Ep. 183. Thomas Gremillion: Advocating for Strong Federal Food Safety Regulation

Summary

Podcast Summary: Food Safety Matters, Ep. 183

Guest: Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy, Consumer Federation of America
Date: December 10, 2024
Host: Adrienne Blum (Food Safety Magazine Editorial Director)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth interview with Thomas Gremillion, a leading advocate for federal food safety regulation and the Director of Food Policy at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), as well as coordinator for the Safe Food Coalition. The discussion dives into the role of CFA and the Coalition, the recent reorganization of FDA’s Human Foods Program, FSMA 204 traceability rule implementation, industry legal pushback, foodborne illness outbreaks (notably the Boar’s Head listeria case), USDA’s salmonella in poultry framework, and the broad implications of the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1984 Chevron precedent for food regulation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Role of the Consumer Federation of America & Safe Food Coalition

[23:11 – 26:40]

• CFA’s Mission: Founded in 1968, CFA unites over 250 nonprofit consumer/member organizations to advocate for consumer interest via research, education, and policy.

  • "Our bread and butter, if you will, is advocacy work in the food space." – Thomas Gremillion (23:51)

• Safe Food Coalition: Established in 1986 to coordinate advocacy among consumer, public health, research, and labor organizations focused on food safety reforms.

• Historic Achievements:

  • Advocacy for HACCP inspection adoption at USDA
  • Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 classified as adulterants
  • Mechanically tenderized beef labeling
  • Implementation and enforcement of major provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

---

2. FDA’s Human Foods Program Reorganization

[27:46 – 31:23]

• Context:

  • Triggered by the Abbott Labs infant formula recall, highlighting shortcomings and muddled leadership
  • Reagan-Udall Foundation’s commission report catalyzed change

• Key Changes:

  • Unified accountability: One Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods with oversight over food regulation
  • Integrated inspection workforce

• Financial Reality:

  • “Congress has to step up and give the agency the funding it needs...” (Thomas, 28:30)

---

3. FSMA 204 (Traceability Rule) – Implementation, Challenges & Legal Pushback

[31:23 – 37:42]

• Readiness:

  • Industry must be prepared by January 2026; rule already long overdue.
  • Most resistance is from retailers (esp. FMI), seeking delays and challenging the necessity of lot codes
    • “The lot codes are really the quintessential key data element... Developing a traceback system without them would require all the other parts of the production chain to kind of go back to the drawing board.” (Thomas, 32:57)

• Legislative Challenges:

  • Proposals like the Food Traceability Enhancement Act would delay or weaken requirements
  • “We've had a bunch of pilot projects going back to 2012. We know that the industry can do this.” (Thomas, 35:54)

• Inspection Delays:

  • FDA inspections delayed to 2027 may not cause widespread delays, as large retailers (e.g., Kroger, Walmart) are proactively requiring compliance in supplier contracts

---

4. Lessons from the Boar’s Head Listeria Outbreak

[37:42 – 43:27]

• Regulatory Gaps:

  • Ongoing, unaddressed hazards at the Jarrett, VA facility; non-compliance history ignored
  • State (Virginia) inspectors acting as federal inspectors may have led to weaker oversight

• Calls for Greater Transparency:

  • Proposes public disclosures such as restaurant-style sanitation grades to promote accountability

• Testing between Inspections:

  • Advocates for mandatory reporting of positive product test findings to regulators
  • Cautions on possible moral hazards; stresses careful program design

• Quote:

  • “It's just absolutely critical that we learn from an event like this and make the food safety system better so that we can avoid having families suffer...” (Thomas, 38:50)

---

5. USDA’s Salmonella in Poultry Framework

[43:27 – 49:26]

• Public Health Impact:

  • Salmonella is the most prevalent and costly foodborne pathogen; poultry accounts for >23% of cases

• Proposed Rule:

  • Would classify poultry products contaminated with targeted serotypes as adulterated (i.e., illegal to sell)
  • Thomas supports approach but wants broader serotype coverage and standards on total Salmonella loads
    • “Consumers shouldn't have to wear a hazmat suit to cook dinner.” (Thomas, 44:56)

• Concern:

  • Three targeted serotypes capture less than half of current cases; risk of companies gaming the system by vaccinating only for those
  • FSIS has poor track record updating standards; comprehensive, future-proof rule is preferred

• Quote:

  • “We want a comprehensive rule that will stand the test of time.” (Thomas, 49:18)

---

6. Supreme Court’s Overturning of the Chevron Doctrine (2024), Regulatory Ramifications

[50:35 – 54:23]

• Background: The Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes; overturning it reduces agency flexibility.

• Implications:

  • Judicial resistance can now block bold regulatory action on food safety (e.g., banning/declaring pathogens as adulterants)
  • Will make agencies even more risk-averse and slow to act

• Quote:

  • “It opens the door to judicial ideologues to run interference against federal agency actions that are necessary to address all kinds of preventable harms across the economy—and particularly in the food system.” (Thomas, 51:18)

• Hope:

  • Persistence, public advocacy, and Congress stepping in when courts block agency action

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• On CFA’s core mission:

  • “Our bread and butter, if you will, is advocacy work in the food space.” (23:51)

• On the importance of regulatory funding:

  • “Congress has to step up and give the agency the funding it needs to take on some of these additional responsibilities.” (28:30)

• On traceability and retailer resistance:

  • “Retailers are kind of like the person in the [bucket] line closest to the fire. But instead of throwing the water on the fire, they're saying we should really be allowed to just dump the water on the ground over here.” (33:20)

• On the Boar’s Head outbreak:

