‘People will die' if USDA doesn't limit salmonella in poultry: Doctor
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has withdrawn a Biden-era plan to limit salmonella levels in raw poultry, a move applauded by the National Chicken Council. Dr. Omer Awan, senior public health contributor for Forbes, tells NewsNation the move will only harm Americans.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfilment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We're cancer doctors. Here's why Medicare Advantage fails America's elderly.
'It's nothing,' Tom, a retired firefighter from rural Texas, thought when he had persistent stomach pain. After shedding 30 pounds in three weeks, his family physician ordered a CT scan. Tom was not concerned — after all, the 65-year-old had gotten Medicare Advantage earlier that year. Like millions, Tom switched his insurance after he was solicited by a broker who promised low premiums and a gift card. Absent from the sales pitch was the fact that Medicare Advantage plans — privately run and separate from government-funded traditional Medicare — often delay and deny coverage. One of us met Tom nearly three months after his CT scan, and his doctor discovered the abdominal mass. The job as the first oncologist he had been able to see after months of jumping through hoops was to get initial scans, identify an in-network provider, wait for further referral and approval processes and finally schedule and complete a biopsy. The delays became a death knell. Tom was diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreatic cancer. Tom's first question was, 'It's going to be fine, right?' Despite the urge to reassure him, Tom's life and treatment options were not up to a doctor. They were up to his insurance. The same insurance that delayed urgent testing and care. By definition, Medicare Advantage is meant to support elderly medical care and increase efficiencies; in function, it is a business model that allows the American government to decrease its liability for sick seniors. Instead of absorbing and managing costs, the responsibility is outsourced to third-party operators, such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and CVS Health. While Medicare Advantage provides excellent coverage if you never get sick, this insurance can quickly become a precursor to medical bankruptcy if the patient develops a deadly disease, a highly probable outcome when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans get cancer in their lifetime. After nearly two decades of experimentation and $450 billion of taxpayer money, Medicare Advantage has proven porous in terms of corruption, fraud and abuse. Yet, 32.8 million elderly Americans (54 percent of the eligible Medicare population) are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In 2023 alone, Medicare Advantage plans fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior authorization requests. No one, especially among folks facing the daily drudgery of fighting cancer, truly understands how the cogs within the insurance machine work. Few of our elderly patients fight the goliath institution, and many succumb to poorer health outcomes in their quest for lifesaving treatment. Last year, countrywide and across disease groups, 79 percent of patients who experienced a delay or denial of coverage paid out of pocket for medication at least sometimes. Unsurprisingly, more than 100 million Americans are in medical debt. Of those who appealed between 2019 and 2023, over 80 percent were approved, implying that the initial claims were valid. This game of attrition directly contradicts Medicare Advantage's promise to provide efficient, patient-centered healthcare. These denials are not just medically dangerous because they enable deadly diseases to progress unchecked. They are also emotionally erosive. Daily, we see patients shrink in the face of denials, unable to emotionally navigate the complex Medicare system and the immense pain, isolation and depression resulting from this behemoth that stands between their disease and their hope to be free of it. During one of Tom's chemo visits, with thousands of dollars worth of IVs in his veins, his skin pale and translucent, he realized he was begging his insurance at every turn to support him. Stories like Tom's reveal the truth: Medicare Advantage is unapologetically failing its elderly cancer patients. Sick American seniors deserve more than insurance coverage in name only. We advise our patients to avoid Medicare Advantage. The better choice is traditional Medicare, plus a secondary or supplemental insurance. Often, people do not enroll in supplemental insurance because they do not understand its importance, believe they will never get sick, miss the deadline for approval without a medical exam (you must do this within three months before or after your 65th birthday), or think it is too expensive. Although supplemental insurance costs nearly $500 a month (exact amounts vary based on age and income), choosing this add-on — and paying roughly $6,000 a year — is much more affordable than Medicare Advantage's yearly out-of-pocket (potentially adding up to $8,500) and fighting for approvals for basic treatment. On Medicare Advantage, Tom quickly reached his maximum yearly out-of-pocket of $8,500, but then it reset on Jan. 1. After four months of treatment, he was responsible for paying $17,000 for 16 months of care, on top of his insurance premiums, simply to receive standard care. Of course, if you are one of the fortunate few to have never experienced illness — and we hope you are — Medicare Advantage can be a cheaper option. The question is, how can we make Medicare Advantage advantageous for the vulnerable? There is a bipartisan opportunity to change the narrative around this insurance model. During his confirmation hearing as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz criticized Medicare Advantage insurers for some of their practices. Strategic change — omitting out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, curbing insurance companies' rights to deny claims submitted by doctors and speeding up the process — along with more rigorous oversight of the program are worthwhile goals the Trump administration and Congress should take on. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many issues, we believe we can all agree that people like Tom — and the millions of other Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage — deserve comprehensive and just care. Dr. Pramod Pinnamaneni, MD, MBA, and Dr. Nitya Thummalachetty, DrPH, are founders of the Nau Project, a start-up dedicated to helping everyday Americans navigate the complexities of our healthcare system. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
