The FDA needs to better communicate with state and local officials to improve food safety efforts, according to testimony heard by a House subcommittee.
Steven Mandernach, Executive Director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), testified Wednesday at the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health Subcommittee hearing on “A Healthier America: Legislative Proposals on Food Regulation and Oversight.”
Prior to joining AFDO in 2018, Mandermach worked in state government for more than 15 years, most recently as Director of Food and Consumer Safety at the Iowa Department of Prosecutors and Appellate Division, where she oversaw the regulation of tens of thousands of food manufacturers and retailers. He earned his law degree from Drake University Law School and completed graduate work in food safety at Michigan State University.
AFDO is a non-profit association comprised of food safety experts from state, local, federal, tribal, territorial, academic, and industry sectors. Its members are state and local regulatory agencies responsible for most routine food safety oversight in the United States, including inspections, laboratory testing, outbreak response, and recall identification. The association was founded in 1896, before major U.S. food laws took effect, and advocated for a strong federal food safety system, including the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Mandernach told the subcommittee that the U.S. food safety system works as a joint effort between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state and local agencies. But bureaucracy hinders safety efforts by preventing federal agencies from sharing key information with state and local agencies.
“States and the FDA do not operate in parallel silos but function as connected systems that rely on mutual trust, clear roles and timely coordination,” Mandernach said. “When partnerships work well, food safety systems can respond quickly and effectively to emerging risks. If they don’t, consumers, regulators and industry will all feel the consequences.”
This system also places an unnecessary burden on businesses, which must respond to multiple, duplicate requests from multiple agencies.
Mandernach provided talking points to the subcommittee to explain the division of responsibilities between the federal government and state and local agencies.
- 100% of retail inspections of restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience stores are performed by state and local inspectors.
- Grade A milk and shellfish testing is 100% state-conducted.
- More than 93% of produce safety inspections are conducted in the state.
- Nearly 90% of food processing inspections in the United States are performed by state agencies.
- State laboratories perform more than 600,000 analytical tests on food and food-related samples each year.
- More than half of all foodborne illness outbreaks in this country are associated with retail food establishments, schools and other institutions, and 100% of these food service providers and events are inspected by state and local governments. and
- The state also conducts nearly all inspections of food manufacturers nationwide. This is 400% more inspections of domestically manufactured foods per year than the FDA typically conducts.
“We believe that America’s food safety system succeeds because it is a shared enterprise,” Mandernach told the subcommittee. “State and local agencies exercise substantial, independent authority to conduct inspections, enforce food safety laws, respond to outbreaks, and oversee recalls within their jurisdictions, while working with the FDA to support national standards, consistency, and shared public health goals.
“However, partnerships are strained when timely and actionable information, especially product distribution information, is not shared during an outbreak. Delays in information sharing slow the rate at which unsafe foods are removed from commerce, make it more difficult for state and local agencies and consumers to take action to prevent illness and death, and ultimately undermine trust in the response.”
Mandernach said a positive step on the FDA’s part is the agency’s BRIDGE project (Better Regulatory Inspection for Dynamic Government Efficiency), which is scheduled to be implemented nationwide by the end of 2030. The project is designed to respond to gaps in national inspection coverage and follow-up.
This project will integrate state programs into FDA’s domestic inspection strategy, increasing reliance on state capacity to carry out federal priorities. This reliance must be matched by ongoing federal investments in training, staffing, and program support. Mandernach told subcommittee members that without the resources that come with accountability, it will be difficult to implement BRIDGE effectively or equitably across the state.
obstacles to communication
Mandernach cited two instances where the FDA refused to share critical information while asking states for help.
For example, one state was asked by the FDA to follow up on a grocery store complaint filed by the federal agency. The complaint document has been completely redacted except for the name and location of the grocery store. When the state requested more information, the FDA responded simply with a lengthy explanation as to why it could no longer share the information.
In another example, the FDA requested that a state take enforcement action against a facility. The FDA frequently makes these interdependence requests because states are often able to act more quickly under their own authority. But in documents shared with the state, the FDA corrected the very things that were out of compliance, leaving the state with no evidence to take action.
“This restrictive stance could force state partners to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process to obtain routine inspection reports that were previously shared more directly, compromising real-time coordination and efficiency,” Mandernach said. “This limited information sharing also increases the burden on industry by unwittingly contributing to duplicative efforts by federal and state inspectors covering the same areas and forcing repeated contacts and requests for the same basic information. These problems will only intensify as federal-state inspection integration increases.
“Put simply, federal and state regulators need to be able to tell each other exactly what’s wrong with a food facility.”
Mandernach used two more examples to support his argument about the importance of public information sharing between the FDA and state and local partners.
Cinnamon applesauce contaminated with lead
The 2023-2024 investigation into lead chromate contamination in cinnamon applesauce pouches for children demonstrated how federal-state information sharing restrictions can complicate response during a rapidly evolving public health emergency.
The investigation began when the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services identified increased blood lead levels in young children and a link between the illnesses and commonly consumed snack products. State investigators quickly shared lab results showing extremely high lead levels with the FDA, which prompted a public health advisory and a recall of widely distributed shelf-stable products aimed at children.
As the investigation expanded across jurisdictions, state and local agencies were tasked with identifying affected products at retail stores, ensuring they were removed from commerce, and protecting consumers.
However, limited timely access to complete product distribution information makes it difficult for states to determine where recalled products were shipped or sold within their jurisdictions, especially given the products’ long shelf life and distribution through secondary markets.
“The state stepped in to bridge this critical information gap by conducting its own investigation and engaging in direct peer-to-peer communication,” Mandernach said. “This collaboration reflects the strength of integrated food safety systems, while also highlighting how legal and operational barriers to information sharing can slow responses, diversify efforts, and reduce efficiency during emergencies that impact vulnerable populations.”
Infant botulism caused by ByHeart powdered milk
In late 2025, California public health officials detected an increase in infant botulism cases. A recall has been initiated after a ByHeart brand of infant formula was found to be problematic.
Ultimately, the outbreak included 48 confirmed cases of infant botulism across 17 states.
State and local agencies have played a critical role in ensuring product removal and protecting consumers at the point of sale. According to a real-time AFDO survey, the state reported that 1,986 recall validation checks were completed during the first week of response and 4,459 by the end of the third week, with recalled infant formula still being sold in 7% of retailers visited. During the same first week, the FDA reported completing 21 recall inspections.
“Despite this level of state activity, limited access to key information has limited the overall response,” Mandernach said. “FDA has indicated that access to the full retail distribution list is limited to states operating under the 20.88 Information Sharing Agreement. Many states currently have them, but only a small fraction of the nearly 2,200 local agencies do so. In reality, these agreements take time to negotiate and approve, are not intended to be initiated during an emergency, and do not scale effectively for a national response that requires rapid access across many jurisdictions at the same time.”
The FDA proposed that states without an agreement conduct recall audit checks by visiting major retailers and reporting their findings, despite providing no information about where the products were actually distributed. The FDA also outlined the development of Memorandum 20.91 authorizing the sharing of retail distribution lists to effect recalls, emphasizing the need for a workaround due to current legal constraints.
“The very information that the FDA limits sharing often comes from the state agencies that collected it and provided it to the FDA in the first place,” Mandernach said.
“Taken together, these experiences highlight a core reality of today’s food safety system: State and local agencies are already doing the front-line work of protecting consumers, and the FDA is taking important steps through initiatives like BRIDGE to enhance efficiency and coordination. But ultimately, it is consumers who are at risk when information cannot move quickly and seamlessly through those partnerships, when the system cannot operate quickly or effectively in response to public health needs.”
