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

Microwaves produce radiation. Is that bad for me?

News Feed
Friday, July 11, 2025

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.

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 […]

A microwave in a kitchen painted red.
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.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Watchdog rules Red Tractor exaggerated its environmental standards

The Advertising Standards Authority agrees with River Action that the food safety body’s 2023 advert misled the publicThe UK’s advertising watchdog has upheld a complaint that Britain’s biggest farm assurance scheme misled the public in a TV ad about its environmental standards.The Red Tractor scheme, used by leading supermarkets including Tesco, Asda and Morrisons to assure customers their food meets high standards for welfare, environment, traceability and safety, is the biggest and perhaps best known assurance system in Britain. Continue reading...

The UK’s advertising watchdog has upheld a complaint that Britain’s biggest farm assurance scheme misled the public in a TV ad about its environmental standards.The Red Tractor scheme, used by leading supermarkets including Tesco, Asda and Morrisons to assure customers their food meets high standards for welfare, environment, traceability and safety, is the biggest and perhaps best known assurance system in Britain.About 45,000 of the UK’s farms are members of the scheme, and the advert promised that food carrying the logo had been “farmed with care”.But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint from the clean water campaign group River Action that the scheme’s environmental standards were exaggerated in the advert, last aired in 2023.In its judgment, the ASA said the ad must not be shown again in its current form. It said in future Red Tractor should make clear exactly what standards it is referring to when it uses the phrases “farmed with care” and “all our standards are met”.River Action said it made the complaint because it was concerned environmental standards relating to pollution were not being met on Red Tractor farms, including the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care … from field to store all our standards are met.”The ASA considered evidence from an Environment Agency report into Red Tractor farms, which found that 62% of the most critical pollution incidents occurred on Red Tractor farms between 2014 and 2019.Charles Watson, chair and founder of River Action, said large food retailers such as Tesco and Asda should lay out credible plans as to how they would move away from what he termed a “busted flush” of a certification scheme and instead support farmers whose working practices were genuinely sustainable.“Red Tractor farms are polluting the UK’s rivers, and consumers trying to make environmentally responsible choices have been misled,” said Watson.“This ASA ruling confirms what we’ve long argued: Red Tractor’s claims aren’t just misleading – they provide cover for farms breaking the law.”Red Tractor said its standards did not cover all environmental legislation. Therefore, data on compliance with environmental regulation should not be confused with farms’ compliance with Red Tractor’s requirements.Jim Moseley, CEO of Red Tractor, said: “We believe the ASA’s final decision is fundamentally flawed and misinterprets the content of our advert.“If the advert was clearly misleading, it wouldn’t have taken so long to reach this conclusion. Accordingly, the ASA’s actions are minimal. They’ve confirmed that we can continue to use ‘farmed with care’ but simply need to provide more information on the specific standards being referred to.“The advert … made no environmental claim, and we completely disagree with the assumption that it would have been misinterpreted by consumers.”

Food
Pollution
Water

Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods affect the brain similarly to other addictive substances

