Don't Eat Poop! A Food Safety Podcast

DEP E114
===

[00:00:00]

Roger Hancock: What we have found is that recalls in Europe are more of a brand protection exercise than a liability protection exercise. In the US there seems to be more of a focus on liability protection. In Europe, there's more of a focus on brand protection, and that translates into more recalls because protecting brand is a lower threshold and it happens more frequently.

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 l Shaw and Matt Regu for a deep dive into food safety. It all boils down to one golden rule. Don't eat poop. Don't eat poop.

Matt Regusci: Okay. Okay.

We [00:01:00] have another amazing guest with us from the Food Safety Consortium. This is Francine's and my second year at the Food Safety... or not second year at the Food Safety Consortium, but second year filming our podcast here. And this is the second time Roger Hancock has talked with us here at the Food Safety Consortium.

Roger's a hoot. We were just laughing 'cause he thinks he gets editorial rights of our podcast and I was gracious enough to lie to him and tell him that he could have editorial rights and Francine told him no. So there you go. So Roger, for those of that didn't have the privilege of listening to you last year, tell us a little about, a bit about who you are, what you do.

Your amazing pass is a food safety in retail, and what do you do in Recall InfoLink. Really, truly, the reason why we wanna talk to you is because there's been so many damn recalls over this last year that your company has to have [00:02:00] been making some major changes internally and have a lot of impact within the industry and just what's going on.

That was like 14 questions in one. By the way, Roger, I don't know if you were keeping track.

Roger Hancock: Thanks, Matt. Thanks Francine. It's a pleasure to be here again, and talking to you is always a lot of fun. Yes, a lot's been going on. Real quickly. I spent 15 years at Albertsons leading their food safety and quality programs with a background in public health.

And then 15 years ago, I left Albertsons because I saw the problems in the recall world and thought I could make a difference solving them. A long journey is bringing us closer. We launched an Alliance for Recall Ready Communities three weeks ago. It's taking a look at recall readiness from a supply chain point of view, rather than just an individual company point of view.

The connected companies across the supply chain [00:03:00] often drop the ball between the connections, and so we think that there's a way to get some glue together using standard processes and data to pass information quickly and efficiently and seamlessly for the good of the consumer. It's the consumer that really is at risk when recalls happen if they aren't done correctly.

And so for the good of the consumer, we're looking to connect the supply chain to process recalls in the same way that they process sales as a connected supply chain.

Matt Regusci: Very cool. Okay, so that answered, I don't know, two of my 14 questions. But one of the main ones is what's going on this year? So many recalls.

And what is it that you guys are seeing, and how is the industry reacting to it? And just overall looking at the last year, what are your thoughts?

Roger Hancock: I think I could put them into two categories. One category is contamination. [00:04:00] It's a little bit surprising that we haven't seen more Listeria over a long haul because Listeria is such a pervasive, prevalent, hard to eliminate bacteria. We're seeing lots of Listeria contamination right now, and in one way it's not surprising. In another way, it raises the level of vigilance that we all need to be preaching on a regular basis.

We were just talking about turnover in the retail sector. We hear ourselves saying things over and over again, but to a lot of these people, this is the first time they ever heard it.

It's the first time they heard that washing their hands after you go to the bathroom can prevent somebody from eating poop.

Francine L Shaw: Now. Good one. Good one, Roger.

Roger Hancock: So repetition is important in our business. Because though we've heard it a hundred [00:05:00] times, the people that we're talking to may be hearing it for the very first time.

Wow. And it needs to motivate them to take some action.

Matt Regusci: That is such a good point. I just wanna reiterate that because I... it is so true. So us in the food safety world, we're talking the same thing over and over again. It's just, it's not a new concept, it's facts for us. It is just, you're supposed to wash your hands and, but when you're looking at.

A brand new employee either on your packing line, in your processing plant, or at your grocery store or in your restaurant. This could have been the first time they've ever heard about food safety and with a huge turnover in staff. That repetition is extremely important, and it's not like you need to tell them one time.

Like in your studies like at Albertsons, how often do you need to tell somebody before they actually get it?

Roger Hancock: Well, in sales? The rule of thumb is seven times. If you hear a message seven times, then you're likely to take some [00:06:00] action. In the food service, food retail world, you don't have the luxury of telling somebody seven times unless you're telling them seven days in a row.

Because turnover is so frequent, and in today's marketplace, turnover is even higher than it used to be. Because people can change jobs for a better wage. They can change jobs for a better working schedule. They can change jobs into the gig economy. And who's talking to them in the gig economy about how to keep food safe?

And with the lack of food safety education in the secondary schools and the primary schools, there's nobody telling them, except for people who have a passion for food safety. And it has to be a regular message.

Francine L Shaw: Seven times a shift. Seven times a shift? Yes.

Roger Hancock: That's a new level.

Francine L Shaw: Yes. You don't just say at the beginning of the shift, you say it constantly.

I used to say that, and I don't mean this in a demeaning way. I used to say it was like, I felt like a [00:07:00] babysitter. It was like you just say it over and over again. You don't say it when you hire them and forget that you've said it. You say it over and over and over. It's just, it's the way. It's the way it works.

Roger Hancock: Yeah. I would say if you're either not tired of saying it or you're saying it in your sleep. You're not saying it enough.

Francine L Shaw: It's not just saying that you have to reinforce it positively as well.

Roger Hancock: You have live it. You have to demonstrate it.

Francine L Shaw: You know you have to... Well, you... Okay. Let me... I wanna finish what I'm saying first. Reinforce it positively. Catch them doing it right and reinforce. The positive reinforcement is really important. The demonstration is so important, not just by people that work there, like the manager.

But the district managers that come in and the other key personnel, the health inspectors that come in, do you have any idea how many key management or key figures come into the building and don't practice what we [00:08:00] tell them to do?

And by we, I mean we as the manager or the operating partners. So it's like the health inspector will come in and start to do an inspection and not wear a hat or not put on protective covering. Or not wash their hands right away, or not wash them as frequently as they should, or the district manager or some other executive member of management.

And the list goes on and on the people that aren't following these procedures, but I'm telling my hourly employee that they need to do that?

Well, do these other people, does their hair not fall out? Do their hands not get dirty? They carry the same bacteria as everybody else does. So, they need to set that standard by demonstration, and that isn't happening.

It doesn't happen. It's so, so true, and I see it so true time. When I would walk... Time and time again.

Roger Hancock: When I would walk a store, if I used the restroom, I'd have to wash my hands in the [00:09:00] restroom for the people that were there, and I'd have to wash my hands when I got to the apartment for the people that were there.

So I ended up washing my hands more than necessary, but just to make the demonstration just so people could see me washing my hands. It was that important.

Francine L Shaw: Well, you contaminate them on the way back in as well, because you're touching doorknobs on your way out and on your way back in. So yes, there then there is a need to do that, right?

For that reason as well. But the mindset and the thought process that is not going into the observation of the hourly employees and what they're witnessing, but yet they're expected to do exactly is mind boggling to me. And I've presented multiple times to groups of health inspectors, and that's the one thing that I always say to them is, you're in there and you're doing these health inspections, auditors, and you're writing these people up for violations that you're committing while you're in their stores.

Mm-hmm. What are you [00:10:00] doing? Because that's just, that's wrong.

Roger Hancock: Ah, yeah. It's a great point.

Francine L Shaw: You're committing these violations. Did you wash your hands when you walked in the door? Are you wearing a hat because you're in that kitchen? Yeah. And you're committing these same violations that you're writing them up for.

You need to be functioning in the same manner that you expect them to function in because you're setting an example.

Roger Hancock: Yeah.

Francine L Shaw: That's how I feel.

Roger Hancock: Yeah. Yeah.

Matt Regusci: The hat reminded me of... we're gonna have a conversation with, with Beal and Trump was just a McDonald's. And say that, but I let it go. Uh, no, I have it.

