More Babies Are Getting Vaccinated Early As Texas Measles Outbreak Continues
But, according to new data, more parents are taking a critical step to protect their youngest kids.
According to Truveta, a health care data and analytics company, 20% of Texas children younger than 2 years old who got a measles vaccine received their measles vaccine early to help prevent the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention usually recommends children get their measles vaccines starting at 1 year old, but amid the measles outbreak, the CDC said in March that children can get their measles vaccines starting at 6 months old.
Truveta found that the percentage of children getting vaccinated starting at 6 months old in March and April 2025 markedly increased from 2019, when the U.S. had a measles outbreak with a total of 1,261 cases.
Nina Masters, the senior applied research scientist at Truveta, told HuffPost that this data is good news.
'This means that parents are trying to protect their kids early,' she said.
Texas has seen its worst measles outbreak in nearly 30 years. Measles, a viral respiratory illness, is one of the most contagious diseases, and a vaccine is the best protection against it, according to the CDC.
But Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services, has been at the forefront of spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines for years. After an unvaccinated 8-year-old Texas girl died of measles last month, Kennedy attended her funeral and then conceded that the combined measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine is the most effective way to prevent the disease, though he continues to push alternative treatments and describe vaccination as an individual choice.
Katherine Wells, director of public health for Lubbock, Texas' health department, did not respond to HuffPost's request for information, but she told NBC News in February that the city's health department has been vaccinating children from families who didn't believe in vaccines before.
'People are more and more nervous,' Wells told NBC News. 'We've vaccinated multiple kids that have never been vaccinated before, some from families that didn't believe in vaccines.'
Truveta's data only included children who received care from a health care professional at least three times in their first year of life. But Texas' measles outbreak has largely affected the unvaccinated, like the Mennonites, an Anabaptist Christian group whose members are typically underimmunized.
'We do know that because we imposed some criteria that children [should] be seeing a provider three times in the first year of life, this does reflect a population that is seeking health care,' Masters said. 'So if individuals who are not vaccinating their children are also not seeking health care, we wouldn't expect those people to be included in the study.'
Steven Nolt, professor of history and Anabaptist studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, told ABC News in March that the Mennonites who live in Seminole, Texas, in the western part of the state — also known as Low German Mennonites — came from Mexico, where, from the 1920s to the 1980s, they were mostly isolated.
'My point is, the so-called Low German Mennonites from Mexico, now in west Texas, don't have that minimum baseline of mid-20th century vaccine acceptance that we see among Old Order Mennonites and Amish in the U.S. because the folks in Seminole missed the whole mid-century immunization push, as they weren't in the U.S. at that time,' Nolt told ABC News.
Measles Cases In The U.S. Just Hit 1,000. RFK Jr. Still Isn't Taking It Seriously.
RFK Jr. Tells CDC To Go All In On Bogus Vitamin 'Cures' For Measles
RFK Jr. Spreads Misleading Measles Vaccine Claim Amid U.S. Outbreaks
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
6 hours ago
- Atlantic
Scientists Are Afraid of What RFK Jr. Means for Autism
The annual meeting of the International Society for Autism Research is the closest autism science gets to having an Oscars moment of its own. When 2,200 experts from more than 50 countries meet up in one place—as they did this spring in Seattle—a kind of brainy excitement pervades, not just because of the awards given out (yes, awards are given out) or the chance for up-and-comers to network with top names in autism research, but also because there's always something to celebrate in the science itself. For two decades, studies presented at INSAR have shaped the world's understanding of autism. The buzz at the conference comes from the conviction that the work matters and that progress continues, sustained by an optimism that no nonscientist could undo. With one possible exception: U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In April, shortly before the conference, Kennedy announced a major research undertaking. He promised that his agency would determine the cause of autism—or, at least, have ' some of the answers '—by September. (He soon extended the timeline into next year.) The effort, he pledged, would employ 'the most credible scientists from all over the world.' Now here those scientists were, all in one place. But none of those we spoke with had received the call to help, nor did they expect to. In speeches and interviews as health secretary, Kennedy has made clear his disdain for mainstream autism research, brushing aside the insights gained for this tremendously complex condition through years of research. Instead, backed by the enormous power of his federal office, Kennedy now appears determined to pursue his own long-held set of theories about autism: first, that we are in the midst of an autism epidemic (which is, in fact, highly debatable); second, that autism is caused by one or more 'environmental toxins' (which incorrectly suggests that environmental factors have not been explored); and third, that powerful interests want this information covered up (a conspiracy-esque viewpoint that lacks evidence). 'The way the secretary characterizes autism research,' David Amaral, the research director at the MIND Institute at UC Davis and one of INSAR's co-founders, told us, 'it's as if nobody's been doing anything for the last 30 years.' Amaral was one of more than a dozen veteran researchers we met with over the four-day conference, whose faces all went dark anytime we asked about the impact of Kennedy's muscling into their domain. They have been witnessing the health secretary bend the narrative of autism science in America. Their shared assessment: What he's doing is not good. The problem begins, in the researchers' view, with Kennedy's grasp of the science, which they say he either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge. For instance, Kennedy has complained that too much money has been spent studying genetic causes of autism, describing this avenue as 'a dead end.' Between sessions at the conference, the geneticist Joseph Buxbaum sat with us in an empty meeting room and sketched out on a piece of cardboard the numbers and timeline that demonstrate all that's wrong with this viewpoint. Autism's genetic underpinnings were first uncovered through studies of twins in the 1970s. Access to the human genome has now revealed that about 80 percent of the odds of being autistic are rooted in heritability. At INSAR this year, one of the most optimistic presentations focused on the progress being made toward genetics-based treatments. 'It is shocking,' Buxbaum said of Kennedy's apparent disregard for experts' input. Compounding the situation are the Trump administration's blitz of DEI-focused executive orders and DOGE cuts, which are undermining autism research. The Autism Science Foundation has been circulating a questionnaire asking researchers to report funding lost this year. Dozens of responses have been received, so far adding up to more than $80 million worth of halted research and pending grants that now will not come through. Jobs have been lost. Future discoveries have been postponed, possibly for good. Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, told us in an email that Kennedy's team is 'fully committed to leaving no stone unturned in confronting this catastrophic epidemic—employing only gold-standard, evidence-based science.' It's unclear just whom Kennedy is relying on for scientific expertise; Hilliard did not address a request for more information about the scientists involved in the health secretary's initiatives. But Kennedy's singular view on the actual expert consensus seems driven by a personal goal: to implicate vaccines as the cause of autism. He now has reshuffled the ranks of the CDC's vaccine-advisory committee to include scientists who lack expertise on vaccines and have shared anti-vaccine views, and he has reportedly appointed the son and frequent collaborator of an anti-vaccine activist—one who long promoted false ties between vaccines and autism—to begin examining federal databases for evidence of such a link. Kennedy has long been a prominent advocate of this false conviction. A quarter century ago, the now-discredited British researcher Andrew Wakefield claimed to have discovered a temporal association between administration of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and the onset of autistic symptoms in young children. Thus began a self-perpetuating cycle. The greater the number of parents who decided to refuse the MMR vaccine, the more the news media saw a valid trend story. Only four months after Wakefield published in The Lancet, MMR vaccinations had dropped almost 14 percent in South Wales. The fear soon crossed the Atlantic, and Kennedy himself brought further mainstream attention to the issue in 'Deadly Immunity,' a 2005 article for Rolling Stone and Salon. (Both publications later retracted the story.) Books were written about the supposed danger. Documentaries were made. Protests were held. It's hard to remember now, but up until that time, most people had never heard of autism. Almost overnight, parents everywhere became scared of the word, and scared of what a doctor's needle might mean for their child. This fear had obvious downsides—the stigmatization of autistic people as being 'damaged,' a drop in vaccine uptake broadly, a loss of faith in science, and a sense that something dangerous had been let loose upon the population and especially children. But something constructive came from all the attention to the issue as well. Parent activists jumped on it to pressure Congress