The need for factual, transparent food safety communication does not end when an outbreak is over. Consumers need to understand what happened, why it happened and how similar events can be prevented if trust is going to be rebuilt. Incomplete or confusing communication—especially communication that fails to distinguish established food safety risks from issues that simply attract attention—adds to consumer confusion. Transparency, context and clear facts help consumers separate meaningful information from distractions and make informed food safety decisions. That is why post-outbreak communication must do more than report what happened. It must help consumers understand which risks are established, which remain uncertain and how to use that distinction when making decisions about fresh produce.
One important lesson from this summer’s devastating Cyclospora outbreak is how quickly consumer trust in the U.S. food supply can be shaken. Many consumers stopped buying bagged salads, lettuce or even fresh produce. Others turned to local farmers’ markets as what they perceived to be a safer alternative. An International Food Information Council survey of 1,008 U.S. adults, conducted Aug. 12–17, 2026, found that 86 percent had heard about the outbreak. Among respondents who had heard about it, 30 percent said they had stopped eating all lettuce in the previous month and 22 percent said they had stopped eating produce or reduced their intake. These results show how quickly an outbreak can change consumer behavior across an entire food category.
Our scientific understanding of Cyclospora is still underdeveloped, leaving open questions for researchers, public health experts and regulatory authorities. These uncertainties were evident in experts’ written and verbal communications as they worked to explain a seasonal parasite that was largely unfamiliar to the public before this summer. One critical communication context was consistently missed by the media, academic experts and public health agencies: the risk of Cyclospora being associated with domestically grown produce is meaningfully lower than the risk associated with imported produce.
There are known fresh produce-growing regions in Mexico and Central America that have been associated with repeated Cyclospora foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S. and where Cyclospora is endemic in the local population. This is not true for U.S. domestic growing regions. The 2023 National Advisory Committee for Microbiology upheld that Cyclospora can enter U.S. fresh produce-production environments, but scientific evidence still does not establish that viable, infectious Cyclospora is broadly endemic in U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also reports that most domestically acquired, non-travel-related U.S. outbreaks have been linked primarily to imported fresh produce.
When we communicate to consumers, we need to be clear that a domestically acquired illness is not conflated with domestically grown produce. Communication should therefore separate three questions: Where was the illness acquired? Where was the product grown? Where did contamination occur? These variables may be related, but they are not interchangeable. Treating them as equivalent can lead consumers to conclusions that the evidence does not support.
Cyclospora is a real food safety concern, but the current evidence does not show that it is widespread across U.S. fresh produce production. Domestic farms still need strong prevention practices, especially around water quality, sanitation, worker hygiene and preventing contamination during harvest and packing. At the same time, public communications should be careful not to confuse risk with hazard. A positive test result may indicate potential hazard is present, but it does not always mean that produce is unsafe or that a growing region is contaminated; the strength of the evidence matters. Clear explanations about what is known, what is uncertain and where the risk is greatest can help consumers make informed decisions without creating unnecessary confusion or fear.
We will not improve consumer confidence during the next Cyclospora outbreak if we cannot make clear the fresh produce that is affected, its growing region of origin and why other fresh fruits and vegetables are safe. Communication to help build that understanding needs to begin now and needs the participation of industry, academia and public health authorities to assure fact-based context is available for consumers on Cyclospora risk. We need to work together and focus on those factors that inform on Cyclospora versus those that grab attention if we are to build the needed trust in a complex, global fresh produce supply chain.