USDA Withdraws Proposed Rule to Limit Salmonella in Raw Poultry
The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) said the decision follows the review of more than 7,000 public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule, which was published in August 2024.
The department stated it will 'evaluate whether it should update' current salmonella regulations, according to a Thursday
The withdrawn rule would have required poultry companies to keep salmonella bacteria below a specific threshold and test for six strains most associated with it, with three found in turkey and three in chicken. Any products exceeding the standard or containing any of those strains would have been forbidden from sale and subject to recall.
The
FSIS explained that the proposed framework targeted raw chicken carcasses, chicken parts, comminuted chicken, and comminuted turkey products contaminated with certain salmonella levels and serotypes, which would have been classified as adulterated under the Poultry Products Inspection Act, according to the agency's April 24 notice. The agency also proposed stricter monitoring, sampling, and recordkeeping requirements for poultry processors, according to the same notice.
The agency said it received 7,089 comments on the proposal, including feedback from industry trade associations, small and large poultry processors, consumer advocacy groups, academics, and state officials.
Decision to Withdraw
Key issues raised included questions about FSIS's legal authority, the scientific basis for the proposed standards, economic impacts, and the potential burden on small producers, according to the FSIS notice.
'While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration,' FSIS stated in its withdrawal notice.
The decision to withdraw the rule was welcomed by the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group. 'We remain committed to further reducing Salmonella and fully support food safety regulations and policies that are based on sound science, robust data, and are demonstrated to meaningfully impact public health,' said Ashley Peterson, the council's senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs, according to the group's
Peterson criticized the proposed framework as 'legally unsound,' based on 'misinterpretations of the science,' and likely to have 'no meaningful impact on public health.'
She added that it would have led to 'an extraordinary amount of food waste' and higher costs for producers and consumers, according to the National Chicken Council.
'We appreciate today's announcement by FSIS and share their goal of protecting public health,' Peterson said, adding that the council looks forward to working with the agency on future policy.
Sandra Eskin, a former USDA official who helped draft the plan, said 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,' according to the Associated Press.
Sarah Sorscher of the Center for Science in the Public Interest compared the proposed rule to the 1994 ban on certain E. coli strains in ground beef, calling it a missed opportunity for a significant food safety victory. 'Make no mistake: Shipping more salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker,' Sorscher said, according to the Associated Press.
Earlier this month, the USDA
From NTD News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The 7 dietitian-backed foods to eat for a balanced breakfast
Your mornings are busy enough without having to spend the time to decide what to make – and then having to actually make – a healthy, well-balanced breakfast. That's further complicated by the fact "healthy" can mean different things to different people. Some may be trying to lose weight. Some may be trying to gain weight. Some may be trying to increase the amount of nutritious food they eat in a day. Some may just need to grab anything they can get their hands on to make sure there's something in their stomach before running out the door. Marisa Moore, MBA, RDN, LD, a registered dietitian nutritionist and author of "The Plant Love Kitchen," breaks down everything you need to know about best breakfast nutrition practices. Looking for a healthy breakfast? Here's what to eat in the morning for a nutritious meal. How many calories should I eat for breakfast? The amount of calories someone should eat in a given meal can depend on several factors, including age, sex, height, weight, physical activity, pregnancy or lactation status and individual goals. For example, the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that a moderately active (defined as the equivalent to walking between 1.5 and 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour) 35-year-old man should be consuming about 2,600 calories a day, while a moderately active 35-year old woman needs about 2,000. Women generally need fewer calories than men, and older adults generally need fewer calories than younger ones. These recommendations can also vary depending on whether a person is trying to lose, maintain or gain weight, too. Rather than focusing on how many calories someone should be eating at breakfast, nutrition experts suggest paying more attention to the variety of macronutrients you're serving yourself. "Start the day with a protein- and carbohydrate-rich meal for sustained energy until lunch time," Moore suggests. Adding healthy fats, such as chia seeds, walnuts, olive oil, avocado or full-fat yogurt to the equation is helpful. What is meal sequencing? Health experts explain whether the rising diet trend works. What should I eat for breakfast? Your morning menu doesn't have to be boring. These balanced breakfast options will give you the energy you need to get through the day. Vegetable-packed omelet with a side of fruit (pick your favorites!) Protein-rich Greek yogurt with walnuts and berries (a quick, no-cook option that Moore says will keep you full "for hours"). Oatmeal with a creamy nut or seed butter with a handful of berries (this one's vegan, if that's something you're looking for in a recipe). Leftover beans and rice or roasted broccoli with scrambled eggs or tofu ("Remember that breakfast can be anything you want it to be," Moore says). The U.S. Department of Agriculture's MyPlate (which in 2011 replaced the food pyramid you might be more familiar with) also offers dozens of healthy breakfast recipes, including apple oatmeal muffins, black bean burritos and Spanish omelets. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What to eat for breakfast, according to a dietitian
