Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Cancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to Know

News Feed
Monday, August 12, 2024

August 12, 20245 min readCancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to KnowDo you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might saveyour lifeBy Karen E. Knudsen & Othman LarakiToday a woman in her 30s faces higher odds of a cancer diagnosis than her grandmother did at her age two generations ago. Cancer incidence and mortality are rising in millennials and even younger populations, according to American Cancer Society (ACS) data, while rates among older Americans are declining. In July, a study found that both members of Generation X and Millennials face a higher risk than older generations of 17 types of cancer.Cancer spares no one. Not a month goes by without the news of a celebrity, an acquaintance, a friend or a family member learning what each of us dreads to hear from a doctor: “You have cancer.” Just this March global attention was captured by the news of 42-year-old Catherine, Princess of Wales, who is married to the heir to the British throne, sharing the news of her cancer diagnosis.In January the annual ACS cancer statistics report showed that people in the under-50 group were the only ones in the U.S. to experience an overall increase in cancer incidence from 1995 through 2020. Take colorectal cancer: incidence rates have increased by 1 percent to 2 percent per year since the mid-1990s in those younger than 55 years of age and decreased among those 65 and older. Meanwhile, in people younger than 50, colorectal cancer has jumped four spots to become the leading cause of cancer death for men and the second-leading cause for women.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.As the rate of cancer diagnoses among younger Americans continues to rise, we can no longer think of cancer as a disease of the elderly. What is going on?Although we haven’t found a single reason for the increase, one thing is certain: we have a generational problem. Facts are stubborn things, and these alarming statistics demand answers. The 50-and-older population has benefitted from efforts to reduce cancer deaths. What new strategies can do the same for younger people?Let’s start with what we know. The evidence shows that we can save lives by detecting cancer early, when treatment is more effective, less intensive and far less expensive. Regular, guideline-based screenings for the most common cancers, such as breast, colorectal and lung cancers, give the best chance for early detection. Screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers can also detect warning signs before cancer develops, which aids in disease prevention. In developing screening guidelines, organizations such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and ACS conduct an extensive scientific evidence review and consider the benefits, limitations and harms of each test. Cancer screening can have downsides, including the fact that some patients will be recalled for further evaluation based on an abnormal sign that will prove not to be cancer or will be diagnosed with a cancer that may not ever become life-threatening. The benefits of recommended cancer screening substantially exceed these harms, however. So it’s critical that young people pay attention to whether they have risk factors that mean they should get screened.Continuing to raise awareness and discussing personal risk factors, such as unhealthy habits, environmental hazards and especially a family history of cancer, can significantly improve outcomes by guiding screening and treatment recommendations. But that formula and the system that activates it haven’t reached everyone under 50. For colorectal cancer, only 20 percent of eligible people aged 45 to 49 (ACS guidelines recommend this screening begin at age 45) reported being up-to-date with screenings in 2021 versus 80 percent of people aged 65 to 74.The benefits of following these guidelines go far beyond a screening appointment. An accurate diagnosis and thoughtful decision on the appropriate course of treatment are two sides of the same coin–especially if cancer is caught early. A diagnosis may not mean radical surgery or expensive medications. If a patient has a slow-progressing prostate cancer, the best care is watching and waiting, known medically as “active surveillance.” Francis Collins, who led the sequencing of the human genome and was formerly director of the National Institutes of Health, recently shared his journey closely tracking a slow-progressing case of prostate cancer, which ultimately progressed but appears to have been caught in time to save his life. That can’t happen without a screening in the first place.If you are under 50, you need to realize that you are not too young to develop cancer. Too often people with symptoms of cancer below the recommended screening age are reassured that they are too young to have cancer and that their symptoms must be linked to something less troublesome. And too often this delay in diagnosis has tragic outcomes. Screening guidelines are written for people at an average risk. A relatively small but meaningful percentage of adults instead have a family history and risk profile that warrants earlier screening. Almost one in three individuals who develop colorectal cancer when they are younger than 50 have a genetic mutation or relevant family history. Those who learn that they have hereditary risk factors through genetic testing should also start screening earlier.Low adherence to screening guidelines isn’t young people’s fault. Guidance around cancer screenings hasn’t adapted to reach younger audiences. Information should find you in places that are relevant to your life–such as the websites and apps you use most often. As with media, it’s become clear that younger people consume health care differently. Adults under 50 are less likely to have a primary care physician who can understand risk factors that inform where to begin screening and what tests to use. As a younger adult, you may experience more barriers to accessing health care. You may be more likely to make trade-offs when seeking care, weighing health care co-pays against payments for rent, student loans or other financial priorities. And with the gig economy reshaping the workforce, the traditional medical practice’s hours are inconvenient for many workers. We need doctors and their services to be designed around your needs and convenience. Employer-based programs can also act as an additional touchpoint to engage with workers early and often to close screening gaps.Nearly half of newly diagnosed cancers in the U.S.—42 percent, according to ACS researchers—are avoidable with a combination of prevention measures, such as eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy body weight. More than four million lives have been saved in the U.S. over the last 30 years because of a combination of cancer prevention–such as reduction in cigarette smoking–and improvements in early detection and treatments. With the right information about cancer risk, knowledge of screening and prevention options, as well as a path forward to receive the care they need, millennials can substantially reduce their risk of cancer. With two million cancer diagnoses in any age group expected in 2024—a record high—reaching younger Americans is more important than ever.

