Food manufacturers face increasing pressure to strengthen food safety culture while managing complex operations, diverse teams, and growing regulatory expectations. Two industry experts, Broc Rivera-Reed, QA Manager at Califia, and Celina To, Food Safety & Quality Specialist at Nelson-Jameson, joined for a Q&A to explore how hands-on training and stronger data sharing can drive meaningful change.
Together, they outline how purposeful training strategies, cross-functional collaboration, and better use of data can elevate plant-wide ownership of food safety and improve decision-making across QA, sanitation, production, and leadership.
Q: With the diverse backgrounds across QA, Sanitation, and Production, how has your training strategy made an impact on improving food safety culture?
Broc Rivera-Reed: Food safety culture strengthens when the belief that “QA owns Food Safety” is replaced with a shared understanding that everyone influences product safety and quality. Our training strategy reflects that mindset. Rather than focusing solely on task execution, we emphasize the purpose behind each activity. For example, our One Point Lesson templates highlight the “why” at the very top, so trainees immediately understand the impact their work has on the final product. When employees grasp the reasoning behind a process, they’re more engaged, more attentive, and more likely to perform the task consistently and correctly.
Celina To: At Nelson-Jameson, we support teams that range from operators and sanitation crews to lab technicians, QA, and plant leadership. That diversity means we can’t rely on a one-size-fits-all training model. Instead, we take a science-informed but highly accessible approach designed for both scientists and non-scientists so everyone understands the role they play in protecting their company’s brand and reputation. Most of the individuals we train are visual learners, so our sessions rely heavily on scenario-based learning, real-world examples, and guided questioning. Our goal is to help each department see how their decisions directly affect one another. When people understand why something matters — not just how to perform a task — we see reductions in human error, stronger cross-functional relationships, and faster alignment when issues arise.
Q: What kind of QA and lab training do you set up on a routine basis and why do you think it's important to do so?
Rivera-Reed: In our labs, we conduct annual formal observations to evaluate adherence to our Standard Operating Procedures in a supportive, non-punitive way. The goal is to create an environment where technicians can work naturally while we identify opportunities for coaching or clarification. Afterward, we review any deviations together to realign expectations and reinforce best practices. We also provide monthly refresher trainings covering safety, quality, and food safety fundamentals. Regular repetition helps keep key concepts top-of-mind and ensures the team stays aligned with current requirements and industry expectations. Additionally, we’ve incorporated third-party in-person training sessions — most recently with Nelson-Jameson — on topics such as ATP and Petrifilm. This brings in subject matter experts, adds a fresh perspective beyond our internal supervisor-led model, and gives employees tangible recognition through completion certificates, which has been a positive boost for engagement and morale. We intend to seek more training opportunities like this in the future.
To: We support many food manufacturers with their training programs at least once a year, and more often when there is staff turnover and refresher training is needed on Nelson-Jameson lab products. These training covers areas such as Petrifilm and PPRA, ATP and Environmental monitoring, MDS pathogen screening, Lab aseptic techniques, Allergen testing, Sodium chloride analysis, FT-NIR, and Food safety culture. Over the years, I’ve learned that even the best ideas or technologies can fail in FSQA programs without a clear, collaborative training strategy with lab product suppliers. That’s why we partner closely with facilities to create training that is truly fit for purpose. We start by understanding what they produce, their regulatory requirements, historical challenges, and the data they rely on. Small details—such as sample prep methods or differences in incubation times across product types—can significantly impact test results. Not all test methods are created equal, and some lack matrix extension studies, so our role is vital in guiding QA teams toward better methods, sharper questions, and ultimately stronger data integrity.
Q: How has proper training (especially during the adoption of new lab tools) led to stronger data sharing to make informed decisions to positively change food safety culture?
Rivera-Reed: When new tools are introduced, proper training ensures the data we collect is accurate, reliable, and actionable. During our rollout of the Neogen LM1 ATP Reader, partnering directly with Nelson-Jameson and Neogen allowed our technicians and production leads to learn from the experts themselves. This reduced miscommunication, encouraged deeper understanding, and empowered the team to ask clarifying questions in real time. By investing in thorough, expert-led training upfront, we gain confidence in the data generated — and that confidence carries over into the decisions we make based on that data.
To: Training is the backbone of reliable data. Many food-manufacturing labs operate with constraints that academic or R&D labs don’t have: limited time, limited funding, and immediate production pressures. Because of that, we focus not only on teaching the mechanics of a tool but also validating that trainees understand the why behind each step. I use a highly interactive style — asking questions, testing understanding, and walking through problem-solving scenarios. This helps trainees internalize the implications of every decision: If there’s a spike or non-confirmable positives in test results, is this a true positive, sample interference, or cross-contamination? Did sample prep introduce bias? These conversations make teams more accountable to the data they collect. When proper training happens up front — and when plants maintain a strong train-the-trainer model — the outcome is a data-centric QA system that leadership can trust. That trust is what enables transparent data sharing. Once teams know their data is defensible, they’re more willing to use it collaboratively to diagnose issues: pinpointing harborage sites, identifying the source of contamination, and/or distinguishing raw ingredient issues from in-plant failures.
Q: What kind of data could be shared with the leadership team to help advocate for a stronger food safety culture throughout the plant facility?
Rivera-Reed: Environmental monitoring program (EMP) data and plant indicator trends are especially valuable for leadership. This includes results from environmental pathogen monitoring, air quality indicators, and process-related micro testing. When we analyze these data sets over time, we can highlight areas where additional focus may be needed — whether that’s training, maintenance, or process improvements. It’s also important to view this information in a holistic way. Looking at EMP or indicator data in isolation can reveal trends, but pairing it with other programs — such as GMP or facility audit findings — provides a clearer picture of both risks and their potential root causes. For example, if elevated airborne yeast and mold levels align with recurring audit observations of mold growth in certain areas, we can demonstrate how facility conditions and micro trends are interconnected. Presenting data in this integrated way helps leadership understand not only what needs attention, but why, and secures alignment for continuous improvement initiatives that reinforce a strong food safety culture.
To: Data-driven food-safety culture is accelerating because of new tools, analytics platforms, and AI-enabled trend analysis. We’re seeing great examples across multiple segments, including the poultry industry’s adoption of Salmonella quantification methods that transformed how facilities manage microbiological risks from farm to processing. FDA’s incorporation of rapid Salmonella serotyping has also changed how many FDA-regulated facilities — including pet food and CPG manufacturers — interpret pathogen-screening results. Leadership responds well to data that shows patterns and relationships, not just isolated binary results. That means trending: ATP, microbial indicators, allergens, pathogens, which ultimately leads to a correlation or relationship between lab-generated data and production events. When these datasets are layered and visualized, leaders can see the story: whether the plant is in control or not, where risks exist, and what interventions will provide the highest return on investment. Once leadership sees reliable patterns, buy-in for corrective actions and long-term improvements becomes significantly easier.
Celina To of Nelson-Jameson was honored as one of the "40 Food Safety Professionals Under 40" for 2025.
