The WHESPods dataset: A collection of podcast transcripts on health and environmental issues

1 The WHESPods dataset: Transcripts SP_NSC01_01 Episode: Laboratory grown-meat (until 15:05) Show: BBC Inside Science Released on: 22/02/2024 Interlocutors: Professor Ben Garrod (Host), Mark Post (Expert 1), Jenny Kleeman (Expert 2), Sarah Bridle (Expert3), Helen Scales (Expert 4) HOST: Hello and welcome to Inside Science with me Professor Ben Garrod, your weekly deep dive into the intricacies and wonder of the world around us. This week we'll be looking at the rise of lab, Grown Meat, exciting asteroids and Aquarium virgin births. EXTRACT: Charlotte's gonna come around and wish everyone a good morning. She is still carrying her pup pups. We don't know how many there you can see that little mama, little mama belly poking out there. HOST: More on that later. But first it feels Laboratory Grown Meat is having a bit of a moment. Last week, scientists created a hybrid meaty rice Fortnum & Mason announced they hope to sell scotch eggs with synthetic meat by the beginning of next year and in the US lab, grown chicken has already been approved, but it all started just over a decade ago at a press conference in London where the world got a peak at the very first Laboratory grown burger. It cost more than 200,000 pounds, but was apparently not too far from the real thing. One food critic had this to say EXTRACT: There's quite some intense taste. It's close to meat, it's not that juicy, but the consistency is perfect. HOST: Well, the scientist behind the burger, professor Mark Post joins me now to take a look at the progress made across the last 10 years. Mark, welcome to Inside Science. EXPERT 1: Thank you. Great to be here. HOST: What exactly went into making the world's most pricey fast food? EXPERT 1: Well, it was made with pharma grade ingredients, so usually ingredients that are used in the pharmaceutical industry, which has to be a very high purity and as a a consequence, are very expensive. So there's an interesting fact on the internet that if you make a chocolate chip cookie with pharma grade ingredients, it's also costs 30,000 pounds. And that's exactly what we were doing at that time. And we're currently replacing all those ingredients with reasonable ingredients that are food grade or sometimes even feed grade. HOST: So I guess as a scientist, you're making the, I guess really the master mix, the the the original burger. So it's always gonna be expensive with all these technologies and all the, the protocols that you're putting into that first effort, I guess. 2 EXPERT 1: Yes, exactly. And it was also made in academic labs with academic salaries and not worker salary. So it, it's, you know, it was an artificial kind of number, yet it exemplified that it wasn't ready for the market yet. HOST: And you talk about labs and scientists and pharma quality ingredients. This isn't typically the sort of terminology we have when we're talking about a burger. So what is the process in making a Laboratory grown burger? EXPERT 1: Well, it's, it's actually, you know, from a biology point of view, very simple. We take the cells out of a cow, the cells that typically also make meat or fat, we let them grow until large quantities, and then we let them do exactly what they do in the cow, make muscle fibers or make fat blobs. And then we combine those two into a hamburger. And the, the cells that are being used are referred to as stem cells, but they are organ specific or tissue specific stem cells. So for muscle we have a specific stem cell. And for fat we have also a specific, not, not as a specific as for muscle, but also a specific fat cell, a stem cell. And they can proliferate, they can divide and they can make the tissue that they are designated to do. HOST: You're mentioning tissue and you're mentioning muscle cells and fat cells in very particular parts of the anatomy here. But you're also talking about a burger, which I think when most of us visualize a burger, you've got this squashed patty that's slightly amorphous, slightly outta shape. Are we also talking about things like a steak or a chicken drumstick? Can we go there with this sort of technology? EXPERT 1: We can. And in fact, there's one company at the moment who has approval for a more complex product like that in Israel. And in order to make a full thickness, let's say a ribeye stake, you need additional technology. And it's also slightly more difficult to scale up. But technologically it's possible because it essentially, again comes from medical technology where we also recreate organs or tissues that are in our body to replace them once they have been lost or damaged. HOST: I just wanna clear something up very, very quickly. So as a vegetarian myself, I'm always in the shops. I'm always looking for the next nice tasty thing on the, on the shelves. And I see things like veggie chicken pieces. I even see vegan bacon. That's not the same, is it? EXPERT 1: No, it's not because that's plant-based, usually based on soy proteins or pea proteins or things like that. So it's purely plant-based and therefore suitable for vegetarians and, and vegans. This is actually meat as we know it. It's made from the same cells from animal cells, cow cells in our particular case, and the tissues are indistinguishable from the meat that we typically eat from a slaughtered animal. So it's by definition not vegetarian or vegan. Yet, if you are vegetarian and vegan because of ethical concerns and animal welfare concerns, these products still might appeal to you, although they are technically not vegetarian or vegan. 3 HOST: So although they're technically not vegetarian, vegan and you're manipulating existing cells from the host animals, are we getting to the realms of GM food here? Are you genetically modifying the actual tissue from that original donor cow, for example? EXPERT 1: We are not. So the cells that we take are the cells just as they appear in the animal and they in fact come from the animal. So we are not genetically modifying. Of course you can and some of our colleagues in the world do for practical reasons, and you know, where that is permitted by consumers and permitted by regulatory officials. They will probably do that, but it's, it's not the same and it's not necessary to make these products. HOST: This might be quite a good moment to bring in my second guest, Jenny Kleeman, a journalist who in her fascinating book, sex Robots and Vegan Meat addresses this and other influences which may or may not affect our species on a fundamental level. Jenny, welcome. Hello. Thanks for coming in. Now you've looked in quite, quite sort of fine detail into the, I wanna say phenomenon, the rise, the, the uptake as well of lab-grown meat, what's your take on this? EXPERT 2: Well, I think first it's a really attractive proposition, right? It's offering us a perfect solution. We can have our steak and eat it. We can have meat without any animal dying. And also a lot of the big companies in Silicon Valley that have been getting a lot of investment to try and put some of these products on the market are promising that this is potentially a, a solution when it comes to carbon emissions and climate change. Because industrial agriculture contributes an enormous amount of, of greenhouse gases. And so at first you think, what's the problem? But the problem is that we kind of need to do something now if we want to stop climate change. And this product is still at this stage where it's not on the market and it's a bit of a gimmick. I mean, you talked at the beginning about lab-grown meat in rice, or it's going to be in Fortnum & Mason. It's because it's a bit fun at the moment. It's not the answer at the moment. And I think it is a distraction perhaps from us making the changes that we need to make now, which is we all need to eat less meat. I mean, I do eat meat, but I eat it a lot less having done the research into the kind of damage of industrial agriculture on the planet. And I worry that this kind of, the promise of all of this isn't quite the solution that it's claiming to be. And it certainly isn't the solution yet. HOST: I'd like to get Mark's take on that. So Mark is Jenny right? Are we too far away from this being a reality anytime soon? EXPERT 1: Well, for sure. It's a difficult technology and to scale it up, it requires a completely new way of making meat. It's based on fermentation, very, very similar to how we make beer and wine. But now you have to convert all those farms, those millions of farms all over the world to fermentation kind of factories if you like, and that will require big investments and it will require a lot of time to build that. So in that sense, Jenny is right. The, the thing is, the, the alternative to wait until we start reducing our meat consumption is, is okay in our parts of the world, but globally, this is not what's happening. 