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration tiptoes into testing prior authorization in traditional Medicare
Traditional Medicare plan holders have typically not had to wait for prior authorization before receiving medical treatment. Until now. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced a new program to test prior authorization requirements for certain services in six states starting Jan. 1. The states — New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and Washington — will apply prior authorization evaluations to more than a dozen services. CMS says the pilot program is intended to root out 'fraud, waste, and abuse,' but as Medicare Advantage members know well, prior authorization can lead to frustrating delays in care. How it works CMS will contract with private companies to deploy 'enhanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)' to conduct the authorization reviews. It won't apply to in-patient or emergency services or treatments 'that would pose a substantial risk to patients if significantly delayed,' according to a CMS press release. Specific services that will require prior authorization are skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy. There is genuine concern about the costs of some of these items and services. A recent New York Times article highlighted pricey medical products, including paper-thin bandages made of dried bits of placenta, for Medicare patients. The Biden administration had approved a plan to limit Medicare's coverage of the bandages, known as skin substitutes, which were reportedly being sold for roughly $10,000 per square inch. An updated Medicare policy proposes setting a significantly lower payment rate. The new prior authorization program 'is focused on reducing wasteful spending, which is an important goal for Medicare,' Jeffrey Marr, a health economist at the Brown University School of Public Health, told Yahoo Finance. 'I expect that the use of prior authorization in this model is likely to reduce the overall level of Medicare spending,' he said. 'Selecting potentially low-value services is a critical part of setting up a well-functioning prior authorization system.' The key question for CMS to address is whether prior authorization can work in traditional Medicare in a way that does not deny or discourage high-value care that improves beneficiaries' health, Marr said. One red flag: 'The companies that will make the prior authorization decisions will be paid a percentage of the savings that they generate for Medicare. This creates an incentive for participants to deny a high share of services,' he said. Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Prior authorizations are part of the Medicare landscape How often do prior authorizations pop up for seniors with Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans? In traditional Medicare, services that often require prior authorization include certain outpatient hospital services, non-emergency ambulance transport, and durable medical equipment. For 2023, under 400,000 prior authorization reviews for traditional Medicare beneficiaries were submitted to CMS, according to KFF data. Medicare Advantage plans, which are offered by private insurers, are a different story. Almost all Medicare Advantage enrollees — 99% according to KFF research — must receive prior authorization for some services. These are typically higher-cost services, such as inpatient hospital stays, skilled nursing facility stays, chemotherapy, and other drugs. That common practice, combined with AI used to scan these requests, is a thorny issue. 'Prior authorization processes and requirements, including the use of artificial intelligence to review requests, may result in administrative hassles for providers, delays for patients in receiving necessary care, and in some instances, denials of medically necessary services, such as post-acute care,' according to Jeannie Fuglesten Biniek, co-author of the KFF report. To allay that fear, CMS noted in the announcement: 'While technology will support the review process, final decisions that a request for one of the selected services does not meet Medicare coverage requirements will be made by licensed clinicians, not machines.' The prior authorization program will not alter Medicare coverage or payment rules, for now, but other services may be added later. There has been pushback. More than a dozen members of Congress sent a letter on Aug. 7 to CMS administrator Dr. Memet Oz to urge him to 'put patients and providers first by cancelling' the model and requested more details about how the program will be implemented. 'The use of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage shows us that, in practice, [this proposal] will likely limit beneficiaries' access to care, increase burden on our already overburdened healthcare workforce, and create perverse incentives to put profit over patients,' the lawmakers wrote.A pivot in MA authorization In an odd juxtaposition, a week prior to trumpeting this new Medicare pre-authorization model, the administration announced that it had a non-binding commitment from insurance plans to reduce prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. In late June, the Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative coordinated with companies including Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare, to streamline prior authorization processes for patients covered by Medicare Advantage. Under the initiative, electronic prior authorization requests would become standardized by 2027. 'Pitting patients and their doctors against massive companies was not good for anyone,' US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in a statement. 'We are actively working with industry to make it easier to get prior authorization for common services such as diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, and outpatient surgery.' Oz added: 'These commitments represent a step in the right direction toward restoring trust, easing burdens on providers, and helping patients receive timely, evidence-based care.' Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work," and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
