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.

Do We Really Want a Food Cartel?

News Feed
Tuesday, April 9, 2024

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Mergers and acquisitions have created food oligopolies that are inefficient, barely regulated, unfair, and even dangerous.

The Federal Trade Commission has just released its long-anticipated report on the major disruptions to America’s grocery-supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic—and it confirmed the worst. According to the report, large grocery companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity. They deliberately wielded their market power amid food shortages, entrenching their dominance and keeping their shelves stocked even as smaller companies had to scramble for goods or simply close up shop. For the big players in the grocery industry—companies such as Walmart—the pandemic was a boon. And profits have continued to climb, along with food prices, even as supply-chain disruptions have vanished.

Why did all of this happen? The FTC report implied an answer but did not state it outright: A handful of companies now control the food system of the United States, stifling competition in ways not seen since the great trusts and monopolies of the late 1890s. The mergers and acquisitions of the past four decades have greatly reduced the number of companies—a fact hidden by the multiplicity of brands. Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket chain, runs grocery stores under more than two dozen names. That number would nearly double if its announced merger with Albertsons is allowed to proceed.

     Almost a quarter of a century ago, my book Fast Food Nation called attention to an accelerating phenomenon: corporate, quasi-monopolistic control of America’s food system with harmful consequences for workers, consumers, livestock, and the land. The forces identified then are even more powerful today.

According to a 2021 study by the public-interest group Food & Water Watch, four companies now control about 52 percent of the American market for rice, about 61 percent of the market for fresh bread, and about 79 percent of the market for pasta. Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of the nation’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle. The widespread adoption of factory farming has extended monopoly power even to commercial-livestock genetics. Three companies now provide the breeding stock for about 47 percent of the world’s hogs. Two companies provide the breeding stock for about 94 percent of the world’s egg-laying hens. The same two companies, EW Group and Hendrix Genetics, provide the breeding stock for 99 percent of the world’s turkeys. EW and Hendrix are also two of the world’s largest providers of breeding stock for farmed trout, salmon, and tilapia.

[Amanda Mull: We’ve never been good at feeding babies]

Economists have a metric known as the “four-firm concentration ratio,” sometimes deployed in shorthand as “CR4.” It is a measure of competitiveness in a market for goods or services. When four companies gain a combined market share that is greater than 40 percent, an oligopoly has formed. The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces. Further, the power these corporations exert within their industries and the economy as a whole leads to a well-documented dynamic: Effective government regulation becomes difficult, whether because state and federal agencies are “captive” or because they are outmatched in terms of resources and personnel.

For the oligopoly, this is a welcome state of affairs. On occasion, a single event illuminates the consequences for the rest of us.

Cronobacter sakazakii is an emerging pathogen that can be dangerous to infants who are younger than two months, born prematurely, or immunocompromised. After infection with the pathogen, the estimated death rate among such babies ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Many of those who survive have lifelong intestinal and brain damage and seizure disorders. The incidence of Cronobacter infections in the United States is unknown—until January of this year, only two states, Michigan and Minnesota, made a point of recording the number of cases. The overwhelming majority of infections go undetected. Since the late 1980s, powdered infant formula has been recognized as an important route of xi transmission to infants. Unlike liquid formula, powdered formula is not sterilized before being sold. Cronobacter may survive in powdered formula for at least a year. Once liquid is added to the powder, Cronobacter becomes bioactive and potentially deadly.

     In September 2021, a case of Cronobacter was diagnosed in Minnesota. The baby was hospitalized for three weeks but survived. The Minnesota Department of Health promptly shared information about the case—and the brand and the lot number of the powdered formula linked to it—with the FDA and the CDC. During the next several months, three more infants were diagnosed with Cronobacter in other states. Two of them died. All of the illnesses were linked to formula produced at the same plant: the nation’s largest infant-formula factory, occupying almost 1 million square feet, covering more land than a dozen football fields. It was located in Sturgis, Michigan, and owned by Abbott Nutrition.

