The Tinder/Hinge Rape Problem is Worse Than You Think, RFK Jr. Food Poisoning Situation is Crazy
PDS Published 04/08/2025
-
We gotta talk about dating apps, sexual assault, and what one company knows about abusive users on its platforms but won’t tell you.
Right, because on some of the most popular dating apps in the world?
Reported rapists are still swiping right.
At least, that’s according to an 18-month investigation produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network and The Markup and co-published with The Guardian and The 19th.
And with that, the focus of the investigation? It’s a company by the name of Match Group.
If you haven’t heard of it, you’ve almost definitely heard of at least one of the more than dozen dating apps owned by the company –
Right, all in all, this multibillion dollar company operates in almost every country on Earth, controlling roughly half the world’s online dating market and facilitating meetups for potentially millions of people every month.
Right, the company’s reach is so massive it’s a big part of the reason people are now more likely to meet through online dating than through personal contacts and connections, at least according to research from Stanford University.
Though, of course, it’s an open question as to whether Match Group can really help you find your soulmate
I mean, there’s even a class-action lawsuit alleging the company goes out of its way to make sure you don't – claiming its apps make use of addictive, game-like features to keep users hooked.
But in any case, whether or not they make it easier to find a partner, according to this investigation, they definitely make it easier for predators and creeps to find their next target.
And with that, we gotta go back to the night of January 25th, 2023.
That’s when a young woman, who we’re not naming here, met a man by the name of Stephen Matthews at a sports bar in Denver.
Right, she had connected with Matthews, then a 34-year-old cardiologist, on Hinge.
And the date? It went well enough that this young woman accepted an invitation to go back to his place.
There, she went to the bathroom, and when she came out, he handed her a drink (BROLL: 1:58)
But after taking a sip, she says she soon began to lose control.
Right – according to later court testimony – her memory blurred, and she fell to the ground.
With Matthews then filming her, putting her in a headlock, and kissing her forehead.
But then, thankfully, she managed to free herself, grab most of her things, and leave – despite Matthews trying to force her back inside. []
With this young woman eventually waking up at home, soaking wet on her bathroom floor, without even having taken the key out of her door.
And finally, after throwing up for hours, she somehow had the presence of mind to report the assault to Hinge. []
But what she didn’t know? And what Match Group did?
Another woman had reported Matthews for rape just a few days before.
And in fact, the first time the company had been alerted to his behavior?
It was almost three years earlier, in September of 2020, when yet another woman had reported him for sexual violence.
And get this: A little more than a week after his assault on the woman from the sports bar?
ANOTHER woman reported him for rape. []
This time, however, the survivor also went to the police.
With at least 15 women eventually reporting Matthews had raped or drugged them.
And nearly every one of them saying they had met the man on dating apps run by Match Group. []
And so, ultimately, his arrest was the only thing that actually got him off the apps – despite the info the company had on him.
In fact, at one point – after Matthews had already been reported for rape at least once – Hinge elevated his account as a so-called “standout” profile to be seen by more people.
And what’s more, Match Group reportedly didn’t make it easy for prosecutors to build their case.
Right, a search warrant was issued for Hinge in July of 2023.
Two months later, the company still hadn’t complied, with the judge in the case asking at a hearing whether he needed to start “dragging people in to get stuff done.”
But even still, it reportedly wasn’t until February of 2024 that the DA’s office said they had gotten the documents they needed. []
But of course, in the end, the evidence – it was overwhelming.
A few months later, in August of last year, a jury convicted Matthews of 35 counts related to drugging two women, assaulting a woman, and drugging AND sexually assaulting eight other women.
With the judge soon sentencing him to 158 years to life in prison (BROLL: 2:43)
Though, notably, of course, attorneys representing the survivors claim at least some of Matthews’s crimes could have been prevented.