Do you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might save your life

August 12, 2024

5 min read

Cancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to Know

Do you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might save
your life

By Karen E. Knudsen & Othman Laraki

Stock photo depicting a medical professional assisting a young patient during a mammography test in examination room

Today a woman in her 30s faces higher odds of a cancer diagnosis than her grandmother did at her age two generations ago. Cancer incidence and mortality are rising in millennials and even younger populations, according to American Cancer Society (ACS) data, while rates among older Americans are declining. In July, a study found that both members of Generation X and Millennials face a higher risk than older generations of 17 types of cancer.

Cancer spares no one. Not a month goes by without the news of a celebrity, an acquaintance, a friend or a family member learning what each of us dreads to hear from a doctor: “You have cancer.” Just this March global attention was captured by the news of 42-year-old Catherine, Princess of Wales, who is married to the heir to the British throne, sharing the news of her cancer diagnosis.

In January the annual ACS cancer statistics report showed that people in the under-50 group were the only ones in the U.S. to experience an overall increase in cancer incidence from 1995 through 2020. Take colorectal cancer: incidence rates have increased by 1 percent to 2 percent per year since the mid-1990s in those younger than 55 years of age and decreased among those 65 and older. Meanwhile, in people younger than 50, colorectal cancer has jumped four spots to become the leading cause of cancer death for men and the second-leading cause for women.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

As the rate of cancer diagnoses among younger Americans continues to rise, we can no longer think of cancer as a disease of the elderly. What is going on?

Although we haven’t found a single reason for the increase, one thing is certain: we have a generational problem. Facts are stubborn things, and these alarming statistics demand answers. The 50-and-older population has benefitted from efforts to reduce cancer deaths. What new strategies can do the same for younger people?

Let’s start with what we know. The evidence shows that we can save lives by detecting cancer early, when treatment is more effective, less intensive and far less expensive. Regular, guideline-based screenings for the most common cancers, such as breast, colorectal and lung cancers, give the best chance for early detection. Screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers can also detect warning signs before cancer develops, which aids in disease prevention. In developing screening guidelines, organizations such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and ACS conduct an extensive scientific evidence review and consider the benefits, limitations and harms of each test. Cancer screening can have downsides, including the fact that some patients will be recalled for further evaluation based on an abnormal sign that will prove not to be cancer or will be diagnosed with a cancer that may not ever become life-threatening. The benefits of recommended cancer screening substantially exceed these harms, however. So it’s critical that young people pay attention to whether they have risk factors that mean they should get screened.

Continuing to raise awareness and discussing personal risk factors, such as unhealthy habits, environmental hazards and especially a family history of cancer, can significantly improve outcomes by guiding screening and treatment recommendations. But that formula and the system that activates it haven’t reached everyone under 50. For colorectal cancer, only 20 percent of eligible people aged 45 to 49 (ACS guidelines recommend this screening begin at age 45) reported being up-to-date with screenings in 2021 versus 80 percent of people aged 65 to 74.

The benefits of following these guidelines go far beyond a screening appointment. An accurate diagnosis and thoughtful decision on the appropriate course of treatment are two sides of the same coin–especially if cancer is caught early. A diagnosis may not mean radical surgery or expensive medications. If a patient has a slow-progressing prostate cancer, the best care is watching and waiting, known medically as “active surveillance.” Francis Collins, who led the sequencing of the human genome and was formerly director of the National Institutes of Health, recently shared his journey closely tracking a slow-progressing case of prostate cancer, which ultimately progressed but appears to have been caught in time to save his life. That can’t happen without a screening in the first place.

