Currently browsing posts about: USDA

I am outraged by the Cyclospora outbreak.  It has sickened thousands of people so far (>16,000?), and made some of them very sick.

Cyclospora is different from other foodborne pathogens.  It comes from human waste and cannot be removed by washing (although that helps some) or killed by chlorine.  It can only be removed by microfiltration or killed by heat or, maybe, ultra-violet radiation.

It needs to prevented from getting into irrigation water.

Lettuce producers have known about the Cyclospora hazard for more than a decade.  They have not acted, and neither has the government.

Hence, “Lettuce-Gate.”

Background

People are getting sick from eating some green thing—Lettuce? Parsley? Cilantro?—contaminated with a human-specific species of the parasitic microbe Cyclospora, which infects the digestive tract, causes “explosive” diarrhea, and is spread to vegetables via human feces, most likely through irrigation water.  [See: JAMA patient page: What is Cyclosporiasis?]

This outbreak is remarkable, not only for the large number of people affected, but also because of the inadequate, delayed, and chaotic oversight and response.

And the usual denials and finger-pointing.

• HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr says the outbreak is “under control.” It is not; cases are still flooding in, many of them from Michigan.
• Mexico says there’s no evidence its lettuce is at fault; of course there isn’t.  It’s been eaten already.
• Taco Bell: Says it is no longer using Taylor Farms lettuce.

The DOGE-decimated CDC only issued its first health advisory two weeks after cases were reported, provides much less information than it used to, and is way behind on its tracking.

• Investigation update
• Notice
• Locations—states where cases are occurring
• Timeline

The equally DOGE-decimated FDA has made a mess of communication.  It first reported finding a positive sample in lettuce from Mexico, but then retracted that result saying it was a false positive.  It also reports much less than it used to about outbreaks under investigation on its website: FDA: Investigation of 5-state outbreak of Cyclospora illnesses: Iceberg lettuce (July 2026).   It still says the contaminated lettuce came from Taylor Farms in Mexico, based on the epidemiology.

For detailed analyses of FDA and CDC failure see Phyllis Entis at eFoodAlert and Bill Marler’s.

Yes, Cyclospora is hard to investigate.  Symptoms do not occur for days or weeks after eating contaminated food.  This means the evidence was eaten or destroyed long before anyone got sick.

Food Safety Rules

Everyone who produces food is supposed to assess the production procedures for places where contamination can occur, take steps to prevent contamination at those places, monitor to make sure the steps were taken, and test to make sure the procedures are working.  The FDA is supposed to inspect to make sure all his is happening.

The Food Safety Modernization Act issued rules for produce safety.  These include standards for irrigation water, but these do not apply well to Cyclospora (because it resists washing and chlorine).

If vegetable producers took appropriate steps, contamination risks would be much lower.

But if there is no federal oversight, no inspection, and no punishment for producing unsafe food, producers won’t bother.

They particularly will not bother to test the irrigation water.  Producers hate testing.  If they find something, they have to issue recalls.  These are complicated and expensive.

Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc

• Was slow to issue a recall.
• Eventually recalled lettuce products in 27 states. 
• Said the FDA apologized for claiming it had found a positive test result (the FDA did not apologize).
• Gave $1 million to president Trump’s campaign (the White House denied involvement).  [Source: Bloomberg]
• Called the White House to try to delay having to issue a recall.
• Did all else it could to prevent having to recall.
• Was warned about Cyclospora hazards in 2013 when the FDA did an  environmental assessment.
• Is located in Mexico 800 feet away from a public swimming pool facility—a potential source of fecal contamination of irrigation water.
• Has a long history of outbreaks since 2009.
• Claims each outbreak as “an isolated event, our branded products are not involved, we acted quickly.”

What don’t we know?

Food safety attorney Bill Marler presents three maps of the United States.

• Confirmed cases from Taco Bell
• Where the recalled lettuce went (many more states)
• All 2026 Cyclosporiasis cases (practically every state)

This predicts lots more cases to come.

The solution?  Treat irrigation water.  Require it to be treated.

Where are the CDC and FDA in all of this? 

• Decimated by DOGE—huge staff losses in both agencies.
• Weakened by cuts to public health spending.
• Handicapped by delays in implementing a federal food traceability rule.
• Not helped by the USDA’s plans to move food safety labs out of Washington DC.

One root cause: consolidation

Farm Action asks: If it isn’t Taylor Farms, then who?  It points out that “Just four companies—Taylor Fresh Foods, Cultrale-Safra, Itochu, and Bonduelle—control 54% of the U.S. fresh-cut salad market.”

The Bigger the Corporation, the Bigger the Diarrhea Outbreak

The fact that lettuce from one farm or one shredding facility could possibly have sickened thousands demonstrates the dangers of concentrating food production among a few large corporations. But the risks of corporate power run even deeper. Taylor Farms and other large produce corporations have long exerted political power to weaken food safety regulations, contributing to crises like this one. Taylor Farms representatives even met with the White House last week in an effort to distance the company from the outbreak…Recent budget cuts to federal and state health agencies further diminish the government’s ability to hold corporations accountable and protect consumers…

Advice to the Produce Industry

• Sales of salads are already down.
• Fix this.  Start testing.

Advice to Eaters

1. Cook your veggies: The New York Times has a handy recipe for stir-fried lettuce.
2. Avoid risky bagged salads and other hazards, and eat other fruits and vegetables.

What is Congress doing?

Writing letters, according to Bill Marler.

But only one of them focuses on traceability.  And we still do not know how Cyclospora got into the lettuce.

__________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

 

Yesterday, a US District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the USDA violated its own laws when it approved SNAP food restriction waivers allowing states to ban purchases of sodas and some other foods using their Electronic Benefit Cards (they can still buy those foods using their own money).

The decision makes riveting reading, as shown in these excerpts.

USDA used the wrong statute

The section of the statute the Secretary relies upon as authorization to approve the projects at issue, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), does not cover projects aimed towards improving the health of SNAP recipients, and the agency sidestepped the section of the statute that does address those projects, section 2026(k) – which sets out strict requirements they must meet – entirely.

USDA waived more than was allowed

With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of “food” as it was laid down by Congress.  Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k).

USDA did not follow its own procedures

Defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public.  The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact 3 on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.

These reasons are strictly procedural

The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not.  That is a question of policy that is not before the Court.  The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals.  But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.

The waivers are now remanded (sent back to USDA) and vacated (annulled).  The judgment says orders to USDA will follow.

In the meantime, Jerry Hagstrom reports that the USDA is downgrading administrative oversight of SNAP.

The Trump administration ended the Agriculture Department mission area status of the federal nutrition programs as part of its broad reorganization, according to a little-noticed explanation published alongside the establishment of the Food and Nutrition Administration.

Eliminating the mission area also apparently allows for the elimination of the positions of agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services and the deputy administrator.

What does this mean?  As Hagstrom explains,

A House Democratic aide said that aligning the structure of the nutrition programs with other benefit programs would make it easier to move FNA to HHS if the Trump administration should try to follow the Project 2025 guidance.

Cindy Long, a deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Biden administration and before that the administrator of Food and Nutrition Service, said in an email, “This change would represent an abdication of the secretary’s responsibility for FNS programs, which comprise over 75% of the USDA budget.” (Translation: this means SNAP).

As I’ve said previously, the USDA’s SNAP waivers have nothing to do with health, but everything to do with getting more people off of SNAP rolls.

Why do I think this?  Here’s the headline from ProPublica: More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program.

____

Thanks to Cathy Nonas, Jerry Mande, and Jerry Hagstrom for providing documents and info for this post.

Here’s what got me started on this one: SNAP waivers could lead to $830M sales loss for soda, candy, energy drinks: By the end of 2026, state-specific restrictions are expected to impact one-third of participants in the government food assistance program, Numerator found.

Redirected or reduced spending by SNAP households could lead to sales losses of $430 million for soda, $300 million for candy, and $100 million for energy drinks across the 19 states that will have waivers in place by the end of the year, according to the firm’s research.

SNAP waivers refer to rules about what SNAP recipients can buy with their electronic benefit cards.  Without waivers, they cannot buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, cannabis edibles and drinks, supplements, hot food, and non-food items.

Waivers add sugar-sweetened beverages and some junk foods to this list.

Up until this administration, the USDA turned down requests by cities (New York) and states (Maine, Nevada) for such waivers.

Now, the USDA has granted waivers to 23 states so far, and is encouraging others to request them.

 

Food retailers are the beneficiaries of SNAP EBT cards.  SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda (as do lots of other people).   In waiver states, they will have to use their own money to buy soda.