With Laura Wolf, for example, the attorney representing the woman whose police report led to the arrest, saying:
“It is shocking that for years after receiving reports of sexual assault, Hinge continued to allow Stephen Matthews access to its platforms and actively facilitated his abuse.”[]
“Countless women have suffered and will continue to suffer… Hinge and other dating platforms have taken no steps to ensure the safety of the product they are selling, matching unsuspecting women to known predators without pause or concern.”[]
And with that, I will say this is obviously not a brand new issue.
Right, I mean, it’s incredibly easy to find literally dozens of cases of women accusing men they met on dating apps of rape (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Going back to 2016, we started to get some idea how common this was getting.
In the UK, for example, the country’s national crime agency said dating-related rape had risen by more than 450 percent in six years
And then in the US in 2018, there was on particularly shocking case in which police identified a man they say used Tinder to find, rape and kill victims in New York, Connecticut, and California.
And with all, over time, of course, more attention shifted to what role or responsibility the dating apps themselves had to improve user safety.
In 2019, for example, ProPubilca revealing that Tinder, OkCupid, and PlentyofFish let known registered sex offenders use its app.
With the outlet also reporting in 2021 that moderators for certain apps were ill-paid, poorly trained, and overworked – sometimes left with just a few minutes to resolve customer claims of sexual assault.
And then, in 2022, a Utah-based research team also shedding light on this issue wIth an analysis of hundreds of sexual assaults across the state.
Finding that attacks facilitated by dating apps happened faster and were more violent than when the perpetrator met the victim through other means.
Also noting that survivors of dating app facilitated sexual assault were more likely to self-report mental illness and/or the use of psychotropic medications.
With the researchers concluding, quote, “violent sexual perpetrators use dating apps as hunting grounds for vulnerable individuals” []
And with all that, Match Group has publicly promised to improve safety and increase transparency since at least around 2020.
In 2021, for example, saying in its inaugural “Impact Report” that it was working on standardizing its safety incident data, tracking, and reporting –
With a goal of creating its first Transparency Report in the US in 2022 to, quote, “...ensure that as we grow, we continue to prioritize the safety, security and well-being of our users.”[]
However, as of recording, in February 2025? The report hasn’t been released.
And that’s just one of the ways the company may be letting its users down.
And of course, I will say, the unfortunate truth is that whether it’s dating in the real world, or online, it’s never risk-free, especially if you’re a woman.
But Match Group, this investigation found, has been doing far less to mitigate these risks than it could be.
Right, in the words of this investigation, “while Match Group has long possessed the tools, financial resources and investigative procedures necessary to make it harder for bad actors to resurface…”
“....internal documents show the company resisted efforts to spread them across its apps, in part because safety protocols could stall corporate growth.”[]
And with that, again looking back, let’s talk about what the company DID do to try and make things better.
On September 28th, 2020 – the same day Matthews was first reported to Hinge for rape – Match Group hired its first-ever head of safety and social advocacy.
And over the next few years, the company stepped up its cooperation with law enforcement;
introduced an optional AI-assisted photo verification system on its apps;
and looked into other ways of collaborating with companies and nonprofits to improve app safety.
Right, one of those nonprofits, for example? It’s called Garbo.
And it started providing an online background check service to Tinder members in 2022.
And with that, I will say, all these approaches – they can be criticized.
Right, there’s concerns about user privacy, for example.
And then with background checks?
You have experts saying that they’re not always reliable since they often pull from outdated databases.
Not to mention most people who commit sexual abuse don’t ever come into contact with the criminal justice system anyways.
Right, less than half of sexual assaults are reported to the police.[]
And the overwhelming majority of perpetrators never end up in jail or prison.[]
I mean, Matthews? He didn’t have a criminal record and raped multiple women before being reported to police.
But in any case, at least it was something, right?
Well, about a year-and-a-half after that partnership started, Garbo ended its relationship with the company.
With a blog post coming from the org’s founder not naming names but saying:
“...it’s become clear that most online platforms aren’t legitimately committed to trust and safety for their users.
