The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are facing mounting criticism for their lack of transparency in foodborne illness investigations, potentially endangering public health. With delayed notifications, limited information sharing, and the withholding of critical details about outbreak sources and affected products, consumers are often left in the dark about potential food safety threats. The FDA oversees approximately 80% of the U.S. food supply, while the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) manages the remaining 20%, with the latter providing significantly more detailed recall information to the public. As food safety attorney Bill Marler pointedly asks, “We all know the FDA, state health authorities, the common supplier, retailers and restaurants know this information, but they keep it from the public. Why?”
The Troubling Gap Between Knowledge and Action
The significant delays between when government agencies and industry become aware of foodborne illness outbreaks and when the public is notified represent a serious concern for consumer safety. These investigations often drag on for weeks or even months before any public announcement is made, leaving consumers vulnerable to potentially contaminated food products. I’ve noticed a disturbing pattern where the time between consumption, illness reporting, investigation, and eventual recall can stretch for extended periods.
For example, recent foodborne illness outbreaks have highlighted just how long these delays can be, with some notifications coming only after dozens of people had already fallen ill. The investigative process is undoubtedly complex, requiring careful tracing of food sources and confirmation of contamination, but the balance between thoroughness and timely warnings seems heavily skewed toward the former.
While regulatory agencies argue that premature warnings could cause unnecessary panic or harm to businesses, the current system often prioritizes commercial interests over immediate public health concerns. Many food safety experts argue that faster, more accurate surveillance systems are needed to shorten the time between outbreak detection and public notification.
Retail Information: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle
One of the most frustrating aspects of the FDA’s approach to food safety is their frequent refusal to disclose specific retailers selling recalled products. The agency often cites “trade secrets” and “confidential commercial information” as justification for withholding this critical information from consumers. This practice stands in stark contrast to the USDA’s approach, which routinely posts detailed retail locations for Class I recalls involving a “reasonable probability” of serious health consequences.
As food safety attorney Bill Marler points out, “There is no reason, especially when faced with an outbreak of foodborne illness, for the FDA to claim that the retail distribution list is a trade secret.” This disparity in information sharing between agencies creates a confusing double standard for consumers trying to protect themselves and their families. When a meat product is recalled under USDA jurisdiction, I can easily check if my local store sold the affected items.
However, when an FDA-regulated product like romaine lettuce or peanut butter is recalled, consumers are often left guessing. Recent listeria contamination alerts demonstrate this problem perfectly – while the product was identified, consumers had difficulty determining which specific retailers had sold the contaminated items. This lack of transparency can have real and devastating public health impacts, particularly for vulnerable populations like the elderly, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems.
The Dismantling of Scientific Oversight
In March 2025, the Trump administration eliminated two longstanding and crucial USDA food safety committees that had provided scientific guidance for decades. The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF), established in 1988, and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI), established in 1971, have both been terminated. These committees brought together external scientific experts to provide input on food safety policies and practices.
The elimination of these committees raises serious concerns about the reduced external scientific input on food safety policies moving forward. These advisory bodies helped ensure that regulatory decisions were based on the best available science rather than political or industry pressures. Consumer Reports’ Brian Ronholm expressed alarm about these changes, stating, “The termination of these two important advisory committees is very alarming and should serve as a warning to consumers that food safety will not be a priority at USDA in the foreseeable future.”
Without these committees, there are legitimate concerns about how microbiological criteria will be developed and how inspection practices might change. The recent FDA staff cuts compound these worries, as fewer people are now responsible for overseeing an increasingly complex food system. This reduction in oversight comes at a time when foodborne illness continues to be a major public health concern, affecting millions of Americans each year.
When Timing Matters: The Life-or-Death Consequences of Delay
The current system of delayed notifications can have severe and sometimes fatal consequences for consumers. By the time a public warning is issued, contaminated products may have been consumed by thousands or even millions of people. For particularly vulnerable populations – including young children, pregnant women, elderly individuals, and those with compromised immune systems – these delays can be the difference between a mild illness and a life-threatening condition.
Recent strengthened food safety rules have attempted to address some of these concerns, but implementation has been inconsistent. The FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was designed to shift the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it, yet the agency’s transparency practices haven’t kept pace with this preventative philosophy. While food producers may be held to higher standards, the public isn’t always benefiting from the improved information gathering.
Food safety experts note that the current notification process creates unnecessary risk. When an outbreak is suspected, preliminary information could help consumers make more informed choices while the investigation continues. Instead, the current practice often means waiting for absolute certainty before issuing any public statement, by which time preventable illnesses have already occurred.
A Path Forward: Solutions for a Safer Food System
Improving transparency in food safety oversight requires a comprehensive approach with clear, actionable changes. Based on the current shortcomings, several key recommendations could significantly improve public health protection while maintaining the integrity of investigations. These suggestions balance the need for thorough investigation with consumers’ right to timely information about potential threats to their health.
First, establishing clear timelines for public outbreak notifications would ensure faster consumer warnings. The FDA and CDC could commit to preliminary notifications within a specified timeframe once an outbreak is suspected, with updates as more information becomes available. This practice would give consumers the chance to make informed decisions even before an investigation is complete.
Second, the FDA should follow the USDA’s lead and disclose retailer lists for all Class I equivalent recalls. The FDA’s regulatory practices need significant reform to prioritize consumer safety over business interests. The claim that retail distribution lists are “trade secrets” doesn’t hold up when public health is at stake.
Third, providing regular public updates during active investigations would help maintain trust and keep consumers informed. Even when the information is preliminary or incomplete, transparency about what is known and unknown can help people protect themselves. Fourth, the scientific advisory committees that were eliminated should be reinstated to ensure that food safety policies continue to be guided by the best available evidence rather than political considerations.
Finally, increased transparency around industry communications during outbreaks would enhance accountability. When government agencies inform industry partners about potential contamination issues before the public, this created an unbalanced information environment that disadvantages consumers. By implementing these changes, the FDA and CDC could significantly improve both food safety outcomes and public trust in their oversight.
As consumers, we deserve to know what’s in our food and when it might be dangerous. The current system’s lack of transparency isn’t just frustrating – it’s putting our health at risk. I believe it’s time for the FDA and CDC to prioritize public safety over industry concerns and provide the information we need to protect ourselves and our families from foodborne illness.