Displaying 14 results for

Building a Resilience Framework in Colorado Creating Resilient Communities in Colorado Heather Tomlinson, Kerry Wyss Learn how Colorado public health is building community and cross-sector partnerships to build community resilience. Following the 2012 wildfire season and the 2013 Colorado Floods, Colorado recognized the opportunity to better prepare for natural disasters and coordinate efforts across state agencies to build resilience into their regular operations. In 2015, Colorado became the first state to develop a resilience framework and created the Colorado Resiliency Office (CRO) with the goal of building more resilient systems in the face of shocks and stressors. The Colorado Resiliency Working Group (CRWG) is an interagency group that meets on a quarterly basis to collaboratively implement and advance resilience actions and goals. The Colorado Resilience Framework serves as interagency guidance on strengthening resilience and emphasizes finding co-benefits across community sectors, reducing community risk and vulnerability to disruptions, and supporting the state in anticipating and preparing for current and future conditions. The framework is updated every five years to adapt priorities and to keep up with current conditions. Changes from 2015 to 2020 included a shift from focusing heavily on long-term recovery to taking a more holistic approach to resilience. The CRWG is currently working on the 2025 update with a focus on statewide vulnerability where they can have the most impact and prepare for future conditions with available resources. They are also focusing on clear metrics and being able to communicate progress effectively. The state also created a statutory definition of resilience, which has helped with coordination across long- term projects and agencies. Coordination with Partners Resiliency work in Colorado is greatly enhanced by working with a wide range of partners that bring their subject matter expertise to the table. As a state with strong local control, Colorado has prioritized working collaboratively with local partners, providing technical assistance and subject matter expertise to support their work on the ground, from planning support to targeted grant programs. This collaboration helps ensure continuity from the state to the local communities. Colorado’s approach to resilience ensures resilience is integrated within its many agencies. For example, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has continued to evolve and advance their agency’s resiliency work. Beginning March 2025, CDPHE developed a monthly internal working group to funnel knowledge into resilience leadership across CDPHE — including environmental health, chronic disease, environmental justice, disease and public health, and air pollution. Their goal is to build partnerships across internal programs and state agencies. The CRO was first established in the Governor's Office and moved to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) in 2018. This move strengthened continuity of its long-term work and, given Colorado’s strong local control governance structure, enabled the CRO to further the goals of building a more resilient Colorado by partnering with and supporting local governments with planning and technical assistance to build greater resilience. The CRO offers flexible Future-Ready Technical Assistance Opportunities for state agencies, which helps them apply adaptability and future-visioning lenses to their resiliency principles in programs and operations. To involve the wider network of resilience practitioners within communities across the state, the CRO launched a community of practice on LinkedIn to foster peer-to-peer learning and dialogue and ensure all voices are heard in a collaborative environment. The Governor’s Office of Climate Preparedness and Disaster Recovery (CPO), facilitates cross agency coordination and collaboration while driving proactive state-wide climate preparedness priorities and supports development of the state’s disaster recovery capacity and capabilities. The CPO also coordinates efforts to ensure that the state budget and legislative processes reflect statewide climate preparedness, disaster recovery, and resilience priorities and leads the development of Colorado’s Climate Preparedness Roadmap — a strategic guiding document updated every three years that uses the best available science and data to prioritize near-term climate adaptation actions across Colorado state government. In collaboration with the implementing state agencies, the first Roadmap, released in 2023, set achievable near-term action items ensuring clear steps to strengthen climate resilience and adaptation. Among the actions, the Roadmap outlined the need to tackle extreme heat through a collaborative interagency approach, while better understanding the unique ways that heat affects Colorado. Social and community capacity were also outlined in the framework as a priority. CDPHE has worked with the Governor's Office to evaluate best practices and strategies tailored for each unique region and implemented their first heat plan in 2024. Extreme heat can be deadly and is projected to continue to intensify. CPO takes the lead in coordinating extreme heat work across agencies. They are partnering with the Colorado State Forest Service to pilot solutions such as climate-smart tree planting to help keep people safe during high-heat events by reducing ambient neighborhood temperatures and shading individual homes to lower indoor temperatures and reduce cooling costs for residents. Building Disaster Recovery Capacity Colorado is investing in disaster preparedness and recovery capacity to reduce the impacts of disasters, help communities recover more effectively, and build resilience into recovery efforts. Ensuring strong recoveries allows for the integration of strategic investments in resilience and hazard mitigation, which the state did in partnership with Xcel Energy — in the wake of the Marshall Fire, the state provided financial assistance to rebuild home to high performance standards and integrated wildfire mitigation actions during the rebuild process. In recent years, Colorado has expanded their recovery investments, including the addition of key positions in targeted recovery areas including within CPO, at DOLA within the Division of Housing and within the Division of Local Government, at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and at the Department of Public Health and Environment. Technical expertise and capacity at the agency level is leveraged to strengthen preparedness and to support recovery from state declared disasters through the Colorado Department of Public Safety's State Recovery Task Force, providing recovery expertise when activated according to their assigned Recovery Support Function (RSF). Colorado partnered with FEMA’s State Technical Assistance for Recovery Strategies Program to develop processes and strategies that can be integrated into the RSF plan updates within the State Emergency Operations Plan, and to refine RSF functions, capabilities, and partnerships. Over the last year, the state has additionally conducted numerous discussion-based exercises to strengthen RSF relationships and operational capability. The state continues to identify and enhance new opportunities in supporting local communities with pre- disaster recovery technical assistance. Examples include: Hosting Department of Public Safety-led regional recovery symposiums. Piloting additional focused recovery workshops that prioritize rural and less resourced communities. Developing and refining disaster recovery planning tools. Offering recovery and resilience toolkits and expertise to local governments led by DOLA. Strengthening integration of disaster considerations into local planning processes. Colorado implemented this work in summer 2025 when the state experienced numerous wildfires in short succession that received state disaster declarations, activation of the State Recovery Task Force, and required close state-local disaster recovery coordination. Ensuring strong recovery capacity and capabilities is critical to long-term resilience, enabling communities to recover more quickly, more completely, and in ways that integrate proactive resilience strategies. A Path Towards Long-Term Sustainability A key element in Colorado’s long-term approach to building resiliency is closely involving the local community. Building robust community planning and response capabilities at the local level allows for agencies to tailor plans to community needs and ensures everyone is engaged in the process. The CRO, in collaboration with state agency partners in the CRWG, developed the Guidance for Local Government Climate Adaptation, which provides comprehensive guidance, funding resources, case studies, and connections to state and federal programs that can provide support in over 25 implementable actions. The CRO has also focused their resiliency work on anticipating what is to come down the road by assessing current and future community needs. An example is the Rural Resiliency and Recovery Roadmap Program, which brought together 16 different regional community teams with over 150 rural jurisdictions and non-governmental partners to support diversifying and strengthening their economies while building regional resiliency following the COVID-19 pandemic. Each regional team developed a roadmap that evaluates local stressors and how conditions may change in the future. This program also looks at what may impact the community from perspectives of housing availability, workforce, and potential resiliency stressors. Another example is the Camp Resilience: A Rural Prosperity Leadership Academy program, which offers a summer camp themed workshop to build rural community capacity to long-term stressors such as droughts, population loss, climate change, and lack of affordable housing. While funding cycle ebbs and flows

