US fertility rate reached new low in 2024, CDC data shows
The US was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself - about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all.
The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data.
Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilisation and backing the idea of "baby bonuses" that might encourage more couples to have kids.
But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy.
"We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the US population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase - more births than deaths," she said.
The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024.
In the early 1960s, the US total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Centre for Health Statistics.
Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups - and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Centre at the University of North Carolina.
People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment.
"Worry is not a good moment to have kids," and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said.
Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care.
"The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans," she said.
Increase in births in new data
The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1 per cent increase in births - about 33,000 more - last year compared to the prior year.
That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born.
But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s.
What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the US Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate.
That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.>
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Should you keep eggs in the fridge? How improper storage could raise your risk of Salmonella
With summer temperatures soaring across much of the US, many people are double-checking how they store their groceries, especially foods like eggs that seem deceptively simple but are surprisingly sensitive. While your grandmother may have kept eggs on the counter, today's eggs sold in American supermarkets are washed, sanitized, and require refrigeration to stay fresh and safe. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Management PGDM Degree Leadership CXO Public Policy Data Science Technology Healthcare Data Science others Data Analytics healthcare Operations Management Others Cybersecurity MBA Digital Marketing MCA Finance Project Management Artificial Intelligence Design Thinking Product Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta CERT-IIMC APSPM India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 11 Months IIM Kozhikode CERT-IIMK General Management Programme India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months IIM Kozhikode CERT-IIMK GMPBE India Starts on undefined Get Details Still, confusion lingers, particularly among those who've traveled abroad and noticed eggs stored at room temperature in places like France or Mexico. So, what's the right way to store eggs in the US? by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Food safety researchers say the fridge is your best friend, especially if you want to avoid spoilage, extend shelf life, and protect your health in peak summer heat. According to Professor Marina Elisabeth Aspholm, a food safety expert at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), the safest and most effective way to extend the life of your eggs, no matter the season, is to keep them in the refrigerator. Live Events "It is always wise to store eggs in the fridge as it extends their shelf life," Science Norway quoted Aspholm, specializes in food safety and veterinary microbiology. Why refrigeration matters more in the summer Eggs are naturally porous. This means water and gases slowly pass through their shells, a process that accelerates in warm conditions. Storing eggs in the refrigerator slows down this natural evaporation process and inhibits the growth of bacteria, especially during the heat of summer. 'Eggs stay fresh and safe much longer in the fridge,' says Aspholm. 'Often even several weeks past the 'best before' date.' What about Salmonella? Why refrigeration matters more in the US Salmonella is a key reason eggs are always found in the refrigerated section at the grocery store in the United States. Unlike in some European countries, like Norway, where hens are vaccinated and egg production is tightly regulated, the US has a higher risk of salmonella contamination. That's why all commercial eggs in the US are washed and sanitized before sale, but this also removes their natural protective coating, making them more vulnerable to bacteria and requiring constant refrigeration. To stay safe, the CDC recommends storing eggs in the fridge at 40°F (4°C) or below and cooking them thoroughly. If possible, pasteurized eggs should be used in dishes with raw or lightly cooked eggs, like homemade mayo or sunny-side-up eggs, especially for children, older adults, or those with compromised immune systems. Are backyard or farm eggs safe? If you're buying eggs from local farms, private backyard hens, or international markets, the level of oversight is often lower. These eggs can carry a higher risk of contamination, especially when hens are outdoors and exposed to wild birds or animals. 'Eggs from hens that roam freely or come from countries with less food safety control should be heat-treated before eating,' Aspholm advises. Can you freeze eggs? Yes, but with a caveat. You'll need to remove the shell first. While freezing doesn't eliminate bacteria, it can still be a viable long-term storage method. However, frozen eggs lose some of their functional properties, such as their ability to whip into fluffy foam. So, should you refrigerate eggs? Absolutely. Especially in summer. Whether you're in Norway or elsewhere, keeping eggs in the refrigerator significantly extends their shelf life and reduces bacterial growth. Even if your local store sells them at room temperature, pop them in the fridge as soon as you get home.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth
Seventeen Democratic officials accused President Donald Trump 's administration of unlawfully intimidating health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a lawsuit filed Friday. The complaint comes after a month in which at least eight major hospitals and hospital systems - all in states where the care is allowed under state law - announced they were stopping or restricting the care. The latest announcement came Thursday from UI Health in Chicago. Trump 's administration announced in July that it was sending subpoenas to providers and focusing on investigating them for fraud. It later boasted in a news release that hospitals are halting treatments. The Democratic officials say Trump's policies are an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on the treatment for people under 19 - and that's unlawful because there's no federal statute that bans providing the care to minors. The suit was filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus the governor of Pennsylvania, in U.S. District Court in Boston. "The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Trump and others who oppose the care say that it makes permanent changes that people who receive it could come to regret - and maintain that it's being driven by questionable science. Since 2021, 28 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have adopted policies to ban or restrict gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to enforce those laws. For families with transgender children, the state laws and medical center policy changes have sparked urgent scrambles for treatment. The medical centers are responding to political and legal pressure The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children in teens in the U.S., closed in July. At least seven other major hospitals and health systems have made similar announcements, including Children's National in Washington D.C., UChicago Medicine and Yale New Haven Health . Kaiser Permanente, which operates in California and several other states, said it would pause gender-affirming surgeries for those under 19 as of the end of August, but would continue hormone therapy. Connecticut Children's Medical Center cited "an increasingly complex and evolving landscape" for winding down care. Other hospitals, including Penn State, had already made similar decisions since Trump returned to office in January. Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an organization that advocates for health care equity for LGBTQ+ people, said the health systems have pulled back the services for legal reasons, not medical ones. "Not once has a hospital said they are ending care because it is not medically sound," Sheldon said. Trump's administration has targeted the care in multiple ways Trump devoted a lot of attention to transgender people in his campaign last year as part of a growing pushback from conservatives as transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance on some fronts. Trump criticized gender-affirming care, transgender women in women's sports, and transgender women's use of women's facilities such as restrooms. On his inauguration day in January, Trump signed an executive order defining the sexes as only male and female for government purposes, setting the tone for a cascade of actions that affect transgender people. About a week later, Trump called to stop using federal money, including from Medicaid, for gender-affirming care for those under 19. About half of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of transgender issues, an AP-NORC poll found. But the American Medical Association says that gender is on a spectrum, and the group opposes policies that restrict access to gender-affirming health care. Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It includes counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty, and hormone therapy to produce physical changes, as well as surgery, which is rare for minors. In March, a judge paused enforcement of the ban on government spending for care. The court ruling didn't stop other federal government action In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed government investigators to focus on providers who continue to offer gender-affirming care for transgender youth. "Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will bring these practices to an end," she wrote. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report discouraging medical interventions for transgender youth and instead focusing solely on talk therapy. The report questions adolescents' capacity to consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. The administration has not said who wrote the report, which has been deeply criticized by LGBTQ+ advocates. In June, a Justice Department memo called for prioritizing civil investigations of those who provide the treatment. In July, Justice Department announced it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in gender-affirming care for youth, saying they were part of investigations of health care fraud, false statements and other possible wrongdoing. And in a statement last week, the White House celebrated decisions to end gender-affirming care, which it called a "barbaric, pseudoscientific practice" Families worry about accessing care Kirsten Salvatore 's 15-year-old child started hormone therapy late last year at Penn State Health. Salvatore said in an interview with The Associated Press before the lawsuit was announced that it was a major factor in reduced signs of anxiety and depression. Last month, the family received official notice from the health system that it would no longer offer the hormones for patients under 19 after July 31, though talk therapy can continue. Salvatore has been struggling to find a place that's not hours away from their Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, home that would provide the hormones and accept Medicaid coverage. "I'm walking around blind with no guidance, and whatever breadcrumbs I was given are to a dead-end alleyway," she said. The family has enough testosterone stockpiled to last until January. But if they can't find a new provider by then, Salvatore's child could risk detransitioning, she said.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ultra processed food's intake linked to higher lung cancer risk: Study
People who consume the highest amounts of ultra-processed foods face a 41% greater risk of developing lung cancer compared to those eating the least, according to research published in the respiratory journal Thorax. Ultra processed food's intake linked to higher lung cancer risk: Study The findings, based on data from over 100,000 Americans followed for 12 years, suggest that limiting consumption of ready-to-eat meals, processed meats, and sugary drinks could help reduce the global burden of the world's most common cancer. Lung cancer claimed 1.8 million lives worldwide in 2020 alone, with 2.2 million new cases diagnosed that year, the researchers noted. The study analysed data from 101,732 participants (50,187 men and 51,545 women, average age 62) drawn from a broader pool of 155,000 people aged 55-74 who completed detailed dietary questionnaires as part of major US cancer screening trials between 1993 and 2001. Researchers tracked cancer diagnoses until 2009 and deaths until 2018. Foods were classified into four processing categories: unprocessed or minimally processed; containing processed culinary ingredients; processed; and ultra-processed. The ultra-processed foods examined included lunch meats, ice cream, fried foods, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups, soft drinks, and fast-food items like hamburgers and pizza. Participants consumed an average of nearly three servings daily, ranging from 0.5 to 6 servings. The most frequently consumed ultra-processed foods were lunch meat (11% of intake), diet or caffeinated soft drinks (just over 7%), and decaffeinated soft drinks (nearly 7%). During the follow-up period, 1,706 people developed lung cancer—1,473 cases of non-small cell lung cancer and 233 cases of small cell lung cancer. Even after accounting for smoking habits and overall diet quality, those in the highest consumption group showed significantly elevated risks. The increased risk was 37% for non-small cell lung cancer and 44% for small cell lung cancer among heavy ultra-processed food consumers. 'Over the past two decades, consumption of ultra-processed foods has significantly increased worldwide, regardless of development or economic status,' the authors wrote. This rise may be driving global increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, they added. The researchers suggest ultra-processed foods may crowd out protective foods like whole grains, fruits, and vegetables from people's diets. Industrial processing also alters food structure, affecting how nutrients are absorbed whilst generating harmful compounds like acrolein—found in grilled sausages and caramel sweets and also present in cigarette smoke. Food packaging materials may also contribute to health risks, the study noted. The authors acknowledged their findings require confirmation through additional large-scale studies across different populations before definitive conclusions can be drawn about causality. 'If causality is established, limiting trends of ultra-processed food intake globally could contribute to reducing the burden of lung cancer,' they concluded.
