Hep B Vaccine Delay, Ultraprocessed Food Lawsuit, and SNAP at Risk
The biggest public health developments of the week
I want to start by saying welcome to all the new subscribers, and to those of you who became paid subscribers this week after my video. I’m really grateful you’re here.
This weekend was a sharp contrast to the news cycle for me. I spent it doing a lot of holiday activities with my kids, who are three and six, and currently at the perfect age where the holidays feel like joy and magic. These are the years I want to bottle up, and I’m doing my best to create the memories I hope they’ll carry with them.
Before we dive in, if you are able, I hope you will consider becoming a paid subscriber. This newsletter takes a great deal of time, research, and care. And paid subscriptions are what make it possible for me to stay independent and continue producing thoughtful, evidence-based analysis with honesty and clarity. There is no outside funding for this kind of work, so if you find it valuable, becoming a paid subscriber truly helps me keep doing it.
And with that…here’s what happened last week.
1. RFK Jr.’s CDC Vaccine Advisors Vote to Delay Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns
On Friday, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to change the long-standing recommendation that newborns receive a Hepatitis B vaccine. Instead, they recommend delaying the first dose until a child is 2 months old.
This decision reverses over 30 years of evidence-based, science-backed CDC guidance and contradicts the position of major medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, who strongly opposed this decision.
Why does this matter?
Hepatitis B is the leading cause of liver cancer worldwide, and it spreads much easier than many people realize. A common misconception is that the virus can only be spread through needles or sexual contact, but it can actually live on surfaces for weeks, and spread through microscopic amounts of body fluid. A paper cut, for example, would be enough to transmit the virus from one person to another.
Vaccinating at birth is critical because:
Newborn vaccination reduces infant Hepatitis B by 99% since being added to the vaccine schedule in 1991.
Hepatitis B vaccines given within 24 hours of birth are 90% effective in preventing transmission from mother to baby and provide people with decades of full immunity.
Many people who have Hepatitis B are asymptomatic, meaning a parent might not know they have it, and people who are pregnant are tested early in pregnancy, but not later in pregnancy, which leaves room for missed infections by the time of delivery.
What happens now?
The change raises questions about insurance coverage and availability for families who still want the recommended birth dose. The Governors Public Health Alliance is a group of 15 governors who are already working to maintain access to recommended vaccines at the state level. Their actions could ensure insurance coverage and provider availability even when ACIP guidance is weakened at the federal level.
Still, the decision marks a significant departure from decades of science-based vaccine policy. pediatricians, infectious-disease experts, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all warn that delaying the Hepatitis B vaccine will increase preventable infections, contribute to long-term liver disease, and ultimately cost lives.
This is a great video with Dr. Paul Offit answering lots of common questions about vaccines.
2. San Francisco Sued 10 Major Food Companies over Ultra-Processed Foods
In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, San Francisco sued Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands arguing they knowingly created a public health crisis by marketing and selling addictive ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to children that are known to cause serious health conditions.
The lawsuit aims to stop the 10 companies from “deceptive marketing” and would require them to educate the public on the health risks of eating UPFs. It also seeks financial compensation to cover health care costs caused by adverse health outcomes from eating UPFs, but does not seek to ban them.
San Francisco argues that the UPFs that these companies make are contributing to growing rates of chronic disease. The lawsuit comes on the heels of a new law California Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October that will phase out UPFs from California schools within the next 10 years, and a Lancet review on UPFs released last month that builds on existing data showing that UPFs can be harmful for human health.
But it’s not that simple.
First, there is no official definition of ultra-processed foods that the USDA and FDA use to categorize foods. Currently, the UPF definition most commonly referenced is the NOVA classification, which identifies these foods as containing one or more ingredients you wouldn’t find in a typical home kitchen and undergoing processing techniques that significantly alter the look and taste of the original ingredients. For example, sodas, packaged chips, boxed mac and cheese, and frozen meals are all considered ultra-processed foods.
But not all ultra-processed foods have the same nutrient density or impact on health. Prepackaged whole grain bread, yogurt, canned beans, and dairy and meat alternatives are all UPFs, but they are nutrient dense, and have low levels of saturated fats and added sugars. Protein powders and infant formula are also UPFs under the nova classification. So, making blatant statements about their health impact as an entire category oversimplifies the evidence and misleads the public.
