Movies &; TV Dune Arrakis‚ Tatooine‚ and the Science of Desert Planets A geologist looks at the most iconic desert worlds of science fiction. By Alex Acks | Published on March 1‚ 2024 Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures icon-comment 0 Share New Share Twitter Facebook Pinterest RSS Feed Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures “A desolate‚ dry planet with vast deserts… The planet is Arrakis. Also known as Dune.” —Princess Irulan‚ Dune  I’ve been reading science fiction and fantasy almost as long as I’ve been able to read‚ and I’m normally very good at suspending my disbelief. Unfortunately‚ seven years of university schooling and two degrees have now placed some suspension limits on certain areas—namely geology‚ landforms‚ and maps. I tend to notice little things like mountain ranges having ninety degree corners or rivers that flow uphill or maps that don’t have a scale bar. So I want to talk about some things‚ which on-a-geological-scale are very small details that make me tilt my head like a dog hearing a high-pitched noise. Not because I hate‚ but because there is no more honorable nerd past-time than dismantling something we love into its finest details‚ ruminating endlessly on the bark of a single tree while there’s an entire forest planet surrounding us. Which is what I’d like to talk about today‚ incidentally. Single-environment planets. The other stuff‚ including scale bars‚ will come later. I like desert planets‚ and it’s the combined fault of Dune and a semester of examining lithified sand dunes that are now absolutely gorgeous rock formations. Arrakis wasn’t the first desert planet of science fiction—at the very least‚ Altair IV as seen in Forbidden Planet has it beat‚ and I’m sure there’s some pulpy goodness even earlier that involves desert planet adventures. But Arrakis and its direct descendant Tatooine are definitely the most iconic desert worlds of our genre. The Winds of Dune cover art by Steve Stone (Tor Books) As a geologist‚ I have a particular love of the desert and its landforms‚ ones that are normally more shaped by wind than water. (The descriptor for those is eolian‚ which is a particularly lovely word to say.) I did a lot of undergraduate field study out in Moab‚ and I grew up in Colorado‚ which has a lot of near-desert and desert environments. The dry hot-and-cold of the desert shapes you‚ in ways beyond an appreciation for chapstick and a healthy respect for static electricity. There’s an inherent magic to the desert‚ whether you’ve ever been in one or not‚ a grown-in mysticism that comes with the unfamiliar. It’s a landscape that’s entirely alien to most of us‚ unimaginable for its lack of water‚ its alternating burning and freezing temperatures‚ its weird or absent plant life. The horizon in a desert extends on forever‚ because there’s no humidity to get in the way of your vision. The only real limit is the curvature of the planet‚ elevated land features‚ or particulates in the air. Even the sunsets look different‚ if you haven’t lived your entire life where it’s incredibly dry. (Let me tell you‚ the first sunset I saw in a place with humidity actually scared me because it looked so different‚ with the Sun hovering massive on the horizon like a blood-filled Eye of Sauron.) There’s a quiet to the desert that sinks in through your skin‚ a hush that’s only the sound of the wind. Rodents or insects moving around sand grains or pebbles sounds shockingly loud. Birds startle you. And the sky at night? You’ve never seen so many stars in your life‚ if you’ve never been to the desert. Being out in the middle of nowhere cuts out all the urban light pollution‚ but beyond that‚ there’s few clouds‚ no humidity to blur and hide the sky. Of course‚ there’s this common conception that deserts are like very specific portions of the Sahara‚ with undulating dune seas that go to the horizon. Arrakis and Tatooine both have a lot to answer for on that front‚ but I will admit that barchanoid (crescent) and transverse (linear‚ if wavy) dunes are particularly photogenic. And while those are what capture the imagination‚ both Dune and Star Wars admit there’s more to their desert worlds than just endless draas. Arrakis has extensive salt flats (sometimes called “saltpan” colloquially in America) that are the skeletons of extinct oceans and lakes. There are rocks and mesas that poke their heads above the sand. In Star Wars: Episode IV‚ we get a brief look at Sluuce Canyon—which might also mean there was once a fast-moving river there‚ or it could be a tectonic artifact. But either way‚ it’s a change from the dunes. Still