U$A

New study reveals widening gap on racial inequality in higher education

by Kenny Ma, University of California - Berkeley

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A UC Berkeley-led study revealed that disparities in the share of Black and Latino students admitted to America's elite colleges and universities have endured and even widened over the last 40 years.

The study, "Shifting Tides: The Evolution of Racial Inequality in Higher Education from the 1980s through the 2010s," was published in Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World and conducted by a team of researchers from UC Berkeley's Social Sciences D-Lab, SUNY Polytechnic Institute, University of Arizona and Portland State University. It used four national survey datasets to examine college attendance trends across different racial groups over several decades.

The results show a concerning pattern: despite more students from all races going to college, Black and Latino students are increasingly less likely to attend top-tier, four-year colleges compared to their white peers. This gap remains significant, even when family income and parents' education are factored in.

"The recent rapid expansion of higher education might raise an expectation of a decrease in racial inequality, but our findings show this isn't the case," said Byeongdon Oh, a UC Berkeley Social Sciences D-Lab researcher, who led the study. "The privileged continue to benefit the most from higher education opportunities."

This study is unique in its comprehensive approach, analyzing data from the High School and Beyond survey, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 and the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009. These datasets represent a wide spectrum of high school graduates over a span of four decades, providing a robust platform for analysis.

The stark findings show that while participation in two-year and non-selective four-year colleges increased for Black and Hispanic students, their presence in elite four-year colleges (those ranked by Barron's selectivity index) continued to lag.

The study reveals that adjustments for family socioeconomic status do little to alter these trends. This suggests that the underlying issue of racial inequality in college attendance goes beyond socioeconomic measures, such as family income and parent's education, and is intrinsically linked to race itself. It points to a systemic issue within the fabric of American education and society.

"In terms of the underlying issue of racial inequality in college attendance, there are subtle mechanisms and experiences of racism and discrimination that Black and Latino students encounter," said Ned Tilbrook, a University of Arizona researcher who is co-author of the study.

"One of the real contributions of this research is being able to look at the evolution of racial inequality in college attendance over four decades, which shows how the gap in admissions to the most selective institutions is getting wider. This is especially striking considering that overall college attendance has increased."

The implications of these findings are significant, particularly in light of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that overturned affirmative action. "While our study doesn't directly measure the impact of the Supreme Court decision, it does suggest that the trend of widening racial disparities might continue or even worsen," said Oh, who did postdoctoral work at PSU and is also an assistant professor of sociology at SUNY Polytechnic Institute.

The researchers argue for a holistic approach to admissions, advocating for the consideration of an applicant's background and circumstances and a focus on rectifying educational disparities at the K–12 level.

"The Education Counsel in Washington, D.C. calls for universities to recognize the recent SCOTUS decision as an opportunity—an opportunity to integrate DEI into all university mission statements and to centralize holistic admissions practices, including identity-neutral questions that ask applicants to describe how their experiences, knowledge and expertise align with the university's DEI mission," said Dara Shifrer, associate professor of sociology at Portland State University and co-author of the study.

The researchers also emphasize the need for proactive policy interventions to address this deep-rooted inequality. "Considering a student's background in admissions is crucial," said Tilbrook, who is also a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at PSU.

The study highlights the vital role of college admissions processes in shaping future socioeconomic disparities. With higher education being a prerequisite for economic success for many, the underrepresentation of racial minorities in selective institutions can perpetuate and widen the racial gap in socioeconomic outcomes, the researchers said.

The long-term societal impacts of these trends are a major concern. "If these educational disparities continue, they will likely lead to further racial inequalities in society," Oh said. "It's about the reproduction of structural racism across generations."

This study underscores the critical need for continued research and policy intervention to bridge the growing racial divide in higher education.

"Merely eradicating race from admissions criteria isn't a solution," Oh said. "We need to understand and tackle the historical and systemic roots of these inequalities."

More information: Byeongdon Oh et al, Shifting Tides: The Evolution of Racial Inequality in Higher Education from the 1980s through the 2010s, Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World (2024). DOI: 10.1177/23780231231225578

Provided by University of California - Berkeley 

 

Investigating the ethical landscape of brain organoid research

by Kyoto University

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

With advances in neuroscience and the development of new technologies, new ethical considerations have emerged. This is particularly true for human brain organoids, which are three-dimensional tissues grown from stem cells that partially replicate the characteristics of the human brain\

Brain organoids have emerged as important tools for studying brain development and disease, but there are concerns about the possibility of these organoids developing consciousness. This has important implications for research ethics and the need to obtain informed consent from cell donors.

To address these questions, an international team of researchers investigates the intricate ethical landscape of brain organoid research, offering insights that will be important for researchers, ethicists, and policymakers alike. Through a comprehensive literature review and ethical analysis, they examined how the potential for consciousness in brain organoids complicates the process of obtaining informed consent from cell donors. The paper is published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics.

Their study revealed uncertainties in two key aspects: the scientific understanding of consciousness in brain organoids and the moral implications of brain organoid consciousness. These uncertainties pose significant challenges for respecting donor autonomy and determining the scope of consent in human brain organoid research.

To clear these uncertainties, the researchers proposed three tentative methods for obtaining consent from donors. First, to address donor concerns and uncertainties, they advocated for project-specific consent procedures by explicitly informing cell donors that their cells will be used in brain organoid research.

Second, they emphasized the importance of incorporating the abovementioned uncertainties into consent procedures by providing donors with comprehensive information about the potential for brain organoid consciousness and measures implemented to address this.

Finally, they proposed the development of a risk framework for brain organoid research to guide ethical considerations and minimize potential harm. The researchers note that some scientists may believe that such concerns are unwarranted, at least at the current stage. However, they argue that if the goal of human brain organoid research is to contribute to the advancement of science and medicine, and ultimately society as a whole, it is important to conduct research that earns public trust.

Dr. Tsutomu Sawai says, "Ignoring these aspects may lead to short-term success, but it's unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Our findings can be considered foundational research that solidifies the ethical groundwork essential for the progression of scientific and medical research."

Various experimental paradigms have been developed to evaluate decision-making behavior, with the Iowa Gambling Task being arguably the most famous. However, such neuropsychological tasks are often limited by their design, as they cannot sufficiently uncouple higher-order cognitive processes.

The findings of this study have far-reaching implications for the fields of neuroscience and research ethics, especially in terms of how future studies obtain informed consent from cell donors. As brain organoid research progresses, it is imperative to navigate these ethical complexities, particularly those regarding potential consciousness, with diligence and foresight. By tailoring informed consent procedures and prioritizing ethical oversight, scientists can uphold the principles of autonomy while advancing our understanding of the brain.

This study serves as a call to action for researchers, ethicists, and policymakers to engage in thoughtful discourse and decision-making regarding brain organoid research. By confronting these ethical challenges head-on, scientists can ensure that the quest to understand the brain is guided by ethical principles.

More information: Masanori Kataoka et al, The Donation of Human Biological Material for Brain Organoid Research: The Problems of Consciousness and Consent, Science and Engineering Ethics (2024). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-024-00471-7

Provided by Kyoto University 

The ethics of research on conscious artificial brains

Washington state's budget in flux as Republicans try to repeal carbon program

Estimates say losing the carbon emissions pricing program could remove $1.3 billion from WA's budget

Associated Press
Published February 28, 2024 

A conservative-backed effort to repeal Washington state's landmark carbon pricing program and tax on the sale of stocks and bonds is putting the budget into limbo, with billions of dollars at stake in the final days of this year’s Legislative session.

Lawmakers are scrambling to finalize a trio of statewide supplemental budgets that feature new investments in everything from curbing the opioid crisis to electric ferries before the regular session ends March 7. But initiatives that are expected for the November ballot could cumulatively strip more than $2.1 billion from the bottom line.

The initiatives to repeal the state’s landmark Climate Commitment Act and the tax on the sale of stocks and bonds are part of a broader effort by conservatives to overturn some of the biggest recent policy wins by the majority Democratic party.

"While yes there's a lot of pet projects that wouldn’t be funded going forward, a lot of that money was one time anyways," said Rep. Chris Corry, top Republican on the House appropriations committee. "But the direct result is consumers will have more money in their paychecks, which is what they’re telling us they want."

Losing the carbon emissions pricing program could remove $1.3 billion from the budget and ending the tax on the sale of stocks and bonds could remove another $833 million in fiscal year 2025 alone if the initiatives took effect by June 6, according to estimates provided by the Office of Financial Management. Those numbers would likely be smaller if they aren’t approved until November, a spokesperson for the office said.

The result has been lawmakers working to finalize multibillion-dollar budgets that run through fiscal year 2025 with caveats sprinkled throughout.

The Space Needle is seen between defunct stacks at a steel plant in Seattle on Feb. 25, 2016. A conservative-backed effort to repeal Washington state's landmark carbon pricing program and tax on the sale of stocks and bonds leaves billions of dollars at stake with just days left in this year's Legislative session. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

"You can’t cut billions of dollars out of the state budget without really impacting people," said Democratic Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, House majority leader. "And that’s something that we’re trying to really make clear to Washingtonians this year."

The last time Fitzgibbon said he remembers an initiative having such a big impact on the state transportation and operating budgets was about 25 years ago, when voters repealed the state’s motor vehicle excise tax, eliminating up to $1.1 billion in state revenues in 1999-2001.

Dozens of programs funded through the carbon pricing program will have belated start dates of Jan. 1, 2025, and stipulations that they would not take effect if these funds disappear. In one instance a budget assumes less revenue from the program in 2024 to better prepare for it potentially disappearing. Another budget stipulates that unspent money generated by the program would go to an account that could be tapped into even if voters repealed the program.

