The Powerful Voices of Women in Food Safety

Article By Jill Stuber and Tia Glave Published March 18, 2026
Article Source: https://www.qualityassurancemag.com/article/women-in-food-safety/?utm_campaign=Quality+Assurance+%26+Food+Safety+Digital+Edition&utm_source=03%2f30%2f2026+-+&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.qualityassurancemag.com%2fArticle%2fwomen-in-food-safety&utm_content=1103965&isid=B5E31F

When women speak up, their voices function as a preventive control. Together, women leaders in food safety are strengthening systems, shaping culture and influencing critical food safety decisions. Their lessons offer insights to anyone responsible for protecting the food supply.

Food safety is built on science. It is governed by regulation and reinforced through systems, audits and verification programs. Yet long before a recall, an outbreak or a public failure, food safety is protected in something far less visible: a conversation.

A concern raised in a meeting. A pause that slows a rushed decision. A question asked before certainty feels comfortable.

In technical industries, we are trained to value precision, documented evidence and statistical confidence. And yet many preventable failures do not occur because knowledge was missing.

They occur because hesitation went unaddressed, pressure outpaced structured risk assessment or expertise did not fully shape the decision.

That hesitation is not distributed evenly. Across scientific and technical industries, women remain underrepresented in senior leadership and decision-making roles, not because of a lack of ability or expertise, but because career paths and access to influence are often uneven.

Globally, women account for roughly one-third of researchers, reports the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. In the food and beverage industry specifically, women hold less than 24% of senior leadership positions, according to the group Females in Food. Large-scale workplace research continues to identify a persistent “broken rung” at the first promotion to manager, limiting long-term advancement and access to decision-making.

The issue is not whether women are willing to speak up. Many are. The issue is whether their input is consistently invited, evaluated fairly and integrated into decisions. Representation shapes influence, and influence shapes outcomes.

In food safety, that dynamic is operational. When expertise is delayed, discounted or unevenly distributed in the room, risks can escalate quietly. Research reinforces this point: Organizations with greater gender diversity in leadership are more likely to outperform financially and operationally, according to a 2020 McKinsey & Company report, and teams characterized by psychological safety — where concerns can be raised without penalty — identify risks earlier and perform more reliably over time.

Looking at how women in food safety have navigated and reshaped these dynamics helps us see how voice becomes real influence in practice.

From Hesitation to Partnership.

For Rochelly Serrano, executive director at RSS Food Safety Consultants, the lesson began in a meeting where a decision was advancing faster than the data supported.

“I hesitated for a second,” she recalled. “I was a junior person in the room and wondered if I even had the standing to challenge things. I spoke up anyway.”

That moment reframed her understanding of responsibility.

“In this line of work, your voice isn’t optional,” she said. “Staying silent in a moment like that isn’t being humble; it’s failing to do your job.”

Over time, Serrano learned that effective voice is less about volume and more about intentionality.

“Speaking up effectively isn’t about showing how smart you are or winning an argument,” she said. “It’s about doing what it takes to protect customers and the company.”

That intentionality proved essential during a high-pressure product launch. With launch timelines tightening, her team identified that the product had not been manufactured exactly to specification. Rather than react emotionally, Serrano slowed the conversation and anchored it in structured risk analysis: “What’s the actual risk to a consumer? How likely is a problem, and how bad could it be? What can we do right now to control it?”

The shift reframed the decision entirely.

“What was at stake wasn’t just a launch window or revenue; it was our credibility and the trust we’d built with our customers,” Serrano said. “Pushing back thoughtfully meant we made a strategic choice, not just a reactive one.”

In that moment, her voice functioned as a preventive control: structured, data-driven and aligned with business impact. In environments where women remain underrepresented at senior decision-making levels, cultivating a clear business-partner voice is not optional — it is essential.

Claiming Influence in the Room.

For Trish Tolbert, global director of food safety at ADM, the turning point came not from confrontation but from hesitation. Early in her career, she sat in an incident response meeting with senior leaders. She had a hypothesis about the root cause but chose not to voice it. Moments later, someone else articulated the same thought.

“I had been waiting for permission to speak,” she recalled. “What I needed was to give it to myself.”

In technical cultures, certainty often feels like a prerequisite for contribution. Yet investigations frequently begin with informed questions rather than validated conclusions.

“Your voice does not have to be perfect to be powerful,” said Tolbert. “Problem-solving often begins with a question.”

Her perspective is particularly meaningful in a sector where women hold less than a quarter of senior leadership roles — a reality that shapes which expertise becomes normalized in operational decisions.

“The power of our voices lies not in perfection, but in participation,” Tolbert said.