People often joke that their favorite snack is “like crack” or call themselves “chocoholics” in jest. But can someone really be addicted to food in the same way they could be hooked on substances such as alcohol or nicotine? As an addiction psychiatrist and researcher with experience in treating eating disorders and obesity, I have been following the research in this field for the past few decades. I have written a textbook on food addiction, obesity and overeating disorders, and, more recently, a self-help book for people who have intense cravings and obsessions for some foods. While there is still some debate among psychologists and scientists, a consensus is emerging that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods – often those that are high in sugar and ultraprocessed – affect the brains and behavior of certain people similarly to other addictive substances such as nicotine. Still, many questions remain about which foods are addictive, which people are most susceptible to this addiction and why. There are also questions as to how this condition compares to other substance addictions and whether the same treatments could work for patients struggling with any kind of addiction. How does addiction work? The neurobiological mechanisms of addiction have been mapped out through decades of laboratory-based research using neuroimaging and cognitive neuroscience approaches. Studies show that preexisting genetic and environmental factors set the stage for developing an addiction. Regularly consuming an addictive substance then causes a rewiring of several important brain systems, leading the person to crave more and more of it. This rewiring takes place in three key brain networks that correspond to key functional domains, often referred to as the reward system, the stress response system and the system in charge of executive control. First, using an addictive substance causes the release of a chemical messenger called dopamine in the reward network, which makes the user feel good. Dopamine release also facilitates a neurobiological process called conditioning, which is basically a neural learning process that gives rise to habit formation. As a result of the conditioning process, sensory cues associated with the substance start to have increasing influence over decision-making and behavior, often leading to a craving. For instance, because of conditioning, the sight of a needle can drive a person to set aside their commitment to quit using an injectable drug and return to it. Second, continued use of an addictive substance over time affects the brain’s emotional or stress response network. The user’s body and mind build up a tolerance, meaning they need increasing amounts of the substance to feel its effect. The neurochemicals involved in this process are different than those mediating habit formation and include a chemical messenger called noradrenaline and internally produced opioids such as endorphins. If they quit using the substance, they experience symptoms of withdrawal, which can range from irritability and nausea to paranoia and seizures. At that point, negative reinforcement kicks in. This is the process by which a person keeps going back to a substance because they’ve learned that using the substance doesn’t just feel good, but it also relieves negative emotions. During withdrawal from a substance, people feel profound emotional discomfort, including sadness and irritability. Negative reinforcement is why someone who is trying to quit smoking, for instance, will be at highest risk of relapse in the week just after stopping and during times of stress, because in the past they’d normally turn to cigarettes for relief. Third, overuse of most addictive substances progressively damages the brain’s executive control network, the prefrontal cortex, and other key parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation. Over time, the damage to these areas makes it more and more difficult for the user to control their behavior around these substances. This is why it is so hard for long-term users of many addictive substances to quit. Scientists have learned more about what’s happening in a person’s brain when they become addicted to a substance. What evidence is there that food is addictive? Many studies over the past 25 years have shown that high-sugar and other highly pleasurable foods – often foods that are ultraprocessed – act on these brain networks in ways that are similar to other addictive substances. The resulting changes in the brain fuel further craving for and overuse of the substance – in this case, highly rewarding food. Clinical studies have demonstrated that people with an addictive relationship to food demonstrate the hallmark signs of a substance use disorder. Studies also indicate that for some people, cravings for highly palatable foods go well beyond just a normal hankering for a snack and are, in fact, signs of addictive behavior. One study found that cues associated with highly pleasurable foods activate the reward centers in the brain, and the degree of activation predicts weight gain. In other words, the more power the food cue has to capture a person’s attention, the more likely they are to succumb to cravings for it. Multiple studies have also found that suddenly ending a diet that’s high in sugar can cause withdrawal, similar to when people quit opioids or nicotine. Excessive exposure to high-sugar foods has also been found to reduce cognitive function and cause damage to the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the parts of the brain that mediate executive control and memory. In another study, when obese people were exposed to food and told to resist their craving for it by ignoring it or thinking about something else, their prefrontal cortexes were more active compared with nonobese individuals. This indicates that it was more difficult for the obese group to fight their cravings. Researchers are still working out the best methods to help patients with food addictions develop a healthy relationship with food. Viktar Sarkisian/iStock via Getty Images Plus Finding safe treatments for patients struggling with food Addiction recovery is often centered on the idea that the fastest way to get well is to abstain from the problem substance. But unlike nicotine or narcotics, food is something that all people need to survive, so quitting cold turkey isn’t an option. In addition, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder often occur alongside addictive eating. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe these illnesses have their root cause in excessive dietary restriction. For this reason, many eating disorder treatment professionals balk at the idea of labeling some foods as addictive. They are concerned that encouraging abstinence from particular foods could trigger binge eating and extreme dieting to compensate. A way forward But others argue that, with care, integrating food addiction approaches into eating disorders treatment is feasible and could be lifesaving for some. The emerging consensus around this link is moving researchers and those who treat eating disorders to consider food addiction in their treatment models. One such approach might look like the one described to me by addiction psychiatrist and eating disorders specialist Dr. Kim Dennis. In line with traditional eating disorder treatment, nutritionists at her residential clinic strongly discourage their patients from restricting calories. At the same time, in line with traditional addiction treatment, they help their patients to consider significantly reducing or completely abstaining from particular foods to which they have developed an addictive relationship. Additional clinical studies are already being carried out. But going forward, more studies are needed to help clinicians find the most effective treatments for people with an addictive relationship with food. Efforts are underway by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and mental health providers to get “ultraprocessed food use disorder,” also known as food addiction, into future editions of diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. Beyond acknowledging what those treating food addiction are already seeing in the field, this would help researchers get funding for additional studies of treating food addiction. With more information about what treatments will work best for whom, those who have these problems will no longer have to suffer in silence, and providers will be better equipped to help them.   Claire Wilcox, Adjunct Faculty in Psychiatry, University of New Mexico This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction appeared first on Salon.com.

Food
Chemicals
Science

Newsom signs first-in-nation law to ban ultraprocessed food in school lunches 

California health officials will now decide which ingredients, additives, dyes, and other forms of processing don’t belong in school meals and K-12 cafeterias.

In summary California health officials will now decide which ingredients, additives, dyes, and other forms of processing don’t belong in school meals and K-12 cafeterias. California is the first state in the country to ban ultraprocessed foods from school meals, aiming to transform how children eat on campus by 2035.  In the cafeteria of Belvedere Middle School in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Boyle Heights, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure that requires K-12 schools to phase out foods with potentially harmful ultraprocessed ingredients over the next 10 years. The requirements go above and beyond existing state and federal school nutrition standards for things like fat and calorie content in school meals. California public schools serve nearly 1 billion meals to kids each year. “Our first priority is to protect kids in California schools, but we also came to realize that there is huge market power here,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat. “This bill could have impacts far beyond the classroom and far beyond the borders of our state.” The legislation builds on recent laws passed in California to eliminate synthetic food dyes from school meals and certain additives from all food sold in the state when they are associated with cancer, reproductive harm and behavioral problems in children. Dozens of other states have since replicated those laws.  The bipartisan measure also comes at a time when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement has shone a spotlight on issues including chronic disease, childhood obesity and poor diet.  The term “ultra-processed food” appears more than three dozen times in the MAHA report on children’s health released in May. A subsequent MAHA strategy report tasks the federal government with defining ultraprocessed food. California’s new law beats them to the punch, outlining the first statutory definition of what makes a food ultraprocessed. It identifies ingredients that characterize ultraprocessed foods, including artificial flavors and colors, thickeners and emulsifiers, non-nutritive sweeteners, and high levels of saturated fat, sodium or sugar. Often fast food, candy and premade meals include these ingredients. Researchers say ultraprocessed foods tend to be high in calories and low in nutritional value. Studies have linked consumption of ultraprocessed foods with obesity. Today, one in five children is obese.  Ultraprocessed foods are also linked to increased cancer risk, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Studies have found sweetened beverages and processed meats to be particularly harmful, said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Work Group, which sponsored the legislation. Kids are particularly susceptible to the effects of ultraprocessed foods, she said. “Ultraprocessed foods are also marketed heavily to kids with bright colors, artificial flavors, hyperpalatability,” Stoiber said. “The hallmarks of ultraprocessed foods are a way to sell and market more product.” Gabriel said lawmakers and parents have become “much more aware of how what we feed our kids impacts their physical health, emotional health and overall well-being.” That has helped generate strong bipartisan support for the law, which all but one Republican in the state Legislature supported.  A coalition of business interests representing farmers, grocers, and food and beverage manufacturers opposed it. They argued the definition of ultraprocessed food was still too broad and ran the risk of stigmatizing harmless processed foods like canned fruits and vegetables that include preservatives. Vegetarian meat substitutes also generally contain things like processed soy protein and binders that may run afoul of the definition. Gabriel contends that the law bans not foods but rather harmful ingredients. The California Department of Public Health now must identify ultraprocessed ingredients that may be associated with poor health outcomes. Schools will no longer allow those ingredients in meals, and vendors could replace them with healthier options, Gabriel said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Food
Health
Government

Immune-informed brain aging research offers new treatment possibilities, speakers say

Speakers at MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative symposium described how immune system factors during aging contribute to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other conditions. The field is leveraging that knowledge to develop new therapies.

Understanding how interactions between the central nervous system and the immune system contribute to problems of aging, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, and more, can generate new leads for therapeutic development, speakers said at MIT’s symposium “The Neuro-Immune Axis and the Aging Brain” on Sept 18.“The past decade has brought rapid progress in our understanding of how adaptive and innate immune systems impact the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders,” said Picower Professor Li-Huei Tsai, director of The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative (ABI), in her introduction to the event, which more than 450 people registered to attend. “Together, today’s speakers will trace how the neuro-immune axis shapes brain health and disease … Their work converges on the promise of immunology-informed therapies to slow or prevent neurodegeneration and age-related cognitive decline.”For instance, keynote speaker Michal Schwartz of the Weizmann Institute in Israel described her decades of pioneering work to understand the neuro-immune “ecosystem.” Immune cells, she said, help the brain heal, and support many of its functions, including its “plasticity,” the ability it has to adapt to and incorporate new information. But Schwartz’s lab also found that an immune signaling cascade can arise with aging that undermines cognitive function. She has leveraged that insight to investigate and develop corrective immunotherapies that improve the brain’s immune response to Alzheimer’s both by rejuvenating the brain’s microglia immune cells and bringing in the help of peripheral immune cells called macrophages. Schwartz has brought the potential therapy to market as the chief science officer of ImmunoBrain, a company testing it in a clinical trial.In her presentation, Tsai noted recent work from her lab and that of computer science professor and fellow ABI member Manolis Kellis showing that many of the genes associated with Alzheimer’s disease are most strongly expressed in microglia, giving it an expression profile more similar to autoimmune disorders than to many psychiatric ones (where expression of disease-associated genes typically is highest in neurons). The study showed that microglia become “exhausted” over the course of disease progression, losing their cellular identity and becoming harmfully inflammatory.“Genetic risk, epigenomic instability, and microglia exhaustion really play a central role in Alzheimer’s disease,” Tsai said, adding that her lab is now also looking into how immune T cells, recruited by microglia, may also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease progression.The body and the brainThe neuro-immune “axis” connects not only the nervous and immune systems, but also extends between the whole body and the brain, with numerous implications for aging. Several speakers focused on the key conduit: the vagus nerve, which runs from the brain to the body’s major organs.For instance, Sara Prescott, an investigator in the Picower Institute and an MIT assistant professor of biology, presented evidence her lab is amassing that the brain’s communication via vagus nerve terminals in the body’s airways is crucial for managing the body’s defense of respiratory tissues. Given that we inhale about 20,000 times a day, our airways are exposed to many environmental challenges, Prescott noted, and her lab and others are finding that the nervous system interacts directly with immune pathways to mount physiological responses. But vagal reflexes decline in aging, she noted, increasing susceptibility to infection, and so her lab is now working in mouse models to study airway-to-brain neurons throughout the lifespan to better understand how they change with aging.In his talk, Caltech Professor Sarkis Mazmanian focused on work in his lab linking the gut microbiome to Parkinson’s disease (PD), for instance by promoting alpha-synuclein protein pathology and motor problems in mouse models. His lab hypothesizes that the microbiome can nucleate alpha-synuclein in the gut via a bacterial amyloid protein that may subsequently promote pathology in the brain, potentially via the vagus nerve. Based on its studies, the lab has developed two interventions. One is giving alpha-synuclein overexpressing mice a high-fiber diet to increase short-chain fatty acids in their gut, which actually modulates the activity of microglia in the brain. The high-fiber diet helps relieve motor dysfunction, corrects microglia activity, and reduces protein pathology, he showed. Another is a drug to disrupt the bacterial amyloid in the gut. It prevents alpha synuclein formation in the mouse brain and ameliorates PD-like symptoms. These results are pending publication.Meanwhile, Kevin Tracey, professor at Hofstra University and Northwell Health, took listeners on a journey up and down the vagus nerve to the spleen, describing how impulses in the nerve regulate immune system emissions of signaling molecules, or “cytokines.” Too great a surge can become harmful, for instance causing the autoimmune disorder rheumatoid arthritis. Tracey described how a newly U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pill-sized neck implant to stimulate the vagus nerve helps patients with severe forms of the disease without suppressing their immune system.The brain’s borderOther speakers discussed opportunities for understanding neuro-immune interactions in aging and disease at the “borders” where the brain’s and body’s immune system meet. These areas include the meninges that surround the brain, the choroid plexus (proximate to the ventricles, or open spaces, within the brain), and the interface between brain cells and the circulatory system.For instance, taking a cue from studies showing that circadian disruptions are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, Harvard Medical School Professor Beth Stevens of Boston Children’s Hospital described new research in her lab that examined how brain immune cells may function differently around the day-night cycle. The project, led by newly minted PhD Helena Barr, found that “border-associated macrophages” — long-lived immune cells residing in the brain’s borders — exhibited circadian rhythms in gene expression and function. Stevens described how these cells are tuned by the circadian clock to “eat” more during the rest phase, a process that may help remove material draining from the brain, including Alzheimer’s disease-associated peptides such as amyloid-beta. So, Stevens hypothesizes, circadian disruptions, for example due to aging or night-shift work, may contribute to disease onset by disrupting the delicate balance in immune-mediated “clean-up” of the brain and its borders.Following Stevens at the podium, Washington University Professor Marco Colonna traced how various kinds of macrophages, including border macrophages and microglia, develop from the embryonic stage. He described the different gene-expression programs that guide their differentiation into one type or another. One gene he highlighted, for instance, is necessary for border macrophages along the brain’s vasculature to help regulate the waste-clearing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow that Stevens also discussed. Knocking out the gene also impairs blood flow. Importantly, his lab has found that versions of the gene may be somewhat protective against Alzheimer’s, and that regulating expression of the gene could be a therapeutic strategy.Colonna’s WashU colleague Jonathan Kipnis (a former student of Schwartz) also discussed macrophages that are associated with the particular border between brain tissue and the plumbing alongside the vasculature that carries CSF. The macrophages, his lab showed in 2022, actively govern the flow of CSF. He showed that removing the macrophages let Alzheimer’s proteins accumulate in mice. His lab is continuing to investigate ways in which these specific border macrophages may play roles in disease. He’s also looking in separate studies of how the skull’s brain marrow contributes to the population of immune cells in the brain and may play a role in neurodegeneration.For all the talk of distant organs and the brain’s borders, neurons themselves were never far from the discussion. Harvard Medical School Professor Isaac Chiu gave them their direct due in a talk focusing on how they participate in their own immune defense, for instance by directly sensing pathogens and giving off inflammation signals upon cell death. He discussed a key molecule in that latter process, which is expressed among neurons all over the brain.Whether they were looking within the brain, at its border, or throughout the body, speakers showed that age-related nervous system diseases are not only better understood but also possibly better treated by accounting not only for the nerve cells, but their immune system partners. 

Food
Health
Science

The hidden cost of ultra-processed foods on the environment: ‘The whole industry should pay’

Industrially made foods involve several ingredients and processes to put together, making it difficult to examine their true costIf you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye. Continue reading...

If you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.These ingredients then travel across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green chocolate gems.It’s becoming better understood that food systems are a major driver of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine deforestation for agriculture, or the methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like M&Ms – is less clear and is only now starting to come into focus. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of UPFs: these industrially made foods include a huge number of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.But it doesn’t mean it’s not important. As UPFs take over US grocery store shelves and diets– they now comprise 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a more climate-friendly food system.What we knowWhile scientists are only starting to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what’s already known about them is worrisome.“The more processed foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the environment,” said Anthony Fardet, a senior researcher at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. The main reason, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll balloons.Take M&Ms. The first step in creating the candies is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.It has been well-documented that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. Since 1850, agricultural expansion has driven almost 90% of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mars corporation has been called out in the past for the cocoa farming practices in their supply chain, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices like cocoa farming are, at their core, unsustainable.Then there’s sugar, milk solids and palm fat – also major greenhouse gas emitters.On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with dyes E132 and E133; these dyes are mostly made in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons (which are petroleum products) with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.M&Ms for sale in Orlando, Florida, in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesCreating soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that’s used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And dextrose, a sweetener, starts off as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it’s broken down into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.Mars declined to comment for this story.While ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance Doritos, which have 39 ingredients. Corn is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like Mars, Pepsico, which makes Doritos, has developed its own sustainability promises, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing, like “regenerative agriculture”. In reality, these sustainability promises undercut the dire need to better understand how UPFs affect our global climate.As a result, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of UPFs.CarbonCloud, a Sweden-based software company that calculates the emissions of food products, analyzed carbon disclosures from Mars, and estimated that M&Ms generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilogram of M&Ms produced. Mars produces more than 664m kg of M&Ms in the US each year, which would mean that if CarbonCloud’s calculations are accurate, the candies emit at least 3.8m tons of carbon dioxide – making up 0.1% of annual emissions in the US. (Mars does not report emissions by product, but according to their 2024 emissions report, they emitted 29m tons of carbon dioxide across the company.)But this is only an estimate based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say. There’s a “black box” when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, says Patrick Callery, a professor at the University of Vermont who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. “There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex.”What we don’t knowGetting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren’t just mixed together like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these ingredients are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures added in – and it’s unclear what the cost of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.Another reason is that all UPFs (again, definitionally) are the creations of food companies that have little incentive to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.For instance, Mars itself doesn’t farm cocoa, but instead relies on hundreds of farms that don’t always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underreported. David Bryngelsson, co-founder of CarbonCloud, said that corporations “don’t have actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses”.Callery says that corporations provide reports on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or convolute the agricultural emissions of their product. After all, reporting high emissions goes against the interests of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make UPF ingredients remain un-researched.“The main point of ultra-processed foods is money,” said Fardet, pointing out that they’re designed to be attractive, easy and pleasurable to eat.“Most of the people in the [food industry’s] value chain don’t care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money,” said Bryngelsson. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of foods and ingredients would need to incorporate their impact on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and financial penalties based on the true environmental cost of UPFs, says Bryngelsson.Why it mattersAt just under $2, the price of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.“Reducing the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing,” said Fardet. “We need to change the whole picture.” To do that, he suggested consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.Specialty goods that can’t be sourced locally, like chocolate, should make up a small fraction of our diet and come from traceable and ethical supply chains.That’s not easy for all Americans, given the rising cost of food and the prevalence of food deserts and mediocre food retailers across the US.That’s why it can’t just be up to individuals to make environmentally (and health) conscious choices, experts say. Instead, large food corporations need to be held responsible for the burden they place on society – particularly as it pertains to climate change. Sustainability practices, like the “Cocoa for Generations” plan outlined by Mars, or Pepsico’s “Pep+” initiatives are Band-Aids on broken bones. Large food corporations need to be phased out to make global food systems sustainable.But perhaps more important is to change our understanding of the hidden costs of ultra-processed foods, says Fardet, whether it’s at home, in schools or through the banning the marketing of UPFs to children. Our food systems, Fardet said, “are absolutely not normal. The whole industry should pay the hidden costs.”

Food
Agriculture
Climate

Suggested Viewing

Voices of Transition

Voices of Transition is an enthusiastic documentary on farmer- and community-led responses to food insecurity in a scenario of climate change, peak oil, and economic crisis. Concrete examples from Cuba, France, and the United Kingdom tell of a future society where our monoculture deserts will be restored to living soil, where fields will be introduced into our cities, and where independence from oil will help us live a richer, more fulfilling life.

Agriculture
Food
Climate

Eating: the power to save the ocean

What if our food could save the ocean? The ocean is the source of life. It regulates the climate. It covers 70% of the planet's surface. The ocean is vital but it is under threat. And that is mainly because of our food. We don't think about it because we can't see it, but what we eat can have serious consequences for the health of the ocean. Fortunately, solutions do exist. In France, men and women are already laying the foundations for a more sustainable eating. Malaury, a young ocean activist, sets off to hitchhike the roads of France to meet them. She will try to better understand the impacts of our food on the ocean. And above all, she will discover tangible solutions for eating well while preserving the ocean.

Water
Agriculture
Food

The Straight Poop

Our animated short entertains while presenting eye-opening information on one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow the rate of global warming. Our film is an engaging way of addressing the dangers of climate change that educates in a non-threatening comical way. Individuals concerned about climate change can make relatively small personal choices that can have a huge positive effect.

Animals
Climate
Food

Swallowtail - An Apprenticeship Story

Swallowtail: An Apprenticeship Story follows six young aspiring farmers as they navigate the rollercoaster season of 2019-2020 in North Central Florida. The film centers on the thoughts and experiences of these apprentices who leave home to live at Swallowtail Farm and how the COVID-19 pandemic turned an already challenging learning experience into an unprecedented one. Throughout their journey, they reflect on issues of food security, sustainability practices, and community.

Agriculture
Food
Youth

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

Sockeye, a species of wild salmon, is born in Kamchatkan waters and spends its entire life in the Pacific Ocean. Only once does it return to fresh waters - to give offspring, start the circle of life, and die. It is an inexhaustible resource that feeds billions of people on the planet, restored every year! But soon, we may find ourselves facing the unimaginable: humans will exhaust the inexhaustible!

Animals
Food
Extinction

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.