We should stay with a no tolerance policy for listeria

Health news
By Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy for Consumer Reports, and
Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist for Consumer Reports

For years, the FDA has actually supported a stringent “zero tolerance” policy for Listeria monocytogenes– an unsafe germs that presents a serious health danger mainly to pregnant people, babies, older grownups, and immunocompromised individuals. It can cause serious intrusive infections, hospitalizations, miscarriages, or death.

At a current public conference, the FDA indicated it may think about a shift away from this absolutely no tolerance requirement. The company has actually gone through growing pressure from some market voices and researchers to embrace a “risk-based” technique, comparable to what is presently practiced in Canada and the European Union. This method argues that, since some foodstuff naturally include low, “low-risk” levels of Listeria, it must get rid of the requirement for the zero-tolerance policy and permit a concentrate on management instead of overall avoidance.

While the principle of “risk-based” management might sound academic and refined, using it to Listeria policy represents a harmful gamble with public health. The danger is highlighted by the proof, which shows that the zero-tolerance policy secures customers and deserting this policy might increase the threat of foodborne health problem.

Greater rates abroad
If we take a look at the real rates of listeriosis– the infection triggered by this germs– the numbers reveal that the U.S. technique is greatly more efficient than the worldwide options. In the European Union, the rate of listeriosis is almost 3 times greater than it remains in the U.S. In Canada, the rate is almost double.

According to FoodNet information covering 2020 to 2023, the U.S. listeriosis occurrence rate stood at 0.25 cases per 100,000 person-years (PY). Earlier figures from the CDC’s Listeria Initiative approximated the 2019 U.S. rate at 0.24 cases per 100,000– representing around 792 cases throughout a population of 328.3 million.

In contrast, global monitoring metrics from 2023 show noticeably greater rates:

• European Union: Information from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control shows a rate of 0.67 cases per 100,000 PY, which is 2.8 times greater than the U.S. rate.
• Canada: National reported monitoring approximated 0.45 cases per 100,000 PY, making Canada’s rate 1.9 times greater than that of the U.S.

The no tolerance benefit
Regardless of arguments that a zero-tolerance policy prevents screening for worry of discovering the germs, such that Listeria levels would slowly increase with time due to minimized screening, current patterns reveal the precise reverse. Research study recommends that direct exposure to Listeria in the U.S. really stopped by 16 percent in between 2008 and 2023.

We understand that particular groups– consisting of pregnant people, babies, older grownups, and those with weakened body immune systems– are most at danger from Listeria. What’s striking, nevertheless, is that in spite of an aging population and market shifts that must have realistically caused greater infection rates, the U.S. has actually kept a steady, lower rate of listeriosis.

A research study from the August 2026 problem of Open Forum Infectious Diseases uses an essential insight into why: While group modifications recommended we need to be seeing more cases, we have not. The scientists concluded that this stability is most likely due to the fact that our direct exposure to Listeria appears to have in fact reduced by approximately 16 percent given that 2008. This recommends that the present security structure is working efficiently to safeguard even our most susceptible populations.

Why risk it?
The argument for a “risk-based” technique rests on the concept that business hesitate to check for Listeria due to the fact that discovering it brings legal and monetary problems. Critics recommend that if we were more lax, business would be more transparent.

We should not be required to pick in between transparent screening and food security. The truth that Listeria direct exposure seems on the decrease in the U.S. recommends that food business are currently successfully handling their security procedures under the existing zero-tolerance structure.

If the present FDA zero-tolerance policy is producing lower rates of health problem compared to the policies in Canada and the EU, why would we wish to approach their design? The FDA has a duty to safeguard customers, which begins with keeping the zero-tolerance policy. When it concerns the security of our food supply, we should not go for “low risk.” We need to continue to pursue no danger at all.

Throughout a summer season when the general public currently feels the food security regulative system is broken, the FDA needs to prevent taking apart a technique that really does not require repairing.

About the author: Before signing up with Consumer Reports, Brian Ronholm was the deputy under secretary for food security at USDA, where he ran the firm that examines meat, poultry and processed eggs.