Grocers and SNAP recipients face perplexing set of rules restricting 'junk food' purchases

In Idaho, candy is banned, unless it contains flour or requires 
refrigeration. (Photo by Denny Mueller, Unsplash)

States that no longer allow Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program money to pay for "junk food" have left retailers and SNAP recipients confused about which foods are allowed for purchase with SNAP dollars, reports Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. The new rules may disproportionately impact rural residents, who are more likely to participate in SNAP than their urban counterparts.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his supporters have led the charge to keep highly processed foods off of American tables, beginning with the SNAP program. Roubein explains, "They argue federal dollars shouldn’t help people buy products increasingly linked to poor health and obesity. Trump administration officials have pushed states to bar the use of food stamps for soda and candy."

In response, 10 states received federal waivers to restrict SNAP food choices and rolled out their own unique set of restrictions. "In Iowa, anti-hunger advocates recently sought to highlight how some cold sandwiches and granola bars may not qualify," Roubein reports. "In Idaho, legislators had attempted to clarify the state’s candy ban, since it allows KitKats and Twix because they contain flour."

The fact that each state has its own rules "has led to a complicated and at times counterintuitive maze of new restrictions, according to more than two dozen interviews with trade groups for independent grocers and convenience stores, store owners, anti-hunger advocates, SNAP participants and others," the Post reports.

Fearing the loss of their SNAP licenses, some grocers have banned additional products from SNAP purchases to ensure compliance, Roubein explains. But that change has left SNAP-spending customers not just trying to figure out what their state allows, but also what the store they are shopping in allows.

While most anti-hunger activists oppose the restrictions as further marginalizing and punishing people for "being poor, nutritionists and nutrition advocates have mixed opinions," the Post reports. "Others say they have long sought to test SNAP changes, and want to see data showing whether the new rules impact consumer behavior and improve health." States with restriction waivers have two years to pilot their programs.

Study: More Americans ages 18-54 are dying from severe first heart attacks

Even some 35-year-olds are at risk for severe heart
attacks. (Photo by E. Akurt, Unsplash)

Death by heart attack used to be a worry for only older Americans, but a new study revealed an alarming increase in heart attack deaths among younger Americans. The results are particularly worrisome for younger rural Americans who tend to have less access to preventative medical treatment, are more likely to smoke cigarettes and often face longer drives to reach emergency care. 

"The proportion of adults ages 18 to 54 who died in a hospital of a severe first heart attack rose 57% between 2011 and 2022, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association," reports Betsy McKay of The Wall Street Journal. The study data showed that more than 75% of severe heart attack deaths were men, and 71% were between the ages of 45 and 54 years.

The increase in heart attacks deaths is yet another indicator younger Americans aren't as healthy as previous generations. McKay writes, "Poorer health among younger adults is one reason heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S."

Americans who died after a heart attack often had other underlying chronic health issues or smoked. "About 60% had high blood pressure, while more than half also had high cholesterol and smoked. About a quarter had diabetes."

Younger adults need to be warned that the risk of heart attacks can begin "as early as age 35," McKay adds. "Younger people could use a risk calculator on the AHA’s website." Experts recommend using the 30-year estimate rather than a 10-year one for greater accuracy.

This robot helps rural seniors stay healthier and allows them to live independently longer

ElliQ is designed to be a companion and helper.
(Intuition Robotics photo)

In more remote parts of the country, residents can go for days without seeing another human. But as people age, going without human connection can be lonely and potentially dangerous. For some rural seniors living in isolation in Washington state, participating in a pilot program that pairs them with a robot companion offers a potential solution, reports Eli Saslow of The New York Times.

Jan Worrell, 85, is participating in the pilot so she can continue living alone in her home, which sits on an isolated strip of the Long Island Peninsula. Firefighters came to Worrell's home and installed her new robot partner: "ElliQ."

One of ElliQ's initial greetings to Worrell sounded like a new friend's introduction. Saslow writes, "'Oh, I’m so thrilled to meet you,' ElliQ said. 'I was worried they’d deliver me to the wrong house! I’m excited to start our journey together.'"

"A few thousand ElliQs have been shipped to seniors across the United States since 2023. . . . by nonprofits and state health departments as an experiment in combating loneliness," Saslow reports. "ElliQ is designed for the most human act of all: to become a roommate, a friend, a partner."

Initially, Worrell didn't want help or company at home. "That’s what she told her relatives whenever they gently suggested that maybe it was time to move into a care center, or closer to family," Saslow adds. "But despite her strength and stubborn independence, her doctors had warned that living alone sometimes came at a cost." Loneliness can be deadlier than many chronic diseases.

Now, ElliQ keeps Worrell company by providing conversation, medication reminders, playing music and asking questions. Saslow writes, "It has been designed to read a room, calculate moods and then decide when to speak and what to say."

New USDA nutritional guidance changes 30-year-old food triangle and calls for far fewer ultra-processed foods

The inverted nutritional triangle recommends Americans 
eat more dairy than whole grains. (USDA graphic)

The Trump administration rolled out new U.S. dietary guidance this week that "inverts" the 30-year-old food triangle and advises Americans to "limit highly processed foods, such as those high in added sugars and sodium," reports Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. "The administration [used] a revised pyramid with images of steak, a block of cheese and a carton of whole milk at the top," and whole grains at the bottom.

The guidelines focus on strictly limiting ultra-processed foods, which currently make up more than 50% of the American diet. The overhaul reflects Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s opinion that processed foods are major contributors to chronic illnesses, particularly those in children, such as obesity and diabetes.

The recommendations emphasize "eating whole foods — such as fruits and vegetables in their original forms — and foods rich in protein and whole grains." Kennedy told reporters he wants Americans to “Eat real food.”

"Nutrition experts generally praised some of the main changes, such as the move away from processed foods, while a few raised concerns about promoting some fatty foods," Roubein writes. "The American Medical Association praised the dietary guidelines as offering 'clear direction.'"

U.S. nutritional guidance is developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture every five years. Its goal is to promote health, and the document is "considered a cornerstone of federal nutrition policy," Roubein explains. "The guidelines influence federal nutrition programs and the foods served in school lunches and to members of the military."

Analysis: Growing up in the Corn Belt may contribute to higher cancer rates in younger adults

Skin and kidney cancer rates are higher in big corn-growing
states than the rest of the country. (Adobe Stock photo)

The alarming rate of cancer among younger adults in the U.S. has led to questions and research aimed at addressing the "shift in cancer diagnoses in America, with rates for young adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s trending up even as overall cancer rates decline," report Ariana Eunjung Cha, Dan Keating, Jahi Chikwendiu and Luis Melgar of The Washington Post.

When groups of younger cancer victims were analyzed, growing up in the Midwest emerged as a key risk factor, according to the article. "Cancer rates among young adults in the Corn Belt are rising more rapidly than in the country as a whole." The Corn Belt includes Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Kansas.

When states began tracking their cancer rates in 1999, Corn Belt states reported cancer rates that fell in line with the rest of the country. But in 2015, an unsettling shift began as corn-growing states recorded "a significantly higher cancer rate among those ages 15 to 49," the Post reports. "In the latest data from 2022, those states have a rate 5% higher for young adults and 5% higher for the overall population."

Young adults raised in Corn Belt states "have significantly higher rates of several cancers, especially kidney and skin cancers," Cha writes. "The skin cancer risk for young adults in the corn-producing states is 35% higher for men and 66% higher for women than their peers in other states."

As younger Midwesterners grapple with cancer diagnoses, many are starting to look at the agriculture around them and wonder about its health impacts. The Post reports, "They are raising questions about the role of agribusiness and the water that runs through their communities, and pushing politicians to act in a region where such questions have long been taboo."

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently "announced a $1 million investment to establish a research team dedicated to investigating the underlying causes of the state’s growing cancer rates," Cha adds. "Researchers are still working to disentangle national trends from regional anomalies, and the data doesn’t yet offer a satisfying explanation for why cancer rates among the young have shot up here."

Report: Farmers and agricultural leaders put the brakes on part of national 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda

In its initial report, the national "Make America Healthy Again" commission advocated for changes to U.S. food production and dietary guidance while criticizing "lobbying efforts by American corporations to shape policy," report Jesse Newman, Liz Essley Whyte and Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal. But the commission has since "held talks with scores of leaders from the food and agriculture industries."

Farm groups criticized MAHA's first report for not giving
them a voice. (Adobe Stock photo)

When the commission released its follow-up plan last week, it left "nutrition experts and consumer advocacy and watchdog groups, lamenting its lack of emphasis on regulatory action," the Journal reports. MAHA supporters worry that the commission's initial agenda, led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has curtailed its mission to appease corporate leadership.

By comparison, agricultural and industry groups were glad their input was included. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, told the Journal, "We appreciate the commission’s willingness to meet with farmers across the country, hear our concerns and develop smart solutions."

When the MAHA commission released its first report, "It questioned the health effects of glyphosate. . .a widely used farm pesticide," according to the Journal article. "It scrutinized ultraprocessed foods over some 15 pages."

The report then faced backlash from agricultural leaders and farmers who balked at the "report’s contents and a lack of engagement from the administration during its writing," the Journal reports. Before its follow-up strategy was released, the commission "sought input from farmers, food makers and retailers."

In an effort to juggle agricultural leadership and MAHA supporters, the commission said it aimed to give both sides a seat at the table. According to the article, "The White House used broad language in the latest MAHA report to leave the door open to take sharper or more lenient action in the future."

Kraft Heinz opts to remove artificial dyes by end of 2027

Green and blue colors will be harder for 
 the company to recreate. (Kraft Heinz image)

After decades of use, Kraft Heinz is "ditching artificial dyes," reports Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. "The move comes as the Trump administration is pushing to strip artificial dyes from the U.S. food supply." Kraft Heinz aims to remove the dyes from products including Crystal Light, Heinz relish, Kool-Aid, Jell-O and Jet-Puffed products before the end of 2027. 

Although the U.S. has been monitoring color additives in commercial products since the 1880s, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "has blamed artificial colors and other food additives for a litany of health problems, and said that they are poisoning American children," Newman writes. And while many food conglomerates have defended dyes as safe, "some are working to phase out or limit their use of dyes, including PepsiCo and cereal maker WK Kellogg."

Switching to natural dyes will be relatively easy in some Kraft Heinz products, but recreating greens and blues will be more difficult. "The company said it would replace those with other colors," Newman explains. "In products where color isn’t critical, Kraft Heinz will remove them entirely."

Pedro Navio, who heads the company's North American sector, told the Journal, "The vast majority of our products use natural or no colors, and we’ve been on a journey to reduce our use of [artificial] colors across the remainder of our portfolio."

The Food and Drug Administration, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, said this spring "that it aimed to work with the food industry to remove six synthetic dyes by the end of next year," Newman adds. "Kraft Heinz also said it would no longer use artificial colors in new products in the U.S."

Opinion: A rural hospital administrator considers what will become of his center if Congress cuts Medicaid

When a rural hospital closes, many residents drive hours to
see a provider or receive specialized care. (Adobe photo)

Over the past 15 years, rural hospitals have struggled to stay afloat, but their already precarious financial state could become a full-blown crisis should Congress slash Medicaid spending. Kevin Stansbury, the chief executive of Lincoln Health in tiny Hugo, Colorado, writes in his opinion for The New York Times, "Congress is considering cuts to Medicaid that could wreak havoc on rural America’s fragile health care system. I worry about our future."

Cuts to federal Medicaid support will be hard on most medical centers, but "rural hospitals will be particularly affected," Stansbury explains. "This is because rural patients are more likely to have health coverage from the government than from commercial insurers. (Nearly three-quarters of our revenue, for example, is from Medicaid and Medicare.)"

In Colorado, almost half of all rural hospitals operate in the red and many have closed services such as labor and delivery units because they are too expensive to run. Stansbury writes, "We also serve fewer patients than big city hospitals but still have fixed costs to stay operational. The result is that we run on minimal or negative operating margins."

When a rural hospital closes, the health of its immediate and surrounding communities suffers. If a severe auto accident happens, victims have to wait longer for emergency services to arrive, or brave traveling to the closest medical center. Residents with chronic conditions are more likely to skip regular care because they must drive hours for a checkup or specialty treatment.

"I know the financial peril my hospital will face if our Medicaid lifeline is severed. But the real damage — the kind that keeps me up at night — will be done to the hardworking people in my rural community," Stansbury adds. "I worry about the residents of our nursing home who just want to grow old here. I worry about the people in Hugo who might forgo care entirely because they can’t get the time off work to visit a Denver hospital. . . .The list goes on."

Cutting Medicaid waste and fraud is one thing "but the cuts on the table go far beyond that," Stansbury writes. "I don’t see waste in Hugo. Rather, Medicaid ensures that primary and emergency care is still accessible here, and that drivers along I-70 will see the blue H on the highway sign and know that help is nearby."

U.S. is suffering from a chronic disease endemic, but its prevalence and challenges are more extreme for rural folks

Chronic illness are prevalent across the U.S.
(Adobe Stock photo)

A lack of health care access, poverty and limited fresh food options means many rural Americans face a more intense battle combating chronic illnesses, many of which have become alarmingly common in the U.S. Eli Saslow of The New York Times reports, "Americans now spend more years living with chronic disease than people in 183 other countries in the World Health Organization — a reality that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. framed as a 'national crisis' in his first weeks as health secretary."

The daily work life of Sam Runyon, a traveling home health nurse in West Virginia, highlights how prevalent chronic health issues are in some rural communities. "All 31 patients in her caseload were under 65 years old, and yet each had at least one of the chronic diseases that had become endemic in the United States," Saslow writes. Runyon treats patients throughout Mingo County, "where the average life expectancy has been dropping steadily for a decade to 67 years old."

The prevalence of chronic disease deaths isn't unique to rural residents. "Death rates are up 25% nationally from diabetes, 40% from liver disease, 60% from kidney disease, 80% from hypertension and more than 95% from obesity," Saslow explains. However, rural residents can lack treatment options and financial resources that help counter chronic disease progression.

Joe Miller, 48, is one of Runyon's patients fighting chronic illness, poverty and a poor lifestyle history that can be common in many rural communities. Saslow writes, "Joe was lying shirtless on his bed, immobilized from hip pain as his pit bull chewed his socks. On his night stand was a bowl of macaroni and cheese, a box of salt. . . . [His wife] was dead of a heart attack in her 40s, and he was struggling with depression and closing in on 300 pounds with dangerously high cholesterol. . ."

Like many small towns, there is only one grocery store in Mingo County and produce is expensive, but ultra-processed foods such as soda and frozen pizza are plentiful. Health problems like Joe's have become more common among working-class Americans who are "dying at higher rates than they were 20 years earlier," Saslow adds. "People in the country’s poorest places were now almost twice as likely to develop chronic disease as those who lived in wealthy, urban centers on the coasts. . ."