Podcasts about global public health

Eighty percent of us will develop fibroids by age 50–making them an epidemic nobody talks about. Tennis legend Venus Williams, 45, has recently spoken up about the debilitating pain, fatigue, and heavy bleeding she suffered with due to fibroids for literally decades. This week we talk with the doctor who finally helped her find relief, Dr. Taraneh Shirazian, Founder and Director of the Center for Fibroid Care at NYU Langone Health. We shine some much needed light on what fibroids are, common symptoms, how fibroids intersect with perimenopause, menopause, and hormone therapy, and what we can do about them. Dr. Taraneh Shirazian is the Founder and Director of the Center for Fibroid Care at NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, a state-of-the-art wellness center that takes a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to treating fibroids, abnormal uterine bleeding, and pelvic pain while prioritizing patients' life goals, including family planning. A minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon and Associate Professor at NYU Langone, she also directs Global Women's Health in OBGYN and at NYU's College of Global Public Health, where she has taught for seven years. She is the Founder and President of Saving Mothers, a nonprofit dedicated to reducing preventable maternal deaths worldwide. Recognized as a leader in women's health and an advocate for patient education and empowerment, Dr. Shirazian specializes in fibroids, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, pelvic pain, and abnormal bleeding, and is frequently featured as a women's health expert on major media outlets including CBS, CNN, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Newsweek, and The Wall Street Journal. You can follow her on Instagram @drshirazianResources:Venus Williams Opens Up About Her 30-Year Fibroids Journey, Self MagazineVenus Williams Shares Her Journey with Uterine Fibroids & Advocates for Women's Health, NYU Langone Health NewsHubSign up for our FREE Feisty 40+ newsletter: https://feistymedia.ac-page.com/feisty-40-sign-up-pageLearn More and Register for our Feisty 40+ Strong Retreat: https://www.womensperformance.com/strongretreat Learn More and Register for our 2026 Tucson Bike Camp: https://www.girlsgonegravel.com/camp Follow Us on Instagram:Feisty Menopause: @feistymenopause Hit Play Not Pause Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/807943973376099 Support our Partners:Phosis: Use the code FEISTY15 for 15% off at https://www.phosis.com/ Midi Health: You Deserve to Feel Great. Book your virtual visit today at https://www.joinmidi.com/Previnex: Get 15% off your first order with code HITPLAY at https://www.previnex.com/ Nutrisense: Go to nutrisense.io/hitplay and use code: HITPLAY to get 30% offWahoo KICKR RUN: Use the code FEISTY to get a free Headwind Smart Fan (value $300) with the purchase of a Wahoo KICKR RUN at https://shorturl.at/maTzL This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podcorn - https://podcorn.com/privacyPodscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Julia Considine Pierce is a children's book author, educator, and advocate for the health and wellness of women and girls. For over twenty years, she has empowered women and girls through individual support and workshops, helping them honor their bodies and inspire their spirits while fostering their spiritual growth and health. Julia has shared her expertise in the public school system, where she taught puberty and sexual health education in addition to teaching health at the local community college. Julia earned a Master of Public Health degree from UNC-Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health. Her graduate research was a collaboration with the N.C. Department of Public Instruction to determine how the Healthful Living Essential Standards are taught, who teaches them, what resources are used, and what additional support is needed. This qualitative research examined all the health standards, focusing on reproductive health and safety. Her research earned an Impact Award from the UNC Graduate School, which acknowledges research that benefits the people of North Carolina. Additionally, Julia earned a Master of Divinity degree from the University of Sufism. Her MDiv research included interviewing female Sufi teachers from across the globe about the interplay of female reproductive health and spirituality. Her work and research inspired the concept for a book series aimed at supporting girls and women across their lifespans. The first in the series, My Body is Sacred, Tales of Health and Wellness for Little Girls, was published in May 2025. In this episode, Julia and I talk about reproductive health for young people. We discuss tools for building body confidence and self-respect from an early age and how her book fills a critical gap in girls' health education.   Connect with Julia: juliasumaya.com Social Media https://www.instagram.com/mybodyissacredbook?igsh=YjdvNjY0b2tsMjM4&utm_source=qr https://www.facebook.com/share/16jCiLiW99/?mibextid=wwXIfr   You can purchase My Body Is Sacred: Tales of Health and Wellness for Little Girls here: https://otterpine.com/my-body-is-sacred/   Let's Talk About It!   Thanks for tuning into this week's episode of Relationships! Let's Talk About It - the show to help you forge deeper, more meaningful connections and relationships with those around you. If you enjoyed this week's episode, please head over to Apple Podcasts, subscribe to the show, and leave us a rating and review. You can check out the original songs I have sung in my podcast at Pripo's Podcast Songs. Don't forget to visit our website and follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Share your favorite episodes on social media to help others build better, more meaningful relationships. And if our content has helped you forge deeper connections and more meaningful relationships, be sure to help support the show by visiting our Support the Podcast page!   Theme music “These Streets” provided by Adi the Monk Sound Production by Matt Carlson    

