Hello, hello, Francine.
Hi, Matt.
Okay,
so Francine and I are a little
anxious about today's episode.
A little.
Just a little.
All right.
All right,
so we're a little anxious
because the topic of today is what...
how the current layoffs and
resignations and all the
different changes in the
fda and the usda how cdc
etc etc how do we think
that's going to affect food
safety and how
Okay, with this whole entire thing, though,
equals an opportunity, right?
So it's not like the sky is
falling one hundred percent
because with change comes
opportunity to fix things.
So there's an opportunity there.
But there's also an
opportunity just to make this worse.
Right.
So that also is there.
So how Francine and I are
going to pull our crystal
ball out and we're going to
try to be as apolitical as possible.
Francine and I are both
center of... People would
describe us as center right
and center left, I think.
And yeah, center right and center left.
For me...
So depending upon who you are,
people would categorize me
as liberal and people would
categorize me as conservative.
So it depends on the topic.
I'm smack dab in the middle.
Same with you.
So you and I are able to
have amazing conversations
about politics because you
and I care about each other.
First off,
I think that more than we care
about our views politically,
and we're able to have an
interesting conversation about it.
So I want to preface that
with this is that while you
and I are both politically active,
we don't really care to
describe or express our
views to most people.
That's why within our show,
we generally stay away from politics.
Unfortunately, with this episode,
Politics may come in a little bit,
but we are going to
restrain ourselves from
talking negatively about
individuals and try to
focus on the actual policy implications,
opportunities, and issues.
Would you describe that correctly,
Francine?
Yes.
So if you start to see me
break out in hives, which I do sometimes,
I don't know how often my
daughter listens to this,
but she has the same issue.
Um, anxiety will cause hives.
Yes.
Yeah.
You'll know.
You'll know anyway,
but thank God this isn't,
we're in a podcast.
Right.
And you and I have been in
multiple interviews and
we've talked to people all
over the spectrum when it
comes to politics.
And, um,
we've had to cut out edit
out political comments that
were made during our our
episodes and uh because you
and I are both kind of in
the center it we're fine
with both sides right um so
that's why I really want
people to take this away
that you and I are not
interested in um anybody
can say anything to us
political and we it will
just bounce off of us
right and and I don't know
that we necessarily feel
there's a there's a right
or a wrong we're just
different correct a lot of
times it's just different
you know we've had people
walk away from us it what's
what's really funny about
that is you and I disagree
right yes some we disagree
sometimes many times we
disagree and we'll be
having a conversation with people
And one of us will be talking,
and whoever we're talking
to will walk away when the
other individual, either you or I,
may totally agree with what
you're saying.
Right.
And it's so funny because it's like,
that shouldn't happen.
It just should not happen.
Because they're not heated conversations,
or there's no animosity at all.
Right.
It is interesting, too,
because you and I have had
multiple conversations
about how sad it is that
our world has gotten to a
point at which you cannot
talk constructively about
policy issues without it
taking somebody off because
they're either too far to
the right or too far to the left.
And it just becomes about
personalities as opposed to issues.
Right.
And because you and I
respect each other and we
have amazing conversations,
we don't get angry with each other.
We try to learn about the common ground.
And then more why we differ
in this view is more
interesting than what the
different opinion is
because everybody is going
to have their own opinion.
And you and I have both worked –
in a political party locally,
and both of us understand
the most important aspect
of winning an election is
actually getting your side to vote.
That is the most important aspect of it.
People try to change other people's minds,
and that is way more
complicated than getting
them to actually walk to the polls
And, or,
or get a mail in and send it in
like the apathy.
And it's, I find it so fascinating too,
because some of the most,
the people who are the most
vehement that we, and I've,
you and I have talked to
about their opinions.
They don't even vote.
Don't vote.
If you want to change something.
Okay.
That was a very, very.
That was a very long preamble.
Probably edit that out.
But yeah.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
I mean, yeah.
Yeah.
I remember you were like,
you called me up and you're like,
oh my gosh.
I, and this is just this last election.
I just joined my county's thing to,
to help them with their
Facebook to get people out
to vote and dah, dah, dah, dah.
And, um, um, I was like, good for you.
Even though you and I vote differently,
um,
That to me is more exciting
is to actually see,
I say this to my kids all the time,
is I'm more interested in
seeing you vote than you
voting the way I vote.
Because that is the number
one part of living in
democracy is actually
executing your right to vote.
Regardless, just go vote, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Okay, again,
very long preamble for what we
are going to discuss,
which is there is a new party,
that runs everything.
Republicans now run everything.
The executive house, the Congress,
Senate and House and the Supreme Court,
bar none, they run everything.
