Health

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares48 Views

    NHS could pay 25% more for medicines under plan to end row with drugmakers and Trump

    by

    Ministers are preparing to raise the amount the NHS pays pharmaceutical firms for medicines by up to 25% after weeks of intensive talks with the Donald Trump administration and drugmakers.Labour has drawn up fresh proposals to end a standoff with the industry over drug pricing, including changing the cost-effectiveness thresholds under which new medications are assessed for use on the NHS, according to industry sources.The row has been cited as one of the reasons why big companies in the sector, including MSD (known as Merck in the US) and AstraZeneca, have cancelled or paused investments in the UK in recent weeks, while ramping up investments in the US.The Department of Health and Social Care is in a standoff with the Treasury and No 10 on how to fund the deal, with Downing Street resisting pressure to commit new funds for medicines in next month’s budget.The Liberal Democrats immediately criticised the move, first reported by Politico, asking how much it would cost and whether it would lead to cuts elsewhere in the NHS.The science secretary, Patrick Vallance, has publicly acknowledged that the UK’s spending on new medicines needs to rise from 9% of overall NHS spend, which is below drug spending in the US and many other European countries.The main element of the plan is thought to include raising the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) cost-effectiveness threshold by 25%, which has been unchanged since 1999. Under current rules, Nice considers a medicine costing between £20,000 and £30,000 for every extra year of good-quality life it provides a patient to represent good value for money for the NHS.The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on Tuesday reiterated its call for “urgent action” on drug pricing, saying the Nice threshold should be increased as soon as possible in line with inflation to between £40,000 and £50,000, and index-linked thereafter. Making this change would, over time, lead to a greater share of the NHS budget being allocated to medicines, and additional funding would be needed to support this.In talks over the summer, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, proposed a deal that would save the pharmaceutical industry £1bn over three years, with billions more promised over the coming decade.But the industry argued that it was forecast to make repayments totalling £13.5bn over the same period and has been demanding about £2.5bn a year extra.A government source said ministers were prepared to spend more on medicines as they increasingly became more ​innovative and preventive. They cited the example of weight loss injections – which are forecast to save the NHS billions of pounds in treating obesity and associated health problems – and trials for cancer-preventing vaccines.The patient-led campaign group Just Treatment called it “deeply troubling news for patients and the NHS”, adding: “We are at risk of importing America’s disastrous drug pricing crisis.” It called on the government to “take steps to establish a system for developing and manufacturing medicines that puts patients first”.The NHS spent £20.6bn on medicines and medical devices in 2023-24, up from £19.2bn the year before.Trump has put pressure on pharma companies to lower their drug prices in the US and increase them elsewhere, accusing other countries of “freeloading” on high US prices. Nearly two weeks ago, he threatened to impose 100% tariffs on pharmaceutical imports from 1 October to ramp up the pressure, although these did not materialise.In response to pressure from Trump, Pfizer and several other US and European companies, including the UK’s biggest drugmaker, AstraZeneca, have started to cut their prices in the US and to sell directly to patients to cut out costly middlemen.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn return for reducing its prices by up to 85%, Pfizer won a three-year reprieve from tariffs last week, which was seen as a bellwether for the rest of the sector.Last week, Varun Chandra, Starmer’s main business adviser, flew to Washington DC for talks with senior US officials and drug companies, the latest in a series of visits to try to hammer out a deal on pricing and tariffs.A UK government spokesperson said: “We’ve secured a landmark economic partnership with the US that includes working together on pharmaceutical exports from the UK whilst improving conditions for pharmaceutical companies here.“We’re now in advanced discussions with the US administration to secure the best outcome for the UK, reflecting our strong relationship and the opportunities from close partnership with our pharmaceutical industry.”However, the Lib Dem health and social care spokesperson, Helen Morgan, said: “It beggars belief that the government is bending to a bullying US president having told patients for years that life-saving new drugs are unaffordable.“Ministers must come clean about how much this move will cost and whether it will be funded by cuts elsewhere in the NHS. They should also lay their plans before parliament without delay so they can be properly scrutinised. It increasingly feels like this government puts the whims of Trump before everything else – even our precious NHS.”The pharma sector’s negotiations with the UK government over drug pricing under a voluntary scheme broke down without an agreement in late August. Since then, MSD has abandoned plans for a £1bn research centre in London and AstraZeneca and New York-based Eli Lilly have paused projects, taking total pharma investments that are on hold or cancelled to nearly £2bn since the start of this year.One industry source said: “We are relieved to see a recognisable change in sentiment and language from August.” More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares44 Views