If you are under 50, you need to realize that you are not too young to develop cancer. Too often people with symptoms of cancer below the recommended screening age are reassured that they are too young to have cancer and that their symptoms must be linked to something less troublesome. And too often this delay in diagnosis has tragic outcomes. Screening guidelines are written for people at an average risk. A relatively small but meaningful percentage of adults instead have a family history and risk profile that warrants earlier screening. Almost one in three individuals who develop colorectal cancer when they are younger than 50 have a genetic mutation or relevant family history. Those who learn that they have hereditary risk factors through genetic testing should also start screening earlier.

Low adherence to screening guidelines isn’t young people’s fault. Guidance around cancer screenings hasn’t adapted to reach younger audiences. Information should find you in places that are relevant to your life–such as the websites and apps you use most often. As with media, it’s become clear that younger people consume health care differently. Adults under 50 are less likely to have a primary care physician who can understand risk factors that inform where to begin screening and what tests to use. As a younger adult, you may experience more barriers to accessing health care. You may be more likely to make trade-offs when seeking care, weighing health care co-pays against payments for rent, student loans or other financial priorities. And with the gig economy reshaping the workforce, the traditional medical practice’s hours are inconvenient for many workers. We need doctors and their services to be designed around your needs and convenience. Employer-based programs can also act as an additional touchpoint to engage with workers early and often to close screening gaps.

Nearly half of newly diagnosed cancers in the U.S.—42 percent, according to ACS researchers—are avoidable with a combination of prevention measures, such as eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy body weight. More than four million lives have been saved in the U.S. over the last 30 years because of a combination of cancer prevention–such as reduction in cigarette smoking–and improvements in early detection and treatments. With the right information about cancer risk, knowledge of screening and prevention options, as well as a path forward to receive the care they need, millennials can substantially reduce their risk of cancer. With two million cancer diagnoses in any age group expected in 2024—a record high—reaching younger Americans is more important than ever.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

New method improves the reliability of statistical estimations

The technique can help scientists in economics, public health, and other fields understand whether to trust the results of their experiments.

Let’s say an environmental scientist is studying whether exposure to air pollution is associated with lower birth weights in a particular county.They might train a machine-learning model to estimate the magnitude of this association, since machine-learning methods are especially good at learning complex relationships.Standard machine-learning methods excel at making predictions and sometimes provide uncertainties, like confidence intervals, for these predictions. However, they generally don’t provide estimates or confidence intervals when determining whether two variables are related. Other methods have been developed specifically to address this association problem and provide confidence intervals. But, in spatial settings, MIT researchers found these confidence intervals can be completely off the mark.When variables like air pollution levels or precipitation change across different locations, common methods for generating confidence intervals may claim a high level of confidence when, in fact, the estimation completely failed to capture the actual value. These faulty confidence intervals can mislead the user into trusting a model that failed.After identifying this shortfall, the researchers developed a new method designed to generate valid confidence intervals for problems involving data that vary across space. In simulations and experiments with real data, their method was the only technique that consistently generated accurate confidence intervals.This work could help researchers in fields like environmental science, economics, and epidemiology better understand when to trust the results of certain experiments.“There are so many problems where people are interested in understanding phenomena over space, like weather or forest management. We’ve shown that, for this broad class of problems, there are more appropriate methods that can get us better performance, a better understanding of what is going on, and results that are more trustworthy,” says Tamara Broderick, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a member of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, an affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and senior author of this study.Broderick is joined on the paper by co-lead authors David R. Burt, a postdoc, and Renato Berlinghieri, an EECS graduate student; and Stephen Bates an assistant professor in EECS and member of LIDS. The research was recently presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.Invalid assumptionsSpatial association involves studying how a variable and a certain outcome are related over a geographic area. For instance, one might want to study how tree cover in the United States relates to elevation.To solve this type of problem, a scientist could gather observational data from many locations and use it to estimate the association at a different location where they do not have data.The MIT researchers realized that, in this case, existing methods often generate confidence intervals that are completely wrong. A model might say it is 95 percent confident its estimation captures the true relationship between tree cover and elevation, when it didn’t capture that relationship at all.After exploring this problem, the researchers determined that the assumptions these confidence interval methods rely on don’t hold up when data vary spatially.Assumptions are like rules that must be followed to ensure results of a statistical analysis are valid. Common methods for generating confidence intervals operate under various assumptions.First, they assume that the source data, which is the observational data one gathered to train the model, is independent and identically distributed. This assumption implies that the chance of including one location in the data has no bearing on whether another is included. But, for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air sensors are placed with other air sensor locations in mind.Second, existing methods often assume that the model is perfectly correct, but this assumption is never true in practice. Finally, they assume the source data are similar to the target data where one wants to estimate.But in spatial settings, the source data can be fundamentally different from the target data because the target data are in a different location than where the source data were gathered.For instance, a scientist might use data from EPA pollution monitors to train a machine-learning model that can predict health outcomes in a rural area where there are no monitors. But the EPA pollution monitors are likely placed in urban areas, where there is more traffic and heavy industry, so the air quality data will be much different than the air quality data in the rural area.In this case, estimates of association using the urban data suffer from bias because the target data are systematically different from the source data.A smooth solutionThe new method for generating confidence intervals explicitly accounts for this potential bias.Instead of assuming the source and target data are similar, the researchers assume the data vary smoothly over space.For instance, with fine particulate air pollution, one wouldn’t expect the pollution level on one city block to be starkly different than the pollution level on the next city block. Instead, pollution levels would smoothly taper off as one moves away from a pollution source.“For these types of problems, this spatial smoothness assumption is more appropriate. It is a better match for what is actually going on in the data,” Broderick says.When they compared their method to other common techniques, they found it was the only one that could consistently produce reliable confidence intervals for spatial analyses. In addition, their method remains reliable even when the observational data are distorted by random errors.In the future, the researchers want to apply this analysis to different types of variables and explore other applications where it could provide more reliable results.This research was funded, in part, by an MIT Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) seed grant, the Office of Naval Research, Generali, Microsoft, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Health
Forests
Science

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer

In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study

Gas Stoves Are Poisoning Americans by Releasing Toxic Fumes Associated With Asthma and Lung Cancer In the United States, gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide—a toxic gas tied to many health problems—according to a new study Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 11, 2025 9:13 a.m. Gas stoves are responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to toxic nitrogen dioxide, a new study suggests. Pexels A hidden danger may be lurking in your kitchen. Many Americans are breathing in nitrogen dioxide—a harmful pollutant that’s been linked with asthma and lung cancer—from fumes emitted by their gas stoves. A new study, published this month in the journal PNAS Nexus, suggests that gas stoves are the main source of indoor nitrogen dioxide pollution in the United States, responsible for more than half of some Americans’ total exposure to the gas. “We’ve spent billions of dollars cleaning up our air outdoors and nothing to clean up our air indoors,” study co-author Robert Jackson, an environmental scientist at Stanford University, tells SFGATE’s Anna FitzGerald Guth. “As our air outdoors gets cleaner and cleaner, a higher proportion of the pollution we breathe comes from indoor sources.” Scientists and public health experts have long known that nitrogen dioxide is bad for human health. The reddish-brown gas can irritate airways and worsen or even contribute to the development of respiratory diseases like asthma. Children and older individuals are particularly susceptible to its effects. Nitrogen dioxide is a byproduct of burning fuel, so most emissions come from vehicles, power plants and off-road equipment. However, indoors, the primary culprit is the gas stove, the household appliance that burns natural gas or propane to produce controlled flames under individual burners. It’s relatively easy to keep tabs on outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and estimate their corresponding exposure risks, thanks to satellites and ground-level stations located across the country. By contrast, however, indoor sources are “neither systematically monitored nor estimated,” the researchers write in the paper. Did you know? Bans on gas Berkeley, California, became the first city to prohibit gas hookups in most new buildings in 2019, although the ordinance was halted in 2024 after the California Restaurant Association sued. Still, 130 local governments have now implemented zero-emission building ordinances, according to the Building Decarbonization Coalition. For the study, Jackson and his colleagues performed a ZIP-code-level estimate of how much total nitrogen dioxide communities are exposed to. Information came from two databases tracking outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations and a building energy use database, which helped the team construct characteristics of 133 million residential dwellings across the country, along with their home appliances. Among individuals who use gas stoves, the appliances are responsible for roughly a quarter of their overall nitrogen dioxide exposure on average, the team found. For those who cook more frequently or for longer durations, gas stoves can be responsible for as much as 57 percent of their total exposure. “Our research shows that if you use a gas stove, you’re often breathing as much nitrogen dioxide pollution indoors from your stove as you are from all outdoor sources combined,” says Jackson in a Stanford statement. Individuals who use gas stoves are exposed to roughly 25 percent more total residential nitrogen dioxide over the long term than those who use electric stoves, which do not emit the gas. Total exposure tends to be highest in big cities, where people often have small living spaces and outdoor levels are also high. Switching from a gas to an electric stove would help roughly 22 million Americans dip below the maximum nitrogen dioxide exposure levels recommended by the World Health Organization, the analyses suggest. The authors recommend replacing gas stoves with electric models whenever possible. “You would never willingly stand over the tailpipe of your car, breathing in pollution,” Jackson tells Women’s Health’s Korin Miller. “Why breathe the same toxins every day in your kitchen?” Dylan Plummer, acting deputy director for building electrification for the Sierra Club, a nonprofit environmental organization, agrees. Plummer, who was not involved with the research, tells Inside Climate News’ Phil McKenna that “years from now, we will look back at the common practice of burning fossil fuels in our homes with horror.” If swapping stoves is not possible, experts have some other tips for reducing nitrogen dioxide exposure. “One thing people could do is to minimize the time the stoves are on,” Jamie Alan, a toxicologist at Michigan State University who was not involved with the research, tells Women’s Health. “Another suggestion would be to increase ventilation,” such as by turning on the range hood and opening a window. Other suggestions by the New York Times’ Rachel Wharton include using a portable induction countertop unit or electric kitchen gadgets like tea kettles, toaster ovens and slow cookers. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Health
Climate
Energy

Parents Might Pass Depression Down To Kids Through One Specific Symptom, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Children of depressed parents are more likely to develop depression themselves, and a new study suggests this risk might be tied to one specific symptom of depression.It’s already known that depression in parents can affect how children’s brains respond to positive and negative feedback, researchers said.“If parents are experiencing forms of depression where they’re not enjoying things and aren’t interested in things, that seems to be impacting how their kids are responding to what’s going on around them,” senior researcher Brandon Gibb, director of the Mood Disorders Institute at Binghamton University, said in a news release.“They’re less reactive to positive things and negative things,” he continued. “It seems that parents’ experiences of anhedonia is the key feature of depression impacting how children’s brains are responding, at least in our study, rather than other common symptoms of depression.”For the new study, researchers performed a lab experiment involving more than 200 parents and children ages 7 to 11.The experiment was designed to see how parents’ anhedonic symptoms affect children’s brain responses to positive and negative feedback.“The idea is that if you have this risk factor of being less interested or less engaged or finding things less enjoyable, maybe that’s reflected in how your brain responds to environmental feedback,” said lead researcher Alana Israel, a doctoral student at Binghamton University, a branch of the State University of New York. “Children of parents who have higher levels of anhedonic depressive symptoms should show a reduced response while other depressive symptoms theoretically should not be as related to this specific brain response,” Israel explained in a news release.In the experiment, children were presented with two doors and asked to guess the one with a prize behind it. If they chose the right door, they won money; if they chose wrong, they lost money.Results showed that kids’ response to either winning or losing money was blunted if their parents had higher levels of anhedonic symptoms. “What that tells us is that there is something specific about parents’ anhedonia that may impact children’s neural responses,” Israel said. “It further specifies a group of children who might be at heightened risk for loss of interest or pleasure and lack of engagement, which is a core feature of depression.”Future research should investigate how family dynamics might change if parents with anhedonic symptoms receive treatment or start to feel better, the team said.Researchers said it’s also important to examine whether children’s responses to other sorts of feedback, like social feedback from peers, are also affected by parents’ depression.“There are researchers looking at interventions that are designed to increase positive mood, positive engagement and positive parent-child relationships,” Israel said. “It will be important to see if these findings can identify families who might be most likely to benefit from those types of interventions.”SOURCE: Binghamton University, news release, Dec. 4, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

We may finally know what a healthy gut microbiome looks like

Our gut microbiome has a huge influence on our overall health, but we haven't been clear on the specific bacteria with good versus bad effects. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people is shedding light on what a healthy gut microbiome actually consists of

