Last week at IPPE was amazing as usual. I just don’t know how a week-long meeting can be that busy. I was double booked for lunches and dinners and some meetings. I feel like all I did was eat and talk. Sound familiar? I tried my best to make it to everything, but I didn’t. I still had people calling me and saying I didn’t take time to come see them at booths.
I am not complaining. One of the reasons why I love IPPE so much and have been going for about 20 years is that networking piece with industry, academia, government, and of course friends. Face-to-face networking is always better than phone or the famous “Teams“ meeting. There is something about walking, talking over a cup of coffee, or walking past someone and that, “Ohhhh, it’s Kim and I have to talk to her about….” hits me.
This year at IPPE there was definitely a lot of buzzing around the new USDA FSIS Undersecretary for Food Safety. We are all excited that he was finally confirmed. It also seemed many conversations revolved around the same topic: Salmonella, a conversation that applies to all species and all industries. There still seems to be so much confusion and disconnect among industry, academia, and government. Throw in the addition of a new undersecretary, and it can generate a lot more confusion. Thankfully, USDA FSIS now has an Undersecretary. Does that mean any direction will change? Will there be more science-based and risk-based decision making to improve public health? What about serovars and virulence? Salmonella is anything but easy — it makes complicated look easy.
One of the main questions was the regulatory focus and shift to quantitative risk-based decision making. If we look at quantitative risk assessment, will serovar and virulence factors play any roll in decision making? These are very legitimate questions and ones that need to be discussed collectively as an agency (USDA/FSIS) with industry and academia. We are no longer at the point of silo decision making to reduce Salmonella and improve public health.
We must be practical in decision making. To achieve this practicality, we have to embrace the research by academics, the element of the data driven science-based ability of the industry, and include policy that makes sense and is feasible. Lessons learned from HACCP — one of the major components is control. If it cannot be controlled, then it is not a critical control point. This same principle should be applied to food safety. The technology available must match the needs of the regulatory agency, and science should be the driver. We should not have a “regulate it and the technology will come” attitude. This creates undue stress, confusion, cost, complication, and drama. In addition, it drives away the small and very small processors.
As an industry, do we have a duty to reduce Salmonella? Yes. Have we done an excellent job so far? YES! Can we always do better? Of course. But this “do better” takes a collective thought process of new technology, science-based decision making, and feasibility/ practicality in the industry. The only way to really regulate Salmonella and to improve public health is to understand the process flow through to the consumer, understand the risk-based analyses through to the consumer, and create feasible long-term regulations that can withstand over time. Basically, do what makes sense and works. Isn’t that the basis of all food safety systems? I feel like we are making this more complicated.
Source: Meatingplace
