Currently browsing posts about: USDA

I’m hoping the Making America Healthy Again includes keeping us safe from food pathogens.

Four items relevant to food safety.

I.  Food Safety News: Salmonella outbreak sickens over 100; Animal operations blamed for leafy greens risk.

II. And the FDA is investigating yet another outbreak.

Cucumbers grown by Bedner Growers, Inc., and distributed by Fresh Start Produce Sales, Inc., to retailers, distribution centers, wholesalers, and food service distributors from April 29, 2025, to May 19, 2025. Cucumbers distributed before this timeframe should be past shelf life and should no longer be available on the market…FDA has posted a list of additional recalls being conducted by retailers that may have received potentially contaminated recalled cucumbers from Bedner Growers, Inc. This list includes recalls conducted by companies that further processed the cucumbers by using them as ingredients in new products or by repackaging them.

III.  The Journal of Food Protection just published this article: An Overview of Farm Investigation Findings Associated with Outbreaks of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Infections Linked to Leafy Greens: 2009 – 2021

These investigations showed that the outbreak strain can be found throughout the lifespan of leafy greens products, from the agriculture water used for the leafy greens, sediment from irrigation reservoirs, manure in nearby land, to retail product.

The contaminants come from animal manure leaching into water and soil.  Leafy greens should not be grown near CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).

IV.  And what are FDA (plants) and USDA (animals) doing about all this?  The budget cuts are unlikely to help.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently laid off approximately 6,000 employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, the Trump administration has proposed almost $40 million in budget cuts to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a $1 billion decrease in the USDA budget, which recently resulted in workforce cuts and the suspension of services such as milk quality tests…The budget cuts and layoffs are partially intended to lessen federal government oversight and to shift many of the responsibilities to the state level. However, some states simply do not have the resources to serve as equally effective replacements.

This could have significant impacts on food safety and quality assurance.

How’s that for an understatement?

The press release: USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins Approves First Ever State Waiver to Restrict Soda and Energy Drinks from Food Stamps in Nebraska

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins today signed the first-ever waiver to amend the statutory definition of food for purchase for Nebraska’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Effective January 1, 2026, taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing the purchase of soda or energy drinks in the State of Nebraska.

Nebraska governor Jim Pillen put it this way:

There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there’s nothing nutritious about the junk we’re removing with today’s waiver. I’m grateful to have worked with Secretary Rollins and the Trump Administration to get this effort across the finish line. It is a tremendous step toward improving the health and well-being of our state. We have to act because we can’t keep letting Nebraskans starve in the midst of plenty.

USDA Secretary Rollins then announced approval of SNAP soda waivers in Indiana and Iowa.

On Secretary Rollins’ first full day in office, she sent a letter to the nation’s governors (PDF, 88.8 KB), outlining her vision for the Department and inviting them to participate in a new “Laboratories of Innovation” initiative to create bold solutions to long-ignored challenges.

More are sure to follow.

Full disclosure: I was a member of the advisory committee for SNAP to Health, a project of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, chaired by Dr. Susan Blumenthal.  We released our report at a congressional briefing in 2012 (here’s what I said about it at the time.  Alas, most of the links no longer work, but here’s the report).

One of our recommendations:

Provide States with Flexibility to Evaluate Fresh Approaches to SNAP The USDA should grant states greater flexibility for waivers to pilot test and evaluate program changes in SNAP that would improve nutrition (e.g. pilot projects to assess the feasibility of incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods and/or limiting the purchase of high-calorie, nutrient-poor products with
SNAP benefits).

Our commission favored pilot projects to remove sodas from SNAP, but not at the expense of overall benefits.  We cited evidence that SNAP recipients would not necessarily object to having sodas removed; they could still buy sodas using their own money.

Historical note: the original plan for food stamps, the forerunner of SNAP, was to have sodas on the list of foods that could not be purchased with benefits.  The soda industry and retailers succeeded in lobbying to keep sodas in the program.

Guess who is objecting to the waivers: soda trade associations and retailers.  They say the new exclusions are “misguided” and could “create chaos and confusion.”

