USDA withdraws plan to limit salmonella levels in raw poultry
The Agriculture Department will not require poultry companies to limit salmonella bacteria in their products, halting a Biden Administration effort to prevent food poisoning from contaminated meat.
The department on Thursday said it was withdrawing a rule proposed in August after three years of development. Officials with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service cited feedback from more than 7,000 public comments and said they would 'evaluate whether it should update' current salmonella regulations.
The rule would have required poultry companies to keep levels of salmonella bacteria under a certain threshold and test for the presence of six strains most associated with illness, including three found in turkey and three in chicken. If the levels exceeded the standard or any of those strains were found, the poultry couldn't be sold and would be subject to recall, the proposal had said.
Advertisement
3 After three years of development, the Agriculture Department said it was withdrawing a rule proposed in August on limiting salmonella bacteria.
manjurul – stock.adobe.com
The plan aimed to reduce an estimated 125,000 salmonella infections from chicken and 43,000 from turkey each year, according to USDA. Overall, salmonella causes 1.35 million infections a year, most through food, and about 420 deaths, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The withdrawal drew praise from the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group, which said the proposed rule was legally unsound, misinterpreted science, would have increased costs and create more food waste, all 'with no meaningful impact on public health.'
'We remain committed to further reducing salmonella and fully support food safety regulations and policies that are based on sound science,' said Ashley Peterson, the group's senior vice president of science and regulatory affairs.
Advertisement
3 The rule would have required poultry companies to keep levels of salmonella bacteria under a certain threshold and test for the presence of six strains most associated with illness, with some found in chicken and turkey.
didesign – stock.adobe.com
But the move drew swift criticism from food safety advocates, including Sandra Eskin, a former USDA official who helped draft the plan.
The withdrawal 'sends the clear message that the Make America Healthy Again initiative does not care about the thousands of people who get sick from preventable foodborne salmonella infections linked to poultry,' Eskin said in a statement.
Advertisement
The proposed rule had been regarded as a food safety victory similar to a 1994 decision to ban certain strains of dangerous E. coli bacteria from ground beef after deadly outbreaks, said Sarah Sorscher, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
3 'Make no mistake: Shipping more salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker,' Sarah Sorscher, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said.
AP
'Make no mistake: Shipping more salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker,' Sorscher said.
Advertisement
Earlier this month, the USDA said it would delay by six months the enforcement of a final rule regulating salmonella levels in certain breaded and stuffed raw chicken products. Enforcement, which was set for May 1, now begins Nov. 3.
That covers foods such as frozen chicken cordon bleu and chicken Kiev dishes that appear to be fully cooked but are only heat-treated to set the batter or coating. Such products have been linked to at least 14 salmonella outbreaks and at least 200 illnesses since 1998, according to the CDC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., left, and ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., right, speak during a markup of Medicaid budget cuts, May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional — too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.'
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dr. Richard Goldberg: Preventive care and cancer screenings are critical to your health
The news of President Joe Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis came as a shock to the country. But preventive screening can protect you from having a similar shock of your own. While we don't know all the details about the former president's personal medical decisions, what we do know is this: Preventive care is absolutely critical to our health. Everyone should get the screenings appropriate to their age and individual health profiles. I have served as an oncologist for over four decades, helping thousands of cancer patients and their families navigate difficult diagnoses as well as helping thousands of other Americans catch a problem early when taking appropriate action can be curative. I have seen too many heartbreaking situations among my patients that could have led to better outcomes if a problem had been caught earlier. I have also seen firsthand the startling rise in the incidence, in particular, of colorectal cancer among younger adults at a time when incidence rates in older Americans are falling. Colorectal cancer is now the second-deadliest cancer for men and the third-deadliest cancer for women. The rise in early-onset colorectal cancer has been so dramatic that the recommended age for regular colonoscopy in people with no special risk factors was lowered in 2021 from age 50 to age 45. Some might think that moving up the screening age by five years is a small step, but it is not — certainly not in terms of outcomes. I have already witnessed examples where screening five years earlier has been consequential in identifying premalignant polyps and identifying early cancers before they metastasize when they are most likely to be cured. In many cases the polyps and even early cancers can simply be removed during a colonoscopy. I cannot urge this message strongly enough: All Americans of average risk that are over 45, and especially those exhibiting symptoms, need to get tested. One alternative is to have a colonoscopy at least every 10 years or more often if there are abnormal findings. Alternatives include stool-based studies such as Cologuard or Hemoccult testing, which need to be done more often to be most effective. New technologies are unlocking the potential for blood-based screening tests as well. The reason for this alarming increase in colorectal cancer incidence in younger adults is still being studied and the potential causes are debated in the scientific community. It is possible that there are several or even many different causes compounding the problem. As someone who practices risk-reducing dietary and activity strategies to protect my own health, I commend President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. for their emphasis on disease prevention and identifying the causes of America's chronic illness epidemic and finding measures to prevent disease like colorectal cancer. It is critical for all Americans to know what screenings are recommended at each stage in life. In general, everyone should get an annual physical, and see a dentist regularly — and everyone should receive the standard childhood vaccines. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women over 21 should get screened for cervical cancer and women over 40 to be screened for breast cancer. The task force recommends that smokers over 50 get checked for lung cancer. And men aged 55 to 69 are recommended to be screened for prostate cancer with a prostate specific antigen test. These and other screenings can help catch cancer or even precancerous growths as early as possible. Unfortunately, surveys show that a large number of Americans don't get these tests done, including for reasons of cost. I understand why people might do this, but getting a checkup and talking to your health care provider about what screening tests are appropriate for you is the first step to taking action to improve our health and our lives. Fortunately, there are also some positive trends in oncology to celebrate. Science continues to deliver great promise for the most vulnerable among us: the sick. In spite of some concerning short-term trends, cancer mortality has dropped by one-third since 1991, mainly because of a dramatic decrease in smoking. Life expectancy rose by almost a full year from 2022 to 2023. In my field, recent studies have shown exciting potential for people with confirmed cancers that are called immuno-oncology approaches. These are cancer treatments that enable the immune system to kill cancer cells, rather than using the more traditional treatment methods including chemotherapy, radiation and radical surgery, which often have harrowing and sometimes lifelong side effects. These approaches are changing the model in cancer care and particularly in my area of clinical practice and research, colorectal cancer. The benefits of these immune targeted therapies are changing treatments in many types of cancer. However, only a small subset, about 5%, of colorectal cancers respond to this approach using currently approved therapeutic regimens. More research is needed on this treatment approach to determine how to best harness this powerful tool and get new drugs approved by the FDA to help the large majority of colorectal cancer patients. But doctors, patients, and their loved ones can reasonably hope that the thousands of scientists around the world who are working to find better treatments and cures will change our current standards of care. All of us should ensure that we receive the screenings and vaccines appropriate to our age — and that our kids do the same. An ounce of prevention is still worth at least a pound of cure.
