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?