It doesn't matter. I let it go. It doesn't matter. Republican or Democrat? It's not political at all. So Trump was just a McDonald's and he wasn't wearing a hat and somebody posted it on LinkedIn. The picture of Donald. It was... Betsy Craig. Betsy. Oh, it's Betsy. I love Betsy. 100%. Yeah. Betsy Craig posted on LinkedIn and she said, okay, this is not appropriate for food safety.

You should be wearing a hat or a hair net. What you're doing there? Which [00:11:00] I find fascinating. Aren't you always wearing a MAGA hat, regardless of what. That's just funny.

Roger Hancock: Yeah, for sure. For sure. It's funny and it's nice to inject a little bit of humor into otherwise serious conversations. Yes, yes. The other thing that I've seen recently is similarities as they span time.

So the chicken recall that we're looking at right now, the BrucePac chicken reminded me of the PCA recall, the peanut butter paste. Nobody thinks of chicken as an ingredient, but what's been recalled now? Chicken enchiladas have been recalled. Chicken burritos have been recalled. Chicken Caesar salad has been recalled.

Frozen chicken burritos have been recalled, so this chicken that's being recalled 'cause of listeria contamination is flowing through the supply chain in its transformed way because it was actually an ingredient in multiple products. Just like the peanut paste from Peanut Corporation of America was an [00:12:00] ingredient in multiple products, and we don't often think about how ingredient recalls affect the whole supply chain and multiple products, but we're gonna be seeing more and more of that, I believe, as the regulators start testing more, as there's greater scrutiny on imports, because a lot of spices and other ingredients come in as imports.

So there's just, we need, just need to be aware of this transition of end product recalls to ingredient recalls and the connection between the two.

Matt Regusci: So, okay.

With the recall thing, many people don't know this, but Roger and I have a really good relationship. We talk quite frequently, so I get to hear some amazing stuff that goes on.

I find what you do just absolutely fascinating and we had a great conversation about the difference in recall philosophy in Europe versus the United States, and I'd love for you to explain to the audience the difference between a recall and a [00:13:00] recall due to an outbreak and how much more frequently recalls are done in Europe and why.

I just think it's fascinating.

Roger Hancock: Well, that's another one of your multilevel questions all packed up into one multilevel questions all packed up into one. Part of why we're looking at this is because we have a global platform that processes recalls across the global supply chain, and so being aware of how countries operate recalls and think about recalls is an important piece.

What we have found is that recalls in Europe are more of a brand protection exercise than a liability protection exercise. In the US there seems to be more of a focus on liability protection. In Europe, there's more of a focus on brand protection. And That translates into more recalls because protecting brand is a lower threshold and it happens more frequently.

Matt Regusci: So when you say protecting brand versus [00:14:00] liability recalls, can you explain the difference and why is it more important in Europe?

Roger Hancock: Protecting one's brand can precede an outbreak. Protecting one's brand can even precede multiple layers of distribution. Because once you find out there's a compromise of the quality of your brand, and that spurs action to get the product out of sale, it can happen faster. It can happen earlier in the distribution of the product, and so it can be even more contained in terms of recalls.

When you wait for a foodborne illness to be reported and investigated and confirmed as the reason or the justification for a recall, you can be pretty certain that the distribution of that product has been across the supply chain.

It's been into consumer's homes. There's been even a length of time because the incubation time of a [00:15:00] lot of foodborne illnesses could be days or weeks, and so there could be an extended amount of time between when contaminated product begins its distribution journey. There's actually reports of foodborne illness that result in a trace back investigation that results in a recall.

So there's timing issues. There's timing issues, and the level of responsiveness is just different when you're protecting your brand versus trying to protect additional people from getting sick.

Matt Regusci: Right. With a recall versus an outbreak, I recalling due to an outbreak or recalling because you find something, for instance, is really interesting. 'cause we're seeing a lot of recalls in the United States, but not as many recalls attached to an outbreak.

They're recalling product, but maybe people haven't gotten sick. They just found that there's Listeria in the product or they found that there's glass in the product, for instance, or [00:16:00] a mislabeling issue. People haven't gotten sick or hurt yet, but they need to recall the product back because of quality or food safety issues that they found.

Roger Hancock: Yeah. The one little nuance I just want to add is: there are undocumented cases of illness. There may be cases, true cases of illness because when consumers get sick, they don't necessarily tie it to a food product other than what they ate at the last meal.

Francine L Shaw: What they saw in the toilet.

Roger Hancock: When they get sick, they don't necessarily...

Matt Regusci: Bring it back to poop or throw up.

Roger Hancock: They don't necessarily want to collect a stool sample and take it to a doctor and have it tested. So, there may be lots of illness in the public that we just aren't aware of.

Francine L Shaw: So, do we wanna talk about the three different classes of recalls?

Roger Hancock: We can.

Francine L Shaw: Because we're talking about [00:17:00] recalls in general. There's three different classes of recalls, right?

So why don't we talk about the three different classes of recalls. Roger, you look like, I'm shocked... you're shocked that I know there are three different classes of recalls.

Roger Hancock: Well, there are at least three.

Francine L Shaw: Well, there are three general classes of recalls that...

Roger Hancock: Yes.

Francine L Shaw: Let's not get too technical.

Roger Hancock: Yes, there are three.

There's a class one, a class two, a class three.

Francine L Shaw: Right.

Roger Hancock: In some regulatory agencies, there's a Class A, class B, a Class C. Right. And in some countries there's health hazard and non-health hazard and withdrawals. But in general, three classifications that clump recalls into those that are likely to cause significant or irreparable health consequences, up to and including death. A second class that is likely to cause some intermittent health consequences that are recoverable. And a third [00:18:00] class that are most likely to not cause any health consequences at all. So, high health consequences including death, low health consequences that are recoverable, no health consequences at all are the general three classifications.

Francine L Shaw: Right. So all recalls...

Roger Hancock: Regardless of the name.

Francine L Shaw: ...aren't created equal. And I don't know that everybody listens to the podcast, understands that all recalls are not the same. That's exactly right. That's why I wanted to... do that.

Roger Hancock: That's exactly right. And there's actually a fourth quasi class called withdrawal. That means there doesn't need to be any regulatory oversight over the business process of removing product from sale. But businesses, because it's the same business process, often call them recalls even though they're withdrawals.

And so you can even have the word recall ascribed to a business activity that isn't a regulatory recall at all. So that's why I said there's four classifications. Right.

Matt Regusci: So would like a [00:19:00] mislabeling of allergen, would that be a class one? It would. Because of its potential of death.

Roger Hancock: That's right. Yeah. Class one.

Francine L Shaw: Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't mean to answer your...

Roger Hancock: No, no, that that's exactly right. But a... a wrong net weight content statement on a label or a wrong UPC on a label could simply be a product withdrawal because it isn't going to necessarily cause any health consequences at all, even though it's not gonna scan correctly across the scanner at the supermarket, or it's misrepresenting the amount of product that's in the package.

So those would still be by the business, maybe called recalls. Even though there's no health consequence at all.

Francine L Shaw: Okay, so let's talk about this. So in my mind, the allergen is evident because that can clearly cause death if somebody gets hold of that and they have a food allergy. But lately, there have been some products recalled. I think it was Minute Maid recalled a product because it was labeled zero sugar, but it actually had sugar in it.

Am I, right? Is that what that was Minute [00:20:00] Maid? It was labeled zero sugar, but it actually had sugar in it.

Roger Hancock: I believe that's correct.

Francine L Shaw: Okay. So. Would that be a cla? Was that a class one recall because of somebody diabetic got hold of that? Could it potentially, I'm asking. Yeah. I don't know the answer to the question.

It isn't a trick question.

Roger Hancock: I, I, I don't...

