As concerns grow over its response to the screwworm situation in Texas, there’s a food safety issue flying under the radar at the U.S. Department of Agriculture that also may impact consumers more directly.
Last December, USDA announced a delay in the implementation of a rule that would declare Salmonella an adulterant in not-ready-to-eat breaded stuffed chicken products. In terms of food safety oversight proposals, CR described this as being easier than picking low-hanging fruit. USDA claimed the reason for the delay was that currently available test methods have accuracy limitations.
However, even the USDA’s own evidence doesn’t support the claim. In May 2024, USDA actually confirmed the existence of a validated test that had no false-positive issues. Now, USDA officials say that they became aware of inaccuracies in that test—but didn’t release any data to support their assertion. Consumer Reports recently wrote the USDA to express concern over this lack of transparency and to request any data supporting the claim of testing inaccuracies.
If USDA fails to move forward with this rule, it runs the risk of being perceived as being irrelevant on food safety oversight and beholden to industry interests. While the department’s food safety leadership likes to repeatedly emphasize that they use a science-based and data-driven approach to policy making, consumer advocates worry that these statements are meaningless if they don’t translate into policy initiatives that aim to prevent foodborne illness.
This Op-Ed was reprinted with permission from Consumer Reports Food Policy Insider. To subscribe, send an email to: foodpolicyinsider@cr.consumer.org
The conversation about what food safety costs a business tends to organize itself around visible events such as recalls, regulatory actions, and the dramatic and documentable failures that generate headlines and liability. Those numbers are significant: the average direct cost of a single recall exceeds $10 million before accounting for lost contracts, brand damage, and the long recovery that follows. But framing food safety cost around its most visible expressions misses where most of the financial opportunity lives. For most organizations most of the time, the larger cost is arriving as a pattern distributed across departments, absorbed into operating budgets, and carrying the fingerprints of governance conditions that the business has the capacity to address.
Consider what that looks like in practice. A food manufacturing operation had built its reputation on exceptional customer responsiveness: rapid turnaround, flexible scheduling, willingness to accommodate last-minute requests. Production runs were regularly adjusted to meet customer needs, and the disruption that followed was absorbed as the normal cost of doing business. However, each unplanned changeover carried downstream consequences: allergen controls, sanitation verification, testing, documentation, and lost production time. Compliance teams were under growing pressure to reduce testing and verification just to keep pace- an option that was already strained, and realistically unachievable. When the cumulative impact of a full year’s reactive scheduling decisions was translated into financial terms — labor hours, changeover time, testing and verification activities — the analysis revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in avoidable annual cost traced to misaligned decision-making upstream rather than inefficiency on the floor. Leadership, once they could see it in those terms, acted. The frequency of testing didn’t change. Visibility into the downstream impact that scheduling inefficiencies were having on operations, as it turned out, was all that solution needed.
This case illustrates the mechanism directly. The financial loss was accumulating on a reliable cycle, distributed across production scheduling, labor costs, and operational friction that had been normalized as the price of flexibility. This is the same structure of most food safety-related financial loss: rework that has become a line item in the production plan because the underlying process hasn’t been stabilized, product holds representing days of inventory in unresolved disposition, absorbed overtime, investigations and management conversations about recurring problems that were documented but not yet diagnosed at their source, and institutional knowledge walking out with the people who were personally compensating for known system gaps. Research in lean manufacturing has identified what practitioners call the “hidden factory.” It is the covert rework, workarounds, and compensating effort that can consume 20 to 40 percent of a plant’s capacity without appearing in any formal accounting of cost. Food safety governance conditions are one of its most consistent generators, and one of the most accessible sources of recovery.
Decision latency makes this visible in the most financially legible way. When a product disposition decision is clear — when the authority behind it is structurally supported and the criteria for release are already defined — the decision reaches the right person with the right information and resolves before it becomes a disruption. The financial impact shows up in inventory turns, in cash flow timing, in the production schedule that ran as planned because someone could act without first finding someone who could. Leadership reading those numbers sees operational performance. What produced it was governance clarity, and it returns something better with every cycle where it is stable.
The reason these gains stay invisible as governance gains is structure. Rework belongs to operations. Holds belong to quality. Overtime belongs to workforce. Turnover belongs to HR. Each category has its own budget, reporting line, and owner while the upstream condition generating all of them simultaneously sits in none of those buckets individually. Fifteen years of preventive controls investment has produced something many organizations are positioned to use more fully: a record of operational performance detailed enough to begin reading these costs as a pattern with a common origin rather than as isolated inefficiencies belonging to separate departments. That reorientation is available, and the infrastructure for it already exists.
The financial logic of that reorientation is rather specific. When structural conditions are addressed rather than cycled through, inventory clears faster, institutional knowledge stays in the building, corrective work stops repeating itself, and decisions move because the authority behind them is unambiguous. Technology accelerates that speed further when the authority structure is already clear and a real-time hold notification reaches someone who can act on it rather than someone who has to find someone who can. Those are margin improvements that live inside the systems already in place, accessible through the organizational clarity that allows those systems to function at their intended capacity. The changeover cost that became visible when someone finally translated it into financial language had always been there as potential recovery. Once leadership could see it, the decision took care of itself.
That shift from absorbing cost to locating its source builds the operational foundation that growth demands. Structural conditions that are addressed at manageable scale stay manageable. Left unaddressed, they compound. And when growth or supply chain challenges arrive, what the system has been carrying becomes what the system has to carry further.
The conversation about what food safety costs a business tends to organize itself around visible events such as recalls, regulatory actions, and the dramatic and documentable failures that generate headlines and liability. Those numbers are significant: the average direct cost of a single recall exceeds $10 million before accounting for lost contracts, brand damage, and the long recovery that follows. But framing food safety cost around its most visible expressions misses where most of the financial opportunity lives. For most organizations most of the time, the larger cost is arriving as a pattern distributed across departments, absorbed into operating budgets, and carrying the fingerprints of governance conditions that the business has the capacity to address.
Consider what that looks like in practice. A food manufacturing operation had built its reputation on exceptional customer responsiveness: rapid turnaround, flexible scheduling, willingness to accommodate last-minute requests. Production runs were regularly adjusted to meet customer needs, and the disruption that followed was absorbed as the normal cost of doing business. However, each unplanned changeover carried downstream consequences: allergen controls, sanitation verification, testing, documentation, and lost production time. Compliance teams were under growing pressure to reduce testing and verification just to keep pace- an option that was already strained, and realistically unachievable. When the cumulative impact of a full year’s reactive scheduling decisions was translated into financial terms — labor hours, changeover time, testing and verification activities — the analysis revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in avoidable annual cost traced to misaligned decision-making upstream rather than inefficiency on the floor. Leadership, once they could see it in those terms, acted. The frequency of testing didn’t change. Visibility into the downstream impact that scheduling inefficiencies were having on operations, as it turned out, was all that solution needed.
This case illustrates the mechanism directly. The financial loss was accumulating on a reliable cycle, distributed across production scheduling, labor costs, and operational friction that had been normalized as the price of flexibility. This is the same structure of most food safety-related financial loss: rework that has become a line item in the production plan because the underlying process hasn’t been stabilized, product holds representing days of inventory in unresolved disposition, absorbed overtime, investigations and management conversations about recurring problems that were documented but not yet diagnosed at their source, and institutional knowledge walking out with the people who were personally compensating for known system gaps. Research in lean manufacturing has identified what practitioners call the “hidden factory.” It is the covert rework, workarounds, and compensating effort that can consume 20 to 40 percent of a plant’s capacity without appearing in any formal accounting of cost. Food safety governance conditions are one of its most consistent generators, and one of the most accessible sources of recovery.
Decision latency makes this visible in the most financially legible way. When a product disposition decision is clear — when the authority behind it is structurally supported and the criteria for release are already defined — the decision reaches the right person with the right information and resolves before it becomes a disruption. The financial impact shows up in inventory turns, in cash flow timing, in the production schedule that ran as planned because someone could act without first finding someone who could. Leadership reading those numbers sees operational performance. What produced it was governance clarity, and it returns something better with every cycle where it is stable.
The reason these gains stay invisible as governance gains is structure. Rework belongs to operations. Holds belong to quality. Overtime belongs to workforce. Turnover belongs to HR. Each category has its own budget, reporting line, and owner while the upstream condition generating all of them simultaneously sits in none of those buckets individually. Fifteen years of preventive controls investment has produced something many organizations are positioned to use more fully: a record of operational performance detailed enough to begin reading these costs as a pattern with a common origin rather than as isolated inefficiencies belonging to separate departments. That reorientation is available, and the infrastructure for it already exists.
The financial logic of that reorientation is rather specific. When structural conditions are addressed rather than cycled through, inventory clears faster, institutional knowledge stays in the building, corrective work stops repeating itself, and decisions move because the authority behind them is unambiguous. Technology accelerates that speed further when the authority structure is already clear and a real-time hold notification reaches someone who can act on it rather than someone who has to find someone who can. Those are margin improvements that live inside the systems already in place, accessible through the organizational clarity that allows those systems to function at their intended capacity. The changeover cost that became visible when someone finally translated it into financial language had always been there as potential recovery. Once leadership could see it, the decision took care of itself.
That shift from absorbing cost to locating its source builds the operational foundation that growth demands. Structural conditions that are addressed at manageable scale stay manageable. Left unaddressed, they compound. And when growth or supply chain challenges arrive, what the system has been carrying becomes what the system has to carry further.
How often do you talk to strangers? For many, not too often. It has become very easy to avoid talking to people. For example, most people in a crowded hotel elevator either look at their phones, listen to their noise cancelling headphones or silently watch the progress of the elevator’s decent waiting for the doors to open. Yet, chance encounters with strangers can make life interesting and sometimes be impactful.
