Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

RFK Jr. is wrecking public health — but we can (and will) survive this

News Feed
Sunday, April 13, 2025

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox. Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought. For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often.  Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations. But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing. “Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.” This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments. It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation.  Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making. And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid. Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.” Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.” Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.” In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.” Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore? “As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.” To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further. “There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’” None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.” Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.” “The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email. Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said. “Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.” Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.” Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling. “The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.” In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.” If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment. “Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.” Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks. “It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.” As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally. “As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.” Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it. “It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.” Read more about public health

There really is a way to make America healthy again. It's just not Kennedy's way

The greatest invention of the Industrial Age isn’t the iPhone or lithium-ion batteries or even the internal combustion engine — it’s public health. Unfortunately for our “see it to believe it” culture, public health works best when it’s practically invisible, just humming along in the background. Thus, there are few things Westerners take for granted more than reduced child mortality, reduced death in child birth and the eradication of history’s most brutal diseases like polio and smallpox.

Thankfully, very few of us know what it’s like to grow up with half our siblings dying from relatively minor infections or experiencing life-long disability from surviving an epidemic. Those days are behind us — or so some of us thought.

For anyone paying the slightest attention, it’s clear our global society is quickly devolving, reverting back to a time before antibiotics and widespread sanitation. It sounds extreme, but little else would explain the fixation on raw milk, for example. A combination of engrained ignorance and political interests is eroding the foundation of something that made our capitalist society possible in the first place. It’s hard to build an international trade empire if your customers are too sick to work or die often. 

Because we are so many generations removed from the people who coughed up bloody bits of the Black Death, it’s understandable human nature why so many of us refuse to acknowledge COVID-19 is a serious illness or think ditching vaccination is wise. Naïvety is intoxicating and no one likes confronting their own ableism or mortality. It’s these forces that are allowing us to grind basic tenets like germ theory and fluoridation into the woodchipper. It’s an astonishing level of reckless stupidity that we will be contending with for generations.

But let’s not get too sentimental about public health either. It’s far from a perfect system. We can think of it like a great oak, with many branches and deep roots. There’s no denying this tree has been poisoned by profit-seeking incentives that have produced giant, twisted branches like Big Pharma or health care insurance middlemen that profit from denying claims. In spite of this, it has helped people live longer, healthier lives compared to those over a century ago — and to fix the issues that plague it, we need to fertilize it, not chainsaw it down. But that’s exactly what we’re doing.

“Public health — and trust in public health — is being eroded in the U.S.,” Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, told Salon by email. “We are seeing rejection (and in some instances, legal action) against long-supported and evidence-based public health measures: vaccinations, pasteurization and food safety, water fluoridation. We are also seeing an erasure of investment and funding in research and health care infrastructure that focus on understanding and improving public health. It has been difficult as a scientist, science communicator, and member of this country to see this occurring when we have the most scientific knowledge we have ever had in human history.”

This is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments.

It’s bad enough that the public is being gaslit about an ongoing measles outbreak that has so far spread across 25 states, infecting more than 700 people, with more than 540 in Texas alone. This epidemic, caused by a virus that was once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, has claimed at least two lives: two children, one eight-years old and the other only six. The death of a New Mexico man who had measles is still under investigation. 

Despite a recent New York Times headline that suggests this is the "new normal," the resurgence of preventable disease is not a law of nature — it's literally a choice we, as a society, are making.

And so much more illness is on the rise, from Victorian-era diseases like tuberculosis to novel tropical diseases like “sloth fever.” The threat of another pandemic, be it bird flu or another COVID-19 surge are always present. But now Republican leadership wants us to pretend like none of this is happening while firing the people who track these sorts of things and gutting social safety nets like Social Security and Medicaid.

Last month, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced “a major restructuring” of the Health and Human Services Department, which has so far resulted in the mass layoff of about 10,000 federal health workers. At least eight top-level managers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resigned in recent weeks, all while the agency has clawed back $11.4 billion in COVID-19 research dollars and suppressed a report on measles suggesting that individuals get vaccinated. Most recently, the Trump administration forced out Peter Marks, the nation’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, who wrote in his resignation letter “It is unconscionable with measles outbreaks to not have a full-throated endorsement of measles vaccinations.”

Though Kennedy has recently said that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and spread, this is in sharp contrast to his previous statements denying vaccine efficacy, including last week when he incorrectly stated that some vaccines “never worked.”

