Podcasts about Public interest

In the Public Interest is excited to present the new miniseries, “AI In the Public Interest.” These episodes will examine AI's impact on the legal landscape and its broader implications for the day-to-day operations of organizations across industries. With the wider prevalence of companies utilizing AI to assist in decision making and determine future frameworks, these conversations will not only take stock of the current state of AI, but will also offer practical insights into what the future may hold. The first episode kicks off with a conversation between co-host Jekkie Kim and Partner and Chair of WilmerHale's AI Technology Transactions Practice Ariel Soiffer. Together they discuss AI through the lens of ownership and copyright, examining guidance from the Copyright Office as to who and what can be a content author. Soiffer also identifies what current protections are in place for those attempting to copyright content that has been created with the involvement of AI. He stresses how important it is for creators and companies alike to document their creative outputs and offers a look into the increasingly complex questions surrounding authorship.

Today on Uncommon Sense, we're discussing the tragic state of the modern world.From the protests in Ireland to growing frustration across Western nations, many people feel as though their voices are no longer being heard by the institutions that claim to represent them. I'll share why I support the right of people to protest and why I believe the demonstrations in Ireland have resonated with so many people around the world.We'll also discuss what I see as a deeper spiritual crisis affecting modern society. Many of the political, cultural, and social problems we face today are symptoms of a broader moral and spiritual decline, one that cannot be solved through politics alone.In this episode:My thoughts on the protests in IrelandWhy so many citizens now feel disconnected from their governmentsThe growing divide between ordinary people and powerful institutionsThe role of faith, morality, and personal responsibility in rebuilding societyWhy I believe many of today's crises point to a deeper spiritual battleWhether you agree or disagree, this episode is an invitation to think critically about the direction of our culture, our governments, and our future.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

John Maytham speaks to Anneliese Burgess, journalist, about the intense media attention surrounding Mel Viljoen's return to South Africa after her arrest and detention in the United States, and whether the public interest in her story justifies the amount of coverage it continues to receive. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

200: Self-love to za mało - czego naprawdę potrzebujesz, żeby się rozwijać i osiągać celeSelf-love to jeden z najczęściej pojawiających się tematów w świecie rozwoju osobistego - ale czy naprawdę wystarczy, żeby osiągać cele i się rozwijać? W tym odcinku przyglądamy się temu, co nauka faktycznie mówi o poczuciu własnej wartości i dlaczego samo pozytywne myślenie o sobie nie przekłada się na wyniki.Dowiesz się, jak być wobec siebie życzliwą bez rezygnowania ze standardów, dlaczego growth mindset jest niezbędnym uzupełnieniem self-love i czemu odpowiedzialność wobec siebie to jeden z najgłębszych wyrazów troski o siebie.Chcesz dowiedzieć się więcej na temat pracy z podświadomością, myślami i przekonaniami?Poznaj konkretne techniki, które pozwolą ci pozbyć się negatywnych przekonań, sabotujących schematów myślenia i stwórz MINDSET, KTÓRY DOPROWADZI CIĘ DO WSZELKICH MANIFESTACJI wraz z MINDSET PROGRAMEM!Aby dołączyć do programu napisz do mnie wiadomość na instagramie ,,MINDSET''!Cena całego programu - 64.99złSELF LOVE 2.0 to nowa udoskonalona edycja kultowego programu skupiającego się na pracy nad sobą poprzez praktykę SAMODOSKONALENIA, SAMOAKCEPTACJI, BUDOWANIA PEWNOŚCI SIEBIE I POCZUCIA WŁASNEJ WARTOŚCI na jeszcze bardziej dogłębnym i profesjonalnym poziomie!Dowiedz się więcej jak poprzez prace nad soba pozbyć się wszelkich negatywnych schematów myślenia i działania, tak aby samej decydować o własnym szczęściu i życiu poprzez dołączenie do SELF LOVE PROGRAMU!Całość programu kosztuje 79.99 - zakupując go dostajesz automatyczny dostęp do 4 modułów składających się na program!Jeśli jesteś zainteresowana napisz do mnie wiadomość prywatną ,,selflove 2/0'' na instagramie!Więcej treści dotyczących manifestacji i rozwoju znajdziesz na moim instagramie @guideangelbyolga oraz @guideangelplatform!Do usłyszenia w kolejnym odcinku za tydzień!ŹRÓDŁA1. Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.2. Neff, K.D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–102.3. Neff, K.D. (2011). Self-Compassion: The Proven Power of Being Kind to Yourself. William Morrow.4. Neff, K.D. (2023). Self-Compassion: Theory, Method, Research, and Intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 193–218.5. Neff, K.D. & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23–50.6. Breines, J.G. & Chen, S. (2012). Self-Compassion Increases Self-Improvement Motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133–1143.7. Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.

This panel will explore the evolving use of the Congressional Review Act, with particular attention to its application in recent high-profile regulatory contexts. Panelists will examine Congress’s recent use of the Congressional Review Act to nullify California Clean Air Act waivers—an action that is both a significant environmental policy development and a potential turning point in congressional practice.Panelists will consider key institutional and procedural questions raised by the recent congressional activity, including what the use of Senate procedural tools reveals about internal chamber rules and potential implications for the filibuster and legislative practice more generally.The panel will also examine emerging legislative strategies in employing the Congressional Review Act, including innovative applications to a wider range of agency actions, and consider how courts may approach judicial review in this evolving landscape. Through these lenses, the discussion aims to provide a deeper understanding of the Congressional Review Act’s role at the intersection of administrative law, congressional procedure, and separation of powers. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law SchoolMichael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray, PLLCDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, Professional Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School(Moderator) Laura Stanley, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

In the latest episode of On Just Terms, HSF Kramer partners Jason Betts and Rebecca Maslen-Stannage are joined by The Honourable Michelle Rowland MP, Attorney-General of Australia, for a wide-ranging discussion on the government's legal priorities. The Attorney-General shares insights on Privacy Act reform, the government's position on copyright and AI and why there is no text and data mining exception, scams and consumer protection, class actions and access to justice, and the critical importance of effective enforcement capability. This is a substantive discussion on the role of law in serving the public interest, and what lies ahead on Australia's legal agenda.

This week Robert begins the three-part story of the former wealthiest man on earth, H.L. Hunt, who also became the first right wing plutocrat to buy his own shitty media empire, creating a model for Elon Musk to follow today. (3 Part Series) https://bluebonnetnews.com/2024/10/11/from-fields-to-fortune-how-h-l-hunt-once-became-richest-man-in-the-world/ https://www.oklahomaminerals.com/wildcatter-chronicles-h-l-hunt-pioneer-of-oil-industry https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/h-l-hunt https://www.nbcnews.com/msnbc/msnbc-podcast/archives-ultra-season-two-episode-eight-ncsl1310380 Hendershot, Heather. What's Fair on the Air?: Cold War Right-Wing Broadcasting and the Public Interest (p. 63). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/hunt-haroldson-lafayette https://archive.org/details/foia_Hunt_H.L.-HQ-2/page/n39/mode/1up https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/new-london-school-explosion https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-tennessean-waddy-thorpe-hunt-request/54655604/ https://archive.org/details/kingdomstoryofhu0000tucc/page/49/mode/1upSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anupama Joshi, vice president of programs at the Center for Science and the Public Interest, talks with Anamya Anurag about the realities on the ground, in comparison to the Make America Healthy Again programme and its policy actions. They uncover contradictions in guidelines, federal inaction and what business can do amid budget cuts.

