Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network
Name	Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network
Formation	1996
Type	Public health surveillance network
Headquarters	United States
Leader title	Coordinating body
Leader name	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Area served	United States

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network is a sentinel surveillance system coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor laboratory-confirmed infections from enteric pathogens. It links state and local public health departments, academic partners, clinical laboratories, and federal agencies to produce timely incidence estimates, outbreak detection, and antimicrobial resistance monitoring. The network supports situational awareness for public health officials, informs policy at the Food and Drug Administration, and contributes data used by the United States Department of Agriculture and international bodies.

Overview

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network operates as a collaboration among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state health departments such as the California Department of Public Health and the New York State Department of Health, academic centers including the Johns Hopkins University and the Emory University School of Medicine, and federal partners like the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. The network tracks pathogens including Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and non-typhoidal Vibrio species, informing guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and standards referenced by the National Institutes of Health. Data feeds into national indicators used by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and influence rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency and guidance from the World Health Organization.

History and Development

Established in 1996, Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network emerged from collaborations among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state laboratories exemplified by the California Department of Public Health Microbial Diseases Laboratory, and academic epidemiologists from institutions such as the University of Minnesota and the University of Washington. Early pilots drew on surveillance models developed after outbreaks investigated by the Epidemic Intelligence Service and lessons from investigations publicized following incidents linked to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Expansion occurred in phases through partnerships with state programs like the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Georgia Department of Public Health, and through cooperative agreements managed with the Association of Public Health Laboratories and funding mechanisms from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The network’s methodology informed international systems established by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization.

Surveillance Methods

The network uses active, laboratory-based surveillance integrating clinical microbiology outputs from hospitals such as Massachusetts General Hospital and community laboratories like Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp. Methods include case ascertainment through electronic laboratory reporting systems used by institutions like Kaiser Permanente and syndromic data linked with hospital information systems modeled on platforms developed at the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic. Molecular subtyping via pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole genome sequencing conducted at public health laboratories and reference centers such as the Broad Institute and the CDC PulseNet program enable cluster detection. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing follows standards from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, and pathogen characterization often leverages research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the University of California, Davis.

Participating Sites and Governance

Participating sites include state health departments such as the Minnesota Department of Health, the Oregon Health Authority, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, and metropolitan health departments like the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Governance combines technical guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with advisory input from bodies including the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Data use agreements and privacy oversight align with statutes enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services and institutional review boards at universities such as the University of Michigan. Funding and cooperative agreements have been coordinated with federal partners like the Health Resources and Services Administration and administrative offices such as the Office of Management and Budget.

Data Use and Impact

Data from the network have quantified incidence trends used by the Food and Drug Administration in rulemaking and by the United States Department of Agriculture in inspection policy, and have underpinned risk assessments in reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Surveillance outputs supported outbreak investigations linked to sources regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and informed recalls coordinated with the United States Postal Service distribution investigations. Analyses published in journals associated with institutions like Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Yale School of Public Health, and Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health have shaped interventions, vaccination policy considerations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and antimicrobial stewardship guidance influenced by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Challenges and Future Directions

Challenges include maintaining representativeness across diverse populations served in jurisdictions from Alaska to Florida, integrating emerging data streams from private laboratories like ARUP Laboratories, and aligning with genomic surveillance advances led by centers such as the Wellcome Sanger Institute and the Broad Institute. Future directions emphasize enhanced collaboration with international partners including the World Health Organization and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, improved interoperability with health information exchanges modeled after initiatives at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and strengthened links to foodborne outbreak prevention programs at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Continued partnerships with academic centers including the University of California, Berkeley, the Stanford University School of Medicine, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill aim to refine burden-of-illness estimates and accelerate translation of surveillance into policy.

Category:Public health surveillance