When Indigenous activists walk the land to honor their past and reshape their future

Walelasoetxeige Paiter Bandeira Surui, known as Txai Surui, an indigenous activist from the Paiter Surui people of the state of Rondonia, Brazil leaves after her accreditation was removed after protesting during the 16th United Nations Biodiversity Summit (COP16), in Yumbo, Colombia October 30, 2024. REUTERS/Luisa Gonzalez

The Conversation

November 27, 2024

More than a decade ago, I spent a week working in Gatineau, a city on the southern edge of Québec, with the Cree Board of Health and Social Services. I was helping train researchers to interview Iiyiyiu elders about traditional birthing knowledge, so they could develop resources for soon-to-be parents and health care workers.

Throughout our workshop, my colleagues in the Cree Nation of Iiyiyiu Aschii shared their excitement about a “great journey” their youth were undertaking: the Journey of Nishiyuu. A group was traveling 1,000 miles on foot in the dead of winter – all the way from their homes in Whapmagoostui First Nation, on the shores of Hudson Bay, to Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the capital of Canada.

For Indigenous activists, walking the land can take on powerful spiritual and political significance. It has been, and continues to be, an important way Indigenous nations pursue healing, environmental stewardship and diplomacy across Turtle Island, the name many Indigenous groups use to refer to North America.

I am a Canadian scholar whose ancestry stems from Western Europe. I now teach in San Diego, on Kumeyaay territory. My scholarship focuses on Indigenous spiritualities and social movements. Over the past several years, I have worked with Whapmagoostui First Nation – a remote, fly-in community in northern Québec – on research about the Journey of Nishiyuu.

Healing journey

The Journey of Nishiyuu – which translates to"human beings" or “new people” – took place from January-March 2013. More broadly, that season was known as the winter of Idle No More, a movement in support of First Nations’ rights in Canada.

Led by Indigenous women, Idle No More arose when the Canadian government passed C-45, legislation that they feared would reduce environmental protections and weaken consultation with Indigenous communities. The winter of 2012-13 was also when Theresa Spence, the chief of Attawapiskat First Nation, held a hunger strike near Parliament Hill – an effort to hold the government accountable for its treaty obligations and to address the inadequate living conditions in northern reservations.
Activists in the Idle no More movement stage a flash protest inside the Eaton Centre in Toronto on Dec. 30, 2012. Steve Russell/Toronto Star via Getty Images

The Nishiyuu walkers announced that they were walking the land to demonstrate that the Iiyiyiuch are still “keepers” of their “language, culture, and tradition,” and honoring their ancestors. Many individual walkers also spoke about the experience as a healing journey.

“For the youth here there is no better place to be than out on the land,” said David Kawapit, the young walker who initiated the journey, when I interviewed him in Whapmagoostui.

The walkers started off their journey in snowshoes, traveling along traditional trap lines and trading routes. As they moved farther south, the trail turned to highways, and walkers exchanged moccasins and snowshoes for boots and running shoes. Throughout the journey, walkers were hosted by other Iiyiyiu, as well as other Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, where they shared stories, food and prophecies with one another.

When the group set off in January, it consisted of only six young walkers from Whapmagoostui and their elder guide, the late Isaac Kawapit. By the time they reached Parliament Hill, however, the movement had grown to approximately 270 people of many ages and cultural backgrounds.

This was not just a walk for the Cree Nation. The journey was also intended to strengthen inter-Indigenous relations across Canada during Idle No More. The Nishiyuu walkers embarked on their journey to emphasize the important role land plays in shaping their sense of well-being, their culture and their communities’ political autonomy. The Journey of Nishiyuu.
Walking land and lakes

The Journey of Nishiyuu is one of many Indigenous-led social justice movements that engage in walking the land. In 1978, for example, the American Indian Movement led a 3,000-mile walk from Alcatraz Island in San Francisco all the way to Washington, D.C.

Activists who participated in this “Longest Walk” did so to hold the U.S. government accountable to its treaty obligations. The United States signed approximately 374 treaties with Indigenous nations from 1778 until 1871, but Native American groups argue the government has often eroded rights these treaties were meant to protect.

The Longest Walk helped prevent the passage of 11 bills in Congress that would have restricted Native communities’ jurisdiction and social services and diminished their land and water rights, among other consequences.

In 2008, Indigenous activists embarked on a second Longest Walk and once more made the long journey from Alcatraz to Washington. This time, the walkers called attention to the need to respect sacred sites, protect the environment and create better futures for young people.

Nathan LeRoy, who was part of the original Longest Walk, takes part in the 2008 recreation of the walk from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Other walks have brought together Indigenous activists from Canada and the U.S., such as the Mother Earth Water Walkers. The late Josephine Mandamin, an Anishinaabe Grandmother and member of Wikwemikong First Nation, initiated the first Water Walk on Easter morning in 2003. She walked the entire perimeter of Lake Superior, on the U.S.-Canada border – an act of prayer and an effort to live out her obligations to care for and heal the waters.

Mandamin was joined by other “water walkers” who have kept her traditions and teachings alive. They have continued to walk around numerous bodies of water, including Lake Ontario in 2006, Lake Erie in 2007 and the Menominee River in 2016. Their walks embody an Anishinaabe perspective that water is a sacred medicine, and also aim to educate the public on the importance of Indigenous peoples’ access to water and jurisdiction over their ancestral waterways.

Affirming freedom

When Indigenous activists walk the land, they are restoring their firsthand knowledge of place and reknitting their relationships with plants, animals and other human beings. They are also revitalizing traditional forms of governance and diplomacy through visits with other Indigenous nations along the way – and sometimes inviting non-Indigenous people to walk with them. These invitations offer non-Indigenous walkers opportunities for reconciling their own relationships to land and to the Indigenous peoples whose territories they inhabit

American Indian Movement members involved in The Longest Walk trek along the Mall in Washington, D.C., in 1978. Wally McNamee/Corbis via Getty Images

Part of such walks’ significance stems from history. For centuries, the United States and Canada attempted to control Indigenous peoples’ freedom of movement – often with support from religious institutions. In the U.S., the reservation system segregated Indigenous nations and allocated them to small portions of land. In Canada, the pass system mandated that Indigenous people present a travel document to an appointed Indian agent in order to leave and return from their reservations.

Boarding schools in the United States and residential schooling in Canada separated children from their lands, families and communities. Federal relocation programs encouraged or forced Indigenous people to move to cities and urban centers in an attempt to assimilate them.