      in UK Politics

      Resident doctors vote for strike action in row over jobs

      by

      First-year doctors in England have voted in favour of strike action over job security fears.The British Medical Association (BMA) said the ballot of first-year resident doctors saw 97 per cent (or 3,950) voting for strike action on a turnout of 65 per cent, providing a “mandate for industrial action alongside the linked dispute over eroded pay”.According to the union, 34 per cent of resident doctors surveyed said they had no substantive employment or regular work from August 2025 to more than half (52 per cent) among FY2 (foundation year two) doctors.The BMA said no strikes are currently planned, but current talks with the government on pay “will now have to produce a solution on jobs as well as the 21 per cent pay erosion resident doctors have endured since 2008 to avoid future action”.It comes after resident doctors walked out of English hospitals for five days in July, with the dispute over pay still not resolved.Resident doctors on a picket line during previous strike action More

    • 113 Shares98 Views

      in US Politics

      Anti-abortion groups furious as FDA approves generic abortion pill

      by

      In a move that has left anti-abortion advocates reeling, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly approved a request to manufacture a new abortion pill earlier this week.Thanks to the approval, a company called Evita Solutions will be able to manufacture its generic version of mifepristone, one of two drugs typically used in most US medication abortions. A generic version of mifepristone, which was first approved as a brand-name drug in 2000, is already available on the market.Yet the approval stunned and infuriated foes of abortion, who have spent the three years since the 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade pressuring the federal government to curb access to mifepristone. Robert F Kennedy Jr, the health secretary, announced last month his department would review the safety of mifepristone.“FDA had promised to do a top-to-bottom safety review of the chemical abortion drug, but instead they’ve just greenlighted new versions of it for distribution,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri and fierce abortion opponent, posted on X. “I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA.”Kristan Hawkins, president of the powerful anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, called the approval “a true failure”.“This is a stain on the Trump presidency,” she added in a statement.To bolster their attack on mifepristone, anti-abortion activists recently seized on an April paper by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a rightwing thinktank, claiming almost 11% of women experience sepsis or other serious complications within 45 days of taking mifepristone. In his letter announcing the review of mifepristone, Kennedy cited the center’s paper.But that paper was not peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal, and experts have uncovered multiple flaws in it. For example, it counts ectopic pregnancies – wherein an embryo implants somewhere outside of the uterine lining – as a serious complication. Mifepristone does not cause or worsen ectopic pregnancies.Meanwhile, more than 100 studies, conducted across more than three decades and dozens of countries, have concluded that mifepristone is a safe and effective tool to end a pregnancy.Abortion rights supporters celebrated the news of the FDA’s approval, proclaiming it a victory for evidence-backed medicine.“By expanding generic options, the agency is reinforcing mifepristone’s impeccable safety record,” Kiki Freedman, co-founder and CEO of the telemedicine abortion provider Hey Jane, said in a statement.“At a time when politically motivated attacks threaten to undermine science and restrict care, it’s critical to underscore that the science couldn’t be clearer.”The health department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, a spokesperson for the department told the New York Times in a statement that “the FDA has very limited discretion in deciding whether to approve a generic drug”.“By law, the secretary of Health and Human Services must approve an application if it demonstrates that the generic drug is identical to the brand-name drug,” the spokesperson said. More

    • 175 Shares58 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘Not everyone has a smartphone’: Independent readers divided over mandatory online GP bookings