The Food and Drug Administration or FDA regulates roughly 78% of the US food supply. This includes packaged products, food additives, infant formula, ultra-processed foods, and lots more. However, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that 99% of new food ingredients enter our food supply through a legal loophole that skirts FDA oversight and seems, to me at least, to be incredibly risky. Today we're speaking with two authors of a recent legal and policy analysis published in the Journal Health Affairs. They explain what this loophole is and its risks and suggest a new user fee program to both strengthen the FDA's ability to regulate food ingredients and address growing concerns about food safety. Our guests are Jennifer Pomeranz Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at New York University School of Global Public Health and Emily Broad, director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Interview Summary So Jennifer, let's start with you, help our listeners understand the current situation with food ingredient oversight. And what is this legal loophole that allows food companies to add new ingredients without safety reviews. Sure. So, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment in 1958, and the idea was to divide food additives and generally recognized as safe ingredients into two different categories. That's where the GRAS term comes from generally recognized as safe? ‘Generally Recognized As Safe' is GRAS. But it circularly defines food additives as something that's not GRAS. So, there's not actually a definition of these two different types of substances. But the idea was that the food industry would be required to submit a pre-market, that means before it puts the ingredient into the marketplace, a pre-market petition to the FDA to review the safety. And then the FDA promulgates a regulation for safe use of a food additive. GRAS ingredients on the other hand, initially thought of as salt, pepper, vinegar, are things like that would just be allowed to enter the food supply without that pre-market petition. The problem is the food industry is the entity that decides which category to place each ingredient. There's no FDA guidance on which category they're supposed to ascribe to these ingredients. What has happened is that the food industry has now entered into the food supply an enormous amount of ingredients under what we call the GRAS loophole, which is allowing it to just bring it to the market without any FDA oversight or even knowledge of the ingredient. So, in essence, what we're having now is that the food industry polices itself on whether to submit this pre-market petition for a food additive or just include it in its products without any FDA knowledge. When you said ‘enormous number of such things,' are we talking dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nobody knows, but the environmental working group did find that 99% of new ingredients are added through this loophole. And that's the concerning part. Well, you can look at some ultra-processed foods and they can have 30 or 40 ingredients on them. That's just one food. You can imagine that at across the food supply, how many things there are. And there are these chemicals that nobody can pronounce. You don't know what's going on, what they are, what they're all about. So, what you're saying is that the food industry decides to put these things in foods. There's some processing reason for putting them in. It's important that the public be protected against harmful ingredients. But the food industry decides what's okay to put in and what's not. Are they required to do any testing? Are there criteria for that kind of testing? Is there any sense that letting the industry police itself amounts to anything that protects the public good? Well, the criteria are supposed to be the same for GRAS or food additives. They're supposed to be meeting certain scientific criteria. But the problem with this is that for GRAS ingredients, they don't have to use published data and they can hold that scientific data to themselves. And you mentioned food labels, the ingredient list, right? That doesn't necessarily capture these ingredients. They use generic terms, corn oil, color additive, food additive whatever. And so, the actual ingredient itself is not necessarily listed on the ingredient list. There is no way to identify them and it's unknown whether they're actually doing the studies. They can engage in these, what are called GRAS panels, which are supposed to be experts that evaluate the science. But the problem is other studies have found that 100% of the people on these GRAS panels have financial conflicts of interest. Okay, so let me see if I have this right. I'm a food company. I develop a new additive to provide color or flavor or fragrance, or it's an emulsifier or something like that. I develop a chemical concoction that hasn't really been tested for human safety. I declare it safe. And the criteria I use for declaring it set safe is putting together a panel of people that I pay, who then in a hundred percent of cases say things are. That's how it works? I can't say that in a hundred percent of cases they say it's safe, but a hundred percent of the people have financial conflicts of interest. That's one of the major concerns there. Well, one can't imagine they would continue to be paid... Exactly. This sounds like a pretty shaky system to be sure. Emily: I wanted to add a couple other really quick things on the last discussion. You were saying, Kelly, like they're using a panel of experts, which indeed are paid by them. That would be best case in some cases. They're just having their own staff say, we think this is generally recognized as safe. And I think there's some examples we can give where there isn't even evidence that they went to even any outside people, even within industry. I think that the takeaway from all of that is that there's really the ability for companies to call all the shots. Make all the rules. Not tell FDA what they're doing. And then as we talked about, not even have anything on the label because it's not a required ingredient if it's, used as part of a processing agent that's not a substance on there. So I was feeling pretty bad when Jennifer is talking about these panels and the heavy conflict... Even worse. Of interest, now I feel worse because that's the best case. Totally. And one other thing too is just you kind of warmed this up by talking about this loophole. When we put an earlier article out that we wrote that was about just this generally recognized as safe, the feedback we got from FDA was this isn't a loophole. Why are you calling this a loophole? And it's pretty clear that it's a loophole, you know? It's big enough to drive thousands of ingredients through. Yes, totally. Emily, you've written about things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, trans fats, and red dye number three in particular. Both of which FDA has now prohibited in food. Can you walk us through those cases? You asked about partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat, and then red dye three, which are two examples that we talk about a little bit in our piece. Actually, one of those, the partially hydrogenated oils was allowed in food through the generally recognized as safe definition. And the other was not. But they are both really good examples of another real issue that FDA has, which is that not only are they not doing a good job of policing substances going into food on the front end, but they do an even worse job of getting things out of food on the backend, post-market once they know that those substances are really raising red flags. And you raised two of the prime examples we've been talking about. With partially hydrogenated oils these are now banned in foods, but it took an extremely long time. Like the first evidence of harm was in the mid-nineties. By 2005, the Institute of Medicine, which is now the National Academies, said that intake of trans fat, of partially hydrogenated oils, should be as low as possible. And there was data from right around that time that found that 72,000 to 228,000 heart attacks in the US each year were caused by these partially hydrogenated oils. And on FDA's end, they started in early 2000s to require labeling. But it wasn't until 2015 that they passed a final rule saying that these substances were not generally recognized as safe. And then they kept delaying implementation until 2023. It was basically more than 20 years from when there was really clear evidence of harm including from respected national agencies to when FDA actually fully removed them from food. And red dye number three is another good example where there were studies from the 1980s that raised concerns about this red dye. And it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. But they still allowed it to be added to food. And didn't ban it from food until early this year. So early 2025. In large part because one of the other things happening is states are now taking action on some of these substances where they feel like we really need to protect consumers in our states. And FDA has been doing a really poor job. California banned red dye about 18 months before that and really spurred FDA to action. So that 20-year delay with between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attack deaths attributable to the trans fats is the cost of delay and inaction and I don't know, conflicts of interest, and all kinds of other stuff that happened in FDA. So we're not talking about something trivial by any means. These are life and death things are occurring. Yes. Give us another example, if you would, about something that entered the food supply and caused harm but made it through that GRAS loophole. The example that I've talked about both in some of the work we've done together and also in a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that really focused on why this is an issue. There was this substance added to food called tara flour. It came on the scene in 2022. It was in food prepared by Daily Harvest as like a protein alternative. And they were using it from a manufacturer in South America who said we have deemed this generally recognized as safe. Everything about that is completely legal. They deemed it generally recognized as safe. A company put it into food, and they sold that. Up until that point, that's all legal. What happened was very quickly people started getting really sick from this. And so there were, I think, about 400 people across 39 states got sick. Nearly 200 people ended up in the hospital, some of them with liver failure because of this toxicity of tara flour. And so FDA followed the thread they did help work with the company to do a voluntary recall, but it then took them two years, until May, 2024, to declare tara flour not generally recognized as safe. So I think, in some ways, this is a great example because it shows how it's so immediate, the impact of this substance that, again, was legally added to food with no oversight. In some ways it's a misleading example because I think so many of the substances in food, it's not going to be so clear and so immediate. It's going to be year over year, decade over decade as part of a full diet that these are causing cardiovascular risk, thyroid disease, cancer risk, those kinds of things. I'd love to hear from either of you about this. Why is FDA falling down on the job so badly? Is it that they don't have the money to do the necessary testing? Do they not have the authority? Is there not the political will to do this? Is there complete caving into the food industry? Just let them do what they want and we're going let it go? Jennifer: All of the above? Everything you just said? It's all of the above. Emily: Jen, do you wanna talk about the money side? Because that sort of gets to the genesis of the article we worked on, which was like maybe there's a creative solution to that piece. Yes, I'd love to hear about that because I thought that was a very creative thing that you guys wrote about in your paper. That there would be an industry user fee to help produce this oversight. Tell us what you had in mind with that. And then then convince me that FDA would appropriately use this oversight and do its job. So, the idea in the paper was proposing a comprehensive user fee program for the food branch of the FDA. The FDA currently collects user fees for all of human drugs, animal drugs, medical devices, etc. With Tobacco, it's a hundred percent funded by user fees. But food, it only gets 1% of its funding through user fees. And it's important to note user fees fund processes. They don't fund outcomes. It's not like a bribe. And the idea behind user fees and why industry sometimes supports them is actually to bring predictability to the regulatory state. It brings efficiency to reviews. And then this all allows the industry to anticipate timelines so they can bring products to market and know when they're going be able to do it. In the food context, for example, the FDA is required to respond to those food additives petitions that we talked about within 180 days. But they can't respond in time. And they have a lot of timelines that are required of them in the food context that they can't meet. They can't meet their timelines because they're so underfunded. So, we proposed a comprehensive user fee. But one of the main reasons that we think a user fee is important is to address the pre-market issues that I talked about and the post-market issues that Emily talked about. In order to close that GRAS loophole, first of all, FDA needs to either reevaluate its authorities or Congress needs to change its authorities. But it would need resources to be able to do something pre-market. Some of the ideas we had was that the user fee would fund some type of either pre-market review, pre-market notification, or even just a pre-market system where the FDA determines whether a proposed ingredient should go through the GRAS avenue, or through food additive petition. So at least that there will be some type of pre-market oversight over all the ingredients in the food supply. And then also the FDA is so severely lacking in any type of comprehensive post-market into play, they would have the resources to engage in a more comprehensive post-market review for all the ingredients. Could you see a time, and I bring this up because of lawsuits against the food industry for some of these additives that are going on now. The state attorney's generals are starting to get involved, and as you said, Emily, the some states are taking legislative action to ban certain things in the food supply. Do you think there could come a time when the industry will come to government pleading to have a user fee like this? To provide some standardization across jurisdictions, let's say? So, there's two things. The first is Congress has to pass the user fee, and historically, actually, industry has done exactly what you said. They have gone to Congress and said, you know what? We want user fees because we want a streamlined system, and we want to be able to know when we're bringing products to market. The problem in the context of food for the issues we're talking about is that right now they can use the GRAS loophole. So, they have very little incentive to ask for user fees if they can bring all their ingredients into the market through the GRAS loophole. There are other areas where a user fee is very relevant, such as the infant formula 90 day pre-market notification, or for different claims like health claims. They might want user fees to speed those things up, but in terms of the ingredients, unless we close the GRAS loophole, they'd have little incentive to actually come to the table. But wouldn't legal liability change that? Let's say that some of these lawsuits are successful and they start having to pay large settlements or have the State Attorneys General, for example, come down on them for these kinds of things. If they're legally liable for harm, they're causing, they need cover. And wouldn't this be worth the user fee to provide them cover for what they put in the food supply? Yes, it's great to have the flexibility to have all these things get through the loophole, but it'd be great as well to have some cover so you wouldn't have so much legal exposure. But you guys are the lawyers, so I'm not sure it makes sense. I think you're right that there are forces combining out in the world that are pushing for change here. And I think it's hard to disentangle how much is it that industry's pushing for user fees versus right now I think more willing to consider federal regulatory changes by either FDA or by Congress. At the state level this is huge. There's now becoming a patchwork across states, and I think that is really difficult for industry. We were tracking this year 93 bills in 35 states that either banned an additive in the general public, banned it in schools. Banned ultra-processed foods, which most of the states, interestingly, have all defined differently. But where they have had a definition, it's been tied to various different combinations of additives. So that's going on. And then I think you're right, that the legal cases moving along will push industry to really want clear and better standards. I think there's a good question right now around like how successful will some of these efforts be? But  what we are seeing is real movement, both in FDA and in Congress, in taking action on this. So interestingly, the Health Affairs piece that we worked on was out this spring. But we had this other piece that came out last fall and felt like we were screaming into the void about this is a problem generally recognized as safe as a really big issue. And suddenly that has really changed. And so, you know, in March FDA said they were directed by RFK (Robert F. Kennedy), by HHS (Health and Human Services) to really look into changing their rule on generally recognized as safe. So, I know that's underway. And then in Congress, multiple bills have been introduced. And I know there are several in the works that would address additives and specifically, generally recognized as safe. There's this one piece going on, which is there's forces coalescing around some better method of regulation. I think the question's really going to also be like, will Congress give adequate resources? Because there is also another scenario that I'm worried about that even if FDA said we're going now require at least notification for every substance that's generally recognized as safe. It's a flood of substances. And they just, without more resources, without more staff devoted to this, there's no way that they're going to be able to wade through that. So, I think that either the resources need to come from user fees, or at least partially from user fees, from more appropriations and I think, In my opinion, they are able to do that on their own. Even given where current administrative law stands. Because I think it's very clear that the gist of the statute is that FDA should be overseeing additives. And I think a court would say this is allowing everything to instead go through this alternative pathway. But I really think FDA's going to need resources to manage this. And perhaps more of a push from Congress to make sure that they really do it to the best of their ability. I was going to say there's also an alternative world where we don't end up spending any of these resources, and they require the industry just to disclose all the ingredients they've added to food and put it on a database. This is like low hanging fruit, not very expensive, doesn't require funding. And then the NGOs, I hope, would go to work and say, look at this. There is no safety data for these ingredients. You know, because right now we just can't rely on FDA to do anything unless they get more funding to do something. So, if FDA doesn't get funding, then maybe this database where houses every ingredient that's in the food supply as a requirement could be a low resource solution. Jennifer, I'll come back to you in a minute because I'd like to ask how worried should we be about all this stuff that's going into food. But Emily, let me ask you first, does FDA have the authority to do what it needs to do? Let's say all of a sudden that your wish was granted and there were user fees would it then be able to do what needs to be done? I think certainly to be able to charge these user fees in almost all areas, it right now doesn't have that authority, and Congress would need to act. There's one small area which is within the Food Safety Modernization Act for certain types of like repeat inspections or recalls or there's a couple other. FDA isn't charging fees right now because they haven't taken this one step that they need to take. But they do have the authority if they just take those steps. But for everything else, Congress has to act. I think the real question to me is because we now know so many of these substances are going through this GRAS pathway, the question is really can they do everything they need to do on their own to close that loophole? And again, my opinion is Congress could make it clear and if Congress were to act, it would be better. Like they could redefine it in a way that was much more clear that we are drawing a real line. And most things actually should be on the additive side of the line rather than the generally recognized as safe side of the line. But even with their current authority, with the current definition, I think FDA could at least require notification because they're still drawing a line between what's required for additives, which is a very lengthy pre-market process with, you know, a notice and comment procedure and all of these things. My take is FDA do what you can do now. Let's get the show on the road. Let's take steps here to close up the loophole. And then Congress takes time. But they definitely can even strengthen this and give a little more, I think, directives to FDA as to how to make sure that this loophole doesn't recur down the line. In talks that I've given recently, I've shown an ingredient list from a food that people will recognize. And I ask people to try to guess what that food is from its ingredient list. This particular food has 35 ingredients. You know, a bunch of them that are very hard to pronounce. Very few people would even have any idea at all what those ingredients do. There's no sense at all about how ingredient number 17 would interact with ingredient 31, etc. And it just seems like it's complete chaos. And I don't want to take you guys outside your comfort zone because your backgrounds are law. But Jennifer, let me ask you this. You have a background in public health as well. There are all kinds of reasons to be worried about this, aren't there? There are the concerns about the safety of these things, but then there's a concern about what these ultra-processed ingredients do to your metabolism, your ability to control your weight, to regulate your hunger and things like that. It sounds this is a really important thing. And it's affecting almost everybody in the country. The percentage of calories that are now coming from ultra-processed foods is over 50% in both children and adults. So it sounds like there's really reason to worry. Would you agree? Yes. And also, the FDA is supposed to be overseeing the cumulative effects of the ingredients and it doesn't actually enforce that regulation. Its own regulation that it's supposed to evaluate the cumulative effects. It doesn't actually enforce this. So by cumulative effects do you mean the chronic effects of long term use? And, having these ingredients across multiple products within one person's consumption. Also, the FDA doesn't look at things like the effect on the gut microbiome, neurotoxicity, even cancer risk, even though they're supposed to, they say that if something is GRAS, they don't need to look at it because cancer risk is relegated only to food additives. So here we're at a real issue, right? Because if everything's entering through the GRAS loophole, then they're not looking at carcinogen effects. So, I think there is a big risk and as Emily had said earlier, that these are sometimes long-term risks versus that acute example of tara flour that we don't know. And we do know from the science, both older and emerging science, that ultra-processed food has definite impact on not only consumption, increased consumption, but also on diet related diseases and other health effects. And by definition what we're talking about here are ultra-processed foods. These ingredients are only found in ultra-processed foods. So, we do know that there is cause for concern. It's interesting that you mentioned the microbiome because we've recorded a cluster of podcasts on the microbiome and another cluster of podcasts on artificial sweeteners. Those two universes overlap a good bit because the impact of the artificial sweeteners on some of them, at least on the microbiome, is really pretty negative. And that's just one thing that goes into these foods. It really is pretty important. By the way, that food with 35 ingredients that I mentioned is a strawberry poptart. Jennifer: I know that answer! Emily: How do you know that? Jennifer: Because I've seen Kelly give a million talks. Yes, she has. Emily: I was wondering, I was like, are we never going to find out? So the suspense is lifted. Let me end with this. This has been highly instructive, and I really appreciate you both weighing in on this. So let me ask each of you, is there reason to be optimistic that things could improve. Emily, I'll start with you. So, I've been giving this talk the past few months that's called basically like Chronic Disease, Food Additives and MAHA, like What Could Go Right and What Could Go Wrong. And so, I'm going give you a very lawyerly answer, which is, I feel optimistic because there's attention on the issue. I think states are taking action and there's more attention to this across the political spectrum, which both means things are happening and means that the narrative changing, like people are getting more aware and calling for change in a way that we weren't seeing. On the flip side, I think there's a lot that could go wrong. You know, I think some of the state bills are great and some of them are maybe not so great. And then I think this administration, you have an HHS and FDA saying, they're going to take action on this in the midst of an administration that's otherwise very deregulatory. In particular, they're not supposed to put out new regulations if they can get rid of 10 existing ones. There are some things you can do through guidance and signaling, but I don't think you can really fix these issues without like real durable legislative change. So, I'm sorry to be one of the lawyers here. I think the signals are going in the right direction, but jury is out a little bit on how well we'll actually do. And I hope we can do well given the momentum. What do you think, Jennifer? I agree that the national attention is very promising to these issues. The states are passing laws that are shocking to me. That Texas passing a warning label law, I would never have thought in the history of the world, that Texas would be the one to pass a warning label law. They're doing great things and I actually have hope that something can come of this. But I am concerned at the federal level of the focus on deregulation may make it impossible. User fees is an example of where they won't have to regulate, but they could provide funding to the FDA to actually act in areas that it has the authority to act. That is one solution that could actually work under this administration if they were amenable to it. But I also think in some ways the states could save us. I worry, you know, Emily brought up the patchwork, which is the key term the industry uses to try to get preemption. I do worry about federal preemption of state actions. But the states right now are the ones saving us. California is the first to save the whole nation. The food industry isn't going to create new food supply for California and then the rest of the country. And then it's the same with other states. So, the states might be the ones that actually can make some real meaningful changes and get some of the most unsafe ingredients out of the food supply, which some of the states have now successfully done. Bios Emily Broad Leib is a Clinical Professor of Law, Director of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, the nation's first law school clinic devoted to providing legal and policy solutions to the health, economic, and environmental challenges facing our food system. Working directly with clients and communities, Broad Leib champions community-led food system change, reduction in food waste, food access and food is medicine interventions, and equity and sustainability in food production. Her scholarly work has been published in the California Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, Harvard Law & Policy Review, Food & Drug Law Journal, and Journal of Food Law & Policy, among others. Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

In this episode we speak with Nate Maxey (MS '25), whose career path reflects the versatility and adaptability of public health skills. Nate shares his journey, from being pre-med to falling in love with mathematics and ultimately, biostatistics, which he describes as learning to tell a narrative with data using complicated math. We explore Nate's diverse experiences from New York City's sodium regulation research to a marketing internship with Beats by Dr. Dre, where he conducted qualitative research presenting his findings to executives. Nate also discusses his work analyzing legal policy related to Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws, where he helped create a dataset by reading penal codes. He highlights how his data and research expertise have proven transferable across these varied industries. He emphasizes the crucial role of networking and building authentic professional relationships, and the importance of refining communication and writing skills for any public health professional, noting that good writing sets statisticians apart. Looking ahead, Nate talks about the "big data revolution" and the transformative potential of AI in public health for predicting and preventing both upstream and downstream problems. He also addresses health disparities, discussing how historical research benefited those in power rather than marginalized communities, and stressing the need to center these groups in current research for equitable benefits. Tune in for practical advice on the value of continuous learning, and how to maximize your graduate school experience by applying skills beyond the classroom. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

In this episode, we meet Nene Uwaomah (MPH '25) and Haya Srour (MPH '25), who played key leadership roles in the Applied Global Public Health Initiative (AGPHI) during their time at NYU GPH. We track their academic and professional journeys, from their pre-public health backgrounds—Nene in pre-med and Haya as a dietician—to their hands-on work with communities around the globe. They discuss how AGPHI provides a platform to apply classroom knowledge to real-world projects, shaping global research in places like Zambia and the Middle East. Learn about their impactful work, including Nene's efforts to increase early antenatal care uptake in Zambia and Haya's role in UNICEF's global education program. Nene and Haya both highlight the strong sense of community at GPH and how the faculty and students work together to solve problems. This episode is a powerful testament to how a public health degree can provide the opportunities, skills, and confidence to make a tangible difference in the world. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

This week on Green Street, Patti and Doug dedicate the entire program to their interview with the nation's leading expert on environmental toxins, Dr. Philip Landrigan. Over a career spanning decades, Dr. Landrigan has been out front on efforts to inform the public about the links between common environmental exposure and human health, including groundbreaking work on lead, asbestos, and pesticides. A pediatrician by training, Dr. Landrigan is currently the Director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, and Director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at the Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society at Boston College.

Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S. is the former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). After retirement, she was granted scientist emeritus status and still maintains a laboratory. As a board-certified toxicologist, Birnbaum served as a federal scientist for 40 years. Prior to her appointment as NIEHS and NTP Director in 2009, she spent 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. Birnbaum has received many awards and recognitions. In 2016, she was awarded the North Carolina Award in Science. She was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, one of the highest honors in the fields of medicine and health. She was also elected to the Collegium Ramazzini, an independent, international academy comprised of internationally renowned experts in the fields of occupational and environmental health and received an honorary Doctor of Science from the University of Rochester and a Distinguished Alumna Award from the University of Illinois. She has also received Honorary Doctorates from the University of Rhode Island, Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and Amity University, India; the Surgeon General's Medallion 2014; and 14 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards, which reflect the recommendations of EPA's external Science Advisory Board, for specific publications. Dr. Birnbaum recently received the Winslow Award, the highest honor from the Yale School of Public Health and was elected an AAAS Fellow. She has also received numerous awards from professional societies and citizen's groups. Birnbaum is an active member of the scientific community. She was vice president of the International Union of Toxicology, the umbrella organization for toxicology societies in more than 50 countries, and former president of the Society of Toxicology, the largest professional organization of toxicologists in the world. She is the author of more than 1000 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, and reports. Birnbaum's own research focuses on the pharmacokinetic behavior of environmental chemicals, mechanisms of action of toxicants including endocrine disruption, and linking of real-world exposures to health effects. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland in Australia, the School of Public Health of Yale University, the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Curriculum in Toxicology, and the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as in the Integrated Toxicology and Environmental Health Program at Duke University where she is also a Scholar in Residence. A native of New Jersey, Birnbaum received her M.S. and Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Thanks to so many of you who joined our live conversation with Devi Sridhar! Professor Devi Sridhar is the Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Over the past 2 decades she has become one of the world's leading authorities and advisors for promoting global health. Her new book —How No to Die Too Soon—provides a unique outlook for extending healthspan with a global perspective admixed with many personal stories. We talked about lifestyle factors with lessons from Japan (on diet) and the Netherlands (on physical activity), ultra-processed foods, air pollution and water quality, the prevention model in Finland, guns, inequities, the US situation for biomedical research and public health agency defunding, and much more. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode we speak with Dr. Jonathan Purtle, Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at NYU GPH. Dr. Purtle discusses his career path from teaching second grade to becoming a mental health policy researcher. The episode explores mental health policy, implementation science, and the translation of research into effective policy. Specifically, it addresses the challenges of scaling up evidence-based practices and the importance of considering structural determinants like housing and education in mental health outcomes. Dr. Purtle also addresses the role of communication and writing in public health, emphasizing the need to effectively translate research for policymakers and the broader community, including through public health journalism. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

Dr. Cynthia Bulik is a clinical psychologist and one of the world's leading experts on eating disorders. She is the Founding Director of the University of North Carolina Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders and also the founder director of the Centre for Eating Disorders Innovation at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Dr. Bulik is Distinguished Professor of Eating Disorders in the Department of Psychiatry at UNC, Professor of Nutrition in the Gillings School of Global Public Health, and Professor of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Karolinska Institute.  Dr Bulik has received numerous awards for her pioneering work, including Lifetime Achievement Awards from the National Eating Disorders Association, the Academy for Eating Disorders, and the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics. She has written over 750 scientific papers, and several books aimed at educating the public about eating disorders.  Currently, Dr. Bulik's focus  is in the reconceptualization of eating disorders as being a metabo-psychiatric diseases. Food Junkies is keen to explore this interest in how metabolic disease plays a role in disordered eating: can this construct be the  common ground to start to understand the muddy waters  between eating disorders and food addiction?  In This Episode, You'll Learn:

On this episode, we're exploring the importance of school nutrition and the innovative strategies being used to ensure every student has access to healthy, consistent meals. We're joined by leaders from the Carolina Hunger Initiative, the Department of Public Instruction and the Department of Agriculture to discuss the challenges, opportunities, and bold ideas shaping the future of school nutrition. Guests: Dr. Jessica Soldavini, Research Specialist, Carolina Hunger Initiative/School Meals for All NC and Asst. Professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC - Chapel Hill Rachel Findley, Sr. Director of School Nutrition, NC Department of Public Instruction Heather Lifsey, Marketing Specialist, NC Department of Agriculture

In this episode we speak with Jean Bae, Clinical Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management. She shares her journey from Harvard Law to shaping public health policy, tackling critical issues like the impact of the Hyde Amendment and evidence-based laws on public health outcomes. Jean provides valuable insights on the intersection of law and public health, the challenges of translating legal frameworks into actionable policies, and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. From firearm regulations to abortion laws, she unpacks how policy shapes lives and offers advice for aspiring public health professionals. Whether you're a student, a policy enthusiast, or curious about how laws influence daily life, this episode is filled with actionable insights and inspiration. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

In this episode of The Better Samaritan Podcast, we're joined by Allison Ruark, global public health professor and HIV/AIDS researcher, to talk about how global health, gender inequality, and foreign aid cuts all collide in real life. We dig into what's really going on behind the data, how U.S. policy changes are closing clinics across Africa, and why spiritual resilience matters just as much as medical care. Allison offers both documented areas of concern and areas of hope—thanks to the next generation of passionate students stepping up. Dive deeper into the discussion: (5:04) Clarification - Dr. Ruark post-show clarified that, as of the recording of this episode, 80% of USAID/US grants have been cancelled, and 20% of grants are still operational. See here. (6:12) Groups working with USAID say the government still has not paid what it owes for their work scrippsnews.com/politics/president-trumps-first-100-days/groups-working-with-usaid-say-the-government-still-has-not-paid-what-it-owes-for-their-work   (26:08) Dr. Ruark's research on behavioral interventions to prevent HIV   Further Reading from Dr. Allison Ruark Books: AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention Articles: Increasing family planning access in Kenya through engagement of faith-based health facilities, religious leaders, and community health volunteers. Oromia Joint Assessment on Gender-Based Violence (GBV), FoodInsecurity, and Effective GBV Response  Monitoring & Evaluation for Multiple and Concurrent Partnerships (MCP) Programmes.   About Allison Ruark  Dr. Ruark is a social epidemiologist with a Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She has worked at Wheaton College as an Assistant Professor since 2020 and is the theme coordinator for the Wheaton Aequitas Fellows Program in Global Public Health. She has particular expertise in behavioral HIV prevention, gender-based violence, and the impact of couple and family relationships on health.  ------------ This episode was produced by WildfireCreative  Theme Song: “Turning Over Tables” by The Brilliance Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | Stitcher | RSS Follow us on Twitter:  @drjamieaten |  @kentannan Follow on Instagram: @wildfirecreativeco @wheaton_hdi (Note to the listener: In this podcast, sometimes we'll host Evangelicals, and sometimes we won't. Learning how to “do good, better” involves listening to many perspectives with different insights and understanding. Sometimes, it will make us uncomfortable; sometimes, we'll agree, and sometimes, we won't. We think that's good. We want to listen for correction–especially in our blind spots.) The Better Samaritan podcast is produced by the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, which offers an M.A. in Humanitarian & Disaster Leadership and a Trauma Certificate. To learn more and apply, visit our website. Get your application fee to the HDL M.A. program waived with code TBS25. Jamie Aten, Ph.D., and Kent Annan, M.Div., co-direct the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College and are the Co-Founders of Spiritual First Aid. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Public Health Careers podcast episode with Dr. Andra L. Wilkinson, PhD, MSPH

In this episode we explore the link between accessibility and public health with Spandita Sarmah, a human-centered designer whose experience at Google, T-Mobile, and Deloitte focuses on creating a healthier world for everyone. This episode delves into Spandita's journey from software engineering, fine arts, and graphic design to her passion for user research and her advocacy for designing "with," not "for," users. Discover how her work, including the development of a hand gesture recognition system to aid individuals with fine motor impairments and her insights on tactile alternatives for those with vision impairment, challenges conventional design standards. Learn why inclusive design is essential for equitable access to health resources, promoting overall well-being, and fostering environments where all individuals, regardless of their abilities, can thrive and fully participate in society. We'll discuss how accessibility impacts everything from digital experiences to physical spaces, ultimately contributing to a more just and healthy community. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

Join Dr. Andy Cutler and Dr. Cynthia Bulik as they discuss the challenges of diagnosing and treating binge eating disorder (BED). They explore the genetics, neurobiology, and clinical course of BED that inform treatment decisions, and examine how advances in genetic research and emerging pharmacological options may improve outcomes for individuals with BED.  Cynthia Bulik, PhD, FAED is a Distinguished Professor of Eating Disorders in the Department of Psychiatry, a Professor of Nutrition in the Gillings School of Global Public Health and the Founding Director of the Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.    Andrew J. Cutler, MD is a distinguished psychiatrist and researcher with extensive experience in clinical trials and psychopharmacology. He currently serves as the Chief Medical Officer of Neuroscience Education Institute and holds the position of Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York.    Resources  Eating Disorders Genetics Initiative (EDGI) 2 - edgi2.org  National Eating Disorders Association - nationaleatingdisorders.org  Families Empowered and Supporting the Treatment of Eating Disorders (FEAST) - feast-ed.org   

2025P2 Regional Editor of AJPH, Prof. Jihong Liu and Dr. Tianchu Lyu, review highlights of the Jan to Mar 2025 Issues and Supplements. The Editor's Corner features Dr. José Pagán, Professor and Chair of Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University

In this episode, we speak with Natalia De La Viña, an MPH candidate specializing in global health at NYU GPH, and explore the critical topic of health equity for Latin and Indigenous communities. With a background that uniquely blends neuroscience and Spanish, Natalia shares her journey and her commitment to serving these communities, particularly in the transborder region. We'll discuss her experiences as a pre-diabetes educator, addressing chronic conditions like diabetes through patient education and resource provision, and her passion for tackling healthcare access disparities and social determinants of health. Natalia also shares her experiences as a medical interpreter, her initiative founding the LINEN (Latin and Indigenous Native Health Equity Network) club, and her vision for future work with surgical rotation clinics in Latin America. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nataliadelavi%C3%B1a/ To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

On New York University Week: The more people with access to mental health services, the better. Amanda Mauri, assistant professor and faculty fellow at the School of Global Public Health, discusses the rise in care. Amanda Mauri is an Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow at the New York University School of Global Public Health. Her interdisciplinary research […]

In this episode, we explore the collaboration between Rimsha Minhaz, an MPH student with a background in dentistry, and Dr. Wilson Wang, a pediatrician, health professional, and founder of WD Home and CEO of World Doctors. Driven by a desire to address disparities in healthcare access—a passion ignited by her experiences in outreach programs in South India—Rimsha pursued a Master of Public Health degree at NYU GPH. It was at NYU GPH that Rimsha's path intersected with Dr. Wang's when she took his course on data-driven decision making. Inspired by Dr. Wang's dedication to public health, including his work during the Ebola outbreak, Rimsha is now working with him through WD Home on a project focused on older person care management. This is a story of how passion meets purpose, and how a new generation of public health leaders is shaping a healthier future. Read Balancing Action and Reflection, a perspective piece by Rimsha Minhaz:  https://publichealth.nyu.edu/events-news/news/2024/12/02/balancing-action-and-reflection WD-Home: https://wd-home.co To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.  

Lisa LaVange is the 2018 President of the American Statistical Association and she is PhD, is Professor and Associate Chair of the Department of Biostatistics { add link to dept } in the Gillings School of Global Public Health { add link to Gillings SPH } at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is also director of the department's Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center (CSCC), overseeing faculty, staff, and students involved in large-scale clinical trials and epidemiological studies coordinated by the center. Ronald L. (Ron) Wasserstein is the executive director of the American Statistical Association (ASA). Wasserstein assumed the ASA's top staff leadership post in August 2007. Prior to joining the ASA, Wasserstein was a mathematics and statistics department faculty member and administrator at Washburn University in Topeka, Kan., from 1984–2007. During his last seven years at the school, he served as the university's vice president for academic affairs.

In this episode we speak with Toluwalase Akinluyi, known as LA, an MPH student studying Public Health Management. We explore her journey from physiotherapy in Nigeria to public health leadership at New York University. LA shares how she transitioned from clinical practice to policy and advocacy, her passion for healthcare management, and the pivotal moments that shaped her career. As Vice President of the African Graduate Student Association at NYU, she discusses mentorship, community-building, and championing diversity in global health. We also dive into her experiences as an international student navigating NYU, her perspective on health equity, and how she is leveraging public health policy to create lasting change. Join us for an inspiring conversation on breaking barriers, leading with impact, and transforming public health from the ground up. Connect with Toluwalase Akinluyi: https://www.linkedin.com/in/toluwalaseakinluyi/ To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

This podcast was created using NotebookLM.Oral precancerous lesions are a worldwide health concern requiring public health interventions for prevention of oral cancer. These lesions, like leukoplakia, can progress to malignancy, with risk influenced by factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and HPV. Early detection through screening programs and public education campaigns are crucial strategies for improving outcomes. Technological advancements are enhancing diagnostic capabilities and offering new treatment possibilities, though challenges remain in resource allocation and access to care globally. Ultimately, a coordinated global effort is necessary to reduce the burden of oral cancer stemming from these precancerous conditions.

In this episode we speak with Dr. Stephanie Cook, Associate Professor and Director of the Attachment and Health Disparities Research Lab, about the science behind minority stress and resilience. She explains how stress manifests biologically through cortisol regulation, why chronic exposure to social discrimination dysregulates the body's stress response, and how public health research is using biomarkers like saliva and hair samples to measure these effects. Dr. Cook also highlights the power of close relationships in buffering stress, discusses her ongoing 30-day stress tracking study, and reveals how policymakers can use physiological data to drive systemic change. Connect with Dr. Stephanie Cook: https://publichealth.nyu.edu/faculty/stephanie-cook To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan is a pediatrician and a public health doctor. He is Professor of Biology, Director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, and Director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at the Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society at Boston College. He is also Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics and Preventive Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. In his work, Phil's goal is to better understand how toxic exposures in the environment harm human health. As a pediatrician, he focuses primarily on the impacts on children's health. On the public health side, he aims to harness science to prevent toxic exposures to keep kids healthy and prevent disease. His research has spanned many areas, including the health impacts of lead poisoning, air pollution, pesticides, plastic pollution, and chemical pollution. When he's not working, Phil loves to spend his time outdoors, particularly hiking and kayaking. He is also an avid reader and enjoys spending the evenings sitting down with a good book. Phil completed his undergraduate studies in biology at Boston College and earned his MD from Harvard Medical School. After an internship at Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, he completed his residency at Boston Children's Hospital. Phil also earned a MS degree with distinction in Occupational Medicine from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the University of London. Phil worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai before joining the faculty at Boston College. He also spent a sabbatical working at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Phil has earned numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including the Gold Medal for Distinguished Service to Humanity from the National Institute of Social Sciences, Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Council for Science and the Environment, the Lifetime Achievement Award from Healthy Child Healthy World, the Child Health Champion Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Meritorious Service Medal of the U.S. Public Health Service, multiple Commendation Medals from the Navy and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the National Defense Service Medal, and many others. He is also an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and the American Epidemiological Society. In addition, he is an elected Fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine, New York Academy of Medicine, New York Academy of Sciences, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American College of Epidemiology, Royal Society of Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

We speak with Emeka Iloegbu, a DrPH student and global health leader with over 15 years of experience in tackling infectious diseases and strengthening health systems. From his early days volunteering with the Red Cross in New York City to playing critical roles in pandemic responses for H1N1, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19, and monkeypox, Emeka has worked at the intersection of laboratory science, public health, and policy. As an assistant professor at CUNY and a United Nations representative, he is engaged in HIV research, antimicrobial resistance, and the integration of molecular diagnostics into public health strategies. He discusses his transition from analyzing cells under a microscope at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital to influencing policy decisions at the UN and Department of Health, emphasizing the importance of adaptive leadership, community-based surveillance, and strengthening global health infrastructure. We also dive into his research in implementation science, his role in advancing sickle cell disease interventions, and how he is using his vast experience to bridge the gap between scientific discovery and real-world impact. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

