← Food Safety Matters
Food Safety Matters
Ep. 217. Larry Keener: Learnings From an Award-Winning Career in Food Safety
01:16:13
Loading summary
Transcript126 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:10]
B
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Food Safety Matters, the podcast for food safety professionals. I'm Stacy Acheson, publisher of Food Safety magazine, and I'm joined, as always by, almost always by my co host, Adrienne Bloom, our editorial director, and Bob Ferguson, president of strategic consulting. And we're just really excited. So we're going to straight to our headliner today. Adrienne, please share a little bit about today's guest interview.
- [00:39]
C
Yeah, so today I'm very pleased to be talking with Larry Keener, who's the
- [00:44]
D
recipient of our 2026 Distinguished Service Award and a longtime editorial and podcast contributor and a member of the editorial advisory
- [00:52]
C
board for Food Safety magazine.
- [00:54]
D
And you're going to hear from Larry on his long and multifaceted career in microbiology, food science and food safety. And there's a lot to learn from Larry. So definite.
- [01:04]
C
Definitely don't miss this interview.
- [01:05]
B
There is. Thank you, Adrienne. I join you in being ever so pleased that Larry is the recipient of this year's Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award and that we get another chance to have him as a featured guest on the podcast. So he's so very deserving. So when we posted the award announcement on LinkedIn, of course there were so many great comments to Larry and about Larry, but I have to say that I really enjoyed the comment from Food Safety magazine's founding editor, Julie Larson Brisher, who wrote, well, it's about time. I wholeheartedly agree. So all of us at Food Safety magazine have had the great pleasure of working closely with Larry for, well, for myself, for almost 30 years. And among his many accomplishments, I would add that he has always made time to give back to the community through his articles, lectures, mentoring, and making important connections. So as a member of our editorial advisory board, we can always count on Larry to find the best author for a given topic, make his recommendations there to have a thoughtful conversation about the big picture as well as the details that illuminate any subject. We've benefited greatly from these wonderful traits. And of course, over the years, Larry has become a very dear friend of to me personally. So needless to say, I'm very excited to present Larry with this award next week. Well, by the time you get it'll be this week, it'll be tomorrow at the summit. So for those of you who are looking for a deep dive, Larry was the second guest on our podcast in episode two. Then in episode 20, he came back to discuss validation and verification. He was featured in one of the episodes in our amazing month long Food Safety Book club. Just an unbelievable undertaking from Adrian Bloom. And that was episode 126, where he. He was featured along with Deborah Blum, author of the Poison Squad, where he offered the industry point of view on the events surrounding the Poison Club and the evolution of food safety. It was a really great series, and I believe it was born out of a conversation with Larry. So more evidence of the important role that he has played as an advisor to Food Safety magazine. I could go on, I could say a lot more, but I will close with the invitation that if you're at the summit, you're listening to this on Tuesday, don't miss the keynote tomorrow where we present Larry with this very well deserved award. Okay, so I did pretty good. I kept that, you know, you did good there. It was pretty good.
- [04:02]
E
Larry's not only the nicest guy, he's one of those guys that you talk to and you leave smarter than you were before. You talk to him at all times. At all times.
- [04:11]
B
Yeah, yeah. I never pass up an opportunity for a chat with Larry.
- [04:14]
E
Absolutely.
- [04:16]
B
Okay, now for some news. It gets deep in here. Yeah.
- [04:21]
C
Okay. So we have a lot to cover today, so we'll try to get through it all. So first up in news, USDA has
- [04:27]
D
announced a significant reorganization of its Food Safety and inspection service, or FSIS, that'll shift hundreds of positions out of Washington, D.C. and establish new operational hubs across the country. So at the center of the plan is the creation of a new National Food Safety center in Urbandale, Iowa. USDA said the facility will house approximately 200 employees and also serve as FSIS's primary location for headquarters support functions, including resource management, training, food safety, education, financial operations, information technology, and administrative services. The agency said that consolidating these functions into a centralized hub is intended to reduce duplication, improve coordination, and expand access to career opportunities for employees nationwide. So in addition to the Iowa facility, FSIS will establish a new science center in Athens, Georgia, expanding on its existing capabilities in microbiology, chemistry, and epidemiology. The agency is also building out a presence in Fort Collins, Colorado, where staff will support international food safety activities. So as part of the restructuring, FSIS will relocate approximately two thirds of its Washington, D.C. area workforce to locations across the U.S. about 200 positions will move out of D.C. while about 100 will remain to support congressional engagement, policy development, and interagency coordination. USDA emphasized that the reorg does not affect frontline inspection personnel, who make up about 85% of the FSIS workforce and operate across more than 6,800 regulated establishments. All inspection activities and public health protections will continue without interruption and no reductions in force are planned. The changes are part of a broader USDA restructuring effort announced in July 2025, which also includes reorganization of the research, education and economics area. Plans include relocating the ERS and NIFA positions to Kansas City, decommissioning the Beltsville Agricultural Research center, and consolidating nass positions into St. Louis while maintaining field operations. USDA said the broader restructuring is intended to reduce costs and bring agency operations closer to agricultural stakeholders through regional hubs across the U.S. now, I can imagine
- [06:51]
E
that this is probably a scary prospect for a lot of people at usda and maybe for a lot of people across food safety. There'll be people who don't accept transfers. But I wanted to try and put a silver lining on this for people, for the people that do accept transfers. I looked up the cost of living of Urbandale, which is suburban Des Moines, Iowa, and it's 40% cheaper than Washington, D.C. and Atlanta. Athens, Georgia is about 30% cheaper. Almost all of that is in housing. So people who do transfer would transfer at the same salary that they're making now would have a lot less expensive lifestyle than they would being close to Washington, D.C. or near Washington, D.C. the other thing is, I'm assuming all the people that I've worked with at USDA are not. Most of them are not originally from Washington, D.C. they all relocated there. This may make it easier for people to relocate to these areas as opposed to one of the most expensive cities in the country. So this is something I know that USDA has talked about before. Other federal agencies have, too. I don't know how many that have done this or what they've done, but this could actually turn out to be a benefit for USDA and some of the employees, for some, it's going to be pretty tough if they can't relocate. And one of the places in some of these smaller areas, if people are looking for jobs for their spouse as well, sometimes that complicates relocation. But for those who can, it could be less expensive. And those who want to relocate and take jobs with usda, it'd also be less expensive.
