Podcasts about Public health law

The Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulates roughly 78% of the US food supply. This includes packaged products, food additives, infant formula, ultra-processed foods, and lots more. However, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that 99% of new food ingredients enter our food supply through a legal loophole that skirts FDA oversight and seems, to me at least, to be incredibly risky. Today we're speaking with two authors of a recent legal and policy analysis published in the Journal Health Affairs. They explain what this loophole is and its risks and suggest a new user fee program to both strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate food ingredients and address growing concerns about food safety. Our guests are Jennifer Pomeranz Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at New York University School of Global Public Health and Emily Broad, director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Interview Summary So Jennifer, let's start with you, help our listeners understand the current situation with food ingredient oversight. And what is this legal loophole that allows food companies to add new ingredients without safety reviews. Sure. So, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment in 1958, and the idea was to divide food additives and generally recognized as safe ingredients into two different categories. That's where the GRAS term comes from generally recognized as safe? ‘Generally Recognized As Safe' is GRAS. But it circularly defines food additives as something that's not GRAS. So, there's not actually a definition of these two different types of substances. But the idea was that the food industry would be required to submit a pre-market, that means before it puts the ingredient into the marketplace, a pre-market petition to the FDA to review the safety. And then the FDA promulgates a regulation for safe use of a food additive. GRAS ingredients on the other hand, initially thought of as salt, pepper, vinegar, are things like that would just be allowed to enter the food supply without that pre-market petition. The problem is the food industry is the entity that decides which category to place each ingredient. There's no FDA guidance on which category they're supposed to ascribe to these ingredients. What has happened is that the food industry has now entered into the food supply an enormous amount of ingredients under what we call the GRAS loophole, which is allowing it to just bring it to the market without any FDA oversight or even knowledge of the ingredient. So, in essence, what we're having now is that the food industry polices itself on whether to submit this pre-market petition for a food additive or just include it in its products without any FDA knowledge. When you said ‘enormous number of such things,' are we talking dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nobody knows, but the environmental working group did find that 99% of new ingredients are added through this loophole. And that's the concerning part. Well, you can look at some ultra-processed foods and they can have 30 or 40 ingredients on them. That's just one food. You can imagine that at across the food supply, how many things there are. And there are these chemicals that nobody can pronounce. You don't know what's going on, what they are, what they're all about. So, what you're saying is that the food industry decides to put these things in foods. There's some processing reason for putting them in. It's important that the public be protected against harmful ingredients. But the food industry decides what's okay to put in and what's not. Are they required to do any testing? Are there criteria for that kind of testing? Is there any sense that letting the industry police itself amounts to anything that protects the public good? Well, the criteria are supposed to be the same for GRAS or food additives. They're supposed to be meeting certain scientific criteria. But the problem with this is that for GRAS ingredients, they don't have to use published data and they can hold that scientific data to themselves. And you mentioned food labels, the ingredient list, right? That doesn't necessarily capture these ingredients. They use generic terms, corn oil, color additive, food additive whatever. And so, the actual ingredient itself is not necessarily listed on the ingredient list. There is no way to identify them and it's unknown whether they're actually doing the studies. They can engage in these, what are called GRAS panels, which are supposed to be experts that evaluate the science. But the problem is other studies have found that 100% of the people on these GRAS panels have financial conflicts of interest. Okay, so let me see if I have this right. I'm a food company. I develop a new additive to provide color or flavor or fragrance, or it's an emulsifier or something like that. I develop a chemical concoction that hasn't really been tested for human safety. I declare it safe. And the criteria I use for declaring it set safe is putting together a panel of people that I pay, who then in a hundred percent of cases say things are. That's how it works? I can't say that in a hundred percent of cases they say it's safe, but a hundred percent of the people have financial conflicts of interest. That's one of the major concerns there. Well, one can't imagine they would continue to be paid... Exactly. This sounds like a pretty shaky system to be sure. Emily: I wanted to add a couple other really quick things on the last discussion. You were saying, Kelly, like they're using a panel of experts, which indeed are paid by them. That would be best case in some cases. They're just having their own staff say, we think this is generally recognized as safe. And I think there's some examples we can give where there isn't even evidence that they went to even any outside people, even within industry. I think that the takeaway from all of that is that there's really the ability for companies to call all the shots. Make all the rules. Not tell FDA what they're doing. And then as we talked about, not even have anything on the label because it's not a required ingredient if it's, used as part of a processing agent that's not a substance on there. So I was feeling pretty bad when Jennifer is talking about these panels and the heavy conflict... Even worse. Of interest, now I feel worse because that's the best case. Totally. And one other thing too is just you kind of warmed this up by talking about this loophole. When we put an earlier article out that we wrote that was about just this generally recognized as safe, the feedback we got from FDA was this isn't a loophole. Why are you calling this a loophole? And it's pretty clear that it's a loophole, you know? It's big enough to drive thousands of ingredients through. Yes, totally. Emily, you've written about things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, trans fats, and red dye number three in particular. Both of which FDA has now prohibited in food. Can you walk us through those cases? You asked about partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat, and then red dye three, which are two examples that we talk about a little bit in our piece. Actually, one of those, the partially hydrogenated oils was allowed in food through the generally recognized as safe definition. And the other was not. But they are both really good examples of another real issue that FDA has, which is that not only are they not doing a good job of policing substances going into food on the front end, but they do an even worse job of getting things out of food on the backend, post-market once they know that those substances are really raising red flags. And you raised two of the prime examples we've been talking about. With partially hydrogenated oils these are now banned in foods, but it took an extremely long time. Like the first evidence of harm was in the mid-nineties. By 2005, the Institute of Medicine, which is now the National Academies, said that intake of trans fat, of partially hydrogenated oils, should be as low as possible. And there was data from right around that time that found that 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks in the US each year were caused by these partially hydrogenated oils. And on FDA's end, they started in early 2000s to require labeling. But it wasn't until 2015 that they passed a final rule saying that these substances were not generally recognized as safe. And then they kept delaying implementation until 2023. It was basically more than 20 years from when there was really clear evidence of harm including from respected national agencies to when FDA actually fully removed them from food. And red dye number three is another good example where there were studies from the 1980s that raised concerns about this red dye. And it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. But they still allowed it to be added to food. And didn't ban it from food until early this year. So early 2025. In large part because one of the other things happening is states are now taking action on some of these substances where they feel like we really need to protect consumers in our states. And FDA has been doing a really poor job. California banned red dye about 18 months before that and really spurred FDA to action. So that 20-year delay with between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attack deaths attributable to the trans fats is the cost of delay and inaction and I don't know, conflicts of interest, and all kinds of other stuff that happened in FDA. So we're not talking about something trivial by any means. These are life and death things are occurring. Yes. Give us another example, if you would, about something that entered the food supply and caused harm but made it through that GRAS loophole. The example that I've talked about both in some of the work we've done together and also in a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that really focused on why this is an issue. There was this substance added to food called tara flour. It came on the scene in 2022. It was in food prepared by Daily Harvest as like a protein alternative. And they were using it from a manufacturer in South America who said we have deemed this generally recognized as safe. Everything about that is completely legal. They deemed it generally recognized as safe. A company put it into food, and they sold that. Up until that point, that's all legal. What happened was very quickly people started getting really sick from this. And so there were, I think, about 400 people across 39 states got sick. Nearly 200 people ended up in the hospital, some of them with liver failure because of this toxicity of tara flour. And so FDA followed the thread they did help work with the company to do a voluntary recall, but it then took them two years, until May, 2024, to declare tara flour not generally recognized as safe. So I think, in some ways, this is a great example because it shows how it's so immediate, the impact of this substance that, again, was legally added to food with no oversight. In some ways it's a misleading example because I think so many of the substances in food, it's not going to be so clear and so immediate. It's going to be year over year, decade over decade as part of a full diet that these are causing cardiovascular risk, thyroid disease, cancer risk, those kinds of things. I'd love to hear from either of you about this. Why is FDA falling down on the job so badly? Is it that they don't have the money to do the necessary testing? Do they not have the authority? Is there not the political will to do this? Is there complete caving into the food industry? Just let them do what they want and we're going let it go? Jennifer: All of the above? Everything you just said? It's all of the above. Emily: Jen, do you wanna talk about the money side? Because that sort of gets to the genesis of the article we worked on, which was like maybe there's a creative solution to that piece. Yes, I'd love to hear about that because I thought that was a very creative thing that you guys wrote about in your paper. That there would be an industry user fee to help produce this oversight. Tell us what you had in mind with that. And then then convince me that FDA would appropriately use this oversight and do its job. So, the idea in the paper was proposing a comprehensive user fee program for the food branch of the FDA. The FDA currently collects user fees for all of human drugs, animal drugs, medical devices, etc. With Tobacco, it's a hundred percent funded by user fees. But food, it only gets 1% of its funding through user fees. And it's important to note user fees fund processes. They don't fund outcomes. It's not like a bribe. And the idea behind user fees and why industry sometimes supports them is actually to bring predictability to the regulatory state. It brings efficiency to reviews. And then this all allows the industry to anticipate timelines so they can bring products to market and know when they're going be able to do it. In the food context, for example, the FDA is required to respond to those food additives petitions that we talked about within 180 days. But they can't respond in time. And they have a lot of timelines that are required of them in the food context that they can't meet. They can't meet their timelines because they're so underfunded. So, we proposed a comprehensive user fee. But one of the main reasons that we think a user fee is important is to address the pre-market issues that I talked about and the post-market issues that Emily talked about. In order to close that GRAS loophole, first of all, FDA needs to either reevaluate its authorities or Congress needs to change its authorities. But it would need resources to be able to do something pre-market. Some of the ideas we had was that the user fee would fund some type of either pre-market review, pre-market notification, or even just a pre-market system where the FDA determines whether a proposed ingredient should go through the GRAS avenue, or through food additive petition. So at least that there will be some type of pre-market oversight over all the ingredients in the food supply. And then also the FDA is so severely lacking in any type of comprehensive post-market into play, they would have the resources to engage in a more comprehensive post-market review for all the ingredients. Could you see a time, and I bring this up because of lawsuits against the food industry for some of these additives that are going on now. The state attorney's generals are starting to get involved, and as you said, Emily, the some states are taking legislative action to ban certain things in the food supply. Do you think there could come a time when the industry will come to government pleading to have a user fee like this? To provide some standardization across jurisdictions, let's say? So, there's two things. The first is Congress has to pass the user fee, and historically, actually, industry has done exactly what you said. They have gone to Congress and said, you know what? We want user fees because we want a streamlined system, and we want to be able to know when we're bringing products to market. The problem in the context of food for the issues we're talking about is that right now they can use the GRAS loophole. So, they have very little incentive to ask for user fees if they can bring all their ingredients into the market through the GRAS loophole. There are other areas where a user fee is very relevant, such as the infant formula 90 day pre-market notification, or for different claims like health claims. They might want user fees to speed those things up, but in terms of the ingredients, unless we close the GRAS loophole, they'd have little incentive to actually come to the table. But wouldn't legal liability change that? Let's say that some of these lawsuits are successful and they start having to pay large settlements or have the State Attorneys General, for example, come down on them for these kinds of things. If they're legally liable for harm, they're causing, they need cover. And wouldn't this be worth the user fee to provide them cover for what they put in the food supply? Yes, it's great to have the flexibility to have all these things get through the loophole, but it'd be great as well to have some cover so you wouldn't have so much legal exposure. But you guys are the lawyers, so I'm not sure it makes sense. I think you're right that there are forces combining out in the world that are pushing for change here. And I think it's hard to disentangle how much is it that industry's pushing for user fees versus right now I think more willing to consider federal regulatory changes by either FDA or by Congress. At the state level this is huge. There's now becoming a patchwork across states, and I think that is really difficult for industry. We were tracking this year 93 bills in 35 states that either banned an additive in the general public, banned it in schools. Banned ultra-processed foods, which most of the states, interestingly, have all defined differently. But where they have had a definition, it's been tied to various different combinations of additives. So that's going on. And then I think you're right, that the legal cases moving along will push industry to really want clear and better standards. I think there's a good question right now around like how successful will some of these efforts be? But  what we are seeing is real movement, both in FDA and in Congress, in taking action on this. So interestingly, the Health Affairs piece that we worked on was out this spring. But we had this other piece that came out last fall and felt like we were screaming into the void about this is a problem generally recognized as safe as a really big issue. And suddenly that has really changed. And so, you know, in March FDA said they were directed by RFK (Robert F. Kennedy), by HHS (Health and Human Services) to really look into changing their rule on generally recognized as safe. So, I know that's underway. And then in Congress, multiple bills have been introduced. And I know there are several in the works that would address additives and specifically, generally recognized as safe. There's this one piece going on, which is there's forces coalescing around some better method of regulation. I think the question's really going to also be like, will Congress give adequate resources? Because there is also another scenario that I'm worried about that even if FDA said we're going now require at least notification for every substance that's generally recognized as safe. It's a flood of substances. And they just, without more resources, without more staff devoted to this, there's no way that they're going to be able to wade through that. So, I think that either the resources need to come from user fees, or at least partially from user fees, from more appropriations and I think, In my opinion, they are able to do that on their own. Even given where current administrative law stands. Because I think it's very clear that the gist of the statute is that FDA should be overseeing additives. And I think a court would say this is allowing everything to instead go through this alternative pathway. But I really think FDA's going to need resources to manage this. And perhaps more of a push from Congress to make sure that they really do it to the best of their ability. I was going to say there's also an alternative world where we don't end up spending any of these resources, and they require the industry just to disclose all the ingredients they've added to food and put it on a database. This is like low hanging fruit, not very expensive, doesn't require funding. And then the NGOs, I hope, would go to work and say, look at this. There is no safety data for these ingredients. You know, because right now we just can't rely on FDA to do anything unless they get more funding to do something. So, if FDA doesn't get funding, then maybe this database where houses every ingredient that's in the food supply as a requirement could be a low resource solution. Jennifer, I'll come back to you in a minute because I'd like to ask how worried should we be about all this stuff that's going into food. But Emily, let me ask you first, does FDA have the authority to do what it needs to do? Let's say all of a sudden that your wish was granted and there were user fees would it then be able to do what needs to be done? I think certainly to be able to charge these user fees in almost all areas, it right now doesn't have that authority, and Congress would need to act. There's one small area which is within the Food Safety Modernization Act for certain types of like repeat inspections or recalls or there's a couple other. FDA isn't charging fees right now because they haven't taken this one step that they need to take. But they do have the authority if they just take those steps. But for everything else, Congress has to act. I think the real question to me is because we now know so many of these substances are going through this GRAS pathway, the question is really can they do everything they need to do on their own to close that loophole? And again, my opinion is Congress could make it clear and if Congress were to act, it would be better. Like they could redefine it in a way that was much more clear that we are drawing a real line. And most things actually should be on the additive side of the line rather than the generally recognized as safe side of the line. But even with their current authority, with the current definition, I think FDA could at least require notification because they're still drawing a line between what's required for additives, which is a very lengthy pre-market process with, you know, a notice and comment procedure and all of these things. My take is FDA do what you can do now. Let's get the show on the road. Let's take steps here to close up the loophole. And then Congress takes time. But they definitely can even strengthen this and give a little more, I think, directives to FDA as to how to make sure that this loophole doesn't recur down the line. In talks that I've given recently, I've shown an ingredient list from a food that people will recognize. And I ask people to try to guess what that food is from its ingredient list. This particular food has 35 ingredients. You know, a bunch of them that are very hard to pronounce. Very few people would even have any idea at all what those ingredients do. There's no sense at all about how ingredient number 17 would interact with ingredient 31, etc. And it just seems like it's complete chaos. And I don't want to take you guys outside your comfort zone because your backgrounds are law. But Jennifer, let me ask you this. You have a background in public health as well. There are all kinds of reasons to be worried about this, aren't there? There are the concerns about the safety of these things, but then there's a concern about what these ultra-processed ingredients do to your metabolism, your ability to control your weight, to regulate your hunger and things like that. It sounds this is a really important thing. And it's affecting almost everybody in the country. The percentage of calories that are now coming from ultra-processed foods is over 50% in both children and adults. So it sounds like there's really reason to worry. Would you agree? Yes. And also, the FDA is supposed to be overseeing the cumulative effects of the ingredients and it doesn't actually enforce that regulation. Its own regulation that it's supposed to evaluate the cumulative effects. It doesn't actually enforce this. So by cumulative effects do you mean the chronic effects of long term use? And, having these ingredients across multiple products within one person's consumption. Also, the FDA doesn't look at things like the effect on the gut microbiome, neurotoxicity, even cancer risk, even though they're supposed to, they say that if something is GRAS, they don't need to look at it because cancer risk is relegated only to food additives. So here we're at a real issue, right? Because if everything's entering through the GRAS loophole, then they're not looking at carcinogen effects. So, I think there is a big risk and as Emily had said earlier, that these are sometimes long-term risks versus that acute example of tara flour that we don't know. And we do know from the science, both older and emerging science, that ultra-processed food has definite impact on not only consumption, increased consumption, but also on diet related diseases and other health effects. And by definition what we're talking about here are ultra-processed foods. These ingredients are only found in ultra-processed foods. So, we do know that there is cause for concern. It's interesting that you mentioned the microbiome because we've recorded a cluster of podcasts on the microbiome and another cluster of podcasts on artificial sweeteners. Those two universes overlap a good bit because the impact of the artificial sweeteners on some of them, at least on the microbiome, is really pretty negative. And that's just one thing that goes into these foods. It really is pretty important. By the way, that food with 35 ingredients that I mentioned is a strawberry poptart. Jennifer: I know that answer! Emily: How do you know that? Jennifer: Because I've seen Kelly give a million talks. Yes, she has. Emily: I was wondering, I was like, are we never going to find out? So the suspense is lifted. Let me end with this. This has been highly instructive, and I really appreciate you both weighing in on this. So let me ask each of you, is there reason to be optimistic that things could improve. Emily, I'll start with you. So, I've been giving this talk the past few months that's called basically like Chronic Disease, Food Additives and MAHA, like What Could Go Right and What Could Go Wrong. And so, I'm going give you a very lawyerly answer, which is, I feel optimistic because there's attention on the issue. I think states are taking action and there's more attention to this across the political spectrum, which both means things are happening and means that the narrative changing, like people are getting more aware and calling for change in a way that we weren't seeing. On the flip side, I think there's a lot that could go wrong. You know, I think some of the state bills are great and some of them are maybe not so great. And then I think this administration, you have an HHS and FDA saying, they're going to take action on this in the midst of an administration that's otherwise very deregulatory. In particular, they're not supposed to put out new regulations if they can get rid of 10 existing ones. There are some things you can do through guidance and signaling, but I don't think you can really fix these issues without like real durable legislative change. So, I'm sorry to be one of the lawyers here. I think the signals are going in the right direction, but jury is out a little bit on how well we'll actually do. And I hope we can do well given the momentum. What do you think, Jennifer? I agree that the national attention is very promising to these issues. The states are passing laws that are shocking to me. That Texas passing a warning label law, I would never have thought in the history of the world, that Texas would be the one to pass a warning label law. They're doing great things and I actually have hope that something can come of this. But I am concerned at the federal level of the focus on deregulation may make it impossible. User fees is an example of where they won't have to regulate, but they could provide funding to the FDA to actually act in areas that it has the authority to act. That is one solution that could actually work under this administration if they were amenable to it. But I also think in some ways the states could save us. I worry, you know, Emily brought up the patchwork, which is the key term the industry uses to try to get preemption. I do worry about federal preemption of state actions. But the states right now are the ones saving us. California is the first to save the whole nation. The food industry isn't going to create new food supply for California and then the rest of the country. And then it's the same with other states. So, the states might be the ones that actually can make some real meaningful changes and get some of the most unsafe ingredients out of the food supply, which some of the states have now successfully done. Bios Emily Broad Leib is a Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, the nation's first law school clinic devoted to providing legal and policy solutions to the health, economic, and environmental challenges facing our food system. Working directly with clients and communities, Broad Leib champions community-led food system change, reduction in food waste, food access and food is medicine interventions, and equity and sustainability in food production. Her scholarly work has been published in the California Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, Harvard Law & Policy Review, Food & Drug Law Journal, and Journal of Food Law & Policy, among others. Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

