Building food safety culture starts with leaders making strategic equipment specification decisions that protect their operations. This multi-perspective session explores how commitment to hygienic design specifications creates measurable food safety outcomes, regulatory trust, and competitive advantage. Producers share how 3-A specification changed their facility performance. Regulators share what they observe in the field. Manufacturers share what they're hearing from buyers.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each)
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Food/Beverage or Dairy Producers:

• You made the strategic decision to specify 3-A equipment
• You saw measurable benefits (improved inspection ratings, customer wins, operational efficiency, risk reduction)
• You can share: Why you made this choice, what metrics matter to you, what surprised you about the benefits, what challenges you overcame
• Real examples and numbers if you have them

From State Dairy Regulators or USDA Inspectors:

• You conduct routine facility inspections
• You observe measurable differences between facilities with 3-A specification vs. those without
• You can share: What you actually see in the field, how 3-A specification affects inspection outcomes and facility ratings, specific examples (anonymized) of deficiencies and compliance
• Regulatory perspective on what makes a difference

From Equipment Manufacturers:

• You see buyer specifications evolving
• You can speak to how producer demands are changing
• You can share market trends and what buyers are asking for

Building food safety culture requires business leaders and finance teams to understand the ROI of hygienic design investments. A multi-perspective session on the financial, operational, and risk mitigation value of 3-A certification and hygienic design investment. Processors share quantified ROI (customer contracts, cost reduction, efficiency gains). Manufacturers share competitive and market benefits. Insurance professionals share how equipment design affects coverage and premiums.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes) 

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each): Processor +  Insurance Professional
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

Or Option 2 (Individual Speaker, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Food/Beverage or Dairy Producers:

• You made the business case for specifying 3-A certified equipment
• You can quantify returns: customer contracts won, cost reduction realized, efficiency gains, insurance savings, regulatory standing improvement
• You can share: How you justified the upfront investment, what financial metrics you used, timeline for ROI, business impact
• Specific numbers and examples

From Insurance Providers or Risk Management Professionals:

• You work with food processors on product liability coverage
• You understand how equipment design affects premiums, coverage, and claims
• You can share: How 3-A certification affects insurance positioning, what claims data shows about design-related incidents, insurance trends (are insurers incentivizing or requiring 3-A certified equipment?), what buyers should know about insurance implications of specification
• Real data on risk mitigation value

Regulators are key partners in building food safety culture. Understanding their perspective helps producers make smarter equipment decisions.  Regulators share what they're actually looking for when they evaluate equipment and facilities. Producers share how they improved inspection outcomes through strategic equipment specification. Together, they explore how hygienic design creates inspection efficiency and regulatory trust.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each): Regulator + Processor
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From State Dairy Regulators or USDA Inspectors:

• You conduct routine facility inspections
• You have observed measurable improvements in inspection outcomes when facilities specify 3-A equipment
• You can share: What you're actually looking for when you evaluate equipment, common deficiencies you flag, how 3-A specification affects inspection efficiency and ratings, specific examples (anonymized) of what makes a difference
• Field perspective on impact

From Food/Beverage or Dairy Producers:

• You improved your inspection outcomes through equipment specification or hygienic design investment
• You can share: Specific equipment changes or specification strategies, how they affected inspection results, what surprises came from improved compliance, operational benefits
• Before/after metrics if available

Manufacturers understand that hygienic design certification is increasingly a competitive requirement.  Equipment manufacturers share their certification journeys—both the challenges and the competitive wins that resulted. Prospective symbol holders hear candid perspectives on the decision-making process. Together, they explore how certification affects market access, buyer relationships, and competitive positioning.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each):  Newer symbol holder + Established symbol holder
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

Or Option 2 (Individual Speaker, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Established 3-A Symbol Holders (Equipment Manufacturer):

• You've held certification for 5+ years
• You've seen measurable market impact (customer demand, contract wins, competitive advantage)
• How has certification changed your market position, customer wins you've realized, what surprised you positively, competitive benefits
• Real data on market impact

From New 3-A Symbol Holders (Equipment Manufacturer):

