safe food handling practices, including thorough cooking, avoiding cross-contamination, proper refrigeration, and hygiene, is critical to reducing foodborne illnesses at the point of consumption. Public awareness campaigns and labeling can reinforce these behaviors (Rahman and Singh, 2019).

Traceability Systems and Supply Chain Management: Implementing robust traceability and supply chain monitoring systems enhances the ability to track contamination sources, enabling rapid recall of affected products and minimizing public health impacts. Blockchain and digital tracking technologies improve transparency and accountability in food production (Awuchi et al., 2021).

Mitigation strategies of physical contaminants

Practical and technical measures implemented throughout the food supply chain to prevent, detect, and remove foreign materials such as glass, metal, plastics, stones, wood splinters, or insect parts from food products (Ali et al., 2021). To minimize the introduction and persistence of physical contaminants in food, ensuring product integrity, consumer confidence, and safe consumption. Strategies include good agricultural and manufacturing practices, facility design, equipment maintenance, detection technologies, personnel training, supplier controls, packaging, storage, pest management, and traceability systems (Sheth, 2023).

Physical contaminants in food—comprising foreign materials such as glass shards, metal fragments, stones, plastics, wood splinters, and insect parts—pose significant risks ranging from mechanical injury to consumer distrust. The prevention and control of physical contamination demand a multi-tiered approach that spans from primary production through processing, packaging, and distribution (Asuku et al., 2024).

Good Agricultural and Manufacturing Practices (GAPs and GMPs): Effective mitigation begins at the agricultural level by implementing Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) to minimize contamination risks. This includes maintaining clean fields free of debris, controlling pests to prevent insect contamination, and ensuring appropriate harvesting techniques. During processing and manufacturing, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) establish hygiene protocols, proper facility design, and routine equipment maintenance to reduce the introduction of physical contaminants (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2016).

Facility Design and Equipment Maintenance: Designing processing plants and food preparation areas to minimize contamination sources is critical. This involves smooth, easy-to-clean surfaces, adequate lighting to detect foreign materials, and separation of raw and finished product areas. Regular inspection, maintenance, and calibration of machinery prevent component breakage and metal fragment shedding. The use of non-frangible materials and proper fasteners reduces the risk of physical debris entering food products (Gurikar et al., 2023). Physical Barriers and Detection Technologies: Physical barriers such as screens, filters, and sifters are widely employed to remove larger foreign materials from raw ingredients and during intermediate processing stages. Advanced detection technologies play an indispensable role in identifying physical contaminants (Geueke and Muncke, 2018).

Metal Detectors: These instruments detect ferrous and non-ferrous metal fragments and are commonly integrated on production lines to automatically reject contaminated products. Sensitivity calibration is essential to avoid false positives while ensuring safety (Kordas et al., 2018). X-ray Inspection: X-ray systems offer detection capabilities for a broader range of contaminants including glass, stone, dense plastics, and bone fragments (Bachheti et al., 2020). They can differentiate contaminants based on density differences and are suitable for packaged products. Vision Systems: Automated optical sorting technologies employ cameras and machine learning algorithms to identify physical contaminants by shape, color, and size, enabling removal without slowing production (Bujang et al., 2020). Magnetic Separators: Magnets positioned at critical points in processing lines attract and remove ferrous metal particles, preventing contamination downstream (Jukes and Jukes, 2014).

Personnel Training and Awareness: Training of all personnel involved in food handling is crucial to ensure vigilance against physical contamination. Workers must be educated on contamination sources, proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), reporting of equipment faults, and adherence to hygiene standards. Encouraging a food safety culture facilitates early detection and prevention of contamination events (Asuku et al., 2024). Supplier Control and Raw Material Inspection: Establishing stringent supplier quality assurance programs mitigates the risk of physical contaminants entering the production chain via raw materials. Incoming materials should be inspected using appropriate screening and detection methods. Supplier audits and certifications further ensure compliance with contamination control standards (Anukwonke et al., 2022). Packaging and Transportation Controls: Secure packaging materials and tamper-evident seals protect food products from physical contaminants during storage and transit. Packaging lines should be monitored to prevent foreign object introduction, and transportation conditions should minimize product damage or contamination risks (Elmassry et al., 2022).

