Showing posts sorted by date for query SOPHIA. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2026

Common food preservatives linked to high blood pressure and heart disease

European Society of Cardiology

The study of 112,395 people includes detailed analysis of diet and food ingredients.

Researchers found eight preservative food additives linked to high blood pressure or cardiovascular disease.

The highest risks were in people who ate the most preservatives.

Sophia Antipolis, France – 21 May 2026. Eating foods that contain common preservative food additives may increase the risks of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, according to research published in the European Heart Journal [1] today (Thursday).

The research was led by Dr Mathilde Touvier, a research director at INSERM (the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research), and Anaïs Hasenböhler, PhD student, both from the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team at the Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, France.

Ms Hasenböhler said: “Food preservatives are used in hundreds of thousands of industrially processed foods. Experimental studies suggest that some preservative food additives may be harmful to cardiovascular health, but we have not had enough evidence on the impact of these ingredients in humans. As far as we know, this is the first study of its kind to investigate the links between a wide range of preservatives and cardiovascular health.”

The research is part of a larger study, called NutriNet-Santé, and included 112,395 volunteers from across France. Every six months the volunteers told researchers everything they ate and drank over a period of three days.

Researchers carried out detailed analyses of the ingredients of all the food and drink, including any preservatives. They also tracked the volunteers’ health for an average of seven to eight years to see if they develop high blood pressure or any cardiovascular disease.

Researcher found that 99.5% of the volunteers had consumed at least one food preservative within the first two years of taking part.

Overall, they found that people who ate the largest amounts of ‘non-antioxidant’ preservatives had a 29% higher risk of hypertension, compared to those who ate the least, and a 16% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack, stroke and angina. People who ate the most antioxidant preservatives had a 22% higher risk of hypertension. Non-antioxidant preservatives are designed to stop harmful microbes, such as mould and bacteria, from growing, whereas antioxidant preservatives are designed to stop oxidation which means the food will not turn brown or become rancid.

Researchers also looked at 17 of the most commonly eaten preservatives and found that eight of these were specifically linked to high blood pressure. These were: potassium sorbate (E202), potassium metabisulphite (E224), sodium nitrite (E250), ascorbic acid (E300), sodium ascorbate (E301), sodium erythorbate (E316), citric acid (E330) and extracts of rosemary (E392). Ascorbic acid (E300) was also specifically linked to cardiovascular disease.

Dr Touvier added: “This study has some limitations inherent to its observational design. However, the findings are based on highly detailed data, and we have taken account of other factors that can increase or lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. Experimental research in the literature consistently suggested that preservatives may cause oxidative stress in the body or affect the way the pancreas works.

These results suggest we need a re-evaluation of the risks and benefits of these food additives by the authorities in charge, such as the EFSA in Europe and the FDA in the USA, for better consumer protection. In the meantime, these findings support existing recommendations to favour non-processed and minimally processed foods, and avoid unnecessary additives. Doctors and other healthcare professionals play a key role in explaining these recommendations to the public.”

The researchers are now looking at how food additives and ultra-processed foods may affect signs of inflammation, oxidative stress, metabolic profile in the blood and the composition of the gut microbiota. This may help them to understand why additives may increase the risks of disease.

Journal

European Heart Journal

DOI

10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Preservative food additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: the NutriNet-Santé study

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

The real reason Stephen Colbert got canceled

(Screenshot/CBS)

Robert Reich

May 19, 2026

ALTERNET

Stephen Colbert’s last show is this Thursday evening.

CBS refused to renew his contract, and you know exactly why: He mocked and criticized Trump.

CBS says it’s ending “The Late Show” because the show was costing CBS some $40 million a year. That’s utter bull----. Colbert allowed CBS to charge higher fees to local affiliates, because it attracted millions of viewers to those affiliates’ 11 p.m. news programs in anticipation of “The Late Show” airing right after. The show was also a promotional gold mine for CBS, whose series stars were often interviewed by Colbert. No wonder CBS was “feverish” to lock Colbert into a new contract only three years ago.

What really happened couldn’t be clearer. Führer Trump was furious at Colbert’s mocking and publicly called for CBS to cancel him (or “put him to sleep NOW” as Trump wrote in one social media post). At the same time, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, was on the verge of a lucrative merger deal that Trump could interfere with.

Paramount had already sucked up to Trump by offering him $16 million to settle a lawsuit he brought against CBS News’s “60 Minutes,” although he had almost no chance of prevailing in court.

In a monologue, Colbert called the settlement a “big fat bribe,” which it was. Days later he got word he’d been canceled. About a week after that, the deal was approved.

Before Colbert started at CBS, he hosted Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” where he played a right-wing, blowhard, curmudgeonly TV host.

