Connect with us

News

RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance

Published

on

file 20250528 56 tbtzj3.jpg?ixlib=rb 4.1
Until now, the CDC has recommended that everyone ages 6 months and older get a yearly COVID-19 vaccine.
Asiaselects via Getty Images

Libby Richards, Purdue University

On May 27, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer include the COVID-19 vaccine on the list of immunizations it recommends for healthy children and pregnant women.

The announcement, made in a video posted on the social platform X, comes on the heels of another announcement, made on May 20, in which the Food and Drug Administration revealed that it will approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older and for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. The agency will require vaccine manufacturers to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups.

The Conversation U.S. asked Libby Richards, a nursing professor from Purdue University involved in public health promotion, to explain what these announcements mean for the general public.

Why are HHS and FDA diverging from past practice?

Currently, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.

In the video announcing the plan to remove the vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Kennedy spoke alongside National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. The trio cited a lack of evidence to support vaccinating healthy children. They did not explain the reason for the change to the vaccine schedule for pregnant people, who have previously been considered at high-risk for severe COVID-19.

Similarly, in the FDA announcement made a week prior, Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, said that public health trends now support limiting vaccines to people at high risk of serious illness instead of a universal COVID-19 vaccination strategy.

Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?

Many public health experts and professional health care associations have raised concerns about Kennedy’s latest announcement, saying it contradicts studies showing that COVID-19 vaccination benefits pregnant people and children. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considered the premier professional organization for that medical specialty, reinforced the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, especially to protect infants after birth. Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed to the data on hospitalizations of children with COVID-19 during the 2024-to-2025 respiratory virus season as evidence for the importance of vaccination.

Kennedy’s announcement on children and pregnant women comes roughly a month ahead of a planned meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts that offers guidance to the CDC on vaccine policy. The meeting was set to review guidance for the 2025-to-2026 COVID-19 vaccines. It’s not typical for the CDC to alter its recommendations without input from the committee.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has removed COVID-19 vaccines from the vaccine schedule for healthy children and pregnant people.

FDA officials Makary and Prasad also strayed from past established vaccine regulatory processes in announcing the FDA’s new stance on recommendations for healthy people under age 65. Usually, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which bases its decision on the advisory committee’s research-based guidance.

The advisory committee was expected to recommend a risk-based approach for the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to. The CDC’s and FDA’s new policies on the vaccine will likely make it difficult for healthy people to get the vaccine.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

What conditions count as risk factors?

The CDC lists several medical conditions and other factors that increase peoples’ risk for severe COVID-19. These conditions include cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease and some lung conditions like COPD and asthma. Pregnancy is also on the list.

The article authored by Makary and Prasad describing the FDA’s new stance on the vaccine also contain a lengthy list of risk factors and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine. Pregnancy is included. Reversing the recommendation for vaccinating healthy pregnant women thus contradicts the new framework described by the FDA.

Studies have documented that COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and may reduce the risk of stillbirth. A study published in May 2025 using data from 26,783 pregnancies found a link between COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy and an increased risk for spontaneous abortions.

Importantly, a 2024 analysis of 120 studies including a total of 168,444 pregnant women with COVID-19 infections did not find enough evidence to suggest the infections are a direct cause of early pregnancy loss. Nonetheless, the authors did state that COVID-19 vaccination remains a crucial preventive measure for pregnant women to reduce the overall risk of serious complications in pregnancy due to infection.

Immune changes during pregnancy increase the risk of severe illness from respiratory viruses. Vaccination during pregnancy also provides protection to the fetus that lasts into the first few months of life and is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization among infants.

Rite-Aid sign advertising COVID-19 vaccines
Change is coming to COVID-19 vaccine policy.
Rick Obst, CC BY-SA

The changes to the CDC’s and the FDA’s plan for COVID-19 vaccines also leave out an important group – caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries with risk-based vaccination policies do include this group.

What about vaccines for children?

High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine. Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorized and how the change in vaccine policy will affect childhood vaccination overall.

To date, millions of children have safely received the COVID-19 vaccine. Data on whether children benefit from annual COVD-19 vaccines is less clear. Parents and clinicians make vaccination decisions by weighing potential risks with potential benefits.

Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?

Not automatically. Kennedy’s announcement does not broadly address healthy adults, but under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will likely face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.

Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance providers are required to fully cover the cost of any vaccine endorsed by the CDC. Kennedy’s announcement will likely limit insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccination.

Overall, the move to focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 22, 2025.

Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading
Advertisement SodaStream USA, inc

Food and Beverage

Raise a Glass: Celebrate International Beer Day on August 7

Published

on

International Beer Day returns on Friday, August 7, 2026. Learn about the holiday’s origins, how it’s celebrated worldwide, and why supporting local breweries is part of the tradition.
Photo by Darlene Alderson on Pexels.com

Every year on the first Friday in August, beer lovers around the world come together to celebrate International Beer Day. In 2026, the celebration falls on Friday, August 7, offering the perfect opportunity to discover new brews, support local breweries, and enjoy time with friends.

What’s better than an ice #cold brewsky in the middle of August? Nothing.

Founded in 2007 in Santa Cruz, California, International Beer Day has grown into a global event observed in dozens of countries. The celebration recognizes not only the beverage itself but also the brewers, bartenders, servers, and everyone who helps bring beer from the brewery to your glass.

Whether you’re a fan of crisp lagers, hoppy IPAs, rich stouts, refreshing wheat beers, or adventurous sour ales, International Beer Day is a great excuse to step outside your comfort zone and sample something new. Many breweries and pubs celebrate with special releases, tasting flights, live entertainment, brewery tours, and food pairings.

As the craft beer movement continues to flourish across the United States, this annual celebration is also a reminder of the creativity and community that local breweries bring to neighborhoods large and small.

If you decide to celebrate, remember to drink responsibly, arrange for a designated driver or rideshare if needed, and support your favorite local brewery.

Cheers to International Beer Day!

Related Links


  • 4 Daily Brain Health Habits for Better Cognition
    Daily Brain Health Habits: Your brain works hard for you, so it’s only fair to return the favor by practicing simple everyday habits to keep this important organ strong and thriving. Start by tweaking your daily routine to focus on these four habits and eating nourishing recipes like California Grape and Sardine Avocado Toast.
  • Raise a Glass: Celebrate International Beer Day on August 7
    Every year on the first Friday in August, beer lovers around the world come together to celebrate International Beer Day. In 2026, the celebration falls on Friday, August 7, offering the perfect opportunity to discover new brews, support local breweries, and enjoy time with friends. Founded in 2007 in Santa Cruz, California, International Beer Day has grown into a… Read more: Raise a Glass: Celebrate International Beer Day on August 7
  • Protein-Packed Snacking for Back-to-School Season
    Back-to-School Season: As busy families prepare for hectic school days, it can be invaluable to have nutritious grab-and-go options on hand for lunches and snacks. Having one less thing to worry about makes a difference when you’re juggling work, school, sports practices and games, and other extracurriculars while trying to keep everyone fed and happy.
  • 5 Tips to Make Hosting Easy and Fun
    From celebratory parties to casual get-togethers, hosting is a wonderful way to bring people together, share laughs and make memories. Of course, planning and hosting can be quite a bit of work, so a little preparation can go a long way to ensure an enjoyable time for everyone, including the host.
  • The Nutrient-Packed Fruit Families are Adding to Their Fruit Bowls
    Busy families are looking for snacks that do more than simply satisfy hunger – they want foods that deliver great taste along with meaningful nutrition. Nutrient-Packed Fruit? For a fresh twist on breakfast, brunch or an afternoon snack, try this Kiwi and Whipped Feta Toast.

🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Continue Reading

Economy

Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.

Published

on

us capitol in washington dc
Donor States.
Photo by Ivan Dražić on Pexels.com

Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.

But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.

That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.

What Is a Donor State?

Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.

Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.

A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.

These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.

Only Three Donor States in 2023?

According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.

Those states were:

New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.

Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.

At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don't necessarily measure government dependency.

COVID Changed the Numbers

Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.

The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.

Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.

Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.

That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.

California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor

California provides perhaps the best example.

In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.

But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.

In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.

Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.

New York Tells a Similar Story

New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.

Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.

Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.

As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.

Arizona Is a Net Recipient

Arizona presents a different picture.

Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.

Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.

But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”

Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.

Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.

All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.

Texas Receives More Than It Sends

Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.

Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.

Again, the number needs context.

Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.

Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The Surprising Leader: Virginia

If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.

Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.

Why?

Location.

Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.

Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.

The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.

A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.

Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?

Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare and Medicaid
  • Military bases and personnel
  • Defense contracts
  • Federal employee salaries
  • Highway and transit funding
  • Scientific and university research
  • Agricultural programs
  • Veterans benefits
  • Disaster assistance
  • Federal grants
  • Infrastructure projects
  • Federal agency operations

A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.

Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors

Federal income taxes are progressive.

People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.

That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.

The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.

The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.

In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.

So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?

In a broad accounting sense, yes.

Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.

But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.

Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.

A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.

The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.

The Bigger Picture

The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.

The numbers are real, but they require context.

A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.

Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:

Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.

They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.

And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Related External Links

🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Continue Reading

Food Truths

The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?

What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.

Published

on

The Truth About the "Yoga Mat Chemical" in McDonald's Burger Buns
Image Credit: Adobe Stock

For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.

But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?

What Was the Controversial Ingredient?

The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.

Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”

While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.

Why Did People Become Concerned?

The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.

When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.

Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.

mouthwatering close up of a double patty hamburger 2026 03 26 04 39 10 utc
Image Credit: Adobe Stock

Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?

The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.

In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.

These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.

Does McDonald’s Still Use It?

No.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.

Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.

Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?

Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.

These may include:

  • Calcium propionate to prevent mold
  • Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
  • Enzymes that improve consistency
  • Emulsifiers that help maintain softness

These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.

The Bigger Health Picture

Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.

The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:

  • High sodium intake
  • Excess saturated fat
  • Added sugars
  • Large portion sizes
  • Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods

An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.

Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry

Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.

Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.

The Bottom Line

The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.

Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.

Related External Links

🍴 What’s your favorite food, recipe, or dining spot? Tell us in the comments! Then subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for fresh recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and delicious stories delivered straight to your inbox. Join our growing community of food lovers today!

Continue Reading

Trending