Publix recalls baby food pouches after testing finds elevated levels of lead
Publix recalled 4-ounce Greenwise Pear, Kiwi, Spinach & Pea Baby Food pouches sold at more than 1,400 stores.
The pouches were produced by Bowman Andros, a French company with a manufacturing plant in Mount Jackson, Virginia, according to the company's website. Publix issued the voluntary recall on May 9, but it wasn't added to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recall list until late Thursday.
The potential contamination was flagged by officials in North Carolina, the state that first identified a 2023 lead poisoning outbreak linked to tainted applesauce pouches that sickened more than 500 U.S. children.
Routine sampling of the baby food pouches found lead levels at 13.4 parts per billion, according to North Carolina agriculture officials. That exceeds the FDA's recommended limit of 10 parts per billion for such products intended for babies and young children.
Publix said all the potentially contaminated products have been removed from store shelves. No illnesses have been reported, the company said. Customers can return the pouches to local stores for full refund.
This is the second baby food pouch recall because of potential lead contamination in two months. In March, Target recalled more than 25,000 packages of its store brand Good & Gather Baby Pea, Zucchini, Kale & Thyme Vegetable Puree because of elevated lead levels.
In 2023, state health officials investigated reports of lead poisoning in four children who consumed WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit puree. Those findings led to the detection of a nationwide outbreak linked to the pouches, which were widely sold in Dollar Tree and other stores. Tests showed they contained lead at levels 2,000 times higher than the FDA's maximum recommended level, as well as chromium.
Federal health officials eventually identified 566 cases of confirmed, probable or suspected cases of lead poisoning tied to the pouches in 44 states.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's childhood lead poisoning program investigated the applesauce outbreak and coordinated state and federal response. However, the program was eliminated in April as part of federal funding cuts under the Trump administration.
CDC officials didn't say whether or how the agency would respond to a similar outbreak now. A spokesperson said the agency is aware of the Publix baby food recall but hasn't been asked to assist with any investigation.
There is no safe level of lead exposure, according to CDC. While the heavy metal is toxic to people of all ages, it can be especially harmful to children, causing damage to the brain and nervous system and slow growth and development.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
9 minutes ago
- Axios
More pharma giants embrace direct-to-consumer sales
Drugmakers are increasingly using telehealth platforms to sell their medicines directly to patients — and President Trump is pushing for more companies to get into the game. Why it matters: Direct-to-consumer sales require only a few mouse clicks, often without the need to manage appointments or insurance forms. Online sales can also bypass pharmacy middlemen, in theory lowering prices and providing more transparency into what patients have to pay. But there are tradeoffs, like the prospect of overprescribing or manufacturers steering patients toward expensive name-brand drugs. Driving the news: Trump on Thursday sent letters to the CEOs of 17 pharmaceutical companies, demanding they bring down U.S. prices within 60 days. The requirements include providing direct-to-consumer or direct-to-business drug purchasing models for certain products. Several pharma giants have already committed to these models or are exploring them, in part driven by the surging popularity of GLP-1 drugs that are expensive and often not covered by insurance. Eli Lilly last year became the first pharmaceutical company to launch a direct-to-consumer health care platform for its diabetes, obesity, migraine and select other medications. Pfizer and Novo Nordisk have since launched their own direct sales models, and the CEO of Roche said last month that the company is considering something similar for U.S. patients. In the first quarter of this year, about 25% of new prescriptions for Lilly's weight-loss drug Zepbound were fulfilled through LillyDirect, per a spokesperson. Consumer health companies like Hims & Hers have also helped popularize the concept among patients. How it works: Lilly's and Pfizer's DTC models start with virtual visits with independent practitioners working with telehealth platforms, who can — but are not obligated to — prescribe medicines in each company's program. Patients can then order medications directly from the company, and can often arrange to have them delivered to their homes. Some drugs on Lilly's DTC platform, including vials of Zepbound, are only available for patients who pay cash, which streamlines the process. Patients can use their commercial insurance for other drugs. Novo Nordisk's platform doesn't include the telehealth appointment but allows cash-paying patients who take GLP-1 drug Wegovy to have their prescription sent directly to the company. Patients can qualify for a lower price for the drug and home delivery. The other side: Direct-to-consumer models run the risk of pushing drugs on patients who may not need them, Adam Brown, a physician and health care strategist, wrote in a September op-ed in MedPage Today. Pharmacy benefit managers, who serve as intermediaries between health plans and the manufacturers, also want to temper enthusiasm for the new systems and claim they can save more. "PBMs want lower prices on every drug for every patient, and direct to consumer channels may provide one more way for some patients to gain access to some medications," Greg Lopes, vice president of public affairs and communications for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, said in an email. "In most cases however, patients will spend less out of pocket and face fewer safety concerns when their medications are delivered through their prescription drug benefits at their pharmacies and with their doctors involved." The intrigue: While Trump is pushing direct-to-consumer drug sales, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been interested in limiting pharmaceutical companies' ability to advertise to consumers. Health and Human Services is "exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," spokesperson Emily Hilliard told Axios.
