Collaboration is a Two Way Street

When it comes to the FDA Human Foods Program, I’m the Agency’s biggest fan and biggest critic. Today, I’ll lean into the critic side, because for all the talk of collaboration, there’s still a ways to go. At the IAFP meeting, Deputy Commissioner Kyle Diamantis announced the release of a Produce Safety Roadmap. This effort was facilitated by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA (and for full disclosure, Food Safety Strategy supported the work). It should be no surprise that the report emphasizes the need for collaboration and data sharing, particularly around doing root cause analysis and learning from outbreaks. At the same time, the report acknowledges the need to build trust all around. There’s often a sense that industry won’t share with the Agency, but the opposite is also true. And this is what I want to elaborate on. 

I’ve been in two completely unrelated meetings with the FDA recently where the Agency had softball opportunities to be heroes and instead chose a different path. At a time when you’d think the Agency would try to make allies —showing they are efficient, effective, responsive —some individuals instead decided to dig in to their positions, at times bordering on being hostile. 

What’s disheartening is to see the battles within the Agency. Those who are reasonable and rational, who try to find a pathway to collaboration, are shut down by others. They seem outnumbered, as many of the “good guys” have taken early retirement. For those who remain in the FDA, standing up for science and public health, and who realize that (especially with a shrinking federal government) they’ve got to work with those of us outside the Agency, I feel for you.   

Instead of launching a novel initiative, the first meeting led to the continued watering down of an effort that could have yielded valuable data and insights.  A diverse collaboration from “our side” proposed some ways to help change industry behavior that would benefit food safety. It’s been a lengthy process and deliberation — years — and at every turn, whenever the FDA wasn’t comfortable with something, adjustments were made. 

I went into this meeting thinking it would be the last. And maybe it was, just not for the reasons I hoped. Essentially, instead of saying “thanks for pushing the industry to try a different approach,” roadblocks were erected that maintain the status quo. I’m either an eternal optimist or very naïve, because I am still holding out hope! 

The second meeting was even more discouraging. Despite the emphasis on conducting root cause analyses and sharing findings, it was evident that this perspective is not uniformly applied across the Agency. What was an opportunity for a company and the FDA to do more together than either could have done alone devolved into a “us versus them” discussion. Fortunately, some within the Agency seem to be committed to pursuing a productive conversation—assuming the company involved is also willing to do so.  

It may appear that the reorganization that occurred in 2024 addressed many of the recommendations of a previous Reagan-Udall report evaluating the FDA Human Foods Program (not the recent produce one). But changing culture is hard and slow. While likely a minority, there are a few at the FDA who seem to remain skeptical that collaboration is possible. Until that changes, we’re going to be stuck with the status quo. With the release of the report and the encouraging statements from many stakeholders, I sense a genuine desire to continue working toward building trust. It’s essential if we’re to make progress.