As her career progressed, Tolbert broadened her influence beyond her functional responsibilities, serving on recruiting teams and cross-functional initiatives. Over time, conversations shifted.

“Conversations became more open, my input carried broader weight and trust grew,” she said.

Tolbert’s leadership voice did not emerge by accident. It developed through visibility, partnership and intentional effort.

Cultural Intelligence.

Francine Shaw, founder and CEO of Savvy Food Safety, illustrated another dimension of leadership voice: cultural intelligence.

While conducting inspections at a casino operated by a sovereign nation, Shaw encountered repeated critical violations in a context requiring regulatory clarity and deep respect. Technical findings were clear. The relational landscape was more complex.

The food industry is defined by complexity — diverse frontline teams, global supply chains, varied ownership structures and deeply rooted cultural norms. Food safety expectations do not exist in isolation; they are interpreted and carried out within those norms. How authority is received, feedback is delivered and accountability is understood can differ dramatically across settings.

Leading in that environment requires more than technical accuracy. It requires reading the room, adapting your approach and upholding standards without losing trust.

Shaw did exactly that. She scheduled private meetings, presented documented findings clearly, invited dialogue to understand operational realities and co-developed corrective measures that honored sovereignty while reinforcing public health obligations.

“Presenting evidence factually encouraged constructive dialogue rather than defensiveness,” she said.

The result was not merely compliance, but sustainable improvement grounded in partnership. Earlier in her career, Shaw learned that authority alone is insufficient.

“Having a voice is powerful, but using it wisely and empathetically is what truly makes a difference,” she said. Her advice to emerging leaders reflects that balance: “Be patient, kind, and listen,” said Shaw. “That’s a superpower.”

When credibility isn’t assumed, pairing technical rigor with contextual awareness strengthens both influence and trust. Using one’s voice is not only about asserting standards. It is also about creating space for others to engage.

Voice of the Consumer.

Allison DeGraffenreid, Ph.D., vice president of food safety and quality assurance at Monogram Foods, added another dimension to leadership voice: translation.

Early in a new assignment, she identified significant food safety risks at a facility where senior leaders had historically focused on product quality rather than regulatory exposure. Her initial concerns were dismissed.

“I realized that I needed to alter my message to fit the audience,” she explained.

Technical language alone was not resonating. What ultimately shifted the conversation were pictures and examples of consequences other companies had faced when similar risks were ignored.

“It took several attempts to be heard,” she recalled. “In the end, consumers were protected.”

Her experience highlights a reality many food safety leaders recognize: Expertise does not speak for itself. Influence depends on translating risk into terms that decision-makers understand and act upon.

That principle became even more visible during a 24-hour production run that resulted in significant quantities of out-of-specification product. Though not harmful, the product did not meet regulatory requirements and could not be sold. The financial impact was substantial.

“The law was clear,” she said. “Ethics ruled the day.”

For DeGraffenreid, this clarity defines the role.

“You are here to be the voice of the consumer,” she said.

“Be patient, kind, and listen. That’s a superpower.” — Francine Shaw

Beyond Speaking Up.

Across these leaders’ experiences, a consistent pattern emerges: Effective voice is not reactive. It is intentional, grounded in context and developed over time.

Serrano demonstrated how structured risk-framing can steady a room under pressure. Tolbert showed how participation, even before perfection, builds credibility and influence. Shaw illustrated that upholding standards in complex environments requires cultural intelligence and relational awareness. DeGraffenreid reinforced that influence often depends on translation for connecting technical risk to business consequences and grounding decisions in consumer protection.

In each case, voice was not about volume. It was about shaping decisions, building trust and ensuring that expertise actually shaped the outcome.

Developing Voice Intentionally.

Speaking up matters. But sustainable influence requires more than courage in the moment. It requires the ability to frame risk in business terms, build partnerships across functions and ensure expertise is consistently integrated into decisions. These capabilities do not develop by accident. They are cultivated.

Leadership voice, then, is not a personality trait. It is a capability built over time. For women in technical fields, where senior representation remains uneven, that growth often requires intentional visibility, mentorship and access to rooms where decisions are made. Growing one’s voice is foundational. Expanding influence as a business partner, culture-shaper and developer of others is what comes next.

The women in food safety highlighted here did not simply decide to speak up. They strengthened their capacity to lead. Through lived experience, reflection and deliberate development, they expanded their credibility, influence and impact. Their stories remind us that strengthening women’s voices in food safety strengthens the system itself. When organizations move beyond simply telling people to speak up and commit to investing in leadership development — equipping women with the skills, sponsorship and authority to shape decisions — prevention becomes embedded not only in processes, but in culture.

The authors are co-founders of Catalyst Food Leaders. Learn more at catalystfoodleaders.com.