end of the month roundup: April 2025
spotlight on food safety and the impact of haphazard workforce reductions on food and health
It’s been one of those months where every time I tried to put pen to paper for this Substack, I’d get halfway through writing a piece (on tariffs, let’s say) and then the administration would reverse course in some way. Honestly, I couldn’t keep up! So thank you for your patience this April - let’s get into some of the biggest headlines of the last few weeks in the food and health world…
The Impact of HHS Workforce Reductions
Got (Safe) Milk?
A recent slew of workforce cuts across U.S. health agencies has led to the (hopefully temporary) halting of a handful of drug and food testing programs. In an internal note viewed by Reuters, the Food and Drug Administration is “suspending a quality control program for testing of fluid milk and other dairy products due to reduced capacity in its food safety and nutrition division.”
Food safety testing is just one of the many areas taking a hit due to the workforce reduction of an estimated 20,000 Health and Human Services (HHS) employees (of which the FDA sits under). Roughly half of those are layoffs and the other half are early retirements and voluntary separation offers. For scale, that’s about one-third of HHS’ entire workforce exiting in a short period of time. Role reductions included the dismissal of many doctors, researchers, scientists, support staff and other senior leaders.
The Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) Proficiency Testing (PT) Program spans 170 labs that test our food supply in order to prevent contamination and food-borne illnesses. As a result of this administration’s funding and workforce cuts, some of the axed testing programs include:
A program to improve testing for bird flu in milk, cheese, and pet food
Pathogen testing for the parasite Cyclospora in spinach, which according to the FDA, is generally transmitted when infected feces contaminate food or water and can cause digestive and bowel issues.
Pesticide testing for glyphosate in barley (aka, the chemical in Roundup), known to increase risk of some cancers and cause reproductive abnormalities according to scientific studies
Salmonella and poultry
Another area of food safety that appears to be moving backwards is the FDA’s withdrawal of the proposed rule published in August of 2024 titled “Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products” (89 FR 64678). This proposed rule, which was open for public comment through January 2025, was originally intended to develop a better framework and standards around food safety practices to reduce salmonella spread in poultry at the processing level. And with Salmonella responsible for an estimated 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths in the United States every year, according to the CDC, the framework was a step in the right direction. The abrupt decision to pull back the final rule without much clarity as to why, feels abrupt.
Esteemed nutritionist and public health advocate Marion Nestle writes:
“This is an extremely disappointing decision…Salmonella is not normal, contamination is preventable, and the industry ought to be doing that. The USDA’s 2021 proposal to declare Salmonella an adulterant was a major step in making food safer. This decision is a major setback.”
A Blow to Ultra Processed Food Research
This month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the country’s medical research agency under HHS, saw the departure of Kevin Hall, one of the leading researchers of ultra processed foods. Hall cited censorship as the main driver of his departure, which he shared on his personal social media.
“Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science. Specifically, I experienced censorship in the reporting of our research because of agency concerns that it did not appear to fully support preconceived narratives of my agency’s leadership about ultra-processed food addiction.”
Hall has conducted some of the most indisputable research on ultra processed foods, most notably one study which for the first time ever, demonstrated that ultra processed foods cause people to overeat (and thus linking these foods to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions). Prior to his research, that linkage was only speculated.
What does this mean
While I cannot enumerate here the full extent of the impacts of these workforce reductions (e.g., critical CDC programs covering topics such as HIV testing have been crippled, let alone what the chaos of the mass exodus of individuals will do to any work environment), what I do know is that it seems a bit counter to Trump’s promise of “radical transparency” in his administration. The phrase has been used frequently, but notably in discussions about wasteful spending and healthcare pricing. But there seems to be clear cherry-picking as to what this administration will be transparent about.
To me, an American consumer, I want radical transparency to mean that I can trust the food supply I am, quite frankly, a bit wary of. To me it means our food should be tested early and often so that when issues do arise, treatment can be proactive versus reactive. Those are the areas we need investment in. The same goes for research on how the foods in our food supply impact human health. Censoring researchers if their findings do not align with political agendas is simply wrong and alarming. And not radically transparent.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments - do you feel that the government should be doing more around food safety? I want to hear from you!