What Does Extreme Heat Do?Since the pre-industrialized era, the global temperature has increased by about one degree Celsius. Although one degree may not seem significant, the consequences are increases in the intensity of heatwaves and drier conditions. In addition, in dense urban settings buildings trap and absorb this heat and cause even a higher area of heat relative to surrounding areas. The heat island effect is also exacerbated by the lack of greenery. With current fossil fuel emissions, increased heating of 1.5 degrees Celsius or more is predicted to happen globally within this decade. Among the most promising solutions to combat extreme heat in cities is the effort to promote natural systems – trees, creeks, and parks in cities and creating resilience hubs where people can stay cool and safe from dangerous temperatures.  Because heat impacts individuals in multiple ways, the response to extreme heat must also be multifaceted.  Responses to Extreme HeatThere are many possible responses to extreme heat. On an individual level, for example, when human body temperature rises to the point of heat stroke, individuals are subject to serious illness or in some cases, death.  Heat poses a particular threat when the body is physically unable to cool down. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2000 and 2016, 125 million more people were exposed to heat waves than in the period before 2000. Actions individuals can take to reduce heat exposure include avoiding going outside at peak temperatures, reducing the heat inside of homes, and if reducing heat at home is not an option, going where air conditioning is available. For some vulnerable populations like farmworkers, staying inside where there is air conditioning is not an option. In some states, like California, a temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit initiates the California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard, which is enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  The Standard requires that training, water, shade, and rest be provided to outdoor workers. Currently, there is no federal protection or policy for workers who may experience extreme heat. While a proposed rulemaking is in the works, it may take years before a final regulation is completed.How to Establish Resilience and Safe HubsIn the meantime, there are key actions that anyone can take, including something as simple as making extreme heat a topic of discussion as part of increasing awareness. By spreading awareness and recognizing the consequences of extreme heat, politicians and policymakers will be much more likely to pay attention to the issue and to community necessities. Global and local temperatures are continuing to rise, and, as a result, it is important to have community access to locations with air conditioning systems, heat pumps, and safety hubs particularly in communities whose residents do not have home air conditioners. Hubs may include libraries, churches, schools, and nonprofits which can be essential for providing both a cool place to shelter and a source of information and assistance.Shifting to more green spaces is also an important solution to mitigate the impacts of increased heat. In New York, the Highline is a great example of transforming an old historic freight rail line into a park filled with rich greenery. The incorporation of nature into a previously urban dense space provides the city with more trees and access to green space. Addressing extreme heat in cities requires new approaches and creative thinking for a suite of implementation strategies to provide cooling to the public and creation of green space. Who is Our GuestJeff Goodell is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, which focuses on responses to extreme heat. Goodell is also a journalist who has been covering climate change for more than two decades at Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, and many other publications. He has a BA from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MFA from Columbia University in New York.Further ReadingLindsey and Dahlman, Climate Change: Global Temperatures (Climate.org, 2024)Dickie, Climate Report and Predictions (Reuters, 2023)California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard (Cal OSHA)Krueger, Heat Policy for Outdoor Workers (The Network for Public Health Law, 2023)Heat and Health (WHO, 2018)Heat Island Effect (The United States EPA)Climate Resilience Hubs (Communities Responding to Extreme Weather)Sustainable Practices | The Highline (The Highline)For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/alleviating-urban-heat-traps-with-jeff-goodell/

