“When we look at the totality of evidence for both the primary and secondary cardiovascular endpoints in COSMOS, we see promising signals that a cocoa flavanol supplement may reduce important cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular disease,” said Sesso. “These findings merit further investigation to better understand the effects of cocoa flavanols on cardiovascular health.”

“Previous studies have suggested health benefits of flavanols — compounds in several plant-based foods including cocoa, tea, grapes, and berries,” said Manson. “COSMOS was not a chocolate trial — rather, it’s a rigorous trial of a cocoa extract supplement that contains levels of cocoa flavanols that a person could never realistically consume from chocolate without adding excessive calories, fat, and sugar to their diet.”

Smaller, short-term trials have found cardiovascular benefits for cocoa flavanols on blood pressure and blood vessel dilation. COSMOS offered the first opportunity to study if a cocoa flavanol supplement might also lead to longer-term reductions in clinical cardiovascular events. Investigators also looked for reductions in risk of cancer. In addition, the trial was designed to test a common multivitamin in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

The primary cardiovascular outcome for the cocoa flavanol intervention was a composite of total cardiovascular events, including heart attacks, stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular death, carotid artery disease, peripheral artery surgery, and unstable angina. More than 21,000 participants were randomized to take daily capsules that contained 500 mg cocoa flavanols (donated by Mars Edge), a multivitamin tablet (donated by GSK Consumer Healthcare), neither or both.

The study found that cocoa flavanols reduced total cardiovascular events by 10 percent, but this was not statistically significant. However, several secondary analyses provided broader support for a potential benefit of cocoa flavanols on cardiovascular events. First, those receiving the cocoa flavanol supplement had a significant 27 percent reduction in death from cardiovascular disease. Second, when the study team took adherence to study pills into account (by looking at those taking their study pills regularly), the team saw a stronger, 15 percent reduction in total cardiovascular events and a 39 percent reduction in death from cardiovascular disease. Third, a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (heart attacks, strokes, and cardiovascular deaths), although not a trial focus, was also significantly reduced. The authors note in their report that their promising results on cocoa flavanols and cardiovascular events warrant cautious interpretation and underscore the need for additional research.

A daily multivitamin had no significant effect on total or individual cardiovascular events. There were no safety concerns for either cocoa flavanols or a multivitamin.

COSMOS concluded after about 3.6 years, which was likely too short to detect whether the supplements could have affected cancer risk. Although a daily multivitamin improved levels of several nutritional biomarkers, it had no significant effect on total invasive cancer, the primary outcome for the multivitamin analyses. Cocoa flavanols also had no significant effect on total invasive cancer. The authors note that continuing to follow COSMOS participants may help to clarify any longer-term effects on cancer and death. The investigators and collaborators are also leveraging COSMOS to study cognitive decline, falls, eye disease, and other aging-related outcomes that may be influenced by the supplements.

“Although our study suggests intriguing signals for cardiovascular protection with cocoa flavanols, any health benefits due to taking these supplements will need confirmation in a future trial,” said Manson. Adds Sesso: “Our message for consumers is to eat a healthy, balanced diet, rich in natural food sources of flavanols, and to stay tuned as we further evaluate other important health outcomes in COSMOS.”

Sesso and Manson reported receiving investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Incorporated dedicated to nutrition research and products, for infrastructure support and donation of COSMOS study pills and packaging, and Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now part of GSK Consumer Healthcare) for donation of COSMOS study pills and packaging during the conduct of the study. Dr. Sesso additionally reported receiving investigator-initiated grants from Pure Encapsulations and Pfizer Inc., and honoraria and/or travel for lectures from the Council for Responsible Nutrition, BASF, NIH, and American Society of Nutrition during the conduct of the study.

Funding: The Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars dedicated to nutrition research and products, which included infrastructure support and the donation of cocoa extract-containing study pills and packaging. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now part of GSK Consumer Healthcare) provided support through the partial provision of study pills (Centrum Silver) and packaging. COSMOS is also supported in part by grants AG050657, AG071611, EY025623, and HL157665 from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts 75N92021D00001, 75N92021D00002, 75N92021D00003, 75N92021D00004, 75N92021D00005. Neither company had a role in the trial design or conduct, data collection (other than blinded assays supported by Mars Edge and completed independently), data analysis, or manuscript preparation or review.

Farmers in tropical regions — including large parts of South America, Asia and Africa — are likely to suffer significantly, particularly when compared with producers in the world’s wealthier temperate zones, according to a study by an international team of scientists and economists published in the Lancet Planetary Health.

The researchers, including Mario Herrero, professor of sustainable food systems at Cornell University, and lead author Philip Thornton, of the International Livestock Research Institute and CGIAR; published “Impacts of Heat Stress on Global Cattle Production During the 21st Century.”

Escalating demand for livestock products in low- and middle-income countries, along with steadily increasing global average temperatures, is an uncomfortable mix, the researchers said. If livestock are to adapt to new thermal environments and increase their productivity, infrastructural investments or adjustments — such as switching to more heat-tolerant cattle breeds, and improving shade, ventilation and cooling systems — will be required.

In the paper’s high greenhouse-gas emission scenario, cattle production losses from heat stress are estimated to be $39.94 billion annually, or 9.8% of the value of production of meat and milk from cattle in 2005 — the scientists’ baseline year. The low-emission scenario projects production losses at $14.9 billion annually, or 3.7% of the 2005 value.

By the end of the century, dairy and beef production in the United States is projected to decline by 6.8%, while India — a major dairy production country — is projected to lose more than 45% of its dairy farming due to heat stress increases.

“Resource-poor farmers in low-income countries depend heavily on their livestock for their livelihoods,” Thornton said. “The adaptation needs are even higher in these countries, and those farmers are the ones where the hit is even more severe.”

With climate change, farming and sustainability, Herrero suggested there is a need to create equitable adaptation practices “by design and to think intentionally on reaching the vulnerable sectors of global society,” he said. “We cannot just hope that the poor will not be affected.”

Technological development is key to bringing equity and social justice to poor farmers throughout the world. “Sustainability is not only about the environment and protecting biodiversity, but the human component is fundamental to sustainability,” Herrero said. “We need to deal with climate change, leaving no one behind. That’s the only truth.”

Herrero is a fellow in the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Cornell University. Original written by Blaine Friedlander. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Trapped within Earth’s permafrost – ground that remains frozen for a minimum of two years – are untold quantities of greenhouse gases, microbes, and chemicals, including the now-banned pesticide DDT. As the planet warms, permafrost is thawing at an increasing rate, and scientists face a host of uncertainties when trying to determine the potential effects of the thaw.

A paper published earlier this year in the journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment looked at the current state of permafrost research. Along with highlighting conclusions about permafrost thaw, the paper focuses on how researchers are seeking to address the questions surrounding it.

Infrastructure is already affected: Thawing permafrost has led to giant sinkholes, slumping telephone poles, damaged roads and runways, and toppled trees. More difficult to see is what has been trapped in permafrost’s mix of soil, ice, and dead organic matter. Research has looked at how chemicals like DDT and microbes – some of which have been frozen for thousands, if not millions, of years – could be released from thawing permafrost.

Then there is thawing permafrost’s effect on the planet’s carbon: Arctic permafrost alone holds an estimated 1,700 billion metric tons of carbon, including methane and carbon dioxide. That’s roughly 51 times the amount of carbon the world released as fossil fuel emissions in 2019. Plant matter frozen in permafrost doesn’t decay, but when permafrost thaws, microbes within the dead plant material start to break the matter down, releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

“Current models predict that we’ll see a pulse of carbon released from the permafrost to the atmosphere within the next hundred years, potentially sooner,” said Kimberley Miner, a climate researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and lead author of the paper. But key details – such as the quantity, specific source, and duration of the carbon release – remain unclear.

