3.2.1 Grains (n = 16).

3.2.1.1 Climate change projections on contamination of grains: Sixteen articles addressed climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks in grains, including maize (n = 10), wheat (n = 4), cereals (n = 2), and soybeans (n = 1). One article did not specify types discussed in the grains category.

All articles identified projected climate-driven changes in meteorological variables linked to increased mycotoxin contamination in grains. Meteorological variables primarily linked with increased mycotoxin contamination in grains were temperature (n = 16), precipitation (n = 13), humidity (n = 13), drought (n = 3), and extreme weather (n = 2). Other meteorological variables, included in singular studies were seasonality, flooding, solar radiation, wind speed, and carbon dioxide levels.

3.2.1.2 Mitigation and adaptation strategies: Predictive modelling (n = 13): Thirteen articles used predictive modelling as an adaptation tool to project chemical food safety risks in grains [56–68]. Nine of these articles developed, applied, and/or reviewed predictive models to forecast mycotoxin contamination of grains under climate change scenarios [56,57,59–61,63–65,67]. These models integrated meteorological and historical contamination data with future climate change scenarios to predict the risk of mycotoxin contamination in grains. Crop phenology data was incorporated in two studies to evaluate the risk of climate-sensitive mycotoxin contamination in grains in relation to different plant development stages [56,65]. One study integrated a mycotoxin prediction model with a land use model to evaluate the suitability of land for maize cultivation and the likelihood of mycotoxin contamination [59]. The remaining three articles recommended predictive modelling to forecast mycotoxin contamination in grains based on future climate data, serving as a risk assessment method to inform targeted preventive measures [58,62,66]. Farmers, agricultural planners, food safety authorities, and policymakers were identified as potential users of predictive modelling outputs of climate change impacts on mycotoxin contamination in grains. To quantitatively describe the impacts of climate change on preharvest food safety of grains, a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) was developed to predict mycotoxin contamination of wheat, informing food safety regulatory bodies, policymakers, and public health officials to assess strategies to reduce climate-sensitive food safety risks in grains [68].

On-farm interventions (n = 5): Five articles identified both farm-level mitigation and adaptation strategies, all of which addressed climate-sensitive mycotoxin contamination in grains [47,58,62,66,69]. Adaptation through the maintenance or improvement of GAPs, such as crop rotation, selecting mycotoxin resistant crop varieties, biocontrol through Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems, and optimizing planting dates was discussed in five articles [47,58,62,66,69]. Two studies recommended adaptation measures through improved storage practices to separate higher-risk grains from lower-risk ones, as well as conditions to minimize moisture and temperature fluctuations that promote mycotoxin production by molds [58,69]. Application of biocontrol agents to outcompete mycotoxin production in the grains fields was proposed as a future climate adaptation action [62,66]. Proposed on-farm mitigation measures included sustainable soil and water management practices and the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., intercropping) to reduce further contribution to climate change progression by limiting emissions through fertilizer use and water consumption [47,62]. Given that these strategies are to be implemented at the farm-level, farmers were considered to be the direct users responsible for the implementation of these strategies.

Monitoring and surveillance systems (n = 4): Four articles recommended establishing monitoring and surveillance systems as an adaptation strategy for mycotoxin contamination in grains [47,58,62,70]. Continuous evaluation of environmental conditions and mycotoxin levels was deemed informative for the proposed systems [47,62,70]. One article recommended conducting sufficient field trials to gather data to support monitoring and surveillance systems [58]. Monitoring and surveillance system outputs could inform the development of early warning systems used by farmers and food safety regulatory bodies, providing stakeholders with timely information for necessary actions to safeguard the food safety of grains [47].

Education and awareness building (n = 2): Two articles identified the need for increased education and awareness as an adaptation strategy [62,69], specifically raising awareness about the heightened risks of mycotoxin contamination in grains due to climate change and its potential impact on agricultural and preharvest food safety practices. Farmers were identified as direct users of the proposed education and awareness initiatives in both articles [62,69]. One article included policymakers and consumers as additional beneficiaries [69].

