American Exceptionalism 2.0 – Turning Nutrition Guidance on Its Head

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy at the National Consumers League

“American exceptionalism,” the idea that the United States is a unique nation rooted in democracy and liberty, dates back to the country’s founding. In fact, the colonial writer Thomas Paine described America as an exceptional civilization in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense.

But now, there is a different form of American uniqueness – American exceptionalism 2.0 – that is not lofty and puts the U.S. at odds with the health recommendations of most other nations. Grounded in the view of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that “we need to stop trusting the experts,” American exceptionalism 2.0 assumes past scientific evidence was wrong and America needs a reset in health and environmental policy. Over the past year, sweeping changes have followed, impacting the health of the nation – from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) erasing decades of climate and air pollution rules to HHS reducing the number of vaccines recommended for children from 11 to 18 without following established procedures for making such changes.

The newest result is the release of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans- 2025-2030, which HHS Secretary Kennedy and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins assert is “the most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in decades.” They are right.

Sidestepping the 400-plus page 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report finalized in December 2024, the Secretaries dismissed its findings and assembled a different panel of scientists, seven of whom had ties to the dairy and meat industries. The resulting report omits more than half of DGAC’s recommendations and presents an upside-down food pyramid that nutrition and public health organizations says fails to translate nutrition science into clear dietary guidance.

To be clear, some aspects of the dietary guidelines are widely supported. They retain recommendations to drink more water, eat more fruits and vegetables, and choose whole over refined grains. The big call-out is the recommendation to reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages –because these products have little nutritional value, and have high amounts of salt, sweeteners, and unhealthy fats. According to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 55 percent of Americans’ calories come from ultra-processed foods, increasing the risk for diet-related chronic diseases.

Yet, NCL joins other consumer, public health, and medical societies in raising the alarm that ending what the Trump Administration calls “the war on protein” and promoting red meat and full-fat dairy will push consumers beyond recommended limits for sodium and saturated fats. Nutrition experts caution that advising people to consume 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily – meaning eating protein at every meal – would double the previously recommended daily allowance of 0.8 grams.

The new guidelines also abandon longstanding advice on drinking alcohol, which previously recommended limiting daily consumption to one or two drinks, with an explanation of what this means for beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Instead, they use vague language such as “consume less alcohol” without distinguishing between men and women, who metabolize alcohol differently, or cautioning against underage drinking.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), justified the approach, calling alcohol a “social lubricant that brings people together.”  But, putting people’s social life ahead over public health ignores the that excessive alcohol use contributes to about 178,000 deaths annually; causes various cancers, heart and liver diseases, and other chronic conditions; and costs the U.S. economy approximately $249 billion each year, according to the CDC.

Since 1980, the Dietary Guidelines have been issued every five years to impart the latest science-based dietary advice. But this time, HHS and USDA threw out the old rulebook.

As RFK Jr. said at the press conference I attended, “medical orthodoxies have to be challenged.” But challenging science without credible, evidence-based justification raises serious concerns—especially when powerful industry interests, including beef, dairy, and alcohol lobbies, were prominently present and seemingly influential in shaping this new, upside-down dietary guidelines pyramid. This approach risks prioritizing politics and profit over public health.

For American consumers, the stakes could not be higher. These changes threaten to weaken long-standing public health protections and undermine trust in science-based guidance. NCL will continue to raise these concerns and advocate for policies grounded in sound science, transparency, and consumer well-being. The real question now is whether this break from scientific norms will improve public health—or put it at risk. Time will tell.

My 11-Year-Old Got the HPV Vaccine — Here’s Why It Matters for Cancer Prevention

/in Featured Home - Health, Thought Leadership/by

By Lisa Bercu, NCL Senior Director of Health Policy

Last week, my 11-year-old received her first HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine. Like most kids, my daughter doesn’t love getting shots, but I talked it up for months in advance. I explained the HPV vaccine helps prevent cancer, which could otherwise rear its ugly head years or even decades down the road. And, that she may be spared many of the health risks and worries that so many women of my generation grew up with, including dealing with abnormal pap smears and invasive follow-up procedures. With that in mind (and knowing she would be rewarded with ice cream later!), she bravely rolled up her sleeve and got her vaccine.

That moment came against the backdrop of a significant and troubling policy shift. Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, made several changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. These changes were not driven by new scientific evidence. Instead, they reflect a departure from decades of established research, elevating ideology and misinformation in ways that will increase confusion for families, disrupt access to routine immunizations that have been given to children for years, and reduce public confidence in vaccines that are proven to be safe and effective.

These changes include altering the recommendations for the HPV vaccine. The CDC is now recommending a single dose instead of the two doses previously recommended. While there is growing evidence that one dose may be sufficient to protect people against HPV-related cancers, there isn’t sufficient evidence to support that change yet, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continue to recommend the full series of doses for adolescents.

HPV Vaccine = Cancer Prevention

During Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, it’s worth underscoring a critical fact: HPV vaccination is cancer prevention.

HPV is extremely common, with more than 200 strains, and it is transmitted through intimate skin-to-skin contact (e.g., sex). Most people will be infected with at least one HPV type at some point in their lives, and certain types can lead to cancer. The HPV vaccine protects against the types that cause the vast majority of cervical cancers, as well as other cancers such as throat, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and some head and neck cancers. According to the American Cancer Society, the HPV vaccine, when given at the recommended ages, can prevent more than 90% of HPV-related cancers.