I was often a guest, presumably because I was a good foil for the blowhard Colbert was acting. (I’ve also been a guest on his “The Late Show.”)

The first time I came to do “The Colbert Report,” I was nervous. I didn’t know how to respond to someone who’d be acting as a conservative ---hole but wasn’t one in real life.

I was sitting alone in the greenroom when Colbert popped in. He introduced himself, sat down, and then, smiling, said, “Just wanted to warn you that I play a real jerk out there.”

“Oh, I know,” I said. “I’ve watched the show.”

“Good. Don’t argue with me. Just play along,” he counseled.

“I’ll try not to argue,” I said. “But I go on so many of these combative shows that I may automatically start arguing.”

Colbert laughed. “That’s fine. Just let me do the heavy lifting. I’ll be so obnoxious that viewers will see the wisdom in your argument!”

“Sounds good,” I said, still nervous.

“Just have fun!” Colbert advised, before vanishing to his set.

Here’s one of our discussions.

Colbert was anything but a right-wing jerk. In fact, as I’ve come to know him over the years, he’s remarkably self-effacing and wicked smart. He’s progressive in his politics, of course, but never dogmatic. Even when he skewers Trump on his “The Late Show,” he does it with gentle humor and no trace of anger or bitterness.

I’ve done many thousands of interviews over my adult life. Some interviewers, like the late Bill Moyers, have been so thoughtful and well-prepared that I’ve barely had to think; I just fall into a natural conversation with them. Others are so stilted or slick that they hardly listen to what I say, and the interview has the tortuous feel of gears grinding from one topic to another.

Colbert is like Moyers in being well-prepared and listening intently. But he adds a rapid-fire wit that can make a serious point while putting an audience in stitches.

When Colbert interviewed me last August about my latest book, CBS had just announced that his contract wouldn’t be renewed and that by late May the show would be off the air for good.

A stagehand met me at the side door to the old Ed Sullivan Theater. As he led me to the greenroom, I asked him how everyone there was taking the news.

“Not well,” he said. After a pause he said, “We’re like a family here.”

Some time later, Stephen came by the greenroom. I asked him how he was doing. “Oh, I’m fine,” he said. “I’ll find something else to do. But there are about a hundred people here who will be out of jobs, and frankly I’m worried about them.”

They are like a family — Stephen Colbert, his executive producer, the segment producers and directors, showrunners, writers, cameramen, gaffers, grips, lighters, stagehands, custodians, musicians. Stephen has treated them like a family. His respect and concern for them is unusual in the business but consistent with the courtesy and kindness I discovered the first time I met him.

In sharp contrast is the way CBS and Paramount’s new owners, Larry and David Ellison, have treated Colbert and all those who have made “The Late Show” such an important part of our entertainment and political firmament.

Behind the Ellisons lurks Trump, who treats everyone like s--- except strongmen he can’t control such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

After this Thursday’s show, the Ed Sullivan Theater will go dark, and we’ll lose one of the nation’s funniest and most courageous, truthful, and gentlemanly critics of Trump and his lawless regime. Our society and democracy will be the worse for it.

Farewell, and thank you, Stephen.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

Colbert didn't just entertain America — he redefined American patriotism

Colbert tapes a segment for ‘The Late Show’ at Quicken Loans Arena ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

The Conversation

May 20, 2026

Stephen Colbert’s final episode as host of “The Late Show” on May 21, 2026, won’t mark the end of his career.

But as a scholar of political satire, I think it offers a chance to reflect on the lasting impact of his comedy, which has spanned his work as a correspondent on “The Daily Show,” his conservative pundit persona on “The Colbert Report” and his reinvention on “The Late Show.”

The best satirists do more than entertain. They influence public discourse and leave lasting marks on political life. This group includes towering writers such as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, alongside performers like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

In my view, Stephen Colbert has earned a spot in the top tier. Here are five reasons why.
1. He didn’t just satirize the news – he informed the public

Most satirists offer wry commentary about political events.

Colbert often did something more ambitious: He helped audiences understand them.

Critics have long dismissed political comedy as superficial entertainment, but Colbert’s satire frequently offered valuable information to the public.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision transformed campaign finance law, tilting political influence toward wealthy people and corporations. As host of the “Colbert Report,” the comedian responded by creating an ongoing series of “Colbert Super PAC” segments. Working with former Federal Election Commission Chair Trevor Potter, Colbert was able to translate the opaque mechanics of campaign finance law into accessible civic education.

Colbert used his platform to highlight the dangers of unrestricted, anonymous donations in politics.

It’s hard to fully track the impact of this approach. But a 2007 Pew Research Center study did find that audiences for satirical news programs such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” scored high on political knowledge measures, outperforming audiences who only consumed political news from traditional outlets.

