Posted on

Can Gene-Editing Tech Rescue At-Risk Crops?

Consider these options: wheat that forms less acrylamide when toasted; rice that can better tolerate heat; tomatoes with improved flavor, nutrition, and disease resistance; and corn that can withstand drought. Citrus trees that could one day resist the disease devastating Florida groves.

Foods that can be modified to include more qualities and characteristics that make them easier to convert into the food we want—that deliver more nutrition, or better at adapting to demanding climate and soil conditions.

The future of food may not be about replacing what we eat, but instead making our crops healthier, survive a more volatile climate or even help them resist disease. And increasingly, the research is moving from theory to field trials, regulatory review, and real-world food-system questions.

First, what is genetically modified versus gene-edited? Genetic modification changes an organism’s DNA through a variety of different methods, one of which is to take a gene from one species and insert it into another one. While gene editing, such as CRISPR, makes small, precise changes to a plant or animal’s DNA.  It is like speeding up what happens naturally over time.

A New Kind of Wheat

Start with something as ordinary as toast. Most of us do not think of toast as a food-safety story. It is breakfast. It is butter and jam. It is the thing you hand a child when they are hungry and dinner is still 20 minutes away.

But when starchy foods like bread, potatoes, biscuits, and crackers are baked, fried, roasted, or toasted at high temperatures, a compound called acrylamide can form. Acrylamide is created through the Maillard reaction – the same browning chemistry that gives toast its flavor and color.

Regulators such as the US EPA and the IARC classify acrylamide as a probable or likely human carcinogen, based primarily on animal studies. It is unclear how much you have to consume to have adverse health effects.

That is why the 2026 announcement from Rothamsted Research is so interesting. After two years of field trials, scientists reported that CRISPR-edited wheat had dramatically lower levels of free asparagine, the amino acid that converts into acrylamide during baking, frying, and toasting. Rothamsted stated that the edited wheat reduced free asparagine by up to 93%, without reducing yield in the field trials.

This is the kind of example that may change how consumers understand gene editing. It is not about making bread glow in the dark. It is about reducing a naturally-occurring precursor to an unwanted compound in a food people already eat. In other words, not “fake food,” but a safer version of a familiar food.

Why Gene Editing is Arriving Now

Food has always been edited, just not always in a lab. The public often thinks of gene editing as adding something unnatural. But in many crop applications, the goal is much more targeted: turning down, removing, or adjusting a trait already present in the plant.

That distinction matters. Traditional breeding can also change plant traits, but it often takes years of cross-breeding and selection. CRISPR allows scientists to make more precise edits to a plant’s own genome. A 2026 review in Current Plant Biology describes CRISPR/Cas9 as a technology that can introduce accurate, stable changes in crops, with applications in yield, resilience, nutritional quality, and postharvest waste reduction.

The corn we eat today does not look like its wild ancestor. Modern wheat, apples, tomatoes, carrots, and strawberries all reflect centuries of human selection. Farmers and breeders have always chosen plants with the best flavor, yield, disease resistance, size, shelf life, or harvest traits.

Gene editing is different in method, but not necessarily in goal. Instead of waiting for a useful trait to appear through random mutation or generations of crossbreeding, scientists can target a specific gene or family of genes tied to a desired outcome. Ohalo offers a real-world example of how gene editing may transform the breeding process itself, not just create one improved trait. Its “Boosted Breeding” platform is designed to allow offspring to inherit the complete genomes of both parent plants, rather than a random half from each, making it possible to combine valuable traits more quickly and produce uniform seed-grown varieties. The company is applying the approach to crops including potatoes, strawberries, corn, and almonds, with goals such as higher yields, improved flavor and nutrition, longer shelf life, and greater resource efficiency.

That can matter when the food system is under pressure from multiple directions at once, like a changing climate, pest pressure, crop diseases, labor shortages, land constraints, water scarcity, consumer nutrition concerns, and the need to reduce food waste.

A 2025 review on gene editing and climate-resilient crops argues that these tools could help develop crops better suited to drought, heat, salinity, and other climate-related stresses. Another 2025 review in Frontiers in Genome Editing focused on cereal crops such as wheat, rice, and maize, noting that CRISPR/Cas9 is being explored to improve tolerance to harsh climates in staple crops that feed much of the world.

This is where the future-of-food conversation becomes less futuristic and more urgent. If wheat, rice, corn, citrus, and tomatoes face more disease, heat, drought, and supply instability, then innovation is not just about novelty. It is about keeping familiar foods available, affordable, and nutritious.

Rice in a Hotter World

Rice is a staple food for billions of people, which makes heat stress a global food-security issue.

In 2025, researchers identified a heat-sensitive gene in rice that appears to affect yield and grain quality under high-temperature conditions. In coverage of the study, the edited or naturally altered rice performed better under elevated temperatures, while unmodified plants had major yield losses under heat stress.

That is exactly the kind of application consumers rarely hear about. Gene editing is often debated as a “should we or shouldn’t we?” issue. But for farmers facing heat, flooding, disease, and unpredictable weather, the question may become more practical: which tools help crops survive while using land, water, and inputs responsibly?

Tomatoes: Flavor, Nutrition, and the Complexity Problem

Tomatoes are another perfect example of why gene editing may matter for consumers.

Everyone knows the disappointment of a beautiful tomato that tastes like almost nothing. Over decades, tomatoes have often been bred for shipping durability, size, uniformity, and yield, all important traits in a national food supply chain. But flavor can suffer.

Recent research suggests gene editing could help breeders better understand and improve complex traits in tomato. In 2025, a Nature Communications study developed large-scale, multi-targeted CRISPR libraries in tomato. The researchers designed more than 15,000 unique guide RNAs to target gene families and help overcome functional redundancy, a major challenge when multiple similar genes influence a trait.

That sounds technical, but the consumer translation is simple: the traits we care about, flavor, disease resistance, nutrient uptake, shelf life, are rarely controlled by one simple switch. Plants are complicated. Gene editing is becoming more sophisticated because the biology requires it.

A 2025 summary of that tomato work noted that the approach generated roughly 1,300 CRISPR lines connected to traits such as flavor, nutrient uptake, and pathogen response. This is where gene editing starts to look less like a “one gene, one miracle crop” story and more like a modern breeding accelerator. It can help scientists identify which genetic pathways matter, which traits can be improved without tradeoffs, and which changes might help growers deliver food that tastes better, lasts longer, or resists disease with fewer losses.

Citrus Disease and the Foods We May Lose

Some of the most important gene-editing stories are not about making foods more exciting. They are about preventing them from disappearing from certain regions.

Florida citrus is one of the clearest examples. Citrus greening, also called Huanglongbing or HLB, has devastated groves and reshaped an industry that once felt permanent. A future where gene editing helps citrus trees tolerate or resist disease would not be about creating a new luxury product. It would be about preserving orange juice, grapefruit, and a way of farming that has already been deeply damaged.

The same logic applies across crops: bananas threatened by fungal disease, wheat facing rusts, potatoes vulnerable to blight, tomatoes facing viruses, and rice confronting heat and flood stress.

A 2026 review on CRISPR/Cas gene editing for plant resistance describes applications for developing resistance against insects, diseases, and herbicides, underscoring how pest and disease pressure remains a central driver of crop biotechnology research.

This is the part of the story that often gets lost in consumer debates. Farmers do not need innovation because farming is easy. They need innovation because crops are biological systems grown outdoors under pressure from weather, insects, weeds, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and markets.

The Trust Problem

Even if the science advances, consumer trust will decide how much of this technology reaches the plate. And trust cannot be engineered in a lab.

For many consumers, skepticism is not irrational. People remember earlier food technologies that were introduced with more industry confidence than public explanation. They worry about corporate control of seeds, labeling transparency, ecological risks, unintended consequences, and whether benefits will flow to farmers and consumers. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. Gene editing should not get a free pass because it is precise. Precision is valuable, but the final crop still has to be evaluated for safety, environmental impact, farmer access, and whether the trait actually solves a meaningful problem.

Each crop, each trait, and each use case still needs to be evaluated on its own merits. But the direction of the research is clear: gene editing is increasingly being studied as a climate-adaptation tool, not just a yield-boosting technology. The future of crop breeding will likely require a toolbox, not a single tool. Conventional breeding, genomic selection, gene editing, biologicals, soil health, irrigation management, and farmer knowledge all have to work together.

Why This Matters for Farmers and Consumers

For farmers, gene editing could eventually mean more resilient seeds, fewer crop losses, and more tools to manage disease and climate stress. But access and economics matter. A crop that performs beautifully in a research trial still has to make sense in the field. It has to fit regional growing conditions, supply chains, export markets, seed costs, consumer expectations, and regulatory rules.

This is why the wheat example is so compelling. Rothamsted’s low-asparagine wheat was not just a lab proof-of-concept; the 2026 reporting highlighted results from two years of field trials. That is a key step because the field is where crops prove whether they can perform under real growing conditions. The same is true for climate-stressed crops. A gene edit that works in a greenhouse is promising. A gene edit that works across seasons, geographies, soils, weather events, and farmer practices is much more valuable.

For consumers, gene editing may show up quietly. It may not be labeled in giant letters as “CRISPR food of the future.” It may arrive as a better-tasting tomato, a longer-lasting berry, a wheat ingredient that helps bakers reduce acrylamide, a potato less prone to browning, or citrus that remains viable in a region where disease nearly wiped it out. That quietness is both an opportunity and a risk.

On one hand, consumers do not need every food innovation to feel like a science experiment. On the other hand, transparency matters. People should not feel tricked into acceptance. If gene editing delivers real benefits, those benefits should be explained clearly and honestly. The message should not be: “Trust us, it’s science.” The message should be: “Here is the problem. Here is the edit. Here is what changed. Here is what did not change. Here is how safety was evaluated. Here is who benefits.”

Consumer Takeaway

Gene editing is not a silver bullet. It will not replace soil health, water management, crop rotation, integrated pest management, good nutrition, or thoughtful regulation. But it may become one of the most important tools in the future-food toolbox.

The most promising gene-edited foods are not trying to make dinner unrecognizable. They are trying to solve specific problems in foods we already depend on: safer wheat products, more resilient rice, better tomatoes, disease-resistant fruit, and crops that can withstand the realities of a changing climate. That is a very different story from the old “Frankenfood” narrative.

Posted on

Pesticides vs. Microplastics

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

Glyphosate is back in the headlines…again. This time, it is resurfacing amid political crosscurrents, with figures inside the MAHA movement shifting tone and reigniting debate over what to fear in our food system. Lawsuits are recycled. Old studies are recirculated. Social media frames it as a clear villain hiding in plain sight. But as the volume rises, a harder question lingers beneath it: are we aiming our fear in the right direction? What actually happens inside the body when we’re exposed to glyphosate at the regulated levels found in food?

Unlike pesticides, which are intensely studied, regulated, and measured down to microscopic thresholds, microplastics exist inside a system we rarely question because it delivers what we value most: convenience. Lightweight packaging. Shelf stability. Portability. All at an affordable price. So the real question may not be whether concern is warranted. It is whether our concern is proportionate and whether convenience is quietly shaping which risks we amplify and which we tolerate.

What is Glyphosate? And Why Does It Exist?

Glyphosate, also known as RoundUp, is a broad-spectrum herbicide. It works by inhibiting an enzyme pathway critical to plants and certain microbes, a pathway humans do not have.

That biological distinction is part of why regulators historically viewed glyphosate differently than older classes of pesticides. It is used to control weeds in crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. In many systems, it allows farmers to reduce tillage, which means fewer tractor passes, less soil disruption, and lower erosion. Modern no-till farming systems expanded in part because effective herbicides made weed control possible without repeatedly turning over the soil.

That’s not a minor detail. Soil erosion strips nutrients, releases stored carbon, and reduces long-term productivity. Weed pressure also reduces crop yields dramatically by competing for light, water, and nutrients. In unmanaged systems, yield losses from weeds can reach 30–50%, and in some regions, far higher. Before modern weed control, farmers relied on intensive cultivation, manual labor, and rotational timing to suppress weeds. That approach limited yield stability and required more land to produce the same food.

Today, herbicides like glyphosate are land-use efficiency tools. They are part of the infrastructure that allows eight billion people to eat from a finite acreage. From a toxicological standpoint, glyphosate also stands out: its acute oral lethal dose in rats is approximately 5,000 mg/kg, placing it in one of the lowest toxicity categories for herbicides. By comparison, common pesticide alternatives such as 2,4-D (~700 mg/kg) and dicamba (~1,700 mg/kg) are significantly more acutely toxic, and even some organic-approved herbicides like copper sulfate (~300 mg/kg) are far more toxic on the same scale.

The Cancer Question and What Regulators Actually Say

Few topics in modern food and agriculture generate as much confusion, and concern, as the question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. At the center of this debate are two very different scientific conclusions, often presented without the context needed to understand why they differ.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

This designation was based on hazard identification, meaning the agency asked whether glyphosate could cause cancer under certain conditions—not whether it does so at levels people are typically exposed to in everyday life. IARC’s classification places glyphosate in the same category as substances like red meat and working night shifts, which may come as a surprise to many readers.

In contrast, regulatory bodies tasked with assessing real-world risk have reached different conclusions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, after reviewing decades of toxicological data and large-scale epidemiological studies, has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human exposure. Similarly, agencies in Europe, Canada, and Australia have arrived at comparable determinations, emphasizing that dose and exposure context matter when evaluating risk.

Much of the divergence comes down to methodology.

IARC evaluates whether a substance has the potential to cause harm under any circumstance, while regulatory agencies evaluate whether that harm is likely to occur under actual conditions of use.

These are not contradictory approaches, but they answer fundamentally different questions.

Adding further nuance, large prospective cohort studies, including research following agricultural workers with relatively higher exposure levels, have not found a consistent association between glyphosate use and cancer incidence. While no single study is definitive, the weight of evidence continues to shape how regulators assess safety thresholds and acceptable exposure limits.

For consumers, this creates a challenging landscape: one where a single headline, “probably carcinogenic,” can overshadow the broader scientific consensus on real-world risk. Understanding the distinction between hazard and exposure is essential. It does not mean glyphosate is beyond scrutiny, but it does mean that how, and how much, we are exposed plays a critical role in determining actual health outcomes.

What Happens Inside the Body

One of the most persistent fears surrounding pesticides is that they “build up” over time, with small daily exposures stacking silently in tissues until they reach a tipping point. That mental model makes intuitive sense. It just doesn’t match how glyphosate behaves in humans. Controlled biomonitoring studies measuring urinary excretion show that glyphosate is absorbed and then largely eliminated within hours. Estimates of its elimination half-life in humans are generally in the range of approximately 5 to 10 hours.

Most detectable glyphosate is cleared within a day or two after exposure. It does not bioaccumulate in fat tissue. It does not linger for months or years. This is not a “forever chemical.” That doesn’t mean exposure is irrelevant. Occupational handlers, applicators, and those in high-contact environments deserve rigorous safety oversight such as protective clothing. But for typical dietary exposure, the body treats glyphosate as something to process and remove, not something to store. The image of trace residues stacking indefinitely inside organs is not supported by any evidence. And this matters, because the persistence of a compound in the body is often more relevant to long-term risk than its mere detectability.