Maybe Kennedy wants to give lip service to the MMR shot after attending the funeral of an unvaccinated victim of the Texas measles outbreak, but actions speak louder than words: earlier this month, dozens of free measles vaccine clinics were shuttered in Texas due to federal funding cuts. And Kennedy still won’t let go of this ridiculous notion — debunked again and again — that vaccines are a cause of autism. That hasn’t stopped Health and Human Services from recently appointing a discredited vaccine skeptic to investigate this link. On April 10, Kennedy said we’d “know by September” what has “caused the autism epidemic.”

In a statement, Christopher Banks, CEO and president of the Autism Society of America, responded that Kennedy’s remarks are “both unrealistic and misleading,” adding that such efforts “risk undermining decades of progress and causing real harm to the autism community.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


But this is the kind of leadership at HHS these days: wasting resources attacking established science while dismantling the systems that protect against epidemics and research treatments, not to mention denying people access to health care. The institutions monitoring, treating, researching and informing us about disease are now either broken, underfunded or pushing misinformation. It begs the question: is public health even a thing in this country anymore?

“As it currently stands, public health no longer exists at the federal level,” Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Salon by email. “It’s still to be seen if this very intentional gutting of our public health institutions, infrastructure and funding will decimate state and regional public health but these ‘cuts’ in spending are likely to mean less services everywhere and for everyone.”

To illustrate how far back this trend goes, professor Sean Valles, director of the Center for Bioethics at Michigan State University, pointed to a 2013 report by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, which summarizes the situation in its title: “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.” Since then, average life expectancy in the U.S. has only dropped further.

“There is some good news, including that drug overdose deaths are finally falling,” Valles told Salon by email. “But the overall picture is dire. As a Commonwealth Fund report puts it, compared to other high-income countries, ‘The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.’”

None of this started with the Trump administration, not even the first one, though the decline has clearly accelerated in just a few months. As Daniella Barreto, host and producer of the podcast “Public Health is Dead,” explained, “The Biden administration paved the way for the further destruction of public health when they decided, in a feat of circular logic, that the COVID pandemic was over because they said so. People latched on to that because they wanted it to be true.”

Barreto gave numerous examples, from how testing was severely limited under Biden, which meant less data to track the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to how in 2021 the CDC was lobbied by airline business interests to shorten COVID isolation guidelines or how the agency’s then director, Rochelle Walensky, said that masks were a “scarlet letter.”

“The push for ‘back to normal’ and short-term profits for corporations have come at the expense of everyone’s long-term health, including children’s,” Barreto told Salon by email.

Congress also bears a lot of responsibility for how public health has been starved, Love said.

“Simply because Biden was President did not give him ultimate authority to repair a lot of infrastructure that had been eroded,” Love explained. “For example, the USDA/FDA budget and personnel cuts from Trump's first term have led to reduction in workforce to conduct food safety inspections that aren’t able to be corrected quickly — especially when the Congress did not allocate more funding to these agencies. RFK Jr’s claims that his gutting of health agencies will improve public health are objectively false — we know that things that will improve public health, and halting funding for critical interventions, research, community outreach/education, and global health will do the opposite.”

Love said that by rejecting public health and defunding the scientific research that is its foundation, “we are all going to become less safe, less healthy, and less secure.”

Indeed, many people are at greater risk of disability or death from these policies — not just at home, but across the globe. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and the dismantling of USAID and other essential programs will have ripple effects. As the CDC puts in their guide to global health security, “In today's interconnected world, a disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere – and outbreaks can disrupt American lives and livelihoods even if they never reach America's shores.” Which makes a recent finding by the World Health Organization — that almost 75% of U.N. countries have experienced severe disruptions to health services — somewhat rattling.

“The rhetoric from this administration takes the mentality that health is an 'individual' issue, and not shaped by social determinants of health and societal initiatives,” Love said. “Health issues do not adhere to country boundaries, especially when we are talking about infectious diseases. I do worry that this damage will cause generational, perhaps irreparable harm, as the U.S. erasing its own scientific institutions but also the collaborative ecosystem globally will have far reaching effects.”

In Barreto’s opinion, that’s precisely the point. “The extreme cuts at HHS also impact environmental health, sexual health, and sexual violence prevention programs as well as health and safety regulatory bodies,” Barreto said. “I believe this administration is not unaware that the people who will bear the brunt of this are racialized, disabled, trans and otherwise marginalized.”