to start funding autism research. The money began flowing in earnest in 2006, with a five-year $945 million allocation, and has since reached a total so far of roughly $5 billion, funding university labs and research centers around the U.S. The investment paid off: Autism became better understood. The vaccine question was a top priority out of the gate, and epidemiological research found repeatedly, exhaustively, and emphatically that vaccines do not cause autism. Clearly, however, RFK Jr. is not satisfied. When Kennedy speaks today about autism, it's as though the past 20 years never happened. It's not just about the canard that is being resuscitated. It's the language he uses to talk about what he thinks being autistic means. At a press conference in April, he set off a firestorm in autism communities when he described children with autism as 'kids who will never pay taxes. They'll never hold a job; they'll never play baseball; they'll never write a poem; they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.' Tragedy framing, sorrow inducing—this echoes the 20th-century take on autism, when people with the diagnosis were too often treated as not fully human. Many were subjected to abuse and isolation (often by being institutionalized). After Kennedy received some blowback for his comments, he clarified that he was talking specifically about children on the severest end of the spectrum. Hilliard, the HHS spokesperson, told us that Kennedy 'remains committed to working toward a society where people with autism have access to meaningful opportunities, appropriate supports and the full respect and recognition they deserve.' She said his statements aimed to emphasize 'the need for increased research into environmental factors contributing to the rise in autism diagnoses, not to stigmatize individuals with autism or their families.' Nevertheless, the damage was done. Regardless of his intention, the ways Kennedy speaks about autism seem to miss how, for many, the prevailing narrative has moved on to more human framing, in which autism is not a disease or a tragedy but a difference meriting acceptance and support. His bleak terminology—autism is 'a disease'; it 'destroys families'; 'we need to put an end to it'—has left a mark. Amy Gravino, who is autistic and specializes in sexuality and relationship coaching, told us she felt shattered by Kennedy's comments. 'For the last 20 years, we as a community have fought against the rhetoric that RFK is now spouting,' she said. 'Everything we have tried to do to humanize autistic people has been potentially wiped away in one fell swoop.' Many parents, too, took offense at RFK's flattened portrait of their autistic children as a collection of problems and nothing more. The depiction leaves out everything about these children's worth as people: their capacity for joy, love, and creativity; their inherent dignity. 'If the world uses a lens that is only based on deficits and struggle rather than the complexity and nuance that is a part of any human being, including and especially autistic people, that makes true belonging really hard,' Sara Swoboda, a pediatrician in Boise, Idaho, whose daughter has an autism diagnosis, told us over email. At the INSAR conference, a pediatrician alerted us to concerns spreading among parents about Kennedy's plans to create a 'data platform' for autism. So far, the National Institutes of Health, the agency overseeing the platform, has outlined this project only vaguely, including that it would involve scraping data from all over the digital landscape—from Medicaid claims, private-sector health records, pharmacy chains, insurance billings, and even smartwatches and fitness trackers. It has not gone over well. The pediatrician shared some of the texts she has been getting from contacts around the country reporting that parents of autistic children were calling their health-care providers and pleading with them to scrub references to autism from their kids' medical records. Other parents waiting for assessments for autism were calling in to cancel. When we contacted nearly a dozen doctors and advocates about this matter, they confirmed getting similar requests from parents in their practices and communities. 'People are freaking out, and I don't blame them,' Alycia Halladay, the chief science officer for the Autism Science Foundation, told us. 'For the government to come in with no transparency and say we have the authority to take this data, that is scary to people.' They're scared of lost privacy, of seeing their kids stigmatized, of consequences related to insurance and job discrimination. But in a bigger sense, they don't want their kids marked, and scared of a comeback for those old attitudes about autism. Data collection in itself need not be a source of panic. It is, after all, the currency of epidemiology. It's how the vaccine theory was debunked and how the CDC determines prevalence rates. Usually, methods are put in place to ensure anonymity and ethical disbursement of the data. Hilliard told us that 'all NIH-managed databases follow the highest standards of security and privacy, with the protection of personal health information as a top priority.' Even if there's nothing to fear