Two weeks ago, on the morning of the last day of our Food Safety Hazards Conference in St. Louis, while descending down in a crowded but silent hotel elevator. A women noticed my wife’s Food Safety Hazards Conference badge and asked Beth about the conference. The women remarked she used to volunteer for STOP Foodborne Illness. I asked, “I know STOP. Why were you volunteering?” As the elevator came to the lobby floor and the doors opened, we took the conversation into the lobby where she told us that her daughter had died of e-coli and shared some of the details of their tragedy. I gave her my business card and asked if we could reconnect in the near future.
Shortly before I was about to deliver the opening remarks at the conference, I received an email that read “My name is Dana and we met at the Hilton in Downtown St Louis and this is my daughter Kayla that passed away from Ecoli in 2007. It was nice to visit with you and here is her story.”
Kayla’s story was outlined in a letter Dana read at a U.S. Congressional hearing asking them to make the Food Safety Modernization Act law. Here it is:
Kayla Boner, 1993 – 2007
Every day, I ask myself, “Why did this have to happen?” We put so much faith in the food on our shelves, only to find out one day that the safeguards needed to protect us are not there. Because our food safety system has been reactionary instead of preventive for too long, I watched my healthy teenage daughter endure excruciating pain. I was helpless. There was nothing I could do.
Before the fall of 2007, Kayla loved to play basketball and softball. She was incredibly social and enjoyed hanging out with a great group of friends. She was full of life. I don’t think there was a person who knew her who didn’t love her right away. I distinctly remember Kayla’s 14th birthday — October 22, 2007. She was thrilled because she could, at long last, get her learner’s driving permit. Kayla, giddy with excitement, peppered my cell phone with calls until I agreed to drive her to the local department of transportation to take her test. Watching Kayla become an independent young woman was thrilling.
After a successful visit to the D.O.T it was time to get new contact lenses. While at the optometrist she began complaining of serious stomach pains. Thinking this was nothing more than the stomach flu we decided to go home. The next day, Kayla had not improved. That evening Kayla woke up with bloody diarrhea. The next day, she was admitted to Pella Community Hospital. Kayla’s condition only got worse.
A week later, after countless tests, the physicians of Pella Community Hospital confirmed Kayla had contracted an E. Coli 0111 infection. Shortly after, Kayla’s kidneys shut down. Requiring dialysis, she was transferred to Blank Children’s hospital in Des Moines, Iowa.
A few more days had passed when she woke up with a smile on her face. She looked over and said “Mommy I am sorry.”
Perplexed as to why a child who had spent days in agony would feel the need to apologize for anything, I asked why.
“Because I kept you up all night,” Kayla responded.
“Sweetheart, that is what mommies do — and I love you” I said. At that very moment I remember hoping this was the beginning of the positive breakthrough for which we were desperately hoping.
“I love you too” were the last words my child ever spoke.
On Friday November 2nd, Kayla’s blood pressure spiked to dangerous levels. Doctors ran into her room trying everything they could muster to bring Kayla back to us. At 10:00 that morning, after seizures and many rounds of dialysis, Kayla’s 14 year old body couldn’t take it anymore. She was gone.
I came to this hearing in an effort to tell you all how important it is that we put in place effective policies that spare other parents the horror I have experienced. Enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act is one such step but, for it to work, we need all of the regulations finalized as soon as possible.
Kayla dreamed of one day becoming a pediatrician. If this new law is implemented and enforced, I believe Kayla will get her wish. She truly will be saving children’s lives.
Instead of doing my usual opening remarks to start the conference, I read the letter to the attendees and there was not a dry eye in the audience. Kayla’s sad but powerful story certainly hit home and if nothing else added motivation to an already passionate group of food safety professionals. For the rest of the conference, we kept coming back to Kayla’s story reminding us of why we do what we do.
Was this random hotel elevator connection fate or divine intervention? I don’t know. What I do know is because Dana was willing to talk to a stranger, she was able to share her daughter’s story to an audience of food safety professionals and now to you. Hopefully, as the food safety and quality community, we all can help support Kayla’s dream by saving children’s lives.
The professional landscape for women in food safety is one of intensity, high stakes, and constant motion. Between managing complex global supply chains, navigating regulatory changes, and often balancing a demanding personal life, it is easy to feel “stressed, tired, and overwhelmed”. This is the reality Joan Menke-Schaenzer, Chief Quality Officer at Van Drunen Farms and a newly appointed board member for Women in Food Safety, addressed in her recent powerful webinar.
Her message was a vital call-to-action for every woman in our industry: in a world full of noise, we must find our own quiet by prioritizing self-care and making it a deliberate, non-negotiable habit. Often mistaken as a luxury, self-care is truly a fundamental resource that can enable you to stay passionate about your work and effectively protect public health as a warrior of food safety.