If top-level public health basically doesn’t function anymore, where does that leave the public? At least 23 states and the District of Columbia are currently suing Kennedy and the HHS, The Guardian reported, “alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were ‘harmful’ and 'unlawful.’” A judge later blocked these cuts. But more than staunching the bleeding is necessary, as Valles explained that public health improvements take hard work and investment.

“Today, we need to be a period for rebuilding the public health workforce, so that we have the next generation of public health workers of all sorts, from community health workers who help people to sign up for benefits like food assistance for their children, to CDC researchers vigilantly watching for the next pandemic,” Valles said. “Instead, the federal government is now trying to lay off hundreds of probationary employees at the CDC, rescinding some of the layoffs, and now many of them are caught in legal limbo as courts decide whether their layoffs were illegal. Meanwhile, federal grants that support the work of public health around the US are being haphazardly canceled. This is not how to rebuild or reform an effective public health workforce, it is how to destroy one.”

Love said we need to reclaim the importance of science, which “requires a systemic mindset shift that won’t happen until the misinformation spread by wellness profiteers is clamped down on.” She also emphasized the role of Congress, universities and the media to “push back” on these attacks.

“It needs to be common knowledge what the consequences of these actions will be, even for people who think they aren’t going to be impacted,” Love said. “Without our government supporting these initiatives, we may need to turn to other sources of support. Other countries, philanthropic organizations. But that isn’t a substitute. It’s a band-aid on a broken bone.”

As long as there is a public, there will be public health, Valles said. What shape it takes depends on a lot of things we can’t always control — social determinants of health like income and zip code — so without clear direction on the federal level, we have to begin more locally.

“As a first step, I encourage U.S. readers to learn more about the health of their own communities,” Valles said. “Look up your county in the database of county-level health measures to how your county compares to state and national averages in things like percent of children experiencing poverty, access to opportunities for exercise, and breast cancer mammogram screening rates. If you enter your address on this website, you can see the life expectancy of people living in your neighborhood … Or go to this website to see a map of that data for neighborhoods across the U.S.”

Ultimately, to slow the erosion of public health, it needs to be something that people generally value. It may seem insurmountable to get the Trump administration to reverse course, but it will only be possible if people demand it.

“It’s easy to see what’s happening and feel defeated; it’s objectively awful,” Marino said. “But public health has always been fighting uphill battles without enough resources. And perhaps the hardest part has always been convincing the public to care about public health. I hope that people do not have to suffer and die for people to realize the value that public health provides, even when programs seem so distant. I guess we will see whether people care or not.”

Read more

about public health

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Wildfire Smoke Now Kills 41,000 Americans a Year, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Sept. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every summer, hazy skies and the smell of burning wood remind Americans...

FRIDAY, Sept. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every summer, hazy skies and the smell of burning wood remind Americans that wildfires affect far more than just the communities where they ignite.Their smoke drifts for hundreds, even thousands of miles, darkening the air in cities across the nation. But the health impact goes far beyond watery eyes and coughs.A new study shows wildfire smoke is now responsible for more than 41,000 deaths in the United States every year.And by 2050? Researchers warn that smoke could become the deadliest climate-driven threat to Americans, claiming tens of thousands more lives each year.Further, by midcentury, smoke-related deaths are expected to climb by another 26,500 to 30,000 per year, making wildfire smoke the deadliest climate-driven health threat for Americans, more dangerous than extreme heat, crop losses or rising energy costs, according to the study published Sept. 18 in the journal Nature.“Wildfire smoke is a much larger health risk than we might have understood previously,” study author Marshall Burke, a professor of environmental social sciences at Stanford University, said in a news report published by NBC News.The research estimated deaths by combining data with satellite smoke tracking and climate models. The results suggest wildfire smoke is erasing decades of clean air progress from the Clean Air Act, especially in western states and places such as New York.Experts warn that tiny particles in smoke can lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, raising the risk of asthma, lung cancer, preterm birth, miscarriage and heart disease.And when wildfires burn buildings and plastics and not just trees, the mix of chemicals may be even more toxic.Dr. Joel Kaufman of the University of Washington, who studies air pollution, said, “These results imply, if anything, wildfire smoke may be more toxic” than other common forms of pollution.The study projects that the annual death toll tied to wildfire smoke will rise 64% to 73% by 2050.While the findings rely on models rather than individual death tracking, health leaders say, this shows why it’s urgent to act on climate change and protect the air we breathe.“It strengthens what we are saying about wildfires being connected to climate change and subsequent public health impacts,” said Dr. John Balmes of the American Lung Association.SOURCE: NBC News, Sept. 18, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Gas stove makers quietly delete air pollution warnings as they fight mandatory health labels