Other strategies (n = 3): Three articles proposed distinct adaptation strategies to protect grain food safety [47,58,69]. Two articles advocated for a holistic approach to safeguarding grain food safety by emphasizing climate-safe practices through a systems-based framework and promoting multidisciplinary collaboration to develop comprehensive strategies [47,58]. This strategy was intended to be applied by all stakeholders. Updating and enforcing legislative measures was recommended to manage mycotoxin levels in maize by policymakers amid the effects of climate change [69].

3.2.2 Seafood (n = 9).

3.2.2.1 Climate change projections on contamination of seafood: Climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks in seafood were considered in nine articles. Specifically, mollusks/shellfish (n = 7), fish (n = 4), and crustaceans (n = 2) were discussed, with some articles including more than one type of seafood. One article did not specify the types of seafood included within the broader seafood category.

All articles (n = 9) identified Vibrio spp. (V. cholerae, V. vulnificus, V. parahaemolyticus) as climate-sensitive risks to seafood safety. Chemical contaminants (i.e., algal bloom toxins, PAHs, BPA, pesticides, herbicides, methylmercury, other heavy metals) (n = 4), Norovirus (n = 2), shellfish biotoxins (i.e., ciguatoxin) (n = 2), enteric microorganisms (n = 2), and Hepatitis A (n = 1) were other climate-sensitive contaminants of concern. Key meteorological variables associated with increased seafood contamination due to climate change included air temperature (n = 9), sea/water temperature (n = 7), precipitation (n = 5), and extreme weather (n = 5). Water-specific variables of salinity (n = 3), acidification (n = 1), chlorophyll concentration (n = 1), and pH (n = 1) were also linked with increased contamination of seafood. Additionally, one article noted that wind speed may contribute to contamination.

3.2.2.2 Mitigation and adaptation strategies. Predictive modelling (n = 4): Four articles developed predictive climate-driven models as an adaptation tool for predicting the abundance of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in seafood. These models incorporated meteorological variables associated with heightened V. parahaemolyticus levels and climate change scenarios, providing valuable predictions to inform actions for seafood producers, food safety regulators, and public health officials [71,72]. Further, QMRA frameworks and models were developed as decision-support tools to project the effect of pathogens contaminating seafood under climate change [68,73].

Monitoring and surveillance systems (n = 4): Four articles recommended the implementation of monitoring and surveillance systems as an adaptation strategy [70,74–76]. Surveillance to monitor shifts in biological and chemical contaminants in seafood can provide timely alerts to seafood producers, harvesters, aquaculture operators, and food safety regulators [70,74–76]. One article emphasized the importance of coordinated databases across marine and freshwater monitoring programs to create comprehensive resources for assessing seafood contamination risks [74]. Two articles addressed the need for increased use of sampling and detection methods to strengthen monitoring and control of contaminants in seafood [75,76]. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) and molecular techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were suggested to identify and quantify pathogens, in addition to chromatographic methods for toxin detection in seafood [75]. Such detection techniques were proposed to inform maximum permitted levels for toxins in shellfish by food safety regulatory bodies and border controls to promote seafood safety [76].

Education and awareness building (n = 3): Three articles recommended enhanced education and awareness programs as a form of adaptation to inform consumers about the increased risks of seafood contamination [70,74,77]. It was highlighted that such awareness programs be implemented by food production companies, in collaboration with WHO and FAO experts [70]. Such education should inform consumers on the recognition, prevention, and treatment of related disease and food handling practices [74]. Further, a call for increased understanding, through research efforts, of how climate/meteorological variables impact chemical contaminant dynamics in aquaculture food systems was mentioned [77].

