Most Recent Posts

Fast food giant McDonald's announced Wednesday it will begin sourcing chickens raised without antibiotics.

Over the next two years, the chain says its U.S. restaurants — which number around 14,000 — will transition to the new antibiotics policy, which prohibits suppliers from using antibiotics critical to treating human illness.

Many scientists are concerned that the more an antibiotic is given to food animals, the more quickly bacteria could adapt and become resistant to it, a process that could eventually render the drug ineffective for humans. The extent to which antibiotic resistance in animal agriculture contributes to humans getting infected with resistant bacteria is not well-known. But the Food and Drug Administration has been pushing meat producers to reduce antibiotic use to minimize the risk.

Now, the iconic purveyor of McNuggets is not going completely antibiotic-free when it comes to the chicken it serves. Under the new policy, the company's suppliers will still be allowed to give birds ionophores, a type of antibiotic not used to treat people.

The Salt

Americans Want Antibiotic-Free Chicken, And The Industry Is Listening

Several of McDonald's competitors have made similar commitments.

Chick-fil-A signaled in 2014 that it was moving toward serving only antibiotic-free meat. And both Panera and Chipotle began their move into antibiotic-free meat more than a decade ago. (For Chipotle, the decision came after it realized its pork wasn't selling very well.) Poultry giant Purdue also announced in September it would stop injecting antibiotics into chicken eggs that are just about to hatch.

McDonald's announcement came just two days after Steve Easterbrook took over as the new CEO. Easterbrook comes from the company's United Kingdom division, where he spearheaded various health and environmental initiatives. McDonald's says it's aware that its customers' expectations are changing.

One sign of growing consumer demand in the U.S. is sales of antibiotic-free meat at grocery stores. As industry analyst Joe Kolano told The Salt in February 2014:

"While antibiotic-free chicken is still a relatively small fraction of the market — accounting for about 9 percent of the $9 billion to $10 billion spent on fresh chicken in 2013 — it's a 'fast-growing sector.'"

Jonathan Kaplan, director of the food and agriculture program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement that he's hopeful McDonald's will soon cut back on antibiotics in its supply chains for beef (think the Big Mac) and pork (think McRib), too.

Other advocacy groups say today's news is a reminder that the FDA has yet to mandate stricter rules on how meat producers use medically important antibiotics.

"It's past time for the FDA to force the meat industry to eliminate its use of harmful antibiotics though enforceable, non-voluntary regulation," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch in a statement.

Pharmed Food

antibiotic resistance

antibiotics

mcdonalds

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could end Obamacare subsidies for policyholders in a majority of states, including Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it would mean millions of people could no longer afford health insurance.

The challenge to the Obamacare subsidies comes in the case King vs. Burwell. The plaintiffs point to a passage in Affordable Care Act that suggests that the federal government can only offer premium subsidies in Obamacare exchanges established by the states.

Only 16 states and the District of Columbia established their own systems. The rest are run by the federal government. In most cases, that's because Republican governors and legislatures refused to create a state system.

Shots - Health News

Few Clues On Health Law's Future Emerge In Supreme Court Arguments

Law

Round 2: Health Care Law Faces The Supreme Court Again

It's All Politics

4 Reasons Both Parties Should Be Sweating Bullets Over King V. Burwell

If the court upholds the challenge to the subsidies, an estimated 8 million people, including Melissa Trudeau, her husband and four children could lose their insurance.

"We'd probably just have to maybe only insure the kids," she says. "There's no way we could afford to do all of us, insure all of the entire family."

Trudeau and her family live near Tyler, Texas, and pay about $500 a month for coverage in the federally run exchange there. Without subsidies the cost would be $1,100.

"I'm really worried about it because we pretty much live paycheck to paycheck and we have a little bit extra coming in here and there but nothing we can really count on," Trudeau says. "If they take away the subsidies, I really don't know what we're going to do then."

But Christine Eibner, an economist at the RAND Corporation, a think tank, says it's not just the people getting subsidies who will be hurt.

"It's important to keep in mind that this ruling could have implications beyond the number of people losing subsidies," she says.

"When younger and healthier people drop out of the market because they no longer have access to subsidies, that causes premiums to increase."

- Christine Eibner, an economist at the RAND Corporation

If the court rules that the subsidies are illegal, even people in the individual insurance market who do not get subsidies would see their premiums rise — including people who bought their insurance outside the federally run marketplaces.

"We see premiums increasing by about 47 percent," Eibner says.

She says that's because removing subsidies would cause the youngest and healthiest people in the federally run exchanges to drop their insurance. "And when younger and healthier people drop out of the market because they no longer have access to subsidies, that causes premiums to increase," Eibner says.

Because older and sicker people need more health care, they will do everything they can to hang on to their insurance. That raises costs for insurance companies and they raise their premiums in response.

"It would be a staggering blow," says Andy Carter, CEO of the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania. He says it would be a blow to those getting subsidies in the federally run Pennsylvania exchange and a blow to hospitals, which would lose revenue. Carter says 4 out of 5 Pennsylvanians in the ACA exchange there get subsidies.

"The subsidies themselves represent a keystone to the whole Affordable Care Act structure," he says. "You lose those subsidies, and the whole thing just collapses."

U.S. hospitals have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the subsidies. Carter says he's optimistic the Supreme Court will rule the subsidies are legal, but he is talking to Pennsylvania state officials about setting up a state-run exchange just in case. However, he says, opposition in the state legislature remains a hurdle.

Eibner, of the RAND Corporation, says states that didn't set up their own exchanges would take an economic hit by giving up the federal subsidies.

"The subsidies are bringing about [$400] million a month into the state of Florida and [$200] million a month into the state of Texas," she says. "Over the course of the year, this translates into billions of dollars."

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision in June. So far, the Obama administration says it has no plan and no executive-branch power to undo the effects of a negative ruling.

Obamacare

Affordable Care Act

Supreme Court

Chai used $160,000 of her own money and one year to make Under The Dome, the same title as a Stephen King novel.

Some scenes in the film are shocking, including a visit to a hospital operating room, where viewers see the damage China's polluted air can do to a patient's lungs.

Chai asks some tough questions about the politics and economics behind the smog, but often with a gentle, funny tone.

She talks to a local environmental official so powerless to enforce the country's laws that he admits, "I don't want to open my mouth because I'm afraid you'll see that I'm toothless."

Ten years ago, I asked what that smell in the air was, and I got no answer. Now I know. It's the smell of money.

- Chai Ling, journalist and documentary filmmaker

She confesses that, like many Chinese citizens, it was only recently that she learned the difference between fog and smog.

She interviews local officials who protect polluting industries because those industries create jobs and pay taxes.

Chai doesn't explicitly criticize China's model of economic development. Nor does she call for China's leaders to be held accountable for their policies.

She makes it clear, though, that pollution is a cost of rapid industrialization that China can no longer put off paying.

"Ten years ago, I asked what that smell in the air was, and I got no answer," she says. "Now I know. It's the smell of money."

In the film, Chai travels to Los Angeles and London to learn how those cities cleaned up their air. She concludes that China can follow their example, and that its citizens should get involved.

Related NPR Stories

Goats and Soda

Young Indians Learn To Fight Pollution To Save Lives

Parallels

China Agrees To Pollution Limits, But Will It Make A Difference?

Shots - Health News

China's Air Pollution Linked To Millions Of Early Deaths

Asia

Beijing: From Hardship Post To Plum Assignment And Back Again

The Two-Way

What's A Breath Of Fresh Air Worth? In China, About $860

The Two-Way

Shanghai's Choking Smog Registers 'Beyond Index'

The Two-Way

China's Smog As Seen From Space

"The strongest governments on earth cannot clean up pollution by themselves," she argues. "They must rely on each ordinary person, like you and me, on our choices, and on our will."

Ma Jun, the director of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, agrees.

He calls Chai's documentary a wake-up call for China, comparable to An Inconvenient Truth, the 2006 documentary about climate change, and Silent Spring, Rachel Carson's 1962 book about harmful pesticides.

Ma offers an explanation for why China's government has not silenced Chai, and China's new environment minister even called to thank her.

"One reason such a hard-hitting film, that touched on deeply rooted problems, was allowed to be widely disseminated," he says, "is its positive direction, which gives people hope and confidence."

Chai has declined interview requests except for one from the website of the official People's Daily newspaper.

That website aired the documentary, until Wednesday, when it disappeared without explanation. It's still viewable elsewhere in China.

Of course, China has been saying for more than a decade that it's time to clean up the pollution, and that it's willing to accept slower economic growth in order to do it. But last year only 8 of 74 Chinese cities met the air quality targets – five more than in 2013.

Environmentalists have welcomed other encouraging signs in recent months. Last November, for the first time, China has set a target of 2030 for its carbon emissions to peak, before declining.

And it has promised to allow environmental groups to file class action lawsuits against polluters.

air pollution

pollution

China

A partial jawbone found in Ethiopia is the oldest human-related fossil, scientists say.

NPR's Christopher Joyce, who is reporting on the story, tells our Newscast unit that the discovery fills in an important gap in human evolution. He says:

"The fossil consists of a partial jawbone and several teeth. It dates back to about 2.8 million years ago.

"The team says the fossil appears to belong to an individual from the beginning of the ancestral line that led to humans. That would make it the earliest known Homo — the human genus.

"Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say the jaw and teeth are different from more ancient human ancestors, known as Australopithecus. Those ape-like creatures had broad teeth for grinding and deep jaws.

"The new fossil has smaller teeth and a more rounded jaw. It's 400,000 years older than the previous record for human-related fossils. The scientists say it comes from the earliest period of human evolution."

The fossil was discovered two years ago at a location in Ethiopia close to where Lucy — the skeleton of the sort of half-ape, half-human that lived a couple million years before humans evolved — was discovered.

fossils