The trillions of microscopic bacteria that reside in our gut have an outsized role in our healthTHOM LEACH/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY We often hear talk of things being good for our microbiome, and in turn, good for our health. But it wasn’t entirely clear what a healthy gut microbiome consisted of. Now, a study of more than 34,000 people has edged us closer towards understanding the mixes of microbes that reliably signal we have low inflammation, good immunity and healthy cholesterol levels. Your gut microbiome can influence your immune system, rate of ageing and your risk of poor mental health. Despite a profusion of home tests promising to reveal the make-up of your gut community, their usefulness has been debated, because it is hard to pin down what defines a “good” microbial mix. Previous measures mainly looked at species diversity, with a greater array of bacteria being better. But it is difficult to identify particular communities of interacting organisms that are implicated in a specific aspect of our health, because microbiomes vary so much from person to person. “There is a very intricate relationship between the food we eat, the composition of our gut microbiome, and the effects the gut microbiome has on our health. The only way to try to map these connections is having large enough sample sizes,” says Nicola Segata at the University of Trento in Italy. To create such a map, Segata and his colleagues have assessed a dataset from more than 34,500 people who took part in the PREDICT programme in the UK and US, run by microbiome testing firm Zoe, and validated the results against data from 25 other cohorts from Western countries. Of the thousands of species that reside in the human gut, the researchers focused on 661 bacterial species that were found in more than 20 per cent of the Zoe participants. They used this to determine the 50 bacteria most associated with markers of good health – assessed via markers such as body mass index and blood glucose levels – and the 50 most linked to bad health. The 50 “good bug” species – 22 of which are new to science – seem to influence four key areas: heart and blood cholesterol levels; inflammation and immune health; body fat distribution; and blood sugar control. The participants who were deemed healthy, because they had no known medical conditions, had about 3.6 more of these species than people with a condition, while people at a healthy weight hosted about 5.2 more of them than those with obesity. The researchers suggest that good or bad health outcomes may come about due to the vital role the gut microbiome plays in releasing chemicals involved in cholesterol transport, inflammation reduction, fat metabolism and insulin sensitivity. As to the specific species that were present, most microbes in both the “good” and “bad” rankings belong to the Clostridia class. Within this class, species in the Lachnospiraceae family featured 40 times, with 13 seemingly having favourable effects and 27 unfavourable. “The study highlights bacterial groups that could be further investigated regarding their potential positive or negative impact [on] health conditions, such as high blood glucose levels or obesity,” says Ines Moura at the University of Leeds, UK. The link between these microbes and diet was assessed via food questionnaires and data logged on the Zoe app, where users are advised to aim for at least 30 different plants a week and at least three portions a day of fermented foods, with an emphasis on fibre and not too many ultra processed options. The researchers found that most of the microbes either aligned with a generally healthy diet and better health, or with a worse diet and poorer health. But 65 of the 661 microbes didn’t fit in. “These 65 bacteria are a testament to the fact that the picture is still more complex than what we saw,” says Segata, who also works as a consultant for Zoe. “The effects may depend on the other microbes that are there, or the specific strain of the bacterium or the specific diet.” This sorting of “good” versus “bad” bacteria has enabled the researchers to create a 0 to 1000 ranking scale for the overall health of someone’s gut microbiota, which is already used as part of Zoe’s gut health tests. “Think of a healthy gut microbiome as a community of chemical factories. We want large numbers of species, we want the good ones outnumbering the bad ones, and when you get that, then you’re producing really healthy chemicals, which have impacts across the body,” says team member Tim Spector at King’s College London and co-founder of Zoe. This doesn’t mean the ideal healthy gut microbiome has been pinned down, though. “Defining a healthy microbiome is a difficult task, as the gut microbiome composition is impacted by diet, but it can also change with environmental factors, age and health conditions that require long-term medication,” says Moura. “We really need to think about our body and our microbiome as two complex systems that together make one even more complex system,” says Segata. “When you change one thing, everything is modified a bit as a consequence. Understanding what is cause and effect in many cases can be very intricate.” Bigger studies are needed to tease out these links and cover more of the global population, says Segata. However, once we have established the baseline of your health and microbiome, it should become possible to recommend specific foods to tweak your gut bacteria, he says.

Health
Chemicals
Science

Bid to oust Zeldin cites ‘EPA-sanctioned pollution spree’

The Moms Clean Air Force campaign will illuminate environmental and public health dangers that it says the administrator created.

The Moms Clean Air Force campaign will illuminate environmental and public health dangers that it says the administrator created.