There are huge changes that
are happening right now
with the FDA and the USDA and the CDC,
et cetera,
that has a direct impact into
the lives of
American citizens for a
multitude of different reasons.
We have seen a bunch of
people get laid off.
There's the whole bird flu
thing where USDA laid off a
bunch of people that were
working on the bird flu and
then were like hiring people back.
Jim Jones quit the FDA, right?
Because a bunch of his people got let go.
And the CDC and the FDA and
the USDA aren't supposed to
talk to each other.
So there's some stuff.
So our conversation today is-
Yes.
Shut down the government websites.
We have no access to that.
So our conversation today is
what we want to talk about is how,
in our view, by the way,
because we have a limited
understanding of what goes on.
I mean,
you and I talked to a lot of people
from all these different departments,
the state departments.
county,
and the federal departments like the FDA,
the CDC, and USDA,
you and I have a lot of
people that we talk to about this.
And we get a lot of
different feedback and
opinions from these
different people about what's going on.
So from our limited understanding,
even though it's broad,
it's still limited, what do we think,
how do we think this is
going to affect current
situation and what could
happen in the future given these things?
And
I think this is going to be interesting.
I think people are going to
learn where you and I fall
on the political spectrum
just from this conversation.
So that's why the preamble is there.
Okay.
Neither one of us wants hate mail.
I know.
And given the way the industry is too,
most people that you and I talk to,
most people are...
are government interventionists,
which means most people
feel like the government
can solve these problems.
I am not that person.
I think the government adds
a lot of problems to this.
And I think that the
government creates an aura of false hope
that does not exist in its current form.
and you'll see me on
LinkedIn post about this.
I don't post things politically often,
but I will bash the FDA
frequently and FSIS because
I think that they have
gotten to the point at
which most people in those positions,
and I say, like,
there are a lot of really good people,
I think, in the FDA, the CDC,
and the FSIS or the USDA
that actually really care
about food safety.
I think that most are there
for the job and they have
become jaded and they're
interested in doing their daily task,
but not really
understanding that their
job is to save consumers lives.
It's because why are they
making the decisions they
have in the past?
Right.
I think it's grown to the
point that they can't get
out of their own way.
I agree.
You know,
they can't get out of their own way.
And the bureaucracy is a problem.
The total bureaucracy of the
situation is one hundred
percent a problem.
We've talked about this in
the podcast since the
beginning that there I mean,
look at the baby formula situation,
for God's sake.
And there are more, you know,
there were things that
happened with Boar's Head
that should have never gone
as far as it did.
You know,
we could talk about those things
for an entire episode and talk.
That stuff should never happen.
We did talk about it for the
whole entire episode.
A couple episodes, actually.
And then we brought Bill
Marler on to talk about it.
So we agree.
They can't get out of their own way.
They create a multitude of problems.
And they're not held
accountable for those situations.
And that needs to change.
There's no question.
We agree.
We one hundred percent agree.
Yes.
And you and I had this
conversation a couple of
times about what's going on right now.
So here we are.
Trump came in and was like,
we're going to change everything.
And I really think that there is.
I think there is an
ideological response that
he just wants to make
things more efficient.
But more than that,
I think he has a grudge.
This whole entire
bureaucracy was against me.
The whole media was against me.
The whole industrial complex
was against me.
And I'm going to burn it all down.
I think there is an element of that.
Do you think?
I think there is definitely
an element of that.
But I think there are a lot
of people that wanted it
burned down to begin with,
and they're all one hundred
percent on board.
I think there's people in
the middle that wanted
reform and change that are
scared about the burning it down.
And then there are people on
the extreme spectrum that are like, no,
no,
we need to have the status quo and
reform.
We just need to keep growing
the government.
Who cares if they actually
get anything done?
We just believe that that's
part of the economy.
The government equals twenty
percent of the economy.
If we keep growing it,
then we can just keep printing money.
And who cares if they get anything done?
I think that's a minority,
but it's a pretty large minority.
Let's say twenty five percent.
I think most people,
I think probably fifty
percent are in that middle that are like,
hey, we need government.
don't think the government
was doing the right job in
the beginning I think the
government um uh
incentives are wrong,
most people would agree with that.
The government incentives are wrong.
I think the government
incentives are you get in,
you stay there for twenty to thirty years,
you get a retirement,
you go out in the industry
and then you you do your
second career in the
industry and you make even more money.
And so when those incentives
are designed that way,
it means that you don't really want to
ruffle too many feathers,
rock too many boats,
because those are your
potential employers when you get out.
Or there's a bunch of
government appointees that
go back and forth.