  • “It's just absolutely critical that we learn from an event like this and make the food safety system better so that we can avoid having families suffer...” (38:50)

• On consumer protection & Salmonella regulation:

  • “Consumers shouldn't have to wear a hazmat suit to cook dinner. Right? The proposed rule holds industry accountable for doing its part to reduce the burden of foodborne illness.” (44:56)

• On the risks of a narrow regulatory standard:

  • “If we set the standard too narrowly, that could have some unintended consequences. So we want a comprehensive rule that will stand at the test of time.” (49:18)

• On the Supreme Court’s anti-Chevron ruling:

  • “It opens the door to judicial ideologues to run interference against federal agency actions... particularly in the food system.” (51:18)

---

Timeline of Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|--------------------| | 22:28 | Introduction to Thomas Gremillion and CFA | | 23:11 | CFA’s history, structure, accomplishments, Safe Food Coalition role | | 27:46 | FDA Human Foods Program reorganization discussed | | 31:23 | FSMA 204 traceability rule, compliance, industry resistance | | 34:39 | Legislative/legal pushback against FSMA 204 | | 36:21 | Inspection/enforcement delays and industry response | | 37:42 | Boar’s Head listeria outbreak, regulatory and oversight failures | | 41:50 | Calls for standardization and transparency in facility testing | | 43:27 | USDA Salmonella in poultry rule: significance, CFA’s analysis | | 47:37 | Concerns on rule’s scope and implementation/review mechanisms | | 49:26 | Impact on outbreak management and recalls | | 50:35 | Supreme Court Chevron ruling: regulatory implications | | 54:23 | Conclusion and gratitude for guest’s expertise |

---

Conclusion

Thomas Gremillion offered a thorough and candid assessment of the rapidly evolving federal food safety regulatory landscape—highlighting past advocacy victories, present regulatory reforms, persistent implementation/oversight challenges, and future threats/opportunities resulting from sweeping legal changes. His insights underscore the vital, ongoing partnership between strong, well-funded agencies and vigilant consumer advocacy to ensure the safety of the nation's food supply.

For links, references, and further reading, see the episode show notes or visit food-safety.com.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

And welcome to Food Safety Matters, the podcast for food safety professionals. I'm Stacy Acheson, publisher of Food Safety magazine. And as usual, I'm joined by my co host, Adrienne Blum, our editorial director, and Bob Ferguson, president of Strategic consulting. So welcome, podcasters.

[A]

Hi, Stacy.

[C]

Hello.

[B]

I feel like it's like homeroom here.

[A]

Here, I have a note from yesterday, so I have to give that to you.

[C]

Do you?

[B]

Well, you are excused. Thank you.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

I hope I am, too. Okay, so we're going to start like we do, with a little bit of a teaser from Adrian about today's interview.

[C]

Yeah. So today's interview, I'm talking with Thomas Gremillon, who's the director of Food policy for the Consumer Federation of America and also the coordinator of the Safe Food Coalition. And we talk about the work of the CFA and also a number of hot button issues in food safety, including the FDA's Human Foods Program reorg, upcoming compliance with FSMA 204, and legal challenges to the rule, regulatory oversight in the aftermath of the Boar's head listeria outbreak, the efforts to tackle salmonella and poultry, and the potential impacts of the June overturning of the 1984 Chevron ruling. So, as you can probably tell, it's a jam packed interview, so stay tuned for that coming up.

[A]

That's all you could find? Just those.

[B]

I know. My goodness.

[C]

There's more, too. There's more. That's a high level overview.

[B]

Okay, well, none of us are going to miss that one. Absolutely. Okay, so we're getting close to putting a wrap on the year of our Lord 2024. So for us here on the podcast, that means that we've already started work on our year in review episode that will drop on December 24th. A little gift to you from your friends here at Food Safety Matters. So we're pulling together all the top themes of the year and. And here's one of our favorite parts of the recording is that our digital editor, Bailey Henderson will be joining us to provide insights on the stories that our audience has engaged with online, as well as in all of our social channels, I should say our very active social channels. And I mean, come on, 80,000 followers on LinkedIn. I'm still blown away by that. So thanks everybody for following us. We love knowing that you're out there. So back to the episode, though. That's always a very, very popular episode. So we always want to make sure that we're working hard to make sure that we're just going to bring it for you again this year and we hope that it's going to be great. But for now, we need to focus on the task at hand, which is today's episode. And as always, we'll start with some news.

[C]

Yeah, so kind of continuing with a theme that we've been exploring this year on the podcast, the concern over food additives and chemicals. So recently 23 Congress members sent a letter to FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, Jim Jones and the Acting Director of the Office of food additive safety, Dr. Christy Muldoon Jacobs, urging FDA to ban Red Dye 3 as a food additive. So Red Dye 3 is a synthetic food colorant often used in candy that has popped up in recent food additives regulation discussion. So California decided to ban it, as you might Remember in the October 2023 California Food Safety act, that that act takes effect in January of 2027. And red dye 3 is already banned for use in cosmetics in the U.S. and it's also banned for use in foods in the eu, Australia and New Zealand due to its adverse neurobehavioral effects in children. So A petition by 24 consumer groups and scientists to ban Red Dye 3 that was submitted in January of 2023 is currently under FDA review. So as part of its restructuring of the human foods program in October, FDA is working on the development of an enhanced post market chemical review process and it's published a list of priority chemicals for review with Red Dye 3 being included on that list. Now, the letter from the 23 Congress members notes that colorant alternatives to Red Dye 3 are widely available to the food industry. So it's really urging FDA to ban the chemical and telling the food industry to find different sites, substitutes.