The Food System Without It

It is worth pausing to imagine modern agriculture without synthetic herbicides, not as a thought experiment, but as an economic shockwave.

Weed pressure would surge immediately. Farmers would be forced back to intensive mechanical tillage, increasing soil erosion, fuel use, labor costs, and carbon release. Yields in major commodity crops could fall sharply in many regions. That is not a cosmetic shift — that is a supply contraction. And when supply contracts, prices climb. Food inflation would not be marginal; it would ripple through grain markets, livestock feed, exports, and ultimately grocery shelves. More land would need to be brought into production, pushing into marginal acres and environmentally sensitive areas just to maintain baseline output.

Source: Colorado Virtual Library. The April 14, 1935 “Black Sunday” dust storm as seen near Springfield, Baca County. Photo by the Farm Security Administration (FSA).

This would not simply mean fewer perfect apples. It would mean tighter global grain stocks, higher input costs, and volatility in export markets that many developing nations rely on for staple foods. A 10–20% yield decline in crops like corn, soy, or wheat is not theoretical — it translates into billions of bushels lost. Agricultural productivity underpins food affordability, trade balances, and political stability. History shows that food price spikes destabilize governments far faster than most policy debates.

Pesticides are not flawless tools. But they are foundational ones. Removing them without scalable, economically viable alternatives would not usher in a pastoral renaissance of backyard abundance. It would mean lower yields, higher prices, greater land use, and amplified inequality in food access. Modern food security, imperfect as it is, rests on crop protection. That is not ideology. It is structural reality.

Meanwhile, Something Else Is Showing Up

While glyphosate dominates cultural attention, a different exposure has quietly moved from environmental issue to human issue.

Microplastics, plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters, and even smaller nanoplastics are now being detected in our organs.

Microplastics have been shown to cause inflammation, oxidative stress, tissue damage and further increase chronic diseases. In 2024, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine reported microplastics and nano plastics embedded within carotid artery plaque. Individuals with detectable plastics in their plaque were significantly more likely to experience heart attack, stroke, or death over the following three years compared to those without detectable particles.

Other research has identified microplastics in lung tissue, placenta, blood, and even brain samples. Experimental work suggests potential mechanisms, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular disruption.  Plastic particles have even shown to change your DNA and prevent basic functions such as DNA repair systems.

Unlike glyphosate, microplastics are not a single molecule. They are particles. Their size, shape, polymer type, and chemical additives vary widely. Some may pass through the digestive tract. Others, particularly smaller particles, may cross biological barriers. There is no single established human “half-life” for microplastics. Because we do not yet fully understand how long they remain, or what their long-term biological consequences may be. And that uncertainty deserves attention.

The study did not prove causation. But it did something important: it demonstrated presence and association.

The Psychology of Fear

So why does one exposure dominate public panic while the other moves quietly through emerging literature?

Convenience.

Plastic makes life easy. It keeps strawberries from bruising in transport. It makes takeout possible. Milk in glass bottles has gone the way of the local dairy man. It reduces food waste by extending shelf life. It allows sterile medical packaging. It makes bottled water portable. It makes lightweight clothing affordable. Plastic underpins modern logistics.

To meaningfully reduce microplastic exposure would require enormous behavioral shifts. Using glass instead of plastic for heating food. Reducing single-use packaging. Filtering water. Rethinking synthetic textiles. That’s inconvenient. Pesticides, by contrast, feel distant and industrial.

Pesticides belong to “big agriculture.” They have brand names and lawsuits. They are easy to externalize, something done by someone else. Microplastics are personal. They come from the packaging in our fridge, the bottle in our car, the fibers from our clothes. We accept what makes our lives easier. We criticize what feels industrial and abstract. But the body does not respond to narratives. It responds to chemistry and particles.

The Real Risk Conversation

None of this means pesticides deserve a free pass. Continued research, transparent regulatory review, and improved agricultural practices are essential. Safer formulations and precision application matter. So does innovation.

It also does not mean microplastics are definitively causing disease at scale. It does mean our risk conversation should evolve.

We should ask:

  • Which exposures bioaccumulate?
  • Which persist in tissues?
  • Which are present at biologically meaningful concentrations?
  • Which trade-offs are structural to feeding the world, and which are conveniences we could redesign?

The modern food system is not simple. It is a balancing act between yield, sustainability, affordability, and safety. 

Pesticides are tools that emerged to solve biological competition in crops. Plastics emerged to solve durability and transport problems in consumer goods. Both carry trade-offs.

But when it comes to biological persistence, they are not equivalent.

It’s also worth saying clearly: concern about pesticides and concern about microplastics are not mutually exclusive. We can, and should, scrutinize agricultural chemicals while also demanding better research and policy around plastic exposure. The point is not to minimize one risk in favor of another. It’s to think carefully about persistence, exposure levels, biological plausibility, and long-term effects, and to let science, not volume, guide our priorities.

Microplastics, meanwhile, have been found inside human arteries and organs. Early evidence links their presence to inflammatory pathways and cardiovascular outcomes. Their long-term biological behavior remains uncertain, and that uncertainty deserves careful study. One system underpins global food security. The other underpins global convenience. Finally, there is no simple solution to detox a human body from microplastics.

We should examine both.

Posted on

Processed Foods: Healthy or Harmful?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

 

If you’ve read nutrition headlines lately, you’ve probably seen “ultra-processed foods” thrown around with increasing urgency, most likely framed as the dietary villain of our era.

And it’s easy to point a finger at it: the CDC recently reported that more than 50% of calories consumed by Americans come from ultra-processed foods (UPFs). And making matters worse? Kids aged 18 and under consume even more, with almost 70% of their daily calories from UPFs.

But what does “UPF” really mean? How does it differ from regular or minimally processed foods? And more importantly, how do these varying levels of processed foods fit in a modern food system where convenience, safety, shelf life, and affordability matter so much to all of us?

Defining Food Processing

Let’s start with a quick reality check: almost all food is processed in some way.

Processing simply means altering a food from its original state. This includes freezing, drying, pasteurizing, fermenting, milling, cooking…even washing.

Whether it’s organic bagged spinach, canned tomatoes, or frozen blueberries from a supermarket or farmers’ market, these products are all indeed processed.

Before the advent of convenience foods, like potato chips and candy bars, food was processed to ensure safety and stability.

Specifically, processing helps reduce pathogens, extend shelf life, and enhance digestibility and nutrient absorption, making these practices a critical milestone for public health.

For instance, processing milk via pasteurization dramatically reduced milk-borne illness in the early 20th century and remains one of the most important food safety advances in public health. And canning expanded food access and strengthened global food security, especially during World War I.

And food processing isn’t a recent innovation…it’s been around for thousands of years.

We’ve ground grains into flour, fermented milk into cheese and yogurt, dried meats, pickled vegetables, and pressed olives into oil to provide a safe food supply, all without refrigeration or modern sanitation.

The Food Processing Continuum

Where the conversation becomes more nuanced is in the distinction between the various degrees of food processing. To dig into this further, we’re going to use the NOVA classification system, a research framework that groups foods based on how much industrial processing they undergo.

Developed by Brazilian nutrition scientist Carlos Monteiro and his colleagues at the University of São Paulo, the NOVA system sorts foods into four tiers: minimally processed, processed ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed products. It’s now widely used in public-health studies examining how heavily processed diets relate to chronic disease risk.

So, let’s go into each tier a little more:

  • Unprocessed and minimally processed foods are closest to their natural form: whole meats, washed produce, frozen vegetables, eggs, plain yogurt, and raw nuts. Processing here mainly preserves freshness and safety.
  • Processed culinary ingredients are used in combination with other foods to improve flavor, shelf life or nutrient absorption: oils, butter, lard, sugar, and salt. When used carefully, these ingredients create nutritionally balanced meals.
  • Processed foods move further along the spectrum but still look like the original food source: cheeses, freshly baked breads, tinned seafood, plain oatmeal, and unsweetened plant milks. These foods are combined with additional ingredients, additives, or refining steps for taste and convenience.
  • Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), also known as highly processed foods, are foods created from a distinct formulation of ingredients, in which the end product does not naturally resemble its original food sources. UPFs include soda, shelf-stable treats, instant noodles, sweetened oatmeal,  potato chips, and ready-to-eat meals. These products are typically made from refined substances extracted from foods (oils, starches and flours, protein isolates) plus additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and flavor enhancers and sweeteners (ingredients not commonly found in culinary settings) to make them more appealing.

Findings on UPFs & Dietary Habits

Though the bad-for-you food target seems to blur across all processed foods, the focal point of recent research is set on ultra-processed foods. These UPF products are optimized combinations of sugar, fat, salt, and texture that have been shown to drive overconsumption.

A growing body of epidemiological research links high intake of ultra-processed foods with chronic disease risk. A major review summarized by Stanford Medicine found convincing evidence that diets high in UPFs are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, anxiety, and depression.

Furthermore, the American Heart Association, the National Institute of Health, and other researchers have recently linked overconsumption of UPFs to cardiometabolic disease and all-cause mortality.

But can we pin these illnesses solely on UPFs? Or can we find a place for these products in our diets, if we choose?

Diets anchored in whole or minimally processed foods, complemented by strategically used processed items, consistently correlate with better long-term health outcomes.

Rather than framing the issue as ultra-processed vs. minimally processed, nutrition scientists have found that our overall dietary patterns drive long-term outcomes, not a single type of food. Even Stanford researchers stress that occasional consumption of ultra-processed foods isn’t what drives risk…chronic overreliance is.

Processing Food for Purpose

It’s easy to focus on the risks in today’s food headlines, but processing has also played a powerful role in protecting public health and expanding access to nutrition. In fact, many processed and highly processed foods provide real benefits, as emphasized by the FAO:

  • Food safety: Pasteurization and sterilization prevent microbial illness.
  • Food access: Shelf-stable foods improve food security and disaster readiness.
  • Nutrition delivery: Fortified cereals and enriched grains address nutrient gaps.
  • Medical nutrition: Meal replacements and protein formulas support patients and aging populations.

There are practical considerations, too. Beyond the science, there’s real life. Most of us are juggling work, school schedules, budgets, and limited time…these realities shape what ends up on the dinner table. And using processed food products to manage all these competing needs can be an effective way to create nutrient-dense meals for your family. For instance:

  • Frozen vegetables can be more nutritious than fresh produce that spoils.
  • Rinsed canned beans can make high-fiber and high-protein diets more accessible.
  • Nutrient-dense packaged foods, like whole-grain pasta and tomato sauce, can reduce preparation barriers that might otherwise lead to skipped meals or reliance on fast food.

The Bigger Reset

The larger takeaway from the processed foods research is less about eliminating UPFs and more about recalibrating your current food choices. So rather than eliminating processed foods altogether, most experts recommend being aware of your consumption and making meaningful swaps over time, so your new dietary habits stick.

Like the new dietary food pyramid that encourages us to consume whole foods, experts advise us to choose veggies and fruits; processed whole grains; nuts, seeds, and legumes; and minimally processed proteins as the foundation for a healthy diet. UPFs like sugary drinks, packaged snacks and sweets, and processed meats should be reduced over time.

So, if UPFs currently comprise half of your caloric intake, strive to split those calories with lesser processed items. For instance, if you drink two sodas a day, consider substituting one of those sodas with seltzer and a splash of fresh fruit juice.

So instead of asking, “Is this ultra-processed?”

A more useful question might be, “What ingredients and nutrients are in this product? And how often is it on my plate?”

Processing itself is not the villain – it is a tool. Processing can preserve nutrients…or dilute them. It can improve safety…or introduce excess sugar, sodium, and additives. Its impact depends on how it’s used within our broader food system and our daily eating habits.

Posted on

Aging: Smooth Climb…or Rapid Ascent?

As a younger parent, I was perpetually annoyed hearing things like, “Once you hit 40, it all goes downhill…and fast” That’s not due to age, I thought; that’s from life’s circumstances – kids, aging parents, job shifts, and so on.

And then I got there. For months, I felt like I was losing the battle against fatigue while somehow acquiring jitters with my second cup of coffee. Then I came across an article in the medical journal Nature, which felt like a harsh yet validating slap in the face. I guess there is something to this sudden shift in aging once we hit 40s, after all…

We all know aging is unavoidable – a constant in our lives once we reach our mid-30s. But while most of us naively liken it to a slightly uphill stroll, a recent study reveals that aging sneaks in a couple of surprising hairpin turns along the way, most likely occurring in our 40s and again in our 60s.

Sure, these shifts may be biological, but there must be things we can do to ease these blows, right? Thankfully, yes…but let’s get the basics of this study down first.

Overview of the study

The study, Nonlinear Dynamics of Multi-omics Profiles During Human Aging, takes a comprehensive look at how molecular and biological processes shift over time, offering insight into how our bodies age and which factors significantly affect our long-term health, lifestyle, and nutrition during these periods.

The Stanford University research team followed 108 California residents between the ages of 25 and 75 over an average period of 2 years. They collected massive amounts of “multi-omics” data – large sets of biological information to measure molecular activity in the body.

This comprehensive series of tests does more than just track blood pressure or glucose levels; it captures hundreds of various body functions for an individual, all at the molecular level. Multi-omics data for this study included the following lab tests:

  • Genomics: genes, or DNA; essentially the body’s instruction manual
  • Transcriptomics: RNA, shows which genes are “turned on” or active
  • Proteomics: proteins that carry out most of the body’s functions, including cytokine activity
  • Metabolomics: metabolites, or the small molecules made when your body breaks down food, drugs, or its own tissues
  • Lipidomics: fats and fatty molecules that play key roles in energy and cell structure
  • Microbiomics: microbes living in and on you that affect digestion, immunity, and mood

Rather than the collected data showing linear molecular changes over time, researchers found the opposite: most of the changes are non-linear.

In fact, only about 7% of all molecular activity studied behaved linearly with age, whereas about 80% of molecular behavior revealed far more complex, non-linear patterns.

What does “non-linear” really mean here?

This study suggests our body’s molecular and functional “engine” doesn’t slow down gradually; it hits two major inflection points. These two major “waves” are represented in the data as significant periods of molecular disruption, occurring around ages 44 and 60.

The multi-omics data indicates that each wave is unique regarding specific changes occurring in our bodies:

Around age 44:

  • Molecular activity: significant molecular disruptions occur in lipid metabolism, alcohol metabolism, caffeine metabolism, and cardiovascular/lipid markers
  • Observations: marked decreases in metabolism, energy, and cardiovascular health indicate extra attention needed at this stage

The takeaway: Your body can’t break down fats for energy or metabolize alcohol or caffeine as well. In addition, exercise more frequently to keep your heart healthy.

Around age 60:

  • Molecular activity: significant shifts occur in immune regulation, carbohydrate and fat metabolism, kidney function, tissue and organ structural stability
  • Observations: the body’s immune system begins to change, blood sugar control can become trickier, and tissues such as muscle and skin may lose resilience

The takeaway: Be kind to your body and diversify your microbiome during this phase, as your immune system and metabolism aren’t as efficient.  Also, your kidneys and other organs are less resilient, so stay hydrated all day long.

How did researchers detect these shifts?

Scientists wanted to see how different molecules and microbes in the body shift as we age, so they used a computer algorithm called DEswan, which is like sliding a magnifying glass along the subjects’ molecular timeline. This helped them distribute people into similar age groups to spot where big shifts happened in the body’s chemistry and microbiome from one age group to the next.

