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.

Nearsightedness Has Become a Global Health Issue

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.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.A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.And what about in the U.S.?It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Myopia is projected to affect half of the world’s population by 2050. A new report says it needs to be countered by classifying it as a disease and upping children’s outdoor time

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.

Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.

These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.


On supporting science journalism

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


A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.

Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?

I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.

Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.

The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.

Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?

Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.

Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.

And what about in the U.S.?

It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.

In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.

Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?

Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.

What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.

Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.

Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?

Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.

In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.

What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?

There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.

What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?

That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.

What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?

The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].

One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?

The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.

It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.

What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?

In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

New method improves the reliability of statistical estimations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may finally know what a healthy gut microbiome looks like

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

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

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.