[B]

I just, I, so I had to Google why is it, you know, why is this banned in cosmetics but not in food? And I, I didn't get a good answer. The Google machine didn't give me.

[A]

Didn't answer you on that one.

[B]

I mean it didn't really, it said that, I guess, you know, it's considered a car carcinogenic, right?

[C]

So, so it's okay to put inside your body but not on your skin.

[B]

I don't get, I just, I'm, I'm, I was out, I was like, okay, I don't get it. And for a long time this isn't like, oh, last week, this was 30 years.

[A]

I had a chance to read this letter and take a look at it. They make some pretty good points. My guess would be at this point that the human foods program has already cited red dye number three as being one of the things that they're going to work on. And they will probably work on it at the pace that their program goes. And, you know, maybe this letter will have an effect. There's a fair number of things probably going on in Washington. I've heard about some stuff and but I don't think this is going to affect it. And the people on this letter are still going to be in Congress. You'll probably see this again. You'll see this pressure going until some decision is made. So we'll get there. We'll get there.

[B]

Yeah. And there were so I did look at the list and there are 21, you know, chemicals on the list, the additives on the list that, you know, have been well worn on the podcast and in our news section. So yeah, yeah.

[C]

So we'll continue to watch this story and see where this goes and see If Red Dye 3 gets stricken from the list of allowable food additives in the future. So now moving to antimicrobial resistance news, there was a recent report that has looked at popular restaurant chains policies on antibiotics in meat and found that many chains don't have policies in place to restrict the overuse of antibiotics in the production of the meat they serve. So this study was carried out by animal welfare group Food Animals Concerns Trust and public health advocacy coalition Keep Antibiotics Working, with some contributions by George Washington University. So factors considered in a company's grade that was given in the report included antibiotic use policies related to beef, turkey, pork and chicken procurement policy implementation, monitoring of antibiotic use in meat supplies and transparency, including verification of policy compliance via third party audits. So the report defined preventive or therapeutic use of antibiotics for groups of animals or individual animals as routine or acceptable. Now, meaningful antibiotic use policies were defined as prohibiting the use of all antibiotics or or medically important antibiotics for growth promotion and routine disease prevention. Now, in the last two decades, the US Chicken industry has significantly reduced its use of antibiotics, which has led to reductions in AMR and pathogens from chicken. However, reductions in other meat supply chains have not been as meaningful, according to the report. Now, of the 20 restaurants graded in the report, only Chipotle received an A, while KFC received an A. Additionally, Wendy's and Chick Fil A received B grades. Chick Fil A and Popeyes both had meaningful chicken policies, but their scores were negatively impacted by their lack of antibiotic policies for their pork supply chains. Taco Bell increased its grade from previous reports into the C range by no longer selling chicken raised with antibiotics that are important to human medicine and by committing to reduce medically important antibiotics in its beef supply by 25% by 2025. However, Panera's grade was reduced from an A to a D after the company removed its long standing policies for sourcing raised without antibiotics chicken, turkey and pork, and also choosing not to limit the use of medically important antibiotics in its beef. The report also highlighted the use of the carcinogenic feed additive Carbadox in the US Meat supply, which is used for growth promotion and disease control for pigs. According to the report, FDA is actively trying to ban Carbadox, but until it's removed from the market, it will continue to be used in the pork supply. Chipotle is the only company included in the report that explicitly doesn't allow Carbadox in its meat supply. And if you'd like to read more about AMR food safety and public health, check out my editor's letter in the December January issue of Food Safety magazine, which is out now. And and I'll also put a link in the show notes for you so you can read that.

[B]

And that's not just a letter. That's a really like, that's a really, that's some really nice coverage that I thanks that Adrian did in that issue. So definitely check that out.

[A]

Well, I'll make a comment on this and I'll start out with my position on amr. And what I think about this is it's if I had to list one of the top five threats to humanity, this is one of them. Antibiotics were not really commercially or widely available until the 1940s and the idea that lots of them may go away within less than 100 years and send us back to fighting infections like it's the Middle Ages scares me to no end. It's and we also know that in the 80s there hasn't been a lot of new categories of antibiotics being made. So if, if these do eventually lose their ability to be used, you know, we're in big trouble. So I'm that's one of my top issues. Now having said that, I'm not really a fan of the way this report was put together. I call it a desk review. They looked at publicly available information websites and things like that. But it doesn't have the kind of follow up or, or checking that I would want to see in a report like this that they can actually validate what's happening with a company in their supply chain. For instance, in one of the one of the areas they were talking to one of the companies they Said we checked with them on an, with an email and we got no response. So they got no points for having a policy. Well, just because they didn't get a response doesn't mean they don't have a policy. There should be a way to figure that out. And there was a few things like that that were mainly just, you know, like I said, a desk report and not a lot of verification. So I would like to see more verification on how the policies are working, what people are actually doing, how that's being checked with third party audits and see that type of validation of what's happening as opposed to the way that they did this. But bringing attention to amr, I'm all behind and if people change their, their farming and their, their practices based upon this and there's more pressure and gets more public attention, I would be all for it.