That urge to use satire as a vehicle for civic education continued after Colbert became host of “The Late Show” in 2015.

With debates raging over the border wall proposed by the first Trump administration, Colbert brought experts on to the program to break down the engineering, financial and logistical realities of building one that spanned the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border. Yes, the absurdity of the physics and finances elicited laughs. But Colbert also helped viewers understand why Trump’s promises were implausible.
2. He gave Americans a new political vocabulary

When the world is absurd, the satirist uses ironic wit to make sense of it.

Colbert excelled at distilling the spin and duplicity of politics into memorable soundbites.

On the first episode of “The Colbert Report” in 2005, he introduced the word “truthiness” to describe the tendency to prefer what “feels true” over what the evidence supports. It incisively gave a name to a deceptive political tactic, one that the Bush administration had repeatedly used, from “Mission Accomplished,” to “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Truthiness” took on a life of its own. Merriam-Webster named it Word of the Year in 2006.

Colbert continued this rhetorical work on “The Late Show.” For example, in February 2017, after Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the press by labeling major news outlets “the enemy of the American people,” the comedian shifted from parody to diagnosis. He foregrounded the phrase’s authoritarian history, insisting that the rhetoric signaled a meaningful escalation in attacks on First Amendment rights, rather than a passing controversy.

In other words: There was nothing to laugh about here.
3. He blurred the line between satire and direct action

Media scholars have increasingly noted how political comedians now function as hybrid figures who blur journalism, entertainment and civic engagement. According to communications scholar Joseph Faina, Colbert may be one of the clearest examples of that shift.

Colbert’s satirical presidential campaign in South Carolina in 2007 mocked the theater of American electoral politics. He actually attempted to enter the race through official channels, only to be blocked by the South Carolina Democratic Party. But even in his failure to appear on the ballot, he was able to show how party control and media spectacle, not just voter choice, structure the field of viable candidates.

In 2010, he held a rally with Jon Stewart on the National Mall before a crowd of over 200,000 people. Assuming his conservative pundit persona, Colbert blended irony and sincerity, mocking the self-seriousness, sensationalism and outrage-driven news cycles of cable news through his competing calls for “sanity” and “fear.” But the event was also designed to motivate voter turnout in the midterm elections.

That interventionist impulse continued on “The Late Show.” During the 2020 election cycle, for example, Colbert encouraged voting through segments like “Better Know a Ballot.” A riff on his previous “Better Know a District” from “The Colbert Report,” the “Better Know a Ballot” series was designed to educate viewers about ballot access, voting procedures and the practical elements of democratic participation.
4. He measurably influenced political behavior

Claims about comedians changing politics can easily become exaggerated. But Colbert’s influence has empirical support.

Research by political communication scholars Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that exposure to political satire can increase viewers’ sense of what’s known as “political efficacy” – the belief that they can understand and engage with politics. Other studies suggest satirical news audiences are often more politically active than they’re assumed to be.

Colbert is repeatedly cited in these studies as one of the prime examples of a satirist who makes an impact.

Take, for instance, the so-called “Colbert bump,” where candidates who appear on his programs experience boosts in fundraising, visibility and media coverage. Political scientist James H. Fowler found that Democratic candidates who appeared on “The Colbert Report” experienced a 44% increase in campaign donations within 30 days of their appearance.

A similar effect could be seen on “The Late Show.”

After Colbert interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate, in February 2026, CBS canceled the segment, claiming – perhaps disingenuously – that the network could be punished for not adhering to the FCC’s “equal time” rule, which requires broadcast stations to offer comparable airtime to opposing candidates.

A taped version of the interview was nonetheless posted to YouTube, where it racked up over 9 million views, helping fuel Talarico’s US$27 million first-quarter fundraising haul, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S. Senate candidate in the first quarter of an election year.
5. He redefined American patriotism

To rank Colbert among America’s most important satirists requires one additional consideration: his role in redefining not only what America stands for, but what it means to be patriotic.

Many satirists lean toward cynicism, portraying politics as hopelessly corrupt and public life as fundamentally absurd. Not Colbert.

As linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argued in his 2006 book, “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show,” conservatives had claimed a monopoly on patriotism as the 20th century drew to a close. At the same time, many of them promoted what’s known as “blind patriotism,” in which any criticism of the U.S. is cast as evidence of insufficient national loyalty.

Colbert’s satire directly challenged that framework.

To expose that performative patriotism, Colbert’s persona on “The Colbert Report” wrapped itself in exaggerated patriotic imagery: flags, bombast, overconfidence and chest-thumping nationalism.

But the joke was never America itself. The target was a performance of patriotism that treated dissent as disloyalty, emotional certainty as evidence and partisan identity as civic virtue.

As I argue in my 2011 book, “Colbert’s America,” Colbert’s satire consistently distinguished between nationalism and democratic patriotism. The former demands unquestioning loyalty. The latter demands accountability. For example, through segments like “Threat-Down” on “The Colbert Report,” he satirized the way nationalism often depends on exaggerating fictive dangers and denouncing symbolic, external enemies.

In that sense, Colbert belongs in a distinctly American satirical tradition that stretches back to Benjamin Franklin. The great American satirists have used humor not to reject the national project, but to expose the gap between its ideals and its realities. They reshape how citizens understand power and civic responsibility.

For nearly three decades, Stephen Colbert has done exactly that.

Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature, Penn State

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

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

Avoidable inequalities remain in cardiovascular disease burden and care

European Society of Cardiology

Key takeaways

The latest cardiovascular disease (CVD) statistics from the ESC Atlas of Cardiology have been published in the European Heart Journal.

CVD continues to be a leading health challenge − the report highlights that CVD is responsible for more than 3 million deaths and 68 million healthy years of life lost annually across ESC member countries.

Great steps forward in cardiovascular medicine are at risk of being offset by the high prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and obesity. · Middle-income countries continue to experience roughly double the incidence of CVD mortality of high-income nations, underscoring the need for stronger health system investment and more equitable service provision.

Sophia Antipolis, France – 19 May 2026: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains one of Europe’s biggest health challenges, according to new data from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Atlas of Cardiology, published in the European Heart Journal.1

The ESC Atlas of Cardiology celebrates its 10-year anniversary with the fifth edition of the ESC Atlas report. The publication again demonstrates that CVD is the most common cause of death in more than 50 ESC member countries studied. “The new report shows that CVD was responsible for more than 3 million deaths and 68 million healthy life-years lost annually. These are not abstract statistics − they represent lives lost too early, people living with long-term illness and health systems under growing pressure,” said Professor Adam Timmis, co-first author of the publication.

In line with previous ESC Atlas editions, a central message is the persistent and avoidable inequalities in cardiovascular risk, outcomes and access to care. Middle-income countries continue to experience roughly double the mortality of high-income nations. Professor Steffen Petersen, co-first author, noted: “Europe does not have one cardiovascular reality – ESC Atlas data show that the CVD burden is uneven across ESC countries. While there has been real progress in some countries, in many there are important gaps related to access to advanced diagnostics, procedures and specialist workforce.”

New ESC Atlas data emphasise the growing importance of wider determinants of cardiovascular health, with air pollution levels twice as high in middle-income countries as in high-income countries. In addition, the prevalence of vaping, particularly in young people, underscores the lack of evidence supporting e-cigarettes as an effective smoking cessation tool. The use of e-cigarettes increases the likelihood of later cigarette smoking among minors,2 strengthening the need for clearer regulation and youth-focused prevention policies.

The high prevalence of clinical risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity and diabetes remains a concern. Professor Timmis noted: “The progress that has been made in reducing the CVD burden across some ESC member countries is at risk of being offset by the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The scale of the healthy life-years lost due to modifiable risk factors supports urgent efforts to improve prevention across a person’s life and aid early detection and guideline implementation. The medical and economic costs of inaction are huge.”

Female disadvantage is evident across many of the variables studied, including lower access to key cardiac procedures. While the ESC Atlas report highlighted that 40% of cardiologists are women, only 11.5% of interventional cardiologists are women, with even fewer women in cardiac surgery (8.8%).

“A major strength of the ESC Atlas is the contributions of the ESC National Cardiac Societies, which provide not only a picture of disease burden, but also a practical representation of how cardiovascular care is delivered, to whom and by whom in different countries,” explained Professor Petersen, who concluded: “The ESC Atlas is not just about describing the problem. Mapping these gaps is the first step towards closing them with targeted policy action, guiding investment and supporting national cardiovascular strategies that reduce inequalities.”

In addition to the fifth published edition, interactive data dashboards showing inequalities in CVD across more than 50 countries are freely available at eAtlas.

Previous editions of ESC Atlas data were presented to EU health ministers as part of discussions that led to the recent launch of the Safe Hearts Plan, which aims to anchor CVD at the centre of Europe’s public health agenda.

ENDS

References:

[1] Timmis A, Petersen SE, et al. European Society of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2025. Eur Heart J. 2026. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag345

[2] Hammond D, Reid JL, Cole AG, et al. Electronic cigarette use and smoking initiation among youth: a longitudinal cohort study. CMAJ. 2017;189:E1328−E1336.