about this new database, however, good results in science depend on trust. That trust now appears to be at risk. Not everyone thinks Kennedy is getting every part of the story wrong. His clumsily calibrated messaging, though offensive to many, was appreciated by some families who feel seen by the secretary for addressing a segment of the autistic population that still gets minimal attention. These are people whose challenges range from moderate to severe and who, as Kennedy acknowledges, will never achieve real independence. The most challenged—assessed at roughly 27 percent of the autistic population in a 2023 study—are people with IQs below 50 or whose ability in the use of spoken language is minimal to none. Some in this group can also be violent toward themselves, and their inability to understand danger has resulted in their deaths with shocking frequency. They are people who require round-the-clock supervision, Especially for the families of such individuals, there is a deep frustration that most people no longer associate autism with individuals like their kids. Theirs is not the popular autism story. They get little interest from Hollywood, which best likes narratives about autistic people as fundamentally quirky or brilliant. Science hasn't shown much interest either, especially social science, whose practitioners find it easier to study people who can hold a conversation and complete a questionnaire. Additionally, parents who risk sharing details of the struggles at home can end up feeling like they've violated some sort of taboo, facing social-media pile-ons in which they're accused of dehumanizing their children by being explicit about autism's downsides. Kennedy was explicit about the downsides. In response, Amy Lutz, a medical historian and the vice president of the National Council on Severe Autism, wrote an article titled ' RFK Was Right: Severe Autism Can Be Devastating.' Lutz is the mother of an adult autistic man. She argues that Kennedy definitely gets a lot wrong about autism (for example, vaccines), but at least he is 'shining a light on the segment of the autism spectrum that has been increasingly marginalized by a focus on the most capable.' During our last full day at INSAR, we attended a luncheon sponsored by an advocacy organization called Profound Autism Alliance. Seated around three long tables was a group of psychiatrists, psychologists, pediatricians, and educators all involved in serving the marginalized 27 percent. That morning, they had witnessed a milestone in their field: A presentation at the conference had called for formal recognition and definition of profound autism as a new diagnostic category. (How widely this framing will gain acceptance remains to be seen.) Kennedy had no involvement in the presentation, but we asked the group about the health secretary's role in bringing attention to the profoundly autistic. There was, at best, some grudging acknowledgment that he had done so. But the researchers—whom we agreed not to name so they could speak without fear of professional repercussions—were much more concerned about the harm they feared Kennedy is doing, and will do, by parachuting, uninvited, into their realm. The risk, they said, is not just the harm to science, or potentially to their own work or the careers of those just starting out who may now choose something 'not autism' to work on. All of that, they told us, is secondary to the potential harm to autistic people and to those who know and love them. If faulty science takes charge and finds a cause that isn't a cause—such as vaccines—it will imply that the easy next step is finding the antidote to the cause. That is a seriously problematic proposition. For one thing, many diagnosed people say they have no interest in becoming un autistic. For another, a one-and-done remedy for the condition's most debilitating manifestations is, quite simply, a phantom goal. As anyone who has seriously studied autism will tell you, the condition is too complex. As one pediatric neurologist at the profound-autism luncheon put it, 'If I had that magic pill, don't you think I would give it to you?' There is no magic in science, which is why so many researchers think Kennedy's approach is an exercise in false hope. One thing the neurologist knows after years of treating children herself, she told us, is 'there's nothing worse for a family than to be given false hope.'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cardiologists Swear by This Nightly Habit To Reduce Hypertension