- [08:16]
B
Well, I appreciate the positive spin there, Bob.
- [08:18]
E
I'm trying to do that.
- [08:19]
B
Yeah, yeah, you're trying. You're working hard there. You know, they did this in the first Trump administration and 75% of the people did not move. So, you know, detractors would have offered that. It's a brain drain. You know, we're losing for those people that don't relocate, you're losing a lot of talented people. And overall, when they moved this also, I kind of had to smile when they said that there weren't any planned reduction in force. It's like, well, okay, because that's already happened. We've already lost. And of course I pulled it out and can't find the number now. But we know that it's many, many thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs that have already been reduced from government. So. But on the reporting side too, back in, oh, here it is. 2025 saw the departure of 23% of USDA's research, education, economic staff. So I mean, there have already been quite a bit of loss there. And when they moved in the last Trump administration, they moved NEFA, I believe, as well as ERS. And their reporting has reduced by about 50% according to what I've been reading. And when I could go on and on too about what farmers need right about now, I'm sure there's a long list that I won't go into. It's not been an easy time for farmers. So I'm not sure that this is really at the top of anybody's list. But we'll see what happens. You know, doing this without congressional approval is also, you know, I don't know if they have that. I don't know if that was part of this or not. But there's been some contention around that that's not stopped this administration from doing pretty much anything that they want to do. So we'll see. Well, you know, that tends to be my little asterisk. We'll see.
- [10:42]
C
Okay, so turning to Capitol Hill, the
- [10:45]
D
U.S. house Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hear hearing on April 29 to examine 28 bills related to food safety oversight and the FDA. The hearing brought together a wide range of proposals introduced by lawmakers across the political spectrum. The bills cover several core areas of food safety policy, including oversight of generally recognized as safe or grass substances, reassessment of food chemicals, modernization of food labeling and safety standards for infant formula and baby food. Additional proposals address information sharing between federal and state agencies, as well as expanding FDA's authority and resources for regulating human foods. So one of the bills that was discussed was the proposed Fresh act, which would require mandatory GRAS notifications prior to market entry and establish a public registry of GRAS determinations with a 90 day FDA review window. It would also formalize a role for accredited third party scientific panels, allowing an alternative pathway for substances to enter the food supply. The bill would require FDA to establish a formal post market chemical review program by 2026 and publish annual priority lists for risk assessment beginning in 2027. A key provision would establish federal preemption over state food safety laws related to GRAS ingredient restrictions and warning labels. Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns that the bill could weaken oversight and limit state level protections. Critics pointed to the potential for substances to enter the market without affirmative FDA approval and the continued reliance on industry funded review panels. So a central theme that emerged during the April 29 hearing, which was attended remotely by our digital editor Bailey Henderson, was the growing patchwork of state level regulations targeting food ingredients, additives and labeling. Industry representatives and some lawmakers argued that inconsistent state requirements are increasing costs and complicating compliance. Representative Kat Kamac, who helped draft the FRESH act, said the current landscape could raise grocery costs by an estimated 12% and create regulatory gaps. Retail industry witness Joseph Colaliello echoed those concerns, stating that complying with varying state requirements across nine states could cost his company approximately $1.5 billion in warehousing alone, costs that would likely be passed on to consumers now. Conversely, the Environmental Working Group's Scott Faber argued that state action has historically driven the removal of potentially harmful chemicals, particularly in school foods, and warned that federal preemption could limit those protections if FDA does not act. Other stakeholders took a more balanced view. Steve Maternach of AFTO emphasized that preemption should be applied carefully to avoid weakening the state federal partnership and to ensure emerging science can still be adopted. He acknowledged that regulatory inconsistencies affect industry but said differences may be justified when based on specific risks. Lawmakers and witnesses also debated whether companies should continue to self determine ingredient safety without FDA review using the GRAS process. The FRESH act proposes allowing third party industry panels to affirm GRAS determinations with FDA given a limited window to respond. If FDA doesn't act in time, the ingredient could enter the market without a formal approval. Critics, including EWG's Faber, argued that safety determinations should rely on independent, unbiased scientific review. Faber also called for a systematic reassessment of chemicals already in the food supply, similar to EPA pest control pesticide reviews. Steve Madranak suggested FDA focus on chemicals banned in other countries and novel ingredients, while noting that comprehensive post market reviews could cost between $2.5 million and $5 million per substance. So across all discussions there was broad agreement on one FDA needs more resources and authority. Lawmakers raised concerns about recent workforce reductions of 14 to 20%, or roughly 4,000 employees, which could limit the Agency's ability to implement new policies. Proposed solutions included user fees for chemical and food companies to help fund oversight activities. And finally, stakeholders highlighted gaps in federal state coordination during food safety events. Mondernach advocated for the federal and state Food Safety Information Sharing act, which would allow FDA to share critical data, such as production distribution lists with state agencies during recalls and outbreaks. He said that current legal barriers have delayed response efforts, including during the recent infant botulism outbreak linked to Bihart infant formula.
- [15:34]
B
That's a lot.
- [15:36]
A
It is a lot.
- [15:37]
B
Where are we gonna start, Pop?
- [15:40]
E
Let me give it a try. So, because I get geeky on this kind of stuff, I went through every. Every bill that they talked about and
- [15:48]
B
went, well, wait a minute. I wanna start with the name of the bill.
- [15:51]
E
Oh, you want me to go through?
- [15:52]
B
I want you to start with the name of the bill.
- [15:55]
E
Stacy and I were chatting about this before we started recording, so there's something on her mind right now. All right, so the FRESH Act. They call it the Fresh.
- [16:03]
B
I always put fun first, Bob.
- [16:05]
E
Okay, let's. All right, so they call it the FRESH Act. And we know that Congress and Congresspeople like to make these acronyms. Now, the full name of the bill is the FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy and Affordable Foods Act. Well, FRESH is FDA Review, Evaluation and Safe and Healthy. Right, right. So the Affordable Foods makes this the Fresh AF act, which I think we should start calling them.
- [16:31]
B
I think we should just start calling the fresh.
- [16:33]
E
Right. So we're gonna have to keep track of the Fresh AF Act.
- [16:39]
B
Thank you, Bob. Thanks for indulging me.
- [16:41]
E
If they're going to use acronyms, we have to use the whole acronym.
