POLITICO NIGHTLY: Using TikTok to keep your food safe, really

 

View in browser   BY HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH QUESTIONING THE FORMULA — I had been covering the deadly infant formula recall for about two weeks before I finally broke down and cried. A sweeping recall of some of the biggest names in baby formula — including Similac — has been tied to a handful of hospitalizations, including two infant deaths. As POLITICO first reported, FDA, CDC and formula-maker Abbott were told in September about the first baby who got sick from Cronobacter sakazakii, a rare bacteria — several months before the massive product recall in mid-February. Lawmakers have begun to ask questions about the timeline of the recall. TikTok, of all things, sent me over the edge. I had seen someone mention on Twitter that they’d noticed moms talking about formula and sick kids on TikTok. Within seconds of searching “similac,” I came across several videos and photo montages of babies in the hospital, hooked up to monitors, IVs and all manner of tubes. One was even getting a spinal tap, something that can help diagnose serious infections. “I’ll never trust another formula again,” wrote one mom on top of a video of a baby in a hospital crib. The mom added a bunch of hashtags to drive the point #similac #screwyou #pissed. “My Queen is Sick #SimilacRecall,” wrote another mom. As the mom of a toddler, I could easily imagine the agony of these parents. But as a reporter, I have another question: Why are there so many sick babies on TikTok? Their parents believe they were sickened by formula. Were they? Remember, CDC’s official count for this outbreak is just four cases, including two deaths. FDA this week issued an update to say it was dropping one case of Salmonella Newport that had been previously tied to the outbreak (that infant was hospitalized but survived). In the small number of cases that have been tied — or even tied and then dropped — the infant reportedly consumed formula that was made at a single Abbott Nutrition plant in Sturgis, Mich. That plant has been at the center of what is the largest formula recall in memory. Baby formula is offered for sale at a big box store in Chicago. | Scott Olson/Getty Images Yet these cases are extremely hard to link back to a specific product. A doctor needs to have ordered the right tests. The pathogen detected needs to have its genetic fingerprint taken and reported into CDC’s database. In this case, one huge challenge is the fact that Cronobacter sakazakii is not a nationally notifiable disease, which means cases are not required to be reported to CDC. Even when cases are reported, there often is no smoking gun. And circumstantial evidence isn’t enough, most of the time. This is how FDA explained dropping the Salmonella case this week: “After further investigation, the FDA has determined that there is not enough information to definitively link this illness to powdered infant formula,” the agency said. “CDC confirmed that this single Salmonella illness is not linked to an outbreak. The FDA and CDC are continuing to monitor for Salmonella cases and consumer complaints that may be related to this incident.” FDA has received many more consumer complaints about formula making babies sick. I have talked and texted with many of these parents. They are livid. It’s shockingly easy to find parents who believe their babies were sickened by formula. Parents are all over the comment section on Abbott’s Instagram account reporting that their babies were violently ill or hospitalized in recent months. I interviewed one Florida mom last week who told me her daughter had almost died after being fed formula that was later recalled. Her daughter survived, but suffered neurological damage and is now blind and deaf. Read about her heartbreaking story here. In more than a decade covering food policy, I have covered countless outbreaks. I have never seen so many anecdotal and unconfirmed reports of illness that are not officially tied to the outbreak come out of the woodwork. It’s incredibly puzzling. Are parents wrongly blaming formula because they saw the recall? Or is the public health system missing cases? I am continuing to press health officials for answers. It’s important to note that Abbott Nutrition, the formula maker, has maintained that its product has not been found to contain this rare bacteria as part of this outbreak: “The cases are under investigation and at this time the cause of the infants’ infections have not been determined,” the company said in a statement to POLITICO last week. “All infant formula products are tested for Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella and other pathogens and they must test negative before any product is released.” (FDA did find the bacteria in the Sturgis plant, however.) This whole ordeal has me and a whole bunch of researchers revisiting a policy question that’s been kicked around in food safety circles for a long time: Should the government use social media as a tool to help detect or even solve foodborne illness outbreaks like this? Currently, CDC doesn’t, a spokesperson confirmed, but some local health departments have dabbled with using Yelp reviews, for example, to help detect outbreaks. Ben Chapman, a professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University, has published papers on using social media in public health surveillance. He says it isn’t a cure all, but could be a valuable piece of the puzzle. “The big question: Is their value and utility and mining social media, for public health reasons, and for food safety specifically? I absolutely think there is. It’s not a replacement, but a supplement,” Chapman said, adding: “It seems like there's promise in this approach.” Social media is even more interesting for this particular outbreak because Cronobacter isn't required to be reported to CDC, Chapman noted. “This one slips through the cracks,” he said. “Social media might be one of our only ways to identify cases.” Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com. Or contact tonight’s author at hbottemiller@politico.com, or on Twitter at @hbottemiller.   SUBSCRIBE TO NATIONAL SECURITY DAILY : Keep up with the latest critical developments from Ukraine and across Europe in our daily newsletter, National Security Daily. The Russian invasion of Ukraine could disrupt the established world order and result in a refugee crisis, increased cyberattacks, rising energy costs and additional disruption to global supply chains. Go inside the top national security and foreign-policymaking shops for insight on the global threats faced by the U.S. and its allies and what actions world leaders are taking to address them. Subscribe today.     WHAT'D I MISS? — Biden moves to reimpose Cold War trade restraints on Russia: President Joe Biden said today he is working with Congress to revoke favorable U.S. trade treatment for Russia, allowing him to raise tariffs on Russian products and returning relations between the two countries to Cold War-era status. It’s the latest in an escalating series of economic measures the White House has taken to isolate Russia as its two-week-old invasion of Ukraine intensifies. Biden also announced he was banning imports of Russian seafood, vodka and diamonds, which White House officials said collectively totaled more than $1 billion. — Ukraine is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe: The U.S. is increasingly concerned about the risk to civilians in Ukraine, according to three senior U.S. officials as well as a State Department cable obtained by POLITICO . Just days after Russian and Ukrainian officials sat to negotiate humanitarian corridors, most of those evacuation routes remain closed because of escalating Russian attacks. U.S. officials and humanitarian organizations say that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians civilians in the country may not be able to access critical aid or find safe passage in the coming weeks — and that the situation on the ground looks to be getting worse. — How Congress supercharged its Ukraine aid deal: A last-minute phone call from Mitch McConnell to Chuck Schumer helped seal an unprecedented congressional infusion of aid to Ukraine, increasing it by $1.5 billion in a single conversation . While Ukraine came under attack, Congress scrambled to boost lethal and humanitarian aid for the European ally. So as leaders finalized a $1.5 trillion government spending bill that included emergency assistance for Ukraine, the Senate GOP leader phoned his Democratic counterpart this week with a simple but significant request: Double the size of a critical $1.5 billion fund for Ukraine to help its military fight Russian invaders. President Joe Biden walks across the South Lawn as he departs the White House. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images — An upbeat Biden ignores stalled agenda in Dem pep talk: An upbeat Biden unspooled a list of milestones today that Democrats have tackled in the last year. He neglected to say where they should go next . “Few pieces of legislation — no hyperbole — have done more in U.S. history, have done more to lift this country out of a crisis, than what you did,” Biden said, touting the nearly $2 trillion pandemic aid bill that passed nearly a year ago. But Biden’s nearly 45-minute pep talk to House Democrats offered zero clue on how the leader of the party thought it should use its next nine months of unified government, including whether to revive his domestic agenda package that has been dead since Christmas. — Texas court scuttles key lawsuit over state’s abortion ban: Texas’ Supreme Court appeared to slam the door on a federal lawsuit that abortion providers in the state have pursued for months in a bid to have the state’s unusual, privately-enforced abortion ban declared unconstitutional . The unanimous ruling from Texas’ highest court cuts off, for now, abortion rights advocates’ ability to use federal courts to halt enforcement of the law, which went into effect in September and allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps a patient access the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.   DON’T MISS POLITICO’S INAUGURAL HEALTH CARE SUMMIT ON 3/31: Join POLITICO for a discussion with health care providers, policymakers, federal regulators, patient representatives, and industry leaders to better understand the latest policy and industry solutions in place as we enter year three of the pandemic. Panelists will discuss the latest proposals to overcome long-standing health care challenges in the U.S., such as expanding access to care, affordability, and prescription drug prices. REGISTER HERE.     NIGHTLY NUMBER $1 billion The funding shortage for NIH staff overseeing dozens of trials for coronavirus treatments, vaccines and variant evolution to continue all their research. There are immediate implications for government trials on Covid-19 therapies, tests and vaccines that run out of funds as soon as this month, according to an internal email obtained by POLITICO. PARTING WORDS Warner Music Group owner Leonard Blavatnik speaks onstage during the Warner Music Group Pre-Grammy Party on Jan. 25, 2018 in New York City. | Mike Coppola/Getty Images for Warner Music Group THE DONOR WHO WASN’T DUMPED — Economic sanctions imposed by Western governments since Russia’s assault on Ukraine have sent the ruble crashing. K Street lobbying firms are dumping contracts. And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) is taking heat from a Republican rival for accepting $5,800 from a now-former Nord Stream 2 lobbyist. As an anti-Russian fervor envelops campaign season, donations from Leonard Blavatnik, a Ukrainian-born industrial magnate made wealthy off decades-old Russian business deals, are beginning to attract unwanted attention. Yet Democrats and Republicans are clinging to the campaign contributions he’s sprinkled across top politicians in both parties this election cycle and in years past — a lengthy list that includes Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, Lisa Kashinsky and Stephanie Murray write. Blavatnik, a dual citizen of the United States and United Kingdom, isn’t among the eight people sanctioned by the federal government in the past two weeks, or the dozens more facing visa restrictions. That fact is helping lawmakers and congressional campaign committees defend the thousands of dollars in donations they’ve taken from the billionaire over the years, or dodge inquiries about the cash entirely. And Blavatnik has been known for keeping the Kremlin at a distance: He has, in the past, through his company, strenuously denied “dealings with the Russian government or its leaders,” and counts Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny among his defenders, who says Blavatnik is “not a political oligarch.” His firm, Access Industries, asserts that less than than 1 percent of its investments “are in any way Russian-related.” But criticism persists in part because his fortune stems from Russia’s “aluminum wars” in the 1990s and oil, as do his ties to oligarchs. He’s reportedly close with Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018. If anything, Blavatnik and his American-born wife, Emily, have blunted potential critics by donating so much to so many in both parties for more than two decades. Did someone forward this email to you?  Sign up here.   Follow us on Twitter Chris Suellentrop @suellentrop Tyler Weyant @tweyant Renuka Rayasam @renurayasam Myah Ward @myahward   FOLLOW US

POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

When nuclear power plants close, greenhouse gas emissions increase. Why you should care.

Hadley Barndollar

USA TODAY NETWORK

Published March 10, 2022 

An energy void left by the closure of Massachusetts' only nuclear power plant has been filled largely by natural gas – a reality hugely counteractive to much of New England's ambitious climate goals to slash emissions and reduce dependance on fossil fuels.

Data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows emissions from New England's power plants have altogether increased since the Pilgrim Nuclear Station in Plymouth closed in 2019 due to financial and safety reasons.

Power plants that burn fossil fuels – like natural gas, oil and coal – yield greenhouse gases, the dominant cause of global warming.

The rise in power plant emissions is certainly contrary to aggressive efforts to change course as Mother Nature's clock ticks – in a region that's warming faster than the rest of the nation and seeing sea levels rise faster than the global rate.

But experts caution that a singular dataset as such – depicting a short-term increase –should be considered within the entire picture of emission reductions across several sectors. 

Nuclear plants don't burn fuel, which means they don't produce greenhouse gas emissions. But nuclear power comes with its own risks, as demonstrated most recently by Ukraine's nuclear plant fire last week that caused widespread concern, and more locally, a plan to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned Pilgrim plant into Cape Cod Bay.

NOAA:New England's temps are warming, sea levels rising faster than the global rate

Since the Pilgrim Nuclear Station's closure, New England – a region already reliant on natural gas – has been using even more of it. Power plants, both new and existing, worked to fill the gap and ultimately released more emissions into the environment.

"When you close a nuclear plant, what's going to take its place is natural gas," said Howard Herzog, senior research engineer at the MIT Energy Initiative. "What's going to replace (gas) is getting more renewables, and that hasn't been coming in as fast as needed to make the stated goals. It needs to really accelerate."

Last year, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed landmark climate legislation holding the state to a statutory commitment of cutting emissions in half by 2030 and then reaching net zero by 2050. All other New England states – except New Hampshire – also have statutory climate goals in place. 

Vineyard Wind:The nation's first utility-scale wind farm is being built off Cape Cod

But experts like Herzog say the prolonged time it's taking to develop renewables like offshore wind, solar and hydropower could make it especially arduous for Massachusetts and its neighbors to meet their goals. 

"Aggressive action literally needs to happen in the next eight years," said Kim Lundgren, CEO of Boston-based Kim Lundgren Associates, a benefit corporation that partners with towns and cities to implement climate solutions.