When they looked at all the compiled data, that’s when they discovered these molecular changes coming in distinct waves.

And these waves correspond with age-related illnesses, like the accelerated risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease during these inflection periods.

Though this study has been peer-reviewed, the researchers note some limitations that may not align with the broader population.

They note the relatively small cohort of 108 subjects, all aged 75 or younger and residing in California. Also, data collection was limited to about two years, whereas most aging studies are longitudinal, providing multiple years of data to mine for more concrete findings.

What can be done to slow down aging?

We often turn to social media feeds and other news sources to provide us with health and wellness solutions, especially when we see excerpts from well-known anti-aging professionals. These experts often include Dr. Peter Attia and his recent book, Outlive; Dr. Rhoda Patrick’s research on inflammation and aging; and Dr. Andrew Huberman’s conversations with fellow longevity experts, like biologist David Sinclair.

But what have studies shown us about slowing down our biological age? While more research is being conducted on the molecular indications of humans’ biological aging, here are a few studies that have shown promise in slowing down its process via our lifestyle choices, with technology potentially playing a role further down the pipeline, too.

A recent study with older adults revealed the surprising impact just three things can have on aging. Subjects who took omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D and exercised regularly experienced a measurable slowing of biological aging, or about 3.5 months [ls3] [HK4] over three years, according to the researchers’ epigenetic clock measurements.

A meta-analysis on calorie-restricted eating studies shows that reducing caloric intake by 25% can slow our biomarkers of aging, leading to a reduction in future mortality risk. Intermittent fasting yields similar results, as well.

And ongoing research into epigenetics continues to reveal all the small ways our lifestyle and everyday behaviors can affect how our genes are expressed, including how we biologically age. Our DNA is affected by everything we experience – from the chemicals released from activity, during periods of stress, foods and drinks we consume, the quality of our sleep, and so on. So while we inherit our genes, it’s our lifestyle that helps turn them on or off.

Novel therapies in biotechnology may further slow down aging in the coming years. Recently, scientists have found that senescent cells – aged cells no longer functioning properly – can be cleared by drugs or supplements called senolytics, which helps preserve tissue integrity and reduce inflammation. And clinical trials investigating epigenetic reprogramming have found that some cells can be “reset” to help regenerate tissues and repair damage.

While we may not “stop” aging altogether, we’re gaining tools to shift the pace and perhaps extend the period of life spent in good health. But the insight from current research is actionable: aging biology is dynamic, and our behaviors can interact with that.

Tips for planning long-term health

There’s a lot of heavy information here – I know. But keep in mind that these “waves” should be used as gentle reminders for our intervention, rather than ticking time bombs.

So try to replace any doomscrolling with these helpful tips instead:

  • Follow a gut-healthy diet

  • It’s never too late to adopt a “longevity-friendly” lifestyle
    • Consider adopting a healthier approach to your eating habits, such as adhering to the Mediterranean diet and/or trying intermittent fasting
    • If you’re on the younger side, your 30s and 40s are an ideal time to build strength in metabolic flexibility by increasing muscle mass, cardiovascular resilience, and decreasing consumption of saturated fats, alcohol, and caffeine
    • As you move into your 50s and beyond, focus on resistance training and light to moderate exercise several times a week, and consume immune-supporting fruits and veggies, lean proteins, kidney-friendly hydration, and anti‐inflammatory add-ins
  • Don’t forget these crucial habits, too:
    • Exercise, sleep quality, stress management, activity level, and daily habits all feed into the molecular systems that the study highlights, like our immune system, metabolism, and tissue integrity
    • Limit consumption of alcohol, highly processed meats, sodas, and other products with excessive added sugars, as these can increase molecular disruption
Posted on

Sugar Substitutes: Healthy swap or sneaky trick?

Sugar substitutes are everywhere: splashed across “zero-sugar” sodas, stirred into your morning coffee, mixed into protein bars and powders that promise taste without the calories.

Whether or not we’ve been aware of these products beyond the diet section of the soda aisle, they’ve been a part of our food system for over a hundred years, and even among some indigenous populations for over a millennium.

Sugar substitutes became common last mid-century, with food manufacturers creating sweet-tasting treats for the diabetic population that wouldn’t spike their glycemic levels and insulin release. But now with the proliferation of keto, low-sugar, added protein, and net-zero carb products lining supermarket aisles, there’s a larger spotlight on alternative sweeteners.

Are these substitutes truly better for us than sugar, or a different route to the same metabolic potholes…or something worse?

Let’s break down the different types of substitute sugars, how they behave in the body, and what recent studies reveal about long-term health, including weight, heart, and cognitive outcomes.

What is a “sugar substitute”?

“Sugar substitutes” are lower or no-calorie compounds that add sweetness to foods and beverages with minimal effect on calories or insulin spikes. (If you’re looking for information on sugar and sweeteners, like table sugar, agave nectar, and honey, be sure to read this post.)

And it’s no wonder these sweet substitutes exist: we love sugary stuff, but it can wreak havoc on our health if we overindulge on sugary sodas, snacks, breakfast items, and desserts, just to list a few temptations.

That’s why about a quarter of U.S. adults use a sugar substitute daily – we want the sweetness, but not the calories and associated health risks.

Are sugar substitutes safe?

All sugar substitute products available for purchase in the United States have been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

Generally regarded as safe, these products have few reported health risks when ingested, according to FDA guidelines and global regulatory bodies. Any potential adverse effects can be averted by not overusing these products.

However, several reports show some of these sugar substitutes may have health risks of their own, including disruption of the gut microbiome and the gut-brain axis, increased neurological inflammation, and most ironically, weight gain and increased risk of diabetes.

Adding to the roster of health concerns, a recently released Brazilian study garnering worldwide media attention linked cognitive decline with various sweeteners, including aspartame, saccharine, ace-K, xylitol, and erythritol.

But, as cautionary as the health risks might feel, these studies require more research to be conducted as it relates to their causation of underlying health issues, as opposed to correlation – which is what many of these studies are based on. Plus, with any study, it’s important to examine data collection and assessment practices.

For instance, without a control group to isolate its findings, data collection methods for the Brazilian study require some scrutiny. Also, the researchers estimated consumption based on subjects’ indicated sweetener habits, not by measured intake. Because of this, more studies with stringent data collection protocols should be conducted before drawing any causal links, if any.

“While the finding that high consumption is linked to a faster decline is thought-provoking, it’s crucial to immediately highlight what the researchers themselves pointed out: this study shows a link, not a cause.

[This study] doesn’t prove that sweeteners are responsible for cognitive decline. It’s possible that other lifestyle factors associated with high sweetener consumption are at play.”

— Dr. Kamal Wagle, MD

And lastly, no matter what any study reports or social media claims, not all bodies react the same way. Individual genetics, dietary patterns, predisposition to disease, and gut microbiome all play a role. While these products may not affect many of us, some may incur an unintended reaction due to our body’s particular composition and habits.

Sugar substitute categories

While all sugar substitutes are designed to satisfy our sweet tooth with fewer calories, each type is derived differently. Because of this, consumers often classify sugar substitutes into the following categories:

  • Low or no-calorie artificial sweeteners are the most common additives in beverage products because they’re powerfully sweet with little to no energy
  • Sugar alcohols are linked to sugar molecules but behave differently in digestion, rendering them lower calorie due to malabsorption
  • “Natural sweeteners” are plant-derived or “rare” sugars gaining mainstream popularity

So let’s dive into each category to better understand them…

Artificial sweeteners: Do they help us lose weight?

Artificial sweeteners have been around for years, with saccharine pioneering the sweetener scene at the turn of the 19th century.

Though they’ve been around for a long time, these sweeteners became part of the household during the dieting trends of the 1960s and ‘70s. Since then, more players have entered the market, most notably aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose – America’s preferred sugar substitute.

Though they may look and taste similar, each compound is unique. For instance, aspartame, a combination of two amino acids, gets digested in the small intestine, just like a protein. However, other popular sweeteners like sucralose, saccharin, and ace-K are largely unmetabolized in the body and simply excreted.

As far as using artificial sweeteners to lose weight, the results vary by use. In studies where no-calorie sweeteners replace sugar-sweetened beverages, you can see modest benefits: slight drops in body weight, fat mass, and sometimes improved risk markers.

However, if you swap water for a diet soda or eat a bunch of snacks labeled “sugar free”, there’s little to no evidence that link these sweeteners with weight loss. Worse yet, several studies link the consumption of artificial sweeteners to increased type 2 diabetes risk. Seems counterintuitive, right?

Implications beyond the waistline exist, too. Several studies have shown that sucralose, saccharine, and ace-K can disrupt the gut microbiome, leading to various health risks. But, remember, these correlational studies do not identify these sweeteners as the sole contributor to these health risks.

Though it’s easy to assume that overuse of these substitutes may lead to weight gain and diabetes, we can equally assume that these sweeteners can act as proxies for a broader pattern of repeated attempts to curb our weight via fad diets and food products.

And these concerns aside, sweeteners can help when used in place of sugar, especially for those consuming high sugar loads.

Sugar alcohols: Is it worth having no sugar spike?

Sugar alcohols, like erythritol, xylitol, sorbitol, and maltitol, have been around for over 100 years, when scientists discovered these ‘polyols’ by hydrogenating traditional sugars, like glucose. This led to a low-calorie product with a pleasant, sweet taste.

In the 1950s, doctors found that these sugar alcohols had no effect on blood glucose and inulin responses. Thus, they were quickly introduced into “diabetic-friendly” food and medical products, like cough syrups and oral suspensions. Doctors also discovered its anti-cavity properties, making sugar alcohols a beneficial addition to dental products and chewing gums. Today, they’ve been added to more trendy products, like net-zero carb protein bars and powders.

What makes sugar alcohols unique is their slow absorption in the small and large intestines. However, they can sometimes cause gastrointestinal distress when consuming more than the FDA’s recommended intake, especially with larger-molecule sugar alcohols like maltitol and isomalt.

Several studies found sugar alcohol’s potential ill effects beyond the gut. A recent paper linked elevated plasma levels of erythritol and xylitol to a greater risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including stroke and heart attacks resulting from blood clots.  However, an investigative report in the Journal of Toxicology and Regulatory Policy found “no evidence that erythritol causes adverse health effects in humans at exposure levels commonly found in foods and beverages.”

Natural sweeteners: A health halo?

To many, natural sweeteners feel safer, more wholesome, and less processed.

Take a look at stevia: this South American herb has been used by indigenous tribes for more than 1,500 years. However, with its naturally greenish-brown color and bitter taste, Western consumers found it a bit too “natural”. But in the late ‘90s, stevia got a food processing makeover, refining the herb to look like traditional sugar substitutes.

Though not all stevia products are harvested from the herb itself, consumers still find the product widely appealing, boosting it to the #2 spot in sugar substitute popularity. Furthermore, it doesn’t raise blood sugar levels: stevia, like fiber, is digested in the gut, metabolized very little in the liver, and then flushed out of the body.

And now other natural sweeteners are on the rise, including:

Monk fruit

Extracted from a melon in southern China, the rind and pulp of these fruits yield intense sweetness with negligible calories. To reduce its sweetness and make it look more palatable, monk fruit products are often blended with another sugar substitute, like erythritol or allulose. It doesn’t raise blood sugar levels and is digested and excreted, like stevia.

Allulose

This “rare sugar”, occurs in figs, raisins, and maple syrup, and has about 70% the sweetness of table sugar but only 5% of sugar’s caloric load. Allulose is ideal for drinks, baked goods, and as a sweetener. It incurs minimal metabolization in the body, leaving blood sugar levels unaffected. Allulose may have benefits, as well: a study published in Nutritional Neuroscience reported it can alleviate metabolic and cognitive issues in prediabetic rats. However, this is the only study reporting these results at this time.

Tagatose

Another “rare sugar”, tagatose has sweetness similar to sucrose, with a trace presence found in dairy products, apples, oranges, and pineapples. Because it has about 40% of sugar’s caloric load, it doesn’t cause a glucose spike, per se, but will raise blood sugar levels. And because it has more calories than other substitutes, the liver has more to metabolize after it gets absorbed in the gut.

Chicory root

Though this herb is not as sweet as sugar, it’s often used to replace some of the sugar content in food products and may also include other sugar substitutes to further reduce caloric load. Also called inulin, this functional fiber adds bulk, retains moisture, and creates a pleasant mouthfeel to baked goods and shelf-stable snacks. It’s slowly digested in the large intestine, which makes it a great prebiotic and creates a longer-lasting feeling of fullness. But that comes at a price when overconsumed: its high fiber concentration can create notable gastrointestinal distress.

Modifying your Desired Level of Sweetness

The problem isn’t necessarily sugar or sugar substitutes – it’s often that we get used to the level of sweetness these compounds provide.

Making matters harder for us is that many of these sugar substitutes are multitudes sweeter than sugar – I’m talking about 300 times sweeter, like stevia and monk fruit. And when we’re frequently exposed to this level of sweetness, our palate and our brain come to expect it, thus creating a viciously sweet cycle.

What can we do to monitor our sweetness consumption? Here are some practical tips to get you started:

  • First, determine how much you’d like to reduce sweet products from your diet. Are you still sticking with one diet soda per day that replaced its sugary counterpart? Maybe you’re all set! Or maybe you’ve started chewing more gum or eating more sugar-free mints since moving to diet soda. Take a good, hard look.
  • Next, plan small steps you can take to move in that direction. Are you consuming regular soda? Perhaps consider swapping in diet soda as a short-term goal to reduce your sugar intake. And when you get used to that, start introducing flavored seltzers into your diet. Before you know it, you’ve curbed your desired sweetness level. The same goes for snacks…consider eating fruits and whole foods on occasion instead.
  • Consider your personal health concerns. If you have cardiovascular risk, consider stevia. If you’re prediabetic, maybe erythritol is a good option. And if you have digestive issues, try allulose.
  • Make a conscious effort to practice moderation. Use sugar substitutes as a tool, not a crutch. Pair them with nutrient-dense whole foods and focus on retraining your palate to appreciate natural sweetness again.
Posted on

How AI Is Transforming Our Health

Across the food system, AI is being harnessed for good—helping consumers make smarter nutritional choices, waste less food, and even personalize meals to their own needs.

We know that throughout the day we need fiber, protein, fruits, vegetables, not to mention all our micronutrients.  Yet, it is almost impossible to know if we are meeting our daily requirements.

It’s a troubling paradox: we’re surrounded by food, struggling to eat healthier—and wasting more of it than ever.

Now, artificial intelligence may help us change that.

AI Tools: A Matter of Health

For years, nutrition advice has been broad and impersonal: eat more plants, less sugar, moderate salt.

While still true, these guidelines often fail to capture the complexity of human biology—and the individuality of how we metabolize food.

AI is bridging that gap. Whether it’s helping you track nutrients more accurately, reduce food waste, or tailor your meals to your unique biology, technology is making nutrition personal, practical, and powerful.

And the variety, functionality, and accuracy of today’s applications are poised to vastly improve. The AI-nutrition-app market is set to surge from around $4 billion in 2024 to well over $10 billion in the next five years, driven by improved image-recognition technologies, wider health-tech adoption and a growing demand for personalized eating solutions.

