Federal health officials have significantly scaled back a three-decade-old program that actively tracks food poisoning infections across the United States, prompting concerns from food safety experts and state health officials about the potential impact on public health.
The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, known as FoodNet, which began in July, has cut its required monitoring to just two pathogens that cause infections: Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. This is a sharp reduction from the previous requirement to monitor eight different germs.
Under the change, health departments in the 10 states participating in the joint state and federal program will now only be mandated to track infections caused by these two bacteria, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based in Atlanta, identifies as among the top contributors to foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths in the U.S.
Previously, FoodNet mandated surveillance of infections caused by an additional six germs: Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia. Monitoring for these pathogens is now optional.
CDC spokesman Paul Prince stated that narrowing the reporting requirements “will allow FoodNet staff to prioritize core activities” and enable the agency to “steward resources effectively.” It remains unclear whether this action is directly linked to recent funding cuts implemented by the Trump Administration.
However, food safety officials, including those in states that are part of the program, are voicing strong concerns. They warn that the change could slow the detection of foodborne illness outbreaks, obscure the full picture of food-related infections, and compromise the nation’s ability to understand and combat foodborne diseases.
“Long term, it will affect our ability to use surveillance data to better understand risks in the food supply,” said Carlota Medus, who supervises the Minnesota Department of Health’s foodborne diseases unit.
While infections caused by specific germs are still required to be reported to the CDC or state health departments, Medus highlighted the crucial difference between active and passive surveillance. FoodNet’s previous methodology involved actively seeking out laboratory data, hospital details, and other information, which leads to a more comprehensive count than relying solely on passive reports, where some cases can be missed.
“FoodNet doesn’t just count cases. The FoodNet sites collect robust data that contribute to the understanding of certain infections,” she added.
FoodNet was established in 1995 as a collaborative effort between the CDC, the U.S. Agriculture Department, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and several states. It has tracked infections across a surveillance system that covers approximately 16% of the U.S. population.
Frank Yiannas, a food safety expert and former FDA official, emphasized FoodNet’s critical role in allowing the U.S. to accurately estimate the number of cases of illness per 100,000 population caused by various foodborne germs.
“We won’t know as accurately as possible if we’re getting better or worse in respect to certain pathogens,” Yiannas warned, suggesting the rollback could impede efforts to assess the effectiveness of food safety interventions.
In addition to Minnesota, FoodNet sites include health departments in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, and specific counties in California and New York.
The reduction in FoodNet’s scope was initially reported by NBC News.
Comments