Cardiologists Swear by This Nightly Habit To Reduce Hypertension originally appeared on Parade. According to Million Hearts, nearly half of adults (119.9M) have hypertension, which is categorized as a blood pressure of 140/90 or higher. And of that number, only about one in four of them have it under control, according to the CDC. If you have hypertension, then it's likely your doctor has either prescribed lifestyle changes, medication or perhaps a combination of both to lower your blood pressure to a healthier range. Speaking of lifestyle changes, nighttime habits can fall into that category and can potentially make a difference in your blood pressure. Ahead, we spoke with cardiologists about a nightly habit they swear by to reduce hypertension. Hint: you may already be doing it. 🩺SIGN UP for tips to stay healthy & fit with the top moves, clean eats, health trends & more delivered right to your inbox twice a week💊 According to , an interventional cardiologist and regional chief medical officer at VitalSolution and Ingenovis Health, when it comes to reducing hypertension, it can be incredibly helpful to focus on sleep hygiene. "A consistent nightly routine, especially focusing on sleep hygiene, can make a significant difference," Dr. Kalra says. "Sleep plays a crucial role in regulating stress hormones like cortisol and the body's ability to manage these hormones is compromised when sleep-deprived, which can lead to elevated blood pressure." Related: Aside from elevating blood pressure, Dr. Kalra adds that insufficient sleep can also impact other lifestyle choices such as diet and exercise, which can further pose a potential risk to cardiovascular health. According to the National Institute of Health, adults are recommended to get between seven and nine hours of sleep per night. If you're getting less than that, then you're not only putting yourself at risk for hypertension, but also memory issues, headaches, slow reaction times, fatigue, daytime sleepiness, anxiety and depression. Here's how to improve your sleep hygiene: One of the simplest but most effective sleep hygiene rules is to keep your bedroom cool and dark. Our bodies naturally lower in temperature as we fall asleep, so a cooler environment can help signal to your brain that it's time to rest. Darkness is important too: Exposure to light can suppress melatonin production (the hormone that regulates your sleep-wake cycle). Blackout curtains, eye masks and dimming lights an hour before bed can all make a big difference. Dr. Mohanakrishnan Sathyamoorthy, MD, a board-certified cardiologist and chair of internal medicine at Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, says engaging in calming activities before bed may help you get more restful sleep. "Reading a book, listening to calming music, and trying to avoid phone use at bedtime will help ensure not only a good night's sleep, but may have a beneficial and positive impact on blood pressure," Dr. Sathyamoorthy tells Parade. "All of these interventions work by reducing what we call the sympathetic nervous system and help accentuate parasympathetic function which is the resting side of the central nervous system." When it comes to reducing hypertension, the cardiologists we spoke with noted how important it is to watch what you're eating and drinking. For starters, Dr. Kalra recommends steering clear of alcohol and nicotine, especially before bedtime. "Nighttime alcohol can acutely increase nocturnal heart rate, disrupt autonomic regulation and raise morning blood pressure," he says. Aside from alcohol, you'll want to avoid eating heavy meals at night, especially those with high-fat and high-sodium levels as these can disrupt sleep and negatively impact blood pressure. Related: If you're on blood pressure medication, then you'll want to make sure you take it as prescribed, especially if it's an evening medicine. "We cardiologists recommend taking at least one prescribed antihypertensive medication at bedtime rather than in the morning," says Dr. Kalra. "This approach, known as "chronotherapy," is supported by evidence from large randomized trials such as the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, which demonstrated that bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications leads to better nocturnal blood pressure control and a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events compared to morning dosing." If sleeplessness is a persistent issue for you, it could be worth it to see a sleep medicine some cases, there might be an underlying issue contributing to your lack of sleep such as restless leg syndrome, insomnia, or sleep apnea. "If you snore loudly or feel excessively tired during the day, talk to your cardiologist about the possibility of sleep apnea, a condition that can negatively impact blood pressure," says Dr. Kalra. Related:Why You Keep Waking Up in the Middle of the Night—and What Your Body's Trying To Tell You While getting into a sleep hygiene routine may help reduce hypertension, it may not be enough for some people. , board-certified cardiologist and director of clinical cardiology and prevention and wellness at National Jewish Health, says if your blood pressure regularly runs above 130/80 or you're experiencing symptoms like fatigue, vision changes or headaches, then it's time to see a doctor. Up Next:Dr. Andrew M. Freeman, MD, board-certified cardiologist and director of clinical cardiology and prevention and wellness at National Jewish Health Dr. Mohanakrishnan Sathyamoorthy, MD, board-certified cardiologist and chair of internal medicine at Burnett School of Medicine at TCU Dr. Nishant Kalra, MD, an interventional cardiologist and regional chief medical officer at VitalSolution and Ingenovis Health Cardiologists Swear by This Nightly Habit To Reduce Hypertension first appeared on Parade on Jul 5, 2025 This story was originally reported by Parade on Jul 5, 2025, where it first appeared.
