Latest news with #BrookeL.Rollins
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Health
- Miami Herald
FDA is coming for your Doritos, Oreos, and other favorite snacks
Growing up, Oreos were my thing. Every day after dinner, I'd open the fridge (yes, I liked them cold), grab two from the sleeve, and savor them slowly. Even in college, when I barely had groceries, I always had Oreos. I loved trying every new flavor that hit shelves - Mint was my favorite. They were reliable. Comforting. A little ritual I didn't think twice about. But over the past few years, I've shifted how I eat. Less processed, more whole foods. Not perfect, but intentional. And slowly, Oreos stopped showing up in my pantry. Related: FDA eliminates 52 food standards in sweeping deregulation move Then one weekend, I was visiting my niece and nephew. They were showing me their snack stash and pulled out one of the new limited-edition Oreo flavors. Obviously, I had to try it. Once an Oreo girlie, always an Oreo girlie - right? I bit in. And I literally spit it out. It tasted…fake. Like chemicals wrapped in a memory. And I couldn't stop thinking about it. How did something I loved so much now feel so off? How had my taste changed that much? Had my taste buds finally woken up to just how ultra-processed and sugary it really was? Turns out, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration might finally be thinking the same thing. Image source: rblfmr/Shutterstock Under the leadership of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins, the FDA just launched a major initiative to define what counts as an "ultra-processed food." This may sound simple, but it's a massive shift. Right now, there's no official federal definition for ultra-processed food. That means your snack labels may tell you about sugar or fat, but they don't say a word about how chemically engineered or heavily modified those foods really are. This new FDA push? It's part of a broader strategy to tackle what they're calling a chronic disease crisis. Related: These clean food brands are rightfully challenging the FDA According to the government, roughly 70% of packaged foods in the U.S. qualify as ultra-processed. And kids get over 60% of their daily calories from them. Dozens of studies have linked these products to obesity, diabetes, cancer, and neurological conditions. The agency has now issued a formal Request for Information to help develop a national definition. That may sound wonky - but it's the first step toward labeling, regulating, and potentially warning consumers about what they're actually eating. Honestly, this feels like something we can all get behind. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary called the issue "clear and convincing," noting that the health threats from ultra-processed foods are too serious to ignore. This isn't just about what we eat. It's about how food companies will be allowed to operate moving forward. Once a federal definition is in place, it could open the door to all kinds of new policies: mandatory labeling, advertising restrictions, school food reform, even reformulations of the products themselves. If a company can't market its cereal, frozen meals, or snacks without acknowledging they're ultra-processed, it changes how they sell food in America - if they even still can. This move could also shift consumer behavior. Just like "organic" or "low fat" once influenced the way people shop, "ultra-processed" might soon become a new red flag on store shelves. Of course, some of the biggest food companies in the country are watching this closely. For them, this isn't just a definition. It's a threat to the foundation of their business model. And for those of us who grew up with those brightly colored boxes in the pantry, it could mean the snacks we thought we knew are about to change for good. If this shift helps make eating clean more accessible, I'm all for it. Related: Ziploc, Rubbermaid face alarming lawsuits over food safety risks The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California, other states sue over USDA demand for SNAP recipients' data
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump's agency appointees receive 'full and prompt access' to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply 'may trigger noncompliance procedures' — including the withholding of funds. In announcing the states' lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the 'unprecedented' demand 'violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws' and 'further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.' Bonta's office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives 'roughly $1 billion a year' to administer the program in the state and that 'any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.' The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including 'all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,' as well as 'transactional records from each household' that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people's income. Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people's education, employment, immigration status and citizenship. The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating 'information silos' that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs. 'It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government's ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,' Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states. The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation's history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services to share it with immigration officials — including Medicaid and the IRS. That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people's health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration's demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be 'the next step' in the administration's anti-immigrant campaign. 'President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,' Bonta said. 'We're talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.' Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California 'will not comply' while it takes the administration to court. 'The President doesn't get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,' Bonta said. 'While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.' The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act. 'USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,' they wrote. Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs. The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that 'many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,' which the department's notice said would continue to apply. Bonta announced Monday's lawsuit along with New York Attorney General Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Agriculture Department to Move Most Remaining Washington Workers Out of City
The Agriculture Department will move most of its Washington-based employees outside the nation's capital, the agency announced Thursday. Brooke L. Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said in a memo that the agency would keep no more than 2,000 of the 4,600 members of its current Washington work force at offices in the area, instead spreading employees across five regional hubs. The memo also outlined plans to consolidate or eliminate local offices for subagencies focused on research, statistics, nutrition, forestry and conservation. 'President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the Beltway and into great American cities across the country,' Ms. Rollins said in a statement. The vast majority of Agriculture Department employees already work outside the Washington area, spread across the country to assist farmers, conduct research and inspect animal and plant health. The agency's headquarters, though, are on the National Mall and house offices focused on civil rights, congressional relations and watchdog functions in addition to support staff. Ms. Rollins noted that more than 15,000 Agriculture Department employees — about 15 percent of the department's work force of about 100,000 — had taken buyouts. The consolidations and relocations will almost certainly lead to more exits. When the Agriculture Department moved two research agencies from Washington to Kansas City in 2019, each lost more than half of its staff before eventually recovering, according to the Government Accountability Office. The hubs will be Raleigh, N.C.; Kansas City, Mo.; Indianapolis; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Salt Lake City — all cities that already have regional offices. According to the memo, the Agriculture Department will also vacate, over the course of several years, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center — a 115 year-old facility in Maryland that has contributed to improving the shelf life of butter, developing pesticides and creating new varieties of vegetables and fruits. The American Federation of Government Employees, a union of federal employees, criticized the move. 'This administration is moving at breakneck speed to slash the size of the federal government, often with little thought into the consequences this will have on the American people who rely on the services our members deliver,' Everett Kelley, the union's president, said in a statement.
