The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently laid off approximately 6,000 employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, the Trump administration has proposed almost $40 million in budget cuts to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a $1 billion decrease in the USDA budget, which recently resulted in workforce cuts and the suspension of services such as milk quality tests. The administration claims the layoffs were not intended to target critical employees and were just focused on administrative roles and redundancies, but a wide range of roles have been impacted, from safety inspectors and quality assurance employees to trainers for disease-sniffing dogs.
For businesses in industries like agriculture, food production and food transportation, these layoffs could mean disruptions to the supply chain and product availability, as well as resulting hits to revenue. “If remaining personnel are now required to manage different requests that they are not used to managing or are being overwhelmed with a higher volume of work, this can have a snowball effect delaying certain critical actions,” said Fabiola Negrón, director of food safety at FDA compliance solutions organization Registrar Corp.
The budget cuts and layoffs are partially intended to lessen federal government oversight and to shift many of the responsibilities to the state level. However, some states simply do not have the resources to serve as equally effective replacements.
This could have significant impacts on food safety and quality assurance. “Oversight is not a bureaucratic formality—it is the invisible line between routine production and preventable tragedy,” said Dr. Darin Detwiler, food industry consultant and food safety professor.
“Some states have the infrastructure to run their own inspection programs, but many do not, and those that do may apply different levels of rigor,” said Christine Bergman, former chemist at the USDA Agricultural Research Center and current professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “This may lead to uneven enforcement. This lack of uniformity could erode public trust in the safety of the food supply, especially if outbreaks or contamination events become more frequent or harder to trace.”
The shift of food safety responsibilities to individual states poses several significant risks to organizations. If a business is operating in a state without adequate resources to fund food safety duties, individual businesses might need to take on those costs. Companies that operate across state lines could also face a regulatory patchwork that complicates their compliance with food safety rules and thus increases their operational costs, according to Bergman. The following are additional risks organizations may face as a result of the recent food safety budget cuts:
1. Reduced Oversight
A decrease in the number of inspectors means fewer routine food facility inspections, which could result in a higher risk of contaminated food reaching the market. According to Detwiler, this will especially be an issue in the meat and poultry sectors. He equated the oversight function to a smoke detector: when it works, no one notices. But its absence during a crisis can be catastrophic.
Negrón said that some scientists and leaders with years of experience are among the people who have been let go, and certain administrative roles have been eliminated. “It is unclear who is undertaking those responsibilities and if these layoffs would result in an addition of responsibilities to critical personnel or if this gap creates issues for the coordination of the agency’s inspections and responses,” Negrón said.
2. Slower Response to Outbreaks
Since uncertainty remains about who was laid off and who will replace them, Negrón said it is too soon to tell how outbreak response will be impacted. However, layoffs have already slowed the processing of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and certain testing laboratories have been closed. “This impacts the distribution of information to the public and testing capabilities, respectively,” Negrón said. “Overwhelmed testing laboratories can delay the identification of outbreaks or adulteration impacting consumer safety. The milk quality testing program has been suspended, which ensures milk meets quality and safety standards. An FDA lab in Puerto Rico has been closed, among others, in efforts to reduce the laboratories from 13 to six. Also, testing regarding the ongoing avian flu outbreak has also been impacted.”
Not being able to respond to foodborne illness outbreaks promptly impairs any investigation, leading to more instances—and longer duration—of outbreaks. If a company does not know an outbreak is linked to one of their products and there is a delay in recalling and removing those products, they also face increased risk of legal action. “Cuts to staffing and lab networks delay everything from testing and traceability to public alerts and recalls. Outbreaks can spread faster than the system can respond,” Detwiler said.
3. Compromised Food Safety Programs
The budget cuts can threaten the effectiveness of programs like food safety research, development and training, which are important for staying ahead of emerging threats and improving food safety practices. “Training, education and compliance support programs are often the first to go,” Detwiler said. “Small and midsize businesses that depend on these resources are left to navigate compliance alone.”
According to Negrón, certain programs that could help businesses get ahead of outbreaks and resulting recalls have been eliminated, consolidated or placed on hold. For example, a new USDA initiative for salmonella verification in not-ready-to-eat poultry has been delayed. “These food safety programs are put in place to stay abreast of emerging food safety concerns, alert the public and prevent foodborne illnesses,” she said. “Again, we may not know the impact as we do not know what immediate plan there is to ensure that actions do not fall through the cracks during this transition period.”
4. Shifted Safety Responsibilities
Moving typical USDA and FDA responsibilities from the federal to the state level could create inconsistencies in routine food inspections and standards, potentially weakening overall food safety oversight. “Agencies have long been collaborating with the state departments and even foreign governments to minimize duplicated efforts and share information critical to safety,” Negrón said. “However, there has always been a need for more resources, and inspection numbers mandated by Congress have not been met. Delegating domestic inspections to the states would still not be enough as the states themselves lack funding and resources to meet the demands, and it still does not address the need for inspectors to conduct foreign facility inspections at a higher rate.”
Bergman noted, “The USDA employs many food inspectors, veterinarians and scientists that state governments would likely struggle to replace, especially on short notice. Without ongoing research into emerging threats in the food supply and standardized inspection at slaughterhouses and processing facilities, the likelihood of contaminated products reaching consumers would rise.” In that case, companies might not even know that they are dealing with contaminated products and would not be able to take appropriate measure to mitigate the problem.
5. Reduced Research and Development
Budget and personnel cuts can hinder research into new technologies and methods for ensuring food safety, impacting the detection and prevention of foodborne illnesses. “When research and development are deprioritized, it stalls innovation in critical technologies, including pathogen detection, digital traceability, packaging improvements and AI-based food safety systems,” Detwiler said.
Mitigation Tips for Organizations
From the production space to distribution, companies in the food industry may find the following mitigation practices helpful in navigating the risks resulting from federal budget cuts:
- Third-Party Audits: According to Carey Allen, director of food claims at public health and safety organization NSF, organizations looking to shore up their co-manufacturer’s adherence to food safety and quality standards should implement third-party audits and product certifications. “The requirements for transparency, supplier controls and adherence to specific standards can raise confidence in the co-manufacturers’ commitment to product success and consumer satisfaction,” she said.
- Environmental Monitoring and Finished Product Testing: Monitoring environmental impact and testing finished products are crucial mitigation steps for avoiding recalls. “Adherence to positive release policies, where finished products are held until microbial testing reports are complete, may be considered to prevent the introduction of suspect products to the marketplace,” Allen said. “Thorough pre-operational inspection prior to production start-up is a must for preventing contamination.”
- Rigorous Internal Inspection Schedules: According to Allen, comprehensive, cloud-based documentation systems and third-party supplier verification programs can help organizations comply with established food safety standards. Allen suggested that supplier audits can also be utilized to prepare for benchmark audits to certification schemes, ensuring that food safety is prioritized across the supply chain.
- Collaboration: Organizations can collaborate with industry associations to maintain essential research, innovate prevention strategies and monitor activities. “By pooling resources, the industry can continue to support vital food safety initiatives, ensuring that constraints do not compromise public health,” Allen said.
As organizations continue to assess the scope of these changes, it will be crucial for them to plan ahead for potential lack of food safety inspections and how that could impact their business. “Given the abruptness of these layoffs, there is uncertainty around how the remaining personnel will take over the additional workload and if they are trained to even do so,” Negrón said. “Only time will tell.”