On-farm interventions (n = 2): One article recommended adopting sustainable technologies utilizing alternative fuels (e.g., cellulose biomass) in seafood production and harvesting to mitigate climate change progression and consequent climate-driven contamination [70]. Another article highlighted that reduced use of chemical interventions by seafood producers during aquaculture production can minimize chemical contaminant uptake in harvested seafood [77].

Other (n = 1): One article identified other adaptation response strategies [74]. Collaboration among food safety regulatory agencies was suggested to promote comprehensive assessments and responses to the heightened seafood safety risks [74]. To further adapt to potential increased consumption of unsafe seafood, reinforcing public health infrastructure to prepare for future increases in food and waterborne illnesses and healthcare utilization was deemed necessary [74].

3.2.3 Produce (n = 6).

3.2.3.1 Climate change projections on contamination of produce: Climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks in produce were considered in six articles. Fruits and/or vegetables were discussed in most articles (n = 5), with one focusing on leafy green vegetables (LGVs), specifically. One article did not specify types of produce discussed within the category.

All articles examined enteric microorganisms (i.e., Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp.). Climate-sensitive chemical contaminants were also considered: mycotoxins (n = 2), pesticide/fungicide residues (n = 2), and heavy metals (n = 1). Meteorological variables linked with increased contaminants in produce were temperature (n = 6), precipitation (n = 6), and flooding (n = 2). Individual articles included the variables seasonality, droughts, and extreme weather.

3.2.3.2 Mitigation and adaptation strategies: Monitoring and surveillance (n = 4): Four articles discussed the use of monitoring and surveillance systems [70,74,78,79]. Improved surveillance is recommended to monitor and adapt to climate-driven changes in biological contaminants, such as enteric pathogens, affecting produce [70]. One article suggested standardization of exisiting methods to improve detection of enteric pathogen in produce and harmonize monitoring programs [78]. Conducting baseline surveys was also proposed as a data collection method for these monitoring and surveillance programs [78]. Further, coordinated monitoring to promote interagency collaboration was recommended to provide robust data for detailed risk assessments [78]. Ultimately, the insights provided by these programs can assist in the development of early warning systems used by farmers and food safety regulators to implement timely interventions when contamination hazards are expected to increase in produce [79].

Predictive modelling (n = 3): Three articles discussed the utility of predictive models as adaptation tools to project climate effects on contamination of produce to inform timely preventative actions [26,78,80]. Through the incorporation of climate variables, farm management data, and microbial sampling, a model was developed to predict Escherichia coli contamination in LGVs as influenced by climate variability [26]. Similarly, historical food safety hazard occurrence data was extracted from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and linked with meteorological variables to identify and predict climate-sensitive hazard occurrences in fruits and vegetables [80]. The logistic chain and food safety management of fresh produce was evaluated using climate change scenario simulations [78]. As suggested by these articles, predictions derived from these models can inform farmers, food safety regulators, and policymakers.

On-farm interventions (n = 3): Three articles described both mitigation and adaptation strategies at the farm-level [70,78,79]. To mitigate climate change effects, farmers were encouraged to adopt sustainable agricultural practices aimed at reducing reliance on chemical inputs (e.g., improved fertilizer management) and limiting water consumption through irrigation practices during fresh produce production [70]. Adaptation strategies to maintain quality of water used in fresh produce production were highlighted, such as implementing water quality monitoring and treatment strategies to reduce contamination risks that may be increased due to climate-driven water scarcity [78,79]. A unique recommendation was to strengthen the hygienic practices of on-farm production personnel, including the establishment of health checks and the implementation of adequate sanitation facilities [79]. Appropriate pesticide management and application coordinated with increased pest activity due to climate change was proposed [79].

Education and awareness building (n = 2): Two articles advised for adaptation through increased education programs to enhance awareness of climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks affecting produce among farmers, food safety regulators, policymakers, and consumers [70,79]. Providing clear recommendations to farmers on enhancing control strategies, including the use of cold storage systems adapted to warmer seasonal conditions and raising awareness about the survival of microorganisms in varying environmental contexts, play a critical role in improving overall climate adaptation and food safety risk management practices [79].

3.2.4 Livestock (n = 3).

3.2.4.1 Climate change projections on contamination of livestock: Three articles addressed climate-sensitive contaminants that pose risks to livestock food safety. Two articles focused on poultry and/or swine, while the remaining article did not specify the type of livestock examined.

All articles considered enteric microorganisms (i.e., Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, and Campylobacter spp., etc.) as climate-sensitive contaminants associated with livestock. Meteorological variables linked with increasing contamination of livestock by these microorganisms were temperature (n = 3), precipitation (n = 2), flooding (n = 1), and extreme weather (n = 1).

3.2.4.2 Mitigation and adaptation strategies: On-farm interventions (n = 2): Implementation of sustainable agricultural practices (i.e., manure and fertilizer management) during crop production was advised to mitigate the progression of climate change and further contamination via surface run-off by heavy rainfall [70]. Minimizing heat stress of livestock to adapt to climate-driven increases in temperature through enhanced animal housing (e.g., increased ventilation and air flow) was suggested to reduce fecal shedding of pathogens by livestock [81]. Further, proper management of fecal waste during animal husbandry through to processing was noted as a strategy to decrease contamination likelihood [81].

Predictive modelling (n = 1): One article developed a QMRA model as a component for a decision-support tool to predict and quantify contamination risks of Campylobacter in broilers under future climate change scenarios [73]. This tool was proposed to be used by policymakers and decision-makers as an adaptation strategy.

Monitoring and surveillance programs (n = 1): One article highlighted the importance of improved epidemiological surveillance as an adaptation strategy to monitor the changes in climate-sensitive microbiological hazards in agricultural soils [70].

Education and awareness building (n = 1): One article advocated for development of awareness programs as an adaptation strategy to educate farmers, food safety regulators, policymakers, and consumers on the effects of climate change on food safety across different preharvest food categories, including in livestock [70].

3.2.5 Irrigation water (n = 1).

3.2.5.1 Climate change projections on contamination of irrigation water: One article highlighted irrigation water as being vulnerable to climate-sensitive contamination.

Enteric microorganisms, including Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli, were identified as climate-sensitive contaminants, with temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events associated with increased contamination of irrigation water.

3.2.5.2 Mitigation and adaptation strategies: On-farm interventions (n = 1): Water resource management was highlighted as an adaptation strategy to safeguard irrigation water quality and safety by farmers [74]. Here, improving management practices and water treatments was suggested to reduce the risk of contamination of irrigation water.

Monitoring and surveillance programs (n = 1): The article proposed to develop and improve surveillance programs to monitor waterborne contaminants and waterborne illness [74]. Such programs could be used by farmers, food safety regulators, and public health authorities to adapt to climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks.

4.2.1 Predictive modelling.

Climate change exacerbates the contamination of preharvest foods by creating environmental conditions that favor the dissemination and proliferation of biological and chemical contaminants. Presently, these implications are still widely unknown and require further understanding as to how to adapt to them. To lessen this uncertainty, predictive models can be developed and implemented as a tool to forecast the likelihood of preharvest food contamination through the integration of various data sets. For instance, models integrating meteorological variable data (e.g., temperature and precipitation) and preharvest food contamination data (e.g., pathogen and chemical concentration) were identified across the grains, seafood, produce, and livestock categories. As warming temperatures, more frequent precipitation, and increasing humidity increases moist conditions conducive for mycotoxin contamination by molds in grains, predictive modelling was identified by this review as the prominent adaptation measure to safeguard grain safety.

The value of these models as adaptation tools for climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks depends on several factors. First, model inputs must be robust and region-specific. Many of the articles relied on international datasets (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), WorldClim) or single-location sampling, limiting their direct applicability to Canadian systems. Second, predictive models must be validated under multiple climate scenarios to ensure reliability. This is particularly relevant in Canada, where diverse agroclimatic regions (e.g., Prairie grain regions, coastal fisheries) exist and may respond differently to climatic factors. Further, models should account for secondary variables (e.g., farm practices, irrigation source, land use) that influence food safety but are not solely climate-driven. As such, Canadian agri-food institutions and governing bodies (e.g., the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) could play a key role in building, validating, and implementing predictive models, similar to those of this review, tailored to domestic conditions.

Potential users: This review identified farmers, agricultural planners, policymakers, food safety regulators, and public health officials as potential users of predictive modelling tools and the insights that are provided by them. With climate change introducing unpredictability, farmers need to ensure that their GAPs are flexible and adaptable to address a range of potential climate scenarios [42,90]. For instance, projections provided by predictive models can inform farmers when to apply chemical fungicides to control if increased mold growth is predicted to occur due to changes in weather conditions [47,58,61,66]. Farmers and agricultural planners can further benefit from these projections to promote resistance breeding of crop types that are more tolerant to contaminants [58]. Further, policies need to be bolstered to adapt to increased prevalence of food safety risks and resulting public health implications. Risk assessment work can be conducted in tandem with predictive modelling to inform policies and regulations that safeguard preharvest food safety and public health from climate-driven risk increases [58,72]. To maximize their utility, predictive models should be integrated into national food safety frameworks and agricultural extension services. For instance, user-friendly decision-support tools, informed by predictive models, could assist farmers in adjusting planting dates or manage irrigation in response to projected climate-sensitive contamination risks. Further, projections from these models can inform policymakers when allocating public health resources or creating advisories.

Opportunities and limitations: Predictive models offer the opportunity for direct users to manipulate climate change scenarios and contaminant data to reflect the future climate of the region of interest, allowing for more customizable direction and advice for adaptation action. Moreover, developed models hold the opportunity for multidisciplinary research by integrating data for additional variables within agricultural planning and practices, wildlife intrusion, and socioeconomic development stages [26].

While predictive models emerged as the most prominent strategy for adapting to climate-driven preharvest food safety challenges, it is important for users to understand that predictive models are not a panacea for climate change adaptation in food safety, as no model is perfect. Future efforts should focus on refining these models by integrating diverse data sources, including climate projections, microbiological contamination patterns, and agricultural management practices. Expanding the applicability of predictive models to various crops, regions, and farming systems will be essential for improving their utility and ensuring they remain relevant in diverse preharvest food production contexts. It was identified that further validation of available models is needed across different future climate scenarios of different global climates to ensure its predictive abilities for any nation’s preharvest food safety needs [68]. Further, the model is only as good as the data inputted; Ndraha et al. emphasized that small datasets can limit the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the model [71].

4.2.2 Monitoring and surveillance programs.

Real-time data to detect and respond to emerging food safety hazards is needed to effectively adapt to climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks. It was found that monitoring and surveillance programs hold two primary purposes: 1) providing up-to-date data for predictive models forecasting climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks [58,62,78] and 2) supporting the development of early warning systems [47,70,74–76,79].

Waterborne pathogens and toxins impacting the safety of seafood and irrigation water were discussed most in the implementation of monitoring and surveillance programs. The need for enhanced early warning systems to reduce food safety risks driven by climate change for fishery and aquaculture products was emphasized due to these commodities being widely traded globally [76]. Here, early warning systems can inform proactive management of incoming food safety risks locally, where production occurs, but also globally where the products are imported, thereby limiting the potential impacts of food recalls and public healt risks. Contaminant detection methods were discussed as a critical component to monitoring programs in order to allow for early recognition and accurate quantification of hazards driven by climate change impacts [75]. A caveat to the effectiveness of the proposed monitoring and surveillance programs is that they are only valuable as an adaptation strategy if public health organizations can mobilize resources in a timely manner [70]. Therefore, it is necessary that food safety emergency plans are developed to ensure adequate management of food safety issues once an early warning is provided [76]. Currently, the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP), monitors for biotoxins and pathogens in shellfish nationally and abroad [91]. This monitoring program could be extended to other preharvest food sectors to further build climate adaptation capacity within Canadian preharvest food safety.

Potential users: Policymakers, food safety regulators, and public health officials were identified as the primary potential users of monitoring and surveillance programs. Foresight tools and programs will be key to informing the development and timely implementation of proactive strategies to address the occurrence climate-sensitive preharvest food safety hazards and resulting food- and waterborne disease cases in humans [76]. Public health officials and food safety regulators will directly utilize early warning systems to detect upcoming climate or weather events that can potentially increase preharvest food safety hazards to actuate appropriate management strategies to lessen the potential effects of the event [70,74]. For instance, with advanced warning, public health advisories can be generated for preventive public health measures such as temporary bans on seafood consumption [74].

Opportunities and limitations: The establishment of monitoring and surveillance programs presents the opportunity for collaboration and communication between the various sectors involved in safeguarding preharvest foods under a changing climate, such as aquatic animal/livestock health, environment, food safety, and public health [76,79]. However, this opportunity can also be considered a limitation. If intersectoral and multisectoral collaboration and communication is insufficient, establishment of effective monitoring and surveillance programs may be hindered, leading to fragmented efforts, delayed responses, and an increased vulnerability to climate-sensitive preharvest foods safety risks. Rose et al. identified a potential limitation for food- and waterborne disease surveillance, where a lack of uniform criteria for reporting these diseases can result in inconsistent data collection and obscure the true burden of outbreaks related to climate change impacts. This review identified early warning systems and like surveillance programs for grains and seafood; however, Kirezieva et al. identified further research and resource allocation is required for such to develop monitoring and surveillance programs for produce [79].

4.2.3 On-farm interventions.

Preharvest foods are directly exposed to climate change impacts that increase the likelihood of contamination through routes such as contaminated surface water, groundwater, and growing fields [79]. By targeting the root cause of contamination, on-farm interventions play a pivotal role in adapting to climate change by ensuring the safety of food from the earliest stages of the farm-to-form continuum. For produce, a range of comprehensive on-farm interventions were identified, including water management, pest control, and personal hygiene programs. Specifically, the need for selecting safer water sources, applying water treatments, and implementing microbiological sampling criteria to decrease contamination risks was highlighted [79]. Long-term strategies, such as regular monitoring of water sources and farmer training, were also emphasized to enhance adaptive capacity. Beyond water control, heightened vigilance in pesticide management, health screenings for workers, and improved hygiene protocols were recommended to reduce contamination risks to both crops and farm personnel. Existing livestock management practices, such as animal housing and waste management, were emphasized as needing improvement to manage climate-related increases in contamination risk caused by heat-induced pathogen shedding [81]. By strengthening climate resilience within current food safety practices, adaptation to climate change can be achieved straightforwardly.

Potential users: Farmers and agricultural planners are the primary stakeholders in implementing the identified on-farm climate adaptation strategies to protect preharvest food safety. Farmers, as the frontline actors in food production, are uniquely positioned to apply these interventions directly, making them critical agents in lessening climate-sensitive risks. For instance, practices such as optimizing planting dates, adopting resistant crop varieties, managing water sources, and employing biocontrol agents require farmer-led insight, decision-making, and application. However, these actions depend on the accessibility of resources, technical training, and awareness of climate-driven hazards, emphasizing the need for knolwedge-building support systems to empower farmers as climate change alters their practices.

Opportunities and limitations: Ultimately, there is an interconnected nature of agricultural practices and environmental health in climate adaptation strategies. Implementing interventions at the farm level addresses the source of preharvest food contamination and the climate variables influencing it directly, thereby preventing these risks from propagating through the farm-to-fork continuum and ultimately reaching consumers. These interventions also present an important opportunity to engage farmers directly in climate adaptation initiatives. By involving this key group of stakeholders, farmers can offer valuable insights into the practicality and feasibility of proposed strategies, ensuring that interventions are both effective and aligned with on-farm realities. Their participation not only enhances the relevance of adaptation measures but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment, which is crucial for successful implementation and long-term sustainability. Additionally, empowering farmers through involvement in these initiatives can build their adaptive capacity, promoting resilience within agricultural systems as they face the growing challenges of climate change. However, a key component to the successful implementation of these on-farm climate adaptation interventions is to ensure farmers are properly educated and trained [79]. Further, farmers, may be hesitant to adopt new practices or technologies due to perceived risks, cultural norms, or economic constraints. Resistance can slow the adoption of adaptation strategies and limit the effectiveness of on-farm interventions. Additionally, not all interventions are appropriate and can hinder preharvest food production. For instance, biocontrol agents are a relatively novel climate adaptation strategy and require further understanding around their impact on biodiversity, biodegradability, nutritional, and sensorial characteristics of grain crops and harvested grains [66].

4.2.4 Education and awareness building.

As climate change introduces new and complex challenges to the safety of preharvest foods, it is essential to strengthen education and awareness among all stakeholders, including farmers, food safety regulators, public health officials, policymakers, and consumers. A need for research institutions to further investigate the impacts of climate change on food safety was emphasized to guide the development of effective mitigation and adaptation strategies in food systems [77]. Experts in a Delphi study recommended educating farmers about microbiological risks in the produce production environment associated with climate change impacts, identifying this as one of the most critical adaptive strategies to protect produce food safety [62,69,79]. Similarly, climate change impacts on the quality and safety of agricultural waters requires proper educational programs to understand and prevent associated public health burdens [74]. Here, it was suggested that public health officials across various monitoring programs further their knowledge on symptoms associated with waterborne diseases in order to build matching case definitions to harmonize and strengthen public health monitoring programs to better detect outbreaks [74]. Education and awareness building initiatives further prompted collaboration among major food safety organizations such as the WHO and the FAO and food production companies to create awareness programs targeting consumers to inform them of effects of climate change on the safety of the foods they consume [70]. Such information was suggested to be disseminated through formal programs, as well as through widely accessible media to reach consumers effectively [70]. By building a shared understanding of the risks and their implications ensures that adaptation strategies remain dynamic and evolve alongside emerging threats, while enabling consumers to make informed decisions and adopt risk-reducing behaviours..

Potential users: Farmers are among the most essential users, as they directly influence the safety of produce through their agricultural practices. Educating farmers about the microbiological risks posed by climate change, such as the impact of temperature changes and altered precipitation on pathogen proliferation, is crucial in fostering adaptive behavior and ensuring safer food production practices. Additionally, food safety regulators and public health officials are key users of such educational programs, as enhancing their understanding of climate-related risks can improve the design and enforcement of regulations that safeguard food safety.

Opportunities and limitations: Strengthening education and awareness among diverse stakeholders provides an opportunity to foster collaboration between farmers, food safety regulators, public health officials, policymakers, and researchers. By aligning efforts, researchers and stakeholders can share knowledge, coordinate actions, and develop comprehensive strategies to address climate-sensitive preharvest food safety risks. Awareness campaigns can help build resilience at the community level, encouraging collective action and shared responsibility in protecting preharvest food safety. This can strengthen local food systems and enhance trust in food production processes. Increased awareness among policymakers and the public can lead to greater support for climate adaptation initiatives, including funding for research, development of new technologies, and implementation of scalable solutions. However, existing knowledge gaps regarding the interactions between climate change and food safety risks may limit the content and relevance of educational initiatives. A lack of region-specific data and evidence-based strategies can hinder the effectiveness of awareness programs, therefore place-based climate and food safety research goals must be widely prioritized.