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
‘It's just PR': Skittles, Hershey and Nestle are removing artificial colors
The Trump administration declared victory after Kraft Heinz, Skittles and General Mills made splashy announcements to remove artificial colors — even taking credit for Coca-Cola's plan to replace high-fructose corn syrup with US cane sugar in a new version this fall. 'President Trump delivers on MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) push,' the White House said last month, touting the companies' changes to 'confront the chronic health crisis plaguing Americans.' But nutritionists and public health researchers don't buy the hype. So far, companies have only made performative changes, they say, many of which were long in the works due to consumer demand for natural ingredients. Meanwhile, the administration's funding cuts for health care, food stamps, research and public health programs run contrary to its goal of making Americans healthier. 'These are cosmetic changes with no health impact. They just allow the MAHA people to say they had a victory,' said Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. 'It's just PR.' Health advocates do credit Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Department secretary, and his MAHA movement for bringing attention to unhealthy foods, chronic disease and major companies' influence on the food system in America. But researchers say Kennedy's focus on synthetic dyes misses the larger problem of the prevalence of cheap, convenient foods loaded with salt, sugar and fat. Ice cream is still ice cream and soda is still soda, even without artificial flavors, Popkin said. A spokesperson for the HHS said Kennedy is 'dismantling the status quo that fueled a nationwide chronic disease epidemic' and 'eliminating bureaucracy and restoring integrity to federal health programs.' 'HHS is confronting the root causes of chronic illness that previous administrations were too timid to address,' the spokesperson added. But for Kennedy and the administration to make a substantive impact on Americans' diets, researchers say they will have to implement policies that tightly regulate ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods account for up to 70% of the US food supply, and include many popular brands of chips, cookies, candy, ice cream and pre-made meals. Studies have frequently linked them to obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other health disorders. Kennedy has called the easy availability of these foods a 'crisis,' and oversaw the White House's Make America Healthy Again Commission report released in May that identifies ultraprocessed foods as a key contributor to a national rise in chronic illnesses — particularly among children. The agency has yet to enact any significant measures to cut down on ultraprocessed foods. 'Right now, they're not going after the real food culprit,' Popkin said. 'If Kennedy does anything significant on ultraprocessed foods, it will be hugely important for health.' Synthetic dyes, made from petroleum, are often used to make food and beverages brightly colored and appealing to customers, especially children. But they have potential negative effects on animal and human health, including possible increased risk of cancer and neurobehavioral issues in some children. In January, the US Food and Drug Administration banned red dye No. 3 in food, beverages and ingested drugs. Kennedy has been pressuring food companies to voluntarily remove all food dyes from their products. But many have been moving away from synthetic dyes for years due to pressure from consumers, health advocates and bans or restrictions in states like California, Virginia and West Virginia. For example, both Kraft Heinz and General Mills — which the administration recently celebrated for pledging to remove synthetic colors — have already removed the additives from most of their products. '(As) much as I love the idea of getting rid of artificial colors, doing so is a nutritionally meaningless way of giving compliant junk foods the aura of health foods,' said Dr. Marion Nestle, an emeritus professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University. Roughly 64% of consumers now actively look for snacks perceived as 'good for them,' a figure that has increased sharply in recent years, according to market research firm Circana. Yogurt, cheeses and foods and drinks with protein have proliferated due to their nutritional appeal. This is also not the first time companies have made voluntary pledges to remove artificial dyes from their products. But many have backtracked on their commitments. 