No final de março, a Câmara aprovou a tramitação em regime de urgência de um projeto de lei para regular mercados digitais. Neste episódio, convidamos Paulo Henrique de Oliveira para explicar o conteúdo desse PL e o desafio de discutir concorrência e domínio de mercado no contexto de grandes empresas de tecnologia.Paulo é chefe de gabinete da presidência do Cade e coordenador executivo do projeto Market Power and Public Interest da FGV Direito de São Paulo. Na entrevista, ele conta como o projeto cria um novo ferramental para lidar com os mercados digitais e estabelece uma nova superintendência do Cade dedicada a este objetivo.O PL 4.675/2025 foi apresentado pelo Poder Executivo no final do ano passado e está sob relatoria do deputado Aliel Machado, do Partido Verde do Paraná. Segundo a equipe do deputado Aliel ele deve apresentar uma primeira versão do texto no final de junho. Com o regime de urgência a discussão vai para discussão direto no plenário.Está será mais uma disputa legislativa crucial para estabelecer um ecossistema informacional mais justo no Brasil.***As inscrições para a turma 53 curso Privacidade e Proteção de Dados: Teoria e Prática estão acabando. Aproveite o cupom DADOCRACIA e faça o curso com 10% de desconto.***Conheça o projeto Observatório das Fusões Digitais, que estuda e acompanha temas relacionados aos mercados digitais, como monopólios das big techs e aquisições centradas em dados, temas dos episódios 176 e 60 do Dadocracia.

Arbitration can be an attractive alternative to litigation for many clients, as storied practitioner and WilmerHale Partner and Chair of the firm's International Arbitration group Gary Born can attest. He sits down with co-host Felicia Ellsworth in this episode of In the Public Interest to discuss what sets international arbitration apart.Throughout their conversation, Born examines what the current socio-political landscape in the US and abroad indicates about shifting client needs in relation to dispute resolution. He also touches on his recent publications covering both international arbitration and international law in the US courts, with the former providing a valuable resource for newcomers to their field and the latter taking a deep dive into the historical significance international law has had on the US courts.

What if the clothes you're putting on your body, or your child's body, every single day… were quietly poisoning you? In this explosive solo episode, Darin exposes a shocking and largely ignored reality: fast fashion clothing, especially brightly colored, cheap garments, may be loaded with toxic heavy metals like lead. Backed by a 2026 study from the American Chemical Society, this conversation reveals how these chemicals don't just sit on fabric, they leach into your skin, enter your bloodstream, and accumulate over time. From the hidden chemistry behind synthetic dyes to the devastating neurological effects of lead exposure in children, this episode pulls back the curtain on one of the most overlooked "fatal conveniences" in modern life—and gives you the tools to make safer, smarter choices starting today.     What You'll Learn The shocking discovery: children's clothing exceeding federal lead limits Why bright, cheap fast fashion items are the most toxic How heavy metals like lead are used to fix dyes into fabrics Why your skin is not a barrier, but a direct absorption pathway The connection between clothing, sweat, and chemical absorption The devastating effects of lead exposure on children's brains and development Why there is no safe level of lead exposure The hidden chemical load in fast fashion: PFAS, phthalates, formaldehyde How the fast fashion industry cuts costs at the expense of health Practical steps to protect yourself and your family     Chapters 00:00:00 – Opening: introducing the fast fashion heavy metal crisis 00:00:17 – The "cheap t-shirt" scenario and hidden danger 00:00:46 – Speaking directly to parents and caregivers 00:01:30 – The shocking claim: clothing may contain neurotoxins 00:02:45 – 2026 study: children's clothing tested for lead 00:03:14 – Every sample exceeded federal safety limits 00:04:20 – Lead exposure happening through daily wear 00:05:33 – Fast fashion industry scale: $150B+ and growing 00:06:20 – 1,000 new styles per day: the system behind overproduction 00:07:09 – How cheap clothing is actually manufactured 00:07:49 – Chemical dyes and fixatives explained 00:08:20 – Why lead is used in fabric dyeing 00:08:49 – Study details: methodology and testing process 00:09:21 – Research team and origin of investigation 00:10:52 – Advanced testing: spectroscopy and EPA protocols 00:11:40 – Results: every shirt failed safety standards 00:12:10 – Bright colors = higher toxicity 00:13:05 – Secondary experiment: ingestion and mouthing behavior 00:14:00 – Children chewing clothing: real-world exposure 00:14:49 – Skin is not a barrier—it's a delivery system 00:15:30 – Sweat and heat increase chemical absorption 00:16:28 – Microplastics and chemical leaching through skin 00:17:13 – Exercise increases toxin absorption 00:18:00 – Flame retardants and systemic circulation 00:18:50 – Long-term exposure: accumulation over time 00:19:36 – No safe level of lead exposure—global consensus 00:20:15 – Effects on children: brain damage and development issues 00:21:14 – Behavioral, cognitive, and neurological consequences 00:22:00 – Broader chemical exposure: 8,000+ compounds in clothing 00:23:01 – Solutions begin: awareness and behavior change 00:23:40 – Immediate action: always wash new clothes 00:24:10 – Choosing safer fabrics: organic and natural materials 00:24:50 – Avoiding synthetic blends and bright dyes 00:25:20 – Buy less, buy better philosophy 00:26:01 – Supporting ethical and non-toxic brands 00:26:40 – Using your consumer voice to create change 00:27:10 – Educating others and spreading awareness 00:27:40 – Final message: protecting your body and your children 00:28:00 – Closing: reclaiming control and living a SuperLife     Thank You to Our Sponsors: Our Place – Non-toxic cookware that keeps harmful chemicals out of your food. Get 10% off at fromourplace.com with code DARIN. Tru Niagen – Boost NAD+ levels for cellular health and longevity. Get 20% off with code DARIN20 at truniagen.com.     Find More From Darin: Website: darinolien.com Instagram: @darinolien Book: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway "Your skin is not a shield—it's a gateway. And when you start to realize that the things you wear every day can carry toxic chemicals directly into your body, everything changes. Because this isn't about fear—it's about awareness. And once you're aware, you have the power to choose differently, protect your family, and stop participating in a system that was never designed with your health in mind."     Bibliography/Sources The Primary Study American Chemical Society. (2026, March 23). Initial tests find lead in children's fast-fashion clothing [Press release]. https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2026/march/initial-tests-find-lead-in-childrens-fast-fashion-clothing.html Deavers, K., Avello, C., & Espinoza, P. (2026, March 22–26). Lead contamination in fast fashion children's clothing [Paper presentation]. ACS Spring 2026 Meeting, Atlanta, GA, United States. HealthDay. (2026, March 24). Cheap children's clothing tainted with lead, study says. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2026-03-24/cheap-childrens-clothing-tainted-with-lead-study-says Marian University. (2026, March 23). Marian University students warn of lead in children's fast-fashion clothing. Marian University Newsroom. https://www.marian.edu/newsroom/2026/03/marian-university-students-warn-of-lead-in-childrens-fast-fashion-clothing ScienceDaily. (2026, April 2). Initial tests find lead in children's fast-fashion clothing. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260402042737.htm Texfash. (n.d.). Lead found in fast-fashion children's clothing as preliminary tests exceed federal safety limits. Texfash Update. https://texfash.com/update/lead-found-in-fast-fashion-children-s-clothing-as-preliminary-tests-exceed-federal-safety-limits Lead Toxicity & Children's Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (n.d.). Lead toxicity: What are possible health effects from lead exposure? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_atsdr_cdc_gov/csem/leadtoxicity/physiological_effects.html American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (n.d.). Lead exposure in children affects brain and behavior. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Lead-Exposure-In-Children-Affects-Brain-And-Behavior-045.aspx Brain Injury Association of America. (2021). Chronic lead exposure: A non-traumatic brain injury. https://biausa.org/public-affairs/public-awareness/news/chronic-lead-exposure-a-non-traumatic-brain-injury Canfield, R. L., et al. (2004). Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead concentrations below 10 μg per deciliter. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 1517–1526. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Risk factors and children. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/risk-factors/children.html Hubbs-Tait, L., et al. (2005). Neurotoxicants, micronutrients, and social environments: Individual and combined effects on children's development. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(3), 57–121. Lanphear, B. P., et al. (2005). Environmental lead exposure and children's cognitive function. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4675165/ Liu, J., et al. (2013). A clinical study of the effects of lead poisoning on the intelligence and neurobehavioral abilities of children. BMC Pediatrics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598508/ Needleman, H. L., & Bellinger, D. (2001). Recent developments in low-level lead exposure and intellectual impairment in children. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247191/ Skin Absorption & Transdermal Chemical Exposure Abafe, O., et al. (2024). Flame retardants leach from microplastics into human sweat; absorption through skin demonstrated. Environment International. Corinti, D., et al. (2018). Chemicals from textiles to skin: An in vitro permeation study of benzothiazole. PubMed Central. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6133113/ EveryRep. (2025). Non-toxic activewear: The BPA, PFAS and polyester risk. https://everyrep.com/synthetic-toxins-endocrine-safety/ University of Birmingham. (2024, April). Toxic chemicals from microplastics can be absorbed through skin. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/toxic-chemicals-from-microplastics-can-be-absorbed-through-skin Fast Fashion: Industry Scale, Chemicals & Health Impacts Cobbing, M., Wohlgemuth, A., & Panhuber, T. (2022). Greenpeace investigation: Hazardous chemicals in SHEIN garments. Greenpeace International. Earth Day Network. (n.d.). Hazardous hems: How fashion wreaks havoc on health. https://www.earthday.org/hazardous-hems-how-fashion-wreaks-havoc-on-health/ Earth Day Network. (n.d.). Toxic textiles: The chemicals in our clothing. https://www.earthday.org/toxic-textiles-the-chemicals-in-our-clothing/ Enhesa. (2026). Toxic chemicals in fast fashion supply chains: Risks, impacts, and regulation. https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/toxic-chemicals-in-fast-fashion-supply-chains-risks-impacts-and-regulation/ Giró-Palau, A., et al. (2025). The health impact of fast fashion: Exploring toxic chemicals in clothing and textiles. MDPI Encyclopedia, 5(2), 84. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/5/2/84 Green America. (n.d.). Unpacking toxic textiles. https://greenamerica.org/unraveling-fashion-industry/unpacking-toxic-textiles Million Marker. (2024). Fast fashion: A toxic trend and the path to sustainable change. https://millionmarker.com/blogs/blog/fast-fashion-is-toxic OsloMet Clothing Research. (2025). From clothes to skin: Chemical safety in ultra-fast fashion and luxury brands' clothes. https://clothingresearch.oslomet.no/2025/06/03/from-clothes-to-skin-chemical-safety-in-ultra-fast-fashion-and-luxury-brands-clothes/ Fast Fashion Industry Statistics & Environmental Scope Center for Biological Diversity. (n.d.). At what cost? Unravelling the harms of the fast fashion industry. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/sustainability/fast_fashion Earth.org. (2026). Fast fashion and its environmental impact. https://earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/ Niinimäki, K., et al. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0039-9 The Sustainable Agency. (2026). Environmental & human impact of fast fashion: 2026 facts. https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/impact-of-fast-fashion-stats-and-facts/ Uniform Market. (2025). Environmental impact of fast fashion statistics. https://www.uniformmarket.com/statistics/fast-fashion-statistics Certifications & Resources for Cleaner Clothing bluesign. (n.d.). bluesign standard. https://www.bluesign.com Global Organic Textile Standard. (n.d.). GOTS. https://global-standard.org Oeko-Tex. (n.d.). Oeko-Tex Standard 100. https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/our-standards/oeko-tex-standard-100 Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals. (n.d.). Roadmap to zero. https://www.roadmaptozero.com