The HPV vaccine can be given to children starting at age 9, with routine vaccination at 11 or 12. The recommended dosing schedule is as follows:

    • 9-14 years: 2-dose series across a 6–12-month period
    • 15 years or older: 3-dose series across a 6-month period

While the HPV vaccine is typically given to preteens, adults up to age 45 can get it. Vaccinating at the recommended age not only strengthens immune response but also ensures protection before potential exposure to HPV and before cancer can begin to develop. Importantly, this guidance applies to both boys and girls. HPV can cause cancer in men, as well including anal, penile, throat, and head and neck cancers. The vaccine works. According to the CDC, among young adult women, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 81%. And among vaccinated women, the percentage of cervical pre-cancers caused by the HPV types most often linked to cervical cancer has dropped by 40%.

Unfortunately, following the changes to the CDC’s recommendations, insurance coverage of the HPV vaccine is in flux. Most private insurers are expected to continue covering all doses of the vaccine through 2026 at no cost to patients, but coverage of the second and third doses after 2026 remains uncertain. Under the Vaccines for Children program, coverage of the first dose is expected to continue, while coverage of second and third doses is currently unclear.

What You Can Do

You can help ensure children get the protection they need:

    • Talk with your child’s healthcare provider about the HPV vaccine at the recommended ages. If your child is eligible for the HPV vaccine now, talk to your healthcare provider as soon as possible, as insurance coverage may change.
    • Review and share trusted information from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics.
    • Advocate for policies that uphold science-based vaccine recommendations.
Nancy Glick

New Options, Lower Costs, and Advice for Consumers Taking GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, NCL Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

As 2026 gets underway, findings from the Pew Research Center estimate that three in ten Americans – more than 100 million people – started January with resolutions to save more money, get healthier, lose weight, spend more time with family and friends, and quit smoking.  Yet, only about 9 percent of Americans will ultimately keep their resolutions, according to the Pew findings. In fact, studies project that 23 percent of people quit their resolution by the end of the first week, and 43 percent quit by the end of January.  

Usually, resolutions to lose weight are where many Americans fail. But this year, the goal of achieving a healthier weight is increasingly possible. Here are some reasons why: 

    • Americans with obesity now have the option of being treated with the first GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) weight loss weight pill. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2025, the so-called Wegovy© pill is indicated for people with obesity (BMI 30+) and those with overweight (BMI 27+) and at least one weight-related chronic condition. Containing the same active ingredient, semaglutide, as the widely used weekly GLP-1 injectable weight-loss treatment, the pill is taken once daily on an empty stomach, has comparable side effects (such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting) to injectable semaglutide, and also achieves similar weight-loss results. Specifically, in clinical trials, the pill achieved an average loss of 14 percent of a person’s body weight over 64 weeks when combined with diet and exercise. 
    • The FDA-approved weight loss pill is more affordable for consumers whose insurance does not cover obesity medication. Although pill prices vary depending on insurance coverage and dosage, for self-pay patients (without insurance), the cash prices range from $149 to $299 per month. This is because the pill form of semaglutide is cheaper to produce and does not require refrigeration. Moreover, the pill is widely available with a prescription from a qualified medical professional at over 70,000 U.S. pharmacies and via telehealth providers working with the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, such as GoodRx and WeightWatchers.
    • The cost of injectable weight-loss drugs has dropped significantly. In May 2025, manufacturers of the popular GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, Wegovy© (semaglutide) and Zepbound© (tirzepatide), announced large price reductions for their injectable GLP-1 drugs, making it possible for “self-pay” consumers to access these FDA-approved medicines. Then, in November 2025, the drugmakers reached an agreement with the Trump Administration to set Medicare and Medicaid prices at $245 a month, including a $50 copay for many Medicare patients, significantly expanding access to these weight-loss and diabetes drugs for millions. 
    • The federal government is working on a pathway for Medicare and Medicaid to cover GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. On December 23, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the BALANCE ( Better Approaches to Lifestyles and Nutrition for Comprehensive Health) Model, a voluntary program where CMS will work with Medicaid programs, Medicare insurance plans (Part D plans), and drugmakers to determine the best way to reduce net prices for GLP-1 medications, cap out-of-pocket costs, and standardize coverage criteria so people with Medicare and Medicaid coverage will have access to these treatments in the future. Under the program, CMS will waive the current Part D coverage exclusion for weight-loss medications, meaning GLP-1s will be included as a basic benefit of participating plans, and CMS will test different prices negotiated with manufacturers, the use of rebates to keep costs aligned with coverage terms, and cost-sharing options. CMS will begin testing different payment systems for Medicaid plans as early as May 2026 and for Medicare Part D starting in January 2027. Related to the BALANCE model, CMS will also conduct a payment demonstration starting in July 2026 that will allow eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries to have coverage for GLP-1 drugs with an out-of-pocket cost of $50 a month.  