Buzz Feed
17 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Best & Worst Hot Dogs Ranked By Nutritionists
OK, so hot dogs aren't the world's healthiest food, but admit it: If they weren't on the menu at summer barbecues, it'd feel like losing a friend. Fortunately, with a growing number of healthier hot dogs hitting supermarket shelves, it's become possible to indulge and still go easy on your body. You just need to know what to look out for. First things first: 'Avoid traditional or ballpark-labeled hot dogs,' Nicole Avena, a New York-based nutrition consultant, told HuffPost. 'These are usually the highest in sodium and contain the most additives and preservatives.' All processed meats are a health risk ― they've been linked to certain types of cancer, like colorectal cancer, because of the way they're preserved. But there are a few types of meat that offer less risk than the standard beef hot dog, Avena said. Look for a label that indicates whole beef, turkey or chicken, as opposed to mechanically processed and separated meats. Another important factor is sodium content. 'Choose hot dogs that have less than 400 mg (or less than 20% of the daily value) of sodium per serving,' said Gretchen Zimmermann, senior director of cardiometabolic care for Vida Health. (The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that adults limit sodium intake to less than 2,300 mg per day.) Other indications of a higher-quality hot dog are if they're uncured and nitrate- and nitrite-free, and have minimal ingredients. 'Overall, uncured chicken or turkey hot dogs would be a better option, because they're usually lower in saturated fat and less processed than beef,' Avena even if the label says 'uncured,' 'no nitrates added' or 'all natural,' it doesn't mean these options are necessarily healthier. Natural preservatives, such as celery powder and celery salt, may sound better, but there's no evidence they're safer, so it's still best to minimize your intake. The same goes for veggie dogs: Choose dogs with minimally processed ingredients, such as tofu, instead of heavily processed soy protein concentrate or isolate. 'An occasional processed veggie dog isn't likely to be harmful, but these soy ingredients haven't been well-studied, so there are still some concerns about their safety,' said Samantha Cassetty, nutrition expert and co-author of Sugar Shock. To save you time scanning nutrition labels, here are the healthiest and the least healthy store-bought hot dogs, according to nutritionists. A healthy beef option: Organic Valley Uncured 100% Beef Hot Dogs 'The Organic Valley hot dogs boast healthy ingredients like organic grass-fed beef, organic spices, garlic and onion powder (although celery powder is used as a preservative),' Zimmermann they're uncured, this makes them your best bet for avoiding high amounts of carcinogens -- and compared to traditional dogs, they're lower in calories, sodium and saturated fat. A healthy beef option: Applegate Naturals Do Good Dog Uncured Beef Hot Dogs Applegate Naturals Do Good Dogs are made with regeneratively sourced beef that's 100% grass-fed. They use just four simple ingredients: beef, water, salt and spices.'You are what you eat, and a healthier diet for the animal you're consuming means a healthier diet for you too,' said Marissa Meshulam, a registered dietitian based in New York City. An unhealthy beef option to avoid: Ball Park Brand Prime Uncured Beef Franks Even though the packaging says 'uncured,' it only takes one glance at the nutrition facts to know these hot dogs aren't the best Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting calories from saturated fat to less than 10% of one's total calories per day to promote heart health. 'A 2,000-calorie diet would equate to less than 20g of saturated fat per day,' Zimmermann said. 'The Ball Park Prime Uncured Beef Franks provides nearly half that amount in one serving.' Even before the bun, ketchup and other salty condiments and accessories are added, these hot dogs pack a whopping 710mg of sodium in one serving, as well as 230 calories, 20g of fat, 9g of saturated fat, 2g of carbohydrates and 9g of protein. Bottom line: Yikes. A healthy pork blend: Applegate Naturals Natural Stadium Beef and Pork Hot Dogs 'Applegate Naturals uses antibiotic-free beef and pork to make these without any preservatives — just natural spices and herbs,' said Amy Shapiro, a New York-based registered dietitian. The franks contain no fillers and no added nitrates or nitrites (except for those naturally occurring in sea salt and celery powder). A healthy pork blend: Seemore La Dolce Beet-a Pork Sausages The pork used to make these sausages is animal welfare-certified, and the dogs themselves are minimally processed. 