Aggregator

St. Louis is fortunate to have all the conveniences of a major metro area and no shortage of picturesque retreats in our big backyard.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey insists his office is working to hold the federal government accountable for the decades-old radioactive waste contamination that plagues the St. Louis area. “We are fighting to ensure that the federal government protects Missourians from the poison that the federal government injected into the streams and creeks there in eastern […]

SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as “food stamps,” is our foremost tool for keeping low-income families and people with disabilities from going hungry.   It’s also a deal for the states.   The federal government pays 100% of the cost of the food benefits and 50% of the cost to administer them. SNAP not […]

We're giving birthday shoutouts to our cutest Today in St. Louis fans.

Sunday afternoon, President Joe Biden announced he’s ending his campaign for a second term. We talked to local lawmakers, party leaders, and voters about how they’re feeling, and their plans moving forward. Plus, eight Republicans are running to become Missouri’s next Secretary of State. St. Louis Public Radio’s Sarah Kellogg breaks down the race and explains what has so many people throwing their hats in the ring.

by Catherine Rentz

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

One of the country’s oldest backlogs of untested evidence from rape exams is on track to be processed by the end of the year after new laws in Maryland put more than 1,400 cases dating back to 1977 on an expedited timetable.

As detailed in ProPublica’s 2021 series “Cold Justice,” a doctor at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center began quietly preserving physical evidence obtained during exams of rape survivors in the 1970s, believing that one day the technology would exist to be able to connect specimens to perpetrators.

Despite advancements in DNA science that proved Dr. Rudiger Breitenecker right, and despite the fact that sporadic tests of his evidence have led to the exonerations of two men and solved 80 cold cases, much of the trove has sat unused by the Baltimore County Police Department.

The old samples weren’t considered part of the state’s official backlog of untested rape kits, which are subject to legal protections and speedy processing requirements, and they were in danger of being destroyed until ProPublica exposed this gap last year, prompting a new law that brought them under the umbrella of sexual assault kits.

Now they are all at a lab, which has a contract to process them by Dec. 31, 2024.

The process will determine whether the samples match any DNA profiles logged in national police databases. Before pursuing prosecution, police may have to investigate further; the most recent charge stemming from the trove came not from a direct DNA match to an individual in the system but from a breakthrough relying on other clues that led officials to a fingerprint they had on file. They also have to track down victims, who may have since moved away from Baltimore or died.

A third of the samples have already been tested, though police won’t say what they have learned. But a new law requires them to enter all updates into a new tracking system by Dec. 31, 2025.

Since the tracking program, which covers all rape kits in the state, went live in late May, 44 survivors with new cases have logged in to check the status of their cases at least 269 times.

For survivors trying to find out more about the evidence kits that Breitenecker saved, which have not yet been entered into the system, answers have thus far been elusive.

Though county officials held a press conference in April asking survivors who were treated at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center between 1977 and 1997 to call a hotline for more information about their cases, it’s been more than two months and ProPublica has learned that at least some of those callers are still waiting for information. Now, representatives with the police and the nonprofits that handle calls — the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault and TurnAround — have said they have worked through logistical and legal issues and are focused on helping survivors as soon as possible.

All the while, a woman named Melanie waits, frustrated. She asked that her last name not be used because she still fears for her safety. She was taken to the emergency room at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center in 1978 after a stranger broke into her home holding a gun and a knife and attempted to rape her.

She was 13 at the time and had just gotten home from middle school. She said the man did not succeed in raping her, but he beat her after she fought back and that the hospital and police may still have preserved evidence from the attack; she remembers the emergency room visit but doesn’t remember whether she got an exam for sexual assault.

She lives out of state and found out about the testing through local media after the county held a press conference in the spring. More than two months after she called the hotline, she said, she was still waiting for a response from the police.

She attributed the delay to the hundreds of other victims who she assumed had called. But the nonprofit charged with operating the hotline said it fielded just seven calls in the month after the press conference.

Baltimore County police declined to comment on Melanie’s case, saying they limit what information about these cases is disclosed to the public.

Baltimore County is not unlike many police jurisdictions across America, which for decades sat on and even destroyed DNA evidence from rape cases before a national movement took root to clear backlogs and solve cold cases.

Shelly Hettleman, a state senator who represents Baltimore County, has championed reforms since 2017 to protect evidence and speed up testing. “The more I dug into this issue, the more I learned that so much needed fixing,” she said.

Her “committed and tenacious” efforts have helped Maryland become one of 20 states to achieve “full legislative rape kit reform,” according to End the Backlog, an initiative of the nonprofit Joyful Heart Foundation that advocates nationally for an improved response to sexual assault cases.

