Latest / REAP/SOW / How many people did they actually fire at the CDC?

Transcript

How many people did they actually fire at the CDC? · REAP/SOW

• Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked, Food Politics in the MAHA Age. I'm Theodore Ross, Editor-in-Chief of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. I'm joined by my co-host, Helena Bottemiller Evich, from Food Fix. This week, are these the end times at the CDC, or is it just a coding error? Helena and I also talked about funding WIC during the government shutdown and not bailing out farms because of the shutdown. Finally, good vibrations as California bans ultra-processed foods in public school lunches. Helena, how are you? Welcome back to Forked. Helena Bottemiller Evich: I'm doing just fine. How are you? Theodore: I am doing okay as well. I am happy to report for those of you who are watching this on YouTube that I now have a FERN golf shirt that I am happily wearing for you. Helena: Do you golf? Theodore: I do not golf, but I do wear golf shirts. [laughter] What do you call it? It's just a golf-- Helena: I don't golf either. Theodore: It's a collared shirt with buttons. It's a golf shirt as far as I know. Helena: I think that's called a polo. Theodore: All right. Fair enough. See, this is what you get on the Forked podcast is the finer point. Helena: Neither of us knowing. Theodore: Yes. Let's jump right in and get to the food and the politics that we always like to talk about here, and start with the double-take. This is something that happens in the food politics and policy world that just makes you do a double-take because it's so crazy or upsetting. I think this is not just a double-take. This is a WTF for what happened at the CDC recently. Helena, why don't you walk us through the very familiar chaos that we have seen at the CDC of late? Helena: Yes, that is the constant thing. Everyone's always like, "How do you navigate? How do you know what's going to happen?" I'm like, "I don't. It's plan on chaos. That's where we are." I think it's chaos by design as well. Theodore: I do too. Helena: In the past couple of days, so we're recording-- I think we're two weeks into the government shutdown at this point, more than 1,000 CDC staff on Friday night in the middle of a shutdown got notices that they were being laid off as part of a broad reduction in force or RIF, which is honestly a term I had never heard before. Theodore: Now you hear [crosstalk] it all the time. We're all RIFing. Helena: "We're RIFing. We're RIFing." It is basically a reduction of forces, cutting down on agency, trying to reduce headcount. This started to come out in a way that I think really alarmed public health officials; public health experts have been alarmed throughout this administration. It hit a new level of alarm bells ringing because the folks who were included in these layoff notices included the folks who lead the Ebola response. The disease detectives [crosstalk]- Theodore: I love that term. Helena: -led across the country. Theodore: It's good to know that we have them out there or that we used to have them out there. It was a good thing. Helena: It wasn't just that. It was the folks who actually published the morbidity and mortality weekly report, [crosstalk] or the MMWR, which I just call it the MMWR. I always forget what it's actually called. This is maybe the key public health information journal we have. It's been publishing for decades. We're talking really core functions of CDC, really getting down into-- Theodore: The ethics office? The entirety of the Washington DC office? There were some serious dudes and dudettes who were kicked out of the government here, or were they, Hlelena? Helena: Then, within 24 hours, hundreds-- We're actually not sure of the final count at this point, but many of these were revoked as like, "Whoops, we didn't mean to fire all these people." The level of chaos is just really high. We saw quotes on Friday night that some former CDC officials were saying, "CDC is over." They called it a Friday night massacre. It was very dramatic. Theodore: Lethal injection was the one that I saw that was pretty good. The thing is, the government says, "Whoopsie, this was a coding error," or maybe they were upgrading to the new iOS on their phones, and everybody got fired, but not all of them. To me, the thing I want to ask you about when we talk about the state of play at the CDC is this is not the first time this has happened. There have been several instances of these firings and unfirings at the CDC since Donald Trump took over and RFK Jr. was put in charge of Health and Human Services, and since people were firing at the windows of the CDC, and all the good stuff that's been happening there since January. What do you think is going on? Helena: Well, I do think some of this was a mistake, but top administration officials seem to not really care. It's like the trauma and the stress and hit to morale is the point in some way. They've said that. They've literally said that. Theodore: What's that expression? That the beatings will continue until morale improves? Have you heard this before? Helena: I've heard that. I have not used that phrase, but that may be apt here. I do think there are folks within the Trump administration who do understand that at a certain point, you are playing with fire. Like Ebola, not something to be messed around with. We need to keep that out of-- Theodore: Why do you think they realize that? What gives you that indication? Helena: I think we do see them pull back on certain things. Didn't the president himself get a COVID shot this week? Theodore: Oh, I don't know. I didn't see it. By the way, just for our listeners and our viewers, we tape Forked one week in advance of the release. Today, just for full transparency, we are like DOGE, radically transparent. It is October 14th, and this will come out on October 21st. There. That is [crosstalk] the week of Donald Trump getting his COVID shot. Helena: The president did recently get his COVID booster. Of course, The Daily Beast went with the headline. The Daily Beast is really off the rails in some good ways and some not-so-good ways. Theodore: I hope this is a good way. Helena: Their headline was, "Trump Humiliates RFK Jr. with Surprise COVID Booster." [laughter] Theodore: See, that's an interesting headline. I like that headline. Helena: Wow. Anyway, what I'm saying is adults who are governing, I think it's fair to say, realize that things like measles outbreaks that are uncontrolled-- Which I'm actually not sure how the measles outbreak's going right now, but uncontrolled spread of measles. Ebola coming to the shores of the US. Name the public health crisis, that these are both not good for the country, and it's also not good politics. This would be deeply unpopular. Theodore: Ebola, bad politics. [laughs] Helena: Bad policy and bad politics. I do think at the same time, there is this very adversarial stance towards all the federal agencies, particularly public health, particularly CDC, frankly, with a lot of folks on the right deeply, deeply angry and distrustful coming out of the handling of the pandemic. Some of it is punishment and revenge and all of that, but then I do see some acknowledgement of, "Okay, well, we do need people to make sure Ebola doesn't get here." I think there's a little bit of push and pull here. One of the questions I have, and I'm raising this in the newsletter, is what effect this will have on NHANES, which is basically this survey we have to actually measure what people in the US are eating and these other important risk factors. It's really the best data that we have to track things over time. The RIF included a division that runs the mobile examination center, which I guess is really key in the operations of this survey. I haven't heard back from HHS to confirm what happened here, but as far as I know, those folks were not un-RIF'd. They were RIF'd, but they were not un-RIF'd. There's a lot of questions like that, of like, what are the lingering impacts? Every time one of these firing and unfirings happens, there's so much confusion. It takes several days for the dust to settle and for us to figure out what the actual impact is. The folks in Nutrition World are really pushing to try to get the NHANES staffers reinstated. We'll see what happens there as of today, which is the 14th, two weeks from the shutdown. Those folks are still laid off, as far as we know. This is just a reminder that some of these core functions that we just rely on, like NHANES, just came out with a report over the summer that tracked what percentage of the American diet was ultra-processed. They could see over time, I think, it went down ever so slightly. Just that basic data collection, running these types of reports, publishing them is helpful for governing. Theodore: That's where I take issue with it. I don't want to impugn individuals with the government. I don't know them. I will say that I do not think that what you see when we have these unfirings over time is an adult-in-the-room response. I think it is a getting-caught-with-your-pants-down response. They respond to bad news and push back. They respond to shows of force, which is why they use shows of force. on their own. I do not think what we see when you fire, "on a coding error," who knows if it was a coding error, 1,100 or however many people it was, and then you bring back 600 of them or however many they brought back, that is not adult behavior. I just don't believe it. There's no reason to believe it. There's no evidence of a return to reasonability. It is just reactions to very short-term political and media-related events, and then they go back to the ideological business of wrecking this stuff. Helena: It's also a very Silicon Valley thing. Elon Musk, at the beginning of DOGE, would always say, basically, if you weren't getting a lot of complaints, you weren't cutting enough, and then you can always uncut. The government's not a startup. The government's not a tech company. I think that's what has so many folks in Washington very disoriented and also, yes, deeply concerned that these agencies are not going to be functioning when we need them. Yes, a lot of anger and chaos. Theodore: Let's move on from this. I think the longer-running narrative of the federal government not being run by adults is something we come to every two weeks on Forked. We can leave it for the time being and move on to Forks and Knives, which is the big thing, the entrée of whatever is happening in this United States world of food and politics at any given moment. Right now, as of this evening, we take a little