They go into industry,
they go into government,
they work a few years,
they go back into industry,
make even more money,
they go back into government,
and then they come back out.
And I've seen that.
I've personally seen those people.
And I think that they're
reprehensible in my view.
Our whole entire career,
you and I have worked very,
very hard and ruffled very,
very many feathers,
shook in a lot of stones
and pissed off a lot of
people because we really
believe in the mission.
I think there are some
people in the government
that really do believe in their mission.
I don't think they're the majority.
I also, speaking of the, you know,
ruffling feathers factor, you know,
there's also this, okay, well,
right now we have a Republican in office,
but in four years we might
have a Democrat.
So we don't want to, you know,
make the Democrats mad
because what if we have to
work for a Democrat in four years?
And then, you know,
what if we have to work for
a Republican in four years?
So-
Nothing gets done because of
all of the what ifs.
And we're just afraid of, you know,
if we make the next.
Administration.
Thank you.
Administration that then
we're going to lose our jobs,
which is what's happening now.
So, you know, they're afraid that.
to do what they need to do
because for God's sake,
they can't lose their job
when the next administration comes in.
And that shouldn't be,
but it's been that way forever.
Yes.
It's been that way forever.
Right.
And what I think would be bad,
and you and I definitely agree on this,
is that every four years or eight years,
if you get elected twice,
The whole entire bureaucracy shifts,
right?
So the new guy comes in or gal,
hopefully soon we'll have a
woman as a president.
And then they fire everybody,
hire all their cronies in.
And then the next time
somebody gets reelected
from a different party,
they fire everybody, hire everybody in.
That's how it was.
That's why it became too
difficult to let people go.
It was like that.
albeit the bureaucracy was
significantly smaller a
hundred years ago.
But before that, every four years,
you canned everybody and
hired your cronies.
If you were the same party,
a lot of your people were already there.
And so you kept some people,
maybe you let some people
go that were public enemies,
and then you hired somebody else.
That's how it was.
Now we've gotten to the
point where firing bureaucracy,
the individual members of
the bureaucracy is so
complicated that they're lifers, right?
And I think that that's good
if they're good, but if they're not good,
it's terrible.
You just have people as
bodies not doing anything.
Right.
It's kind of like school districts,
and I don't want to even
get into that conversation, but tenure,
right?
Tenure can be just a bunch
of BS because you get
teachers in there that
they're tenured and now
they're not doing their job.
But it's almost impossible
to get rid of them because
they're tenured.
And at least in Pennsylvania,
I don't know if it's like
that in Colorado.
It's like that everywhere.
It's it's awful.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yes.
Lived in Colorado and California.
You want to talk about, I mean, California,
you can't,
you can't let anybody go from
the bureaucracy of California.
It's like, if you're not doing your job,
you need to go.
I don't care where you're working,
do your job or not.
Yeah.
I think the only way to fire
a teacher in California is
if they molest a child.
Yeah.
Maybe they can get canned.
Maybe.
Yeah.
Um,
And I'm a fan of teachers.
I don't want to do that job.
Teachers are worth their
weight in gold when they do
their jobs well.
Right.
So anyway, I want to talk about teachers.
But you recently wrote an
article about or
participated in an article about this.
And I'd love for you to tell
people what that article
was and kind of what your
thoughts were on that.
So yeah,
it was in Quality Assurance and
Food Safety Magazine.
And it was just,
I don't know when this is gonna stream,
but this was just published.
It's the end of February.
This was just published a
couple of days ago.
So what the article says is,
my glasses.
What it says is what they
did is they asked, what'd you say?
You're patting your head,
looking for your glasses.
And I was very confused.
I was like,
do you have to like turn your brain on?
Was there like a button that you push?
You're looking for your glasses.
I can't find my glasses.
I said, I'm becoming one of those.
I feel like,
remember those little old
ladies you used to see,
they had those lanyards
with their glasses.
I'm like, dear God, I cannot go there.
I cannot go there.
So what they did is they
asked several food safety
professionals to contribute
to this this article about
Jim Jones leaving the FDA
and what our thoughts were on that.
So these were my thoughts.
If you were skilled
Yes,
how that was going to impact us as in
the FDA.
Fewer skilled personnel in
the already vulnerable
human foods program would
be a detriment to the FDA's
capacity to conduct
comprehensive reviews of
food ingredients and
enforce safety regulations.
This lack of oversight is
very concerning given that
in twenty twenty four
recalls due to salmonella
listeria,
and E. coli surged by forty-one
percent compared to twenty-twenty-three.
In twenty-twenty-four,
more people in the U.S.
fell ill from contaminated
food and the number of
hospitalizations and deaths doubled.