The Vicious Cycle of Imposter Syndrome and Exhaustion
One of the most insidious challenges Joan addressed is imposter syndrome, which is a sinking feeling that you don’t belong or are not good enough or qualified enough for your role. While this negative self-talk feels like a professional challenge, Joan suggests that it is often a critical sign that you are not instituting proper self-care.
“When you are running ragged, and you’re tired, and you haven’t eaten or you haven’t slept, the negative voice in your head becomes much louder.”
Joan Menke-Schaenzer, Chief Quality Officer at Van Drunen Farms
To combat this, Joan recommends a two-pronged approach. First, label and compartmentalize the negative self-talk, acknowledging it as simply what you are telling yourself (not the truth), and put it aside. Focus on being nothing other than yourself, knowing that you are strong, smart, and that you bring value. Second, develop a feasible self-care routine to minimize factors that amplify your inner critic, such as sleep deprivation, dehydration, and lack of exercise.
Imposter syndrome tends to rear its ugly head when you are making a major career transition or stepping into a new role. Joan was faced with this when she decided to make the pivot from working on the quality side of food manufacturing to becoming the Operations Business Manager for the snacks division at Kraft.
“Suddenly, I had product P&L responsibility and I had to pivot my focus from quality to being responsible for both cost and quality. I moved into what I would call a business-focused mindset, which is a really important mindset to have as a quality professional as well.”
Joan enjoyed her time working at Kraft for 19 years until she started noticing signs that her work/life balance was shifting. Between having faxes sent to her hotel while on family vacation, and her daughter recognizing the voice of Kraft’s VP of Quality when answering the phone, Joan knew it was time for a change.
This challenge of balancing work, family, while still making time for yourself, is structural and a more common burden for women to bear as the natural caretakers.
“Women are often programmed to take care of others first, forgetting to take care of themselves in the process.”
Building a Disciplined Self-Care Program
Self-care for a busy executive isn’t a spa day—it’s a disciplined, daily routine. Joan emphasizes that she follows a written self-care program religiously every day, stressing that consistency is key. Her personal routine offers simple yet profound starting points:
Strategic Reading and Reflection: Every morning, Joan wakes up, has her cup of coffee, and reads food safety news, including recalls from the FDA and USDA. This practice slows her down, keeps her “on top of her game,” while allowing the mental space to ask herself: “What can I learn from that?”
External Perspective and Movement: She walks four miles a day, rain or shine, with a group of people who follow very different career paths- from nurses, to educators, and more. This community provides fresh air, sunshine, and a powerful perspective that everyone is dealing with similar struggles.
Partnering for Care: Self-care is not a solitary effort for women with partners and children. Joan suggests working with your partner to create a “circle of care for each other,” dividing responsibilities so both individuals can prioritize their own well-being. This shared commitment leads to greater confidence and ultimately, less negative self-talk.
Remembering the True Purpose of Your Job
The foundation of food safety is purpose. For Joan, it’s her “calling,” but when stress is high and patience wears thin, it can be easy to forget why you are doing it. Joan’s impressive career includes roles at Kraft Foods, Walmart, ConAgra Foods, and McDonald’s, and after decades working in the food world, her passion for food safety remains strong. When one of the webinar attendees asked her how she keeps that spark alive amid industry ups and downs, she encouraged everyone to remember the end goal – to protect people’s lives.
To drive this message home, Joan shared a conversation with a nurse friend who sees people struggling with their health every day. “She told me, you’re helping more people stay alive by producing safe foods.” This comparison to the medical world is a powerful way to frame the impact of your work.
“You are not just managing data or fixing roofs. Although these are important technical tasks, remember that you are a life-saver.” By internalizing this perspective and connecting it to the real human impact of outbreaks and recalls, you can sustain the courage needed to fight for quality and safety.
In short, to be a strong leader and advocate in food safety, you must first be an advocate for yourself. A deliberate, consistent commitment to self-care is the best defense against burnout, the loudest silencer of imposter syndrome, and the fuel that keeps your passion for protecting public health alive.
Editors Note: The Food Safety Consortium and Food Safety Tech supports WIFS and for six years has published a dedicated Women In Food Safety column.
Women in Food Safety Networking Breakfast at the Food Safety Consortium
With consumer confidence in the safety of US food hitting a 13-year-low last summer, there is clearly work to do for consumer goods companies. There are multiple drivers for this loss in confidence, including concerns about insufficient government regulation, fears around foodborne illnesses and contaminants, and a rise in the number of food and beverage recalls.
Given that four in 10 Americans say clearer information about food safety practices would improve their confidence, brands are well positioned to regain momentum by proactively demonstrating how they safeguard consumers.
For the food industry, safety is the cornerstone of consumer trust. Without clear commitments to safety, food companies face a consumer base – including previously loyal customers – that may take their business elsewhere. In this digital age, consumers have access to more product news and information than ever before. The widescale need for robust food safety procedures has never been clearer.