4 Globally, according to the FAO in 2050, we will need between 50 and 70% more meat than we currently are producing. So globally, the trend is against the odds. HOST: And Jenny, you'd agree with that? You're nodding here at me. EXPERT 2: Well, I mean certainly meat consumption is on the rise and we do, we are going to need a, a solution in the future. But there's also the question of food security. I mean, I don't, but in theory I could have a chicken and raise it myself and have it in my back garden. But in a future where we still eat meat, but we no longer kill animals, we will be relying on corporations with this highly specialized technology for something as basic as our food. You could argue we do that already. But particularly if we're talking about the developing world, that's something that people could still, you know, raise their own chickens, have their own, their own pigs, and in the future they wouldn't be able to do that. So I think it would involve the kind of concentration of resources in the hands of a, of a very few corporations. And that kind of gives me pause. HOST: Do you think Jenny's right there, mark, will we be relying on three or four major farms? Is that, is that a wise move for us? EXPERT 1: I'm not sure if it's a wise move and certainly there's a lot of appeal to diversification and to extensifying agriculture, which is completely opposite the current trend that we are facing. One of the issues that I want to bring up is that in addition to this trend, we also have a major trend of urbanization. In 15 years from now, the four biggest cities in the world are in Africa and in the middle of one of these mega cities in Africa, you are not going to raise chicken by yourself, at least not at a scale that the entire neighborhood can can eat from it. HOST: Jenny, back to you in 2018, I read that you actually got to try some lab-grown chicken. I have to ask, what does it taste like? EXPERT 2: Well, it tasted like chicken because it was chicken, but it did not feel like chicken in my mouth. And I should say this, this was in 2018 and I'm sure things are better now, but the chicken nugget that I ate had completely the wrong consistency, even though it tasted totally right because it was just sort of chicken, chickenflavored cells in some kind of big mush. And I had a very kind of primordial instinct to spit it out, some hind part of my brain telling me this was very bad meat and it was going to poison me because it didn't feel right in my mouth. But I understand that things have moved on considerably since then. It did put me off eating meat for quite a long time afterwards, completely unintentionally. HOST: Well, I guess that solves one of the problems. We're all eating less meat if you tried the lab, Grown, Meat here. Mark, do you think people will want to try this even if we get the science right and we manage to roll this out, do you think as Jenny highlights there, there is inherently a problem that if we're eating meat it has to come from an animal, so to speak? 5 EXPERT 1: Well, it it, in the end, consumers are basing their choices on quality and price. And you hear Jenny say that she didn't like the quality of that meat. And then of course you are not going to continue to buy it and eat it. But 20 years from now you would walk into a supermarket and you see two almost identical products where one is coming from a slaughtered animal with the associated CO2 emission and so forth. And the other is cultivated with better attributes than I think those choices will be determined by debt. EXPERT 2: I I would just say that before we get to that point, we all have to agree on what we're gonna call it because you are calling it a, a product or cultivated journalists call it lab Grown Meat, which I know makes the people who make it cross because it's, it's like beer brewed in a, in a brewery it is meat, but it's not like meat grown in an animal. And I think we haven't quite found the right word for it. And for it to really be a thing that people buy, they have to know what to put on their shopping list. HOST: I think you're right, man. EXPERT 1: I'm not, I'm not sure whether that's true. We, we have an example in a, a hot dog, right? What is a, a hot dog? It it's people realize it's meat. It doesn't have the name of the meat, it has the name of a dog, which apparently has a high temperature. And, and, and a lot of people actually don't know exactly what it is and they're still willing to eat it because apparently it tastes good and it's relatively cheap and it fills your stomach. It's as simple as that. HOST: Before we go down the road of how much meat is in the average hot dog, I want to jump out a little bit and it is interesting you both highlighted that very rarely do we take a scientific concept and turn it into a product. So we are really jumping across a whole range, range of different areas here. So in a wholly unscientific straw poll, I want to see what our other guests think. We've got Helen, marine biologist and Sarah an astrophysicist with us here today. What do you both think, Sarah? Would you go for lab grown meat? EXPERT 3: I'm actually 100% in on this. So I was a vegetarian for many years and now I would describe myself as a guilty meat eater. So if there was a product like this that I could buy that tastes like meat, I would absolutely put it in my shopping basket. HOST: Brilliant. That's one for that side. Helen EXPERT 4: I'm a no, actually I've been vegetarian since I was a teenager doing completely fine without meat. Not that I think it's a bad idea. Just not, not for me. No. Thanks HOST: I've got to say. I think I'm with you on that, Helen. Mark, Jenny, thank you so much. 6 SP_NSC01_02 Episode: Can we get plastic waste under control? (until 12:28) Show: BBC Inside Science Released on: 25/04/2024 Interlocutors: Victoria Gill (Host), Steve Fletcher (Expert 1), John Chia (Expert 2) HOST: Hello. As Taylor Swift's latest album, delves Deep into her recent breakup. This week we are exploring the science of heartbreak. What happens to the human body when we are experiencing that very particular completely consuming sense of loss? And we're digging into the DNA of an ancient empire and have bees been hogging the limelight. We pay homage to a humble and much maligned insect. Find out which creature has inspired an entomological love letter later in the program. But I want to start with plastic. Perhaps you take your reusable cup to your local coffee shop pains, taking the clean and sort your plastic containers for recycling. Maybe you even help out with a local litter pick. Many of us do. My husband gets slightly frustrated with me lagging behind on walks because I've spotted some rubbish in a hedge. But how far can our individual actions go when globally we produce 400 million tons of plastic waste every year. And according to the UN Environment program, less than a 10th of that is recycled. However, well-intentioned we are as individuals tackling the problem of plastic pollution needs systemic change. And for the first time ever, the UN is trying to do just that. Right now, 200 nations have come together at a UN meeting in Canada to try to agree a legally binding treaty that will bring plastic pollution under control. It's like a climate COP, but for plastic. So what will that treaty look like? How is it agreed upon? And something I want to know, why are there so many lobbyists from the plastics and fossil fuel industry at those talks? On the line now from Ottawa, we have Steve Fletcher, director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth. Hi Steve. Welcome to the program. EXPERT 1: Hi. HOST: We have a huge problem here, don't we? These discussions have to work. EXPERT 1: Yeah, they do. I mean, plastic is a, plastic pollution is a global problem. It contributes to climate change, biodiversity loss, and the pollution itself affects people and plants and animals. So it's a, a huge problem that we need global action to tackle. HOST: And can you just talk me through how these talks are set up briefly to, to kind of set us up for this discussion? Who's taking part, what's their influence? Why are there, I think it's about 200 people from the fossil fuel and plastics industry. What's their role? How, how is this working? EXPERT 1: Yeah, so there are five negotiation meetings mandated to develop the treaty. And this meeting that John and I are at in Ottawa is the fourth of those meetings. So we don't have a final treaty yet. It's still in the process 7 of being negotiated. And the treaty is a treaty between countries. So countries are the only negotiators. They're the only people who need to agree on the treaty, but there are lots of other people there as well who are trying to influence the process. Right. So there are scientists, there are NGOs, there are other campaign groups. There are human rights groups, health groups, and as you say, lobbyists and people from petrochemical companies and plastic Producers who are all trying to influence the outcome of the treaty. HOST: Hmm. We'll get to that. But also joining us is John Chia. He's one of the 20 million people whose job it is to deal with this mountain of plastic waste. John is a waste picker from Kenya, and he's president of the Kenya National Waste Pickers Welfare Association. He's advocating for the rights of waste pickers. Welcome, John. Now your job is to sort through these mounds of rubbish. Can you describe for us what that's like? EXPERT 2: Thank you. When you get anywhere near a dump, you'll first notice the stench like a couple of kilometers away. And this stench is normally because of the organic waste that is constantly rotting there and the biogas that is also being produced from this rot. But then again, there's always smoke that is always burning in any landfill. The smoke is normally like single use plastic that is always being burned and the burning is normally like just ignited by itself because of the gases that that are there. Sorry. HOST: And what impact does that have on people's health? EXPERT 2: Oh, one thing that I've lived seeing is the health impacts of this particular environment and having to inhale smoke from plastic. We mostly don't know the polymers that are normally made with plastics, and when they burn, it's turned into air. And there are a lot of also microplastics that we interact with and they go straight to our lungs. And we've seen personally seen like a lot of health situations, most of which seem to be considered though we are not in a position to afford like medical checkups to, and you know exactly what is happening. HOST: Yeah. So it, it's a dangerous and difficult place to work, but it's also a, a livelihood, isn't it, for a lot of people. I wanna get a sense of what you want to see from this treaty. You know, what would it mean for that livelihood if there was just no more plastic if it was banned tomorrow? EXPERT 2: I think one important thing is that waste pickers having to deal with the health impacts of it. And this is not something that myself or any other speakers out there would want to see the next generation walking into. This is a problem that we have to solve. HOST: Yeah, absolutely. And, and Steve just listening to John there, we have a really complicated relationship with plastic as people, don't we? EXPERT 1: We do In incredibly so actually, and I mean perhaps in, in a way that could be quite, quite helpful for when it comes to tackling plastic pollution because it's something that we can see, it's something that we most people in their everyday lives interact with and, and perhaps can think about how we change that relationship with plastic. But in your introduction, you were saying it is partly about individual behavior, which, which is right. But I think the critical point to get across, and it's what the, the treaty process is trying to do, is really to reset the 8 world's relationship with plastic. Really. Yeah. At the moment we have huge levels of plastic production, which no amount of, of waste management can keep up with, really. So there's increasing evidence to show that it's really only a, a cut in primary polymer production or the production of virgin plastics that will really tackle the, the deluge of plastic pollution that the world's experiencing. HOST: And are the lobbyists there from the industry actively fighting that? EXPERT 1: Well, yes, I think they think they are. What I I would say is that there are, there are a lot of people there and, and countries pushing back against the idea of cuts in primary polymer production. You know, the big fossil fuel petrochemical producer countries and the companies that that exist in those countries are, are fighting hard against any cuts. It's directly against their immediate economic interest, not their long term environmental and social interests of course, but their immediate envi immediate economic interests. And so we don't know how many lobbyists are at this meeting right now. I don't think anyone has done the maths yet on that, but you're right, there's around, you know, 200 or so that attend most of the meetings. I would just say there's a, a number of different schools of thought on this. One is that it is just inappropriate for representatives of the plastics industry to be in the room, largely because we're trying to solve the problem that, that they've created. But the other school of thought is that if we're going to get a solution that works for everybody, it's important to have all stakeholders in the room and yeah. To take interest of industry and business into account. HOST: Yeah. And, and Steve, as a scientist, can I just ask you to dig into the science of this problem a little bit. We know there's a lot of plastic, but what do we know about how and why it can be harmful? EXPERT 1: I'll divide that up into impacts on humans and impacts on nature. Impacts on nature are relatively well known. Macro plastics or big pieces of plastic can smother habitats. They can choke creatures both on land and in the sea, and they can change the, the life cycle of, of those habitats and species and create ecosystem shifts the impacts of plastic on people. The research is emergent. But there was a, a large study that looked at the impacts of plastics on human health. And it looked at the impacts of plastics on workers and workers who were working in plastic production facilities were it found that were at increased risk of, of leukemia, brain cancer, breast cancer, neurotoxic injury recycling workers had increased rates of cardiovascular disease and toxic mental poisoning. And people who live adjacent to plastic production or waste disposal sites had more than expected premature birth, low birth weight, asthma and so on. But also, you know, in everyday use, it's just important to say that a lot of plastics contain toxic chemicals and just through everyday use of plastics, those are released into the air. And we are all breathing those in. We're ingesting them through food and they're entering our bodies through our skin. But we're not totally sure yet of what that will create in the long term in terms of long term medical issues. 9 HOST: And I mean, it's quite an overwhelming list of that insight, isn't it? John, what is your take on, on how things are going? What are you hearing in the discussions? How are you viewing how things are progressing? EXPERT 2: I think how things are going. We've been very much trying to negotiate with the, the member states, but then again, I think it has been very important for us to also bring like our lived experiences and our realities to this policy making platform. Most of the delegates, most of the policy makers that are discussing this problem have not been to the landfills. Yeah. So they cannot relate very well with the situations. HOST: I just wanna come to you, Steven, just ask briefly, what do we have technologically, scientifically in our arsenal right now to deal with the volume of plastic pollution that's already in the environment? EXPERT 1: Well, that's a particularly difficult challenge, actually what's called legacy plastic. The plastic's already there, there are cleanup technologies, there are boats that can go around picking up litter from plastic waste from the ocean. We can have cleanups on land of course, but it's incredibly difficult. The plastic pollution ends up embedded in the soil structure locked away in deeper parts of the ocean, and it's incredibly difficult. Mm. So, so yeah, it's, it's an area of, of discussion within the, the treaty process that doesn't really have a clear answer at the moment. HOST: So does that mean, Steve, that the, the best, most ambitious treaty really deals with, with production? What does a good treaty look like? EXPERT 1: Yeah, I I think that's, that's right. A piece of a research came out today actually that showed definitively for the first time that plastic production and pollution are related to each other in a linear relationship. Mm. So for each percentage increase in plastic production, there's a percentage increase in plastic pollution. And so that's really powerful and it really proves that if we can cut plastic production, we can begin hopefully to see a cut in plastic pollution as well. HOST: Yeah. And John, just finally, what does a, a good successful treaty look like for you? What's a key thing it has to include? EXPERT 2: So one key thing that I've been very much looking forward to is having the treaty considered just transition for s speakers, because now there's a very big transition and the plastic value chain, we foresee a treaty that is just, and just in the sense that the realities, reflections and lived experiences of waste speakers are also incorporated in the policy and should also consider that waste speakers are humans Yes. That deserve to live in better environments. HOST: Absolutely. Well, John Chia and Steve Fletcher, thank you very much, both of you and we'll of course continue to follow this story. 16 the microbiome that happens thereafter. So I think the idea with only targeting one particular bug is a really good one, but of course we really have to get the, the data behind it to show that that would actually work and play out favorably in real life use. HOST: Right, cos Laura, this is, this is still early days, right? This has been shown to work in mice rather than humans. EXPERT 2: That's correct. And of course we know that mice often are not the same as humans. It's very interesting discovery. It's novel in all sorts of different ways, not just its chemistry, but the way it works, it's what we call a a, an unrealized target in that there's no drug currently in clinical use that interacts with bacteria in its way, which means it won't be affected by current resistance mechanisms. That's quite important. But it is very early days. This is something that works brilliantly in the lab now it has to be turned into a drug. It's not a drug at the moment. New antibiotics that are described like this have to go through medicinal chemistry processes and make sure that it can be given to a patient. So it's a very long process to go. This is not the first antibiotic that's been described as so-called narrow spectrum. That's what we used to to call these. We're now calling them microbiome sparing, but we now know so much about how important the microbiome is to our general wellbeing. So as Margaret's just said, this is really the way forward to start looking for new antibiotics that we can turn into drugs that don't have the unexpected and unintended consequences on patients' wellbeing. HOST: Now we're pushed for time, but I do want to just mention since you said unexpected places, the other study from the University of Plymouth, which explores getting natural antibiotics from microbes found in the Roman spas of bath. Now of course we get antibiotics from natural resources. So some of these things can be found in quite surprising places. EXPERT 2: Yes, they can. And indeed, many of the antibiotics that we use in patients now started off as natural products, but often from the soil. And increasingly researchers are looking in very different environments, deep seas in ice cores and all sorts. And it's really exciting when you find a natural product. And now the hope is that this could be turned into a drug as well. Again, a long process, but the more you start with, the more likelihood you are of having things going into the pipeline and ultimately new drugs for patients. HOST: Margaret, Laura, if I give you a trillion pounds to spend on fighting antimicrobial resistance, what would you spend it on? Margaret, you first EXPERT 1: Oh, I mean the, the burden of disease I think has held in, you know, the very most deprived communities, the communities that don't have access to clean water adequately ventilated and, and heated homes. You know, the basics that we all need to survive properly. So I think I'd be putting it into people who are living in, in poverty and trying to level them up because that in itself I think would make a huge difference. HOST: And Laura, anything that you could spend that would sort of encourage the research into new antibiotics? 17 EXPERT 2: Yes, well I would give all of that money to the organization that I work for, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership. It's a spinoff of WHO and it is set up to bring new treatments for drug re infections to all who need them, that's throughout the world. But also to make old and new drugs accessible to those that need them. HOST: Laura Piddock and Margaret McCartney, thank you both for coming on Inside Science. EXPERT 2: You're welcome. EXPERT 1: Thank you. HOST: This is Science Friday. I’m Ira Flatow. If you know me, if you listen to this show, you know that I love to garden. Tomatoes, veggies are my go-to plants. Well, as much as the rabbits and deer will allow that. But one thing that has become abundantly clear as a gardener, and maybe you have noticed this also, is how climate change has literally changed the gardening landscape. I mean, as the climate warms and pests move into different regions, home gardeners and big producers alike are in need of more resilient varieties of vegetables. I know I certainly am. And in the world of organic farming, this is a job for a superhero, a plant breeder extraordinaire. And lucky for us, we’ve got one right here to tell us about the ins and outs of creating new varieties of vegetables. Let me introduce him. Dr. Jim Myers, Professor of Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Welcome to Science Friday. EXPERT: Well, thank you very much, Ira. Very glad to be here HOST: Nice to have you. You know, when I hear the term breeding on a farm, I’m usually thinking about animals, not plants. What is a vegetable breeder? EXPERT: You can separate breeders into animal breeders and plant breeders. And then, within plant breeders, plant breeders are specializing, usually, in different kinds. There might be forage breeders, or field crop breeders, working on cereals. Vegetables is a whole class of its own self, and within that, there are all these different crops. So you have breeders that specialize in tomatoes or broccoli or squash or beans or peas, and so on and so forth. HOST: Your trillion dollar check is in the post. SP_NSC02_01 Episode : e r An expert vegetable breeder on innovating crops for the futu Show : Science Friday Released on : 09/08/2024 Interlocutors : Ira Flatow (Host), Jim Myers (Expert ) 18 HOST: So how many vegetable varieties do you think you have bred over the years, if you had to take an estimate? EXPERT: If you include my background with dry beans, as well as vegetable crops, there’s something like 28 varieties that I’ve released over the years. HOST: Wow. And do we consider these GMOs or are they something else? EXPERT: These are all conventionally bred varieties, using traditional breeding techniques. And so they’re not necessarily GMOs. HOST: OK. So let’s get into the weeds, into the nitty gritty of how you actually do this. Let’s take one of your accomplishments, for example, the Indigo Rose tomato. I wanna know about this tomato because I might wanna have one. Tell me about that. EXPERT: Yes. Well, the Indigo Rose tomato, and now, there are many cultivars that have been developed from it or using the same process, has anthocyanins in the skin of the fruit. You don’t find this trait in tomatoes, normally, but you do find it in wild species. And what happened many, many years ago where various geneticists and breeders long before I was on the scene were collecting these wild species and then crossing them with tomatoes, and they introgressed several genes that produce anthocyanin into a tomato background. HOST: What is that? What is anthocyanin? I can’t even say it correctly. What is that? EXPERT: Anthocyanin? Anthocyanin is a type of a flavonoid. Colors flowers and fruits and vegetables, purple cabbage, blueberries. Many of our blue and red flower colors are all produced by anthocyanins. HOST: So you made a purple tomato? EXPERT: Yes. The tomato is quite purple. In fact, it can be as black as an eggplant. The purpling is influenced by sunlight. If you have shaded parts of the fruit, then those will be the normal red color. Where you get lots of sun, it will blacken to quite dark pigment color. HOST: So I would imagine, then, if there are antioxidants in blueberries because of the pigmentation or the color, as you say, does that happen in your purple tomato also? EXPERT: Yes. We’ve looked at antioxidant potential and it’s actually higher in these tomatoes than what the carotenoids produce. The carotenoids are things like the red lycopene and the yellow or orange beta carotene. And these also have antioxidant properties, but the anthocyanins are much more active in terms of antioxidant potential. HOST: Wow. Wow. I want some of these tomatoes. All right, let’s go even deeper into the weeds and talk about the process of actually breeding this. Give me a painstaking description of how this works. 19 EXPERT: So tomatoes are a self-pollinated crop, which means that the self-pollen fertilizes that particular flower and you get fruit developing that is just from the self. In order to cross, then, you have to emasculate, you have to remove the anthers and then take pollen from a different plant and place it on the stigma of that plant. And then, you’ll get a fruit that’s a hybrid. The first generation you get is the F1. And most people are familiar with that as F1 hybrids that they might grow in their garden. But breeders then will self-pollinate the F1s, and then those will start segregating for many, many different traits. And that’s kind of the process that we went through to produce these tomatoes. We chose two different types that had genes coming out of different wild species, and when we crossed them together, we discovered that they had a synergistic effect and really enhanced the amount of anthocyanin that was present in the fruit. You have to go through a series of self-pollinations, about five or six generations, to fix all the genes in that particular line. And in the process, then, you’re sorting among them, testing them in trials, and deciding which are your best lines and choosing those. And that’s where Indigo Rose came from. HOST: It’s got to take some time to do this, right? EXPERT: I figure about 10 years. HOST: Just 10 years? EXPERT: There’s the generations of inbreeding that you have to go through, but there’s also generations of testing that are also needed to identify the very best lines. HOST: Can you get a few different kinds of lines that you would like out of one process here instead of just the one you wind up with? Along the way, could you find stuff that’s useful? EXPERT: Yes. Quite often, it may be segregating for disease resistance, or maybe maturity, or if we test it in the right environment, we might be able to determine whether some are more drought tolerant or more heat tolerant than others. HOST: And then, could you take those traits and put them in the final tomato? EXPERT: So typically, what we’re doing is we’re selecting for the traits that are under major gene control first, like the pigments in the fruit. And then, we have to select for the more quantitatively controlled traits over time when we have replication in trials to be able to make those sorts of selections. So it’s kind of a stepwise process. You fix the major genes, and then you work on the rest. You start out with the population, like, typically, one of our populations will be 200 individuals in the F2, and we’ll go in and we’ll select a certain percentage of those and propagate, and just keep going that way and keep 20 narrowing the pool down until you come down to maybe 1, 2, 3 of the very elite lines that have everything that you want in it, or nearly everything. And then, that’s what you would go forward with for release. HOST: Let’s now talk about climate change, because I started talking about how the changing climate is forcing us to come up with new kinds of plants. What are the biggest driving factors in creating new varieties? I mean, climate change is the elephant in the room. What are we making? What are you thinking about making for your plants or changing your plants so that they can survive and thrive in climate change? EXPERT: Yeah, there are basically three things that I think about. One is heat tolerance. That seems to be a major factor. Another is drought tolerance. And then, the other is stability, which is the ability to perform well in different environments. So with climate change, it’s not only we’re getting warmer and drier, but we’re also seeing wider swings in our climate. So you need varieties that can tolerate these changes in temperature and whatnot during the growing season. Now, beyond that, you begin to think about things like changes in pests and diseases, and sometimes, maybe even weed, your weed complex may be changing as well. One of the interesting things for me, breeding here in Western Oregon, is that I’ve actually seen a decrease in some of the diseases that have been problems in the past. Like, we rarely are seeing late blight on tomatoes now. This is the organism that caused the potato famine and the Irish potato famine. It used to come in periodically in the fall when things got moister and our rains began again. But that’s not happening so much anymore. So late blight is going away for us. HOST: Because it’s not raining as much, or what? EXPERT: Right. We just don’t have the environmental conditions for the disease. Now, what I’m waiting for are some of the viruses that hit California in tomatoes to make their way up here. And we’re starting to see things like squash bugs. We typically haven’t had problems with squash bugs here, but they’re starting to move North. HOST: Wow. Wow. Let’s talk about another project that you have done recently, specifically, two new habanero peppers that are debuting next month, Mild Thing and Notta Hotta. I love those names. Did you come up with those names? EXPERT: Actually, it’s one of the chefs I work with that came up with those names, Nikki with Hot Mama Salsa. There are five different species that have been domesticated in the way of peppers. And we generally are familiar with one of these. It’s called capsicum annuum. These are the bell peppers and many of the chili peppers that we use, the jalapenos, and the cayennes, and so forth. But there is another species which produces some of the hottest peppers in the world. These are the capsicum chinense types. And Carolina Reaper is probably one of the hottest out there. But on the other end of the spectrum are these types like the Puerto Rican ají dulces which lack pungency at all. This pungency factor, by the way, the 21 heat is a compound called capsaicin. And it’s a level of capsaicin, then, that gives you the burn when you eat a hot pepper. So what I came up with were some peppers that have just a little bit of heat, one of these chinense types, just a little bit of heat. And the other thing that these peppers have that’s usually obscured by all the heat in them is this wonderful fragrance and aroma and flavor that they have. It’s a very tropical, fruity, almost dessert-type flavor. One of the things I’m working with chefs with these peppers, it was very interesting to me, because they were doing things with them that I would never have thought you would do with a pepper. And normally, you think of maybe using these in some kind of savory dish, but they were putting them into dessert items or beverages. Like one chef I was working with was making a soda with these peppers, and really wonderful flavor to that. Another chef, working with not my peppers, necessarily, but related peppers, made an orange sherbet with these. And again, it– HOST: Oh, that must taste good. EXPERT: Yeah. It’s pretty amazing in an ice cream. HOST: So you do work with– you work with the chefs and they come up with the names sometimes. EXPERT: Yes. Chefs are way better than me in naming varieties. HOST: So when are the peppers going to be out that we can get? EXPERT: Well, we’re in the process of releasing those. And we hope that there will be seed this coming spring. HOST: Yeah. Have you ever had the experience of seeing one of your varieties out in the world unexpectedly? Like, who released this? You know, that sort of thing. EXPERT: Yes. As a matter of fact, I was eating at a restaurant the other night here in Corvallis, and this dish came and there were tomatoes in it, little cherry tomatoes, and I happened to notice that they were some of these indigo tomatoes. And I think it was probably my indigo cherry drops that they had used in their cuisine. Which it just feels very joyful when you see something like that, where something of yours is appearing. I’ve had people tell me, like, I was hearing a conversation in India about Indigo Rose, or I had a nephew that went to a meeting in Sweden and went into a grocery store there and there’s a bin of Indigo Rose. HOST: Wow. Wow. Do you feel like that they’re your children when you hear about this? EXPERT: Yeah. It’s kind of like they’ve made their way in the world. When you release a variety, it’s kind of like your child is becoming independent and leaving you, and there’s always some trepidation. Will they be a success or will they fall on their face? Those are some of the thoughts. 22 HOST: That’s great. That’s great. I heard that a congratulations– congratulations are in order. You’re planning to retire in the next year or so. EXPERT: In the next year. Yeah. I have some breeding projects to finish up. HOST: And speaking of that, what do you see on the horizon for your successors? What are some of the biggest challenges going to be for them? EXPERT: Well, I think here in Western Oregon, there’s going to be shifting crop portfolios, and particularly, in vegetables. Fresh market is very important. And we grow something like 65 different types of vegetables here in Oregon. And some of those may become more important. The fresh market aspect is where people seem to be wanting the foods that they eat. Processing is pretty important here, but trends, general trends in processing are there seem to be less and less of it. There are shifts in where things are being grown. For example, we had a lot of sweet corn grown here in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, and now, that has shifted up to the Columbia Basin over on the east side of the Cascades. And maybe we will see things like processing tomatoes coming up from California or other crops that are big time in California that we can grow here. HOST: And kudos to you for having success with organic growing versus the big seed growers. That must feel very rewarding to you, right? EXPERT: Yes. That has been a very interesting aspect of my breeding, has been breeding for organic systems. The thing about organic is it is– you can think of it as a different environment. And breeders generally are looking at how varieties are adapted to particular environments. So what we’re looking for are varieties that are better adapted to organic growing conditions. I guess one of the ways to look at it is, in conventional agriculture, your crops are pretty much spoon fed. You’re giving them the fertilizer. You’re using herbicides to control weeds, pesticides to control pests and diseases. And when an organic situation, the environment is a lot more variable, you don’t necessarily have those particular aspects of farming under control. And so you need varieties that are tough and resilient, and they can be stable under those types of conditions. And there may be certain complexes of pests and diseases that are different in organic compared to conventional. So it’s something we need to consider as a target environment when we’re doing our breeding. HOST: Well, Jim, this has been fascinating. Fascinating. I’m wishing you good luck in your coming retirement, and thanking you for all the work you’ve done in organic farming for us. EXPERT: Well, thank you very much. 23 HOST: Dr. Jim Myers, Professor of Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis. HOST: This is Science Friday. I’m Ira Flatow. Part of the reason it’s difficult to talk about climate change is that it can be hard to see a long-term positive outcome for the planet and the people who live on it. But my next guest argues that in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change, we have to start instead by asking ourselves, what if we get it right? Well, Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is a marine biologist, policy wonk, co-founder of the Urban Ocean Lab, and she’s author of a new book with that same title– What if We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures. In the book, she poses that question to experts in oceans, farming, architecture, finance, even Hollywood to find out what getting it right looks like in their own fields and what those solutions could look like for the rest of us. Dr. Johnson, welcome back to Science Friday. EXPERT: It’s so good to be back with you, Ira. HOST: It’s nice to have you. What were you not getting from other climate books or reporting that made you write this book? And it’s a different– it’s a very light, breezy read about the climate. EXPERT: I’m glad you feel that way about it. I mean, there’s no sugar coating in this book. I’m not denying the scientific realities of the challenges we face and the odds that we’re up against. But I think it’s so important for people to always keep in mind how much change is still possible, how many different possible futures still exist, and how much power we each have in shaping the future that we get. To answer your question about why I wrote this book, it’s because, not only in books, but also in pop culture, in Hollywood, so much of the climate information and storytelling is about the apocalypse, the what if we get it wrong, right? HOST: Right. EXPERT: And that can be really motivating for people, ugh, we don’t want doom, so what can we do about it? But can also be really depressing and lead to this sense of why bother? HOST: Yeah. SP_NSC02_02 Episode : t To confront climate change, imagine getting it rig h Show : Science Friday Released on : 13/09/2024 Interlocutors : Ira Flatow (Host), Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (Expert ) 24 EXPERT: And so the short answer is– this book is my answer to the question of why we should all bother. Why it is worth the effort, even though none of us can individually control the outcome, to just try anyway? HOST: Interesting point. Because I want to know that when you’re writing it, how do you think of addressing the readers who feel overwhelmed, as you say, by climate change? EXPERT: I mean, I just want to say that I’m with them. I mean, I’m with you. This is a lot. No humans have ever had to deal with an existential crisis like the climate crisis. And so, of course, we’re having trouble processing what all this means for us, and the people, and places that we love. That’s a normal reaction. HOST: Yeah. EXPERT: But the thing that we need to do is get over that sense of being overwhelmed and channel that emotionality, that love of life, that biophilia – to use E.O. Wilson’s term– to be a part of the solutions. Because as this book and so many scientists and reports have shown us, we really do have an incredible array of solutions. We already know how to electrify transportation, how to produce energy in a clean way, how to shift our agriculture to make that more sustainable, to insulate and green our buildings and infrastructure, to protect and restore ecosystems, to look to photosynthesis as the magical climate solution that it is. We just have to do all these things. HOST: You say that this book is for those who have not found their role in shaping a better climate future. How does it help readers find their superpowers, in your words? EXPERT: Yeah, so the heart of this book is 20 interviews with people who have helped me to see answers to this title question– what if we get it right– to see answers in farming, in banking, in investing, in the corporate world, in Hollywood, in the news, in architecture and design, and policy, and activism. And it’s just really exciting to me to see how all of these experts– who are also my friends, so these conversations are really sort of delightful and irreverent– it is not self-serious, navel-gazing– it’s this creative conversation about, OK, if we harness our imaginations, what futures are possible? And what are the barriers preventing us from getting there? And what roles are important to fill? And so I offer to readers, to listeners, to all of you, this opportunity to think about how we can each must be useful as contributors to the solutions that we already have at our fingertips. And the framework that I offer here is this idea of a climate action Venn diagram. So if you think about three circles and one of them is what are you good at? So what are your skills, resources, networks, superpowers? What can you specifically bring to the table? That’s one. What are you good at? The second circle is what work needs doing. Is there a particular climate or climate injustice solution do you want to work on– energy, culture, policy, politics, food systems, whatever. There’s so much work that needs doing. Where do you want to focus your energy? 25 And the third circle is what brings you joy or satisfaction. What gets you out of bed in the morning? What fires up your imagination, and creativity, and motivates you to want to do this work? Because this is the work of our lifetimes. So we should not be picking something that’s boring or miserable because there’s endless things that need to be done– so really focusing on things that enliven you. And so the 20 interviews in this book are examples of people who have found their way to the heart of that Venn diagram for themselves. And so there’s a worksheet in the book to help people think through that. There’s a website with resources to help people think through that. The website for the book is getitright.earth that has all of these statistics, and references, and a reading guide, all there for people to think through this. Ultimately, this book is my attempt to welcome people into finding their customized roles in climate solutions. HOST: And picking up on that idea that so much is possible. I look at it as so much has to be made over, right? We have to remake stuff– our infrastructure, our transportation, our electrical system. I mean, how much of what we have now; is going to be left, let’s say, by 2050? EXPERT: So one of the things I learned in doing the research for this book was this stat, and it just knocked my socks off. About 75% of the infrastructure that will be in place in 2050 has yet to be built. HOST: 75%. EXPERT: 75%. We’re always building, bridges, train tracks, and wastewater treatment, and transmission lines. All of this stuff is getting built and rebuilt all the time so that 25 years from now, 75% of it will be something that didn’t exist right now. And therein lies this enormous opportunity to transform these systems that undergird our society to ones that make sense. If our goal is to live sustainably and well on this planet. So it’s a terrifying problem to have but also an immense opportunity to transform the world. And so those are the two words that I hold close as I think about the answers to this question of what if we get it right? One is possibility and the other is transformation, because that is the level on, which we need to be thinking, where it’s not just about little tweaks and updates and like me recycling better at home. I mean, we should all do as much as we can as individuals. We also need to think about how we can be a part of this larger transformation that needs to happen. HOST: Yeah, we have to think big. So let me let me– let me have you think big with me for a moment. Can you share an intriguing what if we get it right scenario presented by one of your experts that especially excites you? EXPERT: One intriguing scenario is something that came up in my conversation with Brian Donahue, who is a farmer and a forester, who is a Professor Emeritus from Brandeis University, who is focused on this concept of we have all these small towns in America, all these rural and farming communities that have been really hollowed out by a lot of the industrialization and urbanization trends that have happened. And, of course, these places are all incredibly important to the future of sustainable food systems on our planet. And to think about the urban/rural political divide that’s happening in America, that one of the ways to heal our political divide and heal our food system is to think about what it would look like to repopulate these hollowed 32 EXPERT: But people always say that, that’s so hard. How can I do 30? Oh my god, I can’t do that. You’re crazy. I have a hard time just getting two vegetables per week. And I tell people, it’s really easy once you start counting. Let me give you an example, if you end up having a bowl of soup or a bowl of stew, think about what you’re putting in that stew, right. You’re putting tomatoes, onions, garlic, maybe some kind of herb, maybe some kind of spice, like turmeric or pepper, that’s already five or six right there. You add some carrots, maybe. That’s seven. That’s seven already in one meal. So 30 per week, that’s easy. HOST: Wow. You mentioned the term very quickly that I have to go back. I have to replay the tape in my mind. You talked about when we were talking about changing your gut health and you talked about probiotics and crapsules, crapsules. I think I know what that is. But you have to tell me. EXPERT: It’s just a made up word. HOST: I love it. EXPERT: So there’s something known as fecal microbiome transplant, where you basically taking the microbiome of somebody else and you’re ingesting it, whether you’re ingesting it through a capsule. There have been stories of people like making milkshakes. I mean, this I know is disgusting, but people have talked about making milkshakes and having it that way or even put it up through your colon. So those are ways that you can have these microbial transplants. But if you’ve heard stories of people who have tried to do these kinds of things, it’s not only first of all, it’s not regulated. It’s very risky. It can be very complicated. But secondly, whatever that other person ends like has, you will end up getting that. So you might end up treating one thing, but then you might end up getting for example, like say, for example, I decided to take my husband’s poop and somehow ingest it, whether it’s through a capsule or whatever. If he has acne, I will end up getting acne. HOST: No. EXPERT: If he has depression, I will end up getting depression. So it’s really very HOST: Unintended consequences. EXPERT: Yes, unintended, and it’s not regulated, and it’s just very complicated. So I really– I really think they’re crap. They’re crapsules. I really don’t advise. HOST: So you don’t recommend a fecal microbiome transplant, from the stress resilient people into people who might need it because there’s unintended consequences of that. 33 EXPERT: Unintended, and I just don’t think the research is there. I think if we really need to be doing more research, maybe we need to be doing more research on creating targeted probiotics or even prebiotics or synbiotics. So, for example, like we could take the microbial markers from this study looking at the bacteria or the metabolites that are impacted and creating a supplement from that and then testing that to see if that works. That to me, is safer. It’s, you know, it's more regulated. HOST: Is that on the horizon, you think, to do that? EXPERT: This is where the whole motive of the Goodman Luskin Microbiome center is to be able to develop these targeted either brain or gut microbiome targeted treatments. That’s the whole point of the center, is that we do these large studies and we find these signatures. And then, OK, so people are then. OK, now what? OK, fine. Great, you found this signature. How does this help me? Sure we can give them interim solutions like, hey maybe change your diet. But I think these kind of tested and engineered supplements are definitely on the horizon. In fact, we have one clinical trial that we’re doing right now based upon a patented probiotic blend that actually came out of a study from the lab. HOST: Interesting. I mean, I hear you saying that we are really so connected to our poop, aren’t we? Yeah, more than people realize. EXPERT: Yes. HOST: Well, there you have it. This has been highly fascinating, Dr. Church. This is– I think I’m certainly a better person for learning about poop and the microbiome and all the things you brought with you to share with us today. Thank you for taking time to be with us today. EXPERT: Thank you for having me. HOST: Dr. Arpana Church, co-director of UCLA’s Goodman Luskin Microbiome center, based in Los Angeles. SP_HTH02_02 HOST: This is Science Friday. I’m Kathleen Davis. We recently asked you, our listeners, which dubious health claims you’ve been seeing in your social media feeds or being circulated by friends and family. Unsurprisingly, we received a ton of questions about nutrition. So today we’re going to answer some of your nutrition questions Episode : s m A nutritionist clarifies some common health clai Show : Science Friday Released on : 22/11/2024 Interlocutors : Kathleen Davis (Host), Jessica Clifford (Expert ) 34 with the help of an expert, Jessica Clifford, registered dietitian and nutrition specialist at the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Colorado State University based in Fort Collins. Jessica, welcome to Science Friday. EXPERT: Hi. Thank you so much for having me. HOST: We’re so glad to have you. So let’s get right in to our listener questions. The first one that we have is from Lynne S. She’s based in Syracuse, New York. She asks why are internet comment sections freaking out about seed oils? OK, Jessica, first of all, what is a seed oil? EXPERT: Well, seed oils are those oils that are extracted from the seed of a plant, and generally they contain unsaturated fats. Seed oils include oils like canola oil or corn oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, and safflower oil among a few others. That is what a seed oil is. HOST: And so why are people concerned about these? EXPERT: Well, I think the biggest thing that we see across, you know, media platforms is that there is some concern about the way that these seed oils are processed, and that is often through the form of heat and the use of a solvent, which is commonly hexane. Now hexane is a toxic compound, but research shows that really there’s a very, very tiny amount in the oils that we’re actually consuming. And so really there’s very little reason for concern with that level of the oil that we’re eating. When you hear of a compound like hexane, you automatically might think, oh my gosh, this is horrible. Of course, we shouldn’t be consuming it. But it’s really not showing that it’s harmful to our health and the amount that we’re consuming. And, in fact, the benefits that we see from some of the oils because they’re made up of these unsaturated fats can outweigh the risks that come with them as it relates to that hexane compound. And then another thing I think that draws concern for some people and maybe leads to some of this misinformation related to seed oils is the fact that they contain omega 6 fatty acids, so that might come up in discussions around seed oils. I was just going to say omega 6 fatty acids are known to be– they’re pro-inflammatory. And so these oils do contain these omega 6 fatty acids, but it doesn’t necessarily make them inherently bad. HOST: OK. So how does canola oil compare to an olive oil, for example, nutritionally. EXPERT: So canola oil has unsaturated fats, so monounsaturated fatty acids as well as polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are heart healthy unsaturated fats, and so does olive oil. But the thing that differs with olive oil is that it also contains these other bioactive compounds like phenolic compounds which have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. So there may be some advantage that olive oil has over canola oil or maybe other seed oils, but the seed oils do also have heart healthy fats. HOST: So, Jessica, give us a verdict. Overall, is seed oil bad for you? 35 EXPERT: I would say no. It’s definitely not bad for you. Again, everything should be consumed in moderation. So it’s not like you want to rely solely only on one type of seed oil, but it definitely can be consumed as part of a healthy diet. HOST: OK. So this next question that we have comes from David K. in West Richland, Washington. He asks I am skeptical about the way all processed foods have been lumped into a single category from cooked mashed potatoes to hyper-processed hot dogs laced with preservative chemicals that I can’t even pronounce. Are all processed foods supposed to be bad for my health? OK, Jessica, let’s talk about this question. What does it actually mean for a food to be processed versus ultraprocessed? EXPERT: Yeah, so a processed food– so the definition of just processed food in general is any raw agricultural commodity or food that has been altered from its original state or it’s whole food form. But there are, as you said, these various levels of processing. So you really can’t lump them all together. Even slicing an apple is a form of processing, but we all know that just cutting an apple makes it no less healthy. That’s not going to change the nutrition of an apple. A food becomes ultra-processed when there are things added like preservatives, flavorings, colors, and other food additives such as added salt, sugars, and fats, particularly for flavor and shelf life. So really you can think of it like a spectrum of processing. So on the left side, you might have that sliced apple and then all the way to the right might be that hot dog or that cellophane packaged cupcake. HOST: There has been a lot of research into, quote unquote, ultra-processed foods recently. What do we know about their effect on our health? EXPERT: Well, research shows that people who eat more processed foods gain weight, maybe more weight and more quickly, and it’s interesting because it’s not just because they’re eating more energy dense foods that are higher in calories but lower in nutrients but also because the way the foods are engineered is actually making people eat more of them. It’s that perfect concoction of sugar, salt, and fat that really makes people want more, and it’s actually triggering something in our brain to making us want to eat more of them. And so then research also shows that greater exposure of those ultra-processed foods is associated with increased risk of heart disease related death as well as diabetes among other things. We want to have a healthy relationship with food, and really all foods can fit into a healthy diet. And so we don’t want to make it about demonizing certain foods and saying you can never eat this food or this is horrible and you should never have this. Because really I think having even some of these ultra processed foods that some people might enjoy once in a while can be OK and can fit as part of a healthy lifestyle and a healthy diet. But I do think from a public health sense that I really do think our food industry could use a little work in terms of providing or making less ultra-processed foods for sure. 36 HOST: So once in a while, my McDonald’s quarter pounder is OK to eat but in moderation. EXPERT: Absolutely. Yeah. HOST: OK so let’s move on to something that I’ve heard about for quite some time and that is the health benefits of apple cider vinegar. People have attributed this to weight loss, lowering blood sugar, lowering cholesterol. Is there evidence to support these claims? EXPERT: Yeah. So this sort of information has been out for such a long time in the media and even in research around this. There is some evidence. I think apple cider vinegar has been touted to have so many benefits, and while I think some are true to some degree, they may not be to the degree that some media or people are saying. I think first and foremost that the one thing where there’s the most research or the strongest research to support is that apple cider vinegar can help to lower blood glucose levels or A-1C levels, but the effect is minimal. So it’s nothing huge. It’s nothing earth-shattering. If someone has pre-diabetes or diabetes, this should definitely not replace any medications they’re on or other lifestyle changes that would be recommended, but it could be used in addition or in an adjunct to medication and/or healthy eating or exercise. And then you mentioned weight loss. So there is some research showing that it can help possibly with weight loss as well, but the research doesn’t seem to be as strong as that with its effects on blood glucose. And really with weight loss, it’s so complicated. So, you know, it– it’s not necessarily a sustainable solution I think to weight loss, and it definitely wouldn’t be a silver bullet here. It could maybe help a little bit, but it’s not to the degree that’s being presented in the media. And I do want to say one more thing related to that if that’s OK. With that said, even despite some of these minor benefits, apple cider vinegar is very acidic. So it can cause damage to tooth enamel and your esophagus, so people might experience some sort of upset, stomach upset or acid reflux. So if people do choose to consume this, it should be diluted, or I would recommend that it be diluted with water or added to a tea or maybe a salad dressing as opposed to consuming it directly. But, again, this should be in conjunction with a healthy diet. You can’t just drink apple cider vinegar and expect to lose weight or reduce your blood glucose. HOST: But why does it seem that apple cider vinegar specifically has these modest health benefits? EXPERT: So apple cider vinegar is made by fermenting apple juice with yeast and bacteria, in particular bacteria– class of bacteria called acetic acid bacteria– to make the vinegar, and so a lot of it from what we can tell in the research is due– I think is due to the effects of that fermentation and how that is impacting– at least related to the blood glucose decrease, it’s affecting the absorption of carbohydrates into the blood or the slowed breakdown of the carbohydrates into sugars in our body. And so I really think a lot of it is attributed to the effects of the fermentation. 37 HOST: So is it possible that other fermented foods have similar benefits? EXPERT: Maybe, yes. I think it really depends on the bacteria present in the fermentation process and the impacts that those specific bacteria or their byproducts have. So it can really vary from product to product depending on what the food is and what the bacteria are that are doing the fermenting and the impacts that those bacteria or their byproducts would have. But, yeah, there could be some of those benefits seen, yes, from other fermented foods. HOST: Got it. So let’s move on to our next topic. There is a group of fruits and vegetables that people are sometimes suspicious of, and these are nightshades. So these are potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants, and some people incorrectly argue that they cause inflammation. But it’s my understanding that the opposite is actually true. Right? EXPERT: Yes. Yeah, that is true. I think, like you said, people believe or claiming that these cause inflammation, and maybe even other health issues have been mentioned as well. Some people may associate this with alkaloids, which is a compound found in these plant foods but in very small amounts though there really is not a large amount of evidence demonstrating that association. So those experiences are what people are saying that it’s happening here are generally individual experiences and they’re not generalizable, and it’s not based on research that has been seen. There’s really no conclusive scientific evidence to support those claims. And like you said, yep, it’s quite the opposite that these foods can actually– most of them if not all of them– can help fight inflammation and have very many positive health benefits. HOST: So it’s possible that some people– some individuals are experiencing inflammation when it’s really– that’s their body and that’s their gut versus the entire population? EXPERT: Yes, exactly. And so some people do have an intolerance for certain foods that they might relate to something that in truth is really something else. And so in those cases, I would really suggest they meet with a registered dietitian to maybe do an elimination diet or something like that to figure out exactly what it is because it may not be a whole category of foods or the whole family of nightshade plants. HOST: Right. So every few years, it seems like there’s a whole new fad diet. So first it was low fat back in the ’90s, and more recently we’ve seen keto and low carb diets. Why does it often feel like what is healthy is constantly changing? EXPERT: I really think this has to do with– we always hear this. We’re always like nutrition is so hard to understand because, like you said, it’s always changing. But I think it’s hard for folks to navigate because research is constantly underway, and there are people out there who might hear something about one small research study that was done on one small thing and really blow that out of proportion or misrepresent what is actually being said. And then they may make it seem like things are changing or there are new recommendations when there are, in fact, not. 38 True recommendations are ones that we as registered dietitians and maybe some other physicians and other health care practitioners might recommend are usually– true recommendations anyway– are usually based on years and years of research that has shown repeated results over time. So I think this idea that it’s constantly changing is really just due to some of this spreading of misinformation because research is constantly underway even though it’s not ready to make a recommendation yet if that makes sense. HOST: So what is your advice to listeners who come across nutrition information online and they maybe have a gut feeling that it’s not correct and they want to vet it? What do you recommend that people do? EXPERT: If you’re looking to make a decision on your own, if you come across some information online, well, I’ve got about five tips that I might recommend. And I think first people should consider who’s offering the information. Who is this coming from, what are their credentials, and what’s their purpose. And even if someone has credentials, I think folks should consider if those individuals or that individual represents a for-profit or if they’re an influencer trying to make money or garner a following. Really think critically about who that is. Number two, I think folks should think critically about the recommendations that promise a quick fix or provide any dramatic advice. If the claim sounds too good to be true or maybe a little crazy, they probably are. Number three, think about if this suggestion or this advice is providing lists of black and white lists like good or bad foods or maybe they use the word toxic or they talk about removing foods or even whole food groups from the diet. That’s another red flag for sure. And number four, folks should determine if their recommendation is based on solid research. And the word solid here is key because if it’s not solid, if it’s based on, for example, a personal or a non-science based testimonial, that can be concerning because that’s not science. And even if it is based on research, people should be cautious if those recommendations are based on just one single study or research where they’re stating research is currently underway, which really indicates that there’s no current completed research. Any sort of worthy nutrition recommendation should be based on robust and repeated research. And then I just want to say related to that, despite some of this guidance, people may find it hard nonetheless despite these recommendations to wade through and navigate all that information, and in those cases I recommend they meet with a registered dietitian who can help talk through some of the issues or concerns that they have related to any nutrition issue. HOST: Well, that’s all the time that we have for now. Jessica, thanks so much for taking the time to be on the show. EXPERT: Yeah, thank you so much for having me. It’s been a pleasure. HOST: Jessica Clifford, registered dietitian and nutrition specialist at the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Colorado State University based in Fort Collins. And we want to hear from you. Is there a piece of health information that you’ve seen recently that makes you skeptical about its accuracy? You can email us or send a voice memo to [email protected]. You can also leave us a voicemail at 646-767-6532, or you can 39 go to sciencefriday.com/HealthInfo to submit a topic. In the coming weeks, we’ll bring on another expert to help answer your questions. And we want to hear from you. Is there a piece of health information that you’ve seen recently that makes you skeptical about its accuracy? You can email us or send a voice memo to [email protected]. You can also leave us a voicemail at 646-767-6532, or you can go to sciencefriday.com/HealthInfo to submit a topic. In the coming weeks, we’ll bring on another expert to help answer your questions.