Food assistance advocates have long argued that restrictions are condescending and are in any case a cover for cutting SNAP benefits.

They are not wrong about that.  The Trump administration has cut SNAP benefits by 20% or so.

Will budget cuts make SNAP recipients healthy again?  I doubt it.

As for the waivers: I hope researchers in these states are lining up.

I want to know what effect these restrictions will have on overall SNAP food and drink purchases, drink purchases using their own funds, and overall health.  And I particularly want to know how SNAP recipients feel about the changes.

Resource

USDA’s tracking page on SNAP waivers

[Personal note: my graduation address today at Hopkins has been rain-postponed to 1:00 EDT .  It will be streamed here.]

Food safety is always a difficult topic because nobody wants to talk about it.

• We expect the food we buy to be safe (a quite reasonable expection, in my view).
• Food companies, by law, are supposed to produce foods safely.
• Regulators are supposed to make sure they do.

Any breakdown in rules and regulations causes problems.  Three troubling examples:

I.  Sentient Food: Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

These letters, recently obtained by the advocacy group Farm Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the world’s largest meat producers — JBS, Cargill, and Tyson — raised cattle that tested positive for antibiotics prohibited under USDA-approved labels advertising the beef as free of antibiotics…These findings were announced last August, but the names of the companies which tested positive for antibiotics were not made publicly available until recently, as part of a new report released by Farm Forward questioning the validity of this popular label.

II.  Phyllis Entis: Manufacturer repeatedly shipped pet food after presumptive-positive pathogen test results

During the 2024 calendar year, Morasch Meats, Inc. (Portland, OR) sold dozens of batches of Northwest Naturals raw pet foods and pet treats after the finished products tested presumptive-positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes.

Instead of confirming the presumptive result as required by the test kit manufacturer, the company repeated the same rapid test on fresh samples. When the repeat test did not find the pathogen, Morasch released the production batch for sale.

III.  Food Safety News:   Intent or impact? New rules redefine food safety justice

On May 9, President Trump signed Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, an executive order directing agencies like the FDA and USDA to limit criminal charges for food safety violations unless companies knowingly break the law. The executive order discourages criminal charges for unintentional violations…while deliberate acts, like falsifying tests, remain subject to prosecution…Critics, including consumer advocates, warn that the executive order, combined with reported cuts to FDA and USDA staff, could weaken deterrence against food safety violations.

Comment: When it comes to food safety, enforcement regulation is essential.  History tells us that unwatched food companies sometimes tend to let safety measures slide.  FDA and USDA food safety inspectors need to be on the job.  FDA inspectors have been cut.  USDA staff cuts undoubtedly will affect meat inspections.   None of this bodes well for the safety of the US food supply.

I’m struck by the harshness of the USDA’s recent press announcement:  In First 100 Days, Secretary Rollins Puts Farmers First, Reverses Woke Priorities of Biden Administration

“It is absurd that while the Biden Administration was driving up inflation, American taxpayers were forced to fund billions in woke DEI initiatives. American farmers and ranchers don’t need DEI, they need reduced regulations and an Administration that is actively putting them first. In the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, USDA has done exactly that, by cancelling over 3,600 contracts and grants saving more than $5.5 billion. I look forward to finishing our work of cleaning out Biden’s bureaucratic basement and moving forward with this Administration’s priorities that put American farmers first,” said Secretary Rollins.

The statement boasts that Secretary Rollins

• Issued a memorandum to rescind all DEI programs and celebrations.
• Directed USDA to review Inflation Reduction Act funding to ensure that programs are focused on supporting farmers and ranchers,
• Terminated 597 grants, which totaled more than $3.45 billion and over 3,000 contracts totaling $1.8 billion…in unnecessary and wasteful spending.
• Canceled nearly 1,000 employee trainings, more than 750 of which focused on DEI alone.
• To ensure that taxpayer dollars are directly supporting farmers and not serving as a Green New Scam slush fund for non-governmental organizations, Secretary Rollins announced the cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC).

I am having a hard time understanding how these actions will help farmers and ranchers, especially because one of the cut programs was the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant, which paid farmers to provide fresh food to schools—a totally win/win program costing a tiny fraction of USDA’s budget but of inestimable worth to participating local farmers.

