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.

With 28 percent of adults in the UK now classified as obese and another 36 percent considered overweight, it is unsurprising that weight-loss injections have surged in popularity. Estimates suggest around 1.5 million people are currently using these jabs each month.

While the injections can lead to significant weight loss, experts warn that they come with notable risks and often fail to address the root causes of weight gain. Mike Wakeman, a researcher, pharmacist, and founder of Evera Nutrition, explained how these medications work and why they may fall short in the long term.

“These medicines mainly act by increasing two gut hormones, GLP-1 and GIP. These hormones reduce appetite, increase feelings of fullness, and slow stomach emptying,” he said. “The problem is that many people rely on medication alone.”

Why Weight-Loss Jabs May Not Solve the Problem

Wakeman pointed out that several underlying contributors to weight gain are frequently overlooked. “Stress, poor sleep, alcohol misuse, binge eating, and even certain medications or hormonal and medical conditions, such as an underactive thyroid, are often ignored when discussing weight issues,” he said. “If these factors are not addressed, they will still be present at the end of treatment and are likely to trigger weight regain.”

Recent research supports this concern. Studies have found that participants regained almost all of the weight they lost within a year of stopping weight-loss injections.

Weight Loss Jabs Side Effects and Long-Term Risks

Side effects linked to weight-loss jabs are common and include nausea, vomiting, constipation, and acid reflux. More serious health issues have also been reported in some individuals. These include pancreatitis, gallbladder problems, and depression. Rapid weight loss can result in muscle loss, while hair thinning and vision problems have also been associated with the use of these injections.

Natural Ingredients That Work Like Weight Loss Jabs Without Side Effects

According to specialists, growing scientific evidence suggests that certain natural ingredients may help support healthy weight loss when combined with proper diet and lifestyle changes, without the same side-effect profile seen with injections.

“The good news is that some natural ingredients can mimic the effects of GLP-1,” Mike said. “These include glucomannan, which is a type of fibre, along with resveratrol, hibiscus, green tea, berberine, curcumin, cinnamon, and mulberry.”

Ingredients That Act Like ‘Natural Weight-Loss Jabs’

Explaining the science behind these ingredients, Wakeman broke down how each one may support weight management.

“Glucomannan is a natural fibre derived from the konjac root. It expands in the gut, helping you feel full, and may also increase GLP-1 levels,” he said, as per Mirror. “Resveratrol, found in foods such as grapes, has been shown to significantly reduce body weight, waist circumference, and BMI.”

“Hibiscus has been shown to reduce obesity, abdominal fat, and blood lipid levels,” he added. “Catechins like EGCG, found in green tea, have been linked to meaningful reductions in body weight, BMI, and waist circumference, particularly at higher doses and over longer periods, when combined with a healthy diet and exercise. They also help boost metabolism and fat burning.”

“Berberine is a plant compound that, according to a meta-analysis of 12 studies, reduces body weight, BMI, and waist circumference,” he said. “Curcumin, the active compound in turmeric, has also shown strong evidence. An umbrella meta-analysis covering 14 systematic reviews and 39 randomised controlled trials found that curcumin supplementation reduces body weight, BMI, and waist size, while also improving blood sugar and blood fat levels.”

“Cinnamon may help reduce weight by improving blood sugar control,” Wakeman continued. “A meta-analysis of 12 trials involving 734 people found that cinnamon intake lowered body weight, BMI, and waist circumference. Mulberry has also shown anti-obesity effects, including activating brown fat.”

How Some Ingredients May Boost GLP-1 Further

Wakeman also noted that certain ingredients may work by slowing the breakdown of GLP-1 and GIP. “Some compounds may help inhibit Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4, or DPP-4,” he said. “DPP-4 is an enzyme that breaks down GLP-1 and GIP. When this enzyme is blocked, these hormones remain active for longer.”

Ingredients that may play a role in DPP-4 inhibition include curcumin, resveratrol, cinnamon, maritime pine bark extract, blackcurrant, mulberry, quercetin, and rosemary.

Common preservatives added to foods to prevent spoilage and increase shelf life may be linked to a higher risk of several cancers and Type 2 diabetes, according to two new studies from France.