[B]

I don't certainly disagree about, you know, the methodologies and all of that, but I will, and I didn't know about this report that this is something that's been done before or not. I, I know for myself like when I became aware of antibiotics and AMR as a thing was many, many years ago. And I thought, oh, I just won't, you know, every time I get a cold, which if anybody listening here we are, you know, I don't run out and get some antibiotics. Right. And I thought I was doing something and then come to find out that no, that this is really where it's at, right. This is what's driving that as well as over prescription, you know, of antibiotics, which I can't speak to that, but I hope that that's not going on at the levels that it was. But again, public awareness and knowledge of this like for to. So to your point about the desk audit, like just how I feel about food safety as well. Like there should be a page on your website that explains this and if it's something that you're doing that you should be proud of it. But to that point we don't want just like a halo effect or somebody putting something up on a website that can't be verified. But it's always going to be, I think public pressure and consumer pressure that drives that. And I think that a report like this will drive some of that. When we were getting ready today, we were talking about the Dirty Dozen, which is the Environmental Working Group has for years and years and years put out this list of the Dirty Dozen in fruits and vegetables and which ones have the most pesticides. And being part of the organic industry back a Few years ago, something we watched very carefully and we, we did it. People loved getting it, but we never got pushback. Well, in the last few years when we put out this list, industry started to push back. And I think that's because, well, that means people are having an impact. So I'd love to see that kind of thing going on here. Let's fight about it a little bit more, right?

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

It shows that, you know, maybe we're making some progress.

[A]

Absolutely. Yeah, I found it fascinating. Just, I was thinking about one more example is they, they took points away from one of the companies for not having a statement, not having a, not having a statement of the policy, not verifying whether or not they had a policy. But they gave points to another company because they cited that their third party audit is done by the usda. Now two things came to my mind. This is the meat industry. Everybody is audited by the usda. There's no one who's, who's. So they should get all points for simply having the USDA come in. But my understanding of this is that the USA USDA only audits label claims. If you make a label claim that you have what they call a marketing claim that it's made that the meat was raised without antibiotics and they, the only thing that they look at is the documentation. Whether or not it's actually going on or not is not something the USDA does. So there's some inconsistencies there on this. But again, their hearts are in the right place I guess as far as reducing antibiotics, sub therapeutic use of antibiotics to raise animal weights that hopefully that's gone away and should continue to go away, those kind of things. But again, there could be some patches here.

[B]

Yeah. And there's also a chart, some charts in there. And one, I think it does illuminate the fact that, you know, a policy and a change in policy by large chains can make a, have a huge impact. Huge, huge impact. So that's, that's encouraging, I guess. Watch this space.

[C]

Watch this space. Yeah. So moving to the topic of low moisture foods, Purdue University recently led a research study on this topic to identify challenges to food safety for this food category. And the researchers found several challenges ranging from culture based barriers to hygienic design and factors affecting the adoption of food safety technologies. So to better understand the food safety culture piece research and education needs and barriers to adopting technology, the researchers used a needs assessment that included online interviews with upper management as well as an anonymous online survey to regulators, industry professionals and academics. From this feedback the researchers created a three pronged food safety culture framework that encompassed infrastructure conditions, individual food safety knowledge, attitudes and risk perceptions, and organizational conditions now related to infrastructure. The needs assessment showed a lack of hygienically designed facilities to be a challenge as this element was often not considered in the construction of older production plants for low moisture foods. Now, today we understand hygienic design as an important element in all food plants. And by the way, if you didn't catch our live webinar last week on hygienic design with commercial food sanitation, you're invited to check that out on demand. We'll even put a link in the show notes for you. Dry sanitation in low moisture food facilities was identified as another challenge in the study. With most sanitation technologies and validation studies based on high moisture foods in the past, industry is in need of data on the most effective cleaning and sanitation procedures for specific low moisture products as well as more knowledge about pathogen reduction in low moisture environments. Industry also needs better methods for communicating the risks of low moisture food safety. Finally, five barriers were identified to food safety technology adoption. Those are budgetary priority, operational constraints, technology validation, consumer acceptance, and meeting desired product quality and functionality. Many participants mentioned the resistance they faced in justifying the small increases in safety that would come with the purchase of new technologies. Participants also noted the limited availability of processing technologies that are effective at reducing microbial load in low moisture foods while not, not compromising quality. So an insightful study for sure. And I think it brought up maybe some references to infant formula that we may have heard about before as we were discussing.

[A]

One of the things that jumped out to me when I read the study is, you know, certainly low moisture foods are more microbial safe than other foods, but it doesn't mean that they're immune from problems that have to be dealt with in production. Particularly what you said, Adrian, about dry cleaning and some of the processes that are typically used are not appropriate breed here. But as we've seen from infant formula and they have a chart in the paper, in the paper that talks about cereal, cocoa, coffee, tea supplements, fruit and vegetables, herbs and spices. These are popular products and there's a lot of those plants. So this is a, this is, this is a big issue trying to find another way to do this without traditional cleaning methods.

[C]

Yeah, it's an interesting study. And you know, of course we've been covering low moisture foods and sanitation for that in some webinars and great articles and things this year. So.

[B]

And they're always well attended.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. So you can definitely.

[B]

So Whatever the gap in information is, we're certainly doing our.

[C]

We're trying to close that for you, but you can, you can obviously find, you know, all those resources on food-safety.com so check and see what we've got on there and keep watching that space because there'll be more. And now, before we go today, we want to let you know that the European Commission has expanded requirements for food business operators on microbiological criteria for Listeria monocytogenes. So the amendment to EU Regulation 2073, 2005 stipulates that the responsibility for ensuring that listeria is not present in covered ready to eat foods now applies to all situations where those foods are placed on the market throughout their shelf life, and for which the producing food business operator has not been able to demonstrate that the level of listeria will not exceed the limit of 100 CFU per gram throughout its shelf life. The original regulation did not require food business operators beyond the original manufacturer to assume responsibility for listeria presence in ready to eat foods throughout their shelf life. The amendment, which will take effect on July 1st of 2026, was prompted by an EFSA report that showed the number of listeriosis cases in the EU increased by nearly 60 16% between 2021 and 2022, with 2022 seeing one of the highest numbers of listeriosis cases in the past decade. The amended regulation is designed to provide a more consistent level of protection against listeria throughout the EU food supply chain. And we noticed when we put this story up on Social that quite a lot of you were interested in this. So, you know, obviously an important change and update to this EU regulation and we wanted to let you all on the podcast know about this as well as. Well.