from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (Credit: Lucasfilm) And let me tell you‚ there are a lot more landforms in the desert beyond those. There’s hardpan (basically rock-hard clay surfacing) and desert pavements of packed stone‚ with or without desert varnish. There are deflation hollows (where sand has been blown away from rock outcrops‚ leaving a hollow)‚ dry steppes‚ and an assortment of strange rock forms shaped by wind and blown sand (yardangs). For all its many faults‚ Star Wars: Episode I got one thing right—we get to see a scene during the pod races with a hardpan plain riddled with mud cracks and darted with wind-shaped yardangs. Deserts can be as hot as you imagine or impossibly cold. This is because the factor that determines if something is a desert is precipitation. That’s it—everything comes down to how much water falls from the sky. Latitude doesn’t matter‚ sand or lack thereof doesn’t matter‚ just that it’s really‚ really‚ really dry. This is why as a geologist‚ I don’t have to suspend my disbelief very far to journey to a world that’s all desert. I’d like to see more than just sand dunes‚ but I can tell myself that for some reason‚ all the people want to just hang out in the sand and ignore the other areas. They’re believable—they even exist in our very own solar system. Just look at Mars! (Mars is a desert whether it has water hiding under its surface or not; what matters in this case is that it certainly hasn’t rained there in recent geological time.) If you look through many pictures of the red planet‚ you see all that variation in local land forms I mentioned‚ from classic sandy dune seas‚ to dry mountains‚ to empty canyons‚ to rocky landscapes of what might be equivalent to pavements. All you need to get an entire planet that’s a desert is reverse that ubiquitous direction for ready-made products—just remove the water. Voilà‚ instant desert! Then‚ of course‚ you have to address how the hell anyone actually survives on that world‚ but that’s your problem. I just deal in rocks. Mono-environment invented planets don’t work for much else‚ though‚ with the possible exception of the ice ball world. (Even then‚ depending on your land masses‚ there might be more than just glaciers out there. But I’ll give the benefit of the doubt on that one.) The real issue is that worlds are spherical-ish (“oblate spheroids‚” if you’re nasty)‚ and they tend to get their input of light and heat via orbiting a star. The unforgiving realities of geometry—sphere versus what is effectively a uni-directional point source—dictate that the distribution of heat is never going to be even‚ which means you’re going to get atmospheric currents‚ and those mean that the distribution of precipitation is never going to be even‚ and as soon as you add that plus your unevenly distributed landscape and unevenly distributed bodies of water‚ you have environmental trouble. If your entire world is so hot that there are tropical rain forests at the poles‚ what the heck is happening at the equators? How is your rainfall and temperature being so regulated that there’s jungle everywhere? Have you never heard of mountain rain shadow effects? Still from Forbidden Planet (Credit: MGM Pictures) This is why‚ once we leave Tatooine‚ the world-building in the Star Wars universe generally loses me. Having an entire planet that’s made up of rainforest-covered archipelagos as far as the eye can see looks very pretty on the screen with a starship zooming in‚ but it awakens a lot of deep and worrying questions in me‚ including (but not limited to) just what is happening with the plate tectonics? Please don’t think I want a deep‚ loving‚ exhaustive description of how the plate tectonics on your planet work. I don’t‚ and I say this as a geologist—I’m sure no one else does‚ either. But there needs to be a reason‚ a level of believability‚ and if it ain’t a desert‚ it ain’t going to work. And remember even then‚ you’re still not going to have an Arrakis that is one massive dune sea that’s all the same temperature. The landscape varies‚ and that variation provides a certain amount of character and realism—it’s a similar principle to when directors in movies want sets to look “lived in.” The variation in landscape makes the planet alive‚ even in a world that seems as sterile and dead as one giant desert—because trust me‚ deserts are neither sterile‚ nor dead. They never stop moving‚ as long as the wind blows.[end-mark] An earlier version of this article was originally published in May 2017. The post Arrakis‚ Tatooine‚ and the Science of Desert Planets appeared first on Reactor.