While these social movements commemorate history, and try to heal from it, they are also a reminder that the past is present.

By walking the land, Indigenous people assert their sovereignty and carry out their sacred obligations to care for their lands and waters – which I believe can inspire a more just and beautiful future.

Meaghan Weatherdon, Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Diego

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The role of LGBTQ voters in the election shows a path for Democrats' future

Photo by Delia Giandeini on Unsplash

Michael Signorile, 

The Signorile Report

November 27, 2024

There have been many post-mortems looking at how certain minority groups voted—and how they supposedly shifted their vote—but there’s been very little written about one particular minority group: LGBTQ voters.

And yet, in context, LGBTQ voters displayed the kind of influence as a bloc that politicians should be paying attention to moving forward.



I suspect part of the reason they’ve not been focused on is because these voters don’t fit an overwhelming corporate media narrative that positions Donald Trump as having broadened and diversified his coalition—because LGBTQ people actually went the other way.

According to the NBC News Exit Poll, LGBTQ people doubled their share of the electorate, from 4% in 2020 to 8% in 2024, which is nothing to sneeze at. (Researchers have shown the percentage of the LGBTQ population appears to be roughly equal in all of the states.) And 86% of LGBTQ people voted for Kamala Harris—well over 10 million voters—a big increase from the 71% who voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

Donald Trump saw a sharp decline in support from LGBTQ voters, from 25% in 2020 to just 14% in 2024.

It’s true that national exit polls should often be taken with a grain of salt. Sample sizes of minorities are often small. Sometimes other polling of specific groups contradicts the national exit polls’ results.

For example, Matt Barreto of BPS Research told Axios that the exit polls showing a majority of Latino men voted for Trump—somewhere in the 52% to 54% range—were wrong. He said his polling found 56% of Latino men supported Harris, explaining that his polling is more accurate because he had a larger sample size and it was conducted in multiple languages.

Still, his result was less than the 59% that the national exit polls reported Joe Biden winning Latino men by in 2020. So, there was some movement, just not as much as the corporate media suggests. There’s also a lot of discrepancy, depending on which exit poll you look at, about Black male voters and whether they moved slightly toward Trump or not at all

But regarding LGBTQ voters, the shift in the national exit polling is big enough—and the growth in the percentage of the electorate is large enough—to assume that something happened. While many other groups moved toward Trump a bit—or saw less turnout in some places—LGBTQ people went in the opposite direction.

I believe a few things came into play. The toxic masculinity that marked the Trump campaign was as threatening to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as it is to many women. (Harris overwhelmingly won Black women, and, though Trump won white women, Harris did better with white women than Biden did in 2020).

The Trump campaign’s bro culture on steroids, exemplified by the white supremacist elements of Trump’s base as well as among the many young right-wing and even independent male podcasters Trump courted, often telegraphed homophobia and transphobia. Even if it wasn’t overt, it sent a message that you’re not included if you’re queer.

And the blatant anti-trans messaging from Trump and the GOP—and the vicious ads they aired in media markets—horrified almost the entire LGBTQ community.

JD Vance idiotically said during the campaign, in an interview with Joe Rogan, that Trump would probably win what he called “the normal gay guy vote.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if me and Trump won, just, the normal gay guy vote, because, they just wanted to be left the hell alone. Now you have all this crazy stuff on top of it that they’re like, ‘No, no, we didn’t want to give pharmaceutical products to 9-year-olds who are transitioning their genders.

That was evidently very wrong. First off, as far as many in Trump’s base are concerned—including the aggressively anti-LGBTQ Christian right—there is no “normal” gay anything. They believe we’re all abnormal—freaks and sinners. Secondly, the idea that some great majority of queer people—or the “normal gay guys”—would vote for Trump because they were eager to throw trans people under the bus is clearly false.

I’m not saying all cisgender gay, lesbian, and bisexual people support all trans people—there are fissures, as there are in any movement—but I believe most do, understanding the clear connections we have about our bodies and our privacy and about how those who hate us view us.

Beyond that, Trump and the justices he put on the Supreme Court are a threat to marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws protecting gay, bi and lesbian people, especially in public accommodations. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, was marrying gay couples going back to 2004 as a district attorney in San Francisco—before being shut down by the California Supreme Court—and enforced protections as California attorney general while being outspoken as a U.S. senator.

The other thing I would say is that queer people know a fascist when they see one.

They know what it’s like to be scapegoated. And, if they know their history, they know the brutality and violence LGBTQ people experienced in the past at the hands of strongmen. So do Jews, of course, who also voted overwhelmingly for Harris—by 79% in one exit poll—which must have angered Trump, who demanded their vote at rallies and even berated them, claiming they owed it to him for his support of Israel.

Pre-election polling showed a majority of Jewish Americans, who represent a diversity of opinions on the war in Gaza, believed Trump was more supportive of Israel, while they also believed Harris would handle the war better. Whatever their opinions, however, they know a fascist when they see one and voted in big numbers against Trump.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, any move to blame transgender people or distance the Democratic Party from LGBTQ rights would be harmful to the party. The media finger-pointing has had some people calling for overcorrections that are not only morally wrong; they’re bad political strategy.

Trump, when all is said and done, will have won the popular vote by roughly 1.5%, the smallest popular vote win in a quarter of a century. The margins were tight in the battleground states. If the issue of inflation and the economy played the role they appear to have, and if the anti-incumbency fervor that gripped the world because of inflation was key, the last thing Democrats should do is push away constituencies that stayed loyal as well as those in the base who support those constituencies’ rights.

At the risk of repeating myself: trans rights and LGBTQ rights in general have galvanized young voters, who embraced equality in elections over the past 10 years and often helped put Democrats over the top. And then there are the families and friends of LGBTQ people.

It’s a polarized time, and elections are going to be very close indefinitely. Having been 8% of the electorate in 2024 and voting 86% for the Democratic presidential candidate, LGBTQ people showed they’re a pivotal and loyal voting bloc that is key for Democrats in any future election.

'More dangerous for trans kids': Anger as Ohio governor signs anti-trans bathroom bill

Photo by Raphael Renter | @raphi_rawr on Unsplash

Eloise Goldsmith, 

Common Dreams

November 28, 2024

Pro-LGBTQ+ voices panned an Ohio bill signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine Wednesday that will bar transgender students in public and private Ohio schools from using "multi-occupancy facility"—bathrooms, as well as locker rooms, changing room, or shower rooms—that match their gender identity.