[B]

I guess that's me. I'm sitting back here totally engrossed with it.

[A]

Stacy, come back.

[B]

Yes, I'm here. I'm here. I swear I am. I swear I am. Okay, so as always, and as promised, there are links to all of the articles that we've referenced in our show notes. And if you don't already, you can follow us on LinkedIn X and Facebook. So just search for Food Safety magazine. And as Adrian mentioned, to take a deeper dive into all the great content that we are offer, Visit our website, food-safety.com and now it's time for Adrian's interview with Thomas Gremillon, the Director of Food Policy at the Consumer Federation of America, or cfa. He oversees the research, analysis, advocacy and media outreach for the group's food policy activities and monitors food safety activities at usda, FDA, and Congress, where he advocates for strong food safety protections for consumers. He also coordinates the Safe Food Coalition, a group of consumer, trade union and foodborne illness victim organizations dedicated to reducing foodborne illness by improving government food inspection programs. And prior to joining the CFA in 2015, he practiced environmental law at Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Public Representation. He also served as an associate attorney at the Southern Environmental Law center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he's also a member of the D.C. and North Carolina bars. He also holds a master's degree in international relations from Adina Simon Bolivar University in Ecuador. And with no ado whatsoever, here's that discussion.

[C]

Well, welcome to the podcast, Thomas. It is great to have you with us. Thanks for joining us.

[D]

Yeah, thanks for having me, Adrienne.

[C]

Now, I know we have a smorgasbord of issues to discuss today, so I'm just going to dive straight in because we have some so much to talk about. Now, you serve as director of food Policy at the Consumer Federation of America, or cfa, and also the coordinator for the CFA organized Safe Food Coalition. So before we jump into some of the hot button issues in food safety today, can you share some background with our listeners on what the CFA does and your work there and also why the Safe Food Coalition was formed and its role in shaping food policy and regulation?

[D]

Yeah, I'm happy to do that, Adrian. The Consumer Federation of America, which I've been with for a little over nine years now, hard to believe. We are an association of nonprofit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, education and advocacy. And we have more than 250 nonprofit member groups that participate in the federation and govern it through their representatives on the organization's board of directors. And, you know, some we work on a lot of different issues. Some facets of the organization are more focused on research or advocacy or education. But in the food space, we do a little bit of all of those and, you know, cite a couple examples. We just released a research report on Ultra Processed Foods, which is meant to be both a guide for public policymakers and an educational resource for consumers. We have released reports over the last few years on public policies to raise awareness of alcohol cancer risk, salmonella and poultry antibiotic resistance. Lots of issue areas, but our bread and butter, if you will, is advocacy work in the food space. And that relates to the to the Safe Food Coalition that you mentioned that was created in 1986 by my predecessor, Carol Tucker Foreman and within the coalition we have consumer, public health research and labor organizations and we're all advocating for improvements to the food safety system. We support national and state safeguards to protect consumers from foodborne illness, robust foodborne illness surveillance policies to increase food system transparency and safe workplaces that foster a culture of food safety. So I'll just briefly mention because I think it really is quite remarkable some of the issues that the Safe Food Coalition has been involved with. And I say CFA coordinates it, but it's very much a team effort. But we started pushing for the adoption of hazard analysis and critical control point or HACCP based meat and poultry inspection at usda, which it's hard to imagine now that that wasn't a thing. But we were part of the vanguard to kind of transition away from poke and sniff. We got Listeria monocytogenes classified as an adulterant and ready to eat products. We worked with victims of the Jack in the Box outbreak to get E. Coli O157:H7 and later on other Chiga toxin producing E. Coli classified as adulterants and ground beef. We got requirements that mechanically tenderized beef and steaks be labeled, pushed USDA to post online the names of retail consignees of recalled foods in the names of meat and poultry establishments that aren't meeting pathogen testing standards, rules passed by FDA to prevent Salmonella aniridis and shell eggs. Lots of the Food Safety Modernization act we're very involved in and we've been involved in getting that implemented. I know we'll talk about the traceability rule later but it's, you know, quite a storied history and so I feel very privileged to be in the position that I am now.

[C]

And you know, it's so interesting to hear you talk about, you know, the structure of CFA in the efforts, advocacy efforts there and how, you know, CFA focuses on, has this focus on, you know, the food, food safety and quality and then, but also food nutrition and diet. But then how that the, the importance of food safety gave rise to the Safe Food Coalition and all the advocacy efforts there and, and all the various things you listed and how you work with the agencies USDA and fda. And you talked about the involvement with FSMA and I know we're going some details here with some of those different regulations and efforts by the agencies in a minute. But you know, regarding FDA and CFA and the Safe Food coalition's work with FDA now as of this podcast air date, the FDA's new humid foods program has been in effect for a Little over two months. So I'm curious about your thoughts on the reorganization of the program structure and you know, if you expect it to contribute to the long term effectiveness in the way that FDA regulates the lion's share of the US Food supply.

[D]

Yeah, I think FDA Commissioner Califf deserves a lot of credit for the reorganization effort and I'm optimistic that it will contribute to the agency's long term effectiveness with the caveat that there is a lot of work to do and Congress has to step up and give the agency the funding it needs to take on some of these additional responsibilities and respond to, you know, to name one example, the crisis in confidence regarding food chemicals and FDA's monitoring of what's going on on that front. But as you know, the reorganization was really triggered by the agency's dysfunctional reaction to the infant formula recall at at Abbott Laboratories and that that fiasco made it just crystal clear that the director of the center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response, those, those two roles that had been created under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb were kind of muddled and we needed to have one person at FDA who was accountable for food. And just, just a real quick side note, I, Helena Bottomiller reported that that Commissioner Gottlieb created those positions on the basis of a recommendation from a McKinsey study. And I requested that McKinsey study in a FOIA over two years ago now and I've yet yet to hear back from the agency. So one day maybe we'll have some clarity on why that bizarre leadership structure was put in place. But now we have a Deputy Commissioner for foods that is accountable for the food side of the agency. And, and we also have some other really important changes that, that I have to give Commissioner Califf credit for. You know, as your listeners will will recall, there was a fact finding commission organized by the Reagan Udall foundation, interviewed me and lots of other stakeholders and wrote a great report on what FDA needed to do. But then Commissioner Kaleff rolled out a reorganization that left the Office of Regulatory affairs more or less intact with a deputy Commissioner for foods that wouldn't be in charge of his or her own inspectorate workforce. And that really riled up a lot of us. And I have to credit Brian Ronhelm at Consumer Reports and Roberta Wagner, who was then at the Consumer Brands association, among Steve Mandernack, that was at the association of Food and Drug Officials, still is, among others, many others, you know, launched a very effective campaign to get Commissioner Kalef to reconsider that approach. And to his credit, he came around to our point of view. And now we have the Office of Human Food Inspectorate within the new Office of Inspections and Investigations and a lot of other changes that have the potential to really streamline the work that FDA does to protect the food supply and make the agency more effective. But there are also new offices that are going to need funding. And the impetus is on Congress now to give the agency the resources it needs to, to, to function really well.

[C]

Now, you know, let's go back now to fsma, because you mentioned that earlier. Now we're a little over a year out from the compliance state for FSMA 204, which is FDA's food traceability rule. So how ready do you think the industry will be to comply with the rule in January of 2026? And, you know, what pain points do you see industry facing with this rule?

[D]

So I think they should be ready in January of 2026. I would hope, because it has been a very long time that we have been waiting for this rule. This is actually something that Congress mandated that FDA promulgate by 2013. Right. The Food Safety Modernization act was signed into law by President Barack Obama in January of 2011. And one of our Safe Food Coalition members, the center for Food Safety, actually sued FDA to force it to put out a rule, which it eventually did. And a lot of food producers, particularly producers in the produce industry, are very keen on seeing this rule go into effect because they've been hurt by the really broad recalls, like the one for romaine lettuce, that have followed some of the outbreaks, when we don't. We haven't known the source of the outbreak, and they've invested in this system to make it possible to trace back specific products in the store to a particular lot. And the main opposition to the rule now, as far as I can see, is coming from retailers and one of the major retailer trade associations, fmi, the Food Industry association, has been very vocal about, you know, getting more time and introduce some bills to delay implementation of the rule. And they say they want to experiment with a traceability scheme that doesn't use lot codes. But that's kind of a red herring because the lot codes are really the quintessential key data element that this scheme revolves around. And developing a traceback system without them would require all the other parts of the production chain to kind of go back to the drawing board. And one of my consumer advocate colleagues, Sarah Sorcher, at the center for Science and Public Interest, she really drew a great analogy to what's going on, likening it to a bucket line where we're all trying to put out a fire and the retailers are kind of like the person in the line closest to the fire. But instead of throwing the water on the fire, they're saying we should really be allowed to just dump the water on the ground over here. And that's going to really be a waste of resources because we know these other parts of the food system are investing in those. And it's also going to be a shame to the extent that we don't have faster recalls that would allow some consumers to avoid getting sick. But I'm confident that they're going to get their ducks in a row and we're going to have traceability soon.

[C]

Now you're talking about these legal challenges that have been mounted against the traceability rule. Let's actually talk about that for a minute. So two legal challenges introduced to Congress. One is the Food Traceability Enhancement Act. And that act would ease record keeping and traceability lot code requirements, as you said, for retail food service establishments and require more pilot projects to be completed before the rule could go into effect. Then there was another piece of legislation which was a provision in the fiscal year 2025 AG appropriations bill, and that sought to put the rule on hold by requiring additional pilots, among other things. So, you know, as far as the Safe Food Coalition's position on these legislative proposals and others like them that could arise to delay or challenge FSMA 204, you know, what are your thoughts on that? You kind of just explained a little bit more of it. But, you know, as far as is legislative, legislative challenges like their legal challenges like this, you know, what do you, where do you see them going? Or, you know, what do you see the purpose of these things?

[D]

So we're, we're very much on the record. We've written to congressional leaders adamantly opposing these bills. I mentioned earlier, the lot codes are really a keystone to the whole traceability scheme. And so trying to construct something without those lot codes would really be akin to starting from zero. And as for pilot projects, we've had a bunch of pilot projects going back to 2012. We know that the industry can do this. It's going to take some investment. Everybody's got to get on the same page. But if we all join together, it'll get done and it'll save lives.

[C]

And, you know, also with regard to the timing of everything now, with FDA traceability inspections not commencing until 2027, as the agency has announced. Do you think that industry might take extra time to fully comply with FSMA 204 because of this, the inspection starting later? And if so, you know, how could that affect foodborne illness outbreak investigations and recalls? Just, just hypothetically speaking, yeah.