• You've held certification for 2 years or less
• You've seen measurable market impact (customer demand, contract wins, competitive advantage)
• How has certification changed your market position?  What surprised you positively, competitive benefits
• Real data on market impact

Producers building food safety culture must know how to specify equipment properly from the start—before installation and maintenance challenges arise.  A hands-on interactive workshop where procurement professionals and plant managers work through real RFP scenarios. Experienced practitioners share what specification language works, common mistakes, and how to verify conformance. Participants leave with working draft RFP language they can use immediately.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Interactive workshop, 45 minutes)

• 1-2 presenters (procurement professionals with real experience)
• Participants bring laptops
• Interactive work-through of RFP scenarios
• Discussion (15 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Procurement Professionals or Plant Engineers:

• You have experience writing equipment specifications for food/beverage or dairy processors
• You have a success story: "We improved our equipment outcomes through better specification"
• You can share: What specification language works, common mistakes you see, how to verify supplier claims about 3-A compliance, what requirements make a difference
• Real examples (anonymized RFP sections if you have them) showing good language vs. problems

Building food safety culture requires communicating equipment investment value to executives and compliance teams who speak finance, not sanitation engineering. Technical professionals share how they successfully communicated equipment specification requirements to executives and won approval/budget. A business communication specialist may provide validation and frameworks. Together, they explore what language resonates with CFOs and compliance leaders, and how to frame equipment investment as business risk mitigation.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 60 minutes)

• 1-2 speakers (10-15 minutes each): Plant/Quality manager + optional communication coach
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

Or Option 2 (Individual Speaker, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Plant Managers, Procurement Professionals, or Quality Leaders:

• You successfully communicated equipment specification requirements "up the chain" to executives or boards
• You won approval and budget for 3-A investments
• You can share: The situation and resistance you faced, the language/framing that actually worked, what surprised you about what resonated, the outcome
• Specific real examples of how you made the business case

From Executive Coaches or Business Communication Specialists:

• You work with technical teams on cross-functional communication
• You can validate and build on practitioner insights
• You can share: Common breakdowns in technical-executive communication, what executives actually listen for, effective framing strategies

Building a food safety culture in meat and poultry processing means understanding how hygienic design prevents the contamination pathways that create public health risk. This session examines how processors who invested in hygienic design successfully prevented or managed Listeria and Salmonella risks. Manufacturers share design features that work. Regulators share what they observe in facilities doing this well. Together, they explore how design prevents contamination and why it matters.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each): Processor + Regulator + optional researcher/expert
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

Or Option 2 (Individual Speaker, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Meat or Poultry Processors:

• You invested in hygienic equipment design
• You successfully prevented or managed Listeria or Salmonella risk
• You can share: Specific equipment or design changes you made, measurable food safety improvements, what design features made the difference, operational and business benefits
• Real metrics if available

From USDA or State Regulatory Staff:

• You inspect meat/poultry facilities
• You observe excellent hygienic design practices and food safety improvements in facilities doing this right
• You can share: Specific field observations, what equipment design features protect public health, what makes a measurable difference
• Regulatory perspective on impact

From Researchers or Food Safety Experts (Optional):

• You study contamination pathways in meat/poultry
• You can share: Why certain design features prevent contamination, the science behind effective design, data on prevention strategies

Building a food safety culture in meat and poultry processing can leverage decades of dairy industry hygienic design experience—with thoughtful adaptation.  The dairy industry has decades of 3-A Standards adoption and a measurable food safety track record. This session explores what translates directly to meat/poultry processing, what requires different approaches, and what other regulated industries can teach food processing about design standards. Manufacturers share lessons learned. Cross-industry thought leaders validate the approach.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 minutes each): Meat/Poultry manufacturer + Cross-industry thought leader + optional processor
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

Or Option 2 (Individual Speaker, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Meat or Poultry Equipment Manufacturers or Designers:

• You applied 3-A design principles to meat/poultry-specific challenges
• You can share: What translated directly from dairy, what required different approaches, what you learned, lessons applied
• Real examples of successful translation

From Thought Leaders in Pharma, Medical Devices, Aerospace, or Other Regulated Industries:

• Your industry uses rigorous equipment design standards as competitive advantage and risk mitigation
• You can share: Why design standards are non-negotiable in your field, how standards drive quality/safety/efficiency, what food processing could learn from your approach
• Cross-industry validation of design standards importance

From Meat or Poultry Processors (Optional):

• You're adopting 3-A design principles from dairy experience
• You can share what you're applying and what you've learned

10-Building food safety culture is a collaborative industry effort. 3-A Standards are created by practitioners like you—not imposed from above.  Standards emerge from working groups of industry professionals bringing real-world expertise. This session demystifies how 3-A Standards development works, what working group participation looks like, and how practitioner input actually shapes 3-A Standards. Current and past working group members share their experience and the impact they've had.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 1-2 speakers (15 minutes each): Working group member 
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Current or Past 3-A Working Group Members (Processors/Equipment Manufacturers/Regulators):

• You have experience participating in standards development
• You can share: How you got involved, what the time commitment looks like, one specific example of how your input shaped or influenced a standard, what made it worthwhile, candid thoughts on what works well and what could be improved
• Your genuine perspective on the process

Building food safety culture means learning from colleagues who've solved problems, overcome challenges, and created better processes.  Rather than dwelling on failures, this interactive workshop examines real-world scenarios where hygienic equipment design solved challenges or prevented problems. Participants analyze case studies, discuss solutions, and extract lessons they can apply. Facilitators guide peer-to-peer learning and knowledge sharing.

Preferred Format: Option 1 (Interactive case study workshop, 45 minutes)

• 2 case study leaders (practitioners with anonymized scenarios)
• Small group analysis and discussion
• Moderator-led discussion

What We're Seeking

Preferred From Case Study Leaders (Processors, Manufacturers, Regulators):

• You have a real-world scenario where hygienic equipment design solved a challenge or prevented a problem
• You can present the scenario anonymized: Here's the challenge we faced, here's how we approached it, here's what worked, here's what we'd do differently
• Specific examples: design changes that improved cleanability, material selection that solved durability issues, installation practices that improved drainage, maintenance protocols that preserved equipment integrity, inspection findings that revealed design improvements
• Lessons learned and insights for peers

Building food safety culture means understanding how equipment design either enables or prevents the contamination pathways that lead to recalls.  Using published recall data and anonymized case studies, this workshop teaches systematic root cause analysis. Participants work through scenarios to identify design and operational factors that may have contributed to contamination. Facilitators guide structured discussion on prevention strategies. Learning is peer-driven, focusing on what could have been prevented—not blame.

Format: Option 1 (Interactive analysis workshop, 45 minutes)

• 1-2 case study leaders (presenting published or anonymized recall scenarios)
• Small group analysis
• Moderator-led discussion of prevention strategies

What We're Seeking

Preferred From Case Study Leaders (Regulators, Processors, Manufacturers, Researchers):

• You can present published recalls or anonymized case scenarios
• You can guide groups through systematic analysis: What design or operational factors might have contributed? What prevention strategies would have helped?
• You have expertise in: Relevant hygienic design techniques for the case studies.  For example, tank design/integrity, gasket selection/contamination prevention, drain design/residue prevention, cleaning validation, installation quality/drainage, maintenance degradation
• You can share prevention strategies and what equipment design contributes

Building a food safety culture in modern dairy operations means designing equipment that handles evolving milk characteristics—higher fat and protein content driven by market economics and selective breeding. Building a food safety culture in modern dairy operations means designing equipment that handles evolving milk characteristics—higher fat and protein content driven by market economics and selective breeding.
Preferred Format: Option 1 ( Multi-speaker interactive, 45 minutes)

• 2 speakers (10-15 min each): Dairy scientist/researcher + Equipment manufacturer + Processor with experience
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 min)

OR Option 2 (Available): Solo 45-minute presentation

• If you're a dairy scientist presenting comprehensive research on milk composition changes and equipment implications
• If you're a processor with deep technical understanding of high-fat/high-protein milk challenges and solutions
• Abstract/outline required for Option 2

We're Seeking:

From Dairy Scientists or Researchers:

• You study milk composition trends and understand genetics/breeding driving changes
• You can explain the science behind why butterfat and protein content are increasing
• You understand the chemistry/physics of how higher fat/protein affects processing equipment
• Real data on milk composition trends over past 10-20 years
• Projections: Where is milk composition heading?

From Equipment Manufacturers:

• You design or manufacture dairy processing equipment
• You've had to adapt designs to handle high-fat, high-protein milk
• You can share design challenges: What breaks? What clogs? What's harder to clean?
• Design solutions: What design changes help? Materials? Port placement? Geometry?
• Real examples of equipment modifications you've made

From Dairy Processors:

• You're processing milk with higher fat/protein content
• You've encountered problems with existing equipment or CIP systems
• You can share specific challenges: separation equipment performance, cleaning issues, pasteurization challenges
• Solutions you've implemented: equipment upgrades, operational changes, maintenance protocols
• Quantified impact: downtime, throughput, cleaning validation issues, cost

Building food safety culture in the age of AI and IIoT requires standards development to keep pace with how automation and intelligent systems are reshaping what equipment needs to do and how it needs to be designed.  Artificial intelligence and IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things)-connected equipment are reshaping food processing operations at a pace that traditional standards development cycles were not designed to match. Smart sensors, predictive maintenance systems, automated controls, and AI-driven optimization are changing what food processing equipment looks like and how it functions.

But 3-A standards were developed for equipment designed in a different era. This session convenes the full ecosystem—manufacturers, processors, technology providers, and standards developers—to examine critical questions:

• What new hygiene and design risks emerge when equipment is AI-enabled or IIoT-connected?
• How do sensors, electronics, and software integration affect hygienic design requirements?
• What current 3-A standards still apply? What doesn't?
• What new design principles do smart/automated systems need to follow?
• How do we validate food safety in AI-driven equipment?
• How do we keep standards relevant when technology is moving faster than standards development cycles?

This is a working session designed to surface the questions and challenges that will shape 3-A's standards agenda in the years ahead—not a forecast, but a collaborative exploration of what the industry needs to address.

Preferred Format : OPTION 1  (Multi-speaker working session - 45 min)

• 2 speakers (10-15 min each): Technology provider + Manufacturer + Processor + 3-A standards perspective
• Moderator
• Audience discussion & breakout working session component (15 min)

OPTION 2 (Available): Solo 45-minute presentation

• If you're a technology provider presenting case studies on AI/IIoT implementation and hygiene implications
• If you're a processor presenting your experience with AI/IIoT implementation and learnings
• Abstract/outline required for Option 2

We're Seeking:

From Technology Providers/AI/IIoT Companies:

• You build smart sensors, predictive systems, or AI-enabled controls for food processing
• You can share real examples of how technology is changing equipment function
• You understand hygiene/food safety implications of sensors, electronics, wireless connectivity
• You've encountered conflicts between technology requirements and food safety standards
• Real challenges: What hygiene concerns emerge? How do you address them?

From Equipment Manufacturers:

• You're incorporating AI or IIoT into your equipment designs
• You can share how this changes the design conversation with processors
• You've thought about hygiene implications: sensor placement, electronics enclosure, water resistance, cleaning impact
• Real examples of hybrid traditional/smart equipment designs
• Questions you have about how standards should evolve

From Food Processors:

• You're using or considering AI/IIoT-enabled equipment
• You can share what benefits you're seeing (predictive maintenance, optimization, efficiency)
• You understand what new risks or concerns emerge (electronics, connectivity, validation complexity)
• Real experience with food safety validation of smart equipment
• What do you need from standards and manufacturers to feel confident in AI-enabled equipment?

Building a food safety culture depends on cleaning and sanitization. When equipment design doesn't support CIP chemistry, no amount of detergent adjustment will create truly clean equipment.  CIP (Clean-in-Place) system effectiveness hinges on chemistry: the right detergent, temperature, concentration, and contact time. But many processors troubleshoot cleaning failures by adjusting chemistry parameters when the real culprit is equipment design.

