By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

When Americans think about the health effects of eating meat, they usually focus on calories, fat, or whether a cut is “red” or “white.” What few of us realize is that how animals are raised shapes the nutritional quality of meat, the risks of antibiotic resistance, and even the health of surrounding communities. The gap between perception and reality is wide—and consequential.

The Hidden Crisis on Your Plate: Antibiotic Resistance

Consumers often fear antibiotic residues in meat. That’s misplaced. Withdrawal rules make residues minimal by slaughter time. The real danger is antibiotic-resistant bacteria that thrive on farms where drugs are used routinely.

Feedlots and barns often medicate entire herds to prevent outbreaks in crowded conditions. Over time, resistant strains of Salmonella and E. coli emerge. Cooking kills bacteria, but resistance spreads through raw meat handling, contaminated water, and airborne dust. Resistant infections kill thousands of Americans annually—yet few link their pork chop or burger to this silent epidemic.

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

Walk into any supermarket and you’ll see a wide array of claims on chicken and egg packaging: organic, cage-free, free-range, pasture-raised, natural. For consumers who care about health, food safety, and animal welfare, the language can be confusing. Of all these terms, “organic” is the most tightly regulated. But what does it really mean—and what doesn’t it cover?

Feed Requirements

For both meat chickens (broilers) and laying hens (which produce eggs), organic certification begins with the feed. Birds must be given certified organic feed, which is grown without:Synthetic pesticides

1. Synthetic fertilizers

2. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

3. Antibiotics or growth-promoting drugs

Feed matters because it influences not just bird health, but also the quality of the eggs and meat. Organic feed rules reduce chemical residues in food and support more sustainable farming practices. Farmers must use approved suppliers, and the supply chain itself is audited to prevent shortcuts.

No Rutine Antibiotics or Hormones

The organic label also sets strict rules on drug use:

No synthetic hormones. 

U.S. law bans hormones in all poultry production, organic or not. So, when you see “no added hormones” on chicken or egg packaging, it’s technically true—but it applies to the entire industry.

No routine antibiotics. 

Conventional producers may still use antibiotics to prevent or treat illness in crowded flocks. Organic standards prohibit this. If an organic bird becomes sick and requires antibiotics, the farmer must treat it for humane reasons, but the animal and its products can no longer be marketed as organic. This rule forces organic farmers to rely on prevention—cleaner barns, more space, better ventilation, and natural remedies.

Living Conditions

Organic rules require housing that allows for natural chicken behaviors, including:

1. Year-round outdoor access
2. Space to scratch and peck
3. The ability to dust bathe
4. Access to perches and exercise areas

Compared to conventional barns, this is a step up. However, “outdoor access” can be loosely interpreted. Some large-scale organic operations provide only small screened-in porches attached to massive barns. These meet the technical standard but hardly resemble the green pastures shown on cartons.

The USDA requires access to be “meaningful,” but enforcement varies. Consumers who want to ensure truly pasture-based farming should look for additional certifications such as Certified Humane, Animal Welfare Approved, or “Pasture Raised.”

Certification and Oversight

To use the USDA Organic seal, farms must be inspected and certified by accredited third-party certifiers. Auditors review feed sourcing, living conditions, and medical treatments, and they conduct annual on-site visits.

This process distinguishes “organic” from vague claims like “natural” or “farm fresh,” which have no legal definition or inspection process. Farms misusing the organic seal face penalties or loss of certification.

Independent Watchdogs

While USDA certification sets a baseline, independent groups often go further in holding producers accountable:

Cornucopia Institute: Publishes a widely used Organic Egg Scorecard, rating brands from one to five “eggs.” Cornucopia has exposed large “industrial organic” farms that technically comply with the rules but provide only token outdoor access. Their reports help consumers identify farms that truly align with the spirit of organic practices.

Certified Humane: Offers additional animal-welfare certifications, with stricter standards for space, outdoor access, and humane handling.

Animal Welfare Approved (A Greener World): Considered one of the most rigorous certifications, requiring continuous pasture access and prohibiting cages or confinement.

Global Animal Partnership (GAP): Known for its “Step 1–5+” welfare ratings, widely used by Whole Foods Market.

These groups give consumers tools to go beyond the USDA baseline and reward farms that genuinely prioritize animal welfare and sustainable practices.

What “Organic” Does Not Guarantee

Even with all these protections, the organic label does not automatically guarantee that:

1. Birds had extensive access to pastures. Outdoor space can be minimal.
2. The highest welfare standards were met. Organic barns can still house thousands of birds in tight quarters.
3. Meat or eggs are nutritionally superior. Nutrient content depends heavily on diet, breed, and pasture time, not just organic certification.

Why the Label Still Matters

Despite its limitations, the USDA Organic seal remains one of the strongest assurances available. It means that:

1. Birds were fed non-GMO, pesticide-free feed.
2. No antibiotics or growth drugs were used.
3. Chickens and hens had at least some opportunity to engage in natural behaviors.
4. Farms were subject to independent inspection every year.

For many shoppers, organic represents a reliable baseline of trust. Those seeking higher welfare or environmental standards can layer on independent certifications like Cornucopia’s top-rated producers, Certified Humane, or Animal Welfare Approved.

Bottom Line

When you buy organic chicken or eggs, you are choosing food produced under real, enforceable standards. The USDA Organic program ensures cleaner feed, reduced chemical use, and better living conditions than conventional systems. But organic is not the whole story. Independent watchdogs like the Cornucopia Institute and animal welfare certifiers provide the deeper accountability many consumers want. Organic is a good foundation—but pairing it with stronger certifications is the best way to align your purchases with your values.

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

Most people believe that unhealthy eating is simply a matter of willpower. We assume that if we had a little more discipline, we could resist the sugary snack, the fast-food drive-through, or the late-night raid on the fridge. But as research—and everyday experience—show us, our nutritional choices are shaped less by hunger and more by a series of hidden triggers.

These triggers are everywhere: a stressful day, a celebratory dinner, peer pressure from friends, or even the convenience of quick and affordable food. The problem isn’t that we don’t know fruits and vegetables are better for us than salty snacks—it’s that the forces around us nudge us into patterns we barely recognize until they become habits.

We’re building a browser-based product to help people bring those hidden triggers to the surface. Once visible, they can be managed, redirected, and eventually transformed into healthier patterns.

Read more

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

When I was growing up, I was fortunate to have parents who lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s. They were frugal, disciplined, and constantly aware that small choices, repeated every day, add up to big financial consequences. They taught me two timeless lessons: pay close attention to small, daily expenses, and understand the power of compounding interest on what we save.

Charities understood this principle as well. In the 1930s, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis launched the “March of Dimes,” asking everyday Americans to contribute just ten cents. Millions did, and those nickels and dimes funded the research that ultimately produced the polio vaccine. Small amounts, collected consistently, transformed into something world-changing.

The same principle applies to our food and beverage habits. Too often, media commentators claim that low-income people “cannot afford to eat healthy.” What they overlook is how much money leaks away through daily, habitual purchases of unhealthy food and drinks. Those small, routine indulgences often cost more than healthier alternatives—and they damage our health in the process.

Take coffee for instance. No matter where I am in the world, I start my day with a cup of espresso or black coffee. I know exactly what it costs me, and I accept it as an affordable ritual. But what I do not accept is the parade of oversized, sugary beverages I watch people order at Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, or Caffè Nero. These drinks are loaded with sugar, cost significantly more than plain coffee, and trigger cravings for even more unhealthy food.

An AI-powered nutrition tool I envision could instantly calculate the real cost of these habits: that daily Frappuccino adds up to hundreds, even thousands of dollars a year. More importantly, it quietly consumes a substantial portion of someone’s salary while adding inches to the waistline.

Three decades ago, I gave up adding cream and sugar to my coffee. A holistic medicine practitioner later reinforced the wisdom of that choice: two cups of black coffee a day not only suppress appetite but are dramatically cheaper and healthier than sugary alternatives. I still spend about $2,000 a year on coffee, but I watch others spend nearly double that on drinks that undermine both health and finances.

I also abandoned soda early in my life. Replacing multiple cans of sugary soft drinks with water—tap or filtered—saved me even more than the coffee switch. What shocks me today is watching people with modest incomes load up on soda at convenience stores. They are literally draining their wallets for the privilege of consuming empty calories.

At restaurants, small adjustments also make a big difference. Ordering appetizer-sized portions, splitting entrees, or taking half the meal home can cut costs dramatically while preventing overeating. Servers, who depend on tips, are skilled at upselling desserts, drinks, and oversized portions. But resisting these nudges not only protects our health—it protects our bank accounts.

I’ve also noticed a healthier, thriftier alternative: ordering a salad with added protein instead of a full protein entree. It satisfies the craving without the oversized portion or inflated price. My wife and others who are vigilant about their health routinely ask for half the entree to be boxed immediately. The second meal costs nothing extra, and the calorie load is cut in half.

These seemingly small choices compound over time. By consistently choosing water over soda, plain coffee over sugar-bomb lattes, and smaller meals over oversized ones, we build a reserve of savings. My parents taught us to put those savings into a jar—what they called “paying yourself first.” The feeling of control and empowerment from even modest savings reduces stress and builds long-term wellbeing.

Consider the math: saving $1,000 a year and investing it at 5% interest accumulates over $33,000 in 20 years. Even if we redirect only 25% of that toward savings, we are still $8,250 ahead—while also being healthier, lighter, and less stressed.

The truth is simple. Eating healthy is not beyond our reach. It is a matter of awareness, discipline, and valuing our health enough to redirect small, daily expenditures. By choosing wisely at the margins, we put ourselves first—financially and physically.

Would you like me to also create a companion table that shows annual and 20-year savings from common beverage swaps (e.g., soda → water, Frappuccino → black coffee)? It could make this argument even more persuasive.

By Michael J. Critelli | MakeUsWell Newsletter, 

In The Graduate (1967), an older family friend famously advises a drifting college grad: “I have one word for you: plastics.” At the time, it meant prosperity, efficiency and modernity. Today, it might be a warning.

We use plastic constantly—sipping coffee in to-go cups, cooking on nonstick pans, grabbing bottled water on the run. But science is uncovering an unsettling truth: these conveniences can contaminate our food, water, and bodies with microplastics and harmful chemicals.

Read more