[D]

I'm not as worried about FDA delaying enforcement inspections because if they stick to their schedule for the rules implementation, the big retailers will go ahead and integrate the traceability requirements into their purchase order specifications and have the private auditors checking and the changes will go into effect to a large extent even before FDA begins to enforce the rule. I mean, we've seen Kroger and Walmart make announcements that they're going to require suppliers of all foods, not just the high risk foods, to implement traceability schemes before the rule goes into effect. And I think the smaller players will follow suit and make the necessary investments once it becomes clear that this is going to be a reality and they have some certainty that the investments are going to pay off.

[C]

Well, thanks for your thoughts on that, Thomas. Now, moving to a little bit of different angle here, but still in the area of recalls, which is one of the things that traceability rules trying to implement or trying to help with. But now you and other Safe Food Coalition representatives have been meeting with regulatory officials following the deadly Boar's Head listeria outbreak and you've spoken about the need for better federal oversight of inspections and testing between inspections, particularly for businesses that process raw and ready to eat foods in the same facility, and especially for facilities that are found to be non compliant in any way at any time. So what issues do you see with the regulatory structure as of now that complicate federal oversight of inspections, action in response to non compliances, and the standardization of testing protocols to reinforce food safety assurance between inspections?

[D]

Yeah, it's a great question. I'll start by just saying the obvious, that the Boris Head outbreak is a reminder of the just tragic consequences of when we stop being vigilant about food safety. It's the most lethal outbreak we've had since the listeria contaminated cantaloupes killed 33 people in 2011. And it's just absolutely critical that we learn from an event like this and make the food safety system better so that we can avoid having families suffer through the consequences of similar lapses in the future. At this point, we know enough to know that government inspectors at the Boar's Head plant and Jarrett and their supervisors at USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service should have done more to protect the public. We know that reading through the list of non Compliance citations made against the Boar's Head facility In the two years leading up to the outbreak. It's clear that there were ongoing serious food safety hazards that were not being addressed and it was just a matter of time before people got hurt. And what we want to understand better now is just how did the agency let things get so bad and how can we prevent this from, from happening again? You know, how important was it, for example, that the inspectors in the plant were actually Virginia state employees who were working as federal inspectors under this Talmadge Aiken Act? How much of the problem is just that no one wants to be the one to kind of drop the hammer and shut down the plant and put people out of work? In some ways, this, this feels reminiscent of Abbott Labs. And you know, we've asked if you're publicizing, disclosing some of the information in these inspection reports, maybe sanitation grade like restaurants get, that's posted online, would that help to prevent the state of affairs from getting to this point where you have, you know, mold and dripping, condensation, all these food safety hazards that are being allowed to persist? I am confident that FSIS is going to share the findings of their investigation and we're going to be continuing to, you know, demand all of the, the details that they uncover. We're, we're asking them about decisions they've made, like to, to cut back on, on listeria testing in the, in the run up to this outbreak and, and you know, just trying to uncover, you know, turn over every stone that may be relevant. But at this point, there's a lot of questions that remain to be answered.

[C]

And as far as, because I know that you feel strongly about the need for testing between inspections, is there any way to standardize or require that? So that's one safeguard that could be put in place.

[D]

Yes. So that's something. And in connection with the Abbott Labs outbreak, you know, we've, we've talked to FDA about having the, the manufacturers report their positive product test findings to the agency. And that's something that, that we're exploring with the agencies as well. If the, the private companies are conducting this testing and you're trying to prioritize how FSIS or FDA spends its resources on laboratory testing, can we leverage the private company's testing to identify. Oh, this is a place that has had some contamination issues. You have to watch out for misaligned incentives and creating moral hazard that, that might lead a company to test in a way that doesn't find any positives. But I think there are some Interesting ideas out there about how we could leverage the private food safety investments to make the public regulation more effective.

[C]

Okay, thanks, Thomas. Now, on a more proactive note, USDA FSIS recently further extended the comment period for its salmonella framework for raw poultry products to January 17th of 2025. And that'll allow stakeholders more time to submit feedback on the proposed framework. So how do CFA and the Safe Food Coalition see the revised salmonella framework supporting public health outcomes?

[D]

Yeah. So first off, I just want to celebrate the work that FSIS has done around this framework and the proposed rule for final product standards in poultry. It's really an important step forward for public health. For decades, consumers have had to pay a price for ineffective and inefficient poultry inspection that honestly fails to hold a company accountable for shipping unsafe food to store shelves. And now we have a proposed rule that sets safety standards where they really mattered to consumers, on the products, not on the establishments that make the products. In this case, process the birds. So it's a big problem, more than any other foodborne pathogen, really. An estimated 1.35 million consumers suffer from salmonellosis each year. It's the single most costly foodborne pathogen. And poultry accounts for more of Those infections, over 23% the last count, than any other food category. So this is a logical place for them to be focusing their efforts. The proposed rule draws a line in the sand, if you will, and declares the chicken and turkey that's contaminated with the designated serotypes of salmonella to be adulterated. And the science supports that interpretation of the law. Some individuals may manage to avoid infection from a heavily contaminated a piece of chicken or turkey if they just scrupulously adhere to, say, food handling practices practices. But our line is that consumers shouldn't have to wear a hazmat suit to cook dinner. Right? And the proposed rule holds industry accountable for doing its part to reduce the burden of foodborne illness. That said, it could be improved quite a bit. We think the target serotypes, just three serotypes, are too narrow and it could lead to food companies vaccinating poultry against those those particular serotypes which cause less than half of of the salmonellosis cases attributable to poultry and, and then other serotypes rushing into the void and causing illness without, without any standard to protect against them. So we want to see, in addition to serotype specific standards, we want to see a standard that protects consumers from heavy loads of salmonella of any serotype. And we'd also like to see honestly more More serotypes included on kind of the list of the most virulent that need a more stringent standard. So that's why we kind of have a strange bedfellow situation with some of the opponents of the rule who have also asked for a delay in the comment period because, you know, they want to delay because they, they just love the status quo. We want to delay because we want the agency to, to take its time and make the rule better.

