Latest news with #MAHA
Fast Company
9 hours ago
- Automotive
- Fast Company
EPA seeks to repeal ‘holy grail' finding for climate regulation
IMPACT The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants, and more pollution sources. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin attends a Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Event in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, May 22, 2025, in Washington. [Photo: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File] BY Associated Press Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 0:00 President Donald Trump 's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Subscribe to the Daily Company's trending stories delivered to you every day Privacy Policy | Fast Company Newsletters Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. 'There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,' Zeldin said. 'They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.' The EPA proposal must go though a lengthy review process, including public comment, before it is finalized, likely next year. Environmental groups are likely to challenge the rule change in court. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what he said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also is expected to call for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental groups said Zeldin's action denies reality as weather disasters exacerbated by climate change continue in the U.S. and around the world. 'As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat,' said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'It boggles the mind and endangers the nation's safety and welfare.' Under Zeldin and Trump, 'the EPA wants to shirk its responsibility to protect us from climate pollution, but science and the law say otherwise,' she added. 'If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court.' advertisement Three former EPA leaders have also criticized Zeldin, saying his March announcement targeting the endangerment finding and other rules imperiled the lives of millions of Americans and abandoned the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the NRDC, accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.' Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force, said the Trump administration 'is using pollution regulations as a scapegoat in its flawed approach to energy affordability' and reliability. He and other advocates 'are dismayed that an administration that claims it cares about cleaner, healthier and safer air is seeking to dismantle the very protections that are required for those conditions,' Schneider said. —Matthew Daly, Associated Press The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. Explore Topics Climate change Donald Trump EPA global warming greenhouse gas emissions pollution
NDTV
13 hours ago
- Health
- NDTV
US Mother Of Five Earns Rs 87,000 Monthly Selling Breast Milk
Emily Enger, a 33-year-old from Minnesota, is earning around (Rs 86,959) $1,000 monthly by supplying excess breast milk to supplement her regular income. She is a mother of five, and after each feeding, she pumps extra milk, bags it, and stores it in her freezer, not for her own children, but for sale to strangers. Ms Enger is part of a growing number of American mothers who are selling breast milk, driven by a cultural shift towards breastfeeding. The change in recent years has been marked by the rise of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has batted for mothers to breastfeed infants instead of relying on baby formulas. Social media has also played a role, with influencers also inspiring mothers to embrace breastfeeding publicly. The once-popular "fed is best" mantra has largely been replaced by "breast is best," reflecting growing awareness of breast milk's benefits. While breastfeeding has caught on, not all mothers can produce enough milk. Challenges such as short maternity leaves, medication and health complications mean the mothers have to seek alternatives. This is where the likes of Ms Enger come into the picture. One such customer is Briana Westland, 36, from Fort Lauderdale, a new mother, who is spending close to $1,200 monthly on breast milk for her four-month-old daughter, prioritising its nutritional quality over formula. "I was formula fed, most of my friends were,' Ms Westland told The Times. 'I think our parents were told it was just as good, but now we're questioning that. Formula has so many ingredients in it that we are only now starting to really scrutinise.' 'Oversupplier' Since Ms Enger is an oversupplier, she sometimes pumps 80-100 extra ounces daily. Up until now, she has sold thousands of ounces of breastmilk to her clients. "At first I thought 'I have this milk sitting there in the freezer, I might as well just give it away'," Ms Enger said. "But then I thought, well you go to the store and you buy a gallon of milk or you go to the store and you buy formula. You can't go into a hair salon, for example, and expect a free haircut. "Time and, literally, energy has gone into producing milk. That should be valued." With the stigma around breastmilk vanished, capitalism has also stepped in. In March, Frida, a popular baby brand in the US, announced that it was launching a breast milk-flavoured ice cream to celebrate the release of its 2-in-1 manual breast pump.
Newsweek
13 hours ago
- Health
- Newsweek
The Bulletin July 29, 2025
The rundown: Launched in early 2025, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aims to combat childhood chronic disease through food policy reforms. Why it matters: While early signs suggest U.S. obesity may be plateauing, experts credit GLP‑1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic—not MAHA—for the trend. Critics warn the administration risks taking credit for changes driven by pharmaceutical breakthroughs, not policy. MAHA's efforts, such as banning food dyes and urging soda recipe changes, lack regulatory force and may distract from structural reforms. Simultaneously, federal cuts to health programs undercut its goals. Read more in-depth coverage: Ozempic Could Change Births in America TL/DR: "The intention of what RFK Jr. wants in this area is good," said Dr. Robert Klitzman, professor of psychiatry and director of the bioethics program at Columbia University. What happens now? Experts say meaningful change requires balancing prevention with treatment and worry that misattributing success could undermine long-term public health strategy. Deeper reading America's Obesity Epidemic Is Finally Easing. Will MAHA Take Credit?
Newsweek
18 hours ago
- Health
- Newsweek
America's Obesity Epidemic Is Finally Easing. Will MAHA Take Credit?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative launched in early 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. framed it as nothing short of a national reset. School meal reforms, bans on artificial dyes and restrictions on sugary drink purchases under SNAP were promoted as the first steps in addressing what Kennedy called a "childhood chronic disease crisis." The administration projected measurable progress within two years: a nation reversing decades of rising obesity. But the first signs of change had already appeared. In 2023, national data showed adult obesity plateauing for the first time in more than a decade. An analysis of 16.7 million health records found the average U.S. body mass index (BMI) dipping slightly from 30.24 to 30.21, while the unweighted obesity rate fell from 46.0 percent to 45.6 percent. Researchers credited one factor: a surge in prescriptions for GLP‑1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. That timeline sets up a political and scientific tension, according to experts consulted by Newsweek. If obesity rates keep dropping into 2026 and beyond, MAHA's policy agenda could be positioned to claim credit for a trend largely driven by pharmaceutical breakthroughs that predate it. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva/ChatGPT 'Good Intentions' "The intention of what RFK Jr. wants in this area is good," said Dr. Robert Klitzman, professor of psychiatry and director of the bioethics program at Columbia University. "In terms of improving Americans' diets and fighting chronic disease, his stated intentions are good. But I'm not convinced the administration will act effectively on those intentions." Klitzman pointed to contradictions between MAHA's public messaging and broader Trump administration policy. While MAHA emphasizes banning dyes, swapping out cane sugar for high-fructose corn syrup and cutting sugary drinks from public programs, the administration has simultaneously cut federal nutrition research, reduced SNAP benefits and eliminated CDC environmental health programs. "The president's proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget would cut more than $18 billion in NIH research funding, 40 percent of the budget," the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) warned in a June 2025 report. "In addition, the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice at the CDC was eliminated as part of a widespread reduction in force of 10,000 employees across HHS." "Good intentions are not enough," Klitzman said. "The real impact on public health remains unclear." Kennedy's high-profile food policy moves—such as urging Coca-Cola to switch back to cane sugar—illustrate the risk. "If people think, 'Oh, we got rid of the food dyes, now junk food is healthy,' they may actually consume more unhealthy food," Klitzman said. "Replacing high-fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn't make a product healthier if the calorie count is the same." Research backs this up: FDA and JAMA studies show cane sugar and HFCS have nearly identical metabolic effects when consumed in similar amounts. A 2022 meta-analysis found no significant difference in weight or blood markers between the two. A stock image shows a person holding Ozempic Insulin injection pens for diabetes/ weight loss. A stock image shows a person holding Ozempic Insulin injection pens for diabetes/ weight loss. getty images The GLP‑1 Surge Experts widely agree that the modest nationwide weight-loss trend so far stems from the pharmacological innovation of GLP‑1 drugs, not health policy. Prescriptions for medications like Ozempic rose nearly 600 percent between 2019 and 2024, with roughly 4 percent of U.S. adults using them as of last year, according to FAIR Health/IQVIA data. "GLP‑1s are already showing real results," said Dr. Raj Dasgupta, chief medical advisor at Garage Gym Reviews. "Banning additives or restricting sugary drinks sends a message, sure, but on their own they're unlikely to move the needle in a big way." For dietitians like Dasgupta, GLP‑1 medications delivered what the U.S. had lacked for decades: a treatment that not only helped patients lose weight but also improved key health markers. Clinical trials show users can lose 15 to 25 percent of their body weight while also improving blood sugar control, lowering blood pressure and boosting cardiovascular health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Washington DC, May 14, 2025. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Washington DC, May 14, 2025. Aaron Schwartz/Sipa via AP Images Yet the surge of Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy has reframed weight loss as a medical intervention—but one largely limited to those who can afford it. Users often regain weight once they stop treatment, and with prices ranging from $1,000 to $1,400 a month and patchy insurance coverage, access remains out of reach for many. In a country where 42 percent of adults live with obesity—a rate that has nearly doubled since the 1980s—the arrival of a drug that actually works is hard to ignore. But Dasgupta warned of a policy risk if future improvements are credited to MAHA's incremental measures. "If obesity rates drop because of GLP‑1 use, but we claim it's because of soda taxes or additive bans, we double down on the wrong things. That kind of misalignment can set us back." Aviva Musicus, science director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told Newsweek the pattern is already emerging. "RFK Jr. recently posted that 'MAHA is winning' in response to a fast-food chain switching to cane sugar in sodas," she said. Studies consistently show sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to higher risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, regardless of the sweetener source, according to the CDC. "Sugary drinks are one of the most harmful products in our food supply. To actually improve health, the administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar," Musicus added. MAHA's emphasis on prevention has merit, experts say, but its impact will take years to measure. "Prevention takes time—15 to 20 years to see real