Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Tune in every Tuesday for a brand new episode of Don't Eat Poop! A Food Safety Podcast. Join Francine L. Shaw, the savvy CEO of Savvy Food Safety, and Matthew Regusci, compliance connoisseur and founder of Fostering Compliance, as they serve up the latest in food safety with a side of laughter.
Explore the ins and outs of food systems, responsible food practices, and food safety regulations. Stay informed about food safety awareness and the not-so-occasional food recall. Delve deep into the complexities of the food supply chain with our dynamic duo, who blend expert insights with a pinch of food safety humor. Whether you're knee-deep in the food safety industry or just passionate about what's on your plate, this podcast promises a fresh take on staying safe while eating well.
Expect candid conversations, personal anecdotes, and occasional guest appearances that spice up the discussion. Shaw and Regusci bring their combined decades of experience to the table, making each episode as informative as it is entertaining. From industry trends to must-know food safety news and regulations, they've got your back (and your lunch).
In essence, Don't Eat Poop! A Food Safety Podcast is not just about imparting information; it's about fostering a culture of food safety. By shedding light on the intricacies of the food supply chain and the latest food safety news, it aims to promote awareness and encourage responsible food practices among consumers and industry professionals alike.
When it comes to food safety, knowledge is power, and a good laugh is the best seasoning. At the heart of every episode is one golden rule: Don't Eat Poop!
DEP E171
===
[00:00:00] Matt: It's just whether or not the federal government will get it done.
[00:00:03] Francine: Not in my lifetime.
[00:00:05] Matt: Hopefully within mine. We can't continue working like this as a country where literally the two parties cannot even agree on common sense. In order to get something done that makes common sense, you're giving the other party a win, and you won't do that just because it's a win for the other party makes zero sense.
Whether that's Republican or Democrat, it makes zero sense to me.
[00:00:32] Francine: I agree. I don't understand why certain topics even need to be labeled Republican or Demo- I- i- it's just common sense. It's why do we have to label the safety items is, that are common sense items, as one or the other? Well, because we utilize those to barter[00:01:00]
[00:01:00] Intro: Everybody's gotta eat, and nobody likes getting sick. That's why heroes toil in the shadows, keeping your food safe at all points, from the supply chain to the point of sale. Join industry veterans Francine Elshaw and Matt Regusci for a deep dive into food safety. It all boils down to one golden rule: don't eat poop.
Don't eat poop
[00:01:25] Matt: Hello, hello, Francine. I think we should just jump into this. This is going to be a very interesting conversation. All right. For those of you who don't know who Dr. David Acheson is, Dr. David Acheson has been in food safety. He's been in the FDA in prominent roles, the USDA prominent roles.
He has one of the largest, most prestigious food safety consulting companies in the world probably. TAG is his company. He is the guy [00:02:00] who if you have a complex problem in the food industry Mainly around regulation and that type of stuff, he's the guy who you call. He may not be the guy you talk to, but one of his main consultants, like he knows he has somebody who can help with your, or a team of people who can help with your complex problem.
This is the guy. I haven't heard of anybody who's been like, "Nah, he wasn't able to figure it out. My IMER scheme wasn't able to figure it out." You may not want to do what he and his team tell you to. You may not do what he and his team tell you to do, but they will figure out some sort of solution. Okay, so that was a preamble for, he wrote a very, very interesting opinion piece in Food Safety News called GRAS Additives Chemicals: Who Should Own the Authority?
And this is very pertinent to what is going on in our world today in food [00:03:00] safety, and, like, new bills that are happening, and what's going on in the individual states. So what he's trying to say is who should own the authority over GRAS, generally recognized as safe, chemicals that the food industry uses, where there really isn't much regulation around this at all.
Like, if you say it's generally recognized as safe, you can use that chemical in food. And when we say chemical, food is chemistry, so there are a lot of chemicals in food. Even if it's, say, you're not doing an additive of chemicals, all food that you consume is a combination of carbon, da, da, da, da. You can break it down to its lowest molecule.
It is a chemical. So even if we break it down to its original proteins, amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins, et cetera, et cetera, all of those can be broken down into chemicals. But the generally recognized as safe chemicals tend to be additives and chemical ingredients, different [00:04:00] types of food dyes, and all that different type of stuff.
