The paper says that comparing estimates from 1999 with estimates from 2011 would be meaningless because better data sources and methods were used for the new estimates. Were the 1999 estimates wrong? How can you be sure that the new estimates accurately reflect the burden of foodborne illness if they are so different from those in 1999? The 1999 Mead et al. estimates were based on the best data available and used accepted methodologies of the time, so in 1999 they were the best possible estimates. Those estimates provided important information about the relative frequency of various pathogens and filled a major gap in knowledge that helped in decision making. Public health science is not static. Every year new findings emerge, new methods are developed for research and analysis, new data are added to surveillance systems, and new surveys are conducted. The 2011 estimates are the result of innovations in methodology and improvements in the data made over the past decade, which we believe have resulted in more accurate estimates than their predecessors. We hope future estimates will benefit from additional innovations and improvements. Show Learn more about improvements made in the 2011 estimates > Why is it important to estimate domestically acquired foodborne illnesses?Because many persons and organizations are involved in food safety in the United States—farmers, product manufacturers, distributors, retailers, restaurant workers, and consumers. We all want the most accurate measure of how well we’re doing in making food safe. Every time someone gets sick from eating food in the United States, we know we have more work to do. Whether we are involved in developing new or improved practices or policies in industry, or in encouraging best consumer practices, specific estimates about domestically acquired foodborne illnesses tell us that improvements are still needed. Can you tease apart the proportion of the big drop in the estimates that’s due to improved methods from an actual decrease in illness? Put another way, was there any actual decrease in illness? If the answer to the second question is “yes,” to what can the actual reduction in illness be attributed?Estimates of burden are designed to estimate the overall burden of disease at a point in time. They are not designed or intended to gauge increases or decreases in illnesses. Surveillance systems, such as Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), which capture data in a standardized way at regular points in time, are more appropriate for looking at disease trends. If the new estimates do not really reflect a drop in the number of foodborne illnesses, how can you tell whether or not the government’s policies and programs for preventing these illnesses are working or if changes are needed?To determine the effects of policies and programs, you need trend data—a way to tell how the incidence of disease has changed over time. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet)—provides the best data for watching trends in common foodborne diseases. These data offer insight into whether policies and programs are having the intended effects.
Studies estimating the burden of foodborne illness have been done in Canada, England and Wales, and Australia.
However, it is important to note that each study used different methods, and therefore their specific estimates are not directly comparable. If norovirus is the biggest cause of gastroenteritis illness, why isn’t it reportable? Each year, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, with input from CDC, recommends diseases to include on the list of nationally notifiable conditions (formerly called nationally notifiable diseases).
CDC conducts surveillance for norovirus outbreaks through the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS). Through NORS, states are able to report all outbreaks of gastroenteritis, including those caused by foodborne, waterborne, and person-to-person transmission of norovirus directly to CDC. When states send specimens for testing or sequencing, norovirus outbreaks may also be reported to CDC’s National Calicivirus Laboratory, within the Gastroenteritis and Respiratory Viruses Laboratory Branch. (Calicivirus is the family name for the family of viruses that includes norovirus.) In addition, CDC recently has developed a national surveillance network for norovirus genetic sequences (like DNA “fingerprints”) called CaliciNet, which is modeled after PulseNet, a surveillance network for enteric bacteria. CaliciNet is a national network of public health laboratories that contribute to a database of genetic fingerprints from noroviruses identified in outbreaks. As more states participate, CaliciNet may find links to help identify multistate outbreaks, detect potential norovirus-contaminated food before preparation and serving, and identify the emergence of new norovirus strains. Other countries have done surveillance for norovirus illnesses; what are the barriers to doing so for the US population?The UK, the Netherlands, and Australia conducted large community-based studies to estimate the fraction of acute gastroenteritis attributable to norovirus and other pathogens. These studies are very expensive to implement, costing millions of dollars. It would be costly and complex, but could be done here if we devoted the time and money to do it. It is a matter of priorities. In the United States, public health authorities think it is more efficient to focus on improving surveillance, including norovirus in outbreak reporting. However, CDC is engaged in numerous efforts to better assess the burden of norovirus using a variety of methods. When the burden of foodborne disease is estimated again, we will likely use norovirus data from these special studies, outbreaks, or other surveillance gathered here in the United States. Norovirus can be transmitted through contact with contaminated objects in the environment, so why is it being included in the estimate of foodborne illness?Although norovirus is, indeed, easily transmitted by touching contaminated objects in the environment as well as by direct person-to-person contact with an infected person, it is also transmitted commonly through food.