Health
Pollution

Suggested Viewing

In His Own Home

Heavily armed officers of the University of Florida police department in Gainesville, FL, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor who heard screams, break into the campus apartment of Ghanaian graduate student, Kofi Adu-Brempong. Clad in SWAT gear and ready to attack, they see the disabled doctoral student, sitting with a metal table leg in his hand and within a minute of entry, shoot the unarmed man in the face. Adu-Brempong, who because of childhood polio, needed a cane to walk, and had been suffering from mental illness, now has severe facial injuries, and is charged with resisting arrest. He is guarded outside his hospital door, his legs shackled together when going to the bathroom. The officer who shoots Kofi, and who had previously been caught cruising through town throwing eggs at residents of a Black neighborhood, is not suspended or fired. Student protests lead the administration to drop charges but calls for revoking SWAT-like teams on campus go unheard. Kofi’s shooting is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing pattern of police brutality against Blacks and a stark reminder of the dangers of increasingly militarized campuses nationwide. In His Own Home came out of outrage by a small group of concerned community members committed to seeing social justice happen on a local level. This documentary is an educational and organizing tool, especially calling for our communities to be safe from violence by racist and over-armed police.

Social Justice
Health
Activism

Riding Bikes with the Dutch

Michael Bauch, a Long Beach resident and independent filmmaker, noticed that many of his local errands involved short rides which were less than three miles. In the summer of 2007 he and his family went to Amsterdam, to document the biking and walking culture that is so natural to the Dutch people. The film suggests that we in the U.S. re-examine our view of bicycles.

Transportation
Culture
Health

Red Bean

An individual who is suffering from the obsessive-compulsive disorder and forced to migrate to outer space, he misses his mother and homeland. However, the only response to his calling his mother is an endless busy tone.

Cosmos
Health
Culture

We Are Nature

We made this short film under lockdown conditions throughout the pandemic of Covid-19. The film argues that policies are not enough to prevent a future outbreak. We need a paradigm shift in how we view nature and the rest of life on this planet. The film was made remotely via zoom, a fact made clear in the style of the film. Our speakers appear on screens, which we filmed from inside our homes. Each speaker offers a different perspective on the origins of the pandemic in the ways we see and value nature. If humans can’t escape their connection to the natural world, it’s time for a better one. The health of us and the planet depends on it.

Health
Nature
Animals

Vanishing Springs

The Florida you know is a lie. In contrast to what Americans have been told, Florida’s magic is not found in the giant mouse, the rolling green golf courses, or in the beachside palaces. The beauty and uniqueness of Florida is under our feet - the aquifer. This pure, crystal clear water is the life blood of our state and without it, life as we know it in the sunshine state would not exist. This life sustaining force is only seen where it bubbles up to the surface through Florida’s collection of 1,000 springs. These springs were originally what drew society to this land. Wealthy tourists in the 1900’s flooded the Florida springs seeking medicinal cures from its pristine waters. As springs became a popular tourist destination, spring houses were built around these pools of water. When this development began, the springs began flowing less and some eventually stopped altogether. People assumed this was the natural order of this wonder and moved on. Theme parks, golf courses and resorts were erected to entice tourists to visit Florida, the natural beauty of the state soon faded out of our memory. The springs of Florida now silently suffer from the effects of continued development in Florida. The current strain we are placing on the fragile ecosystem is choking the life out of our state. Overdevelopment is one of the leading forces that is damaging the springs. The once pure sources of water no longer boil up like a fountain the way they have for centuries. The water that the springs do produce is polluted by nitrates. This pollution fuels the growth of toxic algae blooms, which are taking over springs and the rivers they feed, thus putting our health at risk. Over 90% of our drinking water gushes out of these sapphire pools. These glorious reservoirs have begun to shrink. If something is not done soon, the springs will simply become part of Florida history. In southern Florida they already have. Springs once bubbled up all across the state. They were wiped out in South Florida decades ago by the ditching and draining of the landscape as well as over-pumping of the aquifer. This water was then sprayed on suburban lawns and farmers' fields, run through showers and flushed down toilets, turned into steam to crank turbines for electricity, or siphoned into plastic bottles for sale around the country. Because of poor use and neglect of our greatest resource, we will soon be without this supply of fresh water. Floridians regard their water supply as abundant and cheap, when the fact is it's neither. Until this attitude changes, the springs will not be rescued.

Water
Conservation
Health

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.