When I woke up this morning, excited to write my 248th Meatingplace blog, one of the first things I did was visit the FSIS website to see if there was anything new.

The first thing I saw was a new FSIS landing page announcing a new initiative to control Salmonella in the food supply: “Shaping the Future of Salmonella Control.” Fortunately, I had already read about the initiative in Dr. William James’ excellent Meatingplace blog, “We Have a Plan!,” which summarizes FSIS’s new approach to minimize Salmonella illnesses linked to poultry while, simultaneously, detailing his continuing struggles to combat Joro spiders outside his new home.

FSIS estimates that Salmonella causes more than 1 million consumer illnesses each year, and that over 23% of those illnesses are due to consumption of chicken and turkey. The initiative, formally announced by FSIS on October 19, 2021, is intended to help the agency come closer to the national target of a 25% reduction in Salmonella illnesses. The current annual baseline for Salmonella illnesses in the U.S. population is 15.3 per 100,000. The goal is 11.5 per 100,000. And, although the incidence of Salmonella in poultry products have been continuously decreasing because of agency initiatives and industry efforts, the numbers of confirmed illnesses in the U.S. population has remained relatively stagnant.

The opinions on this topic are, as they always have been, quite varying and strong. When announcing the new initiatives, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that “too many consumers become ill every year from poultry contaminated by Salmonella” and, as a result, the agency needs “to be constantly evolving in [its] efforts to prevent foodborne illness to stay one step ahead of the bad bugs.”

While we all agree with this sentiment and FSIS’ altruistic goals, others argue that we can’t simply reduce Salmonella by creating more regulation, and that any strategies used must account for the practical realities surrounding the prevalence and persistence of the organism in the supply chain. This is why, I believe, FSIS also announced it will be conducting additional targeted research and focusing its resources where it matters most. The agency would also be well-served, in my humble opinion, to commit substantial resources toward consumer education and teaching home cooks (through social media, internet marketing, TV ads or otherwise) how to properly store, handle and prepare raw poultry products.

The different and shifting views surrounding this issue and the best way to address it reminds me of a debate once argued in the 1990s about whether simply declaring E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant in raw ground beef could eliminate E. coli from the beef supply. Some responded by arguing that trying to prevent foodborne illness by simply declaring pathogens to be adulterants in raw foods would be no different than attempting to prevent airplane crashes by repealing the laws of gravity.

As a pilot, I wish Congress could effectively repeal the laws of gravity. Unfortunately, that won’t be happening anytime soon and I will have to rely, in addition to my own skills, upon the important and layered FAA rules and regulations which help decrease the likelihood of me crashing into other airplanes or the ground. What we have learned in the aviation industry is that, while regulation cannot always eliminate risk, it can be effective in reducing it.

Thus, we wish FSIS and industry the best of luck as they work collaboratively to modernize the ongoing battle against Salmonella in the food supply. And, fortunately for all of us, the real dilemma in this case is not whether foodborne illness "can or should be reduced.” The ultimate question we have to answer is merely, “What is the best way to do it?”

The Salmonella dilemma

Join for free* to continue reading.