      by

      The government’s decision to require all GP practices in England to keep their online booking systems open throughout the day has sparked a mixed reaction from Independent readers.Supporters praised the convenience of digital systems, with some noting that many queries – such as medication advice or follow-ups – can be resolved without face-to-face appointments. They argued that online forms give doctors more information in advance, allowing them to prioritise urgent cases and manage time better. Others welcomed the reduced need to sit in crowded surgeries, especially those with life-limiting conditions who said phone or email consultations often meet their needs.Critics, however, raised concerns about digital exclusion, particularly for poorer pensioners without internet access or smartphones. Many also feared that online requests could overwhelm GPs, create longer queues at surgeries, or lead to misdiagnosis when doctors cannot see patients in person.A minority suggested technology and even AI might ease the burden in the future, but most felt safeguards and resources remain lacking.Here’s what you had to say:There is no perfect serviceMy surgery uses an “ask my GP” service. I log on, choose what I want – new medical problem, medication query, existing issue etc.I then give a description of the problem (up to 2000 words) and then I select if I want a phone appointment, email, telephone etc. You can even say it’s urgent and you want a response in 24 hours.A majority of the time, an email is all I need. But if I want face to face I can do. And that’s what I did yesterday. I logged on, said I didn’t feel I needed X painkiller any more, and how should I taper off them. At about 6pm, I had a message from the GP giving me the timetable to come off this drug.This type of query doesn’t need a face-to-face appointment.All incoming messages are checked by a GP. If you ask for an urgent appointment then you get one. As well as allowing non-urgent issues to be dealt with online, this service also tells the GP what is wrong before you get to their office, and more importantly, the GP knows roughly how long you will need. When dealing with concussion, I was in the doctor’s surgery for over half an hour. Can you imagine the uproar if I’d just gone for an appointment the way it is in England now and kept a load of people waiting?There is no perfect service. But I feel that this one suits my needs. There is another practice in the building which does everything by phone and if that’s what people want, then they can have it.LilsThe most productive thing Streeting has doneI am neither poor nor poorly educated or unintelligent. I have served in the armed forces, and in the NHS, and the royalties from books I have written still generate a lot more income than my pension. I have a smartphone, a nice laptop, and fibre broadband.But I am 70. I cannot, now, type (or think) as quickly as my daughters or sons-in-law.So I cannot fill in and submit an online form in the time between my GP’s online system opening at 08:00 and their computer slamming the shutters down at 08:01.What’s wrong is that the GP surgeries in all the surrounding villages have closed – so our village health centre is now serving several times as many people as it was ever intended to.If GPs are worried that allowing people to contact them at any time during the day will create a “barrage” of online bookings, isn’t that another way of saying that the current system of shutting out anyone who can’t complete and submit an online form in the time between their online system opening at 08:00 and the shutters slamming shut at 08:01 is simply a form of rationing – one that is prejudiced in favour of those who are alert, tech-savvy and able to type quickly, rather than those who may be more seriously ill or suffering from long-term conditions such as arthritis or Parkinson’s?This may well be the most constructive thing Streeting has done. I know that is setting the bar incredibly low, but unlike some of his other diktats, at least it’s not actually intended to actively harm patient care.NewDawn3I much prefer onlineI much prefer going online or talking on the phone rather than visiting the surgery where sick people go, and risk catching something. I can explain the problem just as easily on the phone as I can sitting in the doctor’s room. She can ask me questions and I can answer them. Unless it’s for a lump or something she has to ‘feel’, I don’t see why people would insist on actually going to the surgery.I have a life-limiting condition and many health issues and all can be explained over the phone or online.fenwomanSome sort of change is requiredSome sort of change is required. My wife has had peripheral arterial disease diagnosed by top nurses four times, the first three months ago. The tests were carried out using different methods and all came to the same conclusion – that my wife has peripheral artery disease (PAD).But she still has not been referred to the hospital by her GP.The tests were carried out by very skilled nurses, so why can they not refer to the hospitals?MORDEYCould AI handle requests in future?This initiative, if mismanaged, could potentially cause a backlog of requests, but if GPs take turns, and work from home to address the requests, it could even be a popular option for a working day.Not only that, but if AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is achieved within the next decade, most of these requests could be dealt with by a computer, saving a huge amount of time and money.ppunditPhone calls don’t work for everyoneI have recently had two calls from a doctor in place of an appointment. And how can you possibly explain how you feel over the phone? It’s impossible and only leads to the doctor misdiagnosing your problem because he did not see it for himself.davconDigital poverty excludes the vulnerableI work in social housing and 30% are over 65. Digital poverty is a big issue and housing organisations have to make sure all important communications are also delivered by letter. We even provide braille letters. When old people are choosing between eat and heat, the internet is not an option, never mind an iPad or smartphone.So many people have no idea how the poorer old in our society are often on the edge of homelessness and malnutrition.Slightly Tipsy MaxNot everyone has a smartphonePlenty of old people do not have a smartphone at all, or are not comfortable or super confident in using one. My GP has just begun this system. When my wife went for an appointment yesterday there was a queue out of the front door because of the number of patients who couldn’t use the new system.Another disaster from the worst Government in living memory.RH92Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 275 Shares104 Views

      in US Politics

      The abortion pill is safe. But why should Trump let facts get in the way of his agenda? | Moira Donegan

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr’s health department is conducting a new review of mifepristone, the drug used in the majority of American abortions, claiming that a new study from a conservative thinktank has raised concerns about its safety.Mifepristone, which was approved by the FDA 25 years ago this month, has repeatedly been proven safe and effective for use terminating pregnancies in both multiple medical trials and in widespread patient use over the past quarter of a century. The report cited by Kennedy, meanwhile, comes from the Ethics and Public Policy Center – a group that applies “the Jewish and Christian traditions” to modern law and pushes back “against the extreme progressive agenda while building a consensus for conservatives” – and was not peer reviewed. The study has been heavily criticized by medical experts for its methodology and lack of transparency regarding how it obtained and analyzed its data. The report appears to have dramatically inflated the rate of serious adverse health outcomes in patients who took mifepristone – in part by seemingly conflating the bleeding that occurs in the normal course of a medication abortion with hemorrhaging, and in part by relying on unclear terminology. The Ethics and Public Policy Center report classified “serious adverse events” as occurring in almost 11% of mifepristone patients. More reliable studies, subject to data transparency, peer review, and a more rigorously honest set of definitions, have found that such adverse health events happen in fewer than 0.5% of users. In a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies, the vast majority found that more than 99% of people who use mifepristone have no serious complications.Mifepristone is safe. But why let the facts get in the way of the Trump administration’s political agenda? The review of mifepristone marks the second time in less than a week that the Trump administration has marshalled false medical claims and junk science in an effort to constrain the freedoms of pregnant women and curtail their access to relief. On Monday, in a bizarre, rambling and frequently nonsensical press conference, the president appeared alongside Kennedy Jr to claim, falsely, that Tylenol use during pregnancy can cause autism in the resulting children, and to instruct pregnant women to avoid the painkiller and instead “tough it out”.The Trump administration has long been under pressure from the anti-abortion movement – which, not satisfied by the end of Roe v Wade (in a decision delivered to them by Trump’s appointees, hand-selected for the purpose), has continually pushed the administration to further limit access to abortion. Donald Trump has seemed unwilling to directly attack abortion, appearing to think that the issue is a political loser for him. But his administration has already curtailed access nationwide. His massive domestic spending bill included a provision barring most abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for any services they provide – abortion related or not – for a year, a move that makes it dramatically more expensive for clinics to offer abortion services. As a result, clinics are already shutting their doors in Democratically-controlled states like California. In Wisconsin, where the battle for abortion legalization led to a fantastically expensive state supreme court race and massive voter mobilization, the state Planned Parenthood affiliate made the decision to stop providing abortions in order to retain access to the Medicaid funding they need to stay open – even though that enormous political effort succeeded in re-legalizing abortion in the state.But that’s not enough for the anti-choice right. Three Republican-controlled states – Missouri, Idaho and Kansas – are suing the FDA, seeking to reverse changes to mifepristone regulations that allowed the drug to be prescribed via telemedicine and sent through the mail, and to restore other restrictions on the drug. Texas, Florida and Louisiana are seeking to join and expand that lawsuit to further restrict mifepristone. The new regulations, which have been endorsed by leading health experts, have made mifepristone dramatically more accessible in the years since the Dobbs decision, as women living in states that ban abortion seek out ways to have the medication prescribed and mailed to them by physicians abroad or in Democratically controlled states.Kennedy’s move against mifepristone could restrict access even further. Compared with surgery, the pill is a more accessible, safer and less resource-intensive way for clinics to provide abortions. It does not require a surgical room or very much of a provider’s time; patients can take the pills and have their abortions in the comfort and privacy of their own homes. Getting rid of the abortion pill, or making it harder to access, would put even more strain on abortion providers who are already having a difficult time keeping their heads above water.Even more tragically, the move could be devastating for women’s health and lives. In the pre-Roe era, when abortion was illegal and mifepristone had not yet been invented, many women in need of abortions sought out surgical procedures on the black market. But surgery is much riskier than taking a pill, and many of these women experienced injuries and infections that killed or permanently maimed them. There is exactly one reason why the US has not yet seen a return to those bad old days of unsafe surgical abortions and mass female death: that reason is mifepristone. The drug saves women’s dreams and dignity by allowing them to control their own reproduction; it saves their lives by allowing them to avoid a dangerous surgery in an illegal market. Even in liberal states, abortion has become much harder to access than it was before Dobbs; that alone is an injury to women’s citizenship and status. With mifepristone under threat, it looks like the Trump administration is threatening their lives, too.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 188 Shares91 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s war on Tylenol is also very much a war on women | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Trust-fund-Trump wants women to “tough it out”Donald Trump is a man with no medical training. However, that’s never stopped the very stable genius from inflicting his unhinged health views on the rest of us, has it? Back in 2020, for example, Trump memorably mused that injecting disinfectant could help fight the coronavirus – which forced the maker of Dettol and Lysol to put out an urgent statement explaining that this was a very bad idea.Now the president, who once vowed to be a protector of women “whether they like it or not”, has turned his attention to prenatal care. “Taking Tylenol is, uhhhh, not good,” Trump said on Monday, with his trademark eloquence. He was flanked by health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, the guy who told Congress this year that “people shouldn’t take medical advice from me”.Trump went on to link autism to prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, which is the active ingredient in Tylenol. If you’re feeling poorly while pregnant you should “fight like hell” not to take Tylenol to relieve your pain, the president instructed. Which basically means suffering instead: ibuprofen, for instance, is generally not recommended after week 20 of pregnancy.“If you can’t tough it out, if you can’t do it, that’s what you’d have to do,” Trump continued. “You’ll take a Tylenol, but it’ll be very sparingly. Can be something that’s very dangerous to the woman’s health, in other words, a fever that’s very, very dangerous, and ideally, a doctor’s decision, because I think you shouldn’t take it and you shouldn’t take it during the entire pregnancy.”Like everything Trump says, this incoherent quote makes zero sense. But the bottom line here is that the Trump administration is advancing wildly irresponsible guidance. There is no evidence for a causative link between acetaminophen and autism and many experts were aghast at Trump’s statements. Indeed, even the moral vacuum that is JD Vance balked at repeating Trump’s advice, instead urging women to lean on their doctors. And while Trump claimed that there is “no downside” in avoiding Tylenol, an untreated fever during pregnancy could cause problems for the baby.Trump’s demand that pregnant women “tough it out” is also deeply misogynistic and a reminder of how women’s pain is often misunderstood or ignored. Numerous studies show that the medical establishment takes men’s pain more seriously. A 2022 study from the Journal of the American Heart Association, for example, found that women who visited emergency departments with chest pain waited 29% longer than men to be evaluated.This sudden Tylenol scare is also yet another example of mom-shaming. “ We really have a long history of blaming mothers in this country, and we’re seeing that reinforced through the narratives around autism’s causes right now,” Martine Lappé, a sociology professor, told NPR.Women are shamed for not getting pregnant or waiting “too long” to get pregnant. They’re shamed (and, increasingly, criminalized) for losing a pregnancy. They’re shamed for everything from the size of their baby bump to what they eat while they’re pregnant. They’re called out for exercising while expecting – or not exercising enough. And if they give birth to a baby that isn’t able-bodied or neurotypical, women are often told it’s probably because of something they did. It’s their fault.While pregnant women are often treated like public property, expectant fathers are not treated with the same scrutiny. About 15% of couples in the US have trouble conceiving, and, by one count, over 50% of the time a male infertility issue contributes. Yet women are traditionally blamed. Indeed back in the 1940s researchers even posited that women’s unconscious hatred of their husbands was what stopped them from conceiving. We’ve moved on from that a bit, but infertility is still widely thought of as a woman’s problem.Studies have also found a link between advanced paternal age and autism. But does society constantly shame men for having kids later in life? Of course not. When a 59-year-old Trump fathered Barron, he crowed to the press about his virility. “I continue to stay young, right? I produce children, I stay young,” said Trump at the time.No doubt there are numerous things motivating this sudden Trump administration obsession with Tylenol, including a need to distract people from those pesky Epstein files. However, a concern for women’s health is absolutely not at the heart of it. Rather, this is yet another way to control women; another way to reduce us to walking wombs rather than multidimensional human beings. This war on Tylenol is also very much a war on women. Now, if only there was a pill we could take to help deal with this Maga-induced malaise. As it is, we are all just going to have to tough it out.Elon Musk’s father accused of sexually abusing his children and stepchildrenConsidering it is common knowledge that Errol Musk fathered at least one child with his former stepdaughter, who was only four years old when he married her mother, these new accusations, reported by the New York Times, are not a huge surprise. Errol, meanwhile, has dismissed the allegations as “nonsense” and “rubbish.”75-year-old weightlifter heading to world championshipsKate Evert got into weightlifting when she was 69 after her kids nagged her to go to the gym. Now she’s getting ready to travel from Missouri to Cape Town for the World Masters Powerlifting Championships. There are some excellent videos of her deadlifting in this Guardian piece.Slovakia rolls back LGBTQ+ rightsOn Friday the Slovak parliament voted on steps that will lead to the recognition of only two genders, restrict sexuality education, and limit adoption to only married heterosexual couples.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDrug traffickers livestream torture and killing of Argentinian women and girlTwo young women and a 15-year-old girl were lured to a house by suspected drug traffickers and then murdered on a livestream that went out to a closed Instagram group.Maga dentist says she gives different care to DemocratsA Santa Clarita dentist joked two years ago that she cuts back on pain relief for patients who aren’t Trump supporters. Now the video has gone viral and the dentist is reminding us it was just a gag. Hilarious!What it’s like to be married off at 13“I was about 13 when my family decided to marry me off to a man of 29,” an anonymous Iraqi woman writes in the Guardian. “Any attempt to refuse this groom in front of him or his family, I was told, would end in my death… My experience was not an isolated incident, but an early glimpse of what Iraq’s new law legalising marriage from the age of nine may mean.”Israeli minister says she’s optimistic about ’voluntary migration from the West Bank’Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel of the ruling Likud party told Israel’s Channel 12 that Gaza is being made unlivable. “There must be voluntary migration in order for us to fulfill the war aim of ensuring that Gaza does not pose a threat to Israel in the future,” she said, according to the Times of Israel. “I am even optimistic that [there will be voluntary migration from] Judea and Samaria and not just from the Gaza Strip,” Gamliel added, referencing Israel’s name for the occupied West Bank. Israeli government officials have repeatedly made clear that ethnic cleansing is the plan. Mainstream western media outlets have not covered Gamliel’s remarks.The week in pawtriarchyWhat do you call a bear in winter? A brrrrr! OK, OK, I apologize profusely for that and offer this link to the Fat Bear Week tournament to make it up to you. The fur-midable challenge, run by a national park in Alaska, is meant to find the bear that “exemplifies fatness and success” best, as the animals ready themselves for hibernation. It’s a little bit of cuteness amid an unbearable news week.

      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares145 Views

      in US Politics

      Outrage mounts as Republicans in Congress move to protect pesticide makers from lawsuits

      by

      It’s been seven years since Germany’s Bayer bought US agrochemical giant Monsanto, inheriting not only the company’s vast portfolio of seeds and pesticide products, but also more than 100,000 lawsuits alleging Monsanto’s popular Roundup herbicide causes cancer. Bayer, which has so far paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts to cancer victims, has been working – so far in vain – to put an end to the litigation and to block any future such cases.Now Bayer appears closer than ever to success, as many Republican congressional leaders push for measures that would effectively block lawsuits against pesticide makers around the country.A group founded by Bayer called the Modern Ag Alliance is the face of the legislative push, advocating for liability shields they say are necessary to allow companies to continue to sell chemicals that farmers use to kill weeds and bugs in their fields.“Without legislative action, a potential catastrophe is on the horizon that could result in many farmers going out of business and food prices rising even further,” the alliance, which represents more than 100 agricultural organizations, including farmers who grow wheat, corn, soybeans and other key food crops, warns on its website.The alliance has been lobbying for the passage of state laws blocking such lawsuits. They’ve succeeded thus far in two states – Georgia and North Dakota – and continue to lobby for such laws in all 50 states.But the immediate battleground is in the halls of Congress, where a provision tucked into a congressional appropriations bill is outraging consumer advocates, including those affiliated with the influential Make American Healthy Again (Maha) movement. Similar protective language for pesticide makers is expected to be included in the new farm bill as well.“The audacity of elected officials voting for legislation to fully strip our legal rights away when injured by chemicals is stunning,” said Kelly Ryerson, a leading Maha advocate who has been lobbying lawmakers and her 84,000 social media followers to oppose pesticide company protections. “Especially in this age of Maha when an unprecedented number of Americans are rallying against toxins in food and the environment.”‘Important investments’Bayer has made it clear that changing laws in its favor is a priority. The company states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and other weed killers can affect its research and product development and other “important investments”.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the ultimate arbiter of product safety and what warnings should be required on product labels, Bayer says. The company also says if the EPA approves a product label, consumers should not be able to sue companies for failing to warn of perceived risks.In a statement to the Guardian, Bayer said federal legislation is “needed to ensure that states and courts do not take a position or action regarding product labels at odds with congressional intent, federal law and established scientific research and federal authority”.Bayer has already removed glyphosate, classified as “probably” carcinogenic to humans by World Health Organization cancer experts, from consumer herbicide products. And the company has threatened to stop selling it to farmers if the litigation is not brought to an end.The company disputes, however, that the appropriations bill will provide that certainty, saying in its statement that the language doesn’t prevent lawsuits and asserting it does is a “distortion of reality”.The relevant section of the House version of the appropriations bill – section 453 – does not mention litigation or pesticide company liability. Section 453 simply says that no funds can be used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an EPA human health assessment.But critics say the language effectively would impede states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings are not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics say.Due to the limits on warnings, consumers would find it nearly impossible to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.The language is “by design sneaky and complicated and hard to explain”, said Daniel Hinkle, senior state affairs counsel for the American Association for Justice, who has been lobbying against the action.“Nobody thinks that a giant chemical company should be able to lie about the risks of using their product and get away with it. It’s just making sure that people understand that is what is at stake,” Hinkle said.‘Very worried’Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine who tried but failed to overturn the language in a July appropriations committee hearing, said she is “very worried” about the “outrageous” efforts to protect pesticide companies from litigation.“We’re talking about chemicals here that are already prone to health risks,” Pingree said. “And the chemical industry is trying to keep that information from consumers … and then to have immunity from being responsible if you get cancer from being in the presence of these chemicals.”The language is not currently included in the short-term government spending package being debated ahead of a looming government shutdown that would occur at the end of the month in the absence of continued spending authorization.But it is expected to see support in both House and Senate appropriations bill versions once the short-term budget is resolved. The new farm bill is also expected to include language limiting or preventing pesticide injury lawsuits, with strong signals from Glenn Thompson, chair of the House committee on agriculture, favoring such protections.Previously, Thompson has weighed in on the side of Bayer amid its ongoing efforts to get the supreme court to weigh in on federal “preemption” over pesticide regulation.The involvement and influence of the Maha movement, made up of voters from both parties, is adding a bipartisan element to what otherwise might be a highly partisan fight.Max Lugavere, a health journalist, author and podcaster who posted a photo of a Maha-related visit to the White House to his 1.1 million Instagram followers, said pushing lawmakers is important, but “awareness among everyday people is the first domino”.Citing “growing evidence linking pesticides to health risks”, Lugavere said: “Stripping away legal recourse in these cases wouldn’t just be wrong, it would be [a] tragedy.”For California lawyer Brent Wisner, who helped lead the early Roundup litigation against Bayer, the efforts by lawmakers to protect the company against future litigation is un-American and potentially unconstitutional.“I don’t care what party you are in, if you get poisoned by a pesticide manufacturer you want to be able to sue. You need to be able to sue,” he said. “Bayer is paying millions of dollars to get these laws passed because it’s cheaper than it is to pay people they’ve given cancer to.”This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group More

    • 125 Shares111 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is the Trump administration obsessed with autism? – podcast

      by

      Archive: Good Morning America, NPR, NBC News, WHAS11, BBC News, CBS News, Jimmy Kimmel Live, LiveNowFox
      Listen to Science Weekly’s episode factchecking Trump’s claims about paracetamol
      Buy Carter Sherman’s book, The Second Coming: Sex and the Next Generation’s Fight Over its Future, here
      Buy Jonathan Freedland’s new book, The Traitor’s Circle, here
      Buy John Harris’ book, Maybe I’m Amazed, about connecting with his son James, diagnosed with autism as a child, through music
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politicspodus More

