Connect with us

Science

The Ex-Patients’ Club

Published

on

The Ex-Patients’ Club

On a recent Friday morning, Daniel, a lawyer in his early 40s, was in a Zoom counseling session describing tapering off lithium. Earlier that week he had awakened with racing thoughts, so anxious that he could not read, and he counted the hours before sunrise.

At those moments, Daniel doubted his decision to wean off the cocktail of psychiatric medications which had been part of his life since his senior year in high school, when he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Was this his body adjusting to the lower dosage? Was it a reaction to the taco seasoning he had eaten the night before? Or was it what his psychiatrist would have called it: a relapse?

“It still does go to the place of — what if the doctors are right?” said Daniel.

On his screen, Laura Delano nodded sympathetically.

Advertisement

Ms. Delano is not a doctor; her main qualification, she likes to say, is having been “a professional psychiatric patient between the ages of 13 and 27.” During those years, when she attended Harvard and was a nationally ranked squash player, she was prescribed 19 psychiatric medications, often in combinations of three or four at a time.

Then Ms. Delano decided to walk away from psychiatric care altogether, a journey she detailed in a new memoir, “Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance.” Fourteen years after taking her last psychotropic drug, Ms. Delano projects a radiant good health that also serves as her argument — living proof that, all along, her psychiatrists were wrong.

Since then, to the alarm of some physicians, an online DIY subculture focused on quitting psychiatric medications has expanded and begun to mature into a service industry.

Ms. Delano is a central figure in this shift. From her house outside Hartford, Conn., she offers coaching to paying clients like Daniel. But her ambitions are grander. Through Inner Compass Initiative, the nonprofit she runs with her husband, Cooper Davis, she hopes to provide support to a large swath of people interested in reducing or quitting psychiatric medications.

“People are realizing, ‘I don’t actually need to go find a doctor who knows how to do this,’” she said. In fact, she added, they may not even need to tell their doctor.

Advertisement

“That sounds quite radical,” she allowed. “I imagine a lot of people would hear that and be, like, ‘That’s dangerous.’ But it’s just been the reality for thousands and thousands of people out there who have realized, ‘I have to stop thinking that psychiatry is going to get me out of this situation.’”

Increasingly, many psychiatrists agree that the health care system needs to do a better job helping patients get off psychotropic medications when they are ineffective or no longer necessary. The portion of American adults taking them approached 25 percent during the pandemic, according to government data, more than triple what it was in the early 1990s.

But they also warn that quitting medications without clinical supervision can be dangerous. Severe withdrawal symptoms can occur, and so can a relapse, and it takes expertise to tease them apart. Psychosis and depression may flare up, and the risk of suicide rises. And for people with the most disabling mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, medication remains the only evidence-based treatment.

“What makes tremendous sense for Laura” and “millions of people who are over-diagnosed and over-treated makes no sense at all for people who can’t get medicine,” said Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine.

“Laura does not generalize to the person with chronic mental illness and has a clear chance of ending up homeless or in the hospital,” he said. “Those people don’t wind up looking like Laura when they are taken off medication.”

Advertisement

It was hard to say what a life after psychiatric treatment would look like for Daniel, who asked to be identified by only his first name to discuss his mental health history. He has been tapering off lithium for nine months under the care of a nurse-practitioner, and settled, for the moment, at 450 milligrams, half his original dose.

He had become convinced that the drugs were harming him. And yet, when the waves of anxiety and insomnia hit him, he wavered. Daniel is a litigator. He had depositions coming up at work, and the way his thoughts were jumping around scared him.

“I can’t avoid that fear, you know, ‘I’m doing a lot better on less lithium, but it’s just going to fall apart again,’ ” he told Ms. Delano.

Ms. Delano listened quietly, and then told him a story from her own life.

It happened a few months after she quit the last of her medications. On a night walk, her senses built to a crescendo. Christmas lights seemed to be winking messages at her. She recognized hypomania, a symptom of bipolar disorder, and the thought crossed her mind: The doctors had been right. Then some kind of force moved through her, and she realized that these sensations were not a sign of mental illness at all.

Advertisement

“I was like, ‘This is you healing,’ ” she said. “This is you, coming alive.”

She told Daniel that she couldn’t promise he would never have another manic episode. But she could tell him that her own fear had dissipated, over time. “I get to write my own story from here on in,” she said. “And that takes an act of faith.”

Peer support around withdrawing from psychiatric medications dates back 25 years, to the early days of digital social networks.

Adele Framer, a retired information architect from San Francisco, discovered such groups in 2005 while going through a difficult withdrawal from Paxil. At the time, Ms. Framer said, physicians dismissed severe withdrawal as “basically impossible.”

People circulated between the groups, comparing “tapers” in “a viral information-sharing process,” said Ms. Framer, who launched her own site, Surviving Antidepressants, in 2011. Users on her site exchanged highly technical tapering protocols, with dose reductions so tiny that they sometimes required syringes and precision scales.

Advertisement

Dr. Mark Horowitz, an Australian psychiatrist, discovered Ms. Framer’s site in 2015 and used the peer advice he found to taper off Lexapro himself.

“At that point, I understood who the experts were,” he said. “I have six academic degrees, I have a Ph.D., I know how antidepressants work, and I was taking advice from retired engineers and housewives on a peer support site to help come off the drugs.”

In recent years, mainstream psychiatry has begun to acknowledge the need for more support for patients getting off medications.

This is most visible in Britain, whose health service has updated its guidance for clinicians to acknowledge withdrawal and recommend regular reviews to discontinue unnecessary medications. In 2024, the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry, a respected clinical handbook, issued its first “de-prescribing” volume. Dr. Horowitz was one of its authors.

There are early signs of movement in the United States, as well. Dr. Jonathan E. Alpert, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said that the group plans to issue its own de-prescribing guide.

Advertisement

The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology is working on a guide to help doctors identify when a medication should be discontinued. “There has never been an incentive in industry to tell people when to stop using their product,” said Dr. Joseph F. Goldberg, the group’s president. “So it really falls to the nonindustry community to ask those questions.”

Dr. Gerard Sanacora, the director of the Yale Depression Research Program, said there are practical reasons the current health care system “doesn’t provide much support” for patients seeking to reduce medications: Relapse prevention can be time-consuming, and many physicians are only reimbursed for 15-minute “med management” appointments.

But he said it was important that trained clinicians still have a role. In a “taper,” patients encounter difficulties of two kinds: withdrawal, and the relapse of underlying conditions. It takes skill to distinguish between them, he said, and a licensed practitioner guarantees “some level of minimum competency” during a period of especially high risk.

“The main thing is, they can worsen and kill themselves,” he said of patients.

Ms. Delano entered the conversation in 2010, when she began blogging about her life. She was 27 years old, living with her aunt and uncle and attending day treatment at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts. Her platform was Mad in America, a website where a range of former psychiatric patients exchanged stories about their treatment.

Advertisement

Within that subculture, Ms. Delano stood out for her eloquence and charisma. She had grown up in Greenwich, Conn., where she was a top student and standout athlete. A relative of Franklin D. Roosevelt, she was presented as a debutante on two successive nights at New York’s Waldorf Astoria and Plaza hotels.

On her blog, and later in a 10,000-word profile in The New Yorker, she described the shadow plot of her psychiatric treatment.

In ninth grade, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed Depakote and Prozac. In college, her pharmacologists added Ambien and Provigil. Over the years, this list expanded, but she still seemed to be getting worse. Four times she was so desperate that she checked herself into psychiatric hospitals. At 25, she made a harrowing attempt at suicide.

Then, at 27, she picked up a book by the journalist Robert Whitaker, “Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.” In the book, Mr. Whitaker proposed that the increasing use of psychotropic medications was to blame for the rise in psychiatric disorders. In scientific journals, reviewers dismissed Mr. Whitaker’s analysis as polemical, cherry-picking data to support a broad, oversimplified argument.

But for Ms. Delano, it was an epiphany. She mentally reviewed her treatment history and came to a radical conclusion. “I’d been confronted with something I’d never considered,” she writes in “Unshrunk.”“What if it wasn’t treatment-resistant mental illness that had been sending me ever deeper into the depths of despair and dysfunction, but the treatment itself?”

Advertisement

She quit five drugs over the six months that followed, under the guidance of a psychopharmacologist. She describes a brutal withdrawal, complete with constipation, diarrhea, aches, spasms and insomnia, as “angsty energy that had lived in me for years began to scratch viciously beneath the surface of my skin.”

But she also experienced a kind of awakening. “I knew it as clear as day, the second it occurred to me,” she writes. “I was ready to stop being a psychiatric patient.”

Born in 1983, five years before Prozac entered the market, Ms. Delano was part of the first large wave of Americans to be prescribed medications in their teens. Many readers recognized, in her blog entries, elements of their own stories — the way a diagnosis had become part of their identities, the way a single prescription had expanded into a cocktail.

She also provided something the ex-patient community had lacked: an aspirational model. Her life had clearly flourished after quitting her medications. In 2019 she married Mr. Davis, an activist she met in the ex-patient movement; they are raising two boys in an airy, sun-drenched colonial-style house.

On the Surviving Antidepressants website, users sometimes invoked her name wistfully.

Advertisement

“I thought I’d be like a Laura Delano and others and heal right away,” a user from Kansas commented.

A French user, struggling to wean off Valium, returned to Ms. Delano’s videos as to a mantra.

“9.30 am: I manage to stop a panic attack with agitation, by breathing.

10:30 a.m.: It rains. I spend time on my smartphone. Laura Delano. Laura Delano. Laura Delano. On a loop. Maybe I’m in love.”

Emails began to flow in to Ms. Delano as she blogged about quitting her medications. Most were from people who wanted her advice on tapering. Often, she said, they had tried to taper too fast and were spinning out.

Advertisement

She encouraged them, assuring “overwhelmed, exhausted partners and parents” that what they were witnessing was not relapse, but withdrawal. Ms. Delano found that she was spending 25 hours a week on these calls. And a coaching business was born.

“I saw the demand for what I had to offer and made the difficult decision to stop giving my time away for free,” she writes in her memoir.

The market for assisting withdrawal from psychiatric medications is becoming crowded these days, with some private clinics charging thousands of dollars a week. And a watershed moment arrived last month, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the new “Make America Healthy Again” commission would examine the “threat” posed by antidepressants and stimulants.

Mr. Kennedy has long expressed skepticism about psychiatric medications; in his confirmation hearings, he suggested that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.s, have contributed to a rise in school shootings, and that they can be harder to quit than heroin. There is no evidence to back up either of these statements. But Mr. Davis agreed.

“He might be the only person in the room who gets how serious it can be,” Mr. Davis wrote on X during the hearings.

Advertisement

Ms. Delano and Mr. Davis both offer coaching — for $595 a month, you can join a group support program. But the project that excites them more is the membership community hosted by their nonprofit, Inner Compass Initiative, which, for $30 a month, links up members via livestreams, Zoom gatherings and a private social network.

They dream of a national “de-prescribing” network along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous, said Mr. Davis, who became the group’s executive director early this year. “We know there is a sea change coming,” he said. “It’s already beginning. In a lot of circles, it’s deeply unfashionable to take psych meds.”

Ms. Delano has tempered her language since her Mad in America Days, when she protested outside annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, denouncing the use of four-point restraints and electroshock machines.

In the early pages of her memoir, she assures readers that she is not “anti-medication” or “anti-psychiatry.”

“To be clear, I am neither of these things,” she writes. “I know that many people feel helped by psychiatric drugs, especially when they’re used in the short term.”

Advertisement

Still, there is no mistaking the bedrock of mistrust that underlies her project. “I feel for psychiatry,” she said. “It’s a big ask we’re putting on them, to basically step back and consider that their entire paradigm of care is inadvertently causing harm to a lot of people.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Davis flew to Washington to hand-deliver copies of “Unshrunk” to elected officials and explore whether Inner Compass might find new sources of funding in the new, pharma-skeptical dispensation. He wanted to make sure, he said, “that the people working on policy are at least considering our ideas.”

The rollout of Mr. Kennedy’s agenda has raised hopes throughout “critical psychiatry” and “anti-psychiatry” communities that their critiques will, for the first time, be taken seriously.

Some in the medical world fear this augurs a deepening mistrust in science. And it is true — the written resources Inner Compass provides are overwhelmingly negative about every major class of psychiatric medications, which remain the only evidence-based treatment for severe mental illnesses.

A section on antipsychotics, for instance, cites studies that purport to show that people who take them fare worse than people who never take them or stop them. (This is misleading; people do not take them unless they have severe symptoms.) A section on antidepressants cites a study suggesting that they cause people to commit acts of violence. (The study was criticized for distorting its findings.)

Advertisement

Dr. Alpert, who is also chairman of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Montefiore Einstein, reviewed Inner Compass’s resources and described them as “biased” and “frightening.” He said online peer communities risk becoming “echo chambers,” since they tend to attract people who have had bad experiences with medical treatment.

Because quitting psychiatric medications can be so risky, he said, a pervasive mistrust of medical care could have serious consequences.

“I mean, what happens when people taper their medications because of an echo chamber, and they’re more suicidal, or they get more psychotic, and they need to be hospitalized, or they lose their job?” he said. “Who cares about those people?”

This worry was shared even by some of Ms. Delano’s admirers in the world of patient advocacy. Mr. Whitaker recalled acquaintances who, after setting out to quit their medications, fell into “despair.”

“Once you start going down that road, it becomes your identity,” said Mr. Whitaker. “People want to come off, and the next thing you know, there’s no service provider, no science, and they’re moving into that void.”

Advertisement

Numerous people in withdrawal communities described members who struggled with suicidal thinking, or who had died by suicide.

“More often than not, at least from what I’ve seen, once people conclude that the medications hurt them, then it’s all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking,” said Kate Speer, a strategist for the Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Health Communication “They can’t recognize the providers are there to help, even when what they have done is not helpful.”

Ms. Delano said the issue of suicide comes up regularly in withdrawal communities. “I know so many people who have killed themselves over the years, in withdrawal or even beyond” she said. In 2023, a young woman who joined Inner Compass died by suicide, she said.

Afterward, Ms. Delano and Mr. Davis consoled distraught community members, who worried that they should have taken some action to intervene.

Ms. Delano said she would call 911 if a member overdosed on pills, but, short of that, she doesn’t weigh in on treatment choices. She noted that many members come to withdrawal groups precisely because they feel they have been harmed by the medical system.

Advertisement

“We have given psychiatry and licensed mental health professionals this godlike power to keep people alive,” she said. “Speaking for myself — this is not an organizational belief, but for me personally — I don’t think anyone should have that power over another human being.”

In Inner Compass gatherings, many people describe tapering processes as so difficult that they had to stop and reinstate medications. Some were on their fifth or sixth attempt, and some wept, describing how challenging it was.

Ms. Delano tries to keep the pressure off. “You’re in the driver’s seat,” she told one coaching client, who had reinstated a low dose of Valium. “It doesn’t mean, quote unquote, giving up or losing or failing.”

Daniel seemed to be looking for some inspiration to stick it out. He was getting better, he was sure of it, accessing levels of emotion that had been blunted by medication for 15 years.

He credited Ms. Delano for getting him this far; it was reading her story in the New Yorker that made him see it was possible to “come off the medications and be OK.” On a recent Zoom session, he showed her the Post-it note that he sometimes pulls out as a reminder to himself.

Advertisement

“IT WAS THE DRUGS,” he had written

“It was the drugs!” Ms. Delano exclaimed. She welled up toward the end of their session, reflecting on how much he had already achieved.

“The trade-off is worth it,” she told him. “The more your life expands — the meaning, the connection, the beauty, the possibility, the more that continues to expand in your life, the more all these beautiful things come online, the less weight, the less power the hard stuff has.”

When they hung up, he was feeling certain of his path again.

She has this effect on him, making him imagine how he will feel when he is off medication — “this better, more complete me,” as he put it. He thinks it will take two or three years to taper off completely.

Advertisement

If it proves too difficult, “I just have to take 450 milligrams and consider myself lucky,” he said. “But there is a desire to, you know, just kind of be free. Free of it.”

If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.

Science

A rogue Santa Cruz otter is terrorizing surfers: the redux

Published

on

A rogue Santa Cruz otter is terrorizing surfers: the redux

It’s been two years since a Santa Cruz sea otter, known as 841, garnered international attention and celebrity by attacking surfers and their surfboards as the human wave-riders alley-ooped over the waves of the legendary Steamer Lane.

It’s happening again.

This time, the identity of the otter is unclear. That’s because while 841 (who was born in captivity) carried a light blue tag on her right flipper, this otter is naked.

Experts say 841 could have chewed off her tag, or it could have broken off on its own. Otter flipper tags are designed to last an animal’s lifespan, but research shows they don’t always last so long.

It’s also possible this is an entirely different otter who may have watched 841 in the past, and is adopting her curious and bold behavior. It could be a relative. Or it could be this otter just has a similar surfboard appetite and hostage-taking drive.

Advertisement

On Thursday afternoon, roughly three dozen surfers were lined up to catch waves at Steamer Lane — just below the Santa Cruz coastline’s cliffs near the city’s iconic lighthouse and surfer statue.

Mark Woodward, a Santa Cruz-based social media influencer and dedicated 841 observer and chronicler, said he wasn’t sure whether this was 841, or someone different.

Otter 841 chewing on a surfboard after chasing a surfer off in Santa Cruz in July 2023.

(Mark Woodward)

Advertisement

He said the animal’s behaviors and M.O. were almost identical. However, while 841 tended to hang close to the cliffs in 2023, this otter appeared to spend more time a bit farther out — closer to the offshore kelp beds.

He saw 841 last year — tag on — visiting the same waters but keeping her distance from people.

The only otter seen on Thursday was way off shore, floating on its back atop a kelp bed — presumably eating some tasty morsel, such as a crab or abalone, retrieved from the sea floor.

Pelicans glided over the cresting waves, while a harbor seal watched the surfers for a bit before diving under the surface and disappearing from sight.

During the summer of 2023, federal wildlife officials tried to capture 841. They sent out boats, rafts and swimmers. She evaded every attempt and eventually gave birth to a pup, whom she cradled on her chest as she floated atop the water — or placed on top of the kelp as she dived to the bottom to retrieve food. And she stopped chasing surfboards.

Advertisement

Eric Laughlin, spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead otter-response agency in this case. However, possibly due to the federal government shutdown, the agency did not respond to questions about the surfing-curious otter in Santa Cruz.

Laughlin said the state agency had no plans “to intervene with the sea otter currently interacting with humans in Santa Cruz.”

Research on California sea otters shows that along the central coast, there is “extreme individuality in diet and behavior.” Some of the variation is the result of relatively low food availability, requiring the clever creatures to figure out unique ways of finding and retrieving food.

However, the researchers also noted some behavioral traits seemed to follow family lines, especially those “maintained along matrilines.”

Surfers at Steamer Lane in Santa Cruz on July 13, 2023.

Surfers at Steamer Lane in Santa Cruz on July 13, 2023.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Otter 841 was born in captivity to a mother who had been captured after spending too much time interacting with people and their watercraft. Since being released into the wild, she has given birth to at least two pups.

According to Woodward, the otter now frequenting Steamer Lane has been actively pursuing surfers nearly every day since Oct. 16, when it bit a surfer named Bella Orduna and stole her board.

Dripping wet and donned in a wet suit, Richard Walston, 55, said he hadn’t had any interactions with the surfer-curious creature — and he’s a frequent surfer in the area.

“Sure, I see otters,” he said. “But they’re so focused on their food, I’m not sure they even notice we’re around.”

Advertisement

Wildlife officials are urging surfers and boaters to keep their distance from this otter, and others — not only will this reduce the chances of an interaction, which could be dangerous for both people and otters, it is the law.

Continue Reading

Science

Poultry industry pushes back after report shows salmonella is widespread in grocery store chicken

Published

on

Poultry industry pushes back after report shows salmonella is widespread in grocery store chicken

A new report based on government inspection documents shows salmonella is widespread in U.S. grocery store chicken and turkey products. But because of how the pathogen is classified, the federal government has no authority to do much about it.

Farm Forward, an organization that advocates for farmworker rights and humane farm practices, released a report this week that examined five years of monthly U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections at major U.S. poultry plants. It found that at many plants, including those that process and sell poultry under brand names such as Foster Farms, Costco and Perdue, levels of salmonella routinely exceeded maximum standards set by the federal government.

“The USDA is knowingly allowing millions of packages of chicken contaminated with salmonella to be sold in stores from major brands,” said Andrew deCoriolis, the organization’s executive director.

Some 1.3 million Americans are sickened each year by eating salmonella-contaminated food, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most people have only mild symptoms, but others suffer diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. Roughly 19,000 people are hospitalized annually, and an estimated 420 die from the infected food.

Chicken and turkey account for nearly a quarter of all salmonella infections, according to a 2021 government report on food illness.

Advertisement

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service inspects poultry plants monthly. The new report shows that five U.S. poultry plants exceeded maximum allowable salmonella contamination every month from 2020 to 2024. These included a Carthage, Mo., turkey plant owned by Butterball, a Dayton, Va., turkey plant owned by Cargill Meat Solutions, and a chicken plant located in Cunning, Ga., that is owned by Koch Foods. A Costco chicken producer, Lincoln Premium Poultry, exceeded the standard in 54 of 59 inspections.

“Lincoln Premium Poultry treats the safety of its products as an utmost concern,” Jessica Kolterman, the company’s director of administration, said in an email. “When the United State Department of Agriculture reports are updated and published, they will show that we have enhanced our standing. … We will continue to improve our processes.”

A spokesperson for Butterball said the company “takes food safety very seriously and follows all USDA and FSIS regulations and inspection protocols.” The spokesperson said facilities are subject to rigorous, continuous oversight, and they are “constantly reviewing and improving our food safety programs to ensure we meet or exceed government standards.”

Cargill, Perdue and Koch Foods did not reply to requests for comment. Foster Farms directed questions to the National Chicken Council, the industry’s trade group.

“Consumers should not be concerned,” said Tom Super, a spokesman for the chicken council. He said the report was “unscientific” and described Farm Forward as an “activist organization whose stated goal is to end commercial chicken farming.”

Advertisement

Both Super and Bill Mattos, president of the California Poultry Federation, said poultry is safe when cooked to 160 degrees, and knives, cutting boards and other items that may have come into contact with raw meat are disinfected and cleaned.

“All chicken is safe to eat when properly handled and cooked,” said Mattos, noting that annually “Californians eat more chicken than any other state … 110 pounds per person!”

The report also suggests that the federal government’s standards for acceptable levels of salmonella are unduly high, and potentially put American poultry consumers at risk.

For ground chicken, the USDA allows 25% of samples at a plant to be contaminated. For ground turkey, 13.5%. Chicken parts should not exceed 15.4% of samples contaminated, while the number is 9.8% for whole chickens.

“I don’t know, but seems common sense to me that if you allow for a lot of salmonella, a lot of people are going to get sick,” said Bill Marler, an attorney with Marler Clark, a national food safety law firm.

Advertisement

When inspectors visit a plant, they do not assess the meat’s bacterial load, nor do they determine the strain of bacteria found on the product. They just test for the presence of the bacterium — it’s either there or it’s not.

According to Marler and Maurice Pitesky, a poultry science expert at UC Davis, there are hundreds of strains — or serotypes — of Salmonella. Most are considered harmless, but roughly 30 are known to be potentially lethal to people.

As a result, the USDA inspections don’t give a clear picture about what’s there, Pitesky said.

“When I hear something has salmonella, I’m like, ‘OK, first question: I want to know its serotype. What kind of serotype is it?’ Because that that’s really the relevant piece of information,” he said.

When inspectors find a plant has exceeded the salmonella standard, there is very little they can do except note it. The agency has no authority to enforce the standards.

Advertisement

Marler said in the 1990s, after four children died and hundreds of people got sick eating ground beef contaminated with E. coli sold at Jack in the Box restaurants, the agency decided to classify the bacterium as an adulterant. That designation meant the USDA could stop the sale of contaminated products, or shut down a plant that failed inspections.

He said the beef industry initially pushed back, fearing it would lose money — which it did, at first.

He said the USDA started doing retail testing, “and for a while, it felt like there was a recall a week — you know … 50, 100, a thousand pounds here, a million pounds there, even 10 million pounds.” Eventually, however, companies started testing their products “and coming up with interventions to get rid of it. And you know what? The number of E. coli cases linked to hamburger plummeted.”