     Poorly managed and notoriously reluctant to confront major food companies, the FDA was slow to react. In the fall of 2021, a former employee at the Sturgis plant had contacted the FDA to warn that safety records there were routinely being falsified, essential cleaning steps were being skipped, and baby formula was being packaged and shipped without being tested for lethal bacteria. The whistleblower sent the FDA a 34-page document describing a lack of concern about food safety in Sturgis, inexperienced and poorly trained workers, an emphasis on simply getting product out the door, and a corporate culture at Abbott Nutrition that encouraged retaliation against employees who raised uncomfortable questions.  

Four months elapsed before the FDA, in early 2022, showed up in Sturgis to conduct a thorough inspection of the Abbott plant. Multiple strains of Cronobacter were discovered in the facility. FDA officials later described conditions at the plant as “shocking” and “unacceptably unsanitary.”

     In February, Abbott voluntarily shut down its Sturgis factory and recalled three brands of powdered formula made there: EleCare, Alimentum, and Similac. The plant did not fully reopen for more than six months.

     Abbott Nutrition has insisted that neither the FDA nor the CDC could “find any definitive link between the company’s products and illnesses in children.” But Frank Yiannas, a former vice president of food safety at Walmart who served as a deputy commissioner of the FDA during the formula recall, found Abbott’s denials misleading. Multiple factors suggested that Abbott was indeed responsible for those four cases of Cronobacter, Yiannas testified before Congress: “Abbott’s Sturgis plant lacked adequate controls to prevent the contamination of powdered infant formula … sporadic contamination of finished product actually did occur, and it is likely that other lots of [infant formula] produced in this plant were contaminated with C. sakazakii strains over time, which evaded end-product testing, were released into commerce, and consumed by infants.”

     The health threat posed by the Abbott formula was bad enough. But there were other ramifications, because Abbott Nutrition was the largest firm in an infant-formula oligopoly. About 99 percent of the nation’s supply of infant formula was controlled by just four companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson, Nestlé/Gerber, and Perrigo. The Abbott factory in Sturgis produced about 20 percent of the infant formula consumed in the United States. It also manufactured the majority of the specialty formulas needed by infants, children, and even adults with certain gastrointestinal ailments.

The shutdown of that one plant led to nationwide shortages of infant formula that lasted throughout 2022. The other three companies stepped in to make up for the shortfall, earning large profits in the process. Nevertheless, formula shortages, hoarding, and panic buying created anxiety among countless American parents that their babies might not be able to eat.

     Two years later, a number of steps have been taken to improve the safety of powdered infant formula. Cases of Cronobacter in every state must now be reported to the CDC. Spurred by food-safety advocates, the FDA last year formed a unified Human Foods Program that promises a streamlined bureaucracy with a strong dedication to preventing the sale of contaminated food. We will see. In terms of resources, the FDA is outmatched. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, which is responsible for the oversight of about 80 percent of the food consumed in the United States, has 1,071 employees—about the same number of employees it had in 1978. The nation’s population has increased by more than 100 million since then.  

The dominance of the four companies that control the market for powdered infant formula is even more pronounced within individual states, where one company typically controls more than 90 percent of the formula market. That’s the result of the single-supplier contracts demanded by the federal Women, Infants, and Children program. The concentrated power of the four companies has made infant formula more expensive in the United States than it is in the European Union, despite the EU’s more stringent rules on organic ingredients and food additives in formula.

Acting with common purpose and singular focus, oligopolies are influential. The infant-formula oligopoly benefits from government restrictions on EU and Canadian imports. It has thwarted innovation, avoided criminal penalties for sickening infants, and maintained factories with obsolete equipment. It has left the United States with a production capacity that lacks resilience.

This is the state of affairs in a single industry. But it extends to the entire economy.

America’s Founders despised monopolies. James Madison called them “sacrifices of the many to the few.” Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution ought to include what would now be regarded as an antitrust provision. Writing to a friend in 1788, Jefferson listed the essential freedoms that a Bill of Rights should defend. The first three on his list were “freedom of religion,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of commerce against monopolies.” In some quarters, none of these three would make the cut today.

The trustbusters of the early 20th century were remarkably successful at creating and preserving competitive markets in the American economy. But the relaxation of antitrust enforcement during the 1980s soon led to greatly reduced competition not only in the food industry but also in banking, publishing, aerospace, and many other industries.