Will waivers reduce overall sales?  Retailers think so.

Will waivers reduce consumption of sugary drinks, and improve the health of SNAP recipients?

Let’s hope these states are sponsoring research to find out.

The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

• Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
• Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
• Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

• Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
• Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
• Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

• Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
• More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
• Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, A that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

A CORRECTION OF SORTS

A reader reminds me that the new school food rules that go into effect by 2025-2026 (at the earliest) call for no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 ounces of flavored milk.  This standard will apply to whole as well as reduced or no fat milks.

Let me start with a summary from Food Safety News:

The final four in the [meat] consolidation game are:

• JBS – This Brazil-based food giant is the world’s largest beef processor. It owns facilities that slaughter and pack over 20,000 cattle per day in the U.S.
• Tyson Foods – Known for chicken, Tyson is also the second largest U.S. beef processor. Their five beef plants process thousands of cattle daily.
• Cargill – This agribusiness conglomerate is the third largest U.S. beef packer and also owns one of the nation’s largest feedlot operations, Cargill Cattle Feeders.
• National Beef – Majority owned by Brazilian meatpacker Marfig, National Beef operates three U.S. packing facilities that process thousands of cattle per day.

Those are the four companies that control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef market, and there is no reason to believe that any of them are satisfied with their share. American consumers are paying some of the highest, inflation-adjusted prices for steaks and hamburgers than at any time in history.

The Trump administration says it is taking this on.  In a series of announcements on X (formerly Twitter), USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says:

We must work to address this to protect our ranchers and consumers. @POTUS  and this administration are focused on promoting fairness and competition — ensuring our producers have options and a level playing field.

Not only that, she adds,

Half of these meatpacking giants, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control, making them a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.

Here’s what she says they doing about it:

We’re putting forward short- and long-term solutions through the @USDA  Beef Plan and a major DOJ investigation into anti-competitive practices ordered by @POTUS.  Food security is national security.

And what is the USDA Beef Plan?  This will enhance disaster relief, increase grazing access, and build demand.

Anti-trust regulation?

Not a chance.

Last week, I wrote about what I consider to be a national tragedy: the splitting up and relocation of crucial USDA units.

The latest is USDA’s renaming, splitting up, and relocating the Food and Nutrition Service, the agency responsible for running SNAP and other food assistance programs.

USDA’s actions:

I.  Rename the Food and Nutrition Service; it is now to be The Food and Nutrition Administration

Translation: Serving low-income Americans is no longer part of USDA’s mission; management is.

II.  Split the FNA into multiple units.

Translation: Make sure food assistance is splintered and uncoordinated.

III.  Relocate the units into widely separated areas.  Child nutrition programs go to Dallas, TX; SNAP and safety go to Kansas City, MO; research goes to Raleigh, NC; emergency management goes to Denver, Co; retailer compliance goes to four cities–Atlanta, Los Angeles, Dallas, and New York.

Translation: Get rid of experts on food assistance who actually know how to make these programs work and who care about ending hunger in America, especially among women and young children.

IV.  Keep the overall FNA administrator in Washington, DC.

Translation: Give the appearance of oversight, now impossible given the geographical dispersion.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted this announcement on X (formerly Twitter).  Note her Trump-capitalized explanation:

We’re moving the NEW Food and Nutrition Administration out of DC and into the heartland where it belongs. Shifting staff CLOSER to those they support, makes us MORE efficient and responsive to the millions of families touched by USDA nutrition programs. Delivering faster, better service for families who need nutrition assistance and stronger support for American farmers who grow the food on their tables. We are laser focused on serving the American people with greater efficiency. And this reorganization will do just that.

Yeah, right.

My translation: USDAis systematically doing everything it can get away with to destroy SNAP, decrease participation, and make it impossibly difficult for eligible low-income Americans to enroll in food assistance.

You don’t agree?  Watch what happens to SNAP enrollments.

Decreases are already happening, as shown by ProPublica’s data from Arizona.

If USDA doesn’t have staff who know how to do things, people will not be able to enroll.  And that’s the whole point of the renaming, reorganization, and relocation.

Additional thoughts

• Former USDA official Jerry Mande wrote in a post on X, “during Trump’s 1st term USDA spent about $18m to move FNS to Braddock Pl. USDA signed a 15 yr lease in 2020. Those $$ are being squandered.”  His post also includes GAO data on the loss of experienced staff at USDA.
• GAO report on the effects of moving USDA on staff expertise in the Economic Research Service.

