U.S. infant formula needs an overhaul, but progress has been slow

More than half of U.S. babies rely on formula for 
nutrition for at least the first 6 months of life.

U.S. baby formula is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration, an examination considered long overdue by many health professionals, nutrition experts and parents. The FDA plans to "release [its] study results in April examining contaminants in formula and suggested the current list of required nutrients is outdated," reports Sabrina Siddiqui of The Wall Street Journal. 

It's estimated that more than half of babies born in the U.S. rely on infant formula as their primary form of nutrition, with families that are lower income, of color, or rural more likely to use formula. 

 

Through the "Operation Stork Speed” initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he's making a U.S. baby formula overhaul a priority; however, supporters of formula changes believe the promised overhaul has been slow getting off the ground. Siddiqui writes, "Industry representatives and pediatric experts who have consulted. . . on the initiative say communication has slowed and visibility into the process has been limited."

Formulas fed to American babies today have come under scrutiny for containing seed oils, sugar, corn syrup, arsenic and heavy metals. Parent advocacy groups have often pushed for formula recipes to mirror those used in Europe.

But U.S. formula manufacturers defend their use of seed oils "because they provide key fats babies need to grow, including linoleic acid — a nutrient that is also found in breast milk and required in all formulas," Siddiqui explains. Many scientists and physicians contend that it would be difficult to replace seed oils, which are also used in European formulas, and have long been regarded as safe.

USDA can remediate 'forever chemical' pollution on U.S. farmlands, new study shows

The new report found that the USDA can respond to
PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland. (TNL photo)

The Department of Agriculture has the resources to address PFAS contamination on U.S. farmland, a National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report finds.

The study, which was partially sponsored by the USDA, lists the various tools and remediation planning that can be used to reduce contamination caused by "human-made chemicals that accumulate in the environment and the bodies of humans and animals," which are collectively called "PFAS" or "forever chemicals," reports Shannon Kelleher for The New Lede.

Fertilizer use is one way farmers have unintentionally polluted their soil with forever chemicals. Kelleher explains, "PFAS end up on agricultural lands when farmers apply tainted sewage sludge as a fertilizer, contaminating crops and soil with chemicals linked to certain cancers and other health harms." Forever chemicals can also be added to soil through PFAS-laced pesticides.

The report included a remediation outline and noted that the USDA could leverage its considerable resources to address the farmland PFAS crisis. Researchers suggested the USDA use predictive models, on-site testing and "develop PFAS screening levels for different types of agriculture facilities, soil types and climates," Kelleher reports.

The report also recommends the USDA analyze how forever chemicals interact with different soils and climates to "develop better mechanisms to trap or sequester PFAS, and research ways to minimize the uptake of PFAS in plants and animals," Kelleher writes.

The February Farm Bill draft includes "language that would permit research grants on the agricultural impacts of PFAS in land exposed to firefighting foams, sewage sludge or compost containing the chemicals," Kelleher adds.

Baptists helped found the American debate over the 'separation of church and state'

Photo by Joshua Hoehne, Unsplash

Beginning in America's fledgling colonies during the 1700s and moving into the present day, Baptists have helped shape the national debate over religious freedom in the U.S. for nearly 400 years. "An honest look at their history reveals that Baptists have taken various stances in this debate," writes Christopher Schelin, a political theologies professor for The Conversation.

The ideal of dividing church and state business "famously traces back to an exchange between Thomas Jefferson and a group of Baptists," Schelin writes. But a nascent version of separating church and state powers began years earlier, with a Rhode Island preacher, Roger Williams, who helped found the nation's first Baptist church.

As Baptists practiced their faith in early America, differences in approach to how government and religion intersected emerged. Baptists who believed in strict separation of church and state held that "the conscience of each individual must be respected," Schelin explains. Other Baptists leaned toward an ideal where the "government cooperated with religion."

The historical and current debate between the two perspectives, along with other renditions of what constitutes a balanced relationship between church and state, shapes some of the disagreement about public displays of the Ten Commandments today.

In the fall of 2025, Texas law mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all public school classrooms. Some Texas citizens, including the Rev. Griff Martin, a Baptist pastor, objected to the law and filed suit.

Martin rejects the Ten Commandments mandate as "not just a violation of American precepts but religious ones as well," Schelin writes. In a press release, Martin said that "the separation of church and state (is) a bedrock principle of my family’s Baptist heritage.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Baptist from Louisiana, supports his state's mandate to hang the Ten Commandments in all public schools because he "perceives the matter differently," Schelin adds. "The Louisiana law is not an effort to establish religion, but to acknowledge the country’s 'history and tradition,' Johnson told reporters in 2024."

"Are you a good Baptist if you oppose government-mandated displays of the Ten Commandments?" Schelin asks. "Or are you a good Baptist if you support them? From a historical perspective, the answer to both questions is yes."

Opinion: On the West Texas High Plains, a farm recession from closing cotton gins eats away at rural economies

Part of a ginning business stands out on High Plains
of West Texas. (Floydada Co-op Gin photo)

A farm recession doesn't look like a Wall Street crash. It's quieter, deeper and far more difficult for an agriculturally-based community to recover from, writes Tony St. James in his opinion for RED TV. When a region's farms go under, their disappearance is followed by the loss of "the businesses that once processed, serviced, and supported the crop."

West Texas cotton gins that once flourished and pumped millions of dollars into the state's economy are struggling to survive drought and market volatility. "In 2022, extreme drought forced producers to abandon nearly 74% of planted acres, driving production to the lowest levels seen in decades," St. James explains. While production rebounded in 2023, the farm losses of 2022 were nearly impossible to balance.

After 2022, some farmers had to sell or close their gins. Their consolidation into another gin or complete closings cascaded down to all the equipment dealers, irrigation companies and trucking firms that depended on that gin for work and profits.

Location of Parmer County, Texas,
population 9,870 (Wikipedia map)

"In Parmer County, one cooperative gin has sold, another is unlikely to reopen, and only one large facility remains," St. James writes. "The cotton did not disappear. The infrastructure did. . . . This is what a farm recession looks like on Main Street."

From a state or national perspective, the loss and absorption of gins may not signal any crisis, but for towns centered on cotton, the loss of one or two gins can kill their rural economy.

"Cotton remains central to the Texas economy. . . . But rural infrastructure tends to thin faster than it rebuilds," St. James adds. To survive, some West Texas counties are faced with "rebuilding the backbone of the local economy."

U.S. turf researchers and sod farmers deliver the goods for World Cup 2026

World Cup fields must meet 'FIFA’s exacting standards for ball roll, shock absorption, consistency, player safety and broadcast appearance.' (Graphic by Adam Dixon, Offrange)

While Americans may be feeling gloomy about many things, there's still plenty to be proud of and look forward to, including this summer when the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, aka FIFA, "will stage its largest-ever World Cup on North American soil," writes Donavyn Coffey for Offrange.

Among the 16 stadiums where 28 national teams will play, the U.S. gets to showcase its turf scientists and rarely sung sporting heroes—sod farmers. Coffey writes, "Since 2019, FIFA has invested more than $5 million in a partnership with turf scientists at Michigan State University and the University of Tennessee, tasking them to solve a foundational challenge of the tournament: the fields."

What's so great about American farm scientists and sod farmers? They make the turf beautiful, playable, absorption-capable, replaceable and removable. Coffey explains, "All this while remaining as uniform as possible across all 16 sites, indoors and outdoors, from desert heat to northern cold." Cool.

"FIFA’s investment was a windfall for an industry that typically sees far fewer funding opportunities than other branches of agriculture," Coffey adds. Trey Rogers, turf scientist at Michigan State University, told her, "The technology has always been there. . . .We were thrilled to get to put our theories to the test.”

American turf researchers quickly zeroed in on creating "curated resilient grass combinations, grow-light recipes to keep the grass healthy over the 45-day tournament, and a way to build a game-ready grass pitch in under 24 hours," Coffey explains. Their sod-on-plastic-turf has the potential to replace AstroTurf on American football fields and other sod blends blanketing U.S. golf courses.

Sod growers have sometimes faced opposition because opponents feel that using good farmland to grow grass for sporting events rather than food isn't a responsible use of the land. With sod-on-plastics, good farmland isn't needed. 

Rogers told Offrange, "I’ve always said this could be done in the parking lot of an abandoned mall.”

High beef prices are 'the new normal' for Americans

After years without profits, U.S. cattle ranchers resist
growing their herds. (Photo by K. Sikkema, Unsplash)

Even as U.S. consumers keep complaining about high beef prices and government officials, including President Donald Trump, have pressured cattle ranchers to lower their prices, American livestock owners have a message for both groups: Get used to paying more for red meat. Patrick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal reports, "High prices are the new normal in the U.S. beef market."

Roughly five years ago, livestock owners were barely scraping by as they contended with high input prices, drought, wildfires and paltry payments from meatpacking companies. To cut costs, they reduced their herd sizes.

Now that beef prices have consistently risen, and consumer demand has remained robust, "ranchers are reluctant to erode their strongest profits in decades by increasing the size of their herds," Thomas explains. "As a result, the U.S. cattle herd is at its lowest level in 75 years."

In January, "ground-beef prices were up 17% from a year earlier, compared with a 2.1% rise for all other groceries over that time," Thomas writes. Beef remains a protein favorite for many Americans who continue to purchase it despite price hikes.

Cattle ranchers, who are finally seeing some profits, have opted to channel money into long-stalled repairs and paying down debts. Other ranchers are investing in breeding plans "that could yield juicier steaks — and possibly land them bigger paydays," Thomas explains. But most don't plan to increase their herd sizes.

All told, U.S. consumers can expect to pay more for beef in the foreseeable future. Thomas adds, "Meatpacking companies have signaled that a smaller beef supply is here to stay."

In search of a quieter and more affordable place to live, many Americans move to largely rural states

The South Dakota website "Dakota Roots" claims the state is "paradise for anyone who loves the outdoors." (Dakota Roots photo)

Several rural states are seeing population growth as Americans leave cities in search of a different lifestyle that includes lower living costs.

"Nearly 15 million Americans moved across the country in 2025, with many opting for quieter and more affordable places to live, according to data company Stora's U.S. Census analysis, reports Kelly McGreal of Fox News. 

 

Saving money and living closer to nature are big factors for many movers. McGreal writes, "About 88% of movers say they're relocating to save money, while 76% are seeking better access to outdoor lifestyles often found in rural areas."

South Dakota, a state with no income tax, had the largest population gains. "The state recorded the largest net migration increase, with nearly 11,000 more people moving in than leaving," McGreal adds. "Other largely rural states also ranked highly, including Vermont, Nebraska, Mississippi and Alaska."

Home prices are also a driving factor. "Home prices in South Dakota average around $310,000, below the national average," McGreal reports. 

 

Gavin Shields, CEO of Stora, told McGreal, "It's no longer just about the house, but about having financial freedom, the ability to buy your own property that comes at a more affordable price, and a lower cost of living."

Maine lawmakers consider a moratorium on data center developments as more towns reject proposals

Maine lawmakers are considering a moratorium 
on data center builds. (Photo by I. Quick, Unsplash)

As data center developers target parts of rural New England for their sprawling compounds, advocates for Maine want answers to questions "about electricity prices, grid reliability, and impact on water resources," reports Julia Tilton of The Daily Yonder. Several Maine communities rejected data center proposals, in part, because Mainers already pay some of the highest electrical rates in the country.

As lawmakers examine the pros and cons of data centers, "one idea floating around Maine’s statehouse is to impose a moratorium on data center development," Tilton explains. "How Maine navigates these challenges could be a model for the rest of New England, which shares an aging electric grid and faces a similar set of circumstances."

Currently, Maine lawmakers are "considering LD 307, a resolution bill that would establish a data center coordination council to provide input and evaluate policy options for data center development in the state," Tilton reports. Passing a state moratorium would prevent larger data center projects from obtaining permits or building until the moratorium ends.

Not all Maine lawmakers agree that a moratorium is the best option. Matt Harrington, a Republican of York, Maine, voiced concerns "that a moratorium 'would harm' a data center development in his district, which includes several towns in the state’s more urban southern region," Tilton writes. Lawmakers suggested they could grant the data center in Harrington's district an exemption.

Questions about the state's grid and its capacity to "feed" data centers without raising residents' utility bills remain a concern. Seth Berry, executive director of Our Power, a Maine-based nonprofit organization advocating for energy democracy, favors the moratorium. He told Tilton, "There are just so many unknowns. We really have to slow this down and step back and look at this massive new development, preferably as a region.”

Trump's order increases the production of controversial herbicide glyphosate

Glyphosate is the most popular
herbicide in the world.

Despite large pockets of concerned Americans and a growing body of scientific research linking the country's most commonly sprayed weedkiller ingredient, glyphosate, to serious health concerns, President Donald Trump issued an "executive order aimed at ramping up production of glyphosate," report Hiroko Tabuchi and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times. The move alarmed supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Glyphosate, sometimes sold under the brand name "Roundup," is the world's most popular weedkiller for good reason -- it is extremely effective at annihilating noxious weed growth; however, the ingredient "has been the target of tens of thousands of lawsuits that claim it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma," Tobuchi and Stolberg explain.

To issue the order to increase domestic glyphosate production, "Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, a 1950s-era law typically used in national emergencies to compel companies to produce certain materials or supplies that the president deems necessary for national security," the Times reports. "Trump declared both glyphosate and phosphorus, used to manufacture the weedkiller, 'critical to the national defense.'"

Some MAHA supporters and environmental activists were infuriated by the move. Vani Hari, a healthy eating advocate and supporter of Kennedy’s nutrition agenda, told the Times, "MAHA voters were promised health reform, not chemical entrenchment."

Meanwhile, Kennedy issued a statement supporting Trump's order, saying it "puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply."

So far, much of the research on glyphosate exposure among people has yielded mixed results. Tobuchi and Stolberg explain, "Late last year, a landmark study that had found glyphosate to be safe 25 years ago was retracted by the scientific journal that published it."

German-based glyphosate maker Bayer has been working for years to resolve its glyphosate litigation. Last week, "it proposed to settle a nationwide class-action lawsuit to resolve claims that its flagship herbicide causes cancer," Thomas reports. "The settlement plan includes setting aside more than $7 billion to fund payments over 21 years."

Opinion: Goat could be added to American diets as a mild, versatile lean protein

Graphic by Adam Dixon, Offrange

Goat is one of the most internationally consumed types of animal meat, but Americans seem to have skipped goat on the menu. And while there's a list of reasons why Americans are much more likely to eat beef often and goat never, that may be changing, reports Laurel Miller for Offrange. "Goat is increasingly finding favor amongst white consumers in the U.S., primarily those seeking a lean, high-protein or more sustainable meat source."

Part of the reason many Americans don't eat caprine is their uninformed ideas about what goat meat tastes like. Miller explains, "Many Americans avoid goat because of the widespread perceptions that the meat is rank, gamy, or tough." While goat, like other meats, has a distinct flavor, in many cultures, their meat is considered a delicacy.

Brian Palmer, a goat farmer in Salinas, California, told Miller, "There is an understated goat aroma and flavor. But fresh, high-quality goat meat is approachable." Miller adds, "He prefers ethnic recipes like curries or braises that take that flavor into account."

In an age where beef prices are soaring, it might be time for goat meat to emerge as a competitor. Miller writes, "It’s lower in calories, fat, and cholesterol than chicken, pork, beef, and lamb, and, at 27.1 grams of protein per 100 gram serving, falls just behind conventional beef, which is 28.6 grams per serving."

Right now, the U.S. goat meat sector is small, but growing. Miller adds, "Consumer demand and accessibility vary by region, but even with a ready customer base, the numbers aren’t sufficient to galvanize government and other agencies to fund research."

But raising goats is cheaper, easier, and better for the soil than raising cows or sheep. "Goats are low-impact, non-selective browsers, meaning they eat diverse vegetation, including plants that sheep and cows can’t or won’t eat, like noxious weeds," Miller writes. "Because they’re small and nimble, goats can access areas other species can’t, and they’re well-suited to land that won’t support cattle or crops."