The information provided by this chatbot is generated by AI and intended for general guidance only; it should not replace professional advice. Always consult a qualified expert for specific dietary, medical, or nutritional concerns.
Popular topics
The claim that all plastic Tupperware and similar containers should be discarded due to microplastics leaching into food is grounded in a real concern. However, the risk depends on several factors, including the type of plastic - PP and PET are generally safer under typical use - condition, and use.
It is also important to consider that the impacts of microplastics in the human body are still not fully understood. While some studies suggest possible links to inflammation and endocrine disruption, long-term evidence remains limited. Microplastics have been cited in fresh and bottled drinking water, and a wide range of foods, including seafood, animal products, plant products, beverages, and salt. However, the risk of microplastics entering food during home food preparation via plastic cookware is a relatively novel area of concern, still under study. Understanding when and how plastics break down can help you make informed—and affordable—choices.
Social media is full of posts on this topic, often using alarming, absolute language that can create unnecessary panic. Instead, practical steps—such as replacing worn plastic items, avoiding heating food in plastic, and choosing glass or stainless steel when possible—can meaningfully reduce your exposure.
We have contacted Warren Phillips and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Fact-Check: Glass is non-reactive, durable, and does not leach chemicals or release particles. A recent study found no microplastic contamination from food stored or prepared in glass. However, many glass containers still use plastic lids or silicone seals, which can degrade over time. So while the glass itself is safe, it’s important to check the condition of the lids regularly.
Fact-Check: Plastic utensils—including strainers—can release microplastics when exposed to heat, scratching, or prolonged use. Common materials like polypropylene (PP) and nylon can wear down over time, especially when repeatedly exposed to heat.
That said, brief contact with boiling water (like draining pasta) doesn’t likely cause a meaningful release of microplastics unless the item is already damaged or degraded. Lab tests that show plastic shedding from boiling involve sustained high temperatures for 15 minutes or more, which doesn’t reflect normal kitchen use. Microplastic release from plastic strainers is more likely due to mechanical wear (e.g., cracks, scratches) than the occasional exposure to hot water.
Fact-Check: At the heart of the debate about plastic food containers—especially the ones labeled “microwave-safe”—is a growing concern about what really happens when you repeatedly heat them. Many of these containers are made from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) or PP (polypropylene), both of which are generally considered safe under typical use. But the key phrase here is “typical use”—and it turns out, the way we use these plastics can make a big difference.
Just because something is labeled “microwave-safe” doesn’t mean it’s immune to breaking down under heat. Research suggests that microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) can be released from plastic containers, especially during high-heat scenarios like microwave reheating. In fact, in a single 3-minute microwave session, plastic containers have been shown to release up to 4.22 million microplastic particles and over 2 billion nanoplastic particles per square centimeter. To put that in perspective, you’d need six months of room-temperature storage to produce the same level of release. Freezing tupperware containers can also increase brittleness, also increasing the likelihood of shedding microplastics.
Context Matters: A study might sound compelling in isolation, but check if it aligns with broader research on the topic.
On 15th March 2025, Warren Phillips, known as “non-toxic dad” on social media platforms, posted a video in which he claims we should get rid of all plastic tupperware containers because of microplastics leaching into food.
Full Claim: If you have a plastic one (strainer) and you’re pouring hot water and food, those microplastics and other toxins can absorb into your food. ….. Get rid of all that plastic tupperware type containers that just degrade and fall apart and release those toxins into your food. Get a set of glass storage containers… Most importantly, they don’t contaminate your food. (15th March 2025)
Heat and repeated use can cause some plastics to leach chemicals or release microplastics, but this risk varies depending on plastic type, condition, and temperature. Replacing worn or low-quality plastic containers can help reduce this risk. Glass storage is safer overall but often still includes plastic lids or seals. Shifting to non-plastic materials like glass is a reasonable precaution, and regular inspection of kitchen items for wear can further reduce exposure.
This is one of many similar claims making social media and news headlines. Claims like this can be panic-inducing, especially given its consumption links to negative health outcomes including some cancers, respiratory disorders, and irritable bowel syndrome. But before you throw out all your plastic kitchen equipment, it is worth understanding the science behind the claims, this could save your immediate bank balance.
Every day, millions of people around the world enjoy their favorite coffee beverages, often without considering the environmental impact of their choices. One significant factor is the type of milk added to these drinks. While dairy milk has been a traditional choice, its production is resource-intensive and contributes substantially to greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, plant-based alternatives like oat, soy, and almond milk generally have a lower environmental footprint.
In November 2024, Starbucks, the world's largest coffee chain, announced it would eliminate the surcharge for plant-based milk alternatives in its U.S. and Canadian stores. This decision followed years of advocacy from groups like PETA and Switch4Good, who highlighted both the environmental and ethical concerns associated with dairy consumption. By removing the additional charge, Starbucks aimed to make climate-friendly choices more accessible to its customers.
The production of dairy milk is significantly more taxing on the environment compared to plant-based alternatives. According to data from Our World in Data, producing a liter of dairy milk results in approximately 3.2 kg of CO₂-equivalent emissions, requires 8.9 square meters of land, and consumes 628 liters of water. In contrast, oat milk production emits about 0.9 kg of CO₂-equivalent, uses 0.8 square meters of land, and requires 48 liters of water per liter produced.
These stark differences underscore the environmental benefits of choosing plant-based milks. By opting for alternatives like oat or soy milk, consumers can significantly reduce their carbon footprint and conserve vital natural resources.
Beyond environmental considerations, the choice of milk in coffee also intersects with issues of accessibility and equity. Lactose intolerance affects a significant portion of the global population, particularly among people of East Asian, African, Native American, and Hispanic descent. Charging extra for plant-based milk options can disproportionately impact these communities, effectively penalizing individuals for their dietary needs.
Recognizing this, several major coffee chains have followed Starbucks' lead in removing surcharges for non-dairy milk. Dunkin', for instance, eliminated its plant-based milk upcharge in March 2025, making these alternatives more accessible to a broader customer base.
In March 2025, it was announced that both The Human Bean and Peet’s Coffee committed to removing surcharges for plant-based milk, following discussions with the organization's corporate engagement team. Additionally, Scooter’s Coffee, the fourth-largest coffee chain in the U.S., eliminated its plant-based milk upcharge after a year-long collaboration with an NGO. These efforts are part of the organization's broader campaign to make plant-based options more accessible and to promote equity in the food industry.
Despite the positive trend, some coffee chains continue to impose additional charges for plant-based milk. Biggby Coffee, for example, has faced criticism and legal challenges over its surcharge policies. A lawsuit filed in June 2024 alleges that the company's extra fees for non-dairy milk discriminate against lactose-intolerant individuals, potentially violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Similarly, Bluestone Lane, a chain that markets itself as environmentally conscious, still charges up to $1.50 extra for plant-based milk options. This practice has drawn scrutiny from consumers and advocacy groups who argue that it contradicts the company's stated commitment to sustainability.
The shift toward eliminating surcharges for plant-based milk in coffee shops reflects a growing awareness of environmental and social issues among consumers and businesses alike. By making climate-friendly choices more accessible and affordable, companies can play a pivotal role in promoting sustainability and equity.
As consumers, being informed about the environmental impact of our choices empowers us to advocate for better practices. Supporting businesses that prioritize sustainability and inclusivity can drive positive change across the industry.
"New Research is Bad News for Vegans"
Fact-Check: The headline is sensationalist and designed to provoke concern. Both of the studies referenced in the article present a mix of findings, both positive and negative, which are not reflected in the title. For example, the Australian study comparing diets containing different amounts of animal products, noted higher intakes of several nutrients on plant-based diets (e.g., higher intake of fiber, folate, magnesium). However, these benefits are downplayed by the sensational headline.
Peer-reviewed research, such as that from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, continues to affirm that well-planned plant-based diets are health-promoting.
➡️ Take Away: The headline is misleading, leaning towards clickbait rather than balanced reporting.