     Forty years ago, the United States had three large manufacturers of passenger aircraft. Today it has only one: Boeing, whose arrogance and incompetence can be attributed to the lack of domestic competition. Thirty years ago, the United States had more than 50 prime defense contractors. Today it has only five. Production delays, cost overruns, and vulnerable supply chains now threaten national security. The hollowing out of rural America—the loss of about half of the nation’s cattle ranchers, about 90 percent of its hog farmers, and more than 90 percent of its dairy farmers since the Reagan era—has fueled political extremism and a sense of desperation in the heartland.

[Annie Lowery: Radical vegans are trying to change your diet]

    Mergers, acquisitions, and the creation of corporations of massive size and scope are typically justified on the basis of greater “efficiency.” But they are efficient only at centralizing profits and fostering inequality. During the past three decades, adjusted for inflation, the hourly pay of American workers has increased by about 18 percent—and the annual compensation of CEOs at the largest American corporations has increased by about 1,300 percent. In California, where business groups have strongly opposed minimum-wage increases, fast-food cooks and clerks had a median annual income of about $15,000 in 2020. The following year, the CEO of McDonald’s was paid almost $20 million. Throughout the economy, concentrated power keeps wages low. Despite all the business-school rationalizations and jargon, corporations usually buy their competitors for one simple reason: They don’t want to compete with them.

And ordinary people foot the bill, even if they’re not aware of the actual cost. Market power and the capture of government regulatory agencies enable food corporations to “externalize” many of their business costs—that is, to make other people pay for them. Americans annually spend more than $1 trillion on food. But that doesn’t count the cost of foodborne illnesses, diet-related health problems, poverty wages, and the environmental degradation caused by our industrial food system. According to a study by the Rockefeller Foundation, the true cost of the food we consume is three times higher than what we think it is.

     The FTC and the Justice Department during the Biden administration have renewed the battle against monopoly power, reviving antitrust enforcement with support from some Republican members of Congress. On February 26, the FTC sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, arguing that it would raise the cost of groceries and lower the wages of grocery workers. But the fight against oligopolies and monopolies won’t be easy. A small number of corporations have tremendous political influence, expensive attorneys, and great skill at rigging markets in ways the public just can’t see.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Microplastics May Trigger Alzheimer’s-Like Brain Damage

College of Pharmacy Professor Jaime Ross has discovered that cognitive decline occurs in a sex-dependent manner, mirroring patterns observed in humans. Tiny fragments of plastic, known as microplastics and nanoplastics, are now so widespread in the environment that they regularly make their way into our bodies through the food we eat, the water we drink, [...]