The increasing consumer
demand for stricter food
safety measures makes this
situation even more problematic.
Yes, and we agree.
We agree that it could make
this more problematic.
Where we both agree on as
well is all of those
statistics you read was under Biden.
So,
twenty twenty four was more food safety
incidences than twenty twenty three.
And you and I have talked
about this like we can we
can buy clockwork tell you
when there is going to be a
lettuce outbreak.
Like we know it's going to be every fall,
right?
And it's like every fall, every winter,
there's going to be some
sort of lettuce outbreak.
Why?
Yeah, it's fascinating.
So we agree that,
I assume you and I both agree,
that shutting down the
ability for the departments
to talk to each other and
relay information is not good.
They need to work.
They need to work together,
particularly the way – but
you and I would both agree
as well because we've had
this multiple times.
Why isn't there just a food
safety department?
It's because of the way it's
been – legislation has been
created that USDA is USDA, CDC is CDC.
CDC has its own thing.
FDA is FDA.
What their jurisdictions are
underneath them.
There should be a food safety department.
They're probably not all
integrated to prevent some
type of collusion, I would imagine.
I don't even know if I understand that.
I think it's created because
government can't change.
So USDA was created for like
over a hundred,
like a hundred years ago
because of the meat packing thing.
Some communist wrote a book
trying to turn people into communists.
And what he ended up doing
was creating animal, uh, uh,
creating food safety,
modern food safety in the United States.
Uh,
Yeah.
And so you have USDA managing meat.
And then all of a sudden they're like,
wait,
you can get sick from other food as well.
And then then the FDA was created.
And it's so confusing to
people when they're trying
to understand and trying to explain.
Take eggs, for example.
What eggs the USDA oversees
and what eggs the FDA oversees?
Because it's not the same.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
It's not the same.
Even meat,
different types of meat for the USDA,
different types of meat for the FDA.
How the heck are people
supposed to understand and
explain that to somebody
that's not from this
country that's trying to
learn the food code?
in this country that's
working in a restaurant
it's like but I don't
understand what do you mean
that my raw meat falls
under this but my cooked
meat falls under this and
if I sent in which kids to
I can't even speak.
If my sandwich contains a
certain amount of this meat, well,
then it falls over here.
Like, what?
So, yes, there needs to be change.
There needs to be change.
Yes, and when you talk about meat,
I want to be clear for
those listening that don't
understand this.
The USDA controls chicken, pork,
like land-based meat, basically, beef.
The FDA manages, um, fish.
Uncooked.
Yeah.
And fish.
Well,
the USDA manages the meat packing
plants of butchering raw meat.
Um, but the, the FDA is fish, shelled eggs,
uh,
dairy, processed dairy,
like cheeses and that type of stuff.
Yeah.
So it's so convoluted.
It was like the USDA was
created before the FDA and
it was created over meat.
And then when they decided
to add the food safety department,
it was like, well,
everything else the USDA doesn't manage,
there'll be that.
Yeah.
And then the individual
states have their own stuff.
You and I have talked about this a lot.
It's just so convoluted.
So they have to talk to each
other or else we're going
to have craziness of
figuring out outbreaks.
They need to talk to each other.
But they should be just – I
wish Congress would just
create a food safety department.
You're right.
I said raw,
but there's raw on the other
side as well.
I was thinking large scale.
It's a mess.
It's just –
Right.
I think there's like fifteen
government agencies that
control altogether.
Our food,
like let's let's tone that down a bit,
but let's not go in there
and fire everybody at one
time so nobody's overseeing it and,
you know,
just run amok for however long
it takes to rebuild that.
Yes.
So this is where.
This is where Francine and I
lightly disagree with each other.
Okay, so everybody out there,
I am a libertarian, okay?
I am not a...
capitalist anarchist
libertarian where I just
believe that businesses
should be able to manage
everything I completely
disagree with that because
I think the large part of
the issues that we have are
there are very large
businesses that don't
really care about anything
other than profit and so
I'm not the libertarian
that's like profit manages
everything correctly profit
incentives manage
everything correctly there
has to be government and oversight um
I just think that they've
fallen down on their job
over the last hundred years
to the point at which you
and I both have been
entrepreneurs and worked
entrepreneurship roles our
whole entire career where
we've had to go in and completely –
Change an organization to
the point at which you have
to let go almost everybody
in order to change the culture.
It is brutal.
It is hard.
It is not good.
You have to do it in a way
of empathy with the individuals.
But if an organization is dying,
sometimes you have to cut
enough people and bring in
the right people to change the org.
Now,
where you and I both agree is that I'm
not sure that's happening, right?