"We made it clear to Gov. DeWine and Ohio legislators that S.B. 104 does nothing to make trans students safer in schools, and in fact makes life more dangerous for trans kids in Ohio," said Equality Ohio executive director Dwayne Steward in a statement.

"We are deeply disappointed that Gov.DeWine has allowed this dangerous bill to become law that puts vulnerable trans youth at risk for abuse and harassment. Equality Ohio will continue to stand in solidarity with our transgender communities and their families, and we will always fight for fairness in Ohio," Steward added.

The ACLU of Ohio said on social media that "transgender people are part of the fabric of Ohio; our families, our workplaces, and our neighborhoods. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the LGBTQ+ community and are closely considering next steps."

In a statement published after the legislation passed in the Ohio Senate, Jocelyn Rosnick, policy director for the ACLU of Ohio, said that "this bill ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender."

According to Mother Jones, Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-23), the first openly LGBTQ+ person elected to the Ohio Legislature, said during a floor debate on the bill: "It's really not about the bathrooms. It's about demonizing and frightening people."

The law applies to K-12 and higher education institutions and schools are not allowed to offer gender-neutral multi-stall facilities; however, the bill doesn't prevent schools from establishing "a policy providing accommodation such as single-occupancy facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities at the request of a student due to special circumstances."

But Mallory Golski, civic engagement and advocacy manager at the queer youth support organization Kaleidoscope Youth Center, expressed skepticism that providing access through single-occupancy facilities would really help gender expansive students in an interview with Mother Jones. "I just don't foresee a scenario in which schools that are already historically underfunded are going to be able to drop everything and build new bathrooms," she said. "It's just not possible.

The signing of the anti-trans legislation Wednesday runs counter to a move by DeWine last year. The governor chose to veto a bill that blocked gender-affirming care for trans youth and prevented transgender athletes from playing women's sports (lawmakers later overrode his veto).

Ohio is one of 14 states that have implemented some sort of restriction on transgender people's use of bathroom or facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the think tank the Movement Advancement Project. Some of those states also have restrictions in place on some government buildings.

The recently signed bill in Ohio comes days after Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina introduced a resolution seeking to prevent trans women employees and members of the House of Representatives from using the women's bathrooms at the U.S. Capitol. Though Mace did not initially name any member of Congress specifically, she later admitted the measure was "absolutely" aimed at incoming Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress.

Amid anti-trans wave, Chase Strangio to make history as first trans lawyer to argue at Supreme Court

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Amy Goodmanand
Democracy Now

November 28, 2024

Next week, our guest Chase Strangio will make history as the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court. Strangio will argue on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project that Tennessee’s state ban on gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender children is a form of sex discrimination. “Our hope is that the cultural anxiety about trans people … is not going to sway the justices from applying straightforward constitutional principles,” says Strangio about the case. We also discuss recent cultural backlash against trans rights as part of an “approach to gender that is regressive and dangerous.” The Democratic Party has been unwilling to provide a robust defense to conservative attacks on trans identity, says Strangio, ceding ground to the further loss of the community’s civil rights and protections. Yet even as trans people are “demonized” and blamed for structural problems in the U.S., he adds, “We have always resisted. We have always taken care of each other. No matter what happens, that is what we’ll do.”democracynow.org

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

When incoming Republican President Donald Trump returns to office, he’s vowed to target the LGBTQIA community. Our next guest will be a key figure in challenging this.

Next week, Chase Strangio will make history as the first openly transgender lawyer to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court as the justices consider Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors. The case argues the ban is a form of sex discrimination

Last week, the Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a policy banning transgender people from using some Capitol restrooms that correspond to their gender. This came after Republican Congressmember Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to ban transgender women from using women’s restrooms at the Capitol, then posted about it more than 300 times, in just a matter of a few days, on social media. This follows the election of Delaware Democrat Sarah McBride as the first openly transgender congressmember. McBride dismissed the Capitol bathroom bans as a distraction during a recent interview on CBS.

REP.-ELECT SARAH McBRIDE: Some members of the small Republican conference majority decided to get headlines and to manufacture a crisis.


AMY GOODMAN: Chase Strangio joins us now, co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. In a week, again, he becomes the first openly transgender lawyer to argue a case before the Supreme Court, looking at Tennessee.

Welcome to Democracy Now! There’s a lot to discuss here. Why don’t we begin with this case, in which you’re going to make history?

CHASE STRANGIO: Well, good to see you, Amy. Thank you for having me.

We are before the Supreme Court at this moment when transgender people are under so much scrutiny. And this comes on the tail of 24 states banning evidence-based medicine for transgender adolescents. And that is why we are before the Supreme Court now. One of those states is Tennessee. Tennessee has categorically banned medical treatment for adolescents only, when that treatment is prescribed in a manner that Tennessee considers inconsistent with a person’s sex.

So, what we’re arguing before the Supreme Court is that, look, this is a simple example of sex discrimination. Our clients — so, if you take, for example, a transgender adolescent boy, he cannot receive testosterone to live consistent with his male identity, because he was assigned female at birth. Had he been assigned male at birth, he could receive that same medication for that same purpose. That is sex discrimination. And Tennessee has to justify it, which the district court concluded that Tennessee just simply did not. The courts across the country that have actually looked at the evidence have repeatedly found that the claims about the harms of this treatment just do not hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. But, of course, we lost in the appellate court. We’re now before the Supreme Court making the case that this is just a plain and simple example of sex discrimination, and the fact that it’s sex discrimination against trans people doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Chase, this comes in a period when the Republican Party used anti-trans ads throughout the presidential campaign. I’m wondering your reaction to the impact of those ads around the country.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, it is astonishing to think about $250 million that have been spent focused on a group that represents less than 1% of the population. I think it comes out to, you know, almost $100 to $200 per trans person in the United States.

And obviously, there are sort of two fundamental things that happen as a result of those ads. The first is just the impact on trans people ourselves. We are living in a climate in which we are being demonized, in which we are being blamed for structural failures of this country. Talk about scapegoating, if you’re blaming trans people for everything from, you know, changes in education to school shootings to changing gender norms across the board. So, that’s one aspect of this.

And then, the other is that this rhetoric — and, I will say, the post-election legitimizing of it by Democrats — is what creates the policy realities that we’re living under, the policy realities where you have 550 anti-trans bills introduced in a single year, resulting in the stripping away of healthcare that people rely on, resulting in Representative Mace targeting transgender people’s ability to access restrooms in federal buildings. This is a cascading reality of material harm for our community on top of the rhetorical and cultural harms that it is bestowing upon us.


AMY GOODMAN: I want to play a clip from one of Trump’s presidential campaign TV ads for those who didn’t see it, this particular one with transphobic messaging that aired, I think it was, over 15,000 times.
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Surgery.

MARA KEISLING: For prisoners.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: For prisoners. Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access.

CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: Hell no, I don’t want my taxpayer dollars going to that.

DJ ENVY: And Kamala supports transgender sex changes in jail with our money.

NARRATOR: Kamala even supports letting biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.

DONALD TRUMP: I’m Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message.


AMY GOODMAN: “Kamala is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you.” And yesterday, Kamala Harris spoke, and a bunch of the senior members of her staff spoke out on Pod Save America, and a lot of the discussion in that conversation was about how they dealt with these ads. I’m very interested, Chase, as you say, that you are faulting the Democrats in how they’re dealing with this, that they are normalizing this. Explain.

CHASE STRANGIO: Well, so, it’s not even that they’re normalizing it. What they’re saying is that the Harris campaign did too much to support trans people, which is a hard pill to swallow, since they did nothing. You know, Kamala Harris did not respond to the ads. She did not make any affirmative statements in support of trans people throughout the —

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, that’s very interesting, because apparently they floated the ad first, the Republicans, to see if there would be a response. When there was dead silence, they just went for it.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, so they went for it. And then, in the aftermath of the election, you have this postmortem in which you have Democrats — you know, pundits, as well as politicians — speaking out and saying, “Well, part of why the Harris campaign lost is because they were too supportive of trans people.” But what did they do? Nothing. And so, the obvious, you know, takeaway from that is, well, they should have just joined in the attacks. They should have said, “Yes, it is. Of course we should exclude trans girls from sports. Of course we should deny people in government custody of medical treatment.”

These are constitutional norms that they are sensationalizing because — and playing into people’s misunderstanding about trans people and our bodies. And they played on that misinformation, and they played on that fear, in a campaign that was both about trans people and also about gender more broadly. And what trans people represented in that was the instability of gender roles that were causing so much anxiety. I mean, that’s why you saw Vice President-elect Vance talking about the role of postmenopausal women is to care for children. Childless cat ladies, you know, should — or whatever else he said about that to demonize people who aren’t playing the proper gender roles. It wasn’t just about trans people. Trans people were a very specific focus, but this was a broader commentary on an approach to gender that is regressive and dangerous for everyone.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Chase, in your arguments on the Tennessee case before the Supreme Court, what are you — especially given the large conservative majority on this court, what will you be looking for in terms of the kinds of questions that the justices will ask or what hope you might have of swaying some of the conservative justices?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, so, you know, at the end of the day, this really is a simple argument about a law that tells us 10 times over on its face that it’s about sex. It says you can’t do something if it’s inconsistent with your sex. And Tennessee comes in and says, “Well, that’s not really about sex.” But that sounds a lot like the arguments that the employers raised in the case of Bostock, where the question was: Is it because of sex to fire someone for being transgender? And that was a conservative-majority court that said 6 to 3 that that is because of sex, that if you are firing someone because they are transgender, that means you are firing someone assigned male at birth because they identify as a woman, and you are not firing someone assigned female at birth because they identify as a woman. The same is true here. We’re making that same argument. We think it is as clear in this context as it was in Bostock. And our hope is that the cultural anxiety about trans people, the demonization of our healthcare, is not going to sway the justices from applying straightforward constitutional principles that have been applied for 50 years.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re arguing this case — this is unusual, isn’t it? — alongside the Biden administration.

CHASE STRANGIO: So, it is not totally unusual. You often have a situation where private parties will bring a case, and the United States will intervene, or the United States can weigh in at the Supreme Court as amicus.

What is a little bit unusual here is that you really have us as coequal parties in this case. We are splitting the time, with the solicitor general going first, and I will go after her, and making this argument, both of us, that this is a law that violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the court, if it is going to faithfully apply its precedents that say that when a government discriminates based upon sex, that it is the government’s burden. It’s Tennessee’s burden to show that the statute that they’ve passed is constitutional, and they have failed to do that. So we are in it together up until January 20th.

AMY GOODMAN: And then what happens? I mean, is there any possibility that this wouldn’t happen by January 20th and then the Trump administration would not be there next to you?

CHASE STRANGIO: So, that’s absolutely right. We fully expect the Trump administration to switch positions. That is not unusual also. There will be other cases in which the administration switches positions. This case was originally brought by the transgender adolescents and their parents, who we represent, against the Tennessee officials who are charged with enforcing this law that bans their healthcare. The parties will still be there. There’s no reason why the court would in any way be stripped of jurisdiction. So, we move forward past January 20th; it’s up to the Supreme Court, of course, what happens next.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to what’s happened in these last few days in Congress, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson speaking to reporters last week after South Carolina Congressmember Nancy Mace introduced this resolution to ban transgender women from using women’s restrooms at the Capitol, after the election of Delaware Congressmember Sarah McBride, the first openly trans congressmember. This is what he said.
REPORTER 1: Can you address the issue of the new bathroom?

REPORTER 2: Can you talk about the policy that you just issued?

SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Yeah, I’m not sure what more there is to say.

REPORTER 1: Is it enforceable?

SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Yeah, like all House policies, it’s enforceable. But we have single-sex facilities for a reason. And women deserve women’s-only spaces. And we’re not anti-anyone. We’re pro-women. And I think it’s an important policy for us to continue. It’s always been the — I guess, an unwritten policy, but now it’s in writing.


AMY GOODMAN: So, it’s an unwritten policy, but now it’s in writing. This is the House speaker, Republican Johnson. And I wanted to ask you about Nancy Mace, this campaign she is on. But it is new. Last year, in 2023, Congressmember Mace, during an interview with CBS News, proclaimed she was, quote, “pro-transgender rights and pro-LGBTQ.” Now she’s putting up little paper signs that say “biological” above the signs that say “women’s room.”

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, so, I think one thing to keep in mind is that the cultural discourse and the popular culture norms shift what happens in law and policy. If you look at the tenor of the conversations in this country, it’s shifted so far against trans people that now we have proposed bans on transgender people using restrooms in all public buildings. A few years ago, let’s say in 2019, the question of trans people in restrooms had really died out. It was something where the proponents of those bans admitted that all of their claims were fabricated, that there was no evidence that there was any harm or violence by allowing trans people to use restrooms that align with who they are, which of course they do, we do, all the time. And this idea that there is some unwritten rule in which people are surveilled out of restrooms is just simply not true. It is not enforceable, as we know. But this escalation is a product of the ways in which our public discourse has shifted so dramatically around gender and around trans people.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you nervous about next week? You are making history, Chase.

CHASE STRANGIO: You know, of course I’m nervous. I’m nervous because I am always nervous to do right by my community. The stakes are so high, where this argument is happening in the period of time after the election, before the inauguration, a time when trans people are feeling so vulnerable, a time when, you know, I hear every single day from parents who are asking me if they have to leave the United States. And so, that is what I’m carrying with me. You know, I’m nervous for December 4th. I’m nervous for 2025. We don’t know what we’re up against.

But I guess the two things I’ll say are that, one, this case is a fight to put a limit on what government officials can do to target trans people across the board, and we are going to fight with everything that we have. And then, the other thing I’ll say, specifically to the trans community, to the people who love trans people, is we have always resisted. We have always taken care of each other. No matter what happens, that is what we’ll do.

AMY GOODMAN: Chase Strangio, on December 4th, he becomes the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Chase is co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. We thank you so much for being with us. We hope to talk to you after you make your arguments.

Hormone therapy affects the metabolic health of transgender individuals

Karolinska Institutet

New research from Karolinska Institutet shows that long-term sex hormone treatment in transgender individuals can lead to significant changes in body composition and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, particularly in transgender men. The study is published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“We saw that transgender men treated with testosterone increased their muscle volume by an average of 21 percent over six years, but also that the amount of abdominal fat increased by 70 percent,” says Tommy Lundberg, docent at the Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet. “In addition, they had more liver fat and higher levels of ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

The researchers followed 17 adult transgender men and 16 transgender women who were prescribed treatment with testosterone and oestrogen, respectively. They used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to map body composition and measured metabolic risk factors via blood tests, blood pressure and vascular stiffness. The scans were conducted before the start of hormone therapy, after one year and after five to six years.

The results show that long-term hormone therapy leads to several major changes in both body composition and metabolic risk factors, particularly in transgender men. The changes in fat volumes continued over time, while the greatest changes in muscle mass and strength occurred after just one year of treatment.

“Previous studies in this area have been relatively short-term, up to two years,” explains Tommy Lundberg. “Our results show that it is important to continue monitoring the long-term health effects of hormone therapy in transgender individuals to prevent cardiovascular disease and other health issues.”

In transgender women receiving oestrogen treatment, the changes were not as pronounced. Their muscle volume decreased by an average of seven percent after five years of treatment, whereas muscle strength remained unchanged. The transgender women increased their total fat volume but gained less abdominal fat.

Tissue samples from muscle, fat and skin were also taken as part of the study. The next step is to analyse these tissue samples to understand the interaction between genetic sex and sex hormones. The researchers are investigating, among other things, how hormone treatment affects skeletal muscle gene expression and the mechanisms behind changes in adipose tissue.

“In addition to the health aspects, our research contributes to increased knowledge about reasonable expectations of the masculinising and feminising effects of sex hormone treatment,” says Tommy Lundberg. “However, some of the changes were relatively modest and should raise caution regarding expectations of long-term and large changes in this patient group.”

The research was funded by Region Stockholm, the Thuring Foundation, the 1.6 Million Club, the Centre for Innovative Medicine at Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Medical Association, the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the European Foundation for Studies of Diabetes.

Two of the co-authors are employed by AMRA Medical AB. Tommy Lundberg has been compensated for expert opinions on aspects related to skeletal muscle changes in transgender individuals and reimbursed for travelling to give lectures on the same topic.

Publication: “Longitudinal changes in regional fat and muscle composition and cardiometabolic biomarkers over 5 years of hormone therapy in transgender individuals”, Tommy R Lundberg, Andrea Tryfonos, Lisa MJ Eriksson, Helene Rundqvist, Eric Rullman, Mats Holmberg, Salwan Maqdasy, Jennifer Linge, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard, Stefan Arver, Daniel P Andersson, Anna Wiik, Thomas Gustafsson, Journal of Internal Medicine, online 28 November 2024, doi: 10.1111/joim.20039.

---

Journal

Journal of Internal Medicine

DOI

10.1111/joim.20039 

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Longitudinal changes in regional fat and muscle composition and cardiometabolic biomarkers over 5 years of hormone therapy in transgender individuals

Article Publication Date

28-Nov-2024

Disclaimer: AAAS and Eu

Their DNA survives in diverse populations across the world – but who were the Denisovans?

The Conversation
November 27, 2024

This finger bone discovered in Siberia in 2008 led to the original Denisovan discovery. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

It started with a finger bone found in a cave in the Altai mountains in Siberia in the late 2000s. Thanks to advances in DNA analysis, this was all that was required for scientists to be able to identify an entirely new group of hominins, meaning upright primates on the same evolutionary branch as humans.

Now known as the Denisovans (De-NEE-so-vans), after the Denisova cave in which the finger bone was found, the past few years have seen numerous other discoveries about these people. I’ve recently co-published a paper collating everything we know so far.

So who were the Denisovans, where did they live, and why are they important to the story of humanity?


Around 600,000 years ago, early humans in Africa diverged into groups. Some migrated out of Africa, becoming Neanderthals in eastern and western Eurasia and Denisovans in eastern Eurasia.

Modern humans later evolved in Africa, spread across the globe, and encountered Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other unknown archaic human groups. Yet by 40,000 years ago, only modern humans remained on the archaeological record.
The genetic legacy


Unlike Neanderthals, whose fossils are relatively abundant, Denisovan remains continue to be very scarce. Apart from that Siberian finger bone, the main other discovery was a jawbone found in China, in a limestone cave located on the northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. It had been believed that the Denisovans had been confined to Siberia, but this jawbone demonstrated that they had lived much further afield.

Their DNA has enabled scientists to build on this insight, since it survives in contemporary populations, particularly in Oceania, parts of Asia, and even Indigenous American populations. This shows that the Denisovans were widely distributed across these areas.


From Tibet to the Americas, the Denisovans certainly got around. Dmitry Kalinovsky

Strikingly, recent studies reveal that Denisovans interbred with modern humans multiple times. For instance, east Asians harbour ancestry from at least two distinct Denisovan populations. Also, the people of Papua New Guinea, which retain up to 5% Denisovan ancestry, a much higher proportion than other groups, interbred with at least two Denisovan groups at different times.

Additionally, research has shown that some populations from the Philippines carry a distinct Denisovan ancestry compared to their neighbouring groups. These various genetic differences highlight that the interbreeding between modern humans and Denisovans has a complex history.

Adaptations

While much about the Denisovans’ lifestyle, appearance and culture remains unknown, the discovery of the Tibetan jawbone showed that these people lived in diverse environments, and that they must have been very adaptable. Sure enough, we now know that Denisovan ancestry in modern humans has contributed to adaptive traits, particularly in challenging environments.

A notable example is the EPAS1 gene. Inherited from Denisovans, it helps regulate the body’s response to low oxygen levels, giving Tibetans a physiological advantage in the high altitudes of the Tibetan plateau.


Other human adaptations possibly derived from Denisovan interbreeding relate to being able to tolerate cold weather, and being able to metabolise lipids, which include fats and oils. These may have been beneficial for populations in northern regions, such as the Arctic. For example, Inuit populations carry Denisovan genes that help to regulate body fat and maintain warmth.


The Inuit may have the Denisovans to thank for their ability to tolerate harsh climes. Chris Christopherson


Some genes that aid in fighting infections also appear to have Denisovan origins. These immune-related genes might have played crucial roles in protecting ancient and modern humans from south and east Asia, the Americas and Papua New Guinea against specific pathogens, illustrating how Denisovan heritage continues to affect human health today.
Unanswered questions

Many questions about the Denisovans remain unanswered. For instance, how genetically distinct were these populations, and how many distinct groups existed? We know that at least four distinct Denisovan populations interbred with modern humans. However, with further analyses, this number might increase, revealing an even more complex story.

We’re also looking for a better understanding of the biological impact of Denisovan DNA in modern humans. While many beneficial traits have been identified as derived from Neanderthals, only a few have been found for Denisovans so far. Many other potential contributions remain to be explored.

This will be possible only if additional Denisovan remains are discovered and DNA is extracted and sequenced. We need more data, especially from diverse geographical regions and time periods, to provide new insights into these people’s adaptations, interactions with other hominins, and lasting legacy in human evolution.

To address these questions, our research capabilities will need to improve. For example, we need new tools to more accurately distinguish Denisovan genetic material from Neanderthal and modern human DNA.

Additionally, studying Denisovan ancestry in populations beyond east Asia and Oceania, such as Indigenous Americans, could shed light on exactly which Denisovan sources have contributed to modern humans genomes.

The discoveries to date highlight the power of genetic studies in uncovering hidden chapters of our past. Each discovery brings us closer to understanding who the Denisovans were and how their lives and adaptations continue to affect humans today.

Linda Ongaro, Research Fellow in Genetics, Trinity College Dublin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Recently declassified document has historian convinced that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg during their 1951 trial on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. AP Photo, File

The Conversation

November 26, 2024

The sons of an American woman executed for spying on the United States during the Cold War want President Joe Biden to clear her name before he leaves office.


Ethel Rosenberg and her husband, Julius, were executed on June 19, 1953, for conspiracy to commit espionage. They were accused of giving “the secret” of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union, meaning they supposedly passed vital technological information to help the Soviets develop their own bomb.

As the author of a book on the Rosenberg case, I know that there was no “secret,” and that while Julius was a spy, Ethel was not.

Yet generations of Americans have learned that the Rosenbergs – both of them – betrayed their country. If now, 75 years later, we know that an innocent woman was killed, how can the government rectify this?
A miscarriage of justice that orphaned two boys

In 2015, Rosenberg sons Michael and Robert Meeropol – they took the last name of the couple who adopted them after their parents’ deaths – argued in The New York Times that their mother was wrongfully convicted and executed. They urged then-President Barack Obama to exonerate Ethel, which would officially declare her not guilty of the crime for which she was killed.

Many were sympathetic to their plea. Executing the Rosenbergs orphaned the two boys – 6-year-old Robert and 10-year-old Michael. But theirs wasn’t just an emotional plea. The facts were on their side.

Documents from the case reveal that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knew Ethel was not an active spy. FBI agents arrested her only as leverage to pressure Julius to name his dozen or so collaborators.

An electrical engineer and devoted communist, Julius gained access to classified information while working with Emerson Radio Corp. and the U.S. Army Signal Corps. He recruited and managed a spy ring that provided whatever military information it could to the Soviet Union.

The pressure on Julius didn’t work, and he never named names. He and Ethel were electrocuted after a trial riddled with problems such as perjured testimony and an incompetent defense team.

The trial also featured inappropriate communications between the presiding judge and federal prosecutors.

Judge Irving Kaufman had lobbied to preside over the Rosenberg case, and Justice Department officials supported his selection to further pressure Julius: Kaufman was open to imposing the death penalty.

After the jury found the couple guilty, Kaufman consulted with the prosecuting attorneys to determine whether both Rosenbergs should get the same sentence. Prosecutors were reluctant to support Ethel’s execution. Judge Kaufman decided to sentence both Ethel and Julius to death anyway.
Getting it wrong

The crime for which they died was not spying but conspiracy to commit espionage. Prosecutors argued that since Ethel was cognizant of her husband’s espionage activities, she was involved in the conspiracy.

I used to think that, too.

“In all likelihood Ethel’s role in the spy ring was at least that of an aware spectator,” I wrote in a 2015 opinion piece after the Rosenberg sons requested her exoneration, “placing her inside the fluid category of conspiracy in the eyes of the law.”

I concluded that imposing the death penalty on Ethel was a “cruel and unjust act” for which the U.S. government should apologize – but not exonerate.

I was wrong.

I now believe that a presidential exoneration is appropriate and necessary because it will correct the view that Ethel was an active spy. It will address the serious flaws in her trial and conviction. And it will set right the historical record.

Many popular books, textbooks, tweets and news sites get the case wrong. They incorrectly lump Julius and Ethel together, labeling both as spies for the Soviet Union, and claim they were convicted of espionage. Time magazine once ranked the couple among America’s “Top 10 Crime Duos.”

 

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in prison transport after their March 1953 conviction. AP Images, file

For decades, the U.S. government has gotten the facts of its own criminal case wrong, too.

The National Security Agency falsely stated in a 2018 publication that the couple were executed for treason. Even the FBI’s website incorrectly claims Julius and Ethel together ran an espionage ring that passed atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.
Correcting the record

A newly declassified document clarifies the truth.

In August 2024, the Rosenberg sons obtained a handwritten memo from August 1950 authored by the NSA’s chief analyst, Meredith Gardner. He wrote that, based on Soviet intelligence, Ethel knew about Julius’ espionage work but “due to illness she did not engage in the work herself.”

This document confirms what other sources such as the FBI had already indicated: Ethel was not a spy and “did not engage in the work” of espionage and – most importantly – U.S. government officials knew it.

They knew it when FBI agents arrested Ethel on Aug. 11, 1950. They knew it when the jury convicted her nine months later. They knew it when the judge sentenced her to death on April 5, 1951. And they knew it when prison officials executed her on Friday, June 19, 1953.

Now, Michael and Robert Meeropol are using the declassified memo to urge Biden “to exonerate (Ethel) Rosenberg by issuing a formal presidential proclamation saying that she was wrongly convicted and executed.”
Full exoneration

I, too, have come to believe Ethel Rosenberg’s killing was a morally repugnant miscarriage of justice.

That’s why a presidential pardon by Biden, who is now contemplating his end-of-term pardon list, would not be sufficient redress. A pardon forgives someone for a crime they committed. Ethel Rosenberg did not commit the crime for which she was convicted, so it’s the U.S. government that should beg forgiveness from Ethel’s descendants.

“President Biden has the power to right this historic injustice,” said Jennifer Meeropol, Ethel’s granddaughter and director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, on Sept. 10, 2024. Only a full exoneration, Meeropol argued, could “redress the harm done to my family and bring peace to my father and uncle in their lifetimes.”

This almost surely will not happen under President-elect Donald Trump.

Roy Cohn, Trump’s late personal lawyer, was an important member of the Rosenberg trial prosecutorial team. Cohn claimed in interviews throughout his life that Ethel “alone was the ringleader, who led Julius around by a leash.” He was wrong, but Trump won’t likely contradict his mentor.

We historians know that our understanding of the past is always evolving. When new facts cast light on a past injustice, I think we should learn from those mistakes and correct the injustices that we can.

Exonerating Ethel would be an important step toward truth. And it would correct the historical record.

Lori Clune, Professor of History, California State University, Fresno

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Are seed oils really as harmful as RFK Jr. claims?

Photo by Fulvio Ciccolo on Unsplash

The Conversation

November 26, 2024


RFK Jr., Donald Trump’s pick to head the us Health and Human Services Department, wrote on X that Americans are being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils. He joins the growing list of people claiming that these oils are toxic. But are they?

Seed oils include sunflower, rapeseed, corn and grapeseed oils. High heat, chemical solvents and extreme pressure are used to extract the oil from plant seeds. They are then further refined to stabilise it.

These refining processes can affect the chemical compounds of the oil, reducing the amount of healthy antioxidants, polyphenols and phospholipids. However, this process gives the oil a longer shelf life and stabilises the oil so that it doesn’t burn at high temperatures

Many social media influencers claim that seed oils contain toxins. But most of these compounds, such as pollutants and heavy metals, are removed during refining. The amount that is left is too small to cause humans any harm.

The main issue with these oils is that some fast-food outlets reuse them to cut costs. Once reused and reheated, trans fats, which increase “bad cholesterol” and decrease “good cholesterol”, can form in the oil. However, most health and safety regulations ban the reuse of oils in food establishments.

Most seed oils are rich sources of omega-6 fatty acids. According to decades of rigorous research, these unsaturated fatty acids have many health benefits. They are linked to reduced risk of heart disease and improvements in cholesterol levels.

These benefits were highlighted in epidemiological studies when people replaced animal fat and saturated fatty acids with omega-6 fatty acids and vegetable oils. Replacing saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated and mono-unsaturated fatty acids from plant sources significantly reduced the risk of heart disease in different populations.

However, they do have some drawbacks. Omega-6 can increase the risk of inflammation throughout the body. Inflammation is linked to many chronic diseases, including heart disease and diabetes.

Studies show that omega-6 intake should be limited and tempered by consuming omega-3 fatty acids, which are anti-inflammatory.
It’s all about the ratios

A healthy diet should ideally have an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of four to one (4:1). A diet with omega-3 can help control the harms of overconsumption of omega-6 from seed oils. However, different ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids can help reduce the risk of certain chronic diseases. For example, a ratio of 5:1 may be beneficial for people with asthma. And ratios of 2:1 to 3:1 have been shown to reduce inflammation in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

In recent years, the ratio between the amount of omega-3 and omega-6 consumed has been trending in an unhealthy direction: people are consuming much more omega-6 than omega-3, with a ratio of 15:1 in some cases.

So if you’re looking for a healthier ratio, eat more foods rich in omega-3, such as seafood, avocado and nuts. Some oils, such as olive oil, are also rich in omega-3. However, olive oil may not be the best oil to cook with as some people believe it is unstable at high heat.

As long as people consume enough omega-3, the consumption of omega-6 would not cause inflammation. In fact, their combined intake would reduce the risk of several chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes.

While seed oils are not toxic, fat intake should be moderated in any diet to maintain good health. Fat intake is essential as it helps with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins (vitamins A, D, E and K), the deficiency of which can have dire consequences for your health.

A diet with some seed oil will not cause ill health. Seed oils also do not cause obesity, as some people are claiming. Obesity is linked to multiple factors beyond the type of oil being consumed. There is a stronger association between obesity and the amount rather than the type of oil consumed.

The main issue with seed oils is that they are mostly found in highly processed food and fast food. Reducing the intake of ultra-processed food, whether made with seed oils or not, would have more health benefits than simply cutting down on seed oil. A lot of these foods are high in refined sugar, trans fats and salt, which do more damage to health than seed oils.

Evidence shows that seed oils are a healthier alternative to animal fats. Decades of evidence show a clear link between the replacement of animal fat with plant-based oils with a reduced risk of heart disease.

For people cooking at home, a bit of oil, whether seed or fruit oil, will not damage your health. Used in moderation and as part of a varied, whole-foods-based diet, seed oils can be a valuable addition to a healthy lifestyle. As with all foods, moderation is key.

Raysa El Zein, Lecturer, Life Sciences, University of Westminster

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cinnamon, spice and ‘everything nice’ – why lead-tainted cinnamon products have turned up on shelves

The Conversation

November 27, 2024

Spices bring up feelings of comfort, cultural belonging and holidays. They can make our homes smell amazing and our food taste delicious. They can satisfy our cravings, expand our culinary horizons and help us eat things that we might normally dislike. Spices have health-enhancing properties and, in medicine, have been used to heal people since the ancient times.

Recently, however, spices have been getting a bad rep.

In September 2024, Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization created to inform consumers about products sold in the U.S., investigated more than three dozen ground cinnamon products and found that 1 in 3 contained lead levels above 1 part per million, enough to trigger a recall in New York, one U.S. state that has published guidelines for heavy metals in spices.

The Food and Drug Administration issued three alerts throughout 2024, warning consumers about lead in certain brands of cinnamon products. Such notices rightfully put consumers on alert and have people wondering if the spice products they buy are safe – or not. A Consumer Reports investigation of more than three dozen ground cinnamon products found that 1 in 3 contain lead levels above 1 part per million.

As an environmental epidemiologist with training in nutritional sciences, I have investigated the relationship between nutritional status, diets and heavy metal exposures in children.

There are several things consumers should be thinking about when it comes to lead – and other heavy metals – in cinnamon.
Why is lead found in cinnamon?

Most people are familiar with cinnamon in two forms – sticks and ground spice. Both come from the dried inner bark of the cinnamon tree, which is harvested after a few years of cultivation. For the U.S. market, cinnamon is largely imported from Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India and China.

One way that lead could accumulate in cinnamon tree bark is when trees are cultivated in contaminated soil. Lead can also be introduced in cinnamon products during processing, such as grinding.

When ground cinnamon is prepared, some producers may add lead compounds intentionally to enhance the weight or color of the product and, thus, fetch a higher sale price. This is known as “food adulteration,” and products with known or suspected adulteration are refused entry into the U.S.

However, in the fall of 2023, approximately 600 cases of elevated blood lead levels in the U.S., defined as levels equal to or above 3.5 micrograms per deciliter – mostly among children – were linked to the consumption of certain brands of cinnamon apple sauce. The levels of lead in cinnamon used to manufacture those products ranged from 2,270 to 5,110 parts per million, indicating food adulteration. The manufacturing plant was investigated by the FDA.

More broadly, spices purchased from vendors in the U.S. have lower lead levels than those sold abroad.

There is some evidence that cinnamon sticks have lower lead levels than ground spice. Lead levels in ground cinnamon sold in the U.S. and analyzed by Consumer Reports ranged from 0.02 to 3.52 parts per million. These levels were at least 1,500 times lower than in the adulterated cinnamon.

There are no federal guidelines for lead or other heavy metals in spices. New York state has proposed even stricter guidelines than its current level of 1 part per million, which would allow the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets to remove products from commerce if lead levels exceed 0.21 parts per million.
What does it mean that ‘the dose makes the poison’?

The current FDA guideline on daily intake of lead from diets overall is to limit lead intake to 2.2 micrograms per day for children. For women of reproductive age, this value is 8.8 micrograms.

The lead dose we are exposed to from foods depends on the level of lead in the food and how much of that food we eat. Higher doses mean more potential harm. The frequency with which we consume foods – meaning daily versus occasionally – also matters.

For spices like cinnamon, the amount and frequency of consumption depends on cultural traditions and personal preference. For many, cinnamon is a seasonal spice; others use it year-round in savory dishes or sauces.

Cinnamon is beloved in baked goods. Take a cinnamon roll recipe calling for 1.5 tablespoons (slightly less than 12 grams) of the spice. If a recipe yields 12 rolls, each will have around 1 gram of cinnamon. In the Consumer Reports investigation, some cinnamon products were classified as “okay to use” or “best to use.”

The highest value of lead in cinnamon products in the “okay to use” category was 0.87 parts per million, and in the “best to use” category, it was 0.15 parts per million. A child would have to consume 2.5 or more rolls made with the “okay to use” cinnamon to exceed the FDA guideline on limiting lead intake from foods to 2.2 micrograms per day, assuming that no other food contained lead. To exceed this guideline with “best to use” cinnamon, a child would have to eat 15 or more rolls.
Can cinnamon contribute to elevated blood lead levels?

Because of lead’s effects on development in early life, the greatest concern is for exposure in young children and pregnant women. Lead is absorbed in the small intestine, where it can latch onto cellular receptors that evolved to carry iron and other metals.

The impact of a contaminated spice on a person’s blood lead level depends on the dose of exposure and the proportion of lead available for intestinal absorption. For several spices, the proportion of available lead was 49%, which means that about half of the lead that is ingested will be absorbed.

Lead absorption is higher after a fast of three hours or more, and skipping breakfast may contribute to higher blood lead levels in children.

People who have nutritional deficiencies, such as iron deficiency, also tend to absorb more lead and have higher blood lead levels. This is because our bodies compensate for the deficiency by producing more receptors to capture iron from foods. Lead takes advantage of the additional receptors to enter the body. Young children and pregnant women are at higher risk for developing iron deficiency, so there is good reason for vigilance about lead in the foods they consume.

Studies show that among children with lead poisoning in the U.S., contaminated spices were one of several sources of lead exposure. Studies that estimate blood lead levels from statistical models suggest that consuming 5 micrograms of lead or more from spices daily could substantially contribute to elevated blood lead levels.

For occasional or seasonal consumption, or lower levels of contamination, more research is needed to understand how lead in spices would affect lead levels in the blood.

For people who have other sources of lead in their homes, jobs or hobbies, additional lead from foods or spices may matter more because it adds to the cumulative dose from multiple exposure sources.
How to test for elevated blood lead levels

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children at risk for lead exposure get a blood lead test at 1 and 2 years of age. Older children can also get tested. Finger-prick screening tests are often available in pediatric offices, but results may need to be confirmed in venous blood if the screening result was elevated.

Adults in the U.S. are not routinely tested for lead exposure, but concerned couples who plan on having children should talk to their health care providers.
What to consider when using or buying cinnamon or other spices

If the product is on an FDA Alert or the Consumer Reports “don’t use” list, discard it.

Other questions to consider are:Does your household use spices frequently and in large amounts?
Do young children or pregnant women in your household consume spices?
Do you typically consume spices on breakfast foods or beverages?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then buy good-quality products, from large, reputable sellers. Think about using cinnamon sticks if possible.

And continue to enjoy spices!

Katarzyna Kordas, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, University at Buffalo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.