Ever wonder what keeps our food safe? The CDC just made a shocking announcement about cutting back its crucial program for tracking foodborne illnesses. Experts are sounding the alarm, warning of potential dangers to public health. Are we compromising safety for budget cuts?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially announced a significant reduction in its vital Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) program, scaling back the tracking of several dangerous foodborne pathogens. This decision, confirmed by a CDC spokesperson, means the agency will now primarily focus its surveillance efforts on only Salmonella and shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC), a move that has immediately raised alarm bells among public health experts and food safety advocates nationwide.
Effective July 1, the cuts eliminated six crucial pathogens from FoodNet’s active surveillance activities. Among those no longer routinely monitored are Listeria, a pathogen notorious for its severe and often fatal outcomes, as well as Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia. While FoodNet maintains its infrastructure and quality for the remaining two pathogens, this strategic narrowing of focus aims to prioritize “core activities,” according to CDC spokesman Gabrial Alvarado.
The implications of these CDC cuts are profound, especially considering that many of the discontinued pathogens are significant contributors to foodborne illness and related hospitalizations and deaths in the United States. For instance, Campylobacter spp. and invasive Listeria monocytogenes are cited as top causes of foodborne illnesses, yet their dedicated surveillance under FoodNet has ceased. Furthermore, two pathogens included in the government’s Healthy People 2030 goals to reduce foodborne illnesses will also go untracked by the program.
Public health experts are vocal in their criticism, with Craig Hedberg, a professor at the University of Minnesota and co-director of the Minnesota Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence, emphasizing the potential national danger. Hedberg argues that such reductions in pathogen surveillance normalize the misconception that food safety monitoring is expensive and unimportant. He contends that robust surveillance is the very foundation of the nation’s food safety system, necessitating increased investment, not restrictions.
Unnamed CDC sources have indicated that inadequate funding is the primary driver behind these cutbacks to the FoodNet program. This reduction marks the most substantial cutback in federal foodborne disease surveillance since the USDA’s Microbiological Data Program (MDP) was shut down in 2001, a decision then attributed to industry lobbying. The historical context underscores a concerning trend of diminishing resources for critical public health initiatives.
Despite the shift, the CDC insists on its commitment to protecting American health, stating that modern foodborne disease surveillance has been strengthened since FoodNet’s inception in 1995. The agency points to enhanced passive systems and other CDC platforms as continuing to provide national monitoring for these pathogens. However, data from the CDC’s own estimates, partly based on FoodNet data, revealed that Campylobacter alone caused 1.9 million foodborne illness cases in 2019, surpassing both Salmonella and STEC in impact.
The collaborative nature of FoodNet, a joint effort between the CDC, FDA, USDA, and 10 state health departments, means the burden of continued comprehensive surveillance now largely falls on individual states. While states are no longer federally mandated to track the six cut pathogens, they retain the option to do so at their own expense. Responses have varied, with the Maryland Health Department pledging to continue full reporting, while Colorado indicated a potential scaling back of surveillance if funding decreases in Fiscal Year 2026. This fragmented approach raises significant questions about the consistency and effectiveness of future foodborne pathogen tracking across the nation.