The anti-woke rhetoric reminds me of the McCarthy anti-Communist era.  If Biden did it, it’s bad.  If it helps vulnerable Americans, well, it’s “leftist ideology.”

I do not see how any of this will Make America Healthy Again.

If you think it will, please explain.

The Trump Administration has issued its proposed budget.

It begins with the rhetoric characteristic of this administration.

The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.

If anything, these proposals are totally contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans, so much so that it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with some selections from the USDA summary on page 31.

• Food Safety Inspection Service: a $15 million increase for meat and poultry inspection
• National Institute of Food and Agriculture: $602 million decrease (“eliminates wasteful, woke programming,”… “protects funding to youth and K-12 programs such as 4-H clubs, tribal colleges, and universities”)
• Agricultural Research Service and USDA Research Statistical Agencies: $159 million decrease.  Note the rhetoric: “…stop climate-politicized additional scopes added by the Biden Administration…”
• Farm Service Agency: $358 million decrease
• State, local, tribal, and NGO conservation programs: $303 million decrease
• Commodity Supplemental Food Program: $425 million decrease .  This program, which mostly helps seniors, is being replaced with “MAHA food boxes.”

On this last one: Oh no.  Not that again.  The boxes are a logistic nightmare , absurdly expensive, and do not help any except the largest farmers.

Note that there is nothing here about SNAP, which comes out of USDA’s budget.  SNAP is an entitlement; only Congress can cut its budget, and would have to do so through the Farm Bill.

Fortunately, these are proposals, which means there is at least a chance that Congress won’t agree to them.

The USDA announced last week that it is withdrawing its proposed framework for reducing Salmonella in raw poultry.  Oh great.

Why?

FSIS received 7,089 comments on the proposed framework…from a variety of stakeholders that included poultry and meat industry trade associations, small poultry producer and processor trade associations, large and small poultry processing establishments, consumer advocacy organizations…The issues that generated the most comments…[were] the proposed Salmonella levels and serotypes for the final product standards…the scientific and technical information used to support the proposed framework, the potential economic impacts of the proposed framework, and the potential impact of the proposed framework on small poultry growers and processors. Several comments also suggested alternative approaches other than the proposed framework for addressing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.

While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration.

Consumer Reports, which has for years been pushing the USDA to do something about Salmonella contamination in poultry, is not happy with this move, not least because its investigators found large numbers of poultry plants to be heavily contaminated with Salmonella. contamination.

The proposed rule was intended to help reduce the number of salmonella infections in the U.S. Of the estimated 1.35 million illnesses that occur each year from food tainted with the bacteria, nearly 200,000 of them are due to chicken, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “And instead of declining, salmonella infections are increasing and expected to continue to grow…This move, along with the steep budget and staffing cuts at the USDA and FDA, appears to be part of an overall effort to weaken food safety oversight,” says director of food policy at Consumer Reports.

Comment

This is an extremely disappointing decision.  The poultry industry argues that Salmonella contamination is normal.  They don’t need to do anything to prevent chickens getting contaminated.  It is your responsibility to store and cook your chicken properly.

Safety advocates (like me) argue that Salmonella is not normal, contamination is preventable, and the industry ought to be doing that.  The USDA’s 2021 proposal to declare Salmonella an adulterant was a major step in making food safer.

This decision is a major setback.

Resources

What the USDA says about Salmonella

What the USDA says today about reducing Salmonella in poultry.  The web page displays USDA’s 2021 announcement that it would be “mobilizing a stronger and more comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.”

To me personally, the big news last week (besides my profile in the New York Times) is the announcement that the USDA plans to move its headquarters out of Washington, DC to three locations yet to be determined.

USDA is expected to offload one of its two Washington headquarters buildings, according to two employees familiar with the matter.

The relocations will accompany widespread layoffs at the department, according to four officials made aware of the plans, though the exact number is not yet clear. Those cuts are expected in late April or early May.

Some employees have been told to expect the department to cut back to fiscal 2019 staffing levels—which would lead to USDA slashing around 9,000 of its 98,000 employees—while others have been told there is a an overall federal workforce reduction number the administration has developed and the department will do its part proportionally to meet that target.

My translation: I haven’t been able to confirm this story, but what better way to get USDA employees to quit en masse.  This worked during Trump I to dismantle the Economic Research Service, a national treasure in my view.  I complained early and often about its transfer to Kansas City, MO.

As this article explains,

In 2019, the department relocated the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, Mo., over the objections of employees and some lawmakers. Following the move, both agencies lost more than half of their staff, leading to a significant loss of productivity from which it took the agencies years to recover. Under President Biden, both agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington while maintaining their Kansas City offices.

I would say (and the Government Accountability Office agrees) the ERS has never recovered.  It still produces technical reports, but no longer publishes the kind of analytical pieces that I found so valuable to my work.

It’s fine to move government offices to the middle of the country.  Anything to help repopulate middle America is a good thing.

But this move has only one real purpose: to reduce staff.

This means reducing meat inspectors, and people who help participants use food assistance programs.  It means getting rid of agricultural and other USDA-supported researchers.  Basically, it means getting rid of anyone good enough to get another job without having to relocate.

Even without this, USDA staff are quitting in droves: USDA employees head for the doors as potential RIFs [reduction in forces] loom

Thousands of USDA employees are planning to leave the agency through a deferred resignation program that could challenge the department’s ability to fulfill critical functions such as food import and export inspections. According to one report, 16,000 USDA employees have opted for buyouts over two rounds.

I considered the transfer of the ERS to Kansas to be a national tragedy.  This is another one.

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America, for sending this one.

According to the Daily Beast: MAGA Influencers Caught Red-Handed Shilling for Big Soda

A string of MAGA influencers appear to have been caught taking money from Big Soda to undermine the government’s attempts to ban people from buying soda with food stamps.  Last week, a host of influential online pro-Trump personalities…raised eyebrows on X when they all appeared to abruptly change their views on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to pass legislation which would ban food-stamp recipients from spending their money on soft drinks and junk food….conservative journalist Nick Sortor posted an expose of the offending posts side-by-side on X, alongside claims they had been paid to adopt a pro-soda stance by a social media PR company named Influenceable….“Not a SINGLE ONE of them disclosed they were paid for these posts, which led readers to believe a general SODA BAN was in the works.”

According to The Daily Wire: Soda Lobby Group American Beverage Denies Paying Influencers To Fight SNAP Restrictions

In a statement sent to The Daily Wire on Tuesday, ABA President and CEO Kevin Keane further echoed the denial, saying it had conducted a “thorough vetting” and is “confident” that it was not involved in the effort.

Whew.  What is this about?

The issue of adding sugar-sweetened beverages to the short list of food items that cannot be bought with SNAP benefits (Alcohol, Cigarettes, prepared foods, medicines, supplements) is a difficult one, splitting some public health advocates from some anti-hunger advocates and forging unexpected political alliances.

RFK Jr’s MAHA movement wants sodas out of SNAP.  The MAHA arguments:

• Sodas contain sugars (lots) but no other nutrients.
• Drinking a lot of them correlates with poor health.
• SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda.
• SNAP benefit are not taxed, making the cost of sodas cheaper for them in some states.
• SNAP recipients could still buy sodas with their own (non-SNAP) money.
• The WIC program specifies which foods (all of them healthy) recipients can buy with their benefits; it works fine.

Arguments against:

• Poor people should be able to eat just as unhealthfully as everyone else.
• Blocking them from buying sodas is condescending.
• Doing this removes choice and is unfair.
• A ban will hurt the profits of the soda industry and retailers who sell sodas.

For years, public health advocates and some states have called for pilot projects (“waivers”) to see how removing sodas might work.  The USDA has always rejected such petitions.

I favor pilot projects, in part because of what I learned as a member of the SNAP to Health Commission, and also because of the letters I received after publication of Soda Politics.  SNAP recipients wrote me that they viewed their benefits as a license to buy junk food and would welcome restrictions.  They would not buy as much soda if they had to pay for it with non-SNAP funds.

The new USDA Secretary says she will agree to waivers.  Good.  Let’s try this and see how it works.