Many of you have probably viewed a documentary about food safety that was recently released. I was “featured” in it and have received many questions, so I am going to take this opportunity to share the truth about my experience. Indulge me while I also share the antidote.

In 2021 a producer contacted me about a documentary she was doing about food safety and the food industry. She wanted my perspective as a scientist and former government official because she was an advocate of agriculture and needed my perspective. We exchanged emails and ultimately set up a zoom call about the interview, which I remember very clearly. The producer told me that she had a background in agriculture and that it was her intention to do a documentary about the food industry and all the progress the industry has made to make our food supply safer since the Jack in the Box outbreak. She said she was passionate about the industry, and it was time that the truth be told about the food industry. Specifically, the goal was to combat the negative perception that has been portrayed in other media outlets. While she was convincing, I was still skeptical, but I agreed to do the interview if I could get a contract from my lawyer and set forth some guidelines. Ultimately, they agreed to terms and we both signed the contract.

One of the provisions in the contract was that they would provide questions to me in advance to prepare and those questions would be the basis for the interview. My role in the documentary was to “teach” people about the industry and about the progress that has been made over the years since I began my career in the late 90s from both a scientific and regulatory perspective. They sent me an extensive list of questions and I had answers for all of them in advance. I even developed graphs and figures that I provided to them in the interview and afterward in digital format so they could use them. I was very prepared for this. The interview lasted a couple of hours as we discussed each question in depth and they stayed on script. They were not to go off the given list of questions.

After I answered all the questions and I went through the “teaching” phase of the interview, they fully blindsided me. They began asking questions about my research funding and the money I procured through the grant process, implying it went into my pocket. I laughingly responded that I wished that I had that much money in my account, but the money received from grants was administered by the university to support grad students, purchase material and supplies for the lab and overall research costs. I explained to them that implying I had been awarded the funds was inaccurate because the funds went directly to the university. This was AFTER all of the questions given to me were asked and not a part of our agreement. I did get suspicious that this was a set-up when they questioned my nomination and why the industry would tweet support of my nomination. I also told them that Consumer Federation of America (the consumer advocacy group) also tweeted in support of my nomination, but of course that didn’t make it into the documentary. As a matter of fact, not a single bit of footage from the long list of questions they provided made it into the documentary. The only things that they used was from questions after the formal interview ended.

In the documentary, they list my research grants trying to imply that funding from industry means I do nothing to help improve food safety. My peer reviewed publication record and the outcomes of my research speak for themselves. My work is highly cited, respected and impactful. The funded work they referred to in the documentary resulted in a pre-harvest feed additive that is widely used in the cattle industry today to reduce shedding of E. coli O157:H7. Other work led to mitigation of Listeria risks in food processing environments validating sanitation and testing methods which are also used widely in the industry. Everything I do in my work is to protect public health, no matter the source of funding.

Additionally, the students trained with this money have gone out and made major contributions to the world of food safety developing their own research programs. While the producers of the documentary listed research funding in an attempt to harm me, what they actually did was expose the antidote to the problems they have uncovered. Rules and regulations are only tools. Without data and science to inform those tools collected through sound research, they will fall flat. Research uncovers solutions, industry implements the solutions and that is the antidote.

I’ve been asked many times what my response will be to this. Well, this is it: telling the truth and stating facts. I forgive them and I look upon them not with anger, but with sadness. I’ve learned through many experiences that people who try to undermine others for their own personal gain are broken. As for me, I am strong and thriving and, incidentally, this experience has resulted in a huge outpouring of support. I had no idea that I had so many friends!

As George Washington says in Hamilton, “My name's been through a lot, I can take it.” This too will pass. I will stand on the truth, maintain my character and will be around long after this documentary turns to dust providing data and solutions…aka the antidote.

The Antidote

Join for free* to continue reading.