Foodborne illnesses from meat and poultry products kill thousands of people a year and a new report from the Government Accountability Office offers ways Virginians and others can cut down on illnesses.

The report found federal food inspectors face two main challenges to reduce pathogens in meat and poultry: developing standards as the industry changes for pathogens and limited oversight outside the slaughterhouses and processing plants. Some advocates said it is not much different from past reports.

Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety, said the recommendations are essentially the same as previous reports to the Department of Agriculture.

"The big challenge is that the GAO has been giving advice to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for a number of years now, that they need to -- pardon the pun -- literally clean up their act and make sure that they are doing their job to make our food safe," Hanson emphasized.

More than 18,000 Virginians are employed in the poultry industry, and contributes to more than $12 billion in economic activity in the Commonwealth.

The Government Accountability Office said federal oversight of food safety has been on its high-risk list since 2007. The list comprises programs and operations vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.

Hanson explained part of the issue stems from concentrated feeding operations.

"When we crowd beef and pork and chickens into these concentrated feeding operations, it's just like taking the kids into kindergarten for the first time. They all get sick," Hanson stressed. "The difference is, when our kids get sick, we take them home until they're well. When animals get sick, they get butchered."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported nearly 3,000 people die from foodborne illnesses each year.


get more stories like this via email

Hundreds of people from across Oregon gathered in Salem for an advocacy day last week, urging lawmakers to pass what's known as the Food for All Oregonians bill.

Supported by a coalition of more than 180 organizations, it would ensure older adults and children could get food assistance regardless of their immigration status.

Research shows hunger rates are rising across the state, leaving one in six children facing food insecurity.

Oregon Food Bank's Associate Director Cristina Marquez said access to food benefits supported her family growing up, and made it easier for her to go to college.

"We know that programs like SNAP are the most effective anti-hunger tools we have," said Marquez, "being able to lift folks out of poverty each year and keeping families stable."

Food for All Oregonians would create a new, state-run program similar to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Youth and older adults who would otherwise qualify for SNAP except for their immigration status, would be eligible. Opponents of the bill are concerned about its cost.

It is scheduled for a public hearing tomorrow in Salem.

Oregon Food Bank points to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing every $1 spent on food assistance generates about $1.50 for local economies.

Marquez added that immigrants of all statuses contribute to the state's functioning, especially in agriculture.

"Many of the folks that would be affected by the passage of Food For All Oregonians are folks that are currently farm workers," said Marquez, "essential workers, critical to many of the industries here in Oregon."

Marquez noted that California and Washington have already enacted similar policies extending food benefits to people regardless of immigration status.

Food for All Oregonians is part of an immigrant justice package of bills, which would ensure legal representation for immigrants and create a farm worker disaster relief fund.

While affordable housing advocates across the state have been cheering on Washington's rent stabilization bill in Olympia, so have organizations fighting hunger in the state.

Claire Lane, director of the Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition, stands behind the bill, which would limit yearly rent increases to 7%. Lane said her coalition partners with housing advocates because if someone is housing insecure, they are also likely to be food insecure.

"Really, the most important thing to take away from that is, we're not going to be able to solve hunger in Washington until we can ensure that people have more stable, more affordable housing," she explained.

Washington's rent stabilization bill has passed the House and is now in the Senate. Votes for the bill have largely been along party lines, with Republicans arguing it will result in less housing and higher rents.

Along with capping increases, the rent stabilization bill would require landlords to give tenants six months' notice for significant rent increases. Lane explained that having more time is key to supporting people having enough food, and added if a family only has two months to move because of a rent hike, they will prioritize paying for housing over food.

"And that's where you start cutting back on your groceries. That's where you start skipping dinner or you start skipping breakfast," she continued.

Lane pointed to new data from the University of Washington focused on lower income households, showing more than half of participants experience food insecurity, and said the data show food insecurity in the state is widespread, especially in communities of color.

"Seventy percent of Hispanic respondents, compared to 54% of non-Hispanic respondents, experience food insecurity. Those are huge numbers no matter how you look at it, but the disparity is obvious," she contended.

Democrats are confident the rent stabilization bill will pass this year, with some tweaks in the wording.


get more stories like this via email

Children's advocates are crying foul after House Republicans called for $12 billion in cuts to school meal programs, including the Community Eligibility Provision, which allows high-poverty school districts to offer free breakfast and lunch to all students regardless of their ability to pay.

Erin Hysom, senior policy analyst at the Food Research and Action Center, said the funds are an important public investment and no child can learn on an empty stomach.

"We hear from teachers all the time that when schools offer healthy school meals for all, behavior in the classroom improves," Hysom reported. "Their academics improve and they're able to graduate and become more productive members of society."

Some 557 Colorado schools serving more than 206,000 students are projected to be affected. The proposed cuts are part of a sweeping effort by Republicans to eliminate waste and inefficiency in the federal budget in order to pay for extending President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other policy priorities, including mass deportations.

Hysom noted the Community Eligibility Provision has already reduced inefficiency and red tape, and cuts would send school nutrition directors away from kitchens and back to their desks to deal with unnecessary paperwork. She added the move would also affect farm-to-school initiatives putting money directly into the pockets of local farms and ranches.

"They're able to meet with local agricultural producers and bring in local products that not only improve the nutrition of the meal but also support the local economy," Hysom explained.

Cuts to federal nutrition funding would certainly not help Colorado's Healthy School Meals for All initiative, passed by voters in 2022. The popular program is competing with other priorities as the state grapples with a $1.2 billion budget shortfall.

Hysom worries the cuts could also mean the return of lunch line shaming.

"It really creates this stigma in the cafeteria," Hysom contended. "When we offer school meals to all children at no charge, it reduces that stigma."


get more stories like this via email