Francine L Shaw: I don't know the answer to the question.

Roger Hancock: I don't recall the specific recall, and I don't recall specifically how Minute Maid classified that recall, or Coca-Cola classified that recall it would be subject to interpretation. Subject to a lot of conversation as to which classification it actually ended up in.

Yeah. I'm not sure that it would be a class one recall, because general knowledge is orange juice has high sugar concentration and general knowledge is...

Francine L Shaw: But it was labeled zero sugar.

Roger Hancock: ...you need to be aware, and so I just, [00:21:00] I don't have enough knowledge to know. Okay. Yeah. I don't know. It was just a situation.

Francine L Shaw: Like I said, that wasn't a trick question. I just...

Matt Regusci: Okay, attorney.

Francine L Shaw: ...in my head. Talking to Bill too much.

Roger Hancock: Well, I think a con... I think a conservative approach would say there is a potential health consequence and so let's classify it as such. When it comes to actual regulatory classification, I don't know the FDA process that they go through for that type of.

Francine L Shaw: If I'm diabetic and I buy that thinking it has zero sugar and I drink and it kills me, I got a problem.

Matt Regusci: Yeah, you do. You're dead. Your family has a problem.

Francine L Shaw: My mom, my family has a problem. That's what I meant to say as I was saying that I knew I said it wrong.

Matt Regusci: So, back to the Europe versus US in terms of the number of recalls done because of brand versus liability.

Do you think that it [00:22:00] has to do more with the retailers selling more branded product than the suppliers provided branded prod... Product? No. That they're more interested in their brands because of that, or no?

Roger Hancock: No.

Matt Regusci: Oh. Then why do you think it is that Europe is... has more issues or recalls versus for brand versus... 'cause I always say to people.

Just because it's a recall doesn't mean it's attached to an outbreak. Just because it's a recall doesn't mean you're, you could die because of it. And there's a lot more recalls in Europe than the United States. And I know you and I had this conversation, but obviously we haven't had this level of conversation, which is great because this is awesome.

So what do you think then is the reason why?

Roger Hancock: It's a big question. It's not a multi-part question, but it's big. But it's big.

Francine L Shaw: He's looking at us like, what the hell are you two doing to me right now?

He's, "I'm gonna lay down my mic and go."

Roger Hancock: It's big just the [00:23:00] same because it talks about societal perceptions, it talks about consumer habits and consumer decision making around products.

So it's a really big, it's more of an anthropological question, maybe a cultural question than it is a product question. In the US, we're very litigious and everybody in Europe knows that we're very litigious and everybody in Europe says, well, you would sue over anything. In the US we're just accustomed to it, it's part of our culture. We don't think about it much, but that drives decision making.

And the economics of a recall drive decision making. I just was interviewed and put an article in The Packer about deconstructing a recall and look at it from an economic point of view, because public health [00:24:00] and compliance are the main drivers for recalls.

But if you do a recall well, it can be the difference between a business recovery exercise, and a we're outta business filing for Chapter 11 exercise. Yeah. And so understanding the economics of a recall can help you see how doing it faster is gonna cost you less. It's gonna cost you your brand less recall insurance.

Some recall insurance policies cover the cost of regaining your business because they realize that there is a market cost to regaining the market share that you lose when you go through a recall. So thinking through what's the recall cost? How can I be more efficient? How can I make sure that my customers are taking the actions that they need?

'Cause if I'm a wholesaler, I'm not protecting my brand [00:25:00] with my recall notice unless my recall notice gets all the way to the store and they do something about it. Recall activity is all about taking action, taking the appropriate action. Taking the action in the right time, being very timely with your action.

And so how do you think through getting all of that done before it's a crisis instead of waiting until the crisis hits you?

Matt Regusci: That's fascinating.

I like what you're saying about it is a difference in culture and the way you explain that was very helpful. Makes sense. Yeah, it makes sense. It makes sense. So it's almost, we're doing things to protect ourselves from getting a lawsuit.

