Docket No. FSIS-2025-0179

The meeting over Docket No. FSIS-2025-0179 concluded about an hour early yesterday but generate a productive discussion. Several key themes emerged. First, there was a broad acknowledgement that Salmonella control is a complex issue with no single, one-size-fits-all solution. Additionally, some tension was evident regarding the role of enforcement versus the adaptation of standards. Most participants agreed that increased transparence has been beneficial, though there is room for improvement, and that there is a strong collective push toward data modernization and more effective use of analytics. 

Notable quotes I paused working to write down:

"All Salmonella are pathogens, but they are not all equally virulent" - Glenn Tillman, Ph.D. USDA-FSIS

"The USDA doesn't need innovation, it needs enforcement..." -Andrew deCoriolis, Executive Director @ Farm Forward

Subsequent comments reflected differing views on the effectiveness of the current framework. Philip Bronstein of OSI Group stated that it has been effective, while Rosanna Bauman of Bauman's Cedar Valley Farms disagreed, emphasizing the need for innovation and asserting that the current framework has worsened over the past 30 years. 

No major advancements in new platforms were discussed, although it was noted that a new array for Highly Pathogenic Salmonella (RT-HPS) is in development, with beta testing in collaboration with Hygenia. Additionally, the government is working to improve sampling methods by integrating MicroTally swabs/mitts, which have already been adopted within the beef industry.

I would be interested in your perspectives on:

If all Salmonella are considered pathogens but not equally virulent, how should regulatory frameworks better differentiate risk to focus control efforts where they have the greatest public health impact?

What does "Data Modernization" mean in practical terms for FSIS? Is this a complete overhaul?

Given the differing views on the effectiveness of the current framework, what objective metrics should be used to determine whether it is succeeding or failing in reducing illnesses?

Why does the regulatory framework provide prescriptive guidance regarding laboratory suppliers and methodologies, particularly when government agencies publicly reference for-profit companies as 'partnerships', and how is impartiality and scientific neutrality maintained in those situations?

Curious and curiouser

In poultry in Canada, testing (CFIA mandated protocol) requires testing for salmonella spp ONLY, and lay out what is required of a lab (you can use an onsite provided it's accredited, or a 3rd party)  

The issue is a - test result is quite rapid (24 hours or less) and 5 days for species, so there is something built in there for business businessing

In table eggs, only SE as it's the one most associated with illness from contamination and if a suspected + is found, eggs are to be held until further testing is performed--which results sometimes of a 10 business day lag  (which is an impossibility with fresh poultry in particular)

Labs should be neutral 3rd parties- full stop   You raise a good point in your last sentence