Lillian Colasurdo, ASTHO's Director of Public Health Law and Data Sharing, is featured in ASTHO's Get To Know You Segment; Lesley Wolf, Director of Programming with Envision, discusses how their new CHW Financial Sustainability Toolkit can help public health programs fund the work of Community Health Workers; and ASTHO is hosting an INSPIRE Readiness Webinar on Thursday, July 10th, about communicating with data during infectious disease emergencies. ASTHO Web Page: State Health Policy ASTHO Web Page: 2025 Legislative Prospectus Series Envision CHW Financial Sustainability Toolkit ASTHO Webinar: INSPIRE Readiness: Communicating About Data and Surveillance During Infectious Disease Emergencies  ASTHO LinkedIn Profile ASTHO X Profile ASTHO Facebook Profile  

Dr. Anna-Michelle McSorley, Assistant Professor in the Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of Connecticut, details the findings of her recent study on quality of life indicators in three U.S. territories and explains the importance of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; Christina Severin, Director of Public Health Law at ASTHO, discusses her role on the State Health Policy team in this installment of the Get to Know You segment; ASTHO welcomes new member Dr. John Langefeld, Medical Director for the Kentucky Department for Public Health; the Vermont Department of Health Laboratory received the Excellence in Public Health Response award for a significant contribution to the CDC; and registration is open for the second installment in ASTHO's Essentials of Leadership and Management Series, with the first workshop on strategic communications taking place July 9th.   Study: Health-Related Quality of Life in the US Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands ASTHO State Health Policy ASTHO's Public Health Legal Mapping Center PHIG Partners: PHIG Infrastructure Grant John Langefeld, MD  Vermont Department of Health Public Health Laboratory CDC Laboratory Response Network for Chemical Threats   ASTHO Workshop: Ignite, Accelerate, and Activate: Series 2, Session 1: Navigating Difficult Conversations

Julia McIlroy, Procurement Content Manager for the National Association of State Procurement Officials, discusses administrative preparedness for public health emergencies; Lillian Colasurdo, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law and Data Sharing, tells us about legislative trends regarding mosquito control; an ASTHO webinar on Thursday, May 29th will focus on how defined levels of maternal care can reduce maternal mortality and improve outcomes; and Dr. Manisha Juthani, ASTHO President-Elect and the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health, recently delivered a commencement address. ASTHO Webinar: Strengthening Administrative Preparedness in Public Health Agencies ASTHO Blog Article: Legislative Trends for Mosquito Control in the United States ASTHO Webinar: Defining Care, Saving Lives – The Role of Levels of Maternal Care in Mortality Reduction  

You can't make me!!! Welp...sometimes we can. Join us as we talk about the legal framework for advancing public health. Our guest is Dawn Hunter: public health lawyer, health equity champion, and the rare policymaker who's as comfortable with the legislature as she is in a microbiology lab. Dawn's career is proof that the law isn't just about statutes—it's about systems, stories, and the social determinants that touch us all.   Engineered by Dreamstate Productions Music by Michael Conrad

Dr. Jerome Larkin, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Health and an ASTHO Member, recaps a White House roundtable meeting that focused on sepsis; Meghan Mead, Deputy Director in the Mid-States Region at the Network for Public Health Law, tells us about a webinar today at 3 p.m. ET that is about AI and public health; an ASTHO report dives into one possible solution to health disparities in our nation; an ASTHO resource focuses on legislative trends dealing with the containment and prevention of infectious diseases; and Dr. Victor Ramos is the Secretary of Health for the Puerto Rico Department of Health and ASTHO's newest member. Report to Congress: An Assessment of Sepsis in the United States and its Burden on Hospital Care The Network for Public Health Law Webinar: AI and Public Health – Opportunities and Challenges ASTHO Report: Including Island Areas in Federal Public Health Datasets ASTHO Web Page: Containing and Preventing the Spread of Infectious Disease ASTHO Web Page: Victor Ramos, MD  

For many years in talks that I gave, I showed a slide with an ingredient list from a food most people know. Just to see if the audience could guess what the food was. based on what it was made of. It was very hard for people to guess. A few people might come close, but very few people would guess. And it was pretty hard because the food contained 56 ingredients. This is in one food. And the ingredient list had chemical names, flavorings, stabilizers, and heaven knows what else. But 56 things in one, just one food in the food supply. Pretty amazing to think what kind of things we're bombarded with in foods we eat in our everyday lives. So, one key question is do we know what all this stuff does to us, either individually or in combination? So, how does ingredient 42 interact with ingredient 17? Even if we happen to know what they do individually, which we may not. And, who's looking out for the health of the population, and who has regulatory control over these things? Today we're joined by the author of a new article on this topic published in the American Journal of Public Health. Jennifer Pomeranz is an attorney and is Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management in the School of Global Public Health at New York University. The food, by the way, was a chocolate fudge Pop Tart. Interview Summary So, who has regulatory oversight with these things that are added to foods? The FDA has the authority over all of those packaged foods. So, Pop Tarts, all of that type of packaged foods and the ingredients in there. Can you explain the nature of their authority and the concept of GRAS and what that stands for? Yes. So, there are two main ingredients in our food, but there is also color additives and other things that we didn't get to in our study. But the two main ingredients are called 'food additives' and then 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS substances. And these are the two ingredients that are in all the processed foods. They're both complex substances, but they're regulated differently. GRAS is assumed to be safe. And food with GRAS substances is presumed to be safe as long as there's a generally agreement among scientists that it's safe, or if it's been in use in food since 1958. Food additives, on the other hand, are presumed to be unsafe. And so, foods that have food additives must have the food additive be approved for the condition of use. So actually, the FDA issues regulations on the food additives. Is it true that the FDA authority covers lots of these chemical type things that get put in foods that we discussed? But also, things that occur naturally in some things like caffeine? Yes. And so, caffeine is considered GRAS or generally recognized as safe. The FDA has a tolerance level for cola-type beverages for caffeine. It actually doesn't enforce that as you see, because we have energy drinks that far exceed that type of level. So, there's different types of GRAS substances. But they can be very complex substances that are actually not so different than food additives. Who decides at the end of the day whether something's safe or not? You imagine this battalion of scientific experts that the FDA has on hand, or consults with, to decide whether something's safe or not. But how does it work? Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case. When it comes to food additives, the industry must petition the FDA and provide evidence showing that it's safe. And the FDA promulgates a regulation saying that it agrees it's safe and it can be used for the things that it set forth in the regulation. For GRAS, there are two mechanisms. One is the industry can notify the FDA that it thinks something's safe. And then it actually goes through a similar transparent process where the FDA will evaluate the evidence submitted. Or, shockingly, the industry can actually decide that it's safe for themselves. And they don't have to notify the FDA. And they can add it to their food without the FDA or the public actually knowing. Now they might disclose this on a website or something, but it's actually not even required to be based on peer reviewed literature, which is actually one of the concerning aspects about this. Concerning is polite language for what one might call shocking. So, in the case of some of these things that go into the food, the industry itself decides whether these things are safe. And in some cases, they have to at least tell the FDA that something they declare as safe is going into the food. But in some cases, they don't even have to do this. Right. So, they only have to if they've determined that it's a food additive. But actually, the industry itself is deciding that it's a food additive versus GRAS. Once it made the decision, it's GRAS, it doesn't even have to notify the FDA that it considers it safe. If they do, they are supposed to rely on their own research saying that it's safe. But actually, there's some alarming parts about that as well. The other outside research that's not my own found that the panels of experts that they employ, 100 percent of the people on those panels have financial conflicts of interest. So, that's already worrisome. They're receiving money from the food industry in some way. Yes. To say that the ingredient is safe. Another scary part is that if they do notify the FDA and they're not happy with how the FDA is reacting to their GRAS notification, they can actually request a cease and desist. The FDA will issue a cease and desist letter, and then they can actually go to market with that ingredient. Pretty amazing. Like loopholes that not only a truck can go through, but a train and everything else. That's really pretty remarkable. So one could say that the risk built into this system is hypothetical, and it works pretty well. But is that true? I mean, are there cases where things have gotten through that probably shouldn't have? Or is it just that we don't know? I think there's a lot of unknowns. The Environmental Working Group does that research and they have identified things that they find to be concerning. A lot of it is that we actually don't know what we don't know, right? So even the FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know. And that is, is part of the concern, that you can't just identify this by looking at the nutrition facts label where they list ingredients. Sometimes they just use terms like spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives. But that could be masking an ingredient that has never been examined and for which It's unclear that it's actually safe. I know there have been some policy efforts in places such as California to prohibit use of some of these things that have otherwise been considered safe by the FDA, or perhaps just by industry. Is that true that's happening more and more? Yes, actually there has been. Because of the gap in the FDA's oversight, we are seeing states, and it's actually a pretty shocking situation, that California banned four ingredients that the FDA did not. And it's saying that those ingredients are not safe to be in food in California. And given what a huge market California is, the thinking is that the industry will have to change their ingredients across the nation. And frankly, they've already taken those ingredients out of the same foods in Europe, where those ingredients are not allowed. So how much do you trust this self-policing by the industry? To be honest, I'm quite concerned about it. The FDA has the authority to review substances post market, so after they're already in the ingredients. But we see that it can take years or even decades. In the case of, remember, partially hydrogenated oils, which were artificially produced trans-fat. It took decades for them to get that removed from the food supply, despite significant research showing that it had caused health harm. So, even when there is evidence of harm, it takes quite a long time for the FDA to remove it. And in the case of another ingredient recently where California banned it, then the FDA decided to ban it. So, it does worry me that even their post market authority is not being utilized to the extent that it should. Let's think about what a good set of defaults might be and how this might actually play out in practice. If you'd assume these things that go into foods are not safe by default, then the question is what would it take to make sure they're safe before they're allowed in the food supply? And it would take toxicology studies, studies with lab animals perhaps, studies with humans. I don't know exactly how these things are tested, but one can imagine it's not an easy or a quick process. Nor probably an inexpensive one. But somebody would have to do it, and if government can't do it, you can't rely on industry to do it. I wonder if the default might be fewer things in the food supply and whether that might not be a pretty good thing? I love that you said that because that's the conclusion I came to as well. Why do we need all these new ingredients? We already have ultra processed foods, which are by definition contain all these ingredients that we don't really know what they are. And why do we even need new ingredients? I think they could even put a moratorium on new ingredients and say, let's take a, take an analysis of what we've got in the food supply at this point. And to be honest, it would take Congress to act to change FDA's authority to give them more authority to do what you just suggested. And of course, resources, which would be personnel like you described. So maybe that chocolate Pop Tart that has 56 ingredients could get by with 41 or 32 or 17. And you know, maybe we'd be just fine having it with fewer ingredients. One interesting thing that I've heard about, but I'm not an expert in because my background isn't law, is I know it's possible for outside parties to bring lawsuits against government for failing to execute its duties. Has there been any talk about possible lawsuits taking on the FDA for failing to protect the public's health with regard to these things? Well, actually, there was a lawsuit already. These consumer protection organizations sued the FDA, arguing that they weren't protecting the public. And that they were actually ceding authority to the industry, which, they by definition are. But according to the law, because Congress didn't require them to review these ingredients pre market, the court found that the FDA did not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And so, they were operating according to the law. But also, to your point, I could see other lawsuits would be possible about them not actually exercising their post market authority to protect the public. Those could be from private lawsuits or a state attorney's general. There are different ideas there. So, what do you suggest going forward? You know what? Don't eat the Pop Tart. I think you got to avoid the many truly ultra processed foods and go for the lower processing levels. It's kind of that original advice. If you can't understand the ingredient list, maybe pick something different. And there are options within the same categories, right? There are potato chips that have three ingredients and there's potato crisps that have something like 12. So there are different options in that way. Bio Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