Versus in Europe, they're doing things more to protect their brand, just overall. And it's just a difference in culture.

Roger Hancock: Yeah. Recalls aren't, recall isn't a bad word in Europe. You can go over to Europe and you can have a conversation with a retailer, a wholesaler manufacturer, and you can say, well, how are you doing your recalls? [00:26:00] Are you efficient with your recall process? Have you even thought through how to get product out of supply?

Every business thinks how to get their product into supply and how to get their product through supply, and they spend lots of money, marketing dollars, efficiency dollars to make that work. But they don't spend money thinking, what if we have to get it outta supply? In the US they don't even wanna talk about it.

In Europe, it's not a forbidden word. It's not a forbidden conversation, not a dirty word. Yeah. So there's just an acceptance of this is part of business in Europe, in the US it's a part of the business that nobody wants to recognize. And if they do have to do one, they wanna be real quiet about it. So nobody knows that they did it.

So it's a, yeah, just a different culture.

Francine L Shaw: They don't want it to be on the front page of New York Times.

Roger Hancock: A different mentality. Yeah.

Matt Regusci: Okay.

So what does a recall community look like? What is it you're, you're, you're Evangeli... You've been evangelizing this for like two decades, but you've really stepped up [00:27:00] the evangelism of this recall information community.

Roger Hancock: Recall Ready Community.

Matt Regusci: Retail... Recall Ready Community. Right. What does that mean? Why should people be interested in it? And if they are, how do they join?

Roger Hancock: A  Recall Ready Community is a supply chain that understands how each of their trading partners is going to act when a recall happens.

Matt Regusci: So this goes back to figuring out how to get your product off the shelf.

Roger Hancock: That's right.

Matt Regusci: Instead of just focusing, getting it on the shelf.

Roger Hancock: That's right. And it's based on principles. One principle is you follow certain principles in your preparedness, so you let your trading partners know that if you're gonna do a recall, this is what you expect from them in response to a recall. Or if your trading partner is a supplier and they become aware of a recall, this is what you expect them to do in terms of notifying you about the recall.

[00:28:00] How fast do they need to notify you? What information do they need to give you? So there's principles in terms of how the process works, that's shared across the supply chain. Second, there's a standard data set, so you would be surprised how many times a product description can change as it flows across the supply chain.

You would also be surprised how many times a product identifier, a number can change as the product flows across the supply chain. When traceability, we talk about critical tracking events. Well, they don't all produce a new product. But if they do produce a new product, that product is gonna be described with a new product description, a new lot code, a new sell by date perhaps.

So being consistent in letting your trading partners know what the data you're gonna provide them is, or what the data you need from them is so [00:29:00] you can quickly and efficiently process this recall is really important. And ultimately having that data based on a standard like the GS1 standard allows machines to process recalls faster and easier, and with less error than when humans get involved in the recall process.

So number one, as a supply chain, share your process and know the process for your supply chain to practice recalls. Number two, share with and standardize the way you talk about recalls in terms of data. And number three, you're not gonna believe this. Practice as a supply chain. So a recall... a mock recall can no longer be a four walls exercise, we know how to do recalls as a company. Now, a mock recall needs to be a simulation where you include external trading partners so that you actually practice and identify the gaps in your process or in your data before [00:30:00] the crisis happens. So standard processes, standard data practiced in a supply chain way, not just an internal company way.

That's what a Recall Ready Community means.

Matt Regusci: Awesome. And who's, I don't know if you can give like an example of who is part of your Recall Ready Community and who should be part of this Recall Ready Community?

Roger Hancock: Are you telling the Alliance or one's own individual Recall Ready Community? Yes. Okay. So for one's own Recall Ready Community, they're trading partners.