“There are some great companies that do take our mission to heart, but the sad reality is that most social networks, dating apps and online platforms care more about the bottom-line than they care about you.”[]
And the investigation’s other findings, which are based on internal company documents as well as testimony from former employees, seem to back that up.
For example, Match Group’s official safety policy says that if a user has been reported for domestic abuse, assault, or criminal activity, all accounts found to be associated with that user will be banned from its platforms. []
And so, of course, some say that means anyone can get someone else unfairly banned by throwing around baseless allegations without evidence.
But others say it’s a small price to pay to potentially make dating apps safer, and that it’s a decision Match Group is entitled to make as a private business.
But in any case, whatever side of that debate you land, that is the company policy.
And what’s notable here according to the investigation is that the company may not really be following that policy.
Right, at the time of reporting at least, banned Tinder users, including those reported for sexual assault, could reportedly easily rejoin or sign up to another Match Group dating app –
Notably, all without even having to even change or lie about key personal details.
Right, to figure that out, the people behind this investigation – they simply created a series of Tinder accounts that they then reported for sexual assault.
And Tinder did ban the accounts.
However, soon after, they were able to create new accounts with the exact same name, birthday and profile photos used on their banned accounts.
And they were also able to sign up for other Match Group dating apps without changing this information.[]
And as far as how this works on the back-end?
Well, Match Group has reportedly known since at least 2016 which users have been reported for drugging, assaulting, or raping their dates.
Since 2019, it’s even had a central database keeping track of every user reported for rape and assault across its entire suite of apps.
And by 2022, this central database, which is called Sentinel – it was reportedly logging hundreds of troubling incidents every week. []
So it raises the question, if they have all this information, why wasn’t anything being done?
Well, basically, let’s say someone’s banned for sexual assault.
That will create a case in the Sentinel system with the phone number and email address associated with the banned account.
Notably, the system would also log the original profile’s IP addresses, photos, and birthdate…
But according to internal company documents, that information wouldn’t be used to ban a user if they appeared on another Match Group dating app. []
Also, none of Match Group’s apps required users to provide photo identification…
So once a person was banned, they could just start a new account with different contact information.[]
And with that, one former employee, who worked specifically on the OKCupid app – he says he and his team tried to remedy these issues.
For example, he says they developed a tool to automatically ban a profile that was linked to a phone number, photo or URL that had been previously banned – even if the user made an account with a different email or IP address. []
And while he says company leadership praised their work, he also says they never tried to replicate this work at the company’s other apps.
In fact, he claims he and his team faced pressure to speed up investigations and train outsourced labor to use complicated moderation tools. []
And with that, he left the company in 2022, claiming most of his team also left due to a negative workplace environment.
And that same year, Match Group fired the woman it had hired as its first head of safety and social advocacy.
With much of HER team getting laid off in the next few months as well.
And then, in February 2024, the remaining critical investigators and law enforcement liaisons on the central safety team getting kicked out, too.[]
2024 also saw the company get a new CEO, who reportedly put even less of an emphasis on trust and safety than the previous leadership.
For example, in more than a year of quarterly investor calls, he reportedly only referenced safety efforts once.[]
Also, under his leadership, all mentions of a transparency report disappeared from the company’s annual impact report. []
With that former employee saying about this guy:
“He just wants to make money. He’s just there to increase profits.”
“If he’s looking at a bottom line, then it’s easier to have a lawsuit than it is to provide safety. I know which one he’s gonna pick.”[]
Now all that said, there seems to be another shift back the other way, with a new CEO and a little more emphasis on safety.
Right, with the issue coming up more often in general, also a new VP of trust and safety being hired, and then some new features being tested out on the apps.
Also, thanks to a new law in the EU requiring tech companies to disclose reports of “non-consensual behavior” you can now find thousands of sort of incident reports being uploaded to a European database.
But notably, there’s not a whole lot of information in them.
And then, stateside there’s little movement at the national level.
Right, Colorado notably passed a law, triggered by the Matthews case, that forces dating-app companies to tell the state attorney general which safety measures they are taking to protect users.
But it doesn’t currently require the company to tell the state, or the public, how many people report being raped or assaulted after using its platform.
And of course, Match Group?
It has defended its efforts to make its platforms safe.
With the statement claiming the company vigorously combats violence, saying:
“We take every report of misconduct seriously, and vigilantly remove and block accounts that have violated our rules regarding this behavior.” []
And so ultimately, we’ll have to see where this goes.
If it’s an industry likely to be more regulated anytime soon, will there at least be enough of a profit incentive for Match Group and other dating companies – which have been struggling for a few years now – to keep trying to step up safety.
I’d love to know your thoughts on any and all of this below.
-
We need to talk about the dark side of IVF.
And specifically, those cases – at least six percent of them according to estimates – in which the eggs used aren’t coming from the woman trying to get pregnant but from a third-party donor.
Right, because while this can be an amazing way to give someone the gift of having a child, the global human egg trade is also a massive money-making business often operating in a legal grey area – if not outright outside the law.
This according to an investigation from Bloomberg Businessweek showing how egg donors can be exploited and have their health put at risk in the name of profit.
But to start, we should talk about how all this got started way back in England in 1978.
Right, that’s when Louise Joy Brown famously became the first person born after being conceived in a petri dish using the egg and sperm of her biological parents.
A few decades later, a new technology known as vitrification emerged, allowing donated eggs to be flash-frozen, stored, and used later with much greater success than the previous method of, you know, just sticking them in the freezer – (BROLL: 2:23-2:30)
Which can lead to the formation of ice crystals that damage the eggs and lower the chances of survival.
And with all that, by 2012, the world’s largest organizations representing fertility practitioners backed the technique – and it was no longer experimental.
And in the U.S. alone, the number of fertility procedures using frozen donor eggs or embryos tripled to 26,700 between 2012 and 2021 – according to the CDC. []
Most IVF treatments involve women using their own eggs.
In at least 6% of cases, the eggs come from so-called “donors” who agree to have their eggs removed – often but not always in exchange for money. []
Every 15 seconds or so, a batch of eggs is extracted from a woman somewhere on the planet. []
Globally more than 120,000 embryos were created with donated eggs in 2019 –
Almost double the number in 2011 according to the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
However, the real number is almost certainly much higher.
Right, one, the numbers don’t include India – the most populated nation on Earth –
Where there are at least 1,400 fertility clinics are registered, with possibly thousands more in operation.
And while donated eggs are used in a small percentage of embryo transfers worldwide, more than a dozen doctors in India told Bloomberg that at their clinics, it can range from 30% to 50%. []
And two, while 120,000 is the most recent estimate, it is more than half a decade old now, and we know that this is a fast-growing industry.
In some of the few countries that do reliably track shipments, for example, the numbers are exploding.
And with all that, the global market for assisted reproduction is reportedly already worth around $35 billion. []
With this being a market of not only would-be parents and donors, but also recruiters, agents, doctors, and clinics increasingly backed by Wall Street and private equity.
And with all of that, the demand for eggs extracted from younger donors is only expected to increase as more women wait longer to have children. []
But despite being massive, the industry is often minimally regulated.
And even when individual countries make an effort, it’s such a global industry now that the cross-border egg trade operates with almost no government oversight.
Right, when rules or circumstances change in one country, donors, aspiring parents, and companies take their business elsewhere.
In Greece, for example, as police eventually discovered, there was an organization called the Mediterranean Fertility Institute, or MFI, that recruited vulnerable women from Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Georgia and Albania to be egg donors and surrogates.
In August 2023, they arrested eight MFI staff members, including the clinic’s founding doctor and its scientific director.
With authorities discovering that clinic staff had falsified medical and court records and even aided in illegal adoptions.
And police also uncovering hundreds of instances where the clinic charged patients for IVF services that were never performed, including “sham” embryo transfers. []
As well as identifying at least 75 cases of ”egg theft” – []
Such as one woman named Maria who reportedly froze her eggs for herself but later found that the clinic had taken more than they told her and used them to create embryos for another woman.
With Maria reportedly still having no idea whether a child was actually born from her eggs.
And while this is an extreme case with one organization in one country, we also know it’s not the only horror story to be found.
Right, going back to India, for example, egg donors there must be at least 23-years-old.
But in October of 2023, a thirteen-year-old girl in the city of Varanasi (Var-ron-uh-see - LISTEN) donated.
She had been recruited by her grandmother’s neighbor, who’d told her she could earn as much as 15,000 rupees, which is about 180 dollars.[]
The woman had her pose for a photo for a fake ID showing her as 24, drilled her on the story she had to tell, and had her own husband sign off as the girl’s spouse.[]
The girl’s mother soon learned what happened, reported it to police, and eventually, police arrested the woman who had recruited her daughter, her colleague, and another three male accomplices – []
But notably, all five have since been freed on bail.[]
And it’s become clear that this young girl is far from the only victim.
Right, the guy who made the fake IDs?
He said one of the women who recruited young girls i nitially asked him to falsify one or two cards every few days, but that quickly turned into as many as 100 a month. []
And with that, the clinic where this happened? It was a branch of a company called Nova IVF Fertility, which is one of India’s largest fertility chains–
And notably, has been backed by American financiers. []
With the company telling Bloomberg it had cooperated with local authorities and cut ties with an egg bank whose employee was among those arrested.
But disputing the claim in the state’s chief medical officer’s report that doctors should have been able to determine the girl was underage, calling that “an impossible task.” []
And adding:
“Identification of fake official documents is something beyond our expertise, and we are unfortunately impacted by this deceitful operation.”
“In effect, we are a wronged party here.”[]
And meanwhile this girl?
She reportedly dropped out of school after seventh grade after being bullied for what happened. []
And again, this is one country, and it’s an extreme example, but there’s still concern about inadequate or unenforced regulation in places like the U.S., for example –
Where the FDA requires that donors undergo a physical exam, including tests for infectious diseases, and provide their medical history.
Beyond that, clinics are expected to comply with guidelines set by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine –
Which recommends, among other things, donors receive mental health counseling and get their own legal review of all contracts. []
As well as suggests that donors undergo only six retrievals in order to reduce the chance of complications. []
And that’s a number to keep in mind because as we’ll talk about more, it’s not always followed.
One Taiwanese woman, for example, telling Bloomberg she’s completed eleven cycles in the U.S. – as well as sold her eggs four times in China, where it’s illegal, on the black market.
And with that, describing her experience being loaded into a van with darkened windows with five other donors and then having the egg retrieval done in a well-equipped surgical suite on the second floor of a residential building. []
And with that, as far as why doctors recommend donors stop at six?
Well it has to do with the process required to get a woman’s eggs ready for donation.
You see, normally, during ovulation, a woman releases one egg (BROLL: 0:25-0:30).
But egg donors take hormonal medication to induce superovulation, usually producing a total of 13 to 25 eggs in both ovaries – sometimes as many as 30 (BROLL:1:28-1:33).
With Diane Tober – a medical anthropologist at the University of Alabama and author of Eggonomics: The Global Market in Human Eggs and the Donors Who Supply Them – telling Bloomberg:
“Some clinics try to get as many eggs as possible, especially for their egg banks, by providing higher doses of medication.”
And notably, with that, producing any more than 15 eggs puts women at risk of developing something called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHHS.
The short-term risks of which range from discomfort to, in rare cases, death.
Right, more specifically, a mild case can mean abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhea.
A severe case can lead to blood clots, fluid-filled lungs, or a twisted ovary that could cut off its own blood supply.
Although, again, overall death from OHSS appears to be rare. []
The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology says mild OHSS affects as many as 33% of IVF patients []
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says moderate to severe OHSS occurs in 1% to 5% of IVF cycles.[]
But notably, the condition still isn’t fully understood, and it often goes unreported.