The capital gains tax is more difficult to preemptively adjust for, as most of the programs it funds are written into state laws, Fitzgibbon said. The money from the tax funds the Fair Start for Kids Act, for example, which helps makes childcare and early learning more affordable — and if it is repealed by voters, lawmakers would have to reconsider keeping that in place.

Some Republican lawmakers see the talk surrounding these initiatives as fearmongering, explaining that this funding did not exist before the current biennial budget period and the state would make do without it. Both the carbon pricing program and the capital gains tax are relatively new, with funds first coming in in 2023.

"We have enough money to fund priorities of government that include a variety of – whether it’s social programs, roads, ferries, bridges," said Corry. "Yes, there’s additional revenues in there, but they come at a cost, right? And if you think about it the cost is increase tax burden on Washington consumers."

The 7% capital gains tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and other high-end assets, with exemptions for the first $262,000, goes to childcare and school construction. When enacted in 2021, it was expected to be paid by 7,000 people — fewer than 1 in every 1,000 residents. It is known as a volatile revenue source, subject to change.

The 1-year-old Climate Commitment Act, which works to cap and reduce pollution while creating revenue for investments that address climate change, raised $1.8 billion in 2023 through quarterly auctions in which emission allowances are sold to businesses covered under the act.

If voter-approved initiatives succeed in November, the impact would likely extend beyond specific areas of funding.

Democratic Majority Leader Sen. Andy Billig has given the example of the Senate’s $14.6 billion transportation budget proposal, explaining that some things funded by the carbon pricing program will likely remain because they’re so important.

"What’s going to happen is we’re going to have to reprioritize everything in transportation," he told reporters recently. "That's why basically everything in the transportation budget, which is already a budget under a lot of duress, will be in question if the Climate Commitment Act fails."

These initiatives are just two of six certified after a conservative group submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of them. The Legislature is considering one on Tuesday and expected to consider two others later this week, while the carbon pricing program and capital gains tax, which would have the biggest impact on the state’s budget if they were repealed, will likely head straight to voters.

Around one million UK adults are unaware they have diabetes

•  

 

• FEB 22, 2024

A new analysis has revealed that approximately 30% of people living with type 2 diabetes in England, or around one million adults, are undiagnosed, while around one in nine of all adults in England are estimated to be living with prediabetes.

The analysis was conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and calculated from an analysis of data between 2013-2019 from the Health Survey for England.

The analysis found:

• Younger adults, if they have type 2 diabetes, were more likely to be undiagnosed – 50% of those aged 16-44 with type 2 diabetes were undiagnosed, compared to 27% of those aged 75 and over. 
• People living with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes were more likely to report better general health than those with a diagnosis.
• Women were more likely to be undiagnosed if they had a lower body mass index (BMI), lower waist circumference, or were not prescribed antidepressants.
• Around one in nine adults were estimated to be living with prediabetes, approximately 5.1 million people in England. 
• People from Black and Asian ethnic groups had more than double the prevalence of prediabetes and undiagnosed type 2 diabetes compared to White, Mixed and Other ethnic groups. 
• Those most at risk of having prediabetes were those with known risk factors for type 2 diabetes. However, significant numbers were also seen in groups typically considered low risk – for example, 8% of people not living with obesity or overweight were estimated to have prediabetes. 

Commenting on the findings, Nikki Joule, Policy Manager at Diabetes UK, said:  

“The figures published by ONS reveal a shockingly high number of people living with type 2 diabetes without a diagnosis, while millions more are at high risk of developing it.  

“We’re particularly concerned about the prevalence of prediabetes and undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in people from Black and Asian backgrounds, and the worrying proportion of younger people who are undiagnosed, as we know type 2 diabetes is more aggressive in younger people. 

 “The findings are a reminder of just how important it is for type 2 diabetes to be detected and diagnosed as early as possible, so people can get treatment and support to reduce the risk of devastating complications and, importantly, be offered remission programmes where appropriate.” 

Anyone worried about type 2 diabetes can use Diabetes UK’s free online Know Your Risk tool. More detailed findings and information about the study can be accessed via the Office for National Statistics.

Blindness from some inherited eye diseases may be caused by gut bacteria

HUMANS ARE RULED BY THEIR STOMACHS

FEB 28, 2024

Sight loss in certain inherited eye diseases may be caused by gut bacteria, and is potentially treatable by antimicrobials, finds a new study in mice co-led by a UCL and Moorfields researcher.

The international study observed that in eyes with sight loss caused by a particular genetic mutation, known to cause eye diseases that lead to blindness, gut bacteria were found within the damaged areas of the eye.

The authors of the new paper, published in Cell and jointly led by researchers in China, say their findings suggest that the genetic mutation may relax the body’s defences, thus allowing harmful bacteria to reach the eye and cause blindness.

The gut contains trillions of bacteria, many of which are key to healthy digestion. However, they can also be potentially harmful. The researchers were investigating the impact of the Crumbs homolog 1 (CRB1) gene, which is known to be expressed in the retina (the thin layer of cells at the back of the eye) and is crucial to building the blood-retina barrier to regulate what flows in and out of the eye.

The CRB1 gene is associated with inherited eye disease, most commonly forms of Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) and retinitis pigmentosa (RP); the gene is the cause of 10% of LCA cases and 7% of RP cases worldwide.

Inherited eye diseases are the UK’s leading cause of blindness in working-age people. Onset of disease may vary from very early childhood to adulthood, but deterioration is irreversible and has lifelong implications.

Using mouse models, the research team discovered the CRB1 gene is key to controlling the integrity of the lower gastrointestinal tract, the first ever such observation. There, it combats pathogens and harmful bacteria by regulating what passes between the contents of the gut and the rest of the body.

The team found that when the gene has a particular mutation, dampening its expression (reducing its effect), these barriers in both the retina and the gut can be breached, enabling bacteria in the gut to move through the body and into the eye, leading to lesions in the retina that cause sight loss.

Crucially, treating these bacteria with antimicrobial agents, such as antibiotics, was able to prevent sight loss in the mice even though it did not rebuild the affected cell barriers in the eye. Future work will investigate whether this mechanism and potential treatment applies in humans.

Co-lead author Professor Richard Lee (UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust) said: “We found an unexpected link between the gut and the eye, which might be the cause of blindness in some patients.

“Our findings could have huge implications for transforming treatment for CRB1-associated eye diseases. We hope to continue this research in clinical studies to confirm if this mechanism is indeed the cause of blindness in people, and whether treatments targeting bacteria could prevent blindness.

“Additionally, as we have revealed an entirely novel mechanism linking retinal degeneration to the gut, our findings may have implications for a broader spectrum of eye conditions, which we hope to continue to explore with further studies.”

The study was an international collaboration led by researchers from Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, China, working with UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

People Are Once Again Claiming Raw Milk Is Good For You – Here’s Why It’s Not

Pasteurization has re-entered the chat.


LAURA SIMMONS
Editor and Staff Writer
Edited by Holly Large

 Yanawut.S/Shutterstock.com

"Farm to table" is all very well, but give it a blast of heat first, whatever you do.


Pasteurization is right up there with hand-washing and vaccines as one of the greatest public health achievements in human history. But just like the other things on that list, it has its detractors. Loud ones.

Fact-checking organization Full Fact recently responded to an Instagram post that has totted up over 70,000 likes at the time of writing, one of many espousing the bullshit disputed idea that unpasteurized “raw” milk is a health food. So, we felt the time was ripe for a reminder of why science tells us that chugging untreated pints of the white stuff is often a very bad idea.

What is pasteurization?

Named for French scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that applying heat could prevent wine and beer from going bad in the 1860s, pasteurization is the process of heat-treating milk to kill harmful microbes and increase shelf-life.

There are a few different methods, but all involve the milk being heated to specific temperatures and held there for a predetermined period of time, which has been calculated as sufficient to kill the bacteria, like Mycobacterium tuberculosis, that can be hiding inside.

You may also have seen products labeled as “UHT”, which stands for ultra-heat treated. This is a more extreme form of pasteurization involving higher temperatures and sterile packaging, allowing these kinds of products to be stored out of the fridge for months at a time. 

Milk is not the only foodstuff that gets pasteurized. Other examples of foods that can be heat-treated include fruit juices, flour, and Pasteur’s original research subject, alcoholic beverages.

Why do some people drink raw milk?

Almost as soon as pasteurization became standard practice, the controversy began. According to the Science History Institute, some local media organizations were asking questions about “cooking” milk as far back as the early 20^th century, and the skepticism from some quarters has never really gone away.

Over the decades, many claims have been made about the supposed benefits of unpasteurized dairy products. Here are a few of them.

“It tastes better.”

Some people simply say they prefer the flavor of raw milk. There are also some artisanal cheeses that are traditionally made with raw milk, which connoisseurs may be tempted to sample.

This is one that’s difficult to disprove with scientific research. Suffice it to say, even if you do think it tastes a bit better, most would agree the risks of raw milk (see below) significantly outweigh this.

“It’s easier to digest.”

Some have claimed that treating milk with heat to kill the bad bacteria has a knock-on effect of killing probiotic organisms that secrete lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose and that those with lactose intolerance are lacking.

There is no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Raw milk still contains lactose and there’s no indication it contains lactase. The pasteurization process is also not the cause of lactose intolerance, which we know from genetic evidence has been around for thousands of years. 

“It’s healthier.”

Some suggest that the pasteurization process negatively affects the nutritional profile of the milk by degrading nutrients like calcium, essential for healthy bone development. There have also been claims about the supposed immune benefits of raw milk.