Indianapolis Star
6 days ago
- Business
- Indianapolis Star
Trump administration chooses Indy as a USDA hub in sweeping agency reorganization. Here's why
Indianapolis will soon serve as one of five U.S. Department of Agriculture hubs as the federal agency reduces and reorganizes its workforce under President Donald Trump's administration, the USDA announced July 24. 'American agriculture feeds, clothes, and fuels this nation and the world, and it is long past time the Department better serve the great and patriotic farmers, ranchers, and producers we are mandated to support," Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said in a news release. "President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the beltway and into great American cities across the country." Indiana's capital city joins Kansas City, Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah, as hub locations. The rationale for selecting these five centered on the cost of living compared to Washington, D.C. and the cities' pre-existing concentration of USDA employees, according to the release. In Indianapolis, for example, the federal government only has to pay employees 18% above a position's base salary due to the lower cost of living, nearly half of Washington D.C.'s rate of almost 34%. The move comes as a review of the USDA revealed a "bloated, expensive, and unsustainable organization," with the release citing increases in workforce and salaries over the past four years. The relocation efforts will happen in phases with a goal of ensuring no more than 2,000 employees remain in the D.C. region, an area that currently employs 4,600 employees. Sen. Todd Young of Indiana celebrated the announcement in a post on X this morning. Not every employee may agree to move, however. During President Donald Trump's first term when two USDA research offices moved to Kansas City, the majority of employees refused to relocate while overall morale at the agency sank, Politico reported in 2019. Those changes were reversed under the Biden administration. This latest relocation comes after more than 15,000 employees left the department through a deferred resignation program as part of efforts to reduce federal bureaucracy. The National Family Farm Coalition, an advocacy organization for small farms, released a statement in April that the staff reductions would cause dysfunction and disrupt the supply chain. Most recently, Rollins told Congress in May that the agency was looking to fill critical positions.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Waffle House drops egg surcharge: Are egg prices going down? What to know in Alabama
The Waffle House Index may be a useful indicator for more than extreme weather. The diner chain announced on July 1 that its dropping an egg surcharge put in place four months ago, signaling a decline in egg prices from the all-time highs seen earlier this year. "Egg-cellent news…as of June 2, the egg surcharge is officially off the menu," said the post. "Thanks for understanding!" USA TODAY reached out to Waffle House to confirm the change. Waffle House has dozens of locations in Alabama, including 15 in the Montgomery area, eight in the Tuscaloosa area, and four in the Gadsden area. Click here to find a store near you. Why was Waffle House charging extra for eggs? A 50-cent per egg surcharge was implemented at Waffle House's roughly 2,100 locations across the U.S. in early February to offset higher-than-usual prices resulting from a "continuing egg shortage caused by HPAI (Bird Flu)," the company said at the time. Waffle House serves around 272 million eggs per year, according to its website, well surpassing even its titular waffles, of which it sells just 124 million. The temporary charge was employed to avoid increasing prices across other menu items, it said. Are egg prices are down? Egg prices reached a high of roughly $6.22 per dozen on average in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The stage for this uptick was set when the current bird flu outbreak began in the U.S. in 2022 and the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or bird flu, killed off egg-laying poultry en masse, leaving fewer chickens behind to maintain the supply. By Feb. 3, when Waffle House implemented its surcharge, the virus had infected roughly 150 million poultry across all 50 states since January 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Because of the spread, infected birds have been selectively slaughtered across the U.S., including sometimes millions of birds at a single location. Why are egg prices falling? Here's what we know. Egg prices have begun to ease from the highs earlier this year, but their overall prices are still 40% higher than last year, according to the May Consumer Price Index. "Families are seeing relief with egg prices driving food deflation," U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins said in a June 26 statement about the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) response to bird flu. "While we are proud that over 900 biosecurity assessments have been conducted to date, resources remain available, and we are urging poultry farmers of all sizes to get your assessments done today before a potentially challenging fall.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Waffle House drops egg surcharge: Are prices down? What to know in AL Solve the daily Crossword