- [16:43]
B
You know, we're gonna go for it.
- [16:48]
E
All right, so I took a look at the bills and there's a couple of sites that you can look at if you want to. If you have nothing else to do and you're really bored about this stuff. But if you're interested in this stuff. But there's sites you can look at that show the progress of the bills. Now, this was just last week from the time that we're recording that this was discussed. So nothing's moved yet, moved out of committee or anything like that. But there's another site you can take a look at that actually ranks them on whether or not they have what their possible chances of passing are. Most of these are all single digit, 1, 2, 3%. And that's not unusual. One of the things the site says is about 2 to 3% of all bills in Congress pass So keep that in mind when you're talking about, you know, what is this, 20 or 30 different bills that we're talking about. The ones, and this is a reality of Washington these days, is you get so many party line votes that you have to look at how that is. The ones that have the most bipartisan support, that is the sponsor and co sponsors are of different parties. So you have a Democrat sponsor with a Republican co sponsor or vice versa. Those probably have a chance of getting through the committee and getting a couple of votes. So they get out of committee and go to a full House vote type thing. The ones that have the most chance seem to be the ones around grass, of which there are a couple, and the ones around federal and state oversight. I didn't look at them and really have the, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but those are the ones that seem to have, if I remember, a couple of them have a Democratic sponsor with at least three or four Republican co sponsors and vice versa. So those are the ones I think I would keep an eye on. But most of these will probably die in committee or if they make it to committee. We've got an election this year, so if they don't pass in the next couple of months, nothing's going to happen in the fall. So that's probably where we are. But the good news about this is, is what people tell me is these kind of hearings set a stake in the ground for the negotiating point. So if you want to get a vote from the other party, if you want to get us out of committee, here's what we're willing to accept. So the Democrats were the minority party are saying, here's what we're willing to accept. Here's the debates that we have. And this is what, this is what Adrian was saying that Bailey really lines up and describes in some detail in the article in the magazine. But if you look, you can also go and look. This is recorded. You can find and watch the whole hearing if you want. And this is where the arguments were. So they're really putting a stake in the ground to say if you want any of this stuff to pass and you want to bipartisan votes, here's where it has to be. So that's, that's where it seems like a lot of what Adrian was saying with where the highlights are, with the grass process and things like that is probably where there's going to be the most movement. That's, that's what, I guess I don't claim to have a crystal ball on Washington. I don't know who does, but that's what I'd watch going at least to the end of the year into the new Congress into next year.
- [19:24]
B
Yeah, Well, that whole preemption thing is really, that's, that's, that's a tough one because it has there, you know, these are the things to the unintended consequences and some of the tensions. You know, look, we all, I see it, we see it in our jobs all the time. You know, we, we all have to get along and there's different tensions and somebody's attention is on one thing and I'm at my attentions over here. And sometimes those tensions are good. You know, somebody's watching the purse strings and you're watching your aspirational stuff. And so you come down and you come to great solutions. So those tensions can be great. That to me, states versus federal. Right. And having things pushed up through the states when year after year after year after year after year, I keep saying that nothing was happening on a federal level. Right. So it was the states that moved these things, that moved things that were important to consumers to the forefront. And so I do think that that's an important thing to, you know, keep intact so that people do feel, in a time where many people are feeling, that they don't necessarily have voices. I think a lot of people feel disenfranchised around a lot of things that they don't feel are going the way that they might thought they voted on maybe or whatever. We could go on and on and on about that. But the, that tension is good and makes things happen. So I would be concerned to have that preempted. I'm not sure that's really a great thing.
- [21:09]
E
It's interesting to have the states put this out into the debate, like what we saw happen in California, what we see happening in New York and some of these other states. And it really pushes it out and there is some tension there because, you know that they have the possibility of, of passing these rules and then enforcing it through industry and then the industry puts their pressure on, on the, on the federal people.
- [21:29]
B
But, and we're back.
- [21:31]
E
Well, and, but then you're back. But, but, but if you take the preemption part out, it takes a lot of that force out because then what you can say is if a state wants to pass a regulation that, you know, can't get into force, they can still put it out there into the, into the ideas, but they can't necessarily have any force of law with it later. So it does take a lot of the pressure away if you get rid of the federal, if you only rely on the, the federal exemption.
- [21:56]
B
But you're centralizing power more.
- [21:59]
E
You're also. Yeah, you're centralizing power more. But again, you could still do like what we just talked about with the minority party saying we're going to put a stake in the ground and here's what we're going to negotiate. So California, Illinois, the, the assembly in those different states can still do this. It just takes away the, the pressure that they have to say, okay, I can do this and I can put it out into the, into the argument of ideas and things like that, but I can't actually have any pressure or leverage by putting it into law. So it takes a lot of the pressure off, like you said.
- [22:31]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [22:32]
E
You know, there is some.
- [22:34]
B
Yeah. And, and then having a group, you know, the third party industry panels. Yeah, that, that worries me too. I don't know what the good answers are here, but hopefully we'll be able to hash it all out. I mean, I do think everybody would agree. I think something needs to be done. So I hope that there's a, I hope there's a good solution.
- [22:59]
E
These things are all messy.
- [23:00]
B
Messy.
- [23:01]
E
There's no black and white.
- [23:02]
B
Is that the AF part?
- [23:03]
E
Well, that might be.
- [23:05]
A
That might be.
- [23:08]
B
Now you know why I wanted that out there.
- [23:11]
E
That's coming up again next week.
- [23:13]
B
Hey, I managed to keep this episode, this whole podcast clean, right? That's as close as I've gotten to the explicit warning.
- [23:24]
C
Yeah, we got to keep our reading clean. Right?
- [23:27]
B
Right.
- [23:28]
D
Thank God for the acronyms.
- [23:31]
C
All right, so in other regulatory news, FDA has released the results of what it described as its largest and most
- [23:39]
D
rigorous chemical contamination testing assignment for infant formula currently on the US Market. This testing was conducted under Operation Stork Speed and it aligns with the agency's
- [23:50]
C
Closer to Zero initiative.