Join Christian Lane as he interviews Chris Rutkowski, Canada's leading UFO researcher, about the history, patterns, and scientific investigation of UFO sightings in Canada. Discover insights into government reports, credible witnesses, and the ongoing quest to understand unidentified aerial phenomena.keywordsUFO, UAP, Canadian UFO Survey, Sky Canada, Chris Rutkowski, extraterrestrial, military, aviation safety, UFO sightings, government investigationkey topicsCanadian UFO Survey and sightings dataHistorical case studies including Falcon Lake incidentGovernment and military involvement in UFO investigationsCredibility and analysis of witness reportsScientific approaches and technological tools for UFO detectionChapters00:00Introduction to UFO Phenomena in Canada12:53The Falcon Lake Incident: A Case Study25:29Analyzing UFO Sightings: Patterns and Data37:41The Role of Government and Military in UFO Reports47:43The Future of UFO Research and Public Interest27:36The Role of NAV Canada in UAP Reporting29:15The Sky Canada Project: A New Approach33:17Defense and Public Interest in UAPs35:17Credibility of Witnesses in UAP Reports40:46UAPs and Nuclear Technology Correlation45:16Personal Beliefs on UAPs and Non-Human IntelligenceResourcesCanadian UFO SurveySky Canada ProjectLuis Elizondo's book 'Imminent'Guest linksLinkedInTwitterThank you for listening! For more Team Ten Eight content, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn!

Africa Melane speaks to Jonathan Ratshibvumo, Founder and Chairperson of the Association of Former Judicial Officers of Southern Africa joins us to unpack what courts consider during sentencing. Early Breakfast with Africa Melane is 702’s and CapeTalk’s early morning talk show. Experienced broadcaster Africa Melane brings you the early morning news, sports, business, and interviews politicians and analysts to help make sense of the world. He also enjoys chatting to guests in the lifestyle sphere and the Arts. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from Early Breakfast with Africa Melane For more about the show click https://buff.ly/XHry7eQ and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/XJ10LBU Listen live on weekdays between 04:00 and 06:00 (SA Time) to the Early Breakfast with Africa Melane broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3N Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week: Anupama Joshi, vice president of programs at the Center for Science and the Public Interest, talks with Innovation Forum's Anamya Anurag about the gap between the Make America Healthy Again movement's goals and its policy actions. Plus: Innovation Forum's Ian Welsh and Hannah Oborne talk about emerging themes in the food sector, including how sustainability is being reframed around resilience and long-term value. And, Nike's chemical recycling breakthrough for World Cup kits; chemical recycling versus mechanical methods for elite sportswear; and, debate over whether leather should remain in scope of EUDR, in the news digest. Host: Ian Welsh

Sminston With is an anonymous Bitcoin researcher, analyst, and PhD in materials engineering who spends his time analyzing Bitcoin through a data-driven lens.› https://x.com/sminston_with› https://www.youtube.com/@sminston_withPARTNERS

Pastor Jack reacts to a recent interview clip featuring Vice President JD Vance discussing aliens, sharing his perspective on unexplained and otherworldly phenomena. Are UFO sightings and alien encounters real? How should Christians view this mysterious topic with a Biblical worldview?(00:00) Opening Clip and the Question of UFOs(01:16) Government Investigations and Public Interest in UAPs(02:01) Reacting to J.D. Vance on Aliens and Demons(04:04) Why the Bible Still Frames Reality Best(05:06) Deception, Demons, and the Last Days(08:43) Why Hibbs Rejects the Extraterrestrial Explanation(13:35) How Christians Should Respond to the UFO Question(17:50) Biblical Warnings, Angels, and the Paranormal Realm(24:42) End-Times Deception and the Alien Narrative(29:44) Final Warning: Know Scripture and Stay GroundedDAZE OF DECEPTION SERIES:https://tinyurl.com/2zs7zdfn CONNECT WITH PASTOR JACK:Get Updates via Text:  https://text.whisp.io/jack-hibbs-podcast Website: https://jackhibbs.com/Instagram: http://bit.ly/2FCyXpOFacebook: https://bit.ly/2WZBWV0 YouTube: https://bit.ly/437xMHnTwitter/X: https://x.com/RealJackHibbs CALLED TO TAKE A BOLD STAND:https://boldstand.org/ DAZE OF DECEPTION:https://jackhibbs.com/daze-of-deception/ Did you know we have a Real Life Network? Sign up for free today for more exclusive content:https://www.reallifenetwork.com/  

In this episode we discuss how privatization was rebranded 'Public-Private Partnerships' and unleashed decades of raiding of the public coffers by Wall Street. With guest Donald Cohen, founder and executive director of In the Public Interest.

Send us Fan MailJune 4, 2020HISTORY OF GHANA:  importance of gold trade, slave trade;  Tetteh Quarshie, the man who introduced cacao to continental Africa.;  Kwame N'KrumaHISTORY OF CAMEROON:  origin of name, German influence, Western Cameroonians,  President Biya, Northern Cameroon and Boko Haram, formation of Amazonia, biggest exports, polarization of North vs South.WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOR, FAIR TRADE, & FREE TRADEFOOD FACTS:  proscription of white food.  Reverend Sylvester Graham's influence.  Effects of diet on prevalence of diabetes.  Honey as digested sucrose.FOOD ADDITIVES:  Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Glyphosate, antibiotics in our food.TWO CULINARY ERRORS  Tom "surprises" a steak;  Tom puts glace in the melon, not glaçons.Support the showWrite to me at  twneuhaus@gmail.comTo learn more, visit  http://www.projecthopeandfairness.org

Today I am joined by Tiger Bye, international yoga professional, Oxygen Advantage® Master Instructor, and co-founder of Better Yoga for an enlightening and empowering conversation. Please join us as we discuss: her international online yoga streaming sessions betteryoga.net with 400 on-demand classes when can yoga and breathwork not be right for you maladaptive breathing – what is it? being seen vs. feeling judged functional breath – light, slow, deep breath training vs. breath work and so much more! Welcome to The Healing Place Podcast! I am your host, Teri Wellbrock. You can listen in on Pandora, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Deezer, Amazon Music, and more, or directly on my website at www.teriwellbrock.com/podcasts/. You can also catch our insightful interview on YouTube. Bio: Tiger Bye Tiger Bye is an international yoga professional, Oxygen Advantage® Master Instructor, and holds an M.S. in Health and the Public Interest from Georgetown University. She is the co-founder of Better Yoga (www.betteryoga.net), a women-owned online yoga platform where yoga, breathing, and Ayurvedic education converge, offering a transformative space for individuals seeking to move, breathe, and feel better. As a public health advocate, Tiger and her company have been featured in the Washington Post, Yoga Journal, and more. Tiger specializes in enhancing breathing for yoga and fitness. She educates aspiring yoga instructors throughout 200-hour teacher training programs and continuing education modules. She also works with clients and professionals to improve focus, stress levels, sleep, and corporate performance. Her impact extends to groups and companies, reshaping postural and breathing habits for elevated performance and genuine well-being. Tiger guides clients to recognize unconscious patterns, paving the way for the freedom that arises from pain-free alignment and functional breathing. website: tigerbye.com / betteryoga.net  IG: @tigerinspire / @better__yoga  Teri’s #1 best-selling books and #1 new-release book can be found here. Teri’s inspirational audiobook productions can be found here. Teri’s monthly newsletter can be found here. Teri’s book launch team can be found here. AMAZON AFFILIATE Teri Wellbrock and Unicorn Shadows are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. In other words, I make commission off of purchases made using any affiliate links on my site.

Afua Bruce explains that public interest tech is about solving complicated problems with real impact for real people, not just fuzzy feelings and philanthropy.      Afua and Kimberly discuss misconceptions about Public Interest Tech (PIT); PIT beyond philanthropy; why tech for good isn't always; purposeful productivity; “solving” non-profits; tech funding traps; PIT design principles; cross-sector career paths; participatory (vacation) design; the messy middle; focusing on impact; responsible investment; and knowing we still have time. Afua Bruce is the founder and CEO of ANB Advisory Group. An author and leading public interest technologist, Afua works with philanthropic institutions, tech companies, and nonprofits to develop and use responsible technology. Additional Resources:The Tech That Comes Next (book):  https://thetechthatcomesnext.com/  Dr. Catherine Nakalembe Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_nakalembe_why_can_t_we_better_prepare_for_extreme_weather Humane Intelligence (non-profit): https://humane-intelligence.org/ A transcript of this episode is here.

This week on Rising Up for Justice, Dr. Joshua Miller joins us. He is the Director of Congress Watch at Public Citizen.

Ever since Leo Strauss published his magnum opus Natural Right and History, which ends by heavily implying Edmund Burke opened the door for the evils of historicism in the modern world, a great fissure in conservative nerddom erupted between those who align with either titan. Were Strauss' criticism of Burke warranted? Did Burke disavow natural rights and pave the way for the evils of authoritarianism, fascism, Marxism, and progressivism to come? Does a careful, esoteric reading of Natural Right and History reveal the Strauss secret family chili recipe? Saving Elephants has assembled an all-star panel to answer these questions and more.   Representing Edmund Burke: Dr. Gregory Collins is one of the most celebrated Burke scholars of the rising generation. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Program on Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University. He recently received the Buckley Institute's 2024 Lux and Veritas Faculty Prize. His first book, Commerce and Manners in Edmund Burke's Political Economy, examined Edmund Burke's understanding of the connection between markets and morals. Greg has also published articles on Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Frederick Douglass, Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss, and Britain's East India Company. His additional writings and book reviews can be found in Modern Age, Law & Liberty, National Affairs, National Review, and University Bookman.  You can follow Greg on Twitter @GregCollins111   Lauren Hall is an author and professor helping people combat overwhelm in an age of extremes. Her writing rejects binary and black-and-white thinking to help people lead more balanced lives, build stronger relationships, and restore individual and civic well-being. Hall is a 2024 Pluralism Fellow with the Mercatus Center's Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Prohuman Foundation. Her Substack and speaking spread the message of radical moderation to new audiences via public writing, speaking, and podcast interviews. Hall has presented her work on radical moderation at conferences including the Heterodox Academy Conference, the State Policy Network Conference, the Mercatus Center's Pluralism Summit, and various political science and related conferences and has a range of talks and podcast interviews available on radical moderation and other topics. In her "real" job, she is a Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and author of the books Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor U. Press, 2014) and The Medicalization of Birth and Death (Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2019). Hall has a PhD in Political Science from Northern Illinois University (2007) and a BA in Philosophy from Binghamton University (2002).   Representing Strauss: Steven F. Hayward is a fellow of the Public Law and Policy Program at Berkeley Law and visiting professor in School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University. Steven frequently writes on a wide range of current topics, including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy for publications including National Review, Reason, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The Public Interest, the Claremont Review of Books, and the Policy Review at the Hoover Institution.  His newspaper articles have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other daily newspapers. He is the author of a two-volume narrative history of Ronald Reagan and his effect on American political life, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980, and The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980-1989.  His other books include Index of Leading Environmental Indicators; The Almanac of Environmental Trends; Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World, Churchill on Leadership; Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders; Patriotism Is Not Enough; and M. Stanton Evans: Conservative Wit, Apostle of Freedom. Steven has also served as visiting fellow professor, scholar, or lecturer at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), Ashland University, Mont Pelerin Society, Pacific Research Institute, The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Georgetown University, The Fund for American Studies, and University of Colorado Boulder. His blog, powerlineblog.com, is one of the nation's most-read political websites.   The international woman of mystery, Lucretia, teaches at the University of Arizona.  Steve and Lucretia—along with John Yoo—host the 3 Whiskey Happy Hour podcast.  

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)'s respective approaches to handling antitrust enforcement matters can go through notable changes in the transition between presidential administrations, creating uncertainty in how antitrust functions in service of shifting priorities. In this episode of In the Public Interest, co-host Jekkie Kim speaks with WilmerHale Partner Susan Musser, who recently joined the firm's Antitrust Practice after serving as the Acting Bureau Director and Chief Trial Counsel of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. Drawing from her experiences under both the Biden and second Trump administrations, Musser discusses the key similarities and differences in their approaches to antitrust enforcement, highlighting how it is used as a tool in both instances but for differing purposes. She also examines the impact this approach to enforcement is currently having and will continue to have on technology and AI companies' ability to innovate.

March 9, 2026- We chat about the lack of wheelchair accessible rides provided by services like Uber and Lyft. Our guests are Justin Wood and Eman Rimawi-Doster, from New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.

In this episode, Ross discusses the ongoing conflict with Iran, sharing his thoughts on the military operation and its potential outcomes. He's joined by Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, who talks about hospital billing scams that can cost patients thousands. Later, Ross is joined by Middle East historian and executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, to discuss the implications of a prolonged war in the region. The conversation also touches on the Texas primaries, the Live Nation Ticketmaster lawsuit, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all know by now that ultraprocessed food is bad for our health. Consumption of a lot of it, has been linked to a number of health issues including hypertension, diabetes and obesity. But did you know that researchers are now finding links between ultraprocessed food and mental health? This is especially concerning considering the huge burden of mental health issues among young people in India and the gaps in access to care. The government is beginning to take note: the Supreme Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, or FSSAI to consider warning labels on the front of packaged foods and the Economic Survey this year called for high GSTs on processed foods. So what is the connection between UPFs and mental health? And why, despite all of the evidence, has India still not managed to put in place stringent warning labels for consumers? Guest: Dr. Arun Gupta, paediatrician, public health expert, and convenor of the Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest. He is also a former member of the PM's Council on India's Nutritional Challenges Host: Zubeda Hamid Producer: Jude Weston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Late night host Stephen Colbert has accused CBS of spiking an interview for fear of backlash from the Federal Communications Commission. On this week's On the Media, hear about the MAGA movement trying to shift television to the right. Plus, the legal theory that the FCC is using to put pressure on the networks. [01:00] Host Brooke Gladstone speaks with  Jim Rutenberg, writer-at-large for The New York Times, about how Trump's FCC is reviving a nearly century-old rule to crack down on late-night talk shows. Rutenberg explains why MAGA's embrace of the FCC's regulatory powers to go after “liberal bias” in the media signals a shift within the Republican party.  [25:44] Brooke sits down with Daniel Suhr, the president of a legal advocacy group called the Center for American Rights and the architect behind the legal theory that the FCC is using to put pressure on TV networks. They discuss his goal to make network TV look more like the AM radio band.   Further reading / watching: “How a Century-Old Rule Is Scrambling Late-Night TV,” by Jim Rutenberg “The MAGA Plan to Take Over TV Is Just Beginning,” by Jim Rutenberg “The FCC's Public Notice on ‘Bona Fide News,'” by Daniel Suhr “The end of an agency,” by Daniel Suhr “Straight Talk on FCC 'Jawboning'” by Daniel Suhr The Divided Dial: Episode 3 - The Liberal Bias Boogeyman On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Feb. 19, 2026- We explore legislation that would prohibit certain food additives and promote greater disclosure of what's in the food consumed by New Yorkers. We talk about the bill and the approach of state regulators with Jensen Jose, regulatory counsel for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

We are excited to begin In the Public Interest's sixth season with the introduction of our new cohost Jekkie Kim. Jekkie is a corporate partner in WilmerHale's Palo Alto office who focuses on life sciences technology and transactions and works closely with founders and emerging companies to support every stage of their commercial development. In conversation with her co-host Felicia Ellsworth, Jekkie shares insights into the life sciences industry, drawing on her varied career and experience both as a practicing attorney and education as a doctor. She discusses how she leverages her medical background in her current practice, allowing her to effectively serve clients and move quickly to match the fast-moving innovations coming out of Silicon Valley. She and Felicia also share advice for law students and early-career attorneys, speaking to the importance of mentorship and how to explore potential areas of focus.

Joseph Hickey from CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest discusses findings on Canada's temperature records, revealing a unique stepwise increase in 1998 that accounts for all the country's warming since 1948. This anomaly challenges the prevailing CO2-driven warming paradigm, suggesting potential influences from natural climate variability, such as ocean oscillations. Hickey also highlights issues of data adjustments and inconsistencies in Environment Canada's records.00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction00:23 Overview of Correlation Research02:13 Joseph Hickey's Background03:53 Initial Observations on Temperature Data08:18 Stepwise Increase in Temperature Data11:12 Geographical Spread of Temperature Steps18:31 Analysis of Temperature Trends Post-199827:24 Potential Causes of Temperature Steps34:09 Conclusion and Future Research35:19 Q&A Sessionhttps://x.com/josephmhickeyhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph-Hickey-5=========Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesMy Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

This week, Rosie tells you something super basic that you're definitely not doing. So you're going to be glad to hear it. And then BJ interviews Caitlin Dow, PhD from the Center for Science In the Public Interest. They cover the unregulated wellness industry, how everyone trying to sell you anti-vax BS has something to sell you, and how else you can protect yourself from disinformation from wellness influencers. All this and more at Stupid Sexy Privacy.com.

The dust has barely settled on the shock news that prosecutors have dropped all charges against three men accused of running a republican spy ring in government, when one of them makes a jaw dropping confession. Presenter: Martin McCann Additional Voice: Nicolas Boulton Produced by BBC Northern Ireland

In this episode, Stephen Seckler interviews Matt Selig, the Executive Director of Health Law Advocates (HLA), a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving healthcare access for vulnerable populations in Massachusetts. They discuss HLA's mission, various advocacy programs, the evolution of healthcare policies, and the challenges faced in public interest law. Matt shares insights from his career journey, the skills needed for success in this field, and the importance of pro bono work. The conversation also touches on funding sources for HLA, the rewards and challenges of public interest law, and the organization's approach to addressing secondary trauma among its staff. Takeaways Health Law Advocates provides free legal services to vulnerable populations. The organization focuses on improving healthcare access for those at risk. Advocacy programs include mental health, immigrant healthcare, and disability rights. Public interest law requires passion for the mission and hard work. Experience in legal aid is highly valued in hiring at HLA. Pro bono work is a great way to transition into public interest law. Funding for HLA comes from state budgets, grants, and individual contributions. The work in public interest law can be rewarding despite challenges. Leadership roles in nonprofits can be achieved through growth within the organization 00:00 Introduction to Health Law Advocates 01:21 Mission and Activities of HLA 04:52 Legal Issues and Advocacy Programs 10:10 Evolution of HLA's Mission 12:39 Matt Selig's Career Journey 14:26 Skills for Success in Public Interest Law 16:23 Hiring Practices at HLA 17:56 Transitioning from Private Practice to Public Interest 19:17 Funding Sources for HLA 20:24 Pro Bono Opportunities at HLA 22:08 Rewards and Challenges of Public Interest Work 24:15 Addressing Secondary Trauma 26:58 Transitioning to Executive Director Role 32:34 Advice for Aspiring Public Interest Lawyers

The concentration of power and lack of regulation in the technology industry directly shapes how AI is designed and deployed, and whose interests it serves. That means decisions about these tools often reflect corporate priorities over public benefits. While AI is often held up as a tool to increase “efficiency,” it is essential to ask: efficiency for whom, and at what cost? What would it mean to create and oversee AI in the public's best interest? How could these technologies be made more accountable to the people and communities they affect? And what is needed to create a future where AI works for everyone? About 'Understanding AI'In the fall of 2025, The New York Public Library and Data & Society collaborated to present “Understanding AI,” a four-part live event series exploring the social implications of artificial intelligence and its impacts on democracy, the environment, and human labor. Featuring key figures in the AI ethics field, these events took place at the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Library (SNFL)in New York City as part of the library's7 Stories Up program, and are now available for all to watch.Revisit the series

When your food allergy becomes the reason you have to walk out of your own professional presentation, something is deeply broken. That's exactly what happened to Christina LiPuma, MPH, RDN, CDCES, when she had a severe allergic reaction at a national nutrition conference. The culprit? A mislabeled "curry bowl" and a series of "I don't think so" answers that should never have been good enough. You ask if a dish contains peanuts. "I don't think so," says one staffer. "Pretty sure it doesn't," says another. Minutes later, your throat tingles, your heart races—and you realize what "pretty sure" can cost. This week on Eating at a Meeting Podcast LIVE, I'm talking with Christina—Registered Dietitian, Certified Diabetes Care & Education Specialist, and former Policy Associate at the Center for Science in the Public Interest—about what happens when event dining fails, and how we can make it right. We'll discuss:

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

Summer associate positions can be crucial in helping law students formulate their post-law school career paths, whether that means entering private practice, public service, or academia. In the season five finale of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined in a live conversation with WilmerHale Senior Counsel and former Massachusetts state senator Eric Lesser and Associate Professor of Practice at Boston College Law School Cheryl Bratt to discuss the many options available to WilmerHale summer associates and alumni. Speaking to an audience of over one hundred WilmerHale summer associates, Lesser and Bratt discuss how their time at the firm prepared and encouraged them to pursue their respective career paths in politics and teaching. They emphasize how WilmerHale's reputation for excellence initially attracted them to the firm and, in Lesser's case, caused him to return after his time in office. Throughout their conversation, Lesser and Bratt also share how the early connections they formed during their summer experiences served them throughout their careers, allowing them to access opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we will discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.   In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie explore psychopathy, focusing on its clinical definition and common misconceptions. They discuss how the term is often misapplied to various behaviors, stressing the importance of understanding its roots in empathy and fear. By highlighting the need for accurate knowledge, they aim to prevent stigmatization and promote a deeper understanding of mental health. [Jan 5, 2026]     00:00 - Intro 00:24 - Dr. Abbie Maroño Intro 00:42 - Intro Links -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Offensive Security Vishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/vishing/ -          Offensive Security SMiShing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Offensive Security Phishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Call Back Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/call-back-phishing/ -          Adversarial Simulation Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/adversarial-simulation/ -          Social Engineering Risk Assessments - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/social-engineering-risk-assessment/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                 03:47 - The Topic of the Day: Psychopathy 04:28 - A Proper Definition 06:13 - Key Indicators 07:46 - Lack of Empathy 09:36 - The Influence of Social Media 11:51 - Evil ≠ Psychopathy 12:40 - Environment Matters 14:17 - Size Matters 16:02 - MasterClass Ad 17:28 - Work Advantage 18:46 - Gender Differences 20:54 - Big Red Flag! 26:00 - Teaching Emotional Regulation 27:27 - Label Hoarding 32:33 - It's Not Exclusive 36:04 - Wrap Up 36:58 - Next Month's Topic: Imposter Syndrome 37:23 - Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org   Find us online: -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd -          Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy     References: Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.07.003   Blair, R. J. R. (2013). The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(11), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3577   Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01862.x   Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3640   Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452   Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pemment, J. (2013). Psychopathy versus sociopathy: Why the distinction has become crucial. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 458–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.001   Severson, H., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: Distinctions and implications for treatment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 37, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.006   Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706   Viding, E., Blair, R. J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(6), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00393.x   Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2008). Psychopathy and violent crime: A prospective study of the influence of psychopathic traits on violence among offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710802014489

Thursday, December 11th, 2025Today, the Pentagon considered sending boat strike survivors to CECOT to hide from US courts; Judge Breyer blocks Trump from deploying the California National Guard; Miami elects its first woman mayor and the first Democrat since the 90s; Democrats flip a Georgia state house seat Republicans won by 22 points last time; the DOJ responded to my Epstein files lawsuit arguing that there's not any public interest in the Epstein case; the US plans to scrutinize visitors' social media; Kushner and the Saudis are backing a hostile takeover of Warner Brothers for Paramount Skydance; Federal prosecutors in Chicago say a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer committed multiple “gunpoint sexual assaults”; and Allison and Dana deliver and your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get 50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life! http://HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@MSWMediaPodsStoriesJudge Dismantles Trump's Legal Argument for Deploying the National Guard|Allison Gillhttps://www.muellershewrote.com/p/judge-dismantles-trumps-legal-argumentKushner and Saudis back hostile takeover of Hollywood giant|Popular Informationhttps://popular.info/p/kushner-and-saudis-back-hostile-takeoverO'Hare-based Border Protection officer sexually abused, robbed women at gunpoint, indictment claims|Chicago Sun Timeshttps://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/12/09/ohare-based-border-patrol-officer-sexually-abused-robbed-women-in-2022-indictment-claimsInside the Pentagon's Scramble to Deal With Boat Strike Survivors|NYThttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/pentagon-boat-strike-survivors.htmlU.S. Plans to Scrutinize Foreign Tourists' Social Media History|NYThttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/travel/social-media-tourists-visa-border-patrol.htmlNEW: DOJ Responded to Our Epstein Training Materials Motion, Arguing There's No Public Interest|Allison Gill|The Breakdownhttps://www.muellershewrote.com/p/new-doj-responded-to-our-epsteinMiami elects first woman mayor, marking first win by Democrat in 28 years|POLITICOhttps://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/miami-elects-first-woman-mayor-ends-gops-28-year-control-of-city-hall-00683878Good Trouble - https://near.tl/sm/ik-ZushRaOn December, 10th, 2025, articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr were introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Haley Stevens from Michigan's 11th congressional district. The quack is endangering the health of so many residents, and he's got to go!Stand Up For Science is supporting the action, and trying to mobilise pressure to collect 218 votes.You can find an easy-to-follow action manual under the link.https://www.standupforscience.net/impeach-rfkjrFrom The Good NewsDemocrats notch gains in another state-level special election|NBC Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-gains-state-level-special-electioon-georgia-rcna248358http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/hccp/medicalDebt/relieve.htmhttps://unduemedicaldebt.orghttps://singingtreepottery.myshopify.comamandaschultz.com/adopt - Brooklyn, NY→Go To https://DailyBeansPod.com Click on ‘Good News and Good Trouble' to Share YoursOur Donation Linkshttps://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/donate, https://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc, http://WhistleblowerAid.org/beansJoin Dana and The Daily Beans and support on Giving Tuesdayhttp://onecau.se/_ekes71Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Dr. Allison Gill - https://www.muellershewrote.com, https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com, https://instagram.com/muellershewrote, https://www.youtube.com/@MSWMediaPodsDana Goldberg - https://bsky.app/profile/dgcomedy.bsky.social, https://www.instagram.com/dgcomedy, https://www.facebook.com/dgcomedy, https://danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - https://mswmedia.com/shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, https://www.muellershewrote.comReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stijn Schmitz welcomes Gary Savage to the show. Gary Savage is Retired Entrepreneur, Investor, and President of Smart Money Tracker Premium. In this insightful interview, Savage provides a comprehensive analysis of the current precious metals market, focusing on gold and silver’s potential trajectory. Savage believes the gold market is currently in the second phase of a long-term bull market, which began around 2015. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining the “wall of worry” – a psychological state where investors remain cautious – to potentially extend the bull market’s duration. He suggests the market could continue for two to three more years if it avoids excessive optimism and maintains periodic corrections. Regarding potential price targets, Savage is remarkably bullish on gold, predicting it could reach $10,000, and potentially even $15,000 or $20,000. For silver, he anticipates reaching $100 by 2026, with potential for $250 and possibly $500 if market conditions remain favorable. He sees the gold-to-silver ratio as a key indicator of market tops, with a ratio between 20-30 suggesting a potential market peak. Savage’s investment strategy involves an 80/20 split, with 80% in physical gold and silver as a long-term insurance strategy, and 20% dedicated to leveraged trading during intermediate market cycles. Gary cautions against getting caught up in market narratives and emphasizes the importance of recognizing when an asset becomes overvalued. On broader economic trends, Savage discusses potential commodity supercycles, geopolitical conflict cycles, and the likelihood of continued central bank interventions. He remains cautiously optimistic about precious metals while acknowledging the potential for significant market volatility in the coming years. Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:01:08 – Gold Bull Market Phase 00:02:34 – Wall of Worry Dynamics 00:05:03 – Public Interest in Gold 00:08:35 – Fundamentals and Narratives 00:10:22 – Parabolic Phase Indicators 00:12:13 – Playing the Bull Market 00:14:24 – Avoiding Narrative Traps 00:17:31 – Silver Price Outlook 00:21:27 – Market Suppression Break 00:23:53 – Miners as Leverage Play 00:25:44 – Equities Long-Term Cycle 00:29:27 – War Cycles and Recession 00:33:28 – Commodity Supercycle Potential 00:36:01 – Concluding Thoughts Guest Links: X: https:/x.com/garysavage1 Blog: https://blog.smartmoneytrackerpremium.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgiNs7gCxEvgBE1HHvoOKTQ/videos Website: https://smartmoneytrackerpremium.com/login/ Gary Savage is a retired entrepreneur living in Las Vegas. He has been investing in stocks and commodities for 15+ years. Gary is a self-made multi-millionaire and attributes his financial success to savvy investments made in owning/selling several businesses, real estate, and, more recently, the stock market. He is also a national Judo, powerlifting, and Olympic weightlifting champion and world record holder. Gary holds national titles in 3 different sports and continues to challenge himself as an avid rock climber, and recently his newest endeavor bowling (two perfect 300 games so far). Gary’s renown as a recognized trading/investment expert in the areas of precious metals, stock market, oil, and currency markets is demonstrated by his numerous internationally published articles in these market areas: Kitco, 24hGold, Gold-Eagle, Investing, 321Gold, Keyport, SilverSeek, TFMetalsReport, FuturesMag, ResourceInvestor, Silver-Phoenix, BayStreetBlog, BeforeItsNews, ETFDailyNews, TalkMarkets, JuniorMiningAnalyst, MarketOracle.UK, SafeHaven, GoldSeek, Mining, CommodityOnline, SilverMarketNewsOnline, StreetWiseReports, and InvestingNews. Gary publishes the Smart Money Tracker, a daily and weekend market newsletter available online by subscription only, at a very modest price. This subscription-only site provides Gary’s in-depth daily commentary and chart analysis of numerous markets, including the stock, precious metals, oil, and currency markets.

