How long can your cookout spread stay out? Here's what food safety experts say
If chowing down on picnic food isn't the best part of summer, I don't know what is. And as delicious as a juicy slice of watermelon or a snappy hot dog can be, warm-weather fare is even more enjoyable when it's not accompanied by a side of food poisoning. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but leaving your famous pasta salad out of the fridge on a hot day is practically an engraved invitation for illness-causing bacteria to crash the party. So, just how long can barbecue, sides and desserts stay on the buffet table? As a former professional baker, I have a food handler's license, but I wanted to get up-to-date info on preparing, serving and storing food in the most sanitary way. I enlisted two food safety experts to share their insights, and these are their tips for your next summer bash and beyond.
Ever been to a barbecue where the mayo-packed potato salad was left outside all day? Yeah, you'll want to avoid that. The window during which it's safe to leave food out at room temperature is likely shorter than you'd think, thanks to something called the (dun-dun-dun): Danger Zone.
According to the USDA, the Danger Zone refers to food temperatures "between 40°F (4.4°C) and 140°F (60°C)." Why? "There are certain foods that can cause foodborne illness if allowed to sit in the temperature Danger Zone, because potentially harmful bacteria can grow at these temperatures," says Ellen Shumaker, director of outreach for the Safe Plates program at North Carolina State University. "These include cut leafy greens, cut tomatoes and cut melon, raw and cooked meat and poultry, milk and dairy products, cooked dishes like casseroles, cooked vegetables, beans, pasta, rice and potatoes, as well as baked goods with cream, custard, cheese, meat/vegetable fillings and cream frostings."
If you're thinking, "That's so many foods!" — well, you're right. But you can still safely enjoy them as long as you adhere to certain guidelines. Typically, that means keeping food out for no more than two hours, says Amanda Deering, associate professor of fresh produce food safety at Purdue University's Department of Food Science. That said, she adds, "If temperatures are above 90°F, it should sit out for no more than an hour."
When it comes to safely preparing food, some ingredients are less straightforward than others. Of course, you'll always want to make sure you're using freshly cleaned hands and tools no matter what you're making, but for meat, there are other factors to keep in mind.
"A meat thermometer is going to be your best friend," says Deering. "That's the only true way you can tell you cooked it properly." Shumaker agrees, adding, "With outdoor cookouts and grilling, I always think about making sure that meats are cooked to a safe endpoint temperature to kill off harmful bacteria. Burgers and other ground meat should be cooked to 160°F, and poultry should be cooked to 165°F." Grilling steak? The USDA says to cook beef, pork, veal and lamb steaks to an internal temperature of 145°F and let them rest for at least three minutes. The same temperature applies to fish and shellfish.
"Other safety tips to keep in mind are to make sure that people handling and serving food are washing their hands and avoiding cross-contamination (making sure that utensils or cutting boards aren't used with raw meat and then fresh salad)," Shumaker cautions. And you are washing your hands ... right?
It probably makes sense that keeping meat out at room temperature for too long isn't a great idea, but what about all of those accoutrements? "People sometimes don't think about fresh fruits and vegetables," says Deering, who advises heeding the Danger Zone guidelines for cut produce as well. To keep your produce fresh for longer, she says you'll want to "wash it under cool, running water and scrub with a vegetable brush, right before you're going to consume it." Rinsing it off too early can encourage the growth of bacteria, so it's best to hold off until you're about to cut it up.
As for starchy side dishes? If you're on social media, you may have come across videos about something referred to as fried rice syndrome. Funny name, yes, but it's no laughing matter. "Fried rice syndrome refers to foodborne illness caused by, as the name implies, consuming fried rice," explains Shumaker. "In this case, it is caused by the bacteria Bacillus cereus. Bacillus cereus can be found anywhere. It is usually found in spore form, which is a dormant, or inactive, form of the bacteria. When the right conditions occur, the spore form of bacteria can become active. When some foods, like rice and other cooked dishes, are left sitting out for too long, Bacillus cereus can become active and produce a toxin. That toxin is what causes foodborne illness — specifically diarrhea, nausea and vomiting." (I don't think that's how any of us envision spending our summer...)
How to avoid getting sick? You got it: Keep foods like rice, pasta, potato salad, casseroles and even condiments from sitting in the Danger Zone for too long. (At this point, shouldn't someone get Kenny Loggins to rework his Top Gun theme song to increase awareness around food safety?)
Oh, and if you're thinking, "I'll just pop this cheesy dip I forgot to put in the fridge back into the oven to cook off that bacteria," guess again. "Bacillus cereus is heat-resistant, so unfortunately, simply reheating a food after it has been temperature abused will not destroy the toxin," Shumaker says.
Deering is less concerned about certain types of foods. "Typically, things that are very high in sugar don't support the growth of human pathogenic bacteria," she says. This means your brownies and cookies are less likely to make you sick if they stay out longer. That said, anything creamy or custardy (think: trifles, lemon bars, banana cream pie) needs to be given the Danger Zone treatment.
So, you prepare a batch of baked beans the day before a barbecue. What's the best way to keep it fresh? When it comes to hot food, "you want to get it as cool as possible, as quickly as possible," Deering says. Shumaker adds, "Because toxin formation occurs in the temperature Danger Zone, it is important to cool foods quickly."
That said, you don't want to place a piping-hot pot straight into the fridge. Why? "It is not recommended to put large containers of hot food in the fridge because the food in the center of the pot will not cool down quickly enough to avoid the temperature Danger Zone," explains Shumaker. "Divide large portions of hot food into shallow containers to allow foods to cool more quickly before putting [them] into the fridge."
Deering agrees. "If you have a smaller container that's packed full, that's going to take a long time for that internal part of the food to get cold, so then you risk that you're in that Danger Zone. If you have a bigger container with not as much food, that's going to cool a lot faster."
As far as what the container is made of, neither Deering nor Shumaker has a clear preference, though they both stressed the importance of having a good seal to keep air out. That said, concerns about ingesting microplastics are on the rise, you may want to consider using glass containers — especially if you plan on microwaving them or using them for hot foods, which can cause plastic containers to release more of those tiny particles.
That was a lot of information — the key takeaways? "Try to keep foods cold as long as possible by using coolers with ice or ice packs, and consider only serving small portions at a time," says Shumaker. "Otherwise, I just make sure my fridge is kept at 41°F or below to maximize shelf life."
When in doubt, Deering has an easy-to-remember motto: "Keep cold things cold and hot things hot!"
Happy (and safe) eating!
If you have Amazon Prime, you'll get free shipping, of course. Not yet a member? No problem. You can sign up for your free 30-day trial here. (And by the way, those without Prime still get free shipping on orders of $35 or more.)
Our health content is for informational purposes only and is not intended as professional medical advice. Consult a medical professional on questions about your health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
This Historian Has Seen the Future of Trans Health Care
Jun 16, 2025 6:00 AM Jules Gill-Peterson doesn't want to fight for trans joy. She wants to fight for what trans people really need: resources, hormones, and surgery. Her latest arena? The US Supreme Court. Photograph: Dina Litovsky Jules Gill-Peterson is speaking to me from the future. She's 11 hours ahead of me when I reach her over Zoom. While I'm sniffling and congested on a rainy Wednesday evening on my side of the screen in Brooklyn, Jules is welcoming the sun on a beautiful Thursday morning, the bright blue sky of Bangkok peeking in from the window behind her. The Baltimore-based trans studies scholar is known for her work on the history of medical transition, specifically the history of how trans kids have attempted to access such forms of health care. In 2018, a time when US lawmakers were only just beginning to target gender-affirming care for minors—that is, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery—she published her first book on the subject, Histories of the Transgender Child , a groundbreaking work that presaged the wave of health care bans that roughly two dozen states have since signed into law, not to mention President Trump's various executive orders that have sought to further undermine access to such care at the national level. Seven years later, the fight over access to these treatments has reached the Supreme Court with United States v. Skrmetti , a challenge to a Tennessee ban on health care for transgender youth, the ruling for which is expected to be issued later this month. Gill-Peterson, along with several other experts in the field, coauthored an amicus brief for the court explaining how trans kids have existed long before contemporary medical science and that they've been transitioning, medically or otherwise, far longer than the 'irreversible damages' crowd would claim. Whether or not the justices heed their expertise, the Supreme Court decision will have a major impact on the future of not only youth access to gender-affirming care in the US but trans American life writ large. Beyond the legal brief, when she's just speaking to me one-on-one, Gill-Peterson admits that she doesn't personally love the term 'gender-affirming care,' as she finds the neologism to be too euphemistic. She prefers instead to speak plainly about what's actually at stake: hormones and surgery, not something abstract or intangible like affirmation or validation. She's similarly specific when she explains why she's in Thailand: She's recovering from a 'sex-change surgery,' a vaginoplasty to be exact, one that has neither 'affirmed' her gender nor even 'confirmed' it. Her linguistic tastes are not merely a matter of aesthetics but a choice that reflects her politics, which prioritize addressing and meeting trans people's material needs, especially in this moment when we're increasingly under attack. 'We don't need any more disgusting 'trans joy,'' Gill-Peterson says. 'We don't need any more 'gender euphoria.' Let's just get rid of all that and spend our time delivering real things that matter to people, things like hormones and sex changes and surgeries.' It's fitting, I tell her, that a trans historian like herself would now be traveling around the world for a surgical procedure, given the rich history of transsexual medical tourism that dates back generations. Entertainer and World War II veteran Christine Jorgensen was quite famously cornered into becoming a public figure after the New York Daily News made tabloid fodder out of her early 1950s sojourn to Copenhagen; Janet Mock recounted her own journey to Bangkok in 2014's best-selling Redefining Realness . 'Every single woman that made her whole life about getting this surgery by any means necessary,' Gill-Peterson says, 'those women are absolutely my heroes. I feel lucky in some sense, if only sentimentally, to be retracing their itineraries.' Gill-Peterson's experience in Bangkok has also proven instructive. An associate professor in the Department of History at Johns Hopkins University since 2021 and the author of two books, most recently 2024's A Short History of Trans Misogyny , she spent five years trying 'relentlessly' to obtain this particular surgery before being told last fall that she'd have to wait at least another year. 'Despite having a PhD for studying this stuff, I've repeatedly failed to obtain this surgery myself,' she says. Changing jobs, switching insurance plans, moving between states—something always held up the process, even when she had explicit legal protections against health care discrimination based on where she lived and was working for an employer that 'would've paid for something like 95 percent of the cost.' 'I just couldn't deal with the American system of 'gender-affirming care,' even when it was nominally working for me at its absolute, pinnacle best,' she continues. 'It's one of my immediate takeaways after having surgery in Bangkok. Having a good surgeon with a positive experience—like, wow! If only we put the resources behind it so it could be like this for everyone.' 'We don't need any more 'gender euphoria.' Let's just get rid of all that and spend our time delivering real things that matter to people, things like hormones and sex changes and surgeries.' Instead, the Canadian academic's adoptive home has done the opposite, passing health care bans in just about one out of every two states that prohibit minors from medically transitioning through all but underground means. Meanwhile, lawmakers at the national level are taking steps to prevent Medicaid recipients of any age—a quarter-million of whom are trans, according to a 2022 report from the Williams Institute—from using their insurance to cover puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, as they are currently permitted to do in much of the country. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act,' which would do precisely that, has already passed the House and, as of this writing, is on its way to the Republican-controlled Senate. Should it succeed there as well, all it would need to then become law would be a signature from the president. Given the situation, Gill-Peterson yearns for a reality check among the 'Love Is Love' platitude-spouters, should they ever hope to pose any sort of meaningful challenge. 'All of these push factors are impolite to acknowledge in progressive liberal circles,' Gill-Peterson says. 'They'd rather plug their ears than admit that health care is a material need. It's not a slogan. It's not, like, a thing you support in your heart. It's an urgent, lifesaving need,' one that's never been totally secure, though Gill-Peterson is taking action to change that. Having grown up in Vancouver, British Columbia, Gill-Peterson's academic trajectory took her from the University of Ottawa to Rutgers University, where she received her PhD in American Studies in 2015. Later that year, she accepted a teaching position at the University of Pittsburgh, where she began work on what would later become Histories of the Transgender Child , which won the Lambda Literary Award for best transgender nonfiction book in 2019. A response, in part, to the post–'Tipping Point' narrative that would frame transness as a novel phenomenon ('Trans people are in a constant state of being discovered,' as filmmaker and historian Morgan M. Page once wrote), Gill-Peterson's book examined how youth have medically altered their sex as far back as the early 20th century, decades before most of the loudest anti-trans mouthpieces in Congress were even born. As lawmakers have banned trans health care for minors, even criminalized its provision in a handful of states, often on the grounds of its being 'experimental,' as Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey claimed in 2023, the research undergirding Histories of the Transgender Child has only proven more vital, and its thesis more eerily prescient. 