• An earlier 2022 GAO report on why relocating USDA units was not a good idea
• Congressional Research Service report (2026) on authority for USDA’s reorganization

It’s deja vu all over again.

During the Trump I administration, I wrote repeatedly about the tragic relocation of the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to Kansas.  As I said, the Government Accountability Office confirmed my analysis.

Why tragic?  I don’t have anything against Kansas, but expecting long-time residents of the Washington, DC area to uproot their families to move there seemed designed for only one purpose: to gut the ERS of its experts and to force it to stop producing sophisticated—and honest—analyses of inconvenient food issues.

In this, the move succeeded admirably.  Many experts quit.  Some were rehired to the DC area, but as far as I can tell, the ERS has never recovered.  It continues to publish routine statistical data, but the analytic reports have stopped.  This is an enormous loss to my work in particular, but also to society.

Now the USDA is doing it again, and finished the job on ERS.

Last week, the USDA issued two press releases on the relocations:

I.  USDA Advances Reorganization and Restructuring of the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area to Improve Efficiency and Better Serve American Farmers

This effort refocuses REE’s structure on mission delivery—streamlining operations, strengthening leadership accountability, and positioning resources closer to the agricultural communities USDA serves. The updated structure will be guided by five core principles: strengthening leadership accountability, reducing organizational complexity, ensuring consistency across agencies where appropriate, leveraging emerging tools and technologies, and aligning clearly with USDA’s priorities.

II.  USDA Announces Food Safety and Inspection Service Reorganization, Establishes National Food Safety Center in Iowa

This one says pretty much the same thing.

Let me translate what the USDA is really doing.

It is moving the hub of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to Urbandale, Iowa where it will establish a National Food Safety Center with about 200 employees relocated from Washington, DC (if they agree to move).  It also is relocating employees to Fort Collins, Colorado, and to a Science Center in Georgia (ditto).

Ostensibly, this is to bring FSIS closer to its constituents to strengthen “its ability to protect public health and ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.”

In practice, the moves will gut the agency, destroy its expertise, and disable it for years to come.

That has to be the intent.

Add these to the 27,000 people who have already left USDA since Trump II, 37% of its staff.  Surely, some of those people helped get the agency’s work done.

Who will be hired to replace the people who choose not to relocate?  I’m guessing those who go along with the current administration’s ideological agenda.

As I said, tragedy.

A reader, Jennifer Windh, has done some serious investigation of loopholes in USDA’s school food rules that allow lots of ultra-processed snacks to be sold a la carte (“competitive foods”) outside of the USDA’s school meals program.

USDA’s nutrition tandards also apply to competitive foods: Smart Snacks in Schools.

The final rule for these standards, effective as of 2016, sets requirements or limits for whole grains, saturated and trans fat, sugar, sodium, and calories.

This sounds good, but as Jennifer Windh found out, even though snacks are required to be either 50% whole grain or have as a first ingredient fruit, vegetable, dairy product, or protein, the rules allow for plenty of loopholes.

She summarizes the findings of her investigation in The Smart Snacks Loophole: How Junk Food Companies Target America’s Students in School.

One reason for the loophole is the generous sugar standard: “Acceptable food items must have ≤35% of weight from total sugar as served.”

She points out the irony of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s visit to an elementary school where cooks make healthy meals from scratch (parents protested his visit because of his stance on vaccination, not food).

This school, she notes, offers plenty of loophole snacks.

She is particularly concerned about the loophole for ice cream.  For this, she has analyzed sales in 12 Houston area school districts: Ice Cream at School.

Schools usually sell ice cream at the same time they serve the main meal. There is no adult present who encourages students to eat their lunch before eating dessert. As expected, most children eat their ice cream first! This spoils their appetite for the more nutritious foods on their tray. School lunch periods are short, children eat slowly, and there are many distractions as students socialize with their friends. As a result, some students eat their ice cream first and then throw the rest of their lunch away.

There is so much money to be made from school meals that sellers of ultra-processed foods are happy to reformulate their products to meet USDA nutrition standards and get their products in through the loopholes.

Obviously, the standards could use some tightening.

The big question: Will USDA tighten the loopholes when it issues new school food standards to reflect the new dietary guidelines?  Recall:  These emphasize eat real food and reduce intake of highly processed foods.

Stay tuned.