'Plus, the brand adds fresh beets, garlic and fennel, which further boosts the nutrient content,' Meshulam are no preservatives or phosphates, and the only nitrates or nitrites are those that naturally occur in cultured celery powder and sea salt. An unhealthy pork blend to avoid: Kayem Beef & Pork Hot Dogs These dogs contain a boatload of fat and sodium, as well as corn syrup and dextrose (two types of added sugar), mystery flavorings and preservatives. 'This can indicate the company uses pork byproducts to produce their product, not lean pork or beef,' Avena said. A healthy turkey option: Organic Valley Uncured Pasture-Raised Turkey Hot Dogs These turkey hot dogs are made using meat from animals that have been humanely raised, and the hot dogs are free from fillers and potentially harmful salt sources like sodium nitrates and nitrites, Zimmermann said. They also contain 20% less sodium than the leading organic brand. A healthy turkey option: Applegate Natural Uncured Turkey Hot Dog The turkey dogs from Applegate Farms are as clean as it gets — the turkey is organic and humanely raised with no antibiotics, and the hot dogs themselves contain no fillers or preservatives. 'They simply contain organic turkey and organic spices and herbs,' Shapiro said. 'They're a lean and light option, coming in at 70 calories each with under 4g of fat.' An unhealthy turkey option to avoid: Ball Park Brand White Meat Smoked Turkey Franks Ball Park's turkey franks contain mechanically separated turkey, which, 'to keep it simple, means the meat isn't coming from a good part of the turkey,' Meshulam said. 'It's more likely ground-up bone paste.' They're also loaded with sodium, at almost 600mg per dog. ('That's more than I recommend in a full frozen meal,' Shapiro said.) A healthy chicken option: Applegate Organics Great Organic Uncured Chicken Hot Dog 'This is an excellent choice for a hot dog with just a handful of ingredients, including organic chicken, water, sea salt and spices,' Zimmermann said. 'There are no artificial or naturally occurring nitrate or nitrite sources either, like celery powder, making it one of the best summer grilling hot dog options.' A healthy chicken option: Bilinski's Mild Italian Chicken Sausage with Bell Peppers The line of chicken sausages by Bilinski's are another excellent summer grilling option. 'Not only are they made with only organic chicken breast, water and spices, they're pretty lean,' Meshulam said. The brand's mild Italian option has only 2.5g of fat per dog (0.5g of that being saturated fat) and 13g of protein. An unhealthy chicken option to avoid: Gwaltney Original Chicken Hot Dogs While Gwaltney's chicken dogs are lower in fat, they contain mechanically separated chicken, which means 'you're not just eating chicken meat, but also tendons, veins and skin,' Shapiro said. On top of multiple sodium sources in the ingredients, this hot dog uses 'natural' flavors, which may contain unknown chemicals added during the manufacturing process. 'The word 'natural' isn't regulated by the FDA and can mislead consumers,' Zimmermann said. 'Overall, the high sodium content and long list of ultra-processed ingredients make this chicken dog a no-go.' A healthy vegetarian option: Upton Naturals Updog Vegan Hot Dog This vegan hot dog alternative has a texture similar to meat. 'It contains 19 grams of protein from vital wheat gluten or seitan (the main protein of wheat),' Avena said. 'The limited ingredients and preservatives make it a great meat-free hot dog option.' A healthy vegetarian option: Jack & Annie's Jackfruit Sausages Many 'not dogs' out there contain iffy ingredients (like soy protein isolate), inflammatory oils (canola) and lots of stabilizers and additives to make them taste good. 'While they're 100% better for the environment, they're still very processed products and may not be that much better for your health,' Meshulam said. Instead, go for a real plant-based protein (like tofu, beans or legumes). Jack & Annie's Jackfruit Sausages, for instance, are made with a base of jackfruit — a plant that eats like your favorite meat — and prepared with natural seasonings. An unhealthy vegetarian option to avoid: Lightlife Smart Dogs To make these non-meat dogs taste like meat, Lightlife uses a lot of processed ingredients, including soy protein isolate, 'a very processed and broken-down form [of] soy I tell my clients to avoid,' Shapiro said. 'They also use three different sweeteners, soy and canola oil, guar gum and xanthum gums, too — so many ingredients that cause inflammation in the body.' What if your favorite hot dog is one of the 'unhealthy' options listed above? If any of your go-to dogs made the 'steer clear' list, it doesn't mean you have to ghost them. 'Going to barbecues and eating less healthy foods are part of living a joy-filled life,' Cassetty advice? If you feel that no family barbecue is complete without a Ball Park frank in your hand, then have one and enjoy. Just don't make hot dogs a way of life.'The occasional hot dog at a barbecue when you're otherwise eating a mostly healthy diet isn't going to wreck your health,' Cassetty said. 'So pick the one you'll enjoy and be mindful of your diet as a whole.'