Manufacturers sued to stop a Colorado law requiring air quality warnings, arguing gas stoves are safe. Some of their websites once said the opposite.

The home appliance industry would like you to believe that gas-burning stoves are not a risk to your health — and several companies that make the devices are scrambling to erase their prior acknowledgements that they are.  That claim is at the heart of a lawsuit the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers has filed against the state of Colorado to stop it from requiring natural gas stoves, which burn methane, to carry health labels not unlike those on every pack of cigarettes. “Understand the air quality implications of having an indoor gas stove,” the warning would read. The law was to take effect August 5 but is now on hold, and state officials did not respond to a request for comment. In its federal lawsuit, the Association — whose board includes representatives of LG Electronics, BSH Home Appliance Corp. (which makes Bosch appliances), Whirlpool, and Samsung Electronics — asserts that the labeling requirement is “unconstitutional compelled speech” and illegal under the First Amendment. It calls the legislation a climate law disguised as a health law and, most strikingly, it claims there is “no association between gas stoves and adverse health outcomes.”  Yet LG, BSH, Whirlpool, and Samsung have published information on their websites directly contradicting that claim and lauded the health benefits of electric and induction stoves.  “Traditional gas appliances can emit harmful pollutants, which can compromise indoor air quality and pose health risks,” reads a blog post, titled “Life’s Good When It’s Electrified,” that LG published in May of 2024. “By switching to electric appliances, these risks are substantially reduced, ensuring a cleaner and safer home environment.”  Another LG page noted that “induction surfaces remain cool to the touch and unlike gas, is better for kitchen air quality” as recently as May 25, according to an archived version of the site maintained by Wayback Machine. It was later revised to eliminate mention of gas, reading “Surfaces remain cool to the touch — no open flames or hot coils. No fumes, either, so it’s [sic] air quality-friendly.” BSH’s page on Bosch induction cooktops notes that the devices are “safer to use because unlike other types of cooktops, they do not release indoor air pollutants during cooking.” Whirlpool wrote that induction cooktops might help “reduce indoor air pollutants.”  And until last week, a page on Samsung’s U.S. website said “induction cooktops can … help remove concerns over indoor air pollution, creating a sustainable and healthier home environment. The page’s source code did not appear to have been updated since 2022. Samsung did not respond to multiple requests for comment, but the page was taken down shortly after Grist reached out to the company.  Itai Vardi, a researcher with the Energy and Policy Institute, was the first to notice the discrepancies between what the Association said in its lawsuit and what some of its manufacturers have said in the past. “The statements coming from them directly contradict the very strong language in this lawsuit,” Vardi said. “And that, I think, deserves some scrutiny.” Scientific evidence that gas stoves pollute by releasing dangerous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane has accumulated since 1970. Justin Paget / Getty Images In its lawsuit, the Association argues that “the potential health risks of cooking with gas are no different than cooking with electricity” and acknowledging the ways gas-burning appliances can harm respiratory health promotes “non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading” messages. It adds that “there is scant scientific support” for disclosing health risks associated with gas appliances.  Asked for comment, the organization referred to a statement it issued August 6 saying “no study has found that gas stoves cause respiratory health issues.”  When reached for comment, a BSH representative stated that the company is as of now “in complete alignment” with the Association’s position. An LG representative noted that the most pollution-acknowledging statements on their website were in fact made by the company’s UK branch, but did not respond to a follow-up question about whether the UK and US divisions disagree on the risks of LG products. “This is a troubling attempt by these companies’ to quickly erase their own public acknowledgement of the dangers of gas stoves,” said Vardi. “But you can scrub your website, not the fact of gas stove pollution.”  Scientific evidence that gas stoves pollute by releasing dangerous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane has piled up for the past half-century. In 1970, scientist Carl Shy showed that families exposed to high levels of nitrogen dioxide indoors are at greater risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses than those who are not. Nine years later, scientist Bernard Goldstein identified the fuel as the likely source of all that nitrogen. A bevy of studies and papers in the decades since came to similar conclusions. One 2022 study estimated that 12 percent of American children with asthma develop that respiratory condition solely due to living in homes with gas stoves.  Appliance manufacturers and the natural gas industry are no stranger to promoting their products regardless of known health risks. “There’s been a campaign by industry to keep the science under wraps or to confuse it, deny it,” said Abe Scarr of the consumer-protection nonprofit Public Interest Working Group.  The lobbyists at the American Gas Association have worked hard to popularize gas stoves: At one point, the organization even provided the stoves Julia Child used in her popular cooking show. The campaign went beyond product placement: When information on the health risks of gas stoves began to emerge in the mid-1970s, industry lobbyists launched “Operation Attack,” a million-dollar marketing campaign to bring the stoves into even more kitchens. This worked: today, about 40% of Americans cook with gas. They also funded their own research, which cast doubt on independent findings on the health risks of gas stoves.  Environmental health sciences professor Misbath Daouda of the University of California, Berkeley, was recently part of a pilot study replacing gas stoves in low-income New York City apartments with induction stoves. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations in those apartments, she said, dropped by over 50 percent within months – and the families who lived there liked their new cooktops better than the old ones, she said.  The association between gas stoves and adverse health outcomes, Daouda said, “is clear.”  “I’m not sure who they are referring to when they say the majority of studies” don’t support that conclusion, she said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Gas stove makers quietly delete air pollution warnings as they fight mandatory health labels on Sep 17, 2025.

New Biomarker Could Detect Alzheimer’s Years Before Symptoms Appear

TSPO levels rise early in Alzheimer’s and persist throughout disease. Targeting this biomarker could open new treatment options. TSPO, a major marker of brain inflammation, may offer a way to detect Alzheimer’s disease long before memory problems and other symptoms develop. Findings published in Acta Neuropathologica suggest it could transform both diagnosis and treatment strategies. [...]

A new study suggests that TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, may reveal the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease long before symptoms appear. Credit: StockTSPO levels rise early in Alzheimer’s and persist throughout disease. Targeting this biomarker could open new treatment options. TSPO, a major marker of brain inflammation, may offer a way to detect Alzheimer’s disease long before memory problems and other symptoms develop. Findings published in Acta Neuropathologica suggest it could transform both diagnosis and treatment strategies. “This is the first study to really examine how early this biomarker increases and where it begins rising in the brain,” said Tomás R. Guilarte, lead researcher and dean of FIU’s Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work. “If we can use this information to help delay Alzheimer’s progression by even five years, it can drastically improve patients’ lives and reduce disease prevalence.” Longstanding research on TSPO Guilarte, a recognized authority on TSPO (translocator protein 18 kDa), has investigated the protein for more than 30 years. His research helped establish it as a dependable imaging marker for identifying neuroinflammation across multiple neurological, neurodegenerative, and psychiatric conditions. Researchers Daniel Martínez Pérez (L) and Dr. Tomás R. Guilarte (R) in the Brain, Behavior and the Environment Laboratory at Florida International University. Guilarte and Martínez Pérez published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityFor the current study, Guilarte and colleagues applied advanced imaging techniques to track TSPO activity in genetically engineered mouse models of familial Alzheimer’s. They then validated these results using donated brain tissue from members of the world’s largest community with early-onset familial Alzheimer’s, based in Antioquia, Colombia. These families carry the “paisa” mutation, first identified by the late Dr. Francisco Lopera, a co-author of the study who spent his career searching for ways to prevent Alzheimer’s. Individuals with this genetic variant often develop symptoms in their 30s or 40s and typically die in their 50s. L: The original cell image. R: The same cell image zoomed in and rendered in the special imaging software. Microglia (blue) signaling TSPO (red) are clustered around plaques (cyan). Researchers at Florida International University published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in.  Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityEarly changes in the hippocampus In the mouse model, researchers detected elevated TSPO levels in the subiculum – a critical part of the hippocampus – as early as six weeks of age, roughly equivalent to age 18–20 in humans. Microglia, the brain’s main immune cells, specifically those clustered around amyloid plaques, had the highest levels of TSPO. Notably, female mice had higher TSPO levels, mirroring real-world statistics: two-thirds of Alzheimer’s patients are women. Daniel Martínez Pérez holds tissue sample. Martínez Pérez, a researcher in Florida International University’s Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, is the first author of a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International UniversityThe brain tissue samples from the Colombian patients with the paisa mutation showed the same pattern. Even in late-stage Alzheimer’s, TSPO remained high in microglia near plaques. These results raise new questions about TSPO’s function – whether it contributes to damage or protects the brain – and whether blocking or enhancing it could halt disease progression. Next steps in research The team is now working with a specially developed Alzheimer’s mouse model lacking TSPO to explore these questions further. They’re also expanding the study to include sporadic, late-onset Alzheimer’s cases, the form that accounts for over 90% of all diagnoses. Researchers Dr. Tomás R. Guilarte (L) and Daniel Martínez Pérez (R) in the Brain, Behavior and the Environment Laboratory at Florida International University. Guilarte and Martínez Pérez published a study that found TSPO, a key biomarker of brain inflammation, could help detect Alzheimer’s disease years before memory loss and other symptoms set in. Credit: Chris Necuze, Florida International University“The more we understand these processes,” said Daniel Martínez Pérez, first author and Ph.D. candidate in Guilarte’s lab, “the closer we get to tailoring treatments that can truly help – before it’s too late.” Reference: “Amyloid-β plaque-associated microglia drive TSPO upregulation in Alzheimer’s disease” by Daniel A. Martinez-Perez, Jennifer L. McGlothan, Alexander N. Rodichkin, Karam Abilmouna, Zoran Bursac, Francisco Lopera, Carlos Andres Villegas-Lanau and Tomás R. Guilarte, 17 July 2025, Acta Neuropathologica.DOI: 10.1007/s00401-025-02912-4 This work was supported by grants ES007062-24 to T.R.G. from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), ES007062-23S1 to T.R.G. from the National Institute on Aging, and T32-ES033955 to A.N.R. from the NIEHS. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Living Near Polluted Missouri Creek as a Child Tied to Later Cancer Risk

