Don't Eat Poop! A Food Safety Podcast

Hello, hello, Francine.

Hi, Matt.

Okay,

so Francine and I are a little

anxious about today's episode.

A little.

A little.

Just a little.

Just 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

None.

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.

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.

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.

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 were doing so well.

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.