Transparency Only Works When It Actually Informs

As reported by Food Safety News, last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an Executive Incident Summary from a foodborne outbreak investigation. The report was likely intended to demonstrate the agency’s commitment to “radical transparency.”

Unfortunately, the document was so heavily redacted (see here) that it achieved the opposite: opacity rather than transparency.

As released, it offers little practical value to the industry and does almost nothing to help prevent future outbreaks.

The agency takes this approach based on its legal interpretation of what constitutes Commercial Confidential Information. However, as argued in a recent petition submitted by STOP Foodborne Illness, some believe the agency’s interpretation is overly restrictive and not supported by the underlying law. 

Consider a comparison: imagine the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigating an airline incident and releasing a report with most of the meaningful details blacked out. The aviation industry would learn nothing from it—and the public would rightly question the purpose of such a report.

Food safety should be no different.

If the goal is prevention and learning, then investigation summaries must contain enough detail for the broader food system to understand what went wrong and how to avoid repeating it.

This example underscores the need to rethink the current approach. It’s time for the United States to consider establishing a National Foodborne Outbreak Investigation Board an independent body focused on transparent investigations and industry-wide learning.

Transparency only works when it actually informs.

Frank

Until next time, thanks for reading.