Latest news with #USDepartmentsofAgriculture
DW
4 days ago
- Politics
- DW
US: Trump administration sues California over egg prices – DW – 07/10/2025
The US government sued California over its regulations on egg production which they say have led to high prices. The lawsuit says the measures affect egg farmers in other states as well. US President Donald Trump's administration sued California officials over higher egg prices on Wednesday in a Los Angeles federal court. "The State of California has contributed to the historic rise in egg prices by imposing unnecessary red tape on the production of eggs," the lawsuit said. Trump has repeatedly vowed to bring down egg prices, which have soared largely due to a major bird flu outbreak. The price increases have also stoked consumer anxieties around inflation and the rising cost of living. The State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and other state officials were named in the lawsuit. The Trump administration said California's regulation of chicken and egg farms and its anti-animal cruelty laws were creating "unnecessary red tape" that has raised egg prices throughout the country. 'Americans across the country have suffered the consequences of liberal policies causing massive inflation for everyday items like eggs,' said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The lawsuit said the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 allows the US Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services to regulate eggs in order to protect the health and welfare of consumers. It also requires "national uniformity" in egg safety standards. California has passed several laws including voter initiatives to regulate egg and chicken farms including ones that prevent farmers from packing chickens together tightly. The laws require hens to be kept in enclosures where they can "lie down, stand up, fully extend [their] limbs, and turn around freely." They were aimed to reduce the risk of foodborne disease and reduce animal cruelty. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The lawsuit says California can regulate farms in the state, but cannot impose these requirements on eggs from other states. In 2014, California was sued by the six states of Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa over its egg regulations, but the states lost the lawsuit. In 2023, pig farmers had sued one of the California voter initiatives from 2018 which created minimum space requirements for pigs, cows and chickens. They said it also regulated pig farmers from other states. The Supreme Court preserved the initiative. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to pursue mass federal layoffs
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass government job firing and the sweeping downsizing of several federal agencies, a verdict which could lead to thousands of layoffs as critics warn it could also threaten critical government services. In a major victory for the US government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a lower court's order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reduction in force' which Trump had passed through an executive order in February, directing the agencies to prepare for mass layoffs. After Trump's order, the administration had come up with plans to reduce staff at the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and several other federal agencies. BREAKING: Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to implement large-scale layoffs across the federal government as litigation continues The order is 8-1, with Justice Jackson dissenting — Jacob Wheeler (@JWheelertv) July 8, 2025 The Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, stated that the Trump administration was 'likely to succeed' in its argument that the directives issued by the president were legally valid and well within his purview. The top court's verdict is the latest victory for the Trump administration which is making efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch. The US Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in multiple cases on an emergency expedited basis since the republican leader returned to power in January, including clearing the way for implementation of immigration policies. Earlier in May, San Francisco-based US District Judge Susan Illston had temporarily blocked the large-scale federal layoffs and ruled that President Trump exceeded his power in ordering the government downsizing without prior consultation with the Congress. The decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared a major obstacle for the White House which meant that the court wasn't assessing the legality of any specific layoff plans at federal agencies. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields welcomed the apex court's verdict and called it a 'definitive victory for the president and his administration'. (with inputs from Reuters)
The Print
23-06-2025
- Health
- The Print
2 drinks a day never hurt? Review of over 100 research papers challenges myth of moderate drinking
The evidence, according to the review paper published on 9 June, remains unclear and inconsistent, especially when it comes to conditions like atrial fibrillation—a type of irregular and often rapid heartbeat that can increase the risk of stroke, heart failure and other heart-related complications. 'Uncertainty remains about the true cardiovascular risk of drinking lightly such as one to two drinks per day,' said the review paper. While past studies have suggested that low to moderate alcohol intake—no more than one or two drinks a day—could protect against certain heart conditions like coronary artery disease or stroke, newer research using advanced methods is calling that idea into question. New Delhi: Two glasses of alcohol a day might not hurt your heart—but they don't help either, with new research suggesting that the 'benefits' of moderate drinking may have been overstated for years. A sweeping scientific review by the American Heart Association, a voluntary organisation dedicated to fighting heart disease and stroke, drawing on more than 100 research papers from across the world, has found that the relationship between alcohol and cardiac health is far more complex than popular wisdom would have you believe. What's more certain is that heavy drinking, including binge drinking or consuming three or more drinks a day, is harmful to cardiovascular health. With limited high-quality data and growing doubts about alcohol's benefits, researchers urge doctors to focus instead on well-established ways to protect the heart: regular exercise, not smoking, and maintaining a healthy weight. 'Considering the level of evidence, it remains unknown whether drinking is part of a healthy lifestyle and therefore clinicians should reinforce healthy lifestyle behaviours,' said the review paper. It looked at liquor consumption in the US, where almost 85 percent of adults have had alcohol at some point in their lives. On average, each American consumes around 2.5 gallons (9.4 litres) of pure alcohol each year. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 (jointly issued by the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services) highlight the need to avoid making definitive health claims about low-level alcohol use amid the continuing uncertainty in evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) too states in The Lancet Public Health that there is no amount of alcohol consumption that is completely safe for health. Further, guidelines on alcohol and health in Canada state that 'less is better' while outlining the health risks linked to varying levels of weekly alcohol consumption. Also Read: Smoking, alcohol & high BMI among biggest risk factors linked to cancer death, says Lancet study Alcohol and stroke risk The review paper pointed to growing evidence that heavy drinking clearly raises the risk for all types of stroke. This includes ischemic stroke (caused by blocked blood flow), intracerebral haemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain), and subarachnoid haemorrhage (bleeding around the brain). Some earlier studies suggested that light to moderate drinking (up to two drinks a day) might slightly reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. But more recent and robust research, including large-scale studies and mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses, challenges that idea, the review paper underlined. One combined study involving around 6,00,000 consumers of alcohol found that even increasing intake by just one drink a day raised the risk of ischemic stroke by 13 percent, with similar increases seen for other types of strokes. As the authors noted in the review: 'Evidence is currently insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and ischemic stroke.' But what's clear is that heavy drinking raises stroke risk across the board, regardless of gender or stroke type. New tools, same challenges The review paper highlighted that most studies on alcohol and heart disease rely on people self-reporting how much they drink—which is often unreliable, especially among heavy drinkers. Measuring alcohol use is tricky, the authors stated, because it varies based on what people drink, how often, how much, whether they have eaten, and personal factors like metabolism. This makes it difficult to draw clear lines between safe and harmful levels of drinking. To improve accuracy, newer studies are using tools like wearable alcohol sensors, urine kits, biomarkers (such as phosphatidylethanol), and smartphone tracking. These methods aim to provide more objective, real-time data on alcohol use. The paper also pointed out that differences in study design—such as how drinking is defined and who is included as a 'non-drinker'—can affect results. For instance, using former drinkers or occasional drinkers as the reference group instead of lifelong abstainers can distort findings. Speaking to ThePrint, Dr Varun Bansal, consultant, cardiothoracic and vascular surgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, agreed that designing a robust study is far from simple. He explained that it would mean giving alcohol to participants who might not even want to drink, while those who do agree may not stick to the same amount consistently. 'So, while research has its role,' he said, 'how to conduct it remains a big challenge. Ideally, it should be a double-blind study comparing people who are more susceptible to alcohol-related heart risks with those who aren't—but that's much easier said than done.' He also said that any reliable study must be multifactorial and based on large data to reduce bias. Besides alcohol and diet, factors like exercise and genetic makeup need to be considered. He pointed out that how active someone is matters too. 'It makes a difference whether a person spends the evening sitting and drinking or staying active. To avoid misleading results, the dataset must be big enough to account for these confounding factors.' (Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui) Also Read: Cancer warning on liquor bottles 'long overdue'. Even 'light', 'moderate' drinking poses threat