Christina Severin, ASTHO's Director of Public Health Law, dives into the ins and outs of the status of hemp; Linda Helland, Manager of California's Climate Change and Health Equity Branch at the California Department of Public Health, tells us more about the work the branch is doing; ASTHO is looking for qualified candidates to be its Senior Director of Accounting Operations; and Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, Chief Medical Executive for the State of Michigan and an ASTHO Member, shares her thanks for public health. ASTHO Blog Article: Hemp's Hazy Legal Status Challenges Public Health Efforts California Department of Public Health: Climate Change and Health Equity ASTHO Web Page: Senior Director, Accounting Operations  

Teresa Ehnert, Federal Affairs Liaison for the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Resiliency, Policy, and Environmental Services, discusses why public health is the perfect career for someone transitioning from the military; Lillia Colasurdo, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law and Data Sharing, tells us how the HTI-2 rule could help those in public health; the Public Health Infrastructure Grant has its own newsletter; and applications are now open for ASTHO's Over-the-Counter Contraception Academy. Arizona Department of Health Services Web Page: AZ Hires Vets ASTHO Blog Article: What Public Health Leaders Need to Know About HTI-2 Proposed Rule PHIG Newsletter ASTHO Web Page: Funding & Collaboration Opportunities  

Karl Ensign, ASTHO Vice President of Island Support, talks about the work to address COVID-19 health disparities in the U.S. territories and freely associated states; Christina Severin, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law, summarizes several recent Supreme Court decisions that could affect public health; and you can still ask your questions about the new Data Modernization Implementation Center Program at an upcoming office hours opportunity. American Journal of Public Health Article: Reducing COVID-19 Health Disparities in the Territories and Freely Associated States Journal of Public Health Management and Practice Article: Defining and Advancing Health Equity in the US Territories and Freely Associated States ASTHO Blog Article: Public Health Full-Court(s) Press PHIG Web Page: Data Modernization Implementation Center Program  

Dr. Karen Hacker, Director of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, says Medicaid and Medicare may be able to help keep Community Health Workers on the front lines; Dr. Joneigh Khaldun, Vice President and Chief Health Equity Officer for CVS Health and the former State Health Officer for the State of Michigan, explains how important it is to keep community health workers on the team; Christina Severin, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law, breaks down a new ASTHO legal map hosted on the organization's Public Health Legal Mapping Center website; and ASTHO has a new report about the impact COVID-19 had on people living with disabilities. ASTHO Report: Opportunities for Public Health Agencies to Advance Sustainable Financing of Community Health Worker Programs ASTHO Public Health Review Podcast Episode: Investing in Community Health Workers Is Vital to Population Health ASTHO Webpage: Overdose Surveillance Legal Map ASTHO Brief: Access to Healthcare for People with Disabilities in Public Health Emergencies  ASTHO Report: Organizational Strategic Planning Guide  

Lillian Colasurdo, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law and Data Sharing, tells us about part one of ASTHO's 2024 Legislative session update; Dr. Katrina Piercy, Director of the Division of Prevention Science in the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, discusses the federal government's report on physical activity guidelines for older adults; healthy aging is the focus of a new ASTHO resource; and podcasters in the software space says the ASTHO Profile dashboard is one of the best-designed websites they have ever seen. ASTHO Blog Article: ASTHO's 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part One HHS Webpage: Midcourse Report – Implementation Strategies for Older Adults Older Americans Month Webpage The White House Webpage ASTHO Brief: Public Health Frameworks to Advance Healthy Aging ASTHO Profile  

What Does Extreme Heat Do?Since the pre-industrialized era, the global temperature has increased by about one degree Celsius. Although one degree may not seem significant, the consequences are increases in the intensity of heatwaves and drier conditions. In addition, in dense urban settings buildings trap and absorb this heat and cause even a higher area of heat relative to surrounding areas. The heat island effect is also exacerbated by the lack of greenery. With current fossil fuel emissions, increased heating of 1.5 degrees Celsius or more is predicted to happen globally within this decade. Among the most promising solutions to combat extreme heat in cities is the effort to promote natural systems – trees, creeks, and parks in cities and creating resilience hubs where people can stay cool and safe from dangerous temperatures.  Because heat impacts individuals in multiple ways, the response to extreme heat must also be multifaceted.  Responses to Extreme HeatThere are many possible responses to extreme heat. On an individual level, for example, when human body temperature rises to the point of heat stroke, individuals are subject to serious illness or in some cases, death.  Heat poses a particular threat when the body is physically unable to cool down. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2000 and 2016, 125 million more people were exposed to heat waves than in the period before 2000. Actions individuals can take to reduce heat exposure include avoiding going outside at peak temperatures, reducing the heat inside of homes, and if reducing heat at home is not an option, going where air conditioning is available. For some vulnerable populations like farmworkers, staying inside where there is air conditioning is not an option. In some states, like California, a temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit initiates the California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard, which is enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  The Standard requires that training, water, shade, and rest be provided to outdoor workers. Currently, there is no federal protection or policy for workers who may experience extreme heat. While a proposed rulemaking is in the works, it may take years before a final regulation is completed.How to Establish Resilience and Safe HubsIn the meantime, there are key actions that anyone can take, including something as simple as making extreme heat a topic of discussion as part of increasing awareness. By spreading awareness and recognizing the consequences of extreme heat, politicians and policymakers will be much more likely to pay attention to the issue and to community necessities. Global and local temperatures are continuing to rise, and, as a result, it is important to have community access to locations with air conditioning systems, heat pumps, and safety hubs particularly in communities whose residents do not have home air conditioners. Hubs may include libraries, churches, schools, and nonprofits which can be essential for providing both a cool place to shelter and a source of information and assistance.Shifting to more green spaces is also an important solution to mitigate the impacts of increased heat. In New York, the Highline is a great example of transforming an old historic freight rail line into a park filled with rich greenery. The incorporation of nature into a previously urban dense space provides the city with more trees and access to green space. Addressing extreme heat in cities requires new approaches and creative thinking for a suite of implementation strategies to provide cooling to the public and creation of green space. Who is Our GuestJeff Goodell is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, which focuses on responses to extreme heat. Goodell is also a journalist who has been covering climate change for more than two decades at Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, and many other publications. He has a BA from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MFA from Columbia University in New York. Further ReadingLindsey and Dahlman, Climate Change: Global Temperatures (Climate.org, 2024)Dickie, Climate Report and Predictions (Reuters, 2023)California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard (Cal OSHA)Krueger, Heat Policy for Outdoor Workers (The Network for Public Health Law, 2023)Heat and Health (WHO, 2018)Heat Island Effect (The United States EPA)Climate Resilience Hubs (Communities Responding to Extreme Weather)Sustainable Practices | The Highline (The Highline) For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/alleviating-urban-heat-traps-with-jeff-goodell/  

Corey Davis, Director of the Harm Reduction Legal Project at the Network for Public Health Law,  discusses the challenges of improving naloxone distribution; Carolyn Mullen, ASTHO Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Relations, tells us about her team's advocacy efforts as fiscal year 2025 appropriations advocacy gets underway; and the CDC has a warning about the dangers of some botox injections. ASTHO Webpage: ASTHO's Public Health Legal Mapping Center ASTHO Blog Article: The Fentanyl Crisis Requires Ongoing and Strategic Federal Action CDC Webpage: Adverse Effects Linked to Counterfeit or Mishandled Botulinum Toxin Injections ASTHO Webpage: Legislative Alerts  

James discusses the last three years of immigration policy and what they Myrna for people seeking refuge in the USA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lillian Colasurdo, ASTHO Director of Public Health Law and Data Sharing, discusses work to protect consumer data gathered from a growing number of health-related transactions; Mike Fraser, ASTHO CEO, reacts to the legislative prospectus series that he says provides members a handy reference to the hottest public health issues; Jeffrey Ekoma, ASTHO Senior Director for Government Affairs, says it's time to start thinking about ASTHO's 2024 federal legislative agenda. ASTHO Webpage: Data Collection and Exchange – The Foundation of Public Health ASTHO Webpage: Public Health Legislative Trends in 2024 – A Note from ASTHO CEO ASTHO Webpage: 2024 Federal Legislative Agenda ASTHO Webpage: Stay Informed  

In our Ask-Me-Anything Segment of our public health law episode with Jess Szabo, we cover a range of questions submitted by the Lawyered Patreon community.