Biden Paying College Students to Register Voters

Judge Holds Herridge In Contempt for Refusing to Reveal Source

Antarctica is the coldest‚ driest‚ and windiest place on Earth; inland‚ it can reach highs (no‚ that’s not a typo) of -30°C (-22°F) in the summer and lows of -80°C (-112°F) in the winter; it’s so remote that its permanent population is zero; and if you want to live there long-term‚ you may have to have a body part removed before you go. In short: it’s hard to see why anybody would want it.So how come the whole place is such a clusterfuck of international law and territorial disputes?Who owns Antarctica?Depending on who‚ where‚ or when you ask‚ the answer to who “owns” or governs Antarctica could be anything from “nobody” to “53 different countries".“The [Antarctic] Treaty‚ which dates from 1959‚ governs all activities in Antarctica‚” said Henry Burgess‚ then the Deputy Head of the Polar Regions Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office‚ in a 2015 interview with the Royal Geographical Society. Ratified by 56 countries at last count‚ the agreement “puts in place a unique and globally important system of international governance and establishes the continent as a region exclusively for peace and science‚” Burgess explained.In other words – and to take the most literal and international view – nobody owns Antarctica. And we don’t mean that in the sense of “it’s not a sovereign nation‚ but such-and-such country runs it day-to-day”; the Antarctic Treaty specifically prohibits any establishing or expansion of territorial claims on the continent. That’s not all: there is also to be no military activity‚ no weapons tests‚ and no mineral extraction in the region‚ according to the Treaty. In fact‚ the whole planet south of 60° South latitude‚ the agreement states‚ “shall be used for peaceful purposes only.”If it sounds utopian‚ it is. And like all things that seem too good to be true‚ there’s a catch.Who says they own Antarctica?Here’s where things get thorny‚ geopolitically speaking. While nobody officially owns Antarctica‚ there are quite a few countries that would like us to think they do – and even more who seem interested in establishing a prospective future foothold in the region.“Only seven countries have ever formally claimed parts of Antarctica: the United Kingdom‚ Argentina‚ Australia‚ Chile‚ France‚ New Zealand and Norway‚” Burgess explained. “During the 1940s and 1950s the competing claims between the UK‚ Chile and Argentina in the Antarctic Peninsula caused international tension.”Those three countries alone are responsible for some of the more obvious territorial shenanigans. Look at a political map of Antarctica today‚ and you’ll see the upper left quadrant is‚ frankly‚ a bit of a mess: while Norway‚ Australia‚ France‚ and New Zealand all lay claim to discrete sections of the continent‚ Chile‚ Argentina‚ and the UK’s claims all overlap.See? Look at that mess.Image Credit: A loose necktie‚ CC BY-SA 4.0‚ via Wikimedia CommonsOnly the latter nation’s claims are recognized to any international extent‚ though – and even then‚ that recognition is limited to the other four countries on the Antarctic map. As Adrian Howkins‚ associate professor at Colorado State University‚ who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the history of territorial disputes in the Antarctic region‚ told Atlas Obscura: “I think pretty much every other country in the world doesn’t recognize any of these claims.” Why do countries want to own Antarctica?To be fair‚ the US – as well as many other countries – has a vested interest in not recognizing the current territorial claims in Antarctica. Straddling all eight divisions is the Amundsen-Scott research station‚ where the US has maintained an official presence on the continent since 1956; other nations‚ including China and Russia‚ have established more than 75 research stations across the area over the years.Still others‚ like Iran and Turkey‚ have ambitions for future development in Antarctica. Quite a few countries‚ the US included‚ maintain a basis to claim territory in Antarctica‚ despite not having done so; some of those‚ such as Brazil and Ecuador‚ have even marked out the sections of the map they’re hoping to grab.But what is it about this desolate wasteland that’s so enticing? In a word: oil.“For sure‚ [countries involved in Antarctica] have one eye focused on the resources that might be available in the future‚” Máximo Gowland‚ Argentina’s director for Antarctic foreign policy‚ told the Financial Times in 2018. In a world where minerals and water are becoming increasingly scarce‚ “you don’t know how quickly the situation might evolve‚” he said.Antarctic oil would be extremely difficult to extract – the continent’s ice sheets can be up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) deep (at the moment) – but should the process become more cost-effective‚ there’s a predicted 200 billion barrels’ worth lurking underneath the landmass. Of course‚ it’s against the rules to mine in the region in any case‚ right? Well‚ yes – but there’s a time limit on the dream. While the Treaty itself doesn’t technically have an expiration date‚ various provisions in it can occasionally be renegotiated – and the environmental protocols banning prospecting are expected to come up for review 14 years from now‚ in 2048.How to claim a piece of AntarcticaSo‚ you might be wondering‚ what does a territorial claim to a snowy desert look like? And let us tell you: the answers range from “yeah‚ that makes sense” to “are you serious right now?”.On the practical side of the spectrum‚ there’s the little things. Passport stamps‚ for example: a number of research stations‚ as well as the UK’s Port Lockroy‚ will stamp your passport as proof of your travel to the world’s most southerly territory. Perhaps slightly less expected is the ability to send a postcard or letter. The “penguin post office”‚ on Goudier Island‚ is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Antarctica – despite by all accounts smelling pretty pungent due to the local populations of Gentoo penguins.But if you really want to commit to the bit‚ there are some more extreme methods available to stake your claim in the Antarctic. And it involves surgery.