- [23:53]
D
So across 312 samples representing 16 brands, the overwhelming majority of samples showed either undetectable or very low levels of contaminants. FDA tested powdered liquid concentrate and ready to feed formulas, including cow's milk, soy and amino acid based products for heavy metals, PFAs, pesticides, phthalates and plasticizers. So for toxic heavy metals, levels were consistently well below EPA drinking water limits. And of note, mercury wasn't detected in 95% of samples and cadmium wasn't found in 34% of samples. Now, in all cases, detected levels were multiple times below EPA thresholds. Also, pesticides weren't detected in 99% of samples and glyphosate and glufosinate were not detected at all. Most PFAS compounds were also absent, with only five detected in a subset of samples at very low concentrations. More than half of samples showed no detectable phthalates. And FDA also tested 110 human donor milk samples where 85% contained at least one detectable contaminant. Although the agency noted that these results are not broadly representative, FDA said the findings reinforce that infant formula in the US Is a safe option, while acknowledging that low levels of environmental contaminants can occur in both formula and breast milk.
- [25:19]
B
So I had to do some math because, which is always challenging, but cadmium wasn't found in 34%. That means that it was found in 66%. Now, I don't know, I haven't done a deep dive on cadmium, but that kind of made me go, yeah, I
- [25:38]
D
think the key is that the levels at which it was found are so
- [25:42]
C
low so as not to represent.
- [25:45]
B
Even though it was there, it was very low.
- [25:46]
D
It was there, but it was the level.
- [25:48]
C
The amount at which it was found at was not enough to cause a problem from an infant ingesting the formula in, in the way that, you know, formula is given. So yeah, because I, I kind of, I kind of, you know, side eyed that a little bit too. But then when you look at, okay, but they're saying, they're saying we do detect it, it's at such a low level that it basically doesn't matter because
- [26:13]
D
it's not going to, if you use
- [26:15]
C
infant formula in the way it's supposed to be used, you know, then it's not going to have any effect. So I guess that's the key point about the data.
- [26:24]
B
And so, and then the last line in here in environmental contaminants can occur in both formula and breast milk. First of all, I didn't even know that donor milk. I mean, I assumed that that was a thing, but I didn't know it was a highly organized thing. So that was like piece of information. Of course it is. I just didn't know it. Right, but environmental contaminants, you know, so we've done all this talk about what's going on and you know, in the last couple weeks, it certainly got my attention, the closure of, you know, EPA labs and some of the stuff going on on the, on the environmental side and some of the protections for our environment being weakened. So, you know, again, more consequences. Right. Where are we going to wind up here? So a lot of tensions, right Pop.
- [27:11]
E
Well, let me follow that up because when I first read this report and looked at some of the results, the first thing that popped to my mind is the same thing I talk about here all the time is it comes down to the toxicology, right? So what's the number at which is safe? And, and when you do the calculations in the toxicology, how do you decide what is safe? You know, there's really no such thing as zero. There's, there's risks that, that can be reduced and all these kind of things that the toxicology is. And I read through this and I thought, okay, it looks like they have a lot of those details and I'm sure, I know that there's toxicology on all these compounds. I don't know how they do that. Normally toxicology goes with a standard person. That's usually like a 165 pound man. If I remember the numbers right, I don't know how much they would have on infants. So I don't know what toxicology is available there, but I'm sure that the toxicologists do. But I really. So I was going through this. Some of this of course is going to be reviewed not through necessarily the science and toxicology because when you're talking about infant formula, it's not always rational. There's a certain amount of fear here of everybody wants these numbers to be zero, even if that's not even practical. Now I did find when I started reading about this that Consumer Reports came out and said almost something similar. What they said was they compared, they did their own infant formula study over the last year ending about the same time the FDA did and they published the results and they said they're, they were, I think that I'm trying to remember the word that they use. They were enthusiastic that FDA did this, but they didn't like the fact that the FDA was using EPA thresholds, which would be drinking water standards. It's an entirely different matrix. So there's a whole bunch of other stuff that comes into play that we don't need to get into here. But they said they use different toxicology levels and in many of these they found that the limits were higher than they would have set. So I guess my answer is really have to dig down into the toxicology. You have to look, you know, for the people that say I believe in the science, you're going to get giant books of toxicology you got to go through now. But it's going to be interesting to see how that turns out. So I don't think this is it. I don't think this is ending. I think what the FDA did was fantastic. It's good that they did this, and particularly that they compared it with breast milk to say that, you know, breast milk can be contaminated as well because we're all exposed to this stuff in the environment to begin with. But I don't think that this argument is quite over yet because of maybe the way that this was done. But I think it moves us a lot further than we were before. What did we say a minute ago? These things are messy. They're a little bit gray. They're not black and white. Is that what we said? I thought we said.
- [29:38]
B
I believe we said messy.
- [29:39]
E
AF well, we might have.
- [29:43]
C
So zooming out to the global level,
- [29:45]
D
a new report from the World Health Organization highlights the economic value of investing in food safety systems. The WHO estimated that every $1 invested in food safety infrastructure could yield a $46 return through improved public health outcomes. The report builds on earlier findings that foodborne disease caused 600 million illnesses and 420,000 deaths globally, with significant economic losses, particularly in low and middle income countries. So analyzing 17 countries with a combined population of around 800 million, who found that improve improving foodborne disease surveillance systems could reduce illness incidence by 6.4%. An estimated $492 million investment over 10 years could prevent 19 million illnesses and more than 13,000 deaths, generating $23 billion in value. Without such investments, WHO estimated significantly higher illness and mortality burdens. The report emphasized that benefits vary by country, but are greatest in regions with high disease burden and treatment capacity.
- [30:58]
C
I'd also just like to do a side note plug for I'm very excited that I'm going to be talking with
- [31:03]
D
Dr. Elaine Borgi, who's the unit head
- [31:06]
C
for the Monitoring and Surveillance, Nutrition and Food Safety unit of the WHO for our very special June 7th World Food Safety Day episode. And alongside World Food Safety Day, the WHO is releasing their newest big update of foodborne illness burden estimates. So the release of that data is
- [31:27]
D
really the benchmark that is used to
- [31:29]
C
set foodborne illness burden and cost worldwide. So really anticipating the release of that
- [31:36]
D
data and looking forward to talking with Dr. Borgi more about that.
- [31:39]
B
When I saw 400. That's excellent, Adrienne. And we're very excited about that. Thanks for mentioning that. So we don't often preview our episodes for people that get excited. That's fun. 420,000 deaths globally. I had to write on my script. Wow, that's a lot. And when you look at the amount of money that the investment, I mean, is relatively low, that's an amazing impact, you know, Amazing impact. Roi, if you will. Food safety roi.