This is what's happening now. Toxins that are natural or around everywhere, PFOS, heavy metals, et cetera, et cetera, who's regulating that? And he's talking about in this article, just gotta give a pre- preface to it, there's a lot of state departments that are moving much faster than the federal government is.
And my company works with a lot of state departments, helping them with their regulation and their legislation and their regulation. And now, because the federal government is not doing a good job of moving fast enough to regulate these chemicals and toxins in food, the state departments are moving out and doing it instead of the federal government.
And he kind of makes a case saying that that's okay, but if it doesn't get reined [00:05:00] in, then it creates a whole bunch of different regulations that food companies have to abide by. And if there's 50 different regulations for all these different chemicals and contaminants, that gets very confusing for a food company and things get missed or they don't get, uh, complied with So he uses GMO as an example, which I thought was interesting, and I'm just gonna read it.
He says, "While certain states do tend to be ahead of the federal rule making in many such areas, it is not beneficial for the industry or consumers to have different sets of laws in every state. In fact, the issue takes us back to the GMO controversy through which various rules were starting to be passed by some states.
As more and more states got on board with their own set of rules, food manufacturers were having a hard time adapting to the processes and labeling to do a patchwork of regulation, potentially spanning an array of 50 different sets of requirements [00:06:00] if all of these states were allowed to follow suit.
The issue was only settled with the 2016 Congressional Act requiring USDA to establish a national regulatory standard for disclosure of bioengineered foods, and in 2022, implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure standard. As the GMO situation shows, the states can induce, set the tone for federal focus, and spur the agencies to accelerate their rule making, the federal agencies.
But it is beneficial to no one for the manufacturers to have 50 different ways of assessing each food dye or ingredient in the product. It is, however, the state setting tone that got the ball rolling on federal GMO standards that is now occurring with the proposed FRESH Act. By preempting the various state laws, the proposal seeks to set a single standard for GRAS additives, food additives, and [00:07:00] chemicals, some of which are not all that different from what the states are proposing."
What are your thoughts on this?
[00:07:07] Francine: So it reminds me very much of what we talk about with the retail sector. It's different in every state, and it's complicated, and we've got all these different rules and regulations, and it not only varies from state to state, but sometimes it can vary from county to county, and it's complicated, and it's difficult.
And I agree 100% with him. We need to find a way to make it consistent, and I don't think it should be up to each individual state. I think it should just be across the board
[00:07:46] Matt: Yes. But I do agree with him that if there are no federal regulations, states do a very good job of forcing the federal regulators to actually create something consistent across the board.
[00:07:58] Francine: I agree. [00:08:00] I agree. Yeah. It has to start somewhere, so- It has to start
[00:08:03] Matt: somewhere ...
[00:08:03] Francine: they have taken the lead on that, and that's good.
[00:08:07] Matt: Yes. Yes. I have firsthand experience with this. At Ellipse Analytics, we work very closely with Clean Label Project, and we are the certification body and testing arm for Clean Label Project.
We work with state departments So the Clean Label Pro- the state departments will call C- Clean Label Project to be like, "Hey, we're trying to figure out a bill to get rid of heavy metals, or to not get rid of heavy metals, but to minimize heavy metals in baby food." You can't get rid of heavy metals 100%, but you can get closer to zero.
You can get really, really low by proper sourcing, by proper formulation, et cetera, et cetera. So then we, Eat Lips Analytics and Clean Label Project, will work together with the state departments to help them come up with a bill. Then it tends to be [00:09:00] California- Right. Always ... that Prop 65, for instance, or AB 899, which is the transparency rule for heavy metals in baby food.
So we'll work with them on putting that together. But then other state departments will want to create law, regulation, legislation. Let's start with legislation. They'll wanna create legislation that matches what California does, and so we will help those states create the legislation in a wording and the regulation in a wording that matches California so that there's not...
I'm using California example, but West Virginia came out with some stuff before anybody else did as well, and there are states that came out with PFOS before California did. So I'm using California as an example 'cause that tends to be the leader in this, but there are other states that do this as well.
And then other states are going to call experts to help draft the [00:10:00] law to match what that is so that the food manufacturers do not have a whole bunch of different expectations for the same type of criteria. Because if you create the regulation wrong in another state where they all of a sudden have to add another word or the wording on the packaging is slightly different, well, then you're taking up two lines to say the same thing.
