Consumer trust in the food industry is fragile, regulatory scrutiny is intensifying, and one recall or contamination event can wipe out millions in revenue, not to mention irreparable brand damage. Despite this, many food brands have yet to appoint a Chief Food Safety Officer (CFSO) And of the brands that do, it is critical to get the internal reporting structure right. Historically, food safety has been embedded within quality assurance or operations, with oversight falling under the Chief Operating Officer (COO). However, this structure creates an inherent conflict of interest that could compromise food safety decisions. As regulatory agencies and major buyers increasingly emphasize governance structures, appointing a CFSO with direct CEO access is both a risk-mitigation strategy and a competitive advantage. Food Safety is a Strategic Risk—Not Just an Operational Concern The traditional reporting structure of food safety under operations is a legacy of an era when food brands prioritized efficiency and cost controls over governance and accountability. The problem is that the rapid pace of changing operational priorities often clashes with the time needed to meet food safety objectives. The COO is responsible for production efficiency, cost optimization, and throughput, while food safety often requires slowing down processes, increasing oversight, and investing in preventive controls. When these interests collide, food safety can be deprioritized in favor of operational gains. A CFSO reporting to the CEO removes this conflict by ensuring that food safety decisions are made independently of production pressures. This shift aligns food safety with broader business