A tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

When thinking about food safety, we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how we improve, and that’s extremely important. Just as important is making sure we design the systems to know whether we did. Blindly implementing and adopting best practices aimed at reducing the risk of foodborne illness is unlikely to lead to risk outcomes that are worse (unlikely, but not impossible). But blind adoption of any and all measures doesn’t mean time and resources will be spent valuably. In an era of competing needs and increasing cost pressure, inefficient allocation of resources should be on the top priority list for any food business, and prioritization of the most efficient food safety measures should occur to protect consumers and companies from adverse events.

One of the challenges in designing systems to measure food safety improvement is that as you start, it may make processes or products appear riskier. Let’s use having your blood work analyzed as an example. A good majority of people go into a routine blood draw and test thinking they are the epitome of health, expecting only acceptable results. As results start rolling in, they may discover cholesterol, triglycerides or blood sugar are not within the acceptable limits, and attitudes about overall health may drastically change. The mental shift that comes from suddenly knowing something, or learning something unexpected, can often lead to some uncomfortable feelings. While beliefs suddenly shifted with the receipt of a result, the reality is that the patient’s health was the same pre-and post-test.

Transitioning back to food safety, one of the first steps in being able to measure improvement requires establishing a baseline to know where you currently are at. As you set out collecting information to build an effective measurement system, be aware that baseline data may be different than expected, and that it may end up identifying unknown hazards or risks. Despite the risk of suddenly knowing, there is far more risk (illness, regulatory, legal) in not knowing. With a better understanding of the overall system, targeted programs can be implemented reducing the risk, but at a minimum, establishing empirical data that supports evidence of clear understanding and food safety control within the existing system.

Strategically designing food safety programs to establish a baseline of what a program currently does, identify the best practices, and quantify risk mitigation measures is essential in the development of a sustainable food safety program.

Western Growers has a growing set of resources and tools to assist members in designing value and protection in their food safety programs. Intentional data collection is essential to document current control systems and offers the opportunity to improve existing systems to reduce risk as prudently as possible.

Ready to take your process to the next level? We’re here to help – reach out to the Science team to get started at [email protected].

What’s your data done for you lately?