risk. You never want to tape something and record it and then have events get ahead of you. Right now, the big thing that's happening is the federal government shutdown, which-- This is a concern that Helena brought up with me this morning because she is a true optimist. She thought that- Helena: I changed my mind, though. Theodore: -maybe in a week, it could be over. Okay, you want to correct me? Helena: I changed my mind. Yes. We initially talked about this. We were like, "Well, maybe we should focus on the shutdown because the government may reopen in a week." I take it all back. Theodore: It ain't coming. Helena: I think the government may be shut down for weeks longer. Theodore: Let's jump into it. Let's talk about one of the things that I think is on your mind a lot and I think is really important, too, is, as the impacts of the shutdown rollout nationwide, vital programs get impacted. There was a lot of concern because the states were running out of money for WIC, which is the food program for low-income women and children. What's going on there? What should we be talking about? Helena: Yes. I think in the first days, the early days of the shutdown, and really going into the shutdown, there were a bunch of warnings about WIC, which serves women, infants, and children. It actually serves almost half of all infants born in the US. Theodore: Really? Helena: A lot of people don't realize that, yes. On a month-to-month basis, it's about 6 million women, infants, and young children who get basically healthy staple foods and also infant formula and other supports. Theodore: A good thing. WIC is a good thing. Yes? Helena: [crosstalk] WIC has been proven over and over to be a cost-saving program. It improves health outcomes. It has been one of the crown jewels, I think, of the nutrition programs because it has a lot of evidence backing it. Theodore: I [unintelligible 00:13:24] feeding babies. That is a good thing. Helena: It's also been really bipartisan over time. That's starting to change a little bit, but it's been very bipartisan. There's been a lot of concern about WIC not being able to have the money it needs to function. The White House has said recently that it has found the money to operate WIC for basically the foreseeable future. They are going to use hundreds of millions of dollars from what's known as Section 32 tariff revenue. Basically, they've found a pot of money, they're going to make it work, and they're trying to lessen the impact. A, this is good news for all of the people who rely on this program and may have been extremely stressed out seeing these headlines. One of the other things that's so interesting about it is, it fits into this bigger theme of this administration trying to lessen the impacts of a shutdown, seemingly preparing for a very long shutdown. Theodore: Why does it suggest that? Helena: They're like, "Oh, fine if democrats--" Because usually, when the government shuts down, you want to have maximum pain because it forces the other party or both parties to the table. To be like, "The national parks are shut down and everything." You shut down as much as possible. They're taking a different approach. It seems like the Trump White House is like, "Fine, we're going to just keep it shut down." Theodore: "We're going to lay people off in the meantime." Helena: Yes, "We're going to lay people off in the meantime." OMB, the Punchbowl News had a good item this morning. which was a very good outlet for people who are trying to follow the very inside-baseball, what's going on in Capitol Hill? They had today, "The White House is Girding for a Long Shutdown and has Found Several New Funding Streams for Critical Programs." Basically, they're finding these pots of money, and they're like, "Go ahead, keep it shut down. When you're ready, let us know, Democrats." That's basically what they're saying. Theodore: I think that's really important to look at. Let's talk about that for a second. First of all, let's note the use of the word girding. I don't think girding is a great headline copy myself. Helena: It wasn't their headline, it was their lead. This is a newsletter. Theodore: Let's not use girding at all. Let's just let girding go. This is important. The federal government, the Trump administration, which is locked in this shutdown, you could say, both of them are equally to blame. You could say whatever you want. They have found some money to keep certain things going that they prioritize. In this case, it's WIC. It's a food program for women, infants, and children. Meanwhile-- Helena: They're also paying the troops. Theodore: They're paying the troops. Helena: They're paying law enforcement. They're doing these other things. Theodore: There are certain things that they're keeping running. Meanwhile, there's another political faction or interest group or constituency who are not getting their benefits during the shutdown. What I think is really interesting, especially coming from the perspective of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, where I'm the editor-in-chief, is that the Trump farmer bailout, the soybean bailout, the commodities farmers bailout that he did in his first administration when he got into his first trade war with China, is being delayed because of the shutdown. There was something like-- I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe it's $13 billion that they had found. Again, you can find money when you look for it, to bail out our commodities farmers in the United States, as China, since May has quite literally, I think, stopped buying oil. Helena: Turned off the tap. Theodore: No more soybeans bought from the United States. That's a big deal for farmers who are subsidized by the government to grow soybeans. I know you're not following this particular issue that closely, but what's the political dynamic, in your opinion, of like, "We'll support WIC, we'll find the money for WIC, but we'll hold off on the bailout." How does that lead? Those farmers are his voters, right? Helena: It's interesting. I don't really know the mechanics of why the bailout would be delayed. Maybe it's like a staffing issue. You need bodies and analysts and folks to calculate how you're going to do that and prepare those payments. It might be literally a nuts and bolts thing, whereas WIC those are programs that are administered by the states. Theodore: By the state. Helena: As long as the money's flowing, I think it's a different-- That might be why it may be a logistical thing. Also, it seems like the White House is trying to pay for or find payments for the most urgent things to basically take away these pressure points. It's really interesting. It's unlike any shutdown. This is actually my fourth shutdown covering as a reporter. It feels very different than other shutdowns. There just doesn't seem any sense of urgency to stop it, to come to a resolution, which is very different. The quote that Punchbowl had today was, "OMB--" That's the White House Office of Management and Budget, for those of you who are not living in the wonkiness, "OMB is Making Every Preparation to Batten Down the Hatches and Ride Out the Democrats and Transgents. Pay the Troops, Pay Law Enforcement, Continue the RIFs, and Wait." That's their-- Theodore: Girding and battening down hatches. Helena: Girding was not a quote. That was Punchbowl. Theodore: Oh, I thought they were both Punchbowl? Helena: Yes, this is actually from an OMB official. Theodore: Oh, it was a quote from an OMB--? All right. Helena: Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs, and wait. Theodore: I think it's just another example of the difficulty, at least that I have, understanding the political motivations of the Trump administration beyond power. Those subsidies, those commodity farmers, those bailouts that we're talking about, that is the basis of his base. That's the core voters, the people who were bailed out in the first administration, who still saw their market share for soybeans and corn shrink, who lost a lot of money and did not desert him at all. In fact, the numbers of those kinds of voters, the rural area farmer voters, went up from the first administration to the second administration. I don't understand how- you can function politically without giving your voters what they want. Isn't that what they do out there in politics land, is they think of what voters want and then they give it to them? Helena: First of all, I think farmers are eventually going to get bailed. Theodore: They're going to get their bailout, but they need it now. Helena: They're going to get their money. Theodore: It's not an unimportant thing to them. Helena: I think that farmers, especially reading the tea leaves-- Not even tea leaves, the White House has been pretty clear that they're working on this. I do think that farmers believe they're going to get the aid and that that's going to work out. The rural vote, I always try to separate from the agriculture vote because- Theodore: That is true. Helena: -farmers are so efficient now that they make up a very, very small percentage of actual voters. That's not to say that agriculture is an important part of rural economies. It is, but-- Theodore: It's always worth pointing out. There's a lot fewer farmers than you think. Helena: Right. The support for President Trump among rural voters is very strong and very well known. I do think some more of that is based on this populist, anti-corporate, anti-institution. You know what I mean? There's a lot of stuff swimming in there that's not ag policy. There is anger about the soybean situation. China not buying American soybeans and shifting to Argentina and Brazil. Well, we just gave billions of dollars to Argentina to help their economy. There's quite a few farmers in the US who are like, "Why are we doing that?" [laughter] They're eating our market share now, and we're sending them our taxpayer dollars. It's not that this is not without grumbling. I think there is real disappointment. Not just about the current situation, but what does this mean in the future? Are we never sending soybeans to China again? If so, massive ripple effects across the American food system, how and what we grow. Theodore: If the past is any indication, China, in Donald Trump's first administration, they backed away from us in the soybean markets because of the trade war that he started. Then, they did come back to some extent, but not like they did before. This time, there weren't 100% tariffs threatened against China in the first administration. Who knows what China will do? Presumably, some of it will return, I suppose. The United States and Brazil are