The worst-case scenario is if all the carbon dioxide and methane were released within a very short time, like a couple of years. Another scenario involves the gradual release of carbon. With more information, scientists hope to better understand the likelihood of either scenario.

While the review paper found that Earth’s polar regions are warming the fastest, it was less conclusive on how increased carbon emissions could drive drier or wetter conditions in the Arctic. What is more certain is that changes in the Arctic and Antarctic will cascade to lower latitudes. Earth’s polar regions help stabilize the planet’s climate. They help drive the transfer of heat from the equator toward higher latitudes, resulting in atmospheric circulation that powers the jet stream and other currents. A warmer, permafrost-free Arctic could have untold consequences for Earth’s weather and climate.

An Integrated Approach

To understand the effects of the thaw scientists are increasingly turning to integrated Earth observations from the ground, the air, and space – techniques outlined in the paper. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.

Ground measurements, for example, provide precise monitoring of changes in a localized area, while airborne and space-based measurements can cover vast areas. Ground and airborne measurements focus on the specific time they were collected, whereas satellites constantly monitor Earth – although they can be limited by things such as cloud cover, the time of day, or the eventual end of a satellite mission.

The hope is that using measurements from a combination of platforms will help scientists create a fuller picture of changes at the poles, where permafrost is thawing the fastest.

Miner is working with colleagues on the ground to characterize the microbes frozen in permafrost, while others are using airborne instruments to measure emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane. In addition, airborne and satellite missions can help to pinpoint emissions hotspots in permafrost regions.

There are also satellite missions in the pipeline that will provide carbon emissions data with greater resolution. The ESA (European Space Agency) Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission will map changes in land cover and help monitor soil properties and water quality. NASA’s Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) mission will also use satellite-based imaging spectroscopy to collect data on research areas including plants and their health; changes to the land related to events like landslides and volcanic eruptions; and snow and ice accumulation, melt, and brightness (which is related to how much heat is reflected back into space).

SBG is the focus area of one of several future Earth science missions that make up NASA’s Earth System Observatory. Together, these satellites will provide a 3D, holistic view of Earth, from its surface through the atmosphere. They will provide information on subjects including climate change, natural hazards, extreme storms, water availability, and agriculture.

“Everyone is racing as fast as they can to understand what’s going on at the poles,” said Miner. “The more we understand, the better prepared we will be for the future.”

News Media Contact

Jane J. Lee / Andrew Wang

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

818-354-0307 / 626-379-6874

[email protected] / [email protected]

Professor Yadvinder Malhi, Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, said:

‘Conservation efforts usually focus on either trees and carbon or the broad conservation appeal of large mammals. This study looked at whether it was possible to align these agendas — under what context could protecting and restoring large animal wildlife help us tackle and adapt to climate change.’

The researchers highlighted three key eco-touchpoints where large animals such as elephants, rhinoceroses, giraffes, whales, bison, and moose had the greatest potential to mitigate climate change: carbon stocks, albedo (the ability of surfaces to reflect solar radiation (energy from the sun) and fire regimes.

When they graze, large herbivores disperse seeds, clear vegetation and fertilise the soil, which helps build more complex and more resilient ecosystems. These activities can maintain and increase carbon stocks in the soil, roots and above-ground parts of plants, helping to reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere.

When large animals graze and trample vegetation they can change the habitat from dense shrubs and trees to open mixes of grass and shrubs or trees, which can also reveal snow-covered ground in polar regions. These open habitats tend to be paler (with higher albedo) and reflect more solar radiation into the atmosphere, cooling the Earth’s surface, rather than absorbing it and warming the Earth’s surface.

In 2021, global wildfire CO₂ emissions reached a record high. When wildfires burn, the carbon stored in trees and vegetation is released into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. Elephants, rhinoceroses, zebras and other large grazing animals can lessen wildfire risk by browsing on woody vegetation that could otherwise fuel the fires, trampling paths and making other gaps in vegetation that act as firebreaks.

The research, commissioned by wildlife charity Tusk, also looked at how protecting and restoring large animal wildlife could support climate change efforts and found several animal-climate interaction points that could provide ‘win-win’ opportunities.

In temperate, tropical and subtropical grassland ecosystems, large animals can reduce forest and bush fires, increase albedo and help retain carbon in the vegetation and the soil. Protecting large animal wildlife and their role in these complex ecosystems supports local biodiversity and ecological resilience.

Dr Tonya Lander, Department of Plant Sciences at Oxford University said:

‘Animals can also help with localised adaptation to climate change in these environments by diversifying vegetation and increasing habitat heterogeneity. Diversity of species and microhabitats can make the ecosystem as a whole more able to resist climate change, return to a stable state following a climate-related disturbance, or find a new stable state that functions within the changed and changing climate.’

When large herbivores are present in tundra ecosystems, they help to keep down woody plant encroachment which encourages local flowering plants and grasses — and exposes more of the ground to the cold air. That exposure maintains the permafrost and prevents the carbon in the soil from getting released into the atmosphere. Programmes that rewild bison and other animals into the arctic tundra can play important roles in both conservation and climate change adaptation at a local scale.

In marine ecosystems, whales and other large animals fertilise phytoplankton. Phytoplankton is estimated to capture 37 billion tonnes of CO₂ each year and may release particles into the air which can help seed clouds and reflect sunlight into the atmosphere.

Large terrestrial and marine carnivores also affect these processes through their influence on herbivore abundance and behaviour.

Professor Malhi concluded:

‘The report also highlights where there are gaps in our knowledge, such as in our understanding of soils and the deep oceans, where more research may identify new opportunities for both restoring large animal wildlife and tackling climate change.’

It found that half of all changes to key physical and behavioural bird characteristics since the 1960s can be linked to climate change.

The other 50 per cent is due to other unknown environmental factors that have changed at the same time as our climate.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and carried out in conjunction with James Cook University (JCU), focused on birds in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

“We have shown that climate change is a major driver of these changes in the birds, but there is more at play here than we originally thought,” lead author Dr Nina McLean, from the ANU Research School of Biology, said.

“Not only were other unknown changes in the environment equally important in driving changes in the birds, surprisingly they generally did so in the same direction as climate change, such that their effects compounded.

“This study shows that the impact of climate change does not act in isolation and its effects are occurring in a world where the resilience of wildlife is already pushed to the limits due to the many other challenges they are experiencing in a human-dominated landscape.

“These non-climate change driven factors could include urbanisation, changing land use, habitat loss or introducing invasive species into ecosystems, but we can’t know their identity for sure yet.”

The researchers analysed three key traits as part of their study: the timing of egg laying, body condition of birds, and the number of offspring produced. All the data was collected by volunteers, otherwise known as citizen scientists.

The study found that across the board almost all birds laid their eggs earlier because of climate change.

“For example, climate change caused chiffchaffs to lay their eggs six days earlier over the last 50 years, but other unknown environmental factors led to an additional six days, meaning in total they now lay their eggs 12 days earlier than they did half a century ago,” Dr Martijn van de Pol, from the JCU College of Science and Engineering, said.

Dr McLean said there are “winners and losers” of these environmental changes driven by rising temperatures.

“For offspring number and body condition we see that it’s a mixed bag,” she said.

“Some species are clearly increasing their body condition and offspring number, whereas others are suffering from it.

“For example, garden warblers in the UK have experienced a 26 per cent decrease in their average number of offspring over the past half century, which is really concerning for the long-term fate of this species, but only half of this reduction, 13 per cent, can be attributed to climate change.

“By comparison, the redstart experienced a 27 per cent increase in offspring numbers over the past half century, but again only part of that increase is due to global warming.”

The researchers say continued global warming could present a “double whammy” for species that are already struggling to adapt to other non-climatic environmental changes.

“Rising temperatures, compounded with these unknown environmental factors, could pose a significant threat to the livelihoods of certain species that are already suffering,” study co-author Dr Loeske Kruuk, also from ANU, said

This study also involved researchers from the University of Edinburgh, the British Trust for Ornithology, Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology and the Dutch Centre for Avian Migration and Demography.

Humans create a lot of waste, but when you throw something away, how much do you know about where it goes or how it’s handled? This article is the last in a five-part series that explores what happens to the tons of materials we discard.

Few environmental lessons have taken hold as strongly in the United States as the imperative to recycle. For some people, recycling serves as a proxy for sustainability; a full recycling bin excusing any number of wasteful practices. But recycling is not the be-all-end-all solution for our environmental woes. The American recycling system is facing some serious woes of its own.

If you haven’t looked at recycling beyond wheeling your cart out to the curb, here is an introduction to what happens after the truck picks it up.

Source-Separated or Single-Stream

Older readers will remember the early days of source-separated recycling when every material required its own bin, and even different colors of glass had to be separated. Households often had to drop off multiple containers at the recycling center on weekends. Even in communities that collected recycling at curbside, taking time to separate materials at home and maintaining numerous bins was an obstacle to recycling.

Garbage collectors began to offer single-stream recycling in the ‘90s. Also referred to as “commingled,” “single-bin,” or “all-in-one recycling,” single-stream recycling allows households to toss all recyclables together in one bin. With the advent of single-stream recycling, recycling rates took off, but so did contamination rates. Even with higher prices and more contamination, single-stream recycling was an environmental win for about 20 years.

The Recycling System

Like garbage disposal and large-scale composting, recycling is a big business that is usually conducted through government contracts. Recyclable materials are commodities, with prices that fluctuate according to market demand. Curbside recycling is picked up by large dump trucks and delivered to a materials recovery facility (MRF, or “murph”).

MRFs do not actually recycle materials, they sort them for recycling. They are essentially large sorting lines, where human laborers supplement a series of mechanical systems to separate recyclables by type, usually into large bales. Although MRFs are quite efficient, materials like plastic bags can jam machinery, leading to costly downtime. And contaminants — from food waste to nonrecyclable plastics or products made from multiple materials — can pass through the system and end up in bales with the commodities. The contamination rate affects the price, and past a certain threshold, the entire bale becomes unrecyclable.

In theory, recycling processors purchase baled recyclables and manufacture new products with them. There are some domestic processors for paper, metal, and plastics. But in 2017, America exported one-third of its recycling to China. With an average contamination rate of 25%, further sorting was necessary before the materials could be recycled in Chinese facilities. But lax environmental laws put workers at risk and led to the uncontrolled disposal of nonrecyclable contaminants. Then, in 2018, China effectively banned foreign recyclables, mainly to spur their own domestic recycling economy. America was left literally holding the [plastic] bag.

System Disruption

The Chinese ban on foreign recyclables completely disrupted the U.S. recycling system and served as a wake-up call on overdue system improvements. Contractually obligated to accept the materials, but unable to find a buyer, many recyclers began stockpiling the materials they collected. Some recycling facilities found markets in Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India. But those countries would need to scale up their processing capacity to handle the volume that China once did, and have started placing their own restrictions to control the flow.

With international markets closed and domestic processors limited, local recycling programs suffered. In some places where residents continued to separate recyclables and garbage, both materials streams ended up in the landfill or incinerator anyway. Lacking long-term solutions, many communities had to raise collection rates or officially abandon their recycling programs. Even famously pro-recycling Seattle decided to stop accepting plastic bags and plastic film in curbside recycling in an effort to make its program more efficient.

Future of Recycling

Not all of the changes in domestic recycling as a result of China’s ban have been negative. U.S. businesses are letting go of the idea that the Chinese might relax their rules. And they are beginning to build long-term domestic solutions. Around the country, some paper mills have begun retooling to process waste paper and at least one shuttered mill is reopening. Plastic and scrap metal recycling plants have seen increased investment. Ironically, much of the initial investment was coming from Chinese companies, but it still builds domestic recycling capacity.

The cost of domestic processing will necessarily be much higher than export to China, where environmental laws are lax and labor is cheap. It will only be feasible if the recyclables are much cleaner than what we used to send to China. One possibility would be a return to source-separated recycling. However, the industry is reluctant to abandon the investments they’ve made in MRFs, which are actually quite good at separating clean commodities.

The high contamination rate has a lot to do with what the industry calls “aspirational recycling.” You may also hear it called “wishful recycling.” Feeling guilty about throwing things away, many people place items in the recycling bin that don’t belong there. Or, misunderstanding the rules, they put all plastics in the bin when only some plastics are accepted. Around the country, local recycling programs are stepping up efforts to educate residents.

What to Do

Even — or perhaps especially — if you are a conscientious recycler, you should know the rules of recycling are in flux in the U.S. The lingering effects of the China ban — plus the impacts of COVID-19 — continue to disrupt recycling services around the country. Check with your local recycling provider to find out what is currently recyclable in your community and learn about best practices. When in doubt, throw it out. If that grates against your sensibilities, turn that energy into generating less waste in the first place.

Will the U.S. build sufficient infrastructure to process our own waste or will we find new places to send our recyclables in the future? No one knows for sure. But one thing is certain: no matter who processes recyclables going forward, they will require us to do a better job of separating the trash from the commodities.

Read part one of this five-part series, Understanding Where Garbage Goes. Originally published on November 12, 2019, this article was updated in January 2022.

This discovery, described in a paper published Feb. 15 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represents an important step in the effort to develop anti-viral drugs to fight off infections.

“This paper is about trying to understand the mechanism that makes these RNA escape degradation,” says senior author Mandy Muller, assistant professor of microbiology. “The next step is to figure out if we can manipulate this to our advantage.”

In the Muller Lab, student researchers work with Muller studying how Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) hides for years inside the human body before seeking to gain control over human gene expression to complete the viral infection. At that point, people with a weakened immune system may develop Kaposi sarcoma cancer lesions in the mouth, skin or other organs.

The researchers use genome-wide sequencing, post-transcriptional sequencing and molecular biology to examine how the human cell or the virus knows how to prevent degradation.

“Viruses are very smart, that’s what I love to say,” Muller says. “They have lots of strategies to stick around, and they don’t do a lot of damage for a very long time, because that’s one way to hide from the immune system.

“But then, at some point — many, many years later — they reactivate. The way they do this is by triggering a massive RNA degradation event where the virus will wipe out the mRNA from the cell. That means the human system can no longer express the proteins that it needs to express, and that means also that a lot of resources are suddenly available for the virus.”

How and why some RNA are able to escape the viral degradation are questions Muller’s team — including lead author and graduate student Daniel Macveigh-Fierro and co-authors and undergraduates Angelina Cicerchia, Ashley Cadorette and Vasudha Sharma — has been investigating.

“We show that RNA that escape have a chemical tag on them — a post-transcriptional modification — that makes them different from the others,” Muller explains. “By having this tag, M⁶A, they can recruit proteins that protect them from degradation.”

Muller has been studying KSHV since she was an undergraduate in her native France, and her mission continues.

“We know you need this protein to protect the RNA from degradation, but we still don’t know how that physically stops the degradation, so that’s what we’re going to look at now,” she says.

Ultimately, understanding the mechanisms and pathways involved in KSHV infection may lead to the development of RNA therapeutics to treat viral diseases.

“By identifying the determinants of what makes an mRNA either resistant or susceptible to viral-induced decay, we could use those findings to our advantage to better design anti-viral drugs and reshape the outcome of infection,” Muller says.

The research was supported by a $1.9 million Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) to Muller in 2020 from the NIH’s National Institute for General Medical Sciences.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Massachusetts Amherst. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.