But Maryland still has a seemingly insurmountable number of untested kits — more than 6,000. That’s one of the highest totals in the country, according to End the Backlog figures, and does not include the evidence collected by the doctor at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center.

Authorities have focused in the past on testing kits from cases where the perpetrator appeared to be a stranger to the victim and may have been involved in multiple attacks. As a result, many of the untested kits may prove to hold the DNA of people who were known to the victim and were suspects at the time, such as ex-boyfriends, family members or priests. But academic research shows known suspects can be serial rapists as well, flipping between known and unknown victims. The Department of Justice recommends testing DNA even when a suspect has already been identified because it can help solve other cases.

Since authorities have been less likely to test a known suspect’s DNA, those perpetrators are less likely to have a genetic profile in law enforcement databases and their names may not come up even if they attacked others whose kits are now being tested.

“There are some things you can legislate and fund, like the tracking system, and there are things you can’t, like culture and mindset,” said Anthony Brown, Maryland’s attorney general, who leads a committee overseeing sexual assault evidence in the state.

Many of the serial rapists arrested so far with this cold-case evidence had long criminal histories including assaults, attempted assaults, battery, Peeping Tom complaints and burglary. Some of the rapes might have been prevented had crimes such as the physical assault and attempted rape reported by Melanie been more thoroughly investigated.

Last August, for example, police arrested James William Shipe Sr. in connection with five rape reported rapes between 1978 and 1986. Most of the attacks happened on streets near where Melanie lived. 

Police connected the five cases through the slide-testing project. Four of the profiles matched each other, but not anyone in the FBI’s DNA system (initial testing didn’t yield a profile from the fifth, according to prosecutors). The break allowing investigators to identify Shipe came from a fingerprint found in an attempted rape case in 1979 for which Shipe was arrested and charged. (Prosecutors dropped the charges at the time; it is unclear why.) Shipe is awaiting trial on multiple rape charges. His lawyer did not respond to inquiries. He has not entered a plea, according to the Maryland judiciary’s online records.

The technology to find Shipe had been around for decades; the difference that led to him to be found now was staffing the effort with a cold-case detective, paid for with funds from the reform effort.

Melanie said that after she reported the assault in 1978, police began looking for holes in her story. “The first priority of police was to prove the fallacy,” she said. Even though she recalls that police took fingerprints at her home, she doesn’t recall them looking for a perpetrator and now wonders whether it was a serial offender who went on to attack others.

She asked, “How many cases could have been prevented had they believed me and taken the case seriously?”

Survivors treated at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center between 1977 and 1997 can call the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault at 833-364-0046 or email notification@mcasa.org to opt in or out of receiving information about their sexual assault evidence. Leaders of the coalition and of TurnAround, another local support organization, are separate from law enforcement and survivors can work with them without interacting with police.

Author Catherine Rentz is researching what happens when the local government tests evidence and investigates cold cases from the Greater Baltimore Medical Center. She is a journalist and fellow with the Johns Hopkins University Saul Zaentz Innovation Fund, where she is developing this series into a documentary. She asks that anyone who has a personal experience with these cold cases reach out to her.

The vice president could do a lot better against Trump than her detractors think.

This Supreme Court session demonstrated that the current conservative majority is unrestrained in its desire to expand its own power.

The road to the convention is looking very different now.

At the Republicans’ behest, Netanyahu will speak to Congress on Wednesday. What better time to figuratively cast him out?

Holland's co-hosts spoke on her trailblazing career and what she did for Black women on the airwaves.

Republicans make a play for young voters by arguing there’s room for everybody in the party … unless you’re LGBTQ+.

by Heather Vogell

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Biden administration has quietly pushed more than a half-dozen countries to weaken, delay or rethink baby formula regulations aimed at protecting the public’s health — sometimes after manufacturers complained, a ProPublica investigation has found.

In the European Union, the U.S. opposed an effort to reduce lead levels in baby formula. In Taiwan, it sought to alter labeling that highlighted the health benefits of breastfeeding. And in Colombia, it questioned an attempt to limit microbiological contaminants — the very problem that shut down a manufacturing plant in Michigan in 2022, leading to a widespread formula shortage.

“Infant formula companies want to sell more infant formula,” said Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “The idea that governments are aiding and abetting them in their commercial enterprise over the public health interest is really shocking to me.”

The interference, documented in trade letters sent during President Joe Biden’s first two years, represents the latest chapter in the federal government’s long-running support for the multibillion-dollar formula industry, even as the Biden administration has publicly promised a different approach.

As ProPublica reported earlier this year, the U.S. has long used its diplomatic and political muscle to advance the interests of companies like Abbott, which makes Similac, and Mead Johnson, maker of Enfamil, while thwarting the efforts of developing countries to safeguard the health of their youngest children.

Through public records, academic research and other sources, ProPublica found evidence of such meddling in 21 countries, plus Hong Kong, Taiwan and the European Union, over decades. In multiple instances, countries either tabled or changed proposed formula regulations after the U.S. lodged objections.

The stakes for global health are high. Experts say industry advertising — the target of many foreign regulations — often misleads parents about the benefits of formula products and that promotions such as free samples, discounts and giveaways can result in mothers abandoning breastfeeding too soon. Studies show that can lead to more life-threatening infections for babies and a higher risk for long-term conditions like diabetes and obesity.

In January, the Biden administration told ProPublica that it overhauled how the U.S. approaches trade, respecting foreign governments’ efforts to pass regulations rather than immediately deeming such rules trade barriers. The Office of the United States Trade Representative, which advises the president on trade, said that it’s committed “to making sure our trade policy works for people — not blindly advancing the will of corporations.”

But the documents, obtained from the agency’s own files through a records request, suggest those corporations still have outsized clout when it comes to baby formula regulation.

In early 2021, for example, formula company representatives set up a conference call with USTR staff to oppose legislation in Kenya, which was seeking to restrict formula advertising. Industry consultants shared a 10-page position paper from a trade group criticizing the Kenyan measure.

U.S. officials then raised similar issues in their correspondence with Kenyan officials. “Can Kenya explain the need for this provision?” they asked about one advertising-related measure, according to agency records. The U.S. asked whether Kenyan officials had sought input from stakeholders like food makers and retailers. Officials also suggested a host of changes to the proposed law, including recommending that Kenya replace a warning about potential contamination during the manufacturing process with a warning that focused only on “the health hazards of inappropriate preparation, storage and use.”

Kenyan officials pushed back, dismissing that suggestion and several others. Kenya needed to pass regulation, they said, because the formula industry “was not voluntarily adhering” to international guidance. Less than half of Africa’s infants under 6 months old were exclusively breastfed, Kenyan officials wrote, and the country was seeking to raise its rate to 75%.

The USTR’s office declined ProPublica’s request for an interview about that letter and eight others sent under Biden. A spokesperson also declined to answer written questions. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The pro-industry letters are the result of a policymaking process in which manufacturers are encouraged to weigh in. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture runs a tracking system that “notifies industry and other users when potentially adverse foreign regulations” come up at the World Trade Organization, an international forum for settling trade disputes. Companies can then “provide input into official U.S. government comments.”

Multiple agencies, including the USTR, consider that feedback as they hammer out the official U.S. position, which experts say carries weight because of the country’s economic and diplomatic power. Federal officials then transmit comments — often accompanied by questions — in a letter to the foreign country proposing the regulation. (The USDA did not respond to questions about the process or the Biden-era formula letters.)

Historically, the U.S. often lodged objections to new formula rules in public at the WTO. Research shows that before 2020, the U.S. questioned proposed formula regulations in WTO forums more than 30 times — far more often than any other country, even those where foreign formula makers are based.

A Long History of U.S. Interference

The U.S. has interfered in efforts to regulate baby formula in at least 21 countries, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the European Union, ProPublica found. The meddling occurred over decades across presidential administrations.

George W. Bush, 2001-2009 After formula manufacturing debacles killed nine babies, injured nearly two dozen in Israel and sent 54,000 to hospitals in China, U.S. officials criticized Israel’s new safety standards for imports, records show. U.S. officials told the Philippines to back off a breastfeeding campaign and new advertising rules and objected to a formula label warning in South Africa.

Barack Obama, 2009-2017 U.S. officials criticized new formula marketing regulations in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. They also pushed back on China’s efforts to ensure the safety of formula imports in the wake of the earlier contamination scandal. Trade officials complained that a Hong Kong effort might “result in significant commercial loss for U.S. companies.”

Donald Trump, 2017-2021 U.S. officials reportedly threatened to withhold military aid from Ecuador if it didn’t weaken a proposed resolution in support of breastfeeding at the World Health Organization. The U.S. ambassador later denied the threats. The U.S. also criticized formula advertising restrictions in Singapore, Thailand, Egypt, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda. Officials also pushed back on efforts to limit formula toxins in Taiwan and Turkey.

The Biden administration, however, has relied almost entirely on the trade letters, keeping its critiques of formula regulation largely out of public view, according to ProPublica’s analysis of WTO meeting minutes and other documents. In fact, the nine missives were so under the radar that they surprised even public health experts who follow such developments.

“Oh my goodness,” said Jennifer Pomeranz, a New York University professor and expert in public health law and food policy. “I did not know it was this extensive.”

The letters carry an implicit threat, often asking for the scientific rationale behind countries’ proposals. If the U.S. feels a nation’s regulations are not justified, it can initiate a legal fight over trade agreements.

In one letter from May 2021, the U.S. pushed back against the European Union’s efforts to reduce the amount of lead — a neurotoxin dangerous to children — in formula. The change was based on a risk assessment by a European food safety agency, European officials said, adding, “This measure is considered necessary to ensure a high level of human health protection.”

The U.S. wasn’t convinced. “We suggest the EU wait,” U.S. officials said. They cited the ongoing efforts of an international food standards body, which was considering lead limits for a range of foods. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has no lead limits for formula, told ProPublica it “has been evaluating to what extent if any, infant formula contributes to dietary lead exposure among the very young.”)

The U.S. also questioned the science behind proposed limits on cadmium, a probable carcinogen, in formula. The U.S. has no such limits.

The EU passed both measures anyway.

Other recipients, however, have acceded to the U.S.’ requests.

Taiwan, for example, changed a proposed formula labeling law after the U.S. objected to language that said, “Breastfed babies are the healthiest babies.” Taiwanese officials switched to wording the U.S. suggested in a 2022 letter: “Breast milk is the best food for your baby.”

The change, while subtle, makes a difference, said Nestle, who is not related to the formula company of the same name. “These statements may seem identical, but the formula industry wants formula to be viewed as equivalent to or better than breastfeeding,” she said. “‘Healthiest’ can seem stronger, and that’s all it takes for formula companies to fight it.”

The Infant Nutrition Council of America, an industry trade group, said its members support breastfeeding but “believe that parents should have access to accurate, balanced information on all appropriate infant feeding options.” Formula makers also meet regulatory and “nutritional science” requirements in countries where they sell products, the group’s statement said.

Abbott and Mead Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

To be sure, formula remains crucial when babies do not have access to breast milk. But the World Health Organization has long promoted breastfeeding because of its well-documented benefits for babies’ health and cognitive growth. Multiple studies have found fewer infant deaths among breastfed children. Breastfeeding mothers lower their own risk of certain cancers, too.

David Clark, former legal specialist with UNICEF and an international public health law consultant, said interventions like those of the U.S. can have a “chilling effect” on countries’ efforts to regulate formula marketing and protect breastfeeding. “It’s like the bully in the playground,” he said. “The U.S. is a big, powerful country.”

In 2021, the U.S. sent Colombia questions as it was considering a limit on microbiological contaminants. The country has yet to adopt the measure, said Rubén Ernesto Orjuela Agudelo, an infant nutrition expert at the National University of Colombia. He said such a provision is needed.

In 2023, the U.S. sent a letter to Mozambique, challenging a proposal that sought to limit the information formula makers can provide to “higher level healthcare professionals” — a key target of industry lobbying. Trade officials took issue with the country’s description of formulas as “ultra-processed products with high sodium content” that contribute to long-term health problems.

The status of the measure is unclear. The country’s embassy did not answer questions from ProPublica.

Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program from the the American Economic Liberties Project, said that Biden’s trade representative, Katherine Tai, has made a significant effort to reduce corporate influence at USTR. But Wallach said it’s possible some career trade officials are still “marching along to the corporate drums that have been setting their path for the last decades.”

Correction

July 22, 2024: This story originally misstated the name of the international organization that has long promoted breastfeeding. It is the World Health Organization, not the World Trade Organization, or WTO.

With less than half of Georgia Power's electricity carbon-free, businesses and governments are scrambling to meet looming clean energy targets.

When Indigenous peoples were forced off their lands, they were boxed into flood-prone areas.

Jill Lacey of St. Louis, MO joined the Real Rock Army today

Source

From July 22 to 28, St. Louis Burger Week will bring savory burgers to salivating mouths across the region. Carnivores and vegetarians alike can enjoy $8 burgers from the likes […]

The post St. Louis Burger Week appeared first on Explore St. Louis.

The 10th biannual exhibition curated from artists within 200 miles. Opening May 7th and on display through October, the 10th Biannual will feature 32 artists and 41 works from a […]

The post 10th Biannual Exhibit appeared first on Explore St. Louis.

Return to a time when steamboats ruled the river. The one-hour narrated riverfront cruise aboard the Riverboats at the Gateway Arch explores the history of downtown St. Louis, including the […]

The post St. Louis Riverfront Cruise appeared first on Explore St. Louis.