“Everyone undergoes various health checks before going to work in Antarctica. There is a doctor at each Australian Antarctic and sub-Antarctic station. They are highly skilled‚ and trained in remote medicine including dentistry‚” notes the Australian Antarctic Program.Well‚ that sounds fine and dandy. Sure hope there’s no weird small print that – oh wait.“But doctors who are wintering at Australian Antarctic stations do have to have their appendix removed‚” it continues. “This is because there is usually only one doctor on station during winter. Evacuation back to medical care in Australia is impossible for at least part of the year.”The same is true for the residents of Villas Las Estrellas‚ one of the few settlements on the continent where humans live for years rather than weeks. “The nearest major hospital is more than 1‚000 km (625 miles) away‚” explains a BBC Future article about the town; “There are only a few doctors on base‚ and none are specialist surgeons.”But if major surgery isn’t to your taste‚ there’s always another medical procedure you could undergo: giving birth. In 1977‚ intent on marking their ownership of the continent by‚ essentially‚ creating a native population for it‚ the Argentinian government airlifted the heavily pregnant Silvia Morello de Palma to the country’s Antarctic Esperanza Base.Two months later‚ her son Emilio became the first person in history known to have been born in Antarctica. It may sound a little less than kosher‚ geopolitically speaking – and it is‚ really: “All of the countries involved in the issue of Antarctic sovereignty are kind of making up the rules as they go along‚” Howkins said. But the Argentines had set a precedent: Chile doubled down on the feat‚ and so far at least a dozen births between the two nations have been registered in Antarctica.While none of them are realistically likely to make a difference in any territorial disputes‚ they have given Antarctica one distinguishing honor. All the babies survived‚ giving the continent a zero percent infant mortality rate – the lowest anywhere in the world.Not bad‚ really – you know‚ for a frozen wasteland a thousand miles from anywhere.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

Finding a new species can happen in all sorts of different ways from reclassifying species based on new genetic information with a little help from Will Smith‚ finding them hiding in the trees‚ or spending months looking closely at museum specimens. Scientists are always learning more about the animal species that surround us. Now a new species of sea slug has been discovered in British waters almost by accident. Scientists from the UK's Centre for Environment‚ Food and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and the University of Cadiz in Spain collected 14 specimens while doing routine surveys of fisheries off the southwest coast of England and one in the Gulf of Cadiz. Over 100 species of sea slugs are known to live in British waters but this one had something a little bit unusual. The new species‚ described as "cream and clay-colored with white specks"‚ has been named Pleurobranchaea britannica and is around 2-5 centimeters (0.7-1.9 inches) long. Initially‚ because of the distinctive side gill on the right side of the creature‚ researchers thought it might be another species of Pleurobranchaea meckeli‚ which is typically found in Senegal. However‚ this species has never been seen before in UK waters leading scientists to start to question the true identity of the sample they had collected."It is exciting to see that routine fisheries surveys can still lead to such discoveries. It only took a brief inspection of two specimens to be confident that we had stumbled upon a species of Pleurobranchaea. This was thrilling because no other species from this genus had been documented in UK waters‚ or even this far north‚” said Ross Bullimore‚ a marine ecologist at Cefas and co-author of the paper describing the sea slug‚ in a statement sent to IFLScience.Eventually‚ the specimens were sent to a team in Spain where the researchers looked closely at both the DNA and compared the structures to that of known species. They concluded that the specimen was a brand new species. This new species increases the number of sea slugs in the Pleurobranchaea genus to three.Image Courtesy of Ross Bullimore ©Sea slugs are one of the most brightly colored and diverse groups of animals with some displaying incredible features and unique appearance. They also can take on parts of their prey‚ either repurposing cells for photosynthesis or becoming toxic by consuming toxic animals.  "When Cefas scientists contacted me and told me that they had collected individuals belonging to the sea slug genus Pleurobranchaea‚ but whose specific identity was not clear‚ I was really surprised‚" said Dr Juan Lucas Cervera Currado of the University of Cadiz. "Firstly‚ because species from this genus have never been found in the British Isles‚ and secondly because the possibility of having found a new species of this genus in European waters was really exciting.” Pluerobranchea are commonly known as side-gilled sea slugs‚ their gills situated on the right side of the body‚ allowing them to extract oxygen from the water. No other groups of sea slugs found in UK waters have this anatomy so the distinct leaf-like – or "canoe paddle" structure as the team describes it – side gill alerted them to the fact they had found something not found in UK waters before. They suggest it could have a range as far south as Spain and even off the coast of Portugal. The two other species in the genus include Pleurobranchaea meckeli and Pleurobranchaea morosa. The first lives in the Mediterranean Sea and can even be found off Senegal. The second is much rarer and less well-known. However‚ this is not good news as the researchers suggest that climate change could be making this species move into more northerly waters as the temperatures increase.The team is thrilled though to have discovered a brand new sea slug species. "There is often an assumption that we know everything there is to know about species found in UK waters‚ but this just goes to show that there is still so much to learn in our own backyard‚" said Bullimore. The study is published in Zoosystematics and Evolution.