HOW HOSPITALS ARE DRIVING UP HEALTHCARE COSTS The thing that makes health insurance so expensive is the COST of the healthcare being delivered, and as we try to fix health insurance we can't do so without acknowledging what is driving those costs. One bit thing is hospital consolidation. Hospitals are buying up private practices, surgical centers and more and then leveraging their monopoly powers to charge more to insurance companies, who then charge more to insurers. I've got Peter Pitts, former Associate FDA Commissioner and President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest on at 1pm to talk about it. He recently testified before Congress and in part had this to say:“Healthcare in the United States is in a crisis of affordability and accountability. In 2023, Americans spent more than $1.5 trillion at hospitals—nearly one-third of total health expenditures. Hospital systems, especially nonprofit institutions, are the primary driver of healthcare cost inflation and systemic inefficiency.”If we want to lower healthcare costs, we have to fix this broken system. Peter also has a book out about the process of creative destruction and how to leverage it and you can buy it here.

We discuss how AI can both serve the public interest and advance the goals of our democracy, despite the misgivings about the current state of AI. Bruce's civic action toolkit recommendations are: 1) Use the tools of AI! 2) Use assistive tech to write to your elected representatives Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist, chief of security architecture at Inrupt Inc, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the co-author of Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship. Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/ Discover new ways to #BetheSpark: https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark Follow Mila on X: https://x.com/milaatmos Follow Bruce on X: https://x.com/schneierblog Sponsor: Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful. Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight Credits: Host: Mila Atmos Guests: Bruce Schneier Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Right-wing operatives continue to target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Through a growing web of hostile executive orders, state bans, and private lawsuits, enemies of diversity are using law to chill discussion of race, gender, sexuality, and other "divisive" concepts. In the face of these attacks, diversity defenders are turning to the First Amendment — and in many cases, they are winning. Taonga Leslie is joined by practitioners from across the country to explore strategies for using First Amendment principles and precedent to strengthen DEI programs going forward and highlight recent wins.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial JusticeGuest: Katy Youker, Director, Economic Justice Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump)Guest: Lawrence Lustberg, Director, John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest & Constitutional Law, Gibbons P.C. (Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association)Guest: Robert McDuff, Director of the George Riley Impact Litigation Initiative, Mississippi Center for Justice (Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch)Link: The First Amendment in Flux, ACS 2025-2026 Program GuideLink: Using the First Amendment to Uphold DEI Initiatives, by Christopher Lucca and Vanessa HuberLink: Protecting Our PurposeLink: The Legal DEI ProjectVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Crisis management has emerged in recent years as an increasingly prominent practice area, helping clients to avoid major pitfalls and determine the path forward amidst conflict and public discourse. In this episode of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with Partner Sid Velamoor about his experience managing many such cases both in the public and private sector.Throughout their conversation, Velamoor discusses his career pathway from WilmerHale to the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Crimes section of the US Attorney's Office, and then serving as Senior Counsel at Boeing before returning to the firm in 2024. He describes how the unique experiences he had in each role culminated in his current skillset in managing complex, high stakes matters. He also explains to Ellsworth how he views effective crisis management as crisis elimination, with skilled practitioners able to anticipate market challenges and proactively avoid them.

While attending the recent Magistrorum Conference in Dallas, I was surprised to see and hear from a variety of entertainers I had never met, seen, nor (in most cases) even heard of before. It was refreshing to see such robust and exciting talent. One such person who made an impression on me was Susan Gerbic. A long time skeptic (and regular contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer), Susan has been dispelling myths about psychics, spiritualists, and others who “suck the life and money” out of unsuspecting “believers.” Her late partner, Mark Edwards coined the term “Grief Vampires” for those who prey on the grief of others and promise the hope of talking with their dead loved ones from beyond the grave…for the right price.Susan busts psychics much like Houdini did in his day which was part of his three pronged act in his later years: magic, escapes, and spiritualism exposes. She does it using today's social media and speaker platforms across the country. Not only does she have a rich background in the skeptic community, she is also known for her contributions to Wikipedia. In 2010, Gerbic founded "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW), a group of editors who create and edit Wikipedia articles that reflect scientific skepticism. Among her many awards, she has received the "James Randi Award for Skepticism in the Public Interest" at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2013. View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize Having never met nor knowing anything about Susan Gerbic before we sat down to chat, we talked first about our common interests and friends in the community, like Banachek and the Amazing Randi. We quickly connected then I turned on the microphones and the results are obvious in our warm conversation as I seek to explore more about what Susan does. Since this is the “Month of Boo,” I felt it appropriate to celebrate the life of Houdini and his work on busting spiritualism by introducing you to this dynamic woman who is following in those big footsteps. Download this podcast in an MP3 file by Clicking Here and then right click to save the file. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed by Clicking Here. You can download or listen to the podcast through Pandora and SiriusXM (formerly Stitcher) by Clicking Here or through FeedPress by Clicking Here or through Tunein.com by Clicking Here or through iHeart Radio by Clicking Here. If you have a Spotify account, then you can also hear us through that app, too. You can also listen through your Amazon Alexa and Google Home devices. Remember, you can download it through the iTunes store, too. See the preview page by Clicking Here. The winner for Week #3 was Ken Wheeler, Jr. Congratulations, Ken. A Houdini Legacy Deck of cards will be awarded to a different winner each week in October so you have ONE more chances to win. These beautiful cards were designed by the Past National President and artist, John Midgley. If you are interested in learning more about these cards and the cause, then please visit their website at https://houdinicards.com Enter for a Chance to Win a Houdini Legacy Deck of Playing Cards Designed by John Midgley. Designed to help raise funds for the Houdini Memorial Restoration of the Houdini gravesite. Enter with your name and email address. Free shipping within the U.S. First Name Last Name Email Address enter now We respect your privacy. Your email address will only be shared with John Midgley. Thank you for entering this contest. If your name is randomly selected, then you will be sent an email requesting your physical address where you want the cards sent. A FREE copy of “Houdini's Texas Tours: 1916 & 1923” by Ron Cartliege will be given to a lucky winner of our new contest, compliments of Kent Cummins. Long out of print, this rare book could be yours if your name is randomly selected. Postpaid to U.S. residents. If a winner is selected who lives outside the U.S., then foreign shipping charges will apply. Enter for a Chance to Win a FREE copy of "Houdini's Texas Tours: 1916 & 1923" by Ron Cartlidge Donated by Kent Cummins. Free shipping within the U.S. First Name Last Name Email Address enter now We respect your privacy. Your email may be shared with Kent Cummins, donor of this prize. Thank you for entering this contest. If your name is randomly selected, then you will be sent an email requesting your physical address where you want the cards sent. If you resided outside the U.S., then you will be advised of the cost of foreign shipping. If you don't agree to pay for foreign postage, then another name will be randomly selected. Register now to save on registration. Click on the graphic above for more information.