Because these developments translate into greater access to safe and effective FDA-approved GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, NCL recommends that consumers rethink their treatment decisions with a focus on drug safety. In February 2025, NCL issued a consumer alert with guidance from the FDA and obesity medicine specialists regarding the use of untested compounded GLP-1 drugs, possible counterfeits and fakes, and products sold online that the FDA warned could cause harm. Now that more FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs are readily available, NCL offers this updated advice:  

    • Before seeking treatment with a GLP-1 drug, talk to your doctor or health provider to determine if you are a candidate for treatment based on your risk factors and degree of obesity. 
    • When possible, the FDA recommends that patients opt for FDA-approved GLP-1 medications and fill prescriptions at a state-licensed pharmacy.
    • Because GLP-1 drugs are serious medicines that carry risks as well as benefits, it is best to obtain a prescription from your doctor or a health professional you know.
    • Be aware of the differences between FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs and products sold online that claim to be “the same” as these medicines, only cheaper and more convenient. Unlike FDA-approved medicines, compounded GLP-1 drugs and products promoted as alternatives to FDA-approved versions – such as oral supplements and patches – do not go through the FDA’s rigorous review process to ensure safety, effectiveness, and quality. Moreover, there are differences in how these products are manufactured, and their ingredients may come from undisclosed sources. The FDA warns that taking these products increases the risk of dosing errors and exposure to contaminants.  
    • Medical organizations warn that microdosing GLP-1s – meaning intentionally taking a smaller dose than the FDA-approved, on-label regimen – is an experimental practice that raises significant safety and effectiveness concerns. Although some telehealth companies claim that microdosing is a healthy way to lose weight and reduce metabolic risk, FDA does not approve or provide guidelines for “microdosing” GLP-1 medications and there is no clinical evidence from large-scale trials to support the safety or effectiveness of microdosing as a standard practice for weight loss or other claimed benefits.
    • In situations where you choose a telehealth option, beware of prescribing practitioners who do not take your personal history, do not diagnose the degree of obesity with appropriate evaluation measures, or prescribe a GLP-1 drug without ongoing monitoring.
    • Before ordering a GLP-1 drug through an online pharmacy, follow the FDA’s tips to spot the warning signs that the website may be unsafe, such as the online pharmacy is not licensed in the US or by a state board of pharmacy, or it offers deep discounts that seem too good to be true.  

The Biloxi Lawsuit Isn’t Just Another “Hotels vs. Short-Term Rentals” Fight

/in Featured Home - Consumer Protection, Thought Leadership/by

By John Breyault, NCL Vice President, Public Policy, Telecom & Fraud

When cities crack down on short-term rentals, the headlines often scream “Airbnb vs. Hotels!” — but the story is bigger than a platform feud. Behind the zoning rules and permit limits lies a high-stakes battle over who gets to control the lodging market, and whether “consumer protection” is just a cover for keeping competition out. A recent lawsuit in the Deep South may seem local, but it highlights a national trend with real consequences for travelers, homeowners, and communities alike.

At first glance, Airbnb’s recent lawsuit against the city of Biloxi, Mississippi, looks like the latest episode in the long-running hotels vs. short-term rentals war. Cities pass restrictive ordinances. Platforms sue. Hotels cheer from the sidelines. Rinse, repeat.

But this case is bigger than a zoning dispute. It raises a fundamental question about the future of competition in the travel lodging market — and whether “consumer protection” is being used as a shield for market protectionism.

Airbnb and a Biloxi property owner allege that the city, heavily influenced by the local hotel-industry trade association, implemented restrictions designed not to protect neighborhoods but to kneecap competitors. Biloxi banned short-term rentals in many residential areas and later capped permits citywide at just 75 properties — a ceiling so low that it effectively freezes out meaningful competition.

Biloxi isn’t an anomaly. In recent years, hotels have deployed lobbyists in cities like New York and Chicago to limit short-term rental competition, often under the guise of protecting housing stock or neighborhoods.

Other short-term rental platforms, such as Vrbo (formerly HomeAway), Booking.com’s home-rental business, and regional home-sharing services are also part of this broader lodging-market dynamic. These platforms have introduced competition into a hotel industry that, over the past 10–15 years, has undergone deep consolidation. Today, just a handful of mega-brands dominate global hotel markets through ownership, franchising, or branding deals. When so few companies hold so much power, local regulations can become levers to shut out newcomers.

Short-Term Rentals Serve Consumers — and Communities

Short-term rentals (STRs) are more than an “Airbnb vs. hotels” story. For many travelers — families on a budget, groups of friends, or extended-stay guests — STRs offer flexibility, affordability, and value that hotels often struggle to match. They help keep lodging markets competitive, preventing hotels from hiking prices unchecked.

STRs also benefit local homeowners seeking extra income — especially in popular vacation spots or near college campuses when demand surges. In small towns around major sporting events or seasonal tourism, STRs can provide lodging when hotel rooms are booked out or priced through the roof.

Communities also deserve a voice. Some neighborhoods worry about noise, safety, or over-tourism; others worry about long-term housing loss. Smart regulations can balance these concerns without eliminating STRs entirely or favoring incumbents.

Short-Term Rentals Are Not a Panacea

STRs need thoughtful regulations. Anyone who has lived next to an unregulated party house — with rolling suitcases at 2 a.m., overflowing trash, or revolving-door renters — knows the concerns are real. STRs have caused nuisances, safety issues, and reduced long-term housing in some cities.

There are also consumer-facing horror stories: misleading listings, last-minute cancellations, “bait-and-switch” properties, and amateur hosts who fail to maintain basic safety standards. Platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo have economies of scale, but enforcement remains uneven, and small hosts often lack resources to follow best practices. STRs are far from perfect.

Transparent Pricing and Real Competition

Hotel pricing has long been opaque. Hidden costs — resort fees, amenity charges, “service” or “destination” fees — often don’t appear until checkout, making it hard for consumers to compare options. That kind of “drip pricing” distorts markets and misleads travelers.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Junk Fees Rule addresses this. As of May 2025, all lodging providers — hotels and short-term rental platforms alike — must disclose total prices up front. Transparency allows travelers to compare real costs and enables STRs to compete fairly rather than letting hotels exploit confusion.

This aligns with broader consumer-protection efforts, including state-level actions and advocacy by organizations such as the National Consumers League, which have challenged opaque hotel fee practices.

Toward Smart Regulations That Encourage Competition

We need regulations — but the right kind. The Biloxi lawsuit, along with the broader pattern in New York and Chicago, shows the risk of blanket bans or restrictive caps that eliminate lodging options in favor of legacy operators. Local governments should pursue rules that:

  • Ensure STRs meet safety, health, and nuisance standards;
  • Provide transparent permitting and accountability;
  • Maintain a sustainable number of rentals so STRs remain viable;
  • Incorporate community input — without letting incumbents rig the system.

Federal rules, such as the Junk Fees Rule, are also critical. By standardizing pricing disclosure, they help travelers compare hotels and STRs on a level playing field and discourage deceptive resort fees.

We should welcome — not fear — competition. Multiple lodging options — hotels, inns, and STRs — keep prices down, service quality up, and innovation alive. Overly restrictive regulations, especially those influenced by hotel-industry lobbyists, undermine this dynamic.

If we care about affordability, fairness, and consumer choice, lodging policy must focus on transparency, sensible safety rules, and real community input — not protectionism dressed up as “consumer protection.”

The East Wing Was More Than a Building — It Was a Legacy of Women’s Leadership

/in Thought Leadership/by

By Maggie Oliverio, NCL Media Relations Associate

As a child, I always dreamed of living in Washington, working in politics, making a real difference, and having a life like the ones my favorite characters in books, movies, and television shows led. I idolized women like our first ladies —Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama —as well as working women in Washington, like Judy Smith, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Diane Sawyer.

In 2023, it was finally my time. I had graduated from college and was elated to start my first job on Capitol Hill. In my role, I had the opportunity to take part in many extraordinary experiences, but the most joyous was the White House. The East and West Wing, Rose Garden, Executive Office building, and yes, even the private bowling alley.

The East Wing was one of those places: pale light, quiet footsteps, portraits watching from the walls, time slowed as you walked in. It felt like a bridge between the ceremonial and the practical, between the pageantry of the presidency and the daily work of the people who kept the place running. So, when I learned that the East Wing would be reduced to rubble to make room for a ballroom, I was devastated. How could that be possible? I was just there a mere 10 months ago, touring with my friends, admiring the First Lady’s portraits and holiday lights. This wasn’t just a building being torn down. It was history—personal and national—being erased with startling speed.

Built during World War II under Franklin Roosevelt, the East Wing’s above-ground structure was created partly to conceal an underground emergency bunker system. Over time, the East Wing evolved into something more than an architectural appendage. It became the domain of the First Ladies, a space where women—often dismissed as presidential appendages — ran complex portfolios, crafted policy initiatives, and built their own leadership teams. For decades, some of the most influential work affecting American families, education, public health, and military families happened in those rooms.

For someone like me, who came into government service believing deeply in the power of female representation, that mattered. Our first ladies are not ornamental; they are public servants. These hard-working women have given up privacy, personal dreams, and peace of mind to serve a role that demands grace under relentless scrutiny.

When the ballroom project was first introduced, we were assured that the East Wing would be preserved. That promise evaporated the moment the demolition equipment rolled in. The American people understand homes need repairs and renovations, but this was not a facelift. We were lied to. The East Wing wasn’t renovated—it was demolished; its structure and symbolism treated as disposable.

Buildings carry stories. The East Wing was full of them: Roosevelt’s wartime bunker construction, Jackie Kennedy’s restoration plans, Laura Bush’s library and literacy work, Nancy Reagan’s social office machine, and Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Team. Even the less visible staff—ushers, schedulers, policy aides, military social aides—left their fingerprints. It held generations of American life inside its walls.
The administration says the new ballroom is privately funded, and on paper, that may be true. The construction costs—hundreds of millions—are being covered by a mix of Trump’s money and a network of donors but “cost to the taxpayer” isn’t just about a line in the federal budget.

There are other costs, less obvious but more corrosive:
· Security costs, which inevitably fall to taxpayers, will rise with a new, larger, more complex structure.
· Maintenance of the expanded footprint will fall to federal budgets long after the donors’ checks stop clearing.
· Oversight shortcuts taken during the rapid approval process set precedents that future administrations will inherit—and taxpayers will pay for those mistakes.

A privately funded government building is never truly free. Who gets invited to give? Whose interests align with the White House? What foreign actors see as a “donation” is an investment with expected returns?
These aren’t abstract concerns. They strike at the heart of the very system the East Wing represented: public service rooted in institutional and historical continuity, not personal favor.

For me, the loss is both political and personal. The knowledge that a place where women led, organized, strategized, and influenced national conversations has been erased. There is something eerily prolific for our current climate that a place that held so much history—specifically women’s history—was removed out of preference, not necessity. Out of vanity. And with no public input, even though this was truly the people’s house.

This one stings, and it should, for every taxpayer, every young girl who dreamed of walking those historic halls once inhabited by our First Ladies, and every American who believes in “for the people, by the people.”

          

Nancy Glick

A Call Not to Make Americans Hungry Again

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

1968 was a pivotal year in U.S. history, and not only for the anti-war protests and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. That same year, CBS News aired “Hunger in America,” a Peabody-winning documentary that opened the eyes of Americans to the fact that over 10 million people – nearly 20 percent of the public – were suffering from hunger and malnutrition in a land of plenty. 

Later that year, a group of 25 religious, labor, legal, medical, and other professionals, including the Citizens’ Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition, published a scathing report documenting widespread hunger and malnutrition across the country. Called “Hunger U.S.A.,” the report identified 282 “hunger counties,” especially in areas like Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and Native American reservations, and described the dire conditions for people experiencing hunger,  made worse by federal programs that discriminated against the poor and favored agricultural companies.  

The report and the documentary shocked the nation, prompting significant public and political pressure that led President Richard Nixon to convene the first-ever White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health in Washington in December 1969. Attended by 5,000 delegates representing various interest groups, the conference produced more than 1,800 recommendations to improve anti-hunger programs. The conference was also the stimulus for Congress to pass landmark legislation – such as the 1974 Food Stamp Act, the 1975 School Breakfast Program and Summer Food Program, and authorization of the Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) – that now make it possible for more low-income families to have a healthy diet.   

Fast-forward 56 years after the White House Conference , and the nation is staring at the possibility of another wave of massive hunger in America. Despite how much has changed over the last five decades, an estimated 47.4 million Americans now experience food insecurity, including over 13 million children. The consequences for malnourished people are wide-ranging. Adults experience more severe illnesses, disability, muscle wasting, and chronic diseases, while children may face stunted growth, developmental delays, learning difficulties, and reduced cognitive function. 

Given this reality, one would think that reducing hunger in America would be a priority for the White House and members of Congress. Yet, passage of the President’s One Bill Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in July shows this is not the case. OBBBA cut $186 billion in funding for roughly one in eight people in the U.S. who buy groceries with help from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program. When the cuts take effect in 2027, the Urban Institute projects that 22.3 million families will lose some or all of their SNAP benefits. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 3.2 million adults will be cut from the SNAP program in a typical month due to expiring exemptions. This includes 1 million older adults, 800,000 parents, and 1.4 million adults in areas with insufficient jobs.  

But now, nearly 42 million people could lose their SNAP benefits this year – as early as November 1. This reason is an ongoing fight in Congress over how to end a federal government shutdown, where food-insecure Americans are being used as pawns. Senate Republicans insist that Democrats vote to approve a “clean” budget spending bill with no changes. In contrast, Democrats want the bill to include an extension of expiring tax credits that will make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans and to reverse Medicaid cuts.  

The haggling has been ongoing since October 1, when the government shut down, and efforts to reach a compromise have failed. Thus, the Trump Administration is using continued funding for SNAP benefits as a pressure tactic to raise the ante on Senate Democrats. This took the form of the USDA announcing on its website on October 26 that “the well has run dry,” and there will be no SNAP benefits issued on November 1. 

What the USDA didn’t say is that the department has access to a nearly $6 billion contingency fund that paid for SNAP benefits during past government shutdowns. Many Congressional Democrats and Republicans had encouraged the Trump administration to use this funding to preserve food stamps through November, as the government was expected to remain closed. But the Trump administration declined, even though USDA said weeks ago that it could reprogram money to prevent benefit cuts. 

People receiving SNAP benefits should not be used as a bargaining chip in a game of chicken between Republicans and Democrats. Therefore, Democratic attorneys general and governors from 25 states filed a lawsuit in federal court on October 28, arguing that the federal government had a legal obligation to maintain funding for food stamps, which Congress made permanent in the 1960s.  

Soon, we will know if the federal court sides with state attorneys general and governors and compels USDA to use its contingency fund so nutritionally vulnerable Americans will continue to have enough food. If not, over 40 million children and adults can only hope that cooler heads will prevail, that Democrats and Republicans will come to the negotiating table, that the shutdown will end, and that SNAP benefits will be restored.  

But no one should declare victory. This is a dark moment in our history. 

Nancy Glick

Reversing Progress on Obesity Care

/in Featured Home - Food, Nutrition, & Obesity, Thought Leadership/by

By Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

“One step forward, two steps back” describes situations where progress is hindered by setbacks. This accurately reflects the state of obesity care today. 

On the positive side, the disease that now affects more than 100 million adult Americans is finally getting recognition as a priority health issue. This is due to several important developments demonstrating the value of treating obesity as a serious chronic disease: 

There is widespread scientific consensus that obesity is a high-risk condition

Starting with the American Medical Association’s (AMA) action in 2013 to classify obesity as a serious chronic disease requiring treatment, numerous chronic diseases, obesity and nutrition organizations now agree that obesity is a distinct disease due to its complex biological mechanisms and its worsening effect on over 230 other chronic diseases. Based on this consensus, in 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to establish treatment of obesity as a medically necessary service under Medicare and Medicaid, paving the way for covering weight loss drug under these programs in the future.

New therapeutic agents are revolutionizing obesity medicine

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor) agonist to treat obesity in 2021, Americans learned that these injectable medicines could help people lose between 15 percent and 25 percent of their weight on average after one year. Thus, enthusiasm for GLP-1s has soared to levels rarely seen in medical practice. According to the findings of a 2024 survey of 3,000 adults commissioned by the professional services firm PWC, between 8 percent and 10 percent of US adults are currently taking GLP-1s. 

GLP-1 medicines are cost-effective 

In September, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) gave its highest cost-effectiveness rating to the widely prescribed weekly injectable GLP-1 weight loss drugs, semaglutide and tirzepatide, citing price reductions and studies showing cardiovascular benefits. Additionally, FDA recently approved the first generic version of an older GLP-1, liraglutide, which is injected daily. 

New research shows that treating obesity lowers overall healthcare costs

Because even a modest weight loss (a drop of 5-10 percent) produces significant health improvements when a person has overweight or obesity, studies are beginning to project the potential savings to the economy from covering obesity medications. One large study of privately insured adults and Medicare beneficiaries published December 5, 2024, in JAMA Network Open estimated an annual savings of $2,430 per person who achieved a 10 percent reduction in excess weight and a $5,444 reduction in health expenditures with a 25 percent weight loss.  

Reflecting these developments, coverage of GLP-1 drugs increased in 2023 and 2024, particularly among large employers. According to the firm Mercer, which conducts an annual National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, coverage for GLP-1 drugs in 2024 rose to 44 percent of all large employers (those with 500 or more employees) and up to 64 percent of corporations with 20,000 or more employees.  

Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) required Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) carriers to cover at least one GLP-1 weight loss drug in 2024, and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) covered these medicines for chronic weight management. At the same time, several states provided some level of GLP-1 coverage for their employee health plans and 13 state Medicaid programs covered GLP-1 weight loss drugs as of August 2024.  

But, as the saying goes, that was then, and this is now. Due to dramatic cuts in federal and state budgets, the nation is shifting course with the inevitable result of moving backwards in delivering quality obesity care. While not the complete picture, the National Consumers League notes these troubling reversals:

  • In April 2025, the Trump Administration announced that Medicare will not cover anti-obesity medications, stating that the 2024 CMS proposal to cover GLP-1 weight loss drugs “is not appropriate at this time.” 

If obesity were cancer or heart disease, policymakers might think twice about not allowing access to cost-effective medications. Yet, the reality is that obesity is still not viewed as a serious disease. Thus, obesity remains largely undertreated in this country, due in part to payers, federal agencies, and state governments restricting or eliminating coverage for anti-obesity medicines that are changing the standard of care.  

Recognizing that people with obesity deserve the same level of attention and care as those with other chronic diseases, the National Consumers League partnered with the National Council on Aging (NCOA) and leading obesity specialists to develop and issue the first Obesity Bill of Rights for the nation on January 31, 2024. Specifically, the Obesity Bill of Rights defines quality obesity care as the right of all adults and establishes eight essential rights, including the right to coverage for the full range of treatment options, ensuring that Americans with obesity recieve the care specified in medical guidelines. 

To ensure Americans have these rights, NCL and obesity advocates are urging policymakers to adopt a long-term view about the importance of covering anti-obesity medications. Our message is simple: there may be short-term budget savings from restricting or eliminating coverage, but if obesity goes untreated among a large segment of the population, the nation will pay the costs in higher annual expenditures on obesity-related chronic diseases, disability, lost productivity, and premature deaths.  

Complicating matters, not having insurance coverage is what drives many consumers to go online and opt for ‘cheap, easy, and doctor-approved’ compounded GLP-1 products that may cause harm or could be fakes. According to the Food and Drug Administration, these products may contain incorrect dosages, the wrong ingredients, excessive or insufficient amounts of active ingredients, or possibly bacteria, all of which can lead to serious health consequences. Thus, while several medical organizations and state attorneys general have issued alerts to warn consumers, advocates agree that providing coverage for FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs is the best way to put a damper on this exploitative market.  

For all these reasons, NCL urges insurers and federal and state policymakers to consider the significant health and patient safety benefits, as well as the reduced medical expenditures from treating obesity, when weighing decisions about coverage.  

An Important Day for Safer Cars and Products

/in Featured Home - Consumer Protection, Featured Home - Traffic Safety, Thought Leadership/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL CEO

From left to right: Torine Creppy, Safe Kids Worldwide President; Janette Fennel, Kids and Car Safety President; Sally Greenberg; Brett Horn, Charlie’s House Founder

On a recent Sunday in October, I flew to Kansas City to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of Kids and Car Safety. The organization was formed by my friend and colleague, Janette Fennell, who dedicated her life’s work to preventing injury to children after she and her husband were kidnapped in their car. More on this story later, but it has a happy ending.

As a general matter, it’s often hard to celebrate advances in product and auto safety because they happen in the aftermath of injuries to children and adults from poorly designed products. 

Indeed, I began working with Janette in 2002 to address the danger of drivers backing over children, typically toddlers, who are too small to be seen behind cars with no camera, which cars didn’t have in 2002.  The first time I met Janette, she was hosting a press conference in suburban Washington, D.C. She had a speaker at the microphone who described the agony of backing over his grandchild. Hard to believe I hadn’t thought about this obvious hazard to children before. 

Back to Janette’s history. In 1996, she and her husband Greig were forced into their trunk one evening when returning from a party in San Francisco, their 9-month-old strapped in his car seat in the backseat.  The kidnappers thankfully kept the baby in his seat and placed him on the front lawn. He was unharmed. The robbers drove the couple to a remote location, demanded their ATM cards and PINS and cleaned out their accounts. She and Greig found a cable inside their Lexus that allowed them to pop open the trunk. 

Janette swore that if she got out alive, and thankfully she did, she would dedicate the remainder of her life to saving kids in and around cars.  

After this harrowing press event, I drove back downtown and on the way, decided Consumers Union, where I worked as product safety counsel at the time, should work with Kids and Cars to get a safety standard enabling drivers to see behind them as they backed up their vehicles. 

As of Model Year 2018, after a decade and a half of passing a law, then bringing a lawsuit against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to get it implemented, (this included many families who had lost children coming to Washington and a concerted consumer advocacy campaign), every passenger motor vehicle is required to have a backup camera. 

Back to my story about sadness and product safety. While in Kansas City, I met up with child safety advocate, Brett Horn and toured Charlie’s House, the model home he built as a tribute to his 2 ½ year old son, who was crushed 20 years ago under a chest of drawers that toppled over on him. Over 400 kids have died in furniture tip overs. Thanks to Brett and other safety advocates the STURDY Act passed in 2022, requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission to set mandatory safety standards for all dressers and similar products made or sold in the U.S.  

Every room in Charlie’s House – which is used to train parents and community members – has examples of hazards to children, such as lighters shaped as toys, colorful laundry pods, power tools, handguns with locks, refrigerators that lock shut,  and small batteries that can be swallowed and children can die from. Believe me, there are things you’ve never thought of that kids get into. We all need to be educated about those hazards and ensure every home is made as safe as possible for kids. 

 While at Charlie’s House, the CEO of Safe Kids Worldwide, Torine Creppy, arrived to tour the house and afterward we all headed out to Olathe, Kansas, for the Kids and Cars 30th Anniversary Celebration. As we enjoyed Kansas barbecue, Janette told her compelling story once again. To me the most rewarding part of the event was hearing these encouraging statistics: 

  • The number of children strangled by power windows has drastically decreased thanks to safer switches. Kids and Car Safety (KACS) is responsible for the passage of a law that mandated a regulation on all new vehicles manufactured on or after October 1, 2010, to have the safer ‘pull up to close/push down car window switches.  

In addition, many people are surprised to learn that hundreds of cars are stolen with children in the back seat every year. Cars are stolen from gas stations, convenience store parking lots, and even home driveways. Kids and Cars keep the data as no other group does, the first step to attacking the problem.  

Though the most well-known and beloved technology in cars today are those backup cameras – not only because they provide a critical measure of safety, but they also give drivers a vast view of what is behind them as they backup into parking spots, garages, parking ramps and around dangerous corners. If I had a dollar for every person who tells me how much they love their car cameras, I’d be rich!   

Don’t ever forget, the auto industry did not want to implement these safety changes, nor did the NHTSA, and both fought against them. But the advocates prevailed. And as with so many safety technologies, they provide a myriad of additional benefits. 

My day in Kansas City reminded me once again why I do this work. Saving lives of children first, and protecting the rest of us, will never get old. My hat is off to Brett Horn and Janette Fennell and Kids and Cars – who have set a high bar, refused to cave to industry or government resistance, and told their stories over and over again and invited others to tell theirs. Hats off to them and others who have dedicated their lives to making our lives safer and more rewarding.   

Guest Blog: A Life in the Shadows of North Carolina Fields

/in Blog, Featured Home - Workers Rights, Thought Leadership/by

By Yesenia Cuello

A former child farmworker and the daughter of immigrants reflects on her life and the current moment.

I was 14 the first time I worked in a tobacco field alongside my family.

We entered a field we couldn’t see the end of. We slit holes in black trash bags to wear over our clothes, keeping us dry from the dew. The spray from the tractors across the road made our noses itch and our eyes water. We ignored what we were told was “vitamins for the plants” being sprayed.

The tobacco stood taller than most of us, making it impossible to see between the rows as the sun caused the air to wave and the humidity to climb, heavy and suffocating.

When we finally stopped sweating, and the air felt cool against the back of our necks, even as our vision blurred, we assumed the worst had passed. We didn’t know then that our daily labor exposed us to the nicotine equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, chronic heat illness, and pesticide drift with lifelong health impacts.

We stayed together and took care of each other as we worked. The only thing we knew was that we needed the money.

Leading the nonprofit organization NC FIELD (North Carolina Focus on Increasing Education, Leadership & Dignity) was the first time I learned that what I experienced as a teenager was about food and labor justice. As part of NC FIELD’s leadership, I helped bring national attention to child labor, including advocating for the first federal minimum age for workers permitted to apply pesticides. We learned our words matter.

Advocating for the rights of those in our fields has become even more important over the years in North Carolina. Some who worked before us told us about breaks under shaded trees, cold lemonade, and the dignity of friendship with the farmer. Hard work was met with deep appreciation.