'While most academics aim to make small discursive interventions, Jules Gill-Peterson has paradigm-shifted the field of trans studies multiple times,' says Charlie Markbreiter, an academic and organizer with Writers Against the War on Gaza whose next book, Rapid Onset , will examine how trans people became a political scapegoat. Histories of the Transgender Child 'destroyed the myth that trans kids were 'just invented,'' he adds, noting that her scholarship is 'historically grounded, accessible to nonacademic audiences, and useful to movement struggles. [She's] easily the most important trans studies scholar working today. It's not even close.' Not long after publishing her first book, Gill-Peterson began dating Kadji Amin, author of 2017's Disturbing Attachments and an associate professor of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Emory University. 'My thinking owes a lot to our relationship,' she says of her boyfriend, who accompanied her to Bangkok and has been caring for her during her recovery. As Gill-Peterson has achieved recognition for her work, to a degree 'unprecedented for a transsexual woman of color in the academy,' she says that she has also experienced harassment and bigotry, even from her colleagues. 'Kadji's unabashed insistence on the importance of loving and caring for me, which includes standing up for me in our profession and telling the truth about how transsexual women are treated by people who claim to be their allies, has been instrumental to me carrying on with my research and work as the political situation worsens in this country.' Having gotten together at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the two found themselves alone and isolated at home like so many other new couples at the time. But instead of passing the hours by making sourdough starters or going full Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? on each other and imploding by summer's end, the pair developed a collaborative working relationship, one that helped them clarify their political aims and creative ambitions. 'We got to spend a lot of time together, working from home and contemplating the practical value of academic research and writing in crisis,' Gill-Peterson continues. 'For us, the bottom line was that we had to learn how to tell urgent and basic truths that academics are loath to admit. We spent a lot of time exploring the condescending elitism, anti-transsexualism, and misogyny of middle-class transgender thought and politics, which we both had sensed internally for years but had been strongly discouraged from critiquing.' These lines of critique are blisteringly evident in her second book, A Short History of Trans Misogyny , which Verso published last year. A vital new contribution to a lineage of transfeminist scholarship that includes the work of Julia Serano and Viviane K. Namaste, among others, the text interrogates how seemingly progressive neoliberal politics make trans people into assimilable subjects only through the exclusion of transsexual women, particularly those who are poor, Black, brown, sex workers, or immigrants. 'I've found Jules to have an essential perspective and one that challenges me and how I do this work of 'trans activism.'' No moment encapsulates this dynamic to me as clearly as when Jennicet Gutiérrez, a longtime organizer for queer and trans immigrants' rights, staged a protest at a White House Pride Month reception in 2015, two days before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Gutiérrez was there to demand that President Obama stop the abuse of trans people in Immigration and Customs detention centers and release all LGBTQ+ detainees. Attendees—themselves a mix of activists, journalists, and other leaders from within the community—shushed her as she spoke, cheered loudly when Obama upbraided Gutiérrez for interrupting him, and booed as she continued to speak, eventually breaking out into applause after she was escorted out. Additionally, Gill-Peterson's book charts how this dynamic of transsexual exclusion stems from centuries of Euro-American colonial violence, spanning centuries and continents—and an expansive bibliography—while remaining succinct and unthinkably readable. 'I've found Jules to have an essential perspective and one that challenges me and how I do this work of 'trans activism,'' Gillian Branstetter says via email. Branstetter is a communications strategist at the American Civil Liberties Union, the legal nonprofit helping to represent the trans teenagers and their families in the Skrmetti case. Gill-Peterson's work has illustrated for Branstetter the narrowing effect that identity-first politics can have at a time when 'we need solidarity across difference,' she says. 'Not just because my day job is almost by definition identity-first, but also because, as Jules' work shows, identity itself is something we are often forced to shape for ourselves from what violent systems have left for us.' Over the years, Gill-Peterson's work—which, in addition to both of her books, also includes her editorial duties at Trans Studies Quarterly and her cohosting duties on the Death Panel podcast—has shifted focus toward constructing trans histories that lie beyond the research of American medical institutions. Her next book, Transgender Liberalism , forthcoming from Harvard University Press, will further shift that focus, presenting a 'history of class differences between trans people and the ways in which the state and, by extension, medical institutions have served to not only delineate but intensify those differences,' she says. The project began as a history of DIY transition, medical or otherwise, but reoriented over the course of her research as she realized how divergent our histories of the subject are. 'Trans women and trans men's transition practices are basically completely separate until the last 40 or so years,' Gill-Peterson says, adding that the latter group has historically experienced upward mobility even without hormones while the former group has not. One of Transgender Liberalism 's main arguments, she tells me, is that trans health care in the US was formed to specifically address one group of people: poor trans women, who, despite sometimes being fixtures of certain queer neighborhoods, had become largely locked out of the labor market by the middle of the 20th century, with their lives and livelihoods criminalized and policed. 'The entertainers, the sex workers, the girls on the stroll—they were important culturally but living in extreme poverty for the era, not experiencing the same rise in income and wealth that others, specifically white Americans, were experiencing after World War II,' Gill-Peterson says. 'The gender clinic was created to coercively rehabilitate them,' or at least some of them, 'into working women and get them back into the economy.' This month, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti , a landmark case examining the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's possible that the court will strike it down on the grounds that it's discriminatory on the basis of sex, thereby giving the ACLU the legal precedent it needs to challenge similar laws in more than 20 other states, or at least the ability to return to the lower court that upheld Tennessee's ban in the first place. Such victories are unlikely, however, given the bench's conservative majority. As to what the worst-case scenario might look like, 'the worst-case scenario would be that things stay the same,' as Branstetter told me in a recent interview for Dazed. For the trans kids and their families who live in those states that have restricted youth access to lifesaving health care, 'the world has already ended.' 'When the battle's playing out on a hundred fronts at once, we have to remember that there's no single court ruling, no existential moment, no single referendum on 'transgender rights' that'll decide how this struggle will go.' Still, as Gill-Peterson makes sure to note, the mere existence of a law that grants people 'the right to change sex,' as the Pulitzer Prize–winning critic Andrea Long Chu once termed it, does not in and of itself make it possible for a person to do so. Therefore, she says, fighting for the freedom to medically transition demands a more comprehensive strategy than focusing on one single court ruling. 'It demands a bread-and-butter approach,' one that prioritizes economic security and adequate resources for all, she says. 'One of the big findings I've taken away from this research [for Transgender Liberalism ] is just how much the cost of medical transition has skyrocketed since the 1960s' when 'transsexual women faced an average cost of $3,500 total for psychiatric evaluation, ancillary care, and surgeries at a gender clinic,' which translates to about $35,000 today. By the 1990s, that amount had doubled. A trans man's phalloplasty, on the other hand, nearly quadrupled in price over that same time frame, totaling just over $200,000 by century's end, when adjusted for inflation, which is 'out of reach on a practical level for most people,' says Gill-Peterson, stating the obvious. In this sense, she continues—if you remove all of the various health care reforms that have greatly expanded coverage options for trans people in the US over the past two decades, as countless lawmakers are hell-bent on doing—it is empirically harder to medically transition now than it was in the 1960s. This, she believes, 'is the real political crisis—the real panic when it comes to transition, not the moral panic that we're told exists.' The American health care system hasn't made it too easy to transition; it has made it too hard, and she has the data to prove it. When Gill-Peterson was invited to coauthor an amicus brief for the Skrmetti case, she was ready. For years, she'd anticipated that the Supreme Court would rule on precisely this subject—trans kids' access to health care—and, as not only one of the very few trans historians in the academy but a leading researcher on the history of children seeking medical transition, she knew she'd eventually get the call to share her expertise. 'Around 2019, I started keeping a separate file for evidence I'd found over the course of my research that demonstrated the longevity, the reality, and the banality of medical transition in this country,' she says. 'All good historians are just kind of pack rats.' Tennessee's law and the arguments in favor of it allege that the basic forms of what we call gender-affirming care—that is, blockers, hormones, and surgery—are 'novel' and 'experimental' and therefore too dangerous to be made accessible to minors. Gill-Peterson's brief debunks those claims, detailing at length that 'gender dysphoria and these treatments' are deeply historically rooted. 'I'm not a lawyer,' she continues. 