Learn how retail program standards improve retail food safety in this infographic.

Thousands have been diagnosed with cyclosporiasis, which can cause explosive diarrhea and be tough to track. Learn the latest outbreak and investigation details.

Forming Partnerships to Increase Rural Immunization Rates ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, national immunization awareness month, farmworker communities, vaccine equity project, increase rural immunization, immunization rates, healthcare access, community action agencies, barriers to vaccine uptake, community partnerships, underlying medical conditions, back-to-school vaccinations, national community action partnership, vaccination strategies, vaccination importance, farmworker communities, challenges to healthcare access, vaccination rates, national center for farmworker health, rural immunization, preventable disease Shalini Nair, Heather Tomlinson ASTHO | Learn how public health partners with community organizations to bring vaccines to rural communities that otherwise would have difficulty accessing care in this blog. Rural communities face many challenges in accessing health care, like limited provider availability, gaps in insurance coverage, transportation issues, language barriers, and limited internet access. Additionally, rural populations are more likely to have underlying medical conditions, less likely to have insurance, and live farther from medical facilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, overall routine vaccination coverage remained stable; however, there was a notable 4–5% drop in vaccination rates among young children living below the federal poverty level and in rural areas. In response, CDC developed the Let’s Rise initiative and a back-to-school campaign to provide actionable strategies and resources for getting Americans back on schedule with their routine vaccines. This month is National Immunization Awareness Month, highlighting the importance of vaccination for people of all ages. Boosting vaccine access and confidence is crucial to limit the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. Barriers to Vaccine Uptake While they only account for 14% of Americans, rural communities represent nearly two-thirds of primary health care shortage areas. Due to the lack of providers, rural Americans often live over 10 miles from their closest health care facility and do not always have access to reliable transportation. Additionally, rural communities also have a larger proportion of people who are uninsured and underinsured. Studies have shown that primary care visits and strong provider recommendations can greatly enhance utilization of preventative health measures, such as vaccination, while limited access to these aspects can reduce health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this disparity as many rural hospitals closed and the country faced national workforce shortages. Rural communities were significantly impacted, with 76% of rural adults knowing someone who had COVID-19 and 38% contracting COVID-19 themselves. Despite this impact, the majority of those polled reported this did not change their intent to get vaccinated. Furthermore, the gap in COVID-19 vaccination coverage between urban and rural areas more than doubled between April 2021 and January 2022, despite rural communities having disproportionately higher COVID-19 disease incidence and mortality. The digital divide also limits access to accurate information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. States and community groups have taken various actions to address these barriers. Successful Strategies to Address Low Vaccination Rates in Rural Communities With support from CDC, ASTHO is working with the National Community Action Partnership and five community action agencies (CAAs) on the Partnering for Vaccine Equity project. A recent blog showcases some of the work the CAAs have implemented to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake and to customize evidence-based strategies to their own communities and neighborhoods. Two project partners, Pickens County Community Action and Enrichment Services Program, are working to build trust and increase vaccine uptake in rural Alabama by leveraging existing networks and taking a whole-health approach to outreach efforts. In Russell County, Enrichment Services deployed a highly successful paper- and social media-based messaging campaign centered around messages that emphasized three points: Vaccines are Safe, Vaccines Save Lives, and Vaccines Save Money. By reaching out to local churches, Enrichment Services was able to greatly expand the reach of their health promotion messages. In addition, to increase the number of available access points for vaccination, Enrichment Services co-located outreach at schools and engaged local EMT representatives from the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians for their first-hand knowledge of the community. Sample graphics from Enrichment Services' vaccine equity messaging campaign. In Pickens County, Pickens Community Action relied on existing partnerships with over 30 community organizations to kickstart their vaccine equity efforts. To address access-related barriers, Pickens sponsored rides to and from their vaccine clinics and partnered with local physicians to provide personalized counseling to individuals receiving vaccinations. Notably, they established both a faith-based and a disability services advisory committee to further assist their outreach efforts. Some of their existing partners in the community include the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Black Belt Community Foundation, Whatley Health System, Hill Hospital of Sumter County, The University of Alabama, and elected officials. Left: A food table being set up for Pickens’ Community Health Fair at the Tom Bevill Lock and Dam in Pickensville, AL. Right: A mobile outreach van from partner the University of Alabama rolls in to assist at Pickens’ Community Health Fair. For both agencies, offering services that address the social determinants of health greatly increased engagement. Both sites found success in offering incentives—such as food or gas gift cards and free food giveaways—but their greatest success has been from co-locating vaccine events with service offerings that address essential needs such as housing, utility assistance, or education. This model has proven highly successful not only for COVID-19 vaccines, but also as a sustainable strategy for general vaccine outreach. Increasing Vaccination Rates in Farmworker Communities Numerous successful strategies have been implemented in rural communities largely comprised of immigrants—with a special focus on migrant farmworkers, who labored throughout the pandemic due to the critical nature of their work. In addition to facing barriers related to transportation, health insurance, and language access, many farmworkers are not able to visit a clinic or pharmacy due to their long working hours. The National Center for Farmworker Health, in collaboration with CDC and over 40 different organizations, worked to diffuse funding, trainings, and tools for building capacity to act during the public health emergency. This network generated over 1.3 million COVID-19 related educational interactions with farmworkers and supported the distribution of over 108,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses during 2020 and 2021. The network also documented effective practices undertaken by community-based organizations and agricultural employers to distribute vaccines, dispel myths, and build vaccine confidence. Photos courtesy of the Guatemalan-Maya Center (left) and National Center for Farmworker Health (right). State Considerations for Implementation Collaboration with trusted community groups can amplify state efforts to vaccinate communities, particularly in those with low vaccination rates. Working with CAAs and organizations that understand their communities and utilize innovative outreach strategies can help states expand the reach of their messaging. Communications should be tailored to include multilingual messaging and images that resonate with targeted communities. The National Governors Association developed a guide that provides valuable strategies for states to increase vaccine uptake in their rural communities. To help address the digital divide in their communities, several states have made investments in their digital infrastructure. Partnering with local pharmacies, federally qualified health centers, and emergency medical services to offer alternative vaccination sites in communities has been integral in improving awareness and access. Holding mobile vaccine clinics with after-hours availability or offering transportation to and from vaccine clinics can help address transportation issues and make vaccines accessible in communities with limited health care facilities. Addressing immunizationinequities in rural communities requires understanding the community and implementing innovative strategies tailored to these populations. Partnering with community-based organizations can help states reach critical audiences and ensure that vaccine efforts are addressing relevant barriers. article yes