It could be just slashing
and burning the
organization just to do it.
And then hiring a bunch of
cronies is not going to be
the way either.
It will end up with a
situation that's worse.
So I'm not upset about letting people go.
if the goal is to actually
turn it into a more
efficient food safety machine.
Letting people go if they're
not performing effectively
is not a problem.
To wholesale cut the entire
team when we don't know who
is and who and it I'm not
saying take years to do
that that is not at all
what I'm saying but you can
look at the top see who is
and who isn't performing
Let the replace those individuals and say,
look,
this is your job because that's what
happened with both of us.
Look,
the managers or the CEOs of these
companies are not performing effectively.
You need to go in,
find out who in this
facility is not performing effectively.
What are the problems?
Fix the problems.
Get rid of the people that
aren't doing their jobs and replace them.
In some cases,
you need to replace everybody.
In other cases, maybe not.
Yeah.
One hundred percent agree.
So with that comes opportunities.
Right.
So I think you and I want to
spend a lot of the time
talking about what could
happen if this was done right.
Because the reorg,
you and I did an episode on this.
The reorg that the FDA did was ridiculous.
I mean,
they they had the opportunity in
this reorg to.
to change positions around,
add more people to actually
hit what Congress wants them to do,
right?
So Congress wants them to do
a lot more inspections of
food facilities.
And what do they do?
They cut almost forty
million dollars from their
budget that actually
performs those inspections,
which is the State Department.
What did they do?
They gave themselves raises.
They promoted themselves
into higher management,
like the government needs more managers.
It's like Congress.
And just like Congress,
just like Congress.
And then they paid
themselves more in the process.
And then they're like, well,
what we have to do is
because salaries have been increased,
we have to cut the budget somewhere.
And where they do that,
they cut it in the most effective places.
So that's not good.
So the FDA itself on the
food division of the FDA,
at least is what we're talking about.
The FDA, the food division,
they can't manage themselves properly.
Right.
To begin with.
And so the incentives there
are just not right.
Okay.
But if, if we were, and we,
I think we did something
similar like this a year ago,
if you and I were to be,
which we never would be because, um,
I think you and I are both too brutal to,
and actually really care.
We're too honest and open.
Yeah.
We talk too much.
You and I created a podcast
about food safety so that
everybody can learn what we think.
We're definitely not afraid
of telling people what we think.
Okay.
So if you and I were the
head of the FDA and the USDA and the CDC,
I know there's only two of
us and that's three
different departments.
what would we do if we were, if, if, if,
if whatever it is,
Biden or Trump had said, okay,
you could do whatever you
want to change this.
What would you do?
I think this would be an
interesting thought
exercise for maybe somebody
in the government is listening.
Maybe they can enact some of these things,
but what would you do?
So I just, I need to, I had,
I just did an episode with
how King on his podcast.
And, um, I answered these questions.
I'm trying to find my notes.
Okay.
While you find your notes,
I'll tell people what I would do.
Okay.
If I, if it was the,
the Francine and I talked about this,
I actually want to write a book.
will probably be in
collaboration with francine
because I can't get tasks
done without francine's
help when it comes to
anything other than what my
real job is so francine and
I would probably end up if
this book ever happens
it'll be francine and I
doing it with a whole bunch
of other people and I want
to collect all different
types of government
officials that have retired
maybe some that are
currently in there probably
not because they don't feel
like they can speak
honestly but retired or
people who have quit and gone to industry
To talk about all the
different things that could
change to make the FDA, USDA, FSIS,
and the CDC function
appropriately that are
really consumer oriented.
What I would want to do is
combine all of those into one department.
Like the United States Food
Safety Department.
Okay.
In that would be the USDA's
meat inspection and FSIS,
the CDC when it comes to
food safety cases,
and the FDA food division
all in one department.
I would enact that if you
leave this new department, the U.S.
Food Safety Department,
you cannot work for
industry for three or five years.
You could not leave and go
directly into industry.
becoming on somebody's board
of some food company or
work as an executive in
some food company.
There has to be some barrier
so that you're able to make
real decisions without
worrying about what your
future job is going to be in there.
This would also,
a huge part of my budget
would go to the state
departments to act like my inspectors,
like what we saw at Boar's Head.
But there would be way more
technology to help
facilitate state
departments and this US
Food Safety Division,
where they can make
decisions really quickly.
So the FDA or the Food
Safety Division would
be able to look at all the
data that they're
generating and be able to see risk.
Like here's the imports that
are coming in.
Here's the commodities.
et cetera, et cetera.
If you'll look at the risk
and then send somebody from
that county or state
department to perform more
inspections based upon those risks.
From those inspections,
it would feed directly into
that database.
And then from there,
this federal food division would say, hey,
do we need to, based upon this report,
like the Boar's Head one
from the State Department of Virginia,
when they had multiple issues in that,
There was no follow-up from it.
So those type of reports
would then generate... We
already know this is a
high-risk facility.
We sent that person out
there to perform that task.
Now they're coming in and
they found all these issues.
We now need to open up a
longer investigation.
This would allow a broader
amount of inspections to
happen at a less expensive
rate because you're not
paying travel and all that stuff.
And then this...
federal division of food
safety could do a deep dive
in that facility and really see, you know,
aren't you about to kill a
whole bunch of people?
And I would give them more
power to just shut the place down.
Um, and yeah,
And that could be both
domestically and internationally.
You can't shut a place down
internationally.
This food division couldn't do that.
Food safety division
couldn't shut that place down.
But you could definitely
revoke their ability to
export products into the United States.
import.
So I would take away their
FDA number or whatever it
is until they were able to
redo everything.
I would also force those
facilities to pay for it.
If they are showing up in my
database as a risk and I'm
sending the State
Department out to go perform that audit,
I would make them pay at
least the cost of doing it.
That would force the
industry to realize that if
I am a risk and I'm getting
inspected by the government,
then I have skin in the game.
I'm having to pay for this.
So maybe I should minimize my risk, right?
And if,
and I would increase the ability to
find these facilities.
So if the FDA has to,
or this new food safety
division has to open up a facility
an investigation and do a
deep dive that may take months,
they pay for every single cent of that.
It's like a taxation on these facilities.
This is where I'm less libertarian.
I want enough of these
facilities to get beat up
enough that it becomes
known across the world that
if you are about to kill people,
then you are going to be punished.
Right now, that is not the case at all.
There's like little teeth at
all within the industry.
And really,
if I worked for the FDA for
fifteen years or the USDA
FSIS for fifteen years or
the CDC for fifteen years,
I probably wouldn't do shit
either because who cares, right?
Like you have no control.
You have very little power.
You have a tiny little budget.
Nobody really cares within
the government about what you do.
They're probably jaded and
don't want to do it anyways.
That was a very long monologue.
Where's your notes, Francine?
These are so good.
These are good.
That's why I wanted them.
Food safety matters.
When I was on that
it was part two of my
episode with Hal King.
We talked about this in depth, like what,
what would I do?
And, you know, it was,
had a lot to do more.
And this is, you know,
where our backgrounds come
into play because I spent, you know,
much more of my time
working on the retail side
of the industry.
And, um,
I just feel like there's so
much that could be done
that they're not doing.
I think they should have
integrated education campaigns,
develop joint education
campaigns that target both
consumers and food service operators.
These campaigns can focus on
shared responsibilities for food safety,
emphasizing how consumer
choices and awareness can
impact food safety in
restaurants because nobody knows.
And this could be done relatively easy.
Online resources and tools
create user-friendly online
resources and tools that
provide consumers with
information on how to
properly assess food safety
practices within the food
service establishments.
This could include
checklists for consumers to
recognize safe practices
and encourage them to ask servers,
what food safety measures are you taking?
That in turn would make the
restaurants more accountable.
Any food service facility
would at that point be more accountable.
Public reporting systems.
Right now,
a lot of people don't even know
that you can go online and
look up this information,
whether it be at the
various online reporting
systems that are available
or looking up the health
department score.
This would allow consumers
to easily report food
safety concerns or
violations they observe in restaurants,
and it could be linked to
regulatory agencies so that
they could respond
effectively to provide
feedback to restaurants to
improve their practices.
I believe that they would also be...
much more likely to want to
do that if it was connected
to a regulatory agency live.
Incentives for compliance.
What incentives do they have
to comply right now?
None.
I mean, other than potential outbreaks or
Like there are negative incentives,
but there definitely are no positive.
There's no positive incentives.
It's like, you know,
there's no caught you for
being good type thing.
There's no awards for, you know, well,
there's just nothing at the state level.
And let's be honest,
the funding at the state,
where does that come from?
From the federal government, right?
And also from their tax base.
Some of these state departments, I mean,
they're not just getting federal money.
They're having to prop this
up from their tax base.
But if we could find a way
to find federal... We find
federal money for all kinds of stuff.
There's some ridiculous grants.
There's some ridiculous
grants that are out there.
So if we could find...
food safety grants for
compliance to help stop
foodborne illness.
Wouldn't that be an amazing,
an amazing things for
facilities that provide
exemplary compliance rates, ratings,
and who tell me,
explain to me how people
are getting one hundreds on
their health inspections
time after time after time.
Right.
How does that,
that's a problem in any facility.
industry.
I don't even know how it's
possible to get a hundred
on your inspection time after time.
Nobody is perfect.
And that's where I think the
data side of things where
Frank Giannis talked about
this a lot and a lot of
other people from the FDA
talked about this was, you know,
they're really trying to use data.
Standard deviation curves are very,
very powerful when it comes
to analyzing auditors and inspections.
does this person fail
everybody every single time
or does this person give
everybody a hundred percent
every single time their
standard deviation curve is
going to be very very low like
somewhere close to zero.
If somebody walks in and
fails a restaurant or a
facility one day and the
next day gives somebody
like a ninety five percent,
their standard deviation
curve is going to be very, very high,
which which means that they
walk in with no
preconceived notion of the facility.
They're just observing what
they find and they're
posting it directly as is.
That's what you want.
You want someone with a high
standard deviation curve.
And that is all just data, right?
And so you can see somebody
has fifty inspections.
You can be able to put
together a pretty solid
standard deviation curve on
how well they do.
Those are the people that
should be training the ones
with the low standard
deviation curve or at least
retraining them.
One hundred percent.
Give everybody a hundred percent.
One hundred percent.
I agree with you completely.
And who is training these people?
I mean, right.
Just that's a whole nother conversation.
You know, it could be public recognition,
certifications, financial incentives,
collaborative research
initiatives would be a
great a great thing to
explore behavior related to food safety,
how it intersects with food
service operations,
sharing research findings.
Right now, we're not sharing anything.
It could help both consumers
and operators.
Enhanced communication would
be something that I would want to see.
What?
I mean, regulatory agencies.
Enhanced communication.
Real-time data sharing,
integration of technology.
You know,
you've mentioned some things yourself.
It's just, you know, I would advocate for
implementation of
comprehensive standardized
training programs,
because right now across the board,
from state to state,
every state's doing something different.
Every jurisdiction within
that state can be different.
And that's a problem.
Yes.
Across the country.
And I think that that would help.
reduce the incidence of newborn illness,
you know, and, and,
and while these can be
state to state things,
it's not going to change at the state.
If we don't change something
at the federal.
One hundred percent, one hundred percent.
And, and there,
and they even say that like
the conversations with Apto, they're like,
we're, we're,
we're treading water right now.
What we need to do is we
need to understand what the,
We'll use the swimming analogy still.
What stroke we need to perform,
what distance we need to do it at,
and who are we racing against?
There's no direction in
terms of from the federal
government explaining to
the states and the counties
and the municipalities what
the goal is for food compliance,
so much so that the states
are out front of the FDA.
Yeah, but that's also a Congress thing.
So every single thing that
we just said will never
happen without Congress.
And in Pennsylvania,
it's different than it is in Oklahoma.
And I've been beating this
horse since we've started this.
In Pennsylvania,
it's different than it is in Oklahoma,
than it is in Alabama,
than it is in... We need to
get our shit together.
Yeah.
It's right now, food safety regulation...
And food safety legislation
is a hodgepodge of outdated
policy that was enacted due to reaction,
not for forethought planning.
Maybe back when – actually,
I think when the USDA and
the FDA were originally created,
I think that was forward thinking.
They were really forward thinking.
That was like a hundred years ago.
Since then, it's just been a political –
cool to beat people over the head with,
with no real clear plan.
And the industry is not helping.
Who has the best lobbyists?
The ones that win.
That's what I'm saying.
That's where we are.
Definitely the formula companies.
They have the best lobbyists.
the pet food supplement supplement.
There's like zero regulation when it,
I shouldn't say zero.
Let's say that's,
there's a bit of an over-exaggeration.
There is a tiny bit of
oversight over the
supplement side of things.
That is ridiculously small
compared to what the issues
are with them.
Um,
Yeah, you're absolutely right, Francine.
Right now it's who has the
most money to put into the
most political pockets.
And that's what our current food safety,
federal food safety mission is,
which is sad.
It's sad.
So that to say,
are you optimistic about the future?
I'm not.
I think this is going to get
burned down to the ground,
and I don't think there's
going to be any forward
thinking of actually making
food safety policy to be
best for consumers.
No, I don't either.
I wish that I could say that
I felt... I don't know who
the new appointee is going to be.
I hope it's somebody...
that person's qualifications, I guess,
will help determine that.
It's probably going to be
how well does that person
golf or kill quail or
pheasant with whoever it is
that's making that appointment.
I really think it comes down to just
How much time have you spent brown nosing?