The food sector is already using AI to optimize its supply chains, reduce waste and improve demand forecasting. Now, pioneering companies are also using AI for food safety processes. Its capabilities are significant – including switching safety approaches from reactive to proactive, using data-driven systems that focus on real-time pathogen detection, predictive risk analysis, and automated quality control. Computer vision can be harnessed to inspect contamination, AI-driven sensors can be used for microbial detection, and machine learning can analyze supply chain data to prevent recalls.
The potential for AI to be harnessed is substantial: several AI food safety startups are now partnering with regulatory bodies to co-develop compliance-ready platforms, blurring the line between enforcement and innovation.
However, while some high-profile food companies are jumping on rapid innovation to lead the charge, take-up across the sector remains limited, with less than 30% of global food manufacturers adopting AI for food safety processes. Even though manual systems are no longer efficient for today’s supply demands, paper-based recordkeeping largely prevails. This means that companies reluctant to embrace digitization are leaving themselves exposed to risk.
One of the key barriers is cost. Many businesses struggle to quantify the return on investment for AI safety initiatives, making it hard to justify high initial expenditure. But this approach comes with its own price. According to one study, the business cost of a food recall averages around $10 million – and in 23% of cases, the cost exceeds $30 million.
These enormous sums include assembling crisis management teams, issuing recall notifications, retrieving contaminated products, and conducting investigations to prevent future reoccurrences. But they’re only the tip of the iceberg, as further expenses such as legal fees and lost sales add to the financial burden. Reputational damage is harder to measure, but its impacts are no less severe, as rebuilding consumer confidence is a costly and intensive process, often taking years to build back trust.
AI systems can mitigate these risks, and for a fraction of the cost of an expensive food safety incident. One case study of a collaboration between Walmart and IBM Food Trust, for example, shows how AI was able to reduce the time required to trace the origin of contaminated lettuce from seven days to just 2.2 seconds. Such rapid traceability means companies can pinpoint and remove only affected batches, preventing widespread recalls that waste huge volumes of food and cost – potentially – millions.
AI offers benefits beyond safety management, too. Automation can negate administrative and time-intensive tasks within product development, creating capacity to strengthen product portfolios, elevate brand reputation and deeper consumer connections – heightening confidence alongside solid safety performance.
Consumer trust is the cornerstone of a food company’s success – but it’s never been easier to lose it. Amid global uncertainties, volatile supply chains, increased consumer awareness and a growing focus on health and wellbeing, food safety needs to be a paramount priority.
Harnessing innovation to improve food safety is one of the topics discussed at the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Conference, in Vancouver, B.C. last month. Of course, AI and tech are not a magic solution. Their impact depends on how they are implemented, and a commitment to the ethos that food safety is everyone’s business.
AI systems empower companies to deliver safety excellence smoothly, positioning them as trusted, reputable brands. Those that continue to rely on fallible safety systems risk events that could cost them their reputation forever.
By Allen R. Sayler, Benjamin J. Reading, Ph.D., Jason Bashura, MPH, R.S., Mehrdad Tajkarimi, DVM, MPVM, Ph.D. No Comments
The United States (U.S.) food protection system is fragmented across federal, state, and local jurisdictions, resulting in duplication, inefficiency, and systemic failures that undermine public health and erode consumer trust. Foodborne pathogens such as Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli do not respect institutional boundaries, yet responsibility for oversight is divided among more than 15 federal agencies, 75 state entities, and thousands of local jurisdictions, operating under more than 30 laws and 70 interagency agreements. This structure has proven incapable of reducing the persistent burden of foodborne illness in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate one in six Americans is affected annually, causing 10 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and more than 900 deaths.
The term food protection, in use since at least 1924, conceptually unifies food safety, defense, authenticity, and infrastructure protection. However, the lack of an integrated federal entity has perpetuated disjointed responses. The 2025 recall of chicken fettuccine alfredo meals—linked to 17 illnesses, 16 hospitalizations, three deaths, and one fetal loss (as of this date)—illustrates the shortcomings of the system. Oversight was split between the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulated the non-meat components, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversaw the chicken ingredient. Despite involvement from CDC, the outbreak was not contained in time to prevent fatalities. Similarly, the 2024 deli meat Listeria outbreak, responsible for 10 deaths and 61 illnesses, highlighted the failure of FSIS to enforce corrective actions despite documented ongoing sanitation-based violations. These preventable events underscore the limitations of the current model.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly called for consolidation—in 2005 and again 20 years later in 2025—emphasizing that inefficiencies, regulatory conflicts, and siloed data hindering effective food protection, resulting in preventable public health impacts. Reports also document how FSIS’s 6,500-employee continuous inspection program expends enormous resources without measurably improving outcomes. Decentralized data management further impedes trend analysis, predictive modeling, and risk-based decision-making that could anticipate and prevent outbreaks.
A unified federal food protection entity would provide structural and scientific coherence, resulting in the desired outcomes described herein. By consolidating regulatory authority, streamlining enforcement, and centralizing data, such an entity could accelerate response times, enhance accountability, and foster consistent risk-based regulation. Integrating modern technologies such as artificial intelligence and predictive analytics would strengthen surveillance, while harmonized training and inspections would maximize public health protections and reduce duplication and industry burden. Examples from Canada and the United Kingdom—both of which have lower per-capita illness rates—demonstrate the effectiveness of nationally unified food protection systems.
Congressional recognition of these systemic weaknesses has spurred legislative proposals in 2025 to establish a single food protection authority. This initiative reflects both scientific necessity and policy urgency. A consolidated approach would align regulatory practice with the realities of microbial ecology, supply chain complexity, and consumer demand for safe and wholesome foods.
In conclusion, the U.S. food protection system requires modernization and unification. Reform should focus on five core directives:
Improving public health through risk-based regulation
Eliminating overlap and duplication
Streamlining enforcement and compliance
Increasing accountability and modernizing governance
Strengthening food protection as a component of national security
A unified federal food protection entity would provide a vision forward with four prime outcomes:
Protect public health more effectively
Reduce regulatory and economic burden
Improve resilience against both natural and intentional threats
Deliver a modern, science-based food protection system for the 21st century and beyond
“One system, one standard, one mission: Protecting America’s food supply from farm to fork.”
—Guiding principle for U.S. food safety efforts, FSIS
Click on the image to download the complete 45 page Whitepaper:
ICYMI: Click on the image to watch this recorded webinar with two of the Whitepaper Authors, Jason Bashura and Ben Reading:
Ben and Jason discuss the need for truly unified, risk-based U.S. food protection system in this 26 minute recorded webinar
The food industry is operating in a world that looks fundamentally different from the one in which most food safety systems were designed. Digital technologies are now embedded across production, supply chains, logistics, and consumer interfaces. Data is generated continuously. Decisions are expected in real time. Transparency is no longer a differentiator, it is an expectation.
At the same time, the stakes have never been higher. Food safety events now unfold instantly, across borders, under intense public and regulatory scrutiny. A single failure can disrupt supply chains, damage brands, and erode trust at a global scale in ways that were unimaginable even a decade ago.
Yet despite this shift, many food safety programs still rely on operating models built for a slower, more linear world, models centered on periodic reviews, fragmented data, manual interpretation, and retrospective learning. These approaches were effective when systems were simpler and change was incremental. Today, they increasingly struggle to keep pace.
This growing disconnect between today’s operating reality and how food safety is managed signals the need for a fundamental evolution. That evolution is Food Safety 4.0.
Background: Industry 4.0 and Quality 4.0
Over the past decade, organizations across industries have undergone significant transformation driven by digitalization, connectivity, and advanced analytics, a shift commonly referred to as Industry 4.0. At its core, Industry 4.0 reflects the move from isolated systems and delayed visibility to connected, real-time awareness across operations.
The defining impact of Industry 4.0 is not automation alone, but speed,the ability to shorten the distance between what happens in operations and what leaders understand, decide, and act upon. Information latency, once accepted as unavoidable, is now viewed as a risk.
Building on this foundation, Quality 4.0 emerged as the evolution of quality management in the digital era. Quality 4.0 does not replace established quality principles; rather, it strengthens them by combining proven disciplines with modern technology, analytics, and a renewed emphasis on culture and leadership. The focus shifts from measuring outcomes after the fact to anticipating and preventing failure while enabling performance.
Together, Industry 4.0 and Quality 4.0 demonstrate a broader truth: modern systems demand modern operating models. Static, siloed approaches,regardless of how well designed,struggle to keep pace with today’s complexity, speed, and expectations. Food safety now faces that same inflection point!
What Is Food Safety 4.0 , and Why This New Term Matters
Food Safety 4.0 is the intentional application of Industry 4.0 and Quality 4.0 thinking to the unique responsibilities of food safety, protecting public health, meeting regulatory obligations, and sustaining consumer trust in a highly connected world.
Food Safety 4.0 is a system-level approach that treats food safety as a continuous, enterprise-wide capability rather than a periodic program.
It emphasizes predictive use of data and analytics to identify emerging risks before they result in loss of control.
It relies on connected intelligence that integrates signals across processes, sanitation, supplier performance, deviations, complaints, and distribution.
It enables adaptive control strategies that respond to changing conditions instead of relying solely on static rules.
It reinforces culture, leadership accountability, and decision clarity to ensure insights translate into timely action.
It moves beyond compliance as the endpoint and positions trust, resilience, and prevention as the ultimate outcomes.
More importantly, Food Safety 4.0 represents a new operating philosophy, not simply a new set of tools. I introduce this term intentionally and for the first time, recognizing that language shapes action. What an organization names, it prioritizes; what it prioritizes, it invests in; and what it invests in, it ultimately leads.
Historically, food safety has been framed primarily as a compliance requirement, a regulatory obligation, or a subset of quality systems. While these perspectives remain important, they are no longer sufficient on their own in a world defined by speed, complexity, and visibility.