States have largely dismissed weakening policies, but legislatures are likely to continue considering vaccine-related bills, which may allow public health leaders to work collaboratively toward improving vaccination rates and bolster the positive impact vaccines have on population health.

Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

As many state legislatures seek to expand vaccine exemptions, it’s important to understand the fundamental differences in exemption type and their impact on a community.

Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for State Governments Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for State Governments Heather Tomlinson, Shihui Yang This adapted guide provides actionable strategies to support food systems in times of natural disasters and other disruptions. Environmental and human-made disasters and even seasonal changes affect people and the functioning of food systems. These shocks and stressors to food systems can be acute events such as extreme weather phenomena (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) or long-term political, economic, and/or environmental disruptions, during which food is not accessible, available, or acceptable. While these factors can impact everyone, those with the most vulnerabilities and who are the most marginalized are at the greatest risk. State governments around the United States are taking action to prepare for and prevent the consequences of these disruptions on their food systems, but there is limited guidance available to support states in this work. This planning guide provides actionable tools for developing strategies to create and support resilient food systems. This guide is an abridged adaption of the Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments, developed by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future and Bloomberg Center for Government Excellence with a local government community of practice. ASTHO has tailored this version to state governments. For more information on a specific topic, please refer to the local guide for additional context. Get the Report (PDF) article yes

