Fifteen years after the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law, the debate over what it accomplished (and what still needs to be done) is alive and well.
In the debut episode of Smarter Food Safety, host Frank Yiannas sits down with Mike Taylor—former Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA and one of the law's principal architects—to take an honest look at what the framework delivered and what the industry needs to do next.
It's a candid conversation between two people who were in the room when the modern food safety system was built—and who still care deeply about where it goes from here.
The outbreaks that forced the Food Safety Modernization Act
The mid-2000s were a brutal stretch for U.S. food safety.
became the landmark event for fresh produce, much like Jack in the Box had been for ground beef a decade earlier. Then came the Peanut Corporation of America scandal—a single bad actor embedded deep in a supply chain without accountability, triggering hundreds of downstream recalls. When melamine-contaminated infant formula surfaced shortly after, it became undeniable that the import side of the food system was just as exposed.
"You really had a sense that the center wasn't holding. There were threats to consumers and threats to the businesses that produce and market food." — Mike Taylor
Those weren't the only warning signs. The "summer of Salmonella" in 2008 became a months-long public health puzzle involving Roma tomatoes and jalapeño peppers. The frequency of these incidents generated cultural and economic shockwaves that Congress could no longer ignore.
Mike was at George Washington University's School of Public Health at the time, working with Capitol Hill staff on the framework for FSMA before officially joining the FDA in 2009. By January 2011, FSMA was signed into law by President Obama with sweeping bipartisan support.
Shifting FDA regulations from reaction to prevention
When FSMA was enacted, it fundamentally rewired the FDA’s approach to regulating the supply chain. For the first time in history, food manufacturers, produce growers, and importers had a legal obligation to identify hazards before something went wrong—and to prove they were proactively managing them.
And crucially, that mandate extended beyond pathogens. Under the new rules, chemical hazards like heavy metals, elevated arsenic, and lead had to be addressed, too.
"FSMA was an explicit mandate to the FDA to create a prevention-oriented food safety system." — Mike Taylor
The law also pushed for a more integrated federal-state system—a consequential shift, given that states conduct more food safety inspections annually than the FDA does. Getting those two systems working in tandem has always been central to FSMA's ambition.
But FSMA's most profound impact may have been in the boardroom. Because of the law, the industry suddenly faced a legal accountability structure across food safety plans, hazard analysis, training, and validated preventive controls that simply hadn't existed before.
The regulatory gaps FSMA hasn't closed
Fifteen years in, foodborne illness rates remain frustratingly stable. Mike argues that the curve would likely have bent upward without FSMA, given how much the food system has grown in complexity and import volume over that period.
But holding steady was never the goal. We want to see improvement.
Between new products being brought under its oversight and struggling to keep staffing high enough, the FDA's job as a whole is getting harder. That’s even more true for the small part of the office dealing with food.
"The FDA is primarily a medical products agency. The food program suffers in attention, commissioner priority, and budget. Food is often second row." — Mike Taylor
Congress authorized FSMA but never fully funded it at the level the Congressional Budget Office said was necessary. The food side of the FDA has consistently competed for attention and resources against the agency's medical products mission. That structural reality shapes everything—from how much science the agency can marshal, to how meaningfully it can engage the industry on prevention.
Agricultural water remains one of the thorniest gaps in the Produce Safety Rule. The original objective testing standards made sense in principle, but growers pushed back hard on applying uniform requirements across the sheer diversity of U.S. farms and water sources. As a result, the rule was rewritten toward a more flexible assessment model. The risk now is that without clear guiding principles, the burden of judgment falls entirely on individual farmers. Meanwhile, food traceability—which Frank pushed hard for during his tenure at the FDA—is deferred until July 2028. Both Mike and Frank hope it doesn't slip further.
The next era of food safety leadership
What feels most alarming is that the tremors that triggered FSMA seem to be gaining momentum. Recent headlines involving powdered infant formula contamination, radioactive cesium in shrimp, and heavy metals in applesauce marketed to children show a familiar pattern, and the frequency is even more telling.
"History has a way of repeating itself—and it feels like there are a lot of tremors on the horizon these days." — Frank Yiannas
The FDA can’t lead on emerging hazards without the resources and institutional standing to do so. The industry, meanwhile, can’t afford to wait for regulators to catch up to risks it already sees in its own data.
Produce is the clearest example of this reality. Because top-down regulation cannot accommodate the massive diversity of crops, farms, and water sources, the FDA's reach is limited. The burden of leadership now falls on the private sector. The industry must define its own consistent best practices, commodity by commodity, and finally relieve growers of the duplicative audit burden they face today.
Both Frank and Mike finished the conversation with the same urgent takeaway: The private sector needs to stop waiting for regulation to define the standard of care and start setting it. The Leafy Greens STEC Action Plan showed what that looks like. The next chapter of food safety depends on who steps up to write it.
This episode of Smarter Food Safety is available now, wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about the host, Frank Yiannas, and why Ecolab is partnering on this show, read our profile here
Episode Field Notes
Terms and resources worth bookmarking for food and beverage operators this year.
Agricultural water risk: The produce “pressure point” in the episode—water is a key contamination pathway, but standards and guidance remain difficult to apply across diverse farms and sources. To learn about mediating those risks, visit: https://www.ecolab.com/nalco-water/about/industries-we-serve/food-and-beverage-processing
CTEs and KDEs: As Frank mentions, they’re the building blocks of traceability. To learn more about their origin with FSMA, visit: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-requirements-additional-traceability-records-certain-foods
Leafy Greens STEC Action Plan: The FDA's commodity-specific action plan, first released in 2020, that Frank references as the model for industry-led produce safety leadership: https://lgma.ca.gov/news/fda-2020-leafy-greens
Preventive Controls for Human Food: The FSMA rule that codified the legal obligation for food manufacturers to have written food safety plans, hazard analysis, and validated controls: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-preventive-controls-human-food
Produce Safety Rule: The FSMA rule governing on-farm practices for fresh produce, and the one whose agricultural water provisions remain the most contested: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-produce-safety
FSMA Overview: For operators newer to the regulatory landscape: https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma