Scientists make astounding discovery about the health effects of where people live: 'Significant implications'
Having a park within walking distance could add years to your life.
The Straits Times reported on a study that found people with access to green spaces were biologically younger than those without.
Green spaces like trees and parks positively impact our physical health. Access to greenery has been linked to better cardiovascular health and scientists are discovering it can even slow down aging on a cellular level.
A 20-year study followed over 900 Americans in four major cities. Researchers looked at satellite images to determine how close participants were to green spaces. They then compared this with blood samples, examining participants' DNA methylation, a biochemical modification used as an epigenetic clock to measure biological age.
People whose homes had 30% green cover within a three-mile radius were on average 2.5 years younger than those with only 20% green cover.
Researchers found these benefits were not shared evenly. Data showed that Black people with better access to green space were only one year biologically younger compared to white people who were three years younger.
"Other factors, such as stress, qualities of the surrounding green space and other social support can affect the degree of benefits of green spaces in terms of biological aging," explained Kyeezu Kim, the study's lead author, per The Straits Times.
A similar study measuring telomere length, another epigenetic DNA trait, found access to green spaces slowed the aging process.
People living near trees and parks also show slower cognitive decline.
Do you think your city has good air quality?
Definitely
Somewhat
Depends on the time of year
Not at all
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
One reason could be the cleaner air. Greenery in urban areas filters out harmful air pollutants, and research has shown children with green space access have higher lung function.
Our mental health gets a boost when we connect with nature. Plus, adding greenery makes our cities more beautiful. Paris was encouraged to replace parking spaces with green spaces.
Greenery in cities also helps us keep cool by reducing urban heat, which is particularly important with rising temperatures. One city in Colombia lowered temperatures by planting green corridors.
Experts hope research into these benefits expands green space access for urban dwellers.
"We have more and better scientific evidence to increase and promote the use of urban green spaces," said Manuel Franco, an epidemiologist, who commented on the study to The Straits Times.
"We believe our findings have significant implications for urban planning in terms of expanding green infrastructure to promote public health and reduce health disparities," said Kim.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Writer shares troubling story about invisible threat impacting neighborhood where she grew up: 'We lived in the shadow'
Growing up, writer Reniqua Allen-Lamphere worried about gun violence. But as an adult, she's realized that the biggest danger to her childhood was invisible — but no less dangerous. Allen-Lamphere shared her story in The Guardian. Growing up in a peaceful community in Englewood, New Jersey, she spent most afternoons playing in a local park, where she would splash in the brook and enjoy the sunshine. But just beyond, the threat lurked. "We lived in the shadow of factories bordering our beloved park," she explained. "Companies such as the LeDoux Corporation, a chemical testing company that had worked on everything from the Manhattan Project to the moon landing, were just steps from the swings." And as more people began to suffer from seemingly unrelated, mysterious health issues — from endometriosis to diabetes — people began to wonder if those factories had something to do with them. One family friend of Allen-Lamphere's shared: "As kids, we always played in the brook and thought it was fun when the water changed colors and stained our hands. … Our neighborhood smelled like rotten eggs every day when we came home from school, which I now know was the smell of sulfur. I can only imagine the toxins we were exposed to." Nowadays, scientists have a better idea of the links between environmental pollution and health. Air pollution is now known to be linked with a plethora of issues, from respiratory illness to dementia, certain cancers, and cardiovascular issues, per the National Institute of Environmental Health. But Allen-Lamphere had personally suffered from severe menstrual pain and endometriosis, and a recent study from Human Rights Watch found that this, too, may have been exacerbated by the pollution. Researchers found links between air pollution and gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and fibroids. And other common toxins and contaminants, including heavy metals and industrial chemicals, have been linked with infertility and endocrine disruption, leading to pregnancy complications. And unfortunately, people of color are disproportionately affected by this. Black people are 75% more likely to live within close range of industrial facilities, meaning that the air they breathe is, on average, 38% more polluted than the air in majority-white communities, per the Climate Reality Project. Researchers are looking into ways to reduce air pollution while simultaneously contributing to a greener future. From a team looking to convert methane into airplane fuel to another team reverse-engineering real dairy butter out of air-based carbon molecules, the potential solutions are vast and varied. But at its root, reducing air pollution means reducing it at the source and decreasing the amount of toxins and emissions generated in the first place. Both governmental regulations — such as the EPA's recent closing of loopholes on highly polluting steel plants — and initiatives by corporations, like transitioning shipping fleets to clean fuels, will be necessary for this. And as a citizen and a consumer, you can use your voting power and your money to contribute your own power to this effort. Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home? Yes — always Yes — often Yes — sometimes No — never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