States Continue to Address PFAS in U.S. Food and Water Supply States Continue Addressing PFAS in Food and Water Supplies Heather Tomlinson, Beth Giambrone Read how federal and state actions aim to tighten regulations to reduce PFAS exposure in the U.S. food and water supply. Use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), manufactured chemicals that resist water and heat, has steadily increased since they were first developed in the 1940s. PFAS are present in a wide variety of consumer products. PFAS do not degrade easily and can result in increasing concentrations of contamination in water and soil. PFAS exposure has been linked to a variety of health impacts, causing state and federal governments to enact legislation and create policies that reduce their presence in consumer products. States are also working on ways to address and communicate about PFAS contamination and elimination. PFAS in Food and Food Packaging FDA has been evaluating potential dietary exposure by testing foods most commonly eaten by the U.S. public for PFAS through the Total Diet Study (TDS). The initial findings indicate that the vast majority do not — 97% of the 810 fresh and processed foods samples, to be precise. Nevertheless, some specific food subtypes have shown a higher prevalence, with over half of TDS seafood samples detecting at least one type of PFAS. As part of their technical assistance to states, FDA can test foods produced in areas with known environmental contamination to evaluate potential contamination of human and animal food. One recent example came from two dairy farms in New Mexico with known PFAS groundwater contamination; this sampling resulted in milk samples from one farm showing PFAS levels at a potential health concern threshold and lead to them being discarded prior to entering the food supply. Consumers can also be exposed to PFAS through food packaging. As of February 2024, FDA announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer sold for food packaging in the United States, eliminating the primary source of dietary exposure from food contact surfaces. At least 17 states have introduced legislation in their 2025 sessions to prohibit selling food packaging that contains PFAS, with bills in seven states seeing significant movement. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted HB 212, which prohibits selling food packaging and other products containing PFAS starting January 1, 2027. Bills in California SB 682, Illinois SB 1531, and New York S 187 that would prohibit manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling products containing PFAS (including food packaging) advanced in the first chamber. Regulating Drinking Water In April 2024, EPA used their authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS found in drinking water. This National Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) established individual MCLs for PFOA,PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX and a Hazard Index MCL for mixtures of two or more PFAS (specifically PFHxS, PFNA, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS). Under the rule, public water systems must complete initial monitoring for PFAS by 2027 and continuously monitor thereafter. In addition, they must inform the public about PFAS levels in their drinking water and, beginning in 2029, any public water system that exceeds one or more of the MCLs must reduce the PFAS levels and notify the public of the violation. A recent announcement from EPA stated that while they intend to retain the current MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at four parts per trillion (ppt), they will “rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS.” The agency will also propose to give drinking water systems until 2031 to come into compliance with the PFAS rule. A proposed rule is planned for a fall release, with finalization in the spring of 2026. Finally, EPA plans to establish a framework for exemptions and provide assistance to drinking water systems through the PFAS OUTReach Initiative. EPA delegates responsibility for enforcing regulations for public water systems to states that meet certain requirements. Under the current federal rule, states have two years to establish regulations that are at least as stringent as current EPA standards. At least 20 states currently have regulatory standards for at least one PFAS in drinking water, and so far in the 2025 sessions, at least six states introduced legislation to establish new or updated MCLs: Indiana (HB 1366), North Carolina (SB 384), and West Virginia (HB 3475) introduced bills directing their health departments to establish MCLs for certain PFAS contaminants. North Carolina’s bill also requires the Commission on Public Health to consider adopting MCLs for PFAS contaminants not listed in their legislation if at least two other states have set MCLs or issued guidance. The New York state Senate recently passed S 3207, which would tighten MCLs for PFOS and PFOA from 10 ppt to 4 ppt, and establish MCLs of 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. The measure is currently in the Assembly for consideration. Pennsylvania HB 578 would establish MCLs for PFAS at 10 ppt, and would allow MCLs established by the Environmental Quality Board or executive order of the governor to supersede current MCLs. Vermont H 286 would establish MCLs for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHPA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) at zero ppt, and MCLs for any other testable PFAS at 20 ppt. Two states also introduced legislation modifying requirements for monitoring or reporting PFAS. Maine recently enacted LD 1326, which codifies the requirements to monitor and report PFAS compounds in accordance with EPA’s final rule and requires public notification of the type and level of PFAS in drinking water if they exceed the federal standard. Delaware SB 72 would require the Department of Health and Social Services to create a website where residents can access information related to the level(s) of PFAS in public drinking water systems, and require water utility companies to provide notice of excess PFAS levels to residents who receive water from that system. The measure passed the Senate in May and is currently in the House for consideration. PFAS is a cross-cutting issue, impacting health departments, agricultural agencies, environmental agencies, and the public. State and territorial health agencies can collaborate with community groups to create a broad coalition that can work together across their respective areas to address PFAS contamination. Many states have created internal cross-agency workgroups to evaluate and address PFAS exposures. ASTHO will continue to provide updates on PFAS elimination and MCL implementation. article yes

Learn how states are regulating kratom, a plant-derived substance growing in popularity, in this Health Policy Update.

This post explores the importance of including maternal and child health considerations in infectious disease emergency preparedness and response in states, territories, and freely associated states.

As new diseases or emergencies arise, working alongside trusted committees can help health officials quickly respond and prevent undue burden on at-risk groups such as people with disabilities, pregnant people, and children.

Two key considerations for those working with state and territorial legislators considering vaccine legislation: work with trusted messengers and craft informative and compelling testimony.

Evidence-Based Approaches to Promoting Health Equity in Retail Food Safety ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, health equity, food safety, health in all policies, foodborne illness, public health, food code, food service employees, food safety resources, safety standards, barriers to food safety, retail food safety, communication barriers, diversity of language, understand and implement, educational resources, culturally respectful, food science, impacted populations, equitable enforcement, best practices, food safety training, community health, conduct inspections, control measures, jurisdiction demographics Heather Tomlinson ASTHO | Public health agencies can incorporate health equity into their food safety work by tailoring their messages and strategies to their communities. Foodborne illness is costly, preventable, and all too common. Public health agencies are responsible for food safety and reducing foodborne illness by educating and inspecting retail food establishments. Several studies have found that independent ethnic restaurants—those that serve food originating from a culture or heritage of certain ethnic groups—had more violations and, as a result, were inspected more frequently than the average. Some of these violations may be related to a misunderstanding of the food code and/or language barriers. Currently, more than one in four food service employees speaks a language other than English at home and 22% of employees have less than a high school diploma. It is crucial that food safety resources and messaging provided by public health agencies be made available to reflect varying languages and literacy proficiencies to ensure accessibility and comprehensibility for all. Achieving health equity, in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health, requires health agencies to evaluate their approaches to food safety so all food establishments can meet retail food safety standards. Addressing Communication Barriers Health agencies should be familiar with the diversity of languages and cultures in their jurisdiction so materials can be tailored to each community’s differing needs. Providing food safety training courses, regulations, and other materials in languages spoken by local restaurant staff can reduce barriers so restaurant operators and workers who don’t speak or read English fluently have access. Having interpreters or multilingual inspectors can drastically improve communication between inspectors and restaurant staff. For health agencies without these resources, inspectors can utilize photos or translation services, such as Google Translate or language lines, to communicate effectively with restaurant operators. Demonstrating proper practices in person or through videos can also help communicate through observation. With more than half of U.S. adults aged 16 to 74 years old reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, food safety educational resources should be developed so that all populations have access to documents written at educational levels tailored for their community. Educational materials should meet plain language accessibility requirements, including limited text in the appropriate language and simple cultural appropriate imagery. Food safety inspectors can carry materials in multiple languages or have online resources they can share with the retail food facility, such as Washington’s Food Worker Manual or FDA’s Educational Posters that provide flyers on common food safety topics. Finally, newly developed resources should include the target audience in development and pilot testing to ensure they are achieving the desired impact. Designing Materials to Support Your Audience Being familiar with cultural norms and communicating in a culturally sensitive way can enhance the delivery of food safety messaging. One study found that produce safety education materials developed for produce growers in the U.S. Virgin Islands were not seen as culturally appropriate. After redesigning the materials based on community feedback, the managers saw improvements in food safety knowledge and hygiene practices among produce growers. These results and similar studies suggest that educators should partner with impacted populations to evaluate the utility of potential interventions before implementation and ensure they are interpreted as intended. In addition to culturally appropriate food safety education materials, agencies can ensure that they meet the practical needs of the retail environment. For example, materials targeted for mobile facilities (i.e., food trucks) may need to be durable and waterproof to withstand operation and transportation. Ensuring Equitable Enforcement at Your Health Agency Health agencies can incorporate concepts such as equitable enforcement and health equity into their staff’s annual training curriculum. Equitable enforcement promotes compliance with law and policy that considers and minimizes harm to people affected by health inequities. ChangeLab Solutions’ guide on Equitable Enforcement to Achieve Health Equity educates policymakers, advocates, and enforcement officials on best practices in the design and development of enforcement provisions to avoid inequitable impacts and promote community health. A study from Michigan State University found that food safety professionals throughout the United States, especially at the local level, encountered a variety of ethnic food establishments and ethnic foods for which they lacked relevant food safety training. The smartphone application, Cultural Food Safety App, offers searchable information on food safety issues and control measures associated with specific culturally based foods. This app can help regulators better understand cultural foods and their production to ensure foods are being safely prepared and be more familiar with what to look for when conducting inspections. Lastly, health agencies can incorporate a Health in All Policies framework into their food safety practices through ASTHO’s Food Safety Guides. ASTHO strongly supports health agencies in promoting a diverse and culturally competent food safety workforce. By assessing jurisdiction demographics, addressing communication barriers, tailoring resources to fit the audience, and building a culturally competent workforce, health agencies can improve equity in their jurisdiction’s food safety programs. 5U18FD007739-02 website yes