ReportWire

Tag: USDA

  • Alcohol escapes a government crackdown—for now

    [ad_1]

    Just over a year ago, I wrote about the bureaucratic machinations in the U.S. attempting to import an anti-alcohol agenda into the government’s 2025 Dietary Guidelines. Now, it appears that alcohol has officially escaped the government’s wrath—at least for another half-decade.

    The U.S. dietary guidelines are revised every five years, with the latest revision expected this year. The lead-up to the revision unfolds over several years, and recommendations for safe drinking levels are traditionally included alongside food in the final guidance. For decades, the guidelines have held that men can safely consume up to two alcoholic drinks a day and women one. But myriad sources from inside the federal government were reporting that the new guidelines were planning to include a declaration that “no amount of alcohol is acceptable for a healthy lifestyle.” (This was a standard imported from the World Health Organization, which declared in 2023 that “no amount of alcohol is safe”). 

    This news supercharged a long-simmering debate over whether alcohol is good or bad (or simply medium) for you. Researchers have become increasingly split over this issue, with some sharing evidence that moderate alcohol consumption reduces overall mortality rates, while others point to studies finding a link between alcohol and cancer. Regardless of the science, however, the process through which the government was attempting to arrive at a “no safe level” declaration for alcohol was deeply alarming.

    The dietary guidelines revisions are spearheaded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Biden-era HHS delegated the alcohol issue to the little-known Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).

    ICCPUD’s marching orders were to issue a report on the health impacts of drinking, but it turned out ICCPUD had stacked its deck. Reports started coming out that at least half of the six-person research panel not only had well-publicized anti-alcohol stances but also didn’t even reside in the United States. The decision over whether alcohol would be deemed safe or not was being put in the hands of a group of biased international academics who were essentially accountable to no one. (Several commentators have also pointed out that ICCPUD, whose putative focus is supposed to be underage drinking, was being put in charge of determining adult drinking recommendations.)

    A potential “no safe level” declaration was particularly worrisome for the alcohol industry, since perceptions about the health impact of alcohol have already been trending negatively among younger demographics, a trend that would likely accelerate if the U.S. government were to state that no amount of alcohol is safe to drink. Attorney Sean O’Leary noted that such a declaration would also be likely to trigger a wave of Tobacco-style class action lawsuits against the drinks industry.

    Congress—surprisingly—reacted to this backdoor attempt to smuggle a neo-prohibitionist agenda into the American dietary guidelines by playing a decently effective watchdog role. It first tasked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to prepare a separate report on the health effects of drinking, which concluded that while moderate drinking raises the risk of certain types of cancer, it reduces all-cause mortality by decreasing the risk of heart disease.

    The remaining elephant in the room, however, was how President Donald Trump’s administration would handle the ICCPUD draft report that it inherited from the Biden administration. All eyes were on the new HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., famously a teetotaler, but he was silent about how the 2025 Dietary Guidelines would address alcohol.

    At long last, in early September, the House Appropriations Committee announced it was planning to defund ICCPUD, followed by news that ICCPUD’s draft report would no longer play a role in the 2025 guidelines revisions. It now appears that the alternative NASEM report will inform the new guidelines, although it’s not even certain that the guidelines will mention alcohol at all anymore (RFK Jr. has previously suggested that the 2025 Guidelines would be a mere 4 pages long, down from 160 pages in 2020).

    In the end, this counts as a narrow escape for the alcohol industry and U.S. drinkers. The science of drinking will likely be debated for years to come, but at the very least, the process should be allowed to play out in public view.

    [ad_2]

    C. Jarrett Dieterle

    Source link

  • RFK Jr. promised to ‘Make Our Children Healthy Again.’ Here’s how he plans to do it

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — President Donald Trump’s strategy to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ includes investigating vaccine injuries and pharmaceutical practices but stops short of new regulatory action, for now.

    US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled the MAHA strategy on Tuesday, joined by Agriculture Department Secretary Brooke Rollins, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, and other top Trump officials.

    The report hews closely to a draft document circulated in August that cites earlier Trump administration announcements — developing a definition for ultraprocessed foods, educating the public about synthetic kratom — but largely bypassed industry crackdowns.

    Language around pesticides strategy also remained unchanged. Environmental and food activists had rallied for the administration to include steps to reduce pesticide usage and probe potential health risks of commonly used chemicals such as RoundUp.

    The report says that USDA, EPA and the National Institutes of Health will develop a framework to study cumulative exposures to chemicals including pesticides and microplastics. USDA and EPA will also invest in new farming approaches to reduce chemical use, and EPA will launch a public awareness campaign about the limited risk of approved products.

    The commission’s first report this May suggested a broad range of factors driving chronic disease in the US, including ultraprocessed foods, environmental exposures, and overprescription of pharmaceuticals like antidepressants.

    The report noted previous announcements that HHS, the NIH and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are studying the causes of autism. Kennedy had previously promised some answers on the root causes in September; NIH is expected to announce autism research grants this month.

    Recent reports suggest that HHS will issue a report that links the development of autism to taking Tylenol during pregnancy.

    Medicines and vaccines

    Kennedy has drawn criticism for suggesting antidepressants, particularly those that are part of a family known as SSRIs are as addictive as heroin and can be dangerous. Following the August 27 shooting in Minneapolis, he told Fox News that HHS is launching studies “on the potential contribution of some of the SSRI drugs and some of the other psychiatric drugs that might be contributing to violence.”

    SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the most prescribed class of antidepressants for depression, anxiety disorders and many other mental health conditions. Several SSRIs have been on the market in the United States since the 1990s, including Prozac, Zoloft and Celexa. Experts agree that there is no scientific evidence or correlation between these drugs and violence towards others.

    Tuesday’s report states that HHS will assemble a working group of federal officials to evaluate SSRI prescribing patterns, specifically among children. HHS will also “evaluate the therapeutic harms and benefits of current diagnostic thresholds,” or the current common practices doctors use to diagnose patients with mental health disorders.

    Dr. Theresa Miskimen Rivera, president of the American Psychiatric Association said access to care, not over-medication is the bigger problem when it comes to helping kids’ mental health in the country, and there is no mention of the issue in the report. The report said addressing a child’s nutrition, screen time, and exercise can improve their mental health, but can’t address everything. “Psychiatric conditions are complex in nature,” she said. Extreme poverty, post traumatic stress disorder, trauma-related factors should also be addressed, but there is no mention in the report of any of those issues either.

    “In terms of over medication, that’s not what we do. We have a comprehensive evaluation and we are evidence based. We diagnose than create a comprehensive treatment plan, “ Miskimen Rivera told CNN. “Medication can save lives, not only in children, but in adults and elderly.”

    When asked about whether or not the commission chose to consider gun violence – the leading cause of death for children – as one of the issues to be investigated, Kennedy doubled down on the issue of prescription drugs, saying “We are doing studies now, or initiating studies to look at the correlation and the connection, potential connection between over medicating our kids and this violence.”

    HHS will also work with the White House Domestic Policy Council on a new vaccine framework that, the report said, will ensure “America has the best childhood vaccine schedule” and ensure “scientific and medical freedom.”

    The report comes as Kennedy continues to defend his shakeup of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over vaccine policy, including the ouster of CDC Director Dr. Susan Monarez.

    The administration will also increase oversight of “deceptive” direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products, including from social media influencers and telehealth companies, it said.

    Food policy stays the course

    FDA will continue work on developing a definition for ultraprocessed foods, but the report bypasses recommendations, like those of former FDA Director Dr. David Kessler, to essentially order certain additives off the market until they are reviewed.

    Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, director of Tufts Food is Medicine Institute said a definition of ultraprocessed foods would be “really important.” With more than half of calories in the food supply coming from ultraprocessed foods, addressing this and other issues involving the nation’s diet would mean a “massive fight with the industry and is going to be incredibly controversial, but is much needed.”

    “Overall, this is really quite thorough, quite specific, and even if parts of this are accomplished, this could have tremendous positive impact for Americans,” Mozaffarian told CNN.

    Other experts, like Marion Nestle, agreed the report was ambitious in scope, but noted it fell short on regulatory action. “What’s still missing is regulation. So much of this is voluntary, work with, promote, partner,” said Nestle, who is the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.

    The report also nods to new, user-friendly dietary guidelines expected later this year. Kennedy has promised a vastly shortened set of recommendations that will emphasize whole foods.

    The commission also cited ongoing work to reduce ultraprocessed foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Head Start.

    While the report also touches on agriculture deregulation with the aim of making it easier for small farms to get greater access to markets and schools, Ken Cook, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a health advocacy organization said the report abandons earlier MAHA promises to ban toxic pesticides and instead “echoes the pesticide industry’s talking points.”

    “Secretary Kennedy and President Trump cynically convinced millions they’d protect children from harmful farm chemicals – promises now exposed as hollow,” Cook said in a statement.

    There were minor changes from the draft document leaked in August. For instance, the August 6 draft stated that the FDA and other agencies will crack down on “Illegal Chinese Vapes,” while the final version promises enforcement on vapes more broadly.

    “We support the goal of making children healthier and addressing and preventing chronic disease, but unfortunately, the recommendations fall short in some really critical ways,” Laura Kate Bender, vice president nationwide advocacy and public policy for the American Lung Association told CNN.

    “They continue to cast doubt on vaccines, one of the most, important, proven public health interventions that we can have for kids health. They don’t address some major contributors to diseases in kids like pollution, tobacco use, beyond the mention of vaping, and this report is coming out at the same time that we’re continuing to see dramatic cuts in staff and funding of a lot of the programs that could make the good parts of the report a reality.”

    The report’s emphasis on kids’ health can help overall, Dr. Michelle Macy, director of the Mary Ann & J. Milburn Smith Child Health Outcomes, Research and Evaluation Center in Chicago told CNN. “I’m really trying to look for bright spots in this report, and I think that the focus on data and infrastructure for us to be able to answer big questions about what environmental and food exposures and medication exposures do to shape the trajectory of someone’s health and chronic disease across the lifespan is something that has promise and potential.”

    Dr. Richard Besser, pediatrician and president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said that having a focus on preventing chronic disease in children is a good thing, but he said, with Kennedy’s track record that includes firing thousands of federal health employees, slashing millions in health research funding, dismantling entire offices that managed important issues like smoking and chronic disease specifically, in addition to his “assault on vaccinations” will undermine any potential good of this kind of report.

    “Neither RFK Jr.’s record, nor his policies outlined in the report give me confidence that he is going to make any difference whatsoever on chronic diseases in children,” Besser told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Owermohle, Jen Christensen and CNN

    Source link

  • Maryland Democrats buck USDA plan to shutter Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

    [ad_1]

    Some of the buildings at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which would close as part of at USDA plan to ship thousands of workers to sites across the country. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Agriculture)

    Democrats in Maryland’s congressional delegation are pushing back against the Trump administration’s recent decision to shutter a Prince George’s agricultural research facility, arguing that the closure would not only hurt American farmers and agricultural research, but could be illegal.

    A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture memo announced that the agency is undergoing a reorganization to “achieve improved effectiveness and accountability, enhanced services, reduced bureaucracy and cost savings for the American people.”

    Part of that plan calls for closing the 6,500-acre Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Prince George’s County, which would be “deeply harmful to American farmers and a waste of taxpayer dollars,” according to a letter submitted by nine of Maryland’s 10 members of Congress, as part of the 30-day public comment period on the proposal.

    Both senators and seven of the states’ eight House members signed the letter urging the USDA to keep the center open. Only Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st), the sole Republican in the delegation, did not sign the letter, which was submitted last week.

    “We also have significant concerns about the lack of transparency and the legality of USDA’s proposed plan,” the letter said. “We urge you to keep BARC open and to provide a detailed accounting of the full impact of the proposed reorganization plan.”

    The reorganization was outlined by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a July 24 memo that said several USDA agencies in and around Washington, D.C., would be moved to other parts of the country to be “located closer to the people it serves while achieving savings to the American taxpayer.”

    Because of Washington’s cost of living, the 4,600 USDA workers here get higher pay than they would i other cities. The plan calls for moving all but 2,000 of those workers to one of five regional hubs to reduce salary costs, and to close the Beltsville center “over multiple years to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”

    But the Maryland lawmakers say moving the BARC would not actually yield savings the department claims. The cost of living in Prince George’s is “estimated at $121,972 per year for a two-parent, two-child family,” significantly lower than in the District, the letter said.

    “The new hubs you propose are in counties that have costs of living that range from $124,856 in Larimer County, CO (Fort Collins) to $101,965 per year in Marion County, IN (Indianapolis),” it said. “The cost of living in Prince George’s County clearly falls within the cost-of-living range of the proposed hub locations.”

    But that’s just one of several reasons cited by the delegation, which also said that closing the Beltsville site requires congressional approval. Movinig forward without that approval, or moving personnel from one office to another without authorizing legislation, is prohibited by law, they said.

    Meanwhile, the move would “waste” some $174 million in recent upgrades and repairs to the Beltsville facility, lawmakers said.

    “Abandoning a facility right after USDA has made such significant upgrades to it is illogical and wasteful,” the letter says. “As one of the world’s largest agricultural research complexes, relocating personnel, as well as all the lab and research equipment, will undoubtedly be a major expense.”

    Besides, the location in Prince George’s has benefits that “cannot be replicated elsewhere.”

    “Located close to freshwater and saltwater, mountains and coastal lowlands, and situated within the fertile Piedmont Plateau, BARC is within reach of diverse landscapes and a range of climatic conditions,” the letter says. “This geography makes it an ideal location for an agriculture research station and its proximity to the nation’s capital allows BARC to take advantage of several key efficiencies.”

    SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

    The letter specifically notes the BARC’s “regionally-tailored” research in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Eliminating BARC would “eliminate the research hub serving the entire Northeast Region – from Virginia to Maine.”

    The potential loss of BARC is just the latest in a string of federal announcements that have been bad news for Prince George’s County this year.

    In January, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing announced that it was canceling plans to move its printing operations from its current plant in Washington to a new facility planned for Beltsville, a move that would have brought about 1,400 jobs to the county. And in July, the FBI reversed more than a decade of study and planning and said it would not be building its new headquarters in Greenbelt but would remain downtown in the Ronald Reagan Building.

    County, state and federal officials have vowed to fight for the FBI building, saying Prince George’s County is the best location. The same is true for agricultural research center, they said.

    “BARC’s excellence in agricultural research is of enormous value to the nation, and so we urge you not to close this critical facility,” the letter says. “We also urge USDA to ensure full transparency in any potential reorganization and to follow the letter of the law.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • USDA to invest $750 million in facility to fight screwworm pest

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, D.C.: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will invest up to US$750 million to construct a new production facility in Texas designed to breed sterile flies as a weapon against the New World screwworm, a parasitic pest that threatens livestock by literally eating animals alive.

    Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the plan this week, warning that the insect’s advance from Mexico toward the U.S. border has raised serious concerns about a potential outbreak.

    The project reflects growing alarm within the cattle industry, which fears that the return of screwworm could devastate herds and push already record-high beef prices even higher by tightening supplies.

    “It could truly crush the cattle industry,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott said during a joint press conference with Rollins. Texas, the nation’s largest cattle-producing state, has not seen screwworm infestations in decades, thanks to a landmark eradication program in the 20th century that relied on aerial releases of sterile flies.

    The new plant, planned for Edinburg, Texas, will operate alongside a previously announced dispersal center at Moore Air Base. Once completed, it will be capable of producing 300 million sterile screwworm flies each week, Rollins said. When released, the sterile flies overwhelm wild populations by disrupting reproduction, eventually collapsing infestations. While Rollins did not give an opening date, she has previously noted that such a facility typically requires two to three years to build.

    To bridge the gap until the Texas facility comes online, the USDA will allocate another $100 million to develop new screwworm-fighting technologies and to expand mounted patrols along the southern border, where wildlife could carry the pest into U.S. territory. The agency has already suspended imports of Mexican cattle as of July, further tightening domestic supplies that are already at historically low levels. “Those ports don’t open until we begin to push the screwworm back,” Rollins emphasized.

    The U.S. is also working with regional partners. A sterile fly production plant in Mexico is scheduled to open next year, while an existing facility in Panama breeds about 100 million sterile flies per week. According to USDA estimates, as many as 500 million sterile flies must be released each week to drive the screwworm southward and prevent it from re-establishing itself in North America.

    “This is not just a Texas problem—it’s a national concern,” Rollins said. “All Americans should be concerned.”

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Moringa the Most Nutritious Food?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Does the so-called miracle tree live up to the hype?

    Moringa (Moringa oleifera) is a plant commonly known as the “miracle” tree due to its purported healing powers across a spectrum of diseases. If “miracle” isn’t hyperbolic enough for you, “on the Internet,” it’s also known as “God’s Gift to Man.” Is moringa a miracle or just a mirage? “The enthusiasm for the health benefits of M. oleifera is in dire contrast with the scarcity of strong experimental and clinical evidence supporting them. Fortunately, the chasm is slowly being filled.” There has been a surge in scientific publications on moringa. In just the last ten years, the number of articles is closer to a thousand, as shown here and at 1:02 in my video The Benefits of Moringa: Is It the Most Nutritious Food?.

    What got my attention was the presence of glucosinolates, compounds that boost our liver’s detoxifying enzymes. I thought they were only found in cruciferous vegetables, such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, collards, and cauliflower. Still, it turns out they’re also present in the moringa family, with a potency comparable to broccoli. But rather than mail-ordering exotic moringa powder, why not just eat broccoli?Is there something special about moringa?

    “Moringa oleifera has been described as the most nutritious tree yet discovered,” but who eats trees? Moringa supposedly “contains higher amounts of elemental nutrients than most conventional vegetable sources,” such as featuring 10 times more vitamin A than carrots, 12 times more vitamin C than oranges, 17 times more calcium than milk, 15 times more potassium than bananas, 25 times more iron than spinach, and 9 times more protein than yogurt, as shown here and at 2:08 in my video. 
    Sounds impressive, but first of all, even if this were true, it is relevant for 100 grams of dry moringa leaf, which is about 14 tablespoons, almost a whole cup of leaf powder. Researchers have had trouble getting people to eat even 20 grams, so anything more would likely “result in excessively unpleasant taste, due to the bitterness of the leaves.”

    Secondly, the nutritional claims in these papers are “adapted from Fuglie,” which is evidently a lay publication. If you go to the nutrient database of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and enter a more reasonable dose, such as the amount that might be in a smoothie, about a tablespoon, for instance, a serving of moringa powder has as much vitamin A as a quarter of one baby carrot and as much vitamin C as one one-hundredth of an orange. So, an orange has as much vitamin C as a hundred tablespoons of moringa. A serving of moringa powder has the calcium of half a cup of milk, the potassium of not fifteen bananas but a quarter of one banana, the iron of a quarter cup of spinach, and the protein of a third of a container of yogurt, as seen below and at 3:15 in my video. So, it may be nutritious, but not off the charts and certainly not what’s commonly touted. So, again, why not just eat broccoli?

    Moringa does seem to have anticancer activity—in a petri dish—against cell lines of breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and fibrosarcoma, while tending to leave normal cells relatively alone, but there haven’t been any clinical studies. What’s the point in finding out that “Moringa oleifera extract enhances sexual performance in stressed rats,” as one study was titled?

    Studies like “Effect of supplementation of drumstick (Moringa oleifera) and amaranth (Amaranthus tricolor) leaves powder on antioxidant profile and oxidative status among postmenopausal women” started to make things a little interesting. When researchers were testing the effects of a tablespoon of moringa leaf powder once a day for three months on antioxidant status, they saw a drop in oxidative stress, as one might expect from eating any healthy plant food. However, they also saw a drop in fasting blood sugars from prediabetic levels exceeding 100 to more normal levels. Now, that’s interesting. Should we start recommending a daily tablespoon of moringa powder to people with diabetes, or was it just a fluke? I’ll discuss the study “Moringa oleifera and glycemic [blood sugar] control: A review of the current evidence” next.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • California reports a total of eight H5N1 bird flu outbreaks among dairy herds

    California reports a total of eight H5N1 bird flu outbreaks among dairy herds

    [ad_1]

    The number of California dairy herds reported to have outbreaks of H5N1 bird flu has grown to eight.

    Officials have refused to disclose the locations of the infected herds, but have said they are in close proximity somewhere in California’s Central Valley — an 18,000-square-mile expanse that is roughly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

    They say they are still investigating the source of the virus, but at a news conference Thursday, federal officials said genetic sequencing from the first three outbreaks suggests the strain is similar to that seen in other states. They say it does not appear to have been caused by wild birds or animals.

    “This is the same virus that we’ve detected in herds since the beginning of the emergence of H5N1 in dairy cows,” said Eric Deeble, deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the United States Department of Agriculture. “Sequencing of the samples from the additional five premises will likely be completed later this week or over the weekend.”

    He said the California Department of Food and Agriculture has been “conducting a very thorough traceback, and all the herds that have been detected in California to date have been through their investigation.”

    There have been 201 herds infected by the virus across 14 states since the outbreak was first reported in March.

    State officials continue to reassure the public that the risk to the general population is low, and that pasteurized milk and dairy products are safe for human consumption.

    Deeble said his agency is in the process of authorizing field safety studies for a H5N1 cow vaccine.

    An agency spokesman said vaccine development does not suggest that the biosecurity protocols that the USDA and state governments have followed have failed. Nor does it mean the virus is here to stay.

    “Vaccine development is one part of an overall strategy that includes enhanced and strengthened biosecurity efforts to contain the virus and help mitigate spread,” said Will Clement, a USDA spokesman.

    “Bovine vaccines may prove to be an important tool to eventually help eliminate the virus from the nation’s dairy cattle herd, but developing a vaccine requires many steps and it will take time to test, approve, and distribute a successful vaccine,” he said. “This is why we have opened the pathway to vaccine field trials even as we continue to deploy all available efforts, including emphasizing biosecurity and mandating the testing lactating dairy cattle moving across state lines.”

    In addition, federal health officials say they have not been able to sequence the entirety of the H5N1 sample isolated from a human case in Missouri. That person had no known contact with dairy or poultry, and a preliminary investigation has not been able to determine the source of infection.

    There have been no reports of infected dairy herds in Missouri.

    “Right now, evidence points to this being a one off,” said Nirav Shah, principal deputy director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Shah said the patient, who was hospitalized with flu-like symptoms and has since recovered, had only low levels of the virus circulating through their body. As a result, sequencing has been difficult.

    While officials can safely say the virus is of the H5 sub-type, they have not been able to sequence the N-part.

    But the H5 part appears to resemble the H5 subtype in infected dairy cows.

    “We’re throwing everything we’ve got at this, but ultimately, a full sequence may not be technically feasible because of the low concentration of viral RNA,” Shah said.

    [ad_2]

    Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • Obesity and a Toxic Food Environment  | NutritionFacts.org

    Obesity and a Toxic Food Environment  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Implausible explanations for the obesity epidemic serve the needs of food manufacturers and marketers more than public health and an interest in truth. 

    When it comes to uncovering the root causes of the obesity epidemic, there appears to be manufactured confusion, “with major studies reasserting that the causes of obesity are ‘extremely complex’ and ‘fiendishly hard to untangle,’” but having just reviewed the literature, it doesn’t seem like much of a mystery to me.

    It’s the food.

    Attempts at obfuscation—rolling out hosts of “implausible explanations,” like sedentary lifestyles or lack of self-discipline—cater to food manufacturers and marketers more than the public’s health and our interest in the truth. “When asked about the role of restaurants in contributing to the obesity problem, Steven Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association stated, “Just because we have electricity doesn’t mean you have to electrocute yourself.” Yes, but Big Food is effectively attaching electrodes to shock and awe the reward centers in our brains to undermine our self-control.

    It is hard to eat healthfully against the headwind of such strong evolutionary forces. No matter what our level of nutrition knowledge, in the face of pepperoni pizza, “our genes scream, ‘Eat it now!’” Anyone who doubts the power of basic biological drives should see how long they can go without blinking or breathing. Any conscious decision to hold your breath is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe. In medicine, shortness of breath is sometimes even referred to as “air hunger.” The battle of the bulge is a battle against biology, so obesity is not some moral failing. It’s not gluttony or sloth. It is a natural, “normal response, by normal people, to an abnormal situation”—the unnatural ubiquity of calorie-dense, sugary, and fatty foods.

    The sea of excess calories we are now floating in (and some of us are drowning in) has been referred to as a “toxic food environment.” This helps direct focus away from the individual and towards the societal forces at work, such as the fact that the average child is blasted with 10,000 commercials for food a year. Or maybe I should say ads for pseudo food, as 95 percent are for “candy, fast food, soft drinks [aka liquid candy], and sugared cereals [aka breakfast candy].”

    Wait a second, though. If weight gain is just a natural reaction to the easy availability of mountains of cheap, yummy calories, then why isn’t everyone fat? As you can see below and at 2:41 in my video The Role of the Toxic Food Environment in the Obesity Epidemic, in a certain sense, most everyone is. It’s been estimated that more than 90 percent of American adults are “overfat,” defined as having “excess body fat sufficient to impair health.” This can occur even “in those who are normal-weight and non-obese, often due to excess abdominal fat.

    However, even if you look just at the numbers on the scale, being overweight is the norm. If you look at the bell curve and input the latest data, more than 70 percent of us are overweight. A little less than one-third of us is normal weight, on one side of the curve, and more than a third is on the other side, so overweight that we’re obese. You can see in the graph below and at 3:20 in my video.

    If the food is to blame, though, why doesn’t everyone get fat? That’s like asking if cigarettes are really to blame, why don’t all smokers get lung cancer? This is where genetic predispositions and other exposures can weigh in to tip the scales. Different people are born with a different susceptibility to cancer, but that doesn’t mean smoking doesn’t play a critical role in exploding whatever inherent risk you have. It’s the same with obesity and our toxic food environment. It’s like the firearm analogy: Genes may load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger. We can try to switch the safety back on with smoking cessation and a healthier diet.

    What happened when two dozen study participants were given the same number of excess calories? They all gained weight, but some gained more than others. Overfeeding the same 1,000 calories a day, 6 days a week for 100 days, caused weight gains ranging from about 9 pounds up to 29 pounds. The same 84,000 extra calories caused different amounts of weight gain. Some people are just more genetically susceptible. The reason we suspect genetics is that the 24 people in the study were 12 sets of identical twins, and the variation in weight gain between each of them was about a third less. As you can see in the graph below and at 4:41 in my video, a similar study with weight loss from exercise found a similar result. So, yes, genetics play a role, but that just means some people have to work harder than others. Ideally, inheriting a predisposition for extra weight gain shouldn’t give a reason for resignation, but rather motivation to put in the extra effort to unseal your fate. 

    Advances in processing and packaging, combined with government policies and food subsidy handouts that fostered cheap inputs for the “food industrial complex,” led to a glut of ready-to-eat, ready-to-heat, ready-to-drink hyperpalatable, hyperprofitable products. To help assuage impatient investors, marketing became even more pervasive and persuasive. All these factors conspired to create unfettered access to copious, convenient, low-cost, high-calorie foods often willfully engineered with chemical additives to make them hyperstimulatingly sweet or savory, yet only weakly satiating. 

    As we all sink deeper into a quicksand of calories, more and more mental energy is required to swim upstream against the constant “bombardment of advertising” and 24/7 panopticons of tempting treats. There’s so much food flooding the market now that much of it ends up in the trash. Food waste has progressively increased by about 50 percent since the 1970s. Perhaps better in the landfills, though, than filling up our stomachs. Too many of these cheap, fattening foods prioritize shelf life over human life.

    But dead people don’t eat. Don’t food companies have a vested interest in keeping their consumers healthy? Such naiveté reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. A public company’s primary responsibility is to reap returns for its investors. “How else could we have tobacco companies, who are consummate marketers, continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?” It’s not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. The customer always comes second.

    Just as weight gain may be a perfectly natural reaction to an obesogenic food environment, governments and businesses are simply responding normally to the political and economic realities of our system. Can you think of a single major industry that would benefit from people eating more healthfully? “Certainly not the agriculture, food product, grocery, restaurant, diet, or drug industries,” wrote emeritus professor Marion Nestle in a Science editorial when she was chair of nutrition at New York University. “All flourish when people eat more, and all employ armies of lobbyists to discourage governments from doing anything to inhibit overeating.”

    If part of the problem is cheap tasty convenience, is hard-to-find food that’s gross and expensive the solution? Or might there be a way to get the best of all worlds—easy, healthy, delicious, satisfying meals that help you lose weight? That’s the central question of my book How Not to Diet. Check it out for free at your local library.

    This is it—the final video in this 11-part series. If you missed any of the others, see the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Thousands more Prince William Co. students to get free school meals next year – WTOP News

    Thousands more Prince William Co. students to get free school meals next year – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Thousands more Prince William County Public Schools students will have access to free breakfast and lunch next year.

    In Prince William County, 24 more schools will be added to the Community Eligibility Provision, which allows schools and school divisions to offer free meals to students without requiring applications.(WTOP/Scott Gelman)

    Thousands more Prince William County Public Schools students will have access to free breakfast and lunch next year after a major change to the criteria used to determine whether a school can offer free meals to the whole student body.

    Previously, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said 40% of students at a school have to automatically qualify for free meals to make them available to every student at the school. But the agency recently changed that to 25%, and as a result, over 26,000 more students will be offered the meals in the upcoming school year.

    In Prince William County — Virginia’s second-largest school district — 24 more schools will be added to the Community Eligibility Provision. That allows schools and school divisions to offer free meals to students without requiring applications.

    “It just removes a barrier to participation in our meals,” said Andrea Early, the school district’s director of food and nutrition. “And so, the more kids we can draw into the program, the more good nutrition we can get to them, the more they can contribute to their academic success in our schools.”

    Now that more schools in the district will be offering the free meals, Early said the school system has launched a campaign to make sure families are aware of the change. For students at schools not covered under the Community Eligibility Provision, accessing the free meals requires paperwork, and eligibility is tied to income level.

    Abby Izzo, the band teacher at Parkside Middle School in Manassas, said she expects most of the students there to take advantage of the free lunch. Over half the students there were participating in the free lunch previously, but she said she expects more to start this fall.

    “They’re going to be more apt to learn, they’re going to be more apt to be successful, if they’re not hungry,” Izzo said.

    Dominick Izzo, a choir teacher at Osbourn Park High School, said the expansion of the program will help parents allocate money elsewhere for classes that have field trips or other costs.

    Osbourn Park is one of the two dozen schools where free meals will be available to every student this upcoming school year.

    “The students that I teach, in which lunch is free for them, seeing them walk into my room to eat lunch, having that hot meal every day is so important to a child’s happiness throughout the school day,” Dominick Izzo said. “Many of our students go home to a place where there isn’t a hot meal.”

    Scott Munnelly, an area manager with the division, said, “Kids come through the line, and there’s no thought of who’s paying for it, where it comes from, they’re just able to get a great, nutritious meal, and families don’t have to worry about incurring a debt for that.”

    The schools that will now start offering free breakfast and lunch to all students include:

    Elementary Schools

    • Antietam Elementary School
    • Chris Yung Elementary School
    • Coles Elementary School
    • Covington-Harper Elementary School
    • Kyle Wilson Elementary School
    • Lake Ridge Elementary School
    • Mary Williams Elementary School
    • Montclair Elementary School
    • Pattie Elementary School
    • Penn Elementary School
    • Rosa Parks Elementary School
    • Signal Hill Elementary School
    • Springwoods Elementary School
    • Tyler Elementary School
    • Victory Elementary School
    • Westridge Elementary School

    Middle Schools

    • Lake Ridge Middle School
    • Parkside Middle School
    • Potomac Shores Middle School
    • Saunders Middle School

    High Schools

    • C.D. Hylton High School
    • Osbourn Park High School
    • Potomac High School
    • Woodbridge High School

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Scott Gelman

    Source link

  • Marketing Takes Off and Obesity Soars  | NutritionFacts.org

    Marketing Takes Off and Obesity Soars  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The unprecedented rise in the power, scope, and sophistication of food marketing starting around 1980 aligns well with the blastoff slope of the obesity epidemic.

    In the 1970s, the U.S. government went from just subsidizing some of the worst foods to paying companies to make more of them: “Congress passed laws reversing long-standing farm policies aimed at protecting prices by limiting production” and started giving payouts in proportion to output. Extra calories started pouring into the food supply.

    Then Jack Welch gave a speech. In 1981, the CEO of General Electric effectively launched the “shareholder value movement,” reorienting the primary goal of corporations towards maximizing short-term returns for investors. This placed extraordinary pressure from Wall Street on food companies to post increasing profit growth every quarter to boost their share price. There was already a glut of calories on the market and now they had to sell even more.

    This placed food and beverage CEOs in an impossible bind. It’s not like they’re rubbing their sticky hands together at the thought of luring more Hansels and Gretels to their doom in their houses of candy. Food giants couldn’t do the right thing even if they wanted. They are beholden to investors. If they stopped marketing to kids or tried to sell healthier food or did anything else that could jeopardize their quarterly profit growth, Wall Street would demand a change in management. Healthy eating is bad for business. It’s not some grand conspiracy; it’s not even anyone’s fault. It’s just how the system works.

    As I discuss in my video The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic, given the constant demands for corporate growth and rapid returns in an already oversaturated marketplace, the food industry needed to get people to eat more. Like the tobacco industry before them, it turned to the ad makers. The food industry spends about $10 billion a year on advertising and around another $20 billion on other forms of marketing, such as trade shows, consumer promotions, incentives, and supermarket “slotting fees.” Food and beverage companies purchase shelf space from supermarkets to prominently display their most profitable products. They pay supermarkets. The practice is also known as “cliffing,” because companies “force suppliers to bid against each other for shelf space with the loser pushed ‘over the cliff.’” With slotting fees costing up to $20,000 per item, per retailer, and per city, you can imagine what types of foods get the special treatment. Hint: It ain’t broccoli.

    To get a sense of what kind of products merit prime shelf real estate, look no further than the checkout aisle. “Merchandising the power categories on every lane is critical,” reads a trade publication on the “best practices for superior checkout merchandising.” It was referring to candy bars and beverages. Just a 1 percent power category boost in sales could earn a store an extra $15,000 a year. It’s not that publicly traded companies don’t care about their customers’ health. They might, but like most of the leading grocery store chains, their “primary fiduciary responsibility is to increase profits” above other considerations.

    For instance, tens of millions of dollars are spent annually advertising a single brand of candy bar. McDonald’s alone may spend billions a year. Now, “the food industry is the biggest spender on advertising of any major sector of the economy.”

    “Reagan-era deregulatory policies removed limits on television marketing of food products to children.” Now, the average child may see more than 10,000 TV food ads a year, and that’s on top of “the marketing content online, in print, at school, at the movies, in video games, or at school,” or even on their phones. “Nearly all food marketing to children worldwide promotes products that can adversely affect their health.”

    Besides the massive early exposure and ubiquity, food marketing has become “highly sophisticated. With the help of child psychologists, companies began to understand the factors that unconsciously influenced sales. They found out, for example, how to influence children and get them to manipulate their parents.” Packaging was designed to best attract a child’s attention, and then those products are placed at their eye level in the store. You know those mirrored bubbles in the ceilings of supermarkets? They aren’t just for shoplifters. Closed-circuit cameras and GPS-like devices on shopping carts are used to strategize how best to guide shoppers toward the market’s most profitable products. Behavioral psychology is widely applied to increase impulse buying, and eye movement tracking technologies are utilized.

    The “unprecedented expansion in the scope, power, and ubiquity of food marketing…coincided with an unprecedented expansion in food consumption in predictable ways.” Some techniques have “skyrocket[ed] from essentially zero to multi-billion-dollar industries” since the 1980s, including “product placement, in-school advertising, event sponsorships.” This led one noted economist to conclude that “the most compelling single interpretation of the admittedly incomplete data we have is that the large increase in obesity is due to marketing.” Yes, innovations in manufacturing and political maneuvering led to a food supply bursting at the seams with close to 4,000 calories a day for us all, but it’s the advances in marketing manipulations that try to peddle that surplus into our mouths. 

    I think the natural reaction to the suggestion of the power of marketing is: I’m too smart to fall for that. Marketing works on other people, but I can see through it. But that’s what everyone thinks! For a splash of cold water to shake us all out of this delusion, I next bring you some data: The Role of Food Advertisements in the Obesity Epidemic. 

    Also, for both the role of marketing and food advertisements, check out Friday Favorites: The Role of Marketing and Food Advertisements in the Obesity Epidemic.

    This is the seventh in an 11-video series. If you missed any of the first six, check out the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why are U.S. taxpayers giving billions of dollars to support the likes of the sugar and meat industries?

    The rise in calorie surplus sufficient to explain the obesity epidemic was less a change in food quantity than in food quality. Access to cheap, high-calorie, low-quality convenience foods exploded, and the federal government very much played a role in making this happen. U.S. taxpayers give billions of dollars in subsidies to prop up the likes of the sugar industry, the corn industry and its high-fructose syrup, and the production of soybeans, about half of which is processed into vegetable oil and the other half is used as cheap feed to help make dollar-menu meat. You can see a table of subsidy recipients below and at 0:49 in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic. Why do taxpayers give nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year to the sorghum industry? When was the last time you sat down to some sorghum? It’s almost all fed to cattle and other livestock. “We have created a food price structure that favors relatively animal source foods, sweets, and fats”—animal products, sugars, and oils.

    The Farm Bill started out as an emergency measure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to protect small farmers but was weaponized by Big Ag into a cash cow with pork barrel politics—including said producers of beef and pork. From 1970 to 1994, global beef prices dropped by more than 60 percent. And, if it weren’t for taxpayers “sweetening the pot” with billions of dollars a year, high-fructose corn syrup would cost the soda industry about 12 percent more. Then we hand Big Soda billions more through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, to give sugary drinks to low-income individuals. Why is chicken so cheap? After one Farm Bill, corn and soy were subsidized below the cost of production for cheap animal fodder. We effectively handed the poultry and pork industries about $10 billion each. That’s not chicken feed—or rather, it is! 

    This is changing what we eat. 

    As you can see below and at 2:03 in my video, thanks in part to subsidies, dairy, meats, sweets, eggs, oils, and soda were all getting relatively cheaper compared to the overall consumer food price index as the obesity epidemic took off, whereas the relative cost of fresh fruits and vegetables doubled. This may help explain why, during about the same period, the percentage of Americans getting five servings of fruits and vegetables a day dropped from 42 percent to 26 percent. Why not just subsidize produce instead? Because that’s not where the money is. 

    “To understand what is shaping our foodscape today, it is important to understand the significance of differential profit.” Whole foods or minimally processed foods, such as canned beans or tomato paste, are what the food business refers to as “commodities.” They have such slim profit margins that “some are typically sold at or below cost, as ‘loss leaders,’ to attract customers to the store” in the hopes that they’ll also buy the “value-added” products. Some of the most profitable products for producers and vendors alike are the ultra-processed, fatty, sugary, and salty concoctions of artificially flavored, artificially colored, and artificially cheap ingredients—thanks to taxpayer subsidies. 

    Different foods reap different returns. Measured in “profit per square foot of selling space” in the supermarket, confectionaries like candy bars consistently rank among the most lucrative. The markups are the only healthy thing about them. Fried snacks like potato chips and corn chips are also highly profitable. PepsiCo’s subsidiary Frito-Lay brags that while its products represented only about 1 percent of total supermarket sales, they may account for more than 10 percent of operating profits for supermarkets and 40 percent of profit growth. 

    It’s no surprise, then, that the entire system is geared towards garbage. The rise in the calorie supply wasn’t just more food but a different kind of food. There’s a dumb dichotomy about the drivers of the obesity epidemic: Is it the sugar or the fat? They’re both highly subsidized, and they both took off. As you can see below and at 4:29 and 4:35 in my video, along with a significant rise in refined grain products that is difficult to quantify, the rise in obesity was accompanied by about a 20 percent increase in per capita pounds of added sugars and a 38 percent increase in added fats. 

     

    More than half of all calories consumed by most adults in the United States were found to originate from these subsidized foods, and they appear to be worse off for it. Those eating the most had significantly higher levels of chronic disease risk factors, including elevated cholesterol, inflammation, and body weight. 

    If it really were a government of, by, and for the people, we’d be subsidizing healthy foods, if anything, to make fruits and vegetables cheap or even free. Instead, our tax dollars are shoveled to the likes of the sugar industry or to livestock feed to make cheap, fast-food meat. 

    Speaking of sorghum, I had never had it before and it’s delicious! In fact, I wish I had discovered it before How Not to Diet was published. I now add sorghum and finger millet to my BROL bowl which used to just include purple barley groats, rye groats, oat groats, and black lentils, so the acronym has become an unpronounceable BROLMS. Anyway, sorghum is a great rice substitute for those who saw my rice and arsenic video series and were as convinced as I am that we need to diversify our grains. 

    We now turn to marketing. After all of the taxpayer-subsidized glut of calories in the market, the food industry had to find a way to get it into people’s mouths. So, next: The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic. 

    We’re about halfway through this series on the obesity epidemic. If you missed any so far, check out the related videos below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • More than 85K lbs. of ready-to-eat sliced prosciutto recalled for not being checked properly: USDA

    More than 85K lbs. of ready-to-eat sliced prosciutto recalled for not being checked properly: USDA

    [ad_1]

    The product was sold at stores in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington state.

    Check your refrigerators! Over 85,000 pounds of ready-to-eat sliced Stockmeyer prosciutto ham is being recalled because it wasn’t inspected properly.

    The product was sold at stores in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington state.

    So far, there have been no adverse reactions reported but the USDA says you should not eat it.

    Over 80,000 pounds of ready-to-eat sliced prosciutto ham product made by a German manufacturer has been recalled by a New Jersey-based firm for not being checked properly.

    USDA

    The RTE sliced prosciutto ham item was produced on various dates from Sept. 25, 2023 through March 6, 2024.

    Consumers are advised to either throw it out or return it to the place of purchase.

    For a full list of lot codes and best-before dates included in the recall, visit the USDA website for recalls.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More cows are being tested and tracked for bird flu. Here’s what that means

    More cows are being tested and tracked for bird flu. Here’s what that means

    [ad_1]

    U.S. health and agriculture officials are ramping up testing and tracking of bird flu in dairy cows in an urgent effort to understand — and stop — the growing outbreak.So far, the risk to humans remains low, officials said, but scientists are wary that the virus could change to spread more easily among people.The virus, known as Type A H5N1, has been detected in nearly three dozen dairy herds in eight states. Inactive viral remnants have been found in grocery store milk. Tests also show the virus is spreading between cows, including those that don’t show symptoms, and between cows and birds, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Starting Monday, hundreds of thousands of lactating dairy cows in the U.S. will have to be tested — with negative results — before they can be moved between states, under terms of a new federal order.Here’s what you need to know about the ongoing bird flu investigation:WHY IS THIS OUTBREAK SO UNUSUAL?This strain of what’s known as highly pathogenic avian influenza has been circulating in wild birds for decades. In recent years, it has been detected in scores of mammals around the world. Most have been wild animals, such as foxes and bears, that ate sick or dying birds. But it’s also appeared in farmed minks. It’s shown up in aquatic mammals, such as harbor seals and porpoises, too. The virus was even found in a polar bear in northern Alaska.The virus was discovered in ruminants — goats and then dairy cows — in the U.S. this spring, surprising many scientists who have studied it for years.“When we think of influenza A, cows are not typically in that conversation,” said Richard Webby, an influenza expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.Flu viruses are notorious for adapting to spread among new species, so detection in dairy cows raises concerns it could spread to people, Webby said.HOW LONG HAS BIRD FLU BEEN SPREADING IN COWS?Scientists confirmed the virus in cows in March after weeks of reports from dairy farms that the animals were falling ill. Symptoms included lethargy, sharply reduced milk supply and changes to the milk, which became thick and yellow.Finding remnants of the virus in milk on the market “suggests that this has been going on longer, and is more widespread, than we have previously recognized,” said Matthew Aliota, a veterinary medicine researcher at the University of Minnesota.Under pressure from scientists, USDA officials released new genetic data about the outbreak this week.The data omitted some information about when and where samples were collected, but showed that the virus likely was spread by birds to cattle late last year, said Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist with the University of Arizona.Since then, it has spread among cattle and among farms, likely through contact with physical objects such as workers’ shoes, trucks or milking machines, Worobey said.And then the cows spread the virus back to birds, he said.“The genetic evidence is as clear as could be,” Worobey said. “Birds that are sampled on these farms have viruses with clear mammalian adaptations.”WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY ABOUT EFFORTS TO TRACK THE OUTBREAK?Several experts said the USDA’s plans to require testing in cows are a good start.“We need to be able to do greater surveillance so that we know what’s going on,” said Thomas Friedrich, a virology professor at the University of Wisconsin’s veterinary school.Worobey said the ideal would be to screen every herd. Besides looking for active infections, agriculture officials also should be looking at whether cows have antibodies to the virus, indicating past infections, he said.”That is a really accessible and quick way to find out how widespread this is,” he said.More testing of workers exposed to infected animals is also crucial, experts said. Some farm owners and some individual workers have been reluctant to work with public health officials during the outbreak, experts have said.“Increased surveillance is essentially an early warning system,” Aliota said. “It helps to characterize the scope of the problem, but also to head off potentially adverse consequences.”HOW BIG A RISK DOES BIRD FLU POSE FOR PEOPLE?Scientists are working to analyze more samples of retail milk to confirm that pasteurization, or heat-treating, kills the H5N1 virus, said Dr. Don Prater, acting director of the FDA’s food safety center. Those results are expected soon.While the general public doesn’t need to worry about drinking pasteurized milk, experts said they should avoid raw or unpasteurized milk.Also, dairy farm workers should consider extra precautions, such as masking, hand washing and changing work clothes, Aliota said.So far, 23 people have been tested for the virus during the outbreak in dairy cows, with one person testing positive for a mild eye infection, CDC officials said. At least 44 people who were exposed to infected animals in the current outbreak are being monitored for symptoms.WHAT ARE SCIENTISTS’ CONCERNS FOR THE FUTURE?David O’Connor, a virology expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, likened recent bird flu developments to a tornado watch versus a warning.“There are some of the ingredients that would be necessary for there to be a threat, but we’re not there,” he said. As with a tornado watch, “you wouldn’t change anything about how you live your daily life, but you would maybe just have a bit of increased awareness that something is happening.”Worobey said this is the kind of outbreak “that we were hoping, after COVID, would not go unnoticed. But it has.”He said ambitious screening is needed “to detect things like this very quickly, and potentially nip them in the bud.”

    U.S. health and agriculture officials are ramping up testing and tracking of bird flu in dairy cows in an urgent effort to understand — and stop — the growing outbreak.

    So far, the risk to humans remains low, officials said, but scientists are wary that the virus could change to spread more easily among people.

    The virus, known as Type A H5N1, has been detected in nearly three dozen dairy herds in eight states. Inactive viral remnants have been found in grocery store milk. Tests also show the virus is spreading between cows, including those that don’t show symptoms, and between cows and birds, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    Starting Monday, hundreds of thousands of lactating dairy cows in the U.S. will have to be tested — with negative results — before they can be moved between states, under terms of a new federal order.

    Here’s what you need to know about the ongoing bird flu investigation:

    WHY IS THIS OUTBREAK SO UNUSUAL?

    This strain of what’s known as highly pathogenic avian influenza has been circulating in wild birds for decades. In recent years, it has been detected in scores of mammals around the world. Most have been wild animals, such as foxes and bears, that ate sick or dying birds. But it’s also appeared in farmed minks. It’s shown up in aquatic mammals, such as harbor seals and porpoises, too. The virus was even found in a polar bear in northern Alaska.

    The virus was discovered in ruminants — goats and then dairy cows — in the U.S. this spring, surprising many scientists who have studied it for years.

    “When we think of influenza A, cows are not typically in that conversation,” said Richard Webby, an influenza expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

    Flu viruses are notorious for adapting to spread among new species, so detection in dairy cows raises concerns it could spread to people, Webby said.

    HOW LONG HAS BIRD FLU BEEN SPREADING IN COWS?

    Scientists confirmed the virus in cows in March after weeks of reports from dairy farms that the animals were falling ill. Symptoms included lethargy, sharply reduced milk supply and changes to the milk, which became thick and yellow.

    Finding remnants of the virus in milk on the market “suggests that this has been going on longer, and is more widespread, than we have previously recognized,” said Matthew Aliota, a veterinary medicine researcher at the University of Minnesota.

    Under pressure from scientists, USDA officials released new genetic data about the outbreak this week.

    The data omitted some information about when and where samples were collected, but showed that the virus likely was spread by birds to cattle late last year, said Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist with the University of Arizona.

    Since then, it has spread among cattle and among farms, likely through contact with physical objects such as workers’ shoes, trucks or milking machines, Worobey said.

    And then the cows spread the virus back to birds, he said.

    “The genetic evidence is as clear as could be,” Worobey said. “Birds that are sampled on these farms have viruses with clear mammalian adaptations.”

    WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY ABOUT EFFORTS TO TRACK THE OUTBREAK?

    Several experts said the USDA’s plans to require testing in cows are a good start.

    “We need to be able to do greater surveillance so that we know what’s going on,” said Thomas Friedrich, a virology professor at the University of Wisconsin’s veterinary school.

    Worobey said the ideal would be to screen every herd. Besides looking for active infections, agriculture officials also should be looking at whether cows have antibodies to the virus, indicating past infections, he said.

    “That is a really accessible and quick way to find out how widespread this is,” he said.

    More testing of workers exposed to infected animals is also crucial, experts said. Some farm owners and some individual workers have been reluctant to work with public health officials during the outbreak, experts have said.

    “Increased surveillance is essentially an early warning system,” Aliota said. “It helps to characterize the scope of the problem, but also to head off potentially adverse consequences.”

    HOW BIG A RISK DOES BIRD FLU POSE FOR PEOPLE?

    Scientists are working to analyze more samples of retail milk to confirm that pasteurization, or heat-treating, kills the H5N1 virus, said Dr. Don Prater, acting director of the FDA’s food safety center. Those results are expected soon.

    While the general public doesn’t need to worry about drinking pasteurized milk, experts said they should avoid raw or unpasteurized milk.

    Also, dairy farm workers should consider extra precautions, such as masking, hand washing and changing work clothes, Aliota said.

    So far, 23 people have been tested for the virus during the outbreak in dairy cows, with one person testing positive for a mild eye infection, CDC officials said. At least 44 people who were exposed to infected animals in the current outbreak are being monitored for symptoms.

    WHAT ARE SCIENTISTS’ CONCERNS FOR THE FUTURE?

    David O’Connor, a virology expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, likened recent bird flu developments to a tornado watch versus a warning.

    “There are some of the ingredients that would be necessary for there to be a threat, but we’re not there,” he said. As with a tornado watch, “you wouldn’t change anything about how you live your daily life, but you would maybe just have a bit of increased awareness that something is happening.”

    Worobey said this is the kind of outbreak “that we were hoping, after COVID, would not go unnoticed. But it has.”

    He said ambitious screening is needed “to detect things like this very quickly, and potentially nip them in the bud.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • USDA Urged To Remove Lunchables From School Menus After Consumer Reports Find High Levels Of Lead

    USDA Urged To Remove Lunchables From School Menus After Consumer Reports Find High Levels Of Lead

    [ad_1]

    Consumer Reports is calling on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to remove Lunchable meal kits from school menus.

    RELATED: FDA Recalls Frozen Strawberries Linked To Recent Hepatitis A “Outbreak”

    More Details Regarding The Findings Related To Lunchables

    According to a report published by the consumer advocacy group on Tuesday, April 9, tests ran on “12 store-bought versions of Lunchables and similar kits” revealed that they contain “relatively high levels of lead, cadmium, and sodium.”

    Additionally, the group discovered that Lunchable kits served in schools contain “even higher levels of sodium” than those sold in grocery stores.

    Consumer Reports that out of the 12 kits tested, only one didn’t test positive for phthalates. Furthermore, the organization notes that phthalates are the “chemicals found in plastic.” Phthalates have reportedly been “linked to reproductive problems, diabetes, and certain cancers.”

    According to the report, the kit that didn’t test positive for phthalates was the Lunchables Extra Cheesy Pizza.

    Here’s Why The Meal Kit Should Reportedly Be Removed From School Menus

    Brian Ronholm, the director of food policy at Consumer Reports, shared a statement about why Lunchables should be removed from school menus.

    “Lunchables are not a healthy option for kids and shouldn’t be allowed on the menu as part of the National School Lunch Program,” Ronholm asserted. “The Lunchables and similar lunch kits we tested contain concerning levels of sodium and harmful chemicals that can lead to serious health problems over time. The USDA should remove Lunchables from the National School Lunch Program and ensure that kids in schools have healthier options.”

    The report explains that the USDA currently allows two Lunchable kits to be served in schools. The kits reportedly include the Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Stackers and Extra Cheesy Pizza.

    Furthermore, Consumer Reports adds that the kits are served to almost 30 million kids “through the National School Lunch Program.” Additionally, the organization notes that sodium levels in the kits range from “460 to 740 milligrams per serving.

    The level is reportedly “nearly a quarter to half of a child’s daily recommended limit for sodium.”

    The report states, “The school version of the Turkey and Cheddar Lunchable contained 930 mg of sodium compared to 740 mg in the store-bought version. Similarly, the Lunchable pizza kit for schools had 700 mg of sodium compared to 510 mg in the store version.”

    Lastly, the report notes that eating foods with high sodium “can lead to high blood pressure and lead to hypertension.” Children who intake higher levels of sodium “are about 40 percent more likely to develop hypertension.”

    Furthermore, Consumer Reports notes that hypertension is a “risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and kidney damage.”

    Consumer Reports Take Action As Lunchables & The USDA Shares Statement

    Ultimately, the organization has launched a petition encouraging the USDA to take action and remove meal kits from school menus. To date, the campaign has received over 15,000 signatures.

    Furthermore, the group is striving to garner over 25,000 signatures.

    According to PEOPLE, a spokesperson for Lunchables has issued a statement defending the nutritional quality of the meal kits.

    “All our foods meet strict safety standards that we happily feed to our own families. We are proud of Lunchables and stand by the quality and integrity that goes into making them,” the statement reads. “According to current science, processed foods arbitrarily classified as ‘ultra-processed’ are not necessarily less nutritious. In fact, many processed foods contain added nutrients, providing even more benefits to the consumer. The classification of foods should be based on scientific evidence that includes an assessment of the nutritional value of the whole product, not restricted to one element such as a single ingredient or the level of processing.”

    Additionally, the USDA shared a statement with the outlet.

    “USDA takes very seriously our responsibility to ensure school meals are of the highest nutritional quality,” the statement reads. “…Importantly, USDA doesn’t allow or disallow individual food items. Our requirements address the overall content of meals – some of them on a daily basis and others on a weekly basis.  So, the Lunchables described in the article would need to be paired with fruit, vegetables, and milk.  In addition, a school who wanted to serve a higher sodium product one day has to balance that with lower sodium items on others. Many schools are taking steps to use more scratch-cooked and local foods, and USDA has supported these efforts through expanded grants for equipment, training, and local food procurement.”

    RELATED: CDC Reports At Least 22 Toddlers Have Fallen Ill After Consuming Applesauce Pouches “Tainted” With Lead

    [ad_2]

    Jadriena Solomon

    Source link

  • Southwest engine cover mishap forces flight to return to Denver

    Southwest engine cover mishap forces flight to return to Denver

    [ad_1]

    Denver news

    The Southwest flight, originally bound for Houston, returned safely to Denver after damage to the jet’s engine area.

    Denver International Airport, July 19, 2018. (Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite)

    A Southwest Airlines jet returned to Denver Sunday morning after the engine cover fell off and struck the wing flap during takeoff, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The Boeing 737 landed safely, and the passengers headed to Houston were being put onto another aircraft, Southwest Airlines said in a statement.

    “We apologize for the inconvenience of their delay, but place our highest priority on ultimate Safety for our Customers and Employees. Our Maintenance teams are reviewing the aircraft,” the statement reads.

    It’s the second mishap this week for the airline, with a flight from Texas canceled Thursday after a report of an engine fire. The Lubbock, Texas, fire department confirmed online a fire in one of the two engines that needed extinguishing.

    The FAA is investigating both incidents.

    Both planes were Boeing 737-800s, an older model than the 737 Max.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What the Science Says About Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    What the Science Says About Time-Restricted Eating  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Are there benefits to giving yourself a bigger daily break from eating? 
     
    The reason many blood tests are taken after an overnight fast is that meals can tip our system out of balance, bumping up certain biomarkers for disease, such as blood sugars, insulin, cholesterol, and triglycerides. Yet, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:20 in my video Time-Restricted Eating Put to the Test, fewer than one in ten Americans may even make it 12 hours without eating. As evolutionarily unnatural as getting three meals a day is, most of us are eating even more than that. One study used a smartphone app to record more than 25,000 eating events and found that people tended to eat about every three hours over an average span of about 15 hours a day. Might it be beneficial to give our bodies a bigger break? 

    Time-restricted feeding is “defined as fasting for periods of at least 12 hours but less than 24 hours,” and this involves trying to confine caloric intake to a set window of time, typically ranging from 3 to 4 hours, 7 to 9 hours, or 10 to 12 hours a day, which results in a daily fast lasting 12 to 21 hours. When mice are restricted to a daily feeding window, they gain less weight even when fed the same amount as mice “with ad-lib access.” Rodents have such high metabolisms, though, that a single day of fasting can starve away as much as 15 percent of their lean body mass. This makes it difficult to extrapolate from mouse models. You don’t know what happens in humans until you put it to the test. 
     
    The drop-out rates in time-restricted feeding trials certainly appear lower than most prolonged forms of intermittent fasting, suggesting it’s more easily tolerable, but does it work? Researchers found that when people stopped eating from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for two weeks, they lost about a pound each week compared to no time restriction. Note that “there were no additional instructions or recommendations on the amount or type of food consumed,” and no gadgets, calorie counting, or record-keeping either. The study participants were just told to limit their food intake to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., a simple intervention that’s easy to understand and put into practice. 
     
    The next logical step? Put it to the test for months instead of just weeks. Obese men and women were asked to restrict eating to the eight-hour window between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Twelve weeks later, they had lost nearly seven pounds, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:18 in my video. This deceptively simple intervention may be operating from several different angles. People not only tend to eat more food later in the day, but eat higher fat foods later in the day. By eliminating eating in the late-evening hours, one removes prime-time snacking on the couch, a high-risk time for overeating. And, indeed, during the no-eating-after-7:00-p.m. study, the subjects were inadvertently eating about 250 fewer calories a day. Then, there are also the chronobiological benefits of avoiding late-night eating. 

    I did a whole series of videos about the role our circadian rhythms have in the obesity epidemic, how the timing of meals can be critical, and how we can match meal timing to our body clocks. Just to give you a taste: Did you know that calories eaten at dinner are significantly more fattening than the same number of calories eaten at breakfast? See the table below and at 3:08 in my video. 

    Calories consumed in the morning cause less weight gain than the same calories eaten in the evening. A diet with a bigger breakfast causes more weight loss than the same exact diet with a bigger dinner, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:21 in my video, and nighttime snacks are more fattening than the same snacks if eaten in the daytime. Thanks to our circadian rhythms, metabolic slowing, hunger, carbohydrate intolerance, triglycerides, and a propensity for weight gain are all things that go bump in the night.  


    What about the fasting component of time-restricted feeding? There’s already the double benefit of getting fewer calories and avoiding night-time eating. Does the fact that you’re fasting for 11 or 16 hours a day play any role, considering the average person may only make it about 9 hours a day without eating? How would you design an experiment to test that? What if you randomized people into two groups and had both groups eat the same number of calories a day and also eat late into the evening, but one group fasted even longer, for 20 hours? That’s exactly what researchers at the USDA and National Institute of Aging did. 
     
    Men and women were randomized to eat three meals a day or fit all of those same calories into a four-hour window between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., then fast the rest of the day. If the weight-loss benefits from the other two time-restricted feeding studies were due to the passive calorie restriction or avoidance of late-night eating, then, presumably, both of these groups should end up the same because they’re both eating the same amount and they’re both eating late. That’s not what happened, though. As you can see below and at 4:49 in my video, after eight weeks, the time-restricted feeding group ended up with less body fat, nearly five pounds less. They got about the same number of calories, but they lost more weight. 

    As seen below and at 5:00 in my video, a similar study with an eight-hour eating window resulted in three more pounds of fat loss. So, there does seem to be something to giving your body daily breaks from eating around the clock.


    Because that four-hour eating window in the study was at night, though, the participants suffered the chronobiological consequences—significant elevations in blood pressure and cholesterol levels—despite the weight loss, as you can see below and at 5:13 in my video. The best of both worlds was demonstrated in 2018: early time-restricted feeding, eating with a narrow window earlier in the day, which I covered in my video The Benefits of Early Time-Restricted Eating. 


    Isn’t that mind-blowing about the circadian rhythm business? Calories in the morning count less and are healthier than calories in the evening. So, if you’re going to skip a meal to widen your daily fasting window, skip dinner instead of breakfast. 

    If you missed any of the other videos in this fasting series, check out the related videos below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Why Are There So Many Food Recalls? | Entrepreneur

    Why Are There So Many Food Recalls? | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    It’s never fun to find a foreign object in your food. And recently, there have been a series of recalls and contaminations of store-bought brands that have gone far beyond a stray hair.

    In the last few months alone, “extraneous materials” (metal fragments, rubber gaskets, insects) are among the top reasons for food recalls in the U.S., according to a report from ABC News.

    The annual Recall Index from brand protection firm Sedgwick found that, in 2022, the total number of units recalled by the FDA (which oversees 80 percent of the nation’s food supply) increased by 700% as compared to 2021. In 2022, there were 13 recalls by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA).

    But so far in 2023, there have already been eight recalls by the USDA due to “possible foreign matter contamination.”

    Related: Trader Joe’s Is Recalling Cookies Because They May Contain Rocks

    However, the uptick in recalls doesn’t necessarily mean that the food we buy is “more contaminated” than it used to be.

    Keith Belk, director of the Center for Meat Safety and Quality at Colorado State University, told ABC that contamination detection has significantly improved in recent years, contributing to the number of recalls. Factors like new investigation tools, heightened monitoring by the FDA, and third-party testing companies have also contributed to the rising number of recalls being reported.

    Also, the FDA acknowledges that some level of contamination may be expected.

    “It is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects,” the agency notes in its handbook.

    “The thing is, there’s never going to be a day where there’s zero risk associated with consuming a food product,” Belk told ABC.

    To stay on top of the risks, bookmark FoodSafety.gov and Recalls.gov.

    [ad_2]

    Madeline Garfinkle

    Source link

  • White House Announces $8 Billion to Combat Hunger in the U.S.

    White House Announces $8 Billion to Combat Hunger in the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    Sept. 29, 2022 — The Biden administration has announced $8 billion in public and private commitments toward fighting hunger and improving nutrition in the United States.

    “This goal is within our reach,” President Biden said Wednesday during the first White House summit on hunger in 50 years. “In America, no child should go to bed hungry. No parent should die of disease that can be prevented.”

    The White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health comes as food costs are rising, supply chain issues remain from the pandemic, and food-related ailments continue. The administration announced a “bold goal” of ending hunger by 2030 and increasing healthy eating and physical activity.

    Among the key proposals:

    • Expand free school meals to 9 million more children by 2032
    • Allow more people to get food stamps
    • Help with transportation for people who don’t live near grocery stores and farmers markets
    • Increase money for nutrition programs helping seniors
    • Reduce food waste, since a third of all food in the United States goes to waste, the White House says.

    Many of the efforts need congressional approval. Biden can take some action through executive order.

    The Washington Post reported, “The pervasiveness of diet-related diseases creates broader problems for the country, White House officials said, hampering military readiness, workforce productivity, academic achievement and mental health.”

    The newspaper also reported that the U. S. Department of Agriculture says that 10.2% of U.S. households were “food insecure” in 2021. That means they didn’t have enough food to meet everyone’s needs.

    CNN said that more than 100 organizations have committed to help pay for Biden’s initiatives, including hospitals, health care associations, tech companies, philanthropies, and the food industry. 

    At least $2.5 billion will go to start-up companies focused on finding solutions to hunger and food insecurity, according to the White House. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Farm Journal’s Trust in Food Awarded USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Project

    Farm Journal’s Trust in Food Awarded USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Project

    [ad_1]

    The Climate-Smart Connected Ag Project will test and evaluate a producer-centric model for accelerating the adoption of data management practices to help farmers and ranchers participate in climate-smart agriculture and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Press Release
    –

    Sep 15, 2022


    LENEXA, Kan., September 15, 2022 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Trust In Food™, the sustainability division of Farm Journal, has been awarded a USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities project for its coalition-driven Connected Ag Project. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack made the announcement today at Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa., one of the country’s first land-grant institutions. 

    The up to $40-million partnership will support different approaches to testing and evaluating climate-smart data and information in all segments of agriculture in ways that add increased value and support to producers. Program participation will equip farmers and ranchers with the information they need to be competitive in a climate-smart marketplace, including access to personalized support services, coaching and direct payments for eligible participants.

    Trust In Food will lead planning and execution of the Connected Ag Project, a turnkey program to learn how to close the digitized farm data gap and share those learnings across row crop, livestock, specialty crop and integrated farms and ranches. Organizations collaborating to deliver the project will provide producers with products, services and other benefits, including on-farm data management tools, data coaches, technical support to implement climate-smart practices and a virtual help desk. 

    “Production and management data is key to unlocking the potential of climate-smart agriculture for producers,” says Amy Skoczlas Cole, executive vice president of Trust In Food. “Yet we know there are many real and perceived obstacles to the transition to digitally connected operations. We’re honored to put the nearly 150-year history of Farm Journal’s service to agriculture to work by helping producers through this next big revolution in agriculture.” 

    Project partners are AGI/Farmobile, AgriWebb, AMVAC/SIMPAS, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Certis Biologicals, Ducks Unlimited, Farm Journal Foundation, National Pork Board, The Sustainability Consortium, Trimble and Tuskegee University. 

    Secretary Vilsack’s announcement took place roughly three hours west of Bucks County, Pa., the birthplace of Farm Journal founder Wilmer Atkinson, a Quaker farmer. The Connected Ag project will build on Atkinson’s legacy, leveraging Farm Journal’s expertise, reach and first-hand knowledge and insights of farmers to help them in their climate-smart agriculture journey. 

    Contact:  David Frabotta, (216) 410-5597 or dfrabotta@farmjournal.com

    About Farm Journal

    Farm Journal is the nation’s leading business information and media company serving agriculture. Started 146 years ago with the preeminent Farm Journal magazine, the company serves the row crop, livestock, produce and retail sectors through branded websites, eNewsletters and phone apps; business magazines; conferences, seminars, and tradeshows; nationally broadcasted television and radio programs; a robust mobile-text-marketing business; and an array of data-driven, paid information products. Trust In Food is a purpose-driven division of Farm Journal dedicated to mainstreaming and accelerating the transition to more sustainable and regenerative ag practices, making every dollar invested in conservation agriculture more impactful. 

    Source: Farm Journal

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California School Nutrition Association Joins With Representative Susan Davis Asking USDA for School Meal Relief

    California School Nutrition Association Joins With Representative Susan Davis Asking USDA for School Meal Relief

    [ad_1]

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Aug 21, 2020


    BURBANK, Calif., August 21, 2020 (Newswire.com)
    –
    The California School Nutrition Association (CSNA) reached out to Rep. Susan Davis, Congresswoman from San Diego, to draft a letter to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, to use his existing authority to extend waivers allowing schools to provide meals to students during the pandemic. The letter, sent to Secretary Perdue on August 7, was circulated by Rep. Davis among the California Congressional delegation, and was signed by a bipartisan group of twenty-five Members.

    USDA has issued a number of waivers that allow schools to provide meals using a range of service models so that school children, many of whom rely on school meals as their primary source of nutrition, can have access regardless of how schools provide classes. The most effective waivers are set to expire when schools reopen or August 31, whichever comes first. With schools reopening, many children are losing access to school meals.

    “We are very concerned about how we can serve the children effectively when we don’t know where they will be on any given day,” said Johnna Jenkins, President of the California School Nutrition Association. “Some of our schools will have children present some days and not others. Some schools will be only distance learning. The counting and claiming requirements for school meals cannot support all of the different ways we need to deliver meals to hungry children. We need USDA to extend the waivers that give us the flexibility needed to feed kids for the whole school year so we can plan, as best we can, and do what we do best.”

    The effort by CSNA has the active support of a broad alliance of education groups and county and city departments of education.

    Several bills to extend the USDA waivers have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but the legislative process is slow and cumbersome, and the need for relief is immediate. To that end, CSNA worked with Rep. Davis who sits on the Committee on Education and Labor that has jurisdiction over school meals to address the issue directly with the Secretary whose exiting authority during this national emergency can be used to issue the waivers effective immediately.

    For additional information contact:

    Johnna Jenkins, CSNA President
    760.749.6748
    jenkins.jo@vcpusd.org

    Kristin Hilleman, Chair, CSNA Public Policy Committee
    Office: 949.234.9501
    klhilleman@capousd.org

    www.CalSNA.org

    Source: California School Nutrition Association

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Andrews, Kobylecky, and Paul Elected to National Board of Directors

    Andrews, Kobylecky, and Paul Elected to National Board of Directors

    [ad_1]

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Sep 25, 2017


    AUSTIN, Texas, September 25, 2017 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Denise Andrews of Vici, Oklahoma, Rhonda Kobylecky of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Robin Paul of Freeland, Michigan have been elected to serve a three-year term on the National CACFP Sponsors Association Board of Directors. All bring a great depth of experience with the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and are involved in the management of a sponsoring organization for family child care homes and/or child care centers which participate in the USDA child nutrition program. Since 1986 the National CACFP Sponsor Association (NCA) has been the leading national organization for sponsors who administer the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).

    Denise Andrews is co-founder and Executive Director of For The Children CACFP (FTC) in Oklahoma, which was established in 2000. FTC is a non-profit CACFP Sponsor for licensed child care homes. She started as a child care provider over 27 years ago and believes that “Investing in early childhood nutrition is a surefire strategy. The returns are incredibly high.”

    Robin Paul has worked with CACFP for 39 years and is the CEO of Mid-Michigan Child Care Centers and Michigan Child Care Centers where they sponsor Family Day Care Homes, Unaffiliated and Affiliated Centers, At-Risk, Head Start and Emergency Shelters. Robin shares, “My goal is to reach out to other agencies for continued growth and collaboration. Keeping the sponsors abreast of the current legislation and providing resources needed to manage their sponsorship and remain viable is very important.” By remaining an advocate for sponsors, Robin feels she can ultimately help children, families, and providers.

    Rhonda Kobylecky is the Director of Food Services for Acelero, a multistate Head Start organization serving approximately 5,000 children. There, she oversees CACFP compliance, nutrition, food safety for all 42 sites, and monitoring and training in four states. Rhonda notes, “Nutritious food is so important to the growth of children’s minds and bodies and we get to advocate for this very important part of their lives.” Rhonda looks forward to representing the voice of a CACFP Head Start participant to the board while supporting all the members of the NCA.

    The experience, talent, passion, and commitment these women share for the CACFP is inspiring. They are excited to serve in leadership roles for the entire membership and participate in the development of programs, activities, and policy positions.

    As a National Platform for the Child and Adult Care Food Program Community, NCA’s mission is to bring members information on legislation, regulation, and advocacy issues, share resources among the entire CACFP community, and provide an engaging, informative annual conference — offering the largest CACFP networking and training opportunities in the nation. CACFP is an indicator of quality child care. When children are cared for by providers who are part of the CACFP program, they are receiving the best nutrition available.

    Learn more at www.cacfp.org.

    Source: National CACFP Sponsors Association

    [ad_2]

    Source link