Food safety concerns are up and front in the country again, with recent recalls hitting the retail shelves of organically grown carrots, slivered onions, and liverwurst sold by brands that include Boar's Head and McDonald's. Some question whether these high-profile incidents herald deeper challenges for the U.S. food safety system. But experts caution not to panic-and they point to improvements in detection and response as reasons why recall news is so prominent.

While the increase in recalls may alarm, it could be a sign that foodborne illnesses are increasingly being found and handled faster rather than a sign of a failing system. Rutgers University food science department chair Don Schaffner said the tools of whole genome sequencing now allow health officials to pinpoint and track an outbreak with precision in a way that simply wasn't possible before. That quick identification allows public health officials to move fast-to interview victims, trace sources of contamination-when a problem surfaces.

Public health expert Craig Hedberg at the University of Minnesota comments that many of these outbreaks would have otherwise gone undetected. Advanced surveillance and laboratory analysis allow small clusters of illness to be linked directly to a source, so recalls can be issued and public advisories can be released on time.

"When these outbreaks are identified and investigated, steps can be taken to protect public health," Hedberg says. "That's why there's a strong interest in keeping the public informed." Food Recalls Are on the Rise, but is it Necessarily Bad News?

Outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are by nature hard to predict. According to Schaffner, the recent clustering of high-profile incidents could simply be coincidental and not indicative of a systemic problem.

The eating habits and food production also make their contribution to the changes in food safety. Food safety expert Darin Detwiler from Northeastern University points out that the more people choose ready meals and restaurant meals, the greater the complexity of food supply chains becomes. Ingredients travel further, go through multiple processing steps, and change hands several times before consumers get them, and the possibilities of contamination increase.

Is the patchwork approach to blame for food safety regulation?

The U.S. food safety system operates on an intricate network of agencies, each covering different aspects of regulation; the USDA focuses on meat and poultry, while the FDA monitors most other food items, including overseeing recalls. In outbreak situations, the CDC works in conjunction with local health departments to investigate and contain the spread of illnesses.

Despite this overall framework, gaps in food safety can occur. Civil litigation serves as a safety net when food-borne diseases slip through regulatory cracks. According to Timothy Lytton, a professor at Georgia State College of Law, liability suits compel food producers to adhere to strict safety standards. Insurance companies, which cover potential risks, will also help through counseling and the promotion of incentives to minimize the risk involved.

Protecting Yourself from Foodborne Illness

As regulatory agencies and companies continue to work on the safety of food, it also remains crucially important for consumers to be proactive at home. Here are some steps:

1. Monitoring Food Recalls: Stay on top of recalls through FDA updates and remove affected products from your kitchen.

2. Hygiene and Its Practices: Be sure to wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before touching and after handling food.

3. Wash Fresh Fruits and Vegetables: Even those that are pre-washed should still be washed under running water to remove unseen bacteria, especially from crevices or wounded areas.

4. Prevent Cross-Contamination: Separate cutting boards and utensils must be used for raw meat and fresh fruits and vegetables.

5. Cook Food Properly: Meat, Poultry, and Seafood must be cooked to a safe internal temperature to kill harmful microorganisms.

While food recalls can be scary, they are also a reflection of advances in monitoring and responding to food safety. For instance, due to advances in technology and surveillance, outbreaks may now be detected and contained faster than ever before, thus mitigating the potential risks to public health.

Meanwhile, the increased complexity of the food industry underscores that vigilance needs to be taken at every step of the supply chain. With knowledge, safe food-handling practices, consumers can participate actively in protecting themselves and their families from foodborne diseases.

In the end, the increasing profile of food recalls is as much a story of solutions as of problems — reminding one and all that protecting our food supply is a shared responsibility that involves regulators, producers, and consumers.

A particular brand of granola marketed for breastfeeding mothers has been recalled in the US over concerns that it could be contaminated with Salmonella.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said The Hampton Grocer, Inc. recalled around 8-ounce packages of its Lacnola Lactation Granola after being alerted by an ingredient supplier about possible contamination. No illnesses linked to the granola have been reported so far.

Popular Granola For New Mothers Recalled

The issue traces back to organic moringa powder, an ingredient that is used in the recalled granola. The Hampton Grocer was notified by its supplier, Food to Live, that a sample of its Organic SuperGreens Powder Mix had tested positive for Salmonella. The same supplier’s moringa powder is used in the affected Lacnola batches.

US FDA said that neither the finished Lacnola granola nor the specific moringa powder used in it had tested positive for Salmonella at the time of the recall. The exact source of possible contamination remains under investigation. The company has suspended production while the investigation continues.

Also read: 6-Year-Old Australian Kid Dies From Rarely Seen ‘19th Century Disease’: Why Is Scurvy Still A Risk Today?

Which Products Are Affected?

The recall applies specifically to 8-ounce pink stand-up pouches of Lacnola Lactation Granola with UPC 850035324554. Consumers should check the lot information printed on the back of the package. The affected products are:

• Lot HGLC-102125 | Expiration: October 21, 2026
• Lot HGLC-021326 | Expiration: February 13, 2027

The granola was sold nationwide through mail orders on The Hampton Grocer’s website and through Amazon between October 21, 2025 and August 12, 2026.

Also read: New Less-Toxic Radiation May Kill Cancer In Under 1 Second: All About FLASH Proton Therapy

What Is The Risk From Salmonella?

Salmonella is a kind of bacteria that can cause an infection called salmonellosis. It causes food-borne illnesses. In otherwise healthy people, this infection can commonly lead to symptoms like diarrhoea, fever, nausea, vomiting and stomach or abdominal pain. Symptoms can sometimes become severe, particularly when the infection spreads beyond the intestine.

The FDA notes that young children, older people and those with weak immunity are at greater risk of serious illness if they get infected by salmonella.

For breastfeeding mothers, the recall is particularly concerning because the product is specifically marketed as a lactation granola. However, the recall does not mean that Salmonella from contaminated food automatically passes into breast milk.

The immediate concern is the mother’s exposure to the contaminated granola and the possibility of foodborne illness. This could cause the mother as well as the newborn to get sick.

What Should You Do If You Have The Granola?

If you have Lacnola Lactation Granola at home, check the lot code and expiration date before eating it. If it matches either recalled lot, the FDA advises consumers to dispose of the product and contact the place of purchase for a refund.

The FDA says no illnesses have been reported in connection with the recalled granola to date. The recall is a precautionary measure while authorities and the company investigate the contamination.

Love your daily coffee but worried about bone health as you age? A new study suggests that drinking more than five cups of coffee a day may be linked to lower bone density in older women, while tea drinkers showed slightly higher hip bone density.

The findings, published in Nutrients, offer a closer look at how two of the world’s most popular beverages may be associated with bone health in older women. Importantly, moderate coffee consumption was not associated with overall harm to bone health.

“While calcium and vitamin D remain cornerstones of bone health, what’s in your cup could play a role too. For older women, enjoying a daily cup of tea may be more than a comforting ritual; it could be a small step toward stronger bones,” said Enwu Liu, Adjunct Associate Professor from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University.

More Than 5 Cups Of Coffee Linked To Lower Bone Density

Also read: Coffee Is Good For The Heart, But Your Choice Of Brew May Raise Bad Cholesterol: American Heart Association

Researchers at Flinders University in Australia analyzed data from 9,704 women aged 65 and older who were followed for about 10 years.

The researchers repeatedly assessed how much coffee and tea the women consumed and measured bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip and femoral neck — areas closely linked to fracture risk.

They found that moderate coffee consumption — around two to three cups a day — was not associated with overall harm to bone health.

However, drinking more than five cups of coffee a day was linked to lower BMD, suggesting that very high coffee intake may have negative effects on bone health. The association was also stronger among women with higher lifetime alcohol consumption.

Importantly, the researchers found no significant overall association between coffee consumption and BMD. The potential link with lower BMD emerged when they examined very high coffee intake.

Tea Drinkers Had Slightly Higher Hip Bone Density

Tea showed a different pattern. Women who drank tea had slightly higher total hip BMD than women who did not drink tea. The difference was small but statistically significant.

The researchers also found that the association between tea consumption and higher bone density was more pronounced among women with obesity.

Read More: Can Drinking Coffee Make You Leaner, Healthier? Study Decodes The Link

Ryan Yan Liu, co-author of the study, explained that compounds called catechins, which are abundant in tea, may promote bone formation and slow bone breakdown.

Caffeine found in coffee, meanwhile, has been shown in laboratory studies to interfere with calcium absorption and bone metabolism. However, the researchers noted that these effects are small and can be offset by adding milk.

Should You Give Up Coffee?

Not necessarily. The researchers stressed that the differences observed were modest and do not justify dramatic changes to an individual’s daily habits.

“While moderate coffee drinking appears safe, very high consumption may not be ideal, especially for women who drink alcohol,” said Liu.

The findings also do not prove that coffee causes bone loss or that tea prevents osteoporosis. The study found associations between beverage consumption and bone mineral density in older women.

For women concerned about bone health, the researchers emphasized that calcium and vitamin D remain important.

The study suggests that what you drink may also play a small role — but there is no need to swap coffee for gallons of tea.

Vitamin D, better known as the sunshine vitamin, is not only important for bone health but also plays a role in maintaining muscle and cardiovascular function.

An animal study led by researchers at the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN), Hyderabad, found that Vitamin D3 was more effective than Vitamin D2 in maintaining and restoring skeletal muscle and heart function in male rats.

Vitamin D2 Vs Vitamin D3: What’s The Difference?

Vitamin D occurs naturally in two forms: Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) and Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). Vitamin D3 is produced in the skin following exposure to sunlight and is also obtained from animal-based foods such as eggs, fish and organ meats, as well as supplements.

Vitamin D2 is derived from wild, cultivated or sun-dried mushrooms, UV-B-irradiated yeast, plant-based sources and some dietary supplements.

Amid increasing vitamin D deficiency, both forms are used for food fortification. However, D2 is preferred in some countries because of widespread vegetarianism and among people following strict vegan diets.

Also read: India Gets Its First Plant-Based Vitamin D3: What You Need to Know

How Was The Study Conducted?

Researchers compared the effects of Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 on skeletal muscle and cardiac parameters in rats during both maintenance and recovery from vitamin D deficiency.

The study used weaning male Sprague-Dawley rats, which were given diets containing Vitamin D2, Vitamin D3, a combination of both forms, or a vitamin D-deficient diet.

Researchers assessed several parameters, including body composition, muscle strength, skeletal muscle structure and metabolism, along with markers associated with cardiac function.

Vitamin D3 Showed Greater Benefits

The study found that Vitamin D3 produced greater improvements in muscle mass, muscle fibre size and grip strength compared with Vitamin D2.

Vitamin D3 also showed stronger effects on markers associated with muscle development and energy metabolism.

Similar differences were observed in cardiac parameters, with Vitamin D3 showing greater effects on markers related to cardiac contractility and metabolism.

The differences between the two forms were particularly pronounced during the recovery phase following vitamin D deficiency, according to the researchers.

Dr Ayesha Ismail, Scientist F at ICMR-NIN and corresponding author of the study, said both forms were effective in improving calcium-related parameters, but Vitamin D2 was less effective on several measures linked to muscle and heart structure and energy metabolism.

“Although both forms of vitamin D were effective in improving calcium-related parameters, vitamin D2 was less effective than vitamin D3 in several parameters related to muscle and heart structure and energy metabolism,” Ismail said, ANI news agency reported.

Read More: Sweetener In Sugar-Free Gum Linked To 57% Higher Heart Attack And Stroke Risk: What Is Xylitol?

Can The Findings Be Applied To Humans?

Dr Bharati Kulkarni, Director, ICMR-NIN, stressed that further research would be required before drawing conclusions about the effects of the two forms of vitamin D in humans.

“Further studies are needed to establish the effects of the two forms of vitamin D on skeletal and extra-skeletal functions and their implications for supplementation and fortification programs,” she told ANI.

The findings suggest that Vitamin D3 may have stronger effects than Vitamin D2 on skeletal muscle and cardiac function. However, the study was conducted in male rats, and whether the same effects occur in humans remains to be established.

The researchers said the study provides additional evidence of differences between Vitamin D2 and D3 beyond their established roles in calcium regulation and bone health.