results," Dr. John Magaña Morton, professor of bariatric surgery at Yale, told Newsweek. "In the meantime, what do we do for patients suffering now? That's where treatment comes in. You need both prevention and treatment. It's like love and marriage—you can't have one without the other." Morton noted that severe obesity (defined as a BMI over 40) continues to rise even as overall rates plateau. "The new drugs are paradigm-shifting, but about 20 percent of patients can't tolerate them or don't see results," he said. "Not everyone wants surgery either. We need metabolic centers to figure out who's most at risk and what other approaches work." A stock image of an obese man seated in a crowd outdoors, August 26, 2016. Obesity rates vary significantly across the U.S., with the highest rates in the Midwest and South. A stock image of an obese man seated in a crowd outdoors, August 26, 2016. Obesity rates vary significantly across the U.S., with the highest rates in the Midwest and South. Richard T. Nowitz/Getty Images Setting Up a Future Claim To be sure, Kennedy hasn't explicitly claimed credit for the national weight-loss trend. But MAHA's framing—that its policies will "end the chronic disease epidemic" within years—positions the initiative to take a victory lap if obesity rates decline during its tenure. That's exactly what worries experts. "It's very risky," Klitzman said. "If we credit the wrong things, we risk building future policy on shaky ground. We can't afford to misread what's actually helping people." Musicus shared the same concern. "So far, we haven't seen MAHA use policy to drive real improvements in the food system. Instead, it's leaned on voluntary industry commitments that have failed before," she said. Many of MAHA's pledges—like altering soda recipes—aren't enforceable regulations and historically have had little measurable impact. "If they start taking credit for GLP‑1-driven declines without making structural changes, we risk losing the chance to create lasting, meaningful improvements." CSPI also questioned the administration's approach. "Even when the report outlines a good idea—like increasing consumption of whole, unprocessed foods—the administration's actions since January are at odds with these ideas," the group noted. "Back in March, the administration terminated more than $1 billion in funding that helped small farmers put fresh, local food into schools and food banks." For Morton, the solution lies in balance. "Obesity is a health tax on everything," he said. "We are finally paying attention, which is good. But this is going to require a multi-pronged approach, not a single narrative about who gets the credit." With the MAHA Commission set to release its next policy recommendations in August, the stakes are high: the story America tells itself about reversing obesity could shape public health strategy for decades. A March 2025 JAMA Health Forum article raised similar concerns. "The MAHA commission's priorities depart from the known causes of chronic diseases," it said. "There is no mention of added sugars in food, reducing sodium intake, or the use of alcohol or tobacco. Instead, the charge includes issues that contribute in limited ways, rest on shaky evidence, or reflect the Secretary's long-held views."
Calgary Herald
a day ago
- Health
- Calgary Herald
Pop is in the spotlight yet again. This time, for its ability to disrupt gut bacteria and immunity
Pop has been a hot topic over the past few weeks. First, U.S. President Donald Trump waded into MAHA — Make America Healthy Again — waters by saying Coca-Cola was swapping high-fructose corn syrup for cane sugar. 'It's just better!' he posted on social media. (Health experts say it's not. There's no nutritional difference between the two.) Article content Drinking pop has long been linked to adverse health effects, such as obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Added sugars (whatever their source) are the primary culprit, yet 'diet sodas, which have been found to increase hunger and disrupt metabolism, are not any better,' according to UCLA Health. A new study suggests another pop-consumption concern: sugary drinks disrupt gut bacteria and immunity. Article content Article content Article content But it's not all doom and gloom, say researchers from the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. The study published in Nature Communications found that though drinking pop sweetened with white sugar alters the DNA of gut bacteria and affects the immune system, once sugar consumption stops, the impacts are reversible. Article content Article content 'Gut bacteria are important members of the microbial community within our body, i.e., the microbiome. These bacteria, which have co-evolved with humans for generations, are so essential to human health in general and to the development of the immune system in particular that we cannot function without them,' says a press release about the research. Article content Studies have shown that diet influences microbiome composition and overall functionality, write the researchers, led by professor Naama Geva-Zatorsky and Ph.D. student Noa Gal-Mandelbaum. In contrast, research on the impact of what we eat on the functionality of specific gut bacteria is 'relatively scarce.' Article content Article content The current research builds on a previous study by the Geva-Zatorsky Lab, which identified DNA inversions ('rapid genetic switches') as one way gut bacteria respond to and protect themselves when facing environmental changes. To understand how dietary factors affect these inversions, the study focused on Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. Article content Article content The researchers say that this 'prominent gut member' plays a role in preventing gut inflammation, preserving its mucus layer and protecting the body from pathogens. By studying the effects of different dietary components on the bacteria's DNA, in vitro, in mice and in humans, the researchers found that white sugar consumption created DNA inversions, which impacted the immune system. Article content 'The main dietary components correlating with DNA inversions contained different types of carbohydrates. The most notable one was soft drinks containing white sugar,' according to the study.