He said now he sees a case only once in a while.

“I kind of look at that and think, well, if you get salmonella out of chicken, you’ll probably reduce those cases too,” he said.

Advertisement

Pitesky said that salmonella is notoriously difficult to get rid of. It can be introduced to flocks from wild animals, such as birds, rats, mice and other wildlife. It’s also found in the intestines of chickens, on their skin, feathers and feet, and it spreads among them when they poop, urinate and walk around in shared bedding, etc.

However, Marler thinks it can be controlled.

“Yeah, it’s difficult,” he said. “But you can do a lot of things. And this might piss people off, but you could eradicate flocks with salmonella. They do it in the EU all the freaking time.”

The European Union considers salmonella an adulterant, and require producers to reduce and control it via biosecurity, testing, vaccinations, recalls and occasionally depopulation.

“The fact is, if you make salmonella contamination expensive, if recalls exist and people feel embarrassed that they’re producing food that is making people sick or killing them, they’ll want to change their behavior,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

How Zone Zero, designed to protect California homes from wildfire, became plagued with controversy and delays

Published

on

How Zone Zero, designed to protect California homes from wildfire, became plagued with controversy and delays

Late last month, California fire officials made a courtesy call to Los Angeles.

The state’s proposed Zone Zero regulations that would force homeowners to create an ember-resistant zone around their houses — initially planned to take effect nearly three years ago — had caused an uproar in the region. It was time for damage control.

Officials from both Cal Fire and the state’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection visited Brentwood, the epicenter of the outrage, and Altadena, where homeowners are trying to figure out how best to rebuild, but did little to assuage the concerns of the Zone Zero proposals’ most vocal critics.

The two groups took turns pointing out homes that seemed to support their claims. The copious, contradictory anecdotal evidence provided no consensus for a path forward. For example, in the Eaton burn area, officials showed residents a home they claimed was spared thanks to its removal of vegetation near the home, but residents noted a home across the street with plenty of plants that also survived.

Advertisement

It was an example of what’s become an interminable debate about what should be required of homeowners in L.A.’s fire-prone areas to limit the destruction of future conflagrations.

Initial attempts by the board to create Zone Zero regulations, as required by a 2020 law, quietly fizzled out after fire officials and experts struggled to agree on how to navigate a lack of authoritative evidence for what strategies actually help protect a home — and what was reasonable to ask of residents.

The Jan. 1, 2023, deadline to create the regulations came and went with little fanfare. A month after the January fires, however, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order resurrecting the efforts and ordering the board to finish the regulations by the end of the year. As the board attempted to restart and speed-run the previous efforts through a series of public meetings, many Californians grew alarmed. They felt the draft Zone Zero requirements — which would be the strictest statewide defensible space rules on the books — were a step too far.

“The science tells us it doesn’t make sense, but they’re ignoring it because they have to come up with something,” said Thelma Waxman, president of the Brentwood Homeowners Assn.,who is working to certify neighborhoods in her area as fire safe. “If I’m going to go to my members and say, ‘OK, you need to spend $5,000 doing one thing to protect your home,’ it’s not going to be to remove hydrated vegetation.”

Instead, she wishes the state would focus on home-hardening, which has much more compelling research to support its effectiveness.

Advertisement

Tony Andersen, the board’s executive officer, stressed that his team wants to keep requirements evidence-based and reasonable for homeowners. “We’re listening; we’re learning,” he said.

Zone Zero is one of the many fire safety regulations tied to the fire hazard severity maps created by Cal Fire, which, while imperfect, attempt to identify the areas in California likely to see intense wildfire.

Since 2008, all new homes in California in areas that those maps determined have very high fire hazard are required to have multi-paned or fire-resistant windows that are less likely to shatter in extreme heat, mesh coverings on all vents so flying embers can’t sneak inside and ignition-resistant roofing and siding.

The state’s defensible space regulations break down the areas surrounding a home into multiple zones. Zone Two is within 100 feet of the home; in that space, homeowners must remove dead vegetation, keep grass under 4 inches and ensure that there is at least 10 feet between trees. Zone One is within 30 feet of a structure; here, residents cannot store firewood. Zone Zero, within 5 feet, is supposed to be “ember-resistant” — essentially meaning that there cannot be anything that might ignite should embers land within it.