'We hope industry will voluntarily improve the food supply this time around,' said Aviva Musicus, the science director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. 'There has to be a plan to hold industry accountable for when they inevitably don't cooperate. I haven't seen that for this administration.' The Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing major food, beverage and household product companies, did not respond directly to this criticism. But the group pointed to an April statement that said the industry has 'always prioritized transparency and it will continue to lead the way to ensure consumers have the information they want and need to make informed purchasing decisions.' And slapping foods with a broad definition of ultraprocessed may result in 'demonizing safe, shelf-ready foods' that will limit consumers' access to nutritious foods, the group said. While HHS focuses on food additives, many of the Trump administration's other policies weaken government efforts to improve the food supply and Americans' health, critics say. Trump's sweeping tax and spending cuts package is expected to leave 10 million more people without health insurance in 2034, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. More than 22 million families will lose some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, according to the Urban Institute. The law eliminated funding for programs that offer cooking classes and nutrition education for SNAP recipients, and the Agriculture Department cut two pandemic-era programs that help schools and food banks buy from local farmers. 'While MAHA leadership celebrates hollow wins, we've seen the federal government cut SNAP benefits for millions of Americans, rip millions from their health insurance coverage (and) slash programs to help farmers bring local foods into schools,' Musicus said. The administration is not just cutting health care and food benefits — it also slashed billions in research funding and fired thousands of employees at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and other agencies. The top nutrition researcher at NIH, who focused on studying ultraprocessed foods, left the agency, citing censorship under Kennedy. (HHS previously denied the claims.) These research cuts and layoffs may make it impossible to enact stricter rules or investigate the food industry, said Dr. Jerold Mande, an adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a senior policy official in the Obama and Clinton administrations. 'They've also lost tens of thousands of people across government to do these investigations,' he said. At the same time, some health experts are hopeful Kennedy will seize on political momentum to make major policy changes to improve Americans' diets. 'I do give RFK Jr. a lot of credit for making chronic disease caused by our food, principally obesity, a political priority,' Mande said. 'I give them an incomplete in terms of what they're going to do about it.' In August, the MAHA Commission will release the second report on its strategy for improving childhood chronic obesity. Advocates will be looking to see if the report signals the administration may try to mandate front-of-package warning labels or crack down on marketing junk food to children. The report may also provide clues to whether the administration will create dietary guidelines with recommendations for limits to ultraprocessed foods. These would be major moves, but they may clash with the administration's deregulatory agenda. 'People are right to question what the lasting policy change is going to be,' Mande said, noting that removing artificial colors matters only if Kennedy is 'laying the groundwork to take on ultraprocessed food broadly.' CNN's Kristen Rogers contributed to this article.
CBS News
40 minutes ago
- CBS News
New Medicaid federal work requirements mean less leeway for states
When President Trump signed a law adding work requirements for some Medicaid recipients, he may have undercut lawmakers in at least 14 states who were designing their own plans, according to health industry observers. Georgia is the only state with a work requirement in place for Medicaid, but several states have been pursuing such a policy for years, only to be blocked by courts or, most recently, the Biden administration. Some seek state-specific touches to the new rules. Others aim to implement work requirements before the federal law takes effect at the end of 2026. These states' moves and Mr. Trump's massive tax-and-spending law share one demand: To keep their Medicaid health coverage, adults who can work must prove they're logging a minimum number of hours at a job or school, or else qualify for one of the few exemptions. But now, states that jumped ahead need to ensure their proposals, which require federal approval, don't stray too far from Mr. Trump's law. "The statute sets both the floor and ceiling" for work requirements, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor with George Washington University. South Dakota, for example, announced in July that it would not submit an application for work requirements as previously planned amid concerns that the state's laxer rules would not be allowed under the new federal law. The state's Department of Social Services secretary had warned that working on a state proposal while the federal rules are being hashed out could be "an exercise in futility." Arkansas' plan, on the other hand, is more stringent than the federal law. There are no exemptions to its work requirements in the application, which is pending with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Arizona's proposal also includes something that's not in the federal law: a ban on "able-bodied adults" receiving Medicaid benefits for longer than five years total in their lives. Arkansas and Arizona government officials said they were working with federal officials to square their plans with the new standards. Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the department is analyzing how the new federal standards interact with state waivers. The federal health department must release rules by next June that outline how states are to implement work requirements, according to Elizabeth Hinton, who has been tracking such waivers as part of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. "We don't exactly know what that will cover," Hinton said. It's unclear how federal officials will respond to the states' requests, she added, but "we are aware that some folks think there is no wiggle room here." States can tweak their Medicaid programs through what are known as demonstration waivers, which are subject to federal approval. The waivers are designed to test new ideas in policy gray areas. The states that have filed or plan to file such applications with work requirements include Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Congressional Republicans who passed the budget reconciliation bill left room for states to use waivers to fast-track the national standards. Tara Sklar, a professor leading the University of Arizona's Health Law & Policy Program, said she expects states seeking certain stricter requirements to have a chance of approval, while more lenient ones may face denials. Federal officials may look favorably on Arizona's plan, Sklar said, as a five-year lifetime Medicaid limit is different from work requirements. Even if the federal government greenlights stricter work requirements than the federal law calls for, those programs are likely to face legal challenges, she added. The federal law includes an 80-hour-per-month minimum for work or education, with exemptions for certain adults, including people who are medically frail and parents with young, dependent children. Montana is the first state to draft a waiver application since Congress finalized national work requirements. State lawmakers first approved work requirements — called "community engagement" standards under the state plan — in 2019, but the state's application stalled through the end of the first Trump term and the Biden administration. After Mr. Trump was elected again, Montana lawmakers lifted the 2025 expiration date of its Medicaid expansion program, making permanent the program that covered more than 76,000 adults in April, with the expectation that the Trump administration would approve work requirements. In mid-July, state officials released their draft plan to make that a reality "as soon as is practicable." The Montana plan largely aligns with the federal law, but it would create additional exemptions, including for people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence. Republican state Sen. Gayle Lammers said work requirements that also protect such people who need Medicaid were a big part of persuading legislators to keep the expansion program. At the time, officials didn't know where the federal government would land on work requirements. And now, Lammers said, it makes sense for Montana to stick to its plan. "The state should have a say," Lammers said. "We're very independent, and everyone is different." In South Carolina, state officials are seeking to roll out work requirements for a limited number of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. South Carolina is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and yet the state submitted a request with the federal government in June for a partial Medicaid expansion that includes a work requirement component that largely reflects the new federal standards. In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called South Carolina's proposal "a state-specific solution." The only state with an active work requirement program now wants to scale it back and awaits federal approval to do so. "Georgia Pathways to Coverage" expires at the end of September unless CMS greenlights an extension of the program with a key change: requiring enrollees to document once a year that they're working, not monthly. That's a pivot away from the program's initial design but also differs from the new federal rules, which call for checks every six months. Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for Georgia's Medicaid agency, said the state is still waiting to hear whether it needs to alter its plan. So Georgia is among the states in limbo, awaiting guidance from the federal government. KFF Health News correspondents Sam Whitehead and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