I’ll write about this in more detail in an upcoming newsletter, but for now I’ll just say this: if suing companies for creating the very food products that our own government has encouraged, subsidized, and shaped through decades of policy instead of addressing the structural conditions that created the problem is not the most American thing I have ever seen, I don’t know what is.
3. Trump Administration Declines to Recognize World Aids Day
For 36 years, the US along with many countries around the world have observed World AIDS Day on December 1 to commit to ending the HIV epidemic and honor the lives lost to HIV/AIDS. This year though, the Trump administration announced they would not be commemorating World AIDS Day, claiming that awareness of HIV/AIDS is not a strategy to end the HIV epidemic. While in reality, decades of progress have been driven by awareness, prevention efforts, treatment access, and global coordination.
This announcement also comes after the administration made massive cuts to global HIV/AIDS funding earlier this year by dismantling USAID and cutting PEPFAR funds. These actions cancelled support and prevention programs for children with HIV around the world. It is devastating, because through many of these initiatives HIV has become a manageable chronic condition rather than a death sentence. But continued progress depends on ongoing attention, sustained funding, and a commitment to ending the HIV epidemic.
4. FDA Linked COVID-19 Vaccines to Child Deaths With No Evidence
A top FDA official, Dr. Vinay Prasad, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines caused 10 pediatric deaths between 2021 and 2024. He did not cite a single piece of evidence. He did not explain how these deaths were supposedly linked to the vaccine. And it certainly was not based on any peer-reviewed or published data. In his announcement, he focused only on hypothetical risks while ignoring the overwhelming evidence showing the benefits of vaccination.
Dr. Prasad then used these unsupported claims to propose new standards for approving vaccines. His plan would require most vaccines to undergo randomized controlled trials. RCTs are often called the gold standard in research, but they are not feasible or necessary for every vaccine. Here is a good article published in the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) explaining exactly why this standard is ethically flawed and scientifically unsound
5. Threats to SNAP Funds in Democratic-Led States
In June, the USDA announced they’d be creating a database of food-aid recipients to check immigration status by receiving social security information and immigration status from SNAP data. Several states refused to provide this information because they believe the federal request violates privacy laws, puts them at legal risk, and would scare eligible families away from the very food-aid programs designed to prevent hunger. So complying could make food insecurity worse, and the states see it as their job to protect their residents, not hand over their data for purposes SNAP was never meant to serve.
In response, the USDA is threatening to block SNAP funds as early as this week from democratic states that do not comply with the data request.
To me, this is a clear example of food assistance being used as political leverage. And when a program meant to prevent hunger is manipulated in this way, food security for millions of Americans is put at risk. Disruptions in SNAP benefits will make it hard for families to afford groceries, and food insecurity has impacts beyond hunger and malnutrition. It increases stress, worsens birth outcomes, worsens chronic disease outcomes, and ultimately undermines the health and stability of our country.
What We Can Do?
Contact your state representatives and governor.
State leaders will play a major role in determining whether families can still access recommended vaccines, including the Hep B birth dose. A quick email or call urging them to maintain availability for the full vaccine schedule can help keep access stable despite weakened federal guidance. You can look up your state and federal elected officials here.
Support and donate to local food banks.
When food aid programs are cut, local organizations often step in to fill the gap. Even small donations or volunteering time can make a difference.
Use this tool to locate one near you.
Stay informed & share credible information.
Misinformation and fear can spread fast. Use trustworthy sources, and share accurate facts with friends, family, and neighbors.
Vote with Public Health in Mind
Elections at all levels (local, state, and federal) shape the policies that determine who has access to safe food, clean water, health care, and social programs. Support candidates who value strong public-health systems, evidence-based policy, and protections for communities that rely most on these programs.
Jess. I am a subscriber. I am an appreciative subscriber. I find your work to be substantive, important, factual, and presented clearly. I am not sure how long you have been doing this on social media, but you are now in a small group of experts I consider "must see" every day. Thank you and please keep up the very helpful work.
Solid roundup of public health developments. The SNAP section really hits the crux of the problem tho--when food assistance becomes a bargaining chip for unrelated political goals, it stops functioning as nutrition policy and starts being weaponized. What's particularly troubling is the chilling effect. Even if disruptions get resolved later, eligible families might stay away from programs after seeing them get threatend, which defeats the whole point of having a safety net in the firs place.