A University of Rhode Island study suggests micro- and nanoplastics can accumulate in the brain, potentially accelerating Alzheimer’s symptoms in genetically at-risk individuals. Credit: StockCollege of Pharmacy Professor Jaime Ross has discovered that cognitive decline occurs in a sex-dependent manner, mirroring patterns observed in humans. Tiny fragments of plastic, known as microplastics and nanoplastics, are now so widespread in the environment that they regularly make their way into our bodies through the food we eat, the water we drink, and even the air we breathe. A new study from the University of Rhode Island’s College of Pharmacy reports that these particles can travel throughout the body, reaching organs such as the brain, where they may build up and contribute to conditions resembling Alzheimer’s disease. This research builds on earlier work showing that microplastics are capable of passing through the blood-brain barrier, a natural defense system that usually shields the brain from harmful agents as tiny as viruses and bacteria. Assistant Professor Jaime Ross extended the investigation to explore how these plastics affect brain function. Her team’s results suggest that the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastics in the brain may play a role in memory loss and cognitive decline, particularly in people with certain genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s. Testing Microplastic Exposure in Mice Ross’ latest study, published recently in the journal Environmental Research Communications, examined mice that had been genetically modified to include the naturally occurring gene APOE4, a strong indicator of Alzheimer’s risk, making people 3.5 times more likely to develop the disease than those who carry the APOE3 variant of the gene that is passed from parents to offspring. URI College of Pharmacy Assistant Professor Jaime Ross has found links between micro- and nanoplastics and Alzheimer’s Disease in mice. Credit: URI Communications“In these mice, like in people, it’s not a guarantee that you’re going to see any changes in cognition. You could have identical twins both carrying APOE4, one totally cognitively healthy, and the other could develop Alzheimer’s disease,” Ross said. “So that tells us there’s something about lifestyle, something about the environment going on. There are modifiable factors we’re studying related to Alzheimer’s–diet, exercise, vitamins, and especially environmental toxins like microplastics. If you carry the APOE4, and you happen to consume a lot of microplastics, will this contribute to Alzheimer’s disease?” To find out, Ross and her team exposed two groups of mice—one with the APOE4 variant and one with APOE3—to micro- and nanoplastics in their drinking water over a period of three weeks. The tiny particles from polystyrene—among the most abundant plastics in the world, found in Styrofoam take-out containers, plastic cups, and more—infiltrated the mice’ organs, including the brain, as expected. The research included a control group from each APOE designation did not receive microplastic exposure. Ross’ team then ran the mice through a series of tests to examine their cognitive ability, beginning with an open-field test, in which researchers put a mouse in a chamber and allow it to explore at will for 90 minutes. Ordinarily, a mouse will hug the walls, naturally attempting to hide from potential predators. However, after microplastic exposure, the APOE4 mice—especially the male mice—tended to wander more in the middle of the chamber and spend time in open space, leaving themselves vulnerable to predators. Behavioral and Memory Changes To test their ability to recognize novel objects, Ross placed mice in an open chamber with two distinct objects. After having time to explore the objects, the mice were removed and returned later, this time with one of the objects replaced with a different shape. The female mice with APOE4 and microplastic exposure were slow to recognize the novel objects, if they did at all, a sign of cognitive decline affecting memory. “In the first test, you can see the males are spending more time and resting more in the center of the arena. In females, we saw changes in novel object recognition,” Ross said. “In human Alzheimer’s patients, men tend to experience more changes in apathy; they care less. Women experience more changes in memory. So the memory and the apathy connection are pretty clear: When you expose animals that are carrying the largest known risk factor in humans for developing Alzheimer’s disease to micro- and nanopastics, lo and behold, their behavior changes in a sex-dependent manner similar to the sex-dependent differences we see with Alzheimer’s patients.” A Growing Environmental and Health Crisis The results are concerning enough to warrant further study into the cognitive decline caused by exposure to micro- and nanoplastics, which are among the most prominent environmental toxins to which people are routinely exposed. (A separate URI study released in 2023 revealed of the extent to which microplastics accumulate in the environment, shockingly finding that the top two inches of the floor of Narragansett Bay contain more than 1,000 tons of microplastics.) Ross is continuing to expand her research into the topic and encourages others to do so, in the hope of leading to better regulation of the toxins. The Microplastics Safety Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July, would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to study the human health impacts of microplastics in food and water, specifically focusing on vulnerabilities for children, the endocrine and reproductive systems, and links to cancer and chronic illnesses. “There has not been a lot of money spent on the human health impacts of microplastics,” Ross said, noting she is in regular discussion with the Rhode Island Congressional delegation about the need for regulation. “It’s interesting that what we’re seeing in mice is similar to what we’re seeing in the real world. We want to encourage further research into the scourge of micro- and nanoplastics.” Reference: “Short-term exposure to polystyrene microplastics alters cognition, immune, and metabolic markers in an apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and sex-dependent manner” by Lauren Gaspar, Sydney Bartman, Hannah Tobias-Wallingford, Giuseppe Coppotelli and Jaime M Ross, 20 August 2025, Environmental Research Communications.DOI: 10.1088/2515-7620/adf8ae Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

New Hope in Alzheimer’s Research: A Special Report

Breakthrough therapies, new diagnostics and preventive measures for fighting a devastating disease

September 16, 20252 min readNew Hope in Alzheimer’s Research: A Special ReportBreakthrough therapies, new diagnostics and preventive measures for fighting a devastating diseaseBy Lauren Gravitz This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.A diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is typically followed by years of uncertainty, grief and a painful decline into oblivion. But although there is so much researchers still don’t understand about the disease and what drives it, scientists are making progress faster than ever before and providing patients and their families with options for both diagnosis and treatment.Over the past few decades researchers have begun to realize that Alzheimer’s is more than the tangles of tau proteins and clusters of amyloid plaque that are the defining biological signs of the disease. Today, as Esther Landhuis describes, with the help of detailed graphics, there are more than 100 ongoing trials aimed at slowing or even stopping disease progression, and they target a variety of underlying mechanisms. The first therapies that specifically home in on and break up amyloid plaques have already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In clinical trials, they slowed decline for some people with early Alzheimer’s, but, as Liz Seegert reports, the drugs also come with substantial risk and are not a one-size-fits-all solution.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.Changes to daily habits, such as increased exercise and social interaction, better nutrition, and supplements, are another option to consider. Sara Harrison notes that although the results from studies are mixed, researchers hope that focusing on someone’s day-to-day health can delay onset of the worst symptoms of dementia. Such improvements aren’t available to everyone, however. Black Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or other dementias. Jyoti Madhusoodanan analyzes the substantial evidence that this higher rate is a direct result of systemic racism, environmental pollution, and other experiences related to discrimination.The earlier someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the sooner they can begin interventions and start to plan for the future. Blood tests can finally make this early detection easier. They’re not infallible, however. Cassandra Willyard explains that the currently available blood tests are less a screening tool and more part of a confirmatory approach, best for people already experiencing dementia symptoms.The global incidence of Alzheimer’s is increasing at a rapid rate. In the U.S., more people than ever are being diagnosed even as the number of care options dwindles. Tara Haelle explores the reasons for that and profiles one program aiming to help states coordinate and improve care for dementia patients and their caregivers.Alzheimer’s is a devastating diagnosis. But for the first time since the condition’s initial description in 1906, scientists and clinicians are providing both dementia patients and their family members with glimmers of hope.It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Amid state inaction, California chef sues to block sales of foam food containers

The suit claims Atlanta-based WinCup continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1.

Redwood City — Fed up with the state’s refusal to enforce a law banning the sale of polystyrene foam cups, plates and bowls, a San Diego County resident has taken matters into his own hands.Jeffrey Heavey, a chef and owner of Convivial Catering, a San Diego-area catering service, is suing WinCup, an Atlanta-based foam foodware product manufacturing company, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. He is suing on behalf of himself, not his business.The suit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court in March, seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians. Heavey’s attorney, William Sullivan of the Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, said his client is seeking an injunction to stop WinCup from selling these banned products in California and to remove the products’ “chasing arrows” recycling label, which Heavey and his attorney describe as false and deceptive advertising.They are also seeking damages for every California-based customer who paid the company for these products in the last three years, and $5,000 to every senior citizen or “disabled” person who may have purchased the products during this time period.WinCup didn’t respond to requests for comments, but in a court filing described the allegations as vague, unspecific and without merit, according to the company’s attorney, Nathan Dooley. Jeffrey Heavey is suing foodware maker WinCup, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. (Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times) At issue is a California ban on the environmentally destructive plastic material, which went into effect on Jan. 1, as well as the definition of “recyclable” and the use of such a label on products sold in the state.Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, targeted single-use plastic in the state’s waste stream. The law included a provision that banned the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene food service ware — such as foam cups, plates and takeout containers — on Jan. 1, unless producers could show they had achieved a 25% recycling rate.“I’m glad a person in my district has taken this up and is holding these companies accountable,” said Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). “But CalRecycle is the enforcement authority for this legislation, and they should be the ones doing this.”The intent of the law was to put the financial onus of responsible waste management onto the producers of these products, and away from California’s taxpayers and cities that would otherwise have to dispose of these products or deal with their waste on beaches, in rivers and on roadways.Expanded polystyrene is a particularly pernicious form of plastic pollution that does not biodegrade, has a tendency to break down into microplastics, leaches toxic chemicals and persists in the environment.There are no expanded polystyrene recycling plants in California, and recycling rates nationally for the material hover around 1%. A Mallard duck swims in water with Styrofoam polluting the beach on Lake Washington, Kirkland, Wash. (Wolfgang Kaehler / LightRocket via Getty Images) However, despite CalRecycle’s delayed announcement of the ban, companies such as WinCup not only continue to sell these banned products in California, but Heavey and his lawyers allege the products are deceptively labeled as “recyclable.” In his suit, Heavey includes a March 15 receipt from a Smart & Final store in the San Diego County town of National City, indicating a purchase of “WinCup 16 oz. Foam” cups. Similar polystyrene foam products could be seen on the shelves this week at a Redwood City Smart & Final, including a 1,000-count box of 12-ounce WinCup foam cups selling for $36.99. Across the aisle, the shelves were packed with bags of Simply Value and First Street (both Smart & Final brands) foam plates and bowls.There were “chasing arrow” recycling labels on the boxes containing cup lids. The symbol included a No. 6 in the center, indicating the material is polystyrene. There were none on the cardboard boxes containing cups, and it couldn’t be determined if the individual foam products were tagged with recycling labels. They were either obstructed from view inside cardboard boxes or stacked in bags which obscured observation.Smart & Final, which is owned by Chedraui USA, a subsidiary of Mexico City-based Grupo Comercial Chedraui, didn’t respond to requests for comment.Heavey’s suit alleges the plastic product manufacturer is “greenwashing” its products by labeling them as recyclable and in so doing, trying to skirt the law.According to the suit, recycling claims are widely disseminated on products and via other written publications. The company’s website includes an “Environmental” tab, which includes a page entitled: “Foam versus Paper Disposable Cups: A closer look.”The page includes a one-sentence argument highlighting the environmental superiority of foam over paper, noting that “foam products have a reputation for environmental harm, but if we examine the scientific research, in many ways Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam is greener than paper.”Heavey’s suit claims that he believed he was purchasing recyclable materials based on the products’ labeling, and he would not have bought the items had they not been advertised as such. WinCup, which is owned by Atar Capital, a Los Angeles-based global private investment firm sought to have the case moved to the U.S. District Court in San Diego, but a judge there remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court or jurisdiction grounds. Susan Keefe, the Southern California Director of Beyond Plastics, an anti-plastic environmental group based in Bennington, Vt., said that as of June, the agency had not yet enforced the ban, despite news stories and evidence that the product was still being sold in the state.“It’s really frustrating. CalRecycle’s disregard for enforcement just permits a lack of respect for our laws. It results in these violators who think they can freely pollute in our state with no trepidation that California will exercise its right to penalize them,” she said. Melanie Turner, a spokesoman for CalRecycle, said in a statement that expanded polystyrene producers “should no longer be selling or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware to California businesses.” “CalRecycle has been identifying and notifying businesses that may be impacted by SB 54, including expanded polystyrene requirements, and communicating their responsibilities with mailed notices, emailed announcements, public meetings, and workshops,” she said. The waste agency “is prioritizing compliance assistance for producers regulated by this law, prior to potential enforcement action,” she said.Keefe filed a public records request with the agency regarding communications with companies selling the banned material and said she found the agency had not made any attempts to warn or stop the violators from selling banned products.Blakespear said it’s concerning the law has been in effect for more than six months and CalRecycle has yet to clamp down on violators. Enforcement is critical, she said, for setting the tone as SB 54 is implemented.According to Senate Bill 54, companies that produce banned products that are then sold in California can be fined up to $50,000 per day, per violation.According to a report issued by the waste agency last week, approximately 47,000 tons of expanded polystyrene foam was disposed in California landfills last year.

Microwaves produce radiation. Is that bad for me?

A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I […]

Your microwave is not going to kill you. | Santiago Barrio/Cover/Getty Images A Vox reader asks: Are microwaves actually bad for you, your health, and the food you eat? I think anybody who’s ever “nuked” some leftovers or a ready-made meal has pondered the same question. Nuke? As in the same nuclear radiation that causes deformities and mutations in my favorite science fiction? What exactly am I doing to my body? It’s an understandable concern. It seems like so much of what we eat is bad for us, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. constantly warns Americans that modern conveniences could be allowing invisible particles into our bodies that damage our health. It made sense then, that some staffers on his presidential campaign were reportedly fearful of radiation from kitchen microwaves. But here is the good news: You are not ingesting toxic nuclear radiation. Microwaves are in fact quite safe — but there are a few precautions you should be aware of, if only to avoid that tinge of anxiety the next time you hit start on your instant oatmeal. Let’s start here: Microwaves produce a very different kind of radiation than a nuclear reaction. A nuclear bomb’s detonation will emit ionizing radiation. That stuff carries so much energy it can actually strip electrons out of individual atoms, which can damage your body at the cellular level and potentially lead to cancer and other illnesses. A microwave will not. The radiation produced by your kitchen microwave, on the other hand, is “non-ionizing.” These are electromagnetic waves that are similar to radio and light waves. Non-ionizing radiation is much, much less powerful than the other kind, which means it does not possess the necessary energy to alter your DNA at the molecular level.  While prolonged, direct and intense exposure could lead to tissue damage, we are exposed to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation all the time with no significant health harms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visible light — literally the light waves from the sun or a light bulb that our eyes pick up and our brains turn to images — is even a low-grade form of it. Plus, microwaves are appliances that the FDA strictly regulates to reduce any potential risk of radiation leakage; the agency says radiation injury from microwaves is “very rare” and associated with extremely unusual circumstances or the microwave being in poor condition. Okay, we’re not radiating ourselves when we nuke a slice of pizza. That’s good. But you may still be wondering: Am I ruining the food somehow? While I personally hate the way a piece of pizza tastes after being microwaved, when considering the nutritional value (of pizza or anything else), heating your food in the microwave isn’t going to hurt it. “The non-ionizing radiation used by a microwave does not make the food radioactive,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. And it won’t deplete your food of its nutritional value either:  As Harvard Medical School’s Anthony Komaroff wrote in 2019, “microwave cooking is actually one of the least likely forms of cooking to damage nutrients.” The reason is simple: time. We invented microwaves to have a quicker way to heat up food and, as it turns out, that also confers some nutritional benefits. Foods leach nutrients when they are under more heat for a longer period of time. By shortening the amount of time that your food is being heated, microwaves allow it to retain more of its vitamins and minerals. It’s unambiguously better than boiling, for example, during which the hot water removes many of the nutrients. How microwaving compares to roasting, sauteeing, or air-frying depends on the vegetable, but in general, microwaves are no worse for your food — from a nutritional point of view — than other forms of cooking. Alright, microwaves aren’t slowly poisoning you, nor are they robbing your food of its health benefits. Are there any catches? Sort of.  There are at least two precautions to take when using your microwave. First, make sure you are using a safe container. Never, ever put metal in the microwave. And don’t put plastic bowls or containers in there either: Everybody is freaking out about microplastics, BPAs, and PFAS these days — and for good reason: When it comes to microwaves, you do have some reason to worry. Studies have indicated that chemicals can leach into your food if you heat your food in them using a microwave. Once they enter your body, microplastics could damage your heart and other organs, disrupt your digestion, and affect your mental sharpness. You may be better off with glass or ceramic containers. At the very least, check that the plates or bowls you’re using in a microwave have been labeled safe for that use. You may want to consider replacing containers after a lot of microwave use because the risk of leaching harmful chemicals increases with time or if they have been damaged in some way. And then there is one other kind of harm from microwaves that health officials worry about: burns. Anybody who has grabbed a plate out of their microwave as soon as the buzzer sounds knows they can produce intense heat that can burn your body when you grab your food or your tongue and mouth when you ingest it. That is what the FDA is warning consumers to be mindful of, rather than nuclear mutations. The fear of turning into an extra from the Mad Max post-apocalypse should not dissuade you from using your kitchen’s microwave — so long as you are also using an appropriate container and you handle it with care. Instead, focus on what preparation will be the most satisfying to you, and some people may want to consider what will provide the most nutritional value.  Me? I can’t stand microwaved pizza anyway. It’s always going in the oven: 325 degrees, for 10 minutes.

