Falling Confidence in Food Safety Risk Management: Insights from the 2026 Willis Report

The food, beverage, and agriculture sectors are facing an unprecedented crisis of confidence, as highlighted in the latest Global Food, Beverage and Agriculture Risk Report published by Willis, a WTW business. The report, based on responses from 450 senior risk decision-makers surveyed in early 2026, reveals a dramatic drop in risk management assurance that has plummeted by 27 percentage points over two years. From 89% of respondents feeling somewhat or completely in control of their risks in 2023, only 62% expressed the same sentiment in 2026. As food safety and health issues emerge as paramount concerns, the report underscores a rapidly evolving regulatory and litigation environment that is reshaping the landscape for food industry stakeholders.

This sharp decline in confidence is not just a number; it's indicative of a broader, more complex risk landscape wherein food safety, supply chain vulnerabilities, and regulatory pressures are converging. As companies grapple with these challenges, understanding the underlying factors driving this decline becomes critical for stakeholders across the food and beverage industries.

The Evolving Landscape of Food Safety Litigation

One of the most significant findings from the Willis report is the escalating anxiety surrounding food safety and health risks. In 2026, 45% of respondents identified these concerns as top risks, a notable increase from just 29% in 2024. This rise is largely attributed to a transformative lawsuit filed in December 2025 by the San Francisco City Attorney against major food manufacturers. This case represents a fundamental shift in how food-related litigation is approached.

The Shift from Individual Causation to Public Nuisance Claims

Traditionally, product liability claims required plaintiffs to demonstrate direct causation between specific products and health issues. However, the San Francisco lawsuit has pivoted towards unfair competition claims and public nuisance theories, echoing strategies seen in tobacco and opioid litigation. This departure from the individual causation requirement is particularly concerning for food manufacturers, as existing product liability wordings may not adequately respond to claims centered around public cost recovery theories.

The implications of this shift are profound. As noted in Swiss Re's sigma insights published in March 2026, ultra-processed foods are emerging as potential long-tail liability risks. This means that a successful case in one jurisdiction could set a precedent for similar lawsuits across multiple markets, leading to a dramatic rise in liability costs over time. For underwriters in the food and beverage sector, the San Francisco case is not merely a local issue; it serves as a potential template for future litigation.

Regulatory Changes and Their Impacts

Alongside the evolving litigation landscape, regulatory actions are also accelerating. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the process of formalizing a definition of ultra-processed foods, which encompasses additives, emulsifiers, and preservatives. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in June 2026 that this proposed definition was under White House review and expected to be published soon.

A formal regulatory definition will have far-reaching implications, providing future plaintiffs with a clear basis for establishing which products fall within the contested category. This connection will significantly tighten the relationship between regulatory classification and litigation exposure, further heightening concerns among food industry leaders.

The Rising Tide of Supply Chain Risks

Supply chain vulnerabilities remain a pressing concern for food and beverage companies, with 44% of respondents in the Willis report citing it as a significant risk, up from 40% in 2024. This increase is largely driven by geopolitical instability, trade tensions, and disruptions that have become commonplace in today’s global economy. The interconnectedness of supply chains means that disturbances in one region can have cascading effects on food availability and safety elsewhere.

The Importance of Business Continuity Plans

In response to these challenges, 83% of firms now report having formal business continuity plans, an increase from 78% in 2024. These plans are critical in helping companies navigate potential disruptions and maintain operational stability. According to an Oxford Analytica and Willis client survey, 61% of respondents identified rising trade barriers as the most challenging geopolitical trend to manage, linking directly to business interruption and contingent business interruption exposures for food sector clients with cross-border supply dependencies.

Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) Risks

Despite the daunting regulatory environment, ESG risk management continues to be a priority for 84% of respondents over the next two years. This resilience reveals a sector that is not only focused on compliance but is also proactively addressing physical climate risks. Increasingly, growers and producers are feeling the operational impacts of climate change, including droughts, floods, water stress, and land degradation.

The convergence of food safety litigation, supply chain disruptions, and physical climate exposure creates a complex risk environment. Rather than viewing these pressures in isolation, it is crucial for industry leaders to understand how they interplay and amplify one another. For instance, a climate-related event could disrupt supply chains, leading to food shortages that in turn heighten scrutiny from regulators and litigants alike.

Key Takeaways

• Confidence in risk management within the food sector has dropped significantly, now at 62% from 89% in 2023.
• Food safety and health risks have surged, with 45% citing it as a primary concern, primarily due to evolving litigation frameworks.
• Regulatory changes, including a new definition of ultra-processed foods, are likely to increase litigation exposure for manufacturers.
• Supply chain risks are heightened by geopolitical factors, with 83% of firms implementing business continuity plans.
• ESG risk management remains a priority, driven by the operational impacts of climate change.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main factors contributing to the decline in risk management confidence?

The decline in risk management confidence is largely attributed to a combination of evolving litigation strategies, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and increasing supply chain vulnerabilities. The shift from individual causation requirements in food safety litigation to broader public nuisance claims has created uncertainty for manufacturers, while regulatory changes are tightening the link between product classification and legal exposure.

How does the new definition of ultra-processed foods affect manufacturers?

The impending definition of ultra-processed foods by the FDA is significant because it will provide a clearer basis for legal claims against manufacturers. This could expose companies to greater litigation risks, as plaintiffs will have a more defined framework to argue their cases. As a result, manufacturers may need to reassess their risk management strategies and product formulations to mitigate potential liabilities.

What steps can companies take to manage supply chain risks?

Companies can manage supply chain risks by implementing robust business continuity plans, diversifying suppliers, and investing in risk assessment tools that monitor geopolitical and economic indicators. Additionally, maintaining open communication with supply chain partners and developing contingency plans for disruptions can help mitigate the impacts of unforeseen events.

Why is ESG risk management important for the food sector?

ESG risk management is crucial for the food sector because it addresses the growing operational impacts of climate change, which can affect everything from crop yields to supply chain stability. By prioritizing ESG initiatives, companies can not only comply with evolving regulations but also enhance their sustainability practices, build consumer trust, and ultimately improve their bottom line.