Public Health Careers podcast episode with Dr. Yanica F. Faustin

(Conversation recorded on January 21st, 2025)   Many of us are familiar with the problem of plastics as a distant issue in the ocean, primarily affecting fish and sea turtles. While these environmental effects are critical, the full scope of plastic's repercussions on human health and well-being is largely unknown by most people, even as the research shows alarming – and growing – adverse effects. What do we need to know about this pervasive material and how it affects the human body?  Today, Nate is joined by environmental health researchers Leo Trasande and Linda Birnbaum, as well as environmental policy advocate Christina Dixon, to discuss the harmful effects of plastic on human health and the ongoing global policy efforts to regulate the plastic and petrochemical industries. Their conversation dives into the risks of frequent plastic exposure, paths toward a world with reduced plastics use, and what it might mean for the economy if we made – or did not make – significant changes to the ways we use plastic. How can we balance the requirement for essential plastics with the urgent need to reduce our production and consumption of these toxic materials? What further unknown health effects are still in need of research - especially in the case of thousands of untested chemicals used on the market? Lastly, what is the current state of regulation on plastic production and consumption, and how can everyday citizens play a role in shaping the future of the plastic industry?    About Leo Trasande: Dr. Leo Trasande is the Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor, Director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics, and Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Pediatrics at NYU School of Medicine. He also serves on the faculty of the NYU Wagner School of Public Service and the NYU College of Global Public Health. Leo is an internationally renowned leader in environmental health. His research focuses on the impacts of chemicals on hormones in our bodies. He has also led the way in documenting the economic costs for policy makers of failing to prevent diseases of environmental origin proactively.   About Linda Birnbaum: Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S, was director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from 2009 to 2019. As board certified toxicologist, Linda also served as a federal scientist for 40 years, including 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. Birnbaum is now a Special Volunteer at NIEHS and conducts research as part of the Mechanistic Toxicology Branch. In October 2010, she was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, one of the highest honors in the fields of medicine and health.    About Christina Dixon: Christina Dixon is a campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) in the UK, using policy, advocacy, and corporate campaigning skills towards environmental issues. Christina currently leads the EIA's plastics treaty campaign, where she oversees a diverse and highly skilled team of legal, policy and campaigning experts combating plastic (over)production & pollution, waste trade, commercial whaling, illegal marine species trade, and bycatch.    Please note that, starting with this episode, Reality Roundtables will be released on Mondays going forward.   Show Notes and More Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the whole story of The Great Simplification? Watch our 30-minute Animated Movie.   ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future Join our Substack newsletter Join our Discord channel and connect with other listeners  

In this episode we speak with Dr. Claudia Passos-Ferreira, Assistant Professor of Bioethics, as she explores the mysteries of infant consciousness. Discover how philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience intersect to answer profound questions: Do newborns experience the world like we do? When does consciousness begin? From her groundbreaking research to the ethical implications of her findings, Dr. Passos-Ferreira delves into the early stages of human awareness and its connection to bioethics, public health, and even AI. Packed with insights on morality, self-awareness, and the evolving technology shaping this field, this episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about the science of consciousness and its real-world impact. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.  

2025P1 Regional Editor of AJPH, Prof. Jihong Liu and Dr. Tianchu Lyu, review highlights of the Oct to Dec 2024 Issues and Supplements. The Editor's Corner features Dr. José Pagán, Professor and Chair of Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University

For many years in talks that I gave, I showed a slide with an ingredient list from a food most people know. Just to see if the audience could guess what the food was. based on what it was made of. It was very hard for people to guess. A few people might come close, but very few people would guess. And it was pretty hard because the food contained 56 ingredients. This is in one food. And the ingredient list had chemical names, flavorings, stabilizers, and heaven knows what else. But 56 things in one, just one food in the food supply. Pretty amazing to think what kind of things we're bombarded with in foods we eat in our everyday lives. So, one key question is do we know what all this stuff does to us, either individually or in combination? So, how does ingredient 42 interact with ingredient 17? Even if we happen to know what they do individually, which we may not. And, who's looking out for the health of the population, and who has regulatory control over these things? Today we're joined by the author of a new article on this topic published in the American Journal of Public Health. Jennifer Pomeranz is an attorney and is Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management in the School of Global Public Health at New York University. The food, by the way, was a chocolate fudge Pop Tart. Interview Summary So, who has regulatory oversight with these things that are added to foods? The FDA has the authority over all of those packaged foods. So, Pop Tarts, all of that type of packaged foods and the ingredients in there. Can you explain the nature of their authority and the concept of GRAS and what that stands for? Yes. So, there are two main ingredients in our food, but there is also color additives and other things that we didn't get to in our study. But the two main ingredients are called 'food additives' and then 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS substances. And these are the two ingredients that are in all the processed foods. They're both complex substances, but they're regulated differently. GRAS is assumed to be safe. And food with GRAS substances is presumed to be safe as long as there's a generally agreement among scientists that it's safe, or if it's been in use in food since 1958. Food additives, on the other hand, are presumed to be unsafe. And so, foods that have food additives must have the food additive be approved for the condition of use. So actually, the FDA issues regulations on the food additives. Is it true that the FDA authority covers lots of these chemical type things that get put in foods that we discussed? But also, things that occur naturally in some things like caffeine? Yes. And so, caffeine is considered GRAS or generally recognized as safe. The FDA has a tolerance level for cola-type beverages for caffeine. It actually doesn't enforce that as you see, because we have energy drinks that far exceed that type of level. So, there's different types of GRAS substances. But they can be very complex substances that are actually not so different than food additives. Who decides at the end of the day whether something's safe or not? You imagine this battalion of scientific experts that the FDA has on hand, or consults with, to decide whether something's safe or not. But how does it work? Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case. When it comes to food additives, the industry must petition the FDA and provide evidence showing that it's safe. And the FDA promulgates a regulation saying that it agrees it's safe and it can be used for the things that it set forth in the regulation. For GRAS, there are two mechanisms. One is the industry can notify the FDA that it thinks something's safe. And then it actually goes through a similar transparent process where the FDA will evaluate the evidence submitted. Or, shockingly, the industry can actually decide that it's safe for themselves. And they don't have to notify the FDA. And they can add it to their food without the FDA or the public actually knowing. Now they might disclose this on a website or something, but it's actually not even required to be based on peer reviewed literature, which is actually one of the concerning aspects about this. Concerning is polite language for what one might call shocking. So, in the case of some of these things that go into the food, the industry itself decides whether these things are safe. And in some cases, they have to at least tell the FDA that something they declare as safe is going into the food. But in some cases, they don't even have to do this. Right. So, they only have to if they've determined that it's a food additive. But actually, the industry itself is deciding that it's a food additive versus GRAS. Once it made the decision, it's GRAS, it doesn't even have to notify the FDA that it considers it safe. If they do, they are supposed to rely on their own research saying that it's safe. But actually, there's some alarming parts about that as well. The other outside research that's not my own found that the panels of experts that they employ, 100 percent of the people on those panels have financial conflicts of interest. So, that's already worrisome. They're receiving money from the food industry in some way. Yes. To say that the ingredient is safe. Another scary part is that if they do notify the FDA and they're not happy with how the FDA is reacting to their GRAS notification, they can actually request a cease and desist. The FDA will issue a cease and desist letter, and then they can actually go to market with that ingredient. Pretty amazing. Like loopholes that not only a truck can go through, but a train and everything else. That's really pretty remarkable. So one could say that the risk built into this system is hypothetical, and it works pretty well. But is that true? I mean, are there cases where things have gotten through that probably shouldn't have? Or is it just that we don't know? I think there's a lot of unknowns. The Environmental Working Group does that research and they have identified things that they find to be concerning. A lot of it is that we actually don't know what we don't know, right? So even the FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know. And that is, is part of the concern, that you can't just identify this by looking at the nutrition facts label where they list ingredients. Sometimes they just use terms like spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives. But that could be masking an ingredient that has never been examined and for which It's unclear that it's actually safe. I know there have been some policy efforts in places such as California to prohibit use of some of these things that have otherwise been considered safe by the FDA, or perhaps just by industry. Is that true that's happening more and more? Yes, actually there has been. Because of the gap in the FDA's oversight, we are seeing states, and it's actually a pretty shocking situation, that California banned four ingredients that the FDA did not. And it's saying that those ingredients are not safe to be in food in California. And given what a huge market California is, the thinking is that the industry will have to change their ingredients across the nation. And frankly, they've already taken those ingredients out of the same foods in Europe, where those ingredients are not allowed. So how much do you trust this self-policing by the industry? To be honest, I'm quite concerned about it. The FDA has the authority to review substances post market, so after they're already in the ingredients. But we see that it can take years or even decades. In the case of, remember, partially hydrogenated oils, which were artificially produced trans-fat. It took decades for them to get that removed from the food supply, despite significant research showing that it had caused health harm. So, even when there is evidence of harm, it takes quite a long time for the FDA to remove it. And in the case of another ingredient recently where California banned it, then the FDA decided to ban it. So, it does worry me that even their post market authority is not being utilized to the extent that it should. Let's think about what a good set of defaults might be and how this might actually play out in practice. If you'd assume these things that go into foods are not safe by default, then the question is what would it take to make sure they're safe before they're allowed in the food supply? And it would take toxicology studies, studies with lab animals perhaps, studies with humans. I don't know exactly how these things are tested, but one can imagine it's not an easy or a quick process. Nor probably an inexpensive one. But somebody would have to do it, and if government can't do it, you can't rely on industry to do it. I wonder if the default might be fewer things in the food supply and whether that might not be a pretty good thing? I love that you said that because that's the conclusion I came to as well. Why do we need all these new ingredients? We already have ultra processed foods, which are by definition contain all these ingredients that we don't really know what they are. And why do we even need new ingredients? I think they could even put a moratorium on new ingredients and say, let's take a, take an analysis of what we've got in the food supply at this point. And to be honest, it would take Congress to act to change FDA's authority to give them more authority to do what you just suggested. And of course, resources, which would be personnel like you described. So maybe that chocolate Pop Tart that has 56 ingredients could get by with 41 or 32 or 17. And you know, maybe we'd be just fine having it with fewer ingredients. One interesting thing that I've heard about, but I'm not an expert in because my background isn't law, is I know it's possible for outside parties to bring lawsuits against government for failing to execute its duties. Has there been any talk about possible lawsuits taking on the FDA for failing to protect the public's health with regard to these things? Well, actually, there was a lawsuit already. These consumer protection organizations sued the FDA, arguing that they weren't protecting the public. And that they were actually ceding authority to the industry, which, they by definition are. But according to the law, because Congress didn't require them to review these ingredients pre market, the court found that the FDA did not violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And so, they were operating according to the law. But also, to your point, I could see other lawsuits would be possible about them not actually exercising their post market authority to protect the public. Those could be from private lawsuits or a state attorney's general. There are different ideas there. So, what do you suggest going forward? You know what? Don't eat the Pop Tart. I think you got to avoid the many truly ultra processed foods and go for the lower processing levels. It's kind of that original advice. If you can't understand the ingredient list, maybe pick something different. And there are options within the same categories, right? There are potato chips that have three ingredients and there's potato crisps that have something like 12. So there are different options in that way. Bio Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities. Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.

In this episode we speak with Wenqing (Sienna) Zhang (MPH '17), a trailblazer in public health and global healthcare innovation. Sienna shares how her passion for medical technology led her from studying pharmaceutical sciences to pursuing a master's in biostatistics and epidemiology at NYU. She recounts pivotal experiences, including internships at Pfizer and the NYC Department of Health, her role at Medtronic's first innovation accelerator in China, and her current work at Illumina, where she is driving advancements in gene sequencing worldwide. A Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree, Sienna offers candid insights into her cross-cultural career, her strategies for connecting innovation with business, and how she overcame challenges to lead in multinational settings. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

From Dr. Chisaraokwu's website: "My art is a practice of retrieval, reanimation, and re-presentation of the parts of ourselves lost in the wake of trauma. Poetry is the sound, the feel, of those missing | mis-seen parts— raw, unapologetic, found, free. .CHISARAOKWU. is an Igbo American transdisciplinary poet artist, scholar, writer, performer, health futurist, and a 2023 California Arts Council Fellow. Inspired by her love of history, dreamscapes, the environment, quantum physics, and all things Africa(n)|(in)diaspora, she weaves images, textures, and text to create poems. Her work has been honored with awards and fellowships from MacDowell, Cave Canem, Vermont Studio Center, Anaphora Arts, Ucross and Headlands Center for the Arts, among other honors. She is an alum of the Brooklyn Poets Mentorship Program and the 2022 Tin House Winter Workshop. Nominated for Best of Net (Poetry; 2019, 2020, 2021), Best New Poets (2022), and Best New Small Fiction (2022), her words have appeared in academic and literary journals including Transition, Obsidian, midnight&indigo, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Her debut visual art work is featured in Michigan Quarterly Review's Spring 2024 issue, African Cartographies edited by Chris Abani. She earned her BA in History from Stanford University, MD from Duke University School of Medicine, MSPH from UNC Gilling School of Global Public Health, and certification in Global Mental Health & Trauma from Harvard School of Public Health's Refugee Trauma Program. She is a retired pediatrician and an alum of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program at Yale University where her research focused on adverse childhood experiences, mental health and spirituality, and community-based participatory research projects. She is currently working on two poetry collections and a novel. She is the recipient of the National Endowment for the Arts Creative Writing Fellowship for 2025!! https://www.arts.gov/.../creative.../chisaraokwu-asomugha

President Jimmy Carter channeled his work on the world stage through his non-profit Carter Center for more than four decades after leaving the White House. One of his key achievements was the near-eradication of Guinea worm disease that once affected 3.5 million people. William Brangham speaks with Dr. Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine to discuss Carter's work on global public health. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Food and Drug Administration has issued new rules for food labels for the first time in three decades, an update the agency says will help empower consumers to make healthier choices in the grocery store. Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Global Public Health, joins William Brangham to discuss the changes. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Food and Drug Administration has issued new rules for food labels for the first time in three decades, an update the agency says will help empower consumers to make healthier choices in the grocery store. Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Global Public Health, joins William Brangham to discuss the changes. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In this episode we speak with Priya Kanayson (MPH '14) whose career has taken her from New York City to Abu Dhabi, where she is now a leader in global health policy. As Director of Advocacy and Communications at the Global Institute for Disease Elimination (GLIDE) and a founding member of the UAE's Women in Global Health organization, Priya works on innovative strategies to eliminate diseases like malaria, polio, and neglected tropical diseases. She discusses the unique challenges of building a global health hub outside the traditional centers in the U.S. and Europe, highlights the importance of addressing vector-borne diseases due to climate change, and offers insights into navigating cultural and professional dynamics across borders. Priya's story of embracing risk, expanding her policy expertise, and advocating for health equity on a global scale is a powerful inspiration for aspiring public health professionals. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

In this episode we speak with NYU Wasserman career coaches Meagan Dugan and Gabby Sanes about landing a public health internship, sharing unique, actionable strategies and tactics for students. They discuss how to tailor resumes and cover letters to align with specific job descriptions, including tips on highlighting even unconventional experience—like customer service roles—as transferable skills. The coaches also cover tools like Big Interview, which helps students optimize their resumes for applicant tracking systems (ATS). Listeners will learn how to strategically search for roles on Handshake and LinkedIn, create saved searches to stay ahead of new postings, and leverage alumni networks for informational interviews and referrals. This episode offers a complete guide to navigating the public health internship search, from resume prep to networking, with thoughtful advice on balancing the process with self-care and finding the routine that best supports a successful search. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.

In this episode we speak with Dr. Yesim Tozan, Associate Professor of Global and Environmental Health at NYU GPH, whose work explores the intersection of climate change, infectious disease, and health policy. Dr. Tozan shares her unique path from engineering to public health and offers a deep dive into the world of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue. She discusses the role of mosquitoes as disease vectors, the rising public health risks due to climate change, and how temperature and rainfall impact disease transmission. Dr. Tozan also explains her groundbreaking work in developing early warning systems and mosquito surveillance projects, emphasizing the critical role of multidisciplinary teams and local partnerships. Join us for an enlightening discussion on combating infectious diseases through innovative science and community-centered approaches in a rapidly changing climate. To learn more about the NYU School of Global Public Health, and how our innovative programs are training the next generation of public health leaders, visit http://www.publichealth.nyu.edu.  

The McCullough Report with Dr. Peter McCullough – How was the pandemic response so perfectly coordinated all over the world? It seemed like everyone all over the world fell into lockstep all at once. The WHO asserts: “While disease outbreaks and other acute public health risks are often unpredictable and require a range of responses, the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) provide an overarching...

The McCullough Report with Dr. Peter McCullough – How was the pandemic response so perfectly coordinated all over the world? It seemed like everyone all over the world fell into lockstep all at once. The WHO asserts: “While disease outbreaks and other acute public health risks are often unpredictable and require a range of responses, the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) provide an overarching...

Are you Low Level or High Level? Join High Lvl today https://highlvl.19keys.com/This is a library episode, meaning this is a brief part of the full episode. To watch the full episode visit here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLTQO3iNRI&list=PLXa8HXFcKT97gK0SNwci8UcOiBMsEvwHY Or visit 19keys.com/keystv for more information. "19 Minutes with 19Keys" isn't just a podcast; it's a high-intensity journey into the minds of movers and shakers. Hosted by 19Keys, this show brings you raw, uncut conversations with influential figures from various spheres. Dive deep into 19 minutes of pure, undiluted wisdom.About '19 Minutes':Intense, Focused Dialogues: Straying from the typical long-form format, '19 Minutes' is about packing a punch. Each episode, ranging from a sharp 45 minutes to an impactful 2-hour session, is a deep dive into a world of ideas.Exclusive Access, Unseen Angles: From studios to personal spaces, '19 Minutes' takes you behind the scenes. It's your VIP pass to the unseen aspects of our guests' lives.Strategic Release, Vast Reach: Premiering on Keys TV and then hitting 19Keys' YouTube channel, the show ensures widespread viewership. Episodes drop in gripping 19-minute segments, followed by full-length releases for the binge-watchers.As a visionary and a pioneer, 19Keys taps into a range of topics from tech to wellness. His expertise and charismatic hosting make each episode not just a conversation, but a masterclass.Featured Guests: Sutton KingSutton King, MPH, Nāēqtaw-Pianakiw (comes first woman), is an Afro-Indigenous descendant of the Menominee and Oneida Nations of Wisconsin. A graduate of CMSV and NYU School of Global Public Health, she holds a bachelor's in Psychology, a minor in Sociology, and a master's in Public Health. Sutton is an internationally recognized Indigenous rights activist, public speaker, published researcher, and social entrepreneur dedicated to improving Indigenous health equity. She focuses on access and benefit sharing and culturally appropriate methodologies within technology, healthcare, and business. As co-founder and President of the Urban Indigenous Collective, she supports culturally-tailored health services in Lenapehoking and the greater NYC area, leads the MMWIGT2S NYC+ program, and co-founded ShockTalk, a telemental health platform for Indigenous communities. She also manages engagement and benefit sharing at the Indigenous Medicine Conservation Fund and advises on Indigenous programming and social impact investment. Her work has been featured in prominent publications, and she has received numerous accolades, including being named one of the most influential people in psychedelics.