'I'm not a legal scholar. But I am an empiricist,' which essentially makes her a textual originalist's worst nightmare, textual originalism being the right's legal analytical framework of choice that has proven quite strategic in their war on civil rights and abortion access. 'This is an important moment for historians to weigh in,' she adds. 'The Skrmetti case frames this kind of care in an ahistorical, even anti-historical, kind of way.' Like the legal experts I've interviewed in the past, Gill-Peterson didn't express any great optimism as to the impending Supreme Court decision. Nevertheless, she is no defeatist. Every case spawns new opportunities in and out of the courtroom, she tells me. 'Rather than viewing this as proof that the tide has risen too high and we're about to be overwhelmed, we have to have clarity about the wide array of places where politics can be done and material change is possible,' from state and local elections to workplace organizing, from the building of mutual aid networks to things I can't legally advocate in writing. Regardless of how Skrmetti shakes out, Gill-Peterson believes that what happens after the ruling matters more than the ruling itself. 'When the battle's playing out on a hundred fronts at once, we have to remember that there's no single court ruling, no existential moment, no single referendum on 'transgender rights' that'll decide how this struggle will go,' she says. 'There has to be a constant sense that we're building momentum for those of us seeking wonderful things. Things like unrestricted medical transition, sex changes, surgery—' She reaches offscreen to grab her drink. '—and iced coffee in Thailand! The girls love it.' This piece was published in partnership with Them.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster responds to health violations
BEDMINSTER – Trump National Golf Club has improved its food safety grade after it received the lowest grade since late March given by the Somerset County Health Department in a May 6 inspection. The country club and occasional residence of President Donald Trump received a grade of 32 out of a possible 100 in the initial inspection on May 6. But in a re-inspection on June 4, the club received a grade of 86. Trump is expected to visit his club this weekend. Because of the 32 score, the club, where the Wall Street Journal has estimated the initiation fee is more than $100,000, was given a Conditional C rating. Only two other establishments inspected by the Somerset County Health Department during the same period received scores lower than 40 – Hunan Wok in Middlesex Borough and Ponch Suizo in North Plainfield. More: Effort to reimburse NJ airports when airspace restricted during President Trump's visits The June 4 reinspection score of 86 raised Trump National's rating to Satisfactory B. In the initial inspection, according to county records, officials found nine "critical" violations and nine "non-critical violations." Among the violations were: Milk with an expired date in the refrigerator. Sliced lime, lemon and orange stored in cups at room temperature on the bar. The items, according to the report, must be maintained in a refrigerator at 41 degrees. Salted butter left on a counter at 80 degrees for an hour. Food boxes stored directly on the floor in walk-in freezer. Mop left in bucket and hand wash sign missing at the hand wash sink in the bar area. Low temperature (170 degrees) in the dishwasher final rinse when code requires 180 degrees. Raw meat stored above cheese container in refrigerator. Code requires raw food items must be stored separately or below ready-to-eat food to avoid cross-contamination. The "person-in-charge" failed to demonstrate knowledge of food safety and did not have manager-level certification. Hand wash sink at bar and halfway area not supplied with soap or paper towels. The r-inspection found only two "critical" violations and four "non-critical" violations. Among the violations were: Mops left in mop buckets. Mops must be hung to air dry when not in use. Wet wiping cloths were not stored in sanitizing solution. Milk and coffee creamers stored at 50 degrees when the items should be maintained at 41 degrees. Condiment containers not labelled. All food items not in their original containers must be labelled. Michael McCarty, deputy director of health for Somerset County, said reinspections are common and usually occur within two to four weeks of an initial inspection. The Bedminster club's reception desk and chef did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Somerset County Health Department conducts inspections in Bedminster, Bound Brook, Far Hills, Franklin, Manville, Middlesex Borough, North Plainfield, Raritan, Somerville and South Bound Brook. Zachary Schermele of USA Today contributed to this article. Email: mdeak@ This article originally appeared on Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster NJ responds to health violations
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Cigarette smokers had higher rates of disability in research
Around 1 in 7 U.S. adults who smoke might have some degree of disability, according to a study published in the journal Tobacco Control. The researchers used data from the 2019-2023 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for about 150,000 people. During that period, 14.1 percent of adults who currently smoked had a disability, and estimates for any kind of disability were significantly higher for current or former adult smokers.