[C]

Now, you know, I, I know in the framework there's also allowance for reevaluation of serotypes of concern. And I believe that, you know, it's either as the science dictates that there's other stereotypes that are of more concern, or it's like every couple of years or so, you know, it needs to be reevaluated. Does, does that provision give you any, you know, kind of comfort?

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Or it's something serious. About your thoughts on that.

[D]

We've thought a lot about it and, and looked in other domains. You know, I looked at how, you know, rules under the Clean Air act, for example, are, are, you know, updated and, and they're, you know, kind of standard update provisions in, in within the statute or, or in regulations. FSIS does not have a good history of, of updating its rule book. I mean, we, we've been stuck with these performance standards for almost 30 years now. And in all likelihood there's not going to be, you know, every, a frequent revision of the serotypes that are, that are targeted by this rule. And because, you know, the bugs don't read the rules and, and biology is, is constantly changing, if if we yeah. Set the, the standard too narrowly, that, that could have some, some unintended consequences. So we want a comprehensive rule that, that it will stand at the test of time.

[C]

Okay. Now, you know, if, if the framework was adopted in its current form, assuming there weren't any changes made after the comment period ends in January, how would the regulations and requirements laid out in the framework change how USDA handles foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls that are related to Salmonella classified as an adulterant in poultry products, in your estimation?

[D]

I think it would, it would simplify things to a great extent. I mean, USDA would have clear authority to, you know, demand that these products come off the shelves instead of under the state status quo where there is this, this arcane rule where USDA has to find an unopened package in someone's freezer and link up the bugs from the package to the case patient. So it would be a great step forward in that respect, and I would hope they could be a little more aggressive in their posture and do more to protect consumers.

[C]

Okay, thanks for those thoughts. Now, I want to zoom out here for a bird's eye view of the regulatory landscape which you've written about how the Supreme Court's overturning of the 1984 Chevron ruling, which that overturning happened back In June of 2024, that could have legal implications for the food industry, regulatory agencies, and even food safety. Now, as a legal expert, what are your views on the implications of that June ruling and its potential impacts on the food industry and on food safety and on the regulatory agencies and how they are allowed to handle things?

[D]

That is very generous of you, Adrian. I'm just going to take a moment to savor being called a legal expert for a moment. But in all seriousness, this, this really, it opens the door to judicial ideologues to run interference against federal agency actions that are necessary to address all kinds of preventable harms across the economy and particularly in the food system. I think Corona Bacter and infant formula, Salmonella and poultry, the chemicals in food with unexamined safety records, labeling on food, all of these things require federal agencies to act. And under the court's ruling, the industry and all the lawyers that it can pay from all the corporate law firms, they have this new power to second guess those federal agency actions. And it's going to exacerbate a really frustrating situation where the federal agency's already used litigation risk as an excuse for inaction. Anyone that's done any public interest advocacy knows that the agency, that the first thing that the agencies will say when you, when you ask them to do more is how our, you know, our hands are tied. We have to consider the statute this way. We can't, we can't do this, this more protective thing that you want us to do. And I wrote a piece in Food Safety News where I, you know, unpacked a little bit the, the industry's challenge to classifying E. Coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that said that was a mistake. We should, that was, that was arbitrary and capricious to, to whom allow the USDA to take that raw beef out of the food supply. In hindsight, that was an incredibly cost effective ruling that's drastically reduced the number of E. Coli infections. But at the time, the industry challenged it under the Administrative Procedure act and under this you know, Loper bright ruling of the Supreme Court. It, it, they may, they may have won. We'll see as these new cases come out. So it's a brave new world out there. But, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll persist. And I hope that our, you know, colleagues in the federal agencies will take courage and, you know, if the judicial interference is too bad, you know, maybe Congress will step up and help us out.

[C]

Well, Thomas, I want to thank you for your insights on all of these issues, all of these regulatory matters and government and agency things we've talked about today. And, you know, all the things regarding the traceability rule, the recalls we've been looking at, we've talked about a lot. There's a lot to talk about, certainly. And certainly the leadership of the Consumer Federation of America and the Safe Food Coalition as well, appreciate you telling us more about your work there and the leadership of those two organizations or the CFA and the CFA organized Safe Food Coalition. So thank you so much for your time and your insights on the podcast today. It's been a fascinating talk and it's been really nice getting to discuss all of these very important issues today with you. So thank you, Thomas.

[D]

Thank you, Adrian. It's been a pleasure.

[B]

And thanks again to Thomas Gremillon for joining us on the podcast today. And of course, thanks to all of you for listening. And you know, we love hearing from you. So never hesitate to send us your questions or suggestions to podcastood-safety.com you can always post a note on LinkedIn X or Facebook. We're always excited to hear your feedback and to make sure that new and bonus episodes magically, magically appear in your podcast player, all you have to do is click that Follow or Subscribe button in the player of your choice and presto, bingo. All the episodes appear. And while you're there, please throw some stars our way by rating the podcast, especially if you enjoyed it. It only takes a moment and it's good for everyone. And that's it for us today. Our next regular episode will post on December 24, and in the meantime, take good care of yourselves and those around you, and we'll talk to you then.