- [32:13]
C
Yeah, I like that. It kind of reminded me of Larry with his focus and all the things he's written, talked about for us over the years about the ROI of food safety. And he's got some really interesting perspectives
- [32:23]
D
on that that he developed way back
- [32:25]
C
in the day when he was with Unilever. So it's interesting to see this in the WHO's news report. You know, exactly the things, the kinds of things Larry has touted and talked about for most of his career.
- [32:37]
B
Yeah. Awesome.
- [32:38]
E
So I have some good news. And first off, I'll say it's not surprising that they found these kind of returns, because these interventions work. One of the things I learned when I worked with WHO for six years, I was part of what was called a collaborating center with who, and I work with their food and water group. And I work with a professor, Dr. Jamie Bartram, who I have a lot of respect for. He did some work, he did a lot of groundbreaking work on looking at the receptivity of these different countries. When you make investments in those countries. And it's not even a. An investment in one kind of country that has infrastructure. Let's say they have rule of law, private property rights, these kind of things, low levels of corruption will be much, much higher than some other place where they don't have those things. And one of the things that jumped out about this, when I read this study, I thought, oh, my gosh, I've seen this before, is we, the who invested at a dollar invested in food safety would real yield a $46 return. What the report said, that was the average. They actually said the returns range from $124 per dollar invested to a low of $1 per dollar invested. So where these things, again, we're getting back into those gray areas. But where these things come into play is in some countries and under some circumstances, you can go in and make these kind of investments and have tremendous returns. In some other places where they don't have that infrastructure, it's really difficult to get these returns. Now, my. My daughter reminded me because she and I were talking about this and we. And I showed her the countries and she said the same thing that I saw was a lot of these countries are fairly developed. Vietnam has a pretty strong economy, a lot of good infrastructure. There's a lot of these countries that are fairly developed. They're. They didn't have much in the way of like Central African republics and things like that. But she made a really important point.
- [34:21]
B
I think we should offer what her credentials are for this because they're very impressive. Where?
- [34:25]
E
Well, she has a master's in public health, has worked with the State department in the CDC and has worked in 30 countries with those two organizations and has been in public health since she graduated from Ohio State. So this is what she does. Her main area is in AIDS and tuberculosis and things like that. But that's HIV is one of the places where she spends most of her time and was stationed in Kinsasha in the Congo. So she knows these different republics and the differences in, in the different countries. One of the issues she wanted to point out was in some of these places, like if you were to make these investments in the US or Western Europe, you might, you might see a really large return and you might see 100% response. In some of these countries you'll say, well, we're only getting a 30% response, but it's not as much, is not as much as we might see somebody else. But in that country it's a huge impact. And just because you're not getting 100 response doesn't mean that that 30% isn't a huge impact. And when you look at things like 420,000 deaths and, and generating $23 billion, that may not sound like a lot to someone in the west, but that's game changer for a lot of these countries to have, have to not have those losses, have that labor, have those people contributing to society and not having those costs. It's a huge difference. So whenever you look at these things, I understand what who does when they put these reports out, but in, in the margins, I guess you would say, or when you read through the footprints, some of these things are tremendously, tremendously effective. And if you do this right and you pick the right places where you apply it, it's amazing what can be done. If you pick the wrong places. Sometimes you could pour money in there forever and it won't have the same kind of impact. But I found it interesting that, that the countries with the, with the infrastructure and the difference between $1 return at 120, $24 return was exactly what I learned from Dr. Bartrand. And working with who is, is if you pick this right and do this, it's amazing what can be done.
- [36:26]
B
Yeah. Awesome.
- [36:27]
C
Super interesting, Bob.
- [36:30]
D
So before we go today, a new study from McGill University suggests that cold plasma treatment may significantly reduce peanut allergenicity so researchers reported a nearly 70% reduction in immunoreactivity after 25 minutes of treatment based on in vitro testing of whole peanut protein. The effect was attributed to structural changes in allergenic proteins, and treated proteins were also more susceptible to digestion. Importantly, functional properties were maintained, suggesting potential applications for hypoallergenic peanut ingredients. The study also identified nitrite as a likely contributor to the observed changes, and researchers noted the approach could potentially be extended to other allergens, including eggs and tree nuts. So, interesting stuff there.
- [37:18]
B
Very, very. Not to mention I learned the word allergenicity and you wouldn't think that after all these years of food safety that that would be a new term for me, but I was like, oh, we'll add that to the list. Okay, thank you both. Awesome, awesome coverage. And thanks to Bailey for her great coverage of those hearings, too.
- [37:38]
E
Excellent.
- [37:38]
B
Yeah. So as always, there are links to all the articles that we've referenced in our show notes. And if you don't already, we always like to invite you to follow us on our social channels. LinkedIn X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. I guess it's technically, I say this all the time, technically social. I don't know. But it's fun. Lots to do there anymore. Just search for Food Safety magazine. We certainly, we're adding more and more stuff to our YouTube channel all the time. So I really do encourage people to check that out. One of the things that we've been adding on the recommendation from Bobby Krishna, our friend from Dubai, the municipality of Dubai, was to if we put the podcast in there, that YouTube has translation services. So that's part of the reason that we're making sure that we get the full recordings out on YouTube so that more people can access the podcast without, you know, beyond any language barriers. So just a little story there. Okay, so search for Food Safety magazine. Enjoy our YouTube. And to take a deeper dive into all the great content that we offer and that Adrian spends. Adrian and Bailey spend all their time putting together. Visit food-safety.com and get yourself all hooked up with a membership that gets you all connected. And now it's time for Adrian's interview with Larry Keener, president and CEO of International Product Safety Consultants and an internationally regarded microbiologist and process authority in the food industry. His areas of expertise range from applied food microbiology to the development and application of novel preservation technologies. Cheese. I'm just going to insert here that there's so much more that we could say there that I didn't put in his bio My goodness, I'm restraining myself from putting it in there. Mr. Keener is a 2013 Fellow of the Institute of Food Technologists, IFT, a board certified Food Scientist by the International Food Science Certification Commission 2018 recipient of an International Union of Food Science and Technologies, or IU FOSS Lifetime Achievement Award for his work in microbiology and food safety. He's also the recipient, we may have mentioned, of the 2026 Food Safety Magazine's Distinguished Service Award. He's past president of IFT's non thermal processing division and a two term past president of Tuskegee University's Food and Nutrition Sciences Advisory Board. He's also a past co chair and founding member of the Global harmonization initiative, or GHI. Additionally, Mr. Keener is a 2022 inductee to the George Washington Carver Society and has received numerous other awards and honors. And with absolutely no further ado, let's hear Larry's and Adrienne's discussion.
- [40:37]
C
Well, Larry, welcome back to the podcast and congratulations on being named Food Safety Magazine's 2026 Distinguished Service. This award recipient. Excited about this. I know you are too. And you know, for our listeners who aren't familiar, you know, this award recognizes individuals whose careers have had a lasting impact on food safety. So my first question for you today is how does it feel to receive that recognition from your peers?
- [41:04]
A
Yes, that. Thank you for having me on, Adrian. This is a great question. As you know, in our work, most of what we do and contribute to the field is heavily scrutinized, peer reviewed. So here again, I'm deeply honored that my peers on the Food Safety Magazine Awards jury have reviewed my contributions to the field and found my work to be worthy. It's very gratifying. This is a great, this is great recognition by a very, very substantial award. I'm very honored to receive this honor.
- [41:46]
C
We're really excited to present it to you and excited about that at the upcoming summit. So kind of diving into the reason why you were nominated and selected to receive the awards. So you've had a long and multifaceted career in microbiology, food science and food safety. So can you tell us a little about how you first got into the field and you know, what initially sparked your interest in this work?
- [42:13]
A
So this question actually makes me laugh because the short answer is I got into this field because I needed a job. It was plain and simple. I was very underemployed, living in Berkeley and working for a sake manufacturing and bottling company when NFPA gave me interview. And as they say after that, the rest was history. Up until that interview, I had no idea that there was so much science involved in the production of human food. Like most people, I took food and food safety for granted. You just went to the store and you picked it up off the shelf and you took it home. But my, my training, Adrian, both in the military and at university, was in classical medical microbiology. You know, I did have the good fortune, as it turns out, to take a graduate level class that was designed for civil engineers. And the class was called the Microbiology of Water and Wastewater. This was my introduction to Applied Industrial Microbiology. It's at the intersection of microbiology and engineering, and it's at that intersection that I've spent my career. This has been, and honestly, this has been my point of differentiation as a microbiologist working in the food industry. Oftentimes people that I've known and worked with for years and years will say, well, Larry, you're an engineer. And then I remind them that I'm not in fpa. When I joined, gave me the opportunity to go into food facilities and see how raw materials were loaded up on the front end of that facility and finished products came out the back end. What an amazing journey looking at all the machinery, the myriad of things that had to go right to get it right at the end. And it was fascinating, and it continues to be fascinating to this day.
- [44:44]
C
And you know, over the years you've worked across industry and consulting and advisory roles, and I'm wondering, were there any moments or experiences along the way that really shaped how you think about food safety?
- [44:58]
A
Yes. You know, again, back, I have to go back to the National Food Processors association because, you know, at the, at the time when I started in this industry, you know, that wasn't really a discipline, that wasn't this thing out there called food safety. The trade associations didn't have offices of food safety even at the nfpa. The NFPA didn't have an officer of food safety until I had actually left NFPA and gone to work in industry several years after they opened their first office of food safety. So this has been, you know, the transformation in the food industry. And I just happened to be at the right place at the right time. And I often thought when I was actually working at nfpa, the National Food Process Processors association, that it should have been been called a national National Food Protection association because most of the work that we did at the association involved helping member companies to solve, solve problems and to identify causes of failures. Some of These cases that I worked on or many of the cases that I worked on were fairly benign. Others were harbingers of potential danger. This was kind of my wake up call, my epiphany of the myriad things that have to be done correctly to produce safe food. So then I left NFPA and went to industry to work. Worked for one of the oldest and leading food companies on the planet at that time. And boy, I had a struggle, a major struggle, convincing that company of the need for an office of food safety. Can you imagine that?
- [47:24]
C
Yeah. And, you know, I know that's kind of one of the things that motivated you to work on some really amazing articles for us about convincing upper management of the ROI of food safety, essentially. And I guess that kind of leads into. My next question is you've contributed an incredible amount of innovation and research to food science and food safety, and not only through your technical work, but also through your writing and your involvement with Food Safety Management magazine and the Food Safety Summit, for example. So are there any particular contributions or projects or ideas that you're especially proud of?
- [48:05]
A
Yes. So I recall giving a presentation at a major international conference. And this happened before fsma. And my talk was about process validation for novel processing and preservation technologies. And during the Q and A following my presentation, I was asked by an official from the Food and Drug Administration, so where did you get your definition for validation? So prior to fisma, Adrian, the food side of the agency did not have an official definition of validation. So, you know, I'm very, very proud of the several articles and many presentations that I've made at the summit or published in your magazine that have in some way helped to advance the concepts of validation in the industry and also, I should say, within the regulatory community. So with fsma, as you know, that, you know, with the preventive validation and preventive controls, you know, the agency came up with a definition for validation. And I've gone round and around with some of them because I think that while they made a good start by providing a definition, I think that they also maybe missed the mark a bit. But the point is now validation is codified as part and parcel of the processes that are involved for food safety assurance. So again, I'm very proud of the work that I've done to try and advance those concepts within the industry.
- [50:14]
C
That's interesting. And you know what you mentioned about the FDA official asking you, where did your definition of validation come from? So did you work with FDA to help develop that definition on their side?
- [50:29]
A
I did not. But at that meeting, I referred them to a definition that had been used by the Medical Devices Division of the Food and Drug Administration. Might get this date wrong, but I think that that Medical Devices Division first published the definition in about 1978. So this was, you know, prior to 2011, and I was using, and had been using that FDA definition from the Medical Devices Division for some time. So I referred them to that. And I think that when you go to Codex and you look at what Codex has come up with also recently, I think Codex was 2013 with that definition for validation. I think that it more accurately describes a process than what the FDA have accepted since 2000.
- [51:41]
C
Interesting. So, so you helped forward these concepts and connect some of these ideas here. And you know, you also, you also mentioned you've been a long time contributor to Food Safety magazine, and thank you for that. So I guess you know, from your perspective, why is it important for scientists and food safety professionals to share knowledge and engage in conversations like the one that our magazine helps facilitate?
- [52:07]
A
So that's in. Hopefully by sharing my experiences, I can help someone else avoid a mistake. So, you know, I'm, I'm happy to, to sit down and try and reduce some of my experiences to, to paper and share them, you know, vis a vis Food Safety magazine. Those years that I spent working as a research microbiologist for the National Food Processors association were very rich. That was very fertile ground for learning and understanding what can go wrong. And not only what can go wrong, but also understanding how to correct it. So then leaving the trade association and going into the corporate world, having responsibility for many products that were being sent to the supermarket, I took those experiences and had new experiences, a different perspective. And so I think combining those two perspectives gives me a unique vantage point to write about. And I've enjoyed sitting down and thinking about it again, hoping that I can give somebody else an opportunity to avoid a mistake. Then, you know, there's much, much conversation out there about the competitive advantages of food safety. And people who have not worked for a food company often want to say that food safety should not be a competitive advantage. And my answer to them, and you've probably heard me say this before, Adrian, food safety is not free. It, you know, those, so those companies and those CEOs who take the time to study and analyze and then invest, spend the money on the programs that are necessary to make their products safe, if that investment in yours and an advantage, then, and they paid for it, food safety is not free. So through my writings and contributions to Food Safety magazine, I hope that I have been able to share that advantage with the food safety community writ large. So I see this as my way of giving back and sharing the competitive advantage that I was given when working for the corporation and sharing those experiences with people in the industry.
- [55:24]
C
Yeah, I think you bring up a really interesting point there about ensuring food safety isn't free. It always comes at a cost to food producers and processors. And I think the message on competitive or not competitive is you kind of have to look at it in the sense that food safe, ensuring safe food production is a competitive advantage, but food safety itself, the want and the need to have safe food itself is not competitive. Right. I mean, everyone should want to produce safe food. Everyone should want to consume safe food. Correct. But it can be a competitive advantage, as you are outlining.
- [56:05]
A
Right, Absolutely. You summed it up very eloquently.
- [56:10]
C
Yeah, well, you know, so during your career, and you kind of alluded to this, you know, a couple seconds ago, food safety science has evolved quite a bit, and you've seen that happen from different vantage points, too. So I think, you know, I'm curious about. Do you think there are developments, whether in technology or risk assessment or regulatory approaches that. That you think have made the biggest difference in improving food safety outcomes where we are today?
- [56:39]
A
Yes, absolutely. I mean, and so we could write a book about this, and the first chapter would be risk. The first chapter would be risk assessment. Then the second chapter would be regulations. In the third chapter, perhaps mitigating technologies. But the thing that has happened that I'm most impressed with, and that I'm is the idea of process control as applied to food production. So this is HACCP hazard analysis and critical control points. So HACCP is about process control. I mean, understanding that we make food safe, that we develop processes to suit the risks that are inherent with specific items of food. And through process control, we then aim to mitigate the risk before that food is offered for human consumption. So prior to, you know, prior to haccp, and so we go back and so we say that it was in the 50s. The first time. The first time it's alluded to in FDA regulations is not until like 1986, with the revision of HACCP, and in the definitions of the regulations, for the first time, they include a notion of a critical control point. So this is kind of our introduction to haccp. HACCP is a process control strategy. It requires that you do a hazard analysis across your manufacturing process to understand what the hazards are and how they move across the process and where you have an opportunity through process control to reduce it to acceptable levels. So to my way of thinking, in the, in the 49 years and 49 years and six months that I've been working in this industry, I think that HACCP Process Control Strategies for making Safe food are the improvement that I've seen that has had the greatest impact on improving food safety outcomes, not only in the United States, but globally.
- [59:45]
C
Yeah. And I mean, it's interesting because, you know, haccp, you know, some listeners who maybe aren't familiar with the origins of it, you know, you might assume that it's a lot. That strategy is older than it is. But it really wasn't until the 60s that HACCP became a defined, you know, strategy and framework. It was something that came out of, you know, collaboration between NASA and the army and industry to try to make food safe for astronauts.
- [60:12]
D
Correct.
- [60:12]
A
That. That's right. And, and then we had, you know, I'm, I'm old enough that I've sat down and, and, and had a bottle of wine with Howard Bauman and, and, and sat at the knee of Bill Sperber to talk about, to talk about HACCP and, and how this, how these things develop. You know, these are, you know, these guys are not necessarily my peers. They were a bit ahead of me. But yeah, I mean, it's a fairly recent development. But even with it, even with the Pillsbury Company back in, as you point out, working with NASA to promote an advanced HACCP in the food industry, as I say, it was, it was a while before it was picked up. The US Department of Agriculture under mega rig Mike Taylor, I think 1996 or 1995. 1996. Time frame is when USDA really started to have a look and start to Talk, talk about Hassup. So that's just 30 years ago. So, you know, we, we, we're still on at, we're still on the learning curve. And it's, it's interesting to, to, to me, Adrian, to, to think that there are young folk out there who being taught about haccp. And if you mentioned Howard Bauman or Bill Sperber, they don't know. Have no idea about who you're talking about. It's always amazing. So I think that sometimes history is very, very important. And when we fail to teach the history of this science, I think that we could get into trouble by not understanding the journey.
- [62:24]
C
Yeah, I agree. And you know, you mentioned Bill Sperber and Mike Taylor, so they are also past distinguished Service award recipients. Of our award for Food Safety magazine, which. So you're in very good company, Larry. And you know, it is fascinating the history and the people who have contributed to, you know, having these concepts adopted, you know, industry wide and regulatory by regulatory agencies and have helped make our food supply as safe as it is today. And you know, speaking of the Distinguished Service Awards, so at the date of this, the airing of this podcast, that's Tuesday, May 12th, and tomorrow you're going to be presented at the Food Safety Summit before the keynote with our Distinguished Service Awards. Super looking forward to that. But you're also involved in the summit in another way. You're part of our educational advisory advisory board. And at this year's summit, you're going to be leading a session later tomorrow, Wednesday titled Food Irradiation Today. What's allowed, where and why? And I'm curious, what prompted you to focus on irradiation for the session and why is it such an important topic right now in your mind?