Much of this is also tied in with wider skepticism around consuming processed foods, or supposedly “unnatural” products.

The evidence suggests that pasteurization does not alter the nutritional content of milk in any significant way. Even where some studies have found decreases in the levels of certain vitamins after heat treatment, these are not vitamins that are found at particularly high levels in milk and thus can be obtained from other, more important dietary sources. 

There is some evidence that children raised on farms have a lower incidence of some allergies and autoimmune conditions, and improved immune function, which some have attributed to raw milk consumption. Importantly, though, even these studies agree that there would need to be a better way of mitigating the very real risks from raw milk before more widespread consumption could be recommended.

“It’s fine as long as it’s tested/organic/from a clean farm.”

Some believe that as long as they trust the farm where their raw milk comes from, it is safe to consume.

However, in reality, there is no way to completely remove the risk. Even farms that regularly test for microbes in their milk may miss low levels of contamination that can still get you sick. Organic farming practices can’t prevent contamination either, and even the healthiest animals can harbor bacteria that pose a threat to humans.

What are the risks of drinking raw milk?

As well as citing evidence that largely debunks the claims made by the anti-pasteurization league, health authorities like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly warned about the dangers of consuming raw milk. 

The most obvious, and the reason pasteurization was adopted in the first place, is the risk of foodborne illness. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explain that raw milk can carry several different bacteria that pose a risk to human health, including Campylobacter, Brucella, and Listeria. In fact, they say raw milk is “one of the riskiest foods” to consume.

Infection with any of these species could see you saddled with days of diarrheal misery, but there are some potentially serious consequences too, particularly for those who may be more vulnerable such as children and pregnant people. It’s not unheard of for humans to contract bovine tuberculosis from raw milk, and some of these other infections can cause complications including kidney failure.

It's because of these risks that raw milk is illegal to purchase in several US states, and cannot be sold in high street stores in the UK. 

The verdict? Pasteurized milk is much safer and no less healthy

In a world where some people genuinely debate the utility of good hand hygiene, it’s probably not surprising that raw milk has so many staunch supporters. But all the evidence suggests that consuming unpasteurized dairy is, at best, no better for you and, at worst, a one-way ticket to the ER. 

If only there were an easy way to drastically reduce all the risks…

All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. 

Amish Farmer Turned Republican Hero Sparks Protest Over Raw Milk

Amish Farmer Turned Republican Hero Becomes Flash Point In Culture War

By Katherine Fung
Senior Writer
Published Feb 29, 2024


Supporters of Amos Miller descended onto the Lancaster County Courthouse to rally behind the Amish farmer in his fight against the state of Pennsylvania.

Crowds of protesters on Thursday were seen gathered outside the building on North Duke Street as the hearing in the case against Miller's farm unfolded inside the courthouse. Miller, whose cause has become a rallying call for conservatives, is being sued by the state to stop him from selling raw milk and other unregulated products.

The lawsuit, announced last month, arrived weeks after Amos Miller Organic Farm was raided by state troopers who seized edible products as part of a search warrant obtained after the Pennsylvania Agriculture Department learned Miller's products had been linked to E. coli outbreaks in two other states. It is not the first time that foodborne illness outbreaks had been tied to Miller's farm, and Attorney General Michelle Henry argued that the latest legal action is the result of Miller's history of noncompliance with food safety regulations.

Amid the January 4 farm raid and subsequent lawsuit, Miller has garnered support from Republicans across the country, including prominent figures like Donald Trump Jr. and Representative Thomas Massie. Conservatives have argued that the actions against Miller represent government overreach and some have criticized law enforcement for cracking down on Miller rather than dangerous criminals.

Miller's supporters were seen carrying signs outside the courthouse that read phrases like, "Stand Against Tyranny," "I'll decide what I eat" and "Food Freedom."

"Amos Miller represents the tip of the spear when it comes to food freedom," Chris Hume, host of The Lancaster Patriot Podcast, told rally participants. "The state wants to shut him down. They want to punish him for serving neighbors. Amos Miller is providing a service to his neighbors."

"We don't need the state to be our nanny. We don't need the state to look over our shoulder. We don't need the state to tell us what we can and can't eat. We don't need the state to tell us what to teach our children," he said.

During his speech, Hume blamed state law enforcement and agriculture officials for carrying out the raid, arguing that those officers should have defied their orders and refused to seize Miller's products or require him to comply with state regulations. He also said Miller's dilemma is among many facing Amish farmers.

"The ordinary people are the ones who propagate tyranny," he said. "Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, they didn't kill millions of people. You know who killed millions of people? The people who are following their orders and that's what's happening here."

An Amish farmer works on his field near Paradise, Pennsylvania. 

A rally in support of Amish farmer Amos Miller was held on Thursday in the state's Lancaster County.

MLADEN ANTONOV/GETTY IMAGES

Lancaster County, where the raw-milk fight is unfolding, has long been a Republican stronghold. The county has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate only once since 1880, and that was for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Trump carried the county by more than 56 percent of the vote in both 2016 and 2020.

'Identifiable victim' helps incite Republican base

Susanne Schwarz, assistant professor of political science at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, previously told Newsweek that Miller's story has helped give conservatives angry with the federal government an "identifiable victim."

"Miller, an otherwise law-abiding small-business owner from a politically and socially conservative community, is being targeted by government authorities for selling homemade products," Schwarz said. "His story leaves conservative voters wondering, 'If this happened to him, could it happen to me?'—thus reinforcing their notion that government harms rather than serves its constituents."

 

Hang On, What’s Not Normal About February 29?

Leap Day has arrived and the U.S.A.

Climate Normals have something to say about it

There are a lot of superstitions that surround Leap Day...but how does February 29 affect science? Every four years we herald the arrival of an extra day in February. However, it’s a day that is both celebrated and loathed in the lives of climate scientists. Don’t worry, we’ll tell you why—Leap Day disrupts the regularity of the climate observation time series and the calculations that are derived from them require special attention. This is especially true for the determination of the U.S. Climate Normals.

Leaping Right Into It

The current U.S. Climate Normals are calculated for climate stations using the period of 1991–2020. During this period, 365 days of the year have up to 30 observations if none are missing. Here’s the jump: there are only eight observations available for February 29. Because of this, scientists are not as sure about the normals for that date. To make things even more complicated, February 29 is part of the February monthly normals, the winter seasonal normals, and the annual normals. So, how do the climate scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) resolve this conundrum?

Monthly Temperature and Precipitation

There’s an easy part and a complicated part of the explanation at hand. The easy part is that observations on February 29 are always part of the averages and totals for each February, so they are automatically part of the February monthly normals. For the monthly temperature averages, scientists add up all the days of the month and divide by 28 during regular years, and by 29 during leap years. For a cumulative value like precipitation, scientists add up all of the precipitation values in February, be they from 28 or 29 daily totals. Therefore, Leap Years are not a big issue for February monthly normals, which are made from all 30 Februaries from 1991 to 2020, nor is it a problem for winter or annual normal, which are based on the monthly normals.

Snagging Onto Issues

It gets more tricky when calculating the daily U.S. Climate Normals. Here is the main sticking point—when the daily normals for temperature and precipitation are averaged for a month, they have to equal the monthly normal average for that month. It’s impossible to complete these very complex procedures when the number of days changes from regular years to leap years. Therefore, we have a secret—NCEI scientists do not directly calculate daily normals for February 29. Instead, all of the daily normals are calculated for the typical 365-day year.

Despite this shameful (albeit necessary) secret, it’s still important to know if temperatures are above or below normal, what the chances of precipitation are, etc. These values are not just left to the wayside. Daily U.S. Climate Normals are simply calculated the way most folks would: variables are averaged by the daily normal values from February 28 and March 1—but with one special exception.

Precipitation and snowfall daily climate normals are not calculated on Leap Day since this statistic would introduce a lot of rounding errors in the effort to ensure daily and monthly totals are equal.

Instead, NCEI scientists provide month-to-date and year-to-date cumulative values which are much more robust.

When calculating daily precipitation and snowfall normals, NCEI provides only month-to-date and year-to-date normals because that is how they usually use them: are we above or below normal for the accumulation through today?

 
Just An Extra Day

Despite numerous science-related complications, Leap Day is a necessary part of our lives every four years. The arrival of February 29 means that our calendar will remain aligned with the orbit of the earth around the sun, which takes about 365.25 days to complete. Without Leap Day, the seasons would slide forward over time, and Climate Normals would get even more sticky than they already are. So use this day to celebrate, relax, perform an act of kindness, and/or regale your friends with tidbits from this web story. Whatever you choose, leap headfirst!

Why Julius Caesar's Year of Confusion was the longest year in history

By Martha Henriques

BBC

Features correspondent

The Roman Emperor Julius Caesar decided to reform the calendar to tie it to the seasons 

To tame a hopelessly disorganised Roman calendar, Julius Caesar added months, took them away, and invented leap years. But the whole grand project was almost thwarted by a basic counting mistake.

It was confusing enough when the harvest celebrations kept arriving in the middle of spring. It was the 1st Century BC and, according to ritual, there ought to be ripe vegetables ready for eating. But to any farm labourer looking around in the field, it was clear there would be many months before the harvest.

The problem was the early Roman calendar, which had become so unruly that crucial annual festivals bore increasingly little resemblance to what was going on in the real world.

This nonsensical system was something Julius Caesar wanted to fix. It was no small feat: the task was to heave the Roman Empire onto a calendar aligned with both the rotation of the Earth on its axis (a day), and its orbit of the Sun (a year).

