Industry Focus Group Session Notes
Moderators: Margaret Hardin/Dane Bernard
- When it comes to food safety, what do you worry about?
- Consumers becoming ill from the food (we produce).
- Consumer perceptions of the overall safety of foods.
- Regulatory action taken before science is complete.
- Implications and liabilities associated with outbreaks.
- Releasing information to the public what, when, how. How to make decisions on information release. Many of the industry participants felt that information when released too soon may hinder an investigation and do unneeded damage to a company.
- How to get the right information to the target audience. How will the information in the clearinghouse be released? It will be necessary to consider the appropriate information going to the appropriate audiences in order to reduce the likelihood of misconceptions or misinterpretations of preliminary and possibly incomplete data.
- Risk Assessment should drive risk management. Existing policies should not be a primary consideration in the risk analysis process.
- Applicability of policy decisions must be considered. Are risk management decisions practical and achievable?
- Cost of new regulatory policies versus benefits. Benefits to implementation need to be emphasized especially where actual risk reduction is the expected outcome.
- How do you balance cost/benefit/perceptions?
- How will performance criteria be established and how much scientific validation will be required/provided?
- How "safe" is safe? Worry about the misconception that zero risk is possible.
- Food safety is everyone's responsibility. This fact needs to be a cornerstone of food safety policy.
- On size doesn't fit all. Control of food safety problems will need to be addressed using best possible approaches which are not always "same-as" we used last week.
- Industry input into risk analysis will be essential for proper establishment of risk assessment conditions and to provide needed system performance information. Industry should also be involved in reviewing the risk characterization to assist in determining its practicality. Industry should also be involved in deciding among the risk management options that are available to address a problem.
- Decision making must be transparent. When public input is sought, decision makers should respond to all input and provide the rationale for decisions.
- Not enough effort was placed on educating consumers with too much attention paid to special interest groups.
- Given those concerns, what kind of information do you need to make food safety decisions?
- Facts; accurate, reliable science!
- Consumer education through a targeted outreach vehicle
- Consistent modeling between agencies making food safety decisions. We need to be sure that all of the agencies are on the "same track" with regard to how they define, use, and implement such terms as risk assessment, risk management, and modeling.
- Establish realistic goals and expectations. Recognize and acknowledge that there is no such thing as "zero risk." We must be sure that the risk assessment and risk management options are real world applicable or they will not be implemented.
- Root cause analysis. We must spend more time finding the root cause of an outbreak.
- Establish public health priorities based on "actual" risk not "perceived" risk.
- Cost/benefit analysis. We need to show industry how the incorporation of risk management option(s) can actually and practically affect the outcome.
- Validated (appropriate) controls and interventions. The emphasis should be on scientifically valid approaches, not perceptions.
- How much risk reduction do you get with a specific control/intervention? This will allow for a measure of the success, or lack there-of, of the application and implementation of specific risk management options.
- Account for variability and uncertainty in data. Data collected can sometimes be used for a purpose for which it was not intended and without consideration of such variables as seasonality and inherent uncertainty. Oftentimes the uncertainty of the data or of the risk assessment itself is lost once the risk assessment is completed.
- Where do you currently get your food safety information and what do you do when you can't find the information you need?
- Websites USDA/FDA/CDC
- Literature searches
- Conferences
- University/extension
- Trade associations
- Books
- CFR
- NTIS/NAL
- State health departments
- Consultants
- Medical community
- Professional societies
- Colleagues
- Given all the different ways that information can be delivered to you, how would you like to get food safety information? Which way would you most likely use?
- Internet/listservers
- From the government with their "blessing." This is necessary to insure that the government agrees with the information.
- Hard copy news releases, news letters
- Universities and trade associations.
- Legal interpretations.
- Telephone hotlines.
- Mobile units going into the fields. This is where the growers are. In many instances, you need to take the information to the people in order for them to use it. They don't have the time or access to the information or to public meetings being held in Washington or Chicago. It also lends credibility that you actually care that they have and use the information and in many cases can show applicability of interventions and controls while you are there - that concept of a "teachable moment."
- Training programs/workshops particularly on safe food handling.
- Manufacturers.
- Professional societies; these work throughout the chain from farmers and producers to packers and chefs.
- How can we best keep you involved in the development of the food safety risk assessment clearinghouse?
- Reflect our input in your output.
- Take it "on the road" to field and/or regional meetings.
- Don't use public meetings just to say you "included the public." We would like to have real, meaningful involvement.
- Use a variety of speakers/messengers from all segments of the food continuum to carry the information back to stakeholders.
- Show the rationale behind policy decisions - more transparency is needed particularly to show the "science" and impartiality behind decisions.
- Find additional interactive ways (like this meeting) to solicit input. Again, going out into regional meetings would allow for input from those individuals who you really need to reach but who are unable to travel to meetings such as this one being held in Maryland.
- Find a way to prevent adverse consequences from sharing data. Openness of the individuals in a meeting and willingness to share valuable information may be inhibited by certain factors such as presence of reporters and representatives of consumer activist groups. While these elements are also essential for an open and transparent process, this does present certain challenges to information sharing. Agencies should explore ways to facilitate information exchange to avoid these concerns.
** If we can't find what we need we identify this as a research gap and look for sources to fill this void.