the largest exporters of soybeans in the world. It used to be the United States, now it's Brazil. China is the biggest importer, so they need soybean. I think they'll come back, but I don't think they'll come back all the way. It just doesn't work like that. They are right now under pressure from the United States diversifying their network of suppliers. Right? Helena: Yes. I'm not an expert in this at all, but I think it's hard to understand China sometimes because in the US, we have such short-term thinking. My understanding is in China, a very long-term strategic thing. It's just a different way of thinking about things. I think the worry among US ag producers is that China is making a very long-term strategic shift here, and we don't know. Maybe they will come back. I don't know. I think the concern is that this may be more permanent, and that would be a huge change. Theodore: You mean they're acting like the adults in the room, the ones that they don't have at the CDC? Presumably, longer-term thinking is what you want out of the government. Helena: I'm never going to root for our trade foes. Theodore: I'm not rooting for anybody. I just think that you can look at the behavior of our economic rivals and adversaries and say, "Well, that's probably the better course of action." You could say that, "I'm an American citizen. I was born here. I want us to sell all the soybeans we can sell." If there is a rational response to it that includes longer-term thinking for the benefit of China and potentially the United States, I think I'm in favor [unintelligible 00:24:40]. Helena: Yes. You can certainly understand where they're coming from. I think we'll see. Theodore: We'll see. Helena: I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know if anyone knows what's going to happen. Theodore: Nobody knows. What's that? There's that Hollywood saying about hit movies. Nobody knows nothing. I think that's one of these. Why don't we move on to our third segment, which is the-- Normally, we call it Good Vibes, and it's something in the food system or food politics that is a little note of hope. You'll see why I'm doing this. I think we should call it Good Vibrations because this is from California, and it is about the passage by the state of California for a, I think, pretty unprecedented bill to ban ultra-processed foods and school lunches by 2035, or at least phase them out. Why don't you walk through the little details about this, and let's talk about why this matters, or if it matters. Helena: It does matter. California is, I don't know, what is it? The eighth-largest economy in the world? It's a huge state. Theodore: It's not West Virginia and food dyes. It's big. Helena: Let's not hate on West Virginia. West Virginia's food dyes situation has brought the food industry- Theodore: Good point. Helena: -to its knees. The interstate commerce, it turns out, is really difficult. Theodore: Go figure. Helena: You can't just make M&M's for West Virginia, it turns out. West Virginia's punched above its weight, for sure. California has become the first government to officially define ultra-processed foods, and their goal is to phase them out of school meals. Think of school lunches and breakfasts, and snacks. They have-- Theodore: Can we talk about the importance of that definition first? That's really the revelatory thing here, right? Helena: Yes and no. Without getting too wonky, the FDA and USDA are also embarking on a process to create their own definition. Theodore: California beat them to it. Helena: Without getting too far into the weeds, they're probably not going to be the same. The FDA and USDA are embarking on this longer process. What is weird now is all the people who are trying to comment on the federal definition are now having to look at California. Anyway, honestly, we should probably do a whole episode and get someone on to walk through. It gets really technical, really fast. Theodore: Why is it hard to define the thing that you buy at the store, and it's Fritos, and we know what it is? Yes. Helena: It's like you know it when you see it. Theodore: It is very much like porn, right? Helena: It is. That's it. Actually, people in the food industry say that. They're like, "You know when you see it." Theodore: You know when you see it. Helena: A lot of other things get swept up into this, like yogurt and whole wheat bread. Anyway, it does get complicated. Basically, I think the way to think about what California is doing is, California is trying to push more of the school food system to scratch cook, to just rely less on packaged and pre-cooked foods. That is really what they're trying to do. They're trying to have a long-term journey where they buy more produce from local California farmers and meats and everything. They're trying to create basically a new food system in California designed around this institutional demand. That's what they're trying to do. Now, to do that, you have to invest in kitchens. You have to invest in infrastructure. You have to invest in staffing and training. It's like a huge deal to turn the system around because it does mostly rely on ultra-processed foods, however you want to define them. Foods that come in boxes and are reheated that is what the system relies on. What California is doing is interesting because they're trying to say, "Look, everyone says they want kids to get better meals at school or eat healthier. We're basically putting our money where our mouth is. We are actually going to ban some of these products. We are actually going to force our schools to go in this direction slowly, but we're going to force it." What I think makes this qualify for good vibes is that both MAHA and Democrats in California are praising this, but they're sending shade in their own way, but they agree, which is fascinating to watch. Governor Gavin is-- Theodore: Yes, it is incredibly bipartisan. If you look at the vote on this in the different houses of the California state government, in the state senate, it passed 40 to 0. In the assembly, it passed 79 to 1. I thought it was very interesting to look up because I couldn't really find it. Helena: Who was the no? Theodore: His name, I wrote it down. He's from San Diego. His name is Carl DeMaio. He has no statements that I've been able to find so far saying why he voted against it. He is a right-wing Republican. He does not like Gavin Newsom. He has had a lot to say in his Instagram feed, which I helped myself to this morning. No, there is no indication of it. Helena: Now I'm really curious. I need to get back to it. Theodore: I think you should because I don't understand it. Maybe he's got a reason. Helena: It's so popular. It's just wild. Going back to, we talk about this so much, how popular this stuff has become really in a short period of time. That this is politically safe for Republicans to go there, even though they have the food industry breathing down their back saying, "Absolutely not, we hate this." It is politically popular. Gavin Newsom had a post on X this week, or recently, whenever. He had just signed it. He said, "California is the first state to define ultra-processed foods and phase them out of school meals. DC politicians, C.C. RFK Jr." Can talk-- He didn't say that. That was my interjection. Can talk all day about making America healthy again, but we've been walking the walk and boosting nutrition and removing toxic additives and dyes for decades. Gavin Newsom is trying out MAHA. Callie Means, a key advisor for RFK Jr., White House advisor on all things MAHA, reposted that and said, "This is a proud day for everyone in the MAHA movement. As predicted, policies are so popular, blue states are now stealing ideas from RFK and gaslighting that it was their idea, as long as kids are getting healthier." I was like, "This is so, A, childish for everyone involved." That they're trying to be like, "Oh, we had it first or whatever." It is true that California was banning some things from school meals before this all blew up, before MAHA existed. That is true. I think what this says to me is that both sides are realizing that this is a politically winning issue, at least the food stuff. We've talked about how some of the other ideas within MAHA are super polarizing or super unpopular. Theodore: Vaccines are bad. Vaccines should stick around. Yes. Get rid of M&M's. Keep the vaccines. No M&Ms. Yes, vaccines. Helena: You can have M&M's. They're just going to be more muted in their color. Theodore: Or just have fewer M&M's. Just have fewer, less M&M's. Helena: It's super interesting to watch that play out. I have an item in the newsletter for paid subscribers. I guess folks will see this a week later, but talking about how I'm seeing a lot more of the MAHA folks talk about midterms. This to me, gets at that both sides are starting to understand more and more that these ideas are popular and they're trying to figure out how to use them to their political advantage. It's not every day that you see both sides agreeing on something like this, but here we are. Theodore: I think it's one of the great themes for me in the conversations that we're continuing to have every two weeks here at Forked, which is the ways in which these politics are still shaking themselves out. You have two really, really polarized portions of the political spectrum fighting to claim the same issue. That ain't normal, folks. Helena: It's not normal. No, it's new. Theodore: I think we should leave it at that. It ain't normal. That's the takeaway of this current episode. Helena, one thing I want to do, which I always like to do every Forked episode, is have you tell all of our listeners out there about your great newsletter, Food Fix. Helena: Yes. If you're into food policy, go get yourself on the weekly newsletter list. Just go to foodfix.co. Drop your email in there. It's wonky, but fun. Theodore: That's us too. We're wonky, but fun, right? Helena: Wonky, but fun. Fun to read. Get on the list. Love to have you. Theodore: Awesome. Helena, this was a great conversation. I always like getting together with you and talking about this stuff. I will look forward to seeing you in two weeks. Helena: All right. See you soon. Theodore: All right. Thanks. Forked is a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Our executive producers are me, Theodore Ross, and Tom Laskaway. Our sound engineer is Lauren Newson. Our producers and video producers are Maya Akindo and Katie Gardner. Our hosts are Helena Bottemiller Evich and me, Theodore Ross. To find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent nonprofit reporting, go to www.thefern.org. [00:34:14] [END OF AUDIO]