When a Picture is Worth 1,000 Calories

Logging meals used to mean tedious typing, guesswork, and good intentions that fizzled out after a week. Enter AI-powered meal recognition apps: tools that analyze your food from a single photo.

Apps like CalorieMama, MyFitnessPal’s Meal Scan, Food AI – Plate Scan, and Cal AI use photos to identify foods, estimate portion sizes, and display calories, macronutrients, and even your progress toward recommended daily values in seconds.

Recent research published in Frontiers in Nutrition (2025) demonstrates that AI models can accurately identify foods with up to 90% accuracy and estimate nutrients within a few percentage points of laboratory-measured values. That means your phone can now serve as a mini nutritionist—tracking trends, flagging nutrient gaps, and helping users understand how their daily choices stack up. A word of caution though, it does not capture hidden ingredients like spices, sodium, and sugars.

“These image-based apps are helping people connect what’s on their plate to what’s happening in their body,” says Dr. Dana Small, a Yale neuroscientist who studies food perception and decision-making.

The benefit to these calorie-counting apps? Awareness.

You can’t fix what you don’t measure—and for many, seeing the numbers in real time is the nudge that leads to lasting behavior change.

Beyond Counting Calories: Tracking Nutrition

If wearables like the Oura ring can track your sleep and recovery, why couldn’t they do the same for tracking your nutrition? That’s the next wave of AI-driven metabolic tracking.

Emerging platforms like ZOE, Portion Master, Lumen, and January AI are connecting dietary input with biometric feedback, utilizing glucose monitors, gut microbiome analysis, and AI modeling to demonstrate how your body responds to specific foods.

Think of it as a nutrition version of precision medicine: your diet is fine-tuned based on your own biology, not broad averages.

  • ZOE pairs microbiome testing with an app that ranks foods by how they impact your blood sugar and fat metabolism.
  • Lumen uses a handheld device to analyze your breath and determine whether your body is burning carbs or fat.
  • January AI predicts how your glucose levels will react to different foods—before you eat them—using data from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
  • Portion Master allows consumers to analyze their plates for precise calorie and macronutrient information.

Clinical studies published in Nature Medicine and Cell Metabolism have demonstrated that personalized nutrition can significantly enhance blood sugar control, lipid levels, and satiety—key markers of cardiovascular and metabolic health.

“We’re moving from one-size-fits-all nutrition to a world where your body’s data writes its own menu,” says Dr. Tim Spector, co-founder of ZOE.

The Smart Fridge Revolution: From Waste to Wellness

Nearly 40% of all food produced in the U.S. is thrown away, costing the average family over $1,800 a year and contributing to 8–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. AI is stepping in to change that as well.

Apps like Samsung Food now utilize Vision AI to identify ingredients from photos of your pantry or fridge, suggest recipes, and prioritize items that are close to expiring. Plant Jammer and Nosh also take a similar approach: inventory your fridge/pantry and suggest creative recipes from what you already have.

In hospitality and institutional settings, AI waste-tracking systems have already shown dramatic results. One pilot in hotels saw a 76% reduction in kitchen waste and a 55% reduction in post-consumer waste. Another retailer pilot using AI restocking/ordering systems (Shelf Engine / Afresh) reduced waste by 14.8% on average.

In homes, the research is still emerging, but the promise is real: more home-cooked meals, less impulse takeout, and more innovative use of what you already bought.

“Reducing food waste is one of the simplest ways to lower your food bill and your carbon footprint,”

– Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

My Experience: Putting AI to Work In My Own Kitchen

Curious to see how these tools function in daily life, I tested both Samsung Food and Nosh over several weeks.

Samsung Food’s Vision AI easily scanned items in my fridge, sometimes correctly identifying even partially used produce, and generated recipes that incorporated what I already had on hand. It wasn’t perfect (a few mystery leftovers stumped it), but the suggestions often saved me from another night of takeout.

Nosh impressed me with its practical focus on expiration tracking. After logging items, it reminded me when foods were nearing their “use by” date, prompting me to use or freeze them. I noticed I was throwing out less, planning meals more efficiently, and even getting a clearer sense of what I actually eat week to week.

One of my colleagues found the MyFitnessPal app easiest to use for daily macronutrient analysis. Because the platform has been around for years, it’s got the biggest knowledge base, but she could still use manual entry to make the inevitable adjustments. She also tried Calorie Mama for its “point and shoot” ease of photo analysis, but had to spend considerable time correcting multiple entries.

Another colleague had a different but equally fascinating experience with AI, one centered on nutrition and medication management. He found that AI tools can help identify the best ways to balance dietary needs with prescribed medications. By analyzing data from his personal medication regimen, the system flagged potential adverse food interactions and suggested compatible dietary options. The result was a more comprehensive understanding of how food and medicine interact, which he could then discuss with his doctor — empowering faster, more informed decisions about his health.

These experiences underscore what the data already shows: when technology makes healthy, low-waste choices easier, and visible, we’re far more likely to follow through.

The Bigger Picture: AI and the Future of American Health

The conversation sparked by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement has reminded America that nutrition isn’t just personal—it’s national. How we eat affects our health, our economy, and the planet. The truth is, we can’t policy our way into better nutrition alone. We need tools that make healthy eating easier, more intuitive, and more sustainable in real time.

That’s where AI has the power to deliver. Whether it’s guiding better food choices, tailoring diets to our individual biology, or reducing waste in our kitchens, technology can help bridge the gap between what we know and how we live.

If the headlines paint a sobering picture of our current food system, these innovations hint at a hopeful future—one where science, data, and human habits finally align. A future where healthy eating isn’t just a guideline from Washington, but a personalized, everyday experience powered by intelligence—artificial and otherwise.

Posted on

Why Diet Quality Matters

Recent studies show that a diet of high-quality, nutritious foods, like the Mediterranean diet, can slash Type 2 diabetes risk. A healthy diet can boost metabolism even without weight loss, and plant-forward meals in midlife can help you age disease-free.

The bottom line? You don’t need to fixate on the number on the scale: what you eat plays a much bigger role in shaping your future health than you may realize.

Dr. Qi Sun, associate professor at Harvard, summarized the long-term impact of healthy eating: “The foods we choose in midlife set the foundation for how well we live decades later.” In other words, your dinner plate today is an investment in your 70-year-old self.

The Weight-Loss Trap

Let’s face it: most people measure the success of a diet – or their lifestyle – by what the bathroom scale says. Unless one is on a GLP-1 drug, weight loss is notoriously hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. This often leaves people discouraged—assuming they’ve failed when the pounds don’t budge.

Losing weight isn’t the entire goal. New research calls for a shift in thinking: the benefits of nutrition. The food you eat can transform your health at the cellular, metabolic, and cognitive levels. The 2025 studies you’ll soon read about weren’t designed for weight loss—they were designed to unlock sustained health and longevity.

Think of it like tending to a garden: you may not see the plants grow taller overnight, but with the right soil, sunlight, and water, they thrive throughout the season—resilient, productive, and full of life.

Study #1: Mediterranean Diet + Lifestyle = 31% Lower Diabetes Risk

A major study published in Annals of Internal Medicine (August 2025) tracked adults at risk for Type 2 diabetes who followed a Mediterranean-style diet rich in vegetables, fruits, olive oil, legumes, nuts, and fish. Researchers found that when combined with calorie reduction, moderate exercise, and weight-loss support, participants lowered their risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by 31% compared to diet alone.

The success of the study was based on blood glucose control, measuring fasting glucose, HbA1c, insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR), body BMI, blood pressure, and lipid profiles.

Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, emphasized the importance of synergy, stating that “modest, sustained changes in diet and lifestyle could prevent millions of cases of diabetes worldwide.”

The takeaway? Eating better matters. But pairing diet with physical activity and behavior support multiplies the benefits. Small, consistent adjustments in daily life can help stave off one of the world’s most pressing chronic diseases.

Ensure that your Mediterranean diet also includes high-quality protein, which is essential for muscle maintenance and provides vital nutrients.

You can find more about the importance of proteins and the various types of proteins on our site.

Study #2: Diet Improves Metabolism—Even Without Weight Loss

Another Harvard study, published in June 2025, found that those who did lose weight had better health markers than those who didn’t. “ Each kilogram lost was associated with 1.44% increase in HDL cholesterol, 1.37% in triglycerides, a 2.46% drop in insulin, a 2.79% drop in leptin, and a .49-unit reduction in liver fat, along with reductions in blood pressure and liver enzymes.”

Yet benefits exist for those who have a hard time losing those few pounds. Researchers found that nearly one-third of participants improved key health markers despite not losing a single pound. Markers included increased HDL, decreased triglycerides, lowered insulin levels and leptin, decreased liver fat measure via imaging, decreased liver enzymes based on ALT and AST, which are markers of liver function, decreased blood pressure, and reductions in visceral fat levels—despite not losing a single pound.

Lead author Anat Yaskolka Meir reframed what counts as dietary success: “People who do not lose weight can improve their metabolism and reduce their long-term risk for disease.”

The findings show that you don’t have to lose weight for your body to thank you. Positive shifts in blood sugar control, cholesterol, and even hormonal balance can happen just by changing what you eat.

It’s like switching from cheap fuel to premium gas—even if the car looks the same, the internal systems run more efficiently and break down less often.

Study #3: Plant-Rich Diets Linked to Healthy Aging

The benefits of diet don’t stop with diabetes prevention or metabolic health. They extend across the entire lifespan.

A Nature Medicine study (March 2025) followed more than 105,000 adults over 30 years. The findings: those who ate plant-rich, minimally processed diets had far higher odds of reaching age 70 free from chronic disease, with stronger mental, cognitive, and physical function.

Specifically, people with the highest adherence to healthy eating patterns were twice more likely to age healthily. This was concluded based on the absence of chronic disease markers for cancers, heart disease, and diabetes; and brain imaging assessments that show memory, acuity, and brain aging, improved mobility, strength, and lower fragility scores, as well as healthy eating pattern indexes.

So what did “healthy eating patterns” actually mean in the study? Researchers used established diet-quality scores such as the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) and the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

High scorers consistently ate:

  • A variety of fruits and vegetables (especially leafy greens and colorful produce)
  • Whole grains instead of refined grains
  • Legumes, nuts, and seeds as regular protein and fiber sources
  • Lean proteins like fish and poultry in moderation
  • Healthy fats, especially olive oil and other plant oils

And they consistently limited:

  • Processed meats
  • Sugar-sweetened beverages
  • Highly processed snacks and packaged foods high in sodium, added sugars, or refined starches

In short, the people who aged best weren’t following a fad or restrictive diet—they were eating a balanced, plant-forward, minimally processed diet over decades.

Marketing vs. Reality: Don’t Be Fooled

Diet products are often promoted as quick fixes—low-carb, sugar-free, “metabolism boosting.” But these studies remind us that the science of nutrition isn’t about gimmicks.

An energy drink won’t make up for a good night’s sleep. A weight-loss shake isn’t the same as building a pattern of balanced, whole foods. And weight on the scale doesn’t capture the cellular, metabolic, and cognitive shifts happening inside your body.

We are certainly not saying that losing weight, when necessary, isn’t an important marker of health, but it isn’t the only marker, and shouldn’t be prioritized over other markers like blood work, digestion, good sleep, focus, improved mood, and cognitive clarity.

Practical Consumer Takeaways

  • Don’t obsess over the scale. Track your energy, blood work, digestion, and mood as indicators of success. Be sure to discuss your health markers with your doctor.
  • Aim for incorporating plants. Load your plate with vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and whole grains.
  • Add, don’t subtract. Instead of fixating on what to cut, focus on adding high-quality foods.
  • Pair diet with lifestyle. Even light movement, stress management, and consistent sleep enhance the benefits.
  • Think long-term. Your food choices today shape your risk of chronic disease and quality of life decades from now.

Proteins, fats, carbs—nutrition is a web of essential pieces. But 2025 research reinforces a simple truth: it’s not about dieting down, it’s about eating up—quality, variety, and consistency.

Posted on

Sugar: Are All Sweeteners Equal?

From agave nectar and granulated sugar to high fructose corn syrup and molasses, sugar seems to be everywhere and added to everything. Most of us want to cut back on consuming sugar products, but somehow, they still find sneaky ways into many of the foods we eat.

And despite our team’s research on sugar’s connection to chronic diseases, like obesity, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, we still struggle to reduce our own intake. And who can blame us? It just tastes too good sometimes.

Consider this example: The D2D team’s morning coffee…

I used stevia in my coffee for a long time, but it increased my desire for sweetness throughout the day, so I switched to a few grams of turbinado sugar and found my mid-day sugar cravings reduced.

Another team member carefully monitors glucose levels, relying on a stevia-erythritol product to reduce glucose spikes.

And another member uses a teaspoon of locally-sourced honey. Honey in coffee? Why not, I suppose…

So…which sugar choice is healthiest?  Let’s start with the basics first…

What Is Sugar, Really?

If you ask a chemistry teacher what exactly sugar is, you’d most likely hear these distinct types: monosaccharides, disaccharides, and polysaccharides.

  • Monosaccharides are simple sugars, or single sugar molecules like glucose, fructose, and galactose.
  • Disaccharides and polysaccharides are compound sugars, which are two or more simple sugars being bonded together, like sucrose (glucose + fructose) and lactose (glucose + galactose).

In addition to each type of sugar being distinct in chemical structure, they can also differ in processing, taste, and how your body initially metabolizes it. However, they all provide our bodies with energy to keep moving…but we only need so much fuel. If we consume more sugar than our bodies need, the excess will be stored as fat.

Building with Simple Sugars

Monosaccharides are the building blocks of sugar, with glucose being the primary source of fuel in our bodies.

Glucose: What cells use directly for energy

Most foods in our everyday diet break down into glucose. Because of its simple structure, glucose is quickly metabolized in the body, thus immediately causing blood sugar to spike, giving it the highest glycemic index of 100.

Fructose: Requires the liver to process

Before converting to energy, the liver must first metabolize fructose. Because of this, consuming too much fructose can lead to fat accumulation in the liver, raise triglycerides, and contribute to metabolic issues. Often found naturally in fruits and syrups, fructose has a significantly lower glycemic index of 20, despite being almost twice as sweet as glucose.

Galactose: Found in dairy products

The body converts galactose to glucose or uses it in other metabolic pathways. This lesser sweet monosaccharide isn’t in most public health discussions because it’s generally moderated via dairy consumption.

Basic Compound Sugars: Sucrose & Lactose

Disaccharides and polysaccharides require some digestion because of their more complex molecular structure.

Sucrose: Glucose bonded with fructose

Sucrose must be broken down into glucose and fructose before it’s metabolized in your cells and liver, respectively. It has a glycemic index of 60.

Sucrose is a naturally occurring carbohydrate in many fruits, vegetables, and grains. It’s also in processed products, like granulated sugar refined from sugar canes and/or sugar beets (this includes “raw” sugars, like turbinado and demerara).

Lactose: Glucose bonded with galactose

Naturally found in milk and milk products, lactose requires the lactase enzyme for metabolization. If you suffer from lactose intolerance, you most likely have a lactase deficiency, which results in those unpleasant side effects.

Source: Sugar Nutrition Resource Board

Natural Sugar Syrups

Naturally occurring sugar syrups, like agave nectar, maple syrup, and honey, deliver sweetness without the additional processing of other liquid sweeteners and refined sugars.

Because each syrup has varying ratios of glucose and fructose, they affect the body differently so take note if you have diabetes or other health condition.

Honey

Produced by bees from plant nectar, honey contains antioxidants, small amounts of vitamins and minerals, and even has antimicrobial properties. Because of its balanced composition, honey has a similar glycemic index to table sugar at 60.

Maple Syrup

Minimally processed and derived from tree sap, maple syrup is largely composed of sucrose with a little more fructose than honey, putting it at a glycemic index of 55. Maple syrup also has antioxidants and trace minerals, like zinc and manganese.

Agave Nectar

This nectar is almost fully comprised of fructose, resulting in a slower rise in blood sugar with a glycemic index of 20. The low GI is sometimes thought to make it “better,” but excess fructose carries its own risks of liver stress and high triglycerides.

Other natural syrups, like molasses and rice syrup, are often used in refined sugar products, like brown sugar and pancake syrups, respectively.

Processed Sugar Syrups

Processed sugar syrups are made by breaking down starches into a liquid form of simpler sugars. This process includes filtering, clarifying, and concentrating the liquid. Sometimes, processors add enzymes or acids to adjust sweetness and texture, making the syrups easier to blend, preserve, and use in food manufacturing.

Fruit Juice Concentrate

Removing most of the water from fruit juice through evaporation or freezing creates a thick, syrup-like product to be reconstituted later or used as a sweetener in packaged foods and beverages. It has a glycemic index of anywhere from 40 to 70, depending on the fruit used for the concentrate.

Corn Syrup

It’s derived from corn and is composed mainly of glucose. However, depending on how much processing it undergoes, it can also contain small amounts of other sugars, like maltose. It has a GI of 75.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

This is a very common sweetener in sodas, drinks, and sauces. Most HFCS has a slightly higher fructose level (~55%) than table sugar. Though not as high in fructose as agave nectar, some research finds that its higher fructose content can stress the liver more than pure glucose or even sucrose.

What Research Tells Us

Research continues to prove that no matter the source – honey, cane sugar, HFCS, organic sugars – too much of any of these products can harm your health.

So don’t be fooled into thinking that cane sugar-sweetened Coca Cola is a healthy alternative to its current high fructose corn syrup form, or that small-batch candy made from organic agave nectar is nutritionally superior to its supermarket counterpart.

Interestingly, when scientists compared glucose and fructose, they found the differences aren’t huge under normal eating conditions.

But when diets are high in both fat and sugar, fructose appears to hit the liver harder—raising triglycerides and increasing fat storage.

And health organizations around the globe concur with these findings. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends less than 10% of our daily calories come from added sugar; and the American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugar to a stringent 6 to 9 teaspoons per day, no matter the sugar’s source.

These limits are set with good intentions given recent findings in added sugar’s myriad ill effects. A 2022 review in Metabolism and Health Impacts of Dietary Sugars pulled together evidence linking high sugar intake with obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

When it comes to natural sweeteners, not all are created equal. Honey and agave syrup are both often marketed as “better” alternatives to refined sugar, but they behave differently in the body.

Honey has antioxidants and seems to support healthier outcomes on several metrics. In contrast, agave nectar has a lower glycemic index but packs in more fructose, which can work against its benefits, if consumed in excess.

The takeaway? Even with natural sweeteners, moderation matters. But when push comes to shove, honey – whether in your coffee or added to your oatmeal – may be the slightly friendlier option.

How can we reduce our sugar intake?

Here are some quick guidelines as to how, what, and when to consume sugars:

  • Understand that all added sugars contribute to caloric load. Overconsuming any sugars – glucose, fructose, honey, corn syrup, and so on – will contribute to weight gain risk, dental issues, insulin resistance, heart disease, and other chronic conditions.
  • Limit overall added sugar intake to recommended amounts. Try to stick with the equivalent of no more than 6 packets (or 6 teaspoons) of sugar a day. For example, a 12-oz. can of Coke has almost 10 teaspoons of sugar, and a 20-oz. bottle of Gatorade has 9 teaspoons.
  • And limit no and low-calorie sweeteners, too. Many of these products have been shown to have harmful effects on our health. Aspartame, saccharine and sucralose can harm our cardiovascular health and gut microbiome, and xylitol and erythritol can negatively affect cognition and blood clotting.
  • Choose whole foods. Fruit, vegetables, and dairy products naturally contain sugar as part of their nutrient profile. Plus, they include all sorts of important nutrients and fiber to improve health and fill you up for longer.
  • When you want sweets, pick higher quality options. Natural options, like honey and maple syrup, tend to have antioxidants and trace nutrients. Plus, they aren’t usually consumed in large, concentrated doses, like processed syrups.
  • Hidden sugars are everywhere! Read the ingredients list, especially in food products like drinks, snacks, cereals, dressings, breads and sauces. Look out for ingredients ending in “-ose” (e.g., maltose, dextrose), and that organic sugar is still sugar.
  • Use flavor-boosting enhancements. Including ingredients like spices like tumeric, citrus, herbs, vinegars and wine to your recipes can help you reduce added sugars without losing taste.
Posted on

Magnesium: The Mighty Mineral

Magnesium is a multitasking workhorse, working behind the scenes to keep the body running smoothly. In fact, its effects are so encompassing that this mineral participates in over 300 metabolic reactions, everything from metabolizing glucose and muscle health to mood and bone strength.

What makes magnesium so special is its role in cellular activity. Mitochondria is the cell’s energy provider, producing ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to fuel cellular processes. However, magnesium is required for ATP to actually work. Without sufficient levels of magnesium, ATP becomes biologically inactive.

Are You Getting Enough?

Unfortunately, many of us don’t get enough magnesium in our diets: roughly half of Americans fall short of the recommended intake. And the effects of low magnesium can be surprisingly debilitating to our health, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, and migraines.

Here is the recommended daily value of magnesium based on our age and gender:

Thinking you might be deficient? Here are some tell-tale signs your body isn’t getting enough magnesium:

  • Muscle cramps and twitches
  • Chronic fatigue
  • Trouble falling or staying asleep
  • Anxiety or feeling “wired but tired”
  • Headaches or migraines
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Chocolate cravings

Some good news is that you can eat your way toward your ideal magnesium level by adding magnesium-rich foods like green leafy veggies, nuts, seeds, and whole grains to your diet.

However, it’s unlikely foods will provide all the magnesium that you need.

And to complicate matters, various forms of magnesium have different effects on our metabolic functioning. But if you take enough milligrams per day overall, you’re on the right track toward healthy cellular activity and metabolic functioning.

This is where supplements come in: they’re an effective way to help bridge the gap while targeting specific concerns with our body.

Understanding Magnesium Compounds

Each supplement form of magnesium behaves a bit differently in the body, which is why we’re breaking down the main types you see on the shelves at your grocery store via their general benefits.

Let’s start with magnesium’s main benefit…

Digestive Issue Relief

Magnesium Citrate:

Magnesium citrate is among the most popular, because it’s a highly absorbable compound that’s easy on the gut. It’s considered an osmotic laxative, which is a natural way for the body to draw water into the intestines without the cramping sensation, unlike other laxatives.

Other uses include boosting low magnesium levels and helping to lower anxiety, though more research is needed.

Sources: You can enrich your diet in magnesium citrate by combining multiple ingredients like magnesium-rich salmon with citrus fruits. This will give you a head start with about 60mg of magnesium per serving, and hopefully improved regularity. (Here’s a delicious recipe for rosemary & lemon salmon to get you on your way.) As a supplement, magnesium citrate is often taken in tablet or liquid form, typically in doses of 100 to 300mg. Due to its laxative effect, start with a low dose and increase as needed.

Magnesium Lactate:

Magnesium lactate is gentle on the stomach and well absorbed, so it’s a good option for people who can’t tolerate other supplements or need higher doses for chronic constipation. Other uses indicate it might help promote a feeling of calm and relaxation, but evidence is limited.

Sources: Magnesium lactate also isn’t found in a particular food, but is used as a food additive in flours and dairy products to fortify foods and regulate acidity. Lactic acid alone is naturally found in fermented foods and some cured meats, so some soy-glazed almonds can provide about 80mg of magnesium lactate.

As a supplement, magnesium lactate is often available in capsule form, with dosages from 80 to 300mg.

Magnesium Oxide:

Magnesium oxide can relieve heartburn and indigestion, and its laxative effect is useful for constipation. Though some people use it to increase magnesium levels, it’s poorly absorbed in the body, making it less effective than magnesium citrate and other magnesium compounds.

Other uses include helping to relieve migraines and reducing high blood pressure. For example, 500 mg daily has been shown to help reduce migraine frequency and lower blood pressure, a finding replicated in small studies.

Sources: Magnesium oxide can only be found in supplement tablets. For constipation, the recommended dosage is 500 mg tablets, taken 2 to 4 times daily, accompanied by plenty of water. Because magnesium oxide can cause loose stools, it’s best to start with a smaller dose.

Boosting Magnesium Levels

Magnesium Chloride:

Magnesium chloride is highly bioavailable and dissolves easily in water. Because of its water solubility, it’s mainly used to raise magnesium levels to recommended levels.

Like other forms of magnesium, other uses include easing constipation or indigestion issues. It’s also common in salt baths to soothe muscles (similar to Epsom salts, or magnesium sulfate), though evidence of skin absorption is limited.

Sources: Since chloride comes from table salt and seawater, you can pair it with some seasoned bitter greens at 75mg, or roasted and salted pumpkin seeds at 150mg. But the most common way to absorb magnesium chloride is via tablets or liquids. Typical doses have 100–300 mg of magnesium.

Magnesium Malate:

Magnesium malate combines magnesium with malic acid. It’s highly bioavailable, making it a quicker fix to correct low magnesium levels than other magnesium compounds, like magnesium oxide.

Other uses include helping to relieve chronic fatigue or fibromyalgia symptoms, but more research is needed. Also, small studies hint it may help with muscle pain and tiredness. This compound also has a mild laxative effect.

Sources: Typical supplements range from 100 mg to 500 mg and can be tolerated up to twice daily without issue. While magnesium malate itself isn’t in foods, malic acid is abundant in fruits like apples and grapes. So consider making a marinated kale, apple, and almond salad, which will naturally provide 125mg of magnesium to your diet.

Brain, Sleep & Emotional Health

Magnesium L-Threonate:

Magnesium L-threonate has been shown to increase magnesium levels in brain cells, which, in turn, supports cognitive function and mood. Reported benefits include improved memory and learning, and relief from mild depression and age-related memory loss.

Sources: Magnesium L-threonate is a synthetic compound derived from vitamin C metabolism (threonic acid). Typical supplements range from 1,000 to 2,000mg, which seems high but yields only 60 to 120 mg of magnesium. Most people prefer taking it in the evening to support sleep and memory.

Magnesium Glycinate:

Magnesium is paired with glycine, a calming amino acid that’s highly absorbable and gentle on our digestive system. Magnesium glycinate is popular for its established relaxation benefits, with studies showing that it can aid in reducing anxiety and improving mood and sleep quality. It’s a good general-purpose supplement when you want magnesium plus a bit of extra calm.

Sources: Glycine is found in protein-rich foods like fish, meat, dairy, and legumes, foods that also tend to have adequate magnesium counts. For supplemental dosing, it’s most widely available in 200 to 400mg capsules. Because it’s so gentle, many people take it nightly to help with their sleep.

Cardiovascular health

Magnesium taurate:

Research on magnesium taurate suggests both magnesium and taurine, an amino acid, support healthy blood sugar and blood pressure levels. Animal studies showed magnesium taurate significantly lowered high blood pressure. Though human data is limited, this form is also touted for promoting heart health.

Sources: Taurine is found in animal proteins, especially in meat and seafood. By eating lean meats, fish, and dairy, you can support your taurine intake. You can couple that with magnesium-rich foods to boost its effects. For supplements, a typical dose is 1,000–2,000 mg of magnesium taurate per day, which provides about 250mg of magnesium.

Crib Notes on Magnesium

Indisputably, we all need enough magnesium in our diets to support the proper functioning of our bodies. For my needs, I find magnesium L-threonate and magnesium glycinate to work well with my diet and health goals for reducing brain fog and getting better sleep. With supplements and eating foods like salmon, lentils, and eggs, I can easily reach my essential magnesium needs of 320mg a day.

But the choice of which magnesium form is yours and your healthcare provider’s decision to make. And here’s a tip: if your stomach or digestive system is sensitive, consider reducing your overall magnesium intake or trying gentler forms like magnesium lactate or glycinate.

Keep these points in mind as you make your supplement selection, but be sure to consume lots of magnesium-rich foods, too.

  • Promote digestive regularity with magnesium citrate or lactate
  • Effectively raise low magnesium levels with magnesium chloride or malate
  • Support heart and blood sugar health with magnesium taurate
  • Target the brain and memory with magnesium L-threonate
  • Reduce anxiety and improve sleep with magnesium glycinate
Posted on

Do Magic Mushrooms Prevent Aging?

A groundbreaking study in Nature’s npj Aging Journal (July 2025), just made waves by showing that psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” might extend our lifespan, as shown in its mice subjects. The findings are bold enough to have some calling psilocybin a potential “geroprotective agent”—a compound that could slow aging at the cellular level.

Mushrooms are gaining traction everywhere.

But before you swap your salmon and spinach for psychedelic microdoses, here are four things that research on the benefits of psilocybin reveals—and why, for now, your best anti-aging prescription may still be on your plate.

1. Psilocybin’s Big Anti-Aging Breakthrough

The July 2025 study marks the first time psilocybin’s anti-aging effects were tested at both the cellular and organism level.

The Results That Stunned Researchers:

  • In human cells: Fibroblasts, cells that connect other tissues or organs in the body, treated with psilocin (the active metabolite of psilocybin) lived up to 57% longer. Furthermore, markers of cellular aging dropped significantly, including the preservation of telomeres—the DNA “shoelace caps” that protect chromosomes.
  • In aged mice (~60 human years): Monthly 5-15mg/kg doses of psilocybin boosted 10‑month survival rates to 80% compared to 50% in untreated controls. The mice lived 30% longer, had less oxidative stress, improved DNA repair, and experienced longer telomeres (protection of chromosomes from deterioration). Even physical signs of aging—graying fur, hair loss, slowed mobility—improved.

These results can be explained by psilocybin’s several mechanisms of action.

In particular, this compound appears to activate serotonin receptors found on nearly all cell types—not just in the brain. It may also switch on SIRT1, often referred to as the “longevity gene,” reduce oxidative stress by boosting the antioxidant pathway Nrf2 while dialing down Nox4, a major source of damaging free radicals, and support DNA repair by reducing GADD45a expression.

Expert Take

As the below researchers can attest, the excitement surrounding psilocybin’s effect on longevity is palpable. However, human trials are still years away. Additionally, these effects were observed at high, intermittent doses, not at microdosing levels.

But its potential for long-term human health cannot be underestimated:

“Psilocybin appears to slow the ‘wear and tear’ that accompanies aging. Mice and cells are healthier and live significantly longer…

‘Most cells in the body express serotonin receptors, and this study opens a new frontier for how psilocybin could influence systemic aging processes, particularly when administered later in life.”

– Dr. Louise Hecker, senior study author, Emory University

2. Microdosing: More Mirage than Miracle

Psilocybin microdosing is the practice of taking trace amounts of the chemical compound, as opposed to larger doses taken for the anti-aging study.

Microdosing, a trend that really took hold during the lock-down days of Covid, is one of Silicon Valley’s favorite “biohacks” for creativity and focus. However, the evidence for mental clarity remains underwhelming.

What the Studies Show

  • A 2022 double-blind trial at Maastricht University found no measurable cognitive or creativity gains despite participants reporting improved mood and focus.
  • A 2024 systematic review concluded that most reported benefits are expectation-driven, not biological.

Expert Take

“It may only work in some people and not in other people, so it makes it hard for us to measure it under laboratory conditions” states Dr. Harriet de Wit of University of Chicago.

3. Functional Mushrooms: Helpful, but Not Revolutionary

Non-psychedelic mushrooms like lion’s mane get plenty of attention for brain health. A 2023 placebo-controlled study showed that 1.8 grams per day improved cognitive response time and reduced stress after four weeks.

But experts caution these effects are modest and unlikely to dramatically alter aging or brain health. Think of lion’s mane as a “supporting actor,” not the star.

4. Food: The Evergreen Anti-Aging MVP

While psilocybin research is exciting, decades of nutrition science still make diet your most proven mental and metabolic upgrade.

The MIND Diet Advantage

A cohort of nearly 93,000 adults found that:

  • Strict adherence to the MIND diet (Mediterranean + DASH) lowered dementia risk by 9%.
  • Improving adherence over time dropped risk by up to 25%.

Unlike isolated supplements, whole foods deliver nutrients in combinations your body evolved to use.

To paraphrase the findings of Dr. Russell Sawyer in the REGARDS cognitive study:

Your salad is still beating psilocybin by decades. The most powerful anti-aging tools are still on your plate. 

The Science of Food-Driven Cognitive Support

Psilocybin’s early research is thrilling, but decades of nutrition science already show that certain whole foods can influence many of the same biological pathways linked to brain health, mental clarity, and even slower cognitive aging.

Here’s the science behind key foods—and why they work:

Fatty Fish (Salmon, Mackerel, Sardines)

Key Compounds: EPA and DHA omega‑3 fatty acids

Leafy Greens (Spinach, Kale, Swiss Chard)

Key Compounds: Folate, vitamin K1, lutein, and nitrates

  • How They Work:
    • Folate and B vitamins reduce homocysteine, an amino acid linked to neurodegeneration when elevated.
    • Vitamin K1 supports sphingolipid synthesis, a key component of neuronal membranes.
    • Lutein accumulates in brain tissue, where it acts as an antioxidant, protecting neurons from oxidative stress.
    • Dietary nitrates enhance cerebral blood flow by boosting nitric oxide production, improving oxygen and nutrient delivery to brain tissue. In the Rush University MIND diet study, 1–2 servings of greens per day made participants cognitively 11 years “younger” than those who rarely ate them.

Berries (Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries)

Key Compounds: Anthocyanins and other polyphenols

  • How They Work:
    • Polyphenols activate the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway (the same one psilocybin influenced in the aging study), reducing oxidative stress and inflammation.
    • They modulate gut microbiota, increasing short-chain fatty acids that cross the blood-brain barrier and regulate neuroinflammation.
    • Some anthocyanins can cross into brain tissue directly, improving neuronal signaling and memory formation in the hippocampus. Clinical trials show 12 weeks of daily blueberry supplementation improves delayed recall and executive function in older adults.

Nuts & Seeds (Walnuts, Flaxseed, Pumpkin Seeds)

Key Compounds: Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), magnesium, and polyphenols

  • How They Work:
    • ALA (a plant omega‑3) converts in small amounts to EPA/DHA, providing mild anti-inflammatory benefits.
    • Magnesium regulates NMDA receptor activity, crucial for synaptic plasticity and learning.
    • Walnuts, in particular, contain polyphenols that suppress oxidative stress in brain tissue. High nut consumption (5+ servings/week) in the PREDIMED trial correlated with better memory and slower cognitive decline.

Fermented & Fiber-rich Foods (Kefir, Yogurt, Lentils, Whole Grains)

Key Compounds: Prebiotic fibers and probiotic bacteria

  • How They Work:
    • Fibers feed beneficial gut bacteria, increasing production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate, which have anti-inflammatory effects in the brain. Clinical studies link higher SCFA levels with better cognitive flexibility and lower risk of age-related cognitive impairment.
    • Gut microbes influence serotonin synthesis—90% of serotonin is produced in the gut—and modulate the gut-brain axis.

Dark Chocolate & Green Tea

Key Compounds: Flavanols and L-theanine

  • How They Work:
    • Flavanols enhance cerebral blood flow and support BDNF expression.
    • L-theanine modulates alpha brain waves, promoting a calm yet alert mental state—similar to meditation. [HP2]

Why This Matters

Many of these mechanisms—lowering oxidative stress, supporting BDNF, preserving membrane integrity, and even activating Nrf2—mirror the pathways psilocybin is now being investigated for. But unlike psilocybin, which is still experimental, these foods have decades of human data supporting their safety and effectiveness.

Until we have a better picture of psilocybin’s benefits, here are some things you can do now and what to watch for as the research progresses:

Do Now

Watch for Later
Eat a plant-diverse, whole-food MIND-style diet Follow human clinical trials on psilocybin geroprotection
Include oily fish, nuts, colorful fruits & vegetables Look for studies testing safe dosing & timing protocols
Manage sleep, stress & exercise—diet works best with lifestyle habits Avoid microdosing as an “anti-aging” strategy

As Dr. Hecker herself stressed, “Translating these results to human therapies will take years of careful research. For now, lifestyle still matters more than any single compound.”

Posted on

Can we trust TikTok with our health?

As someone starting their “mom” journey in the early 2010s, I recall several resources in my arsenal at all times: my son’s pediatrician, Dr. Karp’s book, “The Happiest Toddler on the Block”, and – of course – Google. Those ad hoc searches led me down some pretty interesting paths, many of which ended at “mommy blogs” at that time.

Often buffeted with lovely recipes that skillfully hide veggies into rich, decadent desserts and colorful snacks, these sites provided many answers to my health-related questions. However, these answers were often overly complicated, counterintuitive, and sometimes just downright wrong.

For instance, having my kid eat sugar-laden yogurt won’t make him like fruits more—it’ll make him scream like a banshee until I give him some sickly sweet treat. That overly optimistic brownie batter mixed with “secret” avocados and bananas will end up flung across the room—guaranteed.

The Evolution of Health (Mis)information

Today, we’re looking to different sources for information in seconds. Yes, we still have those mom blogs to refer to, as well as Reddit and other sites providing anecdotal advice, but most of us are now led to newer channels in our pursuit for knowledge – social media.

Whether through friends, family, or our own enjoyment, social media – TikTok, in particular – is rapidly becoming the leading source for news, trends…and seemingly everything else. In fact, 2025 is the first recorded year of Americans accessing news via social media and video networks more than TV news and news websites/apps (see above chart).

And for TikTok alone, one in five adults gets their news here – a staggering clip from just 3% back in 2020. But where TikTok really excels in terms of views and viral spread is in the personal health space.

From “soupifying” your meals to embracing a meat-only diet, the platform is shaping how millions of us think about food and health as it relates to our bodies and our families’ overall well-being.

So, which trends make sense, and which ones should we scroll past? And how can we tell the difference? Here’s a breakdown of some recent TikTok health trends, what some related studies have shown, and what experts recommend.

We also included some tips to increase our odds of listening to those who actually know our food system and how to better navigate through the muck.

Water-Based Cooking

Here’s a “throwback” trend that’s been around since man’s introduction to fire: cooking everything with water—specifically boiling, steaming, and poaching. Influencers are calling it a “hack” for retaining nutrients, ageing backward, and clarifying skin. Others are just calling it “soup”.

While the idea isn’t anything new, it’s not wrong. Water-based methods like steaming can help preserve delicate nutrients like vitamin C and B vitamins. A study in the Journal of Food Science found that steaming retained more antioxidants than microwaving or boiling.

Furthermore, a study in Cell Reports Medicine stated that boiling and steaming improved lipid profiles and reduced advanced glycation end products, a biomarker for accelerated aging and chronic diseases.

The Carnivore Diet

Though this diet may sound revolutionary, it’s just another iteration of the ever-evolving low-carb trend…just with a lot of meat. This extreme, anti-vegan eating plan, popularized by some influencers and even public figures, includes consuming only animal products, with some also eating fish, eggs, select full-fat dairy products, and organ meats.

Advocates claim it reduces inflammation, improves mental clarity, and helps manage glucose levels, and promotes weight loss. However, the reported benefits of this diet are more anecdotal than clinical. In fact, multiple studies cite the dangers of this diet, including increased risk of heart disease and certain cancers, as well as digestive and kidney problems.

While an elimination diet of sorts may offer short-term symptom relief for autoimmune or gut conditions, most experts warn that the carnivore diet is unsustainable, as it lacks fiber, vitamin C, plant antioxidants, and other key elements for long-term health.

The Balkan Breakfast

This Mediterranean-style meal trend features fresh items like cucumbers, tomatoes, feta cheese, sourdough, eggs, and pickled veggies, all displayed charcuterie-style to start your day.

This trend is rooted in Balkan and Eastern European tradition, and TikTok health influencers praise it for being fresh, hearty, and colorful.

Though putting together such a spread takes some time, there’s good reason to go ahead with this trend. Nutrition experts love it: it’s high in fiber, healthy fats, and protein, and supports gut health. The Mediterranean Diet is one of the most researched and respected eating patterns for heart and metabolic health, and the Balkan breakfast fits right in.

Now to get the kids to love feta and pickled cauliflower…that’s a different article for another time.

Embracing Old Timey Food Habits

Yet another throwback trend, popular influencers are embracing old-school food like beef tallow and raw dairy products, and forsaking seed oils. Many believe living like we’re in pre-industrial times (sans TikTok, smartphones, and halo lamps, of course) restores gut health, promotes longevity, and reduces chronic disease.

But here’s the thing: we stopped using beef tallow and unpasteurized milk for good reason. Despite public figures and other advocates touting its benefits, consuming these products pose serious adverse health issues.

For instance, high consumption of saturated fats like beef tallow – which we cover in-depth here – are associated with increased rates of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality, even when accounting for lifestyle differences. Using seed oils, though under intense scrutiny among this influencer crowd, and other polyunsaturated fats offer better health outcomes when used in moderation.

Still want to stick with raw milk? Let’s not forget why pasteurization existed in the first place: to kill potentially deadly pathogens, such as listeria, E. coli, salmonella, and the highly-pathogenic avian flu. Hundreds of reported outbreaks have been attributed to raw dairy, so consider this the next time you visit your farmer’s market.

“Nature’s Ozempic”

TikTokers are hunting for the “all natural” alternatives to GLP-1 weight loss meds like Ozempic—turning to home remedies like apple cider vinegar, berberine, and olive oil.

Yes, ACV can slightly lower post-meal blood sugar, and berberine – a compound found in select plants, like goldenseal and barberry –  shows promise in blood sugar regulation, but neither of these compounds mimic GLP-1 drugs. And while olive oil is indeed a healthy fat, drinking shots of it won’t cause weight loss unless they’re part of a larger lifestyle change.

And it makes sense why these alternatives don’t work the same as Ozempic: the active compound in these drugs is derived from lizard venom, after all…not something you often find at your local health store. Though these may support metabolic health, they’re no magical concoction.

High-Protein Everything

The TikTok health community is obsessed with protein-rich foods, with many creators demonstrating how to “protein-ify” meals to stay fuller longer, reduce carb intake, and support workouts.

Some creators specialize in finding ways to enrich their child’s diet with added protein, such as mixing protein powder into smoothies, adding egg whites into their favorite mac & cheese recipe, and making “chicken chips” for a snack.

Experts generally agree that most people, especially women and older adults, don’t get enough protein, which is critical for muscle development, metabolism, and satiety. Aim for at least 1g protein per 1kg of body weight.

Children’s protein needs are easier to achieve and most likely already established in their diet. In fact, consuming too much protein can hurt their kidneys, liver, and digestive system. It can also lead to weight gain, since any unused protein converts to fat.

And no matter the age, be aware of overly processed protein snacks and products filled with too much sugar or low-quality ingredients.

Sifting Through The Junk

There’s no doubting that TikTok is shaping how people eat and think about wellness, whether for better or worse.

Some of the most viral trends are rooted in solid research. So how do we separate the sizzle from the substance?

Here are a few tips and a helpful checklist for when you’re in doubt:

Follow credible creators

Look for medical credentials, like RD, RDN, MD, PhD; seek out those who cite studies in medical journals and verified professionals.

Here are some credible experts we like who mythbust common health and nutrition misconceptions with research-backed studies:

Conduct a quick internet search

Search key facts or claims outside TikTok, which often directs you to echo chambers of like-minded thinking. If no reputable news outlet or scientific journal has reported it, it’s likely false or exaggerated.

Check the comments

Smart users often fact-check creators in the comments. Look for debates, citations, or corrections.

Reverse image or video search

For shocking clips, use Google Images or InVID to trace the source.

Look for sensationalism

If it sounds too dramatic, too perfect, or too scary to be true, it probably is. Emotional manipulation is a red flag. Credible creators avoid extreme statements and miracle claims.

Cross-check with fact-checking sites

Use Snopes, AP Fact Check, or Media Bias/Fact Check to confirm viral claims.

Consider the company’s intentions

For most social media platforms, sensationalism leads to views, and views lead to increased profits for the parent company. And check on the company’s location, too. Though TikTok operates on U.S. servers, its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, raises serious concerns regarding data security practices and government intent for collecting data from its 2 billion users.

Posted on

Farmers Rise to Climate Challenges

Dire warnings of the terrible effects of changes in our global climate seem to be all around us these days.

No part of our lives has more at stake in this discussion than our global agriculture and food system. Weather extremes and changes in weather patterns certainly have the potential to disrupt our modern, efficient food delivery system.

There is more at stake than short-term supply disruptions, or spikes in what we have to pay for the food we put on our family tables. Climate issues raise important questions about long-term food security for literally billions of people.

But as we enter the northern hemisphere harvest season, data from private and public sources suggest we’re more than holding our own in the quest to deliver food security for everyone, everywhere.

Despite significant weather-related disruptions to agricultural production in some parts of our world, our global network of agricultural production and trade once again has provided an abundant supply of the cornerstone commodities that form the foundation of our worldwide food system.

Climate Change – or Climate Peril?

The weather facts today are clear:

Catastrophic weather events continue to plague the planet, either as an element of global warming or part of a much longer-term cyclical pattern of cooling and warming. The debate doesn’t alter the fact that parts of our world have seen weather conditions that compromise farm productivity.

“Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability, (e.g., solar flares, El Nino, La Nina) plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.

“According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.”

The image below shows global temperature anomalies in 2022, which tied for the fifth warmest year on record. The past nine years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.

Climate and Productivity

Parts of the European Union, for example, have seen dry conditions and heat that cut production of major crops such as corn and wheat. EU corn production, for example is down 8 percent from its five-year average of production. Wheat is down 8 percent this year, driven largely by soil moisture conditions and heat.

But the picture is very different in other parts of the global farming system. The data can become almost mind-numbing.

But the conclusion is clear. The recent USDA World Agricultural Production report demonstrates that farmers worldwide continue to find ways to boost their output, no matter the climate changes.

For instance:

  • In the United States, corn production is up 10 percent above last year, driven to a remarkable average of 183 bushels per acre – more than 6 bushels above last year. Though  size of the crop this year is likely to be a touch smaller than last year, production growth continues to be impressive.
  • In Canada, despite its challenging geographic location north of the corn belt, corn yields have increased to an estimate 163-167 bushels per acre. Soybean production is up 12 percent from last year.
  • The southern hemisphere is doing its part, too.
    • In Brazil, soybean acreage has grown from roughly 10 million acres to more than 14 million, helping catapult that country ahead of the United States in production. Despite economic turmoil,
    • Argentina has seen soybean production rise by 92 percent over last year, driven by more acreage and yields that are 70 percent above last year’s number.
  • Malaysian palm oil production also is up – increasing by 6 percent from last year.
  • In India, rice production is up a full percentage point for last year, despite very slight decreases in per-acre productivity.

This year, we’re seeing farmers exploiting favorable weather and moisture conditions to drive steady increases in our farm productivity.

Some parts of our world are in fact seeing record production, based on smart use of science, technology and farm management practices. Yield increases continue to meet global demand – and in fact, produce carryover supplies that hold down prices to farmers and contribute to a highly competitive international marketplace for feed grains, food grains and oilseeds.

The U.S Department of Agriculture explains the situation in clear language:

Productivity Has Replaced Resource Intensification as the Primary Source of Growth in World Agriculture

“Since the 1960s, global agricultural output has increased at an average annual rate of between 2 and 3 percent (in volume terms, holding prices constant)…. Output growth was high in the 1960s (think Norman Borlaug’s ‘Green Revolution’), slowed in the 1970s (due to severely cold weather) and 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s, but slowed again in the most recent period …. In this latest period (2011–21), global output of total crop, animal, and aquaculture commodities grew by an average rate of 1.94 percent per year.”

– USDA Economic Research Service

Productivity and Food Security

The remarkable ability of our global food system to meet the supply challenge has help create a food security picture very different from the worst fears of hyperbolic headlines. The below chart graphically demonstrates this by plotting historical post-harvest wheat, corn and soybean stocks (commodities for sale by the farmers and others; also referred to as ‘reserves’).

In reality, we continue to have not just sufficient but abundant stocks of the basic commodities we rely upon.

There’s no immediate evidence of traumatic shock to our food supplies, from climate conditions, conflict-driven market disruptions or other of the many factors that cause concern about immediate food security.

As serious as the long-term questions posed by climatic change may be, there’s no cause for panic at this time.

USDA also summarizes the overall picture for basic food commodities in stark terms:

  • Abundant supplies, growing carry-out stocks
  • Continuing downward price pressures, especially for farmers
  • Continued strong demand and highly competitive international markets

Trade and Food Security

This year’s harvest data also contains a helpful reminder of the importance of trade in a truly global food system.  The community of nations relies on an efficient system of moving commodities and food products from areas of abundance to areas of need.  Trade helps balance the disruptions caused by climate events and conditions with a steady supply of the foods essential to food security – and, for many, to human survival.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global agricultural exports rose in value by almost three times between 2005 and 2022 – to almost $1.9 trillion.  For U.S. farmers, exports of agricultural products represented a market worth $195 billion, serving customers on more than 35 countries, according to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.  Trade remains a critical component of our food security.

A Cautionary Note

To the layperson, growth of 1.94 percent may not sound all that impressive. But when applied to crops measured in the hundreds of millions and billions of bushels, it remains an impressive accomplishment.

Even so, many in the food security discussion caution that the overall growth in productivity – while laudable – may mask another element of concern. They worry that in some important parts of the world, notably some of the poorest areas most in need of greater farm productivity – may lag in the effort to boost yields. Lack of investment, political instability, vulnerability to weather extremes and drought and many other factors continue to pose serious challenges to improvement. However, that’s where the value of trade shines: when we move commodities from countries of surplus to countries most in need.

Posted on

How bad is alcohol for us?

Sitting down for cocktails and dinner with friends and family is so enjoyable on a Friday or Saturday evening after a long week. But after tuning into an episode of Dr. Huberman’s podcast on drinking’s effects on our health, we took a closer look into how our body processes alcohol.

As it turns out, Dr. Huberman was onto something. New research has shown that the nice little drink in your hand can have more detrimental effects on our brain and body than we originally knew. In fact, emerging studies reveal that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have significant negative impacts on health.

So we gathered information from recent studies to answer some important questions:

Maybe those weekend cocktails are not such a good idea after all…

Alcohol metabolism, toxicity & cancer risk

When ingested, alcohol – also known as ethanol – is metabolized by the liver. This process involves converting ethanol to acetaldehyde, a toxic compound that damages cells and tissues. The liver uses the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to break down ethanol into acetaldehyde, which is then converted to acetate.

While acetate can be utilized as an energy source, the intermediate production of acetaldehyde is harmful and contributes to the toxic effects of alcohol​.

The liver, being the primary site of alcohol metabolism, suffers significant damage from prolonged alcohol exposure. Acetaldehyde can induce oxidative stress, leading to liver inflammation, fatty liver disease, and cirrhosis over time​.

But the damage doesn’t stop there. Acetaldehyde can circulate through the bloodstream, impacting various organs and systems. And ethanol and its metabolites can damage DNA and promote carcinogenesis through several mechanisms, including oxidative stress and interference with DNA repair processes.

The effects of metabolizing ethanol also influence hormone levels, increasing estrogen levels, a risk factor for breast cancer. This is why alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of various cancers.

Alcohol’s effects on the brain

Alcohol’s influence on the brain is multifaceted, affecting both structure and function:

Neurodegeneration:

Chronic alcohol consumption, even at low to moderate levels (7 to 14 drinks per week), can lead to brain atrophy, particularly thinning of the neocortex and other critical brain regions. In fact, Huberman suggests that anything beyond two drinks a week has negative consequences. This structural degeneration can impair cognitive functions, including memory and executive functions.

Neurotransmitter disruption:

Alcohol acts as a central nervous system depressant, influencing neurotransmitter systems. It increases the activity of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory neurotransmitter, while simultaneously inhibiting glutamate, an excitatory neurotransmitter. This dual action leads to the characteristic sedative effects of alcohol and impairs cognitive functions and memory formation.

Behavioral changes:

Alcohol reduces the activity of the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and social behavior. This suppression can lead to increased impulsivity, risk-taking behaviors, and reduced inhibition, contributing to alcohol-related accidents and injuries.

Mood and mental health:

Alcohol disrupts the balance of serotonin and other neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation. This disruption can exacerbate conditions such as depression and anxiety. Regular alcohol use can lead to a cycle of dependence and withdrawal, further complicating mental health issues.

Impact on the microbiome

Alcohol has a significant impact on the gut microbiome, the community of microorganisms living in our intestines.

Alcohol kills both beneficial and harmful bacteria, leading to dysbiosis (microbial imbalance). This disruption can cause “leaky gut syndrome”, where the intestinal lining becomes permeable, allowing toxins and bacteria to enter the bloodstream. This condition is linked to systemic inflammation and a host of health problems, including liver disease and increased susceptibility to infections.

Maintaining a healthy gut microbiome is crucial for mitigating some of alcohol’s negative effects. Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt and kimchi, can help restore microbial balance and reduce inflammation.

Strategies to mitigate the effects of alcohol

The scientific evidence outlined here underscores alcohol’s potential risks.

From neurodegeneration to mental health issues, leaky gut, and increased cancer risk, its deleterious effects seem frightening, and rightfully so.

But this can feel contradictory to the social norms that encourage moderate alcohol consumption, making it a real challenge to curb this habit. And for those who enjoy the taste, like a fine wine or specialty bourbon, implementing personal behaviors that support this research can feel stifling.

However, we can exercise a few healthy habits that can help our body recover from the effects of long-term alcohol consumption while instilling new, healthier behaviors now.

Hydration is key

Proper hydration and a balanced diet are essential for mitigating the acute effects of alcohol, such as hangovers. Alcohol is a diuretic, causing increased urine production and leading to dehydration. To counter this:

  • Drink plenty of water before, during, and after consuming alcohol
  • Electrolyte solutions can help replenish lost minerals and maintain physiological balance

Dietary choices

Certain foods and supplements can help mitigate alcohol-induced oxidative stress and support liver function:

  • Antioxidants: Foods rich in antioxidants, such as berries, nuts, and dark leafy greens, can help neutralize free radicals produced during alcohol metabolism
  • B vitamins: Alcohol consumption depletes B vitamins, which are essential for energy production and brain health. Supplementing with B vitamins, especially B1 (thiamine), B6, and B12, can help reduce some negative effects
  • Milk thistle: This herbal supplement has been shown to support liver health and protect against alcohol-induced liver damage​

Improve gut health

Maintaining gut health is crucial for mitigating the negative effects of alcohol on the microbiome. Strategies include:

  • Probiotics and fermented foods: Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt, kimchi, sauerkraut, and kefir, can help restore the balance of gut bacteria and reduce inflammation
  • Prebiotics: These are non-digestible fibers that feed beneficial gut bacteria. Foods rich in prebiotics include garlic, onions, bananas, and asparagus
  • Zbiotics is a genetically-engineered probiotic drink that mitigates the effects of alcohol by breaking down the acetaldehyde.

Limit alcohol consumption

Reducing alcohol intake is the most effective way to avoid its negative health impacts. Strategies to limit consumption include:

  • Setting limits: Establish personal drinking limits and stick to them. For example, limit consumption to a certain number of drinks per week
  • Choosing healthy, non-alcoholic alternatives: The popularity of non-alcoholic beverages is growing, offering many options that provide the social experience of drinking without the negative health impacts. Non-alcoholic beers, wines, and mocktails can be enjoyable substitutes

 

Posted on

Media Madness and the Search for Truth

How far down the rabbit holes of news and media do you want to go? The depths seem endless, especially as we approach another election.

Thankfully, our dear friend and media savant, Garland West, sheds some much needed insight to light a path of rationality back into our overzealous media consumption habits.

Now, it’s up to us to put Garland’s wisdom into good use so we may become well-informed, rational and responsible citizens.

Posted on

Your Views on Food Information Credibility

—-–

Thanks to all of you who responded to our recent survey on credibility and trustworthiness regarding our food and the food system that produces it. You spoke up loud and clear, with firm points of view and some insightful comments.

Since we began Dirt to Dinner years ago, you have made it very clear how important it is to have timely, accurate, and believable information about food. But to be of value to you, our information must be credible. You want us to meet your standards and expectations. We must work constantly to make sure we understand what enables our posts and other information to do that. That’s what our survey wanted to explore.

The findings

Here is a recap of the top-line findings from our survey – and some of the comments you made about this important subject.

Our survey focused on a few simple questions:

  1. What are your major sources of information about food and our food system?
  2. How do you rank those sources for credibility and trustworthiness?
  3. What are the major factors you use in assessing credibility and trustworthiness?

We will take a look at your responses below. But first, let’s take a step back and set the stage with a few general observations about the big messages within all the numbers.

First, who you know counts most.

You told us that your greatest sense of credibility and trust comes from people you know best or people and organizations that you already know.

People matter more than institutions, like businesses or big or distant organizations. The closer the personal relationship to the source of information, the greater the trust and credibility. First-hand information from actual people is valued far more than indirect, impersonal pronouncements from faceless institutions.

Second, credentials matter. 

When it comes to understanding our food – especially things like health and nutrition – professional standing means a great deal. You trust scientists, educators, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Close behind, you once again value the opinion of people close to you, notably family and friends.

None of that is a big surprise…but the gap between the credibility and trustworthiness of those groups compared with other sources of information was significant. We’ll look into that below.

Next, the facts…

Science and objectivity that so often come with credentials are paramount.

Credentialed people are seen to be driven by reason rather than emotion. Facts count, and impartial analysis of those facts is critical to presenting informed judgments. Fairness and impartiality are cornerstones of trust. And once again, people close to you – friends and family again – are known well enough to provide a greater degree of trust than strangers.

…and the farmers.

You trust the people who actually produce the food far more than most others along the chain from dirt to dinner.

When it comes to food, farmers are in elite company. You indicated an innate willingness to trust people at the front lines of providing us with the food we need.  Farmers and ranchers rank competitively with scientists, healthcare professionals, and educators as preferred sources of information.  People who have actually lived within the world of agriculture matter more to you than those who haven’t.

And some things that just jumped out at us:

  • The more distant and impersonal the source of information, the lower the level of credibility and trustworthiness. Businesses and business leaders, advertisers, industry and special interest groups, and to a certain extent government institutions, fared relatively poorly in your assessment of their credibility and trustworthiness as an information source.
  • Search engines, social media and podcasts seem to be important, but not yet as important as other valued sources of information. Most source categories in our survey generated strong opinion one way or another about their importance in shaping credibility and trust. But search engines and social media showed a remarkable balance between being “extremely important” or “not at all important.”
  • For all the criticism heaped upon our modern media, you indicated that national and local media remain an important source of information for you. Cable television sources, however, fared very poorly in our survey for credibility and trustworthiness.  Once again, it appears that sources who do the best job of establishing some form of quasi-personal or ‘family-like’ connection with viewers fare better than loud, argumentative, and clearly opinionated talking heads.

The ‘Uh-ohs’

We tested the same issues with a slightly different focus to assess the consistency of opinion.

  • Some of the lowest rankings for trustworthiness on food-related matters include ads, media personalities, social media influencers, and government officials:

  • Some of the lowest rankings for credibility on food-related matters include celebrities and influencers, corporations, and environmental groups.

Compare the low-ranked sources of information with those ranking highest in trust in the above chart: scientists/researchers (77% trust), friends & family (71%), and doctors/healthcare professionals (68%).

…and credibility in the information reported from educational institutions (73% credible) and farm/trade organizations (74%).

Respondent comments

Many of you also had your own personal comments to make about the survey and what’s important to you about your information sources when it comes to food. Here is just a sampling of what you had to say:

Bringing it back to D2D

Thank you once again for helping us with our continuous efforts to make Dirt-to-Dinner better and better. Your opinions are some of the most helpful guides we have to identify the kinds of posts you value, the sources we rely upon and the standards we set for the content we produce. With your help, we’ll make our site the most credible and trusted source of information about food and our food system available anywhere. To view charts derived from the survey data, please click here.

Have a wonderful 4th of July!

– The Dirt to Dinner Team

Posted on

5 Ways to Ensure What You Read is Scientifically Credible

Whether you’re looking for a quick bite of information or want to drop some knowledge on your dinnertime companions, here’s our Featured 5 of the Week!

Because of the internet and social media platforms, information spreads in a split-second, reaching thousands of users in minutes. However, this means that false news spreads just as fast. If you’re wondering how to know if what we read is accurate and credible, we’re here to help!

5. Check the references

Information that’s scientifically credible will have references to peer-reviewed articles. This means that multiple institutions have verified the research to be accurate. They’re also found in accredited medical journals, written by professionals with credentials in their related industry, or cite credible sources like government organizations and universities.

It’s a good idea to start here when trying to determine if something is credible. If there are no references cited, it’s probably best to ignore that article.