Almost everywhere you look‚ people are talking about ultra-processed foods. Are they bad for our health? Should we be cutting back? What actually are ultra-processed foods anyway? Nutrition research can be tricky to wade through at the best of times‚ so we wanted to try and cut through some of the confusion and find out what the experts are saying when it comes to ultra-processed foods.What are ultra-processed foods?While the number of headlines on this topic seems to have skyrocketed in recent months‚ the term has been in use in nutrition and dietetics circles for a while. When it comes to the general public‚ however‚ it’s fair to say there’s been some mixed messaging.The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) commissioned a survey of UK adults in 2021. At that time‚ 70 percent of the respondents had never heard the term “ultra-processed foods” before‚ a number that may well be different if the survey were to be repeated today.When it came to correctly categorizing foods as ultra-processed or not‚ the majority were unable to do so for several items that you probably have in your weekly shopping basket.“There's an increasing amount of research on ultra-processed foods and health‚ and the term is being used more than ever. But most people still have not heard of the term and are not clear about what it includes‚” said Sara Stanner‚ Science Director at the BNF‚ in a statement. The food we eat can be broadly divided into four groups using a classification system called NOVA‚ first proposed in 2009.Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are things like fruits and vegetables‚ raw nuts‚ seeds‚ meat – we’re talking ingredients in their natural states‚ which you might pick up to cook a meal from scratch at home. Some processing‚ such as pasteurization‚ is permitted to ensure that the items are safe to consume. Frozen veggies would also count as minimally processed‚ for example.The next category is processed ingredients‚ such as butter‚ sugar‚ and salt. These are substances found in nature but that require slightly more processing than the previous category before we can use them.Then we come to the processed foods. These are generally made by combining ingredients from the first two categories. Examples of processed foods include canned fish‚ freshly baked bread‚ and cheese.Finally‚ the ultra-processed foods are those produced by combining multiple ingredients with additives like preservatives‚ flavorings‚ and stabilizers. Some examples of ultra-processed foods will be unsurprising – things like potato chips‚ and some ready-to-heat products like instant noodles. However‚ many other foods that can be classified as ultra-processed under these definitions might come as a bit of a shock.BBC Good Food lists a selection of products that can be ultra-processed‚ depending on how they are made. Infant formula makes the cut‚ as does mass-produced bread (due to additives like emulsifiers)‚ breakfast cereals‚ fruit yogurts‚ and vegan meat alternatives. It was these types of products‚ many of which are part and parcel of people’s everyday diets‚ that caught out the respondents to the BNF survey. Are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?This is a really big question that gets to the heart of the debates on this topic. Some people champion the removal of any and all processed foods from our diets‚ while others say the picture has to be much more nuanced.A new umbrella review‚ pulling together data from lots of previous systematic reviews on this topic‚ concluded that consumption of ultra-processed foods was linked to 32 different adverse health outcomes‚ including cardiovascular‚ metabolic‚ and even mental health. The authors of the review called for more research‚ including an assessment of “population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods.”On the face of it‚ it sounds alarming – if these foods could be having such a broad impact on human health‚ surely we should make every effort to remove them from our diet‚ right?           Some experts certainly agree that this is an urgent problem.“This analysis which includes almost 10 million people should be a call to governments around the world for a moratorium on [ultra-processed foods]‚” said Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics Clare Collins‚ who was not directly involved in the work.Collins pointed out that the research the review relies upon is observational‚ “which means cause and effect cannot be proven and that the research evidence gets downgraded‚ compared to intervention studies.” But an intervention study would not be an easy sell to an ethics committee: “The problem is that it is not ethical to do an intervention study lasting for many years where you feed people lots of [ultra-processed food] every day and wait for them to get sick and die.”Other prominent commentators echo this view. Dr Chris Van Tulleken is a UK-based medical doctor and TV presenter who has written and spoken extensively on the topic‚ including in his book Ultra-Processed People. Van Tulleken told the Guardian that the new review was “entirely consistent” with the “enormous number of independent studies which clearly link a diet high in [ultra-processed food] to multiple damaging health outcomes including early death.”But there are also those who remain unconvinced.While the review demonstrates the massive acceleration in research into this topic during the last decade‚ in a comment for Science Media Centre‚ Registered Dietician and Senior Lecturer Dr Duane Mellor pointed out‚ “It is important to note‚ just because there is a lot of research does not necessarily mean that there is a lot of quality in the research‚ meaning reviews are only as good as the research they are based on.”Mellor also hit on another facet of this debate‚ which we touched on previously – if so many foods are classed as “ultra-processed”‚ can they all be equally dangerous to health?“Given that some ultra-processed foods such as sweetened drinks and processed red meat have been linked with increased risk for decades‚ and bread especially wholegrain bread (which can still be classed as ultra-processed) has been associated with a reduced risk of disease‚ suggests that NOVA classification is too broad.”And commenting on the BNF survey back in 2021‚ Stanner made the same point: “Many foods that would be classified as ultra-processed may not be recognised as such and‚ while many ultra-processed foods are not healthy options‚ this isn't always the case.”Should we be eating less ultra-processed food?As mentioned above‚ some have indeed argued that ultra-processed foods should – as far as possible – be eliminated from the human diet.In a 2023 report‚ the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)‚ which advises the UK government on these matters‚ took a more moderate view. It said that while some of the evidence for health risks was concerning‚ it was not possible to determine how much of that risk came from the ultra-processed foods themselves‚ and how much was a result of wider dietary and lifestyle patterns. What we appear to be driving at here is that ultra-processed foods are only part of the overall picture‚ and not all ultra-processed foods are created equal. As ethnobotanist James Wong highlighted in a post on X‚ some convenience meals contain just about the same ingredients that you would use if you were to make the dish from scratch at home.         IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.Commenters weighed in‚ adding that for many‚ convenience foods are a necessity due to disability‚ financial or time poverty‚ or a variety of other reasons that make demonizing these options unhelpful. Ultra-processed foods make up a large proportion of Western diets – around 60 percent for US adults – so moving away from them is no simple task. Many individuals and organizations‚ including the authors of the most recent umbrella review‚ have addressed the need for further research to better understand how these foods might be impacting health. The latest evidence doesn’t really change what experts have been advising for years when it comes to building a balanced diet. Many would agree that some ultra-processed foods can play a part in that – at least until we have more concrete evidence to the contrary.“Some ultra-processed foods‚ such as confectionary‚ fried snacks‚ cakes and sugary drinks‚ are already recognised by nutrition professionals as foods to limit‚ however this does not mean that all processed foods should be demonized‚” Stanner said.And‚ in any case‚ Stanner added‚ it should not necessarily be down to the consumer themselves to radically alter their diet‚ in an environment where ultra-processed foods are often affordable and readily available.“Looking at food labels‚ in particular at sugar‚ salt and saturated fat content‚ can be valuable in helping us to make healthier choices. In addition‚ we need to encourage food manufacturers to produce foods that are healthier‚ ensuring that healthier food choices are easier‚ more convenient and affordable for people to make.”The study is published in the BMJ.

The Swanson family‚ known for their big hearts and open doors to dogs in need‚ welcomed a special member into their fold: Emma‚ a pit bull with unique challenges. Born with Polyradiculitis due to a toxoplasmosis infection‚ Emma’s condition led to paralysis in her hind legs‚ a fate that often spells doom for puppies afflicted.... The post Paralyzed pit bull is the happiest girl in the world when veteran dad comes home after 6 months appeared first on Animal Channel.

President Biden and former President Trump made dueling trips to the southern border on Thursday that had them in simultaneous meetings with local officials followed by back-to-back remarks. The split-screen…

Group 16 Dealers arrest three men‚ woman allegedly trying to place drugs from Mexico in Phoenix area Bundles of methamphetamines seized in a bust are displayed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.…

The serial indictments of former President Donald Trump last spring sent his support among Republicans and some independents into the stratosphere. For the first time‚ he topped President Joe Biden in…