We live in an age where truth twists into confusion, opinion drowns out data, and it's increasingly difficult to figure out whose expertise we can trust.Where did our mistrust in expertise come from? Its roots stretch back to deliberate misinformation campaigns beginning in the 1950s spread by the likes of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and conservative church movements. Then social media poured gasoline on the fire, accelerating the spread of misinformation and making sowing division highly profitable.Misinformation campaigns take advantage of our brains' natural tendency to protect the familiar and mistrust outgroups. And they capitalize on the very real betrayals people have experienced at the hands of corporations, governments, schools, and healthcare systems.Our challenge now isn't just knowing the facts, it's interrogating our own beliefs, asking where our evidence comes from, and resisting the pull of certainty. As leaders, we need to discern who we give our attention to, practice critical thinking, resist manufactured controversy, and platform voices committed to both truth and connection.Today's guest is a neuroscientist and author of Why Brains Need Friends, who works to make science accessible, relational, and rooted in respect. He doesn't focus on winning arguments or shaming people into submission. He focuses on bridging divides, building trust, and reminding us that our brains–and our lives–are wired for connection.Ben Rein, PhD is an award-winning neuroscientist and science communicator. He serves as the Chief Science Officer of the Mind Science Foundation, an Adjunct Lecturer at Stanford University, and a Clinical Assistant Professor at SUNY Buffalo. He has published over 20 peer-reviewed papers on the neuroscience of social behavior, and is the author of Why Brains Need Friends: The Neuroscience of Social Connection. In addition, Rein educates an audience of more than 1 million social media followers and has been featured on outlets including Entertainment Tonight, Good Morning America and StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has received awards for his science communication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the Society for Neuroscience, and elsewhere.Listen to the full episode to hear:How an especially vivid nightmare redirected Ben's path to neuroscienceWhy the division and isolation of modern life is so bad for our brains and overall healthHow engaging with strangers isn't as awkward as we often think it is, and why we should do it moreHow small social interactions build our sense of belonging, community, and wellbeingWhy we need to recognize and then override our gut reactions to those we perceive as belonging to outgroupsHow social media sound bites vastly oversimplify the complex and unknown systems in our brainsWhy Ben's primary mission to to help people understand the value of looking to data and evidence rather than personalities and experiencesWhy we all have to get better at fact-checking and questioning why we're ready to believe somethingLearn more about Dr. Ben Rein:WebsiteInstagram: @dr.benreinWhy Brains Need Friends: The Neuroscience of Social ConnectionLearn more about Rebecca:rebeccaching.comWork With RebeccaThe Unburdened Leader on SubstackSign up for the weekly Unburdened Leader EmailResources:Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, Robert N Proctor"Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014),” Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, 2017 Environmental Research Letters 12 084019The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Ronald L. Numbers"Misinformation and Its Correction Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing,” Stephan Lewandowsky et al., 2012 Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3)The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl PopperSciSpaceSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah HarariDune, Frank HerbertThe Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, Deborah BlumTory Lanez - Gangland x Fargentina 4EVR (feat. Wolfgang Peterson & Kai)Hard Knocks: Training CampCourage the Cowardly Dog

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal issues behind Jimmy Kimmel's temporary show suspension. She explains the distinction between private action by ABC and possible government coercion from the FCC or the President, outlining why the First Amendment generally protects speech from government—not private—actions. Jessica also discusses the limited circumstances under which the FCC could revoke broadcast licenses and what this case means for free speech and media organizations moving forward.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. The Suspension and Return of Jimmy Kimmel's ShowJessica Levinson opens the episode by explaining the sequence of events around Jimmy Kimmel's temporary suspension from ABC after a controversial comment in his monologue. She emphasizes that although he has now been returned to air, the legal issues discussed still remain relevant.2. The Role and Limits of the First AmendmentA central theme is clarifying what the First Amendment protects. Jessica explains that the First Amendment limits government action against speech, not actions taken by private entities like ABC. If ABC alone had suspended Kimmel with no government involvement, it would not be a First Amendment issue.3. Government Involvement and the FCC's RoleThe episode explores concerns about potential government overreach, specifically whether statements made by the FCC chair or the President could constitute government coercion. Jessica details how, if the government pressures a private company to take action against someone's speech, First Amendment concerns are triggered.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, Nate Thurston and Charles Chuck Charlie Thompson dive deep into the ramifications of the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from ABC. They explore the broader issues of cancel culture, political pressures, and the changing dynamics of late-night TV. Additionally, they discuss the role of the FCC and the government's influence on media, highlighting recent comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr and reflecting on the impacts of President Donald Trump's administration on media regulation. This episode also touches on the evolution of broadcasting and internet streaming, urging the need to reconsider the relevance of traditional broadcast licenses in the modern media landscape. 00:00 Intro 00:37 Cancel Culture and Jimmy Kimmel's Suspension 01:54 Late Night TV Shows and Political Bias 04:32 FCC and Government Pressure 05:33 Charlie Kirk Assassination and Media Reactions 16:43 Public Interest and Broadcast Licensing 27:41 Discussion on Media Control and FCC Remedies 28:23 Impact of Trump's Campaign on Media Narrative 29:47 Role of National Programmers and Local TV Stations 30:41 FCC Regulations and Public Interest Standards 31:17 Challenges in Defining News Distortion 33:22 Local TV Stations and FCC Enforcement 38:56 Trump's Influence on Media and Business Approvals 40:49 Libertarian Perspective on Government Regulation 47:47 Conclusion and Final Thoughts    

U.S. representatives call for extreme censorship measures in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, going against the free speech principles he stood for. Plus: WIRED reporter Emi Nietfeld discusses her revealing article about the dark side of the surrogacy industry.  ----------------------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3116: Dr. Neal Malik explores whether sparkling water is truly a healthy choice, separating myths from facts. He explains how carbonation affects acidity, hydration, and dental health while sharing practical tips to enjoy fizzy drinks without harming your teeth or replacing plain water. Quotes to ponder: "Once you lose enamel, it's gone forever." "As long as you're not relying on carbonated or sparkling waters as your main means of hydrating, enjoy them." "Try and drink them with food and still consider plain water the best way to rehydrate." Episode references: Center for Science in the Public Interest: https://www.cspinet.org/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices