SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A new study argued the current federal limit for exposure to wireless radiation should be hundreds of times lower than it is, for children.
Researchers from the Environmental Working Group took methodology developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess human health risks from toxic chemicals, and applied it to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless devices, including cellphones, tablets and 5G networks.
Dr. Olga Naidenko, vice president for science investigations for the Environmental Working Group and the study's co-author, said standards should be updated, and in the meantime, she suggested parents take simple steps to reduce their kids' RF exposure.
"Teaching children not to sleep with the phone under the pillow, that is probably a good first step," Naidenko advised. "And for example, instead of clutching it to the chest, to put the tablet or the phone on the table."
The wireless industry countered its products are safe and comply with Federal Communications Commission rules, and the FCC reviewed and upheld its original RF radiation standard in 2019. But Naidenko noted the studies underpinning those standards are 25 years old and apply only to adults.
A 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program linked wireless radiation to heart and brain tumors in rats.
Nonetheless, the California Legislature is considering two bills, Senate Bill 556 and Assembly Bill 537, which would make it harder for cities to place limits on where new 5G cell towers can be installed.
Dr. Jerome Paulson, professor emeritus of pediatrics and occupational and environmental Health at George Washington University, said until 5G is proven safe, he supports local ordinances like those in Los Altos and Petaluma that require a 500-foot setback from schools and homes.
"5G towers should be placed far away from human beings," Paulson contended. "The distance provides the protection, because the farther away you get, the less energy gets to people."
Paulson thinks the government should set separate wireless-radiation limits for children. The World Health Organization classified cellphone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011.
get more stories like this via email
New research found most Connecticut residents support creating a family caregiver tax credit.
The state has 420,000 family caregivers, providing a little more than $7 billion in care. Senate Bill 321 would provide a $500 nonrefundable tax credit for caregivers supporting senior family members who are 50-60 years old and receive Social Security or are under the same income limits.
Natalie Shurtleff, associate state director of advocacy and engagement for AARP Connecticut, said it is often hard work for them.
"We hear so often from family caregivers that are really that sandwich generation," Shurtleff reported. "They're caring for older loved ones while also caring for younger children and trying to juggle work."
The bill is in its earliest phases and a public hearing will occur soon. The report showed about half of unpaid family caregivers spent their own money on home modifications and buying medical equipment like wheelchairs. Monthly spending for some family caregivers varies from spending nothing to $1,000 or more a month.
Beyond the financial effects of being a family caregiver, they often face physical and mental challenges too. The AARP report noted most family caregivers in the state report feel emotionally stressed trying to balance their responsibilities. Shurtleff pointed out there are some things to keep in mind as they care for others.
"One of the things that we always try to remind family caregivers is to give themselves permission for some self-care," Shurtleff noted. "Because it's so critically important to care for one's self as well as who they're caring for."
Other health challenges they face or find difficult are getting enough rest, exercising and practicing a healthy diet, and making time for doctor's visits. The report emphasized support for a tax credit is bipartisan, with more than half of Democrat, Republican and Independent voters in favor of it.
Disclosure: AARP Connecticut contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, Hunger/Food/Nutrition, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Georgia News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as Director of Health and Human Services — the government department that oversees the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control among others — could be another damper for the plant-based food market. Through his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, Kennedy has repeatedly argued that processed foods are poisoning the country, a stance he maintained throughout his confirmation hearings. And because processed foods aren’t well defined, any efforts by RFK to restrict ultra-processed foods could end up inadvertently discouraging U.S. consumers from eating plant-based foods. That would be bad news for the already-struggling plant-based industry, but also for climate change and the environment.
Though he did not support an all-out ban on processed foods during his confirmation hearing, Kennedy expressed his support for restricting school purchasing and limiting SNAP beneficiaries’ ability to purchase processed foods. While both SNAP and federal school purchases are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and thus would be outside of Kennedy’s direct control, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services both work closely on food policy.
Now that he’s approved, Kennedy could push for a range of policies for reducing the country’s consumption of processed foods, including the FDA’s labeling requirements.
“Warning labels and taxes tend to change people’s behavior. So if you put a warning label on a product, people, on average, are a little bit less likely to buy that product. If you tax a product, people are a little bit less likely to buy it. It’s because it’s a little bit more expensive, so I would expect that those policies, if implemented, would reduce how much we eat those products,” Anna Grummon, who runs the Stanford Food Policy Lab, tells Sentient.
Defining Ultra-Processed Foods Proves Difficult
One of the factors that makes legislating processed foods difficult is the fact that not all processed foods are created equal. Some processed foods, such as sugary beverages like soda, have been linked to various health issues including diabetes and obesity. But that’s not the case for all processed foods, including plant-based meats.
The expansive category that is “processed foods” is why some policymakers and activists zeroed in on a new label: ultra-processed foods. But here too, there’s no single definition of what exactly constitutes an ultra-processed food. “That’s a challenge for making policy around ultra-processed foods,” says Grummon. “We have to have a definition we agree on, and that can be implemented by policymakers and by companies.”
Currently, the most prominent definition comes from the NOVA Food Classification System, which was proposed by researchers at the University of São Paulo. Under the system, ultra-processed foods are combinations of ingredients that are not whole foods themselves, or are “synthesized in laboratories.”
Another definition, appearing on the conservative organization Center for Renewing America’s website, notes a few factors in its definition of ultra-processed foods, including “packaged foods containing added preservatives,” and “manufactured ingredients…that extend the shelf-life of a product, enhance the taste of the product, and often result in habit-forming cravings…” (The founder of the organization was part of the first Trump Administration, and previously signaled his intent to defund the EPA, while also pushing transphobic rhetoric.)
The specific definition RFK Jr. prefers, and which would likely be replicated by the FDA, remains unclear. Regardless of the specifics of the definition, it’s unlikely to cleanly identify the least healthy foods, simply because all ultra-processed foods are not the same.
Some policies have addressed this problem by regulating nutrients, rather than the level of processing. For example, in Chile, products high in calories, sodium, sugar or saturated fat are required to have warning labels on the front of their packaging, and can’t be sold or served in schools. The approach has significantly cut how often those foods are purchased, though it doesn’t seem to have curbed obesity rates. In fact, the BBC reports obesity has increased among school children slightly since 2016 (though this may be attributable to an increase in sedentary lifestyles during COVID-19).
Policies focused on nutrient content “gets at ultra-processed foods indirectly,” says Grummon. The FDA is currently considering a rule that would require most foods to sport front-of-package nutrient labeling, ultra-processed or not.
Potential Health & Environmental Impacts of Ultra-Processed Labeling
Warning labels on ultra-processed foods sound like a good idea, but when it comes to plant-based meat, these labels could indirectly lead to negative environmental and public health impacts if consumers were to cut back on their plant-based eating habits as a result. Potential taxes that increase the cost of ultra-processed plant-based meats, like Impossible and Beyond products, are also likely to reduce the amount of those products consumers purchase, says Grummon.
“A key question is what do people switch to? Do they switch back to beef? Or do they switch to something else?,” she says. “That’s really important for understanding whether those policies would be good or bad for public health or good or bad for carbon footprint. I think if people switch back to beef, that’s not going to be good for carbon emissions, because, of course, beef has a much higher carbon footprint than Beyond and Impossible products.”
The average person in the United States already eats far more meat than the global average. For that reason and because of beef’s massive greenhouse gas emissions impact, climate research groups like the World Resources Institute include the recommendation that U.S. (and other global north) consumers eat less beef as part of their climate action plan for food-related emissions.
When researchers compare beef to plant-based alternatives, the alternatives consistently rank better, using less water and land and emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses. Other types of meat — like poultry and pork — are more moderate for greenhouse gas emissions, yet both are associated with poor animal welfare and polluting the air and water of communities that live near factory farms.
Even when looking at personal health, plant-based alternatives tend to perform as well as or slightly better than meat. Despite being categorized as ultra-processed, plant-based alternatives tend to be a little lower in fat and calories, and sometimes have more fiber than meat. On the other hand, meat tends to have less sugar and more protein per serving, and of course, individual products do vary.
If policies aimed at rolling back consumption of ultra-processed foods are enacted, many plant-based alternatives will likely be impacted, given that they’d be considered ultra-processed under the most prominent definition. “You can imagine some things being bad for sustainability, like people might eat fewer meat mimic[king] products, like Beyond and Impossible, because those are ultra-processed,” says Grummon.
A representative of The Plant Based Foods Association declined to comment for this article, stating, “given the potential regulatory outcomes are still unknown, we’d prefer not to comment at this time.”
The Bottom Line
It is possible that new policies targeting ultra-processed foods could persuade consumers to opt for more legumes over plant-based burgers or conventional meat. But given how often most U.S. consumers regularly eat lentils these days, it seems unlikely.
A new food labeling scheme could also make no difference at all. One study found that Swiss consumers already view meat substitutes as processed, regardless of the form they take; so it’s also a possibility that consumers willing to purchase plant-based alternatives won’t be swayed by new policies.
Ultimately, what policies RFK and the Trump Administration might pursue on processed and ultra-processed foods remain hard to predict, Grummon says. But many plant-based products are categorized as ultra-processed under any definition. Even if plant-based foods aren’t a particular target of policies aimed at sugary beverages or candy bars, regulatory language that focuses on the processing — instead of nutrient content — would likely end up including plant-based alternatives. These sorts of policies then could spell more trouble ahead, both for the plant-based market and the planet.
Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Just a few weeks ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved Journavix, a new non-opioid painkiller.
It's seen as good news for the nearly one in four Americans who suffer from chronic pain, but not all of them want to rely on medication to control it.
Chronic pain costs more than $600 billion annually, according to the University of Maryland-Baltimore's Center to Advance Chronic Pain Research.
David Starbuck Smith, a DMV exercise therapist and former tennis coach, said there are a number of reasons some people are unable to shake chronic pain.
"We are so much more than our physical part," said Smith. "We are spiritual, we're emotional, we're mental. And so when you look at the overall treatment protocol, we're looking at just one aspect of us. There's so many more parts to us than that. And the other part is that we're trained and we're conditioned to treat the symptom, not the cause."
Smith added that, when one part of the body struggles, other parts compensate. So, a pain in the knee, for instance, might be connected to problems with shoulder joints or hip joints.
He said regular exercise can help with chronic pain. Studies have also shown a link between Vitamin D deficiency and chronic pain.
Smith said when the body isn't properly aligned, the pain can cause mental or emotional stress, which can lead to more pain and even injury.
He advised people to monitor their stress level and learn some simple breathing techniques. He said healing takes place best when a person is relaxed.
"You can monitor your own stress," said Smith. "Notice that when you're feeling stressed, angry, hurt, confused, lost, upset in any way - then this emotional stress is going to compound and add to the postural stress, the postural misalignment."
It's estimated U.S. workers lose more than $200 billion a year due to chronic pain.
A bill introduced with bipartisan support in Congress a year ago would have prioritized funding for chronic pain research, but didn't make it out of committee.
get more stories like this via email