How do equipment geometry, surface finish, port placement, valve design, and drain configuration directly impact detergent contact time, drainage completeness, and rinse water penetration? What design features enable CIP chemistry to work, and what design flaws create chronic cleaning problems?

This session bridges the gap between CIP science and hygienic equipment specification. Using case studies from dairy and beverage operations, we'll examine:

• How equipment geometry affects detergent flow and contact time
• Why surface finish matters to cleaning chemistry
• How port placement and orientation impact drainage and rinse penetration
• What valve and component design features enable or prevent complete drainage
• How to identify design-driven cleaning failures vs. chemistry/process issues
• Which 3-A design standards directly address CIP chemistry requirements
• How to evaluate equipment proposals against CIP chemistry needs

Processors will leave with a practical framework for equipment evaluation. Manufacturers will understand what design decisions support—not undermine—customer CIP systems. Both will understand why specifying 3-A certified equipment reduces chronic cleaning failures.

Preferred Format: OPTION 1 (Multi-speaker interactive 45 min)

• 2 speakers (10-15 min each): CIP chemistry expert + Hygienic equipment designer + Processor with CIP experience
• Moderator
• Audience discussion (15 min)

OPTION 2 (Available) Solo 45-minute technical deep-dive

• If you're a CIP chemistry specialist presenting comprehensive science of how equipment design affects detergent action
• If you're a design engineer presenting detailed technical framework for CIP-friendly equipment design
• Abstract/outline required for Option 2

We're Seeking:

From CIP Chemistry Experts or Researchers:

• You understand detergent chemistry and how temperature, concentration, contact time, mechanical action interact
• You can explain how equipment design parameters (geometry, surface, flow characteristics) affect chemistry efficacy
• You understand hard water effects, biofilm formation, and what chemistry is designed to address
• Real data or research on equipment design impacts to CIP effectiveness
• Case studies from plants where you've diagnosed chemistry issues vs. design issues

From Hygienic Equipment Designers:

• You design dairy, beverage, or food processing equipment
• You understand CIP requirements and how design supports or hinders effective cleaning
• You can speak to specific design decisions: port placement, drain design, surface finish, component selection
• Real examples of design features that improve CIP performance
• Cases where you've had to redesign equipment to enable customer CIP systems
• Understanding of 3-A standards that address CIP functionality

From Processors with CIP Operations:

• You operate dairy or beverage plants with CIP systems
• You've encountered chronic cleaning issues or difficult validation
• You can share real problems: dead legs, inadequate drainage, incomplete rinse, biofilm issues
• Solutions you've found: equipment changes, design modifications, operational adaptations
• Cost of chronic cleaning failures: downtime, rework, recalls
• What design features do you require in new equipment?

Building a food safety culture means recognizing that hygienic equipment design is only effective when equipment is properly maintained—and maintenance failures account for many food safety incidents that appear to be design problems. Many food safety failures trace not to poor equipment design, but to poor equipment maintenance. Equipment that was designed with excellent hygienic principles fails in the field because it wasn't properly maintained, wasn't repaired with appropriate materials, or wasn't inspected for degradation.

Corrosion, gasket deterioration, drainage system blockage, surface finish degradation, and seal failure all undermine the hygiene that equipment design was meant to ensure. Maintenance practices—or lack thereof—determine whether a well-designed piece of equipment remains hygienic throughout its lifecycle.

This session explores best practices in equipment and building maintenance:

• How to know when maintenance is needed (what to inspect, what degradation signals food safety risk)
• Materials that should and shouldn't be used in repairs (replacement gaskets, sealants, patches, welding approaches)
• Maintenance protocols that preserve hygienic design integrity
• Documentation and validation approaches
• The role of equipment design in enabling maintainability
• Cost of deferred or improper maintenance (food safety failures, liability, recalls)

Using real case studies from facilities, we'll examine how maintenance practices either preserve or undermine hygienic equipment design. Processors will leave understanding maintenance expectations for 3-A certified equipment. Manufacturers will understand how to design for maintainability. Regulators will understand what to look for in maintenance records.

