From Pathogens to Passwords: Cybersecurity and the Food Industry’s Integrity Landscape

In 1982, when cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules killed seven people, it shocked the nation — and galvanized the industry. Tamper-evident packaging was born. Regulatory reforms followed. Consumer trust, though shaken, was actively rebuilt through transparency and innovation.

Since then, the food industry has become more sophisticated, more regulated and more resilient. But as we’ve improved our defenses against physical threats, a new class of risks has emerged — ones we can’t see, smell or taste. 

Cyberattacks now represent one of the most urgent yet under-addressed threats to food safety, food defense and food security. And unlike the outrage that followed the Tylenol tragedy — or the swift reaction to something as trivial as the 2019 viral “ice cream licker” — the public response to these invisible breaches remains muted.

That lack of outrage doesn’t excuse inaction. If anything, it raises the stakes for industry leaders. Integrity must evolve. In 2025, it must include cybersecurity.

We already have clear warning signs — examples that should serve as industry-wide wake-up calls.

In 2021, JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, paid $11 million in ransom after a cyberattack shut down operations across the U.S., Canada and Australia. The ripple effects reached livestock producers, retailers and consumers at the meat counter.

A pathogen and a hacker have much in common — neither needs permission to enter your facility, both can spread silently and both can leave behind widespread damage.

That same year, New Cooperative (a key U.S. supplier of grain and livestock feed) was hit during harvest season. Its logistics and feed software froze, threatening food production at its root.

In 2022, a Swiss dairy farmer had its robotic milking system hijacked by hackers demanding $10,000. Some data was recovered, but not in time to save a pregnant cow. A single farm, perhaps, but a preview of broader vulnerabilities in smart agriculture.

In 2023, a former Disney employee hacked into allergy-friendly menus at the parks. The intent may not have been malicious, but the risk was staggering. A guest relying on inaccurate allergen info could have suffered fatal consequences. A federal judge sentenced the hacker recently — to three years in prison and nearly $690,000 in restitution.

And just last year, in South Carolina, a disgruntled former employee remotely accessed a poultry plant’s automated cleaning system. He increased the chemical concentration, disabled safety alarms and walked away. No contaminated product left the plant, but the fact that it could have is alarming enough.

A NEW CLASS OF RISK.

The common denominator in all these cases? They are not just operational disruptions or PR challenges. They are food safety events. They are consumer protection failures. They represent a new class of risk that industry leaders must integrate into their frameworks for integrity and resilience.

A pathogen and a hacker have much in common: neither needs permission to enter your facility, both can spread silently and both can leave behind widespread damage. And in both cases, the real question isn’t if you’ll face a breach, but how prepared you are when it happens.

Cybersecurity is a core responsibility. It is no longer acceptable to relegate cybersecurity to an IT silo. In the modern food system, where operations, logistics, inventory and compliance are all digitized, cybersecurity is a frontline issue. It must be treated with the same rigor as allergen management, sanitation and traceability.

Boards of directors, C-suite leaders and QA professionals must understand that their responsibilities have changed. Protecting consumer trust today means protecting not only the food on the shelf, but the digital systems that ensure it is safe, accessible and affordable.

What’s often overlooked is who suffers most when these digital systems fail. Cyberattacks can lead to plant closures, distribution delays and price spikes. These consequences disproportionately impact low-income communities, school meal programs, food banks and rural consumers. Cybersecurity failures, then, are not only operational risks — they are equity risks.

Just as we address foodborne illness with a public health lens, we must begin to view cybersecurity breaches through a broader societal frame. The fallout isn’t limited to the facility affected. It radiates outward, compounding vulnerabilities across the entire food system.

One of the key lessons from both food safety and cybersecurity is this: transparency matters. Consumers, regulators and partners don’t expect perfection, but they demand honesty. Companies that suffer cyber incidents must communicate clearly, quickly and credibly. Silence doesn’t protect your brand. It only erodes trust.

Think back to the Tylenol crisis. Johnson & Johnson was praised not because it prevented the tragedy, but because of how decisively and transparently it responded. The food industry should treat cyber incidents with that same mindset.

LEADING WITH INTEGRITY.

The word “integrity” is often used in mission statements, policy documents and training manuals. But in practice, it must be fluid, responsive to new threats and evolving consumer expectations. If we define integrity solely in terms of physical product quality, we miss the mark.

In 2025, integrity must include your organization’s digital posture. It must include your incident response plan. It must include your commitment to proactive cybersecurity training, internal controls and vendor vetting.

This isn’t about reacting to fear; it’s about acting with foresight.

There will never be a viral video of a ransomware attack. There’s no tamper-evident label for a network breach. But the consequences can be just as dangerous — and far more widespread.

If the food industry wants to maintain consumer trust, ensure continuity and preserve its social license, it must confront this reality: cybersecurity is now an essential part of food safety. It is an ethical obligation. And it is a leadership imperative.

The threat is invisible, but the responsibility is clear.