FoodChain ID webinar preview: Where will food safety risks emerge in 2027?

An ingredient shortage or last-minute supplier change can solve an immediate production problem while introducing a food safety risk. Ahead of 2027, FoodChain ID is urging manufacturers to look closely at how changing supply conditions affect the controls they have in place.

This is the focus of the upcoming webinar, “2027 Food Safety Risks for Quality & Compliance Leaders,” hosted by Food Ingredients First. Karen Everstine, director of Food Safety, and Panagiotis Gkegkas, technical manager at FoodChain ID, will explore emerging threats using intelligence from HorizonScan and the Food Fraud Database.

“For 2027, manufacturers should prioritize risks linked to changing supply conditions rather than relying only on historically high-risk ingredients,” they tell us.

The free webinar will be broadcast on October 15, 2026, at 16:00 CEST.

Supply changes demand closer scrutiny

Everstine and Gkegkas identify ingredient substitution, adulteration, changing pathogen risks, and contaminants among the priorities for manufacturers. 

Meanwhile, raw material or formulation changes can also introduce allergen and specification failures, while longer supply chains create traceability gaps, according to the speakers. Cybersecurity incidents affecting recipes, laboratory results, and release decisions add another dimension.

“Price volatility and shortages can encourage substitution or the use of less familiar suppliers. Climate and weather events can affect pathogen growth, crop disease, pesticide patterns, and naturally occurring contaminants such as aflatoxins,” they say.

“Geopolitical disruption and longer supply routes can reduce visibility and introduce additional intermediaries. Regulatory pressure can also accelerate sourcing or formulation changes, particularly in commodities such as cocoa.”

Cocoa and leafy greens offer warning signs

HorizonScan and the Food Fraud Database provide different perspectives on where manufacturers may need to investigate.

Karen Everstine, director of Food Safety at FoodChain ID.“HorizonScan shows how quickly food safety signals can develop across markets. Government alerts relating to pathogens, leafy greens, food fraud, and document fraud illustrate that risks can emerge across different stages of the supply chain and may affect raw materials and finished products,” Everstine and Gkegkas explain.

For leafy greens, they highlight recurring attention around E. coli and other hazards, alongside weather-related changes in agricultural conditions.

“The Food Fraud Database shows that fraud is often concentrated around economically valuable or supply-constrained ingredients. Cocoa and cocoa-based products provide a clear example.”

However, the speakers caution against assuming that an ingredient presents the same exposure for every business. Changes in origin, supplier, transport route, and the number of intermediaries all warrant scrutiny.

“Manufacturers should use these intelligence sources to identify where to look next, rather than treating them as a static list of high-risk ingredients,” they say.

Looking beyond the audit

While audits remain essential, the speakers note that the conditions assessed can change before the next review.

“Conventional audits remain important because they assess whether standards-based controls are in place and whether the organization can provide evidence of conformance. However, an audit is generally a point-in-time assessment,” say Everstine and Gkegkas.

“Emerging warning signs may appear first through a supplier change, a shortage, a customs hold, a customer complaint, a scientific development, a new fraud pattern, or a disruption to transport routes.”

Connecting those signals requires coordination across procurement, logistics, quality, and operations.

“The aim is not to replace audits, but to use current intelligence to determine whether existing controls are still appropriate before the next audit identifies a failure.”

Turning intelligence into action

For quality and compliance teams, the next step is to connect each relevant warning with a documented change, explain Everstine and Gkegkas.FoodChain ID’s technical manager says identifying ingredient substitution, adulteration, contaminations, and pathogen risks are top priorities for manufacturers.

“A change in market conditions, supplier, origin, manufacturer, transport route, or intermediary should trigger a structured assessment through the appropriate HACCP, VACCP, or TACCP process.”

Depending on the findings, this could mean revising supplier approval, ingredient specifications, sampling plans, or product-release criteria. Traceability checks and targeted mock recalls can help establish whether existing procedures work in practice.

The emphasis builds on FoodChain ID’s earlier discussion with Food Ingredients First about traceability and ingredient fraud, which highlighted the difficulty of achieving visibility across fragmented supply chains.

“Testing should follow the control assessment, but more testing is not automatically the right response. The organization should first identify where the hazard should be controlled, whether that control is effective, and what level of analytical assurance is justified,” the speakers add.

Priorities for stretched teams

For manufacturers with limited resources, Everstine and Gkegkas recommend concentrating attention where changes could have the greatest consequences.

“The first priority should be to identify the ingredients, suppliers, and supply routes where a change could have the greatest impact on product safety, legality, or authenticity.”

A simple emerging-risk register, clear review triggers, and named decision owners can help translate that focus into routine practice. The webinar will explore how teams can decide whether to act immediately, investigate further, or monitor a signal, then connect that decision to their existing controls.

“Attendees will leave with a framework for moving from emerging signals to preventive action.”

“The broader message is that being proactive does not mean predicting every incident. It means recognizing change early enough to strengthen controls while there is still time to prevent a failure, non-conformance, or recall.”