Are you Low Level or High Level? Join High Lvl today https://highlvl.19keys.com/This is a library episode, meaning this is a brief part of the full episode. To watch the full episode visit here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLTQO3iNRI&list=PLXa8HXFcKT97gK0SNwci8UcOiBMsEvwHY Or visit 19keys.com/keystv for more information. "19 Minutes with 19Keys" isn't just a podcast; it's a high-intensity journey into the minds of movers and shakers. Hosted by 19Keys, this show brings you raw, uncut conversations with influential figures from various spheres. Dive deep into 19 minutes of pure, undiluted wisdom.About '19 Minutes':Intense, Focused Dialogues: Straying from the typical long-form format, '19 Minutes' is about packing a punch. Each episode, ranging from a sharp 45 minutes to an impactful 2-hour session, is a deep dive into a world of ideas.Exclusive Access, Unseen Angles: From studios to personal spaces, '19 Minutes' takes you behind the scenes. It's your VIP pass to the unseen aspects of our guests' lives.Strategic Release, Vast Reach: Premiering on Keys TV and then hitting 19Keys' YouTube channel, the show ensures widespread viewership. Episodes drop in gripping 19-minute segments, followed by full-length releases for the binge-watchers.As a visionary and a pioneer, 19Keys taps into a range of topics from tech to wellness. His expertise and charismatic hosting make each episode not just a conversation, but a masterclass.Featured Guests: Sutton KingSutton King, MPH, Nāēqtaw-Pianakiw (comes first woman), is an Afro-Indigenous descendant of the Menominee and Oneida Nations of Wisconsin. A graduate of CMSV and NYU School of Global Public Health, she holds a bachelor's in Psychology, a minor in Sociology, and a master's in Public Health. Sutton is an internationally recognized Indigenous rights activist, public speaker, published researcher, and social entrepreneur dedicated to improving Indigenous health equity. She focuses on access and benefit sharing and culturally appropriate methodologies within technology, healthcare, and business. As co-founder and President of the Urban Indigenous Collective, she supports culturally-tailored health services in Lenapehoking and the greater NYC area, leads the MMWIGT2S NYC+ program, and co-founded ShockTalk, a telemental health platform for Indigenous communities. She also manages engagement and benefit sharing at the Indigenous Medicine Conservation Fund and advises on Indigenous programming and social impact investment. Her work has been featured in prominent publications, and she has received numerous accolades, including being named one of the most influential people in psychedelics.

Are you Low Level or High Level? Join High Lvl today https://highlvl.19keys.com/This is a library episode, meaning this is a brief part of the full episode. To watch the full episode visit here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLTQO3iNRI&list=PLXa8HXFcKT97gK0SNwci8UcOiBMsEvwHY Or visit 19keys.com/keystv for more information. "19 Minutes with 19Keys" isn't just a podcast; it's a high-intensity journey into the minds of movers and shakers. Hosted by 19Keys, this show brings you raw, uncut conversations with influential figures from various spheres. Dive deep into 19 minutes of pure, undiluted wisdom.About '19 Minutes':Intense, Focused Dialogues: Straying from the typical long-form format, '19 Minutes' is about packing a punch. Each episode, ranging from a sharp 45 minutes to an impactful 2-hour session, is a deep dive into a world of ideas.Exclusive Access, Unseen Angles: From studios to personal spaces, '19 Minutes' takes you behind the scenes. It's your VIP pass to the unseen aspects of our guests' lives.Strategic Release, Vast Reach: Premiering on Keys TV and then hitting 19Keys' YouTube channel, the show ensures widespread viewership. Episodes drop in gripping 19-minute segments, followed by full-length releases for the binge-watchers.As a visionary and a pioneer, 19Keys taps into a range of topics from tech to wellness. His expertise and charismatic hosting make each episode not just a conversation, but a masterclass.Featured Guests: Sutton KingSutton King, MPH, Nāēqtaw-Pianakiw (comes first woman), is an Afro-Indigenous descendant of the Menominee and Oneida Nations of Wisconsin. A graduate of CMSV and NYU School of Global Public Health, she holds a bachelor's in Psychology, a minor in Sociology, and a master's in Public Health. Sutton is an internationally recognized Indigenous rights activist, public speaker, published researcher, and social entrepreneur dedicated to improving Indigenous health equity. She focuses on access and benefit sharing and culturally appropriate methodologies within technology, healthcare, and business. As co-founder and President of the Urban Indigenous Collective, she supports culturally-tailored health services in Lenapehoking and the greater NYC area, leads the MMWIGT2S NYC+ program, and co-founded ShockTalk, a telemental health platform for Indigenous communities. She also manages engagement and benefit sharing at the Indigenous Medicine Conservation Fund and advises on Indigenous programming and social impact investment. Her work has been featured in prominent publications, and she has received numerous accolades, including being named one of the most influential people in psychedelics.

Are you Low Level or High Level? Join High Lvl today https://highlvl.19keys.com/"19 Minutes with 19Keys" isn't just a podcast; it's a high-intensity journey into the minds of movers and shakers. Hosted by 19Keys, this show brings you raw, uncut conversations with influential figures from various spheres. Dive deep into 19 minutes of pure, undiluted wisdom.Watch 19 Minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLTQO3iNRI&list=PLXa8HXFcKT97gK0SNwci8UcOiBMsEvwHY About '19 Minutes':Intense, Focused Dialogues: Straying from the typical long-form format, '19 Minutes' is about packing a punch. Each episode, ranging from a sharp 45 minutes to an impactful 2-hour session, is a deep dive into a world of ideas.Exclusive Access, Unseen Angles: From studios to personal spaces, '19 Minutes' takes you behind the scenes. It's your VIP pass to the unseen aspects of our guests' lives.Strategic Release, Vast Reach: Premiering on Keys TV and then hitting 19Keys' YouTube channel, the show ensures widespread viewership. Episodes drop in gripping 19-minute segments, followed by full-length releases for the binge-watchers.As a visionary and a pioneer, 19Keys taps into a range of topics from tech to wellness. His expertise and charismatic hosting make each episode not just a conversation, but a masterclass.Featured Guests: Sutton KingSutton King, MPH, Nāēqtaw-Pianakiw (comes first woman), is an Afro-Indigenous descendant of the Menominee and Oneida Nations of Wisconsin. A graduate of CMSV and NYU School of Global Public Health, she holds a bachelor's in Psychology, a minor in Sociology, and a master's in Public Health. Sutton is an internationally recognized Indigenous rights activist, public speaker, published researcher, and social entrepreneur dedicated to improving Indigenous health equity. She focuses on access and benefit sharing and culturally appropriate methodologies within technology, healthcare, and business. As co-founder and President of the Urban Indigenous Collective, she supports culturally-tailored health services in Lenapehoking and the greater NYC area, leads the MMWIGT2S NYC+ program, and co-founded ShockTalk, a telemental health platform for Indigenous communities. She also manages engagement and benefit sharing at the Indigenous Medicine Conservation Fund and advises on Indigenous programming and social impact investment. Her work has been featured in prominent publications, and she has received numerous accolades, including being named one of the most influential people in psychedelics.

Did our episode on maggots leave you wanting more squirmy wormy yet oh so cool content? You're in luck. Because this week, we're following up our maggots episode with a companion piece on leeches. Leeches have been used by healers and physicians for millennia, and they've come back into style for treatments today, for very good reason. If you've ever wondered what makes leech saliva so magical, why barber poles are striped with red and white ribbons, or how leeches behave as parents, then this is certainly the episode for you. And we are so excited to be joined by friend of the pod Dr. Robert Rowe, who shares a tale of leeches from the front lines of plastic surgery. Dr. Rowe MD, MBA, MPH is a Preventive Medicine Physician who serves as adjunct faculty with both the University of North Carolina Preventive Medicine Residency Program and the Gillings School of Global Public Health. He is also the creator and host of TarHeal Wellness, a podcast dedicated to the health and wellbeing of medical residents, touching on physical and mental challenges many other people face as well. For those who have friends or family who are doctors or training to be, it's a great way to hear about some of the challenges of residency and how they can work through and overcome them. Available wherever you get your podcasts! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices