Food safety and quality are integral departments of any successful food business, and while research is constantly identifying possible tools (e.g. artificial intelligence or novel microbiological testing methods) to further efforts in these departments, tools created by academia need to be practical from a business perspective in order to be most effective and adopted into industry. To address this, three investigations were conducted. The first investigation explored whether novel AI and digital technologies are suitable for human pathogen control in Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) and the associated challenges and opportunities that could come with implementation in the industry. To achieve this, AI, food safety, and CEA experts gathered to conduct a gap and opportunities workshop for AI implementation for human pathogen control in CEA. Additionally, a site visit to a CEA business was conducted to view operations. Outcomes from this investigation highlight how tools created by academia for food industry, in order to be effective, need to take into account i) the industry’s current level of food safety maturity, ii) current industry practices and norms and, iii) how to effectively communicate the quantitative financial benefit (i.e., in this case, reduction in recall risk) to business leaders. The second study involved the development of a food quality related tool specifically for the dairy industry: a microbiological test to enumerate quality defect causing thermoduric bacteria in dairy with a special focus on non-sporeforming bacteria. To address this, 38 isolates from non-sporeforming genera were inoculated into skim milk broth and independently subjected to four different heat treatments (A: 63°C for 30 minutes, B: 65°C for 15 minutes, C: 68°C for 7 minutes and D: 70°C for 5 minutes), followed by plating using two different media types (Standard Methods Agar and Aerobic Count Petrifilms), each of which were incubated and enumerated after three different incubation periods (24h, 48h, and 72h) at 32°C. All combinations were compared to our gold standard test, the Laboratory Pasteurization Count (i.e., heat treatment of 63°C for 30 minutes followed by plating with Standard Methods Agar and incubation of plates for 48h at 32°C). This study attempted to utilize knowledge gained from the first investigation such as use of current industry standard practices (i.e., we made sure to use standard dairy industry media [Standard Methods Agar] and an incubation temperature [32°C]). Interestingly, our results suggest that i) Aerobic Count Petrifilms are not a suitable media to enumerate some thermoduric bacteria and, ii) 72h incubation time presented a significantly smaller log reduction (i.e., there was more bacterial growth at 72h) compared to the gold standard incubation time of 48h. However, due to the small effect size in cell count reduction between the 48h incubation and 72h incubation (i.e., estimated mean pairwise difference in cell count reductions between 48h and 72h of only 0.28 log CFU/mL), the final method suggested for further exploration in this study utilized an incubation time of 48h. The researchers selected the 48h incubation time because, from a business perspective, waiting the additional 24h for marginally more exact results did not seem valuable for industry. Finally, the third study worked to address a gap highlighted in the first investigation; the need for identification of costs associated with implementing food safety tools for industry. Furthermore, it aims to understand what drives small and medium-sized businesses to invest into food safety programs as they may face unique challenges. This study involved using 9 small and medium-size dairy processing plants (SMDPPs), which all had been part of a prior ~1 year-long Listeria Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) implementation study. Each plant was emailed an EMP cost questionnaire which was used to obtain each plant’s (i) self-reported EMP associated costs (e.g., estimated total value of product in a plant at any given time [EVTFP], corrective actions costs) and, (ii) perceived ability to control pathogens in their processing environment. Finally, plants were evaluated by the research team on their food safety culture resulting in a food safety culture score. Results showed that variables including plant size, EVTFP, overall Listeria prevalence in a plant, and food safety culture scores are not reliable predictors for how much a plant invested into its Listeria EMP indicating that investment into EMP for SMDPPs may be influenced by other, outside or non-food safety related factors. Overall, the outcomes from these three investigations illustrate that food safety and quality tools, in order to be most effective, need to take into account the industry’s current food safety and quality maturity, work to utilize pre-existing foundations/standard practices in the industry, and communicate costs and financial returns to business leaders.