This week, we're speaking with Jess Szabo about all things related to public health law: MAID and mental illness; forced transfers to long-term care homes; and private actors in the public healthcare system. ⚫ How will the federal government decide whether persons suffering "only" from a mental illness will have access to medical assistance in dying? (9:38) ⚫ What is the role of consent within a new Ontario bill that would allow patients to be transferred from nursing homes? (20:33) ⚫ Do recent permissions for private sector bodies open the door for the privatization of public healthcare? (31:24) ⚫ Our Ask-Me-Anything segment, featuring questions submitted by patrons of the Lawyered community (39:14)

New York officials are attempting to pass a law extending government powers to force the quarantine of people exposed to illnesses like COVID-19. Attorneys and state senator George Borrello are fighting back with a lawsuit, saying the change would be a breach of due process by taking rights from targeted individuals and forcing them to appeal to courts after they've already been forced into involuntary detention. Dr. Drew is joined by Joshua Guetzkow (sociologist and criminologist), Sen. George Borrello (NY State Senator), Bobbie Anne Cox (NY attorney), and Dr. Kelly Victory. Olean Times Herald reported that “Borrello, the lead plaintiff in the case, had challenged Section 2.3 of the state's Public health Law, which would have allowed state health officials to order people suspected of having a communicable disease such as COVID-19 could be placed in temporary housing — which saw claims on social media indicating the state had the authority to and may have planned to create “quarantine camps” during the pandemic.” 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew • BIRCH GOLD - Don't let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Christina Severin, ASTHO's Director of Public Health Law, outlines upcoming Supreme Court cases that will impact public health; Susan Donnelly, Workforce Director at the Oklahoma State Department of Health, shares the work her team is doing to support the public health workforce; applications are open to join the STRETCH 2.0 project; and sign up for ASTHO's Public Health Weekly email newsletter.   ASTHO Webpage: Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Public Health in the Courts Careers in Public Health ASTHO Webpage: Empowering Connection Through STRETCH ASTHO Webpage: STRETCH 2.0 Community Collaborative Cohort Opportunity ASTHO Webpage: Public Health Weekly email newsletters  

In this episode, Sujani sits down with Dawn Hunter, a public health lawyer and Director of the Southeastern Region of the Network for Public Health Law. They discuss Dawn's career journey and experiences, what public health law entails, and combining instincts and strategy to get your dream job. You'll LearnHow Dawn found her way into public health and lawHow public health law differs from health lawTips on how to tell if a career is right for youTips on following your instincts and making career changes to find what suits you bestDawn's experience pursuing a JD and MPH at the same time and what motivated her to do bothWhat a role as a public health lawyer may entailWhat the Network for Public Health Law is and what kind of work they doCareer advice on interviewing, drawing strengths from professional and personal experience, and thinking with intentionToday's GuestDawn Hunter, JD,MPH, CPH., is Director of the Southeastern Region of the Network for Public Health Law. Dawn's work focuses on research, analysis, implementation, and capacity building related to the use of law and policy to improve health outcomes and advance racial equity. She is particularly interested in the development of racial equity action plans and implementation strategies at the state and local level and leads an ongoing assessment of declarations of racism as a public health crisis and related efforts to address health inequities. In the past year, she has been collaborating with partners in the Collaborative for Anti-Racism and Equity. Dawn also focuses on strategies to improve health outcomes through civic engagement and served as the lead author of the Health & Democracy Index. She also conducts training on equity in public health messaging through the Becoming Better Messengers initiative. ResourcesFollow Dawn on LinkedIn  Learn more about the The Network for Public Health Law Support the showJoin The Public Health Career Club: the #1 hangout spot and community dedicated to building and growing your dream public health career.

In this episode, Sujani sits down with Alexandra Bhatti, a public health attorney who is currently director of US Vaccine Public at Merck & Co. They discuss what led Alexandra to pursue public health law, her experience working in the public sector vs private sector with a pharmaceutical company, and her work in vaccine policy.You'll LearnWhat led Alexandra to public health and then later public health lawWhat events led to Alexandra finding her niche in public health lawAdvice on overcoming anxiety when it comes to networking and connecting with othersHow the pandemic helped to emphasize the importance of public health policy and lawWhat a day in the life of the Director of US Vaccine Public Policy at Merck & Co. looks like How both the private and public sector have intertwining roles and the importance of interprofessionalism in advancing public healthThe value of having direction while remaining open to opportunities in your careerAdvice for those in search of growth in their careerThe importance of building a community and supporting your peersToday's GuestAlexandra Bhatti is a public health attorney with a decade of diverse vaccine programmatic and policy experience across the government and private sector. She is currently Director of US Vaccine Public Policy at Merck & Co. Inc, where she leads US state and federal vaccine policy development and research as well as federal vaccine policy advocacy to advance evidence-based policy solutions that can help achieve and sustain high vaccination rates. She concurrently has served as faculty at Arizona State University in the School for the Science of Healthcare Delivery over the last 7 years. Prior to Merck, Ms. Bhatti was a public health attorney at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where she led vaccination law research.  Her roots are in state public health where she was previously  a manager within the Arizona Department of Health, Immunization Program Office as well as a Senior Public Health Scientist within their state laboratory. ResourcesLearn more about Alexandra and follow her LinkedIn  Learn more about the Network for Public Health Law and American Public Health Association Learn more about the CDC's Presidential Management Fellows program and Public Health Assessment Training Support the showJoin The Public Health Career Club: the #1 hangout spot and community dedicated to building and growing your dream public health career.

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, Deputy Coordinator of the Mpox National Response for the White House, shares steps public health leaders can take to protect against a potential rise in Mpox cases; Christina Severin, Director of Public Health Law at ASTHO, says newborn screening policies often vary by jurisdiction; ASTHO celebrates the success of a pandemic-era program to help agencies better serve people with disabilities during public health emergencies; and register for a webinar to learn how two project pilot sites that are part of ASTHO's Vaccine Equity Project used partnerships to improve vaccine uptake.   CDC: Get Healthy and Ready for Summer | LGBT Health | CDC ASTHO Webpage: Handle with Care: State Newborn Screening Policies ASTHO Webpage: ASTHO Specialist Program Makes Lasting Preparedness Improvements for People with Disabilities ASTHO Webinar: Partnerships for Progress: An Intro to the Vaccine Equity Project   

In the first of four episodes, James discusses the last three years of immigration policy and what they Myrna for people seeking refuge in the USA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Health Affairs' Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil interviews Michelle Mello from the Center for Health Policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine about her recently-published paper assessing public health laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found the public health laws in place as the pandemic emerged, which were framed in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax attacks, were poorly suited to address multi-year pandemics like COVID.Order the March 2023 issue of Health Affairs.Currently, more than 70 percent of our content is freely available - and we'd like to keep it that way. With your support, we can continue to keep our digital publication Forefront and podcasts free for everyone.Subscribe: RSS | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts

Based on AHLA's annual Health Law Connections article, this special series brings together thought leaders from across the health law field to discuss the top ten issues of 2023. In the fourth episode, Deborah Biggs, Principal, PYA, speaks with Dawn Hunter, Director, Southeastern Region Office, Network for Public Health Law, about the recent CMS Framework for Health Equity 2022-2032 and the Executive Order to which it is responsive. They discuss the priorities in the Framework, some examples of guidance for providers and institutions, and how organizations can work toward health equity. Sponsored by PYA.Watch the conversation here.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

In today's episode, we chat with Dawn Hunter, JD, MPH, is the Director of the Southeastern Region for the Network for Public Health Law. She is a Public Health Lawyer with executive leadership experience, focusing on health policy, legislation, and government relations. She first got her bachelors in English from Princeton University followed by a Bachelors in Microbiology at University of South Florida. She then went on to get her Juris Doctor at Stetson University College of Law during which she got her Master of Public Health at University of South Florida. She currently works as the Director for the Southeastern Region for Network for Public Health Law.Shownotes: https://thephmillennial.com/episode117Join Community Health & Wellness Discord: https://www.thephmillennial.com/joinDawn Hunter, JD, MPH on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawn-m-hunter/Omari on IG: https://www.instagram.com/thephmillennial Omari on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/omari-richins All ways to support The Public Health Millennial: https://thephmillennial.com/support/ Shop at The Public Health Store: https://thephmillennial.com/shop/Support the show

Ian Williams, Incident Manager for the CDC's COVID-19 Response, discusses the latest changes to public pandemic guidance; Lillian Colasurdo, ASTHO's Director of Public Health Law and Data, reflects on the first-ever convening of those public health law professionals; Dr. Karen Smith, California's former State Health Officer, discusses her experiences communicating during crisis events in an ASTHO Blog Article; and ASTHO is hiring to fill several open positions. CDC Webpage: Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August 2022 ASTHO Webpage: State Health Policy Public Health Law Practitioners Convening Webpage ASTHO Blog Article: Communicating Through Crises: Advice from a Public Health Leader ASTHO Webpage: Public Health Careers

Nation, for the 2nd week of this year's Legionella Awareness Month, I am bringing back Dr. Janet Stout to talk about what we, as Water Treaters, need to know about Legionella, what's new in Legionella risk management, ASSE-12080 Certification Training, and many more. Buckle your seatbelts because this is going to be one groundbreaking conversation! Dr. Janet E. Stout is the Executive Vice President and founder of Special Pathogens Laboratory, A Pace laboratory. She is also a research associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Dr. Stout is a globally-recognized infection disease microbiologist sought out for her seminal discoveries and pioneering research in Legionella. Her expertise includes prevention and control strategies for Legionnaires' Disease in building water systems. In more than 30 years that Dr. Stout has been doing research, her research has been published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. She has also authored textbook chapters on Legionella and Legionnaires' Disease, one of which is the Legionella chapter in the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) Text. Dr. Stout also assisted in developing the first Legionella prevention guideline in the United States (published in 1993). It has continued to serve as a framework for future national and global health agencies and organizations.  Dr. Stout currently serves on the ASHRAE Legionella Standard Committee Guideline 12 and the Committee for ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 188-2015, Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems, which was the first US standard for Legionella risk management. Special Pathogens Laboratory, together with the American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE) and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) created the first certification for Legionella risk management, ASSE-12080, and Dr. Stout is the first certified instructor of the ASSE-12080 Legionella Water Safety and Management Specialist Certification Training. Bottom line: Dr. Janet E. Stout will share with us what water treaters need to know about Legionella.  Your roadside friend, as you travel from client to client.  -Trace    Timestamps:  Continuing the celebration of Legionella Awareness Month and other events in Water Treatment [01:29] Thinking On Water With James [06:02]  Welcoming back Legionella Expert, Dr. Janet E. Stout [07:40] Integrating ASHRAE 188 with Public Health Law and how to stay on top of Legislation [11:27] Helping Water Treaters know what they need to know about Legionella [17:03] What is the ASSE-12080 Certification process and who should take the class? [24:12] What is new in Legionella Testing? [27:43] What do we need to know about  Percent of Positivity and Legionnaires Disease? [32:05]] Legionella sterilization vs. disinfection  [34:00] What did we learn when buildings reopened after the COVID shutdown? [39:15] Helping Organizations through the Entrepreneurial Operating System, Masterminds, and by having an assistant  [41:24] Say “Hello” to Janet and her team at AWT! [50:30] Lightning round questions [52:35]   Thinking On Water With James: In this week's episode, we're thinking about corrosion coupons. Do you use corrosion coupons in all of your accounts? Why or why not? Do you use pretreated or pre-stressed coupons? Why or why not? Why should you avoid touching fresh, new coupons with your fingers when installing? Do you consider the orientation of the coupons when installing them? Do you install them so the flat side is vertical or horizontal or have you never thought of this? We've previously thought about the order of the coupons but now's another good time to think about that, too. How many days do you leave them in the system? What would be the impact of removing them sooner rather than later? What can be determined by visually observing the corrosion coupons upon removal? How do you communicate the results? Do you save the old ones for annual reviews, take a picture or scan, or dispose of them? Take this week to think about corrosion coupons and how to most effectively use them.    Quotes: “Everyone needs to be aware that ASHRAE Standard 188-2018 and Guideline 12-2020 are in continuous maintenance.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “Standard 514P is a new proposed standard from ASHRAE.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “There is a real need for input from people in Water Treatment to comment on Legionella standards.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “If any facility should be testing for Legionella, it should be healthcare.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “When it comes to Legionella, any gaps in knowledge need to be filled, so I worked to make education standards for Legionella.”  - Dr. Janet E. Stout “We (Special Pathogens Lab) stepped into the role of one of the first instructors to deliver training so people could sit for the certification exam and get the credential as a Certified Legionella Water Safety and Management Specialist.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “When you are doing Water Management, you're using testing for Legionella to validate that the plan is working.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “Percent of Positivity: If more than 3 out of 10 faucets or showers are positive for Legionella (in a hospital), we would see a Legionnaires Disease Case.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “You can't completely eliminate Legionella, whether it's from a cooling tower or a potable water distribution system. You can knock it down, you can hold it down with water treatment, but you can't eliminate it.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “Sterilization is impossible when it comes to Legionella. Disinfection will be dependent on the type of system you are treating.” - Dr. Janet E. Stout “We're not asking people to get to zero Legionella, we're asking people to get zero cases of Legionnaires Disease.  - Dr. Janet E. Stout “It's not happiness that brings gratitude, it's gratitude that brings happiness.” - Unknown   Connect with Dr. Janet E. Stout: Phone: 877-775-7284 Email: info@specialpathogenslab.com LinkedIn: company/special-pathogens-laboratory in/janet-e-stout-ph-d-32607612 Website: specialpathogenslab.com Become a Professional Certified Legionella Water Safety & Management Specialist Puzzled by Legionella Webinars Buy Special Pathogens Lab's ​​Puzzled by Legionella Guidebook   Visit our Scaling UP! H2O Legionella Resources Page: Legionella Resources   Links Mentioned:    Bill Pearson Sign up for ASHRAE Standards Actions Seinfeld (American Sitcom) Special Pathogens Lab - Legionella Water Safety & Management Specialist Certification Special Pathogens Lab - Puzzled by Legionella Webinars Submit a Show Idea The Rising Tide Mastermind   Check out all future water events on our Scaling UP! Events Calendar Go to scalinguph2o.com/events to see our 2022 water events calendar   Events Mentioned:  One Water Summit 2022 – September 12 to 15 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin  AWT Business Owners Meeting -  September 20, 2022, in Vancouver, Canada 2022 AWT's Annual Convention and Exposition – September 21 to 24 in Vancouver, Canada  International Desalination Association World Congress – October 9 to 13 in Sydney, Australia    Books Mentioned: Puzzled by Legionella Guidebook by Janet E. Stout The Power of Nice: How to Conquer the Business World With Kindness by Linda Kaplan Thaler and Robin Koval

State‐​level drug paraphernalia laws increase the risk of infection or overdose for drug users by preventing legal access to clean needles, syringes, and products to test drugs for deadly contaminants. Every state except Alaska criminalizes the possession and/​or sale of illicit drug paraphernalia. Thus, Alaskans can legally operate needle exchange programs and other harm‐​reduction measures. Recognizing that harm‐​reduction strategies reduce overdoses and disease, many states are considering reforms to their drug paraphernalia laws. To discuss the impact of drug paraphernalia laws on health and how states can implement better rules, we are pleased to have Corey S. Davis, the director of the Harm Reduction Legal Project of the Network for Public Health Law and adjunct faculty at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University; Robin Lutz, executive director of the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association, which has provided harm‐​reduction services in Alaska since 1985; and Haley B. Coles, executive director of Sonoran Prevention Works, which has been engaged in harm‐​reduction and syringe services in Arizona since 2010. The discussion will be moderated by Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey A. Singer. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this week's podcast, NACCHO Government Affairs team members Adriane Casalotti and Kerry Allen discuss the much-anticipated funding opportunity from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Strengthening the US Public Health Infrastructure, Workforce, and Data Systems.” They also summarize recent developments in Congress on gun safety legislation and the ongoing stalemate around supplemental COVID-19 funding. The podcast also features a discussion about the upcoming Inaugural Public Health Law Practitioners Convening that will be held on August 17-19 in Chicago. The conference theme is “Law, Policy, and Equity in Public Health Practice.” Podcast guests are Gerard “Jerry” Giuliano, Director of the Office of Public Health Legal Affairs for the Nassau County Department of Health, and NACCHO's Director for Public Health Law and Policy Geoffrey Mwaungulu, Jr. Law and policy practitioners are integral to state, tribal, local, and territorial public health practice. They develop and interpret public health authorities, enforce regulations, and leverage the law to positively impact community health. To support the critical role of public health law and policy professionals, CDC and NACCHO have organized this inaugural convening for practitioners.

For over two months, the Rensselaer County Public Health Director has ignored the request of Rensselaer residents to investigate the public health threats posed by the Dunn Landfill. On December 15, 2021, Rensselaer Environmental Coalition's attorney, Colleen Pierson, sent a formal complaint to the Public Health Director, calling for the director to exercise her legal authority under the state Public Health Law to investigate the Dunn Landfill. Pierson talks about the situation with Mark Dunlea of Hudson Mohawk Radio Network.

Prof. Michelle Mello is a professor of law and of health research and policy at Stanford University. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. M.M. Mello and W.E. Parmet. Public Health Law after Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1153-1155.

As COVID-19 cases continue to rise in parts of our country, students are heading back to the classroom and much of the workforce are heading back to the workplace. Meanwhile the politicians and the public health officials are embattled over guidelines for doing so safely. In this special live recording for our Health Law Live series, we are joined by Professor Rob Gatter. Rob is a member of our Center for Health Law Studies and a public health law expert. Early in the pandemic he was called upon for his expertise by St. Louis County.

AHLA hosted a one-day virtual convener on April 12, 2021 where participants discussed all aspects of health disparities and equity in health care, social determinants of health, the impact of law on these issues, and what can be done to address these issues now and in the future. In Part 5, Dawn Hunter, Deputy Director, Network for Public Health Law, moderates this discussion about how community engagement can make an impact on racial disparities in health care, and how an organization can go from declaring an anti-racism policy to making an impact.Watch the full conversation here. Access full video and audio recordings of the proceedings at americanhealthlaw.org/racialdisparitiesinhealthcare.  

AHLA hosted a one-day virtual convener on April 12, 2021 where participants discussed all aspects of health disparities and equity in health care, social determinants of health, the impact of law on these issues, and what can be done to address these issues now and in the future. In Part 4, Dawn Hunter, Deputy Director, Network for Public Health Law, and Ruqaiijah Yearby, Professor, St. Louis University School of Law, moderate this discussion about how social and political determinants of health are shaped via institutional practices, training, and workforce; investments in spending to improve health equity; and data collection policies and practices.Watch the full conversation here. Access full video and audio recordings of the proceedings at americanhealthlaw.org/racialdisparitiesinhealthcare.  

Priscilla Thomas Keith has extensive experience in government, pharmaceutical research and clinical trials, health care and public health law and policy, and academia.  She started her career as a research scientist studying Alzheimer's disease and Ischemia at Lilly.  While at Lilly, she also had corporate assignments in Environmental Affairs and Medical Affairs managing diabetes clinical trials.  Upon receiving her law degree, Ms. Keith served as Deputy Attorney General in litigation and Section Chief of Advisory with responsibility for advisory opinions and contracts during her tenure at the Indiana Attorney General's Office.  She was also Assistant Counsel to Governor O'Bannon as well as executive assistant for the Women's Commission, Department of Insurance, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and State Board of Accounts.  Following her passion for public health and health care law, Ms. Keith became General Counsel for Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County and the Marion County Public Health Department.  Ms. Keith was recruited by the late Professor Eleanor Kinney to serve as Executive Director for the Hall Center for Law and Research and Adjunct Faculty at IU McKinney School of law where she taught Public Health Law, Finance and Health Care Law, Health care Compliance and Secured Transactions. Ms. Keith also has extensive experience in Community Benefit/Corporate Social Responsibility issues.  Ms. Keith has received numerous awards, including Indiana's highest award, the Sagamore of the Wabash; a tribute bestowed by the governor to those who have rendered distinguished service to the state.  She has participated in various leadership programs and served on several Boards and Commissions such as Indiana State Ethics Commission, Indianapolis Board of Public Works, and the Fort Benjamin Harrison YMCA, to name a few.  She is a graduate of Spelman College and Clark Atlanta University with a BS and MS in Biology, respectively.  She is also a graduate of IU McKinney School of Law. Ms. Keith currently serves as RIP Medical Debt's Director of Program Management, a position in which she ensures smooth coordination between RIP's functional departments in delivering program results. A primary focus is leading cross-functional teams from the time of medical debt procurement to its abolishment. Her areas of focus are Public Health and Health Equity, Health Care Law and Policy, and Corporate Governance and Risk. She enjoys reading, solving puzzles, running and cooking.

According to a new report by the Network for Public Health Law, several states are considering or have passed legislation to limit the ability of public health agencies to respond to infectious disease and other emergencies. At stake are the ability of health departments to impose quarantine to save lives or require masks for any conditions, including infectious tuberculosis. Donna Levin, National Director for the Network, talks with Dr. Josh Sharfstein about the history of public health authority, what's happening now in North Dakota, Kansas, and elsewhere; and the dangers of these ill-considered laws.

On this episode, we are joined by Greg Ewing, JD, MPH, Vice President, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs/Chief Compliance Officer at Trillium Health in Rochester, NY. Mr. Ewing shares with us his evolution from music to law and his decision to pursue public health. We explore his personal experiences with racism and why racism is a public health issue, ,delving into the complexities of education, employment, and advancement. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/reede-scholars/support

Based on AHLA’s annual Health Law Connections article, this special series brings together thought leaders from across the health law field to discuss the top ten issues of 2021. In the third episode, Annapoorani Bhat, PYA, speaks to Dawn Hunter, Network for Public Health Law, about current racial disparities in health care and how to promote racial equity in health outcomes. They discuss how health care disparities currently manifest in the United States, ways to classify and frame racial bias, legislative and policy actions that have impacted health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, and what hospitals and individuals can do to address this issue. Sponsored by PYA.

With state lawmakers nearing a vote on legalizing adult recreational use of marijuana, Erie County District Attorney John Flynn is urging lawmakers to consider keeping marijuana on the controlled substances list of the Public Health Law.

Professor Seema Mohapatra is currently a tenured professor of law at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, Indiana. She has taught a wide variety of courses including Torts, Introduction to Health Care Law and Policy, Bioethics and the Law, Genetics and the Law, Public Health Law, Women's Heath and the Law, Professional Responsibility, and Business Organizations.

Corey Davis is the deputy director of the Network for Public Health Law’s Southeastern Region Office. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. C.S. Davis. The Purdue Pharma Opioid Settlement — Accountability, or Just the Cost of Doing Business? N Engl J Med 2021;384:97-99.

Dan Skinner talks with three legal and public health experts from Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law: Patricia Zettler, Efthimios Parasidis, and Micah Berman. Topics include how to understand safety concerns and the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization process; building trust among Americans considering getting vaccinated; plans for a just distribution of approved vaccines; and how to understand the role of market competition and international cooperation. Show notes at WCBE.org (Podcast Experience tab) and prognosisohio.com.

The Panel talks to Professor of Law and Director of the LEAD Institute for Law Emergencies and Disasters at the University of Canterbury John Hopkins about today's mask wearing mandate announced at the post-cabinet media briefing.

Today I discuss recent COVID-19 battles in the courts with Kathy Bergin and Lindsay Wiley.Kathy Bergin is a recognized expert in Disaster Law, she presently teaches at Cornell University Law School—her research extends to humanitarian aid programs and the catastrophic impact of climate change. She has been crucial in promoting Disaster Law as an academic discipline. She is also a successful advocate. Her team in Haiti established binding precedent in a proceeding before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that reinforced post-disaster human rights obligations. Her work on mass evacuation shelters after Hurricane Katrina is used across the humanitarian sector as a blue-print for protecting displaced survivors. And her knowledge of constitutional standards helped coalition partners in Puerto Rico secure changes in the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria. She is on the steering committee for Project Blueprint, a policy advocacy organization aimed at promoting a progressive US foreign policy.  Lindsay Wiley is a professor of law and director of the health law and policy program at American University Washington College of Law. She is the author of Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint and Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (with Lawrence O. Gostin). Her recent work on the coronavirus pandemic has been published in the Washington Post, Democracy: A Journal, the American Constitution Society’s Expert Forum, and the Harvard Law Review Forum. Professor Wiley is a board member and former president of the American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics and a former member of the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. She received her JD from Harvard and her MPH from Johns Hopkins.

  Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Law Professor John Culhane, of Widener University Delaware Law School, to discuss LBGTQ+ rights and the law. In today’s conversation, Aaron and John discuss what the 2020 Presidential election will bring as far as administrative changes, and contemplate what the aftereffects may be regarding the LGBTQ+ community.   In this episode, Aaron and John explore the challenge of reconciling the Constitutional rights of religious freedoms and personal liberties, touching on the issues of executive action and the administrative state, the magnitude of an administration’s position and the affects of these on the Supreme Court, as well as the complexities in easing tension between religion and the right to non-discrimination. John and Aaron talk about the Colorado Masterpiece Bake Shop case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), the importance of our vote, Title VII, immigration, the landmark Obergefell decision (Obergefell v. Hodges), the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and more. Looking ahead, Aaron and John ruminate on the anticipated upcoming issues, as well as the cases percolating through the system now, such as a Philadelphia foster care case and a surrogacy matter involving a same-sex couple. What should we expect to see after November? And, what will be the fallout?   Professor Culhane is a Professor of Law and the H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law and Co-Director of the Family Health Law & Policy Institute at Widener University Delaware Law School, as well as a contributing writer for Slate Magazine. Teaching courses in Family Law, Torts, Public Health Law, and others, John is inspired by his student’s desire to expand their knowledge and deepen their comprehension of what he refers to as “often dense and even ‘messy’ legal doctrine and policy.”   Professor Culhane is a co-author of “Same-Sex Legal Kit for Dummies,” editor and a contributor to “Reconsidering Law and Policy Debates: A Public Health Perspective,” and the author of some three dozen law review articles on a wide range of topics, including: the rights of LGBT couples; compensation of victims of mass disasters; the public health implications of such disparate issues as sports-related concussions, bullying, same-sex marriages, and vaccine compensation policy; in addition to a wide range of tort law issues (including informed consent, product liability, and educational malpractice.) He has thrice won the Outstanding Faculty award at Widener, and has twice received the Douglas E. Ray Scholarship Award. Professor Culhane is co-chair of Widener’s LGBT Task Force and a member of the Board of Directors of Women’s Way. He is also a member of the Advisory Council of Equality Delaware.   Listen in to learn more!     To learn more about Professor Culhane, please visit his bio page here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: John Culhane     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Sarah Swank, Counsel, Nixon Peabody LLP, David Cade, CEO, American Health Law Association, Montrece Ransom, Team Lead, Training and Workforce Development, Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dawn Hunter, Deputy Director, Southeastern Region Office, The Network for Public Health Law, discuss the impact of racial disparities in health care, both pre- and post-COVID. The speakers review some of the data on racial disparities in access to and quality of care, and discuss how data could be used to address these issues. In addition, the podcast examines what health lawyers can do to aid the fight for health equity. Sponsored by Huron Consulting Group.

In this week's Podcast from Washington, NACCHO Government Affairs team members Ian Goldstein and Eli Briggs discuss the next emergency supplemental coronavirus bill introduced in the Senate. They also discuss the temporary halt to the Trump administration's public charge rule.   Later in the program, Ian Goldstein spoke with Director of the Office of Public Health Legal Affairs for Nassau County Department of Health in NY Gerard “Jerry” Giuliano. They discuss legal protections for health department employees, as well as the legalities of mask mandates. They also discuss the difficulties of contact tracing and the effectiveness of subpoenas. 

The Wigs continue with our special Covid-19 episodes - This time we're focusing on the restraints on movement and assembly imposed via public health powers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On BS 65 (24 March) we predicted there could be 20,000 - 50,000 American deaths within the next few weeks. The Trump Administration are now estimating 100 - 240,000. Guo Wengai - is claiming that China's virus death toll is still rising, they are hiding it, and burning bodies in mobile mass incinerators. But can he be believed? Last week a Venezuelan defector is caught trying to smuggle a shipment of US weapons into VZ to assassinate Maduro. The next day the USG indicts Maduro on drug smuggling charges. Coincidence? Remember 9 months ago when Scott Morrison said the Coalition will not engage in “unfunded empathy”? In the NYT on 22 January, James G. Hodge Jr., director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, said the Chinese shutdown in Wuhan would "almost certainly lead to human rights violations and would be patently unconstitutional in the United States." Ukraine Joe has been accused of sexually molesting a staffer, Tara Reade, back in 1993. The post BFTN 66 – Unfunded Empathy appeared first on The BS Filter.

Lauren Gunderson is a playwright, screenwriter and short story author from Atlanta, GA. She received her BA in English/Creative Writing at Emory University, and her  MFA in Dramatic Writing at NYU Tisch, where she was also a Reynolds Fellow in Social Entrepreneurship. She was named the most produced playwright in America by American Theatre Magazine in 2017 and 2019, was awarded the 2016 Lanford Wilson Award from the Dramatist Guild, the 2016 Otis Gurnsey Award for Emerging Writer, and was awarded the prestigious 2014 and 2018 Steinberg/ATCA New Play Award for her play, I and You (also a Susan Smith Blackburn Blackburn and John Gassner Award finalist) and The Book of Will. That play was an NNPN Rolling World Premiere that started at Marin Theatre Company and has seen over 40 productions nationwide. She is also a recipient of the Mellon Foundation’s 3-Year Residency with Marin Theatre Company. Gene Matthews, JD is a senior investigator at the NC Institute for Public Health, where he conducts legal research and provides technical assistance to public health practitioners on legal topics. He is also the Director of the Southeastern Regional Center of the Network for Public Health Law, which provides legal assistance on a variety of public health topics, enabling practitioners, lawyers and policymakers to apply the law to pressing public health issues. From 1979-2004, Gene worked at the CDC, serving for many years as the Chief Legal Advisor in the Office of General Counsel. Mr. Matthews received both his BA in history and mathematics and his JD from UNC. He co-instructs a course on health law and ethics for the Executive DrPH program    

In this episode of Law Talk with B.J., BJ Bernstein interviews health law professor Fazal Khan about public health law and coronavirus.

Andrew McMahon from Keck Medicine of USC and USC Stem Cell and Alex Capron from USC Gould School of Law discuss stem cell research as politics, ethics, and law continue to shape the science and more. #USCStemCell Professor Capron is a globally recognized expert in health policy and medical ethics. He teaches Public Health Law, Torts, and Law, Science, and Medicine at the USC Gould School of Law. He also teaches at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and is co-director of the Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics. Professor McMahon is the Chair of the Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine and Director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.  

Legionella outbreaks, which can cause the deadly Legionnaires' disease, are on the rise. In 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 7,500 Legionnaires' disease cases. Within the general population, 10% of those affected will die. In a healthcare setting, the death rate jumps to 25%. And according to the CDC, 9 out of 10 Legionella outbreaks were preventable. Sound building water health plans in a hospital/healthcare setting are critical. Think about that… we have an engineering problem that's causing 7,500 people to get sick every year, and there's a known solution that can prevent 90% of it. How would we respond if 7,500 people were injured in bridge collapses each year? It'd be all over the news and we'd demand a solution. Well, that's what we have with water systems in hospitals and long-term care facilities. This is a big deal. That's why NSF International and the National Association of Environmental Health (NEHA) are partnering to host Legionella Conference 2019: “Building Water Systems: The Sustainability and Public Health Nexus” Sept. 11-13 in Los Angeles. There, scientific and public health experts will explore the complex relationship between water conservation and Legionella prevention in building water systems, including in a healthcare setting, where the disease is especially dangerous if contracted by those who are immune suppressed. Joining today to discuss the importance of building water health in hospitals and healthcare settings are Chris Boyd of NSF International, a global public health organization based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Dr. Dave Dyjack, executive director of the National Environmental Health Association. Chris led New York City's response to the 2015 Legionnaires' outbreak that hospitalized over 100 people and resulted in 16 deaths. He now leads the Building Water Health program for NSF International and works with healthcare facilities and municipalities across the U.S. and Canada, teaching and conducting training in an effort to prevent Legionella outbreaks. Dr. Dyjack's 30-year career includes expertise in environmental health, emergency preparedness and response, public health informatics, infectious disease, workforce development, governmental infrastructure, maternal and child health, health equity and chronic disease. A board-certified industrial hygienist, David also has a doctorate from the University of Michigan and a master's from the University of Utah, both in public health. Prior to joining NEHA, he managed the National Association of County and City Health Officials' grant and contract portfolio and 75 health professionals in support of 2,800 local health departments. --- If you'd like to hear more about the history of Legionnaire's and additional perspective on this topic, check out: Episode 32: Legionella: A Manageable Risk for Health Systems | Dave Purkiss and Joseph Cotruvo | Legionella 2018 And don't forget to check out our extensive coverage of Infection Prevention and Control topics. --- About Legionella Conference 2019: NSF International and the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) will host Legionella Conference 2019: “Building Water Systems: The Sustainability and Public Health Nexus” Sept. 11-13 in Los Angeles to explore the complex relationship between water conservation and microbial contamination prevention in building water systems. International experts from government agencies, universities, hospitals and private laboratories in 11 countries are among the scheduled speakers. Organizations represented include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Network for Public Health Law and Association of State & Territorial Health Officials. Water conservation efforts can sometimes have the unintended consequence of amplifying Legionella bacteria growth. The pathogen proliferates in poorly maintained water systems and can cause Legionnaires' Disease, a serious and sometimes fatal flu-like illness that has increased more than five-fold between 2000 and 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Prevention Control (CDC). Common sources of contaminated aerosols include cooling towers, low-flow fixtures, shower heads, HVAC systems, decorative spas and fountains. International experts will address a wide range of topics related to building water health and water conservation, with topics including complex hospital water systems, cooling towers, proactive water quality monitoring, risk assessments, plumbing engineering, communication plans, greywater transfers for irrigation and culture change in water safety. Visit host Legionella Conference 2019 for a full list of speakers and registration details. --- I want to give a shout out and big thank you to Michael Diamond from TIPS for making this episode possible. You've heard Michael's name before as we've worked with him a bunch over the past few years on our Infection Prevention and Control series, and our coverage of the HITS Consortium conference among other things. TIPS, or the Infection Prevention Strategy, is a non-profit that makes the process of vetting new technologies, implementing successful programs and inspiring innovation more efficient, more accessible, more global and more collaborative. They believe that we shouldn't have to wait years for promising innovations, ideas, and processes to be implemented and accepted. I agree. You can learn more about TIPS at infectiontips.org.

"We know that study after study has shown that tobacco taxes are the most effective way to reduce tobacco use." - Mark Meaney This is the second part of our series on tobacco taxes. Mark Meaney of the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, at the Public Health Law Center from Mitchell Hamlin School of Law joins us today. Mark is a long time attorney working with jurisdictions around the United States to create tobacco prevention and control policies that are sound and effective in helping to curb tobacco use. In this episode, Mark helps us understand what some of the best practices are for tobacco taxes, and why they are so important. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/upstreamph/support

According to “The History of Vaccines”-an educational resource by the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, the development and growing use of smallpox vaccine in the early 1800’s triggered the establishment of vaccination mandates, especially for children. Over the years, there has been a great debate over whether to vaccinate children or not. So are there any legal issues behind not vaccinating your child? Or is it the parent or guardian’s legal right to make that decision on their child’s behalf? Today on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host, attorney Craig Williams is joined by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, professor of law at UC Hastings College of Law and James Hodge, director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, as they take a look at the legal framework of the anti-vaccination movement, the rights of the child, the rights of the parent, legislation, and the great vaccination debate. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss is professor of law at UC Hastings College of Law. James Hodge is professor of public health law and ethics at Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

This week on Briefly we discuss the ways the law can and does address the Opioid Crisis. The Crisis has claimed myriad lives and devastated communities and families across America. This show will be part of a two-part episode. In Part I we discuss local government responses to the crisis and focus on drug induced homicide charges. Our guests this episode are Keith Humphreys, Esther Ting Memorial Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, and Lindsay LaSalle, Director of Public Health Law and Policy with the Drug Policy Alliance. This episode was produced by David Sandefer and Yosef Schaffel. Music from bensound.com

In this episode of Public Health Perspectives, we speak with Montrece Ransom, Team Lead for Training and Workforce Development with the Public Health Law Program (PHLP) in the Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). She discusses her journey into her career in Public Health Law at the CDC.

Pediatrician and Founder of Pathways to Population Health Nathan Fleming joins us to share the keys to collaboration between nonprofits and healthcare systems.   Nathan shares: Opportunities for nonprofits to seek funded partnerships with hospitals The philosophy that makes Pathways to Population health successful How to optimize data sharing for cross sector collaboration The role of nonprofits, governments, and healthcare organization role in making a healthy community   Links: Pathways to Population Health (the organization): www.pathwaystopopulationhealth.org Learn how your local tax-exempt hospital uses its community benefit dollars: www.CommunityBenefitinsight.org Network for Public Health Law: https://www.networkforphl.org/ Nathan’s twitter:  www.twitter.com/@nathanflemingMD Pathways to Population Health Book: https://www.amazon.com/Pathways-Population-Health-Resources-Communities/dp/1599328380   *****Timestamped Highlights***** (2:45) an intro to Pathways to Population Health (5:30) The Milwaukee model for cross sector collaborations (7:40) Setting up relationships between nonprofits and healthcare providers (11:00) Tips for creating equitable collaborations between a large and small organization (15:20) Data sharing’s role in collaboration (18:50) P2P’ s culture of health (21:40) What Nathan learned from Harvard Professor Paul Farmer (26:42) Nathan’s greatest lesson learned from starting nonprofits.

Broad shifts in U.S. policy have long affected population in our country and beyond. As we face an era of alternative facts, distrust in research and isolationism, we experience a whole new set of questions. How do we create policies that keep us safe when we can't agree on the facts? In this episode we are joined by Professor Rob Gatter. Rob is the director of SLU LAW's Center for Health Law Studies. The Center is hosting the 30th annual health law symposium, Public Health Law in the Era of Alternative Facts, Isolationism and the One Percent, on April 6.

We’ve all been hearing a lot about the Zika virus in the news. Miami recently reported over 10 cases, and the virus could potentially spread throughout the United States. But why are we so intimidated by a disease that isn’t life threatening? In this report from On the Road, Thinking Like A Lawyer’s Joe Patrice interviews two Zika experts, Medical Epidemiologist Captain Ken Dominguez and Professor of Public Health Law and Ethics James Hodge. Together, they discuss why funding is the major hangup in American preparation for dealing with this virus. Captain Kenneth L. Dominguez MD, MPH (USPHS) is an epidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Captain in the U.S. Public Health Service. He completed a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University, both a Medical degree and Masters in Public Health degree at Columbia University. He completed residency training in both Pediatrics and Preventive Medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California and at the CDC in Atlanta and trained as an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer through CDC at the Puerto Rico Department of Health. James G. Hodge, Jr., JD, LLM, is professor of Public Health Law and Ethics and director of the nationally-ranked Public Health Law and Policy Program at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. Through scholarship, teaching, and applied projects, Professor Hodge delves into multiple areas of health law, public health law, global health law, ethics, and human rights. Professor Hodge has a B.S. from College of Charleston, a J.D. from Salmon P. Chase College of Law, and a LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center.

What is Hey There, Career Girl?We all want to know what it's like to be other people, right? What does their life entail, what do their jobs look like and feel like? Hey There, Career Girl, gives you that looking glass into a powerful woman's life. You'll find out about her passions, her mission, her day-to-day, and more. We pick some of the nation's most fascinating women and ask them what makes their career tick!_______________________________This week, Marcy Twete is talking with Mary Uran, the Council Director for Girls on the Run Twin Cities.Access the recording below or subscribe to our iTunes channel to see all of our past and future podcasts by clicking here.______________________________About Mary:Mary Uran is the Council Director for Girls on the Run Twin Cities. Mary holds a Master of Public Health Nutrition from the University of Minnesota, and was introduced to Girls on the Run when she served as a coach for Girls on the Run DC. Previously, Mary worked at the Network for Public Health Law and the National Association of Attorneys General. She lives in St Paul with her husband, Justin, and her future girl-on-the-run, Collette.

What is Hey There, Career Girl?We all want to know what it's like to be other people, right? What does their life entail, what do their jobs look like and feel like? Hey There, Career Girl, gives you that looking glass into a powerful woman's life. You'll find out about her passions, her mission, her day-to-day, and more. We pick some of the nation's most fascinating women and ask them what makes their career tick!_______________________________This week, Marcy Twete is talking with Mary Uran, the Council Director for Girls on the Run Twin Cities.Access the recording below or subscribe to our iTunes channel to see all of our past and future podcasts by clicking here.______________________________About Mary:Mary Uran is the Council Director for Girls on the Run Twin Cities. Mary holds a Master of Public Health Nutrition from the University of Minnesota, and was introduced to Girls on the Run when she served as a coach for Girls on the Run DC. Previously, Mary worked at the Network for Public Health Law and the National Association of Attorneys General. She lives in St Paul with her husband, Justin, and her future girl-on-the-run, Collette.