We have contacted the NY Post and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check addresses nutritional claims and is not a substitute for personalised medical or dietary advice. For individual guidance, consult a registered dietitian or healthcare provider.
Claim 2: “New research suggests that vegans may be more likely to suffer from nutritional deficiencies than their meat-eating counterparts.”
Fact-Check: The Australian study started by reporting a generally more favourable nutrient composition for those on plant-based diets, including lower levels of saturated fat, trans fat, or cholesterol, combined with higher levels of dietary fibre, iron or Vitamin E. It did also report that those on a plant-based diet had lower levels of vitamin B12, long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and iodine, as reported by the NY Post. Among these, the researchers noted that vitamin B12 and iodine deficiencies were of most concern.
In the sample studied, regular meat eaters consumed less fibre than participants on plant-based diets, but still met dietary requirements. The researchers noted that this might have been due to a “‘healthy user effect’ which explains health conscious individuals who become involved in research may have healthier lifestyle behaviours and dietary patterns.” Previous studies in similar populations have shown that 7 out of 10 adults following regular meat diets did not consume enough fibre.
The study emphasised the importance of proper dietary planning to avoid deficiencies. For example, to address the reported deficiencies in B12, Iodine or Omega-3s on plant-based diets,
➡️ Take Away: The claim lacks context, because it fails to emphasise the importance of dietary planning which applies across dietary patterns and is essential to prevent deficiencies..
The NY Post article cites two recent studies. The first one was published in the journal Nature, and it looked at the nutritional adequacy of 240 Australian participants’ dietary intake. The participants were following different diets, from strict vegans to regular meat eaters. This study comes in the context of growing recommendations to increase consumption of plant-based foods by certain national health authorities. Regarding protein, the study found that requirements were met for all groups, including vegans. A second study is then referenced to support the argument that despite adequate protein intake, deficiency in certain amino acids could put the health of vegans at risk.
Claim 1: "Think you’re getting enough protein on a plant-based diet? Don’t get too comfortable just yet. [...] here’s the twist: once digestion was factored in, only about half of the participants were getting enough of two essential amino acids — the building blocks of protein — called lysine and leucine."
Fact-Check: The study referenced here was led by Bi Xue Patricia Soh, and published on April 16, 2025 in the journal PLOS ONE. This study analysed the dietary intake of 193 long-term vegans in New Zealand. Using a four-day food diary, it quantified protein intake and quality as compared to reference intake values.
The key findings from the study that are discussed in the article are:
While the NY Post article correctly reports these findings from the study, Professor Tom Sanders, Professor Emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, explains that there are several limitations missing, which means the results should be taken with caution:
The NY Post article ends with a brief reference to Professor Tom Sanders’ concerns. However, the overall tone of the article, exemplified by its rather alarmist headline, implies generally negative findings, as demonstrated by the following table:
This table highlights how the article’s framing misrepresents the study’s balanced scientific findings, promoting fear rather than understanding.
Beware of bias: Be aware of potential bias in the content, especially in opinion pieces.
An article published by the NY Post on April 29th claims that vegans are more likely to suffer from nutritional deficiencies, even when meeting daily protein goals through plant-based sources, potentially putting their health at risk.
While it's true that vegan diets can fall short of certain nutrients, such as iodine, if well planned and including a regular source such as an iodine supplement, fortified foods, or seaweed, it is possible to meet all dietary requirements.
This article may discourage people from adopting or maintaining a plant-based diet due to exaggerated concerns. Clear, evidence-based guidance is crucial, as vegan diets can offer health benefits when planned appropriately.
The idea that milk is “filled with pus” also ignores how modern dairy processing works. Even if a cow is experiencing mastitis and has a temporarily elevated somatic cell count, her milk is usually identified, tested, and excluded from the supply chain. Farms are required to segregate milk from sick cows, especially if they are being treated with antibiotics, which must be withheld for a specific period to prevent drug residues from entering the food system.
