Purpose of ReviewWe describe evidence regarding human exposure to microplastics via seafood and discuss potential health effects.Recent FindingsShellfish and other animals consumed whole pose particular concern for human exposure. If there is toxicity, it is likely dependent on dose, polymer type, size, surface chemistry, and hydrophobicity.SummaryHuman activity has led to microplastic contamination throughout the marine environment. As a result of widespread contamination, microplastics are ingested by many species of wildlife including fish and shellfish. Because microplastics are associated with chemicals from manufacturing and that sorb from the surrounding environment, there is concern regarding physical and chemical toxicity. Evidence regarding microplastic toxicity and epidemiology is emerging. We characterize current knowledge and highlight gaps. We also recommend mitigation and adaptation strategies targeting the life cycle of microplastics and recommend future research to assess impacts of microplastics on humans. Addressing these research gaps is a critical priority due to the nutritional importance of seafood consumption.

The U.S. wastes 31 to 40% of its post-harvest food supply, with a substantial portion of this waste occurring at the consumer level. Globally, interventions to address wasted food have proliferated, but efforts are in their infancy in the U.S. To inform these efforts and provide baseline data to track change, we performed a survey of U.S. consumer awareness, attitudes and behaviors related to wasted food. The survey was administered online to members of a nationally representative panel (N=1010), and post-survey weights were applied. The survey found widespread (self-reported) awareness of wasted food as an issue, efforts to reduce it, and knowledge about how to do so, plus moderately frequent performance of waste-reducing behaviors. Three-quarters of respondents said they discard less food than the average American. The leading motivations for waste reduction were saving money and setting an example for children, with environmental concerns ranked last. The most common reasons given for discarding food were concern about foodborne illness and a desire to eat only the freshest food. In some cases there were modest differences based on age, parental status, and income, but no differences were found by race, education, rural/urban residence or other demographic factors. Respondents recommended ways retailers and restaurants could help reduce waste. This is the first nationally representative consumer survey focused on wasted food in the U.S. It provides insight into U.S. consumers’ perceptions related to wasted food, and comparisons to existing literature. The findings suggest approaches including recognizing that many consumers perceive themselves as being already-knowledgeable and engaged, framing messages to focus on budgets, and modifying existing messages about food freshness and aesthetics. This research also suggests opportunities to shift retail and restaurant practice, and identifies critical research gaps.

COVID-19 has disrupted food access and impacted food insecurity, which is associated with numerous adverse individual and public health outcomes. To assess these challenges and understand their impact on food security, we conducted a statewide population-level survey using a convenience sample in Vermont from March 29 to April 12, 2020, during the beginning of a statewide stay-at-home order. We utilized the United States Department of Agriculture six-item validated food security module to measure food insecurity before COVID-19 and since COVID-19. We assessed food insecurity prevalence and reported food access challenges, coping strategies, and perceived helpful interventions among food secure, consistently food insecure (pre-and post-COVID-19), and newly food insecure (post COVID-19) respondents. Among 3219 respondents, there was nearly a one-third increase (32.3%) in household food insecurity since COVID-19 (p < 0.001), with 35.5% of food insecure households classified as newly food insecure. Respondents experiencing a job loss were at higher odds of experiencing food insecurity (OR 3.06; 95% CI, 2.114–0.46). We report multiple physical and economic barriers, as well as concerns related to food access during COVID-19. Respondents experiencing household food insecurity had higher odds of facing access challenges and utilizing coping strategies, including two-thirds of households eating less since COVID-19 (p < 0.001). Significant differences in coping strategies were documented between respondents in newly food insecure vs. consistently insecure households. These findings have important potential impacts on individual health, including mental health and malnutrition, as well as on future healthcare costs. We suggest proactive strategies to address food insecurity during this crisis.

Background Health behavior interventions using periodic prompts have utilized technology, such as the Internet, that allows messages to be sent to participants in cost-effective ways. To our knowledge, no comprehensive evidence review has been performed specifically to evaluate the effectiveness of communicating regular messages and to examine how characteristics of the prompts change the effectiveness of programs aimed at reminding people to adopt healthy behaviors, maintain those they already practice, and cease unhealthy behaviors.Objective A systematic literature review was performed to investigate the effectiveness of limited contact interventions targeting weight loss, physical activity, and/or diet that provided periodic prompts regarding behavior change for health promotion. The review sought to identify specific characteristics of these interventions that may be associated with superior results.Methods Electronic literature searches were performed between February and April, 2008. Articles were included if periodic prompts were used as an intervention or a component of an intervention, a behavioral or biological outcome measure was used, and an ongoing health promotion behavior was targeted. A rating system was applied to each study to provide a quantitative representation of the quality of the evidence provided by each article.Results There were 19 articles with a combined sample size of 15,655 that met the inclusion criteria, and 11 studies reported positive findings regarding the utility of periodic prompts. Several articles showed enhanced effectiveness when prompts were frequent and personal contact with a counselor was included. Long-term behavior change and health improvements were not examined by this review because of a lack of long-term follow-up in the literature.Conclusions In light of promising results of most studies, additional research on limited contact interventions targeting health behaviors including weight loss, physical activity, and/or diet is merited that utilizes rigorous methods including control groups; follow-up data collection; and testing of prompt frequencies, specific intervention components, or prompt characteristics. Future research would be especially valuable if it improves understanding of the most effective types of periodic prompts for fostering long-term behavior change in order to maximize use of this tool in limited contact health promotion programs. Specifically, various types of communication technology should be used and evaluated to expand and refine their use.

No abstract

BackgroundCOVID-19 has disrupted food access and impacted food insecurity, which is associated with numerous adverse individual and public health outcomes. MethodsWe conducted a statewide population-level survey in Vermont from March 29-April 12, 2020, during the beginning of a statewide stay-at-home order. We utilized the USDA six-item validated food security module to measure food insecurity before COVID-19 and since COVID-19. We assessed food insecurity prevalence and reported food access challenges, coping strategies, and perceived helpful interventions among food secure, consistently food insecure , and newly food insecure (post COVID-19) respondents. ResultsAmong 3,219 respondents, there was a 33% increase in household food insecurity since COVID-19 (p<0.001), with 35.6% of food insecure households classified as newly food insecure. Respondents experiencing a job loss were more likely to experience food insecurity (OR 3.43; 95% CI, 2.45-4.80).

No abstract

Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in the development and production of plant-based and cell-based alternatives to farmed meat. Although promoted for their capacity to avoid or reduce the environmental, animal welfare, and, in some cases, public health problems associated with farmed meat production and consumption, little research has critically evaluated the broader potential public health and food systems implications associated with meat alternatives. This review explores key public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy implications related to the production and consumption of plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats, and how they compare to those associated with farmed meat production. Based on the limited evidence to date, it is unknown whether replacing farmed meats with plant-based substitutes would offer comparable nutritional or chronic disease reduction benefits as replacing meats with whole legumes. Production of plant-based substitutes, however, may involve smaller environmental impacts compared to the production of farmed meats, though the relative impacts differ significantly depending on the type of products under comparison. Research to date suggests that many of the purported environmental and health benefits of cell-based meat are largely speculative. Demand for both plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats may significantly reduce dependence on livestock to be raised and slaughtered for meat production, although cell-based meats will require further technological developments to completely remove animal-based inputs. The broader socioeconomic and political implications of replacing farmed meat with meat alternatives merit further research. An additional factor to consider is that much of the existing research on plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats has been funded or commissioned by companies developing these Santo et al. Meat Alternatives and Food Systems products, or by other organizations promoting these products. This review has revealed a number of research gaps that merit further exploration, ideally with independently funded peer-reviewed studies, to further inform the conversation around the development and commercialization of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats.