Rural areas lead decline in Obamacare policies' enrollment

As enrollment in Obamacare health-insurance policies declines nationwide, rural areas are leading the fleeing, Sarah Melotte reports for The Daily Yonder and its Rural Index.

The Affordable Care Act policies have become less affordable because Congress did not renew premium subsidies that were implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic and extended in the Biden administration.    "People who are no longer eligible for these subsidies have accounted for a disproportionate share of health insurance coverage drops, resulting in increases in monthly premiums for nearly all consumers." Melotte reports.

Melotte looked at the 30 states that used the national marketplace platform for Obamacare policies and found a 12 percent drop in rural counties, defined as those outside metropolitan areas, "representing 29,000 consumers," she writes. "Small metropolitan counties saw a drop of 11%, representing about 154,000 consumers, the next largest decrease in enrollment among all of the county types."

(Charts by Sarah Melotte, The Rural Index)

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.

California lawmaker launches bill to highlight healthier foods in grocery stores

A California bill would give non-ultraprocessed food a seal and 
premium placement on grocery store shelves. (Unsplash photo)

A California lawmaker is promoting a bill that would give non-ultraprocessed foods a “California Certified” seal of approval and premium grocery shelf space to help educate consumers about which foods are the healthiest, report Nicole Norman and Rachel Bluth of Politico. "The legislation is the latest in a broader war on unhealthy food."

On a federal level, the Food and Drug Administration and USDA continue to tease out a national definition for ultraprocessed food. But California lawmakers created their own ultraprocessed food definition in October 2025, which labels ultraprocessed food as "any food or beverage that contains flavor or color enhancers and that is high in saturated fats, sodium or specific added sugars or sweeteners," Norman and Bluth write.

Educating American consumers about the health risks of ultraprocessed foods and removing them from the national diet are "both popular and bipartisan," Politico reports. "It’s a cause popularized at the federal level by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement."

Unsurprisingly, companies that make ultraprocessed foods are ramping up their opposition to new laws that decrease their market share of U.S. grocery budgets. Norman and Bluth write, "National manufacturers argue that regulatory burdens drive up the price for consumers and that state regulations on ingredients 'risk undermining the system.'"

California's approach, which labels healthy food, is a new twist on the labeling ultraprocessed food debate. Over the past decade, Latin countries have passed laws that require "warning" labels or color-coded nutritional labels on the front of boxes or wrappers. 

In 2024, the FDA began considering requiring food labels that "might flag certain health risks, such as high levels of salt, sugar or saturated fat," The Wall Street Journal reports. According to its website, the FDA is currently "proposing a rule that would require a front-of-package (FOP) nutrition label on most packaged foods to provide accessible, at-a-glance information to help consumers quickly and easily identify how foods can be part of a healthy diet."

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."

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."

Boar's Head plant in tiny Jarratt, Va., will reopen soon, but the company's poor sanitation record remains a concern

Boar's Head positions itself as an upscale
company, but state inspections show many problems.

Boar's Head deli meat indefinitely closed its Jarratt, Virginia, plant last September after 10 people died and dozens were hospitalized after eating listeria-tainted liverwurst from the facility. The plant, which was the major employer in the small town of 600 residents, is now slated for reopening. But a closer look at other Boar's Head facilities reveals a troubling pattern.

Jonel Aleccia of The Associated Press reports, "Boar's Head plants in Arkansas, Indiana and elsewhere in Virginia have been flagged for the same kinds of sanitation problems that led to the outbreak, with the most recent report in June."

Inspections since the beginning of 2025 report problems with "meat and fat residue left on equipment and walls, drains blocked with meat products, beaded condensation on ceilings and floors, overflowing trash cans, and staff who didn’t wear protective hairnets and plastic aprons — or wash their hands," Aleccia reports. Similar conditions were repeatedly reported at the Jarratt plant prior to the nationwide listeria outbreak.

Recent inspection findings from Boar’s Head sites in Forrest City, Arkansas, New Castle, Indiana, and Petersburg, Virginia, "surprised outside food safety advocates who said that factory conditions should have improved," Aleccia explains. Instead, the reports "raise new questions about the company’s promises to address systemic problems."

Barbara Kowalcyk, who directs a food safety and nutrition security center at George Washington University, told Aleccia, "What jumped out to me is there is an organizational culture issue that needs to be changed. . . .Usually that culture has to start at the top.” 

Company officials refused to talk to the AP about the recent inspections, Aleccia reported.

Meanwhile, the USDA has lifted its forced suspension of the Jarratt facility, and the company is hiring for positions at the plant.

Alpha-gal syndrome, also called the 'red meat allergy,' is spreading. Lone star and black-legged ticks are to blame.

Cases of suspected alpha-gal syndrome based on confirmed laboratory evidence. (CDC map via The Conversation)

Despite being unable to jump or fly, ticks are surprisingly good at hiding in vegetation and attaching to people as they walk or hike past. When a tick attaches to a person's flesh and begins to suck blood, the tick injects its saliva -- and anything it contains -- into the person's body. Certain ticks expel alpha-gal sugar molecules into their host's body, which can, months later, leave the person allergic to specific proteins.

"This delayed allergic reaction is called alpha-gal syndrome. While it’s commonly called the 'red meat allergy,' that nickname is misleading, because alpha-gal syndrome can cause strong reactions to many products, beyond just red meat," writes entomologist Lee Rafuse Haines for The Conversation. Dairy products, gelatin and even some prescription medications can trigger a response.

Alpha-gal syndrome isn't a disease; it's a reaction to the "alpha-gal sugar molecule [that] exists in the tissues of most mammals, including cows, pigs, deer and rabbits. But it’s absent in humans," Haines explains. "When a big dose of alpha-gal gets into your bloodstream through a tick bite, it can send your immune system into overdrive to generate antibodies against alpha-gal. In later exposure to foods containing alpha-gal, your immune system might then launch an inappropriate allergic response."

Once a person is exposed to the alpha-gal sugar protein through a tick bite, it can take months for an allergic reaction to occur. Syndrome symptoms can "range from hives or swelling to crushing abdominal pain, violent nausea or even life-threatening anaphylactic shock," Haines adds.

Alpha-gal syndrome is commonly blamed on the lone star tick bites, but other ticks can spread it as well. In North America, tick bites from the lone star tick and the black-legged tick, also called a deer tick, can cause alpha-gal syndrome. Scientists are also looking at other species of ticks found in the U.S. as possible culprits.

Even as alpha-gal syndrome spreads in the U.S., not all medical professionals have experience with it. Haines writes, "A study in 2022 found that 42% of U.S. health care practitioners had never heard of alpha-gal syndrome." 

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."

Some states look to restrict soda and candy from food stamp purchases. Arkansas and Indiana are 'first in line.'

SNAP changes restricting soda from purchases has
soda makers worried. (Adobe Stock photo)

Food stamp recipients in two states may no longer be able to purchase soda or candy with their monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP benefits. Soda makers have long fought against the restriction. "The Agriculture Department is fast-tracking state requests to yank soda and candy from food-stamp programs," report Laura Cooper, Kristina Peterson and Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal. "Arkansas and Indiana are among the first in line." The changes would impact many rural residents who are often more likely receive SNAP benefits than their metro or urban counterparts.

Indiana and Arkansas said "they were seeking clearance from the USDA to implement the changes, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her agency would move 'very, very quickly' to approve them," the Journal reports. Rollins told the Journal, "That’s exactly the vision of making America healthy again. I am 100% certain that these changes will be nothing but positive for those underserved communities that are food challenged.”

If multiple states choose to adopt the restrictions, soda maker sales would take a dip. "Soda companies have lobbied hard against such changes," the Journal reports. "The Republican governors of West Virginia and Utah have said they plan to pursue similar restrictions in their food-aid programs."

Historically, SNAP recipients spend a fair amount of their food purchasing dollars on highly processed foods including soda. "About 23% of food stamp dollars go toward foods like sweetened beverages, candy, desserts and salty snacks − for an annual total of about $25 billion," report Calley Means and Tarren Bragdon in their opinion for USA Today. "These foods are proven to contribute to obesity and a slew of related health problems in children and adults."

Soda makers have tried to convince President Trump that restricting SNAP food and beverage purposes would anger many of his supporters, and "Trump himself, who also drinks Diet Coke from a wine glass for toasts, has been skeptical of banning things his supporters like," reports The Wall Street Journal. "Republicans have long been divided on the issue, with some uncomfortable over the idea of policing people’s purchases."

Measles is continuing to spread through unvaccinated communities, confirming experts' fears

Measles has no direct cure and
can spread easily.
(Photo by Kristine Wook, Unsplash)

The number of confirmed measles cases in the United States so far this year has reached 712, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The resurgence of the virus is cause for concern as “it is preventable … and has been considered eliminated from the U.S. since 2000,” according to Devi Shastri in an article for the Associated Press.

Measles is a viral infection that has no direct treatment. The illness can be indicated by a fever, runny nose, cough, watery eyes and a rash.

While Texas has the majority of cases at 505, there have been reports of measles in 25 states, according to the CDC.

“The multi-state outbreak confirms health experts’ fears that the virus will take hold in other U.S. communities with low vaccination rates and that the spread could stretch on for a year,” wrote Shastri.

According to Shastri's report, cases spread easily in communities with low vaccination rates and that the best way to avoid measles is to get vaccinated.

Even though the disease doesn’t have a direct cure, the article explains that most children do recover. However, “infection can lead to dangerous complications such as pneumonia, blindness, brain swelling and death.”

So far, three people have died from measles this year, according to the CDC.

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. . ."

New bird flu mutation found in dairy cows worries experts. The variant causes more severe human infections.

Dairy cows have contracted a new
variant of bird flu. (Unsplash photo)

Two people contracted severe bird flu infections from a new H5N1 variant known as D1.1. In one case, the man died; the other person is still in recovery. Experts are concerned about this variant emerging in cattle and what its severity might mean for livestock and humans, reports McKenzie Prillaman at ScienceNews.

“Cattle in Nevada tested positive for the H5N1 viral variant D1.1, which has been circulating in poultry and wild birds.” the Department of Agriculture announced Feb. 5. This recent discovery is the first detection of variant in dairy cattle.

Over the past year, about 1,000 cattle herds in 16 states have contracted H5N1 variant B3.13. Most people who were infected with this version of bird flu have been farmers working with livestock, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been 67 cases in humans so far, with no known transmission between people. 

The emergence of the D1.1 variant poses additional health concerns for cows and people. “Another concern I have is that when we are looking at disease related to [B3.13], this has been by and large mild. But we have seen more severe human illness with the D1.1," according to veterinarian and environmental epidemiologist Meghan Davis of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "I do worry that the clinical presentation in [dairy] workers and other people exposed to the dairy cows or their products could be different and potentially more severe,” 

Davis recommended more surveillance and biosecurity for farms to identify outbreaks among the cattle.

Bird flu has sickened wild birds, cats, cows and humans. As more people catch the virus, medical experts worry.

People working with livestock infected with 
avian flu are at risk. (Unsplash image)

While every American has seen the effects of avian flu on egg prices, bird flu, also know as H5N1, has the potential to become a greater risk to human health, too.

At the moment, avian flu poses the greatest threat to people working with livestock or wildlife. The disease has been found to have a devastating effect on poultry, but dairy cows have also had high infection rates. “Sixteen states and 927 dairy herds have been affected,” reports Claire Carlson of The Daily Yonder.

Farmers working with livestock can minimize their risk for infection by wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), and those infected can get treated with Tamiflu. Carlson explains, "But at commercial farms, PPE use is spotty at best, according to Investigate Midwest reporting. Their investigation found that one-third of states with active bird flu outbreaks in dairy herds were not tracking the distribution of PPE, leaving it up to the farmers to protect themselves and their workers"

The spread of bird flu in smaller or more remote towns could prove difficult to isolate. Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases physician, told Carlson, “Our rural communities may not have the same kind of healthcare resilience [as cities], so if you have more than a couple of cases, my concern would be that we want to ensure that we can quickly make testing available.”

While dairy cows are having less deadly results from avian flu than chickens, the disease can also be passed through the consumption of raw milk from infected cattle. The Food and Drug Administration found that the virus is made “inactive through pasteurization.” Twenty-eight states are enrolled in a program that tracks the flu rates and addresses what states should do in the event of an outbreak.

As of Jan. 16, there have been "66 confirmed human cases of bird flu in the U.S., and one death," Carlson reports. Bhadelia told her, “The more chances we give this virus to potentially infect humans and to evolve within humans, it is possible that it might grow into something that’s a greater threat to humans."

An FDA proposed rule would force food manufacturers to add a 'nutritional info box' to the front of their packaging

The 'nutritional info box' would focus on saturated
fat, sodium and added sugars.

Warning labels for grocery items with salt, added sugar or saturated fat may become the federal government's newest tool aimed at educating U.S. consumers about their grocery choices. "Under a new rule proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, food manufacturers would be required to put new labels on the front of packages flagging key nutrition information," reports Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. The current administration believes bold labeling could help Americans make healthier food choices.

Most packaged foods sold in the U.S. already have nutritional information on the back or side of the box. "The new labels, dubbed a 'nutrition info box,' would go on the front of packages," Newman explains. The box would flag foods as "high, medium or low in salt, added sugar and saturated fat, which the FDA has warned can lead to chronic diseases when consumed in excess."

Most food companies oppose labeling foods with warnings, "The Consumer Brands Association, which represents big food manufacturers, said the rule doesn’t reflect the latest research," Newman reports. "The group said studies show the most effective labels include calories and nutrients to encourage, along with nutrients to limit."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is the incoming Trump administration's prospective next head of U.S. health policy, "has been outspoken about his view that U.S. food companies are partly to blame for sickening Americans," Newman writes. "Consumer advocacy groups and public health organizations cheered the rule." Some groups hope the Trump administration will support more specific labeling, which is used in Chile and Mexico.

The FDA is accepting public comments on its proposal until May 16. Newman adds, "If the rule is finalized after that, food manufacturers would be required to add the new labels to most packaged food products three to four years after it takes effect."

Food industry groups warned they could sue to overturn labeling mandates. Newman adds, "Such labels, they said, could threaten First Amendment rights — because companies could consider them a form of forced speech — and only Congress has the authority to require them."

Drinking raw milk can cause humans to contract diseases and infections, but the risks may not tell the full story

Maybe raw milk offers something unique.
(Photo by E. Aceron, Unsplash)

Despite raw milk's popularity with some consumers, many dairy experts warn against consuming raw milk products because of bacteria and disease risks. Raw milk proponents believe the benefits of raw milk products outweigh the concerns, reports Moises Velasquez-Manoff of The New York Times. "Should we take them more seriously?"

The U.S. raw milk movement began decades ago in "small, independent health-food stores," Velasquez-Manoff explains. The pandemic heightened interest in raw milk's benefits. "Mark McAfee, who heads Raw Farm in California, told me during the pandemic, people felt abandoned by medical professionals and began researching ways to care for their own immune systems. Many turned to raw milk, which he calls 'the first food of life.'"

Twenty-five years ago, when McAfee started selling raw milk, his customers were mostly "hippie 'nut-and-berry moms' and natural foodies, as he puts it. . . But as his sales have grown — about 30-fold since then, he estimates — his customers have diversified," Velasquez-Manoff explains. Today’s raw milk consumers come from vastly different backgrounds, with reasons for buying raw milk that range from political freedom to nutritional miracles.

American scientists and food nutrition experts have continually warned against drinking unpasteurized dairy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "unpasteurized dairy products are 840 times as likely as their pasteurized counterparts to lead to infection and illness," Velasquez-Manoff reports. The CDC's list of possible adverse health outcomes includes: Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter.

But raw milk research isn't all about potential diseases humans could contract. In fact, recent studies suggest some positive preventative health benefits raw milk consumption might offer. Velasquez-Manoff writes, "There is also a wealth of epidemiological research, most of it from Europe, that suggests that drinking raw milk early in life can protect against the development of asthma and allergies later. . . . The basic notion animating the raw-milk movement — that something good and healthful is lost during processing — may have some validity to it."

While the health risks involved in raw milk consumption lead many dairy experts to adamantly push against drinking it, European studies might point the way toward resolving "what is often called the allergy epidemic," Velasquez-Manoff adds. "Scientists think that if they can identify what’s special about raw milk, and preserve it through treatment that makes it safe, maybe they can turn a widely consumed foodstuff into a powerful tool of preventive medicine."

Looking back through history, Americans weren't healthier than they are now. 'The past was actually much worse.'

During many decades in U.S. history, rich men smoked and
heavy alcohol consumption was 'the norm.' (Adobe Stock photo)

The American diet was once dominated by vegetables and dried fruits, but also salted pork and heavy alcohol consumption. Lifestyle practices in the United States have never been particularly healthy. Any models that promote "making America healthy again" aren't taking the country's health history into account, reports Gina Kolata of The New York Times. "The word 'again' presumes a time in the country’s past when Americans were in better health. Was there ever really a time when America was healthier?"

Medicine historians have "a short answer," Kolata writes. "'No,' said Nancy Tomes, a historian at Stony Brook University. . . . John Harley Warner, a historian at Yale, said, 'It’s hard for me to think of a time when America, with all the real health disparities that characterize our system, was healthier.'"

Going back in time, the vision of a more vibrant and healthy America evaporates. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, "rich men smoked cigarettes and cigars, the poor chewed tobacco. Heavy drinking was the norm," Kolata adds. "Fresh fruits and vegetables were in short supply because they were difficult to ship and because growing seasons were so short. As for protein, Americans were relying on salted pork."

Even when beef became part of the U.S. diet, Americans did not get healthier. Many people were underweight and their health suffered because of it. "The start of the 20th century saw public health improvements (cleaner water, for example, and posters advising parents not to give their babies beer), but the disease was rampant," Kolata reports. "When the 1918 flu struck the nation, no one knew the cause — the flu virus had not been discovered."

During the 1950s and 1960s, the "American pharmaceutical industry pumped out new medical advances: antibiotics, antipsychotics, drugs for high blood pressure and vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, measles and polio," Kolata writes. "Despite that progress, those years were terrible for health," Dr. Jeremy Greene, a historian at Johns Hopkins University, said, "with 'a tremendous amount of heart attacks and strokes.'. . . In part, that was because nearly everyone smoked."

When it comes to optimum health, the United States is nowhere near the promised land, but the number of smokers has steeply declined while treatments for diseases have multiplied. "Researchers are quick to acknowledge that Americans’ health is not as good as it can be. And they bemoan the huge disparities in health care in this country," Kolata adds. "But, historians say, the past was actually much worse."

Military community needs more access to the great outdoors; a new report explores obstacles and solutions

Yosemite National Park
(Photo by Johannes Andersson, Unsplash)

Spending time exploring nature has proven especially important for the U.S. military community's mental and physical health, which is why the Sierra Club Military Outdoors campaign and the University of Kentucky’s Community and Economic Development Initiative of Kentucky have been investigating how to make the outdoors more accessible for all armed services members, their families and veterans.

The partnership just released its initial report and will host a virtual briefing at 1 p.m., E.T., on Wednesday, Aug. 28, to go through the report, provide community reactions to the findings and offer a space for questions. Register for the briefing at https://sc.org/SCMOReportBriefing.

Particularly for veterans, spending time outside walking or participating in activities can supplement treatment for injuries and disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder. However, safely accessing the outdoors is not always easy for the military community, and barriers such as cost, transportation, experience level and mobility can interfere. These obstacles and how plans could be enacted to remove them prompted the report.

To research outdoor uses and accessibility, the SCMO conducted a series of in-person listening sessions in California, Florida and Georgia, as well as a virtual listening session for women veterans and a nationwide online survey that drew respondents from 48 states. The report combines research from the listening sessions and survey results.

Overall, the report's recommendations include improving equitable access with a new grant program supporting outdoor access programs focusing on underserved veteran populations, establishing an Office of Outdoor Recreation that would coordinate and support efforts around outdoor access for veterans and military, and expand and fund the new Military Families Outdoors Program, which generates programming and initiatives on public lands to improve the health of the military community.

Ultra-processed foods cause poor health outcomes in Americans; researchers look at their link to cognitive decline

Regular servings of hot dogs drizzled with liquid cheese may
be linked to cognitive decline. (Adobe Stock photo)

A big old hot dog, fried salami and a heaping pile of bacon may sound delicious to many Americans, but emerging research shows Americans who regularly consume processed meats are more likely to develop dementia, report Dana G. Smith and Alice Callahan of The New York Times. Processed red meat, which falls under the umbrella of ultra-processed foods, is only one part of a larger dietary equation where the traditional American diet is linked to poor health outcomes and possibly cognitive decline.

The scientists who studied processed red meat consumption "tracked more than 130,000 adults in the U.S. for up to 43 years. During that period, 11,173 people developed dementia," Smith and Callahan explain. "Those who consumed about two servings of processed red meat per week had a 14% greater risk of developing dementia compared to those who ate fewer than three servings per month." Eating unprocessed meat did not "significantly increase the risk for dementia."

Ultra-processed food is often made with ingredients most Americans don't have in their kitchen cupboards. "Products like soy protein isolate, high fructose corn syrup, modified starches, flavorings or color additives," the Times reports. "Many of these foods also have high levels of sugar, fat or sodium, which have long been known to adversely affect health." Soda, breakfast cereals, flavored potato chips, white bread and energy drinks all fall are all ultra-processed, but they "account for about 58 percent of the calories consumed by both children and adults, on average."

As for ultra-processed foods causing dementia, a body of research is growing, which "shows an association between ultra-processed foods and brain health," Smith and Callahan write. "[The studies] cannot prove that the foods directly harm the brain. And not all studies have found a consistent link between ultra-processed food consumption and cognition." Dr. Dong Wang, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, told the Times, "You cannot conclude that if you eat a certain amount of processed red meat, you’ll definitely get dementia. That’s not the case.”

For most people, changing diet habits is process that takes time and patience; however, experts encourage people to move away from a diet dominated by ultra-processed foods. Dr. Karima Benameur, an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine, told Smith and Callahan, "Even modest changes over time can have an impact, and that’s important because it means it’s achievable." The Times reports, "Rather than trying to eliminate all ultra-processed foods from your diet — what Dr. Benameur calls 'a recipe for failure' — focus on cutting back on some of the worst offenders and replacing them with healthier options."

Companies aren't the only ones that spread the use of 'forever chemicals;' the U.S. military is also responsible

Firefighting foam was created in the 1960s.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Commercial product companies aren't the only ones to blame for PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," making their way into U.S. soil and drinking water. Through its extensive use of firefighting foam, the U.S. military has also contributed to the slowly degrading and noxious chemicals spreading across the country, reports Sachi Kitajima Mulkey of Grist. "The Department of Defense is among the nation's biggest users of firefighting foam and says 80% of active and decommissioned bases require cleanup."

The Environmental Protection Agency doesn't consider any exposure to PFOA and PFOS, two of the most toxic PFAS, safe. In mid-April, the agency also "designated these two compounds' hazardous substances' under the federal Superfund law, making it easier to force polluters to shoulder the costs of cleaning them up," Mulkey explains. "Meeting these regulations means that almost all of the 715 military sites and surrounding communities under Defense Department investigation for contamination will likely require remediation."

The history of PFAS chemicals dates back to a 1930s lab accident, but their extensive commercial use in products began in the 1950s and 60s. Mulkey reports, "In the 1960s, the Defense Department worked with 3M, one of the largest manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to develop a foam called AFFF that can extinguish high-temperature fires. The PFAS act as a surfactant, helping the material spread more quickly. By the 1970s, every military base, Navy ship, civilian airport, and fire station regularly used AFFF."

From that point, PFAS chemicals were used in everything from cookware to raincoats to carpets. It would take decades for government agencies and communities to realize that these human-made, fluorine-based chemicals were harmful to animals and humans. Once their harmfulness came to light, another set of problems evolved — how to remove the chemicals from the environment, which research has proven is both expensive and difficult to accomplish.

Today, military sites have some of the most extensive cleanup work. "Congress ordered the department to publish the findings of drinking and groundwater tests on and around bases," Mulkey reports. "Results showed nearly 50 sites with extremely high levels of contamination and hundreds more with levels above what was then the EPA's health advisory. Following further congressional pressure, the military announced plans to implement interim cleanup measures at three dozen locations."

"Nationwide, the Environmental Working Group found unsafe water in wells near 63 military bases in 29 states."

Some states refuse bipartisan aid for school summer lunches; program gives eligible students $40 per month

Some states won't accept aid for summer lunches.
(Photo by Matthew Moloney, Unsplash)

Some states have refused federal support that would be used to provide summer lunch money to families with children who receive free or reduced lunches during the school year.  

"The new $2.5 billion program, known as Summer EBT, passed Congress with bipartisan support. The program will provide families with about $40 a month for every child who receives free or reduced-price meals at school — $120 for the summer," reports Madeline Cass of The New York Times. "The red-state refusals will keep aid from about 10 million children, about a third of those potentially eligible nationwide."

Why would a state governor turn down federal summer lunch money but accept funding while school is in session? Their reasons varied from summer lunches contributing to childhood obesity to insisting that free summer lunches were only part of pandemic aid. Cass writes, "Poor states are especially resistant, though the federal government bears most of the cost. Of the 10 states with the highest levels of children's food insecurity, five rejected Summer EBT: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas."

In deep-red Arkansas, Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders welcomed the federal provision. "'Making sure no Arkansan goes hungry, especially children, is a top concern for my administration,' she said in a news release," Cass reports. "Arkansas officials estimate the program will cost the state about $3 million and deliver $45 million in benefits."

Early this year, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told The Associated Press: "No child in this country should go hungry. They certainly shouldn't go hungry because they lose access to nutritious school meals during the summer months."

But a look at Summer EBT division doesn't bear that sentiment out. Cass explains, "The outcome illuminates the arbitrary nature of the American safety net, which prioritizes local control. North Dakota and North Carolina are in; South Dakota and South Carolina are out. . . .  In the impoverished Mississippi Delta, eligibility depends on which side of the Mississippi River a child lives."