Caesar's answer gave us the longest year in history, added months to the calendar, took them away, anchored the calendar to the seasons, and brought us the leap year. It was a grand project – and it was almost derailed by a peculiar quirk of Roman maths.


Welcome to 46BC, better known as the Year of Confusion.

Roman fasting days, feasting days and other important dates were subject to the whims of a calendar that changed from year to year in unpredictable ways

It may have been a complicated year, but not as complicated as what came before, says Helen Parish, visiting professor of history at the University of Reading, UK.

The early Roman calendar was determined by the cycles of the Moon and the cycles of the agricultural year. Looking at this calendar with modern eyes, you might feel a bit short-changed. There are only 10 months in it, starting in March in spring, and the tenth and final month of the year is what we now know as December. Six of those months had 30 days, and four had 31 days – giving a total of 304 days. What about the rest?

"For the two months of the year when there's no work being done in the field, they're just not counted," says Parish. The Sun rises and falls but, according to the early Roman calendar, no day has officially passed. "Which is where the complications start to come in."

In 731BC, the second King of Rome, Numa Pompilius, decided to improve the calendar by introducing extra months to cover that winter period. "Because what's the point in a calendar that only covers part of the year?" Parish says. Pompilius' answer was to add 51 days to the calendar, creating what we now call January and February. This extension brought the calendar year up to 355 days.

If 355 days seems like an odd number for Pompilius to aim for, that was on purpose. The number takes its reference from the lunar year (12 lunar months), which is 354 days long. However, "because of Roman superstitions about even numbers, an additional day is added to make 355", says Parish.

In this rejig, the months were arranged in such a way that all had odd numbers of days, except for February, with 28. "Therefore it's considered unlucky and the time of social, cultural and political purification," says Parish. "So that's the point at which you try and wipe the slate clean."

It's good progress, says Parish, but it's still around 11 days out from the Solar year of 365-and-a-bit days. "Even with this souped-up calendar from Pompilius, it's very easy for the calendar to get out of synchronisation with the seasons."

By around 200BC things had got sufficiently bad that a near-total eclipse of the Sun was observed in Rome on what we would now consider to be 14 March, but is recorded as having taken place on 11 July.


Because the calendar had by this point gone "so catastrophically wrong", Parish says, the Emperor and priests in Rome resorted to inserting an additional "intercalary" month, Mercedonius, on an ad-hoc basis to try to realign the calendar to the seasons.

This did not work out very well. There was a tendency to add Mercedonius when favoured public officials were in power, for instance, rather than strictly to align the calendar with the seasons.

The classical writer and historian Suetonius complained that "the negligence of the pontiffs had long since so disordered [the calendar], through their privilege of adding months or days at pleasure, that the harvest festivals did not come in summer nor those of the vintage in the autumn".

Which brings us back to Julius Caesar. The year 46BC already had a Mercedonius planned, but Caesar's advisor Sosigenes, an astronomer from Alexandria, on Egypt's Mediterranean coast, said Mercedonius wasn't going to be enough this time.

On Sosigenes' advice, Caesar added another two never-before-seen months to the year 46BC, one of 33 days and one 34, to bring the calendar in line with the Sun. The additions made the year the longest in history at 445 days long, with 15 months.

After 46BC, the two new months, Mercedonius and the practice of intercalary months as a whole were abandoned as, all being well, there would be no more need for them.

"So we're back to a calendar that looks a bit more like the one we recognise," says Parish. "Excellent! This is looking refreshingly familiar."

Agricultural events and religious celebrations were closely tied in the Roman era – but hard to keep track of without a robust calendar

Unfortunately, getting the calendar to line up with the Sun is one thing, but keeping it that way is another. The issue arises from the inconvenient fact that there aren't a nice round number of days (Earth rotations) in a year (Earth orbits of the Sun).

"That's where the whole problem starts," says Daniel Brown, an astronomer at Nottingham Trent University, UK. The number of Earth rotations on a trip round the Sun is roughly 365.2421897… "and on it goes".


That means Earth fits in almost an extra quarter-turn every time it does a full orbit of the Sun. So adding an extra day every four years – in February – would help fix the mismatch, Sosigenes calculated.

And it would have worked quite well, at least for a while, if there hadn't been the problem of the idiosyncratic way the Romans counted the years.

"They look at the years and they count, one, two, three, four," says Parish. "And then they start counting again at four – so they count four, five, six, seven. Then they start at seven – so seven, eight, nine, 10. So they're accidentally double-counting one of those years each time. It doesn't take long to realise that slippage is starting to occur."

This was corrected in the reign of Augustus and leap years happened every four years instead of every three, and then the Julian calendar was well on its way. "Julius Caesar is getting it almost bang on where the calendar needs to be," says Parish.

It might have been the only calendar needed for the job, if the Earth did in fact do a neat extra quarter-turn each year. But it's a little bit short – by about 11 minutes.