- [63:41]
A
Yeah. Yes. So you, you know, that's, that's right. So you know, last year, 2025, we had a spate of contamination events involving seafood and shellfish that were the contamination events with radiation and that there were some substantial product recalls, some recalls actually that carried over into 2026 when. And so, you know, there was lots of noise about it, there was much media attention given to it. So the topic of irradiation and radiation were back on the front burner as far as I was concerned. And, and they had kind of been out of the mainstream discussions of food safety for some time as compared to when as a youngster, I came into the industry. I came into the industry in Berkeley, California right down I left the university and walked down the street to work to nfpa. Well, at that time Bruce Ames was a professor at, at Berkeley and the Ames test was, Ames Test for Mutagenicity was being used and advocated for irradiation and measuring radiation exposure. So that was like back in, like 1977. And Bruce came to talk to the association and there had been much talk about it, irradiation and, but it fell off of the, off of the radar screen. And recent report and study from the CDC suggests that many of the young folk nowadays working in food safety, the food safety science, don't really have a good appreciation and a good understanding of what irradiation is, how it works, why it works and what the risks are and are not. So given all of that, I thought that since it was back, since this contamination event was in the news, that this was an opportunity for us to again educate and inform those young folk who are attending the summit that this is a viable technology that is. Is proven. The risk assessment of the use of radiation has been studied. It's well doc, well documented. Many companies have, have been using it for years and the results have been, have been impressive. So in this session we will talk about what is irradiation as opposed to radiation contamination and we'll have a discussion on the physics of low energy electron beam technology, E beam technology, X rays and so on. So I think it's going to be a very informative session and we will give those people who attend the session information that they can take back to their companies and hopefully engage with their companies where there might be an opportunity to use this technology. So it's interesting too, Adrian, that, you know, I was listening to an old Walter cronite presentation from 1967 in an episode of you are There. And and at that time, Cronite was projecting to the year 2000 and speculating about the culinary habits and cooking habits of, of American citizens at the time. And I found it very interesting that the, the way that he mentioned irradiated foods, this was 1967, and he mentioned them in a context that was very similar to or the same as the way that we accept canned and refrigerated foods today. He's, he was, he, he inferred that, that by the year 2000 that we would be taking irradiated foods for granted. Well, there's a lot more irradiated foods and spices and food ingredients in the marketplace than most people know about. And hopefully throughout this session, we will be able to give people a little bit of history and give them more confidence that this important food safety intervention is worth consideration.
- [69:29]
C
Well, it sounds like a great learning opportunity, especially for, you know, some of the, some of these younger folks or newer folks to the industry. And I'm definitely looking forward to, to that session. I know a lot of our attendees are too.
- [69:42]
D
And you know, I guess that kind
- [69:43]
C
of leads into my last question for you is, you know, for people who are newer to the field or earlier in their careers, what's some advice advice that you would give to food safety professionals who really want to make a meaningful impact over the long term, learn
- [70:00]
A
the business, become technical business partners. So oftentimes, because we are scientists, because we are technical specialists, we are seen as apart from the business. And I say, please use your technical and scientific training to help solve business problems, make a contribution to the bottom line, be seen as helping to Create shareholder value. Now this is what I learned, learned when I went to the corporation. You know, my, my, my first boss in the corporation set me down and says, hey, Larry, you know, we gotta have this chat. You know, we, we, we know, we believe your reputation says that you are a good scientist. We want you to become a good business person. We want, we want you to help us solve our business problems. We want you to help create shareholder value. You. This was kind of new, this was kind of news to me. I mean, you know, at, at university and even at the National Food Processors association, while I was becoming a, a, a, a good business person, I had no need to understand creating shareholder value or helping, helping a company realize A, A, P and L. These were abstractions. So rather than being seen as apart from the business, it's important that you become an asset to the business. But most of all, in doing these things and becoming technical business partners, don't compromise yourself in the process. Be guided by the facts. Food safety is factual. And I would suggest that while you're creating this shareholder value and contributing to the bottom line, you need to lead with objectivity. Present the facts about the circumstances and situations to the leaders in the business. Remember, the leadership of your organization are depending on you. You, you, you are the scientist, you are the technical expert, and they are depending on you. So I'm just saying become a technical business partner in, in, in, in, in. Use your science to solve problems, to create shareholder value, but maintain your professional integrity above all else.
- [73:01]
C
I think that is great advice, Larry. And you know, it's interesting because some of the concepts you just discussed are, you know, encapsulated in one of my favorite articles that you've written it which is, you know, about the ROI of food safety and how it's important to be able to have that technical business partnership with, you know, with the company and with leadership. You need to be able to translate these objective food safety science, you know, things into terms that the leadership will understand, you know, while, you know, making sure you state the facts and tell, you know, tell it how it really is. But then also, you know, you still have to kind of sell food safety sometimes and say, you know, this is about creating shareholder value. It's about, you know, this, this adds to ROI in the long run.
- [73:52]
A
Right, that's exactly right. That, and, and, and, and I, and I, and I hope that somebody listening to the podcast Will, Will. Will understand what I'm saying. And if you don't understand what I'm saying while you're at the Summit. Come in. Buttonhole me. I'll sit down. And I'm happy to talk about this because. Because this is. This is important to your future success and for the success of the companies that will employ you and put you on their payrolls.
- [74:28]
C
Yeah, well, thanks for extending that invitation to folks at the summit. I'm sure they will come and seek you out. And again, congratulations on being selected as this year's recipient of our Distinguished Service Award as nominated and selected by. By your peers in the food safety community. And yeah, it's gonna be a great award ceremony tomorrow. And we also really look forward to your session under radiation. So thanks for taking the time to sit down with us, Larry, and tell us a little bit about your career and your contributions and what you've learned along the way and also share a little advice for our listeners out there.
- [75:04]
D
So it's been a pleasure.
- [75:06]
A
Thank you. Thank you for having me on.
- [75:08]
B
Thanks again to Larry Keener for joining us on the podcast today. And of course, thanks to all of you for listening. You know, we love hearing from Never hesitate. Send us questions or suggestions to podcastood-safety.com or post a note on LinkedIn X, Facebook or Instagram. We're always excited to get your feedback and to make sure that new and bonus episodes 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, throw some stars our way by rating the podcast, especially if you've liked 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 May 26, but before then, next week, to be exact, we will post not one, but two bonus episodes recorded in our podcast theater at the Food Safety Summit. So until then, and in the meantime, take good care of yourselves and those around you. We'll talk to you then.