Food Safety 4.0 reframes food safety as a system-level capability that operates continuously rather than periodically. It emphasizes prediction over reaction and performance over documentation. Most importantly, it positions food safety as a strategic driver of trust, resilience, and long-term value.
Naming this transformation Food Safety 4.0 provides clarity and momentum. It creates a shared language that aligns leaders, functions, and investments around a common direction,just as Industry 4.0 and Quality 4.0 have done in other domains.
What Food Safety 4.0 Looks Like in Practice
At its core, Food Safety 4.0 represents the shift from programmatic compliance to predictive, system-level prevention. This shift is characterized by several fundamental changes.
Food safety data, process controls, sanitation results, supplier performance, deviations, complaints, and distribution signals,can no longer exist in isolation. Food Safety 4.0 connects these signals into a coherent, actionable view that supports faster and more confident decision making.
Instead of relying primarily on lagging indicators, Food Safety 4.0 emphasizes leading insight. Early signals, trends, and patterns become visible before failures occur, enabling intervention while outcomes are still controllable.
Controls themselves must evolve. In a dynamic operating environment, food safety systems must adapt to changing inputs, conditions, and risks rather than remain static and retrospective.
Equally important, Food Safety 4.0 reinforces culture as a foundational control. Technology does not replace human responsibility. It strengthens ownership, clarity, and speak-up behaviors so that people act on insight rather than simply record it.
Finally, Food Safety 4.0 moves beyond compliance as the finish line. Regulatory expectations remain essential, but they are the baseline. The ultimate objective is sustained trust, earned through consistent, transparent, preventive performance.
Why Food Safety 4.0 Is Needed Now
Three forces make this moment decisive.
First, digital capability has outpaced food safety operating models. The tools already exist, but food safety has lacked a cohesive, future-focused framework to use them effectively.
Second, system complexity has exceeded human-only oversight. The volume and velocity of information generated across modern food systems can no longer be managed through manual interpretation alone.
Third, trust has become fragile and highly visible. In a connected world, food safety failures are not isolated events,they are brand-defining moments.
Food Safety 4.0 provides a way to meet these realities proactively rather than reactively.
A Leadership Imperative
Food Safety 4.0 is not owned by technology teams, nor by quality alone. It is a leadership responsibility. Defining the next era of food safety performance requires vision to modernize without abandoning foundational principles, discipline to integrate people, process, and technology, and courage to move beyond legacy ways of working.
Final Thought
Every major transformation requires language that makes change visible and actionable. Industry 4.0 did this for manufacturing. Quality 4.0 did it for organizational excellence. Food Safety 4.0 now defines the next era of food safety performance,one built for a digital, connected, high-expectation world.
References
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. acatech , National Academy of Science and Engineering.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016). Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios. Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
ASQ (American Society for Quality). Quality 4.0: The Future of Quality. ASQ Quality Resources.
LNS Research. Quality 4.0 Impact and Strategy Handbook. LNS Research.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG). (2019). Quality 4.0 Takes More Than Technology.
World Economic Forum. (2017). Shaping the Future of Advanced Manufacturing and Production.
As we step into 2026, it’s a natural time to reflect on the past while setting goals for the future. Looking back at the women who helped shape food safety, food production, and farming reminds us how progress is built—through resilience, innovation, and determination. Though historically underrepresented, women have played a critical role in protecting public health, advancing sustainability, and driving change. Their legacy continues to guide and inspire the work ahead.
Pioneers in Food Safety and Preservation
One of the most notable figures in food safety is Mary Engle Pennington (1872–1952), an American bacteriological chemist and refrigeration engineer. Pennington was a trailblazer in the preservation, handling, storage, and transportation of perishable foods. As the first female lab chief at the FDA, she developed standards for the safe processing of poultry and improved sanitation in milk handling. Her innovations laid the groundwork for modern food safety protocols and earned her induction into the National Women’s Hall of Fame and the National Inventors Hall of Fame.
British dietitian and nutritionist, Elsie Widdowson oversaw the first mandated fortification of foods during World War II, such as adding calcium to bread. Her research on the impact of early-life nutrition on lifelong health remains foundational to modern nutritional thinking.
One of America’s first female chemists and a pioneer in sanitary engineering was Ellen Swallow Richards. Her book, Food Materials and Their Adulterations, directly led to the passage of Massachusetts’ first Pure Food and Drug Act.
Fast forward to today, we can point to women like Jennifer Doudna and Michèle Marcotte. Doudna is a biochemist and co-developer of CRISPR gene-editing technology. Her work has the potential to transform the food industry by creating pest-resistant, robust crops that can thrive in adverse conditions. Michèle Marcotte, a Canadian food scientist known for her pioneering work in food processing research, developed a method of osmotic dehydration, which enhances the drying process of fruits and can be applied to vegetables, meat, and fish.
Rising Participation of Women in Food Safety
The food safety sector has seen a notable increase in female participation in recent years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2023, women represented approximately 50% of food scientists and technologists, a significant increase from previous decades. This upward trend reflects broader efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion in STEM fields.
Professional organizations, such as the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP), have also observed increased female membership and leadership. Initiatives pushed forward by our organization, Women in Food Safety (WIFS) aimed at mentoring and supporting women in food safety careers have also contributed to this positive shift, fostering a more inclusive environment that encourages women to pursue and advance in these roles.
Challenges and Opportunities
Despite these advancements, women in food safety, production, and farming still face challenges, including gender biases, access to resources, and representation in leadership positions. Addressing these issues requires continued efforts to promote equitable policies, provide mentorship opportunities, and highlight the achievements of women in these fields.
Educational programs for young women and girls can play a crucial role in sustaining the momentum. By introducing agricultural sciences and food safety topics early in education, we can inspire the next generation of female leaders in these industries.
From historical pioneers like Mary Engle Pennington to contemporary innovators like Jennifer Doudna, women’s contributions have been invaluable. The increasing participation of women in these sectors not only enriches the industries but also ensures a more diverse and resilient approach to global food challenges.
As we are committed, Women In Food Safety will continue supporting and pipeline the next generation of female leadership while providing a space for female professionals to thrive.
This year, we made significant progress by obtaining our 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. We delivered impactful sessions at the 2025 Food Safety Summit, and further spread our message at the Food Safety Consortium during the Women in Food Safety breakfast, thanks to the Food Safety Tech team, who also publish the Women in Food Safety column.
Women in Food Safety Networking Breakfast at the Food Safety Consortium
We look forward to the new year and to achieving even more in 2026. Together, we can do BETTER!
Over the past six months we have shared a series of articles on many practical aspects of managing Listeria. A summary of each of these articles follows immediately below after their respective titles. In addition, we have added a list of additional references on this subject. Links to all the articles in the series are in the Related Articles section below
What is Listeria: Listeria monocytogenes is one of the most virulent food-borne pathogens. It is an extremely strong organism, able to survive a wide pH range and a wide temperature range. These survival characteristics make Listeria a very insidious organism. Just because a food is cooked or has preservatives or has a low pH doesn’t mean that Listeria is not present—it’s quite the tough organism. Assume it’s there.
Listeria-Related Regulations (FDA & USDA): FDA and USDA have an essentially “zero tolerance” policy for Listeria monocytogenes in foods. However, in spite of past mistakes and costly recalls, Listeria-related recalls still occur. All regulations preach an ongoing vigilance to Listeria presence in the plant environment and in the food. Regulators also use DNA testing to find root sources of Listeria, which can prevent untold tragedy. Regulations help protect public health, so they should be used to that end.
Where Listeria Comes From, and How It Moves Around: Listeria is widely distributed in nature, found in soil, water, vegetation, and animal feces. Thus, it is quite easy for it to get into food plants and be transported around that plant. Given this, a wise food safety team always assumes that the organism is present somewhere in the plant. Harborages are all areas in which Listeria can grow; movement vectors are where those harborages intersect with people and equipment moving around. Best practices necessitate that harborages are eliminated and movement vectors are identified and controlled.
How to Find Listeria in the Plant: before you sample for Listeria, make sure senior management across all functions is supportive of this task, and is willing to share the risk of actually finding Listeria. Some companies test for Listeria species, and some test for a marker organism to avoid a zero-tolerance panic. Best practice is to establish, validate, and execute an environmental monitoring program which is based on strategic sampling of sites around the plant. Doing so is hard work, and requires a lot of patience since Listeria is notoriously hard to find.
How to Get Rid of Listeria in the Plant: there are two complementary approaches to managing Listeria: keep it out to begin with, and eradicate it when it is found. Keeping it out is hard, but try anyway—use interventions such as clean uniforms, captive footwear, and sanitizing mats prior to entry into production. And killing it—involve a reputable chemical company who understands food production. Use quaternary ammonium compounds judiciously, strategically, and smartly. Remember, you are rarely ever done!
Communication—The “Choice to Chase”: deciding to “chase” Listeria is a cross-functional decision, residing not only with the Food Safety & Quality Assurance team. Everyone buys in to be educated on actions and consequences, and to share the risk. The overall food safety culture needs to be one of honesty and openness in communication. A culture of support across the board matters significantly to making sure Listeria is managed well. This is also the kind of environment that FSQA professionals can be proud of, knowing they are making a very positive impact on public health and trust.
Jespersen, L., Butts, J., Holler, G., Taylor, J., Harlan, D., Griffiths, M., and Wallace, C. 2019. The Impact of Maturing Food Safety Culture and a Pathway to Economic Gain. Food Control. 98:367-379. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713518305863.
Zoellner, C., Ceres, K., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Wiedmann, M., and Ivanek, R. 2018. Design Elements of Listeria Environmental Monitoring Programs in Food Processing Facilities. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 17: 1156-1171. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33350161/.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
