The long-awaited and much-government-touted ME Delivery Plan is shaping up to be, predictably, largely a whitewash. As ministers slowly drip out pieces of information about the upcoming publication, it’s becoming increasingly obvious the plan is set to offer little more than lukewarm gestures, rather than anything remotely resembling meaningful change for people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
However, it’s a wonder that anyone in the ME community is even mildly shocked at this. Nothing has really changed about the abusive, gaslighting government and NHS patient culture for people living with the devastating disease. That’s painfully evident in the fact multiple patients with severe ME are still trapped in a vicious ouroboros of NHS physician arrogance and ignorance – one feeding the other in a harrowing hospital care catalogue of continued errors.
So why exactly would anyone think that it’s about to turn this appalling situation on its head now?
The ME Delivery Plan: no new funding is NOT a shock
Let’s start with the elephant in the room: new funding for ME research.
We’ve known since at least February that the government has no new funding forthcoming for this. In particular, parliamentary under-secretary for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Ashley Dalton confirmed it. This was in a response to a written question.
An article in the Timespresented this like it was a shock, reporting how:
Charities and MPs said they were “incredibly disappointed” and that without extra funding efforts to improve the lives of people with ME would fail and it would be hard to unlock new treatments.
The Times quoted one of the usual suspects, namely a long-controversial leading ME charity. This was Action for ME (AfME) chief executive Sonya Chowdhury. The non-profit has nothing if not a problematic past. It’s one of holding back, or even actively sabotaging progress for patients, wrapped up as it was in the junk PACE trial part-funded by the DWP. For all its rumblings that it has reformed to centre patients, it still rubs shoulders with prominent biopsychosocial (BPS) circles and proponents.
Behind the scenes, Chowdhury has literally been working with successive governments on the delivery plan. Specifically, she represents AfME on the ME/CFS Delivery Plan Task & Finish Group. It’s therefore hard, to nigh-on impossible really, to imagine Chowdhury would be unaware of the government’s intentions for funding.
Arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic crisis in ME care
Now, a new response from Dalton has only drove all this home further. Specifically, in another written question reply on 4 April, she said in one crucial part that:
We also intend to provide additional support to ME/CFS researchers to develop high quality funding applications and access existing National Institute for Health and Care Research and Medical Research Council research funding. All research funding applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Our forthcoming ME/CFS delivery plan will outline the additional support we will offer to the research community to increase the volume and quality of applications and, therefore, increase the allocation of funding to this area.
To put it simply: there’s no new funding. When the government talks of “boosting” it for ME research, as Dalton said earlier in her answer, all that really seems to mean in practice is giving researchers some advice on how to make grant applications. That might actually seem more than a little insulting to researchers as well. It’s basically implying the lack of quality research for ME revolves around their failures to secure funding. This is in lieu of the glaring lack of it available in the first place.
The Canaryhas also highlighted before how the funding focus has largely revolved around harmful psychologising treatments. So ring-fenced funding for causes and genuine curative treatments is essential. Not so to the upcoming ME Delivery Plan it seems. ME research will continue to compete with research for other better-recognised conditions. But don’t worry. Researchers will have DHSC top tips to pip other patient communities also desperately needing more research funding to the post.
It’s another case of the government trying to look like it’s doing something. In reality, all it’s doing is “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”. This sinking ship of a spiralling crisis that is surging numbers of people living with ME and long Covid with no lifeboat curative treatments in sight.
Connect the dots: this government couldn’t care less about ME patients
Moreover, while we say we’ve known since February, in reality, this has been obvious for a good time longer. A government that can’t even commit to real-terms public funding increases for the NHS is hardly about to plough more funding into tackling one specific, and frankly, under-recognised disease.
Throw in the fact that Labour’s rhetoric around the DWP cuts has been leaning heavily into ableist ‘work-shy scrounger’ narratives and it’s really no major surprise.
The Canary has after all, also connected the dots between its attack on chronically ill and disabled people unable to work, and its plans to coerce them into its new workfare programmes. In fact, we revealed how the biopsychosocial lobby and model is deeply embedded in one key work programme – WorkWell – the DWP has been trumpeting.
The BPS model has long been a feature of the Labour right’s approach to disability benefits. Crucially, it was under Tony Blair’s New Labour government that a chief medical adviser for the DWP – Mansel Aylward – embedded this into the government’s approach to welfare. You can read more about this murky history here.
But the point is that Blairites’ neoliberal Starmerite successors are picking up this mantle and running with it. Far be it for a Labour government fixated on more austerity through public service cuts to put its money where its mouth is for ME patients. Instead, schemes like WorkWell and controversial Independent Placement and Support (IPS) are more on-brand.
That is, forcing ME patients into work will save it money overall, so that’s where Labour is more likely heading. It will publish the ME Delivery Plan in this context. In short: it was only too predictable that new funding was never going to happen.
New ME specialist services? Not likely with the ME Delivery Plan
To sum up then: work programmes cost less money than funding research, or ensuring a stable and sufficient social security safety net. It means more ME patients shunted into work – a boon in Labour’s mind for business, tax revenues, and the welfare purse. Though obviously, it’s all at the significant risk of severely worsening their health. Those unable just lose out on DWP disability entitlements regardless.
No matter – not Labour’s problem, because there’s no real treatments or services ME patients can access anyway. So, any concern it has that exacerbating ME patients’ health condition might overload an already stretched NHS and eat into its budget, is moot. It’s counting on ME patients not accessing services at all – because they won’t exist.
And it’s sure looking like Labour doesn’t intend to change the provision available now. From what we can glean ahead of the delivery plan itself, this very likely won’t set out more government support for specialised ME services either. Notably, Dalton responded to another question that Labour MP Chris Ward submitted. This concerned:
what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact on clinical support staff of referring patients with long covid to ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome specialist services.
Dalton replied that the government has made no such assessment, only that:
NHS England has published commissioning guidance for post-Covid services which sets out the principles of care for people with long COVID.
There is also specific advice for healthcare professionals to manage long COVID. Patients should be managed according to current clinical guidance, such as that published and updated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Whilst NICE guidelines are not mandatory, the Government does expect clinicians and healthcare commissioners to take them fully into account.
On top of this, she highlighted that:
Commissioning, service provision and staffing for both myalgic encephalomyelitis services and long COVID services are the responsibility of local integrated care boards.
Reading between the lines then, it implies that through the delivery plan, the government won’t mandate the commissioning of new services. Nor, again, will it deign to fork up new funding allocations for it. But then, why would it? See again: all the above. This is another instance in which it was something already supremely obvious.
Not that we can trust Labour or the NHS anyway
All that said, it’s rather hard to trust that the government and NHS would bring forward genuinely decent services for ME patients anyway.
As anyone living with it will tell you, the ‘specialist clinics’ for ME that do exist are absolutely woeful. At best, they’re abysmally underequipped to help ME patients. Since there’s no current treatments or cures, it’s largely advice-based. The most these can usually do is suggest symptom management techniques like pacing.
At worst, these have been a hotbed of actively harmful so-called ‘treatments’ like graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for years.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that Dalton referenced may have removed GET as a treatment recommendation, and downgraded CBT in its new 2021 guidelines, but that hasn’t stopped specialist services promoting them anyway. That is, even now, some of these services are offering slyly rebranded versions of this, such as Bristol ME service’s lead Peter Gladwell’s ‘pacing up’ approach. NICE guidelines are, after all, not mandatory.
Will the delivery plan do anything to hold healthcare providers accountable for this? Once again, it’s doubtful. And, there was nothing in the December 2024 interim delivery plan that suggested it would either.
Did we mention arch BPS promoter Simon Wessely is still on the NHS England board? The NHS commissioning new services without a BPS approach is looks a lot less likely while he has a steer.
Severe ME services seem even more unlikely with the ME Delivery Plan
Moreover, while it would be nice to think the plan will commit to commissioning specialist NHS services for severe ME patients, similar problems abound.
This narrative around the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital having a protocol for severe ME in an inpatient setting is admirable.
But let’s be realistic: all any of this will do is possibly – not definitely – stop severe/very severe ME patients from starving to death.
If the interim delivery plan is anything to go by again, there won’t be a lot on this in the forthcoming publication either. All we got was another “work with stakeholders to consider” type promise to:
better support health commissioners and providers to understand the needs of people with ME/CFS, what local service provision should be available and how existing national initiatives to improve accessibility of health services can be adapted or best utilised for people with severe or very severe ME/CFS – by July 2024.
That’s a far cry from a pledge to fund and commission new specialist severe ME services. And these would be arguably even more complex to implement – as nothing like it currently exists.
Dalton’s response on general service commissioning seems to pass the buck onto Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). So, this Labour government – always one to rest on its laurels rather than take concerted action – is not about to break a habit of its to-date parliamentary term lifetime.
More than three years of waiting, and it’s just more hollow hand-wringing that awaits us
According to Dalton on 2 April, the repeatedly delayed publication is now coming at the end of June.
By then, it’ll have been over three years since then Conservative health secretary Sajid Javid launched work on the damn thing.
The Tory government at the time originally promised to publish this by the end of 2022. Then, it was meant to be by the close of 2023. Then, it was going to be published in 2024 – with ministers rather cagey on the definitive dates. To be frank, we’ve lost count of the number of times first the Tories, and now Labour have delayed its publication. Most recently, Labour had promised it for March. Yet, that came and went with not a delivery plan document on DHSC site.
Purportedly, the government needs another couple of months to shore up its document with stakeholders. This is to – we kid you not – ensure its “as ambitious as possible”. Because apparently, two years and ten months wasn’t quite enough time to do that.
In May 2024, I wrote for the Chronic Collaboration about the Westminster debate for ME Awareness Day. In this, I expressed how:
At a previous debate in 2018, the Chronic Collaboration’s Steve Topple wrote for the Canary that parliament had offered a “ray of hope” to the ‘millions missing’ with the devastating disease. Six years on and this glimmer of possibility has all but faded. Not least because at this latest parliamentary affair, ministers were still hand-wringing over all the same problems raised over half a decade ago.
Now as the auspicious 12 May is rapidly approaching again, the ME community will still be minus the delivery plan. However, with the way it’s shaping up, a meagre but at minimum, benign document full of monumental “hand-wringing”, might be the best that we can hope for.
By January 2018, Vanessa Dominguez and her husband had been flirting with moving to a different neighborhood in El Paso, Texas, for a few years. Their daughter was enrolled in one of the best elementary schools in the county, but because the family lived just outside the district’s boundary, her position was tenuous. Administrators could decide to return her to her home district at any moment. Moving closer would guarantee her spot. And when their landlord notified Dominguez that she wanted to double their rent, she and her husband felt more urgency to make their move.
Finally, their opportunity came. Dominguez’s boss owned a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house in Ranchos del Sol, an upper-middle-class neighborhood in east El Paso, and was looking for a new tenant.
With a kitchen island, high ceilings, and a park across the street where kids often played soccer, the house was perfect for the young family. Most importantly, the property was within the school district’s boundaries.
“The property as a whole seemed attractive, and the neighborhood seemed pretty calm,” Dominguez recalled.
Kids play in a park in the neighborhood behind Cardinal Health’s warehouse in east El Paso.
Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
A man cleans his car as his granddaughter plays on the street directly behind Cardinal Health’s east El Paso warehouse.
Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Kids play in a park in the neighborhood behind Cardinal Health’s warehouse in east El Paso (top). On the same street as Vanessa Dominguez’s house, a man cleans his car as his granddaughter plays, and Cindy Martinez sweeps as her granddaughter, Emerie, plays. Their homes are directly behind Cardinal’s east El Paso warehouse. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Cindy Martinez sweeps the street as her granddaughter, Emerie, plays. Their home is directly behind the Cardinal’s east El Paso warehouse.
Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
After they moved in, Dominguez’s daughter quickly took to running around in the backyard, which featured a cherry blossom tree, and the family often grilled outside. Dominguez barely noticed the warehouse just beyond the cobblestone wall at the back. It really wasn’t until the COVID-19 stay-at-home mandate in 2020 that she noticed the stream of trucks pulling in and out of the facility. Sometimes, she would hear the rumble of 18-wheelers as early as 6:30 a.m.
Still, she made little of it. She didn’t realize that the warehouse was owned by Cardinal Health, one of the largest medical device distributors in the country, or that it is part of a vast supply chain that the American public relies on to receive proper medical care.
But for Dominguez and her family, what seemed little more than a minor nuisance was actually a sprawling menace — one that a Grist data analysis found was exposing them to exceedingly high levels of a dangerous chemical.
Homes on the street behind Cardinal Health’s east El Paso warehouse overlook the facility’s loading dock. A Grist data analysis found that residents in parts of the neighborhood are likely being exposed to dangerously high levels of ethylene oxide. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Cardinal Health uses that warehouse, and another one across town, to store medical devices that have been sterilized with ethylene oxide. Among the thousands of compounds released every day from polluting facilities, it’s among the most toxic, responsible for more than half of all excess cancer risk from industrial operations nationwide. Long-term exposure to the chemical has been linked to cancers of the breast and lymph nodes, and short-term exposure can cause irritation of the nasal cavity, shortness of breath, wheezing, and bronchial constriction. Dominguez’s family would go on to experience some of these symptoms, but only years later would they tie it to ethylene oxide exposure.
Warehouses like the ones in El Paso are ubiquitous throughout the country. Through records requests and on-the-ground reporting, Grist has identified at least 30 warehouses across the country that definitely emit some amount of ethylene oxide. They are used by companies such as Boston Scientific, ConMed, and Becton Dickinson, as well as Cardinal Health. And they are not restricted to industrial parts of towns — they are near schools and playgrounds, gyms and apartment complexes. From the outside, the warehouses do not attract attention. They look like any other distribution center. Many occupy hundreds of thousands of square feet, and dozens of trucks pull in and out every day. But when these facilities load, unload, and move medical products, they belch ethylene oxide into the air. Most residents nearby have no idea that the nondescript buildings are a source of toxic pollution. Neither do most truck drivers, who are often hired on a contract basis, or many of the workers employed at the warehouses.
Warehouses storing products sterilized with ethylene oxide
Grist assembled a list of U.S. warehouses that have reported storing products sterilized with ethylene oxide and others used by major medical device manufacturers and distributors.
Confirmed
Potential
Loading map data…
Source: Grist analysis
Map: Lylla Younes / Clayton Aldern / Grist
A full list of the warehouse addresses and company responses to Grist questions can be found here.
Grist identified the country’s top medical device manufacturers and distributors, including Cardinal Health, Medline, Becton Dickinson, and Owens & Minor, and collated a list of the more than 100 known warehouses that they own or use. Some of these companies have reported to state or federal regulators that they operate at least one distribution center that stores products sterilized with ethylene oxide. Others were identified in person by Grist reporters as recipients of products from sterilization facilities. But since companies use multiple sterilization methods, it’s unclear whether each of these emits ethylene oxide. However, Grist still chose to publish the information to demonstrate the scale of the potential problem: There are almost certainly dozens, if not hundreds, more warehouses than the 30 we are certain about — and thousands more workers unknowingly exposed to ethylene oxide.
Identifying these warehouses and the 30 or so that emit some amount of ethylene oxide was a laborious process, in part because information about these facilities isn’t readily available. Grist reporters staked out sterilization facilities, spoke to truck drivers and warehouse workers, and combed through property databases.
The problem is “much bigger than we all assume,” said Rick Peltier, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts. “The lack of transparency of where these products go makes us worried.”
A driver walks to his truck moments before leaving Cardinal’s east El Paso warehouse. Truck drivers are among those who are unaware of their exposure to the facility’s ethylene oxide emissions. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
At the El Paso warehouse behind Dominguez’s house, Grist spoke to several Cardinal employees who had little knowledge of the risks of being exposed to ethylene oxide. Cardinal Health, which employs a largely Latino workforce at the warehouse, requires some laborers to wear monitors and keep windows and vents open for circulation. But the workers Grist spoke to were unsure what the company is monitoring for.
“I think it’s because of a kind of gas that we are breathing,” one material handler told Grist while on break. “I don’t know what it’s called.”
In response to the list of Cardinal warehouses that Grist identified, a spokesperson noted in a brief comment that the “majority of addresses you have listed are not even medical facilities” and that “the majority of the locations you’ve listed aren’t relevant to the topic you’re focused on.” However, the company did not provide specific information, and the warehouse locations were corroborated against materials available on the company’s website.
A “Healthcare heroes work here” sign hangs outside Cardinal Health’s warehouse near the El Paso airport. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Cardinal’s operations extend across the U.S.-Mexico border. The company runs a manufacturing plant in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, where gauze, surgical gowns, drape sheets, scalpels, and other medical equipment are packaged into kits that provide “everything a doctor needs” to conduct a surgery, as one worker put it. The finished kits are trucked back to El Paso or to New Mexico, where they’re sterilized with ethylene oxide by third-party companies that Cardinal contracts with. Then, the products are trucked to one of the two Cardinal warehouses in El Paso, where they remain until they’re shipped to hospitals across the country. All along the way, in the trucks that transport them and the warehouses that store them, ethylene oxide releases from the surface of the sterilized devices, a process called off-gassing.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the facilities where medical devices are sterilized, controlling the processes and safety protocols to keep ethylene oxide emissions to safe levels. But for myriad reasons, the federal government — and the vast majority of states — has turned a blind eye to warehouses. That’s despite the fact that these storage centers sometimes release more ethylene oxide and pose a greater risk than sterilization facilities. Georgia regulators found that was the case in 2019, and a Grist analysis found the warehouse in Dominguez’s backyard posed a greater threat than the New Mexico sterilization facility that Cardinal receives products from.
Trucks load and unload products at a sterilization facility in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The facility uses ethylene oxide and is part of a vast medical supply chain.
Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
An ethylene oxide warning sign is seen at the Santa Teresa facility.Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
“The EPA knows that the risks from ethylene oxide extend far beyond the walls of the sterilization facility,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a lawyer at the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice who works on toxic chemicals, “that the chemical remains with the equipment when it is taken to a warehouse, and that it continues to be released, threatening workers and threatening surrounding communities.
“EPA had a legal obligation to address those risks,” he added.
In 2009, Cardinal Health reached out to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ, the state environmental regulator, seeking permits for its ethylene oxide emissions. At the time, the chemical compound was not known to be as toxic as it is, and TCEQ officials asked few questions about the effect the emissions would have on residents nearby. Grist’s reporting indicates the company had no legal responsibility to inform state officials but appears to have done so as a responsible actor.
The company’s applications included a rudimentary diagram of a truck pulling up to a warehouse, an arrow pointing up into the air to denote ethylene oxide emissions from the facility, and a truck pulling out of the warehouse. “Due to the unloading of the tractor trailers, Cardinal Health is registering the fugitive EtO that escapes upon the opening of each of the tractor trailers,” it noted, using an abbreviation for ethylene oxide.
To calculate how much of the chemical escaped from trucks carrying sterilized products, Cardinal Health used an EPA model developed for wastewater treatment systems at TCEQ’s direction and multiplied the estimate by the number of trucks it expected would drop off products every year. It’s unclear why the agency instructed Cardinal Health to use a wastewater model for an air pollutant when alternatives existed, but these imprecise calculations led the company to figure that its warehouses emitted at least 479 pounds per year. TCEQ granted Cardinal’s permits without requiring the company to take measures to reduce the pollution or notify residents.
Four years later, the company appears to have made an effort to determine more precise calculations. In a 2013 experiment, the company fit blowers to a truck and measured the amount of ethylene oxide emitted — but withheld other relevant details, like when the measurements were taken and how many products the truck transported, from the documents it submitted to TCEQ. Cardinal found that, in the first five minutes after a truck pulls into the warehouse, the sterilized products off-gas ethylene oxide at their highest levels. But after five minutes, rather than dropping to zero, the off-gassing levels stayed steady at 7 parts per million for the next two hours.
After medical products are sterilized with ethylene oxide, they’re
packaged and loaded onto trucks.
Jesse Nichols / Parker Ziegler / Grist
Publicly available documents do not provide details about where the trucks were coming from, how many packages they held, or how long ago the products had been sterilized — crucial details that determine the rate at which ethylene oxide off-gases. If the medical devices in the truck that Cardinal observed traveled a short distance or if the truck was mostly empty when the experiment was conducted, the company could have vastly underestimated the emissions.
“The numbers they’re using are just science fiction,” said Peltier. “For something as powerful as a carcinogen like this, we ought to do better than making up numbers and just doing some hand-waving in order to demonstrate that you’re not imposing undue risk to the community.”
What’s more, the analyses did not take into account the ethylene oxide emissions once the products were moved inside Cardinal’s facilities.
Toxicologists have long identified ethylene oxide as a dangerous chemical. In 1982, the Women’s Occupational Health Resource Center at Columbia University published a series of fact sheets educating workers about the chemical, and in 1995, the Library of Congress released a study on the risks of using the gas to fumigate archival materials. However, it wasn’t until 2016 that the EPA updated ethylene oxide’s toxicity value, a figure that defines the probability of developing cancer if exposed to a certain amount of a chemical over the course of a lifetime. That year, the agency published a report reevaluating ethylene oxide utilizing an epidemiological study of more than 18,000 sterilization facility workers. The agency’s toxicologists determined the chemical to be 30 times more toxic to adults and 60 times more toxic to children than previously known.
Ethylene Oxide Facts
What is ethylene oxide? Ethylene oxide is a colorless and odorless toxic gas used to sterilize medical products, fumigate spices, and manufacture other industrial chemicals. According to the Food and Drug Administration, approximately half of all sterile medical devices in the U.S. are disinfected with ethylene oxide.
What are the sources of ethylene oxide exposure? Industrial sources of ethylene oxide emissions fall into three main categories: chemical manufacturing, medical sterilization, and food fumigation.
What are the health effects of being exposed to ethylene oxide? Ethylene oxide, which the EPA has labeled a carcinogen, is harmful at concentrations above 0.1 parts per trillion if exposed over a lifetime. Numerous studies have linked it to lung and breast cancers as well as diseases of the nervous system and damage to the lungs. Acute exposure to the chemical can cause loss of consciousness or lead to a seizure or coma.
How is the EPA regulating ethylene oxide? A 2024 rule requires sterilization facilities to install equipment that minimizes the amount of the chemical released into the air. But the new regulation does not address emissions from other parts of the medical device supply chain, such as warehouses and trucks. The Trump administration has also indicated it will rescind the rule.
Ethylene oxide, they determined, was one of the most toxic federally regulated air pollutants. Prolonged exposure was linked to elevated rates of lymphoma and breast cancer among the workers. In one study of 7,576 women who had spent at least one year working at a medical sterilization facility, 319 developed breast cancer. According to an analysis by the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, roughly 14 million people in the U.S. live near a medical sterilization facility.
As a result of the EPA’s new evaluation, companies throughout the country came under greater scrutiny, with some sterilizers experiencing more frequent inspections. But regulators in Texas disputed the EPA’s report. In 2017, eight years after Cardinal Health’s first permit, officials with the TCEQ launched its own study of the chemical and set a threshold for ethylene oxide emissions that was 2,000 times more lenient than the EPA’s, setting off a legal battle that is still playing out in court. For warehouses, which do not receive federal scrutiny, TCEQ’s lenient attitude meant virtually no oversight.
By early 2020, people around the world had little energy for anything but the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, the spike in demand for sterilized medical devices — and now masks — meant that more trucks with more materials passed through warehouses like the one just beyond Dominguez’s backyard.
To approximate how high her family’s exposure was to ethylene oxide during this period, Grist asked an expert air modeler to run Cardinal Health’s stated emissions through a mathematical model that simulates how pollution particles disperse throughout the atmosphere. (This same model is used by the EPA and companies — including Cardinal — during the permitting process.) Grist collected the emissions information from permit files the company had submitted to the state.
The results indicated that ethylene oxide concentrations on Dominguez’s block amounted to an estimated cancer risk of 2 in 10,000; that is, if 10,000 people are exposed to that concentration of ethylene oxide over the course of their lives, you could expect two to develop cancer from the exposure.
1 mile
The EPA has never been perfectly clear about what cancer risk level it deems acceptable for the public to shoulder. Instead, it has used risk “benchmarks” to guide decisions around the permitting of new pollution sources near communities. The lower bound in this spectrum of risks is 1 in 1 million, a level above which the agency has said it strives to protect the greatest number of people possible. On the higher end of the spectrum is 1 in 10,000 — a level that public health experts have long argued is far too lax, since a person’s cancer risk from pollution exposure accumulates on top of the cancer risk they already have from genetics and other environmental factors. The risk for Dominguez and her family is just beyond even that.
According to the air modeler’s results, 603,000 El Paso residents, about 90 percent of the city’s population, are exposed to a cancer risk above 1 in 1 million just from Cardinal Health’s two warehouses. More than 1,600 people — including many of Dominguez’s neighbors — are exposed to levels above EPA’s acceptability threshold of 1 in 10,000. The analysis also estimated that the risk from Cardinal Health’s warehouse is higher than that of a Sterigenics medical sterilization facility, located just 35 miles away in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. These findings underscore how much ethylene oxide can accumulate in the air simply from off-gassing. To be clear, these figures are based on Cardinal’s own data. Given the questions surrounding the company’s estimates, the risk to Dominguez, her neighbors, and the facility’s workers could be higher.
1 mile
In 2021, Dominguez gave birth to her second child, and over the next few years, both she and her children began suffering from respiratory issues. Her young son, in particular, developed severe breathing problems, and a respiratory specialist prescribed an inhaler and allergy medication to help him breathe better. Her daughter, now a teenager, complained of persistent headaches. And she, too, began developing sinus headaches.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Health was expanding its operations. In 2023, the company applied to the TCEQ for an updated permit “as quickly as possible.” At the warehouse across town from Dominguez, the company soon expected to receive nearly four times as many trucks carrying sterilized products — potentially up to 10,000 trucks a year — and the increased truck traffic “may increase potential emissions” of ethylene oxide.
Cardinal relied on the 2013 experiment to estimate the facility’s emissions, simply multiplying that concentration by the new maximum number of trucks the facility would be permitted to receive. The back-of-the-envelope calculation led the company to estimate that the warehouse across town from Dominguez would increase its emissions to 1,000 pounds of the chemical per year.
Trucks parked outside a Cardinal Health warehouse near the El Paso airport. The company applied for a permit to accept shipments from as many as 10,000 trucks per year in 2023. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Cardinal also estimated that the medical equipment would off-gas 637 pounds of ethylene oxide inside the warehouse every year. However, it claimed that those emissions are “de minimus,” or insignificant sources of pollution. Under Texas state law, minimal emissions, such as the vapors that might form in a janitorial closet storing solvents or gas produced by running air conditioners or space heaters, may be excluded from permitting requirements.
“Like, if I’m a college professor in school, I don’t want to consider the volatile organic compounds coming out of the marker pens that I’m writing with on the board,” said Ron Sahu, a mechanical engineer and consultant with decades of experience working with state and federal environmental regulators and industrial operators. The exceptions, he said, “were not based on highly toxic compounds like ethylene oxide.”
As required under Texas rules, Cardinal surveyed facilities around the country that emit comparable amounts of ethylene oxide and summarized the technology they use to reduce emissions. Given the volume of the emissions from the warehouse, the most analogous facilities were the sterilizers themselves. The company found two sterilizers in Texas that utilize equipment to reduce their emissions by 99 percent.
But these options, Cardinal determined, were “cost excessive” and emissions from the warehouse were “very low.” Instead, the company said it would simply “restrict” the number of trucks unloading sterilized products — only three per hour and 10,000 per year. In other words, it would expand its operations, but in a controlled way, in order to forego proven methods of reducing ethylene oxide emissions.
Grist sent TCEQ detailed written questions about the permits it issued to Cardinal. Even though the questions were based on documents the agency has already made publicly available, a spokesperson requested that Grist send a formal records request “due to the level of involvement and the amount of technical information you are requesting.”
Ultimately, in 2023, TCEQ granted Cardinal’s new permit.
At the same time that Cardinal Health was expanding its operations in Texas, the fight to have stricter oversight of ethylene oxide was spreading across the country. Individuals in Lakewood, Colorado, filed private lawsuits for health care damages related to ethylene oxide exposure; others joined class action lawsuits against sterilization companies and the EPA.
Finally, in April 2023, the EPA proposed long-overdue regulations to reduce ethylene oxide emissions from sterilizers. While the draft rule covered emissions from storage centers located on-site, it neglected to include off-site warehouses. Other provisions advocates had hoped for, like mandatory fence-line air monitoring near facilities, were also missing from the draft rule.
Following standard procedure, the EPA then opened a 75-day period for public comment and potential revision to the draft rule. Earthjustice organized a convening of community advocates from across the country to increase pressure on the agency to strengthen its draft. Residents from California, Texas, Puerto Rico, and other places with sterilizers spent two days in Washington, D.C., petitioning members of Congress, meeting with the EPA, and sharing their stories of exposure.
Daniel Savery, a legislative representative at Earthjustice who helped organize the event, told Grist that the meeting with the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation was well attended and that leadership expressed empathy for the stories they heard. But when the agency released the final rule in March 2024, neither off-site warehouses nor mandatory air monitoring was included. The regulations do reference the problem of off-site warehouses and indicate the agency’s intention to collect information about them — a first step that Savery believes wouldn’t have made it into the rule were it not for pressure from the Washington meetings. However, he added, the EPA should have collected information about medical supply warehouses a long time ago.
“This is the EPA’s eighth rodeo on this issue,” Savery said, alluding to the many years advocates have pressed the agency to address ethylene oxide exposure since the chemical was found to be highly toxic in 2016. The EPA’s Office of Inspector General, an independent agency watchdog, had asked the federal regulators as early as 2020 to do a better job informing the public about their exposure to ethylene oxide from the sterilization industry. “The wool is sort of over the country’s eyes for the most part about these emissions sources,” Savery said.
Cardinal Health’s warehouse in east El Paso is a few hundred feet from a residential neighborhood. The company has permits from the state to emit ethylene oxide but residents are unaware of their exposure to the chemical. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Efforts to rein in ethylene oxide emissions seem unlikely during President Donald Trump’s second term. Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA’s air quality office, Aaron Szabo, was a lobbyist for the sterilization industry, and the agency recently asked sterilizers seeking an exemption from ethylene oxide rules to send their petitions to a dedicated government email address. The Trump administration has since also said in court filings that it plans to “revisit and reconsider” the rule for sterilizers.
A spokesperson for the EPA said they cannot “speak to the decisions of the Biden-Harris administration” and cited the agency’s recent decision to offer exemptions to sterilizers. The spokesperson also referenced a separate EPA decision to regulate ethylene oxide as a pesticide. That decision “could require a specific study for monitoring data on fumigated medical devices to better understand worker exposure to EtO from fumigated medical devices,” the spokesperson said. However, much like the sterilizer rule, the Trump administration could also decide to rescind the pesticide determination.
“Ethylene oxide from these warehouses is just unregulated,” said Sahu, the mechanical engineer. “There’s no control, so everything will eventually find its way to the ambient air.”
Last August, on a cloudy morning in east El Paso, Texas, when most people’s days were just getting started, workers at the Cardinal Health warehouse were sitting in their cars, a stone’s throw from the Dominguez backyard. Having started their shifts at 5 a.m., they were all on break. One young worker was talking to his girlfriend. Another was scrolling on Facebook. And another snacked on Takis, staining her fingers bright red.
Some of their jobs require moving refrigerator-size pallets filled with sterilized medical devices. Others carefully cut open the pallets wrapped in plastic, moving the cardboard boxes containing the medical kits into the warehouse and repackaging them to be trucked to hospitals across the country. They do this with protective gloves, basic face masks, and hairnets — precautions the company urges to ensure the sterility of the medical equipment, not the protection of the workers.
A truck carrying medical devices leaves Cardinal Health’s east El Paso warehouse. Ivan Pierre Aguirre / Grist
Grist spoke to several of them while they were on break or leaving their shifts. Although none of the workers agreed to speak with Grist reporters on the record, due to a fear of retaliation by their employer, they shared their experiences about working at the warehouse. Most were unaware they were being exposed to ethylene oxide. Some had heard of the chemical but didn’t know the extent of their exposure and its risks.
Grist also distributed flyers to workers and nearby residents explaining the risks of ethylene oxide exposure. Two workers called Grist using the contact number on the flyer and said they had developed cancers that research links to ethylene oxide exposure after they started the job.
Since learning about the warehouse’s emissions, Dominguez said she now thinks twice before letting her young son play in the backyard. “We’re indoors most of the time for that reason,” she said.
Dominguez had been considering buying the property from her boss, but her family’s future in their home is now uncertain.
“I really changed my mind about that,” she said.
Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.
We created an informational guide — available in English and Spanish — in collaboration with community organizations, nonprofits, and residents who have pushed for more EtO regulation for years. This booklet contains facts about EtO, as well as ways to get local officials to address emissions, legal resources you can reference, and more. You can view, download, print, and share it here.
If you’re a local journalist or a community member who wants to learn more about how we investigated this issue and steps you can take to find out more about warehouses in your area, read this.
This coverage is made possible through a partnership betweenGrist and WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region.
Chicago city leaders are set to consider a major overhaul in how and where polluting businesses are allowed to open, nearly two years after the city settled a civil rights complaint that alleged a pattern of discrimination threatening the health of low-income communities of color.
The measure, expected to be introduced Wednesday, would transform how heavy industry is located and operated in the country’s third largest city. If passed into law, it would require city officials to assess the cumulative pollution burden on communities before approving new industrial projects.
As the Trump administration dismantles protections for poor communities facing lopsided levels of pollution, Chicago’s ordinance is a test case for local action under a federal government hostile toward environmental justice. Over the past three months, the Trump administration has already undone long-standing orders to address uneven environmental burdens at the federal level and challenged government programs monitoring environmental justice issues across the country.
Now, advocates are hoping the local legislation becomes a blueprint for how state and local governments can leverage zoning and permitting to protect vulnerable communities from becoming sacrifice zones.
“The Trump administration is trying to erase history,” said Gina Ramirez, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Midwest director of environmental health. “You can’t erase our industrial past — it’s literally haunting us.”
Chicago’s industrial history is especially pronounced in low-income communities on the city’s South and West sides. The proposed ordinance would give these communities a voice in the permitting process via a new environmental justice advisory board, Ramirez said.
“Nobody wants to be sick,” said Cheryl Johnson, an environmental activist on the Far South Side who has been advocating for pollution protections for almost 40 years.
The Chicago ordinance is named after Johnson’s mother, Hazel Johnson, who started fighting in the 1970s for the health of her neighbors at a public housing community surrounded by a “toxic doughnut” of polluters.
Cheryl Johnson runs People for Community Recovery, an organization started by her mother, with the same mission to protect human health. “The most important thing — and the only thing that we get — is good health or bad health,” Johnson said. “That’s what my mother fought for.”
In 2020, Johnson’s group, along with several other local environmental justice organizations, launched a civil rights complaint over the city’s role in the relocation of a metal-shredding operation from its longtime home on the North Side to a majority Black and Latino neighborhood on the far South Side of the city.
An investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development concluded in 2022 that Chicago had long placed polluters in low-income areas, while sparing majority-white affluent neighborhoods.
In a binding agreement with former President Joe Biden’s administration, the city promised to offer a legal fix. Former mayor Lori Lightfoot signed the agreement with HUD hours before she left office in 2023. Her successor, Mayor Brandon Johnson, vowed to follow the agreement and said that September that an ordinance proposal would be offered in short order.
But weeks and months turned into years, and community, health, and environmental advocates complained that the mayor was slow-walking his promises. Nearly two years later, the city is finally set to deliver.
Not all community groups are happy with the proposal. Theresa McNamara, an activist with the Southwest Environmental Alliance, said at a recent public meeting she didn’t think the measure would go far enough. She called it a “weak piece of crap” based on her understanding of the main points.
Experts said the law’s success would depend on the city’s will to execute and enforce it.
“There’s a lot of states and even cities that have assessment tools, but the question is, what do you do with those?” said Ana Baptisa, an environmental policy professor at The New School in New York.
In New Jersey, Baptista helped pass a similar ordinance — then the first of its kind — through the Newark City Council in 2016. Since then, local and state governments across the country have followed suit. At least eight states have passed this type of legislation, including California, Minnesota, New York, and Delaware.
Still, Baptista said Newark’s bill has failed to rein in polluting industries. “It proved to be what we feared: a sort of formality that oftentimes doesn’t even get completed,” she said.
Even without power to deny or constrain new pollution sources, the advisory board itself marks progress, according to Oscar Sanchez, whose Southeast Environmental Task Force helped file the original civil rights complaint,.
Sanchez added that as the federal government retreats from its commitments to environmental justice, state and local entities are on the front line of buffering communities from greater pollution burdens.
“We are pushing the needle of what people can try to achieve in their own communities,” he said.
Plant-based proteins have come under heavy scrutiny for being ultra-processed, but current classification systems don’t fully reflect a food’s healthfulness, a new study has found.
Plant proteins shouldn’t be “demeaned” as unhealthy ultra-processed foods (UPFs), as their biochemical composition and micronutrient profile suggest otherwise, according to a new study.
Researchers from the University of Turku in Finland argue that current classification systems like Nova and Poti don’t sufficiently acknowledge the presence of compounds. Recognising the value of certain added ingredients – not just those that are harmful – is crucial, their research shows.
Published in the Nature Food journal, the analysis looked into the biochemical composition of 168 plant-based proteins made from a host of different base ingredients, as well as eight conventional meat products. They specifically explored the presence and availability of phytochemicals, which are bioactive compounds linked with multiple health benefits.
“Phytochemicals are a very large group of different compounds found only in plants, of which there are thousands of different types. On average, we consume 0.5-1g of phytochemicals per day, depending on our diet,” explained Kati Hanhineva, a professor of food development at the university. “However, until now there has not been enough research on how different processing methods affect these compounds.”
This latest study, though, contends that classifications like Nova “fail in several cases to provide a meaningful interpretation of the effect of processing”, suggesting that these systems often categorise foods containing beneficial bioactive compounds as processed or ultra-processed, “potentially misleading consumers into avoiding them”.
Nova classification of UPFs is limited for plant-based foods
Courtesy: Nature Food
The research particularly focused on soy products, including whole beans, tofu, tempeh, concentrates or isolates, and meat analogues. All of these finished products contained high levels of phytochemicals. When it came to isoflavonoids, vegan steaks were found to contain very little of these, but foods with lighter processing techniques, like tofu or soy chunks, retained a higher amount from the original soybean.
“Fermentation was highlighted as an important processing method in the results. We found that in tempeh, for example, these isoflavonoids were in a form that is more readily absorbed due to the activity of the microbes used in fermentation,” said doctoral researcher and lead author Jasmin Raita.
The problem, though, is that some fermented tempeh products fell into the UPF category in the existing classification systems, just like products made with extrusion. This highlights why UPF categorisation is limited when it comes to plant-based products, the researchers said.
“It is important to note that food processing should not be seen as exclusively harmful, as fermentation, for example, can even improve the nutritional value of a product,” Raita pointed out.
“The phytochemical compounds identified in the study may have health benefits, although they are currently not included in the nutrition labelling of food products,” added Hanhineva.
These can also indicate how well the original composition of a plant-based raw material has been preserved. “If there are no phytochemicals left in the product, it indicates that the product has undergone heavy industrial processing, after which the biochemical composition is completely different to that of the original plant used as a raw material. This perspective is not fully supported by current food processing classification systems,” she explained.
Courtesy: Springer
Not all processed foods are unhealthy, researchers say
The researchers explained how certain UPFs have been linked with adverse health effects, but not all. Studies have shown that plant-based foods, including those categorised as UPFs, are not associated with the risk of multimorbidity (or having two life-threatening diseases concurrently).
“It cannot be assumed that all processing makes a product unhealthy, because ultimately it is only the nutritional components of the edible product that matter, and how they are absorbed by our bodies. These determine the nutritional value and healthiness of food products,” said Ville Koistinen, a research fellow at the university. “Processing food is common, and even unprocessed food is often eventually processed at home, for example, by cooking,” he added.
Along these lines, the study described how the Nova classification bases the definition of UPFs on the processing techniques and added ingredients, and that of processed foods on the addition of elements like oils.
“Tofu and tempeh are categorised as processed, according to Nova. However, if they contain various flavouring ingredients or have been pre-fried, they are labelled as ultra-processed, even though consumers would probably cook and season them similarly at home,” the authors wrote.
This latest study noted that under the Nova category, most UPFs span unhealthy convenience food products and sugary beverages – but this group also contains phytochemical-rich foods, for which there’s no scientific support to limit their dietary intake.
“Ideally, people would consume the presumably healthier UPFs, such as tempeh, but other factors, such as price and convenience, are important drivers for consumer decisions,” it stated. “Bearing these factors in mind, refining the current classification system could assist in guiding consumers to select nutritionally and phytochemically richer food products.”
French catering giant Sodexo is expanding its partnership with Greener by Default to roll out plant-forward menus at 400 hospitals in the US.
To help Americans stay healthier, spend less money, and be kinder to the planet, Sodexo is expanding its plant-heavy menus across all US hospitals it caters to.
To do so, it’s diversifying its partnership with Greener by Default, a behavioural choice agency that advocates for menus that prioritise plant-based food over animal options.
The expansion builds on the success of their campaign with NYC Health + Hospitals, which rolled out its ‘plant-based by default’ scheme at all 11 public hospitals in the city to great success. That initiative has served over two million patients since its 2022 launch, with a 90% satisfaction rate.
Sodexo’s menus position vegan meals as the default option for one meal per day at 131 hospitals already, but this will now be extended to an additional 200 hospitals this year, and bring the total to 400 by 2026.
“Our collaboration with Greener by Default is driven by our shared goal to advance and promote plant-based dining in hospitals across the US through effective choices,” said Molly Matthews, CEO of Sodexo’s healthcare and seniors divisions.
“We anticipate continued success of the plant-based menu expansion and its positive impact on our clients and their patients.”
Sodexo looks to replicate NYC success
Courtesy: Better Food Foundation
The New York City scheme saw plant-based meals become the preexisting option for patients. The first meal offered is the chef’s recommendation, and is always plant-based. If this isn’t accepted, they’re presented with an alternative vegan option. If that is rejected too, many other dishes are available.
Patients are presented with nutritional information to encourage healthy eating both during and after their stay, hospital TVs and screensavers include an appealing image of vegan food with text highlighting its health benefits, and tray carts pushed through halls are wrapped in imagery that promotes plant-based meals. When being discharged, patients also receive a vegan recipe book collected from hospital staff submissions.
All this has led to a 36% reduction in food emissions. And the savings don’t just come from carbon – the vegan dishes are 59 cents cheaper than meat-based dishes on average.
The success of this programme has spurred Sodexo’s expansion. Early data from another hospital already offering plant-based meals by default shows that patients have been eating 36% more vegan entrées, while their selection of meat-based mains has declined by 20%.
These numbers may be preliminary, but they suggest that even if 10% of the 290,000 meals Sodexo serves to patients daily shift from animals to plants, the caterer could transition more than 10 million meals a year.
The company argues its vegan meal programme preserves freedom of choice and provides an array of protein options for diners, with dishes including Cajun pastalaya, southwest potato breakfast bowl, and balsamic stuffed portobello mushrooms. It cites research showing that plant-based eating can “significantly lower” the risk of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
“As a leader in healthy-outcomes-based menus and protocols through our Clinicia patient nutrition programs, we recognised the need for a partner like Greener by Default to support our efforts in educating teams, promoting our plant-based meal options, and extracting meaningful data for improved outcomes,” Matthews noted.
Plant-based meals scheme part of climate strategy
Courtesy: NYC Health + Hospitals
“The continued success of patient menus that position plant-based options as the default demonstrates how small, cost-effective shifts can have an outsized impact, while still preserving freedom of choice for diners and ensuring their access to nutritious, sustainable foods that don’t compromise on taste,” said Greener by Default co-founder and CEO Katie Cantrell.
The non-profit has teamed up with 18 hospitals and healthcare systems (both in the US and overseas) in the last year alone, developing plant-forward menus to help improve health and climate outcomes, decrease costs, and prioritise diner satisfaction.
Sodexo, meanwhile, has rolled out a similar initiative at 400 US universities via a partnership with behavioural science non-profit Food for Climate League and dietary change think tank the Better Food Foundation, using the latter’s DefaultVeg approach.
The caterer’s Good Eating Company had previously partnered with Greener by Default on a successful corporate pilot with LinkedIn, halving the carbon emissions of the social media company’s San Francisco office. The 12-week pilot saved 14,400 of CO2e by making two-thirds of the menu vegan, including opting for oat milk as the default coffee bar choice and flavour descriptors over words like ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ on menu cards.
All this plays into its climate targets. The company plans to lower emissions by 34% by this year (from a 2017 baseline) and make 70% of all its meals low-carbon by the end of the decade, as part of a wider goal to reach net zero by 2040.
The Non-GMO Project recently launched a new on-pack certification to help consumers identify ultra-processed foods – here’s what you need to know, and what it means for plant-based meat.
With ultra-processed foods (UPFs) front of mind for consumers in 2025, one of the US’s most well-known food verification bodies recently rolled out a new label to promote transparency around these products.
The Non-GMO Project, the organisation behind the Non-GMO label, has introduced a Non-UPF Verified label to “address the pervasive dominance of ultra-processed food”. The badge was launched under the Food Integrity Collective, a group that convenes stakeholders from the natural products sector to “create systemic change in our food system”.
“We’re really focused on the power of informed choice to create a food system with more integrity,” Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project, told Green Queen in January.
“And right now, UPF is not sufficiently defined and is generally harder than it should be to identify, so that’s the gap we’re aiming to fill with this new standard and programme.”
A survey conducted by the Non-GMO Project last year found that 85% of Americans wanted to avoid UPFs, but felt overwhelmed or unsupported in their desire to do so.
The Non-UPF standard aims to “provide a clear and enforceable framework for identifying foods that avoid excessive industrial processing and certain manufactured additives”, the organisation said in a webinar last week. It would prohibit ingredients “under investigation for metabolic dysfunction, gut microbiome disruption, and other health concerns”.
The group explained that the label is designed to set measurable criteria for defining non-UPFs, based on processing methods, “ingredient integrity”, and formulation thresholds. It also aims to offer manufacturers, retailers and consumers a “practical, science-based tool” to navigate today’s complex food landscape, and support innovative producers that prioritise whole, minimally processed ingredients that are feasible for real-world application.
There is currently a waitlist for companies looking to use the Non-UPF Verified label on their product packaging, with its creators currently working on establishing a clear framework of standards manufacturers would need to meet to qualify for the label.
The organisation is conducting a pilot this spring and summer with a select group of brands, working on an initial draft of the label to be used with four technical administrators through the trial. “They’ll be working with up to 20 different brands and a variety of products in those brands’ portfolios to pressure-test the standard and give us input,” Westgate said, adding that her team will engage with the public for input over this period too (though a formal consultation won’t be held until later).
How was the Non-UPF label developed?
Courtesy: Gene J Puskar/AP
The Non-GMO Project outlined four key considerations that inform its Non-UPF verification standard. The first concerns hyperpalatability. “UPFs are often engineered to override natural satiety signals, leading to overconsumption and increased risk of obesity and metabolic disorders,” it said in the webinar.
The second factor revolves around food structure and imbalance, since UPFs are often developed in a way that disconnects texture, flavour and nutrient delivery from whole-food formats, resulting in significantly different compositions.
“Some of that comes into the way that flavourings are used, which also relates to hyperpalatability,” Westgate explained. “The food matrices are eroded, and the body is confused.”
Excessive processing is another consideration, with the organisation suggesting that heavy industrial processing alters food structure, reducing the bioavailability of nutrients. “A lot of the times, if we’re just looking at nutrient levels – like a Nutrition Facts panel – that doesn’t really tell us [if this is] actually something that the body can recognise as food?” Westgate described.
Finally, the Non-UPF Verified label was also designed with the use of isolated ingredients in mind. Additives, emulsifiers, and “ultra-refined ingredients” can modify texture, extend shelf life, and intensify flavour, but they’re “often disconnected from the structure and function of whole foods”.
So how does it plan to implement the certification? “We will have a list of prohibited ingredients. We’re looking to align with things that are banned in the EU… [and] California in recent legislation,” said Westgate.
The Non-GMO Project is similarly monitoring the lists maintained by Whole Foods Market and PCC Community Markets, detailing ingredients they don’t allow to be included in products sold in their stores. “This feels very similar to where we were at in the early days of Non-GMO,” she said. “It really wakes people up when they find out that there are things in our food that are illegal in other countries.”
It has also homed in on the concept of nutrient thresholds for formulations, citing studies that link hyperpalatability to foods with combinations of sugar, oil and salt that don’t occur in nature. “There’s pretty robust research suggesting specific thresholds for the amount of those macros in combination with each other. And so the current draft of the standard proposes taking that lens,” noted Westgate.
The organisation has proposed a classification system for processing to identify how much each method – whether it’s mechanical, chemical, biological, or thermal – breaks down the food matrix, and what its effects are.
Through the pilot, it’s looking to get insight directly from brands about the types of equipment and processes they’re using to classify what’s permissible, what can be used conditionally, and what would classify as minimally or moderately processed.
Speaking of which, it outlined a framework for “conditional ingredients”. “We are contemplating an allowance for up to 5% of the finished dry weight of the product [that] could be constituted by what we’re calling micro-ingredients,” said Westgate, referring to ultra-processed ingredients that individually make up just 0.5% of a food item, and are not on the prohibited list.
This is because these products fall under the bottom category of the Nova classification, which groups food by how much they’ve been processed. UPFs comprise industrial formulations and techniques like extrusion or pre-frying, and cosmetic additives and substances deemed to be of little culinary use.
Despite most meat alternatives being better for human health than the products they intend to replace, they’ve been bundled together with products like Coca-Cola, Oreos, Corn Flakes, and Lay’s. A host of health experts have therefore advocated for nuance when linking UPFs with nutrition, arguing that one has nothing to do with the other.
When speaking to Green Queen earlier this year, Westgate agreed that “most of the pushback about the correlation between UPFs and nutrition/metabolic health is related to how broad Nova category four is, which is part of what we’re seeking to address”.
Courtesy: Heura
So what does the Non-UPF Verified label mean for meat alternatives? It’s a question that came up during the webinar too, pointing out how some additives actually help provide better nutrition than animal products.
Westgate acknowledged that the plant-based category is certainly attracting “a lot of interest” in this regard, adding that it’s aiming to get representation from all major retail categories in its pilot, which has seen interest from over 170 brands, including those that use vital wheat gluten.
This includes plant-based alternatives, which would help it learn about “the ways that these products can be created that are not ultra-processed”. “Right now on the market, we have a range of plant-based alternatives – like some of every category, there are definitely things that are ultra-processed and there are examples of things that are not,” explained Westgate
“For the pilot, we’re really looking at things at brands and product lines where some intent has been there to formulate to avoid ultra processing, even in advance of it being fully defined, so that we can learn from brands. What were you considering? What tradeoffs did you have to make? How did you draw the line?”
How will plant-based meat fare under the Non-UPF Verified standard? It’s a question that remains top of the list for the organisation.
Many people turn to artificial sweeteners like sucralose to help manage their weight or reduce sugar intake. But new research out of USC suggests this popular zero-calorie substitute could actually do the opposite—by making you feel hungrier.
In a recent study published in Nature Metabolism, researchers found that drinking sucralose lit up the part of the brain responsible for controlling hunger even more than regular sugar. That region, called the hypothalamus, plays a key role in appetite and body weight regulation. The effect was especially strong in women and people with obesity.
“Consuming sucralose, a common calorie-free sugar substitute, activates the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that helps regulate appetite and body weight, more than regular sugar does,” the study found.
It also affected how this part of the brain connected with other areas that control motivation and sensory input—essentially how much you want and crave certain foods.
Your body knows when calories are missing
According to lead researcher Kathleen Alanna Page, MD, the problem is that sucralose tastes sweet but doesn’t provide any energy. That disconnect confuses the brain, which is expecting a calorie boost but doesn’t get one.
“If your body is expecting a calorie because of the sweetness, but doesn’t get the calorie it’s expecting, that could change the way the brain is primed to crave those substances over time,” said Page.
Getty
Unlike sugar, sucralose didn’t prompt the body to release hormones like insulin and GLP-1, which help signal to the brain that you’ve eaten and should feel full. “The body uses these hormones to tell the brain you’ve consumed calories, in order to decrease hunger,” Page said. “Sucralose did not have that effect—and the differences in hormone responses to sucralose compared to sugar were even more pronounced in participants with obesity.”
The study also found that women were more affected than men, showing more significant changes in brain activity. Page and her team are now studying how artificial sweeteners might impact kids and teens, who tend to consume more of them than any other age group. “Are these substances leading to changes in the developing brains of children who are at risk for obesity? The brain is vulnerable during this time, so it could be a critical opportunity to intervene,” she said.
A brain-friendly diet that actually helps
While artificial sweeteners like sucralose may not be helping as much as we think, other food choices are showing real promise for long-term brain health. In Northern Ireland, a new study looked at how the MIND diet—which combines parts of the Mediterranean and DASH diets—can help improve mood, nutrition, and even quality of life during midlife.
Unsplash
The MIND diet emphasizes foods that support brain function: leafy greens, berries, nuts, whole grains, and olive oil, while limiting red meat, processed foods, and sugar. The goal is to protect the brain as you age, potentially lowering the risk of dementia and cognitive decline.
Researchers followed 41 adults between the ages of 40 and 55 over a 12-week period. Some received simple guidance on following the MIND diet, while others also had access to digital support like educational content, weekly reminders, and peer forums. A third group followed general healthy eating tips as a control.
Eating better, feeling better
At the end of the study, both MIND diet groups had made noticeable improvements in what they ate. They cut back on sugar, refined carbs, and saturated fats, while increasing their intake of fiber, vitamin-rich vegetables, and brain-friendly nutrients like iron, B vitamins, and vitamin C.
People following the MIND diet also reported better moods. “In assessing mood, the intervention groups reported significant increases in positive affect post-intervention compared to the control groups,” researchers said.
They also saw boosts in physical well-being, suggesting that what they ate made them feel better overall—not just mentally, but physically.
Cognitive test scores didn’t shift dramatically in the short 12-week time frame, but researchers think longer studies are needed to fully understand the brain benefits. Still, participants showed small improvements in memory tasks across all groups, which might be due to practice or time.
Building habits that stick
One of the most encouraging findings from the MIND diet trial was that people didn’t just change their diets—they felt empowered to stick with it. Participants said they better understood how diet affects brain health and believed they had the skills and motivation to keep going. These responses were measured using a behavioral model called COM-B, which tracks how capable, motivated, and supported someone feels in making lifestyle changes.
Interestingly, having more support—like reminders and group chats—didn’t lead to better results than simply having basic information and self-monitoring tools. Both groups did equally well in following the diet and improving how they felt.
That’s good news for anyone looking to make lasting changes. It suggests that adopting a brain-healthy diet doesn’t have to be complicated or tech-heavy. With simple guidelines and a little personal accountability, it’s possible to build new habits that support long-term well-being.
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
In the summer of 2023, a dozen people willingly walked into a steel chamber at the University of Ottawa designed to test the limits of human survival. Outfitted with heart rate monitors and temperature probes, they waited in 42 degrees Celsius, or 107 degrees Fahrenheit, while the humidity steadily climbed, coating their bodies in sweat and condensation. After several hours, their internal body temperatures began ratcheting upward, as the heat cooked them from the outside in.
“Few people on the planet have actually experienced temperatures like this,” said Robert Meade, a postdoctoral researcher in epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who led the study. “Imagine moisture condensing on the skin like a glass of water on a hot day. That’s how hot it was, compared to skin temperature.”
Their experiment tested the body’s ability to cope with extreme heat by exposing participants to temperatures at which they could no longer cool themselves. Their study, published last week in the science journal PNAS, confirmed that this dangerous threshold is much lower than scientists had previously thought: a so-called wet bulb temperature, which accounts for heat and humidity, of 26 to 31 degrees C.
Scientists call this limit the point of “uncompensable” heat stress, “because the body cannot compensate for the heat load placed upon it,” Meade said. “With climate change driving heat waves, there’s been a lot of interest in defining these upper limits.”
When studying the health risks of heat, scientists often refer to wet bulb temperatures because moisture in the air can make heat waves much deadlier by blocking the body’s ability to sweat out heat effectively.
For over a decade, it was widely believed that the maximum wet bulb temperature that bodies could handle was 35 degree C — unlikely to become a common occurrence until global warming had reached a staggering 7 degrees C over preindustrial temperatures.
It wasn’t until 2022 that a group of researchers tested this limit with human subjects, and found that things could get dangerous much sooner, at wet bulb temperatures as low as 26 degrees C. This threshold means that vast areas of the planet could become risky to live in with 2 degrees C of global warming — which could be reached as early as 2045 if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced.
“With a warming climate, we expect that those thresholds will start to be exceeded more often.” said Tony Wolf, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia who studies heat stress and coauthored the 2022 study. “The heat waves are larger in magnitude, and they last longer.”
Other studies, like Wolf’s, have tested this lower heat tolerance over a couple of hours. But Wolf says the latest study is the first to do so over nine hours, closer to what a person might actually experience during a heatwave. Only a few participants were unable to complete the full nine hours while exposed to the temperatures at the “uncompensable” heat limit, although the researchers estimated heat stroke would occur after 10 hours. At slightly lower temperatures, participants were on track to experience heat stroke within 35 hours.
“It’s very rare that you would have such high wet bulb temperatures for more than a day,” Meade said. “But if you think about what it would be like for a person actually exposed to these temperatures, that limit still indicates the point at which core temperature is on this crazy train, streaming up and up.”
Workers dump blocks of ice in a pool in the Philippines amid a 2024 heatwave in Southeast Asia, during which temperatures peaked at 53 degrees Celsius, or 127 degrees Fahrenheit. Ezra Acayan / Getty Images
Different factors can make heat stress more likely at lower temperatures, too. Working outdoors, having preexisting health conditions, and lacking access to air conditioning can make even moderate heatwaves deadly. And while Meade’s study tested young, healthy adults, Wolf’s research has found that older adults experience heat stress at lower temperatures.
“Any elderly person’s circulatory system isn’t going to be as good at dispersing heat,” said Radley Horton, a professor at the Columbia Climate School.“When the temperatures start to get really extreme, the body has to start making some difficult choices,” he said.
In February, Horton published a study in Nature that found 2 degrees C of warming could make more than a third of Earth’s land too hot for those over 60 years old — an estimated danger zone five times larger than it would be for younger adults. The study found that regions with especially hot and humid climates, like the Middle East, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, would be hit the hardest. Cities such as Karachi, Pakistan could bake under temperatures too hot for older adults 20 percent of the year.
The rising heat has already taken a serious toll. Between 1999 and 2023, heat deaths in the United States more than doubled, rising from roughly 1,000 fatalities a year to over 2,000. Over the same amount of time, nearly a quarter million people have died from heat worldwide. In 2023 alone, more than 47,000 Europeans died from heat, with countries in the Mediterranean — which is warming 20 percent faster than the rest of the planet — hit the hardest.
“People already die from heat waves now,” Wolf said. “So regardless of what happens to the climate of the future, it’s important to understand, right now, what are these thresholds above which we start to see greater risk of heat related illness and death?”
A bipartisan bill is calling on Congress to provide non-dairy milk options in the national school meal programme to cater to lactose-intolerant and diet-restricted students.
It’s becoming rarer and rarer to see US Democrats and Republicans work together on a national-level issue, and yet one senator known for his bipartisan efforts is bucking the trend yet again.
John Fetterman, a Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, is leading a bill to make non-dairy milk options more accessible in schools across the nation. Introduced last week, he was joined by fellow senators Cory Booker (the New Jersey Democrat who made headlines for the longest speech in Senate history last week) and John Kennedy (a Republican senator from Louisiana).
They’re seeking to amend the National School Lunch Act to make plant-based milk more easily available in schools for children who cannot or do not drink dairy. Currently, to be reimbursed for their meal in schools, the act requires all kids to have cow’s milk on their trays, regardless of whether it suits them or not.
“This bipartisan and bicameral legislation will bring greater equity to the lunchroom, by giving students the option to choose a nutritious milk substitute that meets their dietary needs,” said Booker.
What the plant-based milk bill would change
Courtesy: Matthew Roharik/Adobe Stock
The FISCAL Act focuses on plant-based alternatives “that are nutritionally equivalent to dairy milk for students who are lactose intolerant or may have other disabilities”.
The existing school lunch law requires that schools “shall offer students a variety of fluid milk”. The proposed Freedom in School Cafeterias and Lunches (FISCAL) Act would see this language updated, replacing “fluid milk” with “milk, including fluid milk and plant-based milk”.
In case a plant-based milk doesn’t meet the guidelines, the bill notes that these need to be “consistent with nutritional standards” established by the agricultural secretary.
The existing act has a subparagraph that addresses non-dairy milk, which states that “a school may substitute for the fluid milk” if students can’t consume dairy because of a medical or dietary need, but this is only possible if the school notifies the state agency that it is making this change, and if the student gets a signed note from a parent or doctor.
The FISCAL Act proposes removing this provision altogether to make plant-based milk options more equitable and on par with dairy in schools. “We need to be doing whatever it takes to make sure our kids are fed in school,” said Fetterman. “This bipartisan bill cuts the unnecessary red tape in our nutrition assistance programs so students can access meals that work for them and their dietary needs.”
If passed into law, the act would require public schools to reimburse local school districts for a plant-based milk that’s nutritionally equivalent to dairy. The USDA already reimburses schools for 1% and non-fat cow’s milk, providing $1B to institutes across the country.
Why lawmakers are batting for plant-based milk
Courtesy: Bored Cow
One of the main drivers of the FISCAL Act is lactose intolerance, which affects around half of the nearly 30 million children who benefit from the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), according to the senators.
“Most of this nation’s children of colour are lactose intolerant, and yet our school lunch program policy makes it difficult for these kids to access a nutritious fluid beverage that doesn’t make them sick,” said Booker, who is famously vegan.
Indeed, lactose intolerance rates are especially high among people of colour, with 65% of Hispanic and 75% of Black Americans suffering from the condition. That number rises to 90% for Asian Americans and 95% for Native Americans.
The senators also cite the USDA’s own findings, which indicate that 30% of milk cartons served in schools are thrown in the trash unopened. Another study found that kids discard 150 million gallons of milk per year, leading to food waste amounting to $400M in tax dollar losses.
“There are over 30 million food-insecure children in this country, yet current school lunch policies waste $400M worth of food each year,” said Fetterman, underlining a growing climate and economic priority in the US. “Feeding our kids and keeping them healthy isn’t a red or blue issue.”
Milk is hot and whole in the MAHA era
Courtesy: Ben Curtis/AP
This latest effort comes a year after the USDA updated its Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to allow recipients access to plant-based milk, yoghurt and cheese.
They remain elusive in schools, and the sheer power of the dairy industry can be seen in the fact that students from institutes participating in the NSLP are legally barred from publicly criticising cow’s milk. This came to national prominence in 2023, when a student in Los Angeles won a lawsuit against her school, which ruled that students have a right to non-disruptive speech critical of dairy under the 1st Amendment.
Milk is a hotly debated aspect of US school policy. The FISCAL Act itself is a companion measure to the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which seeks to overturn an Obama-era reform that prohibited full-fat milk from being part of the NSLP. That measure was aimed at reducing childhood obesity rates, and criticised by the dairy industry for plunging milk sales.
The whole milk bill has gained bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, including Fetterman himself, who co-sponsored the legislation: “Kids need wholesome, nourishing food to grow strong and stay healthy, and whole milk is packed with the nutrients they need,” he said.
It’s a sentiment echoed by the new health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr. As part of his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, he has called for the Head Start programmes – which provide health and nutrition services for kids from low-income families – to switch from low-fat dairy to whole milk, and labelled the USDA’s dietary guidelines as “antiquated”.
We’ve been here before
Courtesy: Silk
If all this feels familiar, that’s because it is. During his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration worked in tandem with the dairy industry, which bore the brunt of his then trade war. American dairy farmers faced $1.5B in retaliatory tariffs from China and Mexico.
In 2018, the Trump government handed a $50M bailout to the industry, buying milk to give to food banks and schools, and made direct payments worth $127M to dairy farmers.
Meanwhile, in 2023, under Joe Biden’s presidency, Fetterman, Booker and colleagues introduced the Addressing Digestive Distress in Stomachs of Our Youth (ADD SOY) Act, calling for public schools to offer dairy-free milk options to kids at lunch. That never went anywhere, but the FISCAL Act is the 2025 iteration of this bill.
Here’s the thing, though. In the 2019 dietary guidelines, the USDA allowed schools to serve low-fat flavoured milk (overturning Obama-era legislation), despite 96% of public respondents being against the move. The agency is already in the crosshairs of the livestock industry over proposed recommendations to prioritise plant proteins in this year’s update to the guidelines.
For a country whose policymakers ruled that pizza could be considered a vegetable in school lunches – thanks to lobbying efforts – the thirst for milk shouldn’t come as a surprise. In 2024 alone, the dairy industry spent over $7.6M lobbying for issues, including school lunches.
There’s one key difference between the milk wars in Trump’s first and second terms. In 2018, even though milk production was on the rise, sales were not – they fell by 6% from the year before. In contrast, plant-based milks saw a 9% hike in sales.
That is no longer the case, as the raw milk craze takes hold, thanks to RFK Jr and a suite of ‘wellness’ influencers, despite stark health warnings. Sales of dairy milk grew by 2% in 2024, with whole milk intake up by 3% – though unlike six years prior, non-dairy milk was on the decline, with sales dropping by 6%.
It remains to be seen how the whole milk and plant-based acts end up. Dotsie Bausch, a vegan Olympic medallist who has helped eliminate the non-dairy surcharge in chains like Tim Horton’s and Dunkin through her non-profit, Switch4Good, puts it best: “It’s no longer 1945, and we are a multicultural nation and need individual free choice to reign. We don’t offer kids only one food to eat, and we must stop offering them only one drink.”
We’ve all experienced that moment of panic when we realize we’ve forgotten something essential, like our keys or wallet, just as we’re about to leave the house. It’s a universal experience, and according to a recent study, it’s completely normal.
Two psychologists, Megan Sumeracki and Althea Need Kaminske, delve into the intricacies of memory in their book, The Psychology of Memory, challenging common misconceptions and shedding light on the complexities of how we store and retrieve information.
In their book, Sumeracki and Kaminske highlight the disparity between popular media portrayals of memory, which often depict extraordinary abilities like a photographic memory or savant-like recall, and the reality of how memory functions for most people.
Retha Ferguson/Pexels
They stress the importance of understanding memory as a dynamic process rather than a static recording device, likening it to a constantly evolving Wiki page where details can be edited and revised over time.
While Kaminske herself admits that she often spends copious time looking for her keys and water bottle, the psychologist explains that this forgetfulness may only be situational—adding another dimension to how memory can work.
“We would hazard a guess that if we were in a survival scenario where dehydration was a concern, we would be much more aware of water sources,” Kaminske said in a statement.
“People are better at remembering information when they process it in a fitness-relevant scenario, such as being stranded in the grasslands of a foreign land,” she said.
These insights challenge the common assumption that memory is always reliable and accurate, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of how memory works.
What to eat to improve memory
While forgetting is normal, if you want to actively improve your memory, science offers some promising avenues for enhancing cognitive function. Sumeracki and Kaminske focus on a variety of strategies in their book but, as other research has shown, diet can also play a role.
Here are five evidence-based eating strategies to give your memory a boost.
Adobe Stock
1Lion’s mane mushrooms
Research suggests that lion’s mane mushrooms may have neuroprotective properties and could potentially enhance cognitive function. A 2023 study found that supplementation with lion’s mane extract improved cognitive performance, making it a promising candidate for those looking to sharpen their memory.
“Extracts from these so-called ‘lion’s mane’ mushrooms have been used in traditional medicine in Asian countries for centuries, but we wanted to scientifically determine their potential effect on brain cells,” Professor Frederic Meunier of Australia’s Queensland Brain Institute, who led the study, said in a statement.
“Using super-resolution microscopy, we found the mushroom extract and its active components largely increase the size of growth cones, which are particularly important for brain cells to sense their environment and establish new connections with other neurons in the brain,” Meunier said.
Incorporating lion’s mane mushrooms into your diet can be as simple as adding them to your favorite dishes as a meaty centerpiece that can be cooked to mimic the taste and texture of chicken, lobster, or crab.
Suju/Pexels
2Antioxidant-rich produce
Antioxidants found in fruits and vegetables have been linked to a variety of health benefits, including cognitive function. Studies suggest that a diet rich in antioxidant-rich produce may help slow down age-related cognitive decline, including memory loss, providing yet another reason to fill your plate with colorful fruits and vegetables.
To boost your intake of antioxidants, focus on incorporating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables into your meals and snacks. Aim to include a rainbow of colors, as different colored fruits and vegetables contain different types of antioxidants that offer unique health benefits.
Some antioxidant-rich options to consider include berries, leafy greens, citrus fruits, bell peppers, and tomatoes. These foods are not only delicious and nutritious but also easy to throw together into a filling salad or noodle bowl.
Lachlan Ross/Pexels
3Whole grains
Not all carbohydrates are created equal when it comes to cognitive health. Research published in Neurology indicates that incorporating whole grains into your diet may help preserve cognitive function as you age, particularly episodic memory. Transitioning to a diet rich in whole grains could be a simple yet effective way to slash the risk of certain neurodegenerative diseases.
“It’s exciting to see that people could potentially lower their risk of dementia by increasing their diet of whole grains by a couple of servings a day,” Xiaoran Liu, PhD, the study’s lead author, said in a statement.
To incorporate more whole grains into your diet, focus on choosing minimally processed grains such as brown rice, quinoa, barley, oats, and whole wheat. These grains are rich in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients that support overall health and well-being.
You can use whole grains as the base for meals such as grain bowls, salads, soups, and stir-fries. A bonus? Research has also shown that consuming these quality carbohydrates can prevent weight gain in middle age.
Unsplash
4Plant protein
Swapping animal meat for plant protein can be a protective measure to keep your mind sharp. That’s because evidence suggests that excessive consumption of animal meat may have detrimental effects on cognitive health. Several studies have linked meat consumption to accelerated cognitive decline and aging of both the mind and body.
One study published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease took a comprehensive look at how diet affects aging and cognition. The biggest takeaway? The researchers found that meat consumption was “the most important risk factor for Alzheimer’s,” and consuming large amounts is linked to higher rates of cognitive decline, obesity, inflammation, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, and more.
To reduce your meat consumption, consider incorporating varied plant-based protein sources such as beans, lentils, tofu, tempeh, and seitan. Or consider store-bought meat alternatives for an easy swap.
Kampus/Pexels
5Overall healthy plant-based diet
While individual foods may have specific benefits for memory and cognitive function, adopting an overall healthy plant-based diet is also associated with improved brain health. Studies have shown that older adults following a plant-based diet experience less cognitive decline compared to those who consume animal products, suggesting that overall dietary choices can have a significant impact on cognitive aging.
To embrace a healthy plant-based diet, focus on incorporating a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds into your meals and snacks. These nutrient-rich foods provide essential vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and other compounds that support brain health and cognitive function.
You can start by experimenting with plant-based recipes and gradually increasing the proportion of plant foods in your diet. Try swapping out meat for plant-based protein sources such as tofu, tempeh, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
Two of the most studied plant-forward diets—the Planetary Health Diet and the Mediterranean Diet—may help people live longer while also lessening their environmental footprint, according to a new study presented at the European Society of Cardiology’s Preventive Cardiology 2025 conference.
Researchers analyzing data from more than 11,000 adults in Spain found that participants with the highest adherence to either dietary pattern were significantly less likely to die during the 14-year follow-up period. The findings add to growing evidence that plant-based eating can simultaneously support public health and environmental sustainability.
Healthier people, healthier planet
“Higher adherence to both diets was similarly associated with lower all-cause mortality and with comparable low environmental impact, highlighting the substantial health and planetary advantages of adopting one of these plant-based diets,” said study author Mercedes Sotos Prieto, PhD of the Autonomous University of Madrid.
Pexels
According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally, responsible for more than 17 million deaths each year. In Europe alone, poor diet is estimated to contribute to one in five premature deaths. Reducing this burden is central to the mission of preventive cardiology, where food choices play a pivotal role.
Planetary Health Diet
The Planetary Health Diet, introduced in 2019 by the EAT-Lancet Commission, was developed as a blueprint for feeding a growing global population in a way that respects ecological boundaries. It centers meals around whole, plant-based foods—vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and unsaturated oils—while recommending limited portions of red meat, added sugars, and high-fat dairy. Caloric intake is capped at roughly 2,500 calories per day, though it varies by individual.
The Mediterranean Diet
The Mediterranean Diet, by contrast, is rooted in the traditional eating patterns of countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. It also emphasizes plants, favoring fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and olive oil, while encouraging fish and white meats over red meats. Dairy and eggs are consumed in moderation, with sweets and sugary drinks kept to a minimum.
Scoring the diets
To assess the long-term effects of these diets, researchers turned to the Study on Nutrition and Cardiovascular Risk in Spain (ENRICA), which tracked 11,488 participants aged 18 to 96. Food intake was measured using validated dietary questionnaires. Researchers calculated two separate scores to determine how closely individuals followed each diet: a 0 to 140 point scale for the Planetary Health Diet and a 0 to 14 point MEDAS score for the Mediterranean Diet.
Participants were grouped into tertiles based on adherence. Those in the top third for the Planetary Health Diet had a 22 percent lower risk of death than those in the bottom third. For the Mediterranean Diet, those with the highest adherence saw a 21 percent lower mortality risk.
Getty
In both cases, several individual food components showed independent associations with lower risk. For the Planetary Health Diet, higher consumption of fruits, dairy, and unsaturated oils contributed positively. For the Mediterranean Diet, regular intake of nuts and limited consumption of pastries and sugary sodas were particularly beneficial.
The environmental evaluation added another layer of significance. Using the SHARP-Indicators Database, which assesses greenhouse gas emissions and land use, the study found that both diets had similarly low ecological footprints. The Planetary Health Diet was associated with average daily greenhouse gas emissions of 4.15 kilograms of CO2 and a land use of 5.54 square meters per day. The Mediterranean Diet, including dairy, showed slightly higher greenhouse gas emissions at 4.36 kilograms of CO2 per day but slightly lower land use at 5.43 square meters per day.
Pexels
Both diets performed significantly better than conventional Western diets, which typically involve higher consumption of red and processed meat, ultra-processed snacks, and sugar-sweetened beverages—all of which are associated with higher environmental costs. Meat and dairy products were identified as the largest contributors to land and carbon footprints across all dietary patterns studied.
Climate-friendly diets
These results come at a time when public interest in climate-friendly diets is growing. A 2023 report from the UN Environment Programme emphasized that transitioning to more plant-rich diets is essential to meeting global climate targets. The food system currently accounts for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and livestock alone contributes nearly 15 percent.
Meanwhile, health agencies around the world have begun integrating sustainability into dietary guidance. The Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany have all issued national dietary guidelines that recommend more plant-based foods not just for personal health, but also for the planet.
Spain, where the ENRICA study was conducted, is particularly well-positioned to evaluate the Mediterranean Diet due to its deep cultural roots in the region. However, researchers believe the findings are broadly applicable.
“In 2019, the Planetary Health Diet was developed to optimize global dietary quality while keeping the environmental impacts of food production within sustainable planetary boundaries,” Sotos Prieto said. “However, there was a lack of evidence on how the [Planetary Health Diet] compares with the Mediterranean Diet, a plant-based diet with established health and environmental benefits, that is well rooted in Mediterranean countries. We evaluated the effects of both diets on all-cause mortality and environmental impact in a large representative Spanish population.”
Pexels
The research also highlights the feasibility of combining health and environmental goals without requiring radical dietary overhauls. Both diets allow for flexibility, permitting moderate consumption of animal products, which may make them more accessible than strictly vegan or vegetarian plans.
Given the scale of diet-related illness and the urgency of the climate crisis, the alignment between personal and planetary health is no longer theoretical. The evidence is increasingly clear: dietary choices can shape not only individual outcomes, but also the future of global ecosystems.
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
The Department of Health and Human Services is laying off thousands of employees, in some cases eliminating entire offices and programs.
HHS began sending reduction-in-force (RIF) notices around 5 a.m. EDT Tuesday morning, according to more than half a dozen employees who spoke to Federal News Network.
Several HHS employees shared photos of staff waiting in long lines to get into their buildings. Employees targeted by the RIF learned their Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards were deactivated.
“The way people are finding out whether they are RIF’d this morning is to go through this very long process to get to the building and to go through security, and then badge-in at the main atrium.
Brooke Shields has found that paying attention to hunger cues—and adjusting her meals accordingly—has made a notable difference in her energy and wellbeing. The star, who turns 60 this May, told Women’s Health she now opts for “smaller, more balanced meals” each day to help her stay full instead of sitting down to the traditional three bigger meals. Listening to her body has become a priority.
The idea of ditching the traditional breakfast-lunch-dinner format isn’t new. But its resurgence among celebrities and wellness influencers has put this eating pattern back under the spotlight. A growing number of nutrition experts echo Shields’ sentiment, suggesting that eating every few hours may help with energy, digestion, and even weight regulation. But is it really the best way to eat for everyone?
What the research says
Several studies have explored the impact of eating frequency on metabolism, satiety, and overall health. A 2021 review published in Nutrients found that more frequent meals may help reduce total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, while also improving glucose control in some individuals. However, the authors were quick to note that these benefits were more likely when meals were nutrient-dense and portion-controlled.
On the flip side, researchers at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute found no significant metabolic advantage to consuming six small meals instead of three larger ones, as long as total calorie intake remained the same. In that randomized study, published in Obesity, both groups lost weight at a similar rate, and no difference in fat mass reduction was observed.
Where this gets tricky is how the body processes calories and nutrients, which can differ based on meal timing, sleep cycles, and even genetics. In a 2023 study in Cell Metabolism, early time-restricted eating—eating all meals within an eight-hour window earlier in the day—was shown to improve insulin sensitivity and blood pressure, regardless of meal frequency. This suggests that when you eat might matter just as much, if not more, than how often.
Hormonal and energy effects
Hunger-regulating hormones like ghrelin and leptin play a major role in how frequently you feel the need to eat. Eating smaller meals at regular intervals may help keep these hormones stable, potentially reducing sudden spikes in hunger or cravings.
Spacing out meals every three to four hours can help keep blood sugar levels more consistent, which for many people means fewer energy crashes. This approach isn’t a one-size-fits-all fix, but it works well for those who find themselves feeling ravenous or irritable between traditional meals.
Adobe
In a 2022 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, participants who ate six smaller meals reported more stable energy throughout the day compared to those eating three larger meals. However, those in the small meal group also reported higher levels of preoccupation with food, signaling a possible downside for people prone to disordered eating or those trying to reduce emotional eating habits.
Weight management and muscle preservation
One of the most commonly cited reasons for adopting a small-meal routine is weight loss. But while the concept sounds logical—frequent eating keeps the metabolism revved up—scientific evidence does not strongly support this theory.
A widely cited meta-analysis in the British Journal of Nutrition found no consistent association between meal frequency and weight loss. Instead, what mattered more was overall calorie balance and dietary quality. Eating more frequently can sometimes lead to unintentional overeating if portion sizes are not carefully managed.
Canva
That said, smaller meals may offer benefits for those seeking to maintain lean muscle mass. According to a study published in The Journal of Nutrition, spreading protein intake evenly throughout the day—rather than consuming the bulk of it at dinner—can better support muscle protein synthesis, particularly in older adults. This is especially relevant for those in midlife and beyond, like Shields.
Gut health and digestion
From a digestive perspective, more frequent meals can be both helpful and harmful, depending on the individual. Those who suffer from acid reflux or bloating may find relief in smaller, spaced-out meals. But others may struggle with constant grazing, which can disrupt the Migrating Motor Complex (MMC)—a cleansing process in the gut that typically activates during fasting periods.
“The number of meals in a day itself isn’t key,” Marissa Kai Miluk, registered dietitian nutritionist, told Cnet. “Every person is different and there is research on all ends of the spectrum of how many times a day you ‘should’ be eating.”
The exception? People with blood sugar disorders or chronic illnesses that require more frequent caloric intake may benefit from eating every few hours, as directed by a healthcare provider.
And, Miluk cautions, “experiencing frequent mood swings, hanger, erratic cravings, insatiable hunger, eating with a sense of urgency and binges are common signs that you may need to reevaluate your eating patterns and relationship with food.”
Customizing meal frequency for your body
The prevailing theme across expert opinions is personalization. Meal frequency should depend on your lifestyle, activity level, health status, and how you feel during the day—not arbitrary rules.
“This is why trusting and tuning into one’s own body is more important than any diet rule or handbook on health,” Miluk said. “A scientific study could say that eating 12 times a day is the best for longevity, but who does that realistically apply to?”
Some people thrive on intuitive eating patterns that shift from day to day. Others benefit from structure and routine, using smaller meals to manage hunger and avoid overeating later. There is no singular right way to eat.
That’s something Shields seems to have figured out for herself. “I’m really starting to realize that if I crave something, I probably need something in it,” she said. “But now I’m better off.”
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
For some, sleep deprivation is a glamourised as a badge of honour, earned for being constantly on the grind in our capitalist world. For others, it’s a sacrifice that needs to be made to make ends meet. Stella Carmerlengo writes that no matter how you look at it, sleep deprivation is a human rights violation and should be addressed as such.
Most of us have, at some point, muttered the phrase, “There just aren’t enough hours in the day.” We stretch our days thin, sacrificing rest in the name of the ever-present pressure to always do more. As a college student, I know this feeling all too well. With a full courseload, a job, and an internship, I hold countless stories of late nights cooped up in the library grinding out papers and assignments. Fuelled by caffeine and a culture that glorifies sleeplessness as a badge of productivity, I – like so many others – have come to accept exhaustion as a normal part of my life. While a sleep-deprived night here and there might seem like a temporary sacrifice, chronic sleep deprivation isn’t always a choice. For many, it’s a systemic issue tied to human rights.
Technically, sleep fits under existing human rights protections, but is never explicitly mentioned. The right to health, for example, is recognised in Article 25 of the UDHR and Article 12 of the ICESCR. These documents guarantee access to medical care, clean water, and proper nutrition. It isn’t a hot take to say that these are all things that are necessary to stay alive. But there’s an essential piece that is left out of these formal covenants: sleep. Proper sleep is health. You can drink all the water and eat all the healthy food in the world, but without sleep, your body and mind will still break down regardless of the circumstance.
There are a lot of things we could blame universal sleep deprivation on. We could pin it on the endless notifications lighting up our phones at night. Or is it picking up extra shifts at a side job just to get by? Maybe it’s the pressure to squeeze productivity out of every waking hour. Well, I’ll tell you this straight up: hustle culture has turned exhaustion into a status symbol: a direct product of a system that values productivity over the very well-being of its people. We live in a world that treats sleep as expendable, something we can cut back on without regard for consequences. But the consequences are everywhere – rising burnout rates, declining mental health, and worsening physical conditions linked to chronic exhaustion. Greedy companies push the idea that high achievers should be constantly available. They should be checking their emails late at night, working weekends, and putting in extra hours – often unpaid. And it doesn’t stop at corporate jobs. Gig workers, medical staff, and night-shift employees operate in a system that makes quality sleep a privilege rather than a guarantee.
Not everyone is equally sleep-deprived, though. Research shows that race, class, and social status play a role in determining who is likely to get quality rest and who isn’t. In the United States, Black Americans sleep nearly an hour less per night than white Americans. Due to differences in income and environment, sleep becomes a privilege for lower socioeconomic and ethnically diverse groups as they have to contend with noise, crime, and industrial pollution that makes getting rest more difficult. Shift work disproportionately affects Black and Latino workers, forcing them into irregular schedules that harm sleep and health. Medical bias worsens the issue, as Black Americans are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for sleep disorders. The sleep gap isn’t just personal, it’s structural. If sleep is essential to well-being, addressing sleep inequality must be a public health priority.
Beyond socioeconomic factors, sleep deprivation isn’t just a consequence of overwork or poor conditions – it’s also deliberately weaponised. For example, in the aftermath of 9/11, interrogation techniques such as prolonged sleep deprivation and painful stress positions were authorised by the United States. The CIA’s use of sleep deprivation included keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, a method intended to break them mentally and physically. The deliberate use of sleep deprivation to weaken individuals proves just how essential rest is to human dignity. If sleep deprivation is recognised as a form of torture in extreme cases, why is it ignored when millions of workers, students, and marginalised communities experience it daily?
Yet, amid these issues, how do we solve this? The first step is recognising sleep as a fundamental human right, not just a personal responsibility. To change this, international organisations must formally recognise sleep – or even rest – as such. But we can’t stop there. More stringent labour laws are needed to protect workers from exploitative overtime policies, especially in industries like healthcare and food service, where exhaustion is essentially built into the job. No one should be forced to sacrifice their health just to keep a paycheck. At the same time, government-funded sleep health campaigns – similar to anti-smoking and mental health initiatives that have historically been beneficial – could help shift attitudes about rest. These campaigns could raise awareness of sleep deprivation risks, promote healthier workplace policies, and push for systemic changes that prevent chronic exhaustion.
We’ve all felt it; that sense that there aren’t enough hours in the day, that rest is something we must sacrifice just to keep up. But maybe the problem isn’t time itself; it’s the way we’ve built a world that treats sleep as negotiable, as something to cut back on rather than protect. Sleep isn’t a privilege; it is a fundamental right. Instead of chasing more hours, maybe it’s time we start reclaiming the ones we already have.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
When the Marshall Fire swept through the grassy plains and foothills outside Boulder, Colorado, in late December 2021, it burned down more than 1,000 homes — and left many young people shaken. “It can just be pure anxiety — you’re literally watching a fire march its way across, and it’s really, really close,” said David Thesenga, an 8th grade science teacher. Some of his students at Alexander Dawson School in the small town of Lafayette lost their homes to the fire.
As more students come to school traumatized by living through fires, floods, and other extreme weather, teachers are being asked to do more than educate — they’re also acting as untrained therapists. While Thesenga’s private school has psychologists on staff, they don’t provide mental health resources dedicated to helping students work through distress related to the changing climate, whether it’s trauma from a real event or more general anxiety about an overheated future. “Sometimes you don’t need a generic [tool],” he said. “What you need is something very specific to the trauma or to the thing that is causing you stress, and that is climate change.”
Middle school teachers around the country say they feel unprepared to help their students cope with the stress of living on a warming planet, according to a new survey of 63 middle school teachers across the United States by the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation. Nearly all of the teachers surveyed reported seeing emotional reactions from their students when the subject of climate change came up, but many of them lacked the resources to respond.
“Students are showing up in the classroom with a range of climate emotions that can be debilitating,” said Sarah Newman, the founder and executive director of the Climate Mental Health Network. “This is impacting students’ ability to learn and how they’re engaging in the classroom.”
One of the biggest concerns Thesenga hears from his students is that climate change feels out of their control and thinking about it seems overwhelming. “They just feel powerless, and that’s probably the scariest thing for them,” he said.
Katie Larsen, who teaches 6th and 9th grade biology at The Foote School in New Haven, Connecticut, says that her students have grown up knowing that climate change is a problem, but learning about the extent of environmental damage — like how many species go extinct every year — often surprises them. She tries to shift the conversation away from doom and gloom and toward something more hopeful, such as what people can do to save ecosystems. “I think the more positive you can make it, and action-oriented, the better,” she said.
A growing body of research shows that young people’s anxieties about climate change can affect their relationships and their ability to think and function. Last November, a study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that 16- to 25-year-olds were struggling with their worries about climate change. Of the more than 15,000 young Americans surveyed, 43 percent reported that it hurt their mental health, and 38 percent said that it made their daily life worse.
Then there’s the matter that surviving a specific disaster can be traumatizing for people of any age. Living through a hurricane or flood can lead to an increased risk of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, while wildfires have been connected with anxiety, substance abuse, and sleeping problems, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2022. These problems are especially acute for children and adolescents.
An 8-year-old walks through what remains of her grandfather’s house in a neighborhood decimated by the Marshall Fire in Louisville, Colorado.
Michael Ciaglo / Getty Images
To address the lack of resources for dealing with distress related to climate change, the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation developed a new toolkit that teachers can use in their middle school classrooms. One handout, called the “climate emotions wheel,” helps students identify their emotions, arranging them into four main categories — anger, sadness, fear, and positivity — and then breaking those down to more specific feelings, such as betrayal, grief, anxiety, and empowerment.
While science classrooms are a natural fit for these resources, Megan Willig, who helped create the activities with the National Environmental Education Foundation, says she hopes that teachers can use them in English, social studies, and art classes, among other subjects. They’re designed to be quick and ready to use. “Teachers shared that they’re busy, and they have a lot on their plates,” said Willig, who’s a former teacher herself.
The exercises prompt students to reflect on how other young people are processing distress over climate change and explore how to turn their anxiety into action. One activity in the toolkit introduces “negativity bias,” referring to how the brain often latches onto negative thoughts, and asks students to counter that tendency by brainstorming happier emotions related to the Earth. Another prompts students to consider their “spheres of influence” and think about what they can do to contribute to solving climate change in their inner circle, their community, and in the wider world.
The toolkit was piloted last fall by 40 teachers who volunteered in 25 states. Afterward, all of the teachers who participated said they’d recommend it to a colleague, and a majority reported feeling more confident addressing students’ emotions — as well as their own. The tools were successful in red states like Utah, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, West Virginia, and Indiana, as well as blue ones like New York and Washington. Newman thinks it’s a sign that the need for these kinds of resources isn’t a partisan issue.
She views middle school as a crucial moment to offer mental health support. “Kids are really becoming more aware of climate change and what’s actually happening,” she said. “It’s often the first time that they’re going to be learning about it in school. They have more access to social media and online news, which is amplifying their awareness and knowledge about climate change, and they’re going through really formative times.”
Asked if he would try the exercises, Thesenga said he would give them a shot. “Absolutely, why the hell not?” he said. In his Facebook groups, he’s seen fellow teachers say they avoid the subject altogether in class. “That is not the answer — your students want to know,” Thesenga said. “You’re the frontline person. You have to buck it up, and you have to do this.”
A recent study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Mass General Brigham linked yogurt consumption with a reduced risk of developing a specific and deadly subtype of colorectal cancer. The research, published in Gut Microbes, analyzed data from more than 151,000 adults over several decades and found that individuals who consumed two or more servings of yogurt weekly had a lower risk of developing Bifidobacterium-positive proximal colon cancer. This subtype affects the right side of the colon and is among the most difficult to treat.
“Yogurt contains many different strains of bacteria, of which Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are frequently found, and these good bacteria can often out-compete more harmful bacteria that cause inflammation, leading to the breakdown of the lining of the gut, allowing bacteria into the gut wall,” colorectal surgeon Anne Mongiu, MD, PhD, explains.
This isn’t a cure-all, however. Mongiu adds that while yogurt did not lower the risk of all colorectal cancers, the microbial activity in the gut plays a significant role in immune regulation and inflammation reduction.
But what if you’ve swapped your dairy for almond, oat, or coconut yogurt? Are you missing out on the benefits, or can plant-based alternatives measure up?
What makes dairy yogurt protective?
Yogurt’s benefits stem primarily from live active cultures like Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, which help maintain a balanced gut microbiome. These probiotics promote a healthier gut lining and reduce the kind of chronic inflammation associated with tumor development, explains gastroenterologist James Cox, MD.
These strains are naturally present in dairy fermentation, which gives traditional yogurt its distinct tang and thick texture. But they can also be added to non-dairy alternatives. The key is not the milk source, but whether probiotics are introduced and remain viable by the time the yogurt hits your spoon.
Can dairy-free yogurt deliver the same gut health benefits?
The short answer: potentially, yes—if formulated correctly. Many non-dairy yogurts now include live and active cultures, sometimes the very same strains found in dairy-based versions. However, not all plant-based yogurts are created equal.
Coconut-based yogurts tend to be higher in fat and lower in protein, while almond and oat versions often have added starches and thickeners to achieve the desired texture. Still, many are fortified with calcium, vitamin D, and probiotics to help close the nutritional gap.
Forager
When opting for dairy-free yogurt, look for labels that explicitly say ‘contains live and active cultures. These are the products most likely to support the microbiome in a way similar to dairy yogurts.
What about omegas, fiber, and anti-inflammatory benefits?
This is where plant-based yogurts may shine. While traditional dairy yogurt is rich in protein and calcium, it’s generally low in fiber and omega-3 fatty acids. Some non-dairy yogurts, on the other hand, are made with chia seeds, flax, or nuts—ingredients that contribute fiber, omega-3s, and polyphenols.
These compounds are associated with better gut health and lower inflammation. In fact, research published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology suggests that diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids and dietary fiber may improve gut barrier function and reduce colorectal cancer risk.
Kite Hill
Fiber from plant-based sources encourages the production of short-chain fatty acids, which nourish colon cells and maintain gut lining integrity. In that sense, a well-formulated plant-based yogurt might offer additional benefits that dairy doesn’t.
Just be mindful of sugar. Some non-dairy yogurts contain high amounts of added sweeteners, which can offset potential gut benefits. Cox recommends opting for plain varieties and sweetening them naturally. Fruit or a drizzle of honey alternative are great choices for sweetening yogurt.
What should you look for in a dairy-free yogurt?
If you’re seeking a plant-based yogurt that supports colon health, keep an eye out for the following ingredients and nutrients:
Live cultures: Look for probiotic strains like Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus on the label.
Added fiber: Products made with oats, chia, flax, or inulin fiber can help meet daily fiber goals.
Healthy fats: Yogurts made from nuts or with added omega-3s can support anti-inflammatory functions.
The bigger picture: colon cancer prevention beyond yogurt
Yogurt is just one component of a colorectal cancer prevention strategy. A plant-forward, high-fiber diet remains one of the strongest defenses.
Vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains offer consistent, well-documented benefits. Add in fermented foods like sauerkraut or miso, and you’re supporting gut health from multiple angles.
Research has shown that people who eat high amounts of red and processed meat may increase their colorectal cancer risk by as much as 30 percent. Meanwhile, excessive alcohol consumption has been linked to a 17 to 47 percent increased risk.
So if you’re reaching for yogurt as part of your wellness routine, plant-based options can absolutely play a role—as long as they are crafted with your microbiome in mind.
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
Spanish plant-based meat leader Heura Foods and French vegan whole-cut specialist Swap Food have teamed up to launch a Suprême chicken fillet in three European markets.
With an aim to “revolutionise the plant-based fillet experience”, Heura and Swap (formerly Umiami) have linked up to introduce a whole-cut chicken breast.
The Suprême fillet is rolling out in over 2,000 supermarkets in France (including Carrefour, Leclerc, Monoprix, Intermarché, and Super U), 1,000 stores in Spain, as well as retailers in Portugal. It enables Heura to expand its product range and Swap to enter the mass retail market in Europe.
“The biggest challenges aren’t solved alone,” Laurent Gubbels, global head of content at Heura, told Green Queen. “While it might be natural to see other plant-based companies as competitors, that’s not how we see it. We see them as mission partners. When we collaborate, when we improve the offer together, everyone wins: the market, the companies, the consumers, the planet, and the animals.”
He added: “From the moment we met Swap, we knew this could be one of those rare, game-changing moments.”
Christel Delasson, VP of sales and marketing at Swap, said: “We have joined forces with a common goal – to break the mould by offering products that appeal equally to meat lovers, flexitarians, vegans, and vegetarians. With this launch, our expertise can reach a wider audience and introduce more consumers to a new way of enjoying plant-based food.”
Bidding adieu to dry vegan chicken
Courtesy: Swap Food
The new fillet boasts a clean-label, additive-free recipe with 20g of protein per serving, offering nutritional values “comparable to a traditional chicken fillet”. It also has a Nutri-Score rating of A. It’s made from water, soy protein (22%), sunflower oil, natural flavours, pea protein flour, citric acid, and salt.
“A product like this was missing from the plant-based market, a fillet that’s remarkably close to chicken in both taste and texture, made with just seven natural ingredients,” said Gubbels. “All the good, but without trans fats, cholesterol and filled with fibre. It’s something truly unique.”
He continued: “Thanks to the complementarity of our expertise, we were able to co-develop a product that combines natural ingredients, pleasure, and accessibility, on a European scale.”
The “tender and juicy” product is manufactured in France, and can be breaded, grilled, fried or braised, and aims to provide home cooks with both indulgence and an easy-to-prep ingredient. Both brands are leaning into the textural characteristics, noting that solving the “dryness” of vegan chicken was one of the main reasons they collaborated.
“We wanted to make you believe it was just like chicken. Same shape. Same taste. Same crispiness,” the brands said in one marketing poster. “But we failed to recreate… chicken’s dryness. Our fillet is juicy. Tender. Enjoyable. A real shame, honestly,” they added ironically.
Courtesy: Heura Foods
Research has shown that Europeans want their vegan chicken to be more tender and have a uniform texture. However, only 18% are avoiding animal products today, and taste is a detractor for 37% of these consumers when it comes to plant-based meat.
That said, 29% of them are cutting back on meat, presenting an opportunity for brands that can meet consumer preferences. In France, too, while the government continues to battle plant-based meat, six in 10 citizens aren’t familiar with vegan alternatives to meat, and nearly half (44%) feel they don’t taste as good.
It’s why the Heura-Swap chicken is targeting not just vegans, but flexitarians and meat-eaters too. “This collaboration allows us to continue offering excellent products without compromise, with superior nutritional quality and a positive impact on the planet,” said Heura co-founder and CEO Marc Coloma.
Swap targets home market with Heura link-up
Courtesy: Swap
The companies called the collaboration a “turning point” for each of their European ambitions. Swap, which has raised $107M so far, uses its Umisation texturising platform to produce whole-muscle replicas of conventional fillets like chicken and fish. This involves a technique that transforms plant proteins into structured fibres without high heat or pressure.
The technology allows the startup to produce plant-based meat with minimal ingredients, with the chicken using eight ingredients and no artificial flavours, colourants or texturisers.
It operates a 14,000 sq m facility in the Alsace region, which can produce 7,500 tonnes of plant-based meat annually, eventually rising to 20,000 tonnes.
Last year, it entered the US foodservice sector, with its chicken fillet appearing on the menu of several Chicago eateries, including Majani, The Chicago Diner, Spirit Elephant, Soul Veg City, Duke’s Alehouse, and Clucker’s Charcoal Chicken.
Swap Chicken was the recipient of a Tasty Award by sensory-based research firm Nectar last month, signalling that more than half of taste-testing omnivores found it to taste the same or better than animal protein.
Heura teases chicken burger and two ‘game-changing’ launches
Courtesy: Heura
Heura, meanwhile, claims it’s responsible for four of the five bestselling vegan products in Spain. In 2023, it grew sales by 22%, reaching €38.3M, and it’s charting a path to profitability this year.
Having raised €88M to date, its products are available in more than 20,000 stores in 20 countries. After Spain, France is its second-largest market, where its sales hiked by 88% in 2023. “With over 2,000 points of sale, French consumers will now have access to this new innovation,” Coloma said of the Suprême chicken fillet.
“It also meets the expectations of French consumers, who are increasingly incorporating plant-based foods into their diets,” he added. Indeed, despite the lack of familiarity, a quarter of French people eat meat and dairy alternatives weekly, and 14% do so several times a week – a three-point increase from 2022 and 2023.
The Spanish startup is now working on vegan cold cuts, cheese, and pasta as well, aiming to tackle a wider range of categories with nutrient-dense alternatives and entice a larger share of consumers dissatisfied with ultra-processed foods. “They’re currently in development,” said Gubbels. While he did not share a timeline, he suggested that they have already undergone some taste tests.
This is Heura’s second launch this year, following the chicken chunks it introduced in February. “This month, we’re also launching a ‘chicken-style’ burger, and two more game-changing products are lined up for summer,” he revealed.
“2025 will be a transformative year for Heura. Last year was all about laying the foundation – we didn’t launch new products, but we developed patents and improved our current products. And this year, we’re set to see the results. Our goal is clear: to become profitable and prove to the world that a plant-based meat company can stay and succeed.”
Germany has long been at the forefront of medical advancements, and its role in stem cell research is no exception. The country is a global leader in developing innovative therapies that help patients suffering from various diseases, including diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, and tissue regeneration challenges. With modern facilities and highly qualified specialists, stem cell treatments in Germany provide some of the most advanced treatment options available today.
How Stem Cell Therapy Works
Stem cells have the unique ability to develop into different types of tissues, making them a revolutionary tool in modern medicine. This ability allows patients to receive treatment that can repair damaged tissue and even restore organ function. Traditional methods focus on managing symptoms. In contrast, stem cell therapies aim to regenerate and heal affected areas, offering long-term solutions.
Scientists are continuously researching new ways to optimize stem cell applications, ensuring safer and more effective treatments. Clinical trials have shown promising results in treating chronic conditions, offering hope for those with limited medical options. With ongoing advancements, the potential for stem cell therapy continues to expand, paving the way for more personalized and targeted medical approaches.
Conditions Treated with Stem Cell Therapy in Germany
Stem cell therapy in Germany covers a wide range of conditions, including:
Neurodegenerative Diseases – Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and multiple sclerosis.
Diabetes – Improving insulin production and regenerating pancreatic cells.
Orthopedic Disorders – Joint injuries, osteoarthritis, and spinal cord damage.
Cardiovascular Diseases – Repairing heart tissue after heart attacks.
Autoimmune Conditions – Modulating immune response in disorders like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Cancer Treatments – Assisting in bone marrow transplantation and other regenerative methods.
Why Germany for Stem Cell Therapy?
Germany’s reputation in medicine is built on several key factors:
Advanced Research: Leading research institutions constantly refine therapies based on the latest scientific breakthroughs.
State-of-the-Art Facilities: Clinics and hospitals are equipped with modern technology to enhance patient outcomes.
Highly Trained Specialists: German doctors are renowned for their expertise in regenerative medicine.
Personalized Care: Individualized treatment plans cater to each patient’s specific needs.
The Process of Stem Cell Treatment in Germany
The journey of receiving stem cell therapy in Germany typically involves several steps:
Initial Consultation – The patient undergoes a thorough assessment to determine suitability.
Cell Extraction – Stem cells are harvested from the patient’s bone marrow, adipose tissue, or donated sources.
Processing and Cultivation – The collected cells are processed and expanded in specialized laboratories.
Transplantation – The prepared cells are injected into the targeted area for regeneration.
Post-Treatment Monitoring – Regular follow-ups ensure optimal recovery and progress.
Booking Health: Your Gateway to Top-Quality Stem Cell Therapy
For international patients seeking high-quality stem cell treatment approaches in Germany, Booking Health serves as a reliable platform for medical travel. With access to leading hospitals and specialists, Booking Health facilitates seamless arrangements, including consultations, appointments, and personalized care plans. Their expertise ensures that patients receive the best possible treatment while navigating the complexities of medical tourism.
Germany continues to lead the way in regenerative medicine, offering groundbreaking solutions that provide real hope for those in need. With platforms like Booking Health, accessing world-class stem cell therapies has never been easier.
Cultivated seafood isn’t just better for marine animals, the planet, and human health – it can also bring fish back on the menu for those with severe allergies.
While many in the cellular agriculture industry have touted the health and climate advantages of cultivated meat and seafood, a new study highlights a hidden benefit of these proteins.
Globally, up to 7% of the population suffers from a seafood allergy, making fish a leading trigger of food-induced anaphylaxis. Cell cultivation can bring fish products back to these consumers’ plates, researchers at the James Cook University (JCU) have found.
“We have a data bank of over 100 children with confirmed fish allergies, and we demonstrated that there is very little to no reactivity to the known fish allergens in the cell-cultivated fish,” said Andreas Lopata, head of JCU’s Molecular Allergy Research Laboratory in Queensland, Australia, who called the results “hugely promising”.
Allergenicity of cultivated fish 10 times lower
Courtesy: James Cook University
The research dates back nearly a decade, with Lopata and his team working with children who had a clinical history of allergies to bony fish.
They evaluated allergy risks based on a multiomics approach for conventional and cultivated Japanese eel (or unagi), characterising each protein (and allergen) using computational methods.
The results, presented at the World Allergy Congress in San Diego, California (February 28 to March 3), revealed the abundance of 12 recognised fish allergens was 10-fold lower in the cultivated unagi than the conventional eel.
“The levels of allergens present in the cell-cultivated fish being so low was quite surprising to us,” said Lopata. “You’re basically taking stem cells from the fish, growing them in tissue culture to the size they are edible, and everyone told us it would basically be the same as the regular fish including any allergy risks.”
He added: “Instead, we found diminished risks, including a decrease of up to 1000-fold of the predominant fish allergen parvalbumin, and all of this was with no manipulation nor gene modification.”
The study further emphasises the need for serum-free culture media, since fetal bovine serum – a controversial ingredient the industry has been phasing out in recent years – introduced non-fish allergens to the products.
JCU working with cultivated seafood pioneer Umami Bioworks
Courtesy: Umami Bioworks
JCU’s researchers argued that cultivated fish presents promising opportunities to produce safer seafood with diminished allergy risks. Now, it is conducting further research to evaluate a broader range of seafood cells, as well as develop cultivated fish products.
To advance that effort, it has partnered with alternative protein think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI) and Singaporean cultivated seafood startup Umami Bioworks.
“We have been collaborating to better understand the properties of cultivated seafood, how the products may differ from traditional seafood at a molecular level, and the impacts these differences may have on outcomes like allergenicity,” Umami Bioworks CEO Mihir Pershad told Green Queen, noting that the firm has a long-standing partnership with Lopata and JCU.
“To our knowledge, these are the first results on the potential allergenicity of cultivated meat and seafood and represent a significant step in building the public body of knowledge about the safety profile of cultivated foods,” he added.
“We are also excited by the potential demonstrated in this study for cultivated seafood to address challenges that our current seafood system cannot,” Pershad said, referring to the opportunity for people with seafood allergies to enjoy cultivated fish.
Lopata said Umami Bioworks’s first products will “most likely be cultivated fish and seafood dumplings”: “They should have that same fish flavour and omega-3 fatty acid levels, which are very healthy, along with all the other components of regular fish and seafood.”
He added: “There can be uncertainties about allergenicity, but that’s where we come in, as experts in the field, really analysing all proteins (the proteome) and then comparing particular allergen patterns to see if there could be anything unsafe for consumers.”
Umami Bioworks has been in “active review with documents submitted to regulators in major markets across America, Europe, and Asia”, Pershad told Green Queen in October. It’s a list that includes Singapore, the first country to greenlight the sale of cultivated meat, built on the rigorous yet inclusive food safety process designed by the Singapore Food Agency.
Could cultivated seafood go the plant-based dairy route?
Courtesy: Shlomi Arbiv
Cultivated meat has gotten caught up in the culture wars. Some countries and US states have banned its production and sale, and many others are trying to do the same. These have contributed to consumer concern about the safety of these products, despite food safety authorities in several countries greenlighting the sale of cultivated meat after months (and sometimes years) of rigorous testing.
As this study suggests, cultivated seafood could be blessed with a wave of acceptance if it leans in on the anti-allergy positioning, similar to another alternative protein segment that has witnessed significant success using it, namely plant-based dairy.
Cow-free milk and dairy products have been successful despite the anti-vegan backlash because they cater to not just vegans but a large section of the population who are lactose-intolerant or suffer from dairy protein allergies – around two-thirds of people globally have trouble digesting lactose.
In the US, for instance, at least 12% of Americans are lactose-intolerant, while over 5% (15 million) have a milk or dairy allergy. While 44% of households buy plant-based milk, one in five Americans who did so also put cow’s milk in their shopping carts. In addition, the prevalence of intolerances and allergies has seen coffee chains like Starbucks and Dunkin’ face lawsuits over the non-dairy surcharge, which they have since dropped.
Can cultivated seafood recreate dairy-free products’ allergy-friendly strategy and become a more acceptable alternative protein to consumers?
I keep writing about collapse, but I think it’s writing back.
— Prophet from the Wrong Decade, Wake Up and Smell the C*VID
As New York State’s budget deadline looms, so too does the specter of a proposed mask ban: introduced under the guise of “public order”, but carrying chilling implications for civil liberties, public health, and the right to protest.
At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic rages silently on, even as the Economist estimates COVID has killed more than 26 million people worldwide, and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that one in 20 people now have Long COVID, the forced disappearance of one of our most basic protections—the mask—is both metaphor and material crisis.
Into that silence comes a disruption: a one-night-only performance. No curtain. No venue name. No names at all, really. Just a folding chair, a spotlight, and a ghost.
Wake Up and Smell the C*VID: An Evening Without Eric Bogosian
Wake Up and Smell the C*VID: An Evening Without Eric Bogosian is a one-night hybrid performance on 24 April in New York. Produced by HEPA (Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson)—a transdisciplinary collective of artists, activists, and academic researchers—it is a ritual, a reckoning, and a refusal.
It doesn’t have a traditional venue. The location will be revealed upon registration for those attending in person. Others will join via Zoom. That’s not just an aesthetic choice—it’s a necessity.
Cast members remain anonymous—for health, safety, and protection from harassment. The fact that this is even necessary says everything. While clinically vulnerable members of the performing arts community have been shut out of traditional spaces since the beginning of the pandemic, the criminalisation of masks, weaponisation of surveillance tech, and targeted harassment are rapidly raising new barriers. Collaborating with this systematic silencing is the algorithmic suppression of COVID research and amplification of disinformation on social media.
This is not here to shout over the silence. It’s here to cut into it.
While it’s being billed as a satire, a haunt, a throwback to 1980s black-box monologue performance—intimate, confrontational, political—it’s also something else: a reckoning. The performance draws both form and fire from the AIDS crisis-era downtown theatre scene. But it updates the urgency for an era of mass disabling and algorithmically-enforced disinformation. At the center is a fictional septuagenarian playwright who’s telling the world it’s collapsing while overlooking the collapse of his community—and his own vascular system.
After a winter of discontent, a spring of awakening
The show’s subtitle – An Evening Without Eric Bogosian– is not parody. It’s eulogy. It’s a kind of desperate, furious love letter to artists who once wrote with prophetic clarity, who shaped the form, but now stand quietly aside while others disappear.
And disappear they have.
This winter season, high-profile productions were devastated by infectious diseases tearing through the company. Between 23-29 December, Audra McDonald’s Gypsywent dark for seven out of eight performances. Romeo and Juliet was spared cancellations, but reportedly only continued with the support of five emergency covers, including on who had a script in hand. Severe illnesses are putting increasing pressure on already systemically under resourced understudies.
Unprecedented illness-related cancellations are happening on both sides of the Atlantic. In November, David Tennant’s Macbeth at Harold Pinter Theatre on the West End, which broke box office records, was cancelled for five performances and only returned to the stage with six emergency covers.
Direct action
In December, Protect the Heart of the Arts, an action network sounding the alarm on the Long COVID emergency in the performing arts, held a festive mask hand out during the play’s closing weekend in order to call for improved air quality in theatres, including HEPA air filtration, molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 and masks.
Ticket holders were also impacted by these cancellations, as many travelled long distances to see these productions, and theatres reportedly notified ticket holders with as little as two hours’ notice, possibly indicating an attempt to push through serious illnesses — or a cynical strategy to withhold pay from members of staff not covered by union agreements (e.g. hourly front-of-house staff, people working on a freelance basis, etc.) while keeping non-refundable transaction fees.
While the corporate owners of theatres are typically covered by insurance, cast, crew, venue staff, audiences and the theatres themselves are left holding the bag. While none of these cancellations were attributed to COVID, business interruption insurance often excludes COVID as a foreseeable event, so theatres are financially disincentivised to report COVID in casts or, perhaps more ominously, to test for it.
COVID: creating myriad problems
The pandemic is also creating front-of-house problems with aggressive and disruptive audience members, including an audience altercation at Macbeth and The Bodyguard in Manchester, where police riot vans were called in.
A recent survey by the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph, and Theatre Union (BECTU) found that 90% of theatre workers had experienced or witnessed unacceptable behavior from audiences, with 70% saying such incidents have worsened since the beginning of pandemic.
While many attribute this to social deficits acquired five years ago during lockdowns, settled knowledge on COVID’s neurological damage and implication in anti-social behaviour reveals that the ongoing pandemic is at generating a crisis of aggression and disinhibition.
Backstage, there’s a quiet pandemic of vocal injuries. The West End Macbeth also made headlines when a performer lost her voice mid-monologue. While it’s impossible to know whether this was the result of vocal fatigue after a long run, a mountain of research now shows that COVID infections are eroding the vocal health of performers. A 2022 Journal of Voice study found 30% of Broadway singers suffered long-term vocal changes after COVID. And yet the shows go on.
Transatlantic advocacy for clean air in theatres
Members of the performing arts community and allies are steadily making progress towards improved air quality in theatres.
COVID-conscious performer and advocate Ezra Tozian has emerged as a leading voice in creating actionable, artist-led safety protocols for the stage. In their recent HowlRound essay, they outline concrete best practices—from negotiating HEPA filtration and PlusLife molecular testing, to protected masking policies, and advocating for audience safety. Their work emphasises that these aren’t fringe demands, but necessary infrastructure for disabled and immunocompromised artists to survive and thrive in the industry. As they write:
COVID protections that keep us safe and working benefit the entire industry.
Across the Atlantic, Sally Witcher OBE, founder of INN the Arts, promotes safe inclusion in the arts by developing and supporting good practice on reducing risk from airborne infections. They are currently engaged in ongoing discussions with theaters and venues about best practices for clean air. National institutions in the UK like the National Theatre and Barbican have installed upgraded air systems. But these remain exceptions, not norms.
A haunt, not a monologue
Wake Up and Smell the C*VID isn’t a typical play—it’s an intervention. A rupture. A refusal.
It refuses the erasure of an ongoing mass disabling event. It refuses the silence of elders who once made their name on prophetic clarity but now fail to register the evidence seared onto their own bodies. It refuses to compartmentalize devastation, to defer to legacy, to treat collapse as metaphor when it is flesh and blood.
In a time when public health information is being disappeared, when masks are banned in the name of “security,” and disabled lives are framed as disposable, this piece becomes something more than theatre. It is ritual. It is refusal. It is an attempt to speak aloud about what the algorithms bury. To cry out—yes, polemically, but also spiritually, viscerally—against the forgetting.
When oligarchs tear apart the fabric of consensual reality, declaring themselves gods and demanding the rest of us just disappear, Wake Up and Smell the C*VID asks: will we assent to being made ghosts in our own communities—in our own bodies—or rise to the challenge of this moment and become something more?
How can theatre be a sacred ground for collective reckoning—and maybe even collective awakening?
Smell the C*VID
Mutual Aid Statement:
All proceeds from Wake Up and Smell the C*VID will go to support members of the performing arts community impacted by COVID as well as to NY-area mutual aid. Receipts on request.
Disclaimer:
Wake Up and Smell the C*VID: An Evening Without Eric Bogosian is an independent artistic production and is in no way affiliated with, endorsed by, or produced in collaboration with Eric Bogosian. The use of his name is intended as artistic commentary and homage, and does not imply any association, approval, or participation by Mr. Bogosian. All content and viewpoints expressed are solely those of the creators.
British vegan food brand Deliciously Ella’s latest campaign attacks ultra-processing, which is now among plant-based meat’s biggest pain points.
“Consumers en masse aren’t just asking: ‘Is it plant-based?’ but: ‘What’s actually in it?’”
These may have been the words of Jason Rosenbaum, co-CEO of US startup Actual Veggies, but they speak to a wider shift in the meat-free ecosystem.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been the talk of the food industry in recent months, with consumers largely attempting to shift away from such products out of health and nutrition concerns. One segment that has deeply felt the impact is plant-based meat.
While attacks from the meat industry are expected, brands making these analogues are in the crosshairs of other vegan producers too.
In the UK, Deliciously Ella is leading this shift. A pioneer of healthy plant-based eating, founders Ella and Matthew Mills recently sold the firm to Switzerland’s Hero Group (though they remain at the company). And as it looks to expand its footprint, the company has kickstarted a new marketing drive targeting UPFs.
Deliciously Ella looks to clear the hurdles for Brits’ UPF shift
Courtesy: Deliciously Ella
This month, Deliciously Ella launched ‘Choose Ultra-Processed Free’, a bus campaign aimed at helping people “make healthier food choices by swapping UPFs for whole, natural foods that are both accessible and incredibly delicious”.
Across 40 London buses, in retailers across the city, and on social media, the company is encouraging Brits to shift away from UPFs. As part of the drive, it gave away 50,000 of its “UPF-free oat bars” across the capital and has launched a free e-book full of recipes and tips, called Less Processed, More Delicious.
“Ever picked up something in a shop, thinking it was a healthy choice, only to turn it over and find a list of ingredients you don’t recognise? You’re not alone,” the company writes in the book.
UPFs make up 57% of the average British diet, and up to 80% when it comes to children or people with lower incomes. Likewise, around two-thirds of calories consumed by adolescents in the country come from these foods.
“The result? A national diet made up mostly of products far removed from simple, whole food ingredients – often packed with emulsifiers, preservatives, and industrial additives. And for many of us, that means feeling increasingly disconnected from our food and how it makes us feel,” said Deliciously Ella.
Courtesy: EIT Food/The Grocer
A government survey in June 2024 found that ultra-processing is the second biggest food concern in the UK (after inflation), with 77% of people saying so. A separate survey found that 53% of them are in favour of a tax on UPF producers, if the revenues are directed to funding fresh produce for low-income families.
However, over half of Brits find UPFs cheaper and more convenient than whole foods, and only 48% of them go out of their way to buy unprocessed foods that require preparation.
In a nod to this obstacle, Deliciously Ella notes that “easy swaps, flavour-packed meals, and small sustainable changes” can collectively make a big difference: “Eating well shouldn’t mean spending hours in the kitchen or giving up the foods you love.”
UPF concerns have directly impacted plant-based meat
Courtesy: Deliciously Ella
The e-book outlines that UPFs are “often designed to be irresistibly moreish, making us crave more”, and tend to be lower in fibre, vitamins and essential nutrients, and higher in sugar, salt, and trans fats. It cites research linking these foods to chronic conditions like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
While it’s true that many products considered UPFs – like sugary sodas, salty snacks, or packaged cakes – don’t exactly carry a health halo, other UPFs aren’t actually bad for you.
This is a distinction many experts have been keen to make: the level of processing doesn’t have anything to do with how nutritious a product is. What matters is the actual nutritional content, such as sodium, unsaturated fat, sugar, and so on. Products designated as UPFs can still rank high on the Nutri-Score scale, or the traffic light system adopted in the UK.
But the backlash against UPFs has had a spillover effect on plant-based meat too. Retail sales for these products were down by 6% in the UK in 2023, with volumes plunging further by 13%. The country’s largest meat-free company, Quorn, posted pre-tax losses of £63M that year, and this continued in 2024 too. Meanwhile, more youngsters are increasing their meat intake (19%) than reducing it (16%) in the UK.
Courtesy: Allplants
Whole foods like beans, tofu (now in 8% of British households), and tempeh are gaining market share, while sales of vegan ready-meals – considered a UPF – plunged by 20%. That said, the Millses’ revamped Plants label offers a range of ready-to-eat meals, and recently acquired the brand name and assets of plant-based meal startup Allplants.
Ella built her wellness empire on healthy eating, and has been looking to capitalise on the anti-UPF push. “The plant-based category should be synonymous with real, nourishing food, yet for too long it has been dominated by ultra-processed meat alternatives, a trend now in steep decline,” she said after the Allplants deal. “We’re here to try and change that, and to reimagine the plant-based fixture with delicious, natural, quick wins for clever cooks.”
Deliciously Ella’s new marketing campaign is the latest example of vegan brands themselves attacking plant-based meat for being ultra-processed. Phil Graves, CEO of US mycelium meat startup Meati, recently told Green Queen that people shouldn’t have to choose between factory-farmed meat or “ultra-processed plant-based options that have a long list of ingredients you can’t pronounce”.
Stewards often build fights around small issues, and they need to. But stewards also have a special charge to stay ahead of the boss—to think big about shifting power on the job, including by driving the move to green production.
The union can fight smarter when it’s not just reacting to the boss’s plans—when members have talked over their own goals for making work different.
The first task is to open up talk beyond the usual suspects. No matter the good intentions, passing resolutions and creating isolated green committees doesn’t flex much worker power.
This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan, and WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region.
Great Lakes Day is an annual summit where politicians and officials of all stripes gather in Washington, D.C., to demonstrate their commitment to the region home to the largest freshwater ecosystem on the planet. For years, leaders from the United States and Canada have met at the event without incident. But earlier this month and amid a tariff dispute between the two nations, the Trump administration abruptly disinvited two Canadian mayors from the long-standing White House meeting.
The last-minute exclusion of Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante and St. Catharines Mayor Mat Siscoe came just 48 hours before the event due to “diplomatic protocols,” according to Christine Maydossian, a spokesperson for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, which coordinates the meeting and submitted the names of the two Canadian mayors and one American to White House officials a month earlier.
Neither Canadian mayor responded to a request for comment.
Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump and his administration has repeatedly stoked tensions with Canada, once considered the United States’ closest ally. Along with trade and tariffs, this strife has also raised questions about how the region’s water resources will be managed. Amid the escalating political tensions, some Great Lakes advocates worry the diplomatic snub is a warning sign that one of the world’s most successful examples of water-sharing could become collateral damage in a geopolitical rift.
“We are worried that maybe behind all this is the idea that a country one day will be able to take water out of the Great Lakes and manage water not as an ecosystem that needs to be preserved in its watershed, but as a resource, as a commodity,” said Jérôme Marty, speaking as the director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that in calls with then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump had “mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations.”
“President Trump has made clear the need for Canada to stop ripping off the United States on trade. President Trump will explore any and all actions that put the interests of America first,” said Brian Hughes, a spokesperson with the National Security Council, in an emailed statement to Grist. (The White House did not respond directly to Grist’s questions about cooperation between the two countries concerning the Great Lakes.)
For over a century, the United States and Canada have worked in tandem to manage four of the five Great Lakes that straddle both countries: Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. That cooperative arrangement — with which the countries settle everything from water use to navigation to invasive species to pollution — may now be on the line.
“We cannot let this be sacrificed,” said Rachel Havrelock, a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago who directs the Freshwater Lab, an environmental research initiative focused on the Great Lakes and environmental justice.
“This is the most stable, productive, and mutually beneficial form of binational water governance on Earth,” she added.
The lakes provide drinking water for more than 30 million people spread across both sides of the border. The U.S. and Canada, then under British rule, signed the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, a highly-praised water sharing agreement that formed the International Joint Commission, or IJC, a binational organization that aims to prevent and resolve disputes over shared lakes and rivers.
(The arrangements between the two countries long sidelined Indigenous nations, which the U.S.-Canada border artificially bisect. For example, the IJC did not invite Indigenous representatives to participate until the 1980s, despite the sovereign rights of those nations. Indigenous communities often face disproportionate impacts from pollution and climate change, and recent IJC assessments have acknowledged that strengthening relationships with Indigenous governments is key to improving its response to those threats.)
The relationship was further cemented by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, established in 1955, which coordinates how invasive species and fisheries are managed, and again by the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which committed the two nations to “restore and maintain” the health of the lakes.
Those are just three among a layered patchwork of treaties and other agreements between local, state, federal, and tribal governments that determine Great Lakes management. Some don’t necessarily rely on federal involvement, such as the Great Lakes Agreement and Compact, which protects the water from being shipped to other states and regions.
Trump has cast doubt on the stability of these agreements by breaking a series of diplomatic taboos, including calling Canada the “51st state” and halting negotiations on the Columbia River Treaty, after referring to the British Columbia river as a “large faucet” that could be used to solve California’s water crisis last year.
Policy experts say Trump’s recent tack raises a red flag for the future of the Great Lakes.
“The water and the resources don’t recognize international boundaries,” said Mike Shriberg, a faculty member at the University of Michigan who specializes in Great Lakes policy. “You can’t manage things like invasive species from only one country and not the other. You can’t manage harmful algal blooms from one country or the other. The information on the flow of ice and what that means for shipping has to be shared across borders.”
Shriberg said the Trump administration’s funding freeze and staffing cuts related to management of the lakes are impacting how the U.S. will protect them and meet its obligations with Canada — concerns that prompted him to write an op-ed making the case for politicians to unify to protect the Great Lakes.
Some areas have shown signs of revival; the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s sea lamprey program can begin rehiring U.S. federal workers to control the invasive species, which can wreak havoc on other fish. That means the program will move forward, albeit weeks behind schedule.
But other threats are visible, according to Shriberg: There are more bureaucratic roadblocks to federal scientists working with their Canadian counterparts on everything from harmful algal blooms to flooding — work he said had until this point been “seamless.”
“It’s often not happening because of the chaos within the agencies that’s being caused by all the cutbacks,” Shriberg said.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump, by executive order, indicated his intention to remove the US from World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations agency responsible for global public health. This decision will have wide-ranging and negative consequences for people’s health worldwide.
Since it joined the organization in 1948, the United States has been its greatest funder, making it WHO’s most influential member. However, despite its global importance, the agency has a budget of roughly one-quarter of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which shows its limitations in addressing critical health challenges at a global level.
WHO is funded by contributions from its nearly 200 member states, with each contribution determined by the United Nations based on a country’s wealth. For the period 2024-2025, for example, that number has been set at $264 million for the US and $181 million for China. WHO also receives voluntary contributions from member states, philanthropic foundations and private donors. While for the same period the US is projected to provide $442 million (making it the largest contributor,) China is set to provide just $2.5 million.
Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, WHO has six regional offices and 150 country offices worldwide. Through them, the agency promotes the control of epidemic and endemic diseases, sets international health standards, collects information on global health issues, serves as a forum for health-related scientific and policy discussions, and assesses worldwide health challenges.
As part of its mandate, WHO heads a vast network of public health agencies and laboratories where scientists track new disease outbreaks and collect data to develop vaccines and therapies to address them. There are 21 WHO collaborating centers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Those centers are focused on US health priorities, such as polio eradication, cancer prevention and global health security.
WHO has been at the frontline response to national disasters such as the earthquakes in Afghanistan, Nepal, Syria and Turkey, and devastating floods in Libya, Pakistan and South Sudan. It has done so by deploying emergency medical teams, sending medical aid and helping countries cope with the mid- and long-term effects of these events.
US cuts in funding will affect childhood immunizations, polio eradication, and response to emergencies and to influenza and other pandemic threats. Through its Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, the WHO processes data from countries around the world to track and assess circulating viruses. Cutting its ties to WHO could hinder US access to critical tools for developing biological ways to control influenza.
In 2019, WHO established a Special Initiative for Mental Health which has helped bring badly needed community mental health services to 50 million more people. At least 320,000 girls, boys, women and men were receiving mental, neurological, and substance abuse services for the first time in their lives. A new WHO Commission on Social Connection has been created, aimed at combating loneliness and social isolation as pressing health threats. The Commission intends to elevate social connection as a public health priority in countries of all income levels.
Experts predict that the US withdrawal from WHO will allow China to gain control of the organization. “There is one country that’s desperate for the United States to leave the WHO, and that’s China,” cautioned Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat at a past hearing of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Because the US entered WHO membership through a joint 1948 resolution passed by both houses of Congress –that President Harry Truman explicitly referenced as his legal basis for joining WHO—observers believe that the US withdrawal from the organization violates US law because it doesn’t have the express approval of Congress.
As an independent international public health consultant, I have conducted health-related missions in over 50 countries worldwide for several agencies, including WHO. I have seen the lives-saving work that local branches of WHO does to improve the health of the most vulnerable in developing countries, work that will be severely curtailed from lack of funds.
During the 2020 conflict of the US with WHO, when the US’s withdrawal from the organization was later rescinded by President Biden) a group of leading international health experts wrote in the Lancet, “Health and security in the USA and globally require robust collaboration with WHO –a cornerstone of US funding and policy since 1948. The USA cannot cut ties with WHO without incurring major disruption and damage, making Americans far less safe.” This statement remains as true now as when it was written.
France’s food safety agency has recommended a ban on soy-based products in mass catering, raising concerns that have been long debunked and go against scientific consensus.
After attempting to ban cultivated meat, France could be coming for your tofu too.
The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES), which oversees food safety in the country, has advised mass catering environments like schools, corporate cafeterias, and daycare facilities to stop serving soy products.
The decision is based on the agency’s assessment of health risks linked to the consumption of foods rich in isoflavones, which are essentially plant-derived phytoestrogens.
While these polyphenols are found in many foods, such as chickpeas, fava beans and pistachios, their main source is soy. These molecules are known for their oestrogenic hormonal activity, and can harm the reproductive system if consumed excessively, according to ANSES.
This debate has surrounded soy for a long time, but studies suggest that neither soy nor isoflavone intake affects reproductive hormones. Environmental organisations are hitting back at the ANSES’s recommendations, given soy’s established health and environmental benefits, and EU-wide efforts to diversify protein sources.
Why is the ANSES asking caterers to remove soy?
Courtesy: BSIP/Getty Images
To reach its conclusion, ANSES defined toxicological reference values (TRVs) – essentially, how much isoflavone content you can consume daily without risking ill health effects. The agency settled on 20 micrograms per kg of body weight for the general population and half as much for vulnerable populations (pregnant women, those of reproductive age, and children before puberty).
At these levels, it is impossible to eat soy products without passing the isoflavone threshold, especially if you’re vegan and use soy as a source of complete protein. For example, this would mean a child weighing 30kg could only drink 3 ml of soy milk every day, while a woman weighing 68kg could only consume a glass of soy milk once every 48 days.
So it should come as no surprise that 76% of French children aged three to five exceed the TRV, as do 47% of adults aged 18 to 50. For women over the age of 51, this rises to 75%. All babies fed with soy-based formulas exceed the isoflavone limit set by ANSES.
It’s why ANSES is recommending a ban on soy products in catering settings. That said, it does recognise the benefits of soy – it’s been shown to reduce risks of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and some cancers while improving bone health and alleviating menopausal symptoms.
In addition to the ban, ANSES suggests reducing the isoflavone content of soy, which it feels is “necessary and possible”. This, it says, is dependent on the soy variety, growing conditions, the plant’s maturity, as well as the manufacturing processes and recipe formulation. ANSES is asking producers to “implement agronomic techniques and manufacturing processes” to produce foods “while controlling isoflavone content”.
Here’s the thing, though. A cup of soy milk or a standard 100g serving of tofu contains around 25 mg of isoflavones. So for a 75 kg man in France (about the national average), this would exceed the ANSES consumption limit by 17 times.
Rafael Pinto, senior policy manager at the European Vegetarian Union, called the move a “scare tactic to push consumers away from plant-based alternatives”. “The medical community needs to debunk this fear-mongering and set the record straight,” he remarked.
The truth about soy, isoflavones, and health
Courtesy: Ika Rahma
Pinto noted that the ANSES recommendation “defies the scientific consensus”. A host of studies have found soy products to have no health risks related to isoflavones and oestrogen.
In 2021, a review of 417 reports based on human isoflavone intake and endocrine-related health outcomes noted that these concerns are largely based on animal studies and do not reflect human biology. It found that isoflavone consumption does not adversely affect thyroid function, oestrogen levels, ovulation in women, or testosterone levels in men.
This followed a 2020 analysis of 41 studies, which concluded that “neither soy nor isoflavone intake affects [the] male reproductive hormone”.
Just this year, another systematic review of 40 trials (funded by the US soy checkoff programme) found that soy isoflavones don’t affect measures of oestrogenicity. In fact, isoflavones from soy products could have additional health benefits due to the bioactive components found in them.
In line with ANSES’s advice, this study suggested that foods made from condensed soy sources, like soy protein isolates or concentrates, can contain up to 90% fewer isoflavones.
Other public agencies have also concluded that soybeans and their products are safe. For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) identified no harmful effects of soy isoflavones in the thyroid, uterus and breasts of menopausal women in its review.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the US’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) has qualified soy as a safe food too, citing research that shows soy isoflavones could lower the frequency and severity of menopausal hot flashes and possibly have a beneficial impact on postmenopausal bone health.
“We are surprised by the ANSES recommendation to exclude soya-based foods from institutional catering despite their well-documented health and environmental benefits,” said Anna-Lena Klapp, head of research at food awareness organisation at ProVeg International. “We would like to see large-scale meta-analyses that support this recommendation, which stands in contrast to national dietary guidelines in many countries.”
France’s continued attacks on alternative proteins
Courtesy: La Vie
ANSES’s move is antithetical to Europe’s efforts to encourage plant protein consumption. Countries like Germany, Austria, Finland and Norway have all revised their dietary guidelines in favour of plant proteins. Further, the upcoming US dietary recommendations are set to list soy products above animal foods as a source of protein.
The nation has also tried to impose a labelling ban on plant-based meat – in direct opposition to EU law – twice, with the most recent attempt being rejected by both the national Conseil d’État and the European Court of Justice.
The former, France’s top court, called the government’s proposed decrees “illegal and contrary to European regulation”, noting that EU member states cannot independently regulate food labelling.
ProVeg pointed to the WHO’s classification of processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat as a likely carcinogen, questioning why the French health agency hasn’t made a comparable recommendation for these foods. “ANSES reported on thisitself but has not made a recommendation to remove it from mass catering,” it said.
Earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was banning Red Dye No. 3, a bright, cherry-red dye used in everything from bubble gum to ice pops to fruity cocktails. The reason? Some experts believe the vivid food dye actually has a very dark side.
In fact, some are concerned it might increase the risk of cancer. But the evidence on the link between Red Dye No. 3 and cancer isn’t actually clearcut. In the 1990s, one study on rats suggested there might be a link. But people are not rats, and there haven’t been any human-centered studies since.
Fusion Sweets and Snacks Store
Red Dye No. 3 isn’t the only controversial food dye. Across the US, there’s growing resistance to artificial colorings, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leading the charge. The Health and Human Services Secretary has expressed a strong desire to ban food dyes altogether. Recently, 20 states have introduced bills aimed at regulating them.
However, the science behind the anti-food dye movement isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. According to the FDA, “color additives are safe when used according to FDA regulations.” So, how worried should we really be about artificial colors in our food? We spoke with Jennifer Scherer, BS, ACE-CPT, MES, RDN to get expert insight.
Are food dyes safe?
As mentioned above, there is some research to suggest that artificial food dyes could harm our health. As well as the rat study with Red Dye No. 3, which suggests a potential link with cancer, some studies suggest there might be a link between food dyes and hyperactivity in children.
In 1994, for example, one small study on 26 children found that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms reduced in nearly 75 percent of children when they stopped consuming foods with artificial dyes and preservatives. Another study published in the same year, this time with participation from 800 children, found that Yellow 5 (which is used in sodas and candies) might increase symptoms like irritability and restlessness. But it’s important to note that, in general, studies are small and results are mixed when it comes to the link between dyes and hyperactivity.
Pexels
Studies have also investigated whether Yellow 5 is carcinogenic, but so far, research has not discovered a link. This is the same for other food dyes, like Blue 1, Red 40, and Yellow 6. There is a small amount of evidence to suggest that Blue 2 could be linked to brain tumors, but it is not enough to be definitive. Caramel coloring may also be a concern, but this is because of potential contamination with carcinogenic chemicals, not because of the food dye itself.
There is also some research to suggest that some food dyes could trigger allergy symptoms in some individuals.
“The evidence is not definitive, and many studies have failed to establish a clear causal relationship,” says Scherer. “The FDA has stated that there is no conclusive evidence linking food dyes to harmful health effects, though they do monitor ongoing research. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has similar findings but has called for further investigation into long-term effects.”
Becky Hall, MS, RD, a dietician for Healthline, agrees. She writes: “There is currently no convincing evidence that artificial food dyes cause cancer.” However, she adds: “If your child has hyperactive or aggressive behavior, it may be beneficial to remove artificial food dyes from their diet.”
It’s also important to note that the types of foods with artificial flavors tend to fall into the unhealthy category. They are often ultra-processed foods like potato chips, candy, pastries, and so on. These foods are usually fine in moderation, but if consumed in excessive amounts, they may increase the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Research suggests that plant-based whole foods, on the other hand, may reduce the risk of these diseases.
Again, research does not show that this is because of food dyes specifically, but likely due to high amounts of salt, saturated fat, and sugar in ultra-processed foods, and the high amount of vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants in plant-based whole foods.
Pexels
Fear mongering around food
We live in a time when a lot of the conversation around health and food plays out on social media. While there are many medical and nutrition experts on apps like TikTok and Instagram, there are also plenty of unqualified influencers handing out advice about what people should or should not eat. In many cases, this can be unhelpful.
“Influencers and wellness brands can play a significant role in both spreading awareness and fueling unnecessary panic about food-related issues, including food dyes,” says Scherer. “On one hand, they help highlight potential concerns and promote healthier eating habits, but on the other hand, they often oversimplify or exaggerate the risks involved, creating fear where there may not be any substantial cause for alarm.”
This doesn’t just happen with food dyes but many different food items, including seed oils.
“These influencers sometimes use biased research selection, make sweeping claims, or use alarming language to generate attention and attract followers. This type of fear mongering can create confusion and anxiety around foods that may be entirely safe for the majority of people.”
Like Hall, Scherer believes that cutting back on foods with food dyes could benefit some individuals, particularly if they seem to be making symptoms of ADHD worse, for example, or if you are concerned about an allergy. However, she adds that, for most people, current research suggests that the health risk from consuming food dyes is low. Ultimately, moderation is key—occasional consumption of foods made with dyes is unlikely to pose major risks for most people.
“The public concern around food dyes is somewhat justified, especially in light of concerns about children’s health and behavioral issues,” she explains. “However, it is often overblown in the sense that the actual risks, particularly for the general population, are minimal when dyes are consumed in moderation. Many health experts agree that while it’s important to be cautious about food additives, the levels of food dyes allowed in food are generally considered safe for most people.”
If you are concerned about food dyes, she recommends seeking advice and information from “reputable, science-based organizations like the FDA, CDC, or peer-reviewed scientific journals.” These sources are balanced and reliable. Scherer also advises staying away from any extreme claims on social media, especially if it is presented without evidence. “Scientific conclusions typically come from rigorous studies,” she says. “Not from anecdotes or sensational headlines.”
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
Warts are one of those skin issues that most of us encounter at some point in life—usually when we least expect it. They’re often harmless but can be unsightly, irritating, and, at times, stubbornly persistent. Understanding what causes warts, how to treat them effectively, and when it’s time to call in professional help can make a world of difference in managing them.
What Are Warts?
Warts are small, rough growths on the skin caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). While they’re non-cancerous, they are contagious and can spread from person to person or to different parts of the body. Warts can show up anywhere, but they most commonly appear on the hands, feet, face, and genitals.
There are several types of warts, including:
Common warts: Usually found on hands and fingers, with a rough, grainy surface.
Plantar warts: Appear on the soles of the feet and can be painful due to pressure while walking.
Flat warts: Smaller and smoother, often on the face, neck, or legs.
Filiform warts: Thread-like growths typically near the eyes or mouth.
Genital warts: Sexually transmitted and require specialised treatment.
What Causes Warts?
Warts are triggered by HPV, which enters the body through tiny cuts or abrasions in the skin. The virus thrives in warm, moist environments, which is why public showers, swimming pools, and locker rooms are common transmission points.
While anyone can get warts, some people are more prone to them:
Children and teenagers (weaker immune responses)
People with compromised immune systems
Those who bite their nails or pick at hangnails
Individuals with skin conditions or injuries that expose broken skin
The incubation period—time from infection to wart appearance—can range from weeks to months, which makes tracing the origin tricky.
Are Warts Dangerous?
For most people, warts are benign and painless. However, they can be problematic in several scenarios:
Pain: Especially in plantar warts that press into the foot
Spreading: Warts can multiply or be transferred to others
Bleeding or infection: From repeated irritation or failed removal attempts
Emotional impact: Warts on visible areas like the face or hands can affect self-confidence
In rare cases, certain strains of HPV are linked to cancers, especially genital warts. That’s why it’s important not to ignore any unusual growths.
Over-the-Counter and Home Remedies
Many small, uncomplicated warts can be treated at home. Some of the most common options include:
Salicylic acid treatments: These come in gels, liquids, or pads. They work by softening the wart, allowing you to gradually scrape away the infected tissue.
Freezing sprays: Similar to what professionals use, but weaker. These freeze the wart, causing it to eventually fall off.
Duct tape method: Covering the wart with duct tape for days at a time, then filing it down, can work in some cases—though success is hit-or-miss.
These treatments require patience and consistency. It may take weeks—or even months—for the wart to fully disappear.
When to Consider Professional Help
Home remedies don’t always cut it. In fact, many warts are resilient and can resist over-the-counter options. You should seek medical advice if:
The wart is painful, bleeding, or changes in appearance
It spreads rapidly or reappears after treatment
You have multiple warts clustered together
The wart is in a sensitive area (e.g., face or genitals)
You have diabetes, poor circulation, or a weakened immune system
Midway through your wart journey, you may find yourself searching for a dermatologist wart removal service. This is often the safest and most effective route, especially for stubborn or sensitive cases. A dermatologist can offer options far more potent than anything available in shops.
Professional Wart Removal Options
If you do end up at a dermatologist’s office, here are some of the treatments they might recommend:
Cryotherapy: A high-powered freezing technique using liquid nitrogen. It’s quick and effective but may need multiple sessions.
Laser therapy: Particularly good for recurring or difficult warts. It works by cauterising the blood vessels feeding the wart.
Minor surgery: The wart is cut out under local anaesthesia. Reserved for persistent cases.
Chemical treatments: Stronger acids or immunotherapy creams that help your immune system recognise and attack the virus.
Dermatologists tailor treatments to your skin type, health history, and the specific wart type—making results more reliable and longer-lasting.
Preventing Warts
While you can’t guarantee complete protection, there are a few habits that reduce your risk:
Avoid walking barefoot in communal showers or pools
Don’t share towels, razors, or other personal items
Keep your hands clean and moisturised to avoid cracks
Avoid picking at warts or other skin lesions
Cover warts with plasters if you have them, to stop spread
If you’re sexually active, use protection and get regular health checks to protect against genital HPV strains.
Final Thoughts
Warts are common, annoying, and often misunderstood. While many resolve on their own, others stick around far longer than welcome. Understanding the cause and knowing your treatment options puts you back in control.
If in doubt—or if a wart is causing physical or emotional distress—don’t hesitate to seek dermatologist wart removal. A qualified professional can make a major difference, both in outcome and peace of mind.
Your skin deserves attention, even for something as small as a wart.
A new study shows that swapping meat with plant-based alternatives – no matter how processed – can lead to significant weight loss.
The backlash against ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has cast a dark cloud over plant-based meat alternatives, which have been bundled in the same group as sugary sodas, salty snacks, and packaged cakes and muffins.
For many, UPFs have now become synonymous with unhealthy food, confirming the fears of many nutritionists who have warned against correlating processing with nutrition. In that vein, meat analogues have obtained a bad rep in some circles, despite containing less saturated fat, more fibre, and an equivalent amount of protein compared to animal products.
Meanwhile, the rise of obesity and Ozempic are making Americans rethink the way they eat. Brands are responding with products supporting GLP-1 drug users, while consumers are cutting back on foods high in fat, salt or sugar.
And according to a new study by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), swapping meat with plant-based foods, whatever the level of processing they may have gone through, can lead to significant weight loss.
“Our research shows that choosing a bagel instead of bacon for breakfast or a veggie burger instead of a hamburger for dinner is the best option if you are looking to lose weight,” said Hana Kahleova, director of clinical research at PCRM.
Cutting out meat and dairy the top cause of weight loss
Courtesy: Springer
UPFs are a part of the Nova classification, which groups foods based on the level of processing. The first category comprises unprocessed or minimally processed foods (like fruits and vegetables), the second contains ‘processed culinary ingredients’ (like nut and seed oils, or salt), and the third is made up of processed foods with enhanced shelf lives (think tinned fish, salted nuts, breads and cheeses).
Foods produced via industrial techniques like extrusion or pre-frying, as well as those with cosmetic additives, are placed in the final category. These UPFs include everything from ice creams, sugary cereals, and packaged breads, to sausages, reconstituted meats, and plant-based analogues.
PCRM’s research – published in the peer-reviewed Nutrition & Metabolism journal – is a secondary analysis of a 2020 study that assigned 244 overweight participants to an intervention or control group for 16 weeks, with those in the former adopting a low-fat plant-based diet with no calorie limit.
That study suggested that the intervention group boosted their metabolism, lost weight, and improved their cardiometabolic risk factors, compared to those in the control group (who had made no dietary changes).
This new analysis specifically looked at the role of processed foods, categorising all foods consumed by the participants using the Nova system. PCRM found that the top three predictors of weight loss were reduced consumption of processed animal foods (like smoked fish), unprocessed or minimally processed animal proteins (like milk, beef or eggs), and animal-derived UPFs (like cheese or fried chicken).
A ‘reminder’ that processed vegan food can be healthy
Courtesy: Heura
The intervention increased the consumption of plant-based food against a decrease in animal proteins across all four Nova categories. And no amount of processing showed any sign of impact on weight when it came to vegan products.
Each 50g reduction of processed animal-derived foods per day resulted in a loss of 1kg, as did a 63g decrease in unprocessed animal proteins and a 120g reduction in animal-based UPFs.
Participants following a vegan diet shed an average of 5.9kg compared to the control group, confirming that swapping meat and dairy for plant-based foods was associated with “clinically significant weight loss”.
“Filling your plate with plant-based foods – even if they are considered ultra-processed like soy milk and vegan meat and yoghurt alternatives – instead [of] animal products can have a positive impact on your weight and overall health,” said Kahleova, who was the study’s lead author.
The researcher ascribed these findings to reduced fat and energy intake, higher fibre consumption, and calorie burn from increased after-meal metabolism.
“Our new study is an important reminder that plant-based foods that are considered processed, like canned beans, cereal, and veggie burgers, are actually part of a healthy diet that can help fight America’s diet-related chronic disease epidemics,” said Kahleova.
Content warning: discussions of addiction and suicide
The pandemic took the lives of many battling drug and alcohol addiction to new lows. However, for some, it was the trigger that finally forced them to confront their demons.
The number of over 50s seeking treatment for alcohol and drug addiction in England has increased by 50% since 2020, NHS data reveals. In the previous five years, the increase was only 15%.
Between 2008 and 2012, the rates of people seeking treatment for addiction rose in every age group. After that, rates only continued rising for over 45s – albeit slowly. However, from 2020, the number of over 50s entering treatment skyrocketed – which coincided with the start of the pandemic.
As the graph demonstrates, the leap was most pronounced in the 60–64 age group which jumped nearly 64%. Numbers also increased among 18-24 and 40-49 year-olds, whilst the figures for 25-39 year-olds decreased. The total increase for people over 50 was 50%.
‘Far more over 50s’
Andrew E. (who does not wish to be fully identified), used to spend every day in one room, drinking and using crack cocaine. Now, his life has changed beyond measure thanks to a treatment centre and a 12-step programme.
From London, Andrew is one of over 300,000 people in England who entered treatment for addictions in the year up to 31 March 2024. He is now 58 and has been clean and sober for almost a year.
Before treatment, he saw three people each day: his 81 year-old-stepdad who he lives with, “the guy” who served him in the off-licence at 6am, and his drug dealer. He would wake up in “alcoholic withdrawal”, drink half a bottle of vodka, then spend the day “smoking crack and drinking in one room”.
A man looking out of a window. Picture: Andrik Langfield on Unsplash
Like a growing number of over 50s, one of Andrew’s addictions was crack cocaine. Over the last five years, the number of people aged 50 and over entering treatment centres because of the drug have risen by 140%. Most notably, among the 60-64 age group, the increase was 207%.
‘Please get help’
Andrew had been drinking and using drugs since the age of 15. The pandemic meant that he found himself drinking and using earlier and earlier each day, until eventually “the wheels really came off”. He could no longer see a way out. He said:
I’d lost that delusion that things would ever get better.
This culminated in him attempting to take his own life. Thankfully, he wasn’t successful – but it wasn’t enough for him to get help. He said:
Immediately I got out, I went to the off-licence and went to my drug dealer.
Soon after, he unintentionally overdosed. Then, after another accident a few weeks later he found himself back in A&E. After waiting hours to be seen, he started going into alcohol withdrawal. Eventually, he had to get honest about how ill he was.
Luckily for Andrew, a kind doctor took him into a side room and stitched him up. He apologised for being a “nuisance”. She put her arm around him and said:
Don’t ever say that. Don’t ever say you’re a nuisance. But will you please get help?
At that point, he reached out for help and was given “an amazing key worker” who “fought really hard” to get him a place in rehab. He said:
I think those events were like the universe telling me, Andrew, you’re done with this now.
Andrew stayed at Ark House in Scarborough. It’s a 12-step-based rehab which helps people with all types of addictions.
Now Andrew is living a life filled with purpose and meaning – which is a far cry from his life in active addiction.
Image shows five different sobriety coins from a 12-step programme. Sobriety coins are given out to mark various sobriety milestones and used as a token of celebration. The ones pictured are for 24 hours, one year, three years, four years and five years. Picture: HG.
‘The brakes came off’
Since 2019, the number of people in treatment for alcohol addiction has risen by 42.7%. The biggest increase was among 60–64 year-olds, which saw a 57% increase.
Research suggests that higher levels of stress correlate with higher levels of alcohol consumption. The pandemic created extra stress and exacerbated both existing mental health issues and negative harmful mechanisms, from spending too much time scrolling social media to substance use:
Addiction rates skyrocket in England amidst pandemic.
Every aspect of daily life was affected. Routines, jobs, education, social life, many people’s livelihood, and even their health. All this as well as the fear of the unknown, and it was the perfect environment for addictive behaviours to progress.
Paul, 56, (who does not wish to be fully identified), has worked as a counsellor at Ark House for three years. He noticed that until the pandemic, there were many people that — although alcoholic — were still “functioning”. They had jobs, mortgages, wives, families, and “seemed to be doing alright”. Paul said:
When COVID came, it kind of took the brakes off for them.
The jobs and the family were the brakes, and all of a sudden that routine was taken off them. I think it was the routine that allowed them to function, and once that had gone out, I believe that that was the breakdown.
Image shows Ark House Rehab in Scarborough, from the street. Picture: Ark House.
Andrew Dettman, 70, is also a counsellor at Ark House. He got sober in 1995 through a 12-step programme in Hull. He said:
The pandemic really did accelerate levels of anxiety and depression, which people who end up in a 12-step programme are well aware of.
Research points towards the mental health and well-being of over 50s being far worse than other age groups during the pandemic. This is thought to be due to the increased social isolation, with many older people not having access to the internet or technology such as video calling.
Often, people turn to substances to deal with difficult emotions — like anxiety, depression, or loneliness. Whilst this may help temporarily, it can very quickly become an addictive cycle.
Robin Pollard, head of policy at WithYou — a drug, alcohol, and mental health support charity, said:
… with an ageing population, we’ve also seen more older people in treatment for alcohol, fuelled by isolation during the Covid pandemic, and life changes such as bereavement, retirement and a lack of purpose.
The pandemic made many people’s lives more complicated. Whilst for some, it may have slowed things down — for those in active addiction, the brakes completely came off. Luckily for Andrew E. and many others, places like Ark House were there to help, and he was given a second chance. In his own words:
I’m leading the best life I’ve ever had.
If you are concerned about your drinking or drug use, please visit wearewithyou.org.uk.
Getty
Unsplash
Adobe Stock
Suju/Pexels
Lachlan Ross/Pexels
Unsplash
Kampus/Pexels
Pexels
Getty
Pexels
Pexels
Adobe
Canva
Forager
Kite Hill
Fusion Sweets and Snacks Store
Pexels
Pexels
Addiction rates skyrocket in England amidst pandemic.
1 million more adults using 50 units of alcohol per week since the 