Salmonella has become a very familiar word for anyone in processing. Although poultry does get the most of the blame, we now include beef and pork in these discussions. We are all in the same struggle: how do we control Salmonella, how do we assess risk, and how do we meet regulations? It is a challenge.

Every conference I have attended in the last few years has had some sort of focus on Salmonella. At each one of these meetings, we have heard USDA FSIS’s stance on reducing Salmonella. However, on Aug. 1, 2022, USDA FSIS declared Salmonella an adulterant in raw, not ready to eat, breaded products. It sounds good to the public and to consumer groups, but is it really a good thing? USDA FSIS has also indicated that the quantification of 1 cfu/gram of Salmonella will be the limit for these products. It sounds good, but it is feasible and the right thing to do to decrease risk? Even though there has been a lot of technology in rapid methods over the last few short years, I am not confident we as an industry are ready to jump on the ship without it sinking.

At some point we have to look at the big picture and discuss science-based risk assessment. Safe food is a must but so is food on the shelf. For this reason, HACCP and other food safety programs were developed to identify and mitigate risk. Most importantly, at some point, consumers need to understand basic food safety practices. Someone other than the processor must be responsible for consumers making the decisions to “cook” foods in the microwave and give raw, not fully cooked frozen chicken nuggets to toddlers teething. At some point, common sense must be engaged, especially when dealing with a raw agricultural product.

Dr. Mindy Brashears did a great job outlining the science-based facts of this Salmonella adulterant status last week in her blog. I also fully support using enumeration as an assessor of risk, but we must be prepared for testing parameters. We must have the right tools to do the proper risk assessment. Testing to determine Salmonella load is not a means to an end (safe food); it is simply a tool. Salmonella load, serovar, virulence, and infectious dose all matter and should be considered. On top of those factors, we then must have a way to decrease this risk. We have not had new intervention technology in years. We spend far too much time on development of testing platforms to find the pathogen and not enough time on intervention development to decrease the pathogen. The industry needs more tools.

For now, we as an industry are scrambling to understand the right thing to do for risk assessment within each operation. Those that have this responsibility on their shoulders have an incredible weight to ensure food safety for the public they serve. I applaud y’all for being in these positions and working hard to make things right.

We may not have a clear idea where all this going, but we do know one thing: We must provide USDA FSIS with science-based and data-driven comments this fall when this becomes published in the Federal Register. Please use your right to comment with data to support science-based decisions so that the decisions made don’t just sound good – they are good for both the processors and the public.

Just because it sounds good

Join for free* to continue reading.