So there is a lot of practices now with state departments to match what other state departments are doing without creating a lot of ambiguity and a lot of different regulations. So I would challenge David, Dr. David Acheson, that it's not like the states are all coming up with very similar rules that have to make them do very different things But it gets crazy, 'cause now you have to have your food manufactured in a way that complies with California laws, with Maryland laws, with Illinois laws, et cetera, et [00:11:00] cetera, and there's 40 other states that don't require it.
So what you do is you have to manufacture the food and do the testing and do all the different type of stuff that matches those 10 states, and then the other 40 states benefit from it. What are your thoughts, Francine?
[00:11:16] Francine: So my thoughts are, I can't imagine being a manufacturer and having to, to deal with all of this.
Can you imagine if, let's say for some reason you're trying to... You create these labels, and you are individually labeling some things for different states. California, for example. You put the wrong labels on the wrong product and ship it, the chaos that would cause for your company. Yeah. I would create the most stringent label is what I would do.
Yeah. And I going to assume that's what they're doing. [00:12:00] Most of them, anyway.
[00:12:01] Matt: Yeah. This is where California has the advantage, because they understand they have... Their state is massive, so they have 50 million consumers in California in a country with 350, 400 million people. So a food manufacturer is not going to not sell.
They're not going to s- they're not gonna say, "Okay, I'm just not gonna sell to California." So what they do is they create their labels to match California, and then they then have everybody else benefit from it, because they just, they just have to sell to California.
[00:12:41] Francine: So if the wording is a little bit different from state to state, it's not enough different, the variable's not enough that it won't work for any other state?
Are all products that way?
[00:12:56] Matt: No. It tends to be specific categories for things. [00:13:00] Now, when we look at California Prop 65, there are exempt products from California Prop 65, which California Prop 65 is there's a whole bunch of different food contaminants listed in California Prop 65. If you are over the threshold for those food contaminants, you have to put a label, a warning label on your product.
And so they'll put that warning label on that product, and they'll ship it to all other states. But if you're exempt from that, and exemptions happen because of lawsuits to California Prop 65 or products are just originally exempt from it, you don't have to worry about it. But everything else, you have to be within the threshold based on the category of the product that you sell.
[00:13:43] Francine: So on the retail side of the world, we have different training products for different states.
[00:13:49] Matt: Yeah. Yours is even crazier, actually. So
[00:13:52] Francine: you have from food handler to... If food manager will be adopted so that it can work across the country, [00:14:00] food handler, some of the products were, certain products had to be adopted for specific states, and now we look at food alcohol training, or the- I'm sorry, the responsible alcohol training, and that is different products for different states.
It's just it's crazy.
[00:14:19] Matt: Yeah. I like federalism. I like the fact that each individual state can create laws that either work or don't work. You get to test it out in a smaller environment before it comes nationwide. Also, when you start looking at states, California has- Uh, representation that matches the population closer than Congress does.
So when you have a congressman or woman that has a constituency of, like, almost a million people, you don't have to move very fast, and those [00:15:00] million people that you're representing, close to a million people in California, they're gonna want something, but the people in another state, Texas, may not. So you get a lot more roadblocks federally than you do at the state level.
But then when the constituents are forcing their local legislatures to get stuff done, it will get done faster, and then it forces the hand of the federal government to, like, reign it back in, right? "Okay, well, we need something consistent across the board. Obviously, we need to be doing this for the consumers because other states are doing it, so we have to create consistency for the food industry, for the beverage industry, for the supplement industry, et cetera, et cetera.
So we're gonna adopt a bill." Theoretically, it's all theory of whether this FRESH Act is ever gonna get passed.
[00:15:55] Francine: So where it gets complicated is where things start crossing state lines. [00:16:00] If it's only within the state and the states are making their own rules and regulations, fine, but when those products start crossing state lines, then it starts to get convoluted because I feel like the rules and regulations need to be consistent at that point.
[00:16:15] Matt: We've talked a lot about cottage industry type rules. Right. So if you're creating a product for Texas or for Illinois or for whatever, and you're selling to the population internally, you don't have to worry about interstate commerce. And so if you're not selling to California, you don't have to worry about Prop 65.
But even small brands Want to sell to consumers in California. And they'll sell it on Amazon, and then they'll get purchased in California.
[00:16:49] Francine: Well, okay, that's just a whole other conversation altogether because sometimes it doesn't matter where they're selling it, they're not following
[00:16:56] Matt: the rules. No. No.