4. Is there bias?

Checking for bias is another critical first step when deciding if something is credible or not. One way to do this is to check if the organization is cherry-picking data. This means that they’re only using current and outdated data that supports their specific agenda and ignores anything that conflicts.

Another way to check for bias is to see if there’s a political pull. Any site can have an agenda, even if they don’t explicitly state it. Read the “About Us” page to see an organization’s policies, actions, campaigns, donors, and lobbies they promote.

3. Do other sites use the same facts?

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if research is reputable. Looking at other websites to see if they use the same research is an excellent way to check. It can also help you determine if an organization uses credible, peer-reviewed research because this research will be cited repeatedly.

It’s also a good idea to see how an organization is using the facts. Are they describing them the same way they were described in the research, or are they using it to support their own agenda?

2. What does the article look like?

Every article should have a few things: an author, a title, and quality writing. If it’s not clear who wrote the article, it could have been written in-house to promote an agenda. The same is true if there are no references at all. Credible organizations will cite their information from scientific studies or other well-known, credible sources.

The quality of writing should also be good. That means no typos, wrong words used, poor grammar, etc.

1. How much do they spend researching their cause?

And, how much do they spend on marketing that information?

All non-profits must publicly disclose their financials on their website. For example, EWG’s Statement of Activities page states that 13% of their expenses went toward marketing and fundraising. But, if you dig deeper, their Functional Expenses reveals a higher figure where each subcategory has its own marketing expenses. This compares to only 2% of their expenses going to research and data.

For an organization that releases a list that leads people to fear certain foods, there is not much research happening there.

Check out the full Discerning Dozen below:

Posted on

Avoiding conventional strawberries? Ask these questions first…


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Many regular food shoppers anxiously await the results of the Environmental Working Group’s annual “Dirty Dozen” list. Even if you don’t know what or who EWG is, you’re probably aware that conventional strawberries and other common produce items are supposedly loaded with toxic pesticides. With all the press this list gets, you might assume the research behind it must be scientifically credible, right? Well…

Developing Our ‘Reliability Radar’

Some of our everyday news sources, like social media, flood us with information. And unfortunately, much of it isn’t credible. Many websites try to cloud our objective reasoning by intentionally misrepresenting data to ‘sell’ a perspective, much like the sudden popularity of the celery juice diet that Hayley Philip previously wrote about.

So how can we build our analytical defenses back up? We’ve put together our own unique list — “The Discerning Dozen” — a compilation of tips to help you identify good science from pseudoscience. This way, you can be the judge when catchy news stories like The Dirty Dozen are released.

The Discerning Dozen explores four topics to help determine a site’s credentials: credibility, accuracy/transparency, bias, and quality.

In each, we’ll walk you through a few questions to ask about any article that will help you spot problems in the logic. We’ve even created an infographic to have handy for future readings!

Credibility: 

Though challenging to read, studies from .edu and .gov websites lay the foundation for good research. Try to stick with sources that use respected institutions to verify their practices and reporting. 

  1. Is it written by someone from a credible establishment? Reports and studies from recognizable institutions (academic, governmental, and/or medical) often have the most detail and are peer-reviewed, meaning other institutions have verified the research. Accredited medical journals with .org and .com sites, of course, can be good resources, too. Newbies to exhaustive reports can read the overviews typically found on the first page to understand the big picture. Still need an interpreter? Check out usefulscience.org; it’s a great resource for deciphering studies and has a simple, intuitive interface. Scholar.google.com is easy to navigate, too.
  2. Does it include knowledgeable industry experts and authors? Trustworthy reports and articles come from professionals with credentials in their related industry. These experts usually provide insight garnered from data, rather than opinion and specious claims.
  3. Which references does the report cite? Reliable research that’s not written by a credible establishment and doesn’t come from an industry expert should, at the very least, cite credible sources, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to substantiate any claims.

That’s a nice little circle of trust there, right? But as we know from life, few things are that easy…yes, there’s more to consider.

Accuracy/Transparency: 

So the site ends in .org or .com and it’s not a medical journal. What’s the next step to check its trustworthiness?

  1. Is it cherry-picking data? This is when an organization only shows data that supports their agenda but fails to address conflicting info or cites data out of context, and/or relies on outdated data since nothing more recent aligns with their purpose.
  2. Do other sites use the same facts? Hopefully, you can find the same information cited by other credible institutions.
  3. How much do they spend on researching their cause – and how much for marketing? All non-profits must publicly disclose financials on their site; you just have to dig for it. For instance, on EWG’s Statement of Activities page, 13% of their expenses went toward marketing and fundraising – not horrible. However, Functional Expenses reveals a much higher figure: in addition to fundraising, each subcategory also has its own marketing expenses. Furthermore, only a paltry 2% of their expenses is going to research and data. That’s not much funding for finding solutions to a problem, is it?

Click here to download infographic.

Bias:

Time to take a peek under the hood when the site’s validity is not easily determined.

  1. Do a domain double-check: Sites ending in .com and .org aren’t as regulated as the .gov and .edu sites of the world, so you’ll need to dig into the “about us” page for some background. Sometimes it’s hard to tell reputable foundations from organizations peddling questionable products or ideas. So be sure to read the bios of the management team and authors to determine reliability.
  2. Is there political pull? Any site can have an agenda, but not all of them explicitly state it. Advocacy websites, like PETA, are quite clear in their intentions. Reading the “About Us” page can tell you which policies, actions, campaigns, and lobbies they promote.
  3. Is it clear who wrote the article? This is a simple one we often overlook. If the author isn’t stated and/or doesn’t cite sources used for its research, then you can quickly determine it was written in-house to promote the organization’s stance.
  4. Is there only one answer? Does the author address alternative viewpoints on the topic? Good writers don’t omit or contest credible data that conflicts with their intent.

Quality: 

If you manufacture a product, you know about quality control – measures and precautions taken to ensure customers that everything is in good working order. This goes for websites, too…

  1. How’s the quality of the writing? Typos? Wrong words used? Time to check the author and his/her data.
  2. Don’t judge a site by its homepage. Does the site look rather simplistic? Or so polished and bursting with content that you feel like you found a goldmine of good material? No matter the design, the site is only as good as its underlying content, so vet it accordingly.
Posted on

Jack Bobo: How We Choose Our Food

At D2D, we find Jack’s insights on consumers interesting and unique. He brings an informative perspective about our choices in the grocery store. Jack searches into the questions that drive our decisions in the marketplace, such as:

In the following interview with Jack, we scratch the surface on some of these curious topics.

D2D: How did you shift your focus from global conservation to understanding consumer food choices?

Jack: I was stationed in Mekambo, Gabon when I worked for the Peace Corp. in Africa. As I lay awake at night listening to the rain patter on the tree canopy, I vowed to protect these beautiful forests. Fast forward to my work with the State Department, it became clear that one of the biggest impacts on our environment is agriculture. My hero is Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug who started as a forester, yet he saved more forests as an agronomist.

What is your personal mission?

The agricultural system has to grow 60% more food by 2050 using less land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. Technology is key. Unfortunately, we love innovation almost as much as we despise change. There is no place we dislike change more than in the food we eat. This has led to a polarization of understanding about the role of science and technology in sustainably feeding the world.

I would like to de-escalate the tensions in the food system to save the planet. There is not just one answer and one production method. We need diversity of thought and diversity of methods. It is also important for the farmers to have the freedom to farm the way it works best for their land.

As I learned about science, agriculture, and the potential to solve these problems at the State Department, I was taken aback by the lack of public support for agricultural technology. I went on a journey to discover how to educate consumers on food science and agricultural technology. I spoke to thousands of people in dozens of countries. What I learned was: If you lead with the science, you may lose with the science. Science tends to polarize the conversation. This led me to study behavior science, psychology, and consumer trends.

Why do we, as food consumers, not trust research and science?

The lack of experience with food production has led to a trust lost between food producers and the public. Consumers are not convinced that companies have their best interest at heart. But this is not just food companies – there is a lack of trust in many organizations across the sectors. The internet has accelerated this because we get information and answers from different places. It can be liberating – like getting a second opinion – and on the other hand, make people more skeptical on any advice they are given.

“Consumers have never cared more, nor known less, how their food was produced.”

This has led to the desire for transparency. Where does our food come from and whom do we trust? Animal welfare, the environment, production practices, and food safety are all topics that the consumers wants to understand.

How does the consumer know whom to trust?

We only ask questions if we don’t trust and never ask questions if we do trust. Most people don’t ask the necessary questions.  For instance, are you concerned about local issues, global issues, or both? Are you willing to change your mind based on new information? What makes you trust an organization? Why do you not trust the information source? These are the types of questions to ask yourself before making a decision.

In your talks, you mention the difference between Hazard and Risk. Can you explain how that applies to food?

A hazard is something that can cause harm, and risk is something that does cause harm. A shark in the water is a hazard, but not if we are standing on land. Even if you are in the water, it is a low risk (1 in 3,748,067). Most consumers are hard-wired to know hazard. If it can hurt us, we immediately believe it will hurt us. Risk is a statistical concept.

Consumers mainly perceive risk by communication through various organizations such as businesses, governments, and NGOs. Governments are good about communicating real risks – like coronavirus. They do not focus on hazards. Through marketing and the internet, consumers are flooded with information on hazards that might hurt us.

Regulators think of risk like this: “Hazard multiplied by Exposure equals Risk”. My formula is now: Hazard times Media Exposure equals Perception of Risk. Let’s take Hint water as an example. It is non-GMO, gluten free, sugar free, sweetener free, preservative free, vegan, no MSG, nuts, soy, and the bottles are BPA-free. This leads the consumer to believe these items are in most of our foods and will hurt us. And, with all these perceived ‘risks’, we grow fearful of our food.

When you say that people don’t see reality as it is, what do you mean?

Often our brain sees things as we want to see them. It uses mental shortcuts to make decisions, but often that can lead to the wrong result. Take this chart below: you automatically think there are two hues of blue, when in reality, it’s all the same hue.

Also, there is confirmation bias, which is the root of polarization. We look for information consistent with our beliefs and avoid information that is inconsistent. Our brain also uses word association as a short cut. For instance, with the word ‘natural’, we think of positive thoughts, such as fresh, home-baked bread and honey. We don’t think of Ebola and Zika viruses – which are also natural. We tend not to support man-made things because our brain wants to think of things it understands.

In general, we don’t really understand food safety additions, such as food additives and food preservatives, so we tend to avoid them. For instance, many people avoid chemicals in their foods, but what many don’t realize is that foods are made up of chemicals, whether natural or man-made.

What kind of articles can we look forward to reading?

I will be writing on subjects about consumers. For example, how decisions are made; why we fear the food we eat; and how powerful words change our feelings. There will be a series of 10 articles on the Futurity website. Some of these ideas were covered in a TED Talk I gave last year.

Click here to be directed to Futurity Food

We look forward to summarizing Jack’s concepts on Dirt to Dinner in the future.

Interested in Jack’s perspective on another topic? Email us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com!

Posted on

Why are we buying so much toilet paper?!

Such behavior has become common amid the global spread of COVID-19. The empty shelves bear witness to the fact that consumers around the world are stockpiling hand sanitizer, canned foods, toilet paper, and other goods.

The Mob Mentality

A number of books have been written about the “wisdom of crowds” and how groups of people often arrive at better decisions than individuals. Unfortunately, crowds can also become mobs. When that happens, the decisions they make generally ignore their own conscience or rational judgement – thus are not in the best interest of society or individuals.

When people are stressed, it can be difficult to think rationally. As a result, we look around to see what others are doing. When we see people scrambling for toilet paper or spaghetti, we tend to engage in similar behavior. The funny part is we may be stocking up on foods that we wouldn’t normally eat, such as lots and lots of pasta and chips. When was the last time you ate canned peaches?

For this reason, it may not be a good idea to post your photos of empty shelves on social media. If you do, you are sending signals that goods are in short supply, which could stress your friends and family and encourage panic-buying that hurts us all.

Why Are We Acting Like This?

While panic-buying may seem irrational—does anybody really need 80 rolls of toilet paper?!—it isn’t unreasonable for us to emulate the behavior of those who came before. After all, if everybody else is stocking up on toilet paper, it won’t be long before there isn’t any left for reasonable people. Better to grab the last couple packages while you can!

Behavioral economics and cognitive psychology can help us make sense of these behaviors. Information cascades and herd behavior describe how it sometimes makes sense to go along with the crowd even when you do not believe they are behaving rationally.

Understanding what is happening in the grocery store means recognizing that we do not shop simply to meet our physical needs but also to meet our emotional needs. “Retail therapy” occurs when we make purchases to manage our emotional state. Such purchases allow us to take back control in situations where we feel particularly out of control.

Where We Find Value

The coronavirus pandemic makes it particularly difficult for people to get control of their lives. It isn’t clear how long the crisis will go on or how bad things will ultimately get. In reality, sitting at home doing nothing may be the best course of action for most of us, but it does not contribute to a sense of control.

While panic buying may be irrational, other consumers behaviors make better sense. In particular, we are looking for longer term value in our purchases. This can be seen in the types of goods that consumers are buying and the shelves they are picking clean. Consumers are drawn to canned and dried goods that will keep for a long time as well as frozen foods. This was especially clear during the first couple weeks when consumers were advised to stock up.

This search for value also explains why some foods and brands remained on the shelves while seemingly similar products disappeared. In my local store, consumers focused on store brands over premium products. Pricey sauces and expensive oils remained on the shelves while lower cost versions were absent.

Planning for the Long Haul

As the coronavirus situation develops over the weeks and months ahead, we can expect to see further shifts in consumer behavior. I’ve seen some changes already at my local grocery store. While it may not reflect broader patterns, I noticed last week that the shelves of beef products were empty, while chicken remained readily available. This week, I noticed the opposite was the case. This could mean that consumers stocked up last week on beef and are now looking to do the same with chicken, or it could mean that they are shifting purchasing patterns to lower cost options in anticipation of the crisis lasting longer. Time will tell.

As time passes, economics and refrigerator space, will overtake consumer psychology in dictating purchasing behavior. Panic-buying of products with limited shelf life won’t make sense. Consumers will find a new rhythm for their purchases.

Many consumers will also begin to feel the financial pinch of lost earnings soon, if they haven’t already. Consumers unable to work will need to make their savings last longer. 27% of Americans have little or no savings, and the average American has about $183,000 in all bank and retirement accounts. Sheltering-in-place will impact tens of millions of Americans who have jobs but are not able to work, therefore not bringing home a paycheck.

Mapping the Road Ahead

Looking much further out, to a time when the worst of the crisis passes, we may see lasting changes in consumer food purchasing patterns. Consumers may find that some labels that seemed so important at the beginning of the year no longer seem quite so meaningful any longer. They may be reminded that “natural” does not guarantee safety, as the coronavirus demonstrated. On the other hand, it won’t be surprising if interest resurges in superfoods and functional foods, which can demonstrate real health benefits, perhaps helping them fend off the next COVID-19.

For now, pay attention to your behavior. Do you really need that extra roll of paper towels or toilet paper, or are you just stocking up? Pay attention to your own conscience and your own household needs rather than the frantic person pushing the grocery cart next to yours. Rest assured, the grocery stores will continue to be stocked with food and supplies.