Latest news with #UniversityofWashingtonSchoolofPublicHealth
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Health
- New York Post
The dangerous takeout mistake too many New Yorkers make — one that could actually kill you
New Yorkers certainly love their takeout. Supposedly, around 45 to-go food searches are made each month per 1,000 residents, according to a study from Betway, originally reported by Time Out. While it's easier than ever to snap your fingers and have food delivered to your home — New Yorkers have to be careful with how long they're holding onto their leftover food and how they're reheating it, especially leftover food involving rice. Advertisement Surprisingly, cooked rice can harbor a toxin-producing bacterium called Bacillus cereus. 3 ahirao – '[The bacteria] survives the initial cooking process as a spore and if [the rice is] left out at room temperature, it'll produce toxins,' Emily Hovis, an assistant teaching professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health, explained to Right as Rain by UW Medicine. Advertisement 'So even when you reheat [rice], you're killing the vegetative cells, you're not destroying the toxins.' And these toxins can cause food poisoning or sometimes more serious health issues, especially if a person has a compromised immune system or is pregnant. When reheating rice or any leftover food — on the stovetop or in the microwave — the food should reach an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees, according to experts. You can check this using an inexpensive food thermometer. 3 There are certain things to know about reheating leftover food. Getty Images/iStockphoto Advertisement Speaking of reheating, as tempting as it may be to throw your leftover pasta in the microwave to reheat it using the plastic container it came in — experts warn against this. As reported in Well & Good, those containers can have materials that spread chemicals like microplastics, phthalates or BPA into your food. 'When these plastics are heated, they can break down and release harmful chemicals into your food, increasing your exposure to toxins,' Shanina Knighton, PhD, RN, an infection preventionist and adjunct associate professor at Case Western Reserve University, told the outlet. 3 As tempting as it may be to reheat food in the plastic container it comes in — try your best to avoid doing it. Seventyfour – Advertisement 'The hotter, greasier, or more acidic your food is, the more likely these chemicals will leach into your meal,' the expert said. Instead of lazily relying on the dangerous takeout containers, store your leftover food in the fridge in a container with an air-tight lid and always reheat it in microwave-safe ceramic, glass bowls or plates, according to the Food Network. And considering 32% of Americans admit they're likely to forget about leftovers once they're out of sight, try not to let your leftover pizza sit in the fridge for longer than three or four days, because food can still go bad there. According to the USDA, 'spoilage bacteria can grow at cold temperatures, such as in the refrigerator. Eventually, they cause food to develop off or bad tastes and smells.'
The Hill
14-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Authors of nixed nature report plan independent release
President Trump canceled the National Nature Assessment, which began its work under the Biden administration, shortly after he took office in January. It would have been due for submission to the White House earlier this week. 'The idea was that we don't have a good national inventory of the state of nature,' Howard Frumkin, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Washington School of Public Health who was lead author on the report's chapter on the relationship between nature and public health, told The Hill in an interview. 'We know a lot about our economy, we know a lot about our transportation infrastructure and our kids' academic achievement, but nature is such an important basis for the economy and for health and well-being, for cultural benefits, but we never have had a good inventory of the state of nature across the country, of trends that may be affecting it, positive or negative, where and how it's delivering benefits,' Frumkin added. Frumkin called the decision to pull the plug 'a little mystifying.' 'This is really not a political or ideological topic. We know that across the country, in red states and blue states and red counties, blue counties, people love the nation's natural heritage,' he said. He pointed to his experience working at the Trust for Public Land, where he said Americans in Democratic and Republican areas and everything in between regularly voted to issue bonds to protect green space. The report has nearly 200 authors across 12 chapters covering nature's intersection with everything from the economy to cultural heritage, and had a target publication date of 2026 before Trump canceled it. However, Frumkin told The Hill, the authors are currently weighing options for how to publish the final report in another form.
The Hill
14-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump canceled a report on American nature, but the authors are still trying to share it
The researchers behind a massive report on the state of nature in America are seeking to release it despite President Trump's cancellation of the project, one of the report's authors told The Hill. Trump canceled the National Nature Assessment, which began its work under the Biden administration, shortly after he took office in January. It would have been due earlier this week. 'The idea was that we don't have a good national inventory of the state of nature,' Howard Frumkin, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Washington School of Public Health who was lead author on the report's chapter on the relationship between nature and public health, told The Hill in an interview. 'We know a lot about our economy, we know a lot about our transportation infrastructure and our kids' academic achievement, but nature is such an important basis for the economy and for health and well-being, for cultural benefits, but we never have had a good inventory of the state of nature across the country, of trends that may be affecting it, positive or negative, where and how it's delivering benefits,' Frumkin added. Frumkin called the decision to pull the plug 'a little mystifying.' 'This is really not a political or ideological topic. We know that across the country, in red states and blue states and red counties, blue counties, people love the nation's natural heritage,' he said. He pointed to his experience working at the Trust for Public Land, where he said Americans in Democratic and Republican areas and everything in between regularly voted to issue bonds to protect green space. The report has nearly 200 authors across 12 chapters covering nature's intersection with everything from the economy to cultural heritage, and had a target publication date of 2026 before Trump canceled it. However, Frumkin told The Hill, the authors are currently weighing options for how to publish the final report in another form. '[W]e'll find the appropriate publisher and publication venue, and I have every expectation that we'll carry on with the work and deliver a rigorous, useful report,' he said. The publication date will likely be sooner than originally planned, he added, because removing the report from beneath the umbrella of the federal government will mean fewer layers of review are required. In the meantime, Frumkin shared an overview of some of his section's key findings with The Hill, including that exposure to nature is associated with broad improvements to health and well-being. The benefits, he said, range from stress reduction to heavier physical activity, lower blood pressure and improved birth outcomes. However, Frumkin and his team also found current trends that could affect the extent to which people experience those benefits. The combination of climate change and development means the increasing loss of biodiversity and nature and, potentially, some of the health benefits associated with them, he said. Other findings indicate trends in the opposite direction, though— for example, New England is more heavily forested now than it was a century ago. Other trends the team found, he said, 'don't have to do with nature as they have to do with human behavioral patterns and preferences.' 'So we spend less time outdoors than our great-grandparents did. We have more screen time. There's less of a psychological connection to nature, which we know is one of the mechanisms through which nature delivers benefits,' he added. The third major finding, Frumkin said, was that governmental policies can help realize those benefits in the larger population. 'Nature can't deliver health benefits if we're losing it. So policies that protect natural spaces, sea coasts, forests, grasslands, wetlands, can be policies that indirectly help benefit health as well,' he said. Ultimately, Frumkin said, 'if we need to pivot and issue it as a non-governmental report, I think that's just fine.' 'I think there may be an opportunity in terms of how nimble and flexible and far-reaching the report can be,' he said. 'So it's regrettable that it won't be the government document, but it would have been, but I think that the benefits of this report can still be made available to the American public.'
New York Times
10-02-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Killed a Major Report on Nature. They're Trying to Publish It Anyway.
The draft was almost ready for submission, due in less than a month. More than 150 scientists and other experts had collectively spent thousands of hours working on the report, a first-of-its-kind assessment of nature across the United States. But President Trump ended the effort, started under the Biden administration, by executive order. So, on Jan. 30, the project's director, an environmental scientist named Phil Levin, sent an email telling members of his team that their work had been discontinued. But it wasn't the only email he sent that day. 'This work is too important to die,' Dr. Levin wrote in a separate email to the reports' authors, this one from his personal account. 'The country needs what we are producing.' Now key experts who worked on the report, called the National Nature Assessment, are figuring out how to finish and publish it outside the government, according to interviews with nine of the leading authors. 'There's an amazingly unanimous broad consensus that we ought to carry on with the work,' said Howard Frumkin, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Washington School of Public Health who was leading a chapter on nature's effects on human health and well-being. The study was intended to measure how the nation's lands, water and wildlife are faring, how they are expected to change, and what that means for people. Most of the 12 chapters were written by teams of a dozen or so specialists. While some were federal employees, a vast majority of the authors came from outside government — academia, nonprofit groups and the private sector — and they were already volunteering their time. Most or all the teams were expecting to continue their work, the authors said. The first completed draft had been due Feb. 11. When the researchers were told the project had been canceled, some had almost finished their chapters and were simply polishing. Others had been racing against the deadline. Rajat Panwar, a professor of responsible and sustainable business at Oregon State University who was leading the chapter on nature and the economy, was preparing slides to present his section when he got the news. He said the team he recruited saw, and still sees, the work as a calling to help solve one of its generation's most pressing problems, the loss of nature and biodiversity. 'The dependence of the economy on nature,' a theme explored in his group's 6,000-word chapter, 'is understated and understudied and underappreciated,' Dr. Panwar said. But the effort to publish outside the government raised major questions that are under discussion. What is the best way to publish? How will the authors ensure rigor and peer-review? Who is their target audience? Since federal employees will not be able to continue, who will pay for certain critical coordinating roles? Who will provide the oversight that came from a federal steering committee? And perhaps the trickiest question: How can the report maintain the stature and the influence of a government assessment now that it won't be released by the government? 'We just want to make sure that whatever product is produced really has the potential to move the needle on the conversations, all the way from the dinner table in individual families to the halls of Congress,' said Chris Field, director of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, who was leading the chapter on nature and climate change. Legal issues related to ownership of the work should not be a problem, said Peter Lee, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in intellectual property law and was not involved in the effort. 'As a general rule, government works are not subject to copyright,' Mr. Lee said. The draft was developed under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the same federal group that oversees national climate assessments. But while those reports are mandated by Congress, the nature assessment received authority through an executive order issued by President Biden. That left the project more vulnerable. It became one of a slew of Biden-era environmental orders that Mr. Trump revoked on his first day in office. Mr. Trump has also frozen climate spending, begun withdrawing the United States from the main global pact to tackle climate change and launched an assault on wind energy while seeking to expand fossil fuels. By the end of January, the federal web page for the National Nature Assessment had been taken down. 'Nature supports our economy, our health and well-being, national security and safety from fire and floods,' said Dr. Levin, the former director of the report. 'The loss of the National Nature Assessment means that we're losing important information that we need to ensure that nature and people thrive.' Dr. Levin declined to comment on the report's future. The Trump administration did not address questions about why it canceled the effort. But Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Mr. Trump would 'unleash America's energy potential' and 'simultaneously ensure that our nation's land and water can be enjoyed for generations to come.' Christopher Schell, an assistant professor of ecology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the lead author of a chapter called 'Nature and Equity in the U.S.,' said he believed that a focus on environmental justice made the assessment more of a target for the Trump administration, which has attacked diversity, equity and inclusion programs and placed workers from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Justice on leave. Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, is declining faster than at any time in human history, according to a landmark global scientific assessment. The National Nature Assessment was intended to provide a much more robust picture of the state of play for the United States, the authors said. Danielle Ignace, an associate professor in the department of forest resources at the University of Minnesota and the lead author of a chapter on the drivers of change in nature, said her team felt the importance of the work more strongly than ever. 'It's a calling to this cause to see this through,' Dr. Ignace said. 'We're not going to stop.'