Which is why, like, Amazon's cracking down on this [00:17:00] too, making sure that you're abiding by what needs to be done for these different states. So this is great for Amazon. If the federal government could, if they could come up with this legislation that fits all 50 states, and they could pass this legislation, and the FDA can then create the framework and rules that work in all 50 states, organ- companies like Amazon, like Walmart, like name the major distributors and retailers across the nation, can have one set of rules that they expect all of their manufactu- manufacturers to abide by, that's a dream for them.
As opposed to having one separate for California, one separate for Maryland, one separate for Texas, and-
[00:17:41] Francine: That's a whole department for them. That's a whole department That's multiple departments.
[00:17:47] Matt: Yeah, 'cause Prop 65 works across all these different products categories, and each of those product categories have different departments within Amazon, within Walmart, within Albertsons, et [00:18:00] cetera, et cetera.
Yeah. Yeah. It's just whether or not the federal government will get it done.
[00:18:06] Francine: Not in my lifetime.
[00:18:08] Matt: Hopefully within mine. We can't continue working like this as a country where literally the two parties cannot even agree on common sense. In order to get something done that makes common sense, you're giving the other party a win, and you won't do that just because it's a win for the other party makes zero sense.
Whether that's Republican or Democrat, it makes zero sense to me.
[00:18:35] Francine: I agree. I don't understand why certain topics even need to be labeled Republican or Demo- I, it, it's just common sense. It's why do we have to label the safety items is, that are common sense items, as one or the other? Well, because we utilize those to barter.
That's exactly what happens.
[00:18:58] Matt: That's exactly what happens. [00:19:00] Part of... S- so I work really closely, I talk to Molly at Clean Label Project probably more than I do my wife, probably as much as you, Francine. Actually, no, more than her. I talk to her multiple times a day, and she's talking to lead Democrats, lead Republicans, trying to get them to agree on basic common sense, and it's like horse trading for some of these politicians.
And it's like, my gosh. And so that's why- You could get things done in the state departments, in s- individual state legislation way faster because there isn't as much roadblocks between them, the legislators in these state departments. Their consumers are going to elect them out of office if they don't do this, and so they do it.
[00:19:51] Francine: And it's a shame that we use consumer health as the bartering piece, the negotiation piece.
[00:19:59] Matt: [00:20:00] So the FRESH Act was introduced by Representative Kat Cammack, Republican in Florida. It's designed to fundamentally rewrite how the FDA regulates food, chemical, ingredients, and substances. So change the mandatory GRAS registry, generally recognized as safe.
State law pre-exemption. This is a highly controversial pillar of the bill that would establish federal preemption over state-level food laws. So if this passes, it goes over and above all the state laws that are currently in existence with this particular, everything that this covers. So anything California does, anything Texas does, anything Florida does, et cetera, et cetera, this now becomes the rule of the land.
Right.
[00:20:48] Francine: However, if California's law would be more stringent, my assumption is they would still follow the California law.
[00:20:56] Matt: No. No? So this means it would block states from [00:21:00] executing their own independent bans on specific chemical additives or food dyes, such as California's food chemical bans. I don't disagree, depending upon how it's issued.
Okay, so this is where it's really interesting for my type of organization If this goes through and it is basically a pathetic attempt of putting a Band-Aid on a flesh wound or bullet wound, then my certification is going to be what consumers look for more than the states. Because they're gonna say, "Oh, well, it's not being regulated appropriately, so there has to be third-party certifications that show this doesn't have these dyes in it.
This doesn't have these soybean or seed oils in it or sea oil scout looking at that." There's gonna be all these different types of third-party [00:22:00] certifications that are just gonna do what the federal government forced all the states not to do. Right. It's not like it will cease to exist, but if it's not being ruled by the states and it's not being really managed well by the federal government, then third parties are just going to exist in this world That's how organic certification got managed by the USDA, was there were all these different third-party and state rules and regulations on what organic means.
Okay? And so there was a whole bunch of different organic-type audits and a whole bunch of different organic expectations, and then the federal government was like, "This is too crazy. We're gonna create our own rules for organic. We're gonna put it under USDA, and now there's gonna be a USDA organic certification that certification bodies can perform."