In the Australian state of Victoria, for example, which is a pretty tightly regulated market as far as these things go, auditors reportedly found that clinics had been reporting only about a third of OHSS cases that required overnight hospitalization from 2018 to 2021. []
And in the US, the CDC does reportedly collect a whole bunch of data from fertility clinics but it only publishes their rates of success, right, meaning live births.
On the other hand, however, it refuses to disclose how frequently IVF patients and donors at each clinic experience medical complications.
With Bloomberg reporting that it’s filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking to force the agency to do so, so we’ll have to wait and see if that data ever becomes available []
But in any case, beyond all that, even less is known about the long-term risks of repeated egg donation.
With Robert Klitzman, the head of the Masters of Bioethics Program at Columbia, claiming that's no accident, adding:
“They are making millions off women who are making thousands.”
“If they did the research, they might find out there are long-term harms that may decrease the business and the amount of money they can earn.”
And with that, even in cases where there’s no blatant exploitation or illegal activity, even when everything works out, there are often concerns.
Right, In Australia, for example, donors must be someone you have an established relationship with and must be motivated only by altruism.[]
And with that, there’s a real debate about if and how much donors should be paid – with some fearing that is what opens the door to exploitation.
But in any case, one Australian couple, Alice and Paul, tried relying on altruism, but it just resulted in miscarriage.
And instead they ended up accumulating more than $170,000 in debt to get eggs through a U.S. agency from an Argentinian woman named Karen. []
Right, Karen? She’s not someone who’d say she’s being exploited, she actually says she sees donating as “an opportunity to help.” []
And to the delight of fertility clinics, she is what’s known as a super-producer, someone whose body reacts so strongly to the hormones that it churns out far more than the typical 15 to 20 eggs.[]
In Paul and Alice’s case, the retrieval went incredibly well: 51 eggs.
Nineteen were successfully turned into embryos.
But not a single one of the embryos was viable.
And so Karen also offered to donate again for free.
The clinic agreed to do the entire procedure over again for free.
But the agency that connected the coupe with Karen? A company called Growing Generations?
They reportedly wouldn’t allow it.
Also declining to waive its fee, but at least offering a 20 percent discount. []
And so eventually, the couple welcomed a healthy baby boy, with Karen breaking down in tears when she heard the news, saying:
“That, for me, was a sign.”
“It was telling me: What you are doing is not bad. It allowed for this baby to be born.” []
And with that, after she made her sixth and what should’ve been her final donation – according to health guidelines – a whopping 58 eggs were taken out and shipped to the U.S. []
She joined others to found her own recruiting firm that she says is focused on donor wellbeing.[]
But not long after, someone from the Growing Generations agency contacted her again asked if she could consider donating once again.
Notably, she had not only completed six donations already, she was almost 31-years-old, and the agency’s own internal age limit was 29.
Not to mention her history of hyper egg production and past experience with OHSS put her at greater risk for another bout. []
And then, the person who contacted her initially denied any involvement, but was then presented evidence suggesting otherwise, –
Finally acknowledging the agency’s role in the donation while noting she’d left the agency by the time of Karen’s retrieval and claiming she hadn’t remembered the initial conversations.
Adding that while industry guidelines “typically recommend limiting donors to six cycles” it is common for exceptions to be made” – such as in the case of “exceptionally healthy donors”. []
And so at the end of the day, Karen happily donated, she seems fine, and Alice and Paul and other couples were able to have a kid because of her.
But there’s still a question about this agency’s practices and whether or not there are other cases where things didn’t work out so well.
But with that, I gotta pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Both your reaction to some of these stories and also what you think should be done so we get the good parts of this industry without the bad?
Go to Henson Shaving and enter DEFRANCO at checkout to get a free pack of 100 blades with your purchase.
-
RFK Jr., Elon Musk, and the Trump administration at large are all jeopardizing food safety in the U.S. and increasing the risk of Americans getting sick or poisoned by foodborne illnesses.
Right, ensuring the safety of the food system is one of the most impactful things the federal government does — it’s something that is relevant to literally all Americans, regardless of where they live or what their politics are.
Now, of course, like any system, this one isn’t perfect — according to CDC estimates, foodborne illnesses cause over 3,000 deaths and 127,800 hospitalizations each year.
And there have been some very high-profile incidents in recent years.
Like the Boar’s Head listeria outbreak last summer — the worst in more than a decade — which resulted in ten deaths, 60 hospitalizations, and 7 million pounds of meat getting recalled.
Then, there were the lead-laden apple sauce pouches that poisoned at least 60 children.
And, of course, there was the whole Abbott baby formula disaster, where several products were recalled and a whole plant was shut down due to the spread of a bacterial infection.
In fact, data shows that recalls have actually been increasing in recent years.
According to the FDA — which groups food and cosmetics together in data — 1,908 of those products were recalled in the last fiscal year that ended in September.
That is the highest level since 2019, before the number of recalls fell during the height of COVID.
But experts say the rise in recalls doesn’t mean the food safety system is becoming more dangerous — it’s actually the opposite: the system is working BETTER.
Right, there aren’t necessarily more outbreaks now than there were before – the technology and tools used for catching and tracking outbreaks have improved, allowing officials to identify and manage outbreaks that may have been happening all along.
And without the food safety system, ALL of those situations would have been a LOT worse — we would see a lot more outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths in general.
Right, during each outbreak, federal, state, and local health officials across multiple agencies conduct a labor-intensive process to trace the spread from each sick person to a given product, issue recalls, and ensure the products are pulled from shelves.
But experts say that the system is now in peril thanks to ongoing DOGE cuts and policy changes by Health Secretary RFK Jr. — who oversees agencies like the CDC and FDA.
So now, many in the food safety field are worried that, when taken all together, these actions could result in more unsafe foods reaching the market, more outbreaks, and a government that is less able to respond quickly and effectively.
With including Darin Detwiler, a food safety consultant and professor who lost his young son in an E. coli outbreak, explaining:
“It’s as if someone, without enough information, has said, ‘What’s a good way to save money on our automobiles? Let’s just take out the seatbelts and airbags, because do we really need them?’”
And he says that’s exactly what we’re seeing in various different actions taken by the Trump administration, Musk, and DOGE.
For example, numerous essential food safety workers have been swept up in Musk’s purge of federal workers.
According to reports, 5,200 “probationary” workers were fired across Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services — including FDA staffers working on the safety of food additives.
And those cuts were so dire that you even had the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods, Jim Jones, resigning from his post.
Saying in his resignation letter that the “indiscriminate” firing of nearly 90 staffers in his division made it “fruitless for him to continue.”
Adding that he had been looking forward to working on Kennedy’s goals of making America healthy, but the Trump administration’s “disdain for the very people” who would do that work gave him no choice but to leave.
And going to explicitly take aim at RFK Jr., saying past remarks he’s made criticizing the FDA are false and undermine the agency as a whole.
And, as many have noted, those layoffs aren’t expected to significantly reduce government spending.
Right, almost half of the FDA’s $6.9 billion budget comes from fees paid by companies the agency regulates.
But the DOGE-related layoffs didn’t just impact the Health Department — the Agriculture Department, which also oversees food safety, has also reportedly laid off key workers like food safety inspectors.
Now, notably here, it has since been reported that the FDA moved to rehire essential employees who were laid off — including ones working on food safety.
And similarly, the USDA also said it was trying to reverse the firings of several officials working on bird flu that the agency had “accidentally” fired.
And, even beyond all that, a federal judge has also since ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary workers, ruling that their termination was illegal.
But experts still say these staffing disruptions have jeopardized the food safety system — especially given the fact that many people won’t want to return to their old jobs after everything that’s happened.
And because it comes at a time when the FDA was already dealing with Biden-era budget cuts and understaffing due to competition from private sector jobs that can offer higher salaries.
But beyond that, the firings haven’t been the only cost-cutting disruptions.
Right, government credit cards regularly utilized by FDA scientists to buy and test food were also frozen under an executive order Trump signed backing the efforts of DOGE.
A move that slowed or stopped the testing of grocery store products for hazardous bacteria and monitoring packing for forever chemicals.
And the stakes there are incredibly high, with one expert explaining:
“Even hours can matter in an outbreak. Any delay is unacceptable when you’re dealing with a product that can kill someone.”
Then, to make matters even worse, in early March, the administration eliminated two expert committees that advised the federal government on key food safety matters:
The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection .
With this also coming as part of Trump’s executive order to reduce government bureaucracy.
But experts have said both these panels were incredibly important and barely cost the government anything — their combined budget was around $300,000 a year, and members weren’t even paid salaries.
And with that, many officials have raised alarm bells about the disbanding of the microbial committee in particular.
With experts saying it upends progress the panel made on studying how to more accurately identify babies who are at risk for being infected with the deadly bacteria that contributed to the closure of the Abbott baby formula plant.
As well as ruining two years of work using existing technology to limit outbreaks — a move that committee members say will end up costing the federal government more than it will save by getting rid of these panels.
What’s more, many have also said the sweeping cuts to food safety programs raise questions about the government’s ability to implement RFK Jr.’s food safety initiatives.
Right, the Health Secretary has taken a big interest in food as part of his Make America Healthy Again plan, specifically targeting chemical additives in food like artificial dyes.
But with that, you had a former senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner on nutrition and food safety explaining:
“In my experience the way you achieve these things cost money and require regulation. But they’ve begun by undoing a lot of that groundwork that was put in place.”
Additionally, others have also said that RFK Jr. has further jeopardized food safety by repeatedly undermining the effectiveness of the FDA and openly discussing policies that experts say would actively make outbreaks worse.
Right, for example, Kennedy has been a loud supporter of raw, unpasteurized milk, which experts say can expose people to any number of dangerous food-borne bacteria.
He also recently suggested on Fox News that instead of culling flocks of farmed poultry that get bird flu, farmers should just let the disease rip through their flocks unchecked:
“The the question is should you cull those flocks. Most of our scientists are against the culling operation. They think that we should be testing therapeutics on those flocks, they should isolate them, you should let the disease go through them and identify the birds that survive, which are the birds that probably have a genetic capacity — a genetic inclination for immunity. And those should be the birds that we breed like a wild population.” 1:53 - 2:18
Now, notably here, Kennedy doesn’t have a say in agricultural policies, though Trump’s Agriculture Secretary has also said that there are farmers who would be willing to try this idea as a sort of pilot program.
But experts widely agree that would be an absolutely horrible idea.
Besides causing unimaginable poultry death tolls that would further increase egg shortages and grocery prices, it also just simply would not work.
Right, bird flu is incredibly deadly for poultry and very fast-acting — almost all farmed birds that get infected die within a matter of days.
So that means 1) these birds aren’t developing antibodies that could help them survive re-infection — they’re just dying.
And 2) given how rapid the deaths are, there’s not really anything scientists could study to uncover future treatments or resistance.
With one expert explaining that resistance in chickens and turkeys “is not a thing.”
Additionally, allowing the virus to just proliferate unchecked would increase the risk for mutations and spread to other animals — like cows, which have already been impacted — as well as humans.
But more bird flu among farm animals also means a higher risk of disease transmission from uncooked or undercooked poultry, eggs, and beef, as well as unpasteurized dairy products.
I mean, we’ve already seen bird flu-related recalls on raw milk products — which, again, RFK has repeatedly touted.
So yeah, some really fucking scary shit, and unfortunately, there’s really nothing we can do about it besides continuing to monitor the situation.
And, in the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
Go to Saily and use the code “phil” to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans!
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/robert-edwards-louise-joy-brown-ivf-baby-main-split-112024-08bab553e288438faf3e30561fc6d394.jpg){kind=link}