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s...

THURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s through 1960s may have higher odds for cancer now, new research shows.The study focused on Coldwater Creek in St. Louis County. The area was contaminated with radioactive waste from the U.S. government’s atomic bomb program during World War II.Back then, uranium was processed in St. Louis and nuclear waste was stored near the city’s airport. That waste leaked into Coldwater Creek, which runs through several residential neighborhoods.Researchers found that people who lived within one kilometer (0.62 miles) of the creek as kids had an 85% higher risk of developing certain cancers later in life compared to those who lived more than 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) away.Those cancers include leukemia, thyroid cancer and breast cancer, which are known to be linked to radiation exposure.“The closer the childhood residence got to Coldwater Creek, the risk of cancer went up, and pretty dramatically," lead researcher Marc Weisskopf, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told The Wall Street Journal.For the study, Weisskopf’s team surveyed more than 4,200 adults who lived in the St. Louis area as children between 1958 and 1970.These people had donated their baby teeth years ago for radiation research. The new survey asked about cancer and other health issues.About 1 in 4 participants said they had been diagnosed with cancer. Risk dropped the farther someone lived from the creek as a child.Outside experts who reviewed the findings described them as concerning.“It emphasizes the importance of appreciating that radioactive waste is carcinogenic, particularly to children, and that we have to ensure that we have to clean up any remaining waste that’s out there,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiation risk expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Journal.In 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began placing warning signs along parts of the creek that still have radioactive waste, The Journal reported.The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reported in 2019 that contamination have raised the risk of leukemia and lung and bone cancer. Later exposures, starting in the 2000s, were linked to a slight increase in lung cancer for those who lived nearby.But the agency said it’s hard to link any one person’s cancer directly to radiation. Genetics, lifestyle and other factors could also play a role.In this study, radiation exposure wasn’t directly measured. Cancer cases were also self-reported, not confirmed by medical records. Weisskopf plans to measure radiation levels using the stored baby teeth in future research.Radiation exposure has long been tied to cancer, but this study is among the first to look at lower, long-term environmental exposure in the U.S., not just high levels from nuclear disasters or bombings."Radiation, when it’s given unnecessarily, only causes risk," Dr. Howard Sandler, chair of radiation oncology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told The Journal.SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.