Whoever makes that decision
is what the appointment is going to be.
And it's, and it's,
and that's not against one
party over the other.
That's how it always has been.
Do you know why?
Pretty qualified people there,
but like right now it's.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I don't know who's going to be left after.
after the after this is all
said and done and the um
after la has been burnt to
the ground and it looks the
fda has been burnt to the
ground the at least the
food division the etc etc
has been burnt down
what comes next will be very,
very fascinating to see.
And like, I don't have high hope.
Well, again,
it's not that we don't think
that there needs to be change.
There are a hundred percent
needs to change,
but it needs to be effective.
Well, and they're not,
who are they going to hire to do that?
Like how many people out
there are really going to put their
their whole career on the
line to create real
effective change is just
going to tick off a ton of people.
Right now I'm saying I want
to go lead the FD.
Yeah.
I don't know.
God, there's such a huge opportunity.
And I, I,
Yeah.
If you're allowed to go in
there and do the job and do
it well and do the things
that need to be done and
within your parameters and
make those decisions,
it would be an awesome opportunity.
Yes.
But whoever is that person is playing,
if they're really interested in change,
Those are the ones that –
what's the incentive?
Okay,
so like let's say they do put someone
in who – to run – let's say
Congress enacts a bill that
allows all of these to put
into a department where
it's now the food safety department.
What incentive is there of
the person leading that department –
to make all the effective
change that they know
they're going to tick off industry.
They're going to make,
when you tick off the industries,
you're going to upset the
politicians within their districts.
They're not elected.
So it's not like they could
be saved by consumers who actually care.
I'm so jaded with the way
government incentive is.
I don't feel like whoever is
going to take over that
role is actually going to
really care to do the right
thing because there's no
incentive aligned with it
unless they're really
passionate about it.
But then those passionate
people never get hired onto
that because they generally
have something better to do.
Or they can make a lot more
money in industry doing
what they're passionate
about or their own
associations like .orgs.
Or they get in and they make
a lot of change.
They take enough people off
and they get fired.
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know.
But lobbying has been around forever.
Do you know where the term
lobbying came from?
I assume.
It's something I read on the internet,
so we all know that that's
one hundred percent accurate.
Did Abraham Lincoln say it?
Maybe.
I don't remember how old it is.
He texted it to somebody.
A long, long time ago,
back when politicians would
go to DC just for their term,
for their time that year to
make policies or whatever,
they would all stay in a
series of hotels.
in Washington, D.C.
So all like the congressmen
and the senators would go,
they would spend time in these hotels and,
you know,
they'd be there for whatever
their thing is.
They'd go back home and they'd come back,
they'd go to the hotel, blah, blah.
Did they stay at the Trump Hotel?
I don't think it was built then.
Good question though, Francine.
Donald Trump is old,
but he's not that old.
I'm talking like, a hundred and fifty,
two hundred years ago.
Okay, just curious.
So people who wanted change
would go in there and go to
the lobby and meet with all the people,
the congressmen and the senators,
and try to buy off their
votes or whatever.
And so they would call them lobbyists.
Again, I read that from the internet,
so we all know that that's
one hundred percent accurate.
Makes sense, though.
So from the very beginning of time,
probably for millennia,
people who have the power
to make decisions are
financially motivated by
other people who have the
means to get what they want
to affect policy.
It just is what it is.
Well, and I don't care, honest to God,
what political party it is.
Just do what's right.
Yeah.
Please.
just do what's right people
die three thousand people
die every year from eating
food we know people whose
children have gotten sick
and had lifelong
ramification people whose
children have died and like
it's not it's not a game it is not a game
Yeah.
Well,
and we think three thousand people
still do this.
Well,
this is based on a statistic that is
like over fifteen years old.
We've been saying the same
statistic for fifteen years
because the government
won't even update its statistics.
Right.
Which is data they should be
able to pull from their own databases.
Right.
And we know we know beyond a
shadow of a doubt that that
number is not accurate
because not everybody gets reported.
Yes.
One hundred percent.
Yeah.
So you can multiply that.
That is just the reported number.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, Francine.
Assuming we still have.
Listeners.
Listeners and subscribers.
After this episode.
We were doing so well.
We kept growing.
Week after week after week.
Every week.
We have to open up our damn
mouth and piss people off.
I'm going to have to copy
our agent for damage control.
What agent?
I have one.
I wonder if she does crisis management.
I don't know.
What was my segment on the
LinkedIn Live talking to the media?
Yeah.
That was such good advice
that maybe we should follow.
I hope we didn't just crash and burn.
I know.
All right.
Well, on that note, don't eat poop.
Don't eat poop.
Bye.