So my [00:23:00] company was an organic certifier, so we went out and sent auditors to go do organic certification underneath Primus or- I remember ... WQS or whatever. So we were following USDA organic expectations. That created consistency on what organic means. Now, it evolves over the years. There's a framework to allow evolution of organic, so that falls outside of legislation.
It's being regulated by USDA. But that was one at which everybody- Then there was a consistent standard. And then other governments across the world will create an organic certification similar to USDA organic, or organic will create something similar, will evolve to be something similar to EU so that we can create, like, a universal organic type of expectations.
I wonder if it's gonna get to that. Do you think it will get to that?
[00:23:56] Francine: If this is the route they're gonna take, I think it needs to get [00:24:00] to something. You know, the certification, what do I wanna call it? Certifications I feel like have become so watered down. They don't mean what they once did.
[00:24:09] Matt: No, 100%, and there's, there's also certification bodies that are literally certification print shops that it's fake.
So
[00:24:18] Francine: when we first started getting certifications for different things, they meant something. There was a value to them I don't necessarily see it that way anymore. I would much rather see somebody and know somebody has the knowledge than the certification in a lot of cases. So I think that's something that needs to be looked at one thing at a time.
Now, I don't know if it'll get there or not. Maybe we'll find another way to manage it.
[00:24:44] Matt: Yeah. I don't talk much about what I do day to day, but at Clean Label Project, Ellipse Analytics, I run a lab. We're testing those products. Does it have heavy metals? How much heavy metals does it have? Does it have pesticides, [00:25:00] glyphosate, acrylamide, BPA or BPX, BPA, BPS, phthalates, that type of stuff?
And then we see, does it meet Prop 65 expectations? That's Clean Label Project award. Or does it meet Purity award, which is the lowest contaminant within the, of the category that we test, say baby food puree. Are you, is your product the top third in the lowest contaminants across the category, and at least meet Clean Label Project expectations based off Prop 65?
If yes, then you get Purity award, but the product is tested. When you get an issue is when it's like, yes, there's none of these chemicals in there, and they're just reading the label and then certifying it based on the label. That is something that we've been asked to do, and I'm like, "No," because I don't know if they just left it out as an ingredient on the label.
Like, I would want to test to see what are the dyes [00:26:00] in there. What are the seed oil genetics, genetics of the seed oil? Do they have a supplier that said they sold them completely different the thing that they actually sold them to? So food fraud would be, is huge in this. And so my theory is unless we're testing it, you can't really trust it.
[00:26:17] Francine: Right. I agree. I mean, how many times have I been asked to print certifications for different things? I could just hang a sign and probably make a whole lot money than I do now, if I didn't have the integrity that I do. Printing labels, printing certifications for knowledge certifications are-
[00:26:36] Matt: Yeah. Lack of integrity is a, a very lucrative short-term game.
It bites you in the long term, though. At some point in time, it's going to bite you. It's just
[00:26:47] Francine: insanity, and the bold face just email you.
[00:26:52] Matt: That's where I see this going. If the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act, food additives, and regulation on grass, on food [00:27:00] additives, et cetera, if this is... I totally agree with Dr.
David Acheson that it should be regulated by the federal government across the board, 50 states. That would be awesome. That'd be great. But it also should be done in a way at which Can be done fast. The FDA could really do this correctly, and the FDA and the USDA, depending upon what commodity it's in.
And We did a whole entire episode on The GAO, the Government Audit Agency, the FDA, you're supposed to do the conflict of interest rules 10 years ago, and you haven't given us anything. How are you measuring conflict of interest? And yeah, so-
[00:27:47] Francine: Conflict of interest in government? That's a whole other conversation.
Just keep going. Yeah.
[00:27:54] Matt: Well, here's the other thing too is, okay, with this FRESH Act, are there going to [00:28:00] be money tied to this Is the FDA's and the USDA's budget going to increase to allow them to do this effectively? Or is it just gonna be like, "Nah, just tack it on to the myriad of other food parts of the FDA that you need to work with in a budget that you don't have enough budget for already"?
[00:28:24] Francine: Where are they gonna cut personnel for the budget? The money has to come from somewhere. Theoretically, it would be nice if they increased the budget. We both know that would be the right thing to do.
