Morrisey formally requests WV's food stamp program no longer pay for soda
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey has formally asked the federal government to disallow the state's food assistance program from paying for soda. Morrisey submitted a request for a waiver to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to make the change, the governor announced in a video message Tuesday.
'For a long time I've talked about the fact that SNAP — the N should stand for nutrition,' Morrisey said. 'Well, now it's going to, even more than you've seen in the past. We're promoting healthy bundles. That's fresh produce and lean meat, and good opportunities for some hot foods for West Virginians for some products that you've never been able to have before.'
Morrisey first announced the SNAP proposal during an event in March with federal Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promoted the idea of states prohibiting SNAP from covering soda.
The SNAP changes are part of a statewide health initiative Morrisey called the 'Four Pillars of a Healthy West Virginia.' Other pillars included prohibiting the sale of certain food dyes in the state, and the 'Mountaineer Mile,' challenge to walk at least a mile a day.
Legislation similar to the SNAP change was introduced during the 2025 regular session, but went nowhere. House Bill 2350 would have required the state to submit a SNAP waiver so that the program could disallow coverage of soda and candy. Opponents of the bill expressed concerns it would hurt local grocery stores, particularly near the state border, by causing SNAP recipients to use their assistance to buy the sweets in stores across state lines.
One in six West Virginians, or approximately 277,000 residents, rely on the SNAP program for food assistance, according to the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. The program is paid for by the federal government's Department of Agriculture and administered through the state.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Just Asked RFK Jr. Why He Works Out In Jeans, And His Answer Shockingly Makes Sense
Fox News' Jesse Watters hit Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with what he described as 'the question that everybody is wondering about' on Tuesday. Namely, 'Why do you wear jeans when you work out?' Related: Kennedy, known for exercising in his literal (denim) sweatpants, answered: 'Well, I just started doing that a long time ago because I would go hiking in the morning and then I'd go straight to the gym and I found it was convenient and now I'm used to it so I just do it.' Related: 'OK,' the Fox News host replied to the vaccine skeptic that President Donald Trump has entrusted with his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Related: 'There were a lot of theories, but that makes perfect sense,' Watters claimed, without offering to explain the sense he claimed there was. Watch here: Fox News/X / Via Related: The question came after Kennedy and Fox News personality-turned-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth challenged Americans to do 50 pullups and 100 pushups in under five minutes. Watch that clip here: @FoxNews/X / Via This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Solve the daily Crossword
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Doctors: 2025 will be the year of measles in North America. Why?
Looking back, 2025 may be characterized as 'the year of measles in North America.' The U.S. has recorded its highest number of measles cases in more than 30 years, although cases have tailed off significantly in the last eight weeks and are only slightly higher than they were in 2019. The current per capita incidence of measles in the U.S. is roughly 4 per 1 million people. While there is a cyclical component to measles every several years, declining vaccination rates are by far the largest factor in this increase. According to Johns Hopkins University, the average county-level vaccination rate in the U.S. for measles, mumps and rubella declined from 93.9% pre-pandemic to 91.3% post-pandemic, moving further away from the 95% herd immunity threshold necessary to limit the spread of measles. (There are actually far more people vaccinated in the U.S. than there were in 2000, when measles was 'eliminated' but the U.S. population has risen by 20% since then, and the number of unvaccinated has outpaced the population rise.) This is simply the latest illustration of the importance of vaccines. Even small decreases in vaccination rates can have big consequences. Which brings us to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his fraught relationship with the mRNA vaccine, the unique delivery system that carries genetic material into the body's cells to create an immune response against viral proteins. Under Kennedy's guidance, HHS will gradually wind down its mRNA vaccine development programs and cancel 22 vaccine projects that have funding totaling $500 million. Some mRNA contracts in their final stages will be allowed to conclude, but no new mRNA projects will be put in place. The government is essentially getting out of the mRNA business. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Operation Warp Speed, the federal initiative to rapidly develop an mRNA vaccine for the coronavirus, saved thousands of lives in the U.S. and millions of lives worldwide. The immune response created by the vaccine conferred relative protection for those infected and the severity of COVID-19 infections gradually declined. Besides this, those vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine were at less risk of developing post-COVID-19 persistent fatigue and other physical problems, known as long COVID. Recent data from a national study led by Rush University in Chicago found that those who did develop long COVID returned to full employment with fewer financial hardships if they had been vaccinated. Not that the mRNA-powered COVID-19 vaccine was perfect. It decreased disease severity but did not prevent infection or transmission. The immunity it confers is short-lived, so patients must be revaccinated at frequent intervals. Side effects are rare, but heart inflammation in young men is not uncommon. Kennedy's oft-intemperate and sometimes-unscientific remarks about vaccines have generated fierce criticism from the public health community and much of the mainstream press. His critics have made equally intemperate remarks, suggesting that Kennedy will have the blood of millions on his hands. Not yet anyway, but it makes it difficult to analyze in sober fashion what Kennedy is doing. What he is doing is rolling the dice. The strength of mRNA technology was that it could be developed and modified quickly in comparison to other non-mRNA vaccine technologies (almost nobody expected the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be ready as soon as it was). Scrapping mRNA research means the country might be unprepared upon the arrival of the next pandemic — whether it is a new COVID-19 strain, bird flu or some other agent that requires a rapid response. Kennedy and his HHS minions are redirecting efforts toward what they hope are improved technologies. He seeks vaccines developed with more transparency that are safer and more durable and can address the shortcomings of mRNA vaccines. Maybe that will happen. Currently, other platforms include inactivated vaccines that use the actual organism to stimulate the immune system (flu vaccine); attenuated vaccines that use a weakened form of the organism to cause a mild infection (measles vaccine); and conjugate vaccines that use parts of the organism that don't cause infection but train the immune system to respond (meningitis vaccine). But developing and testing new platforms takes time, and the vaccines created may still underperform in real-world usage. Is Kennedy's move to abandon mRNA research a calculated risk or a rash one? No one — not experts, the media nor the public — can say with confidence because the future and the science are uncertain. The next pandemic may occur in a year, a decade or a generation. Answering that question will require patience, intellectual honesty, humility and wisdom. The Kennedy family has always walked the fine line between fantastic luck and accomplishment on one side and tragic misfortune on the other. Let's hope the Kennedy luck is with the country here. Dr. Cory Franklin is a retired intensive care physician and the author of 'The COVID Diaries 2020-2024: Anatomy of a Contagion as it Happened.' Dr. Robert Weinstein is an infectious disease specialist at Rush University Medical Center.
CNN
6 hours ago
- CNN
Irate parents turn to legal action over the marketing of so-called ‘toddler milks'
For people who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, infant formula is lifesaving, supplying their babies with precious nutrients they need to grow and thrive. Concerned about contaminants and the use of controversial seed oils in the nation's tightly regulated infant formula supply, US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has launched a review of infant formula regulations he calls Operation Stork Speed. Yet while industry and experts debate those regulations, there is another type of 'formula' — for toddlers ages 1 to 3 years old — that no one is overseeing. 'Toddler milks' are marketed to parents who have been using infant formula as a necessary next step in their child's nutritional journey, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Critics say these expensive concoctions — first introduced into the United States in the 1990s — are not nutritionally necessary, may be contributing to childhood obesity, and should not be sold at all. 'Cow's milk is nutritionally adequate for nearly all children over 12 months and is up to 30 times less expensive than these toddler drinks,' said Dr. George Fuchs, a professor of pediatric gastroenterology at the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine in Lexington. 'Yet mothers are buying these inferior products due to deceptive marketing, all the while believing they are doing what's best for their child,' said Fuchs, who coauthored a 2023 American Academy of Pediatrics clinical report that called for changes in how toddler formulas are promoted for sale. In fact, some toddler beverages may be potentially harmful to young children due to excess added sugars, defined as sweeteners that don't naturally occur in food, Fuchs said. The recommended amount of added sugar for infants and children younger than age 2 is zero, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet research from 2019 found that on average, infants consume 1 teaspoon of added sugar a day while toddlers consume about 6 teaspoons a day. 'Infants and children exposed to high sugar, fat or salt in their diets develop a preference for these as they grow older,' Fuchs said. 'Studies show this is a risk for childhood obesity and all of its consequences through adulthood.' Despite these concerns, toddler formulas are not regulated by the Infant Formula Act, nor by the infant formula regulations of the US Food and Drug Administration, said AAP report coauthor Dr. Steven Abrams, a professor of pediatrics at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin. 'When making an infant formula, manufacturers have to meet fixed levels of nutrients and protein levels that have been mandated by law,' said Abrams, who is also a member of the 'Operation Stork Speed' expert panel on infant formula, which met in early June. 'If you're making a formula for children over 12 months of age, there are no such restrictions,' he told CNN. 'Manufacturers can put in or take out any nutrients they want and do almost anything to market and sell it.' The Infant Nutrition Council of America, or INCA, which represents the formula industry, told CNN via email that toddler nutritional drinks 'contribute to nutritional intake and potentially fill nutritional gaps for children 12 to 36 months.' 'Research demonstrates that nutrient intakes for young children often fall below adequate levels for iron, vitamin D, E, calcium, choline, potassium, and fiber,' an INCA spokesperson said. In addition, 'the labeling of toddler nutritional drinks produced by INCA members explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.' When your baby relies on formula to grow and thrive, the infant nutrition aisle at your grocery store quickly becomes familiar territory. So, it wasn't long before Damary Santana noticed the brightly colored cans labeled as 'toddler drink' nestled next to the infant formulas she was buying for her infant son. 'They stood out because of the colors they use, like red, which catches your eye,' Santana told CNN. 'The labels on the cans were also very eye-catching because they said the formula would support my baby's brain development and immune system.' Saying she wanted the best for her son as he neared his first birthday, Santana decided to pay $35 to $45 a can for toddler milk so she could give him the nutrition he needed. 'I also started giving it to my daughter when she turned one,' said Santana, who lives in Charleston, Massachusetts. 'It was during the Covid pandemic and there was a lot of shortages, so I was buying two to three cans at a time for both my kiddos — it was very expensive.' Today, Santana is a plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit against Abbott Nutrition, maker of the two Similac toddler formulas she fed her children: Go & Grow toddler drink and Pure Bliss toddler drink. Santana said she joined the lawsuit after she learned from her pediatrician that toddler milk is completely unnecessary for her children's development. 'Everything that's on that label is pretty much just advertising to get parents like me to buy the formula,' Santana said. 'I could have used that money for other necessities, like clothes and diapers.' The lawsuit was filed by attorney Andrew Rainer, director of the Center for Public Health Litigation, a nonprofit public interest law practice at the Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. The law center, which is part of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, or PHAI, initiates legal action against tobacco, food and soda companies that sell products it claims contribute to preventable chronic diseases. The president of PHAI, Richard Daynard, is famous for his role in the fight to expose the marketing practices of the tobacco industry. 'Toddler milks are expensive, nutritionally unnecessary and may be harmful to children due to added sugars,' Rainer told CNN. 'The products are labeled 'Stage 3,' implying they are the next nutritionally recommended product for purchase after infant formula, which is numbered 'Stage 1' and transitional formula, which is numbered 'Stage 2.' 'We are suing to get Abbott to change their advertising and pay compensation to all the parents who purchased these products as a result of Abbott's misleading, unlawful and unfair marketing practices,' Rainer added. In response, Abbott Nutrition, a leader in the infant and toddler formula market, told CNN the case was 'without merit.' 'Our toddler nutrition products are properly labeled, and our claims are well-supported. Of note, several courts have rejected similar claims about Abbott products, including a California jury earlier this year,' a spokesperson said via email. The lawsuits Abbott supplied to CNN, however, were not about toddler formulas. The California lawsuit alleged Abbott places excess sugar in PediaSure, a nutritional supplement designed to feed malnourished children — a jury rejected those claims. Another two cases focused on added sugars in Ensure, a product often used to treat malnutrition after chemotherapy, surgery and in the elderly. One was dismissed; in the other, a judge denied the plaintiff's motion to bring the case as a class action. While the 'Stage 1' and 'Stage 3' signage that appeared on the original Pure Bliss infant and toddler products has been removed, the label on both the Irish Farms infant and toddler products are nearly identical. Like the original Pure Bliss toddler drink, the Irish Farms toddler product still contains 4 grams of added sugar per serving. Since the Santana lawsuit was filed, Abbott has launched an extension of the Pure Bliss by Similac product line: Irish Farms Infant Formula and Irish Farms Toddler Drink With Probiotics, both made with 'Fresh Milk From Cows in Ireland.' 'No changes were made to the formulation. These products offer the same great nutrition, just with a new name and label,' the company says on the FAQ section of its website. Abbott faces additional proposed class action lawsuits. A California mother filed suit against Abbott in September 2024 for its marketing of Go & Grow 360 Total Care Toddler Drink by Similac. In mid-August, a judge denied in part Abbott's petition to dismiss the case, allowing several claims to move forward. Two fathers in California filed suit in December 2024 alleging Abbott injects 'up to 12 grams of added sugar per serving, equivalent to almost half a can of soda' into Similac's Go & Grow 360 Total Care toddler drink powder and Similac's Go & Grow 360 Total Care Sensitive toddler drink poweder. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which allows the claims to be resubmitted to the court in future. When asked, Abbott provided no further comment concerning these lawsuits. 'Sensitive' formulas are marketed to parents who worry their children suffer from lactose intolerance, which is rare in children younger than age 6. 'If there's a take-home message for the world, it's that you don't need to put your baby on low lactose formulas with names like 'gentle 'or 'sensitive' because of routine baby symptoms like spitting or a bit of colic,' Abrams told CNN. 'It doesn't work for those things, plus more than 95% of all babies are not lactose sensitive — lactose is the natural sugar in breast milk. Yet a third to half of the marketplace is made up of these sensitive or gentle formulas,' Abrams said. 'The marketing also plays in the guilt of moms who aren't able to breastfeed, because who doesn't want sensitive formula for your sweet little baby, right?' Other key players in the infant and toddler formula market have also faced proposed class action lawsuits. Mead Johnson Nutrition, which makes Enfagrow Premium Toddler Nutritional Drink and Enfagrow NeuroPro Toddler Nutritional Drink products, has been accused of using 'deceptive and unlawful practices in labeling and marketing,' according to a lawsuit filed by three California parents in July 2024. A motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part by a federal court in California in July; the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in early August. In response, Mead Johnson Nutrition told CNN via email that its products use 'evidence-based nutrition' to support the development needs of young children. 'While we cannot comment on pending litigation, we stand behind our products and their labeling to ensure appropriate use by parents. In this case, we are pleased all fraud-based claims were dismissed and we remain confident our products are accurately labeled and responsibly marketed,' a spokesperson said. Gerber Products Company was sued in 2020 over its marketing of Gerber Good Start Grow Stage 3, which was sold as 'necessary' for the 'nutritional needs of children ages 12 to 24 months,' according to the lawsuit. 'Contrary to the recommended nutritional needs of children in this age range, the Product contains 15 grams of added sugar,' the lawsuit stated. Gerber's motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part, but the lawsuit was dropped in early 2022 when the plaintiff moved out of state, said Spencer Sheehan, the New York attorney who filed the case. 'The judge's denial of Gerber's dismissal motion was positive and recognized and credited the legal theories we raised,' Sheehan told CNN. 'I don't think there's any marketing that can save or make this category of products useful — personally, I don't think these products should even be sold.' CNN reached out to Gerber and was told the company sold its infant formula portfolio in late 2022 to Perrigo, the third largest manufacturer of infant formula in the US and Canada, according to its website. Good Start is now marketed as Good Start Dr. Brown's, with three infant formulations: one for gas, fussiness and spit-up; a second for easy digestion and softer poops; and a third that is milk- and lactose-free. However, there is no product for toddlers. CNN reached out to Perrigo but did not receive a reply. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long said 'breast is best' and strongly encourages breastfeeding babies for as long as possible. Oddly, it was the success of this mission that led to the birth of the toddler milk industry in the US, said Jennifer Harris, a senior research adviser of marketing initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut's Hartford campus. 'Toddler drinks are just a marketing tactic formula companies use to offset the decline in infant formula sales due to the increase in breastfeeding,' said Harris, who studies how food is marketed to children. 'There's no health benefit in these toddler drinks, it's all just a marketing ploy — a very lucrative one at that,' she said, echoing a key allegation in the Public Health Advocacy Institute lawsuit. 'There's absolutely no reason for this product category to exist, none at all,' she said. Harris is the senior author of a February 2020 study, which tracked sales and advertising dollars for the infant and toddler formula industry between 2006 and 2015. Sales volume, which is the total amount of infant formula sold, dropped 7% and advertising dollars declined over the 10-year-period. During the same time frame, advertising for toddler milks rose fourfold, with a 158% increase in annual sales volume. Today the 'growing up' milk market, as it is called, is exploding, said Rainer, citing available market data. 'Since 2018 the nationwide sales of toddler milks — a product no one needs — has averaged well over $500 million per year,' he said. Critics say labels on toddler milks are often similar in color and styling to labels on a brand's infant formulas, which makes it easy for parents to confuse the two, Harris said. 'It's easy for parents to grab the toddler version instead of the infant formula,' she said. 'Or they think, 'Oh, this one is less expensive, I'll just get this instead.'' Like Damary Santana, parents in focus groups told researchers they were swayed by labels that say toddler milks provide numerous immune-boosting and brain-nourishing additives. 'I feel like the marketing does a really good job of playing to a mother's fears,' a Hartford, Connecticut, mother told Harris and her team in 2022. 'Because who wants to feel like, I didn't give my child the thing to support their immune system? Or they're not going to have brain or eye development if I don't give them this.' Because toddler milks are not regulated by the FDA or Infant Formula Act, formula makers can 'market anything they want,' Abrams said. 'The World Health Organization's marketing code for breast-milk substitutes, which is accepted throughout most of the world, specifically does not allow the marketing of toddler formulas in this way,' he said. 'The United States, however, does not legally accept the restrictions in the code.' The Public Health Advocacy Institute and more than two dozen other organizations and individuals petitioned the FDA in July 2020 to set limits on the advertising of toddler milks while improving transparency on ingredient labels. Was there any response? 'Crickets,' said Harris, who signed the citizen petition. 'We followed up a few years later, and the FDA basically said 'Hey, we have a lot on our plate, and this isn't a top priority.'' Updating infant formula guidelines was the focus of the June meeting of the expert advisory council for Operation Stork Speed, but toddler milks were also discussed. Panel members acknowledged the issue of parents unknowingly giving toddler milks instead of formula to their infants because they couldn't tell the products apart, according to a posted summary. 'The labels of these products should clearly state that they are not appropriate for infants,' the committee agreed. The committee also discussed the AAP's recommendation that toddler products should no longer be positioned on store shelves next to infant formulas. Finally, the committee recommended that the FDA become involved in regulating toddler milk marketing, perhaps by 'incorporating some aspects of the WHO Code of Marketing of Infant Formulas.' Will the FDA implement actions on toddler milks as recommended by experts? Andrew Nixon, director of communications for the US Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the FDA — told CNN via email: 'We do not speculate on potential, future policy decisions.' Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