Preferred Format: OPTION 1 (Multi-speaker interactive 45 min)

2 speakers (10-15 min each): Maintenance/engineering expert + Manufacturer + Processor with maintenance program

Moderator

Audience discussion (15 min)

OPTION 2 (Available): Solo 45-minute presentation

• If you're a plant engineering or maintenance specialist presenting comprehensive best practices framework
• If you're a manufacturer presenting guidance on how your equipment should be maintained to preserve hygiene
• Abstract/outline required for Option 2

We're Seeking:

From Maintenance/Engineering Specialists (Processor):

• You work in food processing plants managing equipment maintenance programs
• You understand what maintenance practices preserve hygienic design
• You can share: What degradation signals food safety risk? What's acceptable? What's not?
• Materials guidance: What replacement parts, gaskets, sealants are appropriate for food equipment?
• Documentation: How do you track maintenance and validate ongoing hygiene?
• Real examples of maintenance failures that created food safety issues
• Best practices: What programs work? What's the expectation for food safety compliance?

From Processors with Strong Maintenance Programs:

• You operate a food processing facility and manage equipment maintenance seriously
• You can share your maintenance program: What's required? How often? What do you monitor?
• Real examples of maintenance issues you've caught and prevented
• Cost of maintenance: What's the investment? What's the payoff?
• How maintenance relates to inspection readiness and regulatory trust
• What equipment features make maintenance easier or harder?

From Equipment Manufacturers:

• You design equipment that will be maintained in the field
• You understand what maintenance practices your equipment requires
• You can share: What maintenance mistakes do you see in the field?
• Design for maintainability: How do you design equipment that's easy to maintain properly?
• Maintenance guidance: What guidance do you provide? What don't customers follow?
• Real cases where improper maintenance undermined equipment design
• What do processors need to know about keeping your equipment hygienic?

rom Regulators/Inspectors:

• You inspect food processing facilities and evaluate equipment maintenance
• You can share what you observe: Common maintenance failures, degradation patterns
• What maintenance deficiencies signal food safety risk?
• How do maintenance practices affect inspection ratings?
• Real examples (anonymized) of facilities where maintenance failures created compliance issues
• Expectations: What should processors be doing?

Leading food safety culture means making courageous choices about equipment investment and standards commitment—and seeing success as a result.  A processor shares their success story: the decision to commit to hygienic design specification, the challenges they overcame, the measurable outcomes they achieved, and why it matters. An authentic narrative that opens the summit by establishing stakes and showing what commitment looks like.

Preferred Format: Option 2 (Solo presenation, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From Food/Beverage, Dairy, or Meat/Poultry Processor:

• You made a strategic commitment to 3-A certification or hygienic design specification
• You have a compelling story: What prompted the decision, what you learned, what surprised you, what success looks like now
• Real metrics: improvements in food safety, operational efficiency, competitive standing, customer relationships
• Authenticity: your genuine perspective on why this commitment matters
• Ability to inspire your peers with your story

Building a food safety culture is a collaborative effort between manufacturers making better products, producers making better specifications, and regulators ensuring accountability. A state dairy regulator or USDA inspector closes the summit by sharing field-based perspective: What they see in facilities with strong food  safety culture. How hygienic design makes a measurable difference. Why standards matter. An authentic voice of authority and experience.

Preferred Format: Option 2 (Solo presenter, 45 minutes)

What We're Seeking

From State Dairy Regulator or USDA Inspector:

• You have spent significant time in facilities
• You observe measurable differences when processors and manufacturers invest in hygienic design
• You have specific, compelling stories: facilities doing it right, measurable outcomes, what makes a difference
• You can speak with authority and candor about: what food safety culture looks like in the field, the role of equipment design, why standards matter
• Authentic regulatory perspective that validates industry's efforts

If you have another trending topic that helps build food safety culture, we want to know about it.  Our committee will consider submissions on additional topics that are not listed above.  Please provide a complete description of your proposed presentation by selecting "Trending topic" from the options available.  

Format: Option 2 (Solo presenter, 45 min.)

We will accept proposals from Processors, Equipment Manufacturers, Equipment Designers/Engineers, Regulators/Inspectors, Researchers/Academics,  and Food Safety Professionals.