Who are their trading partners? Well, their trading partners are their ingredient suppliers. Their trading partners are their packaging suppliers. Their trading partners are their customers, their trading partners are their distributors, their supply chain customers, the whole community that goes into finishing a product and moving that product through the supply chain is a trading partner. So that's who needs to be aware of how you [00:31:00] process recalls. On the alliance side, everybody who has a stakeholder interest in seeing recalls happen quickly and efficiently to protect the consumer belongs on the Alliance. Whether you're a manufacturer making product or a wholesaler holding and distributing product, or a retailer, or a restaurant selling product, or even a consumer who's interested in the process and consuming product.

Or an insurance provider who's insuring the whole members in the supply chain, or a regulator who has interest in this from a re regulatory point of view, they all belong in the Alliance.

Matt Regusci: So it's a very descriptive way of saying everybody.

Roger Hancock: Yeah, everybody. Exactly. Everybody who sees that they have a stake in a recall being processed quickly and efficiently to protect [00:32:00] consumers and to protect brands. If you fall into one of those categories, you belong.

Francine L Shaw: If you have anything to do with food from one end to the other.

Roger Hancock: And so we have manufacturers as part of the Alliance. We have wholesalers, we have retailers. We have insurance companies, both, well, we have regulatory agencies that are observers and consultants to the Alliance.

They aren't technically on the Alliance, because of the separation between regulatory... the regulators, and the regulated, but they're engaged in the process.

Matt Regusci: So Cool. So cool. Okay.

You were saying a... step number two is a consistency in data. And are you seeing that with the new FDA traceability rule, FSMA 204, are you seeing an industry move towards a consistency of data expectations in order to [00:33:00] make it easier for traceability?

'cause right now it's all across the board, right? Every warehouse management system or ERP enterprise system has their own way of talking and creating things and their own way of creating SKUs and lot numbers and all that stuff. Are you seeing like with that change and the accept. Are you seeing acceptance of data?

And with that, does that help with recalls?

Roger Hancock: I love your multi-part questions, Matt, because it gives me lots of flexibility where I wanna start, what I wanna say is beautiful. So to answer the last question, traceability naturally makes recalls more efficient because traceability is a supply chain picture of who has touched the product.

So there's no question that a traceability solution provides data that can make a recall process more efficient. Now, are [00:34:00] the systems being connected? That's a different story. And are the systems being connected in a way that ensures seamless data transition? That's another story because what's interesting that the universal product code.

Is universal in one way, but in another way in its implementation, not quite so universal.

Matt Regusci: So universal product code is like UPC number, right?

Roger Hancock: UPC, right. So I think the industry is realizing that it needs to move in that direction. The regulation is impetus for moving in that direction, but isn't prescriptive in that having to happen.

There's a little bit of inefficiency in the movement.

Matt Regusci: Do you feel like the, like with that change, it's made it easier for you to get more people on board if traceability, if the supply chain is, [00:35:00] it's becoming more regulated. Does it make it then easier just to bolt on the, because there's a big difference between just traceability and then also recalls, right?

Like traceability is day in and day out. Product moving through the chain and being able to track it and recall is, oh crap, something went wrong. Now I need to pull that product back. Are you seeing the, with that consistency, it makes it easier then to practice the recalls?

Roger Hancock: Well, it's too early to see that starting at the end of your question, the middle of your question, it makes sense that traceability flows into recalls.

However, my personal perception is that the trend towards Recall Ready Community thinking preceded section 204 implementation, and so now it's more of a nice sibling, but it wasn't one created the [00:36:00] other.

Matt Regusci: Got it.

Francine L Shaw: Okay.

So you've attended the Food Safety Consortium many times. I have. You were here last year, we interviewed you. I was last year. And what do you like about the Consortium? Do you like it better now that it's in Washington than what you did in New Jersey and what. And multi-part.

Matt Regusci: Consistency.

Francine L Shaw: What would you change?

Roger Hancock: Well, it's only the end of the first morning, so it may be premature. The energy is higher, which may be a function of the location.

There's more energy in Washington DC than there is in Parsippany, New Jersey. Just in general. Yeah. So the energy is higher. The attendance, it seems like there's more people here and as I mentioned to [00:37:00] Rick Biros, having Jim Jones, the leader of the Food Safety Human Foods program, and Sandra Eskin, deputy under Secretary from FSIS is a coup.

When and where do you get to hear the latest and the current thinking from both the FDA Human Foods program and the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service within an hour and a half? So I don't know if this... if this location made it easier for him to do that, but I think that that was tremendous. And so my exposure and experience so far with this year's Food Safety Consortium far exceeds last year's, both in energy and attendance and information.

Yeah, it's been great.

Francine L Shaw: And we're here.

Roger Hancock: And well duh. How can I...

Francine L Shaw: I I... too late, Roger. Late, Roger.

Roger Hancock: I didn't say [00:38:00] it is because I'm sitting here looking at you.

Francine L Shaw: Too late, Roger.

Roger Hancock: My apologies, Francine.

Matt Regusci: Yeah. And so yeah, I agree. The energy is higher. There's twice as many booths here. No, it is in conjunction with the frozen food convention as well.

So that helps. That helps a lot. And I agree, this has been a. It is so far a great show, and it's only, like you said, halfway through the first day. Rick, by the way, Rick runs the show, right? For those of you on it. Was really happy that Francine and I are asking the exact same questions that we're asking this year as we did last year.

'cause he wanted to have a consistency in data. So

Roger Hancock: I don't remember any of these questions from last year. Well,

Matt Regusci: no, the consistency in the, it wasn't much easier interview last year, Roger.

Roger Hancock: It was way easier.

Matt Regusci: This conversation was way deeper, but I really wanted to get some of these questions on because there's been such a buzz over recalls and [00:39:00] outbreaks and almost every one of our shows over the last two months has been on that, and you really truly are the professor of recalls so well. Thank you, Dr. Recall, Roger.

And let me just mention one other kind of parallel that I see that really is food safety culture related.

So this Boar's Head recall happened, and a recall in the food service sector happened previously. It wasn't really much of a recall. It was just, it was, no, it was news of foodborne illness, outbreaks and association, and both companies were in their marketing space. The premium operator, they were the premium supplier.

They were the top of the tier. Wow. Good. Yeah, good point. And that turned out to be disconnected from their food safety practices. And so all of a sudden you have a top tier brand [00:40:00] struggling with food safety practices and illnesses and in the news because you're making people sick. And this disconnect between the marketing arm of the company and the food safety arm of the company just is really apparent to me. So

Francine L Shaw: I really don't wanna get started in another podcast here 'cause we don't have time and we have people waiting for their interviews. If you would look at the marketing budget compared to the food safety budget. It is I and I bet my life on this.

Roger Hancock: Well, just the former logistics budget compared to the reverse logistics budget. I mean, it's the same concept.

Francine L Shaw: Let's just not even get into what the difference is. Okay.

Roger Hancock: But I just saw that parallel and thought it was worth knowing it.

Francine L Shaw: Well, it is. It's, this is why he doesn't let me talk.

Roger Hancock: I'm kidding. For the food safety culture people, I think it's worth noting that [00:41:00] part of the dialogue has to be with the marketing department. How are we talking about our brand? Is the way we're talking about our brand consistent with the way we're living our brand.

Francine L Shaw: They need to stop talking about food safety culture and start practicing food safety culture because that's what's happening.

They all wanna talk about food safety culture, but none of 'em wanna practice it. 'cause as soon as you wanna pick up the phone and call these companies and talk about food safety culture, nobody wants to talk to you. And I can say that because I've made those phone calls. Huh? I have called people and said, look, I know that you're having a problem.

There's one or two companies that I've said, look, I will offer you my services. Never hear from them.

Roger Hancock: Yeah. Recalls similar.

Francine L Shaw: And when I say offer, I mean offer. Yeah. Free.

Roger Hancock: Recalls similar. Yeah.

Francine L Shaw: So it's, no, thank you. What is your problem?

Matt Regusci: Yeah. Okay. Well, Roger, again, don't eat [00:42:00] poop.