Milk from healthy cows, once collected, is subjected to rigorous testing at processing plants before it can be sold. This includes tests for somatic cell count, bacterial load, and residues of antibiotics or other contaminants. If a batch fails these tests, it is rejected.
Once milk passes these quality checks, it goes through pasteurisation, a standard heat-treatment process that kills potentially harmful microorganisms without significantly altering nutritional content. Pasteurization is a public health safeguard that addresses genuine concerns about pathogens—not somatic cells. In fact, many of the most common foodborne illnesses linked to dairy are associated with raw (unpasteurised) milk, not milk that has undergone standard safety processing.
In short, the claim overlooks the many layers of oversight and quality control in place to ensure that the milk in your grocery store is safe, clean, and free of infectious material.
So why does the claim persist? Partly because it’s sensational—and fear is a powerful motivator. The “pus in milk” narrative is often used in viral content, usually with the goal of eliciting an emotional reaction. Images or videos paired with the term “pus” evoke disgust, making the content highly shareable—even if the science doesn’t back it up. While some messaging oversimplifies or sensationalizes, it’s rooted in genuine concerns about dairy cow welfare and management practices.
This is not to say that concerns about the dairy industry should be dismissed. There are valid ethical and environmental issues tied to large-scale milk production, including the overuse of antibiotics, the treatment of cows, and the industry’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of their response, PETA notes that “Clinical mastitis, which is responsible for the pus cells that end up in cow’s milk, is prevalent in at least 25% of cows used for dairy in the United States.”
These are complex topics worth discussing. But, relying on inaccurate or decontextualized claims can do more harm than good—it distracts from real issues and can undermine the credibility of broader advocacy efforts.
For people considering alternatives to dairy, whether for health, environmental, or ethical reasons, it’s important to make those decisions based on accurate, evidence-based information. Misinformation, even when well-intentioned, can mislead consumers and create unnecessary fear.
By approaching food-related claims with curiosity and a desire for context—not just outrage—we can have more meaningful conversations about where our food comes from and how it impacts us and the planet.
At the center of this claim is a common misunderstanding about somatic cells, which are naturally occurring components of milk. Somatic cells are primarily white blood cells (leukocytes) that cows produce to fight infection, particularly when the udder becomes inflamed—a condition known as mastitis, that often results from poor animal welfare. They also include a smaller proportion of epithelial cells that line the mammary glands. Their presence in milk is not unusual, and in healthy cows, somatic cell counts are typically under 100,000 cells per millileter.
The term “pus” typically describes a thick fluid that contains not just white blood cells but also dead tissue, bacteria, and waste products from the body’s immune response—often seen in infected wounds. While somatic cells are a part of pus, their presence alone does not make a substance “pus.” Conflating the two is a misleading oversimplification that doesn’t reflect how dairy quality is monitored or regulated.
Regulatory bodies take milk quality very seriously. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) caps the somatic cell count (SCC) at 750,000 cells per milliliter for milk to be legally sold. Many commercial dairies aim for much lower levels—often under 200,000—to meet industry standards and maintain herd health. In contrast, the European Union, known for its stricter dairy standards, enforces a maximum of 400,000 cells per milliliter. These thresholds are set based on evidence about milk safety and animal welfare, and any milk exceeding these limits is either discarded or diverted for non-food use.
When asked for comment, PETA explained that “The video contains US-specific information. [Somatic cell count level] is calculated using bulk-tank somatic cell counts (BTSCCs), which means that milk from cows with lower somatic cell counts is mixed in a big tank with milk from cows with higher counts than would be allowed to be sold, effectively diluting the pus-heavy milk with less pus-heavy milk. The end result is that every gallon of milk sold will contain some levels of government-allowable somatic pus cells.”
Beware of bias: Be aware of potential bias in the content, especially in opinion pieces.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA, recently posted a video of a dairy farmer milking a cow infected with mastitis across their social media with the caption “Don’t want to eat pus? Don’t consume dairy. It’s that simple.” The idea of drinking pus makes milk less appetizing, but is it correct to say? We dive into this claim to unpack what really happens to milk if a dairy cow is infected with mastitis.
Full Claim: “This isn’t just cow’s milk. It’s pus. Cows in the dairy industry suffer from painful infections like this all the time. A farmer posted this video with hashtags like #farmlife and #dairyfarming - as if it’s normal. Traces of pus from these infections end up in dairy products sold in stores. Ditch dairy today. It’s cruel - and udderly disgusting.”
Somatic cells are not the same as pus. Milk is carefully regulated to ensure safety, and pasteurisation further eliminates harmful pathogens. The claim misrepresents scientific facts to provoke an emotional reaction.
Claims like this one can influence people’s dietary choices through shock and fear, rather than evidence. Understanding how milk is regulated and processed helps consumers make informed, balanced decisions about what they consume.
It is not uncommon for social media influencers to distort findings from single scientific studies, often exaggerating a study’s conclusions and its implications for the general public. Nutrition experts on social media are often quick to correct such distortions, placing studies in their proper context and highlighting their limitations - limitations often acknowledged within the studies themselves. In contrast, the response to the recent KETO cholesterol study was notably stronger, with doctors, dietitians, and researchers expressing significant concern about how the researchers themselves chose to frame their conclusions, and how the media presented their findings.
Dr. Brad Stanfield remarked that “everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong.” Dr. Gil Carvalho, a physician and research scientist, noted that the study shocked the scientific community. So much so that a group of seven researchers, combining expertise in nutrition, cardiology, and the treatment of lipid (cholesterol) disorders, were compelled to write an open letter to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) to express their concerns. In the letter, shared online as a pre-print, they warned that the study’s framing and reporting presented a “genuine risk that these conclusions may be misinterpreted by clinicians and the public alike, potentially leading to inappropriate reassurance in cases of elevated ApoB or LDL-C levels, misinformed clinical decisions, and avoidable harm.”
The Daily Mail article does not mention these concerns, and claims that “researchers are beginning to understand that the medical field has drastically oversimplified cholesterol and its role in the body.” This claim is repeated several times throughout the article, suggesting that there has been a drastic change in the way scientists and researchers view the role of LDL cholesterol in heart disease.
However, this is misleading. The researchers in question are the group of scientists that published the KETO study. While this group, in part because of their new study, believes LDL-C is not always a major risk factor for heart disease, the majority of scientists, researchers, and health professionals, still support the notion that high LDL-C and ApoB levels are a major risk factor for atherosclerotic heart disease. This is based on a large body of high quality evidence, which has not been undone by the new KETO study.
We reviewed the broader scientific literature on cholesterol and summarised the key concerns with the study, as expressed by experts in nutrition and cardiology.
Based on the broader scientific literature, the role of cholesterol—particularly LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol)—in cardiovascular disease is well-established and not oversimplified as the claim suggests:
The claim that the medical field has drastically oversimplified cholesterol and its role in the body is not supported by the balance of scientific evidence. Rather, current medical understanding is based on an evidence-based framework that considers cholesterol as part of a multifactorial risk profile for cardiovascular disease.
The study in question looked at people following a low-carb, high-fat diet ("keto") who had unusually high cholesterol but were otherwise healthy and slim. These people are called "lean mass hyper-responders." The researchers followed them for a year to see how their heart health changed.
Here’s a summary of the red flags that were raised following the study’s publication. For a full detailed account of what happened, check out this post by Dr. Gary McGowan.
Before starting, the researchers said their primary outcome was to measure how much dangerous heart plaque (fatty build-up) increased over a year. However, they didn’t report this key result explicitly in the published paper. Experts noted that a graph was included without written results. Actual figures were only released within a post on X by one of the authors, following significant pressure to do so by fellow researchers on social media.
The numbers released didn’t support the reassuring tone of the study’s framing on social media. While on X, author Nick Norwitz wrote that “Most participants showed no or minimal progression of coronary plaque,” the actual figures revealed that there was significant plaque progression, which in fact was worse than anticipated. To contextualise those numbers, Dr. Brad Stanley noted that progression among participants exceeded that seen in other studies of high-risk individuals (e.g., those with diabetes or hypertension).
Instead of focusing on plaque progression, the paper emphasised that LDL cholesterol or ApoB levels did not predict plaque changes - ApoB is the main component of LDL. But scientists’ reactions highlighted that this conclusion was highly misleading.
The study included only people with very high cholesterol — there was no low-cholesterol group for comparison. So, when the researchers claimed "no link" between cholesterol levels and plaque growth, this was meaningless: everyone already had sky-high cholesterol. Dr. Gary McGowan said it was akin to looking at people who are otherwise healthy and smoke between 4 and 6 packets of cigarettes per day, and “even though the cohort as a whole has higher rates of plaque progression, you conclude that there was no real difference between those who smoked 4 packs or day and those who smoke 6 packs a day, leading you to tell people that smoking actually doesn’t matter for heart disease.”
The study’s authors repeatedly called their project a "trial" — but it wasn’t a proper clinical trial with random assignment and strict controls. Calling it a "trial" suggests the findings are more reliable than they are.
Experts are worried that this could convince people with dangerously high cholesterol not to seek treatment. One of the comments on the Daily Mail article highlights this issue: “The greatest medical myth ever perpetuated is WE SHOULD LISTEN TO DOCTORS!”
While the Daily Mail article quotes one of the study’s lead authors acknowledging that “one paper can’t overturn [this prevailing idea] [that high LDL cholesterol can be a predictor of heart disease]”, the sensational headline and narrative (“the biggest medical myth we’ve fallen for”) risk promoting dangerous health misinformation.
To support the claim that focusing on high LDL cholesterol is a major medical myth, the article references a recently unveiled scandal from the 1950s-1970s, where the sugar industry was found to pay scientists to downplay sugar’s role in heart disease and highlight saturated fat as the main culprit instead (source). This is also a popular argument on social media, particularly among those who promote high-fat diets. However, the misdirection from sugar lobbyists does not negate the evidence-based conclusions about cholesterol, summarised in this fact-check; instead, it exposes how scientific integrity can be manipulated when industry influence isn’t checked. You can read more about this controversy in another related fact-check.
The reaction to this new KETO study highlights the gap between sensational reporting and careful scientific communication, illustrating why critical thinking and reliable sources are more important than ever when interpreting nutrition science.
We have contacted Cassidy Morrison at the Daily Mail and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Scientific language is careful, nuanced, and often deliberately cautious. Sensational headlines might grab attention, but they can easily twist or oversimplify the science. It’s always worth taking the time to check the facts.
On April 20th, the Daily Mail reported that a recent study “[revealed] the biggest medical myth we've all fallen for.” The study in question looked at people following a high-fat, low-carb diet (“keto diet”), all with high cholesterol levels. It received significant criticism from scientists for the way in which the researchers framed their findings, particularly on social media, which could mislead the public.
In this fact-check, we address the discrepancies between the study’s reception by the scientific community, and its sensational reporting. In particular, we fact-check the implications of the Daily Mail’s article that the scientific community is reversing its stance on high cholesterol.
Full Claim: "Researchers are beginning to understand that the medical field has drastically oversimplified cholesterol and its role in the body [...] But now, researchers are challenging that long-held belief, arguing cholesterol levels aren’t the medical ‘check engine light' they’ve long been made out to be and there are other ways to protect yourself that don't include skipping a steak dinner and taking a pill every day.”
The Daily Mail article blurs the distinction between the small group of researchers behind a new keto study and the broader scientific community, inaccurately implying that scientists at large are questioning long-established links between cholesterol and heart disease. In reality, the study’s framing was sharply criticised by experts across nutrition and cardiology, who reaffirmed that the scientific consensus on LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk remains strong and well-supported.
A lot of us learn about new scientific studies through news outlets and social media. Holding media platforms accountable is important to ensure new findings are communicated clearly and without distortion. Without accountability, following misleading nutritional advice could lead to harm.
In a move that has raised alarm among food safety experts, the White House recently disbanded two critical food safety advisory committees, calling them "unnecessary." But what role did these committees actually play, and what happens now that they’re gone? Let’s break it down.
For years, the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) have played a vital role in protecting public health. These committees brought together independent scientists, industry experts, and consumer advocates to guide policies on foodborne illness prevention, meat and poultry inspection, and emerging food safety risks.
Their recommendations helped shape regulations that reduced food contamination incidents, strengthened recall protocols, and improved pathogen testing. For example, past recommendations have led to stricter E. coli and Salmonella testing standards in meat production, significantly lowering foodborne illness outbreaks, as well as improved recommendations for testing ready-to-eat food, such as fresh produce. These interventions were particularly important, as despite 46% of foodborne illnesses being attributed to produce, poultry caused the largest number of deaths from foodborne illnesses between 1998 and 2008 in the U.S.
Without these committees, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other federal agencies will lack independent scientific guidance on food safety policies. This means:
“The erosion of funding for committees whose purpose is to support strong evidence-based food safety practices is a regressive step. The historic application of science in food safety has reduced harms to consumers and requires continued future investment to help support a healthy, thriving population” - Gavin Wren
This isn’t the first time food safety oversight has been reduced. In 2019, the USDA controversially lifted caps on slaughterhouse line speeds, despite warnings from experts that it would increase the risk of food contamination. Now, with the elimination of these committees, the U.S. is once again scaling back protections at a time when stronger oversight is urgently needed.
Beyond government oversight, factory farming itself remains one of the biggest threats to food safety. Industrial-scale farms crowd thousands—sometimes millions—of animals together in unsanitary conditions, creating a perfect breeding ground for deadly pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and avian flu. Moreover, the excessive use of animal manure as fertilizer, a by-product of factory farming, can lead to the contamination of fruits and vegetables.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly warned that intensive animal farming increases the risk of zoonotic diseases—infections that spread from animals to humans, like COVID-19 and avian influenza. Yet, instead of addressing these risks, policymakers are eliminating the very committees that advised on disease control in the food system.
Rather than reducing oversight, we should be moving toward a more sustainable and resilient food system, including:
By making these changes, we can create a safer food system that protects both public health and the environment.
Another overlooked consequence of disbanding these committees is the potential rise of food safety disinformation. Without expert advisory panels offering independent, science-based recommendations, the door is wide open for corporate interests and social media misinformation to shape public perception.
A lack of credible oversight allows:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about virus transmission in meat plants led to panic-buying and supply chain disruptions. Without authoritative voices to clarify risks, misinformation flourished—leading to workers getting sick, consumers fearing food shortages, and industry leaders lobbying for looser safety measures.
The elimination of independent food safety committees could further erode trust in food safety policies, leaving the public vulnerable to corporate spin and unverified health claims.
Disbanding these food safety committees is a short-sighted decision that weakens public health protections at a time when foodborne illness, zoonotic diseases, and corporate influence are all on the rise.
Instead of dismantling oversight, policymakers should be:
✅ Strengthening science-based food safety regulations
✅ Increasing monitoring of factory farm conditions
✅ Investing in safer, more sustainable food production
Food safety isn’t a political issue—it’s a public health necessity. Without independent oversight, the risks of disease outbreaks, misinformation, and weakened regulations will only grow. It’s time to demand accountability and action before the next food safety crisis hits.
It’s not just about policy—it’s about the safety of every meal we eat. Are we willing to risk it?
Dive into our collection of resources to uncover the facts behind today’s food system. From the environmental impact of food choices to the truth about nutrition claims, we’ve got you covered. Equip yourself to make informed, empowered decisions every day.
Take ActionEvery day, we work to uncover the truth about our food system, empowering informed choices for a healthier planet. Support from people like you helps us research, publish, and advocate for transparent food policies and honest labeling. Join us in driving meaningful change!
You Have The Power To Make A Difference 3 Times A Day.
Join us in promoting honest nutrition and wellness, whilst challenging misinformation.
.svg)