"That means slowly but surely we're still running out of sync," says Brown.

Even a small difference between the calendar and the movements of the Earth around the Sun will lead to a growing discrepancy 

The solution came much later, in 1582 when Pope Gregory made further tweaks.

"That's what the Gregorian calendar reform then corrected for – noting this and adapting that calendar slightly more so, making sure that it is not only just every four years, but then every 100 years they make sure that they skip that rule," says Brown. "But then they noted that doesn't fully match – you've overcompensated. So every 400 years, you don't skip it."

That's why, for example, the year 2000 was a leap year: because it is divisible by both 100 and 400.


"That all sounds really neat and tidy," says Parish – but this is where politics starts to shape the course of time. "It's a calendar that's implemented by Papal decree and that actually doesn't have authority outside the Church and outside the auspices of the Bishop of Rome."

There were people who complained that the Pope effectively stole 10 or 11 days of their time by adjusting the calendar, says Parish. Nonetheless, over the centuries more and more countries adopt the Gregorian calendar. "But, gloriously, they don't all do it at the same time," says Parish. "So you've tidied up the calendar, but you've now got calendars in different countries that are running on very different models."

Read more about the people who live in multiple timelines.

Because of this discrepancy, "you can have the most bizarre situation where a reply written in England to a letter that's arrived from Spain can look as though it was sent before the first letter from Spain arrived", says Parish. "Because England is running ahead of Spain on the calendar."

Once the Gregorian calendar was widely adopted and internationally synchronised, it had several millennia of accuracy built in. But it's still not perfect.


In fact, around the middle of the 56th Century, "somebody is going to scratch their head and say, 'Hang on a minute, it should be Monday, but it's actually looking like Tuesday'," says Parish. "I think that's probably a margin of error that we're going to end up accepting."

Until that Monday (or Tuesday), the Gregorian calendar has at least bought us a bit of time.

Are beans dangerous? Dietitian debunks lectin-free dieting fad

Photo by Tijana Drndarski from Unsplash

FOOD NEWS, HEALTH & MEDICAL NEWS

by Shyla Cadogan, RD

In 2017, a physician named Dr. Steven Gundry released a book called “The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in ‘Healthy’ Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain.” Since then, you may have seen the “lectin-free” diet growing in popularity across social media. People are avoiding foods like beans, peanuts, and whole grains because they think they’re making them less healthy or preventing them from losing weight.

But before we ban them from the menu, what are lectins, and why do people think they’re unhealthy?

Lectins are proteins that bind to carbohydrates.

You may have seen them be called “anti-nutrients” because the body doesn’t digest them and could possibly hinder your ability to absorb minerals like calcium and zinc. These so-called anti-nutrients might also cause gastrointestinal distress in some people.

Lectins can also attach to cells in the lining of your intestines, meaning they can stick around for a little while and possibly kickstart an autoimmune response in some people.

People are avoiding foods like beans, peanuts, and whole grains because they think they’re making them less healthy or preventing them from losing weight. (Photo by Monkgogi Samson on Unsplash.com)

What is a lectin-free diet?

Initially coined by Steven Gundry, M.D., a former cardiothoracic surgeon turned alternative nutrition media physician, the lectin-free diet promotes the exclusion of foods high in lectins to help with weight management and chronic illness. Gundry has argued that lectins are responsible for increased intestinal permeability, more loosely referred to as “leaky gut,” and different chronic illnesses.

Foods high in lectins include:

• Beans
• Nuts
• Tomatoes
• Whole grains

Do you really need to follow a lectin-free diet?

There is currently no evidence suggesting that a lectin-free diet is uniquely health-promoting. It is a type of fad diet.

There is also a huge missing piece from this conversation: foods highest in lectins are raw foods that you would typically only eat cooked. For example, raw beans and lentils are some of the foods with the highest levels of lectins.

Current research shows that “active” lectins, like those in raw beans, can cause adverse health outcomes. However, the last time I checked, most people aren’t chowing down on raw black beans. Cooking foods at high temperatures, as well as soaking or sprouting high-lectin foods can significantly reduce these levels.

The foods highest in lectins are raw foods that you would typically only eat cooked. (© anaumenko – stock.adobe.com)

Bottom Line

As a dietitian, I notice that many fad diets point to whole foods as the problem. Some say that red meat is the reason that people’s health continues to suffer, while others say it’s the fruits and vegetables.

The reality is that most Americans aren’t eating enough whole foods in the first place. The Standard American Diet is comprised of mainly ultra-processed foods. Therefore, to encourage people not to eat plant foods because of lectins can further dissuade people from eating more whole plant foods that have time and time again been shown to benefit human health and prevent chronic disease.

If you find that you personally feel better eating low-lectin foods, that is an anecdotal experience. However, the entire premise is based on a real nutrition truth that shows lectins might cause some distress for people. This can be recognized without making sweeping generalizations and calling any food with them unhealthy.