The problem is, it’s unclear how to best create an “ember-resistant” zone. For starters, there’s just not a lot of scientific evidence demonstrating which techniques effectively limit ignitions. That’s especially true for the most controversial Zone Zero proposal: removing healthy plants.

Advertisement

“We have very few publications looking at home losses and vegetation patterns in Zone Zero,” said Max Moritz, a wildfire-dynamics researcher with UC Santa Barbara and the UC Cooperative Extension program.

Further complicating the problem, the board also needs to consider what is reasonable to ask of homeowners. Critics of the current proposal point out that while wooden fences and outbuildings are banned, wooden decks and doors are still fine — not because they cannot burn, but because asking residents to replace them is too big of a financial burden and they are, arguably, out of the purview of “defensible space.” And while many in the L.A. area argue they should be allowed to keep plants if they’re well-watered, the board cannot single-handedly dictate water usage for ornamental vegetation across the state.

To deal with the head-spinning complexity, the state started with a small working group in 2021 that included Cal Fire staff, local fire departments and scientists. The working group slowly grew to include more local leaders and came close to finalizing the rules with the board as it neared the Legislature’s Jan. 1, 2023, deadline. But as the parties got stuck on the final details, the deadline came and went. Zone Zero slowly fell off the meeting schedules and agendas and for two years, essentially nothing was done.

Then, L.A. burned.

In February 2025, Newsom signed an executive order pushing the board to finish the regulations by Dec. 31. As the board began hosting public hearings on the regulations, shock and frustration had set in among Californians.

Advertisement

To add insult to injury, Newsom’s executive order also pushed Cal Fire to release new hazard maps that the Legislature had also mandated. When the agency did that in the spring, many Californians were distraught to learn that the maps added over 300,000 acres — mostly in developed areas — into the classifications where Zone Zero will apply.

At a (now somewhat infamous) Zone Zero meeting at the Pasadena Convention Center in September — the only one to take place in Southern California — public comments stretched on for over five hours. They included several speakers more accustomed to receiving public comments than making them: The mayor of Agoura Hills, representatives for L.A. City Council members and the chair of L.A.’s Community Forest Advisory Committee.

Alongside marathon public meetings, the board received more than 4,000 letters on the regulations.

In a September report to L.A.’s City Council, the Los Angeles Fire Department and the city’s forestry committee chastised the board for failing to consult the city during the process and only holding its Pasadena meeting “after persistent pressure from local advocates … six months into the rulemaking process.” It also pointed to a 2025 study that found many home-hardening techniques play a much more significant role in protecting homes than defensible space.

Most of the Zone Zero proposals have generally received agreement or at least acceptance among the public: No wooden mulch, no wooden fence that attaches to the house, no dead vegetation and only outbuildings made of noncombustible materials. But two issues quickly took center stage in the discourse: trees and plants.

Advertisement

Residents have become increasingly concerned with the prospect of cutting down their trees after the working group began discussing how to handle them. However, the current proposals would not require residents to remove trees.

“It’s pretty much settled,” Andersen said. Well-maintained trees will be allowed in Zone Zero; however, what a well-maintained tree looks like “still needs to be discussed.”

What to do about vegetation like shrubs, plants and grasses within the first 5 feet of homes has proved more vexing.

Some fire officials and experts argue residents should remove all vegetation in the zone, citing examples of homes burning after plants ignited. Others say the board should continue to allow well-watered vegetation in Zone Zero, pointing to counterexamples where plants seemed to block embers from reaching a home or the water stored within them seemed to reduce the intensity of a burn.

“A hydrated plant is absorbing radiant heat up until the point of ignition, and then it’s part of the progression of the fire,” said Moritz. The question is, throughout a wildly complex range of fire scenarios, when exactly is that point reached?

Advertisement

In October, the advisory committee crafting the regulations took a step back from its proposal to require the removal of all living vegetation in Zone Zero and signaled it would consider allowing well-maintained plants.

As the committee remains stuck in the weeds, it’s looking more and more likely that the board will miss its deadline (for the second time).

“It’s more important that we get this right rather than have a hard timeline,” Andersen said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending