Which approach do you consider most viable for maintaining comprehensive foodborne illness surveillance in the absence of full federal FoodNet support?

Answer Explanations

• Federal restoration required — No alternative adequately replaces a coordinated federal active surveillance network; restoration should be the priority.

  user-756315
  The most viable approach would be Federal restoration required. A coordinated federal active surveillance network like FoodNet provides standardized data collection, national comparability, and rapid outbreak detection that no alternative can fully replicate. While multi-state partnerships and private sector integration could offer supplemental data, these approaches lack uniformity and comprehensive coverage. Individual state investment would lead to fragmented systems and uneven capacity. Therefore, restoring federal support is essential to maintain robust, nationwide foodborne illness surveillance and protect public health.
• Multi-state partnerships — States with robust programs should form regional consortia to pool surveillance data and resources.

  user-654333
  
  Federal restoration is the most viable and necessary option; the others are important supplements but cannot fully replace a coordinated national active surveillance network.​ FoodNet has provided population-based, active surveillance across ~15% of the U.S. population for nearly three decades, generating the only consistent, long‑term incidence estimates for key foodborne pathogens. Expert commentary on the 2025 scale‑back is nearly unanimous that cutting FoodNet is “a clear step in the wrong direction” and that no existing state or private mechanism provides equivalent coverage, standardization, or analytic capacity.
  
  
• Multi-state partnerships — States with robust programs should form regional consortia to pool surveillance data and resources.

  user-257382
  Multistate partnership is good that it some countries may not give enough commitment and lack enough budget to fund the surveillance 
• Multi-state partnerships — States with robust programs should form regional consortia to pool surveillance data and resources.

  user-986543
   In the Indian context, the most viable approach is Multi‑state partnerships, because India’s public health system already depend on coordination across states, shared laboratories, and national programs like IDSP. A regional, cooperative model fits naturally into how surveillance currently works and helps compensate for unequal resources across states. 
• Multi-state partnerships — States with robust programs should form regional consortia to pool surveillance data and resources.

  user-708189
  It needs transdisciplinary collaboration.
• Multi-state partnerships — States with robust programs should form regional consortia to pool surveillance data and resources.

  user-342878
  One health approach is important and engages a multidisciplinary team (scientists, economists, lawyers, policy makers..)  
• Federal restoration required — No alternative adequately replaces a coordinated federal active surveillance network; restoration should be the priority.

  user-692905
  prevention is better than cure, besides, why change a system that has been working all this time.