    • 125 Shares107 Views

      in US Politics

      Daylight savings haters rejoice: scientists confirm it’s bad for health

      by

      Daylight savings time is not just a hassle – it can also be bad for your health.The twice-yearly “spring forward, fall back” routine rattles our bodies’ daily cycles, known as circadian rhythms, with potentially harmful consequences. And a new study supports what many sleep experts have long argued: the solution is getting rid of daylight savings for good.That will not be easy. While there is plenty of support for eliminating the time change itself, Donald Trump and some in Congress have called for the opposite: making daylight savings permanent. And it may prove unpopular with those of us who enjoy an extra hour of light on a summer’s evening.Researchers at Stanford University found that keeping our clocks on standard time year round, instead of just in the autumn and winter (as in most US states as well as the UK), would reduce the prevalence of obesity and strokes. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands apart from much other research thanks to its breadth. Instead of simply looking at what happens when the clocks change, the researchers compared three scenarios: permanent standard time, permanent daylight savings time, and the current switching system, which applies in most US states.Dr Jamie Zeitzer, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, and Lara Weed, a PhD candidate in bioengineering, modeled sunlight exposure across every county in the 48 contiguous states, and compared that information with federal health data. The goal, Zeitzer says, was to use an existing mathematical model to discover the “circadian burden” of the three daylight scenarios – in other words, “how much stress are we putting on the circadian system?” That stress is associated with a variety of disorders, including obesity and stroke. The result suggested that, at least in circadian terms, permanent standard time is the least burdensome on our health.“This goes along with what we’ve been saying since about 2019,” says Dr Karin Johnson, a neurology professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan school of medicine and a member of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s advocacy committee. Johnson testified in favor of permanent standard time in front of a US Senate committee in April, telling lawmakers it would create “a more natural alignment between our social schedules and the sun’s cycle every day of the year”.“Our body rhythms basically get set by the sun,” she says. But because our natural cycle is slightly longer than 24 hours, “we need to get cues every day to stay on track. Otherwise, our rhythms get delayed.” That results in problems ranging from trouble sleeping and waking up to digestive issues. “The more we can stay aligned with the sun time,” she says, “the healthier it is for our body, the better our brain functions, the better our sleep.” The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), American Academy of Neurology and the health and safety-focused non-profit National Safety Council agree.But that argument runs counter to a repeated effort in Congress to pass the Sunshine Protection Act, which would change the system to make daylight savings permanent. Unlike virtually everything else Congress grapples with, it does not seem to be a highly partisan matter; Ted Cruz, for instance, has heard “serious arguments on both sides” and even Trump has acknowledged it’s a “50-50 issue”.Permanent daylight savings may sound appealing, since skipping an hour in the spring results in long, sunlit evenings, but Johnson says that view is misleading. “It’s really summer people are loving but they connect it in their mind to daylight savings time,” she says. Even under standard time, she notes, summer nights would be long. Permanent daylight savings, on the other hand, would cost us essential light during winter mornings – though of course, late-rising Americans may prefer to have that light in the evening.A Gallup poll this year found declining support for daylight savings time overall, with 48% of Americans supporting permanent standard time, 24% backing permanent daylight savings, and 19% wanting to stick with the current system. In 2023, however, a YouGov poll found that among those who wanted to stop switching the clocks, 50% supported permanent daylight savings and 31% supported permanent standard time.As for Zeitzer, while his latest research argues in favor of permanent standard time, he cautions that circadian rhythms are just a “piece of the puzzle”. “Do people exercise more if there’s more light in the morning? Are fewer kids biking to school because it’s too dark in the morning? Are there better economic outputs that are going to help economically marginalized individuals?” he asks. “There are lots of things that could happen if you move where that hour of light is happening, and frankly, it might be very different in different parts of the country.”Advocates of permanent daylight savings have suggested it could, for instance, help fight seasonal depression, save energy and reduce vehicle crashes. (And while the AASM ranks permanent daylight savings as the worst of the three options, Zeitzer’s study asserts it’s better than the constant switching.)But to Johnson, the answer is clear. “It’s a long, slow process but I think getting the word out with studies like this can hopefully shift that needle” toward permanent standard time, she says. “Because people are desperate to end the time change.” More