USDA withdraws a 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.
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.
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.
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.
During Elections
Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election.
'Make no mistake: Shipping more salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker,' Sorscher said.
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.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
10 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Wildfire smoke felt acutely by some, has longer-term health impacts
For Carol Lobb, 50, even a short walk outside can be dangerous. Born with a congenital heart defect and only one functioning lung, she navigates daily life with a range of heart, lung and breathing challenges — conditions that often go unseen and misunderstood. With wildfire smoke drifting into Winnipeg and nearby areas from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the air has become even more hazardous, raising health concerns for those with vulnerable conditions like hers. 'It's hard sometimes living with these invisible illnesses,' Lobb says. 'Especially when they don't fall neatly under the usual labels like asthma or COPD.' When the smoke rolls in, so do the symptoms: headaches, fatigue, a burning feeling in the chest, a mild cough and throat irritation. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS For Carol Lobb, who was born with a congenital heart defect, the influx of wildfire smoke can shut down her daily routine. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS For Carol Lobb, who was born with a congenital heart defect, the influx of wildfire smoke can shut down her daily routine. 'I've been in touch with my primary caregiver about coming into the clinic if I notice any signs of pulmonary distress, and I've looked into oxygen therapy as a precaution,' she says. In early June, Winnipeg's Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) reached 10+, a level classified as a very high health risk by Environment Canada. At this threshold, children, seniors and those with pre-existing conditions are advised to avoid strenuous outdoor activity. Even healthy people may experience throat irritation or breathing difficulties after prolonged exposure. For Lobb, when the AQHI hits 10 or 11, daily life comes to a halt. Instead, she stays indoors, carefully monitors her symptoms and listens closely to her body. 'That's all I can do,' she says. Across the region, nearly 30,000 people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been evacuated as wildfires continue to burn. Environment and Climate Change Canada reports that the heaviest smoke plumes are concentrated over central Manitoba and northwestern Ontario but have drifted south into the U.S. and even as far as Europe. 'It's hard sometimes living with these invisible illnesses … Especially when they don't fall neatly under the usual labels like asthma or COPD.'–Carol Lobb While wildfire smoke can affect anyone's health, even brief exposure poses greater risks to vulnerable groups such as older adults, young children, pregnant individuals and those with chronic illnesses. Wildfire smoke is a complex blend of gases, water vapour and particles of different sizes. While larger particles can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, the most concerning lies with fine particles known as PM2.5. These microscopic particles measure less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter — roughly 1/70 the width of a human hair — making them invisible to the naked eye. Dr. Scott Weichenthal, associate director of the McGill Centre for Climate Change and Health and professor in McGill's department of epidemiology, biostatistics and occupational health, says the most common early symptoms of wildfire smoke exposure include irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Some people may also experience coughing, wheezing or overall respiratory discomfort. Supplied Dr. Scott Weichenthal, of McGill University, warns the smallest particles from wildfire smoke can even enter the bloodstream. Supplied Dr. Scott Weichenthal, of McGill University, warns the smallest particles from wildfire smoke can even enter the bloodstream. But PM2.5 particles, generated during combustion, are especially concerning because they can travel through your lungs and even enter the bloodstream, potentially contributing to a range of health issues. 'Once inhaled, PM2.5 particles can reach deep within our lungs as well as our systemic circulation,' Weichenthal says. 'These particles increase inflammation and oxidative stress in the body, impact our autonomic nervous system, blood coagulation, vascular function and other mechanisms broadly relevant to our overall health.' A recent study in Environmental Science & Technology, a journal published by the American Chemical Society, analyzed wildfire seasons in B.C. from 2016 to 2019. Researchers found that infants whose mothers were exposed to wildfire smoke during pregnancy had a higher likelihood of developing ear infections and lower respiratory infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, within their first year of life. While many symptoms may appear mild at first, Weichenthal stresses that the health risks of wildfire smoke extend beyond short-term respiratory issues, potentially leading to long-term health consequences, including cancer. 'Wildfire smoke contains many known human carcinogens, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals. The exact composition depends on what's burning — whether it's forests, buildings, or other materials,' he says. 'Either way, it's a toxic mix of harmful components that poses significant risks to public health. We have much to learn about the long-term health risks of fires.' 'The key strategy is to reduce exposure. The more we can reduce population exposures, the more we can mitigate potential health risks.'–Dr. Scott Weichenthal Given these serious public health implications, Weichenthal has been vocal about the need for greater awareness and action. In the April 2025 issue of Nature Reviews Cancer, Weichenthal published an article titled 'We cannot ignore the cancer risks of wildfires.' In it, he highlights the increased cancer risk linked to repeated wildfire exposure in regions affected annually and advocates for practical, science-backed measures — such as using indoor air filtration — to help reduce harmful exposures. 'Unfortunately, we will be dealing with this issue for the rest of our lives,' he says. 'The key strategy is to reduce exposure. The more we can reduce population exposures, the more we can mitigate potential health risks.' Weichenthal's warning underscores the lasting impact wildfire smoke can have on people's health, especially those with pre-existing respiratory conditions. For Julia Frankfurt, 43, who lives with asthma and chronic seasonal allergies triggered by environmental factors, wildfire smoke adds another layer of difficulty to managing her symptoms. 'I have to be very fluid,' she says. 'Fortunately, I have the kind of job where I can work from home, and I have an air purifier here.' MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS Julia Frankfurt feels the effects of wildfire smoke acutely enough, it can lead to a trip to an emergency room. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS Julia Frankfurt feels the effects of wildfire smoke acutely enough, it can lead to a trip to an emergency room. But when she's at the office, things are more complicated. 'We can only reduce it to about 10 per cent outside air, because there still has to be some external air coming in. I can't restrict the doors from opening, so you can smell the smoke inside the building.' The smoky air has made breathing more difficult, pushing her to rely more on her medication. 'I'm breathing heavily through my lungs pretty much every day,' she says. 'I've had to increase how often I use my inhalers to offset some of the symptoms. If it gets bad and my chest gets really tight, I'll have to go to the ER for a nebulizer treatment.' Even before the smoke smells strong, she feels its effects. 'When the smoke is on its way, I'll lose my voice within five to 10 minutes. I can feel it deep in my lungs. And then I start getting wheezy and my chest gets heavy.' 'Leading with kindness and understanding is so important. It might not seem like much from the outside, but it means everything to those who are struggling.'–Julia Frankfurt And it's not just her lungs. 'My eyeballs feel like they've got sand in them pretty much every day since fire season started. I buy eye drops and have to keep hydrating because they're so itchy.' When air quality drops, the most important thing Manitobans can do is stay informed and reduce their exposure as much as possible. 'The first step is to be aware of the air quality in your area. Tools like the AQHI developed by Health Canada and Environment Canada are an excellent resource,' Weichenthal says. When the AQHI shows a high risk, people are advised to stay indoors, keep windows closed and use a high-efficiency (HEPA) air purifier to filter out harmful particles. For those who need to be outside — such as construction or delivery workers — a properly fitted N95 mask can offer added protection against fine particles. There are also do-it-yourself solutions available: 'You can find instructions online to build your own air purifier (using a box fan and a furnace filter) with materials found at hardware stores,' Weichenthal adds. For Frankfurt, wildfire smoke isn't just a health concern — it also takes an emotional toll. Monthly What you need to know now about gardening in Winnipeg. An email with advice, ideas and tips to keep your outdoor and indoor plants growing. 'I don't know if it counts as anxiety or stress, but I just feel disappointed,' she says. 'We don't have a long summer, and I want to be outside. I love being in my garden. It's really frustrating not being able to do what I love.' That frustration can also feel isolating, especially when others don't fully grasp the impact. 'There are always people who say, 'Oh, it's not that bad.' I'm glad it's not that bad for them, but for some of us, it's much harder,' she explains. 'You can't always see conditions like asthma unless someone's using an inhaler or wearing a mask. For me, people only notice when my voice changes. Otherwise, I look like any average person.' What helps, she says, is simple compassion. 'Leading with kindness and understanding is so important. It might not seem like much from the outside, but it means everything to those who are struggling.' arts@ Sabrina CarnevaleColumnist Sabrina Carnevale is a freelance writer and communications specialist, and former reporter and broadcaster who is a health enthusiast. She writes a twice-monthly column focusing on wellness and fitness. Read full biography Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Toronto Star
18 hours ago
- Toronto Star
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON (AP) — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, more than 90 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Confronting a 'culture of fear' They went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say President Donald Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the abrupt termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' The mask comes off The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya but also sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, was endorsed by 250 anonymous employees of the agency besides the 92 who signed. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's own Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Cancer research is sidelined As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. But sudden cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because 'I don't want to be a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing cuts to grants. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes or the NIH. Dissenters range across the breadth of NIH Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The letter asserts that 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and that the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. A blunt ax swings This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. A Signal group became the place for participants to sort through NIH chatter on Reddit, discern rumor from reality and offer mutual support. The declaration took shape in that group and as word spread neighbor to neighbor in NIH offices. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' ___ Associated Press Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.
Toronto Star
19 hours ago
- Toronto Star
NIH scientists go public to criticize Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON (AP) — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, a frontal challenge to 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, more than 90 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Confronting a 'culture of fear' They went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say President Donald Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the abrupt termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' The mask comes off The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya but also sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, was endorsed by 250 anonymous employees of the agency besides the 92 who signed. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's own Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Cancer research is sidelined As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. But sudden cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because 'I don't want to be a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing cuts to grants. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes or the NIH. Dissenters range across the breadth of NIH Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The letter asserts that 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and that the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. A blunt ax swings This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. A Signal group became the place for participants to sort through NIH chatter on Reddit, discern rumor from reality and offer mutual support. The declaration took shape in that group and as word spread neighbor to neighbor in NIH offices. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' ___ Associated Press Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.