Food handlers are often implicated in outbreaks of norovirus illnesses.
CDC is engaged in additional research to evaluate the specific foods and points in the food distribution systems at which norovirus contamination occurs, as well as the factors that contribute to contamination. These efforts may help identify control points at which interventions can be made to reduce norovirus contamination of food and the associated burden of illness. There is also ongoing research towards development of a norovirus vaccine. Preliminary evidence shows that this may indeed be an effective strategy, although a great deal of work remains before a vaccine could be available. The paper on known agents says that more accurate assessment of the foodborne norovirus illness rate is largely responsible for the big drop in the overall number of foodborne illnesses. Can you explain that in plain language?
The paper says that the estimates help direct food policy. Specifically, what decisions are made based on the burden estimates? The new estimates identify and rank the most important known pathogens responsible for causing foodborne illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. They provide a foundation for priority setting for interventions, policy development, research and analyses, and advocacy. Regulatory agencies can use these data to conduct risk analyses required in the rulemaking process. Prevention efforts should focus on these pathogens, because these are the pathogens that are causing the biggest problem. Among the 31 known foodborne pathogens:
Many actions need to occur for major decreases to be seen:
This paper gives us more accurate data on the pathogens causing foodborne illness in the United States. Next, we need to better understand what foods are causing these illnesses and where foods are being contaminated. CDC publishes data on the attribution of outbreak-associated illnesses to food commodities in the MMWR. We are currently enhancing this approach by using outbreak data to attribute the burden of illnesses caused by known agents and to food commodities using the new foodborne illness estimates. Do you know if anyone is working on an estimate of the economic burden of foodborne illness using the figures in the new paper?Yes, scientists have used the 2011 figures to update estimates of the cost and quality-adjusted and disability-adjusted life years of foodborne illness, including:
The burden of foodborne illness will likely be estimated again in about 10 years. New innovations and discoveries are occurring all the time in public health, so it is reasonable to think that methodologies and data sources will have changed by the time we do the next estimates. It is difficult to anticipate how those changes might affect the estimates, but if surveillance systems are maintained or expanded we expect that the accuracy will increase with each new improvement in data or methodology. Where can I find more information about the seven pathogens that cause 90% of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths due to known pathogens?CDC has information on these pathogens on its website.
What can prevent most foodborne diseases?Preventing foodborne illness by following these four easy steps: Clean, Separate, Cook and Chill.. Clean: Wash hands and surfaces often.. Separate: Don't cross-contaminate.. Cook: Cook to proper temperatures.. Chill: Refrigerate promptly.. What is a foodborne illness and how can they be prevented?Follow these steps to prevent foodborne illness: clean, separate, cook, chill, and report. Clean: Germs can survive in your hand, utensils, and cutting boards. Wash hands often with soap and water for 20 seconds, scrubbing the back of your hands, between fingers, and under nails.
What is the main cause of foodborne illnesses and diseases?Foodborne illness is caused by consuming contaminated foods or beverages. Many different disease-causing microbes or pathogens can contaminate foods, so there are many different types of foodborne illnesses. Most foodborne diseases are infections caused by a variety of bacteria, viruses, and parasites.
What is the most common way to prevent foodborne illnesses caused by viruses?Follow these 5 principles to help prevent foodborne illness:. Wash Your Hands. ... . Properly Handle Raw Animal Products. ... . Use Clean and Sanitized Utensils, Equipment, and Surfaces. ... . Use Food Before It Expires. ... . Keep Animals Away from Food and Food Preparation Areas.. |