That’s not our story.

We were picked up by a van before sunrise. There were no scheduled breaks. We were yelled at to move faster or be fired. Water, if provided, was scarce or dirty; we were paid in envelopes of cash, and then we were transported back home. We didn’t know the farmer, and we knew not to ask their name.

We developed our own sense of belonging alongside those who embraced us. I remember a few local church ladies and teachers who showed kindness and took the time to understand us. They saw us, but to others, I was just labor — temporary, not part of their Southern heritage or the community.

Our invisibility isn’t accidental. It’s by design. The system bullies us into staying quiet, ignorant of the dangers of this work, and remain unseen in both life and death. Workers like us grew up with little access to healthcare through Medicaid, food assistance, or other safety nets. The assumption is that those resources are not for us or, by seeking that help, could endanger those we love.

During the pandemic, we were briefly called “essential.” Today, we’re labeled criminals, thieves of the American Dream. We pause before stepping outside our homes to attend church services or go to the grocery store.

And yet, the food supply still depends on the labor of thousands of migrant farmworkers in North Carolina. Eastern North Carolina drives our state’s place as one of the top 10 states in agricultural products sold, according to federal data.

I know what will happen if the immigrants who work North Carolina’s farms are taken away. If deportation forces continue to tear us from our communities, the impact will be catastrophic: crippling farms, driving up food prices, and destabilizing the food system that families across the nation depend on every single day. The consequences will ripple far beyond the fields, leaving damage that will be felt for generations.

We live with chronic stress, fear of robbery in migrant housing where it is illegal to lock doors, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on farms and backcountry roads, at our children’s schools, and in our hospitals.

We go out, holding our documents in one hand and our child’s hand in the other, regardless of our legal status or citizenship.

That’s the reality of being a person of color and speaking Spanish in North Carolina today.

Who will keep farms thriving and stores supplied when thousands of us are gone? We remain essential regardless of the immigration system that facilitated our dehumanization. To deport farmworkers on a mass scale is to gamble with everyone’s food security.

This system may have been built on our silence, but our silence has not kept us safe. So, we are sharing our stories. We help make our state and the U.S. thrive. We will continue to work, hope and pray for the dignity of human existence.

Yesenia Cuello is a co-founder and the executive director of NC FIELD, a community-based organization that helps marginalized communities overcome barriers to resources. This column is syndicated by Beacon Media and is available to republish for free on all platforms under Beacon Media’s guidelines.

NCL’s Child Labor Coalition has worked in collaboration with NC FIELD for years.

Separating Fact from Fear About Tylenol Use in Pregnancy

/in Featured Home - Health, Thought Leadership/by

By Lisa Bercu, NCL’s Senior Director of Health Policy

I remember like it was yesterday when I found out I was pregnant with each of my kids, now seven and ten years old.  I felt a mix of joy, excitement, and worry all at once.  But more than anything, I felt protective, thinking about how to keep them safe and give them the best start in life. As President Obama remarked, “To have a child is to have your heart walking around outside your body,” which I think perfectly sums up the realities of being a parent.  

That’s why I was so concerned when President Trump made unsupported claims that acetaminophen (commonly known by the brand name Tylenol) may cause autism when used in pregnancy, and that young children shouldn’t take acetaminophen for “virtually any reason.”  Moms deserve clear, science-based information, and not fear or guilt.   We need to feel confident making decisions that protect our health and our children’s health.   

Here’s what we know so far: research has not proven that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy causes autism. Most of the studies that have looked at this question have not shown a clear cause-and-effect link. The two best studies we have so far, published in 2021 and 2024, give doctors and parents the most reliable evidence to date that acetaminophen is safe to use in pregnancy when needed.  

 What we also know is that autism doesn’t have a single cause and is due to many different factors, including genetics and environment. In addition, the rise in autism is due to increased awareness and the medical community better recognizing and diagnosing it.  

It’s also important to know that untreated illness in pregnancy can be dangerous.  Untreated fever, particularly in the first trimester, increases the risk of miscarriage, birth defects, and premature birth, and untreated pain can lead to maternal depression, anxiety, and high blood pressure.   

Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have all reaffirmed that acetaminophen is safe when taken as needed, in moderation, and after consultation with a doctor.  In addition, leading autism organizations, including the Autism Science Foundation and Autism Speaks, agree that acetaminophen use in pregnancy has not been proven to cause autism.    

Pregnancy is not easy.  While President Trump implies that moms should just “tough it out” when they’re not feeling well, that’s not how real life works. Many of us are still trying to do it all while pregnant – working, managing households, and running after older kids. Illness doesn’t politely wait until after delivery and ignoring it isn’t always safe.  

Women need options to treat pain and fever during pregnancy.  Unlike ibuprofen, which carries known risks later in pregnancy, acetaminophen has been trusted for decades as the best over-the-counter choice for managing fever or pain while pregnant.    

If you have any concerns about taking medications during pregnancy, it’s always a good idea to talk with your doctor. You can also check out MotherToBaby.org, which has reliable, evidence-based information on medications like acetaminophen, and you can even call or chat with trained specialists to get answers to your specific questions.                                   

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: healthy moms and healthy kids. The best way to get there is to rely on up-to-date and high-quality evidence and to have open conversations with your doctors.