Nanoplastics Make Up Most of the Ocean’s Plastic Pollution

Nanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North Atlantic

Most Plastic in the Ocean Is Invisible—And DeadlyNanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North AtlanticBy Katharine Sanderson & Nature magazine Sergi Escribano/Getty ImagesMarine plastic litter tends to grab headlines, with images of suffocating seabirds or bottles washing up along coastlines. Increasingly, researchers have been finding tiny microplastic fragments across all environments, from the most densely populated cities to pristine mountaintops, as well as in human tissue including the brain and placenta. A study published today reveals yet another hidden source of this deadly waste: nanometre-scale particles are literally everywhere, says co-author Dušan Materić, an environmental analytical chemist at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.Materić and his colleagues sampled water at three depths representative of different environments in the North Atlantic Ocean. Throughout the water column, they found three types of nanoplastic: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS) and polyvinylchloride (PVC). These were present at average concentrations of 18 milligrams per metre cubed, which translates to 27 million tonnes of nanoplastics spread across just the top layer of the temperate to subtropical North Atlantic. “Nanoplastics make up the dominant fraction of marine plastic pollution,” Materić says. In the entire world’s oceans, it is estimated that there are around 3 million tonnes of floating plastic pollution — excluding nanoplastics.What are plastic nanoparticles and how different are they from microplastics?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.The tiniest of pieces of plastic, nanoplastics are defined by the researchers as having a diameter of less than one micrometre (one one-thousandth of a metre). Microplastics are between one micrometre and 5 millimetres across. At the smaller scale of nanoplastics, materials behave differently. Materić and his colleagues found that the particles were distributed throughout the water column, rather than settling to the bottom. The movement of the nanoplastic particles was dominated not by gravity, but by the random movement called Brownian motion, and by collisions with water molecules.How did the team find the nanoplastics?The scientists took water samples during a November 2020 cruise on research vessel Pelagia, which is owned by the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research in Texel. They sampled at 12 locations: 5 in the system of circular currents called the North Atlantic subtropical gyre; 4 in the open ocean; and 3 from coastal areas on the European continental shelf. At each location, they gathered samples at depths of 10 metres and 1,000 metres below the surface, and then 30 metres off the ocean bottom.The nanoplastics were detected using a technology called thermal-desorption proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. “We faced multiple challenges,” says Materić, including the need to remove contaminants other than nanoplastics. Each 10-millilitre sample was run through a filter with micrometre pores to clear out microplastics. Samples were then slowly heated, releasing any organic matter and allowing the remaining plastics to be identified.Not all was as expected. “We faced a big mystery,” says Materić. One major class of plastics, polyethylene (PE), was missing from the data, even though fragments almost certainly enter the ocean. The fragments probably transform into something else, or might fall to the sea bed, says Materić. “This suggests that PE nanoplastic cycling in the ocean environment follows some unusual pathway — either rapid chemical alteration or mineralization, or fast sinking.”Should we be surprised that nanoplastics are an overlooked source of plastics pollution? Should we be worried?“This does not come as a surprise to me, as I have been aware of the extent and magnitude of the problem for some time,” says Tony Walker, an environmental scientist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. “Nanoplastics, unlike microplastics, are able to pass through cell walls, meaning that they are already incorporated into the ocean phytoplankton which serve as the base of the marine food web and are able to be transferred through the marine food web,” he explains.The ubiquitousness of nanoplastics means they should be taken seriously, says Materić. “Given their toxicological potential, they may represent the most problematic plastic size fraction for ocean life,” he says. Walker agrees: “This should be a wake-up call to all of us,” he says. “The extent to which nanoplastics can infiltrate every ecosystem and living cell on the planet is even far worse than what we already know about microplastics and larger plastic pollution.”What can be done to mitigate the pollution?The next and likely final round of negotiations for a legally binding United Nations treaty on plastics pollution will kick off in August in Geneva, Switzerland. On the table is a limit on future plastic manufacture, but this is being resisted by some countries, including those that rely on oil and gas exports to power their economies.“One of the best strategies to mitigate future nanoplastics pollution or release into the environment is to cap plastic production,” says Walker. “Turn off the tap.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 9, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

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.