Southern California healthcare agencies fear cuts to HIV prevention will cost lives

Statements from the Trump administration that officials are considering cuts to key programs for the prevention of HIV and AIDS are generating outrage among two of the largest LGBTQ+ service organizations in Southern California.
Leaders of the LGBT Center in Los Angeles and DAP Health in the Coachella Valley said that a sharp cut in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV Prevention could endanger many lives and potentially drive up the long-term cost to taxpayers, if incidence of the virus that causes AIDS increases.
When the Wall Street Journal first broke news of the potential cut in mid-March, a spokesman said no 'final decision' had been made 'on streamlining CDC's HIV Prevention Division.'
Asked this week for an update, CDC spokesman Nicholas Spinelli referred questions to the agency's parent organization, the Department of Health and Human Services, which did not respond. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Health agencies across the nation have helped drive down the incidence of HIV, largely through testing, counseling and the distribution of medications that prevent the spread of the disease. Much of the funding for that work came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of decline was 12% nationally between 2018 and 2022, with an even sharper 21% in the 50 local areas where the CDC focused its prevention efforts.
The LGBT Center in Los Angeles, which provides outreach, testing and HIV-preventative medications, said it has been left in limbo about what will become of its $450,000 CDC grant to support that work.
'We have seen tremendous gains in the fight to end HIV because of the real investments that have been made in prevention and care,' said Joe Hollendoner, CEO of the LGBT Center. 'We've even been talking about how, in our lifetime, we could end the HIV epidemic and get to zero new cases.'
'But if we are terminating HIV prevention contracts in the way that we anticipate ... it is not hyperbole to say it's going to cost human lives.'
That echoed concerns voiced by DAP Health, which operates 25 clinics in Riverside and San Diego counties, including many in the Coachella Valley, which has a large gay population and where the HIV rate is four times the national average.
'This 'cost-saving' strategy of decimating the CDC's HIV prevention program will only increase costs, both human and financial,' David Brinkman, the CEO of DAP Health, said in a statement.
Brinkman pointed to research that showed the average cost of lifetime treatment for a patient who contracts HIV to be about $500,000 a year. The estimated potential 'savings' of $1.8 billion if the federal disease agency eliminates the HIV program would quickly disappear if more than 3,600 Americans were newly infected, Brinkman said, adding: 'And we know the toll of lives impacted by HIV with this slashing will be in the tens of thousands.'
An outspoken voice against a possible reduction or elimination of the anti-HIV program is Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Palm Desert), a former emergency room doctor who represents the Coachella Valley.
'The CDC's Division of HIV Prevention plays a vital role in reducing new infections, saving billions in preventable health care costs, and ensuring that individuals can access life-saving medication,' Ruiz said in a statement.
Ruiz noted that the CDC program also plays a central role in responding to viral hepatitis and TB. The congressman joined 100 other Democrats in the House and Senate in sending a letter to President Trump, urging him to reconsider any plan to reduce or eliminate the disease prevention program.
The lawmakers reminded Trump that during his first term, in 2019, he declared the goal of ending the HIV epidemic. 'One of the pillars of your initiative, as shown on CDC's website, is prevention,' the letter said. 'It is imperative that you uphold this commitment.'
C.J. Tobe, chief transformation officer for DAP Health, said the Trump administration's potential change of course seemed inexplicable.
'It's a 180-degree turn, to threaten to take this away,' Tobe said. 'It feels personal and it makes zero sense.'
Confusion and turmoil have also enveloped U.S. government-supported research around HIV.
CNN reported this week that the National Institutes of Health had eliminated funding for dozens of HIV-related research grants. The news outlet cited a Department of Health and Human Services database and quoted scientists who said the cuts would also deal a crippling blow to the goal of ending HIV.
Among those on the chopping block were grants related to PrEP, the regimen of drugs that can thwart HIV infection, scientists told the New York Times.
Funding for intervention against the disease overseas also appeared endangered when the Trump administration froze foreign aid and then all but eliminated the U.S. Agency for International Development, the main American agency for delivering assistance to other countries.
A study published in the Lancet said that a reduction in support from the U.S. and other major funding countries could lead to 4.4 million to 10.7 million new HIV infections worldwide by 2030, killing 770,000 to nearly 3 million more people.
'Unmitigated funding reductions could significantly reverse progress in the HIV response by 2030, disproportionately affecting sub-Saharan African countries and key and vulnerable populations,' the study said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Gizmodo

2 hours ago

• Gizmodo

When Will Genetically Modifying Our Children Go Mainstream?

In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined practical steps that countries and research institutions could take to discourage this sort of experimentation, such as strengthening regulations tied to gene editing. 'Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences,' said Bruce Levine, a cancer gene therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the ISCT, in a statement. 'We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years.' Newer technologies such as CRISPR have made gene editing easier, cheaper, and more practical to carry out in a variety of species, humans included. That reality has made heritable germline editing—altering egg, sperm, and embryos such that they can be passed down to offspring—more feasible than ever. In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui thrust this issue into the limelight when he announced that his team modified the genes of several human embryos using CRISPR, then implanted them successfully in women volunteers. Eventually three children were born with the modifications, intended to confer natural immunity to HIV infection. He deliberately flouted ethical guidelines and the law in his research, such as doctoring lab results so that HIV-positive men could father the children (according to He, the children were born without HIV and appeared to have avoided any related health issues). He's experiments were roundly condemned by the scientific community and he ultimately served a three-year prison term for his actions, which ended in 2022. Upon release, He went back to working in the gene-editing field, though he promised to abide by domestic and international rules. The episode showed that human heritable germline editing is already clearly possible today, but not necessarily ethical to carry out. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists believe we're not ready to go down that path just yet. For this Giz Asks, we reached out to several bioethicists to get their take on the moratorium, and more broadly, on the question of when we should be able to genetically modify children, if ever. Founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine's Department of Population Health. I've been thinking about that question for well over 40 years. We didn't always have the technology to go in and modify genes in an egg, sperm, embryo, or fetus for that matter. But it's certainly the case that people have been thinking hard about trying to genetically alter and improve children, probably back to the Greeks. We know that in modern times, Nazi Germany was home to race hygiene theory and a form of eugenics; they would have been very interested in creating better babies. They did have the Lebensborn Program where they tried to force women and men that they deemed especially genetically fit to breed and have kids. It's not really clear whatever happened to those kids. But it's a form, if you will, of trying to get the right genes into your offspring and get them passed along into the future. They practiced that. And we had versions of that in the U.S., believe it or not. We actually had awards given at state fairs to families that were seen as eugenically the best and trying to encourage those families to have bigger families. That's an idea that's still rattling around today, by the way, in the mouths of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, etc. Many in the current Trump administration are very concerned about minorities becoming the majority in the U.S. In any event, these are old fashioned ideas, often fueled by dreams of eugenics, shifting the population in the future toward healthier, more competent, more physically able people, trying to get people of the right race or ethnicity so that the society's makeup is proper. They don't rely on engineering a gene. There's no CRISPR. There's nobody going in there and trying to penetrate the cell wall to insert genetic information. But those are just new ways to think about ideas that have been around for a long time. So if you ask me, will we see genetic engineering of children aimed at their improvement? I say yes, undoubtedly. Now when? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Right now, we have some crude tools. We are seeing some efforts to use gene therapy in kids to repair diseases of their bodies, not things that would be inherited. They work a bit, but I wouldn't say we're really at the sort of utopia of being able to reliably get rid of in a person or a child, sickle cell or other major diseases. The tools, despite a lot of hype and a lot of maybe press release journalism, are not quite there yet to really say we can even do a good job repairing disease in an existing kid. So when it comes to trying to use tools to modify an embryo, I'm going to say flat out we're at least 10 years away from that in any serious way that could be considered safe, targeted, and likely to produce the outcome you want. So the big restriction now is safety. I think we'll get past safety, but it is a reason right now not to do anything. Now, what else might become an objection if we did have accurate, sophisticated tools? I think the first is access. If you make better kids, but only some people can afford it, that wouldn't be fair. And that in itself would be unjust. And you might wind up creating two classes or more of humans on Earth, the genetically engineered superior people and others. And this obviously is a theme all over science fiction. Old-timers will remember the Wrath of Khan from Star Trek for their take on what happens when you get a super genetically engineered race. There's Gattaca, another movie that explored this. But I'm going to say this somewhat controversially. Fairness in access never stopped a technology from going forward. When the rich and the middle class want it, they're not stopped by the fact that the poor can't get it. I would like to see provisions made to say we shouldn't move forward unless those technologies are available to those who want them regardless of cost. But I don't think that's going to happen. It's just never happened. So access is an issue, but I don't think it's a game-breaker for improving your kids. People also say, well, how will we improve? I mean, what's the best state? We can't agree on that. So will we really improve kids? There may be things we disagree about as to whether they're really improvements. Would it be an improvement to diminish pigment in black people? Try and make them less dark. We can certainly see that argued. There are plenty in the deaf community who say, well, deafness is not really something you have to get rid of or try to improve by genetically engineering hearing to make it better. They can get around the world deaf using a different language and different institutions. But there are clearly things that it would be nice to genetically improve in kids. Immunity would be great. We do it now with vaccines. It would be great to find the right genes, tweak them, and build stronger immune systems. It would be great to make sure that we try our best to diminish the extreme pain, that some of us suffer not just as disease, but with respect to certain stimuli. I'm not saying we should genetically eliminate all pain. That would probably put us in danger, but we don't quite have to suffer the way we do. My point being, the fact that we don't agree on everything as to what would be an improvement doesn't mean that we can't agree on anything. The last thing I'll say is this. When you try to make better kids, I think one last concern is: Are you going to make the children have less options rather than more? So if I considered it an improvement in a child to make them a giant, or to make them a tennis player, or to try and figure out perhaps some weird appearance that would make them a celebrity, I'm condemning the child to my choice. They don't have the freedom to run their own life. They don't have the ability to choose what they want to do. I tighten down their future by narrowing the kinds of traits they have. That, I think, is a legitimate objection. We have to think hard about that. Many of the things we do environmentally, learn to read better, learn to do exercise, learn to play games, these are skills that expand capacities in our children, and may in fact be values that are then passed on to future generations. But they don't wind up creating kids who are less capable because of those interventions. That's where genetic change has to be watched very closely. So the bottom line of this gigantic speech is yes, we will see genetic modification of our children. It will come. There are traits that people will eagerly try to put into their kids in the future. They will try to design out genetic diseases, get rid of them. They will try to build in capacities and abilities that they agree are really wonderful. Will we hang up these interventions on ethical grounds? For the most part, no, would be my prediction, But not within the next 10 years. The tools are still too crude. Associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine There are children with genetic modifications walking around today, children like KJ, who was treated with personalized CRISPR gene editing at just six months old. There are now kids who are free of sickle cell disease symptoms through CRISPR therapy, the first one ever approved by the FDA. All of these children are 'genetically modified,' and they and their parents couldn't be happier about it. What other conditions could and should be treated through genetic modifications? That's a question that scientists are actively working on, and that social scientists like me are talking about with patients, parents, and communities—because we and they think it's really important for them to be part of those decisions. These 'somatic' gene editing treatments that are already being used aren't the kind that is passed down through our reproductive cells, the germline. Heritable gene modification would involve embryos, eggs, or sperm, or even possibly other cells that could be turned into these kinds of cells. A technology currently being researched, called in vitro gametogenesis, could use gene editing to turn skin cells into reproductive cells, allowing families with infertility to have their own genetically related children. And of course, there are scientists looking at the possibility of editing reproductive cells to allow couples who carry the genes for severe diseases to conceive children without those conditions. Many ethicists and scientists have drawn a hard line between heritable and non-heritable gene editing, but in practice it's not nearly so clear-cut. Off-target effects of gene editing are difficult to predict or control, so there is a chance that reproductive cells could be changed by treatments aimed at other organ systems. Fetal gene editing, which could help babies with some conditions be born with few or no symptoms, will also involve the pregnant bodies of their mothers; those adults could host edited cells even after the pregnancy ends, possibly affecting their future children too. Families dealing with genetic conditions that cause great suffering for their children don't necessarily see a problem with eliminating those conditions forever with heritable gene editing. On the other hand, some people living with genetic conditions, such as deafness or autism, see no reason for treating their condition with gene editing, heritable or not, because their biggest problems come not from the condition itself but from the way society treats them. So there are many questions to be asked about all forms of genetic modification, and how they will be developed and implemented. All the gene editing treatments that exist now or are being imagined over the next decade, heritable or not, involve exorbitant cost and will be inaccessible to most people worldwide. It will be crucial to balance the excitement of these novel technologies with attention to questions of justice, developing new treatments with an eye toward both accessibility and the priorities of those most affected. The only way to do this is to bring more voices into conversation with one another: people living with genetic conditions, scientists and doctors, policymakers of all kinds, and members of the public. Although gene editing is an amazing tool to add to our kit, the work of building more robust healthcare and support for families carrying or living with genetic conditions doesn't begin or end with genetic modification. Bioethicist, sociologist, and executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Yes we should, when it's safe, effective, and voluntary. Calls to permanently ban the creation of genetically modified children often rest on fear, not facts. They mirror past moral panics over interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, and birth control—all technologies or choices once deemed unnatural or dangerous, and now widely accepted. We should be wary of arguments dressed up as ethics but rooted in anxiety about change. That doesn't mean anything goes. Like any powerful technology, gene editing must be tightly regulated for safety and efficacy. But the agencies we already trust to regulate medicine—the FDA, NIH, and institutional review boards—are largely capable of doing that. We don't need a bioethics priesthood or a new bureaucracy to police reproductive decisions. We need science-based oversight, individual consent, and protection from coercion. One of the loudest objections to genetic editing is the specter of 'eugenics.' But if eugenics means state control over reproduction, then the lesson of the 20th century is to defend reproductive freedom, not curtail it. Governments should not tell parents what kinds of kids to have. Preventing parents from using safe, approved gene therapies to reduce suffering or enhance their children's lives is a strange way to honor that lesson. They should give parents access to all the information and technology for the choices they make. True reproductive liberty includes the right to use the best science available to ensure a child's health. Another objection is that genetic modification could harm people who would rather not participate. But this 'perfection anxiety' ignores how all medical advances shift social norms. We didn't stop improving dental care because it made bad teeth less acceptable. And a healthier society has not led to less compassion for those who remain sick or disabled—if anything, it's strengthened the case for inclusion and support. The goal should be equitable access, not frozen norms. We do need to ensure that parents can access all the gene therapies that actually provide potential benefits for children. Governments with universal healthcare will need to make tough choices about what to cover and what not to cover. For instance, the National Health Service should make gene therapy to remove lethal, painful conditions available for all Britons, but parents may need to pay for medical tourism to some offshore clinic if they want to tweak their embryo's eye color. What about risks we can't foresee? Of course there will be some. All new medical therapies come with uncertainties. That's why we have trials, regulation, and post-market surveillance. There's no reason genetic therapies should be held to an impossibly higher standard. We should start with animal models, and proceed to the most morally defensible gene tweaks, lethal and painful conditions. Over time, as the safety of the techniques are better understood, we can expand the scope of therapeutic choices. Some worry that genetically modified children could disrupt our ideas of family or humanity. But those concepts have already been revolutionized—by urbanization, feminism, economic precarity, and social movements. The family of today would be unrecognizable to most people in 1800. If genetic technologies change our values again, it won't be the first time. Liberal democracies don't freeze culture in place—they ensure people have the freedom to shape it. Ultimately, the question isn't whether we should allow genetically modified children. It's whether we trust parents to make mostly good choices under the oversight of regulators and doctors. We should, because most parents have their children's best interests in mind, as they perceive them. That's why we allow parents to raise their own children in the first place. And we should ensure those choices are equitably available to all, not outlawed out of fear. If we ever find genetic tweaks to reduce suffering, enhance capability, or prevent devastating disease—and we can do so safely and ethically—the real moral failure would be to prohibit it. A Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist currently teaching at the University of Toronto. Well, there's a big difference between genetic enhancement and treatment. And with enhancement, I think we're nowhere near a point where we should be even considering that. But with treatment, the large ethical issue right now is something like single gene mutation. So something like Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, or similar diseases, could it be justified to edit the gene for that? The challenge is we don't fully understand all the things. We don't know what we don't know, to put it bluntly. And with germline editing, the changes we would be making are permanent and they run through many generations ahead. So, yes, being able to prevent deadly or debilitating illnesses is absolutely something wonderful. But having said that, you obviously don't have consent of the person who will be born, but you also don't have consent of the generations that come after that. And if there is complications or unexpected problems, you can have an inheritance that just keeps running through generations. But here's the thing with this moratorium; to what end? You can call for a moratorium, but if no one's focusing on anything, if there's no research, no planning, no social discourse, there's just a lot of people with different opinions, and everything gets shelved for 10 years. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly useful. It sounds great if it's going to be 10 concentrated years on building consensus and public engagement and those types of things, but I don't think that's what would actually happen. And also, I'm sure you've noticed, the world's not in good shape, and Western culture is not of one mind these days. And with the ruptures, particularly in the United States, there's a lot of division in Western culture of how people see things. And I'm just not convinced that a moratorium, that people would make use of it in a constructive way. It really needs a coordinated plan, and I'm not sure there is one. So I do see that as quite a problem. The other thing is, we're dealing with high-income countries. So when we look at potential for CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing, we're dealing with a very small percentage of the world's population. I'm going to guess that it's maybe 15% to 20% of the world's population, because most of the population of the world has no access to things like this and never will. Not never will, but in the foreseeable future, they won't. And I think that's something we miss a lot of the time. And the biggest ethical problem in the world today is not gene editing. It's just access to healthcare. And this doesn't do anything in those domains whatsoever. So from a justice point of view, that is a concern. And I'm going to sound cynical here. Emerging medical technologies are not motivated largely by the social sector. They're motivated by marketing and market forces. So if people can make money on this, somehow, someway, people will proceed. And if gene editing is illegal in Canada and the U.S. and Western Europe and Australia, there's a lot of countries that don't fall into that. And you can set up shop anywhere. Equatorial Guinea or other places are not going to be worried about things like this. They've got enough problems on their hands. And there's a lot of countries out there where this would not be easily called. So I support the essence of it. And I can see why people want to do it. I'm just not convinced it's all that feasible. I think what makes more sense is just not having any germline editing until we have a larger consensus about this technology.

USA Today

5 hours ago

• USA Today

These are the best – and cheapest – states for seniors living alone

More than one quarter of seniors live alone, according to Census data. And living solo can present financial perils for Americans of any age. A new report from the senior care platform ranks the best states for over-65 Americans who live alone. The report assigned a 1-10 score to each state, based on more than a dozen qualities, including overall living costs, housing costs, grocery costs, transportation costs, healthcare costs and availability, and the proximity of other seniors. 'Living alone can be a challenge for older people, from increased safety concerns to the toll on their mental health,' the report states. Here's what the analysis found. These neighboring states rank 1-2-3 for solo senior living Three middle-of-America states, Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas, rank first, second and third for solo senior living in the report. Arkansas, with a rating of 8.57 out of 10, has one of the lowest cost-of-living scores in the nation, with affordable housing and low property taxes. It ranks high for affordable transportation and available nursing facilities. Missouri (8.09 out of 10) ranks high for health care affordability and quality. The state also ranks high on assisted living, with 97.5 communities per 100,000 senior residents. Kansas (7.98) ranks favorably for overall cost of living and has some of the nation's lowest grocery prices. It also has the second-highest proportion of nursing facilities, 62.7 per 100,000 seniors. Arkansas also ranks 1st in affordability for solo seniors Arkansas is not just the 'best' state for solo seniors, but also the most affordable, the analysis found. Arkansas has the lowest health care costs among states, as well as low grocery prices and affordable rents. A one-bedroom apartment averages $701 a month. Missouri ranks second for senior affordability, with low rents and transportation costs. Oklahoma ranks third in affordability. The analysis includes data from GOBankingRates, whose calculations found Oklahoma one of the most affordable states for retirees. Maine ranks 1st for highest proportion of seniors Seniors can face loneliness and isolation, especially when they live alone. But not, perhaps, in Maine. The state has the highest proportion of seniors, compared with other states: 22.9%, according to Missouri ranks 1st for cheap rent Seniors often live on fixed incomes. Lower housing costs can help make ends meet. Missouri has the nation's most affordable rents for one-bedroom apartments, with an average of $677 a month. Pro tip: St. Louis is more affordable than Kansas City, with rents averaging about $200 lower. Iowa ranks 1st for availability of nursing facilities With a relatively low over-65 population, Iowa ranks first among states for its proportion of nursing facilities, 71 per 100,000 seniors. More nursing facilities potentially means shorter wait times for Iowans who need nursing care. Alaska ranks 1st for availability of assisted living Alaska, too, has relatively few seniors. The state also has the highest proportion of assisted living communities, a whopping 698 per 100,000 over-65 residents. Missouri has the least expensive assisted living The costs of long-term care can be eye-popping. An assisted living facility charges $5,350 a month, on average, according to T. Rowe Price. Missouri has the lowest annual costs for assisted living, averaging just over $40,000, according to The state's low cost of living reduces operating costs for assisted living facilities. West Virginia ranks 1st on 'comfortable' retirement Getting back to GOBankingRates: The personal finance site analyzed every state for annual retirement costs and found West Virginia the most affordable in its 2024 report, with an annual tab of $58,190. The report factored into the ranking. What are the worst states for solo retirement living? While the report doesn't rank the least desirable states for seniors who live alone, the analysis provides a heat map that gives a good idea of which states a cost-conscious senior might want to avoid. Not surprisingly, the 'worst' and least affordable states for solo seniors tend to fall on the East and West coasts. California and Massachusetts have some of the lowest overall scores. The same states rank poorly on affordability. More on affordable states for retirees Seniors who are looking for a good place to retire may also want to consult GOBankingRates, whose analysts have run the numbers many times on affordable states for retirees. In one recent analysis, the site calculated how long a nest egg of $1.5 million would last for a retiree in every state. That report identified five most affordable states for retirees: West Virginia, where $1.5 million will last 54 years; Kansas (52 years); Mississippi (51 years); Oklahoma (also 51 years); and Alabama (50 years). California and Massachusetts ranked among the priciest states for retirees in the report, along with New York, Alaska and Hawaii.

Buzz Feed

13 hours ago

• Buzz Feed

Foods And Drinks That Cause Constipation

Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint, affecting millions of Americans of all ages. Prevalent as it may be, it's an unpleasant issue that you'd probably prefer to avoid. And what you eat can either help or hinder things in the poop department. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, you're typically considered constipated when you're passing 'small amounts of hard, dry stool, usually fewer than three times a week.' But when it comes to poop frequency, the normal range is pretty wide: anywhere from three times a day to three times a week. So consider what's a deviation from your usual pattern. Constipation is about more than just frequency of bowel movements, though. Other symptoms include pain or difficulty pooping, feeling like you haven't fully emptied your bowels, bloating, sluggishness and stomach discomfort. Most people deal with short-term constipation at one point or another. Chronic constipation, however, is an ongoing issue that can negatively affect your quality of life and lead to complications, like hemorrhoids or fecal impaction, if left untreated. You may become constipated due to dehydration, lack of exercise, changes to your routine (such as travel), stress, certain medications and health conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. But below, we'll focus on some of the ways your diet could be contributing to your constipation woes. The main takeaway: Foods that are high in fat but low in fiber tend to be the worst offenders. No one specific food or drink is likely to cause constipation on its own for most individuals — however, your daily eating habits can worsen an existing issue, according to Medical News Today. We asked experts — including gastro doctors and dietitians — to explain which foods and drinks you might want to consider cutting back on when you're backed up and why. 'Refined grains like white bread, white pasta and white rice are known to be binding and can contribute to constipation,' registered dietitian Stefani Sassos, nutrition and fitness director for the Good Housekeeping Institute, told HuffPost. 'This is due to the fact that they are lower in fiber than whole grains.' Baked goods such as pastries, cookies and cakes, as well as crackers and flour tortillas fall under this umbrella, as well. With refined grains, the fiber our bodies need to facilitate digestion is stripped away during the milling process. 'Fiber promotes regularity by helping food move through your digestive system,' gastroenterologist Dr. Supriya Rao previously told HuffPost. 'This is because fiber absorbs water and bulks up stools, making them easier to pass.' Dairy products like cheese tend to be high in fat, yet low in fiber, which can make constipation worse, gastroenterologist Dr. Rabia A. De Latour told HuffPost. For those with a lactose intolerance, consuming dairy products typically leads to diarrhea and gas. But according to a 2022 literature review, about 30% of lactose-intolerant individuals experience constipation after eating dairy. Red meat, such as beef and pork, these kinds It is also rich in protein, the most satiating macronutrient. This means you might feel full after eating that steak or burger, making you less likely to reach for high-fiber foods like fruits and veggies. Fried foods French fries, fried chicken, mozzarella sticks and other fried fare can make you more backed up. 'Fried, greasy foods are very high in fat and can be hard for the body to digest, contributing to constipation,' Sassos explained. 'Plus, they often are void of fiber.' For other folks, these kinds of foods may lead to more urgent and looser stools — it really depends on the individual and the other components of their diet. Booze is another one that causes different GI symptoms for different people. For many individuals, a night of drinking leads to soft stool or diarrhea. In other cases, it can have a constipating effect. If you're backed up, Dr. Kenneth Josovitz — a Virginia gastroenterologist with Gastro Health — recommends avoiding alcohol, 'which can cause dehydration and worsen constipation.' So why does alcohol have this effect? Alcohol suppresses the release of vasopressin, a hormone which helps your body hold onto fluids by telling the kidneys to reabsorb water, rather than excrete it. 'That [suppression] is why people will pee more when they drink,' gastroenterologist Dr. Sunana Sohi previously told HuffPost. 'The alcohol is making them pee out all the water in their body, and so they get dehydrated and then constipated because of it.' In addition to cutting back on the aforementioned foods and drinks, try to incorporate more high-fiber foods into your diet to help you stay regular. Women should aim to consume at least 25 grams of fiber a day, De LaTour said. For men, that number is about 38 grams per day. Sassos recommends foods like raspberries, apples and pears with the skin on, lentils, beans, broccoli, leafy greens and nuts. Prunes, known for their laxative properties, can also be a good at-home remedy to try, she said. 'If you're not used to eating prunes and fiber-rich foods, start with one to two prunes per day,' Sassos said. 'You can work your way up to five or six as tolerated. Prune juice can be effective too, especially warm prune juice since warm liquids in general can speed up digestive motility.' When increasing your fiber intake, go about it slowly and be sure to drink enough water, she advised. 'We need adequate hydration to help fiber digest properly in the body,' Sassos said. 'If you don't drink enough water, high-fiber foods may actually constipate you even more.' To ease constipation, you can also try drinking a cup of tea as 'the hot temperature speeds up the motility and the caffeine stimulates the bowels,' Josovitz suggested. Reducing stress and exercising can help get things moving as well, he added. Sassos also emphasized the importance of physical activity in keeping you regular. 'Even a short 10-to 15-minute walk after a meal can help,' she said. The occasional bout of constipation typically resolves on its own with minor lifestyle adjustments. But in other cases, constipation may warrant a visit to your doctor — especially if it's coupled with significant abdominal pain. 'You should seek medical attention if the constipation is new, severe, lasts more than a few weeks, or comes with bleeding, weight loss or weakness,' Josovitz advised.