On April 28 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing a possible one-year dip in nine surveillance areas in the incidences of several foodborne disease, including deadly E. coli O157:H7. However, the report’s own authors inserted numerous cautions about reading too much into their findings, including the critical caveat that the findings do not accurately reflect trends in foodborne disease in the U.S. Nevertheless USDA Under Secretary Elsa Murano spun the report like disc jockey to confirm the effectiveness of current meat safety protocols. Problem is, the evidence shows no such thing.

First, the CDC study itself stated that it was not designed to track nationwide prevalence of disease. It used findings from FoodNet, a CDC surveillance system introduced in the 1990’s which is one of the best tools America currently has in the fight against foodborne disease, but which is still severely lacking. The newest data only represents a snapshot of nine test sites around the country - a tiny sample not representative of America’s population. FoodNet also looks only at laboratory confirmed cases, even though most physicians do not bother with laboratory specimens from routine foodborne disease cases.

Many factors can influence laboratory reporting rates. For example, in a tight economy, people with foodborne illness symptoms may not seek medical attention, or they may wait longer, resulting in a negative test result that would have been positive if taken earlier. Furthermore, the percentage of foodborne illness patients who are cultured may also be decreasing due to efforts to control health care costs and the fact that the culturing generally benefits the community rather than the particular sick patient.

Is the rate of the infection actually decreasing? If so, why are rates of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS - prevalently an outcome of E. coli O157:H7) staying the same? One public health official suggests that perhaps almost all HUS cases are detected because it is a dramatic and serious condition and not subject to patterns of laboratory fluctuation such as those that affect culture of routine gastroenteritis. One thing is clear: even though FoodNet provides important data, its results are susceptible enough to outside influences to preclude them from being definitive indicators of disease trends. And another important note is that although certain pathogens show a one-year drop, others have increased, so that total cases of foodborne disease detected through FoodNet have remained stable.

The CDC report authors clearly state their study’s limitations in their report. But Under Secretary for Food Safety Elsa Murano is quick to claim definitive victory for a decline in meat-borne illnesses thanks to current government policies, despite zero scientific data tracing a possible reduction in illnesses to these measures (or even to meat). "Reductions in foodborne illnesses announced today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that USDA's science-based policies to combat deadly bacteria in meat, poultry and egg products are effective,” inaccurately asserted Murano in the press release her office issued alongside the CDC report. She added that "In addition to testing results, recalls for Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria in FSIS regulated products also dropped from 65 in 2002 to 28 in 2003.” However, S.T.O.P. and Washington DC consumer groups have long been concerned that the recall dry spell reflects a decline in enforcement rather than a drop in contamination. See this spring's newsletter for more on how the truth gets twisted behind USDA’s rose-colored smokescreen.