For nearly three decades, the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network—better known as FoodNet—has been a cornerstone of food safety monitoring in the United States. Established in the 1990s, the system actively tracked laboratory-confirmed cases of foodborne infections across 10 states, covering more than 50 million Americans. It was widely regarded as the most reliable source of data on how foodborne pathogens affect people in real time.But in July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a dramatic change that caught even public health experts off guard. FoodNet, which once monitored eight of the most common foodborne pathogens, will now actively track only two: Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). Monitoring of the other six pathogens—Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia—has been cut from the system’s required surveillance.The CDC has defended the move as a resource-driven necessity, but food safety officials warn the implications could be far-reaching.What the CDC Isn’t Tracking Foodborne Illnesses Anymore?The CDC has stated that the decision was rooted in funding limitations. In a memo shared with the Connecticut Department of Health, the agency wrote: “Funding has not kept pace with the resources required to maintain the continuation of FoodNet surveillance for all eight pathogens.”CDC spokesperson Paul Prince echoed this sentiment in a statement, narrowing surveillance would allow FoodNet staff “to prioritize core activities” and “steward resources effectively.”The backdrop of the decision is years of budgetary tightening. Under the Trump administration, the CDC and other federal agencies faced significant cuts, with the CDC losing hundreds of employees in a single year. While the agency still maintains other surveillance programs—including the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System and the Listeria Initiative—those systems are passive. Unlike FoodNet, which actively gathered case information from hospitals and laboratories, passive systems depend on health departments voluntarily reporting infections.FoodNet was unique in its reach and approach. Operating in 10 states—Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, and select counties in California and New York—the program didn’t simply count cases. It collected detailed data about each infection, including patient demographics, hospitalization rates, and outcomes. This level of detail allowed scientists to track trends, spot outbreaks early, and identify which foods posed the greatest risks.With six pathogens now off the mandatory list, experts worry the CDC is losing its clearest lens into the country’s food safety picture.“FoodNet doesn’t just count cases,” explained Carlota Medus, who supervises the Minnesota Department of Health’s foodborne diseases unit. “The FoodNet sites collect robust data that contribute to the understanding of certain infections. Without that, we’ll miss trends and lose the ability to compare data over time.”Other Pathogens That May Go UnnoticedSalmonella and STEC are among the leading causes of severe foodborne illness, accounting for significant numbers of hospitalizations and deaths each year. But the other six pathogens removed from FoodNet’s core surveillance aren’t minor players.Campylobacter is one of the most common bacterial causes of diarrhea worldwide.Listeria is especially dangerous for pregnant women, newborns, and immunocompromised individuals, often leading to life-threatening infections.Cyclospora has been behind large outbreaks linked to imported produce.Vibrio infections are increasingly common as warming waters fuel bacterial growth in seafood.Shigella and Yersinia also cause serious illness, particularly in children.By removing active surveillance of these pathogens, public health agencies may not immediately detect upticks in infections—or worse, may not realize when an outbreak is underway until it spreads widely.What Are The Risks of Passive Food Safety Monitoring?Foodborne infections are legally reportable in the U.S., but passive reporting systems depend heavily on overwhelmed local health departments. Without the active case-finding that FoodNet provided, some infections may never be logged.This shift doesn’t just risk slower outbreak detection; it also undermines years of carefully built datasets. Tracking trends over time requires consistency. If monitoring drops for certain pathogens, comparing future case numbers to historical data becomes nearly impossible.Medus warned that “long term, it will affect our ability to use surveillance data to better understand risks in the food supply.” That data, she noted, has historically been critical in shaping both state and federal food safety policies.The White House has insisted that food safety remains a top priority. A spokesperson for the administration said in a statement: “The health and safety of the American people is the Administration’s utmost priority. USDA, HHS, FDA, and the CDC will continue to cooperate and maintain the highest vigilance to safeguard our food supply against pathogens.”Still, the quiet rollout of the change with no public announcement until uncovered by NBC News—has left many food safety experts uneasy. Transparency is key in public health, and the perception of cuts without clear communication erodes public trust.How Consumers Can Protect Themselves Despite the Cutbacks?For the average consumer, the change won’t alter day-to-day food safety advice. Washing produce, cooking meat to safe temperatures, avoiding unpasteurized dairy, and practicing good kitchen hygiene remain the best defenses against foodborne illness.But behind the scenes, fewer eyes on potential threats may mean outbreaks are detected later and policy shifts are slower to emerge. The U.S. already sees an estimated 48 million cases of foodborne illness each year, leading to 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths, according to the CDC. Without robust surveillance, those numbers could be harder to track—or worse, to reduce.What This Means for Food Safety Policy?The cut to FoodNet highlights a deeper issue, foodborne illness surveillance is underfunded despite being essential. Experts argue that instead of scaling back, the U.S. should be expanding monitoring to capture new and emerging pathogens, especially as globalization and climate change reshape the food supply.For now, FoodNet’s infrastructure remains intact, and states are free to continue monitoring other pathogens on their own if they have the resources. But state health departments often rely on federal funding to support surveillance staff. Without it, few will be able to maintain the same level of vigilance.