In a recent opinion piece for Commonwealth Magazine, Gordon van Welie, the CEO of ISO-New England, the independent organization that operates the region's power grid, said until more clean energy sources come online, "the region will remain reliant on natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil-fired generation to both produce the power it needs and to balance supply and demand during periods when renewables cannot produce electricity."

New England power plant emissions have increased

Both New England and the nation as a whole have seen overall success in reducing power plant emissions over the last two decades-plus, a 21% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from 1995-2021.

But New England's numbers began to trend upward after the Pilgrim Nuclear Station closed in 2019, just as they did when Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station shut down in 2014. Pilgrim had provided Massachusetts with more than one-tenth of its electricity generation.

Entergy, which operated both plants, cited financial factors for the closure of Pilgrim, including low wholesale energy prices. Pilgrim first opened in the early 1970s, and its safety rating took a hit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2015. 

Two nuclear plants in New England remain: in Connecticut and New Hampshire. 

NRC:Seabrook, NH nuke plant ran safely in 2020, concrete degradation being monitored

According to the USA TODAY Network's analysis of EPA Clean Air Markets Division data, nearly half of reporting Massachusetts power plants saw a rise in carbon monoxide emissions between 2020 and 2021 – representing a more than 9% increase overall, or approximately 347,000 tons, when factoring in the power plants that saw decreases. The majority of power plants in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut also saw increases, the data showed. 

As a region, EPA data shows all six New England states together saw an increase of 3% in total power plant emissions from 2019 to 2020, and then another increase from 2020 to 2021, the latter year still awaiting complete fourth-quarter data. 

"It can be a short-term problem if we take the right action," said Cammy Peterson, director of clean energy for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

What's in your natural gas, Vermont?:'Digester' turns ice cream, beer and manure into fuel

At present, natural gas remains New England's dominant fuel source. According to Department of Energy statistics, natural gas fueled about 65% of Massachusetts' total in-state electricity net generation in 2020, and as of June 2021, the state had about 40% of the natural gas-fired generating capacity in New England, the largest share in the region.

This winter, with natural gas prices sky high, the region turned to oil – a much dirtier, lesser-used fuel – at an unprecedented rate not seen in recent years. At points this winter, oil accounted for 20-25% of power generation in New England. 

Mike Steinhoff, director of climate analysis at Kim Lundgren Associates, said while a rise in power plant emissions is certainly not conducive to New England's climate goals, the change that needs to happen across all sectors is not going to occur at the same time. 

"It's going to be a bumpy road," said Steinhoff. "When you look at the scale of the challenges for how much we have to electrify in buildings and transportation, you can't necessarily get hung up on (one thing). You have to keep your sights on the long-term."

Echoing similar sentiments, Ben Hellerstein, state director for policy and action group Environment Massachusetts, said he cautions against reading too much into a single-year emissions spike, for example. 

"Year-to-year emissions data, it is important for us to keep an eye on those numbers," he said. "That being said, there can be fluctuations depending on weather and economic conditions."

What should have people's laser focus, Hellerstein contends, is "going big on solar and offshore wind," and the mass amounts of existing infrastructure that need to be retrofitted with energy-efficient tools.

 

New England renewable energy efforts moving slowly

Wind and solar power accounted for a record 13% of U.S. energy in 2021, said a report released last week, but advocates for renewable energy say New England isn't moving fast enough.

Efforts by Massachusetts and the region as a whole to establish renewable energy sources have been dealt some hefty blows over the last few years. 

Last year, Maine voters killed a $1 billion proposal to build a 145-mile hydropower transmission line from Quebec to Massachusetts, a project that was attached to the very controversial Central Maine Power Co. New Hampshire regulators voted down a similar proposal back in 2018.

In Massachusetts, the nation's first full-scale utility wild farm – Vineyard Wind – experienced major project delays that set the construction date back for more than a year. The project, which is slated to be operational in 2024, now faces a handful of federal lawsuits.

Harnessing the wind:Massachusetts' offshore wind industry shows potential for job creation

"We need to be moving more quickly," said Peterson. "We don't have the time to waste treading water here. We're moving ahead on offshore wind, but it's very slow."

The Baker administration has committed to creating 5.6 gigawatts, the equivalent of seven Vineyard Wind 1 wind farms. Herzog cited "really big barriers moving ahead" in getting these projects built – political will being one of them. 

Electricity is historically expensive for customers, but according to the Department of Energy, utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit.

A 2021 report by the Environment America Research and Policy Center and Frontier Group said Massachusetts' offshore wind potential is equal to more than 20 times the state's current electricity consumption.

How Massachusetts is trying to cut emissions elsewhere

Though its development of renewable energy sources may be moving slower than anticipated, Massachusetts is using a number of other mechanisms to try and decrease emissions in the meantime.

The state is placing major emphasis on financial incentives for residents and business owners to make the transition off natural gas and oil. Approved by the state Department of Utilities last month, a new three-year plan from Mass Save includes $4 billion in incentives for utility customers, a large chunk of which is dedicated to electric heat pump installation. 

"It's not just up to the power producers to fix this problem," said Steinhoff. "We all have a role to play in how we consume this energy. The number of homes and cars and everything that has to be switched out, we've gotta get started now."

The state is also looking to apply incentives to new construction. The Department of Energy Resources earlier this month launched public hearings on its proposed building energy code that would offer incentives for builders to install electric heat.

However, the proposed code did not go as far as outlawing the continued use of fossil fuels. In a letter to DOER Commissioner Patrick Woodcock this month, Sens. Michael Barrett and Cynthia Creem wrote that the proposal "comes up short."

"For municipalities in Massachusetts and other progressive states, all-electric construction is the favored strategy for decarbonizing new buildings," they said.

Incentives:Massachusetts wants to pay you to convert to electric heat

A ruling from Attorney General Maura Healey in 2020 already proved to be a setback for communities looking to regulate fossil fuels in construction locally. Healey struck down an approved 2019 warrant article in Brookline that would have prohibited natural gas in new major construction, saying it conflicted with overriding state laws. Brookline has since persisted. 

Hellerstein said his organization supports state policies that would mandate all new single-family homes built after 2025 be fossil fuel-free, as well as larger buildings by 2030.

"When you're in a hole, you have to stop digging," said Hellerstein. "We should today, immediately, stop investing in and building fossil fuel infrastructure in the state. New homes, buildings and schools should be fossil fuel-free."

ISO New England's role in renewable energy

Among barriers moving forward, says Greg Cunningham, vice president and program director for clean energy and climate change at the Conservation Law Foundation, is a perceived reluctance by ISO-New England to account for climate change in its mission and make way for the future of renewable energy in the region.

Most New England states – except New Hampshire – have legally binding climate goals in place. And yet, ISO-New England, the regional grid operator in charge of competitive wholesale markets, is "undermining" those goals with "outdated practices," Cunningham contends.

"It's absolutely absurd," said Cunningham. "Ninety percent of the demand in this region has climate mandates associated with it, and the ISO-New England refuses to build climate into its mission."

Matt Kakley, spokesperson for ISO-New England, said the organization "disagrees with that characterization," and feels it has done "a lot of work" to bring renewable energy sources into the market.

"We are focused on the clean energy transition and we are focused on our responsibility of keeping a reliable power system throughout that transition," said Kakley. "This is going to be a long-term effort from a lot of people needing to work together, and we consider ourselves partners in that."

Last month, in what was viewed as a blow to the renewable energy industry, ISO-New England announced its intent to transition out its "minimum offer price rule," known as MOPR, through 2025, instead of eliminating it next year as originally planned.

Gas prices:Russia's invasion of Ukraine is hitting local consumers at the gas pump

The MOPR takes heat from renewable energy advocates. They argue the rule prevents clean energy sources from placing successful low bids at ISO's annual power auction, and therefore, undercuts states' climate efforts.

Kakley said ISO-New England's transition will effectively remove the MOPR for up to 2,000 megawatts of state-sponsored renewable energy over the two-year period before the rule is completely eliminated in year three.

Most New England states have been opposed to the MOPR, but in a statement following ISO-New England's announcement, the New England States Committee on Electricity said it didn't oppose the delay, with New Hampshire as the exception. 

The proposal is subject to review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees ISO-New England. 

‘People are dying’:Global warming already being seen in North America, UN report finds

Cunningham accused ISO-New England of favoring fossil fuel generators. But Kakley maintained that the organization doesn't have the authority "to look at the environmental attributes of resources when we are running our markets." It has advocated for carbon pricing, though unsuccessfully.

"We're bound by our federal regulator and the Federal Power Act," Kakley said. "We are required to run markets that are fuel- and technology-neutral, and that's what we do."

LINK