“These are very important findings for preservatives that are not only widely used in the French and European markets, but also in the United States,” said senior author Mathilde Touvier, principal investigator of the NutriNet-Santé study used for the research, as per CTV News. The NutriNet-Santé study, launched in 2009, tracks more than 170,000 participants by comparing their web-based diet and lifestyle reports with medical data recorded in France’s national health-care system.

“These are the first two studies in the world to investigate the link between exposure to these food additives and cancer and Type 2 diabetes,” said Touvier, who is also director of research at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris. “That means we must be cautious in interpreting the findings. The results clearly need confirmation.”

Katz, who was not involved in the research, is a preventive and lifestyle medicine specialist and founder of the non-profit True Health Initiative, a global group focused on evidence-based lifestyle medicine.

Cancer And Preservatives: Is There A Link?

The cancer-focused study, published in The BMJ, examined the effects of 58 preservatives among nearly 105,000 people who were cancer-free in 2009 and followed for up to 14 years. Only participants who regularly completed detailed 24-hour, brand-specific food questionnaires were included. Those consuming the highest levels of preservatives were compared with those consuming the least.

Researchers closely analysed 17 preservatives eaten by at least 10 percent of participants. Eleven showed no link to cancer. However, six preservatives that were associated with cancer are classified as GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe,” by the US Food and Drug Administration. These include sodium nitrite, potassium nitrate, sorbates, potassium metabisulfite, acetates, and acetic acid.

Sodium Nitrite Linked To Cancer

Sodium nitrite, commonly used in processed meats such as bacon, ham, and deli meats, was linked to a 32 percent higher risk of prostate cancer. Potassium nitrate was associated with a 22 percent increased risk of breast cancer and a 13 percent rise in overall cancer risk. The World Health Organization has long classified processed meat as carcinogenic, with a well-established link to colon cancer.

Sorbates, particularly potassium sorbate, were associated with a 26 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in overall cancer risk. These preservatives are commonly used in wine, baked goods, cheese, and sauces to prevent the growth of mold and yeast.

Potassium metabisulfite, widely used in winemaking and brewing, was linked to a 20 percent increase in breast cancer risk and an 11 percent rise in overall cancer risk.

Acetates, which are derived from natural fermentation and added to foods such as meat, sauces, breads, and cheese, were associated with a 25 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 15 percent increase in cancer overall. Acetic acid, the main component of vinegar, was linked to a 12 percent increase in overall cancer risk.

Other preservatives were also examined, including antioxidants like vitamin C and vitamin E, plant-based extracts such as rosemary, and synthetic additives like butylated hydroxyanisole. While these substances are often linked to lower cancer risk when consumed as part of whole foods, their effects may differ when added as isolated compounds, Touvier explained.

Only two antioxidant preservatives were linked to cancer. Sodium erythorbate and related erythorbates, derived from fermented sugars, were associated with a 21 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 12 percent increase in overall cancer risk.

Erythorbates are commonly used to prevent discoloration and spoilage in poultry, soft drinks, and baked goods. Sodium erythorbate is also frequently added to processed meats to speed up curing. While observational studies can be affected by uncontrolled variables, an editorial published alongside the research noted its strengths, including detailed dietary assessments and adjustments for preservatives from natural sources and other food additives.

Both studies adjusted for factors such as physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, medication use, and lifestyle habits. “The finding that specific classes of preservatives are associated with increased risk of certain cancers remained consistent even after these adjustments, showing the issue deserves serious attention and further study,” Katz added.

Type 2 Diabetes And Preservatives

The second study, published Wednesday in Nature Communications, explored the association between preservative intake and the risk of Type 2 diabetes in nearly 109,000 NutriNet-Santé participants who did not have diabetes at the beginning of the study.

Of the 17 preservatives analysed, 12 were linked to nearly a 50 percent higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes among those with the highest consumption.

Five preservatives already linked to cancer, potassium sorbate, potassium metabisulfite, sodium nitrite, acetic acid, and sodium acetate, were also associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, with risk rising by 49 percent.

A sixth preservative, calcium propionate, a white powder used to prevent mold and bacterial growth, was also linked to a higher diabetes risk.

The study also found that several antioxidant additives were associated with increased diabetes risk. Additives linked to a 42 percent increase included alpha-tocopherol, the most readily absorbed form of vitamin E; sodium ascorbate, a buffered form of vitamin C; rosemary extracts; sodium erythorbate; phosphoric acid, commonly found in sodas, processed meats, and cheese; and citric acid, a preservative and flavour enhancer with little nutritional value.

Because these are the first studies to examine the role of preservatives in the development of cancer and Type 2 diabetes, further research is needed to confirm and expand on the findings, said Anaïs Hasenböhler, the lead author of both studies and a doctoral researcher at Université Sorbonne Paris Nord.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rolled out a new set of dietary guidelines on Wednesday, Jan. 7, introducing a food pyramid that looks strikingly different from what most people remember. Emphasizing protein and healthy fats while reducing the role of grains, the updated recommendations represent a clear break from previous federal guidance. The accompanying food pyramid graphic almost completely reverses the old model, both in appearance and in the food groups it promotes.

During a White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt highlighted the changes, saying the announcement aligned with President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s mission to "Make America Healthy Again."

Also Read: New Food Pyramid 2026 Reshapes Dietary Guidelines For Americans Under RFK Jr

If you’re used to the pyramid from the early 2000s, it may take a moment to adjust to the new look. Here are some of the major differences between the old and new food pyramids.

New Food Pyramids 2026: What Does The New Food Pyramid Look Like?

The U.S. had stopped using the pyramid as a guide back in 2011, switching to a plate-style visual for dietary recommendations. Now, under RFK Jr.’s leadership at HHS, the pyramid is back—but flipped. The upside-down triangle now places the foods that should make up most of your diet at the top, while foods to eat sparingly sit at the bottom.

RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid vs Old Food Pyramid

It’s not just the graphic that’s changed. The hierarchy of food groups has shifted as well. Grains, once the largest and foundational part of the diet, are now the smallest segment at the bottom. Meanwhile, protein, dairy, healthy fats, fruits, and vegetables dominate the top of the pyramid.

Here’s a detailed look at RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid vs Old Food Pyramid and what it means for Americans, based on reporting from USA Today.

1. Focus Shift

Old Food Pyramid: Grains and carbs were the base, while proteins and fats were limited. The focus was on low-fat foods and staples like bread, pasta, and cereal.

RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid: Whole foods, protein, and healthy fats take center stage. Red meat, cheese, fruits, and vegetables are placed at the top, and refined grains play a smaller role.

2. Protein and Fats

Old: Saturated fats and animal proteins were discouraged. Fat was often treated as the main dietary enemy.

New: Protein and healthy fats, including saturated fats from meat and dairy, are now seen as essential. Federal nutrition leaders have officially declared an end to the “war on fat.”

3. Processed Foods

Old: Highly processed foods, added sugars, refined carbs, and chemical additives were allowed in moderation.

New: There’s a strong push to reduce ultra-processed foods, added sugars, and refined carbs. The emphasis is now on minimally processed, real foods.

4. Dairy

Old: Low-fat or skim dairy was recommended; full-fat options were generally discouraged.

New: Cheese and other dairy products are now at the top of the pyramid, allowing for full-fat milk in both general diets and school meals.

5. Sugar and Additives

Old: Sugar intake was suggested to be limited, but highly processed foods weren’t heavily flagged.

New: Added sugar is more strictly controlled, and processed foods are clearly marked as foods to minimize.

6. Overall Approach

Old: The diet centered on lowering fat, balancing calories, and relying heavily on plant-based staples such as grains.

New: The focus is on nutrient-rich, protein-heavy meals, healthy fats, whole foods, and cutting down refined carbohydrates. The guidelines aim to address obesity, chronic disease, and overall health.

How Does The New Pyramid Reflect Dietary Trends?

The new food pyramid, unveiled by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., signals a major shift in U.S. nutrition advice, emphasizing more protein and healthy fats while reducing grains. This change mirrors growing trends in American diets, where high-protein eating patterns and skepticism of high-carb, ultra-processed foods are increasingly common, according to USA Today.

Practically, protein and dairy, especially full-fat dairy, now dominate the pyramid, replacing the previous grain-heavy base. Saturated fats are no longer demonized; instead, they are considered healthy in moderation. Federal nutrition leaders have officially ended the “war on fat.” These updates also reflect recent survey findings showing that high-protein diets are a top trend in the U.S., with most Americans actively trying to increase their protein intake.