[00:28:36] Matt: Yeah. And then it be spent well. Managed. The, the money actually be managed correctly to get this done. Uh- Right
I just don't have faith. I totally get what Dr. David Acheson is, is saying, and I 100% agree with him. I just don't think it'll get done. I don't think it'll get done in a way that consumers trust, and so it's gonna create a whole bunch of ambiguity. [00:29:00] That's what it's gonna end up being.
[00:29:02] Francine: You know, part of the problem with a lot of this is that you get these things started, and we're on a great path, and then you get a new administration that doesn't have the same goals or the same thoughts, and then it all gets blown to hell.
[00:29:18] Matt: Yep. This one, though, is interesting. I didn't have on my bingo card that this would be a Republican thing. You and I talked about this, that it was pretty genius for Donald Trump to incorporate Kennedy into his campaign, which also was never on my bingo card. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Kennedy and Trump, just for MAHA, Make America Healthy Again.
That was never a Republican thing. I don't think
[00:29:50] Francine: Kennedy's genius.
[00:29:52] Matt: The, I'm not saying, like, let's separate two separate things. The food side of things versus the drug side of things. Okay. Like, [00:30:00] the Make America Healthy Again on the food side of things- Are great.
[00:30:03] Francine: Yes. I agree ...
[00:30:04] Matt: is exactly what consumers wanted, and I think that got a whole lot of people to vote for him that may not have actually voted for him.
Other than the raw milk.
[00:30:15] Francine: But yes, I think there i- we need to really clarify here.
[00:30:20] Matt: No, no. Listen, I'm, I don't agree with everything, but I agree with It's still funny. When I first started in food safety, everybody in this type of stuff, everybody assumed that I was a Democrat because I actually wanted food to be safe.
That was a Democrat issue. Now everybody thinks I'm a Republican because I want food to be safe. It's like, no, I c- I have
[00:30:43] Francine: common sense. Let's make food safe. Right, right, right, right. I don't
[00:30:46] Matt: care.
[00:30:46] Francine: Yes, there were a whole lot of things in the MAHA that he was saying that sounded great, and I will agree with that.
And
[00:30:55] Matt: this was always a Democrat issue, and it's now all of a sudden [00:31:00] Republican issue, which I- it's not a Democrat or a Republican thing. It's a food safety- It's a human issue ... thing. Yeah. It's a consumer issue. It's
[00:31:06] Francine: a consumer issue. And we're all consumers.
[00:31:08] Matt: Can we just, just everybody just get along with this?
Like, I get, I get if you fundamentally just believe the food is safe and that grass is safe and all this different type of stuff, and your constituents don't care, and you don't care, and you're paid for by the food and drug lobbies, and you're gonna vote against this. That's gonna happen. But, like, if you're not, who cares what Democrat or Republican...
Just vote for it and put some teeth in there. Make it so the consumers actually trust it, or else you're just gonna have- Culturally, within my organization, if Clean Label Project ceased to exist because the federal government did their job really, really well and it was regulated out of existence, that is actually, that would be our goal.
We talk about this. We say this to [00:32:00] legislatures and regulators. The goal is to make the food safe. I just don't see it. I see this being a bastardized version of whatever consumers want to the point at which they don't trust it, and then Clean Label Project is going to be, and other certifications like Clean Label Project, non-GMO, Detox Project, organic, et cetera, et cetera, are going to be what consumers trust.
[00:32:22] Francine: I think that they lose track of the fact that they're impacted too. We're all consumers. Yes. Do
[00:32:30] Matt: you want to eat food and die acutely of a foodborne illness pathogen? No. Do you want to eat food and die over a period of time due to cancer? No. Everybody can agree with this. We should not be dying from consuming the food and beverages and supplements, et cetera, that we consume.
It just shouldn't be the case.
[00:32:47] Francine: We should start a campaign where we weekly send them a video from Stop Foodborne Illness. Yes. Yeah.
[00:32:55] Matt: Now, it's hard to track cancer, but we can- because it's- [00:33:00] one is acute, and one is- one takes a lot longer Just send them
[00:33:04] Francine: out, you know, weekly from Stop Foodborne Illness, and this is why this is important.
I'm sure that they wouldn't mind.
[00:33:11] Matt: I agree with David, Dr. David Acheson. I believe this is needed. I disagree that this is going to be a panacea that consumers are gonna trust, unfortunately.
[00:33:23] Francine: They- they can't see me nod my head, can they? I'm agreeing with you. Well, on that note, don't eat poop