How significant is the public health risk posed by discontinuing active FoodNet surveillance for Campylobacter, Listeria, Cyclospora, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia?

Answer Explanations

• Significant risk — The reduction will meaningfully impair outbreak response, though existing passive systems provide partial coverage.

  user-756315
  The public health risk posed by discontinuing active FoodNet surveillance for pathogens like Campylobacter, Listeria, Cyclospora, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia would be significant. Active surveillance is critical for timely detection of outbreaks and emerging trends, especially for pathogens that often cause severe illness or have unique transmission patterns. While passive systems such as NNDSS and state-level programs provide some coverage, they generally lack the sensitivity and timeliness needed for effective response. Reducing active surveillance would impair outbreak detection, delay interventions, and potentially increase the burden of illness, making this a meaningful public health concern.
• Critical risk — Active surveillance is essential for these pathogens; passive systems are inadequate for timely outbreak detection and response.

  user-654333
  FoodNet has shown that Campylobacter is consistently the leading enteric infection in the system and that several of these pathogens (Campylobacter, Listeria, Vibrio) have rising or unstable incidence trends that benefit from active, population-based tracking. Cutting active surveillance for six pathogens means losing the most reliable incidence estimates and trend data for a large share of serious, often severe infections, which will impair timely recognition of changes in burden and the evaluation of prevention policies.
• Significant risk — The reduction will meaningfully impair outbreak response, though existing passive systems provide partial coverage.

  user-257382
  Passive surveillance is not enough to timely detect the problem and control the problem before it causes larger effects in the community 
• Significant risk — The reduction will meaningfully impair outbreak response, though existing passive systems provide partial coverage.

  user-986543
   India already faces issue in food-borne disease monitoring because lack of surveillance and large population across states, inappropriate laboratory capacity , and many infections go unreported. Active surveillance helps detect outbreaks early, especially for pathogens that are not routinely tested in many hospitals. If such surveillance stops, India would rely mostly on passive reporting, which is often delayed and incomplete. 
• Critical risk — Active surveillance is essential for these pathogens; passive systems are inadequate for timely outbreak detection and response.

  user-342878
   More scientific surveillance (molecular identification of resistant pathogenic bacteria and their associated antimicrobial resistance) is essential for these pathogens; passive systems are inadequate for timely outbreak detection and response.  
  
  The reduction will meaningfully impair outbreak response (more research on the use of bioactive compounds from herbal extracts like alkaloids, coumarin, flavonol, ... I mean, nutraceutical components to ensure eubiosis is important). 
• Critical risk — Active surveillance is essential for these pathogens; passive systems are inadequate for timely outbreak detection and response.

  user-692905
  if we only screen for only two pathogens, it will be to late to act on outbreaks caused by the other pathogens.