Raw Material Handling and Storage Controls: Proper handling and storage of raw materials are fundamental to reducing physical contamination. Segregation of raw materials, use of covered storage areas, and regular cleaning of storage facilities prevent ingress of foreign materials such as dust, stones, and insect debris. Inventory management to avoid prolonged storage reduces degradation and contamination risk (Igbal et al., 2018). Environmental Monitoring and Pest Control: Environmental monitoring programs assess contamination risks in processing and storage environments. Routine inspection of floors, ceilings, walls, and equipment surfaces identifies sources of physical debris. Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies control rodents, insects, and birds, which are common vectors of physical contaminants and microbial hazards (Pesticide Action Network, 2020).

Waste Management and Cleaning Protocols: Effective waste segregation and disposal prevent cross-contamination with food products. Establishing cleaning schedules and validating sanitation procedures ensure removal of residual physical contaminants. Use of appropriate cleaning agents and verification by visual inspection or detection technologies maintains facility hygiene standards (Ali et al., 2021). Implementation of Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS): The adoption of comprehensive FSMS frameworks, such as HACCP and ISO 22000, formalizes risk assessment and control of physical contaminants. Identification of critical control points (CCPs) for foreign material contamination allows targeted monitoring and corrective actions to be implemented proactively (Shigaki, 2020).

Policy and control measures (physical contaminants)

Regulatory, procedural, and governance frameworks that establish standards, compliance requirements, and enforcement mechanisms to control the presence of physical contaminants in foods (Mahajan et al., 2022). To provide oversight, standardize safety practices, guide contamination prevention, ensure effective monitoring, and support rapid response and recall of affected products (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025). Policies include food safety management systems (HACCP, ISO 22000), inspection protocols, traceability, and consumer protection regulations.

Product Traceability and Recall Preparedness: Robust traceability systems enable rapid identification and removal of contaminated batches from the supply chain. Electronic tracking of raw materials, processing steps, and distribution channels facilitates targeted recalls and minimizes public health impacts from physical contaminants. (Zadeh and Fallah, 2021) Consumer Education and Awareness: While primarily a responsibility of manufacturers and regulators, educating consumers about risks of physical contaminants, proper food handling, and reporting of suspected contamination supports food safety culture and facilitates early detection of contamination incidents (Chichester and Tracey, 2017).

Mitigation strategies of allergenic food contaminants

Mitigation strategies are practical, operational measures implemented within food production, processing, and handling to prevent, reduce, or eliminate allergenic contamination. The goal is to minimize cross-contact and inadvertent exposure to allergenic substances, thereby protecting sensitized consumers and maintaining food safety (Blom et al., 2018).

Allergenic contamination in food presents a significant challenge to food safety due to the potentially severe immunologic reactions it can provoke in sensitized individuals (El Hawari et al., 2024). Effective mitigation of allergenic contaminants requires an integrated approach encompassing agricultural practices, food processing, manufacturing, labeling, and regulatory oversight. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Facility Design: Allergenic contamination in food presents a significant challenge to food safety due to the potentially severe immunologic reactions it can provoke in sensitized individuals. Effective mitigation of allergenic contaminants requires an integrated approach encompassing agricultural practices, food processing, manufacturing, labeling, and regulatory oversight (Farkas et al., 2010).

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Facility Design: Implementing stringent Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) minimizes cross-contact of allergenic substances in food production environments. Facility design with dedicated lines, segregated storage, physical barriers, and air filtration systems helps reduce allergen dispersal and contamination risks (Rahman and Singh, 2019). Cleaning and Sanitation Protocols: Cleaning protocols must account for the resistance of allergenic proteins to standard cleaning agents. Validated sanitation procedures using tailored detergents or enzymatic cleaners, combined with allergen-specific assays, ensure removal of residues to below detection thresholds (de la Cruz et al., 2023). Supplier and Ingredient Controls: Ingredient controls begin at the supplier level, requiring certification, testing, and traceability to detect and prevent undeclared allergen entry. Digital traceability tools improve identification and withdrawal of contaminated batches, reducing risk to sensitive populations (Saldaña et al., 2011).

Analytical Detection and Monitoring: Routine allergen monitoring using immunoassays or DNA-based techniques supports verification of control measures. These analytical tools provide reliable data for preventive actions before contaminated foods reach consumers (Cauvain and Young, 2016). Novel Technological Interventions: Innovations like enzymatic degradation, nanobiotechnology, high-pressure processing, and smart packaging are being explored to reduce allergenic potential or enhance allergen detection (Lebelo et al., 2021).

Environmental Controls and Air Quality Management: Air filtration, humidity control, and environmental monitoring reduce airborne allergen spread, particularly in facilities handling powdered allergens. These practices support a contamination-free environment (Miao et al., 2014).

Policy or control measures (allergenic contaminants)

Policy or control measures are formal regulatory and governance actions established by authorities to enforce allergen management in food production, labeling, and distribution. The aim is to ensure compliance, standardize safety practices, protect public health, and provide clear information to consumers regarding allergen presence in foods (Urban-Chmiel et al., 2025, Blom et al., 2018).

Accurate Labeling and Allergen Declaration: Compliance with international and national allergen labeling laws is essential. This includes mandatory ingredient disclosure and voluntary precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) based on thorough risk assessments. Harmonization efforts by global food safety authorities are improving consistency. (Yuan et al., 2013) Employee Training and Awareness: Employee training on allergen control practices, hygiene, and protocol adherence significantly reduces human error and unintentional cross-contact. Routine refresher programs build a safety-oriented culture in food facilities (Meena et al., 2020, Hartmann et al., 2024).

Supply Chain Transparency and Traceability: Blockchain and digital tracking platforms increase visibility from farm to fork. These systems allow rapid identification of contamination points and facilitate timely recalls of allergen-containing products (Harshitha et al., 2024). Risk-Based Allergen Management Systems: Adapted HACCP frameworks prioritize allergen control based on likelihood and severity. These risk-based approaches help identify critical control points and deploy resources where they are most needed (Mertens et al., 2017). Consumer Education and Communication: Educating consumers on label interpretation, cross-contact risks, and safe practices at home complements industrial allergen control efforts. Targeted outreach improves knowledge among allergic individuals and caregivers (Omotayo et al., 2019). Regulatory and Standardization Initiatives: Efforts by Codex Alimentarius and national regulatory bodies aim to establish unified thresholds, standard precautionary labels, and clearer allergen terminology to protect consumers globally (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2024, Food and Administration, 2024).

Dedicated Allergen Control Teams and Auditing: Establishing allergen control teams ensures accountability and proactive oversight. Internal and third-party audits reinforce compliance and identify improvement areas (Bailey et al., 2012). Packaging Innovations: Active packaging materials with allergen-absorbing properties and tamper-evident features reduce contamination risks post-manufacture. Smart packaging can also provide real-time environmental exposure alerts (Akhtar et al., 2021).

Mitigation strategies of radiological contaminants

Mitigation strategies are practical, operational measures aimed at preventing or reducing the uptake, persistence, or transfer of radionuclides into food products (Ali et al., 2021). The goal is to minimize contamination of the food chain and reduce exposure to radionuclides through preharvest, postharvest, processing, and environmental interventions (Bodin and Menetrier, 2021).

Radiological contaminants, including cesium-137 (137Cs), strontium-90 (90Sr), iodine-131 (131I), plutonium isotopes (239Pu, 240Pu), and naturally occurring radionuclides such as uranium and radon, pose significant health risks due to their ionizing radiation, environmental persistence, and bioaccumulation in food chains. To manage these risks effectively, multi-level mitigation strategies have been developed across preharvest, postharvest, environmental, regulatory, and public health domains (Food and Administration, 2024, Zohri et al., 2015).

Agricultural and Preharvest Measures: Mitigation at the agricultural level aims to prevent radionuclide uptake by crops and livestock. Soil amendment techniques, including the application of potassium, zeolite, and phosphate fertilizers, can effectively immobilize radionuclides such as 137Cs and 90Sr, reducing their plant availability through competitive ion exchange or sorption (Castillo et al., 2016). Selecting crop varieties with lower uptake potential and implementing rotation strategies favoring oil seeds or cereals over leafy vegetables further minimize foodborne accumulation. Irrigation with uncontaminated water, especially in regions with uranium or radon-rich groundwater, is another critical preharvest intervention (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 2015). These practices limit radionuclide migration from soil to plant and animal tissues and are fundamental to primary prevention.

Postharvest and Food Processing Interventions: Radiological burden can also be reduced through postharvest treatments. Surface contamination from radioactive fallout may be partially mitigated by thorough washing or peeling of produce. Boiling of vegetables or meats facilitates the leaching of soluble radionuclides like cesium and strontium into the cooking water, which must be discarded to minimize ingestion (Thompson and Darwish, 2019). In animal production, feeding livestock with clean or imported feed and restricting grazing in contaminated areas significantly lowers radionuclide content in milk and meat products (Meena et al., 2020). These food processing strategies are particularly valuable in emergency settings or where agricultural decontamination is not feasible.

Environmental Remediation: Long-term control of radiological contamination necessitates environmental interventions. Phytoremediation, involving the cultivation of radionuclide-accumulating plants, offers a biologically sustainable method of decontaminating soils (Omotayo et al., 2019). Although effective, this method requires careful disposal of radioactive biomass to avoid secondary exposure. In areas with high contamination, topsoil removal and replacement may be implemented, albeit at high economic and logistical cost. Establishing forest buffers and exclusion zones around contaminated regions further limits radionuclide migration into adjacent agricultural lands (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2018).

Isotope-Specific Food Testing and Tracer Analysis: Accurate identification and quantification of radionuclides in food matrices are critical to radiological food safety (Esteban et al., 2017). Advanced analytical techniques, including high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, liquid scintillation counting, and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), enable the detection of radionuclides such as cesium-137, iodine-131, and plutonium isotopes at trace concentrations (Jones et al., 2014). These tools support food surveillance, regulatory compliance, and consumer reassurance. Additionally, stable isotope tracing allows for the differentiation between naturally occurring radionuclides and anthropogenic contamination, thereby informing appropriate control strategies and policy decisions.

Food Processing Innovation and Decontamination Technologies: Emerging technologies offer new pathways for reducing radionuclide content in food. Chelation-assisted washing, employing agents like EDTA or citric acid, has demonstrated efficacy in extracting certain metal-based radionuclides from leafy vegetables and root crops (Jukes and Jukes, 2014). Additionally, microbial fermentation, enzymatic digestion, and biochemical transformation of contaminated biomass may reduce radionuclide bioavailability or partition contaminants into discardable fractions. Advanced processing methods, such as cold plasma treatment and pulsed electric field application, are under investigation for their potential to degrade or dislodge radionuclide particles without compromising food quality (Agnihotri and Aruoma, 2020).

Biofortification and Competitive Ion Management: Modulating plant mineral uptake pathways represents an innovative agricultural strategy to mitigate radionuclide accumulation in edible tissues. Biofortification with stable elements—such as calcium to inhibit strontium-90 uptake, or potassium to reduce cesium-137 absorption—relies on competitive inhibition within plant root ion channels (Gänzle, 2015). Such techniques not only lower radiological burden in crops but may also improve nutritional quality. Agronomic interventions, including mineral amendments and foliar sprays, can be adapted to local soil conditions and crop species to optimize uptake dynamics and food safety outcomes (Patel and Zhang, 2019).

Risk Assessment Modeling and Geographic Zoning: Spatial risk modeling and zoning frameworks support evidence-based decision-making in radiological food safety. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) integrated with soil composition, fallout distribution, and radionuclide mobility data help identify high-risk agricultural zones (Mertens et al., 2017). These predictive models allow for zoning classifications—such as restricted farming, limited grazing, or exclusion areas—which guide land use, crop selection, and decontamination priorities (Kumar and Sharma, 2018). Such tools are particularly valuable in post-nuclear disaster scenarios where long-term contamination must be managed strategically across diverse landscapes.

Public Health Communication and Consumer Guidance: Public health advisories play a crucial role in minimizing exposure. Consumer education emphasizes avoiding high-risk food items such as wild mushrooms, freshwater fish, and forest berries—products known to concentrate radionuclides. Additionally, dissemination of domestic food handling guidelines, such as washing, peeling, and boiling, enables individual risk reduction. These measures are especially pertinent in post-disaster recovery zones where food distribution networks may be disrupted (Morley et al., 2005, Blom et al., 2018).

Policy and control measures (radiological contaminants)

Policy or control measures are formal regulatory actions or guidelines that govern food safety with respect to radiological contaminants. The goal is to enforce compliance, harmonize safety standards, and prevent contaminated food from entering markets (Rajkhowa et al., 2021).

Regulatory Surveillance and International Standards: Food safety oversight depends heavily on national and international surveillance systems. Radiological monitoring of foodstuffs, particularly seafood, dairy, and root vegetables, helps enforce compliance with established maximum residue limits (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2020). The Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193–1995) specifies permissible levels for key radionuclides, including131I, 137Cs, and 90Sr, providing a harmonized framework for risk-based regulation (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995). Agencies such as the WHO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and national food control bodies also issue technical guidelines and maintain global radionuclide monitoring databases (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995). Trade restrictions and import/export bans on products from radiologically affected areas are commonly enforced as precautionary measures following nuclear incidents (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2016).

Public Transparency, Community Engagement, and Risk Communication: Transparent communication and stakeholder involvement are foundational for maintaining public trust and ensuring compliance with radiological safety practices. Risk communication strategies should convey complex scientific data in accessible language and include practical guidance on food handling, preparation, and avoidance of high-risk items (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2019). Community engagement—such as participatory soil testing, citizen science programs, and local food monitoring—enhances both public awareness and the resolution of surveillance systems. In areas where subsistence farming is predominant, education on methods such as peeling, boiling, or discarding outer plant tissues can significantly reduce household-level exposure (World Health Organization, 2024, Turner and Griffiths, 2020).

Emergency Response and Long-Term Recovery Planning: In response to nuclear accidents, governments often institute food control zones to prevent the marketing of contaminated products (Shigaki, 2020). Rapid contamination mapping and distribution control during early phases are critical to public safety. In the long term, strategies such as food substitution programs and economic compensation for affected farmers help stabilize food security and facilitate regional recovery (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2020). These approaches were exemplified in Japan’s response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, where intensive monitoring and phased reintroduction of agricultural production were employed.

International Collaboration and Emergency Food Safety Networks: Global cooperation enhances preparedness and responsiveness to radiological food safety threats. International mechanisms such as the FAO/WHO International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) facilitate rapid communication between countries during food contamination events, ensuring timely risk assessments and harmonized regulatory responses (Li and Sun, 2022). The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also provides technical assistance, capacity-building programs, and emergency guidelines for countries with limited radiological infrastructure. These efforts contribute to a cohesive international framework for mitigating cross-border risks and protecting global food security in radiological emergencies (Zhang and Li, 2021, Brown and Lee, 2020).

Institutional Food Control and Import Surveillance: National and international food control systems play a critical role in preventing radiologically contaminated food from entering supply chains. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. FDA enforce targeted import alerts and surveillance programs that restrict the entry of food commodities from regions with documented radiological incidents. For example, FDA Import Alert 99–33 places automatic detention on food shipments from areas affected by nuclear accidents until tested and proven compliant. Furthermore, institutional procurement protocols—particularly for hospitals, schools, and military facilities—often incorporate radiological safety checks during emergency response phases to ensure food supply integrity (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1995, Jones et al., 2014)^.

Limitations

This narrative review has several limitations. The non-systematic nature of the synthesis introduces potential selection and reporting biases and lacks the methodological rigor and reproducibility. In addition, this review is based solely on secondary sources and does not include original data or statistical analyses. Consequently, the findings and conclusions presented are dependent on the quality, consistency, and generalizability of the existing literature, which may vary across studies in terms of design, population, and scope.

Future directions

Future research should focus on long-term studies to elucidate the chronic health effects of low-dose, cumulative exposure to emerging contaminants such as microplastics, antibiotic residues, and endocrine disruptors. The development of rapid, cost-effective detection technologies, including biosensors, is essential for timely intervention across the food supply chain. Global harmonization of regulatory standards and improved traceability systems will be key to ensuring consistent food safety. Public education, behavioral interventions, and the investigation of natural detoxifying agents, such as plant-derived compounds and probiotics, may offer additional strategies. A multidisciplinary approach will be required to meet the growing complexity of food contamination and its health consequences.

Conclusion

Food contaminants—including chemical, biological, physical, allergenic, and radiological agents—pose ongoing threats to global health and food security. Their acute effects range from gastrointestinal illness and allergic reactions to neurotoxicity and physical injury, while chronic exposure contributes to cancer, endocrine disruption, neurodegenerative disorders, and heritable epigenetic alterations. At the molecular and cellular levels, heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticides, and radiological agents disrupt redox homeostasis, impair DNA integrity, interfere with enzymatic and signaling pathways, and activate apoptotic mechanisms. Regulatory frameworks from WHO, FDA, and the European Commission, complemented by advanced detection technologies such as LC-MS and ICP-MS, remain essential for monitoring and limiting exposure. Effective mitigation relies on improved agricultural and manufacturing practices, allergen control, environmental monitoring, and robust policy enforcement. Continued research on emerging contaminants, including PFAS and micro/nanoplastics, is critical to safeguard food systems and public health, emphasizing the need for integrated, evidence-based strategies across the entire food chain.

Declaration of competing interest

The author declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.